Repurposed artifact.

Why don't you 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 discriminant 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.

Oh my gosh.

Clifford to lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance.

One nation, undergoing indivisible, the justice law.

Okay.

May we have a roll call, please.

Chair Bush.

Here.

Vice Chair Babanel.

Here.

Commissioner The United.

Commissioner McGee.

Commissioner Palmer.

Present.

Commissioner Goldberg is has an excuse 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 speaker, public comment speaker just signed up to speak.

Jane Hilts, please come down to either microphone.

Good evening, Commissioners.

My name is Jane Hilts.

I'm a Huntington Beach resident and the owner of a Mills Act Historic Home, and I have a long-standing interest in preserving Huntington Beach's historic character.

I recently submitted historical documentation regarding 7010th 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.

The property is also identified on the his 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.

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 7010th 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.

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 disclosure.

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

Staff, may we please have the staff report?

Senior Planner Madeline Wilch 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 and 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 based on 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 or they're identified as vessels, not structures, but both vessels are and are constructed with engineered wood siding as well as standing sea 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.

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 with C from CEQA pursuant to Section 15303 class three for new construction or conversion of small structures.

So with that I will conclude my presentation.

Commissioners, do you have any questions?

I'll start on my right for staff.

Yeah, just uh a couple of questions that I had.

Um, yeah, the two structures, they were already existing, correct?

Um that's correct.

And I know in the the comments it said they were existing when it was purchased in 22024.

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 there wasn't permitted then?

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

We we can do that later.

Okay, that's the only questions I had.

Thank you.

Commissioner McGee.

Negative.

No questions.

Well, I was looking at the code and 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 I'm just curious as 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 uh a CUP and accessories to it requires CUP.

Okay, thanks.

Okay, yeah.

My research showed that there is a special carve out for floating buildings versus boats, and it was very interesting.

Um, and I wanted to make sure that the code disallows um any housing unit or any living quarters within uh said accessory units, and was pleased to find out that uh any living housing unit is disallowed.

So uh this doesn't open up the future for um houseboats and that sort of thing.

And also um I had was curious about the height, but I think I'll leave that till comments after the uh deliberation.

Thank you.

Yes, uh if this is a commercial use, right?

Yeah, it's not a residential use.

Correct.

So just the follow-up with commissioner uh the is that the purpose is for really to the betterment of the harbor, correct?

That's correct.

You know, for yeah, okay, for leasing and those purposes.

Um is there 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 gonna stay overnight, that type of thing.

There is.

There is in the commit it is in the okay.

I missed it.

I don't believe that there's a condition that uh relates to that.

Uh 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.

Um it's limited.

There is a condition that limits it to uh condition two C, which states 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 I remember hearing our code enforcement staff being involved in it.

Okay, I don't think it's anything we need to worry about.

Okay, because I was 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 idea.

Yeah, as Maddie mentioned.

Okay, good.

No more questions.

With no further questions, we will now move to the uh public hearing.

Do we have any speakers?

We have two speakers signed up to speak.

McKenna Brown and Betania Charino.

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 Makenna Brown.

I'm with Anchor QA.

Thank you for your time reviewing this project, and I have no further comments.

Um Tanya may speak and as Hambus may as well.

Good evening coming here.

I am Betania Chirino.

I'm the general manager at Peter's Landing Marina since August 2025.

Just in in um reply on your one of your questions, the vessels were installed in 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 um smaller than uh a vessel that could be in those slips.

There are vessels in in those sizes of slips that are way higher than the actual office and uh the restrooms.

Um they will be for commercial use, so there is no overnight allowed in the marina, and just because of the um Huntington Harbor actually doesn't allow legal board.

We don't have that option as well in the marina.

So those are um the office is operated from 8 30 to 5 uh from Monday to Saturday, and Sundays it's close to the public, and the restrooms are 24 hours uh for only the boaters' um use.

Um those were my only comments.

Do you want to stand by in case we have questions for you or do you if you maybe use the remaining time uh Mr.

Chair?

If you'll permit me, I don't think I need all of it.

My name is Sampuzid Setter.

I'm the director of investments of Suntex Marina Investors.

Uh we own and operate over a hundred and ten marinas nationwide, including 25 here in California.

And as mentioned, this marina uh is one that we acquired in late 2024, and I wanted to address uh Commissioner Clifford's question uh with respect to the previous owner, and I don't intend to speak for him, but as I understand it, um he had not made the determination that these floating vessels would need to be uh permitted through this process, probably for the same reasons that you you seem to have some doubts uh here earlier this evening.

Uh 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 uh 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 uh 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.

Uh Commissioner Clifford, what is your vote?

A yay or nay?

Okay.

We have six ayes, one abstention.

Uh, Commissioner Goldberg is absent.

Uh 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 she'll be filed with the suitcler's office within 10 calendar days.

Next on the agenda is the consent calendar, 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.

Both.

Okay.

Okay, Commissioner Clifford.

I believe I was uh not present.

Oh, explain.

So you're gonna abstain.

All right.

So we have five ayes.

Commissioner Clifford abstained.

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 uh scheduled tenant to be 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 any comments to provide?

We'll start on my right, Commissioner Clifford.

Nothing to add.

Thank you.

Negative.

I have not.

Yeah, I'd like to uh take this opportunity to thank our city council for uh last Tuesday night and making the right decision in adopting the uh housing element.

Um I believe that was a critical step to keep us out of uh you know deep water with the uh state on our lawsuit.

I think our lawsuit was uh very important uh in delaying um the uh uh you know our our part of this uh cycle of the meeting arena goal.

Um it's you know we when you read up on it, you research it.

It's 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.

Uh I didn't quite understand this motion about measure you because you know measure you obviously did not apply because you know 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.

Um, 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 uh 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 uh regarding the housing element.

I've been aware and working on that for since 2014.

So I also wanted to include about measure you again.

It would not apply to a housing element, but in general, the state has ruled that it doesn't apply to anything, so uh 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 uh being a target of the state.

But I also wanted to follow up on our project here.

Uh, I did some research, and so my request would be um this these floating accessory units.

Can I not do that?

Uh it doesn't matter, I have another question.

We're this is general deliberation, right?

Can I uh, you're at the end, you're at the commit uh commission member comments right now, so I'm not sure where you're going.

Well, can I finish and you'll know where I'm going?

Then you can tell me if it's valid.

Oh, sure.

We can let you know.

My question is that um this accessory unit falls under the same code as uh some general plan units, so the maximum height is thirty-five feet, and I would like to know if we can request a height limit of a lower limit than thirty-five feet.

I think these are great, the twelve height limit, but I'd like to see uh codified uh to like fifteen to eighteen 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 uh Commissioner Thenis's 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.

Well, I won't comment.

With that, that's the last item on the agenda.

We're here by a I have one comment.

Oh, you do?

Yeah, about the um about the vote last Tuesday.

I think it was betrayal of the people.

And I believe now Sacramento sees a chink in our arma and they're gonna pretty much advance.

And any work we've done over the past ten years, especially the work of Michael Gates has been on demand exponentially.

Okay, now I'm ready to close the meeting.

Um that's the last item on the agenda.

We are hereby adjourned to the next planning commissioner meeting on July fourteenth, two thousand twenty six.