And no other rooms have door a door structure like this.

This is the only one.

So yeah, again, you I think you're right.

This this was the biggest, the most significant room, but these doors are like incredible.

I mean, real, real historic.

Welcome to the April 14th, 2026 Huntington Beach Planning Commission meeting.

While the Planning Commission welcomes public involvement and 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, me, 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.

Chair Bush.

Here.

Vice Chair Babineau.

Present.

Commissioner Thinas.

Here.

Commissioner McGee.

Commissioner Palmer.

Here.

Commissioner Goldberg is absent.

Commissioner Clifford.

We have a quorum.

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 no one signed up to speak on items that are not on the agenda.

Please start on my right.

Nothing to disclose.

I spoke to uh Chair Bush and Councilman Williams.

I spoke to uh Commissioner Thenis and Mayor Pro Tem Twining.

I spoke to Council or yeah, Planning Commissioner almost Councilman uh McGee and Councilman Williams.

I spoke with uh Mayor McKeon, uh Councilman Burns, and uh Commissioner Babino and Commissioner Palman.

I spoke with Commissioner Thienis and Mayor McKeon and Mayor Pro Tem Twining.

Thank you.

Staff, may we please have a staff report?

Yes, Marco Cuevas Associate Planner will be presenting.

Um yes, thank you, and good evening.

Um Chair Bush and Planning Commissioners.

Uh tonight the item before you is the appeal of the zoning and administrators approval of conditional use permit number 25-027 distractions lounge at 166 12 of Beach Boulevard, uh Unit C the request is to permit the on-site sales service and consumption of alcohol.

It's an ABC type 48 license, it's a full alcohol license within it within an approximately 1250 square foot eating and drinking establishment.

Um the business does currently have a type 42 license for on-site on-sale beer and wine.

Uh for the project location.

The site is located on the east side of Beach Boulevard and south of Ohio Avenue.

Uh the subject site has a general plan designation of MSP, which is mixed use specific plan overlay, and is zoned in the um BexEp um Beach and Edinger's corridor specific plan, otherwise known as SP 14.

The surrounding uses um to the north, south, and west share the same general plan and zoning designation.

While the area east of the subject property, um, which would be east of the project and east of the subject property, the following slides would show that in better detail.

Has a um has a subject property designation as um RL or residential low density.

This is our site plan of the area.

The floor plan is or actually the side plan is to your upper uh right.

Uh you could see the um uh property there with the unit suite C to nestled within a corner there.

Um the image to your left would be your floor plan and shows you um basically how the floor plan of the business as it exists now.

Um as far as the ABC locations, uh this slide is provided to show the location of the surrounding businesses that have ABC licenses uh within the proximity of the school.

The school is shown in yellow.

Uh the map and chart indicates the name of the businesses, the type of alcohol license issued, and their distance from the school measured to the nearest property line.

Uh the subject business is noted as number nine on the map, and has an approximate distance of 600 feet.

Um the map also indicates that uh there are other businesses located within a closer proximity to the school.

Um, as we note here, each uh location has the approximate distance and is noted by the numbers on the map.

The uh zoning administrator held a uh public hearing on February 18th, 200 2026 to consider the proposed conditional use permit.

Uh the applicant was present to answer questions.

Uh there were no speakers in opposition to the request.

Uh prior to the zoning administrator hearing, a letter was received from the Ocean View School District requesting that condition use permit 25-027 be denied or for the condition citing the citing the following concerns.

Um the proximity to Ocean View School District, um, Westmont Elementary School, uh, that the upgrade to the ABC type 48 license will allow for alcohol sales for a consumption consumption off-premises, and the current hours of operation from noon to midnight are during school hours with the primary path of travel to and from school passing by the establishment, and requested hours of operation be modified to open at 4:30 to midnight Monday through Friday.

Um considering the request, the zoning administrator imposed conditions of approval recommending by recommended by the police department to address public safety concerns.

Uh the concern regarding off-site consumption was already addressed by the recommended conditions, which prohibits say prohibits service of alcohol for off-site consumption.

Um the request to amend the hours of operation at 4:30 p.m.

were uh not an acceptable condition as stated by the applicant, as they wanted to maintain their current hours of operation.

Um the zoning administrator uh subsequently approved conditional use permit 25-027 with conditions at the meeting on February 18, 2026, and was able to make the certain um necessary findings that the proposed use is consistent with the general plan land use designation goals and policies, and with uh the police recommended 26 conditions of approval to address public safety concerns, including a one-year review.

Uh subsequently, an appeal was filed by council member uh Williams on February 28th, 2026.

Um the concerns cited were that the use were detrimental to the welfare of residents within the vicinity, particularly to the students of Westmont Elementary School within a 600-foot proximity.

Um the ABC license is an upgrade from a type 42 to a type 48.

Uh the closest residential uses are located to the east and are buffered by the by the building, the parking lot, the draw vial, and a block wall.

Um, in considering CUP requests involving alcohol sales and/or service, input is obtained from the police department in addition to ensuring compliance with the general plan and Huntington Beach zoning and subdivision ordinance.

Uh the police department reviewed the request and determined that since 2020 there has been a documented decline in total calls for service and alcohol-related uh DUI arrest at uh distractions lounge.

And none of the calls for service involved uh minor uh juveniles.

As such, the police department uh did not make adverse findings associated with the request and recommended the 26 conditions of approval to further ensure public and employee safety.

Um those conditions involve uh limiting the hours of operation from 12 p.m.

to 12 a.m.

Sunday through Thursday, uh from 12 p.m.

to 2 a.m.

from Friday and um from Friday on Saturday.

Um that they require all beverages to remain inside, in other words, no offside sales or consumption, um, that no reduced price uh alcoholic beverage promotions after 7 p.m.

Um that require surveillance cameras and recordings, and that all employees um are to obtain training and certification for serving alcohol.

Um the police uh department conditions have been incorporated into the suggested uh conditions of approval in attachment one and establish uh performance standards for monitoring increases in cost of uh for service, do I arrest, uh nuisance violations, and other enforcement activities.

Uh the conditions also include a one-year review and potential uh corrective action if warranted.

The planning commission uh may either uphold the zoning administrator decision with or without modifications or take alternative action.

Uh the planning commission may approve the proposed project based on the suggested findings and conditions of approval.

Um that they comply with the general plan and zoning ordinance.

Uh they're compatible with the existing uh surrounding uses and conditions of approval have been incorporated to permit to promote safe service of alcohol and compliance with all applicable laws and regulations.

Uh that concludes my presentation, and I'm available to ask uh to answer any questions and note that the uh um applicant is also in the audience to answer any questions as well.

Commissioners, do you have any questions for staff?

Yes, I have a question.

Well, let's start on my right.

Um the staff are to be given treatment uh uh training on the service of alcohol, who will provide that training?

Will it be under any kind of governing body, ABC?

Will they be providing the training or will it be the management of the establishment?

Um it's my understanding that the training has to be um uh provided by like an ABC approved type of agency.

And um and the um I believe the applicant can has additional information about the particulars of the training involved for a certification of their employees.

Uh there is one other thing.

Uh it said in the uh analysis there that there'd been a decline in the calls for service from the police.

Um I I've actually got an analysis here.

I've actually got a a list of all the calls for service.

And 2025, you had just four calls for service, but in this year alone, and we're only in April, we've had one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, and we're only in April.

So I how is that legitimate in the analysis?

Um see for uh questions for that, if I may refer to the police department as far as the particulars.

Do we have anybody from the police department here right now?

Uh go ahead.

I think the analysis from the police department and civilian investigator.

Can you hear me?

We're gonna stop the meeting just for a second here to take care of this.

Ma'am 4143 to 4146.

So I'm can I'm curious on the calls.

So for the ones I came up with 28 for those three years, and there were five costs that were associated with distractions.

That area gets a lot of costs for service that might be tap hat liquor, traffic traffic stops, that type of stuff.

That's will come up as a call for service, but it's truly not to that establishment.

Okay, so I'm looking at the uh calls for service here.

So we've got from April, we've got one.

Excuse me, I'm sorry, it was at 26th or April of what?

I'm sorry, for 2026.

Let me let me just uh run this by you.

So on the April 11th, we had uh disturbing the peace from distractions.

Yes.

Okay, we had a theft on four fall from distractions.

Yes.

We had an April Fool's joke.

Yes.

Uh was that from Distractions?

Yeah.

Well, it was a 911 call.

Okay.

I I actually didn't tie that to distractions because it was just a call, they don't know what they were doing with that.

Roger, that we go to number four, and that's 32526.

That was a female employee of distractions being followed by a male.

So that's four.

Um we've got five.

Uh transportation to jail.

I don't know if that was distractions.

That was unknown.

I couldn't find the the following ones with the the following investigations.

It could have been somebody they were looking for from another area and found them.

I there was no I could not tell by the call.

Okay.

And then uh 212, 2026, Investigation 26, hyphen zero one three four nine three.

Do you know what that was about?

I do not.

There wasn't it was just that.

Again, it could be a traffic collision, there could be follow-up on that.

There was nothing that it didn't put it, I didn't I didn't see it.

Okay, so the title of this report here is Distractions Lounge.

So the calls for service, there's at least four of them that's from distractions, right?

Yes.

Okay, and the 2025 calls.

Um so in 2025 there was four So those were uh traffic, that was a traffic stop, the other one was a homeless, they ran into a subject that was in the area.

It wasn't they put it out that they're there, but it wasn't tied to actual the guy wasn't in distractions.

It was just in that parking lot, and so that I didn't do and the same thing with the traffic, and then there was a some kind of an inspection there.

Okay, so 2025, we don't know if any of those were really attached to distraction.

I did not put that.

The 24 coming up I did the 1211, 24 is okay.

So that's 2024.

So in 2026, we've had at least four calls for service to distractions.

But uh so they've drastically increased in 2026 compared to 2025.

I didn't have those.

The the thefts, I mean, I was looking for alcohol related and stuff like that.

These are thefts from I mean, they're calls, but they weren't alcohol related.

But I did count them.

I only have two that I put towards them in 26.

Okay, so I'm I'm sorry, um I'm sorry to be nitpicking here.

Maybe the number three.

I think the number three with the female employee that was following.

So there was three.

So this report um from Huntington Beach Police Department was compiled by you.

Yes.

Okay, and the title is Distractions Lounge with the with the address.

Yes.

So don't you think was was this report specifically for distractions?

So when you run it, I put it at their address in and you run it.

And these are the calls for service that came up.

And I went through each one looking for the juveniles, the time, the the everything, and some of these aren't them.

They're just coming up with that address.

And they're just linked to that the area.

Like the ones that I had, the two, the thefts up there, the one with the suspicious, and then the 24, and then the the one on the bottom is the liquor store owner had called, and it just happens to be in that same area, and they use the address.

Okay, so what I'm trying to say is this report was supposed to be for distractions lounge, right?

So as an investigator, would you have been able to investigate whether the calls for service were at distractions or not?

I went through and went through and the ones that were I guess I could have made it separate where they were just linked and well I would have preferred that because there's right now there's nine calls for service at what said is distractions here, and that's you know over two times the number of calls for service than 2025 alone, and we're only in April.

Yes, that's that wouldn't be a correct assumption of this.

I show that there's five calls from distractions in the three years that were tied to it.

Right.

So I should have brought like broke it up, but and I apologize for that.

That's okay.

I just want to be able to separate the week from the chat.

That's all, you know.

No, I understand.

I understand.

Okay.

So uh what you're saying is we've got four calls for service uh until going through April of this year, which is dramatically increased from last year.

The three is gonna be the two thefts and then the female employee.

The other ones do not appear to go to um distractions.

Okay, so the theft of the pool stick.

That is, and then the the disturbance from 411, and then the male following the female employee.

Okay, and not the 911 April Fool's joke.

No.

Okay.

It was just called out.

Somebody's there.

It wasn't two distractions.

Okay, thank you very much.

Anyone else have anyone else have questions for staff?

Ms.

Palmer?

I have some questions.

I did a lot of research on this, so bear with me.

It's a little disjointed.

First of all, I read through the police document, and it sounds like they've been working with this place pretty stringently to try and get things in order.

So at first blush, I thought, well, they already have a license, they've been doing business, so this should be a no-brainer for them to upgrade.

But I did go to the property and I did read uh everything that was input uh into our packet.

But from the property itself, I have to say that um none of the other tenants would recommend them getting an upgraded license.

Uh they are not here, they are not speaking because these are their neighbors.

But apparently every morning there are bodily fluids all over the parking lot, and there's a lot of um a lot of cacophony that goes on from there.

Um they have a vacant spot next to that bar that has been unable to find a tenant, mostly based on what goes on in that parking lot and apparently in the bar.

Uh the restaurant in that commissioner, I don't I don't mean to interrupt you, but uh I think this is the time, this is the time of the meeting to ask staff questions.

So if you've got well that leads to somewhere though.

Okay.

Is that okay?

I okay.

So um because there is a component of nuisance uh that we are permitted to comment on.

And so I'm sharing a bit of the uh incidence of nuisance for the other, and and that would lead to certain conditions if we were to approve it.

Uh the restaurant uh there that is in the report, it reports that this bar gets a lot of food from this restaurant.

Um that is not the case.

So just so you know, according to the restaurant, they do not have clients that get food at the bar from their restaurant uh except maybe once a year.

Uh they also uh have clientele from the bar use.

Is there a question is to staff?

That's that's what they want to do.

Okay, so okay, one of the questions.

The other comments later if it's not related to staff.

Okay.

Um can a condition be put on this that includes that their bathrooms be upgraded to get a uh an improved license.

If I if I could jump in, I think it'd behoove you to listen to the public hearing, the public testimony.

They do, okay.

And then and then and then ask for requests for conditions.

So I then I have two other things that were not in the report that I want to ask.

Um, what is the crime rate of that area or that tract versus the crime rate in the general city overall?

That was not in the report.

Um yeah, for that question, uh I would have to revert back to um the police department.

Um simply they have more data, unfortunately, planning department.

We don't collect that data.

We um rely on information obtained from police department.

And don't we have somebody from the police department here?

Yes.

I wasn't told that I needed that report, so I do not have it.

Okay.

So if we were to look at um at uh undue concentration, uh, we wouldn't know that.

We wouldn't be able to make that determination.

Okay.

Um so that question and let's see, there was one other.

Oh, also in that area, what is the concentration of um ABC licenses, and does it exceed the county um recommendation for an area?

Thank you.

Can you speak for ABC?

Um I cannot speak for ABC.

Um let's see.

And let's see, in this um in this map that I put up, I did search um ABC's um website and was able to come up with this data.

So these this would be within, I'd say 1200, that'd be at least a quarter mile of the school of the businesses that have ABC licenses.

Um obviously as you move farther away, then you have more licenses, more distance.

But um, this is the information that I was able to obtain.

So um, as far as how that compares to the county, I I don't have that data.

Um, but um obviously the farther you move out from this, you're gonna have more um more businesses that are able to sell alcohol and so forth.

But for the purposes of this report, um I wanted to capture the licenses with that were within uh the closest proximity of the um of the school.

So is that total 14 or is it 10 depending on the color?

It is it is 10, um, and that includes the um the subject um applicants um uh business distractions.

And does the big dot represent a lot of alcohol being consumed there?

I'm kidding.

No, no, uh the big dots.

Sorry, it's um something with this application.

When you put two digits, it wants to, you know, it wants to do a bigger, you know, um dot.

So that's the reason why it's larger.

Okay.

So do we have um the uh population of this census tract?

Um no, I don't have that information, ma'am.

Okay.

So that would help us.

Can we request the population at some point?

Can I ask what the need would be for that?

I can wait for comments if you want.

I can or I can read it right now.

Yeah, because it might be a worthy question.

Thank you.

Mr.

Thenis, Councilmanis.

Um yeah.

Does the um does the city of Huntington Beach in our codes have any restriction on um distance from a um school from a grade school to a uh ABC type 48 licensed establishment other than the conditional use permit within 300 feet?

Is there any other restrictions on the distance?

Um, our code um our code currently doesn't have any restrictions for um uses such as schools and um businesses that that you know that sell alcohol, so there's no distance um restrictions that are within the code.

Okay.

Um and then you highlighted the school parcels.

There are there are actually two assessor parcels um for that corner, and the elementary school, uh, the ocean view school district elementary school occupies the eastern parcel, and there's actually a western triangular parcel that is owned by a long-term um ground lease by a company called uh uh active care uh living.

So I I don't believe that corner parcel, the triangular, if you split that in half, that the triangular part would be the considered the school.

That's a ground lease to another entity that's not considered part of the school, and my survey department has the corner of the parcel in question tonight to the corner of the school parcel at 77 feet.

So um I did look into it and I was curious to see what what would our process as a planning commission?

What could we do tonight to um investigate possibly having a code restriction because I think this is a good point?

600 feet from an elementary school is recommended by ABC.

Well, there's restriction by ABCs.

It's it's recommended by the state PTA.

Um in hunting uh in Costa Mesa, it's 200 feet, garden grove is 200 feet, fountain valley is 50 feet.

I don't know what you're gonna do with 50 feet.

But as a planning commission, could we possibly direct staff?

Is there a way we can investigate how we could amend our code to provide a restriction?

Because I was actually surprised that we didn't have that.

I always just thought those type of uh licenses had to be offset a certain distance from a sensitive receptor.

Commissioner Thenis, I haven't been here for a while, but I believe there is a process for you to request um the council to take an item up, but it's not part of this public hearing.

So after this is closed and you vote on this matter, then at that point it might be appropriate for you to, and maybe staff can help me out on.

I I don't remember what the process is, but there is one.

But I think we should talk about that after the okay.

That was all my questions.

Any other questions?

Uh go ahead.

I just had one question.

Uh to your knowledge, um, have there been any complaints from um, I guess families walking their children to school?

Um to my to my knowledge, there has not been.

Um as a part of this um process, obviously we do public notification.

Um this went to public notification twice, first for the zoning administrator, and then again for this planning commission meeting.

Um notices are sent um from the subject property to within a 500 foot radius.

So there was a few hundred mailings that went out.

Uh, that gives um residents and anyone else who's involved um the opportunity to speak up with any concerns um to date.

I have not heard um anything from or received any notices from uh residents or um people that um with kids that go to that school.

Um it's also um publicly post uh published in the uh notification and in the paper online as well.

And so like I said, there was um ample notification, but like I said, to this date I have not heard um anything um um other than from the school district letter um that um raised any concerns about this particular pro um applicant.

Okay, thank you.

I have one more question.

When we were talking about the colon a lot there, the triangle is that owned by OVSD.

Um I'd have to double check to see who it's owned by.

Um and looking at um different maps, it it seems to be attached to the school, and that was like the parameter that the school district was measuring from.

Um in our case, we um we kind of erred on the um conservative side, and we um we marked it towards you know the closest um property line, which was that corner.

So that's the 600 feet correct demarcation right there.

Correct.

I will note the school entrance is more towards the middle of that property, but like I said, to err to be more conservative, we uh marked it at the at the property line, which we believed um was that corner, it starts at that corner.

So you marked it in yellow, so it's it I mean it is OVSD property, right?

Correct.

I believe there's an access gate there, so um like I said, to be conservative, we included that as part of the um the proximity distance.

Okay, thank you.

I guess it's my turn.

Um you had in your presentation, you uh went back to 2020 for calls for service, and PD went back to three years.

So I'm wondering if we should marry those two somehow.

Uh I don't know if we need to, but just a observation.

The other question I have the original, how long is the uh uh distractions been there total?

Um our records indicate that well, before distractions, it was um another eating drinking establishment called um uh I have the name here.

Um so did they assume that license then from the other establishment?

That is correct.

Transfer, okay.

That is correct.

And we don't know what the date is.

Um my data shows um through a certificate of occupancy that uh the original business um originated in like 90 97, 1997.

And that's the previous business.

Correct.

Okay.

Can I add to that?

Just FYI, the school was um opened in 1962.

Okay.

And the other question I have is in 1997, obviously they were were they required to have a C UP at that time as well with the uh or even in addition to that, when distractions be came to be about, did they have a conditional use permit requirement with you know with the conditions as well?

Right.

So yeah, I have it on my notes here that uh the origin the previous business was called the filling post.

And so um I'm not finding that there was a conditional use permit for the business to sell beer and wine there previously.

Um it's only been as a matter of this process that they're requesting an upgrade to their existing ABC license that required this um conditional use permit.

So whereas their license seemed to have been a grandfather previously, that's through ABC.

Uh they did not have an active um conditional use permit from the city.

And as I said, um through this process of them requesting an upgrade to their current license, a C UP is required.

Okay, and I guess just to circle back because I'm a little, I think I might be confusing myself, but do we know when distractions became a business?

When when they went because they didn't have to go through a conditional use permit, they went they basically transferred from the filling post, if I'm understanding right.

Um that is correct.

So uh our records indicate that um well we have a certificate of occupancies uh whenever there's a change of ownership.

So I'm indicating um I'm seeing that I think there was a change of ownership in around 2000 or so.

Um and even before that, um, with the owner.

Um I think it goes back to like 2020.

And so I think in 2012 they kept the original name, and sometime during after that that process, they changed the name from uh filled in post to distractions.

And what was that date again?

Um my records indicate um 2012.

I don't I don't have a date as to when they changed the name to Distractions.

Okay.

So they're really okay.

I that might be something we might need to address too off the record that if we're gonna change uh business owners that we should probably get a conditional use permit because anybody coming into the city would be required to have that requirement starting out, correct?

Yeah, um usually a conditional use permit is not required whenever there's a change of ownership.

Uh well, I mean, for the for the uh from the 40.

It's just the change of use that the change of use to the C UP.

You know what I mean?

With the with the alcohol requirement, going from beer to wine to a full bar.

Yes, that's why the request before you is to require the CEP.

But for change if because the use has always been there in terms of a bar since it sounds like the 90s or the 80s, um, that has consistently stayed the same, so they can can continue to transfer the ABC license.

So they they kind of get grandfathered in correctly, right?

And our code does appear for that.

I don't like it, but okay.

Probably time to open the public hearing.

Yeah, let's can I just ask one more question?

Oh, just one more.

Um does this establishment have proprietary security on every shift?

Um, or do they have PPO security?

Yeah, um, for that, um, I I'm gonna defer that for the uh the applicant to answer um in regards to the particulars of the business for their security.

Um is there a stipulation that they need it?

I can't find it here.

There is it should be included in the conditions the new conditions re yeah, there's a requirement for two security people on the CUP.

I think it I want us, I can't remember the item, but it's definitely in there.

So at this point, with no further questions, with no further questions, we're gonna open up the public hearing.

Do we have any speakers?

We have two people signed up to speak.

Please come down to one to each microphone.

Keith Farrow and Peter Blyde, please announce your name prior to speaking.

Thank you.

Go ahead when you're ready.

Good evening, Chairman.

Assistant superintendent of administrative services, uh, and the chief business official for Ocean View School District.

Um tonight, uh, we ask you deny the distraction lounge bikini bar the request to intensify their business by adding the sales of alcohol spirits or hard alcohol to their business.

They've operated for 26 years under the existing beer and wine license, so denying the intensification will not harm their business.

However, the intensification of the bikini bar's license will be harmful and a determinant to the children going to Westbond Elementary School as well as the residents who live in this part of Huntington Beach.

Adding hard alcohol will not provide role models or improved behaviors or better decision making.

The city is clustered alcohol, smoke and vape shops near this area of the city and the Westmont Elementary School.

The staff reported report identified 10 existing alcohol licenses nearby.

Also, the project plans do not show a patio included with this project.

However, if there is ever a patio associated with the use, we ask that a condition be added to prohibit prohibit the alcohol use on that patio.

The school district requests that the intensification of this use not be allowed.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker, please.

Good evening, uh Chair Bush, members of the commission.

My name's Peter Blyde.

I'm representing Distractions Lounge.

And um, I'll start by thanking staff for uh going through this effort twice to put together staff reports and do the research, and also the PD for doing what they do.

Um I'll start by just kind of hitting a couple of the high points just to clarify things to make sure we're all talking about apples and apples.

Um this CUP request is for a type 48, converting it from a type 42.

It's an existing established business that's been on site since the 80s.

It has changed hands a number of times over the years.

The current owner has been here for 13 years since 2013, which I believe Chair Bush pointed out.

Um initially he was running it as a sole proprietorship, and then it was incorporated in 2020.

So some of the ownership stuff may have changed, but that's the um the facts of the matter.

Um, as pointed out by the city attorney and um some of you doing your research, uh this has been a drinking and eating establishment for a long time.

It's been grandfathered, it's hand been handed off a number of times, and over the years, of course, there have been a couple of problems here and there.

Um in 2020, there were some issues, and um Alex, the owner has been working with the PD and working with his staff and improving things.

Um the I don't want to throw around the word significant or insignificant, but um there has been a reduction of calls at first service that have been directly tied to distractions.

Distractions is a small business run by a man who's trying to survive in a tough small business environment.

I'm sure some of you can relate to that personally.

Um it is an appropriate location, it's on Beach Boulevard in a heavily commercial area.

Yes, there are residential properties to the east, yes, there is a school to the north.

Um, but there it's another it's a long-standing established business, and the uh request to receive the type 48 license, the owner believes will help secure the viability of his business.

Now, does that come with some risks and additional responsibility?

Absolutely.

Does he understand that?

100%.

Does the police department understand that?

Yes, they do.

They submitted 26 recommended conditions of approval, which are very specific and measurable, and there's a requirement to do a one-year review to make sure that distractions is living up to the standards that the city of Huntington Beach is requesting.

Uh Chair Bush brought up a really great point.

There's currently no conditional use permit in effect here.

If the owner of distractions go ahead and finish.

Go ahead and finish.

Thank you.

Sorry, I thought I had a little more time, but okay.

Um the he could walk away and continue to run his business without a conditional use permit.

And as a beer and wine establishment, this is a great opportunity for him to improve the viability of his business and for the city to place conditions of approval on a project that we think can work for everybody involved.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you for your input.

And there's there's no other speakers, right?

There's no one signed oh signed up to speak.

Okay, so at this point, we'll close the public hearing.

Uh planning commissioners will now deliberate this item.

I will start with questions to my right.

I've got a few uh questions and comments.

Um, yeah, I agree with um the appeal and OVSD with uh concern for the children.

Um, you know, child that that has safety has to come first.

Uh however, we do need to look at the facts.

Um my analysis shows that and I I guess I maybe Mr.

Farrell, if uh it's good good to see you by the way.

If you I might have a few questions for you.

Um, in fact, I'll start with actually a question.

I I think I asked staff that have has the the school district ever received um complaints from um parents walking to to school to and from school.

Uh not to my office, no.

Okay.

Um I think it's important to know.

So I went and just visited the the parking lot to see the the establishment.

It's kind of off beach, it's it's it's set back, and there's uh there's a lecture store in front of it, and even north-south, it's set back behind the liquor store.

It's kind of unless you're looking for it, you're not really gonna know it's there, to be honest.

It's just a doorway.

Um, and and thinking about it, I I question how much validity there is to actual harm to children walking to and from you you would know, Mr.

Farrow.

Uh, the school district requires when it's an elementary school, by the way, five to ten-year-olds, they're not releasing children off on beach boulevard, so they have to release the children to to adults.

So um I'm I'm under the impression that there may not be uh a single time where they're uh a parent or a child has been harmed.

Farrow uh the school district requires when's when it's an elementary school by the way five to ten year olds they're not releasing children off on beach boulevard so they have to release the children to to adults so um I'm I'm under the impression that there may not be uh a single time where there uh a parent or a child has been harmed there there's been no evidence of that so I it's just that being the main to me that's looking at the complaint from from Ocean View School District and uh council member Williams that was the main issue and that's that's my main issue but looking at this I don't think the facts really support that and if you look at the and in part of the what we were given from the the district the the uh the district for Westmont Elementary where the I guess where where the people have to live to to attend that school there's really only two housing areas uh I guess it'd be the the what's it breakwater and that I think group of townhomes to the north on the west side of Beach Boulevard there's a I mean there's a chance that if people were walking their children to Westmont from that area they're on the other side of Beach Ball not even near the the establishment so I don't know how much of an issue that really is I just wanted to make that that comment um also I know that the the establishment's 600 feet from the property and I I do believe it is that is that is uh OVSD property right so the corner he's he's nodding yes uh that is correct that is our property that's what I thought too but I do know that there's that that I don't know about 300 feet to the to the east it's there's a fence right it's fenced off that corner parcel that is okay so it's not really use used by the district at this point it's kind of vacant um yeah currently um as the other um chair mentioned earlier um it is a ground lease to a uh retirement home that has not developed a broken ground yet okay but so there is a plans for that piece of property then okay that's good to know so who owns this OBSD it is it's owned by the district it is it is a lease apparently it's it's gonna be leased out to a developer for what was it again?

Uh it's called active care or retirement home retirement home okay thank you um yeah so following up my comments um you know there it's an it's an existing business it's in the it's it's in the right zone for the zoning's accurate and you know they they seem to be working with the police department the police department supports it uh the the police department has put together I think it was what 26 items for they have to comply with uh which I went through they're pretty some of them seem pretty stringent and there is a one year uh I guess inspection after the first year make sure there's compliance and and monitoring performance measures so um you know I I I support this so it's all I have to say okay I've got a a few comments uh why do we think there's a distinguisher between a 42 and a 48 license why don't ABC just issue 48 licenses or a full liquor beer and wine license why are there two well because when you inject liquor into a place like this then I know from personal experience that incidents tend to increase yeah so the substance does make a difference now the gentleman over here I I've forgotten your name I'm sorry Peter Peter sorry dominic um you said that the you that the owner worked with police from 2020 onwards and cleaned up um a lot of the nonsense that was going on right so but saying that we've had what two sexual incidents should we say between that time and this year alone we've had more incidents in this particular spot than we had in 2025 alone so do we think the adding liquor to this license is gonna clean that up or gonna make it worse I'm just asking a question would would you think using Occam's razor as a guide that that adding liquor to this will make the situation better or will it make it worse I mean what would you think Peter so I think it's a question you really should deliberate amongst yourself.

While specific data comparing only 48 versus 43 is rarely publicized, the higher potential for incident at type 48 bars stems from several factors related to alcohol availability, operational characteristics, and regulatory requirements.

Now there's a lot more.

This is this comes from CA.gov.

Thank you.

Okay, so that being said, we know that the incidents have increased over the last year.

There's been more incidents now in from until April of 2026 than there was in the entirety of 2025.

So in my humble opinion, I would say adding liquor to this particular premises would make the situation worse.

And with it being 600 feet to OVSD property, I think uh to us it would be negligent if we allowed it.

Mr.

Babner.

If I recall what wasn't one of the police conditions that if I think if if if uh calls increase by was it 25% that they're that's non-compliant?

That's going forward over a tw any any 12-month period to whatever um.

So would you like to see it as an experiment?

Would you like us to experiment with the lives of the people around there to see if this increases by 25% or indeed 100%?

I don't look at it as an experiment.

Um I trusting of the our law enforcement's ability to manage public safety in our communities.

I think they do a fantastic job, and I imagine they've gone through this many, many times before, and these are similar conditions they put on other businesses, and they do a fantastic job.

And I put faith in our law enforcement.

But you would say that the police action would be after the fact, right?

You wouldn't want a police officer stationed at that bar to stop any incidents.

Guys, let's let's stick to uh what we're deliberating, not we can't predict the future.

And both of you are on both sides of the future.

I'd rather us have a more constructive conversation at this point, and I would like to ask Mr.

Babano, Commissioner Babano to ask his question or make his statement.

Okay, so I have a couple of things.

Um, and one, I need clarification.

So there is no security required at this point.

There is at this point with their current license, I'm not sure there is um security right now.

Yeah, currently.

So there's none now, but there will be two required uh if this is approved, correct?

Um that is correct.

Uh we have a condition um condition Z, um, where it says if approved um to be open past midnight, there shall be a minimum of two identifiable security employees on the premises every Thursday, Friday, and Saturday from 8 p.m.

to 2 30 a.m.

to control crowds, monitor customers, and ensure doors remain closed.

Okay, and then um secondly, I guess uh if we allow the business to just stay status quo, there's no requirements, right?

So by adding requirements, these 26 requirements, we'd actually probably be increasing um safety and security within the premise.

I think that we can we can um speculate that that would be the case if we're we're gonna require more from them, and we're also gonna have them come back, you know, for a one-year review.

So it just it seems to me that there's gonna be more oversight, I guess, is is what I'm trying to get at.

Um that would be correct.

Conditional use permits come with conditions, and those are the conditions stipulated, the 26 that you see there.

Okay, that's it.

Thank you.

Mr.

Thenus, Commissioner Thenis.

Yeah.

Um, well, I uh personally uh don't understand these bars.

I I you know really think that uh uh they should include a restaurant.

I I I don't get it.

I don't want to you know be a part of these bars.

I uh I don't I don't think there's anything good that can happen with them.

Um but you know I've looked at our code.

Um I've looked at the proximity to the school, it's 700 feet.

I'm pretty sure I've got that right, because there's another use that the recommended the recommended proximity of 600 feet is a PTA recommendation and it's a potential ABC recommendation, it's not a requirement.

Um that's to a school, not to school-owned property.

Um it's allowed by code.

Um it's uh I just don't believe.

I I know you have feelings about these being drama factories, I agree.

Um but but as a commission, I think we have to justify our findings.

I personally can't justify findings.

I think it's um good that they're coming forward with a new conditional use permit that does give the city a whole lot more authority over what's happening right now.

So I personally believe um it's yes, it's going to be increasing the intents of the use, but it also gives the city the police more authority to shut it down.

And without this approval, we don't have that ability.

This gives us more conditions that the that the that the business owner has to follow.

Um so I I'm also uh supporting this um this um you know, I'm or or I guess we're gonna deny the appeal, so I'm supporting the denial of the appeal.

Um, but what I would support is a motion to continue because I believe there's some information that's been passed around that could use a little more detail.

I brought up the the lease, the proximity to the school, although I'm not sure that's really relevant.

Um the police reports, I believe we have a conflict on the interpretation of the police reports.

I think we could we could get a little more data on that, and um and and I believe that we've have some concerns that there might be some Orange County health recommendation to the number of establishments in a particular area density um that uh commissioner Palmer was alluding to that maybe there should be a little research on that.

So I would uh I would support a continuance, but other than that, I I I couldn't um I couldn't support the appeal.

Thank you.

Ms.

Palmer, counseling.

Okay, I have a few more.

First, I have a question for legal.

Um, is there an ordinance in our city that identifies and manages undue concentration of liquor licenses?

Uh I think that's been asked and no.

I do not believe there's an ordinance in place like that.

So if we wanted something like that, it would be similar to the proximity, a separate request to council to clarify our codes.

Okay, thank you.

I also um actually um still conflicted, however, I would also support this because I can't find um enough to deny, but I would like to add the condition based on uh the reports from the tenants there, and I believe we can do this, is that they include as a condition to upgrade their bathrooms.

Right now, their bathrooms are basically open based on some nefarious activity that happened in the bathrooms in the past.

So people that want a closed bathroom have to go across the parking lot to the restaurant, which is not a good look for the restaurant, having people trail in and out of there um from that particular bar.

So that would be my request.

So I again would say I don't find cause to um approve the appeal.

I don't find cause to necessarily deny, but I very much think we should um we should have a continuance so we can clarify some of these things uh and feel a little bit better about what we need to approve.

Thank you.

Well um I guess I'm not as optimistic as you guys are uh in regards to this uh you know there's a reason we have the 26 items, right?

And as much as you would think we'd have more uh uh having been in this type of business in the past in my youth, um I I just can't I can't see with the school being there.

It only takes one incident for us all to have regrets.

I'm not for it.

As far as a continuance, I would ask the the group here.

Do you feel that we should do a continuance, or do you feel like we should just go ahead and straight up vote for it?

Um do you not think that we already have all the pertinent information with us?

Well, I I do personally, but you know, we're we're a commission.

So is it okay for the chairman to ask the group the mock democratically that you could take a strava, but I you know I always encourage the planning commission to make decisions when they have all the information that's before them to make a an informed decision.

But I you know I always encourage the planning commission to make decisions when they have all the information that's before them to make a an informed decision.

Whether you have that information, that's really gonna be up to you folks.

So again, if it seems to me like some of this stuff is ancillary or tangentally related to the superfluous issue, yeah.

Yeah, but again, that's that's within the yeah, I that's I I totally agree with you.

I think everybody I don't think any information that's gonna come next month or two months from now is gonna change a vote.

Um so it's really it's really up to one of you to make a motion.

Right.

So, but I do have a question for PD.

Um, do you do these follow-ups on these particular licenses as stipulated on the C UP, the conditional use permits conditions?

Uh and if you do, who does them as far as the um follow-up for this particular well, yeah.

I mean it's part of their this is a different um situation as far as what the C UP is not a normal procedure that we do follow, so it we will be following up every year or this first year through the calls for service and watching the business.

Is there somebody tasked with that currently?

Move Hobbby me.

Probably me.

Well, lucky watching those calls for service, and we go out there and they'll be doing the surveillance or just going and checking on the parking lot, and they do that anyways.

I mean, we we uh I I think they I can't speak for the PD officers, unfortunately.

I know um, as far as what they're they do, but I know they're out there looking watching, and we'll be doing the same.

Okay, so the I I guess the last question in regards to that is have we done these in any other situation?

Not that I know of.

Now I'm pretty new to this department.

I came from Detective Bureau over about eight months ago, and I know a lot of stuff has been done with distractions prior to me that we have a lot of documentation, all those crime stats, and we'll redo them for you.

Uh again, but we had we have presented all that years ago.

Um, so this is my first time with a one-year review, but it's gonna be the basic investigation that we do with all the businesses.

That that kind of scares me.

It doesn't hearten me towards the approval.

But anyhow, thank you so much for your input.

Can I clarify anything?

No, you're you're fine unless somebody else has a question for her.

I'm good.

Okay, thank you.

Um at this point, uh do we have a motion?

Yeah, I make a motion to deny the appeal of uh conditional use permit 26 uh 264, and um and uh accept the conditions of approval from the uh zoning administrator with a ad to upgrade the restrooms uh is um recommended by uh commissioner Palmer.

I'll second got a first and a second before you guys vote.

Can I just ask the applicant?

Is there any problem with upgrading the restrooms?

Is that a is that an issue for you as part of the conditions?

No, sir.

Thank you.

So this is to deny this is to approve the project and deny the appeal.

This is to approve the project.

No, this is just it was denied appeal, which means it's approving the project, approving the C UP.

So yes would be would be approving the C UP and no would be not.

Correct.

Yeah, yes on A and B or this is it's not working.

Just to click the vote.

Your your vote's still not working?

No, it's not working.

All right, I'll talk to IT about that.

Um are you a yay or a nay?

Uh yes.

Okay, we have four ayes.

Uh Chair Bush and Commissioner McGee voting no, and Commissioner Goldberg is absent.

Motion carries.

The planning commission's action is final unless an appeal is filed through the city council within 10 calendar days.

Appeal must include the reasons for the appeal in the fee and shall be filed with the city clerk's office within 10 calendar days.

Okay, next on the agenda is a consent calendar to approve some minutes.

Is there a motion to approve the minutes as submitted?

I still move.

Can I get a second?

Second.

Please vote.

Yes.

Sorry, I'll work on that.

Okay, we have uh six eyes.

Commissioner Goldberg is absent.

Motion carries.

Okay.

And we don't have any public hearing items uh next on the agenda or the planning items.

Can staff please provide us a report?

We currently have a couple of items that are tentatively scheduled for the next meeting on April 28th.

We have an appeal of an industrial project on redondo and a uh residential project at Pierce in Green.

Okay, and so uh at this point before we close for the evening, planning commissioners.

Do you have any comments to provide?

And we'll start on my right again.

Negative.

I have none.

Nothing for me.

Just that I think we need to follow up on a couple of the um defined codes that we need from City Council.

I don't have anything to add beyond that.

Um and we'll take that up after we close.

That is the last item on the agenda agenda.

We are hereby adjourned until the next planning commission meeting on Tuesday, April 28th.