Huntington Beach Planning Commission Meeting - May 12, 2026
Huntington Beach Planning Commission Meeting - May 12, 2026
The Huntington Beach Planning Commission met on May 12, 2026, to consider an appeal of a conditional use permit for a duplex at 7812 Liberty Drive, among other routine items. Commissioners present: Chair Bush, Commissioners Thenis, McGee, Palmer, and Goldberg. Absent: Commissioner Clifford and Vice Chair Babanel. The meeting included public comments, a staff presentation, deliberation, and a vote to deny the permit.
Consent Calendar
- The commission approved the minutes of the previous meeting (motion carried with 4 yes, 1 abstention, 2 absent).
Public Comments & Testimony
- Non-agenda comment: Charles Jackson spoke in support of mixed-use housing development at the Reliable Lumber Yard, arguing it would generate higher tax revenue than a warehouse and provide affordable housing without requiring subsidized units. He urged the commission to consider housing instead of a warehouse use.
- Public hearing on Liberty Duplex: A resident (Mike) who owns a multifamily dwelling on Liberty Drive expressed concerns about existing parking congestion. He described proactive measures to ensure tenants used garages and urged the commission to require adequate off-street parking for the proposed project.
Discussion Items
- Appeal of Conditional Use Permit 24-008 (Liberty Duplex): The item concerned a proposal to demolish a single-family residence and construct a three-story duplex (approximately 5,200 sq ft, 32 ft height) in the RM (Residential Medium Density) zone at 7812 Liberty Drive. The project also included two 1,200 sq ft ADUs permitted by right under state law. The Zoning Administrator had approved the CUP on March 4, 2026, but Councilmember Pat Burns appealed, citing concerns about the 32-foot height and density. Associate Planner Marco Cuevas presented the staff report, noting compliance with development standards. Commissioners asked technical questions about ADU size (state allows up to 1,200 sq ft despite local code), parking requirements, and height compatibility (no three-story buildings on Liberty Drive, but one at the end of the block approximately 500 feet west). After the public hearing, Commissioner Goldberg spoke strongly against the project, citing negative experiences with similar high-density infill in Long Beach and arguing the duplex was incompatible in scale and would worsen parking. He moved to uphold the appeal and deny the CUP based on inconsistency with Land Use Element 1D (compatibility proportion scale and character). The motion was seconded by Commissioner Palmer.
Key Outcomes
- Vote on Liberty Duplex Appeal: The commission voted 5-0 (Commissioners Clifford and Vice Chair Babanel absent) to uphold the appeal and deny the conditional use permit. The decision is final unless appealed to the City Council within 10 calendar days.
- Future Meetings: Staff reported no items scheduled for the May 26, 2026 meeting; a cancellation notice will be sent if unchanged.
- Commissioner Comments: Commissioner Thenis raised concerns about sewer infrastructure capacity, citing a deficient trunk main on Slater Avenue, and suggested that state housing mandates should not override infrastructure limitations. Commissioner Goldberg shared positive remarks about a pet adoption event. Chair Bush wished everyone a Happy Mother’s Day.
Note: The ADUs were not subject to the CUP, and the commission’s deliberation focused solely on the duplex.
Meeting Transcript
I'd like to call the Planning Commission meeting to order. Welcome to the May 12, 2026 Hunting to Beach Planning Commission meeting. While the planning commission welcomes public involvement in 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 Thenis to lead us in the pledge of allegiance. Please stand if you're able and address the greatest symbol of uh liberty uh in the whole world, our flag. And uh 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, liberty and justice for all. So nice ranking, that's my own. May we please have the roll call? Chair Bush here. Commissioner Thenis here. Commissioner McGee. Here. Commissioner Palmer. Present. Commissioner Goldberg here. Commissioner Clifford is absent. We have a quorum. All right. 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 uh person signed up to speak, Charles Jackson. Please come down to either microphone. And Mr. Jackson, just to be clear, it's not for the agenda item tonight. Thank you. Okay. Um I'm Charlie Jackson. It's nice to be here to talk to you folks. I want to talk about the reliable young 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 uh buildings with uh 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 lumber yard is currently next to residential housing on two sides. To the north, the uh multi-level housing project would not impact any residential properties. Uh to the south, the duplexes could be built, and uh 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. Uh 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, um, but everybody has neighbors and their neighbors are noisy. It seems that the planning commission is ramming this through so that this option of housing um, 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.
openpublica.com