Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Min 1990-11-28 . . . CITY OF SEAL BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 28, 1990 The adjourned Plannlng Commlssion meeting of November 28, 1990 was called to order at 7:30 p.m. in Clty council Chambers by Chairman Fife. I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Alleglance was led by Commlssioner OrSlnl. II. ROLL CALL Present: Chairman Fife Commissloners Orsini, Sharp, McCurdy, Dahlman Staff Present: Lee Whlttenberg, Director, Development Srvcs. Dept. Barry Curtls, Admin. Asst., Development Srvcs. Dept. Mlchael Cho, Intern, Development Services Department III. SCHEDULED MATTERS 1. Review and Conslderatlon of ci ty Councl1 Actlons of November 13, 1990 regarding Minor Plan Reviews and Appeal Processes. Staff Report Mr. Whlttenberg delivered the staff report statlng the Planning Commisslon requested directlon from the Clty Council regarding several issues of concern related to the Mlnor Plan Review process. The Clty Councll adopted three emergency Ordinances: Ordinance No. 1318 WhlCh provides that every declsion by the Director of Development Services and the Planning Commission can be dlrectly appealed to the City Council. Ordlnance No. 1319 WhlCh prohiblts lssuance of any perml ts for expansion of existlng non-conformlng residential structures ln accordance with Sectlons 28-2407.A.2 (i) and (J) of the munlcipal Code. Both Ordinances were adopted by the Council on an emergency basls, wlll take effect lmmediately for 45 days. The Council wlll determlne at thelr December 10, 1990 meeting lf an extenslon is necessary. . . . Page 2 Plannlng Commisslon Mlnutes November 28, 1990 Ordlnance 1320 WhlCh exempts previously approved Mlnor Plan Reviews and applicatlons now before the Plannlng Commission (123 Eighth Street, 601 Ocean Avenue, 15 Cottonwood). (This staff report lS on flle in the Department of Development Servlces). Commlsslon Comments commissioner McCurdy said protocol dictated that decislons of the Director of Development Services should first be appealed to the Planning Commission and not to the City Council directly. Mr. Whi ttenberg advised that there are some areas ln staff responslbili ties where there is not an appeal process and the intent is to have appeals go from the Department of Development SerVlces to the Plannlng Commlsslon to the Clty Council. Chairman Fife, referencing Ordinance No. 1318, said the newly appealable decislons of the Dlrector of Development Servlces are very inclusive - "every decision" - and asked how detailed thls would be? Mr. Whittenberg said this would cover enforcement procedures. Mr. Whittenberg lndicated any citlzen can appeal a decision of the Planning Department and the ten day appeal tlme will run from the date of the declsion. In the absence of these Ordinances, Commlssion declsion would have been non-appealable. Staff will notify interested parties on the date of a declsion. Matters relatlng to buildlng plans currently have an appeal process. Chalrman Flfe recommended this staff report be received and filed. *** 2. Minor Plan Review #13-90 123 8th street Staff Report Mr. Cho delivered the staff report. (This report is on flle in the Department of Development Servlces). commission Comments Chalrman Flfe, noted he had voted against Minor Plan ReVlew #13-90 at the last meeting and said that further research of the munlcipal Code led hlm to conclude that contrary to the Planning Department's positlon, he did not think Minor Plan ReVlew #13-90 met all Code requirements. Remarklng on Sectlon 28-2407 .A. 2 WhlCh speciflcally provldes that when expanding a non-conforming dwelling you cannot add bedrooms if lt'S non-conforming due to density; thlS appllcatlon is non-conforming due to density, parking and rear . Page 3 Plann1ng Commission M1nutes November 28, 1990 . setbacks. Sect10n 28-210 defines a bedroom for purposes of determining required parking spaces as "any room other than a liv1ng room, kitchen, hall, pantry or bathroom". Mr. F1fe said "Certainly, for purposes of 28-210, these rooms that are designated as dens are bedrooms ... the quest10n comes to mind, what 1S the purpose of 28-210? Does 1t only apply to parking? Is there a separate def1n1tion of "bedroom" for purposes of dens1ty? I could find none in the Code, nor could I find in the Code anyth1ng that refers one out of the Code to the Uniform Building Code. If there is someth1ng in the Code that creates a separate definit10n of a "bedroom" for purposes of dens1ty it has escaped me. And I do not f1nd anything that supports the notion that we should look to the Un1form BU1lding Code for a defin1tion of "bedroom" when we have a defin1tion of "bedroom" in the Seal Beach Code. section 28-286 of the Code def1nes the term "use" ... it goes on to say that "a use 1nvolves the purpose for Wh1Ch land or a build1ng is arranged, des1gned or 1ntended or for which e1ther is or may be occup1ed or maintained". I interpret that to mean that the Commiss1on not only has the right but it has the duty to look into the uses for which a bU1ld1ng may be used. As we did with respect to Mr. Watson's application for an additional 400 square feet of storage space, I think it 1S our duty to look at what a proposed addition may be used for and not simply to accept the intended use. That does not necessarily 1mply some dishonesty or deception on the part of the owner. There is no guarantee that the person who builds the addit10n 1S necessar1ly going to be the person st111 owning it five years hence. But I think 1t's our duty and our right to look at what it may be used and occupied for. Certainly if the def1nition of a "bedroom" under 28-210 is broad enough to make these dens bedrooms, I certainly th1nk under 28-286 we would have the right to decide that it very well may be occup1ed at some time 1n the future and used as a bedroom. I think that, in addition, 28-2400, which 1S the first sect10n of the chapter that deals with non- conform1ng uses, and 1 t states "That wh1le a non-conform1ng use eX1sts on any lot, no additional use may be established thereon unless such addit10nal use 1S conforming and 1n add1tion, such addi.ti_o..nal use does not 1ncrease the non-conformity". If we're ~~n;o~o a~d ro~ that for purposes of park1ng, are,considered e r ~~to me that when you read the Code 1n a common sense interpretation, the people who were framing the Code were trying to prevent an increase of density and usage which would 1ncrease the parking problem w1thin the C1ty. I think, given the fact that one of our basic requirements 1S to promote the health, safety and welfare of the C1ty, we can interpret the Code to mean that the addition of these rooms constitutes the addi t10n of bedrooms and hence these applications do not meet the requirements of the QQgg. That's my current position. I am prepared to be dissuaded 1f argument or eV1dence suggests that that pos1tion is . . Page 4 Planning commission Mlnutes November 28, 1990 wrong but that's my posltion and I state lt for the benefit of the applicant so you know what you're deallng with when you state your position". Commlssioner Dahlman sald he agreed entirely that these appear to be bedrooms. Mr. Whittenberg indlcated the Code, by reference, adopts the Uniform Building Code under Section 5-1. "All amendments to codes adopted hereln by reference shall be considered as part of the Code". In the past the Planning Department policy has been to utlllze the definltlon of "bedroom" as indicated ln the Uniform Buildlng Code when reviewing a project of this nature. This policy can be changed by Commission decislon. Commissioner McCurdy asked Mr. Whittenberg if the Unlform Building Code defines a "bedroom" or does lt state that a bedroom must have a closet? Mr. Whittenberg said it has a definition for a "detached bedroom", there's no definltion of a "bedroom": . A detached bedroom is a separate accessory structure without kitchen or sanitary facilities designed for and intended to be used as a sleeping facility for one famlly to be employed ln conjunctlon wlth a main structure. Commlssloner McCurdy noted the definition did not say it had to have a closet. Chalrman Fife said that even lf the Uniform BUlldlng Code dld have a speclfic definition of a bedroom, and even if it defined a bedroom for purposes of density, would that dlsplace the specific deflnltion ln Section 28-210? Mr. Whlttenberg said he was uncertain lf it would dlsplace it. His intentlon was to lnform the Commission of the City's prlor policy has been to deal with it on the basis of providlng a closet area. Chairman Fife asked staff lf it had found records of prior directives from staff or prior commissions on how to treat the subject of what is/what is not a bedroom for Minor Plan Reviews? Mr. Whittenberg said staff has not researched this. . Chalrman Fife said parklng requirements are defined in the Code as a function of dwelllng unlts - 2 parklng requirements per dwelllng unit. They are not defined as a functlon of bedrooms. Conversely, the definitlon of "bedroom" says lt means for purposes of determining required parking spaces all rooms other than a living room, kitchen, hall, pantry, closet or bathroom. Chairman Fife said he felt that when lnterpreting the QQdg, parking and denslty should be inter-related (parklng serves density) and "bedroom" means, for all purposes, how it is defined in the municlpal Code of Seal Beach. In mUlti-dwelling uses where renting is common to r . . . Page 5 Planning Comm1ssion M1nutes November 28, 1990 have apartments occupied by persons each of whom has a car. And the more rooms you add facilitates those k1nds of occupancies and the more cars you have on the street. Th1S could get to a point of great frustrat10n re park1ng spaces around the units. "In terms of public health, safety and welfare we have a duty to consider that and try to keep that problem from getting worse than it already is" said Chairman Fife. Mitchell Sheltraw * Architect * 299 st. Joseph. Long Beach. CA Mr. Sheltraw said on April 7, 1989 M1nor Plan Review application #5-89 was approved for 708 square feet w1th a condition that an exist1ng bedroom have the closet removed and 1t would be cons1dered a den. Th1S appl1cation did add add1tional bedroom counts to the units. It was non-conform1ng due to parking. Since 1988, eleven M1nor Plan ReV1ew appl1cat1ons have been approved and all added add1tional bedroom counts to the units and have not complied with parking. Mr. Sheltraw said "Under the current zoning text we are not allowed to add bedrooms and in these eleven instances they were granted the pr1 v1lege of also additional bedrooms to the units without bring1ng the required parking up". Chairman F1fe said he could not recall that application but was on the Planning Commiss1oner at the t1me 1 t was approved. He indicated that Mr. Sheltraw's application was fully 7 spaces short of the required park1ng and had a severe degree of non-conformity as to parking. Chairman F1fe p01nted out that regarding the health, safety and welfare protection, it's with1n Commission d1scretion to apply balance and Mr. Fife said "I th1nk I might even have a d1fferent react10n to th1s part1cular appl1cation if it was one park1ng space short or two versus seven parking spaces short of what the Code requires". Section 28-802 reads that two parking spaces per living unit are necessary and there are five liv1ng un1ts on the property. There seems to be a discrepancy between the defin1t1on of a "bedroom/for purposes of park1ng" because park1ng 1S described in terms of parking per dwelling unit and dwelling units are not necessarily restr1cted to a certa1n number of bedrooms. Mr. Fife said "In terms of 1nterpreting the Code and trying to f1gure out what did the people who put the Code together have in m1nd, it seemed to me that a reasonable interpretation 1S that they were trY1ng to prevent a compounding or exacerbation of those non-conform1ties which produce further problems 1n terms of park1ng and density... if I've made a m1stake in support1ng #5- 89, and I don't know w1thout knowing the degree of non-conform1ty that eX1sted, I don't want to continue to make the mistake ... I'm simply trying to apply the Code as I think the people who adopted it had in mind ...." . . . Page 6 Planning Commisslon Minutes November 28, 1990 Al Brown. Owner sald he went to the City and asked the Plannlng Department what his legal rights were and he complied with what was asked of him. He noted he had put a lot of time and money into the proJect. He felt the Commission changed the rules ln mid-stream. Commissioner orsini asked if Mr. Brown was renting out the garages at 123 Elghth street to persons other than tenants. Mr. Brown said no. Mr. Brown said "What would you do if you went to the Planning Department and they told you "yes" you can do this. I said I had a lot of reservations - what is the Planning commission going to do? They (staff) said this is a Minor Plan Revlew, it's been done in the past, it's no problem, it's gOlng to be passed, don't worry about that". CommlSSloner Dahlman said "Who sald 'It's going to be passed - don't worry about that'?". Mr. Brown sald "Barry (Curtls) sald that to me. He sald 'ThlS is a Minor Plan Review, there should be no problem. It should pass without any problem as long as you comply with all the codes and so forth. Once we approve it there should be no problem'. He asked me, why should there be any problem? I said, I don't know - have other things passed in the past? Mr. curtis said yes ... I'm not trYlng to blame hlm for it, he was only doing his Job. Where do I start? ... In other words, I should corne to the Plannlng Commlssion first - put it on a napkln - and say this is what I intend to do - and throw 1 t up to you, instead of putting $10,000 - $11,000 lnto architectural fees, going out and refinancing my house to get this thing started. I should corne up with a napkln and say, here, I've put ln four hours and thlS is what I plan on doing. Then you could say yes, no or maybe. I put all the money into lt and this is the procedure you have to go through to get to this point. So, I start wlth puttlng $11,000 into architectural fees and then you say no." Chairman Flfe relterated that Mr. Brown got to this pOlnt because of a prior policy by the Planning Department of Code lnterpretation. The Plannlng Commission would be advised by the Planning Department that a Minor Plan Review had met all Code requirements and, in good faith, the Commission would approve the application. But when this particular applicatlon carne through it caused the Commlssion to take a harder look at lt because lt was seven parking spaces short and included the addition of two rooms that appeared to be ultimately useable as bedrooms. The CommlSSlon asked "Is this really what the Code had ln mind?". What surfaced was a difference of interpretatlon between the Planning Commlssion and the Planning Department as to how the ordinance should read. Between the Commlssion and the applicant the Commlssion has the overriding authority. Between the Council and the Commlssion the Council has the overridlng authority. Chairman Fife lndicated that because things had been going in a certain dlrectlon he didn't belleve the Commission was locked in - because that would mean mistakes could make the law. If you make a mlstake then the mistake is essentially new legislation and he felt the Commlssion was not bound by that forever. He indicated that if a mlstake was . Page 7 Planning Commission M1nutes November 28, 1990 made it should be looked at and one should then quit mak1ng the m1stake. commissioner McCurdy said he reviewed the application several times and read the Code carefully for what 1t said versus what 1t could mean. He said the "def1nition of bedrooms 1S from a park1ng standpoint" and when read1ng it says "there shall be two parking spaces per liv1ng unit" 1t does not say how many bedrooms there shall be. section 28-2407.2 - M1nor Structural Al terat1ons, Enlargements or Expans10ns to non-conform1ng res1dent1al and uses llsted as follows may be approved by the Planning Comm1ssion pursuant to Consent Calendar plan review" this implies therefore that they may also not do 1t. He 1ndicated this QQQg sect10n 1S the only reason th1s applicat10n could be turned down. The Commiss1on could not deny because they think extra bedrooms are being added (versus dens) [Emphasis added per inflection of speaker] . . commissioner orsini, ind1cat1ng he llves 1n Old Town in an apartment, said he felt many persons who rent two bedroom apartments do use one as a den. Regarding parking, he said Mr. Brown's property has been non-conforming due to parking all along and the area res1dents have been llving with this for a long time. Mr. Ors1ni, when asked what he would llke to do about the parking situat10n in Old Town said, "Bas1cally we llve 1t ... I've lived on Seventh Street for five years and I've never had a problem I feel 1t'S a den and I feel 1t should be approved". Mr. Whittenberg sa1d the def1nition of "bedroom" in the munic1pal Code now, references Ord1nance No. 948, was adopted 1n 1974 which added the follow1ng wording to the Code: Which ind1cated that structural alterations to non- conforming build1ngs such as porches, balconys, bathrooms, small storage rooms, enlargements of existing rooms or other similar additions may be approved by the Planning Commission by the 1ssuance of a Cond1tional Use Permit. Additions of bedrooms and additional liv1ng quarters may not be approved under this provision. ~. In 1974 the definit10n of "bedroom" was added 1n to clarify what types of rooms would not be counted as requiring addit10nal parking under the CUP process. Mr. Whittenberg 1ndicated that definit10n is in the municipal Code today and has to be dealt with. The determ1nation of the Commission is to how to apply that under the current municipal Code because the sections that were adopted with it in 1974 have been dramat1cally changed over the years probably five d1fferent Code changes to th1S particular area of the Code. Th1S one section has never been reviewed. . . . Page 8 Planning Commission M1nutes November 28, 1990 Chairman Fife asked Mr. Whittenberg 1f he felt the definition of "bedroom" that started out 1S an inclusive, broad definit10n and not a narrow, circumscribing definition? Mr. Whittenberg sa1d the def1n1tion defines what the C1ty was looking for 1n 1974 as additional bedrooms to require additional parking under the CUP process. A den, under th1s defin1t10n, would have been counted as a bedroom. Mr. Fife said he was trying to interpret the ~ as it was originally intended or section 28-210 would mean noth1ng and then what's 1 t 1n the Code for? He felt staff's background suggested section 28-210 was in the ~ as part of an Ordinance which at the time was severely restrictive on expansion of these units and if at some t1me the 1ntention was to cast aside the restriction then Sect10n 28-210 should have been cast aside also and it has not been done. Chairman Fife reiterated a previous point that after-the-fact ~ violation 1nspect10ns are not the way to go --- the City does not have the enforcement personnel, privacy rights considerations --- the C1ty does not want to say 'We approve th1s but we'll have to check up on you in six months'. Mr. Fife indicated that when the prior Council put in section 28-286 wh1ch says a use involves not only what it's des1gned for but that for which it is or may be occupied or ma1ntained, they really had in mind that you have to give thought to what it may be not withstanding representations of the owner Mr. Brown said "That's what Barry was basing what he told me ... on what past Comm1ssion's voted on this, so that's what we went by. If this 1S the way you're going to be about this, this type of thing, someone shouldn't have to put a lot of money into 1t before they get to this point. You should make this thing very clear, extremely clear. If you can't go on past experience ... what do you go on? ...". Commissioner Dahlman stated he empath1zed with Mr. Brown but added that the Commissioners are private citizens too and he felt that 1f the Comm1SS10ners "turned this up in the Code, you could have turned it up 1n the Code too". Mr. Brown sa1d "The Plann1ng Department didn't turn it up in the Code, how would I turn 1t up in the Code?" Commissioner Dahlman said "Your architect put in rooms that look kind of like bedrooms and wrote in there "den or study". He could have turned to this page in the Code that defines what a "bedroom" is. Maybe he shouldn't have charged you so much money". Mr. Brown said "That's a pretty sour statement though". Commissioner Dahlman said "I think you were relying on him and he was wrong". Mr. Brown said "We were relying on the Planning Department which was right. We were relying on what the past experience was. If you want to make all of these interpretations on your own and start fitting anything in your m1nd wh1ch you think is correct and not g01ng by what has happened in the past then I think you're wrong". Chairman Fife sa1d "If the people who interpret the laws and regulat10ns can never take a fresh look at it, you'd still have separate schools for blacks and separate schools for whites, that was the law for a hundred years . . . Page 9 Plann1ng Commission M1nutes November 28, 1990 unt1l Earl Warren dec1ded that was not a proper interpretat10n of the Const1 tution. It happens all the time. You know, I as a lawyer run into this all the t1me. I pull my hair out. Why didn't the Supreme Court make th1S clear. Well they d1dn't. The Engl1sh language 1S not a perfect medium of express1on, c1rcumstances change, people look at th1ngs differently, somet1mes you th1nk that every ordinance, before its adopted, ought to get 35 lawyers in there and argue dev1ls advocates back and forth and come up w1th all the situations and come up and really make 1t clear. But I'm not convinced that that would lead to any better result. Ph1losophy changes 1n the way you look at things, different interpretations are Just common place throughout government, all of government. I don't think you will ever get to the point where we can all absolutely predict that we know something appears to be is the way it's always gOlng to be". Mr. Brown sa1d "I'd llke to say that I'm not blaming the Planning Department for any or Barry or anyone llke that. The Plann1ng Department, I think, that we have r1ght now 1S a great add1 tion to the City. They're very excellent. They're very good to work with, very polite, very informat1ve. And I don't mean any statements derogatory towards Barry at all because I think he's an excellent employee. But he ... when we go into the Plann1ng Department we get an op1n1on from him. I'm sure everybody gets an opinion from him. And all he can do 1S base his op1n1on on what has happened 1n the past. To me, 1f you would have said we can go to the Planning Department and tell them what you propose to do before you put a lot of money into th1S and then you turned it down then at that point I would have said 'Fine, O.K., well it d1dn't work'. If I d1dn't llke it I could fight you after that 1f I wanted to go to the expense, time and money. But to go ahead and say, yes, this is what you have to do to get to this point to get to the Planning Commiss1on and if you ab1de by all of this then 1 t should be passed and there shouldn't be any problem. There hasn't been 1n the past. What do I have to go by?" Chairman F1fe said "Every property owner who wants to do anyth1ng differently to h1S property takes some risk. He takes a risk when he makes the investment. This new ordinance, the emergency ord1nance, how many people m1ght we wonder have either bought property w1th the 1dea 1n mind of doing something similar to what you propose to do. Maybe 90% down the path of getting the1r plans completed and they're gnashing the1r teeth and pull1ng their ha1r out because it looks like there's going to be a morator1um blocking that. Those things happen". Mr. Brown said "Well there wasn't a morator1um blocking this. Th1S was open. Th1S was all legal right unt1l the time we come to you. And then all of a sudden ...". Mr. F1fe said "That applies to the person where the law is changed the day before he comes in with h1S applicat1on. He has done a lot of his work up to that point 1n time and damn, the law changes on him ... we don't think the law has changed. We're simply applying, at least Mr. Dahlman and I, are applying our good fa1th 1nterpretat1on of what we think th1S . . . Page 10 Planning Commission Mlnutes November 28, 1990 legislatlve scheme has in mind. Mr. McCurdy, I would say, has a slightly dlfferent view. I think Mr. Orslni has a different view. We all have different Vlews on thlS. And those views are different from the Planning Department. Who's Vlew is ultimately right really rests with the person who has the highest and flnal level of decision. Mr. Brown said "So you vote one way on it one time and you vote another way on another time". Mr. Fife said lf a Slmllar situation were to come along next week he'd vote the same way. Mr. Brown said "Well, they dldn't vote that way in the past". Mr. Fife said "You haven't convlnced me that #5-89 with seven parking places short --- I've told you before, I think that (interrupted)". Mr. Brown said "If we're short one parking place now and we're short one parking place or flve parking places after the proJect is done we're short the same amount of parking places. That's not what this is about. It doesn't matter how many parking places you are short. You're stlll gOlng to be short the same today as you are after the project is completed. The same amount short". Chalrman Flfe sald "You're addlng rooms which as far as the present Code language addresses seem to have signlflcance for purposes of parking. I would lnterpret that, read lt all together, as you're increaslng the parking non-conformity". Mr. Brown sald "O.K., I guess we have your opinion". Mr. Fife said "ObVlously thanks to what we did at the last meeting ... you would now have a right to appeal this, whereas you wouldn't have that right". Mr. Brown sald "I've never heard of a Commission going agalnst their Plannlng Department, I've never heard of that". Mr. Fife sald "I have. I thlnk lt's probably healthy. I mean --- sometimes the Plannlng Dlrector beats us up, changes our minds. Sometimes we beat him up and change his mind. I thlnk if we slavishly followed hlm or he slavlshly followed us lt probably wouldn't be good for the entlre City". Commlssioner Dahlman said "We rarely depart from what they recommend". Mr. Brown said "O.K. Well if you want to change your thoughts from the past I thlnk I hope the City Councll has a different view than what you have. I feel like I've been made a goat out of. I've been wronged; very wronged. I guess there's nothlng more that I can say. Thank you". Bruce Stark * Seal Beach inquired about the deflnltlon of "denslty", asklng if it was the ratio of building square footage to the lot, lot coverage by itself, square footage of the structure or the number of dwelllng units? Mr. Stark noted the five bedroom, flve bathroom houses being built on a 25' x 117' lot with only two parking spaces and asked where the correlation was between denslty and parking? He asked why it only applled to an apartment? Mr. Stark said "I think you are being arbltrary and capriclous until you can identify what denslty is and what problem you are trying to address and how you're going to address it". No one wishlng to speak for or agalnst this project, the Chairman closed the publlC comments. . . . Page 11 Plannlng CommlSSlon Minutes November 28, 1990 Commlsslon Comments MOTION by Sharp; SECOND Dahlman to deny Minor Plan Review #13-90 for 123 Eighth Street. MOTION CARRIED 3 - 2 - 0 AYES: Sharp, Fife, Dahlman NOES: orsini, McCUrdy ABSTAIN: None Mr. Whlttenberg advised the applicants that they have ten calendar days to appeal to the City Councll. *** 3. Minor Plan Review #15-90 601 Ocean Avenue staff Report Mr. Cho delivered the staff report, which is a request by applicant Mltchell Sheltraw for owner Al Brown, to remodel and add floor space to an existlng legal non-conformlng structure at 601 Ocean Avenue, Seal Beach. Commlsslon Comments There were no comments from the Planning Commisslon because the lssues are materially the same as those of Minor Plan Revlew #13-90. Applicant's Comments Mr. Sheltraw declined to comment. Mr. Brown indicated this proJect is four parking spaces short of what the munlcipal Code requires. Mr. Brown asked "What are we going to do in the future now? Are we Just going to have people put a lot of money into a project and Just come before the Plannlng Commisslon and have it shot down? Or can someone come before the Planning Commission without puttlng all this money into it?" Chalrman Flfe sald "Hopefully, if thlS leads to nothing else, lt will lead to some further clariflcation of the law on the part of the Clty ... the problem that I see here is that there's enough language in the Code to suggest that it doesn't meet the requlrements ... the Councll can push that one way or the other ... you're not necessarily dead in the water. Even if the Councll for the time belng denles your appeal it may be they revise the Ordlnance to make lt crystal clear that as long as you are not lncreasing the number of dwelllng units you can do exactly what you're doing. In which case you don't have to worry. You come back under that set of clrcumstances and you'll get my vote. I . . . Page 12 Planning Commission M1nutes November 28, 1990 don't have any axe to grind with you ... as a result of looking at th1S more closely, I have a d1fferent view of that ...". Mr. F1fe said "I would point out sir that even though I can understand how you feel that you have been treated unfa1rly that th1S Comm1SS10n went to the time and the trouble to make sure that you had a r1ght of appeal as prev10usly you wouldn't have had that ... you may now go to the Council... I think it's s1gn1ficant that this Comm1ssion did that for you and we did it really for you. No one has really been grinding after you ... the result may seem unfair but I th1nk we tried to get at the result in a fair manner, applying our good faith interpretat10ns of what are unclear rules which can be viewed d1fferently anyth1ng that 1S not crystal clear has some capac1ty for unfa1rness simply because different people can give different 1nterpretations of it. That doesn't mean that it's so unfa1r as to be a v101ation of due process ...". Comm1ss10ner Ors1ni said he felt 1t was unfair to plan reV1ews together because they're on d1fferent a f1ve-plex, one is a four-plex and they are projects. judge these two streets, one is two d1fferent MOTION by Dahlman; SECOND by Sharp to deny Minor Plan Review #15- 90 for 601 Ocean Avenue. MOTION CARRIED: 3 - 2 - 0 AYES: Sharp, Fife, Dahlman NOES: Orsini, McCUrdy ABSTAIN: None Mr. Whittenberg advised the applicant of h1S right to appeal w1thin ten calendar days. Chairman F1fe called a recess at 9:05 p.m.; reconvened at 9:17 p.m. 4. Approval of Minutes of November 7, 1990 MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by McCurdy to approve the Planning Commission Minutes of November 7, 1990 subject to the correction of any tyPOgraphical errors. MOTION CARRIED 5 - 0 AYES: Sharp, McCUrdy, Fife, Dahlman, Orsini *** . . . Page 13 Planning Commiss1on M1nutes November 28, 1990 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Bruce Stark * Seal Beach - Mr. Stark spoke about dens1ty and said the thought the Plann1ng Commission should declare what defin1tion they're operat1ng under. COMMISSION CONCERNS commissioner Orsin1 sa1d he would be absent from the December 5th meet1ng. MOTION by Sharp: SECOND by Orsini that in the absence of a requirement for an emergency session that the regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting of December 19, 1990 be cancelled. MOTION CARRIED: 5 - 0 - 0 AYES: orsini, Sharp, Fife, McCUrdy, Dahlman *** Comm1ssioner Sharp commented on a newspaper article that indicated Rockwell is mak1ng a full investigation re changing the1r heliport. Comm1ssioner Dahlman urged his constituents to write or telephone h1m with their concerns on mun1c1pal Code changes or enforcement. Mr. Cho 1ndicated staff responds to complaints and does not act1vely pursue. Comm1ssioner Dahlman d1scussed a complaint from a College Park West resident re no right turn signs which restrict their access to Long Beach. He asked for more information to understand the problem more. Mr. Wh1ttenberg said staff will pass this matter along to the Publ1C Works Department. Comm1ss1oner Dahlman referenced a letter from James Goodw1n which is an eloquent argument support Council's position 1n denying the Mola proJect. He asked th1s be prov1ded to the C1ty Attorney. commissioner Dahlman said he received the Coastal Commission's Notice of Intent to Issue Perm1t for the Mola Development. What interested him was #7. Geologic Hazard Mitigation - where the Commiss1on references the Le1ghton & Associat1on reports. commissioner Dahlman felt the language was strong and is not the Coastal Comm1ssion's usual verb1age. Chairman Fife asked staff for an update on the noise study along maJor arter1als in Seal Beach. Mr. Wh1ttenberg said the data has been gathered, 1S being analyzed and the Commission could expect a report 1n February 1991. . . .. Page 14 Planning Commisslon Minutes November 28, 1990 Chalrman Fife asked about the Mobil mlni-mart and if Mobll had been notlfled of possible problems. Mr. Whlttenberg said no notlce has been sent and staff is waltlng for city Attorney advlce on what the legal ramificatlons will be. Chalrman Fife said he is not trYlng to eliminate apartments in downtown Seal Beach and said the City should face WhlCh direction it's going on density. STAFF CONCERNS Gas Burnoff on Hellman Ranch Mr. Whittenberg noted a memo from Mr. Cho regarding activitles currently on-going on the Hellman Ranch property regarding a gas lead and a burn off of excess gas that lS accumulatlng while that leak is belng repaired. The burnoff time will depend on the length of tlme the repalr work takes to the gas llne. Mr. Cho learned the entire gas line may be replaced from Huntington Beach to Lomita. Status updates will be provided by staff. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Flfe adJourned the meeting at 9:50 p.m. Respectfully Submltted, ~o~~ Jo n Fillmann, Secretary Plannlng Department THESE MINUTES ARE TENTATIVE AND SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. *** The Mlnutes of November 28, 1990 were approved by the Planning Commission on ~c:e~ '5, lC\qO ~ .