Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Thank you.

Welcome to the Planning Commission. If you're planning on speaking on any of tonight's items, you will need to fill out a public speaker form. Those are located on the table by the front doors to the chambers. Just fill it out and bring it over to me.

I'd like to call the Planning Commission meeting to order. Welcome to the 05/12/2026 Huntington Beach Planning Commission meeting. While the Planning Commission welcomes public involvement and speech, it rejects comments from anyone that are discriminatory, defamatory, or otherwise not protected speech. Those comments will not inform or be considered by the Planning Commission and may cause the chair to interrupt the speaker. Such comments will not be consented to or otherwise adopted by the Planning Commission in its discussion and findings for any matter tonight. Thank you. At this time, I'd like to ask, commissioner Theinus to lead us in the pledge of allegiance.

Please stand if you're able and address the, greatest symbol of, liberty, in the whole world, our flag. And please begin. I pledge allegiance to the flag of The United States Of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

May we please have the roll call?

Chair Bush? Here. Vice Chair Babineaux is absent. Commissioner Theinis? Here. Commissioner McGee? Here. Commissioner Palmer? Present. Commissioner Goldberg? Here. Commissioner Clifford is absent. We have a quorum.

Alright. Now is the time for public comments for items that are not on the agenda this evening. Do we have any public comments?

We have one, person signed up to speak. Charles Jackson, please come down to either microphone.

And mister Jackson, just to be clear, it's not for the agenda item tonight.

I'm Charlie Jackson. It's nice to be here to talk to you folks. I want to talk about the reliable lumber yard. It's a little late on one hand, but I think it'll be appealed. The reliable lumber yard would be an excellent location for mixed use housing with a higher city tax income than a warehouse provides.

The city has learned that warehouses are not great sources of city revenue. It would also allow HB to stick it to Newsom. HB can stick it to Newsom by not requiring subsidized housing. Apartments, duplexes, and multi level buildings will all have lower costs than single family units, and hence be affordable housing. There is a need for this kind of housing in Huntington Beach.

The lumberyard is currently next to residential housing on two sides. To the north, the multi level housing project would not impact any residential properties. To the South, the duplexes could be built, and the lumber yard is also close to a park, which makes it ideal for residential housing. While the neighbors might oppose this idea of housing, because they'll probably oppose anything you put forward, they should be given a choice. And it's hard for them to complain about noise from other residents.

They can complain about noise from trucks and things, but everybody has neighbors and their neighbors are noisy. Seems that the Planning Commission is ramming this through so that this option of housing, which will have a larger tax revenue, won't be considered. This would also allow the current owner to get more income by selling the property for housing rather than for a warehouse with pollution and noise. There also needs to be a plan for the railroad lines that are adjacent to the property and are obsolete. You are the planning commission and you said zoning. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Next on the agenda is the public hearing on conditional use permit number 24Dash008 on Liberty, The Liberty Duplex. Planning commissioners, please state your disclosures regarding this item starting on my right. I

spoke to chair Bush.

I spoke to staff.

I spoke to a resident on Spear Drive.

I spoke to Councilman Burns.

And I spoke to Commissioner McGee. That's it. Staff, may we please have

the staff report? Associate Planner Marco Cuevas will be giving the presentation.

Yes, good evening. The item before you this evening is the appeal of the conditional use permit 24Dash008. That's the Liberty Duplex. The request is to demolish a single family residence and construct a three story approximately 5,200 square foot duplex at an overall height of 32 feet. The project is located at 7812 Liberty Drive, and that's South Of Liberty Drive, West Of Beach Boulevard, and has a general plan and zoning designation of RM, which is residential medium density.

The neighborhood consists of a mix of single story, two story, and three story single family and multifamily dwellings. Map on the screen shows where it's at outlined in yellow, so you get an indication of where it lies exactly within Liberty Drive, approximately mid block. So on the site plan, the lot measures 66 feet wide by 135 feet deep and measures approximately 8,920 square feet in size. Each unit in the duplex has four bedrooms and a two car garage. The proposed duplex complies with the maximum density in the RM zoning district, which permits a maximum of three dwelling units at the project site based on a minimum lot area of 2,904 square feet per dwelling units.

The site map shows two twelve hundred square foot ADUs at the rear of the property that are permitted by right under state law and not subject to review of this conditional use permit, and do not count towards the permitted density in the zoning district. This next slide shows the elevations. It's the north and south elevations of the proposed duplex. The RM District permits a maximum height of 35 feet. The proposed height of the duplex is approximately 32 feet.

Pursuant to Huntington Beach zoning subdivision ordinance section two ten oh four C, multiple family residential development that includes buildings exceeding 25 feet in height are subject to an approval of a conditional use permit. To ensure compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood, improvements such as building articulation, setbacks, facade treatments, and landscaping are incorporated to visually address bulk and massing of the new development while still providing opportunity to build to code. The proposed three story duplex is set back 42 feet from the front property line, which exceeds the minimum 15 foot front setback requirement. The 3rd Floor habitable area of is each 538 square feet and has an additional 10 foot setback from the front facade and four feet from the sides of the building, which minimize the visual mass of the upper story. The 3rd Floor balconies are also oriented towards the public right of way.

The building is composed of horizontal sliding and varying stucco colors with facade articulation at each level, provided by offsets and metal canopies. Landscaping is provided primarily along the perimeter of the site with trees and within open space areas. Pedestrian walkways are provided on the sides of the building for greater accessibility for residents and visitors. These elevations represent the proposed ADUs. They are for reference only, and let's see, but the project includes this project, which is not subject to the CUP, shows a two storey detached buildings consisting of two ADUs at the rear of the property that are not subject to approval of a CUP, as they are allowed by riding compliance with state regulations pertaining to ADUs.

As part of our analysis, the zoning administrator held a public meeting on 03/04/2026 to consider the proposed CUP. The project applicant was present to answer questions. There were no speakers in opposition to the request nor any written communications received. At the meeting, staff reported that the project was in compliance with all development standards for the RM, residential medium density zoning designation, including maximum height, lot coverage, and minimum building setbacks. The zoning administrator considered compatibility with a variety of multifamily dwellings, including those above and below 25 feet in height within the neighborhood, and determined that the project met this conditional use permit findings for approval.

Lastly, staff mentioned that the project includes the construction of two story detached building consisting of two ADUs at the rear of the property that are not subject to approval of a CUP, as they are allowed by right in compliance with state regulations pertaining to ADUs, and the ADUs do not count towards permitted density. On 03/09/2026, following the zoning administration administrator's action, the project was appealed by the city council member, Pat Burns, conciding concerns with the approved height and the duplex of the duplex at 32 feet and with the approved density. The proposed project is consistent with the requirements of the base zoning districts such as parking, building setbacks, building height, and lot coverage. The overall height will be compatible with surrounding properties because the building incorporates upper story setbacks and facade treatments to minimize bulk and scale of the structure. The proposed decks and balconies will be oriented towards the rear and the public street, minimizing privacy impacts on adjoining properties.

The proposed ADUs are allowed by right and not subject to approval of a conditional use permit nor RM density. In addition, the proposed ADUs are located within one half mile walking distance of the public transit and not required to provide additional parking. In this case, the site is within 800 feet of a public transit located on Beach Boulevard. So in summary, the Planning Commission may either uphold the zoning administrator's decision with or without modifications or take an alternative action. The Planning Commission may approve the proposed project based on the suggested findings and conditions of approval, that it complies with the general plan, that it's consistent with the requirements of the zoning district and municipal code, and that it's compatible with existing and surrounding uses.

That concludes my presentation. I'm available to answer any questions, and note that the applicant is also available in the audience.

Commissioners, we'll start with our questions for staff. I'll start on my right.

So, the two ADUs are 1,200 square feet. The part here says that the code limits accessory dwelling units to six fifty square feet, right? I don't understand where, I mean, this is I'm looking at the appeal right now.

They have to be eight.

Right. Do do you wanna speak to that? Or

So state regulations, state guidelines allow ADUs to be up to 1,200 square feet.

That's all. Thank you.

Also, my understanding is that our code in the zoning code in the city has not been updated. So though the information has been updated through the state, it hasn't been updated locally. Is that correct?

That is correct.

Yeah. Just to clarify that point, the local code does require one parking space for an ADU in Huntington Beach. That's what our local code has. Right?

Per per the ADU state guidelines, the code it let me see. The proposed project does not require

Per the city of Huntington Beach, though. We we do cover that in our code. It's written in our code. It's still online, and it says there's one parking space per ADU.

State law supersedes the city's outdated zoning ordinance.

Yeah, I understand that. And then the state, the state requirement requires no parking. No parking for three units. And so your assumption, the state's assumption is is that the people who are renting these don't have cars, right? Because we're not gonna park their cars because they're gonna, they're gonna walk to the bus stop.

So can we put a deed restriction that says that they can't have a car? So I think, you know, these are questions you should probably ask after you've deliberated the public hearings closed and this is the time for like technical questions as opposed to adding conditions whenever. Alright. So technical question. So if in order to have in order in order to have an ADU, you have to have an associated unit, residential unit to go with it. You can't just build an ADU without a primary residential unit. That's the way I read the state law. Is that correct?

That is correct. However, that could be existing or that could be proposed. In this case,

the the It's proposed.

The

main dwelling unit is proposed. Okay.

And and on Liberty Drive okay. Were there other three story buildings on Liberty Drive in your assessment? Because I

I didn't see any. I did not note any three stories within Liberty Drive. I did note a three story at the end of the block approximately 500 feet west of the subject location. So we consider that to be part of the neighborhood.

Okay. But on Liberty Drive, there are no three story buildings?

That's correct. I didn't note any.

Okay. And and a conditional use permit is a discretionary approval. Right? So we would be making the determination to follow land use LU1D, ensure that new developments, projects are compatible proportion, scale, and character to complement adjoining uses, and LU-4D and our general plan, our land use elements, ensure that single family residents are compatible proportion, scale, and character to surrounding neighborhood. Right?

And so that's that's the purpose of the conditional use permit is for us to make that determination. Is that correct? Is that what we're asking? Is that that's the task when determining if a property is can be granted a conditional use permit. That's part of our findings. Correct?

That's correct. It is one of the findings.

Okay. Thank you.

Okay. So while I'm very familiar with SB nine and all those state bills, I have to point out, although we're not really looking at the ADUs, that it doesn't say they should be 1,200 square feet. It says they must be 850 square feet. That's the law. So this is over that, and it got approved, or or it's supposed to be approved, or we can't I I don't know why we can't even comment on that. But my concerns with this project are, that there isn't

Commissioner commissioner, I think you should save your concerns and comments until after the public hearing.

Okay. So, okay. I do have

a This is just technical.

Okay. A technical question then. I believe the paperwork said 33.5 inches. Am I did I misread that at the height?

Far as the height?

Yeah. I'm sorry.

Let me refer to the plans. We we approximate the height at 32 feet. The height is measured at finished floor to the top, and it's 31 feet and, I believe, seven inches. Let me refer to my plans. Yes.

The plans show that it's 31 feet seven inches measured from the the the finished floor. So that's for this area, this is the way that we would measure the building. I know the plans show additional measurements based from top of curb and so forth. But as I said, the way that this particular building is measured is is from the the finished floor to the top of the roof.

So my concern is the conditional use permit. We keep going up by a couple feet. Suddenly, we've got 40 foot buildings in two story neighborhoods. But anyway, I that was my question. Thank you.

I have no questions before the hearing is open, but I do wanna speak after. I'd like to be the first up on the speaking after the hearing's closed.

We'll do

that. Thank you,

sir. I

have no questions either. So with no further questions, we will now open the public hearing. Do we have any speakers?

We have no one currently signed up to speak.

There's a gentleman up there with his hand up. Come on down. Please let us know who you are.

He's live.

Either mic, just please give us your name.

Good evening. My name is Roger Kathman. In November 2023, I purchased a multifamily dwelling on Liberty Drive, just down the street from the proposed project. My main concern here is that parking on Liberty Drive is a daily nightmare for all of the residents in that area. We took action on our building and I think so far, I think we're the only ones that have done it.

But we reviewed the rental agreements that were in place when we bought it and everyone cited that the garages were for exclusively for the parking of vehicles. But what we found is not a single garage was in use for parking of the vehicles. They parked all over the lot and they parked in the street. So we simply notified our tenants that if they wanted to use the garages for parking of their vehicles, that was included in their rent, no change. But if you were going to use it as a storage facility, then we would begin to charge the going rate for a storage facility in the city of Huntington Beach.

Promptly, every tenant removed their store trash from their garages and all of the cars now park in the six garages that we have for the five units. In addition, we provided open parking space so that in effect for our facility, we have one for every bedroom in the building, we have a signed off street parking space. Six covered and the rest are open uncovered, but they block no driveways, no no parking. And I just like the council to consider the parking along that street and the problems that it has created And maybe get creative and figure out some way to see the to it that this proposed project provides for parking so that we can maybe get it under control on that street. That's my big concern.

So I thank you for listening to me. If there is question, I'll

be trying to answer them. Thank thank you for your comments and thank you for being proactive. I have no questions. Thank you, sir.

Okay. Thank you.

We have no other speakers, so since we do not have any other speakers, we'll now close the public hearing. Planning commissioners, we can now deliberate the item or you can give me a motion.

Mr. Goldberg. Yes. So the reason why I asked to speak was I volunteered to serve on this commission for one of these, almost specifically for things like this. I was a resident, as you know, of Long Beach my whole life, sat on commissions for twenty plus years, and I watched good things happen, and I watched bad things happen.

And the one thing I promised myself and my wife when we moved here was if I could do anything to help avoid the bad things that have happened to Long Beach, I would certainly try to do so. And in this particular project, I can tell you that it strikes a very deep chord. These ADUs are gonna destroy all of Long Beach's bedroom neighborhoods over time. They're knocking houses down and putting four on on them. We can't stop every ADU.

I'm not saying that every ADU is bad either, but I can assure you that this crackerjack, you know, in the middle, kind of shoehorning this into the middle of the area that it's in, over impacted by parking and everything else. I certainly will cannot support a project like this the way it's been presented. And I'm very pleased with the gentleman that stepped forward just a minute ago to explain his commitment to the community and being a good steward. If we had everyone was like him, we wouldn't have the issues that we have with parking in most of our areas. So I commend you for that, sir, because that's financially, you know, that was tough for you to do, but you did it and good for you.

So thank you for that. So with that, I would, I defer to the other, commissioners.

Yeah. How many parking spaces would be needed for something like this? I mean, it's gonna be double digits. So, you know, it's a little excessive for a street such as Liberty. The parking is something that I think is a problem there. And also the height of this building. There's nothing like it anywhere else in in that on that street.

Again, we're not allowed to talk about the ADU, so let's not. But let's just assume if this were a and and correct me if I'm wrong, guys. If this were a three bedroom and a four bedroom multi unit building project, it would require a total of 12 parking spaces. Is that correct? Because you'd 2.5 for the four bedrooms, and then you'd have 2.5 spaces for the three bedrooms, and then you'd have the guest parking spaces.

So I believe with the guest parking spaces, if it were a normal apartment building with that many bedrooms, it would require 12 parking spaces. So it basically has half the required parking spaces. So, we're here to talk about, we're really here to talk about the conditional use permit for the duplexes in the front. We're not allowed to talk about the ADUs. So, I'd like to make a motion to uphold the appeal and deny the conditional use permit for 7812 Liberty Drive on the basis that is inconsistent with land use element one D that it's not to ensure that new development projects are compatible.

It's not compatible in proportion and scale with adjoining uses, and that the that that this is the three story building is also not compatible in proportion and scale to the surrounding neighborhoods.

I'll second I'll second. Oh, go ahead. Ladies first.

I'll second that.

I'd just like to say that along with Commissioner Goldberg that working in the city of Long Beach with those what we used to call cracker box, where they put eight units over top of a carport, and what it did to residential neighborhoods with the impact and the issues. It not it ultimately became a blight, became a traffic issue, became a safety issue. So I'm I'm inclined to go with the motion at hand. With that, can we have a vote? We have a first and a second.

Vote yes if we

wanted for your motion, cricket.

Yeah, yes to deny the permit yep. To the

We have five ayes. Commissioners Clifford and Vice Chair Babineaux are absent. Motion carries.

The Planning Commission's action is final unless an appeal is filed to the city council within ten calendar days. An appeal must include the reasons for the appeal in the fee, and shall be filed with the city clerk's office within ten calendar days.

The only thing I would say if the if the property or anybody owns, representing the owners to cut the grass out there at that site, the grass is well overgrown. The building's already demolished, So they I guess they they have intent, don't they? But they need to maintain their property. Okay. Next on the agenda is the consent calendar to approve some minutes. Is there a motion to approve the minutes as submitted?

I'll move to approve the minutes.

Second.

Sorry, who was the second?

Okay, you two, you spoke at the same time. And

next on the agenda, are there any planning items?

Please vote.

Oh, I'm in a hurry. Okay,

so we have four eyes. Commissioner McGee is abstaining and chair vice chair Bavanel and commissioner Clifford are absent. Motion carries.

Alright.

Are there, on the agenda, is there any planning items? Can staff provide a report, please?

We currently don't have any items scheduled for the May 26 meeting. If that stays true, we will send out a notice of cancellation a week prior to that meeting. Thank you.

Before we close for the evening, planning commissioners, do you have any comments to provide? We'll start on my right.

Mother's Day on Sunday. Happy Mother's Day to everybody out there. That's it.

Yeah. Definitely. Happy Mother's Day. I I do have another point that I would like to make. I we have these housing mandates that, have come down from, Sacramento that are, putting a stress on our infrastructure.

I think it's stress on our lives. I think overcrowding, I think if we did some research we would find that people who live in high density, overcrowded areas probably have health issues because of it. I'm just guessing at that. But one thing's for certain, none of these Senate bills that I've been reading on these ADUs and these density mandates say anything about how we're supposed to deal with the infrastructure. And on this particular project, I went to the city's website.

We have a great website. Probably can improve a little bit how we pull our research. We need some plans. Need those a little quicker, but I had my company go through and research the sewer master plan for this particular area. And this particular area is tributary to a Slater Avenue trunk main, and there's also a trunk main on Beach Boulevard that this particular site drains to, and it's and it's deficient.

And I think that what would be appropriate for us as a city, the responsible thing to do is look at some of these studies that we've done, and this here shows our deficiencies. There's a $12,000,000 trunk main required on Slater Avenue. And yet here the state's telling us to double our density when the when the sewer trunk main does not have the capacity. It overflows during a wet weather condition. And that to me is a health and safety issue that that one thing that I read in all of these, Senate bills is that we can use that as a basis to deny projects.

So, you know, if if I don't know how we can get the process started to, you know, maybe take a look at some of our deficient deficient infrastructure and and put a hold on some of this high density development until those problems are corrected. If we you know, believe we would be justified in doing so because we can't have our sewer overflowing.

So, Brian, if I can interject there. I I think you might be mistaken. I could be wrong. But I believe that the state has, limited CEQA. So CEQA doesn't apply, and infrastructure is at the behest of the city. It's not developer, and I think they've determined for the, at least the housing mandates, you cannot use that as an excuse to not build.

So Well, again think it's

a health and safety issue, but we should research it. I think it's a strong argument that it's a health and safety issue. If we don't have a sewer system that functions in our sewers flowing out into the Salton Sea, like Well, the way the a We

can't have that.

The way the ADU laws read, it it almost strong arms us in the negating as if the ADUs make no impact on that. Now, how a three bedroom, 1,200 square foot

So, guys, we're we're this isn't on the agenda. It's I think Commissioner Athena's point is is well taken, and and I think one one takeaway from that would be my office will explore this issue of the overuse of the sewer main and figure out if there's something we can do going forward. That would be awesome.

Yeah, and my point is, is just reading into the ADU, they've almost strong armed not having an opinion on anything ADU.

Yeah. It's it's extremely difficult to use state laws, but we'll look at it.

I think like I said Thank

commissioner Athenas makes an excellent point about, not just the sewers, but I think, all of our infrastructure is overburdened by some of the stuff.

Great.

Thank you.

So, Commissioner Palmer, did you have any comments?

No further comment.

Thank you.

Commissioner Goldberg? I'm gonna keep

a little lighter than Commissioner Theanis tonight and just say that I attended a wonderful event. It was an adoption, a pet adoption event that was held at the park. My wife and I were lost our dog about a year ago and we went in search of, unfortunately did not find the right match this time, but I think it's wonderful that they that our community is is focused on, you know, rehoming these pets because it's it's a worthy cause, and so I really enjoyed it, and it was nice to see the council people out there and everything else, and it was just a beautiful day to see all the families and everyone having a good time. Thank you.

Great. Good show. Well, that's the last item on the agenda. We are hereby adjourned to the next Planning Commission meeting on May 26.