REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
SUBMITTED TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
SUBMITTED BY: Travis Hopkins, City Manager
VIA: Jennifer Villasenor, Director of Community Development
PREPARED BY: Joanna Cortez, Principal Planner
Subject:
title
Appeal of Planning Commission’s Action on Conditional Use Permit No. 22-011 and Coastal Development Permit No. 22-009 (Huntington Club Remodel and Bungalows)
body
Statement of Issue:
Transmitted for the City Council’s consideration is the appeal filed by Douglas Scott Warren, Susan Ridgeway, and Cheryl Gates, members of the Huntington Club, of the Planning Commission’s action on Conditional Use Permit (CUP) No. 22-011 and Coastal Development Permit (CDP) No. 22-009, a request to demolish an existing two-story 6,231 sq. ft. tennis clubhouse, four court areas, and existing pool and spa area and redevelop the site with a new two-story, 12,046 sq. ft., tennis clubhouse building at an overall height of 30 ft.-8 in., along with a new junior Olympic-sized pool and spa, parking, and landscaping. The request also includes the construction of four single-story detached bungalow structures at an overall height of 17 ft.-3 in. and two loft units proposed on the second floor of the new tennis clubhouse. The appellants submitted a letter to City staff on March 4, 2026, requesting the item to be continued to a later date to allow further discussion between them and the applicant (Attachment No. 13)
Financial Impact:
Not Applicable
Planning Commission Action (Applicant’s Request):
recommendation
Planning Commission Action
A) Find Conditional Use Permit No. 22-011 and Coastal Development Permit No. 22-009 exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15332, Class 32; and
B) Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 22-011 and Coastal Development Permit No. 22-009 with suggested findings and conditions of approval (Attachment No. 1).
end
Alternative Action(s):
The City Council may take one of the following alternative actions:
A) Continue Conditional Use Permit No. 22-011 and Coastal Development Permit No. 22-009 and direct staff accordingly (Appellants’ Request).
B) Do not make the suggested findings, which will result in mandatory denial per Section 241.10(C) of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (HBZSO).
Analysis:
A. PROJECT PROPOSAL:
Applicant: Jonathan Bailey, Golf Realty Fund
Location: 6501 Palm Avenue, 92648 (North side of Palm Ave., between Goldenwest St. and Seapoint St.)
Conditional Use Permit (CUP) No. 22-011 and Coastal Development Permit (CDP) No. 22-009: to demolish an existing two-story 6,231 sq. ft. tennis clubhouse, four court areas, and existing pool and spa area and redevelop the site with a new two-story, 12,046 sq. ft., tennis clubhouse building at an overall height of 30 ft.-8 in., along with a new junior Olympic-sized pool and spa, parking, and landscaping. The request also includes the construction of four single-story detached bungalow structures at an overall height of 17 ft.-3 in. and two loft units proposed on the second floor of the new tennis clubhouse (Attachment Nos. 2 and 8).
B. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AND RECOMMENDATION:
On January 27, 2026, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the project. There were four speakers in support of the item and twelve in opposition (Attachment No. 6). Staff also received two phone inquiries about the project and one letter opposing the project (Attachment No. 7).
Planning Commission Action on January 27, 2026:
A MOTION WAS MADE BY GOLDBERG, SECONDED BY MCGEE, TO FIND THE PROPOSED PROJECT CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) PURSUANT TO SECTION 15332, CLASS 32; AND APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 22-011 AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 22-009 WITH SUGGESTED FINDINGS AND MODIFIED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TO LIMIT THE BUNGALOWS TO HUNTINGTON CLUB MEMBERS ONLY AND WORK WITH CITY STAFF TO LIGHT SIX EXISTING UNLIT TENNIS COURTS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: Pellman, Bush, Thienes, Babineau, McGee, Palmer, Goldberg
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
MOTION APPROVED
C. APPEAL:
On February 9, 2026, Douglas Scott Warren, Susan Ridgeway, and Cheryl Gates appealed the project (Attachment No. 3) citing the following:
• The proposed land use (lodging) is not consistent with the Open Space Zoning District
• The Class 32 CEQA Exemption does not apply to the proposed project
• The Planning Commission relied on unsupported economic claims
• The Planning Commission decision is not supported by substantial evidence
D. STAFF ANALYSIS:
The January 27, 2026, Planning Commission staff report (Attachment No. 5) provides a detailed description and analysis of the proposed project. The project consists of bungalows and lofts (six total) intended for short-term lodging, which are incidental and accessory to the site’s primary use as a private tennis and golf club. The club is conditionally permitted as a commercial recreation use within the Open Space - Parks and Recreation (OS-PR) zoning designation. The following responses to the appeal are provided below.
Appeal
Pursuant to Chapters 204 and 213 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (HBZSO), accessory uses within the OS-PR zone must be incidental to the principal open space use. Accessory uses to conditionally permitted uses (commercial recreation) are also subject to a conditional use permit by the Planning Commission. The primary use of the property will remain a private tennis and golf club, and the proposed bungalow and loft facilities will function as an amenity exclusively for club members. Campgrounds and overnight recreational vehicles are examples of ancillary uses to an open space use of parks or beaches, which are the primary recreational use.
The proposed project is consistent with the City’s General Plan, Coastal Element, and HBZSO, and does not conflict with applicable public recreation or coastal access policies. The project is located within a private tennis and golf facility. It involves a remodel and upgrade of an existing recreational building and amenities. It will continue to serve as a private club for members. Prior to action on the proposed project by the Planning Commission, a Class 32 Exemption justification was prepared by a third-party environmental consultant. The analysis in the exemption justification (Attachment No. 9) provides substantial evidence that the proposed project properly qualifies for an exemption under CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 (i.e., Class 32) and, as a result, would not have a significant effect on the environment. Additionally, the analysis shows there are no exceptions to qualifying for the Categorical Exemption, as identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2. Accordingly, the project qualifies for an exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15332 (Infill Development), as it: (1) is consistent with the applicable general plan and zoning regulations; (2) is located on a site of five acres or less that is substantially surrounded by urban uses; (3) has no value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species; (4) would not result in significant impacts related to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality; and (5) can be adequately served by required utilities and public services.
The Planning Commission approved findings for the CUP/CDP do not relate to economic or financial benefits of the project. While the economic benefits of the project were discussed during the Planning Commission public hearing, the Planning Commission did not include them in making the required findings to approve the CUP and CDP. The findings (Attachment No. 1) relate to consistency and compliance with the General Plan and Zoning Code, compatibility with surroundings uses, and compliance with the Coastal Act and public access and recreation policies. Furthermore, the Planning Commission based their approval on public comments shared during the hearing or submitted in writing, staff report and analysis of the proposed project including code requirements and CEQA compliance, and applicable findings and conditions for the required entitlements.
In summary, the City Council may approve Conditional Use Permit No. 22-011 and Coastal Development Permit No. 22-009 based upon the following:
1. Consistent with the site’s General Plan land use and zoning designations;
2. Compatible with surrounding uses;
3. Allows for a commercial recreation project with unique and quality architecture; and
4. The project will not impede public coastal access or conflict with any public recreation policies.
Environmental Status:
A review of the proposed project was conducted by EPD, a third-party environmental consultant. The review determined that the project will not have any significant effect on the environment and is documented in an Exemption Justification in Attachment No. 9.
Strategic Plan Goal:
Non Applicable - Administrative Item
Attachment(s):
1. Suggested Findings and Conditions of Approval
2. Plans received and dated November 6, 2026
3. Appeal Letter received and dated February 9, 2026
4. Planning Commission Notice of Action dated January 28, 2026
5. Planning Commission Staff Report of January 27, 2026
6. Planning Commission Minutes of January 27, 2026
7. Opposition Letter
8. Narrative
9. Class 32 Exemption Justification
10. Vicinity Map
11. Code Requirements
12. Appellants’ Request for Continuance dated March 4, 2026
13. PowerPoint Presentation