Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

I'd like to call the Planning Commission meeting to order. Welcome to the June 23rd, 2026 Huntington Beach Planning Commission meeting. While the Planning Commission welcomes public involvement in free 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. I'd like to call on Chairman, oh my gosh. Clifford to lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance. Okay, may we have a roll call, please?

Chair Bush? Here. Vice Chair Babineau? Here. Commissioner Theanich?

Here.

Commissioner McGee? Here. Commissioner Palmer?

Present.

Commissioner Goldberg has an excused absence. Commissioner Clifford? Here. Okay, we have a quorum.

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

We do have one public comment speaker just signed up to speak. Jane Hiltz, please come down to either microphone.

Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Jane Hiltz. I'm a Huntington Beach resident and the owner of a Mills Act historic home, and I have a longstanding interest in preserving Huntington Beach's historic character. I recently submitted historical documentation regarding 701 10th Street, for inclusion in the city's files. On June 18th, I emailed and hand delivered the materials to the planning department and receive a dated stamped copy for my records. Planning staff subsequently acknowledged receipt of the documentation. Orange County historian Chris Jepson compiled research that indicates the property's documented history extends to the earliest years of Huntington Beach and includes ownership records dating to just months after the city's incorporation in 1909. The residence itself was constructed in 1914 to 1915 by Walter S. Harris, a local building contractor. who purchased the property in 1912, built the home for himself, and lived there with his family for many years. The property is also identified on the city's historical resource inventory with the California Historical Resource Status Code of 5S2, indicating that it has previously been recognized for its potential historic significance. The property is also located amongst other recognized historic resources, including the historic resource inventory property immediately next door, 705 10th Street, and a nearby Mills Act property at 702 11th Street. I also provided the historical documentation to the Historical Resource Board liaison. Prior to my submission of the research materials, I understand that the concerns regarding 701 10th Street was brought to the attention of the Historical Resource Board during the June 17th meeting. The property is currently reported to be in pending sale status. My purpose tonight is simply to ensure that the historical documentation already submitted to planning remains part of the property's permanent file and carefully considered during any future review involving demolition, subdivision, redevelopment, or permitted actions. I appreciate the staff acknowledgement of the materials and respectfully request that the historical significance of this property be thoroughly evaluated before any irreversible changes are considered. I am submitting a written copy of my oral remarks to the clerk to be entered into an official public record. Thank you.

Thank you. Next on the agenda is the public hearing on conditional use permit number 25-033, floating marina office and restroom. Planning commissioners, please state your disclosures regarding this item. Please start on my right.

Nothing to disclose. None. I have none.

I have none. I have no disclosures.

I spoke to two slip owners and to Councilman Don Kennedy.

Staff, may we please have the staff report?

Senior Planner Madeline Welch will present.

Thank you. Good evening Chair and members of the Planning Commission. Tonight's item or the item before you is Conditional Use Permit 25-033 to permit a floating restroom in office within the existing Peters Landing Marina. The project is located at 16340 Pacific Coast Highway which is currently developed and operating as the Peters Landing Marina within the Huntington Harbor. The subject site has a zoning and general plan designation of open space with water recreation overlay as well as a coastal zone overlay. Properties to the north and south of the subject site consist of multifamily residential with Peters Landing Shopping Center to the west and the Huntington Harbor to the east. The request is to permit a 420 square foot floating restroom and a 580 square foot floating office at an overall height of 12 feet and six inches within the existing marina. The marina exists with 325 boat slips and the office and restroom will utilize two of those slips. They are both already existing at the site and they will be an incidental use to the primary marina use. Based on the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance, accessory uses to a conditional use require, to a site on a, I'm sorry, uses require a conditional use permit on a site of a conditional use. Because our zoning code indicates that a marina requires a conditional use permit to the Planning Commission, any accessory uses to the marina will also require a conditional use permit to the Planning Commission. The marina was originally approved by the South Coast Regional Commission in 1979 through a coastal development permit and the subject site is within coastal commission jurisdiction. Therefore the coastal development permit component of the project will be processed with the coastal commission and the conditional use permit component will be processed at the city. Here are the floor plans of both the office and restroom. And then here are elevations of the office. Both structures are, they're identified as vessels, not structures, but both vessels are constructed with engineered wood siding as well as standing seam metal roof. Here are the elevations of the restroom. The proposed vessels are accessory uses and compatible with the surrounding area in terms of land use scale and character. The project complies with all applicable development standards and the property is also located within the AE flood zone, which staff has coordinated with FEMA on what those requirements would be for such a development as these are recognized as vessels and not structures. The project complies with FEMA requirements, and staff has also included a few suggested conditions of approval, which include updating the parking addendum for the Peters Landing Marina to reflect the parking requirements for the office and restroom, to indicate that this conditional use permit will only be valid if the coastal development component is approved by the Coastal Commission, and then also to remove the signage, the logo signage on both north elevations of both vessels. The building division noted that building permits will not be required because they are registered vessels located beyond the bulkhead and not permanent structures. Fire Department provided standard code requirements with which the project must comply and the Public Works Department does not have any comments on the project. The legal notice was published in the Huntington Beach Wave and notices were sent to property owners within a 500 foot radius. No public comments have been received to date to staff. However, the applicant did indicate that some residents in the surrounding apartments did express comments on the facilities being new versus existing on the site. So to clarify, they are already existing out there. Staff recommends approval based on the findings that the project will not be detrimental to the surrounding vicinity and is compatible with the surrounding uses, meets all applicable development standards and is consistent with the general plan. Staff also finds the project to be categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to section 15303 class three for new construction or conversion of small structures. So with that, I will conclude my presentation. I'm available for any questions, and the applicant is also in attendance and available for any questions. Thank you.

Commissioners, do you have any questions? I'll start on my right for staff.

Yeah, just a couple of questions that I had. Yeah, the two structures, they were already existing, correct?

That's correct.

And I know in the comments it said they were existing when it was purchased in 2024.

It sounds like the previous owner installed the vessels and then the new owner is now requesting approval of the vessels.

Do we know when the prior owner put the vessels there and why that wasn't permitted then?

I will defer to the applicant on if they have any understanding of how long it's been there.

We can do that later. Okay, that's the only questions I had, thank you.

Commissioner McGee.

Negative. No questions.

I was looking at the code, and it's an accessory structure, but this is actually a boat that's registered with the Coast Guard. Do we really have the authority to issue a permit? I'm just curious as to how we link that to the code. I mean, I don't think it matters, but...

The code doesn't make a distinction. It just says that a marina requires a CEP and accessories to it requires CEP. Okay. Thanks.

Okay. Yeah. My research showed that there is a special carve out for floating buildings versus boats. And it was very interesting. And I wanted to make sure that the code disallows any housing unit or any living quarters within said accessory units and was pleased to find out that any living housing unit is disallowed, so this doesn't open up the future for houseboats and that sort of thing. And also, I was curious about the height, but I think I'll leave that till comments after the deliberation, thank you.

Yes, this is a commercial use, right? It's not a residential use. Correct. So just to follow up with Commissioner, the purpose is for really to the betterment of the harbor, correct? Correct. That's correct. Okay, for leasing and those purposes. And is there a specific comment made in the conditions, I might have missed it, that states that there is no overnight stay for sleeping, late night working, I'm going to stay overnight, that type of thing? There is. There is. It is in the, okay, I missed it.

I don't believe that there's a condition that relates to that. We were evaluating a marina office use in a restroom, so the entire marina itself was approved through the California Coastal Commission, and so the only component that we're evaluating today is just the restroom and the office. And it's limited, there is a condition that limits it to Condition 2C, which state's uses shall be limited to one marina office and one restroom, both specifically serve the marina tenants only.

Is it possible to put a comment in there specifying no overnight stays?

Chair, I think it might be addressed elsewhere in city code already. I remember hearing our code enforcement staff being involved in it, so I don't think it's anything we need to worry about.

Okay, because the only reason I asked is because of the conditional use permit.

If it spells out what they can and can't do, I thought this might be a good... Yeah, as Maddie mentioned, under Condition 2C, we basically say they get an office and a restroom. That's it.

Okay, good, no more questions. With no further questions, we will now move to the public hearing. Do we have any speakers?

We have two speakers signed up to speak, McKenna Brown and Batania Cherino. If you could please both come down to the microphones, thank you. And please state your name prior to speaking.

Good evening, commissioners. My name is McKenna Brown. I'm with Anchor QEA. Thank you for your time reviewing this project. And I have no further comments. Betania may speak and as Hampus may as well.

Good evening, Commissioners. Thank you. I am Betania Chirino. I'm the general manager at Peters Landing Marina since August 2025. Just in reply on one of your questions, the vessels were installed before November 2024. That was when Santex took over and purchased the marina. And regarding the high of the vessels, the vessels are actually way smaller than a vessel that could be in those slips. There are vessels in those size of slips that are way higher than the actual office and the restrooms. They will be for commercial use, so there is no overnight allowed in the marina. And just because of the Huntington Harbor actually doesn't allow live aboard. We don't have that option as well in the marina. So the office is operated from 8.30 to 5.00 from Monday to Saturday, and Sundays it's closed to the public. And the restrooms are 24 hours for only the boaters use. Those were my only comments.

Do you want to stand by in case we have questions for you, or do you feel obliged?

If I may use the remaining time, Mr. Chair, if you'll permit me. I don't think I need all of it. My name is Hampus Idsater. I'm the Director of Investments of Suntec's Marina Investors. We own and operate over 110 marinas nationwide, including 25 here in California. And as mentioned, this marina is one that we acquired in late 2024. And I wanted to address Commissioner Clifford's question with respect to the previous owner. And I don't intend to speak for him, but as I understand it, he had not made the determination that these floating vessels would need to be permitted through this process, probably for the same reasons that you seem to have some doubts here earlier this evening. However, when we got involved with our legal team as a large institutional owner, we determined that we should go through this process and also go through the process with the California Coastal Commission, which is what we're now doing. together with mckenna and her team whom i'll say have done an excellent job and are so knowledgeable about all of these processes so we thank you for taking the time to review this in detail and thank you for your question commissioner clifford thank you very much are there any other speakers we have no one additional signed up to speak

Okay, we will now close the public hearing. Planning Commissioners will now deliberate this item unless you have a motion.

I'd like to make a motion.

Go ahead and make a motion.

That's to approve the project.

I'll second.

So we have a first and a second to approve the item.

Please let me know if your voting doesn't pop up. I'm sorry. Okay. Commissioner Clifford, what is your vote? Yay or nay? Okay. We have six ayes, one abstention. Commissioner Goldberg is absent. Motion carries.

The Planning Commission's action is final unless an appeal is filed to the City Council within 10 calendar days. An appeal must include the reasons for the appeal and the fee and shall be filed with the City Clerk's office within 10 calendar days.

Next on the agenda is the consent calendar to approve some minutes. Is there a motion to approve the minutes as submitted?

I'll make a motion.

I'll second the motion. We have a first and a second on the motion.

Are these for just one of the minutes or both?

Both.

Okay. Okay, Commissioner Clifford.

I believe I was not present.

Okay, so you're gonna abstain. All right, so we have five eyes. Commissioner Clifford abstain. Commissioner Goldberg is absent. Motion carries.

So we have no public hearing items. So moving on to the planning items. Next on the agenda are the planning items. Can staff provide a report?

Chair, currently we don't have any items scheduled tentatively for the July 14th meeting. So if that holds true, we will send a cancellation a week prior.

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

Nothing to add. Thank you.

Negative. I have none.

Yeah, I'd like to take this opportunity to thank our city council for last Tuesday night and making the right decision in adopting the housing element. I believe that was a critical step to keep us out of deep water with the state on our lawsuit. I think our lawsuit was very important in delaying the... YOU KNOW, OUR PART OF THIS CYCLE OF THE MEETING OUR RENA GOAL, IT'S, YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU READ UP ON IT, YOU RESEARCH IT, IT'S NOT BASED ON FACTUAL CENSUS DATA, AND I THINK THEY MADE THE RIGHT DECISION BY DELAYING IT AS LONG AS POSSIBLE. I THINK THAT HELPED THE CITY A LOT. I DIDN'T QUITE UNDERSTAND THIS MOTION ABOUT MEASURE U, BECAUSE, MEASURE U OBVIOUSLY DID NOT APPLY BECAUSE OUR LAWSUIT IS ABOUT NOT HAVING A HOUSING ELEMENT SO MEASURE U WOULDN'T APPLY UNTIL WE ACTUALLY ADOPTED A HOUSING ELEMENT. SO I THINK WE DID THE RIGHT THING. I THINK WE DID THE RIGHT THING TO PROTECT OUR ability to control high density. It's sort of kind of the opposite of the way it's being spun. I see it as a positive move in maintaining our control, and I think the majority of the City Council last Tuesday made the right decision, so I just wanted to thank our City Council for understanding the issue.

Thank you. Commissioner Palmer.

I would second that regarding the housing element. I've been aware and working on that for since 2014. So I also wanted to include about Measure U. Again, it would not apply to a housing element, but in general, the state has ruled that it doesn't apply to anything. So we need to proceed according to the court and show good faith. and use whatever we can to limit density in this city, but avoid being a target of the state. But I also wanted to follow up on our project here. I did some research, and so my request would be these floating accessory units, can I not do that? It doesn't matter, I have another question. This is general deliberation, right?

You're at the end you're at the Commission member comments right now, so I'm not sure where you're going, but what can I finish?

Sure we can let my question is that this accessory unit falls under the same code as a some general plan units, so the maximum height is 35 feet, and I would like to know if we can request a height limit of a lower limit than 35 feet. I think these are great, the 12 height limit, but I'd like to see codified to like 15 to 18 feet, something like that. So this is general comments, and I think it's appropriate to put this question here.

Thank you very much. So with that, the only comment I would have is I appreciate Commissioner Theanis' optimism on what happened, but knowing the state of California and what happens at the state level, I'll have to take a wait-and-see approach, but I appreciate your optimism.

I have one comment.

With that, that's the last item on the agenda. We're hereby adjourned.

I have one comment.

Oh, you do?

Yeah, about the vote last Tuesday, I think it was a betrayal of the people. And I believe now Sacramento sees a chink in our armor, and they're going to pretty much advance. And any work we've done over the past 10 years, especially the work of Michael Gates, has been undermined exponentially.

Okay, now I'm ready to close the meeting. That's the last item on the agenda. We are hereby adjourned to the next planning commissioner meeting on July 14th, 2026.