Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Thank you. We'll be right back. . . .

Thank you. Travel down from London in the hope of reaching the Midwest Keep your eyes on the clock I'm sucking

so so

We'll be right back.

We'll be right back.

If there's clouds in the sky, you can dry your eyes If there's rain up above, you can give your love Every day, every day When you smile at me, I can see you're giving all the love that we share And it's all I'm living for every day Every day Every day is sunshine And I'm so glad that you're mine

allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Okay, I'd like to get a roll call, please. Chair Bush? Here. Vice Chair Babineau? Present. Commissioner Theanis?

Here.

Commissioner Palmer?

Here.

Commissioner Goldberg? Here. Commissioner Clifford, present. We have a quorum.

Thank you. Now is the time for public comments for items that are not on the agenda. Again, not on the agenda this evening. Do we have any public comments?

We do not. We do not.

Excellent, excellent. We like that. Public hearing item next on the agenda is the public hearing on appeal of zoning administrators approval of the coastal development permit number 26-006, otherwise known as 205 Pecan, Pecan, Pecan ADUs. Planning commissioners, please state your disclosures starting on my right regarding this item. Nothing to disclose?

Nothing.

Nothing for me? I HAVE NOTHING TO DISCLOSE.

I DID SPEAK WITH COMMISSIONER THENIS ABOUT THE ITEM, SO I'D HAVE TO DISCLOSE THAT, I GUESS. IS THAT RIGHT?

SO LONG AS THERE'S NOTHING TO DISCLOSE.

And also, I'm going to rescind my disclosure, but I did speak with Councilman Grewal as well.

All right. Staff, may we please have a staff report?

Yes, Senior Planner Madeline Willitsch will give the presentation.

Good evening, Chair and members of the Planning Commission. Tonight's item is an appeal of the Zoning Administrator's approval of Coastal Development Permit number 26-006, 205 Pecan Avenue, ADUs. The project is located at 205 Pecan Avenue, which is the northwest corner of Lake Street and Pecan Avenue. The general plan designation for the site is mixed-use specific plan and the zoning designation is SP5CZ, which is our downtown specific plan with a coastal zone overlay. Surrounding uses include single-family residential, commercial, and multi-family residential. This aerial image shows an existing triplex on the site with open space and then three parking stalls at the rear of the site adjacent to an alley. The project request is for a coastal development permit to permit two approximately 420 square feet and 480 square feet detached accessory dwelling units on an existing multifamily property at an overall height of two stories and 18 feet. ADUs are attached or detached residential dwelling units that provide complete independent living facilities and are located on a lot with a proposed or existing primary residence. Here's a view from Pecan Avenue. The subject site is currently developed with a triplex and this image is facing north. The triplex structure has existed on this site since 1932. Entitlements do not exist for the site as it was built prior to the adoption of the zoning ordinance. In the parking stalls that you can see to the left, it's just behind the white fence on the property, was added to the site sometime in the early 2000s. Here's a site plan. This shows, again, the existing triplex, which is not included in the scope of work in tonight's request. And then within the open space area is the proposed ADU location. And then to the left of that is the existing parking area, which is also not included in tonight's request. Here are the elevations of the proposed ADU structure. It shows one ADU on the ground floor and then an ADU on the second floor with stairwell access to the second floor ADU and then the second floor ADU also has a balcony. This coastal development permit was heard by the zoning administrator on July 15th and was approved with conditions. Prior to the zoning administrator's hearing, staff received one phone call from a neighbor in opposition of the ADUs with concerns of parking. On July 22nd, the item was appealed by Councilmember Burns regarding existing parking deficiencies, inadequate backup distance, insufficient parking for the proposed development, and future condominium conversion and setback compliance. State law identifies types of state exempt ADUs that a local agency must permit, which are now called 66323 units. These exempt ADUs do not have to comply with block coverage, parking setbacks, or design standards. However, they must comply with a four-foot rear and side yard setback, as well as building code and health and safety requirements. On multifamily properties, local agencies must permit two detached 66323 ADU units, which is what is being proposed today. The proposed ADUs comply with the 66323 requirements. Regarding the appeal item one for existing parking deficiencies, the site does have three existing parking stalls, which does not comply with current codes requirement for the existing triplex, as the existing triplex would require seven parking spaces. Per ADU state law, a local agency cannot deny an ADU permit due to nonconforming zoning conditions, building code violations, or unpermitted structures that do not present a threat to public health and safety and are not affected by the construction of the accessory dwelling unit. Pursuant to our zoning code, section 231.02, no existing use of land shall be deemed to be nonconforming solely because of the lack of off-street parking. The city cannot require additional compliant parking for the main building due to the proposed ADU project. Requiring zoning corrections as part of this application would be in violation of ADU state law. However, in an effort to maintain the existing spaces on site, the applicant is proposing the ADUs within the existing open space area as opposed to within the parking area. Regarding inadequate backup distance, per the specific plan and the zoning code, residential projects require a 25-foot backup distance from parking stalls. The 25-foot backup space requirement is a code requirement for existing parking spaces and cannot be imposed on this project because there are no changes proposed to the parking area. ADUs that comply with 66323 requirements are only subject to standards that are set forth in that section of ADU state law. regarding insufficient parking for the proposed development. A local agency cannot impose objective development standards such as parking on existing conditions of the site or require any non-conforming zoning conditions to be corrected. Parking is not required for ADU units that are located within half of a mile walking distance to a transit stop. In this case, it's a bus stop. therefore these adus are not required to provide parking regarding future condominium conversion and setback compliance future condominium conversions for adus refer to assembly bill 1033 which the appeal refers to assembly bill 1033 does not automatically apply statewide and a local city council or board of supervisors would have to pass the local ordinance to allow that the city of huntington beach does not have a local ordinance allowing an ADU to be sold as a condominium. ADU state law does not have a specific building separation requirement, and a 10-foot building separation is a development standard that we cannot impose on a 66323 unit. Instead, state law indicates that a minimum distance may not be applied if it would unreasonably restrict the creation of an ADU unless it is a required of a building or fire code. The building division did review the proposed project and the separation for the project. They've indicated that review for compliance will be conducted during the building plan check. Additionally, requiring a 10-foot building separation would push the ADUs towards the existing parking area, which would then impact the existing parking spaces on site. The parking area is not being modified as part of this project, and the loss of parking is not supported. As such, the project is consistent with ADU state law, consistent with the site's general plan land use and zoning designations, and the project will not generate significant environmental impacts in accordance with CEQA. Additionally, the project is located within the coastal zone and is subject to a coastal development permit. The California Coastal Commission supports the creation of ADUs and junior ADUs in existing residential areas that would provide housing units within the coastal zone without affecting coastal access or resources. project as proposed will not adversely affect public access to coastal resources because it will not be removing the existing parking spaces on site the planning commission may either uphold the zoning administrator's decision with or without modifications or take an alternative action and that concludes my presentation and i'm available for any questions i'll also note that the applicant is also in attendance available for questions

Commissioners, do you have any questions starting on my right for staff?

Yeah, I had one question. Just to clarify, you mentioned that obviously the building's been there for a long time. Had the parking requirements complied with our current zoning code, you said it would require seven parking spots?

That's correct. Current code would require seven.

And it has three, correct?

That's correct.

Okay, thank you.

Commissioner Babineau, do you have any questions?

So I have a couple of questions. I thought I saw somewhere that it was 18 feet high, and it's probably inconsequential, right? But somewhere it said 18 feet high, and then Public Works described it as 19 feet.

The project is proposed as 18 feet in height.

Okay.

Seriously, that's a tough question.

Sometimes they don't take it at the peak.

I guess the question when he asked that question, is that measurement taken from the mid span or from the end?

So the measurement of height in the downtown specific plan is taken from the highest point of the center street line.

That was a good question. Okay, so the appeal focuses pretty heavily on parking and alley backup distance. Do we know the depth of the three parking spaces?

Yes, it's 18.46 feet.

And do we know the width of the alley?

I could get that information for you.

Okay. I don't think so. Okay, and so I understand state law may prevent the city from requiring correction of an existing parking deficiency. What evidence establishes that this new construction will not eliminate, obstruct or worsen the usability of the three spaces?

Well, the project is the scope of the project is only focused on the ADU. So they are not proposing to touch or alter the existing parking spaces.

And I did drive by it two nights ago. So in that kind of open space, there's some kind of a canopy or you know, it's a movable object, but it's going to be in that area, right? So the coastal element calls for adequate parking to be maintained and provided in new coastal zone development. How do we make that finding when the existing triplex only has three spaces but would ordinarily require seven under current standards?

So the existing triplex was constructed without any parking at some time in the 2000s. From what we can tell, parking spaces were added at the rear of the site. Within coastal zone areas, parking is important in ensuring that there is sufficient access to coastal resources. And because the ADU project is not imposing on the existing parking, because ADU state law only requires a four foot rear setback, instead they're proposing almost 19 feet to maintain the existing parking. we were able to make the finding that the project is not having any impacts. It's existing parking.

Okay. And 66323 requires rentals to be for terms longer than 30 days. Are there any restrictions that expressly include the conditions of that approval?

Are you referring to the conditions of approval for this project? We don't have a condition of approval that specifically relates to that. with that language?

Vice Chair, I don't think we need a condition because by code, multifamily can only be rented 30 days at a time. If it's anything less than that, it would be a short-term rental, which is a different category.

So the STRs, right, are not applicable in this?

That's not what they're requesting.

Okay. That's all. Nothing further.

Okay, do you have the original site plan that was approved by the zoning administrator? I don't understand why we're here trying to work on this appeal and we're not given all the plans that were available at the zoning administrator's approval. The zoning administrator's approval specifically showed an alley dedication They showed a proposed alley dedication, which is required by our subdivision ordinance for any new work. We have to provide an alley dedication. And that alley dedication moved those parking stalls. And so moving those parking stalls, we can now request, I can't believe what I'm seeing. We can request that they upgrade those parking stalls. Those parking stalls, you moved them. They're not the existing parking stalls because our zoning ordinance requires this dedication of the alley. So we are moving the parking stalls. You have to in order to dedicate the alley.

The applicant is not proposing to touch the existing parking stalls and so we cannot enforce. development standards other than what is listed under the 66323 units on an ADU project.

But how can this board then, how can this board, how can this board make a finding based on something different than what was presented to the zoning administrator. How can you expect us to do that? The zoning administrator had a completely separate set of plans. I think we ought to just move for continuance of this meeting until we have the full package that everybody can review. Because that is not what was in the zoning administrator's package. There was an alley dedication, there was restriping of the parking spaces, there was a hatched area that was being proposed. None of that's on this screen and none of that's in our package. I don't think that's appropriate.

We can pull up the plans that were presented.

Well, I think we should continue this hearing until everybody's had a chance to review what the zoning administrator reviewed. I don't think that's fair to the public to give us half a box of information.

We want to make note that there is no requirement for dedication ultimately for an EDU project.

There was, on the plans approved by the zoning administrator, there was striping for the parking stalls. There was, yeah, that hatched area, that's not out there right now. That is being modified. This plan is modifying those parking spaces.

That's correct.

Okay, so now that you're modifying the parking spaces, we can now comply with our code.

If I may interject, Commissioner Atenas, this is a de novo hearing, so any appeal that is before the board. This is the information that is being presented today and for this item. And the site plan before you is one where the ADU does not touch the existing parking. While the ZA may have looked at a plan where at one point they were requesting to touch it, the meeting now is showing a site plan where it, to clarify, is no longer touching the existing parking area.

therefore that is the information before you and that's where your decision then plays into it so what you're saying is we're now hearing something different than what the zoning administrator approved i believe that that we should be looking at the same that this board should be looking at the same information as a zoning administrator you are given all the information that was provided to the za which is where we are displaying that to you but you are also provided

the updated site plan that reflects where the ADUs being proposed do not touch the parking. So before you and the findings that are suggested by staff and conditions are based on a site plan where the parking area is not being affected. So if you wanted to take both into consideration where the ZA acted on one site plan where there were conditions and if you want to look at those conditions, those are in your packet as well. as well as what's before you is the updated suggested findings and conditions that are also in your packet in attachment one. It's evaluating everything as a whole, as a de novo hearing.

That's not what the notice says. I don't think that's appropriate. I think we are appealing the decisions made by the zoning administrator, and I think we should SEE THIS BOARD SHOULD BE PROVIDED, THIS COMMISSION SHOULD BE PROVIDED THE SAME DOCUMENTS THAT WERE GIVEN TO THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR BECAUSE WE'RE APPEALING THEIR DECISION AND WE SHOULD SEE WHAT THEY APPROVED. AND I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW MAGICALLY ALL THESE DIMENSIONS WORK OUT. THEY DIDN'T ADD UP. No, we had a detailed site plan with all the dimensions, and this package doesn't have that.

Right, so what we're saying is the request is no longer touching the existing parking area, and that's the decision before you, as opposed to potentially what the ZA saw was affecting the parking area.

How do we know, okay, we don't have any entitlement documents. The city doesn't have any entitlement documents available, but how do we know there weren't parking spaces where they're proposing the ADUs? How do we know they weren't there before? How do we know that at one point in time those parking spaces existed?

If I may, in the open- There's a permit history, is there not? Are you referring to the open- When they originally built the structures, as you said, it was a triplex.

Solely on its own and then under their own volition they added three parking spaces so the building is was constructed in 1930 from from what records we can find Dates back to like 1932 there isn't a building permit for the actual triplex. There's a certificate of occupancy that we found are you if you're referring to the open space area and Like saying, are you asking if that area was parking before?

Yeah, how do we not know? How can you be sure that that space was not prior use for parking?

We have aerial imagery that goes back, and it's always been open space. That's why in the presentation we noted sometime in the early 2000s, this parking area was added because of the aerial imagery. We can tell the timeframe of when those stalls were added to the back of the site.

Okay. So are we at an impasse here, Mr. Theanis?

I'm just asking a question, why there's not a detailed site plan?

And we got that answer, I believe, so- So I guess the question to me would be, can we put something in the conditions to clarify that to solve any discrepancy?

Well, I think we're going to, we're just asking questions. I'm sorry.

The suggested condition is that this plan that is dated is the plan that would move forward for permitting, which is that the existing parking area is not affected, the location of the existing fence would stay as is, and they could not encroach into that existing. So if you wanted further to add, I guess, as a body To clarify that, I think you can suggest an additional condition if needed.

Well, just so I understand, with both sides of this issue, we have too much information, but we have updated information.

So the ZA approved it such that it was conditioned not to encroach into the parking area. This plan clarifies that the proposed ADUs will not encroach into the parking area.

Hold on, Ben. Ann's going before you. You can't jump ship. That's all right. No problem. That's all right. I love you. That's all right. No problem. Ann, what's your question? Patient.

Well, I have a comment.

Okay.

And this goes to, maybe we should delay this, but this building's been around since 1932, and we do have parking requirements for buildings in the area. And I've got all the notes on coastal zone, and I understand that the ADU permit is exempt from almost everything. But why would we not call a code enforcement on the original building to get their original building parking in line? They're less than 50% of what they require. So it can't be conditional with this But this project brought up a deficiency in a prime area downtown. And so before they ever get to build anything, again, not a condition, but somebody should have gone in and made those parking requirements. And so after they do that, they can come up with whatever site plan they want. But I don't think that it's appropriate for us to say we want code enforcement to go into the main building structure and land use after these because they'd have to knock something down to make more parking spaces. But that's my concern is I don't understand why it was never brought up. And I know that the ADUs are completely separate, but if we delay the ADUs and somebody looks at that code and it's in that coastal zone area and I've got state laws that say we need to have parking in the coastal zone areas to ensure public access. I think we're doing a disservice to our community. It's not a bad project. It's just that to their point, I couldn't get access to all the documents at first, but I understand. And it looks like they've made some concessions, but the fact that we can't use any leverage to get that parking, I think we should delay this and go back to their original plan and say, well, something turned up and we think we should address it.

So can I just, Mr. Ramos? The site is pre-existing non-conforming and it's grandfathered in.

And our hands are tied to the ADUs because they're not to a standard where you would have new development or existing where they, There's a whole different set of laws here that separate ADUs from what she's talking about in regards to the triplex. And all honesty, they were under no obligation to put the three original parking spaces in there at all. Why they did, it was probably because they had complaining tenants. That's correct. So at this point, we're cutting our losses here because they're not putting in 14 condos, right, in a parking structure. So I guess, I don't know if that answers your question, Commissioner Palmer, but you have existing nonconforming with the triplex. The ADUs is a completely separate issue. That our hands are literally tied by state law. As much as I agree with you.

I have the state law right there.

And I do too, but I'm just saying we can't look at it the same as the triplex. We're precluded by law.

I was making a separate point.

No, I understand. You're saying going back and dealing with the parking issue. When we can't because it's not required because it's existing non-conforming.

Okay. If it is grandfathered in and that absolves them of any responsibility, then I withdraw my comment. But my comment was that in a property that's existing in the coastal zone, in a coastal access area in our downtown that is non-compliant with parking, It's a code enforcement issue unrelated to the ADUs, and it should have been addressed at some other time. If we're saying, no, you can throw that out the window because we promised it was grandfathered in, and they have no responsibility to park anything anywhere, then I withdraw my comment.

Appreciate it. I agree with it all, but again, I think our hands are tied. Mr. Goldberg, do you have a comment?

Yeah, I have a few comments, but the first question was, so let me see if I'm clear on this part of it. This was presented... keeping the existing parking and then there's some challenges when the appeal came in there was some challenges saying well does that go back and we have to look at the the old the existing requirements for parking so they said you know what we're just going to we're going to take it out and basically then you approved it so that we really have no leverage at all because they're saying we're not touching the parking so we're good to go is that what happened

Correct. They are not required to make any changes to the existing parking area if it's not included in part of the scope of work.

All right. And I don't know if we're going to take it. Do we need to hear from them? Are we going to just have them speak? Is that what we're going to do? Because I've got some things to say, but I don't think this is the time. I think this is just question time. So I'm done with my questions. We'll still need to open the public hearing.

We'll still need to open the public hearing.

Okay, fine. Quick time is question for staff right now and I- That was it.

That's all I needed then.

Do you have any further questions of staff? No. Wait, I do.

Yeah, sorry. So just to be clear, there really is no proof on any document in the city that this was originally approved with any parking stalls. Three, five, nobody knows.

The record we have is a certificate of occupancy, which identifies a triplex and with zero parking, it specifically says.

Thank you. Mr. Babineau. Okay. I think we're done. Thank you, staff. With no further questions, we will now open the public hearing. Do we have any speakers?

We just have the applicant, Marcus Keemer. Please approach the podium. You have three minutes to speak.

GOOD EVENING. GO AHEAD AND SPEAK AT YOUR WILL.

EXCELLENT PLANNERS HERE. AND WE WERE UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT WE HAD AN APPROVED PROJECT AND THEN SUDDENLY THERE WAS AN APPEAL. AND SO WE WERE NOW FORCED INTO A SITUATION WHERE STATE LAW PRETTY MUCH GOVERNS THAT WE AREN'T IF WE DON'T TOUCH THE PARKING AND WE JUST FOCUS ON THE ADU SPECIFICALLY, THAT STATE LAW WOULD ALLOW THAT IN ITS ENTIRETY. SO BASICALLY, THAT'S WHERE WE'RE KIND OF STAND AT THIS POINT.

NEW SPEAKER THANK YOU. OKAY. SO THANK YOU FOR THAT INPUT. AND I GUESS THAT'S ALL WE NEED FROM YOU.

NEW SPEAKER THANK YOU.

NEW SPEAKER AT THIS TIME, ARE THERE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS? If you could please state your name and what else do you need?

So I'm Rochelle Crackiello and I'm a long term resident of Huntington Beach. I've been here since 1973. And I'm the owner of Teacher Creative Materials. And we've developed with Marcus Kempler a lot of pieces of property here that we bought similar to this at our rundown. And then we've developed them, I think, and really did a lot of work on them that's enhanced the city. And had a lot of good advice from your planning commission. But this one piece of property is perplexing. My daughter owns it. I'm the project manager on it. I've worked with Marcus for over 20 years and my contractor. And we've worked on this property for two years. to try to build the ADUs. My daughter owns it. She has three children. She's hoping that two of them, when they get out of college, will live here and stay in Huntington Beach. We've put $50,000 into this project so far. And we're probably going to put, I guarantee you it'll be beautiful when we finish it. We'll probably put close to a million dollars in this project, improving the three pieces of property that are there. As we've worked with the city, we've done everything you've asked us to do, okay? If you find a mistake or they're reading the codes and they're trying to understand everything, we change and work really well. I think that the staff has been working hard on this. We've been working hard to do what the city wants us to do. And I feel like this is my first time coming to the planning commission because we're totally road blocked on everything on this piece of property. At the end, we were told from the beginning we wouldn't have invested money if we didn't think we could do it. So there's been lots of changes, back and forth, back and forth. Our contractors were hired, they were ready to start. And then I'm listening today and it's a little bit anti-business. I think this will improve the city. We're doing what the rules are. I don't make the rules for parking. I don't make the rules for ADUs. But I know that these units, even the small ones that are there, they run immediately because people need low cost housing. And it's necessary here in Huntington Beach. So anyway, I just want to commend the staff, commend the people that work for me. But I am frustrated because I'm overseeing the project and I feel like I want to do what you want to do. I want to do something good for the city. But I hope you pass it and I know you'll be happy with the project when it's finished. Thank you.

Thank you, ma'am. That's it for public speakers, so we'll now close the public hearing. Planning commissioners will now deliberate this item. I'll start on my right with the deliberation. Ken's good.

Okay, I disagree with, well, first of all, I disagree with one of our findings. the statement made in the findings in fact that it will not inhibit coastal access and inhibit access to our coastal resources. When you look at our coastal requirements, we actually have a higher parking requirements by the Coastal Commission. in coastal areas, and that's because we want to provide parking spaces available. Excuse me, parking spaces for people who visit our beaches. And building, let's face it, this is not good for the city. This is a state law that is going to put five units in place that need, I don't know, seven, eight parking spaces per our code. It's going to impact the businesses. It's going to impact the businesses' ability to do business because the businesses are going to compete with the parking for these units. We need to do everything we can to try to enforce the good codes that we have. We've developed these parking standards. We've developed our development codes. They're very good development codes. They're based on a lot of information. We've got these mandates that came down from Sacramento. that are destroying our cities. And I applaud you for taking advantage of that, but that's what's happening. These are not good for the city. And so I disagree with the statement that it's not going to impede coastal access. I think talking to Councilman Burns about areas where the parking's highly impacted, we can, we have the right as a as a commission to state a life safety issue. And when workers are parking blocks away and walking at night to their apartments, that creates a dangerous situation. That's why they have gated Parking structures is to protect people. And so when you look at downtown or that's Long Beach and some of the areas where there's just no parking, people are parking a long ways away from where they live. And they could be service workers because maybe that's the people who live here, I don't know. But we've got people who will have to be walking late at night to their residence. And so I think that it is inhibiting coastal access. Not sure that matters in the approval process. And I'm sorry it took two years to get through this process. I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY IT TOOK SO LONG, BUT IT IS NOT GOOD FOR OUR CITY. I GET IT, WE ARE STUCK WITH THE STATE MANDATES, BUT WE ARE BEING ASKED TO REVIEW A ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S APPROVAL, AND I WOULD LIKE TO I request a continuance to look and see how all those dimensions worked out, because I had a problem with it. And I think we should be looking at the site plan that was approved, and you can say, okay, this is what was approved, but this is what we changed. And I'm sorry if I'm putting up roadblocks, but yeah, that's what I'm doing, because that's what we need to do. If we can stop these ADUs and violating through state law are very well thought out building codes, then I think we should do everything we can to stop them. So that's my opinion. Ms. Palmer?

Well, I have to agree fundamentally with what you're saying, but it is a state thing. But it's interesting that you include in the goals the very things that these this plan violates. So promotes public access and balances development with facility needs, provide coastal resource access opportunities for the public, ensure that adequate parking is maintained in all new developments in the coastal zone. So I guess in defiance of the state, I think it's fundamentally wrong. I lived in Santa Monica at a time where There were two parking spaces for every nine people. And I think that approving these things without looking at the very best we can possibly do for ingress, egress, and daily life, I don't think anybody living downtown is going to take a bus. To be honest, I think they're going to have a car. I think it's going to be on the street. And I think we should do something about it.

Thank you. Mr. Goldberg. Yeah. First of all, for the record, I'm not a big fan of these ADUs at all. I'm very familiar with them. Long Beach was a pioneer in ADUs. They loved them open arms and they can't wait to build more and more. They'd love to scrape every neighborhood in the city and make all ADUs on what used to be regular single family homes. With that said, As a person who's been on commissions for a very long time and has unfortunately seen projects like this, we lost the battle. This is a state battle, guys. Give me one that we can win and I'm happy to postpone or do what have you. This is not the one that we're going to draw the line on and we're going to win this one. If we're picking and choosing, in my opinion, this is certainly just my opinion as one commissioner, I think that at this point they've done everything they can after after being identified as having an issue with possible parking with grandfather, they went ahead and just took it out to avoid any possibility of us torpedoing the idea. I'm going to have to, just in my opinion as a commissioner, I will have to approve this project to allow it to go forward.

So my two cents, I'll throw my shuckle in there. It's kind of like as I'm sitting here, we're cutting losses. It's really what we're doing. I agree with you, Mr. Goldberg. I agree that it's a state law. We know what the city is going through. We know what the balance of power is here. I kind of agree with everybody here. But when it gets down to it, are we going to side with the law whether we agree with it or not? And in good conscience, you know, I can't see not approving it based on that. I don't see continuing it that it's going to benefit anybody for really semantics because ultimately we've had staff who's done a professional job update us on what's current. So we would only be continuing it. for the sake of continuing it, not to change the information that staff's already updated us on. So I don't feel like I'm holding my nose because it's a triplex with two ADUs. And like you said, having worked in the city of Long Beach for 30 years myself, I've seen much worse projects. Not that that's the way I want to entertain the owners that are trying to Beautify the city the best that they can given what's in front of them So that being said I'll probably be voting for this based on all the circumstances With that do I have a motion?

Second Chair Bush For the record, I just want to clarify that the motion is to uphold the zoning administrator's approval. Yes, that is the motion, yes. Correct.

So I have first Goldberg and second Britt Bush.

I don't have anything coming up on my board. Let me see if I can.

Wait, how do we do that if, sorry, but how do we do that if the zoning administrator's approval is based on a different set of plans?

No, we're approving the plans that are going to hold up to scrutiny, and that's these ones that we're looking at right now. That's my motion. Is to deny the appeal, right? I'm denying the appeal.

I guess here's my question.

Suggested findings.

What is the legal record as of right now? What is the legal record? Is it what was presented to us tonight, yes or no? Yes, so that's our legal record, not the prior one, correct? Okay, so that's what I'm voting on.

That was my motion as well.

All right.

I need clarification. The appeal was on the previous findings, right? So we're actually voting to approve this modification, not what was brought up in the appeal. So I think we need to clearly define that.

So the action would be to find the project categorically exempt from CEQA, which is action A of the agenda. And then B, approve the CDP with suggested findings and conditions per attachment number one, which includes this updated site plan that clarifies the location of the ADU.

But that's not categorically denying the appeal, because the appeal was made on the previous plan.

It would just be approving the project. So that, in a sense, is upholding the ZA's action, which was approval. Yes, there were separate findings or adjusted findings and conditions. So the findings and conditions before you is an attachment one, which includes the site plan before you.

And it's dated?

That's correct.

I still don't have anything up. Do you have anything up? So the three of us here.

Okay, I'll go ahead and do a roll call for a vote. Bryant-Denas?

No.

Brett Bush?

Yes.

Bavinu?

No.

Ann Palmer? No. Dave Clifford?

No.

Benjamin Goldberg?

Yes.

No.

Oh, motion failed. Sorry.

OK, .

Staff, you're supposed to announce something at this point.

The planning commission's action is final unless an appeal is filed to the city council within ten working days. An appeal must include the reasons for the appeal and the fee and shall be filed with the city clerk's office within ten working days.

Since the previous motion failed, at this time it would be proper to entertain a new motion, whether that be denial or continuance, whatever the comprise, but the appropriate thing would be to consider- Thank you.

Does anybody want to make another motion? There is no other motion.

Question on that note. Could we approve with the condition that they get up to code with parking?

We cannot require parking requirements for the ADU.

Well, it wouldn't be for the ADU.

The scope of work is specifically for the ADU, so we cannot impose development standards that would preclude the construction of an ADU.

Okay, so that's final at this point, so we can move on?

If the intent is to deny the project, there should be a motion to deny, and that must be seconded and voted on. Otherwise, a motion to continue would be in order.

Okay, I'll make a motion to deny.

I'll second that motion.

Can I still, before we vote, can I make a comment or no? We're done? I think you can make a comment. All right, I'm just going to say this to you guys. As much as I don't want to see ADUs in this town, just like anyone else would love to say that, we're basically going against state law here, and that's fine. We can deny this tonight and feel good about ourselves that we did what we felt our heart was the right thing to do, but what we're putting ourselves in jeopardy of is that we're going to have This will appeal and they'll certainly win an appeal, and if it doesn't win an appeal, we're going to get sued. That's my personal opinion.

Well, since we're making comments, we put ourselves in danger of going against state law in making the state's case of putting us in some type of receivership when it comes to our zoning, correct? But- Mr. Ramos? Perhaps. I think we're- So there's something bigger here than just saying no. You need to understand what's in front of us. I suppose you're saying this is the hill we don't want to die on, and that's fine. I don't see it as the hill that we want to die on. But if that's your guy's determination, that's your determination. But understand, the lie is not on our side, that's it. So when you make this motion, if you think you're helping the city of Huntington Beach, then hey, let your conscience be your guide. I don't see it that way.

We have a motion and a second. I think we need a vote.

So it was mover, Babineau, and second, Ortinez. Yes?

Yeah, I second.

And then? I'VE STARTED THE VOTING. BRIAN THENIS.

YES TO DENY.

BRETT BUSH.

NO TO DENY.

BABENOU.

YES.

ANN PALMER.

YES TO DENY.

DAVE CLIFFORD.

YES.

GOLDBERG. Motion passes to deny.

Okay, do we feel complete now? We can move on? Okay. Yeah. Do you need to make another statement, Ricky?

Yeah, let me go ahead and do it. The plan commission's action is final unless an appeal is filed to the city council within ten working days. An appeal must include the reasons for the appeal and the fee and shall be filed with the city clerk's office within ten working days.

Thank you. Again, we're going to move on to the consent calendar. Next on the agenda is a consent calendar to approve some minutes. If there's any motion, is there a motion, excuse me, to approve the minutes as submitted? I need a first and a second for June 23rd.

I move to approve.

I'll second that. All right. Do we have any, we have no non-public hearings? Wait, do we need to vote on that?

Yes. You have to vote on it.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

I'm your neighbor. Shame on all of you. I don't want to be a part of you disagreeing with the state.

I'm following the state law, and I'm trying to make our city better. Thank you, ma'am. Thank you. Shame on all of you. You had your time to talk. Thank you, ma'am.

Okay, I will call for vote. Dinas, on the minutes.

Yes.

Brad Bush?

Yes.

Babineau?

Yes.

Palmer? Yes. Dave Clifford.

Yes.

And we have Goldberg abstaining. Motion passes to approve the minutes.

Chair Bush, if I may, just for future reference. The vote with respect to the minutes is just to reflect their accuracy, whether they're accurate or not. It's not necessary for a commissioner to have attended in order to vote that they're accurate. It doesn't affect this motion, but just for future reference. Thank you.

I didn't know that. Good. So we did good business when you weren't here is what he's saying.

You're okay to approve that.

All right. So we're done with that vote. And we have no public hearing items on the planning items. Next on the agenda are the planning items. Can staff provide us a report?

Yes. For the next meeting, we have a couple of projects downtown that are on THE AGENDA, IT'S A COUPLE OF LIVED WORK PROJECTS FOR THE NEXT MEETING.

ALL RIGHT. POTENTIALLY. SO AGAIN ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS BEFORE WE CLOSE FOR THE EVENING, PLANNING COMMISSIONERS, DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS TO PROVIDE? WE'LL START ON MY RIGHT. NOTHING TO ADD. NO COMMENTS. I THINK I MADE MY COMMENTS. I JUST THINK THAT We need to be wary about where we're walking right now as a planning commission in regards to the state law. We don't have a legal foundation to stand on. And I think that if we're gonna fight just to fight that we need to have some legal standing because this has been wrought out through the courts pretty extensively. And I'm not in disagreement with our council when I say this. But I just think we need to be wise about where we're going, what we're doing here on this commission. And I'm not saying it personally, I'm just saying professionally and legally, we're standing on thin ice right now, I believe. And if Mr. Sanchez, if you see it some other way, I would love to know, but.

No, Chair Bush, I agree with the substantive analysis that you provided with respect to this item.

All right, so Mr. Theanus.

Yeah, well, I personally think that we should do everything we can to protect the integrity of this city. People bought into single family residential neighborhoods and spent a lot of money and spent their lives paying off their mortgages. And they want to live in a single family residential neighborhood. And these ADUs are an unfair attack from Sacramento on our neighborhoods. And unfortunately, the prior city council prior to five years ago or so, there was a lawsuit regarding these ADUs and it was dismissed with prejudice. And I still think that, A city's job is to protect the integrity of the city. That's the whole purpose of this board. That's why we're here, is to protect the integrity of this city and to do everything we can within our power to make sure that we do everything we can to protect what we've got. And if we have to throw up some roadblocks in the meantime while we wait for reason to prevail, because I think eventually reason is going to prevail. And I think a lot of these laws are going to be overturned because they're just destroying our community. So anything we can do to stop, and that's why I took the position. And that's why we appealed the project, and so they changed it. But anyway, I think we've got to do everything we can to protect our communities. Thanks. Thank you, Ann. Ms. Palmer?

I just want to say that part of what we do is discretionary. So I'm very aware of the laws, but I'm also aware of other communities fighting projects like this. So there's some wiggle room in what we think and what we say.

Mr. Goldberg. And again, I want to reiterate that I agree with your sentiment completely, and I am very much opposed to cluttering our neighborhoods and destroying them. But again, I still feel that the way that I represented my position here on this commission was thoughtful as far as the city of Huntington Beach, as far as putting us in other legal jeopardies that we've already been enthralled in for the last five years plus. But anyway, with that said, I did want to mention one thing. before we go and that is 25 years ago this Friday, we had a terrible tragedy in this country and I was working for Morgan Stanley at the time and had many friends there in that building. When it came down, we were very fortunate for Morgan Stanley in building two. They were fully evacuated with the exception of a couple of holdouts and the security staff that were the heroes of that day that cleared and told them do not listen to the building staff security and to get out of that building as quickly as they could and I had a trainee when I was a branch manager there on site and about six or seven months later his day planner was mailed to him if that gives you any idea of the eeriness of that. So with that said I hope we'll all say a few prayers, especially this Friday, and make sure that we remember and we tell our kids and we tell our grandkids of this terrible day so that we don't forget and allow it to happen again. So with that, I'd like to just ask that we all think about 9-11 and what an important day that was in our country and turning point. Thank you.

Thank you. Very important. Okay, that is the last item on the agenda. We are hereby adjourned until the next Planning Commission on Tuesday, September 22nd.

I'm keeping my eyes on the clock I'm sucking my stick from right to wrong Leading to