Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Min 1990-11-07 -- \. -- CITY OF SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 7, 1990 The regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting of November 7, 1990 was called to order at 7:30 p.m. in City Council Chambers by Chairman Fife. I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Dahlman. II. ROLL CALL Present: Chairman Fife Commissioners Orsini, Sharp, McCurdy, Dahlman Staff Present: Lee Whittenberg, D1rector, Dev. Srvcs. Dept. Barry Curtis, Admin. Asst., Dev. Srvcs. Dept. M1chael Cho, Intern, Dev. Srvcs.Dept. III. SCHEDULED MATTERS 1. Discussion of Issues regarding Processing of Development Applications and GeOlogic/Seismic Concerns. Staff Report Mr. Whittenberg delivered the staff report. (This report is on file in the Department of Development Services). The report was prepared due to concerns expressed by the Planning Commiss1on at their September 5 and October 3, 1990 meetings. The Planning Commission expressed concerns with the City's position in approving remodeling projects in the Old Town area due to the ci ty Council determination (June 25, 1990) to deny the Mola Development Co. proposal for the Hellman Ranch (City Council Resolution No. 3937). Mr. Whittenberg indicated that many of the Council concerns relat1ng to the Hellman Ranch property do not transfer to the Old Town area. The staff report detailed reasons for Council denial of the Mola Project. The City Council requested additional work be done through the formation of an advisory committee. The Hellman Ranch Specific Plan Advisory Committee was formed and met last week for the first time. They discussed possibilities for revisions to the Specific Plan. Secondly, staff looked at what provisions currently exist 1n the City's munic1pal ~ on how structures are des1gned to resist earthquakes. Staff went through the provisions of the bU1lding code and summarized its maJor areas relating to specific des1gn requ1rements for structures. Pages 3-7 of the Executive Summary e - - Page 2 - Plann1ng Commission Minutes of November 7, 1990 detail the maJor cr1 teriautilized through the normal building permit process by the City's plan check engineers when they review building plans. He indicated section 2312(d)2 of the building code is the basic def1nition of seismic zones within the State of California. The united states is d1vided into four seismic zones, one being the least being impacted by se1sm1C act1vity and four being the most impacted. The entire City of Seal Beach, as all of Southern californ1a, is located in seismic zone 4, which is the most restrictive zone and is the most restrictive design criteria must be applied. Discret10n of the Planning commission regarding M1nor Plan Review was reviewed. Mr. Whittenberg detailed the Code sections which make provisions for additions to non-conforming residential structures which do not have to come before the Planning commission. The present ~ does not indicate necessary findings or balancing cr1teria. The staff report details the history on this issue. The opinion of staff and the City Attorney's Office is that, unless there is a major health, safety and welfare 1ssue involved 1n an issue before the Planning Commission, the Commission does not have "a lot of discretion to deny a request as long as they meet the criteria that is set forth in the ~ as it is currently constructed". The Minor Plan Review process evolved about 1985 to ensure notification of neighbors thus allowing them to make statements as desired. Staff suggested the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that staff restudy Section 28-2407 of the City's municipal Code looking to revise it to achieve a greater level of discretion for the Commission and the Council in reviewing requests for addit10nal living area or expansion of existing living area under a Conditional Use Process. The study should include an appeal process from the Commission to the Council and require findings. Commission Comments Commissioner Sharp asked staff what map was being used when the staff report discusses different geologic conditions: The unknown potential at this time of the Hellman Unit Fault, the Los Alamitos Fault, and the Hellman Estate Faults; ... Mr. Whittenberg repl1ed that those faults come from a map 1ncluded 1n an Environmental Impact Statement prepared by the Fish & wildlife Service for an endangered species program at the Naval Weapons Station. The State of Californ1a does not indicate those faul ts as active faults per the Alquist Priolo Act. The only active fault identif1ed in the City of Seal Beach is the Newport- Inglewood fault which runs through the Naval Weapons Stat1on, through the Hellman Ranch property and continues into Long Beach and continues South, g01ng into the ocean and comes back on shore e e - Page 3 - Planning Commission Minutes of November 7, 1990 in the San Diego area. These other faults have been identified through oil explorations and exist at levels 6,000 to 10,000 feet below ground. An act1.ve fault 1.S defined as having shown a surface break on the ground within the last 11,000 years. Commiss1.oner Sharp asked staff if th1.s map showing these faults were not designed to be used for making building dec1.sions? Mr. Whi ttenberg sa1.d State laws don' t show those faults as active faults under the Alquist Priolo Act which would require certain setbacks from the identified fault lines. Commissioner Sharp asked staff how, who, when are so1.1s tests requ1.red on single family dwellings, on remodeling projects? Mr. Whittenberg said that construction of new single family homes 1.n the City require so1.1s reports prepared by a so1.1s engineer. It is not mandatory the soils engineer have seism1.c expertise. If concerns are raised on geologic issues based on the soils study then the City would require add1.tional analysis. Chairman Fife asked staff 1.f, when the soils engineer is examining the soil to determine its static capability of bear1.ng the load of the proposed structure, would he look at areas that would flag seismic problems? Mr. Whittenberg indicated they are required to consider that. Mr. Whittenberg further explained that the only area of the City requiring maJor work re major fault activity are properties located along the Newport-Inglewood fault. This does include some homes on the Hill because the Newport-Inglewood fault runs along the back s1.de of the Hill area. There are some homes along the top of the H1.11 area which are within the fault zone. Those homes were built many years ago prior to the existence of the Alqu1.st Priolo Act which was legislated in approximately 1972. Cha1.rman Fife said the Alqu1.st Priolo Act focused primar1.1y on surface faulting but not on potent1.al liquefaction on soils due to ground shaking. Mr. Whittenberg said liquefaction could occur without earthquake act1.vity --- the properties of the soil itself could lead to liquefaction. Cha1.rman F1.fe asked staff if there was an "underlying assumption" that 1.f you get one-half mile away from the Newport-Inglewood fault that the ground shaking W1.11 not be enough to raise 11.quefaction problems? Mr. Whittenberg sa1.d no. The assumpt1.on is that if you have so1.1 that is liquefiable that must be dealt with based on anticipated earthquake activ1.ty in the area. Chairman Fife asked staff if, assuming the other faults are relevant, do the other faults extend beyond the boundar1.es of the Hellman Ranch extending over Pacific Coast Highway? Mr. Whittenberg said he would assume so. The map prepared as part of the endangered species EIS for the Naval Weapons Station extends the 11.nes on in a straight line off the Naval Weapons Station property. He was not sure how well that particular process was e e e Page 4 - Planning Commission Minutes of November 7, 1990 reviewed ... as to whether the faults follow straight lines or branch off into other areas. Particularly where there is oil extraction activities there are usually numerous earthquake faults at deep levels that do not cause the ground shaking and surface breakage that occurs with an active fault. Chairman Fife asked staff if there was evidence to support the idea the soils in the Old Town area are materially different from the soils in the Hellman Ranch site? Asking if they weren't all soft alluvial, coastal plain soils? Mr. Whittenberg said "They are generally the same type of sOlIs. Some of the areas along the bluff area ... those sOlIs were formed at an earlier point in time and probably were upllfted earller from the ocean level than some of the other ones and so they do not have some of the alluvial deposi ts that have come down on to them that you have in the Hellman area from the San Gabriel River flooding in past time. But the soil, except for that alluvial cover which has been deposited by the San Gabrlel River, is generally the same type of soil. And it is not a soil that lS the most stable soil in the world". Commissioner Orsini said Old Town is different from the Hellman Ranch property ln that Old Town does not have oil extraction and does not have an active fault going through it. Mr. Whittenberg said the off-shore oil drilling does not angle back under Old Town to extract the oil. The Division of Oil and Gas identlfies oil fields are on the Hellman Ranch and a small area on the Naval Weapons Station on part of the National Wildlife Refuge. Chairman Fife, referencing page 3 of the staff report, said the City Council has made a finding that due to the limlted fund of experience in proposed engineering techniques there is inadequate assurance of successful mitigation of these hazards. The Council indicated the applicant's consultant could not ensure the City that the proposed homes would wlthstand an earthquake. Mr. Fife asked Mr. Whittenberg if staff had definition of what "withstand an earthquake" means? Does it mean "exhibit no damage", "avoid total collapse"? Chairman Fife said he had "a tough time believing that if we had a repeat of the Long Beach quake of 1933 on a similar section of the Newport-Inglewood fault that we wouldn't have a lot of damage throughout the city". Mr. Whittenberg said he did not recall further elaboration on what was meant by the term "Wl thstand an earthquake" and what extent of damage would be considered acceptable and/or not acceptable. Mr. Whittenberg agreed that a quake, similar to the 1933 quake, would cause damage to older structures which have not have the building code requirements and engineering treatments imposed on them as would be found in newer structures. Chairman Fife asked staff that when an existing older structure in the Old Town area goes through a Minor Plan Review and is basically gutted to a few tlmbers is the resulting construction bUllt in e e e Page 5 - Planning Commission Minutes of November 7, 1990 accordance with/to the same specifications/requirements that a new building built on the same lot would be built to in terms of seismic considerations? Mr. Whittenberg said it would be. Under a M1nor Plan Review the approvals would requ1re an analysis and portions of the structure might have to have additional work. For example a foundation may have to be reinforced when a second floor is added to support the add1tional load. Chairman Fife asked if staff investigated old newspapers or historical documents as to the degree of damage suffered 1n Old Town from the 1933 earthquake? Mr. Whittenberg said no. He noted that most of our design standards came about as a result of the damage from the 1933 quake. There was a major modification to the design requirements after the 1971 San Fernando quake. The current codes have some changes adopted based on experience from the 1987 Whittier quake. Chairman Fife asked staff if, in summary, in reading this staff report it would be correct to read 1t as suggesting the confluence on the Hellman Ranch site of all of the various listed issues, in the opinion of the Council, makes that site uniquely unsuitable for housing development in such a manner that separates it from the rest of the City? Mr. Whittenberg replied "I'm not going to try to say that the Council said it's 'un1quely different'... it's an area they've recently considered and in that case determined that because of all these factors that have come together there, their opinion at this point 1S that that site is not suitable given the level of information they were provided with". Staff feels that the same number of concerns that existed on the Hellman Ranch site do not exist within other areas of the City and that those other areas should be considered "somewhat differently" from the Hellman property. Primarily because there are not the same amount of alluvial soil deposits in other areas of the City because of the backflow of the San Gabriel River many years ago and there's no active faults or oil extraction in other areas. Chairman Fife said, after reading the staff report, there is no attempt to weight contributions to the risk p1cture. For example, the presence of water 1njection wells doubles the risk where those are present. Is there some action to be gleaned from th1s report? Is the Commission to continue to exercise it's discretion and instincts. Mr. Whittenberg replied "You may continue to exercise your discretion and 1nstincts. Our reason for preparing the information for you was to try to clarify the issues that were dealt with on the Hellman property and highlight those items to you so you can take those into consideration as to how you might feel those apply to other areas of the city. Staff's position is not to tell you that things are totally d1fferent and because of that you can't use your discret10n. That's not the intent. But to focus your attent10n onto the major areas that were considered by Council and then allow the Commission to review a request that comes before you in light of all of those different criteria and e - e Page 6 - Planning Commission Minutes of November 7, 1990 then you have to make your own judgment as to whether or not those eX1st in a sufficient amount of level of concern to warrant not allowing additional construction to occur in other areas of the ci ty until further analysis is done". Mr. Whittenberg then addressed the issue as to how to determine the amount of risk that one of these may generate as opposed to another by saying he was not qualified to do this. He said he didn't know of anyone in the state of California that was qualified to make that decision. The state's major concern since 1972 are those areas adjacent to identified active faults. Commissioner sharp said after reading the staff report that his impression was staff was telling the Planning Commission that they did not have the right to turn down an application even though the City Council turned a project down for the same considered reasons. If that is the case, then can the Planning Commiss1on pass these items on to the City Council and let them make the decisions? To let the Council take the responsibility instead of the Commiss1on? Mr. Whittenberg indicated that the current municipal ~ makes no provision for an appeal from a Planning Commission decision for a Minor Plan Review. Commissioner Ors1ni asked Mr. Whittenberg is all the property on the Hellman Ranch site was considered unbuildable? He understood the Mola project was turned down as a whole but wanted to know if any portion of the site was buildable? Mr. Whittenberg said "Not all of the property was in areas impacted by the identified fault zone. And not all properties were in areas which were identified as being subject to moderate and high liquefaction potential. There were some areas which were identified as low liquefaction. That's basically the bluff areas along Seal Beach Boulevard ... When the project was reviewed there were certain areas which were 1dentified as being subject to high liquefaction. Those areas basically ended up be1ng proposed to be put into the restored wetland area. There were some areas of moderate liquefaction which included some of the park areas and some of the residential areas between the Newport-Inglewood fault and the wetland area. Most of the properties that were between the fault and Seal Beach Boulevard were not areas identified as being in a liquefaction potential area or an area that was subject to the Alquist Priolo provisions regarding earthquakes. Those areas ... are basically high bluff areas which did not have the alluvial soil deposits that have been deposited by overflows of the San Gabriel River, very similar to some of the areas you have in Old Town. Some areas in Old Town, to my understand1ng, did receive fill years ago. I think Electric Avenue did in the 1920's - 1930's ... but portions of the Old Town area did not requ1re that and those were soils that had been above sea level for quite some per10d of time and therefore probably more stable than some of the old river bottom areas that you have in the Hellman area". Commissioner Dahlman sa1d he was hoping that out of this study the e e e Page 7 - Planning Commission Minutes of November 7, 1990 Comm1ssion would be able to 1dentify high and low risk areas so a pub11C policy would be set forth and applicants would know ~ow.much work needed to be done and what that would be. Comm1SS10ner Dahlman said "We ought to be able to map out the town and see where all these things combine". Mr. Whittenberg said that in August of 1990 there was a staff report on standards and criteria the City may wish to review as far as basic assumptions for earthquake activity in the city. The C1ty Council asked that the matter be held at the Commission level until some additional research has been done. Staff is still in the process of doing that research. Staff is getting additional information from other cities --- espec1ally in the Californ1a area where they have adopted standards and regulations that go over and above the standard UBC requirements. There are few cities that have considered this approach. When a s011s analysis is done, the foundation system must be designed to meet certain standards. The standard stays the same throughout the City and it's based on a level of saturation of the soil. The treatment that's proposed by a soils engineer may be different on each site but the standard will always be met. The plan check personnel will make sure the standard is being met and the necessary mitigation measures for soil treatment or the design of a foundation system 1S being modified to get it up to that minimum level of safety which is now required under the Code. Comm1ssioner Dahlman restated that as a part of the City's Se1smic Element of the General Plan we don't need a map of the town but needs more str1ngent safeguards in that area. Mr. Whittenberg said it's difficult to map on a general basis when you have conditions which change from property to property. The Seismic Element will attempt to specify 1n greater detail those areas of the City requiring additional analysis regarding seismic concerns. The Seismic Safety Element was done 1n 1975 and final Alquist Pr1010 maps were issued 1n 1976 or 1977 and revised again in 1986. The City has not looked at the maps for major differences. It will be necessary to justify that the cr1teria are rationale and reasonable to impose over and above the State requirements. For example, in the General Plan the design cr1ter1a for earthquakes in the City can require that all soils analyses must have certain ground acceleration rate to be used. So you get a constant comparison of soil reactions. The City should obtain a lot of information from geotechnical engineers, soils engineers, u.S. Geologic Service, Department of Mines & Geology at the State level to determine if certain assumptions can be made. Commissioner Dahlman, referencing pages 18-37 of the staff report, d1scussed the M1nor Plan Rev1ew process. The staff report explained that if a non-conforming home is destroyed (by a natural event) the owner has a right to rebuild a sim11ar structure but not to add on. Staff clarif1ed that the new structure would have to meet current ~ structural requirements and it would not come before the Planning Commission. Referencing page 19, paragraph 1, Commissioner Dahlman expressed concern that tearing down 50% is e e e Page 8 - Planning Commisslon Minutes of November 7, 1990 not a minor alteration and should not be considered via a Minor Plan Review. Instead the application should be considered under a Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Whittenberg said in 1985 the Planning Commission and City Council reviewed this subject and their decision was to allow the Code's current configuration to allow for the 10% expansion of the allowable floor area and modification of interior bearing walls to a point less than 50% of the area of those walls through the Minor Plan Review process. The Planning Commission has the discretion to undertake a study to change the Code and require a Conditional Use Permit in these instances. commissioner Dahlman said II I have a very tough time believing our predecessors on the Planning Commission and City Council meant for this to happen ... and now we are compelled to approve a major remodel because it only constitutes a 10% enlargement ...". Chairman Flfe said "If we, on the one hand, severely limit the rlght of a vacant property owner to develop his property --- he has a lot and we say you can't build five units on that lot --- but we allow his next door neighbor who built five units 37 years ago to substantially rebulld those units under the Minor Plan Review process it seems to me we give that clearly non-conforming property another 35 - 40 year lease on life. I find that a paradoxlcal divergence of our zoning and density policy ...". Mr. Whittenberg indicated that the comments included in the staff report say the City seems to be doing two different things at the same time. In 1978 the City lowered the denslty, the number of homes that could be built in Old Town, to encourage single family homes. In 1982 the policy was changed to allow minor expansion of actual livlng area of non-conforming units. In 1984, when these changes were made, there was discussion of allowing people to maintaln, expand, upgrade and extend the life of structures which technically you don't want to see in the Old Town area. Prior to 1974 expansions of non-conformlng uses were prohibited. Mr. Whittenberg indicated that to harmonize the divergent development policies, the most appropriate action the Commission could take would be to forward this staff report on to the City Council with the recommendation to ask staff to review the current provisions of the ~ in light of the concerns expressed regarding the expansion of floor area to existing residential non-conformlng structures to require a Conditional Use Permit review rather than a Minor Plan Review process. Chairman Fife said he did not view this as a problem of allowing someone to expand his floor space but rather of allowing someone to substantially rebuild a non- conforming structure that does not meet density, setback requirements, etc. Additionally, because of the ways the tax laws are written, the property value increment created by the addition is Just measured by the $30 per square foot, there is no re- assessment of the property as there would be if it were torn down and replaced. So the City steadlly loses tax revenue. Mr. Whittenberg said the lssue was discussed at Commission and Council e e e Page 9 - Planning Commission Minutes of November 7, 1990 level. The final determination was to allow all items under a Minor Plan Review to be allowed in any combination that any property owner felt was appropriate for his particular piece of property. MOTION by Dahlman; SECOND by Sharp to recommend to the City Council that staff be authorized and directed to propose a text amendments to the ~ to require certain additions and modifications covered under the Minor Plan Review process now be covered by the Conditional Use Process. For expansions of living area for non- conforming residential units that architectural review should be required for those structures being remodeled in the review process. MOTION CARRIED: 5 - 0 AYES: Orsini, Sharp, McCurdy, Fife, Dahlman Commiss10ner Sharp said "Would there be any way, since it's taking so much time to get some direction from the Council on how they expect us to proceed, could we ask for stoppage of this kind of thing until we get some act10n or will we proceed as planned until they do something?". Mr. Whittenberg replied that the Commission could request of Council that they consider an urgency ordinance which would not allow the Planning/Building Departments to continue to process applications until such time as new standards are adopted. The Council would have to decide if they felt that would be appropriate measure to undertake. Only the Council could make that decision by a 4/5 majority vote. Commissioner McCurdy said that at the present time the Commission is required to follow the present Code until the City Council changes it. Commissioner Orsini said he agreed with Mr. McCurdy. Commissioner Orsin1, noting that the City has no architectural review board, to monitor "white elephants" that don't fit in with the City and the neighborhoods. The design 1S presented in the blueprints so shouldn't be expensive for the applicant. The Trailer Park is the only area in the City with architectural review. Mr. Whittenberg said the architectural review would involve submission of the building elevations that are proposed. As part of that process, the City would want to develop general criteria as to the types of designs felt to be appropriate and general guidance. This would involve hearings before Council and Commission. Chairman Fife asked if the Plann1ng Commission had the authority to consider archi tectural harmony? Mr. Wh1 ttenberg said the Commission has the authority to determine that "It's not detrimental to adjoining properties". *** e Page 10 - Planning Commission Minutes of November 7, 1990 2. MINOR PLAN REVIEW #13-90 123 8TH STREET staff Report Mr. Cho presented the staff report. (Report on file in the Department of Development Services). This item was held over pending inspection by the Building Department. The application requests approval of a minor structural alteration to a legal non- conforming property. The application specifically proposes an exterior remodel and the addition of 801 square feet. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. Mr. Cho indicated that attached to the staff report is his memorandum to Mr. Wh1ttenberg re soils test for this unit. Commission Comments Commissioner McCurdy said he had objections, because of the parking, to what appeared to be additional bedrooms being labeled dens in the plans. Review of the City's ~ shows no object to it however. The applicant 1S actually adding 1136 square feet, but by removing part of the present building, they get a deduction of 335 square feet. - Mr. Cho said that under the definition of a "bedroom" a bedroom must include a closet. Mr. Cho said the options to keep the dens as dens/studies and not bedrooms would be (1) to remove the wall totally - making it an open area, (2) leave it as a half wall - perhaps 4 feet tall, (3) enlarge the existing bedroom to incorporate that area. The den is 11' x 15' and the bedroom is 12' x 15'. Mr. McCurdy sa1d there is 11ttle or no way the Commission can control the number of persons that will live in these apartments. Commissioner Sharp said he was concerned by the bootleg possibilities. The Commission noted this building is very non-conforming. It should have ten parking spaces and has only three spaces. Mr. Cho said "I would like to remind the Commission that the City always has the right, upon reasonable notice, to inspect all units within the City to ensure that units are complying with the ~". Commissioner Orsini said he felt ~ enforcement takes too long and doesn't get the job done. The City's ~ enforcement is not effective and staff is work1ng with the City Attorney to make it more effective. e commissioner Fife asked staff about requiring the applicant to record a covenant against his chain of title that the property will only be a one bedroom property and may not be sold as anything other than that? Mr. Whittenberg said that process is used now to indicate that some properties are for single family residential e e e Page 11 - Planning Commission Minutes of November 7, 1990 purposes. The City wouldn't have a legal problem with the recordation. That's Just putting people on not1ce as to what's allowed by the city. Chairman F1fe asked staff about major concerns about public health, safety and welfare. He asked 1f there was a time when the addition of excess parking requirements of a structure beyond what it 1n fact provides could become an issue of public welfare? Mr. Whittenberg said "I think so. I think if you can make a reasoned case that an application before you 1S providing additional bedrooms over and above what the Code provides that clearly is not allowable under the Code". Chairman Fife said the dens could be turned into bedrooms and th1S would result in increased parking in a structure that is already severely under parked. Mr. Wh1 ttenberg said "I think the concern is well founded. I'm not sure how sustainable that type of a determination might be if the action of the Commission were to be challenged ... you have to have some general trust that the project will be used for the purpose that was indicated if a use is on-going in the interior of a structure that is not being detrimental to neighbors, I'm not sure how strongly the City should get 1nvolved with what 1S going on in the interior of that unit". Chairman Fife said if the Commission approves this it is saying "Yes, you can put a building up which takes 10 parking spaces while providing only 2". Those 8 missing parking spaces will affect the neighborhood. Mr. Whittenberg cautioned the Commission to be careful not to assume that a proposed project will not be used for the stated purpose. Comm1ssioner Sharp said "I feel like you do Mr. Fife. I think we're between a rock and a hard place. I think you and I both feel the same about major construction with the land problems we have and not hav1ng the tests and so forth made but there comes a time sometimes when there isn't anything you can do about it. You're the legal man on the board and I'm gOlng to more or less follow your directions in this vote because I don't want to overstep our bounds. But I still feel that we need to put some restrictions on 1t". Commissioner Dahlman said he agreed. Cha1rman Fife asked how many days notice staff needed to inspect? Mr. Cho said 2 to 3 days. Mr. Fife asked Mr. Cho how he would decide if a den was being used as a bedroom? Techn1cally, we would determine it was being used as a bedroom if there is a closet in the room. "In our ~ enforcements if the covenants say there is supposed to only be one bedroom and we find that there is other people 11ving there then we would perceive that as an add1tional bedroom even though there is no closet. Commiss10ner Sharp said if staff did inspect and found the den was being used as a second bedroom, the City doesn't "have any teeth to do anyth1ng about it". Commissioner Orsini recommended el1minating the door in the hall instead of the wall between the bedroom and the den. Mr. Whittenberg ind1cated there is nothing in the City's Code saying how may people may live in a one/two /three bedroom house. The e e e Page 12 - Planning Commission Minutes of November 7, 1990 occupancy loads are determ1ned by the Health Department. As long as the number of persons living in that un1t don't cause maJor health problems as far as sanitation - it's legal according to the Health Department and the C1ty can't do anyth1ng about it. M1tchell Sheltraw * 299 st. Joseph, Long Beach. CA Mr. Shel traw said "Gentlemen, better than myself speaking about the issue, maybe we ought to have some of the concerned public speak about this 1ssue. Because the bottom line here is the public concern. This is not being met by any opposition. You're talking about detr1ment to the area - the detriment is not being served. I see people in the back chuckling at your ... this is ludicrous, this is a wild goose chase. You have put so many smoke screens tonight over the issue. OK, if you get to page 20 of Lee's summary right there, you gentlemen do not have the authority to go ahead and find this thing not acceptable. We have met all of the criter1a of the current zoning text and we shall be granted this one way or another. And if we aren't granted, I guarantee you as I'm standing here right now, we will see each one of you guys in a court of law". Mr. Fife said "I go there every day". Mr. Sheltraw said "I'm sure you do. And another thing, Mr. Sharp, I really appreciate you laying your trust in Mr. Fife. This is supposed to be a consortium effort. Th1S is supposed to be a tribunal jurisdiction with you guys each casting your own separate votes. We're not looking for a bias, that's in complete violation of California zoning text law. You can't lay the trust in one individual's vote. You're up here each singularly to go ahead and cast your own biased opinion on it. You're not to go ahead and have one ind1 vidual speak for you. Mr. Orsini made a great comment about the possibility of having an architectural review, that's fine. If you guys want to talk about that for future discussion, I commend you because I am a supporter of that because there are a lot of atrocities out there. But then again, at this current time you don't have that mechanism available to you. You're not going to stand here and you're not g01ng to tell me that I'm going to only have one wall dev1sing my kitchen and my bedroom - you don't have it in your authority. If you can show me in the text right now where you have that then I will go ahead and I will withdraw our application at this point and I will leave at this t1me. But you do not have that. I think you better pay attention very clearly to paragraph two on page twenty". Commissioner Dahlman sa1d "Mr. Sheltraw, in 100k1ng at the plans, it seems to me that when we were talking about what's a den and what's a bedroom --- (interrupted)". Mr. Sheltraw said "I think you'd better to go to a glossary of the Uniform BU1lding Code. The definition is that it must have a closet. Whether you want to hypotheticize on the utility of that room that is purely you --- (interrupted)". Comm1ssioner Dahlman said "I would like you to give me the courtesy of allowing me to finish my question". Mr. Sheltraw said "No. I'm going to cut you short because all you do e e e Page 13 - Planning Commission Minutes of November 7, 1990 is ramble. I have watched and I have listened to nothing but an hour and a half of senseless talk. This issue should have been cut and dry. We have met all of the criteria of the Code. And we should have been in here and this should have been a no hassle deal. But I've seen nothJ.ng but opposition from each of you individuals up there because of the queryness, the lack of understanding of what you do have in the way of vested authority in yourselves and also just general authority in building J.n general. You talk about seismic conditions, you talk about your concerns here - those are valid concerns. But you know what, do that on your own time. Don' t waste my time. Don't waste my client's time and don't waste my client's money". CommissJ.oner Dahlman said "I won't ask a question then Mr. Sheltraw but let me just say that in addJ. tion to acting on behalf of your best interests each of the Commissioners here also have to act on the best interests of your neighbors and that's what we're talking about and we're trying to arrive at a consensus. Nobody's trying to fix any vote". Mr. Shel traw, speaking at the same time as Commissioner Dahlman, said "I appreciate your saying that. Let's talk to our neighbors. This is apparently an open public hearing. Let us talk. Let us bring --- and let us see how much opposition you're gOJ.ng to be looking at this evening. This is not your individual ego that we're dealing with here. We're talking about detriment to thJ.s J.mmediate J.mpacted area. We don't have people standing out here in lines boycotting the issue that we want to go ahead and maintain the structure or enhance the structure by some minor alteration. This is minor. This is minor through the definition of the ~ and that's something you're not going to change tonight. That definition is a definition that we are using and we're going to be using it either in this conversation tonight or we're going to be using it in a court of law at a future date. Because we have come here - we have complied with everything that has been asked of us. And we will walk out of here tonight WJ.th smiling faces because you will go ahead and you will approve this. No strings attached. Because we have complied. Let's not hypotheticize. You don't have the right to hypotheticize. And you're doing so. Let's open this up to the public. I'm done --- is there anyone that would like to speak?". Chairman Fife said "This is not a Public Hearing". Mr. Sheltraw said "Then if it is not a PublJ.c Hearing then why is it only being cast by one individual's vote Mr. Fife? Mr. Sharp and Mr. McCurdy were ready to let you vote for them. This is a Public Hearing". Chairman Fife said "I don't have a proxy from them". Commissioner McCurdy said "Don't include me in". Mr. Sheltraw said "This is a Public Hearing unless you want to redef ine what thJ.s action is. What your posi tion is here. This is a Public HearJ.ng under California zoning text. There is bias by this CommJ.ssion". Chairman Fife said "What do you think the bias is? Do you think anybody knows ( interrupted) ." Mr. Shel traw said liThe immediate bias was the Mola Development. You already have preconceived ideas about our project based on Mola' s soils condJ. tions. It was evident. You have rambled on for an hour about seismic conditions and relating (sic) e e e Page 14 - Planning Commission Minutes of November 7, 1990 to our project. If that isn't bias then ___II. Chairman Fife said IIFor your information S1r, my concern about your project vis-a-vis the Mola seismic issues --- the seismic issues are the most minor element of my concern. My concern is about the relentless expansion of density in downtown through th1s kind of process". Mr. Sheltraw said "That's a concern that you're ent1tled to have. But you know, if you want to effectively implement that concern and you go through the channels that it took for the prior Commission to go ahead and write in the possibility of us doing this 10% improvement, you have that option to go ahead and re-wri te it againll. Chairman Fife said IIMaybe we'll interpret the law which is also one of our obligations". Mr. Shel traw said "Please explain that again". Chairman Fife said "We'll interpret what we think the policy of the City 1S". Mr. Sheltraw said "I don't think you will. In fact, I would love to enterta1n this to move to a court of lawll. Chairman F1fe said "Well, maybe you might wind up there". Mr. Sheltraw said "I think we shall. I think we shall. I look at all these ego satisfactions that must occur up there. Do you guys really... do you really think that you're doing the service of the community's best 1nterest?". Chairman Fife said "Are you going to argue the same way to a judge? Are you going to tell the judge what he can do and what he can't do?" Mr. Sheltraw said III think it's pretty cut and dry. Look at page 20. I think Mr. Whittenberg has gone ahead an explained to you in many, many a text here that you are not given that option to go ahead and deny us on that. II Commissioner Ors1ni said "Mr. Chairman may I say something? As far as this project ... I was 1n favor of it. The den bothers me. Now I 11ve on Ocean. On the corner of 7th and Ocean. I live in an apartment. Now, you've got another project in front of me later which has got the same thing again - large dens and bedrooms II. Mr. Sheltraw said "Absolutely. Absolutely. You've got that correct. You know why we have it there and you know why we've got that in front of you? Because that is what the zoning text permits us to do at this time. I've been hired to do a job. I've been hired to research what is permissible within the zoning text and I have given my client exactly what is permissible. Now if you choose to re-write the rules, do 1t but do it on your own time. Do it after this hearing. This is what the current law 1S at this time and you will go ahead and you will vote on this in favor of it because, as staff has recommended, we have met all the cr1 teria. Do you understand my position on this? You have put me in a very vulnerable s1tuation because if I walk out of here tonight without approval, I go to a court of law with my client because I have got to reimburse him for all of these fees that I have gone ahead and rece1ved. And I'm going to look to you gentlemen because you were the body that went ahead and rejected me and I'm going to have to look to go ahead and recapture my money from you indiv1dualsll. Commissioner Sharp said IIMr. Chairman, I assume that you are still running this meeting?lI. Chairman Fife said "Yesll. Commissioner Sharp said "Is a motion in order?". Chairman Fife asked Mr. Whittenberg "Are we in a full Public Hearing?". Mr. Whittenberg sa1d "No this is not a Public Hearing matter. But under the e e - Page 15 - Planning Commission Minutes of November 7, 1990 provisions of the ,Minor Plan Review ~rocess you ,do, h,ave the authority to rece1ve comments from 1nterested 1nd1v1duals". Chairman Fife said "Let's first determine if the Commission wants to open this to a full Public Hearing. Is there a mot10n or is there anyone w1shing to make a motion to open this to a full Public Hearing?" Commissioner Orsini said "I'll Second it". Chairman Fife said "I'm ask1ng, is there a motion?" Commissioner Sharp said "I don't think it's fair because the people in the neighborhood haven't been notified that we would be having it and so forth". Mr. Wh1ttenberg said "Persons within 100 feet of the property are notified through the Minor Plan Review process". Commissioner Sharp said "Well, I'm not interested in having a Public Hearing". Chairman Fife said "Mr. Orsini has made a motion". Commissioner Orsini said "I'll make a MOTION". Cha1rman Fife said "Is there a Second? Motion fails for lack of a Second". Comm1ssioner Dahlman sa1d "I'd like to make a MOTION that we suspend action on this for a period of time until we can get the response from the City Council on how we should be approaching these matters. The reason being, we don't have an applicant that we can talk to". Commissioner orsini said "I feel this came in front of us once, we have to vote on it now. I don't think it should be postponed any longer". Commissioner Dahlman said "All I wanted to do was ask a couple of questions. He wouldn't allow it Joe". Mr. Sheltraw said "I have sat here patiently for an hour and a half ---". Chairman Fife said "Sir, you are out of order, would you kindly sit down". Mr. Shel traw said "I am going to comment to Mr. Dahlman's accusation. I gave him the opportunity to speak". Chairman F1fe asked Mr. Cho "Mr. Cho, would you please call Security or the Police". Mr. Cho telephoned the Seal Beach Police and they arrived in Council Chambers shortly. Chairman Fife said "Commissioner Dahlman's MOTION has failed for lack of a Second" . MOTION by McCurdy; SECOND by Orsini to approve Minor Plan Review #13-90 subject to the conditions in the staff report including all the requirements of the Department of Building and Safety based on their inspection. MOTION FAILED: 2-2-1 AYES: McCurdy, Orsini NOES: Fife, Dahlman ABSTAIN: Sharp Commissioner Orsini, before the vote, asked if a Motion could be made where one wall can be eliminated? It cannot be done that way? Mr. Whittenberg said "You can make a Motion to amend the Motion before you and then a vote would need to be held on that Mot10n. The point we need to emphasize is that the plan, as it is currently before you, meets the ~ requirements. And to modify those plans you need to make some sort of a finding or determination that the -- . e Page 16 - Planning Commission Minutes of November 7, 1990 plans do not comply with the current provisions of the C~de.that would necessitate that type of a change. And that's very dl.ffl.cult to do Wl. th the plans in their current situation. Commissioner Orsini agreed to Second Commissioner McCurdy's Motl.on. Commissioner Sharp, before the vote, said "When we started this meetl.ng I was informed by the staff that legally we could require that that wall be either taken out l.n the hallway or else cut in half so that we could be more assured that that would not be used as a bedroom. Is that not what the understandl.ng is?" Mr. Whittenberg said "I think what we indicated is that if you can make a determination that it's not in accordance with the provisions of the current Codes of the City you can do that. But I thl.nk you need to be very careful in making that type of a decision based on an assumption that it will be used for an improper purpose in the future. I think you need to be very cognl.zant of the differences between those two types of determinations. If it's obviously something that's in violation of the ~ then you can require it be changed to meet the ~ requirements. And there's no question about that. And I don't think that the applicant or his representative would disagree with that. But as long as it is conformance with the ~, unless there's an overriding health/safety/public welfare concern that the Planning Commission can determine, I think you need to be very careful in making changes to things that currently meet ~ requirements". Commissioner Sharp said "Are you telling me now that legally we cannot require him to take that wall and make it in half or to eliminate the wall the wall between the room, the den and the hallway?" Mr. Whittenberg said "I'm saying that in order for you to make that recommendation you need to make a finding that the provision of the full wall is a violation of the health/safety/public welfare concern of the Cityll. Mr. Sharp said IIWe can't make it on the fact that we feel that that would be used as a bedroom after the plans ... and so forth ... without any restr ictions on it... II . Mr. Whittenberg said II I think you're getting on very shaky ground. You know you have a restriction on the plans that indicates the units are one bedroom. And the discussion has been here that's the approved plans and that is what would be enforced by the City if there were any type of ~ enforcement complaints received on future utilization of the propertyll. Chairman Fife asked Mr. Whl.ttenberg IILee, haven't we repeatedly imposed restrictions on otherwise conforming or satisfactory proposals solely to prevent an easy bootleg of the unit l.n the future? I certainly feel we have imposed changes on plan submittals dozens of times to make it more difficult to convert something or bootleg it in the future. Aren't we in effect assuming a possible future use when we do that?1I Mr. Whittenberg repll.ed III'm not familiar wl.th those cases in the past where you may have done that. I think that if in fact you have done that in the past as a Commission then you would have made that type of an assumption. Now whether those were done under the Minor Plan Review (process) or under the Conditional Use Perml.t process I'm not familiar enough to know. You have more leeway under the CUP -- e e Page 17 - Planning Commission Minutes of November 7, 1990 process than the MPR process as we have indicated to you in the staff report. Agal.n I think you need to be very careful of assuming that something that meets building code requirements is gOl.ng to be used for a different purpose and using that basis to require a change in the development proposal that's before you". Commissioner Sharp said "Well since I'm not an attorney and Mr. Fife is, the applicant seems to think that I'm voting with Mr. Fife when I asked him for hl.s legal part of it and that's what I asked him about before. That it was how I felt and that I wanted to have Mr. Fife's legal opinl.on on whether we could or could not do certain things. And I still want it". Chal.rman Fife said "I'm not really prepared to offer a legal opinl.on. We have a City Attorney for that. I obviously do have a legal background. But you shouldn't rely on my view of legal matters and I would not want to supplant the City Attorney input, we don't have any per se on this issue. I'm not functionl.ng as a second City Attorney". Chairman Fife said "I think we have a motion on the floor and with the discussion as I understand it, there is very little if any discretion to modify this plan in the view of staff". Mr. Whittenberg said "In the view of our staff and the City Attorney. He has reviewed the provisions of the Code. There's not discretion allowed as long as the technical provisions of this section of the ~ are complied with. And that's what we've indicated in the staff report that's before you". Chairman Fl.fe asked "In any situations does it boil down to, in your opinion, to a matter where unless on this Commission disagree with staff's finding that Code has been satisfied we really have no discretion at all?" Mr. Whittenberg said "Again, we've talked about this with the City Attorney, the only area that you have some flexibility is if you can in some manner fl.nd that there is a substantial detriment to public/safety/health and welfare by approval of the proJect as it exists". Chairman Fife said "Well, I would be prepared to so find with respect to the parking requirements". Commissioner Dahlman said "... I think that if we approve someone's minor plan that means that thence forth they and the City will be working together for a perl.od of time until the construction l.S done. And I think, while we don't have to be good buddies and best friends, a reasonable setting of mutual respect is required and so I'm going to oppose the approval - vote against it". *** Chairman Fife called a five minute recess. *** e e e Page 18 - Plann1ng Commission Minutes of November 7, 1990 3. RESOLUTIONS Nos. 1593, 1596, 1597, 1599 AND 1604. MOTION by Dahlman; SECOND by Sharp to waive full reading of the five Resolutions previously seen by the Planning Commission. MOTION CARRIED: 5 - 0 - 0 AYES: Orsini, McCUrdy, Sharp, Fife, Dahlman *** MOTION by Fife; SECOND by Sharp to approve Resolution No. 1593, recommending to the City Council approval of Zoning Text Amendment #5-90, amending Chapter 28 of The Code of the City of Seal Beach. CA to allow additions to non-conforming structures which are non- conforming solely due to densi ty and tendem parking wi th the following corrections: · Delete at the fourth "WHEREAS" the words "instituting regulations governing the establishment and operation of coin operated amusement devices and arcades; ..." . Replace with the words "amending The Code of the City of Seal Beach. CA to allow additions to non-conforming structures which are non-conforming solely due to density and tandem parking". MOTION CARRIED: 5 - 0 - 0 AYES: Orsini, Sharp, McCurdy, Fife, Dahlman *** MOTION by Dahlman; SECOND by Fife to approve Resolution No. 1596, a Resolution of the Planning Commission approvaing conditional Use Permit #10-90, a request to convert a two unit apartment into condominiums at 1120 Central Avenue, as presented. MOTION CARRIED: 5 - 0 - 0 AYES: orsini, Sharp, McCurdy, Fife, Dahlman *** MOTION by McCurdy; SECOND by Fife to approve Resolution No. 1597, a Resolution of the Planning Commission approving Tentative Parcel Map 90-332, a request to convert a two unit apartment into condominiums at 1120 Central Avenue, as presented. MOTION CARRIED: 5 - 0 - 0 AYES: Orsini, Sharp, McCurdy, Fife, Dahlman *** e - e Page 19 - Planning Commission Minutes of November 7, 1990 MOTION by Sharp: SECOND by Orsini to approve Resolution No. 1599, a Planning Commission Resolution denying Variance #5-90, a request to encroach into the required five foot side yard setback and ten foot rear yard setback for an illegal patio deck at 1733 Crestview as presented. MOTION CARRIED: 4 - 0 - 1 AYES: Orsini, Sharp, McCUrdy, Fife ABSTAIN: Dahlman MOTION by Dahlman; SECOND by Sharp to approve Resolution No. 1604, a Planning Commission Resolution recommending to the City Council approval of Zoning Text Amendment #6-90, amending Chapter 28 of .T.bg Code of the City of Seal Beach. CA to provide specific criteria for the construction and maintenance of covered, roof-access structures W1th one correction at page 4 from "repaid" to "repair". MOTION CARRIED: 5-0-0 AYES: Orsini, Sharp, McCurdy, Fife, Dahlman *** CONSENT C~T.F.NDAR 8. Planning Commission Minutes of October 17, 1990 MOTION by Sharp: SECOND by McCurdy to approve the Planning Commission Minutes of October 17, 1990 with one correction on page 11 - change "you'll" to "you". MOTION CARRIED: 5-0-0 AYES: Orsini, Sharp, McCUrdy, Fife, Dahlman. *** 9. Minor Plan Review #15-90 601 Ocean Avenue, Seal Beach staff Report Mr. Cho presented the staff report which he reported was written by Bryan Monkarsh, volunteer Administrat1ve Intern, Planning Department. The applicant, Mitchell Sheltraw for owner Albert Brown, requests a Minor Plan ReV1ew for an exterior remodel and add1tion of 1019 square feet of living area to an eX1sting legal non-conforming structure at 601 Ocean Avenue, Seal Beach. e Page 20 - Planning commission Minutes of November 7, 1990 Commiss1on Comments Comm1ss1oner Dahlman asked Mr. Cho about a cantilevered second floor hang1ng over the existing setback violation and it appears the cantilevered portion is less than three feet from back property line. Mr. Cho said Commissioner Dahlman was correct and explained that portion of the garage 1S pre-existing and was legal at the time it was built. Comm1ssioner Dahlman asked Mr. Cho about the credit of 355 square feet. Mr. Cho explain that those were areas having existing floor area that are being demolished and not replaced. Commissioner Dahlman asked Mr. Cho why this particular plan uses the word "study" instead of "den" saying Minor Plan Review #15-90 appears to be the same as Minor Plan Review #13-90 which the Commission just rev1ewed. Mr. Cho said it is the same plan and under the technical requirements of the ~ a bedroom is defined as a room W1 th a closet and a room without a closet is not a bedroom. It is living space that doesn't have a closet. Commiss1oner Dahlman said "I would like to know, that since we've completed our discussion about Minor Plan Reviews, and have acted on that by asking guidance from the City Council, possibly a zoning e text amendment if we need to consider this plan tonight?" Mr. Cho said "In light of what has happened with Minor Plan Rev1ew #13-90, a possible course of action could be to table the item until a later date. However, I don't believe I'm in any position to recommend either way. That's at the discret10n of the Planning commission". Mr. Whittenberg sa1d "The action that you took on your previous matter ... there was a motion to approve that request and that motion did not pass on the vote that was determined by the Commission. You have a request that will be forwarded to the Council at their meeting of November 13th, Tuesday evening, which will request consideration of a text amendment to the QQgg and also include consideration by the Counc1l of adopting an interim measure which would prohibit further processing of applications until that process 1S completed. I think it's with1n your purview, if that's the decision of the Commission, to continue this matter until the meeting after the Council meeting to see if, in fact, the Council takes that action or not regarding an interim urgency ordinance. If they do not see fit and appropriate to take that action then I th1nk the Commission would be in the position of needing to make a decision on this particular matter". e Chairman F1fe felt, in view of previous discussion, that this is a "rehash" of the same issues. e Page 21 - Planning Commisslon Minutes of November 7, 1990 commissioner orsini said he felt it should be approved, but if tabling it is the only way to save it, then he approved tabling it. Commissloner Sharp said he was in favor of tabling the matter. Chairman Fife said he would favor tabling the ltem but in view of the applicant's remarks of his intention to sue would want action so that if he sues he sues on both items at the same time. Mr. Fife asked the applicant if he would like to have action "so if you're going to sue you sue on both projects?" Albert Brown * 509 Ocean Avenue. Seal Beach Mr. Brown said he went to hlS architect, Mitchell Sheltraw, and asked him to look at his properties and find out what could be done to lmprove them. His properties were built in 1953. Mr. Brown said he had refinanced his home to finance Minor Plan Reviews #13-90 and #15-90, hired an architect and went to a lot of tlme and expense. He feels he has complied with all the Codes and can't understand what the problem is. He said "I feel like my civil rights are belng violated and I can't understand that". e Chairman Fife asked Mr. Brown "Did you give any consideration as to possibly whether or not you could squeeze any parking ---either tandem parklng or otherwise --- on the sites?" Mr. Brown replied that tandem parking is illegal. e Chairman Flfe asked Mr. Brown "Would you rather have action taken on it rather as opposed to it being postponed?" Mr. Brown sald "I think, everybody here, including Mr. Sharp who abstained from this, should have their own mind on this Commission. And they should know what lS proper. What is legal and what isn't legal right now. We all know that this has been pretty much said that this is legal and this is what should be done. I think you would pretty much take your Plannlng Department's advice, they are the experts ... my buildings are sub-standard but they're existing sub-standard buildings. I can bring them up to a higher standard. If we had an earthquake and somebody was killed in there, and I wanted to bring them up to a higher standard and you're not allowing me to, are you responslble?" Chairman Fife said Mr. Brown may have misunderstood the positlon of Mr. Sharp and himself. He said they were concerned about the construction of new homes and have both previously approved minor plan additlons ... saying he would be more concerned about this application if he were buildlng from the ground up. Mr. Fife told Mr. Brown not to place too much emphasis on seismic issues in his or Mr. Sharp's vote. Mr. Fife said his main concern was the "widely divergent development POllCY" and the applications don't appear to meet the intent of the ordinance framers. This could be a question between the spirit of the law and the letter of the law. Mr. Fife said "You may very well be within the letter of law, ln which case I would ask myself, 'then why is this even coming before us? If we have no discretion, then e e - Page 22 - Planning Commission Minutes of November 7, 1990 why is 1. t taking up our time?' It should be rubber stamped someplace l.n City Hall and not take up our tl.me, your time or any body else's time. I'm not real persuaded by something that comes before me and says 'you have no discretion except to pass this'... if it's in front of me than I assume I have some dl.scretion. If not, then it ought not to be in front of me". Mr. Brown said the Commission's discretion involved health, safety and public welfare l.ssues. Mr. Fife said "You're addl.ng rooms whl.ch could very easily be converted into bedrooms". Mr. Brown said "That's an assumption". Discussion ensued as to what dens, studies, family rooms could be used for. Mr. Brown said there has to be an amount of trust and he would like approval based on the room being a den. Mr. Fife said "As I see it, your options are to say 'Gentlemen, I'd like a vote on it' and take your risk that l.t would be denied". Mr. Brown said "I've looked over what your job is. And your job is to know pretty much all the codes, ordinances and so forth. And you should already know what is right and wrong and which should be approved and what shouldn't be approved. These things have been done in town before, the 10%, and to say that other people can do it and I can't, do you think that's rl.ght? Or do you think my civil rights are being violated?" Mr. Fife said "I think the continued interpretation of the ~ the way it's been interpreted sometimes in the past perhaps bears changing. And some time it has to be changed if it's going to be changed". Mr. Fife noted things change, indicating one City Council approved the Mola Development Co. proposal for the Hellman Ranch and the next City Council denied the project. Chairman Fife said "This may be legal as interpreted by a prevl.OUS Commission. Maybe thl.s Commissl.on is lookl.ng at the law a little differently". Chairman Fife restated what he felt were Mr. Brown's options. Mr. Brown said he didn't think 1. t should be postponed and both items should be passed right now. Mr. Brown asked Chairman Fife what he thought he should do? Chairman Fife said "If I were you, I would ask you gentlemen to postpone it just l.n case the City Council gives us some direction that says 'No. We like it exactly that way and that's what we want done' ... and if the City Council says that's what we want done I'm prepared to ll.ve with that". Mr. Brown said "If you think it should go to the City Council, I think it should go to the Cl.ty Council too. Let's let them decide then. If you can't do your job then let's let the City council take it and let them decl.de it so they can do your Job". Chairman Fife said "If the City Council gave that kind of direction, I don't think we would be precluded from reconsidering the prl.or denial of #13-90". Mr. Brown said "If you can reconsider the other one I would appreciate that". Mr. Whittenberg said "there is a procedure where you can take a motion to reconsider an action the same night among members of the Commission with the notification that there's been no interested parties that were at the previous discussion that have left in the interim period of tl.me and I don't believe anyone has. So at this point in time you could reconsider your previous motion to an alternate motion". e e e Page 23 - Planning Commission Minutes of November 7, 1990 MOTION by Orsini; SECOND by Dahlman that the Planning Commission reconsider Minor Plan Review #13-90. MOTION NOT ACTED UPON MOTION by Sharp; (no second) to reconsider Minor Plan Review #13- 90. Mr. Whittenberg advised that #15-90 should be resolved first after which reconsideration would be appropriate. MOTION NOT ACTED UPON MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Orsini to delay Minor Plan Review #15-90 to the Planning Commission meeting of November 28, 1990. MOTION CARRIED:5-0-0 AYES: Orsini, Sharp, McCUrdy, Fife, Dahlman Mr. Sheltraw asked "Gentlemen, may I ask you that if you move to table this and goes to the City Council are you going to be acting as an extension of the City Council. If I go and speak to the Council and we lobby for its approval are you going to go ahead and approve this with no consideration on your own parts? There's going to be no personal lnput by yourselves? This will be cut and dry? If the Council directs you to go ahead and approve it it will be a straight line approval. Chalrman Fife said "I don't think that's the correct way to lnterpret this ... I think we would reconsider our action based on the Council's direction wlth the Council setting policy. We are raising some issues to the Council that they ought to consider on how these codes should be interpreted and enforced. If they say 'We want them interpreted this way' then I ---(interrupted)". Mr. Sheltraw said "Wouldn't the City Attorney be a little more effective at reading the text and going ahead and directing yourselves as to how to vote on this issue. The Council themselves are not attorneys and they are not ones that know the legalities of what is zoning text and what is not zoning text". Mr. Fife said "That would be reflected in his recommendation to the City Council". Mr. Sheltraw said "Well, the recommendation of the City Attorney is to approve at this point". MOTION by McCUrdy; SECOND by Orsini to open Minor Plan Review #13-90 for reconsideration at this time. MOTION CARRIED: 5 - 0 - 0 AYES: Orsini, Sharp, Fife, McCUrdy, Dahlman e e e Page 24 - Planning Commission Minutes of November 7, 1990 MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Orsini to table Minor Plan Review #13-90 to the Planning Commission meeting of November 28, 1990 to await guidance from the City Council at the November 13, 1990 meeting plus guidance from the City Attorney. MOTION CARRIED: 5-0-0 AYES: Orsini, Sharp, McCUrdy, Fife, Dahlman Mr. Whittenberg clarified that a staff report will be prepared based on the Commission actions taken tonight for City Council consideration at the1r meeting of November 13, 1990. The report will request clarification and direction to the Plann1ng Commission regarding the issues of Minor Plan Reviews in order that this matter be back before the Planning Commission at the meeting of November 28, 1990. *** PUBLIC HEARINGS 10. Conditional Use Permit #11-90 1500 Pacific Coast Highway Dave's Other Place staff Report Mr. Curtis delivered the staff report. (Staff report is on file in the Department of Development Services). The appl1cants, Douglas Hoxeng and David Stangeland, request an indefinite extension of Conditional Use Permit #14-89. Commission Comments Comm1ssioner Dahlman asked staff why the rear door is required to be kept closed? Mr. Curtis said to mitigate noise because it directly abuts residential dwellings. Public Hearing Douglas Hoxeng introduced himself as the owner/manager of Dave's Other Place and spoke in favor of the application. He noted Dave Stangeland is an owner but has recently retired. He said there is no live music only a rad10 in the bar area. MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Dahlman to approve Conditional Use Permit #11-90 through the adoption of Resolution No. 1605, with conditions. MOTION CARRIED: 5 - 0 - 0 AYES: orsini, Sharp, McCUrdy, Fife, Dahlman - e . Page 25 - Planning Commission Minutes of November 7, 1990 commissioner Dahlman wanted to add verbiage to the condition regarding the rear door to allow for it to be open for certain circumstances. Mr. Curtis said the requirements for the rear door were placed on by the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control and are not City requl.rements and cannot be amended by the city. Comml.SSl.oner Dahlman dropped his proposed amendment. *** ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Dave Hoxeng * 1500 Pacific Coast Highway said the ordinance regarding liquor signage in windows was placing a hardship on his busl.ness because it's almost l.mpossl.ble to tell what his business is from Pacific Coast Highway. He feels he has lost customers because of this. Comml.ssioner Sharp advised him that the Planning Commission was reviewing new signage requirements. Staff will be making recommendations. Blake Hastings * Seal Beach (No Address Given) Mr. Hastings said he is a realtor and knows that a room without a closet is not a bedroom. He said the Commission should not patrol residences. He said he felt the Commission is swayed by what Mola is doing in the City of Seal Beach because they are speaking of sel.smic issues. He indicated building l.n Old Town can't be compared to the 149 acre Hellman Ranch site. He felt the meeting tonight was ludicrous. STAFF CONCERNS 11. Minimum Lot Size in RHO and RHO Zones in District I. Park Dedication Fees. Staff Report Mr. Curtis delivered the staff report. (Staff report on file in the Department of Development Services). Staff recommends the Planning Commissl.on choose (1) to recommend an amendment of Section 21-32 of the ~, as proposed by the City Attorney's Office, to the City Councilor (2) agendize the matter of park and recreation dedications as a scheduled matter, take public testimony and if appropriate, recommend the decided course of action to the Cl.ty Council. Staff is asking the Commission to choose to (1) disregard the matter entirely, (2) refer it straight to the City Councilor (3) request City Council authorization to begin the Public Hearing process to review a possl.ble Zone Text Amendment. lit . . Page 26 - Planning Commission Minutes of November 7, 1990 commission Comments MOTION by McCUrdy; SECOND by Sharp to recommend adoption of an ordinance consistent wi th Attachment E in the staff report, approving an amendment to section 21-32 of the ~ as proposed in Attachment E to the city council. MOTION CARRIED: 3 - 2 AYES: Orsini, Sharp, McCUrdy NOES: Fife, Dahlman Commissioner Dahlman said he did not receive this staff report but he would prefer to see a Public Hearing on it. He was not in favor of lower park dedication fees. Commissioners Fife and Orsini agreed with Commissioner Dahlman saying the fees should not be changed. Mr. Fife was in favor of a Public Hearing and further refinement of this issue. MOTION by Dahlman; SECOND by Orsini to reconsider the previous Motion. MOTION CARRIED: 4 - 1 AYES: Orsini, Sharp, Fife, Dahlman NOES: McCUrdy MOTION by Dahlman; SECOND by orsini that the Planning commission adopt the option of having a Public Hearing and using the public input make a recommendation to the City Council. MOTION CARRIED: 5 - 0 - 0 AYES: Orsini, Sharp, Fife, Dahlman, McCUrdy *** COMMISSION CONCERNS Commissioner Orsini said he would not be able to attend the December 5, 1990 meeting. commissioner Orsin1 asked that staff agendize the ~ enforcement issue. Mr. Whittenberg said staff planned to present ideas and recommendations to the Commission at the December 5, 1990 meeting but because Mr.OrS1n1 will not be present it will be held to the December 19, 1990 meet1ng. . ... - Page 27 - Planning Commission Minutes of November 7, 1990 ADJOURNMENT Chairman Fife adjourned tonight's meetlng to November 28, 1990 and the regularly scheduled meeting of November 21, 1990 will not be held. The meeting was adjourned at 11:05 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, ~~~~o--- Executive Secretary Department of Development Services These Mlnutes are tentative and are subJect to the approval of the Plannlng Commission. *** The Planning Commission Minutes of November 7, 1990 were approved . by the Planning Commission on ~~~ .:lJ') /990 .