HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC_Minutes_1983RES . DATE
NO. ADOPTED
82-33 ll/J/82
82-34 11/16/82
I ,
82-35 11/16/82
82-36 11/16/82
LOCATION
715 3rd St. tentative map
#36125
CITY-WIDE
1431 Monterey tentative
map #142£$6
"Thompson property" and
•11 Priamos Property 0
DESCRIPTION ·
RESOLUTION approving a 6-unit condo-
minium ant tentative map #36125
RESOLUTION of intention to hold a
public hearing to c9nsider amending
the zoning code by redeftning Hotel
Motel
RESOLUTION approving a·2-unit ·condo-
minium tentative map #14276
RESOLUTION recommending to the City
Council to rezone areas known
as "Thompson Property" & "Priamos
Prbperty"
RES.
NO.
83-30
8J-J3
83-32
DATE
ADOPTED
12-20-83
1-4-84
1-4-84
LOCATION
City Wide
City Wide
166 Hermosa Avenue
----
DESCRIPTION
Resolution rescinding Resolution
P.C. 83-25, retaining H.B. Cit)
foning Section 1103 as is.
To consider amending 'the Zonirl!i
Code, Section 11.5, OFF STREET
PARKING to include a provision
for on Street Parking spaces
lost due to curb cuts and/or
driveways.
Approving a 5-Unit Condo and
CUP for propE:,rtY located at
166 Hermosa Avenue, Tentative
Tract Map #43055.
RES.
NO.
83-·l 8
83-19
83-20
83-21
83-22
83-23 '
83-24
83-25
83-26
83-27
83-28
83-29
83-3·1
DATE
ADOPTED
6/7 /83
7/5/83
9/6/83
9/6/83
8/2/83
9/20/83
9/20
LOCATION
City Wide
715-723 3rd Street
1800 blk. of Harper
166 Hermosa Avenue
40 PCH-Caseys Cars
CITY WIDE
CITY WIDE
City Wide
10-18-83 608 .612 Loma Drive
DESCRIPTION
Resolution of Intention to
consider amending the zoning
code to include a section per-
taining specifically to satelli e
receiving antennae.
Resolution approving a 7-unit
condominium & CUP.
Resolution approving zone chang
from Open space to R-1 -
Resolution approving zone chang
from C-1 to R-3.
Resolution approving pre-fab
building design characterists.
Resolution Amending Art. 12 to
include Sec. re:Satelite Antenn
esolution deleting rooming/
oarding/lodging from Hotel/Mote
~solution adciptf~g -in amendmen
·rr the regulations governing t h
-Potential zone along P.C. ·H.
Resolution approving a time ex
tension for tentative tract ma
#14584 and conditional use
permit.
10-18-83 1220 Monterey Boulevard Resolution approving a 2-unit
condominium and conditional us
permit.
10-18-83 1272 Strand -Poop Deck Resolution approving a ~atelli
.antenna.
10-18-83 City Wide
12-20-83 City Wide
Resolution approving the estab
lishing of procedures and re-
quirements for the considerati
of Development Agreements unde
government code section 65864-
65869.5
Resolution a~prbving and recom-
mending to the City Council of
H.B. the adoption of the housin
element.
RES.
NO.
83-9
83-10
83-11
83-12
83-lJ
83-14
83-15
83-16
L_ 83-17
DATE
ADOPTED
4/5/83
4/19/83
4/19/83
4/19/83
4/19/83
4/19/83
6/7 /83
6/7 /83
6/7 /83
LOCATION
732 Manhattan Ave.
1442-48 Manhattan
651 Fourth Street
City wide
Cii:\y wide
City wide
1800 Prospect Avenue
Boatyard Site
440-2nd Street
100-112 Monterey
DESCRIPTION
Resolution approving a
2-uni t condominium and
parcel map #15562.
Resolution approving a
6 mo. ti me extension
for tentative tract map
#42255 & CUP.
Resolution approving a
12 mo. time extension
~for tentative parcel map
#14366 and CUP.
Resolution denying an amend -
ment to the C-potential zone
along Pacific Coast Highway
Resolution approving modifi-
cations to the standard cond -
itions of approval for resi-
dential condominium pro-
jects .
. • Resolution denying an amend -
ment to t he zoning code,
section 1165, parking area
in R-3 or R-P zones, to allow
parking lots in R-3 zones .
Resolution of the Planning
Cammi ss ion approving a lot .1 in
adjustment at 1800 Prospect
Avenue, Hermosa View School.
Resolution approving final plan
for 75 condos. Map #22187 and
CUP for property located at
440-2nd Street.
Resolution approving 7 unit con o
CUP & Map #42874 at 100 -112
Monterey.
\ -,,/ t ---
RES.
NO.
83-1
83-2
83-3 _
83-5
83-4
• 83-6
83-7
83-8
DATE
ADOPTED
4/5/83
LOCATION
CITY-WIDE
CITY-WIDE
CITY-WIDE
SEAVIEW PROPERTY
CITY-WIDE
1833 p,-.'C. H.
CITY-WIDE
2519 Valley Drive
DESCRIPTION
RESOLUTION reaffirming cu -
rent standards for condo-
minium conversions and
stating a philosophy re-
lating to condominium
conversions in the commun
ity.
RESOLUTION to not approve
the concept of bed and
breakfast for rent rooms
in the City.
RESOLUTION amending Arti-
cles 2 and 11.5 of City
Zoning Code; redefining
motel, hotel and defining
boarding house, rooming
house and lodging house.
RESOLUTION to hold public
hearing to consider Pezon-
ing prope1°ty to commercial
planned devedlopment.
RESOLUTION amending Artilce 6 o
he zoning code to include board
ing house, rooming house and
lodging house as permitted uses
and amending Article 10 by modi
fying these uses .
RESOLUTION approving a time ex-
tension for Tentative Tract Map
#40578
RESOLUTION denying a proposed
amendment to Zoning Code Articl
8 , Section 802, eliminating the
3 story height limit on struct-
ures in Commercial zones.
e s. amending Land Use
lement of G.P. from Open
pace to Commercial, and a
o ne change from Manufac-
uring to C-2.
·--
ORDINANCE NO. 83-
1
2 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL ESTABLISHING PROCEDURES AND
3
REQUIREMENTS FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS
UNDER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION §§65864-65869.5.
4 WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on and the Planning
Commission held a public hearing on September 20, 1983 to consider this matter; and 5 ' .
WHEREAS, Government Code §§ 65864-65869.5 authorizes cities and counties to
6 enter into binding development agreements with persons having legal or equitable
interests in real property for the development of such property and authorize the City
7 to establish procedures for consideration of applications for such agreements; and
8 WHEREAS, a set of procedures and requirements for consideration of development
agreements has been proposed, has been the subject of public hearings and the
9 Planning Commission has recommended that the City adopt such regulations; and
10 WHEREAS, it is in the public interest to do so and the public health, safety, and
11
12
welfare will be promoted.
NO\v, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE ZONING ORDINANCE
NS 154 BE AMENDED AS FOLLOWS:
13 SECTION, f. There shall be added a new Article 15.5 to read in full as follows:
14 Section 15.1-1 Processing Proposed Development Agreem ents
A d evelopment agreem ent which may b e pro posed by the City or any person
having a legal or equitable iQterest in real property shall be processed in the
manner of a zone change as pr;ovided in Article 15 and shall conform to the
requirements of Article 2.5 (commencing with Section 6586.4) Division 1, of the
Government Code entitled "Development Agreements".
15
16
17
Section 15J-2 Periodic Review of Development A greem ents
18 Any approved development agreement shall b e reviewed by the Planning
Commission (whose decision may be appealed to th~ City Council in writing
H) within ten days after the Planning Commission dedsion on review) at least
every 12 _months after the approval of the agreement. The review shall be
20 preceeded by reasonable notice to the other party of the time of review and of
any evidence that the agreement is not being complied with.
21 !
Section 15.1-3 Action to Determine Validi ty . -. --.. -·· -
22 An action to d eterm ine the validity of a development agreement entered into by
the City of Hermosa Beach, or any amendment or modification to it~-may be
brought pursuant to Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 860) of Title 10 of
Part 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
23
24
25
26
27
28
2!l
,·
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2fl
SECTION 2.
adoption.
That the ordinance shall take effect thirty days after the date of it
SECTION 3. That prior to the expiration of fifteen days after the date of it
adoption, the City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be publistJed in the Easy Reader
a weekly newspaper of general circulation, published and circulated in the City o
Hermosa Beach, California
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this day of
PRESIDENT.~of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa
Beach, California
,, '
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
CITY ATTORNEY
-2-
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
HELD IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS ON NOVEMBER 17, 1983 AT 7:30 P.M.
Meeting called to order by Chmn. Izant at 7:30 P.M.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Comms. Shapiro, Soulaki s , Smith, Strohecker, Chmn.
Izant
ABSENT: Comms. Brown, Newton
ALSO PRESENT: Pamela Sapetto, Planning Director, Ralph CastanPda,
Canaultant TDC; Kim Reardon Cutes, Planning Intern
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Motion by Comm. Strohecker, seconded by Comm. Soulakis, to approve
the October 18, 1983 minutes with the following corrections:
All pages, change "Stroehecker" to "Strohecker."
Page 4~ middle of the page, change, "Comm. Soulakis stated that
he was not concerned that the eaves encroached on the property
line" to "Comm. Soulakis was concerned whether the eaves encroach ~d
into the setback, as opposed to the property line." Also, delete
the following sentence.
Page 7, middle of the page, change, "Comm. Soulakis requested
the definition of a density bonus" to indicate that Comm. Strohecker
requested the definition.
Page 9, paragraph 3, not that Comm. Soulakis did not recommend
making a statement in the Housing Element.
Page 9, paragraph 5, change the wording to indicate that Comm.
Soulakis felt that the accelerated variances should apply equally
to the remodel of new homes.
Page 10, paragraph 3, should read, "Comm. Shapiro stated that the
procedure should be the same with existing and new construction."
Page 14, Commissioners' Items, Comm. Shapiro requested that a
paragraph that was given to staff be inserted concerning the Mayor
of Redondo Beach who stated that all illegal imigrants should be
relocated to Hermosa Beach.
Page 1, Comm. Smith was absent due to business. Note his absence
on all pages.
No objections; so ordered.
\ /
PLANNING COf\AMISSION MINlITES -November 17, 1983 Page 2
APPROVAL OF RESOLlITIONS
Motion by Comm. Strohecker, seconded by Comm. Shapiro, to approve
Resolutions P.C. 83-26, 83-27, 83-28, and 83-29.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Shapiro, Soulakis, Strohecker, Chmn. Izant
None
Comm. Smith
Comms. Brown, Newton
AMENDING THE ZONING CODE: C-POTENTIAL PROPERTIES ALONG PACIFI C
COAST HIGHWAY
Ms. Sapetto gave staff report. She recommended that the Commission
allow Code Section 1103 of the Zoning Code to remain as is and not
be amended. The mechanism that the Commission had adopted to
implement was determined to be not a legal method by the City
Attorney. The question at hand is whether or not the City should
change the manner in which C-potential property is translated into
commercial property. The City Council had requested the Commission
to look at the mechanism in the Code and to determine whether or
not it needs to be changed, the rationale being that the viability
of the multi-use corridor requires strengthening and that the
commercial development is best suited for Pacific Coast Highway
and that the existing mechanism by which C-potential property is
transformed is not the most functional. The Planning Commission
approved amending the Code by including a provision that when a
property was rezoned and subsequently the project denied, an
automatic rezone could happen with the property reverting back to
its original zone. Likewise, the Commission required an automatic
rezone for the translation of the C-potential property into commercial.
The only discretionary act the Commission was going to retain was
the approval of the actual project itself. That was determined
not to be a legal mechanism. At this time an applicant may come
before the Commission for a zone change request and bring a specific
plan, have his plan approved, and have the zone changed all at
the same time by the Commission. The applicant does have the option
to simply ask for a zone change with a review at a later date;
however, most applicants request both at the same time. If the
Commission feels that the requirement of the specific plan is
burdensome and asking too much on the part of the developer, the
only solution to answer the concerns of the Commission would be to
create certain development standards particular to those parcels,
as compared to the regular C-3 standards. If the Commission does
not wish to implement standards applicable to all commercial
development abutting residential properties but still wishes to
examine each development on a case-by-case basis, the Commission
can delete the requirement for a specific plan and require a
conditional use permit for every commercial property that is built.
\
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -November 17, 1983
AMENDING THE ZONING CODE: C-POTENTIAL PROPERTIES ALONG PACIFIC
COAST HIGHWAY (Cont. )
Page 3
At that point, the Commission would be extending the review period for all
commercial property. Presently, C-1, C-2, and C-3 properties do not require
any Planning Commission review because there is no conditional use permit
required. By deleting the specific plan requirement and requiring a
conditional use permit, the Commission would be creating more review, rather
than less review. She felt there was no way to expedite zone changes for
commercial development on C-potential property and still obtain the Planning
Commission review unless all C-potential properties are rezoned at the same
time on a city-wide basis or unless the Planning Commission implements
new development standards for the C-potential properties. The simplest
way is to keep a specific plan review with a zone change request.
Comm. Smith questioned whether 81-21 was adopted by the City Council.
Ms. Sapetto replied in the affirmative; however, it was revoked by the
newly-elected City Council.
Comm. Smith questioned whether the motion/resolution passed by the
Planning Commission in relation to C-potential properties had been before
the City Council.
Ms. Sapetto stated that it was revoked because of the City Attorney's .
opinion; however, the City Council indicated that they were not interested
in re-examining it.
Comm. Smith asked whether the request to examine the C-potential properties
originally came from the City Council.
Ms. Sapetto replied that the original request was from the City Council.
Comm. Smith questioned whether the motion and resolution passed by the
Planning Commission in reqard to C-potential included anything dealing
with standards for properties abutting residential.
Ms. Sapetto replied in the negative, She stated, however, that there
were concerns by the Planning Commission that the corridor would best
be served if lots were assessed individually regarding their utilities
as residential versus commercial property.
Comm. Smith asked whether a specific plan was identical to a precise
plan.
Ms. Sapetto replied that they were on in the same,
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -November 17, 1983 Page 4
AMENDING THE ZONING CODE: C-POTENTIAL PROPERTIES ALONG PACIFIC
COAST HIGHWAY ( Cont.)
Comm. Soulakis asked if C-3 is the only option if one files for a rezone
in a C-potential zone.
Ms. Sapetto replied in the affirmative.
Chmn. Izant asked if there were any properties with C-2 potential.
Ms. Sapetto replied that C-2 potential limits only the use; it does not
limit the development standards. The height limitations, setback re-
quirements, et cetera, are the same for C-2 potential as it is for
C-3 potential.
Comm. Smith felt that Section 1103 of the Zoning Code did not adequately
reflect what a specific plan consists of.
Ms. Sapetto stated that a precise planis the actual preliminary drawings
of the structure.
Comm. Soulakis questioned whether an alternative would be to have modified
reduced development standards. He asked whether the Corrnnission has the
option of zoning the property either C-1 or C-2.
Ms. Sapetto replied that the C-1 and C-2 zones have the same development
standards; the only difference is the use. The uses pertinent to C-1
are neighborhood commercial ~ses, and the uses pertinent to C-2 are down-
town uses. Second Street and ''Five Corners'' are C-1 areas; the downtown
area is in the C-2 sone, and along the highway and Aviation are C-3 zones.
Comm. Shapiro asked for the original purpose of the two-step request.
Ms. Sapetto replied that it was done at the time the Zoning Code was adopted;
therefore, it would be difficult to understand the rationale. She stated
that it was most likely to maintain a Planning Commission review.
Comm. Smith questioned whether C-potential were contiguous only to .C-3.
Ms. Sapetto replied in the affirmative.
Public Hearing opened at 8:04 P.M.
Wilma Burt, 1152 Seventh Street, Hermosa Beach, felt that the C-potential
along the east side of the Highway should be rezoned. She stated that
C-potential originated when the City Council desired high-rise buildings
along the Highway. These buildings
PLANNING COMMISSION MINlJfES -November 17, 1983 Page 5
AMENDING THE ZONING CODE: C-POTENTIAL PROPERTIES ALOI\(; PACIF I C
COAST HIGHWAY (Cont.)
were to be built on the east end with the parking lots toward
the Highway for ease of parking. If a tall building were constructed
on the east side of Ocean Drive, it would obstruct many views.
She believed many areas were in need of rezoning, especially
areas with steep grades such as 14th Street. She stated that
the west side of the Highway is flat, and it is at a downward
slope. She spoke in opposition to block busting in C-potential
zones. She believed C-3 zones should be contiguous to other
C-3 zones. She did not favor having C-3 property in the same
block as residential. She believed there should be protection
for the persons on the other side.
Public Hearing closed at 8:12 P.M.
Comm. Smith stated that he could see no reason for changing the
zones on the properties in question. He believed that the only
action might be to strengthen the precise plan. He was not
concerned that Hermosa Beach would have any block busting. He
believed that the Zoning Code should be left as it stands at
this time.
Chmn. Izant questioned whether the Commission was obligated to
take action on this item.
Ms. Sapetto replied in the affirmative, stating that a Resolution
must be made, and reasons must be given as to why the Commission
does not want to change the ordinance.
Chmn. Izant stated that a resolution would be something to the
effect that "The Planning Commission recommends to the City Council
that no change be made in Code Section 1103."
Comm. Smith felt that the most significant factor is that the
Commission is cognizant of the City Attorney's opinion.
Chmn. Izant stated that the above would go in the resolution.
Ms. Sapetto stated that the Resolution would show that the
Commission feels that each project should be examined on a
site-by-site basis.
Comm. Smith questioned whether the above recommendation is, in
effect, saying that the current ordinance wording sufficiently
handles the need for a precise plan on each project.
Chmn. Izant replied in the affirmative.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -November 17, 1983 Page 6
AME NDING THE ZONING CODE : C-POTENTIAL PROPERTIE S AL ONG PACIFIC
COAST HI GH WAY (Cont.)
Motion by Comm. Smith, seconded by Comm. Strohecker, to recommend
to the City Council that no change be made in Code Section 1103.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Comms. Shapiro, Smith, Soulakis, Strohecker, Chmn. Izant
None
Comms. Brown, Newton
Motion by Comm. Smith, seconded by Comm. Strohecker, to make
Resolution P.C. 83-30, that being, "WHEREAS, the previously-adopted
Resolution to amend the Zoning Code creating an automatic rezone
was determined not a legal mechanism by the City Attorney; WHEREAS.
each project should be examined on an individual basis;WHEREAS, the
current ordinance provides a reasonable balance for the property
owner and surrounding developed properties. THE PLANNING COMMISSION
HEREBY RESOLVES to recommend to the City Council not to amend
the Zoning Code, Section 1103."
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Comms. Shapiro, Smith, Soulakis, Strohecker, Chmn. Izant
None
Comms. Brown, Newton
REVISIONS TO THE HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN
Ms. Castaneda gave staff report. He stated that the Planning
Commission had expressed a desire to adopt and forward to the
City Council the Housing Element. The Council had requested
the Commission to discuss six items. Those six items were
reviewed on November 18, 1983, and the minutes reflect the
discussion. As a result, a resolution has been prepared.
Public Hearing opened at 8:28 P.M.
Wilma Burt, 1152 Seventh Street, Hermosa Beach, questioned
whether there is any basic change.
Chmn. Izant replied in the negative. He stated that the public
hearing was for consideration of not the document itself, but
whether or not it should be forwarded to the City Council. He
added that all Commissioners have agreed on the document.
Comm. Smith questioned whether the document was available on
file at the library.
Ms. Sapetto replied in the affirmative.
Chmn. Izant stated that there will be more public hearings on
this item at the Council level.
PIANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -November 17, 1983 Page 7
REVISIONS TO THE HOUSH.JG ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN ( Cont. )
Public Hearing closed at 8:35 P.M.
Comm. Strohecker wished to amend the wording in the last WHEREAS
to read, "WHEREAS, the Planning Commission believes it best
represents the values and goals of the community."
Chmn. Izant stated that the Commission concurred with the above
amendment.
Motion by Comm. Soulakis, seconded by Comm. Strohecker for
discussion, to recommend to the City Council that they hold
hearings on the Housing Element and to adopt the Housing Element
after those public hearings.
Comm. Smith stated that he would support the motion to send to
the City Council. He believed it represented the sentiment of
the Community. He has been to many sessions on this issue, and
he has seen the document change since: its inception. He stated
that it does not substantially change anything that Hermosa Beach
has not done for 20 years. He did not agree with it, in that
he felt it represents a community that is socially irresponsible
in regards to its senior citizens. He stated that he was in favor
of the motion because it represents what the citizens of Hermosa
Beach desire.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Comms. Shapiro, Smith, Soulakis, Strohecker, Chmn. Izant
None
Comms. Brown, Newton
Motion by Comm. Soulakis, seconded bv Comm. Shapiro, that Resolution
P.C. 83-31 be forwarded to the City Council as recommended by
staff with the first WHEREAS amended to read, "WHEREAS, the Planning
Commission believes it best represents the values and goals of
the community."
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Comms. Shapiro, Smith, Soulakis, Strohecker, Chmn. Izant
None
Comms. Brown, Newton
REVISIONS TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN
Mr. Castaneda gave staff report. He stated that presently there
are four Land Use designations, those being, general commercial,
multi-use corridor, neighborhood commercial, and commercial
recreation. He suggested that there be five categories in the
new Land Use Element, three of which would deal with common hierarchy
in commercial land use, and two of which would deal with certain
areas which need more detail. He requested input from the Commission
in terms of hierarchy and the convenience designation of neighborhood
PLANNit-K3 COMMISSION MINUTES -November 17, 1983 Page 8
REVISIONS TO TH E LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN (Cont.)
commercial as well as the general commercial category. At the
present time, there are three areas designated as neighborho nd
commercial. General commercial areas would be those areas that
are not included in the first two designations or the multi-use
corridor and downtown commercial. This would include Aviation
along Pacific Coast Highway. An example of the residential
areas within the corridor not zoned C-potential are on the east
side of Pacific Coast Highway behind the commercial from 21st
Street to 14th Street. On the west side of Pacific Coast Highway
there are a number of C-potential properties; however, the character
is different. He felt that the boundaries could include all of
the C-potential property on the west side of the Highway within
the limits of the multi-use corridor.
Comm. Smith asked if it would be possible to get some overlays
onto maps for the Commission's perusal.
Ms. Sapetto stated that a map has been prepared.
Comm. Smith felt that the Commission should think outloud at
the sessions on this subject.
Comm. Shapiro questioned whether the term "convenience commercial"
had been used in other documents. He did not believe the difference
between neighborhood and convenience commercial necessitated a
breakdown.
Comm. Soulakis asked what the reason was for redefining commercial
zones so narrowly.
Comm. Shapiro stated that there are at the present time four
commercial land use designations in the Land Use Element. He
questioned why a fifth commercial land use designation was needed.
Ms. Castaneda replied that it better represents what is out there
at this time.
Public Hearing opened at 9:00 P.M.
Violette Isgreen, 726 Prospect Avenue, Hermosa Beach, stated
that a contour map of the hillsides would be helpful to the
Commission. She thought it would be interesting to know how
many square feet this proposal represents and how many people
it involves. This would be a major change throughout the
City with no consideration given to traffic which has tripled
in the last year.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -November 17, 1983 Page 9
REVISIONS TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF IBE GENERAL PLAN (Cont.)
Henry Reado, 720 24th Place, Hermosa Beach, questioned whether
this proposal was a smokescreen used to cover up the general
plan on the Highway. He stated that these items continually
stretch out before the Commission.
Wilma Burt stated that Mr. Reado was concerned about his property
because he and others do not know what their properties will be
zoned in the future.
Public Hearing continued at 9:09 P.M.
Ms. Sapetto scheduled a workshop session for Thursday, December 15,
1983 at 7:30 P.M. She stated that there would be a public notice.
Chmn. Izant stated that the Commission had four items to consider,
those being, commercial area definitions, recommendations for changing
of boundaries in the multi-use corridor, recommendations of further
development of downtown area concept, and pursuing zoning
inconsistencies.
Comm. Soulakis stated that he would like to see any changes in
size in any of the four directions in the multi-use category.
He felt that data regarding the number of people who would be
affected would be beneficial. He also wished to see the overlays.
Comm. Smith stated that almost any area covered by the Planning
Commission would need an impact study. He wished to see exhibits,
rather than mere verbal facts. He stated that the Commission should
know what types of properties are involved.
Mr. Castaneda stated that the City has the above information.
Mr. Soulakis stated that the first step would be to have an
overall recommendation on the four areas from staff at the
workshop session. The next step would be to focus on specific
areas.
Comm. Smith wished to see the model to get an overall view of
the situation.
Chmn. Izant questioned whether the Commission would like to see
the zoning inconsistencies in the residential areas at the first
workshop session.
Comm. Smith replied in the affirmative, adding that it is part
of the overall plan.
Chmn. Izant noted that the Commission had no comments with regard
to the downtown area.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINlJfES -November 17, 1983 Page 10
REVISIONS TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN (Cont.)
Comm. Smith stated that the fifth zone has an ambiguous purpose.
He requested a further explanation of why it was needed.
Comm. Shapiro asked whether the current Land Use Element showed
the Biltmore site as being the only commercial recreation area.
Mr. Castaneda replied in the affirmative. He stated that he
would prepare the language of the Land Use Element, prepare
exhibits, prepare larger exhibits for the meeting, and submit
the results of the survey on the Biltmore site.
PLANNING COMMISSION INTERPRETATION OF THE ZONING CODE. SECTION 800-A
Ms. Sapetto gave staff report. She stated that the Building
Department has requested the Planning Commission to make an
interpretation of Section 800-A which refers to allowable uses
in the C-1 zone. It restricts residential use to four or more
apartment units in the C-1 zone. The owners of one of those parcels
is inquiring whether or not they can use a C-1 parcel for a lesser
residential use, that is, for an R-1 or R-2 use. The Commission
must determine if they can build to a lesser degree as is allowed
in the residential zones. Staff researched the Planning Commission
minutes at the time this ordinance was implemented. It was
apparent from looking at those minutes that at the time the
Commission felt that it was inappropriate to allow residential
in the commercial zone; however, they sought to strike a compromise
because of some comments made during the public hearing. They
allowed certain types of residential use in that zone. They
referred to some development taking place along Wilshire Boulevard
and Sunset Boulevard which was actually mixed commercial/residential
use. Staff suggested that if the Planning Commission wishes to
encourage a higher density residential development, that the
Planning Commission should allow the section to remain as is,
allowing only four or more apartment units or commercial units
on that site. If the Commission feels that a less intense use
of commercial properties would be acceptable as a residential
use, the Commission could change that section to allow a lesser
use or interpret that the same provision for residential zones
stand as well in the C-1 zone.
Comm. Smith stated that there were alternative residential uses
according to the Code, such as building only one or more units
if certain setback requirements were made.
Ms. Sapetto replied that one can build one or more residential
units if one builds commercial with it.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -November 17, 1983 Page 11
PLANNIJ\K3 COMMISSION INTERPRETATION OF THE ZONING CODE. SECTION 8OO-A
Public Hearing opened at 9:26 P.M.
Wilma Burt, 1152 Seventh Street, Hermosa Beach, urged the Commission
to allow less development in C-1 zones.
Public Hearing closed at 9:26 P.M.
Comm. Smith stated that the C-1 properties are very small, and
there are few of them in Hermosa Beach. He preferred using the
lesser interpretation, that being, to allow building less that
a four-unit apartment. He was concerned, however, that people
may tear down their existing buildings in the C-1 zone and build
only two units.
Comm. Strohecker stated that he would prefer .~aving a lesser
requirement; however, he noted concern for single family dwellings
or even duplexes on C-1 property.
Chmn. Izant felt that the Commission should revise the section
of the Code denying residential use in the C-1 area. The definition
of C-1 property is commercial use.
Comm. Strohecker stated that he would approve of one family living
unit as long as it is combined with commercial property and if the
property is properly zoned C-1.
Chmn. Izant stated that the concensus of the Commission was that
the current ordinance does not allow for anything lesser than as
it is currently stated,that the land should be used for what
the zoning designates.
Ms. Sapetto stated that the Commission may want to adopt a
Resolution to delete Section BOOA-3O and retain Section B.
Chmn. Izant stated that the Commission wishes no change at this
time.
COMMISSIONERS' ITEMS
Comm. Smith questioned whether a commissioner who declares a
conflict of interest should mention this fact before the issue
is discussed. He noted that Comm. Newton failed to do so at
the previous meeting.
Ms. Sapetto replied that commissioners with a conflict of
interest should declare so before discussion.
\._
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -November 17, 1983 Page 12
CO M!vtI SS I ON ER S' I TEMS (Cont.)
Comm. Smith recommended that the City clean up the Biltmore
site, suggesting that grass be planted and that it be picked
up. He stated that it is an eyesore.
Chmn. Izant stated that he voted for the motion to grant the
antenna at the Poop Deck without visiting the site. Had he
visited the site, he would have required a fence on the north
side because the antenna is very visible from the northern side.
Comm. Shapiro stated that Chmn. Izant could change his vote.
Chmn. Izant requested Ms. Sapetto to check into his alternatives.
STAFF ITEMS
None
ADJOURNMENT
Motion to adjourn at 9:45 P.M.
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes were approved at a
regular meeting of the Planning Commission.
STEPHAN IZANT, CHAIRMAN SECRETARY
DATE
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS OF CITY HALL ON OCTOBER 18, 1983
AT 7:30 P.M.
Meeting convened by Chmn. Izant at 7:35 P.M.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Comms. Newton, Shapiro, Soulakis, Stroehecker, Chmn. Izant
ABSENT: Comm. Brown
ALSO PRESENT: Pamela Sapetto, Planning Director; Alfred Mercado,
Planning Aide; Ralph Casteneda, TDC Planning
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Motion by Comm. Stroehecker, seconded by Comm. Newton, to approve
the September 20, 1983 minutes, as submitted. No objections. So
ordered.
APPROVAL OF RESOLUTIONS
Comm. Newton believed that Resolution 83-23 and 83-24 had not been
approved verbatim.
Ms. Sapetto explained that the Commission had not yet reviewed
using R-3 lots for parking as a primary use. It is in the
environmental review stage with the Board of Zoning Adjustments.
The Board of Zoning Adjustments requested an Environmental Impact
Report; therefore, it is now in the Council's hands. The Council
has changed the scope of the project. Another initial study will
be made at which time it will come back to the Commission. She stated
that the Commission has only dealt with a Resolution of Intention
to look at the subject; however, it was discussed at the workshop.
Comm. Soulakis questioned whether Resolution 83-25, Item C, was
up for discussion.
Mr. Mercado replied in the negative, stating that it was a change
introduced by the Commission.
Ms. Sapetto clarified that Resolution 83-25 will be coming back to
the Commission because the City Attorney believes that the solution
made by the Commission to take care of the C-potential problem is
not a legal solution; in other words, there is no such thing as an
automatic rezone. Another solution must be found by the Commission
before it goes to the City Council.
Motion by Comm. Stroehecker, seconded by Comm. Soulakis, to approve
P.C. Resolution 83-25.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -October 18, 1983 Page 2
APPROVAL OF RESOLUTIONS (Cont.)
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Comms. Newton, Shapiro, Stroehecker, Soulakis, Chmn. Izant
None
Comm. Brown
Motion by Comm. Newton, seconded by Comm. Soulakis, to approve
P.C. Resolutions 83-23 and 83-24.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Newton, Shapiro, Soulakis, Chmn. Izant
None
Comm. Stroehecker
Comm. Brown
APPLE TREE
Chmn. Izant stated that this would not be a full public hearing
because all owners of the Apple Tree were not notified.
Public Hearing opened and continued at 7:47 P.M.
TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTA TI VE MAP #14584 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMI TS
AT 608 -612 LOMA DRIVE
Ms. Sapetto gave staff report. She stated that the ~equest is to
extend the tentative tract map and conditional use permit for one
year. During that time the applicant intends to file for the
final and build. If the applicants do not build during that time,
their conditional use permit will expire. Staff recommended
granting the request.
Public Hearing opened and closed at 7:53 P.M.
Chmn. Izant asked if there were any reason not to extend the
conditional use permit for one year.
Ms. Sapetto replied in the negative.
Motion by Comm. Stroehecker, seconded by Comm. Shapiro, to
extend the project.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Comms. Newton, Shapiro, Soulakis, Stroehecker, Chmn. Izant
None
Comm. Brown
Motion by Comm. Stroehecker, seconded by Comm. Shapiro, to approve
Resolution P.C. 83-26.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -October 18, 1983 Page 3
TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE MAP #14584 AND CONDITIONA L USE PERMITS
AT 608-612 LO/IAA DRIVE (Cont.)
AYES: Comms. Newton, Shapiro, Soulakis, Stroehecker, Chmn. Izant
NOES: None
ABSENT: Comm. Brown
TWO UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 1220 MONTEREY
Ms. Sapetto gave staff report. She stated that the request was
to build a two-unit condominium. The applicants will be demolishing
the two -story apartment and a one -story single family dwelling.
The final map on this project has been approved; however, the
applicant must req u est a conditional use permit to demolish because
the o riginal cond i tional use permi t has expired. The project met
all of the City's requirements for condominium construction except
for the lot frontage. Staff recommended approval of this project.
Public Hearing opened at 7:58 P.M.
Fran Baker, Triad Design & Associates, 200 Pier Avenue, Hermosa
Beach, designer, stated that the applicant agrees to all of staff's
recommended conditions.
Ms. Sapetto stated that chimneys are not included in the height
requirement.
Chmn. Izant stated that the Condominium Ordinance provides that
the rear setback is to be three feet; however, the overhang may
be one foot back. In this case, the garage and the building
are acceptable, but the small balcony comes out an extra foot;
therefore, it exceeds the setback requirement.
Ms. Sapetto noted that it is not a balcony; it is a dormer window.
She suggested that if the dormer window does not conform, it should
be removed as a condition of approval.
Comm. Soulakis questioned whether the three-foot sideyard setback
applied only to the first floor.
Ms. Sapetto replied in the affirmative.
Comm. Soulakis asked if the plans in question had been approved
by the City.
Ms. Baker stated that they are not the identical plans that were
originally approved. Most changes have been interior changes.
PLANNING COMvUSSION MINUTES -October 18, 1983 Page 4
TWO UNIT CONDOMINI UM AT 1220 MONTEREY (Cont.)
Chmn. Izant stated that the dormer window would not be an
exception to the Code; however, the eaves would be acceptable
as long as they are 30 inches from the property line.
Chmn. I zant questioned whether the e x isting apartment building has parking.
Ms. Baker replied in the negative, adding, however, that there is
some parking in the back. There is no parking for the building
itself.
Chmn. Izant questioned whether the one-story family home has
parking.
Ms. Baker replied in the negative.
Public Hearing closed at 8:08 P.M.
Comm. Soulakis stated that he was not concerned that the eaves
encroached onto the property line. He did not think the window
in the rear should be allowed. He felt that what was considered
the rear of the property in the plans was actually the front of
the property.
Ms. Sapetto stated that the front is based on the street, and
Sunset is considered to be an alley.
Ms. Sapetto stated that the City is obliged to follow what the
Zoning Code says. The City is required to allow the window as
long as it does not protrude further than 30 inches. Also, the
eaves cannot be allowed without going through a variance procedure.
Comm. Soulakis recommended adding to the Resolution something to
the effect that the eaves and overhangs are built to existing
Codes and not to encroach beyond that.
Comm. Soulakis stated that the Commission has two issues to
consider, those being, the window on the side elevation and the
eaves on the front elevation.
Ms. Sapetto stated that the same Code section addresses both issues.
Comm. Soulakis asked if the drawings were to scale.
Ms. Sapetto replied in the affirmative.
Ms. Baker stated that the scale is~ inch to the foot.
Chmn. Izant stated that Section 604, Placement of Buildings, says,
"· .. when a rear yard abutts a street or alley, the building may
PLANNING COWvUSSION MINlITES -October 18, 1983 Page 5
TWO UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 1220 MONTEREY (Cont.)
be located three feet on the ground level a nd one foot on upper
stories from the r ear p r operty li n e. 11 He suggested adding a ·c on -
diti o n II to the Res o luti on that s a y s, 11 Th i s p r o j e c t shall be in
conformance with Zon ing Cod e, Secti o n 604-2 and 1209.11 This would
take care of the s i deyards, the ov erhang, and th d ormer window .
Motiod by Comm. Soulakis, seconded by Chmn. Izant, to approve the
plans for the two-unit condominium at 1220 Monterey with the addi-
tion o f Condition II in the Resolution to read, "This project
shall be in conformance with Zoning Code, Section 604-2 and 1209."
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Shapiro, Soulakis, Stroehecker, Chmn. I z ant
None
Comm. Ne wton
Comm. Brown
Comm. Shapiro questioned why Comm. Newton abstained from voting .
Comm. Newton stated that she had a conflict of interest.
Chmn. Izant questioned whether any Commissioner would like to
change any wording in Condition 11, the Resolution.
Motion by Comm. Soulakis, seconded by Comm. Shapiro, to approve
P.C. Resolution with the amendment of Condition 11, that "This
project shall be in conformance with Zoning Code, Section 604-2
and 1209."
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Shapiro, Soulakis, Stroehecker, Chmn. Izant
None
Comm. Newton
Comm. Brown
SATELLITE ANTENNA -Poop Deck
Chmn. Izant questioned whether this item had been noticed within
300 feet of the area.
Ms. Sapetto replied in the negative, stating that it was simply a
posted notice.
i\Ar. Mercado gave staff report. He stated that this project was
reviewed by the Environmental Review Board on September 29, 1983.
The project was granted a negative declaration contingent upon the
a nt e nna being screened. The project was before the Commission
because of its unorthodox nature, and Section 7.1-11 requires
that any project of that nature shall receive Planning Commission
review. The project consisted of a nine-foot diameter antenna on
a 5'11 11 tripod pole on the roof of the Poop Deck bar located at
PLANNING COMMISSION MINl.ITES -October 18, 1983 Page 6
SATELLITE ANTENNA -Poop Deck (Cont.)
1272 The Strand. The antenna will be screened by a surrounding
six-foot fence.
Public Hearing opened at 8:20 P.M.
Dave Bole, 226 First Street, Hermosa Beach, representing the
applicant, stated that the square on the plans is a small
hut-like structure that is over the existing air conditioner.
It will somewhat screen it from the north side. The only view
of the antenna is from the alley.
Comm. Newton asked what will be the fencing materials.
Mr. Bole replied that the fence will be¼ inch x 1 inch wood lattice.
Comm. Soulakis stated that the scale on the drawing is incorrect;
he noted that the view from the alley did not concern him.
No one else appeared to speak in favor of the antenna.
No one appeared to speak in opposition to the antenna.
Public Hearing closed at 8:25 P.M.
Motion by Comm. Soulakis, seconded by Comm. Shapiro, to approve
the Satellite Antenna located at 1272 The Strand.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Comms. Newton, Shapiro, Soulakis, Stroehecker, Chmn. Izant
None
Comm. Brown
Motion by Comm. Soulakis, seconded by Comm. Stroehecker, to approve
P.C. Resolution 83-28 as submitted.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Comms. Newton, Shapiro, Soulakis, Stroehecker, Chmn. Izant
None
Comm. Brown
REVISIONS TO THE HOUS ING ELEMENT
Mr. Casteneda gave staff report. He stated that the Planning
Commission had recommended that various sections in which six items
could be incorporated could be considered. The first item dealt
with home ownership. It was his opinion that establishing a
quantatative number for home ownership was not desired by the
Commission. The statements found in the Element are sufficient
to meet the purpose of the Element and the purpose of showing a
PLANNING CONlMISSION MI NUT ES -October 18, 1983 Page 7
REVISIONS TO THE HOUS ING ELEMENT (Cont.)
desire for home ownership. If the Planning Commission desired,
a statement could be incorporated like the one of promoting expansion
of home ownership in the statement of philosophy dealing with
existing housing and new housing. This would add emphasis to that
as a policy and desire of the City without establishing a single
number or numbers for home ownership. The second area dealt with
density bonuses. Some Commission members indicated that it has
long been the sentiment of the community to have a negative reaction
to density bonuses, whether it be to increase the housing supply
for affordable housing. However, there was discussion that perhaps
a clear and blanket statement against density bonuses was not
desired, and there might be some areas which could meet approval
in connection with density bonuses for seniors' housing. If the
Commission desired, statements of the City's intent to implement
state law in connection with density bonuses could be added.
Also, statements dealing with the special land use category for
seniors' housing might be amplified, which could, in effect, be a
density bonus provision for project applicants dealing with senioD
citizens housing. There is also th e alternative of not dealing
with it at all.
Comm. Soulakis requested the definition of density bonuses.
Mr. Casteneda replied that State Legislation, AB1151, which was
passed approximately three years ago, indicated that if a project
applicant came in with a proposal with at least 25% affordable
housing, the City would be obligated to provide a 25% density
bonus or some other incentives to make that particular project
feasible. There have been two applications in Hermosa Beach.
Mr. Casteneda continued the staff report, stating that lot
consolidation was brought up as a potential topic to be included
in the Housing Element. It was staff's and the Commission's thought
that this would be better dealt with in the area of the Land Use
Element as opposed to the Housing Element. With respect to
accelerating the variance processes, some reference had been made
to the topic of an administrative variance in connection with
housing improvements, but no reference had been made with respect
to new housing development. The main conclusion is that it might
be premature to come up with a blanket statement indicating that it
would be the City's intent to establish a program; however, it might
be worthy to have some type of policy statement indicating the direction
of accelerating the development approval process. A review o f t he ·
i oc al s ources of revenue indicate s that a more general statement
could be included in the Housing Element dealing with exploring
revenues in order to foster the continued development in some
manner in the City and to protect an adequate fiscal base for the
City. A statement has been added that could be added in the
Element. With respect to manufactured housing, the current language
PLANNING COM½ISSION MINUTES -October 18, 1983 Page 8
REVISIONS TO THE HOUSING ELEMENT (Cont.)
as found in the Element is sufficient to meet the intent of the
State Housing Element law. On density bonuses for seniors' housing,
it might be a possibility to implement this idea through an overlay
zone. It is a floating zone which is applied, and the applicant
comes in and will have this zone applied to that property in order
to make that project feasible. It does not necessarily need to
be applied to any property until the project applicant comes in.
He stated that · it need not be included in the Element, per se,
that is, the actual language of the zone, other than intent to either
explore it and come up with alternative language. He stated that
the function of the six items was to meet the Commission's desire
to have something on paper indicating that the six items were
reviewed. Also, if the Commission chose to elaborate on the
language in the Element on more than one of the items, there would
be an indication of where that could be done. A Resolution could
then be prepared for a subsequent meeting.
Chmn. Izant recommended discussing home ownership first. He stated
that the Commission must determine whether they would like it to
stand as is in the Housing Element or whether they would like to
make changes.
Comm. Soulakis stated that the City favored promoting and expanding
home ownership opportunities in most existing and new housing
supplies.
lv1r. Casteneda stated that it is in the current Housing Element.
He suggested that it could be re-emphasized in areas of statement
of philosophy.
Motion by Comm. Soulakis, seconded by Comm. Shapiro, to leave the
home ownership as it is in the Housing Element.
Comm. Stroeheck~r felt that the home ownership should be stressed
in as many places as possible in the Housing Element.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Comms. Newton, Shapiro, Soulakis, Chmn. Izant
Comm. Stroehecker
Comm. Brown
Comm. Soulakis felt that density bonuses ~ere dealt with
sufficiently. He did not believe there was any need to reiterate
it further in the Housing Element.
Comm. Shapiro concurred.
Chmn. Izant stated that the Commission did not wish to take any
action on density bonuses. The Commission also did not wish to
take any action on lot consolidation.
PLANNING COMlv1ISSION MINUTES -October 18, 1983 Page 9
REVISIONS TO THE HOUSING ELEMENT (Cont. )
Chmn. Izant asked why is not housing being built to Code. He
questioned why the City would want to accelerate variances for
new development when they should be built to Code. He stated that
he would accept accelerating variance processes for existing homes
that would therefore make it simpler for people who wanted to
keep up their own stock to make it easier for them to get variances.
He was not certain he wanted to grant that for new housing
development.
Ms. Sapetto stated that the major thrust of the Zoning Code is
to encourage replacement of the housing stock. This is why a variance
is required when one wishes to renovate a structure that does not
conform to existing development standards.
Comm. Soulakis recommended making a statement in the Housing
Element.
Ms. Sapetto stated that if it is the intention of the Commission
to encourage the improvement of the older housing stock, the
Commission may want to consider the topic of administrative
variances in connection with a housing improvement incentives
program for the older stock. She suggested amending the Zoning
Code to include improvement of property that is not conforming
to 50% as opposed to 40%. She believed that should substantially
reduce the number of variances that would be requested.
Chmn. Izant stated that they could allow some types of variances
to be ministerial.
Comm. Soulakis believed that allowing some types of variances to
be ministerial would be transferring the responsibility from the
Board of Zoning Adjustments to the Building Department.
Ms. Sapetto stated that the issue for the Commission to determine
is whether it wants the existing housing stock to be improved or
whether .it wants the existing housing stock to be reconstructed.
The main thrust of the Zoning Code at this time is reconstruction.
She stated that the Board may make a statement with respect to
nonconforming existing housing stock, to improve the process or
encourage the renovation of the existing housing stock.
Comm. Newton believed that if one encroached into his setback
by about six inches and he wishes to build a small balcony on the
second story, he should not have to pay a $200 filing fee to do so.
However, when one is building anew, he should meet the Zoning Code.
Chmn. Izant agreed with the above interpretation.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -October 18, 1983 Page 10
REVISIONS TO THE HOUSING ELEMENT (Cont.)
Ms. Sapetto stated that there is no justification for granting
a variance to new development. She stated that to grant a variance,
the Board must make four required Findings. The question is whether
or not the Commission wishes to accelerate the variance procedure
for existing units.
Comm. Newton believed that the subjects of an accelerated variance
ordinance would exclude exceeding the height restriction and lack
of sufficient parking spaces. The subjects that would be included
in an accelerated variance ordinance would be continuing a
nonconformity, et cetera.
Comm. Shapiro stated that the procedure should be the same with
existing and new construction, except in those cases where the
new construction is from scratch.
Chmn. Izant stated that at this time it is more cumbersome to
remodel than to build new con s truction.
Motion by Comm. Soulakis, seconded by Comm. Stroehecker, to not
use an accelerated variance process in the Housing Element.
Comm. Shapiro suggested deleting the word "new."
Comm. Stroehecker asked if an accelerated variance process could
go into the Housing Element for New Housing Development and/or
Renovation.
Comm. Soulakis questioned whether the Commission will be obligated
to look at an ordinance to accelerate variance processes.
Ms. Sapetto replied ·in the affirmative, stating that it will come
back to the Commission with options for implementing it.
Comm. Stroehecker questioned whether reference to accelerating
variance processes will still remain on Page 19.
Chmn. Izant replied in the affirmative.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Comms. Newton, Shapiro, Soulakis, Stroehecker, Chmn. Izant
None
Comm. Brown
Mr. Casteneda stated that there was a connection between housing
development in the City as well as costs that it generates to the
City as well as the future fiscal base to the City. As one is
making decisionsj there i s a connection between the decision o n
a particular parcel of property as well as the ongoing future
fiscal situation in terms of costs and revenues to the City. The
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -October 18, 1983 Page 11
REVTS I ONS TO THE HOUS I NG ELEMENT ( Cont. )
idea was to support continued housing development and an adequate
fiscal base as such development occurs, and the City will continue
to explore all additional local sources of revenue. These would
be revenues apart from those generated necessarily by that u s e.
Motion by Comm. Newton, seconded by Comm. Shapiro, to exclude
reference to the local sources of income in the Housing Element.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Comms. Newton, Shapiro, Soulakis, Stroehecker, Chmn. Izant
None
Comm. Brown
Chmn. Izant stated that the Commission concurred with staff on
manufactured housing.
Mr. Casteneda stated that the Council may consider reducing the
square footage of bedrooms for seniors' housing from 600 sq. ft.
to 500 sq. ft.
Comm. Stroehecker felt that seniors' housing was worth exploring;
however, he was not certain he wanted to elaborate on specifics
such as an overlay zone.
Mr. Casteneda mentioned that density bonuses for seniors is different
from density bonuses for affordable housing. The density bonus
for affordable housing has an income limitation.
Motion by Comm. Shapiro, seconded by Comm. Soulakis, to not
elaborate on the statement made on Page 24 regarding density
bonuses for seniors.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Comms. Ne wton, Shapiro. Soulakis, Stroehecker, Chmn. I z ant
None
Comm. Brown
Chmn. Izant stated that it was the conse·nsus of the Commission to
ask for a Resolution to approve and recommend to the City Council.
He requested staff to prepare a Resolution with the Commission's
recommended amendments.
REVISI ON TO LAND USE ELEMENT
Mr. Casteneda gave staff report. He stated that the Commission
noted interest in the multi-use corridor and the general plan
amendment and zone changes proposed for the five school sites.
The purpose was to look at different sectors of the community
and to gradually come to a consensus on the Land Use Element.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -October 18, 1983 Page 12
REVISION TO LAND USE ELEMENT (Cont.)
He stated that the Commission should address the questions: Are
the Land Use Element designations appropriate representations of
current land use as well as future land use for the multi-use
corridor? Do the boundaries themselves on the map indicate the
appropriate areas to include in the various commercial areas?
The general commercial category is included in two areas, those
being, from the City limits to 24th Place and from 14th Street
to 8th Street, while the multi-use corridor runs from 14th Street
to 24th Place and from the City limits to 8th Street. The Pacific
Coast Highway strip functions in highway commercial, general
commercial land uses, neighborhood commercial land uses, and a
mixture of commercial and residential uses in some cases. There
is a Lucky store and an Alpha Beta in the general commercial area.
Those sites might be thought of as neighborhood commercial and
include another category of Land Use for those two areas. In
terms of whether or not there should be a multi-use corridor
designation in the Land Use Element, he felt it was a solution to
the situation that existed then and is a solution that exists now.
The long-range future is commercial. Within the corridor, one of
the major questions lies ,..,,i th the boundaries, whether enough land
or too much land is included within the boundaries themselves.
With regard to the boundary, the Commission must determine whether
the intent is and was to include the R-1 uses within the commercial
multi-use corridor with the thought that they will be future
commercial development sites.
Ms. Sapetto stated that all C-potential lots are within the multi-
use corridor.
Chmn. Izant felt that there was room for some tightening of the
multi-use corridor. He agreed with #3. He stated that there
should not be a special zoning category with regard to #4. The
direction is supposed to be commercial. He thought it politically
unpalatable, but better, to eliminate the multi-use corridor and
term it either residential or commercial.
Ms. Sapetto stated that the commercial uses allowed in the multi-
use corridor at this time are 45 11 high and 100% lot coverage, and
there is no buffer between the single family and the commercial.
She stated that the Commission should look at the development
standards only in the multi-use corridor with respect to how
they abutt residential standards.
Mr. Casteneda stated that there are at this time two Land Use
Classifications with one Zoning Category.
Comm. Soulakis requested a map depicting those areas that are
not C-potential but are within the corridor.
PLANNING COMi'vUSSION iVUNUTES -October 18, 1983 Page 13
RE VI S ION TO LAND USE ELEMENT (Cont.)
Ms. Sapetto replied that she could submit a reduced size of the
map to the Commissioners.
Chmn. Izant stated that the Commission would have to go out and
look at the property.
Comm. Soulakis stated that there should be research conducted
on any property, R-1 property, that is not C-potential.
Comm. Shapiro stated that the answer to #1 would be no.
Comm. Soulakis requested more information on #1.
Recess from 10:02 P.M. to 10:07 P.M.
ENABLING ORDTNANCE FOR DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS
Mr. Mercado gave staff report. He stated that this i tern has .
been continued from the last meeting. The enabling ordinances
essentially mirror the requirements of state law and reflect
the format proposed by the League of California Cities for con-
sideration of development agreements. The reason the proposed
ordinance appeared skeletal is because it makes reference to the
procedure for application, Article 15 of the City Code, which
would require development agreements to go through the same
procedure as a z one change request. It also makes reference to
state la w requirements which address ,.,,hat must be in a development
agreement. The City Attorney had recommended an uncomplicated
yet specific ordinance, and staff recommended approval of that
ordinance.
Kathy Anderson _ stated th a t the ordinance is complete, and she
was in favor of it.
Motion by Comm. Stroehecker, seconded by Comm. Shapiro, to approve
the Ordinance and recommend to the City that the procedures and
requirements for development agreements be enacted.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Comms. Newton, Shapiro, Stroehecker, Chmn. Izant
Comm. Soulakis
Comm. Brown
Ms. Sapetto stated that the Resolution would read, "This is a
Resolution of Adopting Ordinance 83-29" as worded by staff.
Motion by Comm. Stroehecker, seconded by Comm. Newton, to ado p t
P.C. Resolution 8 3 -29 a s worded by staff.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -October 18, 1983
ENABLING ORDINANCE FOR DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS (Cont.)
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Comms. Newton, Stroehecker, Chmn. Izant
Comm. Soulakis
Comms. Brown, Shapiro
COMMISSIONERS' ITEMS
Page 14
Comm. Shapiro questioned why the Planning Commission does not
recite the Pledge of Allegiance before the meetings.
Ms. Sapetto stated that it has never been the Planning Commission's
policy to do so; however, it could be incorporated.
Comm. Shapiro questioned whether there would be a meeting on
the third Tuesday in December with the thought that it may be
a hardship because of the holidays.
Chmn. Izant stated that the meetings would be left as scheduled.
Comm. Shapiro stated that he read an article in the October 18,
1983 Daily Breeze, Page Bl, that says, in effect, that all of
the illegal immigrants should be sent to Lawndale, Torrance, or
maybe even Hermosa Beach. He recommended that the City Council
consider the action of the Redondo Beach Police Department
concerning this problem. •
Chmn. Izant stated that between September 1982 and this time,
there have been no applicants who have appealed the Building
Department's decisions regarding design review.
Ms. Sapetto stated that sign review appeals go to the Board of
Zoning Adjustments, and design review appeals go to the Planning
Commission.
STAFF ITEMS
Ms. Sapetto informed the Commission of which items will be
coming back before the Commission.
Ms. Sapetto stated that the Biltmore Site Committee will convene
on October 19, 1983 at 4:30 P.M. and possibfy on October 27, 1983
at 4:30 P.M. to make a recommendation to the City Council on a
particular developer.
Ms. Sapetto stated that the City Council has appointed an Oil
Recovery Investigation Committee to look at oil drilling in town.
That Committee will meet on the first and third Thursdays of every
month. Chmn. Izant is the Chairman of that committee, and Comm.
Newton is on the Biltmore Site Committee.
Motion to adjourn at 10:20 P.M.
, ..
PLANNING COMMISSION MINlITES -October 18, 1983
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and
correct copy o f t he meeting of October 18, 1983.
CHAIR1V1AN CRTARY
DATE
Page 15
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON
SEPTEMBER 20, 1983, IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT 7:30 P.M.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Chmn Izant; Conuns Brown, Newton, Shapiro, Smith, Soulakis
and Strohecker
ABSENT: None
ALSO PRESENT: Alfred Mercado, Planning Aide; Ralph Castaneda, TDC
Planning.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 6, 1983
Comm Newton pointed out two correction~: l) Page 3, second para-
graph from the bottom, it should read, "In answer to Comm Newton's
question ... "; 2) Page 7, second to the last paragraph, it should
read " ... proceedings will impact the individual condominium owners."
Motion by Comm Newton, seconded by Comm Soulakis to approve the
minutes with the above two corrections. There being no objection,
it was SO ORDERED.
APPROVAL OF RESOLUTIONS 83-23 AND 83-24
Chmn Izant asked staff to provide commission with a copy of the full
ordinance.
Chmn Izant suggested postponing this item until the next meeting
when the ordinance will be provided. He requested that in the future
all ordinances be attached unless it was passed verbatim. The item
was then continued to the next regular meeting.
RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES USED AS PARKING LOTS WITH CONDITIONAL USE
PERMITS
Mr. Mercado stated that this item had not been addressed by the Board
of Zoning the previous night due to a lengthy agenda. He added that
they will hear it at their next meeting. Subsequently, the Conunission
would not be able to take action on this issue this evening.
In answer to Chmn Izant's question, Mr. Mercado stated that the item
has been modified since it was originally introduced.
Conun Smith asked for a clarification of the difference between primary
and accessory parking as used within the reports. Mr. Mercado stated
that when a commercial or industrial business needs additionaly park-
ing to maintain their business, they will use off-site parking at a
different location,constituting accessory parking. Whereas, when a
Page two
person who owns a piece of residential property wants to develop
that property as a parking lot, that would constitute a primary
use.
In answer t,.o Comm Smith's question, Mr. Mercado stated that re use
of a primary lot for commercial purposes, item 3 of the ordinance
could be construed that those types of parking lots could be used
for commercial purposes, i.e. charging for parking by the hour.
In answer to Comm Smith's question, Mr. Mercado stated that the
motivation of the Council was to mitigate the parking shortage in
the city. He added that the use of the Conditional Use Permit pro-
cedure allows scrutiny on the part of the Planning Commission.
Comm Smith stated that it appeared to be one of the purposes of
this drdi~ance to develop off-~treet parking on PCH in residential
areas because everybody in town has expressed an interest in ex-
panding the commercial depth to accommodate the multi-use corridor,
which is an important purpose. He stated that he concurred with
that as long as the property owners in that area have an opportunity
to be properly noticed and have a say in the matter. He added that
his concern is that the ordinance is too vague to measure its impact
on the city. He felt that increasing the amount of parking lots
will take cars off the street but it will not necessarily reduce
circulation.
Chmn Izant stated that in the joint session with the City Council
he did not recall that the 150' figure in the ordinance had been
agreed upon. Mr. Mercado stated that a specific number was not
mentioned, but he remembered the language as being 11 50' or some-
thing appropriate." Therefore, staff was recommending the 150'
figure.
Comm Brown stated that he did not recollect that all R zones would
be included in this ordinance. Mr. Mercado stated that the Council
is now pushing for all residential zones as opposed to their initial
drive. Chmn Izant commented that all R zones e~cept for R-1 had been
mentioned during the joint session. Comm Strohecker added that it
was his recollection that Councilman Wood had brought up all the R
zones.
Comm Izant opened the public hearing and stated that this issue
would be re-heard at the next regular meeting.
Mr. R. Redo, 720 4th Place, Hermosa Beach, stated that he did not
feel that this issue was presented clearly during the Commission's
short discussion of it.
Chmn Izant presented some background information on the issue. He
stated that the original intent of Council was to allow a commercial
property owner to buy a piece of property perhaps across an alley or
a street from his business which is zoned R-2 or R-3, and allow him
to use that lot for parking for his commercial £acility. Since that
time it has taken in some other questions, i.e., should there be
Page three
parking made available in other residential zones which are not
necessarily contiguous to a commercial zone, and how far should
those lots, secondary or accessory, be allowed to be away from
the business itself? He added that there is an ordinance now that
says a person can do this in an R-3 zone if it is not more than 50
feet from the commercial property. The ordinance under discussion
is a modification or expansion of the existing ordinance for com-
mercial as well as residential uses. He continued by saying that
this is the first public hearing and it will be continued until the
next meeting. At the next meeting Commission will be given a com-
plete draft of the ordinance. He added that what Commission has be-
fore it now is just a staff recommendation.
The hearing was continued until the next scheduled meeting.
AMENDING THE ZONING CODE 1103
The staff report was given by Mr. Mercado. He sated that this item
was dealt with at the -last regular meeting of the Commission, and
at that time it had been continued to tonight. He added that the
existing procedure for activating a C-Potential classification con-
sists of a developer submitting a precised plan of design for the
area to the Commission. A precised plan requires preliminary draw-
ings which are usually prepared by an architect or engineer. He
added that this can be a cumbersome and expensive process that may
deter commercial development along the Pacific Coast Highway corri-
dor.
He continued by saying that the proposal to allow owners of C-Potential
properties along Pacific Coast Highway, which are contiguous to C-3
zones with a common boundary-l·ine, the automatic right to rezone C-3,
would provide more clarity and certainty for the developer and such
would enhance the City's ability to compete for land development
dollars for those C-Potential properties which are presently under-
utilized.
Furthermore, since no precised plan would be required for rezoning
a C-Potential lot, the.developer would have to submit such a plan to
the Commission for approval o f any project. It was staff's ~ecommen-
dation that the Commission approve the resolution provided approving
the amendment o f section 1103 of the Zoning Code by allowing C-Potential
properties contiguous to a C-3 zone along Pacific Coast Highway the
right to automatically rezoneto C-3, prior to submission of a pre-
cised plan to the Planning Commission.
Comm Soulakis asked what had been done re the question of an auto-
matic reversal to C-Potential if for some reason the planned project
fell through. Mr. Mercado stated that he went through the zoning
Code and also spoke with the Building Director about this question.
With respect to the Zoning Code, it made no mention of a property
owner not having any recourse once he or she is granted a zone change
to commercial. The owner can always come back and request a reversion.
Page four
In speaking with the Building Director, he stated that the Director's
response was that a property owner has the right to request a re-
versal, but has no guarantee that it will be granted.
Chmn Izant stated that the ordinance indicates that this particular
rezoning would occur where the C-Potential property abuts a commer-
cial zone. However, in the north end of Pacific Coast Highway be-
tween 18th and 21st there are some C-Potential properties that do
not abut any commercial property. He asked if those properties would
continue to fall under the existing ordinance. Mr. Mercado stated
that they would fall under the existing ordinance.
Comm Smith asked if there is any document that inventories C-Potential
properties in light of the type of structures existing on the proper-
ties at this time. Mr. Mercado stated that at this time there is no
document of that type, but that Mr. Ralph Castaneda of TDC Planning
was in the process of documenting that information with respect to
the Land Use Element.
Comm Smith stated that one of the most important things Commission
shoµld analyze would be what the effects of changing a C-Potential
p~operty by this ordinance would be versus current residential uses;
would there be a serious environmental impact? Also, there has been
a lot of talk about the current situation prohibiting owners of that
type of property from coming before the city with development plans.
However, he had not heard of one complaint in regard to this matter,
and he wanted to know if the city staff has documented evidence of
developers or owners stating that they have been hindered in regards
to these C-Potential properties. He added that he is reluctant to
change an ordinance without some public demand.
Mr:. Mercado stated that staff did not have such evidence, but he felt
that what is there may in the future discourage some owner or develop-
er. He added that it is the opinion of the Council that that is the
case, and for that reason they would like Commission to look into
alternative measures that would facilitate or encourage future com-
mercial development.
Chmn Izant opened the public hearing, there being no testimony the
public hearing was closed.
Chmn Izant asked if under the existing legislation a developer would
have to first appear before Commission without any plans and apply
for a change of zones, R-3 to C-3. Mr. Mercado stated no, that it
is a one step process, i.e., a developer would come in with everything
required and would take his ,chances as far: as the zone change. However
under the proposed change the owner would come in with a plan and if
it meets all requirements it would get approval. He added that the new
ordinance, in essence, would eliminate the precised plan in order to
receive a zone change.
Comm Soulakis reiterated that he was still interested in having an auto-•
matic reversal and suggested that the ordinance allow the applicant
to request the automatic rezoning or use the regulation as it now
exists. He :· felt that there may be some cases where the applicant
Page Five
would want to submit a precised plan and not change the zone unless
that is approved. The applicant should have one of these two options,
i.e. a one-step approach or a two-step approach. Comm Brown agreed.
Comm Izant suggested adding a section or specific paragraph in the
ordinance stating that if the project is not approved it reverts to
its former zoning status. He added that that would clear up the
gray areas of ·the amendment, if a project was denied it would protect
property owners, and it would still promote development.
Motion by Comm Brown, seconded by Comm Strohecker to approve the
language as recommended by staff amending section 1103 of the zoning
Code with the following addition: Section 1, subsection c, if the
project is denied the status of the property will revert to its
original status before the application.
Comm Smith stated that he would not support the amendment because
it does not encourage developers, nor is there any demand for the
change.
AYES:
NOES:
ABS:
Chmn Izant; Comms Brown, Newton, Shapiro, Strohecker
Comrns Smith, Soulakis
None
Mot.ion by Comm Brown, seconded by Comm Strohecker, to approve
Resolution P.C. 83-25, said resolution to be concurrent with the
motion's subsection c, that if the project is denied the status of
the property will revert to its original zoning.
AYES:
NOES:
ABS:
Chmn Izant; Comms Brown, Newton, Shapiro, Strohecker
Comms Smith, Soulakis
None
ENABLING ORDINANCE TO ALLOW THE CITY TO ENTER INTO DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENTS
The staff report was given by Mr. Mercado. He stated that the City
Council passed a resolution of intention on August 2nd urging the
Commission to consider the enactment of an enabling ordinance that
would allow the City to enter into development agreements. Although
an enabling ordinance is not specifically required in order for the
City to enter into a development agreement, the Council wishes to
adopt an ordinance pursuant to the alternative listed in Government
Code Section 65864.
He continued by saying that enabling the City to enter into such
agreements with developers will allow the City to Compel the develop-
er to fulfill certain requirements and, in return, the developer will
be assured that the project can progress unmolested without having
to meet changing requirements. Entering into a development agree-
ment does not prevent a local agency from subsequently denying or
conditioning the project so long as such decisions are .not based on
zone change or plan amendments which occur after entering into the
Page six
agreement. In addition, once an agreement has been entered into,
a local agency must periodically review the progress made by the
developer to insure compliance with the agreement, at least every
12 months. If a local agency finds that the developer is not com-
plying with the terms of the agreement, it may terminate or modify
the agreement. He stated further that staff therefore recommends
that the Planning Commission approve the ordinance enabling the
City of Hermosa Beach to enter into development agreements with
developers.
Comm Smith requested a copy of t~e Hagen Development agreement.
He also stated that inasmuch as the Hagen agreement has already
been entered into, he did not understand why the Council wants an
enabling ordinance after the fact. He added that Council's reason-
ing was not apparent in staff's analysis.
Comm Newton · stated that from her personal knowledge of the afore-
mentioned Government Code section there is nothing in that section
that requires a city to have a blanket enabling clause.
Comm Smith reiterated that he was puzzled why Council chose to send
something to the Commission for an ·enabling ordinance after they
entered into the agreement. He wanted to know the council 1 s moti-
vation. He also stated that he wouldlike to see spelled out in
the ordinance in specific detail what criteria projects should be
judged by and what procedures should be followed.
Comm Brown asked how the community could disapprove a development
agreement has been signed. Mr. Mercado stated that the format for
a development agreement has not beendetermined yet, but a public
hearing or forum would probably be the setting.
Comm Brown wanted to know what steps are taken and what documents
are signed when a development agreement is entered into. Mr.Mercado
answered by saying that the procedure is somewhat vague. However,
usually a developer negotiates with the City Manager and they out-
line the major aspects of what it is they are seeking. Then it is
introduced into the system --what we are trying to c~eate --then
it goes to the planning commission for review, then it would go to
the Council as a recommendation from Commission. He added that pub-
lic participation would take place at both the Commission and Council
levels
Comm Smith stated that Commission needs more procedureal material.
Comm Brown agreed.
Chmn Izant pointed out that the council's reasoning behind this
issue was stated on page 10 of their minutes, that the City Attorney
had stated that State law provides for adoption of development agree-
ments and regulations as to their processing. He felt that these
agreements are designed to form binding agreements that will withstand
challenge and are binding on future councils. A development agreement
would freeze the zoning in effect at the time an agreement is enter-
ed into.
Page seven
Comm Smith stated that he felt there should be set procedures that
are followed and that the public has a right to inquire and to know
what those procedures are.
Comm Brown stated that he did not feel that one council's potential-
ly bad decision should be binding on the next council.
Chmn Izant opened the public hearing.
Cathy Anderson gave background in£ormation to the Commission re
development agreements. It was her understanding that first a doc-
ument from the City Attorney's office is needed indicating whether
a development agreement is necessary and under what circumstances.
Also a development agreement that is entered into without an ordin-
ance allowing a development agreement, and providing for its pro-
cedure, is not really a development agreement in the legal sense of
the word.
She continued by saying that a development agreement becomes an
ordinance or law and does in fact bind future city councils, which
is really the only purpose for such an agreement. The Hagen agree-
ment is not a development agreement. It is an agreement between
Hagen and the City Council, it is somewhat of a guaranty which shows
that the Council is in agreement with his conceptual or preliminary
ideas. However, it is not a binding agreement that would hold up
in court.
She stated further that it is her understanding
to the school board property, they will have to
Environmental Impact report, zone changes, etc.
changes and parcel maps have been approved then
a development agreement to freeze those actions
councils.
that with respect
go through an
Once the zone
they will enter into
and to bind future
She added that a development agreement is an ordinance that outlines
what is needed procedurally, so that it will be followed step by
step and will not violate the public's due process rights. Also, a
developer needs assurances that the next city council will be bound
and a development agreement is a legally enforceable document. In
addition, the city does have flexibility with these agreements since
the only items guaranteed by the city are those items contained in
the agreement. All development agreements must come before the
Commission, and they must be properly noticed, then it will go to
the City Council.
She suggested that development agreements should not be entered into
unless the developer requests it, it should be at the developer's
option. The procedures should be carefully set out. She thought
that staff should see what other cities have done by way of procedures
and criteria.
Comm Smith thanked Ms. Anderson for her explanation.
Chmn Izant stated that staff should provide Commission with the fol-
lowing information 1) recommendations of when and in what situations
a development agreement will be needed; 2) samples of what procedures
Page eight
should be followed; and 3) provide Commission with copies of develop-
ment agreements from other cities. Comm Smith also asked for a copy
of the League of California Cities model agreement.
Chmn Izant continued the public hearing until the next regularly
schedulred meeting on October 18, 1983.
HOUSING ELEMENT
The staff report was given by Mr. Ralph Castaneda. He stated that
it was a noticed public hearing for tonight. To refresh the
Commission's memory he stated that two weeks ago the element was
discussed amongst the Planning Commission and five members of the
City Council, primarily as an opportunity for the Council to react
to the Commission's work to date. At that meeting the consensus
was that the element as it stood was fairly adequate and in the
right philosophical direction. Even those who disagreed with certain
details of the document agreed that it was acceptable as is. There
were not many deletions requested at that time. However, there were
six items set out for further discussion.and consideration as to how
they might be handled in the housing element or in some other vehicle
Comm Soulakis and Comm Brown requested copies of the minutes of the
aforementioned joint workshop.
Mr. Castaneda continued by suggesting that the Commission separate
those issue that should be addressed in the housing element from
those issues that should be handled through some other vehicle.
The six items presented by Mr. Castaneda were discussed one by one
with the following results.
1) Home ownership: The document should encourage home ownership
as opposed to absentee ownership, but it should not set specific
goals.
2) Density Bonus for Affordable Housing: The Commission's position
in the past has been that this is not a viable option for afford-
able housing for this community for a variety of reasons. Density
bonuses are not bad in themselves, but Commission was not sure
they would be a possibiity.
Mr. Castaneda stated that density bonuses with respect to
senior housing might merit exploration; Commission agreed.
3) Lot Consolidation: That item would be more appropriately dis-
cussed within the Land Use Element.
4) Accelerating Variance Processes: Should be discussed at length
at the next meeting. The thrust of the item seems to suggest
that more should be made an administrative task in terms of
allowing variances.
Page nine
5) Local Sources of Revenue: It was suggested that a statement
in the housing element stating that the City will seek to ex-
plore new sources would be sufficient as opposed to stating
anything specific.
6) Manufactured Housing: Commission was not sure this should be
discussed in the element and requested that staff check this
item against the Building Code
Mr. Castaneda stated that at the next meeting he will come back with
a sample resolution and more discussion on the topic of density bonus-
es with respect to senior housing.
Comm Smith requested that Mr. Castaneda also identify the areas where
the above six items would be put in the element so if Commission de-
cides to put them in the element it can be done the same night as
the approval. All Commissioners agreed.
STATUS REPORT ON THE LAND USE ELEMENT
The status report was given by Mr. Castaneda. He commented on the
following five points.
1) Commercial Land Use Inventory: He stated that his staff has
completed the field work for almost the entire city with the main
commercial sections of Aviation, Pier and the downtown area. The
type of information compiled deals with business name; type of land
use; the status, i.e. whether developed or vacant or under construc-
tion; the size of the parcel involved; square footage of the build-
ing, all stories, and square footage for each separate dwellings;
existing zoning of the parcel; and existing categories of land use.
2) Retail Market Potential: He stated that his staff has done a
market study of sorts to see if there is additional demand for retail
c ommerci al s pace. The info r matio n c ollected was for the Southbay area
and the City itse lf . The information includes total taxable sales
g enerat e d ove r five o r six years in the total market area as well as
the city a lone ; different c ategories of retail and a determination
of the market share of each of these market areas re total sales;
per capita taxable sales, what is being generated (the strongest
areas being liquor stores and auto sales dealers, and the weakest
being apparel and home furnishings). In addition, he stated that
there appears to be a leakage, i.e. money earned here that is going
out of the community which might be kept here with a different approach.
3) Residential Land Use Inventory: He stated thathis staff is now
in the process of collecting information for every parcel and address
in the city; the number of units; the lot size; the zoning, the land
Use Element census tract and the census block where it is located.
He added that this information will allow a verification of the census
data, to determine how accurate the information is. Also it will pro-
vide a stock of information that can be used in any number of studies.
• • Page ten
4) Demographic profile: He stated that this would deal with pop-
ulation and income characteristics of the city relating to some of
the neighborhoods in the city.
5) Land Use Issues to be Emphasized. He concluded by stating that
several of the areas mentioned should be emphasized in the document;
i.e., the multi-use corridor, the characteristics of the land, trend
of existing policy; the downtown area; the school sites; with the
potential of these areas compared to the rest of the city. Also,
the general plan zoning inconsistencies should be addressed.
STAFF ITEMS
None
COMMISSIONERS' ITEMS
In answer to Comm SmithB questions Mr. Mercado stated that staff is
still trying to negotiate a price on the Appletree title search, and
that is the reason why the inspection of the project has not taken
place. Comm Smith suggested that the title search will not be need-
ed if Mr. Todd has taken care of everything that he was supposed to.
Comm Shapiro suggested that the meeting night be changed to the first
Tuesday of each month because of the up-coming Winter holidays. It
was decided that there was time to discuss this at a later date.
Comm Shapiro asked that Commission make a suggestion to the City
Council that the limitation re commission member's terms be eliminated.
Comm Brown was not sure he would agree with that suggestion. Chmn Izant
stated that on the whole he thought it was perhaps better to have a
limitation to protect against some members becoming too set in their
ways and inflexible. He felt it was better to have a limitation.
Chmn Izant referred to a December 7th reassignment of Hermosa Improve-
ment Commission to the Planning Commission Section of Ordinance 82-
697. He requested that Ms. Sapetto check into this reassignment since
Commission has not dealt with any agenda items with respect to this
area of duty. He .wanted to make sure that these items are coming be-
fore the Commission as the reassignment indicates they should. He
requested that this topic be added to the next meeting's agenda.
ADJOURNMENT
~tion by Comm Shapiro, seconded by Comm Brown to adjourn.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON
SEPTEMBER 6, 1983, IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT 7:30 P.M.
I. ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Chmn Izant; Cornrns Brown, Newton, Soulakis
ABSENT: Comms Smith, Strohecker
ALSO PRESENT: Ms. Pam Sapetto, Planning Director; Mr. Alfred
Mercado, Planning Aide
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF AUGUST 2, 1983
Comm Newton pointed out that on page 6, third paragraph from the
bottom the following correction should be made "County Record"
should read "County Recorder".
Motion by Comm Newton, seconded by Comm Brown to approve the minutes
as submitted, noting the above correction. There being no object-
ion, it was SO ORDERED.
III. APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION P.C. 83-22
There being p.o objection to the resolution as submitted by .staff;
Motion by Comm Newton, seconded by Comm Soulakis,to approve the
Resolution P.C. 83-22.
AYES:
NOES:
ABS:
IV.
Chmn Izant; Comms Brown, Newton, Soulakis
None
None
.AJ.1ENDING ZONING CODE TO REGULATE PLACEMENT OF SATELLITE ANTENNAE
The staff report was given by Ms. Sapetto. She stated that at the
last meeting there were three changes suggested by Commission which
were addressed in tonight's draft of the ordinance. However, the
first item that Commission had recommended be changed, it was de-
cided that it should not be changed. She stated that staff felt
that that change would significantly change the -intent and mean-
ing. She -.added that the word "broadcast" should be read as a verb
and not a noun. It was staff's recommendation that it remain as
it was iri the original proposal.
The second change, re the site plan, was included as a requirement
for all applicants. The third change, under Section 1, number 4,
the requirement for screening the antenna from view will be re-
quired in all instances.
Public hearing was opened by Chmn Izant. There being no testi-
mony, the public hearing was closed.
PAGE TWO •
Comm Brown stated that except for .the first recommended change,
he felt that the ordinance was a true representation of what
Commission had intended.
Motion by Comm Brown, seconded by Comm Newton, to approve the
ordinance as presented incorporating staff's recommendation to
keep· the wording of Section 1, number 2, as originally submitted.
In answer to Comm Soulakis' question, Ms. Sapetto stated that since
screening will be required in all instances that it will no longer
leave the authority with the building director as to what will con-
stitute adequate screening.
Chmn Izant added that it was the Commissions' intent to make a
case-by-case determination of the adequacy of the screening.
Chmn Izant asked that the record reflect that Comm Shapiro arrived
at 7: 40 p.m. Chmn Izant informed him of the to.pie _ then under dis-
cussion.
AYES:
NOES:
ABS:
Chmn Izant; Comms Brown, Newton, Shapiro
Comm Soulakis
None
Motion by Comm Brown, seconded by Comm Shapiro, to approve Reso-
lution P.C. 83-23 as presented by staff.
AYES:
NOES:
ABS:
Chmn Izant; Comms Brown, Newton, Shapiro
Comm Soulakis
None
V. REDEFINING HOTEL AND MOTEL, THEIR APPROPRIATE ZONES, AND DELET-
ING (FROM THE ZONING CODE) THE TERMS BROADING/LODGING/ROOMING
HOUSES.
The staff report was given by Mr. Mercado. He stated that on
August 18, 1983, the City Council and the Commission held a joint
workshop to discuss this topic. At that workshop it was determined
that for hotels and motels no kitchen facilities shall be· permitted
in projects of less than 20,000 square feet, and that 80 percent of
the units shall be permitted in projects over 20,000 square feet.
It was decided further that boarding/lodging/rooming houses shall
not be permitted uses in any zones. He added that the rationale
for permitting kitchen facilities in larger projects only is based
on the interest in avoiding long-term use which is a more probable
outcome in smaller, older structures with kitchen facilities.
He continued by saying that the rationale for removing boarding/
lodging/rooming houses from the conditional use list results from
the perception that such uses have a propensity to lead to long-
term use and manifest other ill-perceived characteristics which
PAGE THREE
hinder the community's effort to enhance its image and fiscal
viability.
He added that it was staff's recommendation that the sample reso-
lution be adopted and that the resolution recommends to the Ctiy
Council adoption of the proposed ordinance amending articles 2,
11.5, 10 and 8 of the Zoning Code.
Comm Brown stated that it was his recollection the percentage
figure arrived at during the workshop was 90 percent rather than
80 percent. Mr. Mercado stated that the minutes of that work-
shop did not indicate any concensus initially, but after a lengthy
discussion it was agreed that 80 percent would be the representative
number.
Chmn Izant pointed out that in Attachment 2, number 1, second-to-the-
last line that the words "slicing scale" should be corrected to
read "sliding scale".
Chmn Izant opened the public hearing. There being no testimony,
the public hearing was closed.
After a short discussion, there was a motion by Comm Brown, second-
ed by Comm Newton, to pass the resolution as submitted recommending
adoption of the ordinance by the City Council.
In answer to Comm Shapiro's question, Mr. Mercado stated that the
differences between hotels and motels are that hotels will have
sliding scale parking and will be required to have an 800 square
foot lobby manned 24 hours a day ..
In answer to Comm Soulakis' question Mr. Mercado stated that the
sliding scale parking will not apply to both hotels and motels. He
added that the proposed ordinance's new section 6 only applies to
hotels and that the section dealing with motels will stay as it
now exists.
In answer to Comm Soulakis' ques-tion Mr. Mercado stated that the
word "parcel" refers to land area. He added that the hotel re-
quirement of an 800 square foot ·lobby manned 24 hours a day will
probably not be economically feasible for smaller projects.
In response to Comm Soulakis' question Chmn Izant stated, by way
of background information, that the Planning Commission originally
defined hotels has having no kitchen facilities. He added that it
had been his opinion that the large hotels generally didn't provide
kitchen facilities in their rooms. However, with more information
he found that many of the larger, better hotels provide such facilities
in their more expense rooms. He stated further that he agreed with
staff's analysis re the required square footage and manned-lobby,
since the hotel would have to be quite large before the kitchen
facilities would be provided.
PAGE FOUR
•
Comm Brown stated that the Commission did not want to preclude a
large developer from coming in and . having to fit into some archaic
criteria. Commission felt that the city would possibly attract a
good developer and that was one of the reasons they limited ic
to 20,000 square feet. He felt that if a developer bought 20,000
square feet of land they should have some flexibility to determine
if some of the planned units would have kitchens. He felt that
that was Commission's rationale.
AYES:
NOES:
ABS:
Chmn Izant; Comms Brown, Newton, Shapiro, Soulakis
None
None
Motion by Comm Soulakis, seconded by Comm Newton, to pass the
resolution PC 83-24 as prepared by staff.
AYES: Chmn Izant; Comms Brown, Newton, Shapiro, Soulakis
NOES: None
ABS: None
VI. C-POTENTIAL ALONG PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY
The staff report was given by Ms. Sapetto. She stated that on
August 15, 1983, the BZA approved a Preliminary Environmental
Impact report on amending the Zoning Code, Section 1103, to allow
owners of C-Potential properties adjacent to C-3 zones the right
to automatically rezone to C-3.
She added that the proposal to allow owners of ·c-Potential properties
along Pacific Coast Highway contiguous to C-3 properties the auto-
matic right to rezone C-3, would provide more clarity and certainty
for the developer and would enhance the city's ability to compete
for land development dollars for those C-Potential properties which
are presently under-utilized.
In addition, though no precise plan would be required for rezoning
a C-Potential lot, as is now required, the developer would still
have to submit such a plan to to Commission for approval of any
project.
It is staff's recommendation that the Commission approve the reso-
lution approving amendment of Section 1103 of the Zoning Code by
allowing C-Potential properties with a common-line boundary to a
C-3 zone along PCH the right to automatically rezone to C-3 prior
to submission of a precise plan to the Commission.
In answer to Chmn Izant's question Ms. Sapetto stated that if the
property owner has the underlying C-Potential on his property and
he is adjacent to a commercially zoned property along PCH, he would
have the right to automatically rezone to commercial. However, it
would not be blanket approval of an intended project. The project
plans would still have to come before the Commission.
PAGE FIVE
In answer to Comm Soulakis' question, Ms Sapetto stated that she
was not sure whether a property owner could go back automatically
to original zoning once the property has been rezoned. It was
her opinion that the property owner would have to make a formal
request to reverse it.
Comm Soulakis stated that he felt that once the Commission allows
these properties to rezone, then the adjacent zones would be re-
zoned C-Potential, ad infinitum. Ms. Sapetto stated that that
would not be the case. She added that the property would have
to designated C-potential at this time and it would not go beyond
the scope of what is now C-Potential.
Both Comm Soulakis and Comm Brown voiced concern over the fact
that if the property were rezoned commercial at the owner~ request
and for some reason his proj~ct fell through that the reversion
to C-potential would not be automatic. They felt that this might
present some legal problem if the owner was prevented from using
his land for anything other than a commercial purpose. They felt
that if it was automatic one way, it should also be automatic in
the other direction.
Ms. Sapetto stated that the reason for this automatic rezoning
was to encourage commercial. She added that any property owner
would have the right to request a rezone as long as it is consis-
ten with the general plan. Mr. Mercado stated that if a project
is denied initially it can be amended to comply with code require-
ments. He added that any deriial has to be based on findings.
Comm Newton suggested that if a property owner is concerned with
this reversal issue,perhaps the Code should allow a property owner
to submit project plans along with his automatic zone change re-
quest stipulating that the zone change be contingent on approval
of the plan.
In response to Comm Newton's suggestion Ms. Sapetto stated that with
the present Code the property owner has to submit a specific plan
in order to convert his C-Potential property to commercial, and
that approval of the plan would also constitute approval of the
zone change. However, it was the Council's concemthat that pro-
cedure might deter property owners from converting to commercial
because they did not have a guaranteed conversion. She added that
under the proposed amendment the overly cautious developer would
no longer have that option.
Ms. Sapetto stated that it was her recommendation at this time to
continue this item until the next meeting when the staff can pre-
sent commission with a draft of the proposed ordinance amendment
that reflects the Commissions' concerns.
Comm Brown felt that both options should be available to the pro-
perty owner. On the one hand the zone change to commercial can
be automatic if that is the property owner's desire~ 0n the other
hand if the property owner would prefer that the zone change be
PAGE SIX
contingent on the approval of his project plan that option should
still be available to him. He suggested further that the City
Attorney read and submit his opinion regarding the Commissions'
concerns raised tonight.
VII. STAFF ITEMS
Ms. Sapetto distributed material to the Commission with respect to
up-coming seminars sponsered by the Southwest Planning Council de-
signed specifically for Planning Commissioners. She suggested that
the seminars would be helpful for the new commissioners. She re-
quested that all those interested in attending let her know so
that the proper reservations can be made.
Ms. Sapetto distributed copies of the minutes from the Vehicle
Parking District to the Commissioners.
Chmn Izant pointed out that there would be a City Council-Planning
Commission Joint workshop tomorrow night to discuss the Housing
Element. He suggested that everyone attend if possible so that they
would be familiar with the subject matter on the oft-chance that
the element may come back before the Commission. He added that it
would begin at 7:00 p.m.
Ms. Sapetto stated that she had submitted a request to the Planning
Commission,for their consideration, to hold only one Commission
meeting per month instead of two. Her justification for the request
was that the Department is not getting the number of applications
for sub-divisions that they had in the past. She added that those
appplications are really the only items that must be discussed by
the Commission on a timely basis. She felt that most of the remain-
ing business could be adequately handled in one meeting per month.
She continued by saying that the Housing and Land Use Elements were
now being discussed in the workshop format which seems to be a better
way to deal with those items. She added that putting the materials
together for the meetings was expensive. Also, if the circumstances
change, Caommission can go back to the two scheduled meetings per
month.
She added that this month would be exempt since the proposed ordin-
ance for .devel opme_nt agreements is an i tern that the City Council
was anxious Loi the Commission to take action on.
Comm. Soulakis stated that he had no objection with the one meeting
idea, but was concerned about its effect on the public. Ms. Sapetto
responded by saying that it would ·generally be just an additional
two-week wait if an i tern had to b e: continued from one meeting to
the next. She added that with respect.to sub-divisions that those
are usually handled within one meeting's time, since they are drawn
to specifications and generally come in meeting all requirements.
If they are continued for some reason it will usually take the
applicant an extra meeting to make the necessary changes.
PAGE SEVEN
In response to Comm Shapiro Ms Sapetto stated that if the addition-
al two-week wait would cause an undue hardship a special meeting
could then be scheduled.
It was decided that the meetings would then be scheduled for the
third Tuesday of each month, exempting this month. so ORDERED.
VIII. COMMISSIONERS' ITEMS
Chmn Izant asked what the status of the Appletree issue was.
Ms. Sapetto stated that the item had been originally scheduled for
tonights' meeting; but that they had had a problem obtaining a
preliminary title report. Staff had received a $700.00 estimate
for the report, and the City Attorney had requested a line-by-line
breakdown of the costs. She added that after they receive the
cost breakdown they will still have to get approval from the City
Council for the expenditure.
In answer to Comm Brown's question Mr. Mercado stated a preliminary
title report was necessary in order to notify the property owners
of the city's intended proceeding. He added that this report will
provide staff with a current list of the surrounding property
owners.
Comm Brown suggested that the staff obtain a copy of the title report from the
agency that the owner of the property used to close escrow, since a running
record is kept. Ms. Sapetto agr·eed that that was a· good idea.
Comm Newton added that the city's proceeding will impact the sur-
rounding property owners, perhaps impairing their rights, and they
must be notified. She asked whether the inspection that had been
requested by the owner of the Appletree at the last meeting had
taken place. Mr. Mercado stated that the inspection had not been
done.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:15.
-
PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OF JULY 5, 1983 HELD IN THE
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS, HERMOSA BEACH
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Chrmn I zant, Comms Smith, Strohecker, :'13hg.p _i~9, _ :J?:e.:j_r;-ce, Brown
ALSO PRESENT: Pam Sapetto, Planning Director; Alfred Mercado,
Planning Aide.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES -JUNE 21,. 1983
Motion by Comm Peirce, seconded by Comm Shapiro to approve the
minutes from the regular meeting of June 21, 1983, as submitted.
There being no objection, THE MOTION WAS SO ORDERED.
APPROVAL OF RESOLUTIONS P.C. 83-18 & P.C. 83-19
Chmn Izant clarified that P.C. 83-18 is a Resolution of
intention to hold public hearings regarding the Satellite
Receiving Antennae, and P.C.83-19 is in regards to the
seven unit condominium. These are being approved specifically
for form, not necessarily for content.
In answer to Comm Shapiro.' s question, Mr. Mercado advised there
are no more than 6 satellite receiver antennaes in the City.
Motion by Comm Strohecker, seconded by Comm Shapiro, to approve
both resolutions (P.C. 83-18 and P.C. 83-19 , ~s submitted by
staff.
AYES: Chrmn Izant, Comms Smith, Strohecker; Sha9iro; Peirce, Brown
NOES: None
ABS: None
REGULATION OF SATELLITE RECEIVING ANTENNAE
Ms. Sapetto requested this item be continued until the next
meeting in order that staff may receive further documentation.
In answer to Chrmn Izant's question, Ms. Sapetto advised that
no further public notification in the newspapers will be required.
The Public Hearing was opened by Chrmn Izant.
Seeing no public testimony at this time, Chrmn Izant continued
the public hearing until the next meeting, and advised this,
in effect constitutes legal noticing of this public hearing.
ZONE CHANGE REQUEST FROM OPEN SPACE TO R--1 AT 1800 -HARPER
(adjacent to Hermosa View School)
The Staff report was given by Alfred Mercado. He stated this
project can, in a way, be considered as a second phase of the
lot line adjustment approved by the Commission on June 6, 1983.
He continued, the lot line adjustment transferred a marginal
strip of property to six property owners, the current project
applicants.
As a result of the lot line adjustment, Mr. Mercado advised
the six property owners involved now have land which is partially
zoned open space and partially zoned R-1, and this inconsistency
is also true of the General Plan.
He continued, this project is not inconsistent with the goals
of the open space element of the General Plan.1 due to the fact
that the property being considered for rezoning has topographical
characteristics (oronounced slope) which render it useless for
open space and especially recreational purposes, and this position
has been taken by the Hermosa Beach School District.
In answer to Comm Smith's question, Mr. Mercadc 'advised it is
his understanding Hermosa Beach School District 1is no longer
property owner , and therefore, did not sign the application for
zone change. Ar. Mercado continued, he was advised by the
spokesman for the property owners that they are now the owners
of the property previously owned by the Hermosa Beach School
District, and that the deeds have been recorded, however,
initially, when the applicants secured the application, the
transfer of title had not been finalized.
Chrmn Izant recalled extensive discussion at the last meeting
concerning how many General Plan changes a city can make each
year, and it was ascertained there were three allowable changes.
In answer to Chrmn Izant's question, Mr. Mercado advised cities
can change each mandated element of the General Plan three times
within a calendar year, i.e. nine elements. This is not the
General Plan itself. Mr. Mercado continued, to-date, this year, there
have been no changes to the Land Use element of the General Plan.
Comm Brown requested a quarterly update on the changes to the
General Plan.
In answer to Chrmn Izant's question, Ms. Sapetto advised there
is an annual report to the State on the changes to the General
Plan.
Comm Brown advised the State feels if a City requires to make
more than three changes to the General Plan, then perhaps the
General Plan needs revamping.
The Public Hearing was opened by Chrmn Izant.
Joy Henry, 845 15th, Hermosa Beach, California -Citizen.
Ms. Henry stated the newspaper notice advised of a zone
change to R-1 at 1800 Harper~·and asked if th~s ·area
is the park.
Chrmn Izant clarified this area is behind the school, that on
the eastern side of the school ?roperty where it abuts residential,
there is a slope of land. There is an erosion and flooding
problem with this land, and the homeowners have bought this
land with the intent of improving it.
Public Hearing was closed by Chrmn Izant.
Motion by Comm Peirce, seconded by Comm Brown to approve the
zone change and General Plan amendment on 1800 block of
:aarper -; •
AYES:
NOES:
ABS:
Chrmn Izant; Comms Smith, Strohecker, Shapiro, Peirce, Brown
None
None
.Motion by Comm Peirce, seconded by Comm Smith to adopt Resolution
P.C. 83-·20 1 a resolution approving a zone change and General
Plan amendment from O9en Space to R-1 at 1800 block of Harper-Comm
Peirce amended the Resalution to show Mr. Izant as chairman.
AYES: Chrmn Izant, Comms Smith, Strohecker, Shapiro, Peirce, Brown
NOES: None
ABS: None
ZONE CHANGE REQUEST FROM C-1 TO R-3 AT 166 HERMOSA AVENUE
The Staff report was given by Alfred Mercado. He stated, in
1977, the subject property in conjunction with its neighboring
properties, was considered for rezoning from C-1 to R-3. Of
the thirteen lots considered for rezoning at that time, nine were
rezoned. The four that were not rezoned are the most norther~
and nearest 2nd Street and Hermosa.
He continued, it appears that the Planning Commission in 1977,
felt that the subject property, along with lots 12 and 13,
should remain C-1 to ensure adequate area for parking for
future commercial development.
He added, the Land Use Map does not clearly define the boundaries
of these neighborhood commercial areas. Therefore, the question,
is the subject property in an area with a land use designation
of high density or neighborhood commercial? This question
requires interpretation of the intent of the Land Use Element
by the Commission.
Mr. Mercado continued, the zoning code's counterpart to neighbor-
hood commercial is the C-1 zone. Permitted uses in a C-1
zone include apartments on top of a commercial building, or
as an entire project with four or more apartments. The major
difference in permitted land uses between C-1 and R-3 are
subdivisions, which in this community, are most often represented
by condominiums.
The subject property, being 5800 square feet, would allow a
maximum of six apartments under C-1 zoning. Under R-3 zoning,
five condominiums could be constructed.
One major interest in retaining the site as neighborhood commercial
is in keeping retail sales and retail facilities within the City.
The applicant has suggested that the site is not large enough
to accommodate commercial activities, and it appears that, in
order for the site to be developed commercially, subterranean
parking would have to take place, which is rather costly. Further-
more, the site is quite a distance from the downtown business
district, therefore, the viability of commercial development
is questionable.
Mr. Mercado advised that Staff recommends that the Commission
consider the information provided and that a decision be based
on the utility and compatability of the proposed zone change
with its environment.
In answer to Comm Peirce's question, Mr. Mercado advised
originally, it was the Planning Commission's intention to
leave all four lots zoned C-1 since at that time in 1977, the
applicant or applicants were asking that the entire block
which consisted of aporoximately 13 blocks be rezoned from
C-1 to R-3, and the Commission concluded that 9 lots be rezoned
and 4 lots remain C-1.
In answer to Comm Shapiro's question, Mr. Mercado advised
that Staff sees some semblance of merit for and against this
application, and does not feel strongly for either position,
and therefore, feels it is appropriate that the decision
be on the part of the Planning Commission.
Comm Peirce recollected there was a petition, however there
was not a specific project that was, at that time, in violation
of the General Plan, being high density at that time. This
was an attempt to bring the General Plan in conformance. Comm
Peirce continued, it is his recollection the Planning Commission
at that time, because of the uncertainty of the subject property,
decided it should be left as it was.
The Public Hearing was opened by Chrmn Izant.
Chuck Sheldon, owner of Hermosa Real Estate Company, representing
applicant in this zone change. Mr. Sheldon p rovided photographs
of the site, which he felt would lend some greater understanding
to the request.
Mr. Sheldon advised this lot was owned in 1977 by a woman
named Bray, who was not cooperative with the City and the
applicants to the south, who wanted to rezone the property
R-3. It is Mr. Sheldon's understanding the City prefers
to have concurrence from property owners when they Lezone
property. Further, Mr. Sheldon understands, since it was
impossible to discuss the rezoning of the subject lot with the
then owner, and there was some sense to leaving it C-1
contiguous to its neighbor to the north, the City opted to
leave the property C-1.
Mr. Sheldon continued, the applicant took title to the property
June 1st, 1983, and has attempted to determine the viability
of a commercial development in this interior 5,800'. The
applicant has found it to be virtually impossible to develop this
lot commercially with the parking requirements, the subterranean
requirements, and has asked that it be rezoned contiguous to the
property to the south, east, north with the exception of the
northerly two lots next to 2nd Street, and the Strand property
to the west of Hermosa Avenue. This conforms to the General
Plan, and also with the surrounding property, and makes sense
from a development standpoint. Mr. Sheldon felt if the
property were rezoned R-3, it would lean more towards less
density than it would as C-1.
Public Hearing was closed by Chrrnn Izant.
In answer to Comm Peirce's question, Mr. Mercado stated it
is his understanding there are two lots on the northeast corner
80' along Hermosa Avenue still zoned C-1, and these are apartments.
Comm Peirce's feelings were if there was a building on the lot, it
would be an attractive place for a small store, however, since
there is no building, this seems unlikely.
Motion by Comm Brown, seconded by Comm Shapiro to approve
the requested zone change from C·-1 to R-3 at 166 Hermosa Avenue.
AYES: Chrmn Izant, Comms Smith, Strohecker, Shapiro, Peirce, Brown
NOES: None
ABS: None
Motion by Comm Brown, seconded by Comm Smith to approve Resolution
P.C. 83-21 adopting Staff wording as set out in packet, with the
correction of the Chairman's name to S-teve -Izant.
AYES: Chrmn Izant, Comms Smith, Strohecker, Shapiro, Peirce, Brown
NOES: None
ABS: None
STAFF ITEMS & COMMISSIONER'S ITEMS
In response to Ms Sapetto's suggestion, the Commission agreed
to hold one meeting each in July and August, and should the
need arise, a further meeting could be held.
Ms. Sapetto advised by September, Staff should have Land Use
Element materials.
Ms. Sapetto advised the firm Phillips, Brant & Reddick from
Orange County were selected as Consultants to work on revisions
to the Land Use Element.
Ms Sapetto advised there will be a workshop in July with City
Council, to help with the adoption of the Element. The date
for this has not yet been set by Council.
Comm Peirce questioned if a structure located on the Strand
at the skating shop and Perry's Pizza has a Conditional Use
Permit.
Mr. Mercado advised the owners received environmental clearance,
and feels almost certain they have a Conditional Use Permit.
Comm Smith requested Staff research this question and report
back at the next Planning Commission meeting.
Ms. Sapetto advised City Council appointed two new Planning
Commissioners, Commissioner Leslie Newton, and Commissioner
George Zulakis, who will assume duties at the first meeting
in August.
Chrmn Izant commended Comm Peirce for 8 years of service to
the Planning Commission.
Meeting was adjourned at 8:20 p.m.
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes were approved at a regular
meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 5th day of Julv, 1983
PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OF JUNE 21, 1983, HELD IN THE
PLANNING DEPARTMENT CONFERENCE ROOM, HERMOSA BEACH
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Chrmn Peirce; Comms Izant, Shapiro, Smith, Strohecker
ABSENT: Comms Brown, Loosli
ALSO PRESENT: Pam Sapetto, Planning Director; Alfred Mercado,
Planning Aide.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES -JUNE 7, 1983
Motion by Comm Shapiro, seconded by Chrmn Peirce to approve the
minutes from the regular meeting of June 7, 1983, as submitted.
There being no objection, THE MOTION WAS SO ORDERED.
APPROVAL OF RESOLUTIONS P.C. 83-15, P.C. 83-16, P.C. 83-17
Motion by Comm Strohecker, seconded by Comm Shapiro, to approve
all three resolutions (P.C. 83-15, P.C. 83-16, P.C. 83-17) as
submitted by staff.
AYES:
NOES:
ABS:
Chrmn Peirce; Comms Izant, Shapiro, Smith, and Strohecker
None
None
SEVEN UNIT CONDOMINIUM, CUP "& TENTATIVE TRACT MAP #37389
The Staff report was given by Alfred Mercado. He stated that
in June the Environmental Review Board considered this project
and issued it a Negative Declaration has having no significant
impact on the environment.
He continued by saying that the project consists of a seven unit
condominium in two structures on 9,200 square foot lot zoned R-3,
and is within the multi-use corridor. One structure is to be
three stories. All garages are subterranean. He added that
Applicant is not being required to submit a tentative map because
a final map on this property was previously recorded with the Los
Angeles County Recorder. Along that line, he explained that another
developer had previously planned a project and at that point the
final map had been recorded. However, that project never material-
ized, but the map remains recorded.
He stated that the project meets all requirements and staff recom-
mends that the Planning Commission approve the seven unit condo-
minium, tentative tract map, and CUP.
The Public Hearing was opened by Chrmn Peirce.
PAGE 2
Gary Schneider, 17 Thunder Trail, Irvine, California -Applicant.
He stated that the architect for the project, Martin Sapetto, was
in attendance, along with the civil engineer and they could answer
Commissions' questions with respect to the project.
In answer to Chrmn Peirce's question, Mr. Martin Sapetto, Archi-
tect, stated that the highest point of the building would be
35 feet, with the rear structure being somewhat less. He added
that the finished qrade would be less than the natural grade,
so the 35 feet will be the highest point as measured from the
natural grade.
In answer to Chrmn Peirce's question, Mr. Sapetto stated that the
storage area will be provided on the back wall of the garage.
Chrmn Peirce todl the applicant that he may be requested to come
back before the Commission in the future if questions arise.. He
added that the project appears to meet all of the specifications
in the Condominium Ordinance.
Public Hearing was closed by Chrmn Peirce.
In answer to Comm Izant's question as to whether the proposed
resolution submitted tonight for approval was based on the current
criteria, with particular respect with item number 6, Mr. Mercado
explained that Staff had not, as yet, revised the application pack-
age. And, as a result of that, Staff did not feel it was appropriate
to impose that requirement on this applicant.
Chrmn Peirce added that requirement number 6 was in existence
before this project's application was submitted. Mr. Mercado re-
plied that he was not sure that was the case, but added that there
is a "lag" time between approval and implementation, and the appli-
cation forms have not been revised yet. Due to this fact, staff
felt it would be unjust to impose this requirement on the appli-
cant. Mr. Mercado stated that application forms would be revised
very soon.
In answer to Comm Smith's question, Mr. Mercado stated that the
tentative map is approved contingent on the final map.
Comm Strohecker stated that the minimum dwelling space appears to
be approximately 1,100 plus square feet, and asked how that figure
compares with neighboring cities. Since there were no comparative
figures available at this time, he requested that staff provide
Commission with this information at the next meeting. Mr. Mercado
said he would do so.
Motion by Comm Izant, seconded by Comm Smith to approve the condo-
minium project at 723 -3rd Street.
PAGE 3
AYES: Chrmn Smith; Comms Izant, Shapiro, Smith, and Strohecker
NOES: None
ABS: None
In response to Comm Smith's inquiry, Mr. Mercado reiterated that
because this applicant was not informed of .the new .requirement --
re item number six on the resolution --staff is now requiring
applicant to conform with the new requirement in a timely fashion.
Motion by Comm Izant, seconded by Comm Smith, to approve Resolution
P.C. 83-19 as written by staff.
AYES: Chrrnn Smith; Comms Izant, Shapiro, Smith, and Strohecker
NOES: None
ABS: None
STAFF ITEMS & COMMISSIONER'S ITEMS
Chrmn Peirce stated that with respect to the letter from the women
at the Appletree project which was mentioned at the previous meet-
ing, the change to the project was done at the request of the city.
He added that the change with respect to gate was a good idea, as
people were getting stacked up on Ardmore. He asked what the sta-
tus was with respect to the package on the Appletree project that
Commission was supposed to receive. Mr. Mercado stated that the
City Attorney is still working on that.
Comm Shapiro nominated Comm Smith to serve as Vice Chariman, Comm
Strohecker seconded the nomination. Comm Smith accepted the nomin-
ation.
Chrmn Peirce stated that Comm Shapiro would remain secretary, with
Comm Izant taking over as Chairman.
Motion by Comm Smith, seconded by Comm Izant to unanimously endorse
the slate of new officers.
Chnmn Peirce asked Mr. Mercado to find out if he would remain on
the Commission until such time as the Council appoints his replace-
ment.
Comm Izant expressed his, as well as the commission's, appreciation
to retiring Commissioner/Chairman Peirce for his 8 years of service
to the city. He also expressed the same appreciation to retiring
Commissioner Loosli.
Meeting was adjourned at 7:55 p.m.
Certification
I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true
and complete record of the actions taken by the Planning
Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach, California at
their regular meeting of June 21, 1983.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF HERMOSA
BEACH HELD ON JUNE 7, 1983, IN CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT 7:30 P.M.
I. ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Chrmn Peirce, Comms Brown, Shapiro, Smith, Strohecker, and
Izant.
ABSENT: Comm Loosli
ALSO PRESENT: Pam Sapetto, Planning Director; Alfred Mercado, Plan-
ning Aide.
II. MINUTES
Comm Smith asked that his remark on page two of the minutes be ex-
panded to include that "the document .:says a lot but promises little
or nothing, as most planning documents do."
Motion by Chrmn Peirce, seconded by Comm Smith, to approve the minutes
noting the above correction.
AYES: Chrmn Peirce, Comms Brown, Izant, Shapiro, Smith, Strohecker
NOES: None
ABS: None
I_II. ·RES. P.C. 83-12, P.C. 83-13, P.C. 83-14
Chrmn Peirce explained to the audience what the resolutions were
about. It was the concensus of the Commission that they accurately
reflected the actions taken by Commission.
Motion by Comm Smith, Seconded by Comm Strohecker to approve the three
resolutions as prepared.
AYES: Chrmn Peirce; Comms Brown, Izant, Shapiro, Smith, Strohecker.
NOES: None
ABS: None
IV. SCHOOL DISTRICT LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT
The staff report was given by Mr. Mercado. He stated that the Appli-
cant --Hermosa Beach School District--was proposing to sell a por-
tion of Hermosa View School. The reason for the sale of the land is
due to its pronounced slope which renders it impractical for school
purposes. Furthermore, there have been some erosion problems. Once
the land is sold individually to the adjacent six property owners,
they will landscape and take preventative measures against the erosion.
He continued by saying that the project is viewed as being in the pub-
lic interest, in that it is the first step towards mitigating the drain-
age problem experienced by the six adjacent residents. Therefore,
staff recommends. that the Commission approve this project by adopt-
ing the attached resolution whcih contains the following 9ondition.
PAGE 2
That a covenant be placed on each property limiting the use of the
area shown on Tract Map #32162 (to be transferred from School Dis-
trict to individual property owners) to be maintained as open space
until such time as property owners apply for a re-zone.
Comm Smith asked what the purpose of maintaining the property as "ope,n
space" was. Mr. Mercado replied that that is how the property is ,
reflected in the general plan and the city sees no reason to deviate
from that policy at this time.
Chrmn Peirce stated that the hearing tonight would deal only with the
relocation of the lot line on the subject property, but that the
six adjacent property owners could request a rezoning at a later time.
Ms. Sapetto added that at the time that the School District filed the
application it was discussed whether or not the District wished to re-
zone. However, they did not wish to incur the f ee at that time. The
district is not interested in whether or not the prope rty is changed.
Furthermore, if Commission wished to rezone the land, then the item
would have to be continued until the proper application was filed and
noticing completed. She reminded the Commission that the City is
limited by the number of general plan amendments that can be effected
during the year and that this particular item would be a low priority
use of one of the allotted amendments.
Comm Smith stated that the purpose of this item was to get the strip
of land to the adjacent land owners and for them to provide anti-
erosion measures.
In answer to Comm Smith's question, Ms. Sapetto stated that the only
reason for rezoning this property was that as it stands the purchasers
could not build on the land.
Mr. Mercado stated in answer to Comm Stroheckers question, that
the fence shown on the map is within the slope and it will no longer
exist once this adjustment takes place.
In answer to Comm Smith's question, Ms. Sapetto stated that the covenant
would be in the form of a deed restriction in that it would be recorded.
Comm Brown felt that there should be a simple process whereby the six
property owners could get the land rezoned altogether rather than each
owner having to apply individually. He also added that by leaving the
land zoned for open space that it would leave the property non-tax-
producing which would not be the case if it were rezoned ..
Ms. Sapetto stated in answer to CornIIl Strohecker's question that the
setbacks on the six adjacent lots would remain the same because the
open-space zone is non-buildable.
Comm Izant added that if the open space were changed the percentage
of lot which is buildable would increase, i.e. the ratio of land to
structure would be greater. Ms. Sapetto agreed.
Public Hearing was opened.
PAGE 3
Burk Bussierre, 1837 Harper Avenue, Hermosa Beach, stated that he was
a proponent of the lot line adjustment with the qualification that
there would be a zoning changed.He felt that the zone change should
cover all parties at one time to make it more economical and less time-
consuming. He added that the slope on his potential property is in
excess of 45 degress and he wants to build a retainer wall to extend
the level ground of the property. The footing required for the wall will
be substantial; with estimates for the wall being about $15,000. So,
in essence, the school property would co~t him approximately $20.00
per square foot. Due to this economical fact he would want the property
rezoned so he could get the maximum use of his land.
Chrmn Peirce informed the speaker that the zoning ~ssue was not before
the Commission at this time. Mr. Bussiere stated that he would like
the two issues dealt with concurrently. He also felt that if the land
were not rezoned to R-1, that this would constitute a constructive
breach.
Ms. Sapetto stated that there are some uses for the property with the
current zoning, i.e. swimming pool; adding that in open space zoning
you can build up to ten percent. She felt that the original affect
of the purchase of this property was to solve a run-off erosion pro-
blem.
George Magert, 1841 Harper, Hermosa Beach, stated that he agreed with
Mr. Bussiere's testimony, and that for the amount of money he would
have to invest above the purchase price he would want to be entitled
to full use of his property. He stated further that it is very compli-
cated having two zones on one lot especially with respect to resale.
He agreed that the purchase price was low but with the improvements he
would have to effect the cost could rise as high as $25.00 per square
foot.
Public Hearing was closed. Chairman Peirce stated that he felt there
were two courses of action that the Commission could take, (1) go for-
ward with the lot line adjustment tonight or (2) Postpone tonight's
hearing to allow application for a zone change and proper noticing, so
the two items could be handled concurrently.
Comm Brown asked what the costs would be to effect a zone change. Ms.
Sapetto stated that the fee is $450.00 per application to partially
cover staff costs plus the noticing costs, mailed notification and
newspaper publication, which would be approximately $1,000.00. She
added that it probably could be done with one application covering
all six lots. She reiterated that there is a limitation to the num-
ber of general plan amendments that can be made during a one-year
period. She was not sure whether the year would end at the end of
the fiscal year or calendar year. She stated that if the zone change
were in compliance with the general plan it would not be an amendment.
Comm Brown said that he was surprised that there was no mention made
in the report which reflected the thoughts of the property owners in-
volved. Ms. Sapetto replied by saying that that is an issue between
PAGE 4
the School District and the property owners and not an issue of the
city's. The School District informed staff that they were not con-
cerned about the zone chage.
Comm Smith stated that he supported the lot line adjustment but that
he didn't feel it should be complicated by piecemeal rezoning --i.e.
done on an individual basis with each property owner coming before
the Commission to discuss and argue the same points and issues. He
felt it would consume a tremendous amount of time.
Comm Izant stated that the applicanthas requested the Commission to
pass on the issue of the lot line adjustment and sale of property.
He added that the owners of the adjacent property have a right not
to complete the transaction with the School District, and,if in fact
that happens, then the District will have to renegotiate with the
buyers and perhaps apply for the zone change. He continued by saying
that Commission should take action on the issue before them.
Comm Brown stated that he was concerned about the proposed covenant.
Chrmn Peirce and Comm Izant agreed. Comm Strohecker suggested that
the wording of the covenant be changed to read " ... until such time as
the property is rezoned."
Comm Smith stated again that he felt that it would be cleaner and
more above-board if the lot line adjustment and zone change were
handled simultaneously.
Motion by Comm Izant, seconded by Chrrnn Peirce, to accept the staff
recommendation with the modification of the covenant as stated by
Comm Strohecker.
Comm. Izant agreed that this would have been better handled if the
two issues had been brought before the Commission. However, he felt
that it was important that Commission pass on this resolution tonight.
If this is done it will allow the District and the property owners
negotiate and reach some accord which may include the application for
zoning change. It felt that it would not harm either of the parties
to pass on this item tonight.
Comm Smith requested that the second whereas of the resolution be
changed to simply say " ... there is no detriment to public interest."
He also wanted the covenant to be eliminated. Ms. Sapetto added that
the language in the covenant was just a reaffirmation of what is in
the code.
Chrmn Peirce disagreed with Comm Smith and felt that the covenant
should remain as a flag for any potential buyer.
Comm Shapiro asked the two speakers from the audience whether when
they negotiated the land sale with the School district, they approach-
ed them in the same manner as they approached the Commission and if
so what the District's response was. Mr. Bussierestated that during
the negotiation, the School Board felt it would be in the best interest
of everyone for the land owners to apply for the zone change. He added
that he was disappointed that the School Board was not represented at
this meeting.
PAGE 5
Chrmn Peirce requested that the afore-mentioned motion be put to a
vote. He explained that a "yes" vote approves the staff recommend-
ation, and a "no" vote disapproves.
AYES:
NOES:
ABS:
Chrmn Peirce, Comms Izant, Shapiro; Strohecker
Comms Brown and Smith.
Motion by Comm Izant, seconded by Comm Shapiro, that the Planning
Commission adopt resolution :83-15;:_with the change to the second
whereas to read " ... there is no detriment to public interest." and
the covenant changed to read" ... that the property be maintained
as open space until such time as the property is rezoned."
AYES:
NOES:
.ABS:
Chrmn Peirce, Comms Izant, Shapiro, Strohecker
Comms Brown and Smith
Chrmn Peirce informed the audience that any decision of the Commission
could be appealed to the City Council within 10 days.
V. FINAL APPROVAL OF CONCEPTUAL PLANS -BOATYARD SITE
Chrmn Peirce explained to the audience that the Commission held hearings
approximately a year and a half ago which resulted in a resolution to
the City Council. The Council then took it under advisement, and
ultimately they were desirous of reducing the number of units. It then
went into litigation resulting in renegotiation between the city and
the property owner. He added that the Commission has in the past only
approved conceptual plans. However, tonights action is for approval
of the final plaT1s. for the planned dev elopment at the Boatyard site .
The Staff report was given by Ms. Sapetto. She stated, in addition to
the history as given by Chrmn Peirce, staff recommends that the
Commission approve the final plan, CUP and Tentative Map and, additional-
ly authorize staff to negotiate a revised access from Herondo to the
project.
She continued by saying that basically the role of the Commission is to
look at the final plan in light of the conceptual approval that was
effected by the council, to determine if in fact the plan does meet
that conceptuaJ. approval --i.e. are the number of units, and traffic
circulation the same. Commission should bear in mind that the traffic
circulation that the Council approved was different from that which
the Commission approved. Additionally, Commission approved a 79-uni t
project with an ingress/egress across fr om the railroad
right-of-way, midway between Second Street and Herondo. However, that
has been removed, and the ingress/egress is at the corner of Herondo
and Valley Drive. Staff has suggested tha.t in that particular area
circulation might be improved by moving it up onto Herondo and perhaps
utilizing a portion of the property that the city owns to better effect
traffic circulation.
PAGE 6
Staff suggested further that the Planning Commission allow staff to
negotiate with the Applicant to modify that access. Other than that,
the perview of the Cornrnisssion is to determine whether or not the
final plan is in fact the same as the plan approved by the Council and
agreed to in the court settlement.
Chrmn Peirce disagreed with part of Ms. Sapetto's analysis stating that
State law reads that any modification to any planning commission action
taken at the city council level has to be cycled back to the commission
before approval of it. He added that in his opinion the Commission had
some options, and that it is within their perview to suggest changes or v /
modifications to the plan. However if the city council did not approve
Comrnissions's changes/modifications, then it would go back to the
original.
Ms. Sapetto stated that that was not the way the issue had been repre-
sented to her by the City Attorney. She added that the item has come
back to the commission for final review on a conceptual approval that
was given in the past.
In answer to a question from the audience, Chrrnn Peirce stated that
the newspaper notice of this hearing was correct.
Public Hearing was opened.
Richard A. Leonard, representing the Applicant, stated that the original
conditions had charged the applicant to use their best efforts to obtain
the right-of-way from Santa Fe Railroad. However, Applicant was only
able to obtain the right-of-way in the position that it is shown.
Jim Rosenberger, 1123 Bayview, Hermosa Beach, asked whether the ingress/
egress being referred to was the only one. Ms. Sapetto answered that
there are four ingresses/egresses.
At this point a five minute break was taken so that Ms. Sapetto could
explain the plans for the project to the members of the audience.
Chrmn Peirce called the meeting to order. In answer to Mr. Rosenberger's
question, he stated that on the average there would be four to five trips
per day generated by each unit of the project.
Mr. Rosenberger continued by saying that if Commission is considering a
change that now would be the appropriate time, before the units are
built, to perhaps change Valley Drive to a two-way street and/or widen
it.
Ron Orr, 168 Hill Street, Hermosa Beach, stated that half of the devel-
opment will be exiting out onto 2nd Street, and 2nd Street is already
carrying a double load, so this project will worsen the traffic flow
problem. He suggested the Commission consider blocking off 2nd Street
at Valley to stop the traffic from coming up 2nd Street and thereby
forcing the motorists over to Herondo --which he felt was already a
freeway.
Chrmn Peirce stated that 2nd Street is a "collector" and it should be
able to handle considerable traffic, even though it narrows to the
PAGE 7
west of the project. He added that 2nd Street, as an arterial col-
lector, was supposed to collect traffic and then bump it onto Pacific
Coast Highway.
Mr. Orr was upset because the original plans that he saw did not have
an ingress/egress on 2nd or Hill and now there was. He added that he
felt that Hill Street is unsuited for this kind of traffic because of
the parking on both sides of the street. Also he felt the old resi-
dents would not be able to park on the street. Chrmn Peirce and Ms.
Sapetto both stated that the plans tonight were not substantially
different from the plans which Mr. Orr alluded to in his testimony
with respect to the ingress/egrees on 2nd Street.
Mr .. Snyder, 157 Ardmore, Hermosa Beach, stated that from the begin-
ning the developer was working for maximum density, and now we have
maximum interference with the residents around the project. He felt
the project would open the Ardmore stub and increase the flow of
traffic thereon.
Chairman Peirce stated that there is no plan to open Ardmore to the
south to Herondo. He added that staff is suggesting that the city
arrange the entrance that comes off of Herondo into the property in
a more convenient fashion for traffic, but there is no plan to feed
into Ardmore. He continued by saying that the plan is to correct the
deficiency in the plan which dumps the traffic onto Herondo.
Stacy , 167 Hill Street, He rmosa Be ach , stated that her con-
cern is that Hill Street. which is v ery narrow and ~ .. allows .. parking on
both sides of the street could not accommod ate rescue vehicles in
the case of an emergency. Chrmn Peirce stated that Staff will take
that into consideration, and if it is determined a emergency vehicle
would be unable to travel down the street, it would be changed.
Rita Neu, 662 1st Street, Hermosa Beach, stated that Council had appro-
ved Plans A and B, but the plan which was not approved she felt should
be reconsidered.
William O'Clair, 620 1st Street, Hermosa Beach, stated that in the
past Commission had discussed not providing the project with as many
ingresses and egresses . He felt that should be considered again.
Ronald and Elizabeth Morgan, 524 2nd Street, Hermosa Beach, stated that
their major concern was their being forced to leave their rental unit
with only 30 days notice in order to make way for the construction of
this project. Chrmn Peirce informed them that they would have to work
that our directly with the development firm.
Richard A. Leonard, Applicant's representative, stated that the plan
before the Commission is basically the same as plan B which was
recommended for approval in the past by the Commi$ion. He explained
that there are four less units than were originally on plan B. The
n umb er of units accessing onto Ardmore, Hill or Second Street are no
g reater than what was originally approved. He was certain that this
p roj ect does not impact the present use of Ardmore. He added that
from the very beginning they had agreed to landscape and provide a bike
I
PAGE 8
path in the unused right-of-way. Adding, that the project does not
encompass any of the railroad property, except for one ingress and
egress. These egresses are the same except that the tap from Valley
Drive was moved closer to Herondo. The plan does comply with the
existing city ordinance re visitor parking and recreational vehicle
parking. The plan is an approved conceptual plan worked out by the
county developer and the courts. He added that it was the Commission's
discretion to determine whether this plan is consistent with the
previously approved conceptual plan. In addition, these plans were
approved by the Court.
Public hearing closed.
Chrmn Peirce stated that in his opinion the main concern of the pub-
lic testimony dealt with potential traffic problems. He added that
unfortunately any project will affect traffic somewhere in the city,
and the only way to mitigate the problem is to reduce the number of
units, which was done in this instance.
In answer to Comm Smith's question, Ms. Sapetto stated that if at some
time it is decided that the ingress/egress near Valley Drive and Her-
ondo should be relocated and the new position eliminates any parking
spaces, they would be replaced elsewhere on the property.
Richard Leonard, developer, assured the Commission that the plan that
is approved shows the tap down closer to Valley and at this time they
are in a position to build that plan. However, they have indicated
to staff they would entertain the idea of moving its location to a
p osit ion that will be reflected in the study which should be completed
today . He added that they had no intention a.nd would not negotiate a
redes igned tap on Herondo which would take away any parking spaces be-
low the code requirements.
Motion by Comm Smith, Seconded by Comm Shapiro to approve the conceptual
plans subject to the conditions and stipulations set forth in the
resolution including l; 2, a through e; 3; 4; 5; 6; 7; and 8.
AYES:
NOES:
ABS:
Chrmn Peirce; Comms Brown,
Izant
none
Shapiro, Smith and Strohecker
Comm Smith stated that this project is a good example of negotiation that
arrives at a reasonable development. The developer made some signifi-
cant concessions in bringing the number of units down from 104, and
subsequently changing the design of the project which makes it more
habitable. He felt it would be impossible to satisfy everyone with
respect to traffic. He was disappointed with the final removal of
the ingress/egress on Valley; however, he assumed that was because of
the trolley plans by the railroad.
Comm Izant agreed with Comm Smith's remarks. He felt that this is the
best project the city will get on this, but, in hindsight, the Commission
never should have changed the zoning. He added that he must remain con-
sistent and vote against the project.
PAGE 9
Motion by Comm Smith, seconded by Comm Shapiro, to adopt Resolution
83-16 approving the final plan for 75 units, subject to the various
whereas's and stipulations contained in the suggested resolution with
the following change to the introductory parag::r-aph: ".A resolution of
the Planning Commission of Hermosa Beach Approving the final plan for
75 condominiums, tentative tract map #22187 and Conditional Use Per-
mit for property located at 440 -2nd Street, also known as the
'Boatyard site'."
AYES:
NOES:
ABS:
VI.
Chrmn Peirce; Cornms Brown, Shapiro, Smith, Strohecker
Comm Izant
None
SEVEN UNIT CONDOMINIUM, CUP AND TENTATIVE TRACT M...A.P #42874
The staff report was given by Mr. Mercado. He stated that the project
consists of a two-story (over garages) seven unit condominium on a
9,961 square foot lot with a general plan designation of high density
and R-3 zoning. The project meets all the requirements of the condo-
minium ordinance and is consistent with the General Plan. He stated
that staff recommends that this project, which meets all condominium
ordinance requirements, be approved.
Chrmn Peirce suggested that perhaps the plan may be in violation of the
code with respect to common garages/tandem parking. Mr. Mercado stated
that only three of the spaces were tandem. He ,.added that the Director
of Buildings opinion was that the proposed garage is, as defined in the
code, a common garage, and, further, that only 30 percent of these
spaces are tandem.
Public hearing opened.
Allan H. Juckes, 27310 Rainbow Ridge Road, Palos Verdes Peninsula --
applicant --stated in response to Chrmn Peirce's question that there
were no doors on the garages and in fact he had been told by the city
that he could not install doors in a common gar~ge without violating
the code. He added that he didn't need the doors because the project
was set back further than 50 feet from the street.
Curt Camper, 126 Monterey, Hermosa Beach, stated that this was a very
good idea since that portion of Monterey is at the present time a
mess of overgrowth. He felt that the developer should be encouraged
to build, and the sooner the better.
Comm Izant stated that using the roof deck to serve as open space for
another unit was a novel approach. In Hermosa you have to use creative
architecture. He wanted a confirmation that that area would be struc-
turally stronger to accommodate foot-traffic. Ms. Sapetto assured him
that when the drawings come to the city the Building Code requires that
this sort of ,building be checked,i. e. , dwellings one above another.
Public Hearing closed.
Motion by Comm Shapiro, seconded by Comm Smith to approve the seven
unit condominium, CUP and Tentative Tract Map #42874, located at
100-112 Monterey Boulevard.
PAGE 10
AYES:
NOES:
ABS:
Chrmn Peirce; Comms Brown, Izant, Shapiro, Smith and Strohecker
None
None
Ms. Sapetto stated that the words "if the planning Commission deems
it necessary" should be deleted from items number three and four of
the proposed resolution.
Motion by Comm Shapiro, seconded by Comm Smith, to approve Resolution
83-17 subject to the change suggested by Ms. Sapetto.
AYES: Chrmn Peirce; Comms Brown, Izant, Shapiro, Smith and Strohecker
NOES: None
ABS: None
VII. REGULATION OF SATELLITE RECEIVING ANTENNAE
The staff report was given by Ms. Sapetto. She stated that staff was
asking the Commission to adopt a Resolution of Intention to regu-
late the installation of satellite receiving antennas. She added that
the city of Torrance had a similar resolution and she would provide
copies of it to Commission at the next meeting. She advised Commission
that if they felt that antennas should be regulated to some extent
then they should adopt the attached Re-solution of intention.
Chrmn Peirce stated that at the present time this did not appear to
be a problem but with decreasing costs to erect these antennas they
may soon be proliferating in the city. He added that they look similar
to a solar panel, only not as attractive. He encouraged the Commission
to go forward and examine this issue.
Comm. Smith agreed and added that if the computer revolution is any in-
dicator the installation of these antennas will increaserapidly over
the next five years, and he didn't want a neighborhood filled with
them to downgrade the neighborhood's appearance, not to mention the in-
terference. Comm Brown agreed.
Motion by Comm Smith, seconded by Comm Izant to adopt resolution 83-18;
there being no objection it was so moved.
VII. REDEFINING HOTEL/MOTEL/BOARDING HOUSE/ROOMING HOUSE/LODGING HOUSE
Chrmn Peirce stated that the council wants hotels and motels to have
cooking facilities and they want parking to be scaled to the size of
the project. He was somewhat dismayed by the councils request, since
the Commission had put a lot of thought and reasoning into these defin-
ions. He also felt that kitchen facilities would make the hotels/motels
too similar to apartments, and it may be difficult to keep them from
becoming apartments .
. Mr. Mercado suggestedthat the city could possibly place as a condition
of approval that there be periodic assessments of the records to deter
PAG~ 11
mine if there is a turnover of clientele; and if that is the case,
their business license could be rescinded.
Comm Smith said that kitchens would encourage long-term use. He also
felt that the mode of enforcement suggested by Mr. Mercado would not
work, based on past experience with that type of enforcement.
Chrmn Peirce suggested that since there was a substantial difference
of opinion between the Council and Commission, it would be worthwhile
to meet with Council in subcommittee. All commissioners agreedv and
it was decided that action would be held off until the subcommittees
meet.
COMMISSIONERS' ITEMS
Chrmn Peirce referred to a letter, dealing with a: change in configur-
ation to the Appletree project which the Commission received and sug-
gested that it be referred to the Building Department. The letter
apparently charged that the security gate had been set back on the
first building. He then asked that the Building Department look into
it, since the letter did not provide sufficient information as to what
the violation was.
Comm Smith asked that staff respond to the letter's author and advise
in writing that the letter was being referred to the Building Depart-
ment. Ms. Sapetto agreed.
Chrmn Peirce pointed out that since the next meeting of Commission would
be his last nominations for new officers should be made tonight and
voted upon at the next meeting. The following nominations were received:
Chairman: Steve Izant
Vice Chairman: Nominations were left open
Secretary: Joel Shapiro.
Ms. Sapetto informed the Commission that nothing new had transpired
with respect to the parking on the westside of Pacific Coast Highway.
Meeting was adjourned at 10:25.
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes were approved at a reg-
ular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 7th day
of June, 1983.
JAMES PEIRCE, CHAIRMAN JOEL SHAPIRO, SECRETARY
) DATE
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR .MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF HERMOSA
BEACH HELD ON MAY 3, 1983, IN CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT 7:30 P.M.
I. ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Chrmn Peirce Comms Brown Loosli, Shapiro, Smith, Strohecker
and Izant
ABSENT: None
ALSO PRESENT: Pam Sapetto, Planning Director; Ralph Castenada, TDC
Planning, A. Mercado, Planning Aide
I
II. MINUTES
Motion by Comm Strohecker, seconded by Dhrmn Peirce, to approve the
minutes as submitted.
AYES: Comms Brown, Loosli, Peirce, Shapiro, Strohecker
NOES: None
ABS: Comms Izant, Smith
III. RESOLUTIONS P.C. 83-10 and .83-ll
Motion by Chrmn Peirce, seconded by Comm Smith to approve both res-
olutions as prepared.
AYES:
NOES:
ABS:
IV.
Comms. Brown, Loosli, Peirce, Shapiro, Smith, Strohecker
None
Comm Izant
Housing Element of the General Plan (continued)
Comm Izant asked, with respect to the technical appendix, the source
of the tables and figures. Mr. Castenada replied that they were from
the SCAG figures. He added that SCAG is designated by the Census Bureau
as a regional center and they assemble all the information and produce
it for the cities in Southern California. It is a standardized report
that cities and counties can request and obtain for a fee. So staff ob-
tained it two months ago. The source of the figures is the 1980 Census.
He added that the Census Bureau does not print the reports but gives
the information ·.to SCAG andthey prepare the reports and sell them to the
cities.
Comm Izant asked, with resepct to table A-6 of the technical apendix,
what the figures represent in actuality. Mr. Castenada replied that the
figures represented the maximum development potential per the general
plan and not what is actually on the ground at this time. Comm Izant sug-
gested that an A-7 table be added based on what the zoning build out
would be it that is possible to calculate. Mr. Castenada stated that
staff can obtain that information from the research done by the Planning
and building departments. Ms. Sapetto stated that staff had the build
PAGE TWO
out figures for those areas that were inconsistent and not an overall
build out figure based on zoning. She added that the land use element
RFP requires that that information be generated, so it will be a part
of the land use element. Some of the residential areas have been done
(R-1, 2 & 3).
Comm Izant asked Mr. Castenada ·with respect to table A-3, re potential
additional units,per zoning requirements, if that represented the addi-
tional potential build out of the city, although there were no numbers
attached to it? Mr. Castenada stated that this was drawn from the
Coastal Plan, and mainly it reflected areas outside of the low density
category. Comm Izant asked whether the 25 units figures represented
25 dwelling units are allowed there per acre or if it represented 25
additional units over and above what is there already. Mr. Castenada
stated that it was the latter.
Comm Izant stated that the map included in the technical appendix is
a forerunner of the zoning build-out chart. Mr. Castenada agreed.
Comm Izant asked for an e~planation of table A-2. Mr. Castenada re-
plied that the figures there represent the various income households
which live in owner-occupied housing.
Chrmn Peirce opened the public hearing. There being no testimony, the
public hearing was continued.
Chrmn Peirce stated that there was a workshop session with the City
Council scheduled for this coming Thumsday evening at 7:00 o'clock,
and suggested that another workshop be scheduled for the early part
of June to consider and discuss this document further. (Discussion
was then had about the council meeting scheduled for the same date
as the nextCommission meeting, May 17, 1983. It was decided that the
Commission would change it's next meeting date to Tuesday, May 31,
1983).
Mr. Castenada stated that the staff had given a draft of the document
to the City Council as Commission instructed at the last meeting.
Comm Smith stated that the document is representative of what the commun-
ity wants.
Chrmn Peirce, not hearing anymore comments from Commission, moved to
continue the item to the first meeting in June.
Chnmn Peirce asked the Commission to next address comments re the
Regional Housing Allocation Model.
Mr. Castenada stated that on page 765, the number should read 477.
• PAGE THREE
Chrmn Peirce asked for the definition of "upper income." Mr. Castenada
responded by saying it would be generally defined as 120% of the median
income and above (median is approximately $24,000., with $30,000. and
above being considered upper income). He added that the Roos bill dele-
gated to agencies like SCAG the responsibility to develop "Share region-
al housing needs" for all cities and they needed to do it by an income
distribution and come up with a reasonable factor.
Comm Loosli asked if in the body of the text whether only the 477 number
will be reflected or if the breakdown between the very low, moderate
and upper incomes be reflected also. Mr. Castenada stated that both have
to be reflected in the element. Comm Loosli said that he could see no
way that 137 low or very low housing units would be built in Hermosa.
Mr. Castenada agreed.
Comm Smith stated that based on table A-2 he had calculated the number
of 61 households paying 35% plus of their income, with the end result
being that those 61 households ; would be paying $142.00 per month, which
would make that very very low income housing.
Mr. Castena&. stated that the memo gave additional data which defined
this in a little more detail. He stated that the two numbers that are
comparable are the 765 and 477 numbers, total projected new housing for
the community. In each case the numbers reflect basically three factors
which SCAG generally considers as a factor causing a need for new housing.
One, is additional households moving into the area or from within the
area; two, is housing that you lose by way of casualty losses or inten-
tiona·l losses (there are certain losses from inventory that need to be
replaced). Three, vacancies. In other words, every community needs a
healthy vacancy rate to keep prices and rents in balance. Of the 477
figure, 247 is attributable to growth; 110 is attributable to vacancy
deficit; and 120 is lost from the stock. The only units that would add
population is the 247. So the 247 is what needs to be reflected on the
first page of the memo rather than the 477.
Comm Loosli stated that if, in using the 247 figure,there is a projected
need of 241 upper income dwellings then that would fit the formula stat-
ed because new units would all most likely be expensive since that is
what is being built now.
Comm Brown stated he was in favor of stating that 247 goes to growth
and the 110 figure indicates additional units, rather than having a
number that has to be defined, as that would leave it open to misin-
terpretation. Chrmn Peirce stated that if you put specific numbers in
the document, then you are held to those numbers, therefore, it should
be somewhat vague.
Mr. Castenada stated that the law delegates the responsiblity to SCAG,
then SCAG develops these figures; the city is then to reflect them in
the housing element as its share of regional housing needs. If a city
has an argument with a number, then they have a period of time to raise
their doubts and problems with SCAG to see if they can come to some
agreement on some revised figures. The city needs to state its case
within 90 days. Our 90 period started as of April 8 or 15, 1983. Once
SCAG has officially received the request, then they have 60 days to res-
pond and come to a conclusion.
r
(
PAGE FOUR
Comm Smith stated with respect to the 247 figure, that he felt there
was no way to meet it since there is no way to measure it. He felt
it was unrealistic and that the city needs a plan based on what it
knowsis going to happen in Hermosa.
Mr. Castenada stated that even though the implication is that these units
would be by way of new construction, there are arguments that you can use
existing housing stock to address these needs, i.e., shared housing,
that would meet the criterion by which SCAG would judge this and would
be attributable to addressing that need. Also the shared equity program,
with respect to the condo conversion projects, addresses the moderate
income need.
Chrmn Peirce suggested that the 477 figure be used on page 6 and the 247
figure on page 8 and not break it down into percentages.
V. C-Potential Along Pacific Coast Highway (continued)
Chrmn Peirce stated that the City Council would like to change the c-
potential property into commercial. He added that the Planning Commission
delayed that and decided they would like to see an examination of the
pieces of property which are now C-potential and then decide which should
become commercial and which should remain residential. (At this point
there was an interruption with respect to Thursday's sub-committee meet-
ing as to the topics that will be addressed. It was learned that three
topics would be covered including this issue).
Ms. Sapetto stated in answer to Chrmn Peirce's question that the consul-
tant hired by the city would be dealing with this issue.
Chrmn Peirce stated that he felt that the consensus on this particular
issue is that the Commission would like to exam the properties that are
at issue individually; with the question being how best to approach it.
He suggested that the Commission can take the report and modify it by
a sub-committee or by the full commission and come up with a recommend-
ation for the multi-use corridor before the consultant completes his
study,or Commission can wait until the consultant's study is complete.
In any event, Commission should get a recommendation to the Council in
the next 2 months or so.
In answer to Comm Loosli's question, Ms. Sapetto stated that the consul-
tant would be addressing and amending the land use plan and updating
and dealing with the multi-use corridor. Comm Loosli asked if the con-
sultant would be recommending which lots should remain residential and
which should not. Ms. Sapetto replied that he would not make that type
of recommendation, that the commission would have to do that. Comm
Loosli suggested that the Commission just begin methodically studying
each individual lot in the area in question and making decisions.
Chrmn Peirce suggested having staff make recommendations on the lots at
issue with the results being discussed by the commission or sub-committee
PAGE FIVE
Ms. Sapetto stated that Commission needs to make a recommendation to
the Council in an expeditious manner as requested by council. Commission
should recommend that the best way to approach this is to examine the
C-potential lots individually and decide which can be rezoned to C-3
and which cannot. She added that the Zoning Code gives the Commission
only a certain number of days on which to act on a City Council item.
She suggested further that the Commission's recommendation be that the
City stay with what is in the code at the present time, i.e., that it
comes before Planning Commission review on a case-by-case basis.
Comm Smith stated that originally Commission wanted to set a plan for
development along., the highway to stimulate commerical growth.
Chrmn Peirce stated that staff should send a memo to the City Council
stating that the best method is to not change the regulations with re-
spect to changing C-potential to commercial, but to examine each lot
individually and make a judgement. Then Commission can do a zone change
on the lots designated C-potential with the thought of strengthening the
multi-use corridor.
Comm. Loosli added that the Commission has already examined the south-
west quadrant, so Commission can eliminate C-potential there without
reexamination.
Comm. Strohecker asked if there is a problem leaving as . is a lot which is
presently zoned residential with C-potential. Ms. Sapetto stated that
the Council does not think that C-potential is bad, but they feel that
it eliminates Planning Commission review. However, the solution may be
to leave it as is.
Comm Strohecker stated that he felt the city needs the extra commercial
depth along the highway. However, he did not want to be in a position
where the Commission is dictating what a person may build on their lot
if the original building is torn down. He suggested that there be a
requirement that the C-potential property be contiguous to commercial.
Ms. Sapetto stated that the original concept was that the C-potential
would be to change the zoning regulat ions to include a provision that
any property that is contiguous to a C-3 zone would be automatically
rezoned to C within the C~potential zone.
Chrmn Peirce reiterated that Staff should send a memo to Council stating
Commission's recommendation.
Comm Smith stated that the approach would be best served by waiting for
andutilizing the comprehensive data for the area in question which will
be generated as a result of the RPF and the land use element.
Chrmn Peirce opened ,·the public hearing.
Violet Isgreen, 726 Prospect, Hermosa Beach, asked if the property
owners affected would be notified again . Chrmn Peirce replied that all
the rules will be followed re noticing.
• PAGE SIX
There being no further testimony, Chrmn Peirce closed the public hearing.
Ms. Sapetto suggested that Commission do the memo as a motion providing
no changes to the regulations but to examine each lot individually, and
making any zone changes with the thought of deepening the multi-use
corridor. And perhaps adding that" ... the best method to address the
C-potential zone would be to not change the regulations as they current-
ly stand in the zoning code."
Motion by Chrmn Peirce, seconded by Comm Smith, to send the motion as
stated by Ms. Sapetto to the Council.
Comm Strohecker stated that he didn't like the wording. He suggested
that a definition of C-potential be added to the Code and included in
the above motion. Comm. Brown agreed.
Chrmn Peirce suggested that the above-mentioned motion be amended to read
as follows: "The best method to address the C-potential zone is to not
change the regulations as they are currently described in the zoning
code; but to, one, determine a method to clarify in the zoning code what
is meant by C-potential; and, two, examine individually whether the C-
potential applies or does not apply to the lots in this area."
There being no objection, it was SO ORDERED.
VI. Consideration of Amending Stan-aa·ra Cohdi tio•ns for Subdivisions
Ms. Sapetto gave the Staff Report. She stated that it has been suggest-
ed by the Building Department that a number of modifications be made in
the standard conditions of approval for residential condo projects.
She added that a number of the standard conditions included in the re-
solution of approval are already mandated by the condo ordinance. There-
fore, including those standard condit~onsagain in the resolution of
approval is somewhat redundant and unnecessary. The Planning Department
agrees with the Building Departments interpretation.
She stated that condition 1, which states, "Project shall meet all
standards in Chapter 9.5-1 thro~gh 9.5-28, Articles I & II of the Condo
rinium Ordinance." it was suggested that the condition be revised to
read "Project shall meet all construction standards in Article II,
section 9.5-27 of the Condominium Ordinance."
With respect to condition 2, she stated that the Commission might want
to include as a special condition that the final CC&R's be filed before
final map approval. Technically, it appears that a condo project and
tentative map should not be considered until a complete set of CC&R's
is filed. She added that the key word is "final.", in that if staff has
the final CC&R before it· reviewsthe map, they will have better con-
trol over getting the CC&Rs back. Also we will .not have the projects in
limbo for · long periods of time pending the final map approval.
As to condition 4 she stated that any units that are between 2 and 4 .
staff has the capacity in-house to inspect those units and they do so.
However, in the majority of the projects in the city the city does not
require a civil engineer, so the Building Department is suggesting that
, PAGE 7
a registered civil engineer be required and that the applicant bear
the burden of procuring the engineer and not the city.
She continued by saying that the condition that all utilities be placed
underground is already required in a section of the Condo Ordinance
and does not have to be included as a standard condition.
Lastly, she stated that the one condition that really causes the most
confusion is the condition that deals with passive solar systems being
described in a report at the time of the filing of the final map.
Passive solar systems should be incorporated at the time one designs
a project and not afterwards, unless one does so the passive solar
uses will be insignificant, i.e. providing a water heater insulator.
So, in this case, the condo Ordinance should be changed to include a
provision that the passive solar report be given at the time of appli-
cation.
In summation she stated that there are 10 standard conditions, with
the 10th, which was not reflected, being a deed restriction being ·
placed on the property which limits the project to the planned number
of units.
Chrmn Peirce stated that he did not see where some of these articles,
9.5-1 through 28, and particularly 9.5-26, would be addressed. He
felt there were a number of items that should not be eliminated as
was being suggested.
Comm Brown asked for what reasons these standards were enacted originally.
Ms. Sapetto replied that they were established to provide builders with
the city requirements in writing. Comm Brown didn't feel that the
recommended changes covered everything that builders have to meet.
Comm Loosli recommended that 9.5-1 through 28 be reinstated in the
resolution.
Chrmn Peirce stated that the would then make the deed restriction number
seven in the resolution.
MOTION by Comm Izant, seconded by Comm Smith, that Commission accept the
staff recommendations numbered 2, 3, 6, and 7 of the resolution, and
that the old recommendation number 1, whib.h r .eads "Project shall meet all
standards in Chapter 9.5-1 thru 9.5-28, Articles I & II of the Condo-
minium Ordinance." be retained.
There being no objection, it was SO ORDERED.
VII. R-3 Properties to be Used as Parking Lots
Chrmn Peirce stated that parking lots are permitted, with certain limi-
tation, as a subsidiary use in R-3 zones. Now council is requesting
that parking lots be allowed in R-3 as a primary use.
Mr. Mercado gave the staff report. He stated that staff feels that the
proposed change would have the following impacts: (1) there will be a
reduction of land available for residential use; (2) Police surveillance
, PAGE EIGHT
may be required in greater than normal numbers to prevent vandalism;
(3) Property adjacent thereto may experience a decline in property
value. He added that it is staffs'opinion that the positive points
outweigh the negative and recommend the appro\al of 1165 of the zoning
code to allow a parking lot as a primary use in the R-3 zones.
Comm Smith asked about the EIR report. Mr. Mercado stated that the
Board of Zoning Adjustment had just considered this project and they
felt it would have no negative environmental impact. He added that
this issue is being considered on a motion by the council after they
decided that there is a measureable lack of parking in the city, it
is a major pere:riial problem, and this could provide a method to miti-
ate the problem.
Comm Brown inquired as to what the height limitation would be on a
parking structure ·if these recommendation were adopted. Mr. Mercado
responded by saying that the particulars had not been worked out yet,
but at this time :i..t would have to be consistent with the R-3 require-
ments.
In answer to Comm Izant's question Mr. Mercado stated that currently
section 11.52 indicates that one can have a parking lot in an R-3
zone .but that parking facility can be no further than 50 feet from
a commercial or industrialuse!rhe parking has to be to accommodate
that commercial use. Lots at this time · are only allow as an accessory
use.
Chrmn Peirce stated that the gest of council's motion is that a person
can buy a lot in R-3; den:io the building, and put a parking lot in and
charge for parking. •
Comm Loosli stated that if this use were allowed, Hermosa would permit
35 foot high parking structures.
Chrmn Peirce opened the pub.lie hearing-. There being no testimony, the
hearing was closed.
In answer to Corom Smith's question as to the background of this issue
Ms ... Sa.petto stated that there was no discussion on the part of the city
council with respect to thi.s recommendation and that it was done by way
of a motion.
Comm Izant stated that he recognized that there is a need for parking
on Pacific Coast Highway and, after studying the individual property,
he would be willing to grant some parking use. However, he felt that
the current mechanism :i..n section 1165 currently gives the Commission
flexibility to grant that parking when needed and it also maintains
adequate controls to maintain other sections of the city that do not
want parking lots in th.eir midst.
Comm. Brown agreed with Comm Izant that there is a need for parking in
the city. But he felt that this proposal might cause problems and was
not well tho~ght out.
• -PAGE NINE
Chrmn Peirce stated that he did not think it .was a good idea to have
a parking structure in the midst of an R-3 zone.
Comm Loosli stated that if this proposal passes there will be no public
hearings on it. Also, he felt this would have a very negative affect
on adjacent property values.
Motion by Comm Izant, seconded by Comm Smith, to accept the wording of
the resolution 83-14: .. denying the amendment to the zoning code, with the
addition of one additional "Whereas" which reads "WHEREAS the Planning
Commission has determined that an adequate mechanism in section 1165
exists for permitting the use of R-3 zones for parking."
AYES: Comm Brown, Izant, Loosli, Peirce, Shapiro, Smith, Strohecker
NOES: None
ABS: None
VIII. Staff Items
Ms. Sapetto stated with respect to the Condo Conversion Ordinance that
the council did hold a workshop on this issue on April 20, 1983 and they
decided to agree with the Planning Commission recommendation to delete
the conditional approval section and the in-lieu fee provision. Also,
they wanted to incorporate a mechanism, such as the city of Torrance
has, which allows for a variance of certain standards on a project-by-
project basis.
Chrmn Peirce asked for an explanation of the Torrance Ordinance. Ms.
Sapetto stated that since the Commission had not had a chance to pro-
perly familiarize themselves with the ordinance, and since she was not
prepared to analyse the Ordinance tonight, that this item be discussed
at a later time.
Comm Loosli stated that he didn't like section 91.36.7 of the Torrance
Ordinance as it referred to "goals and guidelines" which are not en-
forceable.
Comm Izant stated that he was disappointed with this recommendation from
council. He felt that the consensus of the Commission was that it was
too vague, but that they would be interested in seeing something more
concrete. Comm. Smith was also disappointed.
Chrmn Peirce requested that staff find out the definition of "base zone".
Comm Strohecker wanted to know specifically what the council would like
to see done differently in a conversion project than in a new condo
project.
Ms. Sapetto suggested that this be discussed at the joint workshop.
IX. Commissioners' Items
Comm Izant stated that a few months back there was a subcommittee deal-
PAGE 10
ing with the question of parking along Pacific Coast Highway, which
because of his recent travelling has not met. He asked Commission
whether they would like that subcommittee to continue. Chrmn Peirce
stated that that issue was suspended at present, pending some further
action. Comm Izant asked Ms. Sapetto to check on it.
Comm Smith requested a status report on the Storer Cable project. Ms.
Sapetto stated that at present there is a motion to recon5ider the
issue, with three items being looked at specifically: (1) They want
to hire someone to give them technical advice that the structure is
reliable (at applicant's expense); (2) whether it is technically re-
quired; and (3) They want to conduct a public hearing on the 28th.
Ms. Sapetto stated that the council took an action to return to the
Planning Commission the Appletree project to determine whether or not
the conditions of approval are being met. She added that the City
Attorney is preparing some information on this issue.
Motion to adjourn by Chrmn Peirce, seconded by Comm Izant. SO ORDERED
at 10:50 p.m.
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes were approved at a
regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the day ------of May, 1983.
S PE I RC~ CHAIRMA N
PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OF JUNE 21, 1983, HELD IN THE
:... PLANNING DEPARTMENT CONFERENCE ROOM, HERMOSA BEACH
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Chrmn Peirce; Cornms Izant, Shapiro, Smith, Strohecker
ABSENT: Comms Brown, Loosli
ALSO PRESENT: Pam Sapetto, Planning Director; Alfred Mercado,
Planning Aide.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES -JUNE 7, 1983
Motion by Comm Shapiro, seconded by Chrmn Peirce to approve the
minutes from the regular meeting of June 7, 1983, as submitted.
There being no objection, THE MOTION WAS SO ORDERED.
APPROVAL OF RESOLUTIONS P.C. 83-15, P.C. 83-16, P.C. 83-17
Motion by Comm Strohecker, seconded by Comm Shapiro, to approve
all three resolutions (P.C. 83-15, P.C. 83-16, P.C. 83-17) as
submitted by staff.
AYES: Chrmn Peirce; Comms Izant, Shapiro, Smith, and Strohecker
NOES: None
ABS: None
SEVEN UNIT CONDOMINIUM, CUP & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP #37389
The Staff report was given by Alfred Mercado. He stated that
in June the Environmental Review Board considered this project
and issued it a Negative Declaration has having no significant
impact on the environment.
He continued by saying that the project consists of a seven unit
condominium in two structures on 9,200 square foot lot zoned R-3,
and is within the multi-use corridor. One structure is to be
three stories. All garages are subterranean. He added that
Applicant is not being required to submit a tentative map because
a final map on this property was previously recorded with the Los
Angeles County Recorder. Along that line, he explained that another
developer had previously planned a project and at that point the
final map had been recorded. However, that project never material-
ized, but the map remains recorded.
He stated that the project meets all requirements and staff recom-
mends that the Planning Commission approve the seven unit condo-
minium, tentative tract map, and CUP.
The Public Hearing was opened by Chrmn Peirce.
PAGE 2
Gary Schneider, 17 Thunder Trail, Irvine, California -Applicant.
He stated that the architect for the project, Martin Sapetto, was
.in attendance, along with the civil engineer and they could answer
Commissions' questions with respect to the project.
In answer to Chrmn Peirce's question, Mr. Martin Sapetto, Archi-
tect, stated that the highest point Jf the building would be
35 feet, with the rear structure being somewhat less. He added
that the finished qrade would be less than the natural grade,
so the 35 feet will be the highest point as measured from the
natural grade.
In answer to Chrmn Peirce's question, Mr. Sapetto stated that the
storage area will be provided on the back wall of the garage.
Chrmn Peirce todl the applicant that he may be requested to come
back before the Commission in the future if questions arise. He
added that the project appears to meet all of the specifications
in the Condominium Ordinance.
Public Hearing was closed by Chrmn Peirce.
In answer to Comm Izant's question as to whether the proposed
resolution submitted tonight for approval was based on the current
criteria, with particular respect with item number 6, Mr. Mercado
explained that Staff had not, as yet, revised the application pack-
age. And, as a result of that, Staff did not feel it was appropriate
to impose that requirement on this applicant.
Chrmn Peirce added that requirement number 6 was in existence
before this project's application was submitted. Mr. Mercado re-
plied that he was not sure that was the case, but added that there
is a "lag" time between approval and implementation, and the appli-
cation forms have not been revised yet. Due to this fact, staff
felt it would be unjust to impose this requirement on the appli-
cant. Mr. Mercado stated that application forms would be revised
very soon.
In answer to Comm Smith's question, Mr. Mercado stated that the
tentative map is approved contingent on the final map.
Comm Strohecker stated that the minimum dwelling space appears to
be approximately 1,100 plus square feet, and asked how that figure
compares with neighboring cities. Since there were no comparative
figures available at this time, he requested that staff provide
Commission with this information at the next meeting. Mr. Mercado
said he would do so.
Motion by Comm Izant, seconded by Comm Smith to approve the condo-
minium project at 723 3rd Street.
PAGE 3
AYES: Chrmn Smith; Comms Izant, Shapiro, Smith, and Strohecker
NOES: None
ABS: None
In response to Comm Smith's inquiry, Mr. Mercado reiterated that
because this applicant was not informed of the new requirement --
re item number six on the resolution --staff is now requiring
applicant to conform with the new requirement in a timely fashion.
Motion by Comm Izant, seconded by Comm Smith, to approve Resolution
P.C. 83-19 as written by staff.
AYES: Chrmn Smith; Comms Izant, Shapiro, Smith, and Strohecker
NOES: None
ABS: None
STAFF ITEMS & COMMISSIONER'S ITEMS
Chrmn Peirce stated that with respect to the letter from the women
at the Appletree project which was mentioned at the previous meet-
ing, the change to the project was done at the request of the city.
He added that the change with respect to gate was a good idea, as
people were getting stacked up on Ardmore. He asked what the sta-
tus was with respect to the package on the Appletree project that
Commission was supposed to receive. Mr. Mercado stated that the
City Attorney is still working on that.
Comm Shapiro nominated Comm Smith to serve as Vice Chariman, Comm
Strohecker seconded the nomination. Comm Smith accepted the nomin-
ation.
Chrmn Peirce stated that Comm Shapiro would remain secretary, with
Comm Izant taking over as Chairman.
Motion by Comm Smith, seconded by Comm Izant to unanimously endorse
the slate of new officers.
Chrmn Peirce asked Mr. Mercado to find out if he would remain on
the Commission until such time as the Council appoints his replace-
ment.
Comm Izant expressed his, as well as the commission's, appreciation
to retiring Commissioner/Chairman Peirce for his 8 years of service
to the city. He also expressed the same appreciation to retiring
Commissioner Loosli.
Meeting was adjourned at 7:55 p.m.
.,.
)
Certification
I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true
and complete record of the actions taken by the Planning
Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach, California at
their regular meeting of June 21, 1983.
JAMES PEIRCE, CHAIRMAN JOEL SHAPIRO, SECRETARY
DATE
(
,..
I
~UNUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF HERMOSA
BEACH HELD ON MAY 3, 1983, IN CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT 7:30 P.M.
I. ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Chrmn Peirce Comms Brown Loosli, Shapiro, Smith, Strohecker
and Izant
ABSENT: None
ALSO PRESENT: Pam Sapetto, Planning Director; Ralph Castenada, TDC
Planning, A. Mercado, Planning Aide
II. MINUTES
Motion by Comm Strohecker, seconded by :Ghrmn Peirce, to approve the
minutes as submitted.
AYES:
NOES:
ABS:
III.
Comms Brown, Loosli, Peirce, Shapiro, Strohecker
None
Cornms Izant, Smith
RESOLUTIONS P.C. 83-10 an '.,. 83-11
Motion by Chrmn Peirce, seconded by Comm Smith to approve i.ot res-
olutions as prepared.
AYES:
NOES:
ABS:
IV.
Cornms Brown, Loosli, Peirce, Shapiro, Smith, Strc
None
Comm Izant
Housing Element of the General Plan (continued)
Comm Izant asked, with respect to the technical appendix, the source
of the tables and figures. Mr. Castenada replied that they were from
the SCAG figures. He added that SCAG is designated by the Census Bureau
as a regional center and they assemble all the information and produce
it for the cities in Southern California. It is a standardized report
that cities and counties can request and obtain for a fee. So staff ob-
tained it two months ago. The source of the figures is the 1980 Census.
He added that the Census Bureau qoes not print the reports but gives
the informatiqn to SCAG andthey prepare the reports and sell them to the
cities.
CotlD Izant asked, with resepct to table A-6 of the technical apendix,
what the figures represent in actuality. Mr. Castenada replied that the
figures represented the maximum development potential per the general
plan and not what is actually on the ground at this time. Comm Izant sug-
gested that an A-7 table be added based on what the zoning build out
would be it that is possible to calculate. Mr. Castenada stated that
staff can obtain that information from the research done by the Planning
a nd building departments. Ms. Sapetto stated that staff had the build
PAGE TWO
out figures for those areas that were inconsistent and not an overall
build out figure based on zoning. She added that the land use element
RFP requires that that information be generated, so it will be a part
of the land use element. Some of the residential areas have been done
(R-1, 2 & 3) .
Comm Izant asked Mr. Castenada ···with respect to table A-3, re potential
additional units,per zoning requirements, if that represented the addi-
tional potential build out of the c;ity, although there were no numbers
attached to it? Mr. Castenada stated that this was drawn from the
Coastal Plan, and mainly it reflected areas outside of the low density
category. Comm Izant asked whether the 25 units figures represented
25 dwelling units are allowed there per acre or if it represented 25
additional units over and above what is there already. Mr. Castenada
stated that it was the latter.
Comm Izant stated that the map included in the technical appendix is
a forerunner of the zoning build-out chart. Mr. Castenada agreed.
Comm Izant asked for an e):planation of table A-2. Mr. Castenada re-
plied that the figures the-r-e represent the various income households
which live in owner-occupied housing.
Chrrnn Peirce op=nEd the public hearing. There being no testimony, the
public hearing was con.c:i.nued.
Chrrnn Peirce sta r-i=-,'J -t h a t there was a workshop session with the City
Council scheduled i of.' thi s corning Thul'.:sday evening at 7:00 o'clock,
and suggested that anu ther workshop be scheduled for the early part
of June to consider a.r:d discuss this document further. (Discussion
was then had about the council meeting scheduled for the same date
as the nextcommission meeting, May 17, 1983. It was decided that the
Commission would change it's next meeting date to Tuesday, May 31,
19 83).
Mr. Castenada stated that the staff had given a draft of the document
to the City Council as Commission instructed at the last meeting.
Comm Smith stated that the document is representative of what the commun-
ity. wants.
Chrrnn Peirce, not hearing anymore comments from Commission, moved to
continue the item to the first meeting in June.
Ch.1'.lmn Peirce asked the Commission to next address co:inments re tLe
Regional Housing Allocation Model.
Mr. Castenada stated that on page 765, the number should read 477.
'PAGE THREE
Chrmn Peirce asked for the definition of "upper income." Mr. Castenada
responded by saying it would be generally defined as 120% of the median
income and above (median is approximately $24,000., with $30,000. and
above being considered upper income). He added that the Roos bill dele-
gated to agencies like SCAG the responsibility to develop "Share region-
al housing needs" for all cities and they needed to do it by an income
distribution and come up with a reasonable factor.
Comm Loosli asked if in the body of the text whether only the 477 number
will be reflected or if the breakdown between the very low, moderate
and upper incomes be reflected also. Mr. Castenada stated that both have
to be reflected in the element. Comm Loosli said that he could see no
way that 137 low or very low housing units would be built in Hermosa.
Mr. Castenada agreed.
Comm Smith stated that based on table A-2 he had calculated the number
of 61 households paying 35% plus of their income, with the end result
being that those 61 households would be paying $142.00 per month, which
would make that very very low income housing.
Mr. Castenaca stated that the memo gave additional data which defined
this in a :ittle more detail. He stated that the two numbers that are
comparable are the 765 and 477 numbers, total projected new housing for
the communi ':.y. In e ,::ch case the numbers reflect basically three factors
which SCAG generally considers as a factor causing a need for new housing.
One, is additional nouE",eholds moving into the area or from within the
ar,~a; t\70, is housing that you lose by way of casualty losses or inten-
tiona·i l os ses (there are ce:_·tain losses from inventory that need to be
rE'p :!.aced). Three, vacanc i es. In other words, every community needs a
h ~althy ~a c ancy rate to keep prices and rents in balance. Of the 477
fi g ure. 247 is attributable to growth; 110 is.attributable to vacancy
defi c i L; c:md 12 0 is lost from the stock. The only uni ts that would add
popul a.t ion is the 247. So the 247 is what needs to be reflected on the
first page of the memo rather than the 477.
Comm Loosli stated that if, in using the 247 figure,there is a projected
need of 241 upper income dwellings then that would fit the formula stat-
ed because new units would all most likely be expensive since that is
what is being built now.
Comm Brown stated he was in favor of stating that 247 goes to growth
and the 110 figure indicates additional units, rather than having a
number that has to be defined, as that would leave it open to misin-
terpretation. Chrmn Peirce stated that if you put specific numbers in
the document, then you are held to those numbers, therefore, it should
be somewhat va9ue.
Mr. Castenada stated that the law deleg.ates the responsibli ty to SCAG,
then SCAG develops these figures; the city is then to reflect them in
the housing element as its share of regional housing needs. If a city
has an argument with a number, then they have a period of time to raise
their doubts and problems with SCAG to see if they ·can come to some
agreement on some revised figures. The city needs to state its case
within 90 days. Our 90 period started as of April 8 or 15, 1983. Once
SCAG has officially received the request, then they have 60 days to res-
pond and come to a conclusion.
PAGE FOUR
comm Smith stated with respect to the 247 figure, that he felt there
was no way to meet it since there is no way to measure it. He felt
it was unrealistic and that the city needs a plan based on what it
knowsis going to happen in Hermosa.
Mr. Castenada stated that even though the implication is that these units
would be by way of new construction, there are arguments that you can use
existing housing stock to address these needs, i.e., shared housing,
that would meet the criterion by which SCAG would judge this and would
be attributable to addressing that need. Also the shared equity program,
with respept to the condo conversion projects, addresses the moderate
income need.
Chrmn Peirce suggested that the 477 figure be used on page 6 and the 247
figure on page 8 and not break it down into percentages.
V. C-Potential Along Pacific Coast Hi•ghway (continued)
Chrrnn Peirde stated that the City Council woulci like to change the C-
potential property into commercial. He added that the Planning Commission
delayed that and decided they would like to see an examination of the
pieces of property which are now C-potential and t~en decide which should
become commercial and which should remain resid·,'.,ntial. (At this point
there was an interruption with respect to Thursday's sub-committee mee~-
ing as to the topics that will be addressed. It was learned that three
topics would be covered including this issue).
Ms. Sapetto stated in answer to Chrmn Peirce's question that the consul-
tant hired by the city would be dealing with this issue.
Chrmn Peirce stated that he felt that the consensus on this particular·
issue is that the Commission would like to exam the properties that are
at issue individually; with the question being how best to approach it.
He suggested that the Commission can take the report and modify it by
a sub-committee or by the full commission and come up with a recommend-
ation for the multi-use corridor before the consultant completes his
study,or Commission can wait until the consultant's study is complete.
In any event, Commission should get a recommendation to the Council in
the next 2 months or so.
In answer to Comm Loosli's question, Ms. Sapetto stated that the consul-
tant would be addressing and amending the land use plan and updating
and dealing with the multi-use corridor. Comm Loosli asked if the con-
sultant would be recommending which lots should remain residential and
which should not. Ms. Sapetto replied that he would not make that type
of recommendation, that the commission would have to do that. Comm
Loosli suggested that the Commission just begin methodically studying
each individual lot in the area in q u estion and making decisions.
Chrrnn Peirce suggested having staff make recommendations on the lots at
issue with the results being discussed by the commission or sub-committee
PAGE FIVE
Ms. sapetto stated that Commission needs to make a recommendation to
the Council in an expeditious manner as requested by council. Commission
should recommend that the best way to approach this is to examine the
C-potential lots individually and decide which can be rezoned to C-3
and which cannot. She added that the Zoning Code gives the Commission
only a certain number of days on which to act on a City Council item.
She suggested further that the Commission's recommendation be that the
City stay with what is in the code at the present time, i.e., that it
comes before Planning Commission review on a case-by-case basis.
Comm Smith stated tha J: originally Commission wanted to set a plan for
development along, the highway to stimulate commerica~ growth.
Chrmn .Peirce stated that staff should send a memo to the City Council
stating that the best method is to not change the regulations with re-
spect to changing C-potential to commercial, but to examine each lot
individually ~nd make a judgement. Then Commission can do a zone change
on the lots designated C-potential with the thought of strengthening the
multi-use corridor.
Comm. Loosli added that the Commission has already examinEd the sou-1:t-
west quadrant, so Commission can eliminate C-potential there without
reexamination.
Comm. Strohecker asked if there is a problem leaving a is a lot whic.h is
presently zoned residential with C-potential. Ms,_ Sapc-L·L-;-1 stated that
the Council does not think that C-potential is l:dd 1 b·,.1t t:bey feel that
it eliminates Planning Commission review. Howev2r,. t J1e .s c,lution ?nay be
to leave it as is.
Comm Strohecker stated that he felt the city needs t .he extra commercial
depth along the highway. However,-he did not want to be in a position
where the Commission is dictating what a person may build on their lot
if the original building is torn down. He suggested that there be a
requirement that the C-potential property be contiguous to commercial.
Ms. Sapetto stated that the original concept was that the C-potential
would be to change the zoning regulations to include a provision that
any property that is contiguous to a C-3 zone would be automatically
rezoned to C within the C-potential zone.
Chrmn Peirce reiterated that Staff should send a memo to Council stating
Commission's recommendation.
Comm Smith stated that the approach would be best served by waiting for
andutilizing the comprehensive data for the area in question which will
be generated as a result of the RPF and the land use element.
Chrmn Peirce opened the public hearing.
Violet Isgreen, 726 Prospect, Hermosa Beach, asked if the property
owners affected would be notified again. Chrmn Peirce replied that all
the rules will be followed re noticing.
PAGE SIX
There being no further testimony, Chrmn Peirce closed the public hearing.
Ms. Sapetto suggested that Commission do the memo as a motion providing
no changes to the regulations but to examine each lot individually, and
making any zone changes with the thought of deepening the multi-use
corridor. And perhaps adding that 11
••• the best method to address the
C-potential zone would be to not change the regulations as they current-
ly stand in the zoning·code."
Motion by Chrrnn Peirce, seconded by Comm Smith, to send the motion as
stated by Ms. Sapetto to the Council.
Comm Stroh~cker stated that he didn't like the wording. He suggested
·that a definition of C-potential be added to the Code and included in
the above motion. Comm. Brown agreed.
Chrmn Peirce suggested that the above-mentioned motion be amended to read
as follows: "The best method to address the C-potential zone is to not
change the regulations as they are currently described in the zoning
code; but to, one, determine a ~ethod ·to clarify in the zoning code what
is meant by C-potential; and, two, examine individually whether the C-
potential applies or does not apply to the lots in this area."
There being no objection, it was SQ ORDERED. ·-
VI. Consideration of Am,~ndihg 'St.andard Conditions for Subdivisions
Ms. Sapetto gave the Staff'Report. She stated that it has been suggest-
ed by the Building Departr.cent t ,hat a number of 1nodifications be made in
the standard conditions of app.n-:ivaJ for residential condo projects.
She added that a number of tb.e .sta-r1dard conditions included in the re-
solution of approval are alrea~y mandated by the condo ordinance. There-
fore, including those standard conditions again in the resolution of
approval is somewhat redundant and unnecessary. The Planning Department
agrees with the Building Departments interpretation.
She stated that condition 1, which states, "Project shall meet all
standards in Chapter 9.5-1 through 9.5-28, Articles I & II of the Condo
rinium Ordinance." it was suggested that the condition be revised to
read "Project shall meet all construction standards in Article II,
section 9.5-27 of the Condominium Ordinance."
With respect to condition 2, she stated that the Commission might want
to include as a special condition that the final CC&R's be filed before
final map approval. Technically, it appears that a condo project and
tentative,, map should not be considered until a complete set of CC&R' s
is filed. She added that the key word is "final.", in that if staff has
the final CC&R before it reviews the map, they will have better con-
trol over getting the CC&Rs back. Also we will not have the projects in
limbo for long periods of time pending the final map approval.
As to condition 4 she stated that any units that are between 2 and 4
staff has the capacity in-house to inspect those uni ts and they do so. ---.
However, in the majority of the projects in the city the city does not
require a civil engineer, so the Building Department is suggesting that
PAGE 10
ing with the question of parking along Pacific Coast Highway, which
because of his recent travelling has not met. He asked Commission
whether they would like that subcommittee to continue. Chrmn Peirce
stated that that issue was suspended at present, pending some further
action. Comm Izant asked Ms. Sapetto to check on it.
Comm Smith requested a status report on the Storer Cable project. Ms.
Sapetto stated that at'present there is a motion to reconsider the
issue, with three items being looked at specifically: (1) They want
to hire someone to give them technical advice that the structure is
reliable (at applicant's expense); (2) whether it is technically re-
quired; and (3) They want to conduct a public hearing on the 28th.
Ms. Sapetto stated that the council took an action to return to the
Planning Commission the Appl·etree project to determine whether or not
the conditions of approval are being met. She added that the City
Attorney is preparing some information on this issue.
Motion to adjourn by Chrmn Peirce, seconded by Comm Izant. SO ORDERED
at 10:50 p.m.
· CERTIE ' ICA'I'ION
I hereby certify that. the foregoing minutes were approved at a
regular meeting of . t h e .·lanning Commission held on the day ------of May, 1983.
CHAI RMAN
DATE
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF HERMOSA
BEACH HELD ON APRIL 5, 1983 IN CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT 7:30 P.M.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Comms. Brown, Loosli, Peirce, Shapiro, Smith, Strohecker
ABSENT: Comm. Izant
ALSO PRESENT: Ms. Sapetto, Planning Director, Linda Braden, TDC
Planning
APPROVAL OF MARCH 15, 1983 MINUTES
Chmn. Peirce pointed out that the spelling of Wilma Burt's name was
incorrect.
Motion by Comm. Smith, seconded by Chmn. Peirce to approve the minutes
of March 15, 1983 as submitted, noting the above correction.
AYES: Comms. Brown, Peirce, Smith
NOES: None
ABSENT: Comm. Izant,
ABSTAIN: Comms. Loosli, Shapiro, Strohecker
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, ZONE CHANGE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A
100 FOOT TOWER AT 1529 VALLEY DRIVE: STORER CABLE FACILITY -CONT'D.
Chmn. Peirce divided this item into two issues, the first dealing with
the zone change from Manufacturing to C-2; the second dealing with the
Conditional Use Permit for the 100 foot tower.
Ms. Sapetto gave the staff report. She stated that staff recommends
that the resolution be adopted and determine whether or not the 100
foot tower is a compatible use with the city zoning code. The zoning
ordinance designates the site as manufacturing and the general plan
designates it as open space, two incompatible land uses. The lot in
questjon has been used for commercial purposes for several years.
The proposed general plan and zone change will not pose any changes to
the physical environment and will afford greater compatibility with
the adjacent development in staff's opinion. A CUP for the tower may
be allowed in a C-2 zone, under Section 800 and 1000.
She continued by saying that Commission should consider if the tower
would diminish the land value of the surrounding properties thereby
unjustly affecting substantial vested rights of the property owners.
Staff recommends that the proposed general plan amendment and zone
change be approved and the tower CUP be considered and examined under
the above code sections.
She added that the 100 foot tower did receive a negative declaration
by the Environmental Review Board, which stated that there would be
no adverse impact to the environment. Commission's decision should
be guided by the compatibility with the environment and by its con-
tribution to the community as a public utility.
Comm. Smith asked Storer to address their efforts to provide public
access facilities.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED ON THE ZONE CHANGE ISSUE.
·PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -APRIL 5, 1983 PAGE 2
Chmn. Peirce stated that the general plan now shows open space for
this particular property, and the recommendation is that it be
changed to commercial; and the zoning is now manufacturing and that
should be changed to C-2.
Rom Miller, Construction Manager for Storer Cable, Phoenix, Arizona,
representing the applicant stated that the requirement that the
conflict between the zoning and general plan be resolved was required
by the City as a condition of approval of the tower, and Storer has
no objection to the recommendations of staff or with the consultant's
report re. the zone change. It is Starer's desire to having the
zoning compatible with their facility.
Carol Resnichek, 2234 Strand, speaking as President of the Hermosa
Beach School Board. She stated that the change to the zoning to a
commercial zone would have no effect on the school's property and
there would be no objection to that portion of Starer's request.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED.
Chmn. Peirce stated that he saw this as an opportunity to make the
commercial use a correct one and compatible with the zoning and
general plan.
Motion by Chmn. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Smith to modify the general
plan to commercial and the zoning to C-2.
AYES: Comms. Brown, Loosli, Peirce, Shapiro, Smith, Strohecker
NOES: None
ABSENT: Comm. Izant
Motion by Chmn. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Smith, to adopt Resolution
83-8 modifying the first whereas to include tonight's public hearing
date.
AYES: Comms. Brown, Loosli, Peirce, Shapiro, Smith, Strohecker
NOES: None
ABSENT: Comm. Izant
CUP PORTION OF THE ABOVE ITEM
Comm. Loosli asked staff what the basis for denial would be as set
forth in code Section 800.
Mrs. Sapetto stated that what the Commission should look at is whether
or not any other uses stated in Section 800 would require a structure
that would go beyond the height limit such as the tower in Storer's
proposal. She stated that there was also Section 1201 that must be
interpreted. Basically the section talks about mechanical devices
that one might need to operate a building, such as, air conditioning,
television antennas and certain structures that are included in the
section, i.e. elevator shafts, fire parapet walls, flagpoles, chimneys,
smoke stacks, etc., that may be erected above the heighb limit. How-
ever, no penthouses or roof structures shall be allowed for providing
additional floor space.
' PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -APRIL 5, 1983 PAGE 3
She added that the findings the commission should consider with
respect to 1 Section 800 in discussing this issue are those that deal
with noise, dust, glare or esthetics. For example~ the Commission
may find that this tower is more obnoxious than warehouses, storage,
service stations, radio and television repair stores, etc. She
added that there is nothing in the code that talks about antennas in
the section which covers CUPs, however Section 1000 does discuss
"apparatus or appertances incidental to public utilities".
She stated in summary that if the Commission is concerned with the
above referred code section 800, the findings the Commission should
make would deal with glare, noise, traffic etc. If Commission is
concerned with Section 1201, then the findings should deal with whether
the structure falls within the definition of television aerials or
similar equipment required to operate and maintain a building. Com-
mission can address the issue of height as well as the issue of use.
In answer to Comm. Brown's question, Ms. Sapetto stated that one can
have a business without a tower and a CUP is not required for the
business, only for the tower.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED ON THE CUP PORTION OF THE ABOVE ITEM
Ron Miller, Applicant's representative, Phoenix, Arizona. He stated
that during the previous hearings several issues were raised and have
been previously addressed in the material submitted on the 8th of March.
The main issues were with respect to certain structural safety, security,
technical modifications and signal testing at Live Oak Park. The
planned facility at Valley Drive is to provide the best service avail-
able to the Hermosa Beach area. He added that this is a city-wide
issue and the system evaluation and design of the facility has been
made by engineers that are experienced in the field of cable communi-
cation. The tower is not required by the City Franchise, and it is not
required to maintain a minimum satisfactory signal. The existing sys-
tem currently exceeds the minimum FCC requirements. The tower is an
integral part of the entire cable system.
Mr. Miller continued by saying that the Live Oak Site is not capable
of supporting a higher tower and did not warrant further investigation
as it is not feasible to improve the system that would have the same
weaknesses as the current system. There is no cable operator in the
country that would design a system that separates satellite antennas
receiving equipment from the off-air receiving equipment. It is not
efficient, and it doesn't make sense. The alternate proposal sites
like the fire station would produce a split-head end arrangement and
keep the weaknesses that currently exist. Reviewing the submittal of
March 8th, the diagrams show the existing split-head end system would
require putting the off-air reception equipment at one site and the
satellite equipment would be at the Valley Drive site and the system
would remain the same.
With respect to the issues of security, maintenance, accessibility,
elimination of amplifiers, he stated that these are dealt wjth in the
proposal. He added that as it is now a malfunction of a receiver
at Live Oa:k r.equtres that ·a bechriician be sent tfl rom Valley Drive
to make the repair which would not be the case if the entire
PAGE 4
facility were in one location. The primary issue is the one of
visual impact vs. benefit to the entire community. He stated that
currently 50 percent of the population of Hermosa is served by Storer
with a projection of 70 percent penetration in the future. The bene-
fits of the tower will outweigh the negative visual impact of the
tower. He felt that the staff reports reinforced that point, and
added that the subcribers will be benefited directly and the city
indirectly.
In response to Comm Smith's question, Mr. Miller stated that the pro-
posed facility at Valley Drive remodel would provide a production
studio and control room for public access.
Ricky Luke, Western Regional Manager for Storer Cable, Phoenix,
Arizona. He stated that basically there is a little concern as to
how relocating the tower to the new position would benefit the over-
all operation of the system. Basically it would help the operation
from three standpoints; one, maintenance of the location; two, access-
ibility; three, it would reduce operational costs and less down time.
Also, by increasing the height it would improve the picture quality.
He added that presently the receive location has 16 processors and
7 trunk line amps coming back to the existing office; with the new
location the amps would be deleted by the 16 processors would remain.
In answer to Chrmn Peirce's questions,Mr. Luke stated that Storer
presently uses one full rack of equipment. Also that as far as main-
tenance and accessibility the new tower location would save outage
time and in that way ultimately benefit the customers and the city.
He felt that any minute saved is an important part of the service.
He stated that each channel fails approximately once a year.
Chrmn Peirce stated that benefit of cutting down outages for the en-
tire city have to be weighed against the individual service calls.
Mr. Luke stated that if the technicians don't have to dedicate time
to outage problems, they can use that time to work on the individual
subscriber problems. In answer to Chrmn Peirce's question, Mr. Luke
stated that all channels that fall within a certain radius of Starer's
location are considered "must-carry'' stations by the FCC, at this time
there are 16 of these stations.
In answer to Comm Smith's question Mr. Luke stated that the 100 foot
tower would increase Storer's capacity to carry more channelS. However
at this time he was not certain if the company would choose to add
stations.
In answer to Chrmn Peirce's and Comm Brown's questions Mr. Luke stated
that Storer is trying to give the city the best possible service they
can from a technical standpoint. He added that at this time there is
some concern with ghosting on some of the channelsand interference on
channel 2. He said that the new tower would reduce those problems to
a negligible amount. He stated further that the tower and foundation
will cost $22,000, but he did not konw how or if that expenditure would
fit into a rate increase or not. In answer to Comm Smith's inquiry
he stated that the Franchise Agreement states that decreases can take
effect also,not just increases, but any reduction in costs would prob-
PAGE 5
ably offset a normal increase and not translate into a decrease
for the subscribers.
In answer to Comm Loosli's question Mr. Luke stated that Storer wants
the entire operation in one place, from a technical and operational
standpoint.
Comm Shapiro stated that the tower will benefit the city in perhaps
providing better communication for the Fire and Police Departments.
Mr. Luke agreed if the departments locate some equipment there.
In answer to Comm Smith's inquiry, Comm Strohecker gave some back-
ground re the above-mentioned issue of Police and Fire communication.
He stated that the Fire Department presently is not happy with their
communications in the South Bay system. The Police Department is
happy with it because it caters more to the Police Department than
the Fire Department. However, the Police are not sure they will
continue with the South Bay System. He added that the Fire Depart-
ment will be getting out of the South Bay System and will go to a
tower above the station.
Ms. Sapetto suggest that the Commission attach this request as a
condition for approval of the CUP
Comm Brown stated that if the dollars Storer invests now is passed
on the the subscribers in the form of an increase and the reception
improvement is negligible, then the city will have a lot of unhappy
citizens.
Comm Shapiro stated that the City Council makes the determinations
as to whether to grant increases and is not something that is just
automatically passed on.
Carl Ossipoff, representing applicant, 1529 Valley Drive, stated that
the tower is to be purchased with capital dollars and depreciated over
20 years approximately. If there is an increase it would be minimal.
He added that Storer is granted increases by the Council based on the
current CPI.
Carol Resnichek, 2234 Strand, Hermosa Beach. She stated that the
applicant's major problem was the location of a 100 foot tower next
to a school as it is esthetically unappealing and a temptation for
the school children. As a citizen she was unhappy because it will
violate the city height restrictions. She added that most complaints
about Storer have to do with service and not signal. She was also
concerned whether Storer will have sufficient parking for their em-
ployees as many of them now use school property for parking. Al-
though the school does not need the space at the present time and has
not said anything to Storer about it, Storer cannot depend on using
school property for parking purposes.
Comm Smith stated that Storer had agreed earlier to enclose the tower
with fences so that it will not pose a temptation to the children.
Mr. Miller agreed.
Roy Schubert, 553 21st Street, Hermosa Beach, stated that he was
PAGE 6
against this issue on two grounds. First, it is a very large device
65 feet above the city hall, it will become a landmark. To approve
a structure which exceeds the city height limitations there should
be a good reason .. The benefits of the project are Storer's it does
not help the city. Secondly, seven years ago there was a proposal
for a 50 foot tower which was turned down by the Commission as im-
compatible with the area.
Chrm Peirce stated that the subscriber will have to get an additiona~
piece of equipment for their sets to receive any new channels. Mr.
Miller stated that the subscriber would need a converter, which they
could get with no extra monthly charge and with a refundable deposit
of $65.00.
Mr. Miller added two comments with respect to the school board's
testimony. He stated that a portion of the existing Storer building
will be demolished to provide space for the tower and 25 parking
spaces on site. He added that the tower will be surrounded by 12
or 13 foot walls for security. With respect to the parking he sated
that there will be 17 spaces along the south property line, six more
spaces just south of the tower and earth station, and two spaces
against the south side of the building.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED.
In answer to Comm Shapiro's question, Comm Loosli stated that it was
a private party involved in the 50 foot radio shortwave station tower
that Mr. Schubert had referred to earlier and not a business.
Comm Strohecker stated that he didn't see a problem with the construc-
tion of the tower on the site, but was opposed to the aircraft warning
light at its peak as esthetically unappealing.
Comm. Brown stated that it is not feasible for Storer to change their
location, although it may be ideal it is not feasible. Furtner, that
he understood Starer's benefits, but felt there were not many bene-
fits accruing to the subscribers. Chrmn Peirce added that the bene-
fits to Storer are substantial, but the benefits to the city are quite
small.
Comm Loosli stated that he felt the tower is detrimental and intrusive
on the city in its violation of the height limitation, and is incom-
patible with the goals of the city. He added that it violates the
general plan and felt there is no public need for the tower.
Comm Shapiro asked if the resolution just passed by the commission re
the zone change might increase the value of the property.
Comm Strohecker made a motion to approve the resolution as set forth
in the sample provided by staff, approving the 100 foot tower for
receiving television signals at the storer facility. He suggested
that there be no warning light affixed to the tower and Commission
attach a request to the resolution to that effect, seconded by Comm
Shapiro.
Motion to approve the 100 foot tower on the property at Storer Cable
on Valley Drive.
PAGE 7
Chrm Peirce stated that from a citizen's and commissioner's stand-
point, it didn't seem that this is a benefit to the citizens but gives
a business advantage to the operator. He added that the tower may ob-
struct some of the views from the nearby apartments. Also it would be
difficult to remove it once it was constructed.
Comm Loosli felt it would be a precident-setting decision to allow the
tower and felt the Commission would not be able to turn down other
requests for future violations of the height limit.
Ms. Sapetto stated that Commission looks to the merits on each project
and it shouldnthave any negative precidential effect.
Comm Brown asked what would happen to the tower if Storer lost its
franchise or failed to exercise their option to renew. Ms. Sapetto
stated that the new owner of the property would have the option to
keep the tower or tear it down. If they decided to keep it they
would have to use it for the same purpose as Storer did. The CUP
runs with the land.
In answer to Comm Smith's question Chrm Peirce suggested that the
Commission take action on the motion set forth above by Comm Strohecker
and then take action on the conditions of the CUP.
Comm Strohecker made an addendum to his motion to the effect that--
the city retains the right to improve the Police and Fire Departments
communication efforts, and that numbers 2,3,4,5, and 6 of the sample
resolution remain, with an additional item stating that the tower will
be removed with the termination of use by Storer Cable.
AYES: Shapiro, Smith, Strohecker
NOES: Loosli, Peirce, Brown
ABSENT: Comm. Izant
There being a tie vote, the issue will go to the council for approval
or denial.
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #15562 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A 2-UNIT
CONDOMINIUM LOCATED AT 732 MANHATTAN AVENUE
The staff report was given by Ms. Sapetto. She stated that the pro-
ject consists of demolishing a duplex and constructing a two-unit
condominium on a 3,650 square foot lot zoned R-3 with a high density
land use residential designation. The project meets all of the condo-
minium ordinance requirements. The s t orage are a adja c ent to th garage
and trash area should be provided. I£ this project meets with Commi s-
sion approval, as a condition of appro val the use of this area , 312
square feet, should be restricted to storag e . Sh e added that in addi -
tion to the 10 conditions suggested in the staff repo rt , an eleventh
condition be added that a deed restriction limiting the project to 2
units be imposed.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED.
PAGE 8
Jess Negrete, 24259 Los Codona Avenue, Torrance, representing appli-
cant. He stated that this project meets or exceeds all the criteria
imposed by the city. He added that this lot is an unusual size in
that it is a lot and a half, with the side yards being bigger than the
others in the neighborhood. He stated that they agree basically with
all of the 10 conditions imposed by staff in their report, and he asked
for one clarification re condition number 8. Ms. Sapetto stated that
condi-tion No. 8 should read "design approval by the Planning Commission
has been granted." Re condition number 9 she stated that generally
it is brought back to the Planning Director and not the Commission as
it .states. Re condition number 10 she stated that to secure the area
as storage .Staff wants a note on the plans to that effect. Thus giving
the City an arm to enforce the area being used as storage.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
Lou Negge, 718 Manhattan Avenue, stated that he had no objections to
the project, but he wanted to make sure that the demolishing and con-
struction of the project was to be done during the day hours. Ms.
Sapetto told Mr. Negge that there is a city ordinance restricting
construction etc. to certain hours of the day. She was not sure if
the starting time was 7:00 or 8:00 a.m. and she suggested that he call
the Building Department to get the correct hours. Comm Smith also
suggested that if the time ordinance is violated that he report it to
the city.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
Chrmn Peirce commended the designer for providing the Commission with
a well founded project that is within the height limitations and zon-
ing requirements.
Motion by Chrmn Peirce, seconded by Comm Brown, to approve the two-
, unit condominium at 732 Manhattan Avenue, subject to the conditions
in the staff analysis with the modifications of number 9 and the
addition of condition 11.
AYES: Comms Brown, Loosli, Peirce, Shapiro, Smith, Strohecker
NOES: None
ABS
Motion by Chrmn Peirce, seconded by Comm Brown, to adopt resolution
no. 83-9.
AYES: Comms Brown, Loosli, Peirce, Shapiro, Smith Strohecker
NOES: None
ABS
PARKING AND TRAFFIC PROVISIONS OF THE LOCAL COASTAL PLAN
The report was given by Linda Braden, TDC Planning. She stated that
staff has been working for some time on the completion of the phase
III program for the LCP, and tonight they were presenting three issues.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -APRIL 5, 1983 PAGE 9
She wanted the Commission to review the issue re parking to determine
if they are still relevant considerations in the LCP or whether they
should be addressed elsewhere. The three issues are: one, adopt
an ordinance requiring donation of land for parking as part of the·
condominium conversion standards; two, establish an ordinance,whether
by a fee in-lieu,of providing additional on-site parking for curb cuts.
three, to futher mitigate the parking situation, establishment of an
ordinance permitting parking on both sides of two-way streets.
She continued by saying that options that were considered would be in-
lieu fee for the purchase of acquiring land for parking lots,adding
that there might be some restrictions on this because of the high cost
of land. The only economically viable means of doing this would be
acquisition of public land, and another alternative would be to have a
condo project donate land off site for parking.
In answer to Chrmn Peirce's question Ms. Braden stated that the condo
conversion ordinance states that it is a requirement that two on-site
parking spaces be provided for residents.
Ms. Sapetto added that the conditional approval section of the ordinance
is still in effect, and the workshop.with the Council on April 20th
would try to resolve this issue.
Ms. Braden continued by asking that if the policy is determined t~at
they don't want any more condo conversions, would these two items still
be addressed in the LCP. She added that this is an area where they
would like some direction from the Commmission.
Chrmn Peirce added background information on the issue by stating that
the Commission made recommendations that they didn't want any loopholes
in the condo conversion standards, and if projects didn't meet the
standards they would be denied; the commission was unanimous on this.
Thereafter it went to the City Council, they thought about it. Ms.
Sapetto stated that the council was concerned if commission deleted
the conditional approval section it would therefore be eliminating the
potential for conversions, except for those units that were building
to the conversion ordinance. Also they didn't feel comfortable with
the exception that if the particular project had merit to the city it
could be approved, it was not objective enough. Council was looking
for reasonable standards that could be established.
Chrmn Peirce then stated that it came back from the council and commis-
sion sent it back unchanged. In light of the past actions, the council
is now having the workshop on the 20th to reach some understanding on
this issue.
Chrmn Peirce stated that Commission has never talked about the donation
of land eleswhere from the condo project for parking purposes.
Comm Smith felt that it was in the best interests of the city that
condo conversions meet the existing condo standards because that is
what provides decent housing.
Ms. Braden continued by saying that to further mitigate the parking
situation establishment of an ordinance permitting parking on both sides
of a two way street. She added that the one-way circulation system was
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -APRIL 5, 1983 PAGE 10
tried and rescinded.
In answer to Chrmn Peirce's question, Ms. Braden stated that the
making of two-way streets into one-way streets and providing parking
on both sides of the street had upset the residents and business-
men in the community, as it would be destructive to their businesses
because of the difficult accessibility.
Chrmn Peirce referred to page Sa of the report to the section entitled
"Future Policies" and asked for comments and imput from Commission on
each of the six policy statements, which resulted in the following.
Number one, consideration of land donations or equivalent for parking
as part of a condominium conversions, had not been discussed in the
the past.
Number two, consideration of establishing a fee in lieu of providing
additional parking on-site for curb cuts; commission had unanimously
decided against this.
Number three, investigation of the possibility of lease or purchase
of parking lots dispersed throughout the City to minimize impact on
parking demands to city and residents; should be investigated, but
probably difficult to implement because of the high costs.
Number four, ~xamination of the current status of public lands leased
and the rents received; sounded like potentially good policy.
Number five, consideration of converting city streets with two-way
traffic with parking on one side into one-way streets with parking
on two sides; should be deleted as parking is a secondary consideration
to circulation.
Number six, consideration of the reorientation of the city's current
transporatation service providing service for visitors and reside nts
according to needs, has merit.
Ms. Sapetto stated in ,.answer to Comm Brown's questions that the maps
for the free bus routes were available in the library.
STAFF REPORTS & COMMISSIONER ITEMS
Ms. Sapetto stated that the City Council agreed to the hiring of a
consultant to update and revise the land use element, and they are
in the process of writing it; and it will be on the Council agenda.
She added that Council is requesting Commission to discuss the whole
plan and examine the utility of as a whole.
In answer to Comm Brown's inquiry, Ms. Sapetto stated that TDC Planning
had developed an initial study for the city, but Storer had paid for
it. So there is no conflict of interest on TDC's part.
In answer to Chrmn Peirce's question re parking on the highway, Ms.
Sapettostated that Council has tentatively agreed to implement re-
moval of the parking and said they will be looking at alternative
parking there, and looking at ways to utilize to a better extent the
existing parking lots in order to make it more viable to the business
community to remove the parking along the highway. With respect to
. ... PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -APRIL 5, 1983 PAGE 11
the trolley, the City has appealed to ICC their decision and the
appeal was denied. The City now has six months to acquire the
property. Staff found out today that the L.A. Transportation
Commission has put the South Bay corridor rail in their first tier
cut off for examination; in other words, the City will be considered
for appropriations by the commission to use this as a transit system,
but not a heavy rail. She added that there is a possibility the
City will get L.A. Country Transportation monies to develop the
corridor for transit use, but not in time for acquisition purposes.
El Segundo, Hermosa, and Redondo are committed to the Joint Powers
Agreement, but doen't know if Manhattan Beach will become a part
of it. Tbe cities hope that by forming this they can generate
some funds to purchase the railway.
Motion to adjourn by Comm. Shapiro, seconded by Comm. Smith.
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify ,·that the foregoing mini.ti.:tes were approved at a
regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 19th day of
April, 1983.
J ~S PEIRCE, CHAIRMAN ~s~~ 0 SHA~O, SECRETARY
DATE
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF HERMOSA
BEACH HELD ON APRIL 19, 1983 IN CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT 7:30 P.M.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Comms. Brown, Loosli, Peirce, Shapiro, Strohecker
ABSENT: Comms. Izant, Smith
ALSO PRESENT: Alfred Mercado, Planning Aide
APPROVAL OF MINUTES -MEETING OF APRIL 5, 1983
The Commission noted the following corrections:
Page 1, approval of minutes: Commissioner Strohecker should be
listed as abstaining from voting.
Page 5, correct Roy Shubert's address to read "553" rather than
"5531".
CHAIRMAN PEIRCE moved, seconded by COMMISSIONER SHAPIRO
THAT THE MINUTES OF APRIL 5, 1983, BE APPROVED, AS CORRECTED.
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Comm. Brown, Loosli, Peirce, Shapiro, Strohecker
None
Comm. Izant, Smith
RESOLUTIONS P.C. 83-8 & P.C. 83-9
P.C. 83-8
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
AMENDING THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN BY CHANGING THE
LAND USE DESIGNATION AT 1529 VALLEY DRIVE FROM OPEN SPACE TO COMMERCIAL,
AND A ZONE CHANGE FROM MANUFACTURING TO GENERAL COMMERCIAL
P.C. 83-9
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH,
CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A 2-UNIT CONDOMINIUM, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
AND PARCEL MAP NO. 15562 LOCATED AT 732 MANHATTAN AVENUE
CHAIRMAN PEIRCE moved, seconded by COMMISSIONER BROWN
TO APPROVE RESOLUTIONS P.C. 83-8 & P.C. 83-9, AS PRESENTED
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Comm. Brown, Loosli, Peirce, Shapiro~ Strohecker
None
Comm. Izant, Smith
-1-
REVISED HOUSING ELEMENT
CHAIRMAN PEIRCE said that the Commission has been working on the
draft Housing Element for a number of months and the document before
the Commission this evening is a compilation of all of the Commis~
sion's comments incorporated into the framework of the Housing
Element plan which was set up about one year ago.
Inasmuch as the document is 27 pages long and contains quite a bit
of material, CHAIRMAN PEIRCE recommended that the Commission receive
the report from staff and then continue the public hearing to the
next meeting to give the Commission time to review the report.
There being no objection, it was so ORDERED.
Ralph Casteneda reviewed the draft Housing Element with the Commission.
He agreed that final approval should be continued to the next meeting,
since staff has just received the latest SCAG figures on projected
growth in the community (regional share figures). He said he plans
to prepare a separate memo on this t0pic alone since it is a v~ry
critical issue with regards to the Housing Element as well as the
Land Use Element.
Mr. Casteneda highlighted the changes made since the last meeting
which incorporates the commission's input from the last two to three
meetings.
Page 6, regaring "numbers" in the document, an attempt has been made
to make clear that this is an estimate of 400-500 units rather than
trying to imply that this is the actual figure. Staff feels this
will address the Commission's concerns in terms of being too specific
by qualifying it in terms of an estimate rather than a specific
number.
With regard to new housing construction, SCAG has revised their
figures downward from 765 to 477, which is a substantial decline,
for Hermosa Beach. This may reflect the work that the Commission
started about a year ago directing staff to work with SCAG to
reconcile some figures.
Page 10, Housing Constraints, population density has been shown as
compared to Los Angeles County.
CHAIRMAN PEIRCE suggested that this figure might be deceiving since
much of L.A. County is vacant land. He suggested comparing it to
another city, rather than the county.
Mr. Casteneda said he could compare it with the City of Los Angeles
rather than the County, and the Commission agreed that this was a
good idea.
CHAIRMAN PEIRCE asked if there was documentation in the city files
which reflect the interpretation of the Planning Commission (such
as minutes) 0£ the density categories being 13.1-25 as medium density
and 25.1-40 as high density.
-2-
..,
Mr. Casteneda said that the Commission had discussed this at previous
meetings and it should be in the minutes of the meetings.
COMMISSIONER LOOSLI said there are several condominium approvals
which would reflect this interpretation, and that he believed it
was in the Local Coastal Plan.
Page 13, Objectives, Mr. Castenada said it was desirable to stay away
firlom using specific figures in the objective because the City does not
have a track record on some of these programs and some of them had not
started at all; therefore, it was really not possible for the Commission
to establish a specific target to achieve over the next five years. The
actual language of this section has been changed to delete specific
numbers and it is explained that this was done intentionally.
On page 16, specific figures have not been used, again because of the
lack of a track record.
He said there were no major changes in the Housing Program Section; it
has been reorganized and made more brief. Under Implementation of SB 626,
page 25, dealing with provision of low and moderate income housing in
the coastal zone, rather than the previous extended discussion, we have
indicated that during the next years the method of implementation will
come out, but that this housing element does not necessarily establish
that direction. A quote has been taken from that Bill that the housing
element does not need to do that. The only level of commitment is to
implementation of the law, as is interpreted at a certain point in time.
The other programs have remained the same as in the previous document.
With regard to using interest free loans in connection with bringing bootleg
units up to standard, staff is still reviewing this and will have to
contact the County and HUD, and hopes to have this information at the
next meeting.
CHAIRMAN PEIRCE asked if there would be an appendix to the Element which
would include data to substantiate the statements made in the Element.
Mr. Casteneda said that he could have this ready for review at the next
meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED AT 7:55 P.M. No one wished to speak. PUBLIC
HEARING CONTINUED TO THE MEETING OF MAY 3, 1983, at 7:55 P.M.
CHAIRMAN PEIRCE suggested that the staff forward a copy of the proposed
document to the City Council in their next information packet. THERE
BEING NO OBJECTION, SO ORDERED.
SIX MONTH TIME EXTENSION ON TRACT .MAP NO. 42255 AND CONDITIONAL .USE PERMIT
FOR FIVE UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 1442-48 MANHATTAN AVENUE
This is a request for a six-month time extension on the validity of the
tentative tract map and conditional use permit; both due to expire on
April 27, 1983.
A final map for this project is in the process of being recorded, but
will not be completed before the arrival of time constraints. Staff
recommends approval of the time extension, as requested.
-3-
CHAIRMAN PEIRCE moved, seconded by COMMISSIONER LOOSLI
TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. P.C. 83-10
Ayes:
Noes:
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF HERMOSA
BEACK APPROVING A TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT
MAP 42255 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT LOCATED AT
1442-48 MANHATTAN AVENUE
Comm. Brown, Loosli, Peirce, Shapiro, Strohecker
None
Absent: Comm. Izant, Smith
TWELVE MONTH TIME EXTENSION ON TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 14366
AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A TWO UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT
651 FOURTH STREET
This is a request for a twelve month time extension on the validity
of the tentative map and conditional use permit; both due to
expire on April 14, 1983.
A final map for this project is in the process of being recorded
but will take several months. Staff recommends approval of
the time extension, as requested.
CHAIRMAN PEIRCE moved, seconded by COMMISSIONER SHAPIRO
TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. P.C. 83-11
Ayes:
Noes:
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF HERMOSA BEACH APPROVING A TIME EXTENSION FOR
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 14366 AND CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT LOCATED AT 651 FOURTH STREET
Comm. Brown, Loosli, Peirce, Shapiro, Strohecker
None
Absent: Comrn. Izant, Smith
AMENDMENTS TO THE C-POTENTIAL ZONE
Al Mercardo gave the staff report. He stated that on March 22,
1983, the City Council adopted a resolution of intention
requesting that the Commission identify ways that are more
facilitory than presently under Section 1103 of the City Code,
in transforming C-potential land to comrnercially zoned land.
The rationale here is that the viability of the multi-use
corridor requires strenghtening, that commercial development
is best suited for Pacific Coast Highway, and that the existing
mechanism by which C-potential property is transformed into
commercial zoned property is not the most functional.
Mr. Mercardo outlined five scenarios in the memorandum, four
of which would amend the zoning code (Section 1103) by modifying
the process by which C-potential property is transformed to
C-zoned property.
-4-
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission reach agreement
on proposal No. 1 as having the most viable attributes, and
that a PEIR be prepared for proposal No. 1, to be forwarded
to the Board of Zoning Adjustments for review.
COMMISSIONER LOOSLI said that passing any one of these possible
alternatives would mean that the C-potential property would
become commercial whether or not they wanted to. He said that
the highway studies should be completed prior to implementation
of any of these alternatives, including No. 1., to determine
if any of the currently C-potential zoned properties should
not really be commercial and take them out of the C-potential
zone, otherwise they will become commercial.
Staff was requested to determine where the Commission is with
their study on the Highway determining which areas should be
C-potential and those that should not be.
Public hearing opened at 8:05 p.m.
Pat Rile, 725 -24th Place, asked if this would affest her
area. She also urged the Commission to review the different
projects on an individual basis.
Wilma Burt, 1152 -7th Street, asked the difference between
C-potential and Commercial. She asked if this would change
the taxes. She said the City should be careful of the depth
of the commercial zone on the east side of Pacific Coast Highway.
She also said that this plan should prohibit allowing residentially
zoned properties to be surrounded completely be commercial.
Public hearing continued to the next meeting at 8:20 p.m.
CHAIRMAN _PEIRCE requested that staff report on the past actions
taken by the Planning Commission with regard to prior studies.
So ordered.
ACTIVITIES FOR FY 1982-83 AND PRIORITIES FOR FY 1983-84
The Commission reviewed the list of current priorities and
proposed priorities for the corning fiscal year.
Chairman Peirce suggested adding to the list of suggested
priorities for this corning year, under #7 1 Transportation:
Circulation Element/Parking.
After further discussion and review~ the Commission agreed
THAT THIS LIST OF PRIORITIES BE APPROVED 1 AS AMENDED.
CHAIRMAN PEIRCE SO ORDERED.
-5-
LAND USE ELEMENT REVISIONS--UPDATE OF CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS
The Commission reviewed the update of Council actions with
regard to a Request for Proposal (RFP) to hire an outside
consultant for the purpose of rationalizing the discrepancies
between the General Plan and Zoning.
MISCELLANEOUS
The Commission was reminded of the joint meeting with the
City Council to be held May 5, 1983.
ADJOURNMENT
CHAIRMAN PEIRCE moved, seconded by COMMISSION SHAPI"RO
THAT THE MEETING BE ADJOURNED, THE TIME BEING 8:30 P.M.
THERE BEING NO OBJECTION, IT WAS SO ORDERED BY CHAIRMAN PEIRCE.
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes were approved at
a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the
3rd day of May, 1983.
~ES PEIRCE, CHAIRMAN JOEL SHAPIR:0 7 SECRETARY
DATE
-6-
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON
MARCH 15, 1983, IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT 7:30.
Meeting called to order at 7:30 P.M. By Chairman Peirce
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Comms. Brown, Peirce, -Shapiro, Smith
ABSENT: Comms. Izant, Loosli, Strohecker
ALSO PRESENT: Pamela Sapetto, Planning Director; Alfred Mercado,
Planning Aide; Mr. Castenada, TDC Planning
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Comm Smith pointed out that on page 2 the word "proviso" was mis-
spelled.
Motion by Chrmn Peirce, seconded by Comm Shapiro, to approve the
minutes noting the above correction.
AYES: Comms. Brown, Peirce, Shapiro, Smith
NOES: None
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE REQUEST: STORER CABLE
Mr. Mercado gave the staff report. He stated that the site for this
proposal is one where the land use element of the general plan and
the zoning ordinance are inconsistent in what they allow as permit-
ted uses. The zoning ordinance designates this site as manufacturing
while the general plan designates this site as open space.
He stated further that the subject property is presently occupied by
a commercial development and has been utilized for commericial pur-
poses for several years. The implementation of the proposed actions
would not introduce any change to the physical environment. He added
that under the present zoning, industrial uses are permitted. Uses
of this intensity may adversely affect adjacent residential and pub-
lic uses. The proposed C-2 zoning and general plan commercial would
provide greater compatibility with adjacent development. Furthermore,
state law requires that the city zoning ordinances be consistent with
local general plans.
He stated that with respect to the conditional use permit for the 'l00'
tower, it is not clear if the tower is an allowable use in a C2 zone.
However, there is a provision in the Zoning Code that grants to the
Planning Commission the authority to approve uses, which in the
commission's opinion are not obnoxious, hazardous or detrimental to
the welfare of the district, etc.
He added that it should be considered whether the exi~_:1:!ence of such
a tower will diminish land value of the surrounding properties, and
thereby unjustly affect substantial vested rights of such property
owners.
PAGE 2
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -March 15, 1983
He stated that it was staff's recommendation that the proposed
general plan amendment and zone change be approved and that the
request for a conditional use permit for the 100 foot tower be
considered through the authority granted under Sec. 800-C. He
added that the 100' tower, when considered by the environmental
review board, was issued a negative declaration. Which in
essence means that no measurable adverse environmental impact
will be felt. Therefore, the Commission's decision on the tower
should be guided by its compatability with its environment and
its contribution to the community.
In answer to Comm Smith's question Ms. Sapetto stated that in
the general plan staff found that as far as open space was
concerned, it -appeared that most of the open space areas were
adjacent to schools.
In answer to a question from the audience, Chrmn Peirce stated that
the applicant's proposal -.was to change the general plan from open
space to commercial, and the zoning from manufacturing to general
commercial, C-2
Public hearing was opened by Chrmn Peirce. He added that the hear-
ing would take testimony on ·the zone change and general plan, then
if that passes, he will reopen the hearing and take testimony on
the Conditional Use Permit. The commission agreed that the two
issues should be dealt with separately.
Ron Miller, Phoenix Arizona, representing the applicant Storer Cable
stated that at the request of the planning staff the applicant hired
an independant planning consultant to do a study of the property as
to what the issues were relative to rezoning the property from a
manufacturing to a commercial zone, and changing the general plan
to a commercial plan. He added that the applicant had contracted with
TDC; with the planning staff setting the requirements of the study
and the applicant providingthe economic resources. From the report
TDC indicated that there would be no major negative impact from re-
zoning the parcel, as its existing use will not change.
In answer to. ·Chrmn Peirce's question, Mr. Miller stated that the con-
struction of the tower was the reason why applicant was requesting
the zone change
Wilma Bird, 1152 7th Street, Hermosa Beach, stated that the reason
for the open ·space zoning was that the School Board had talked about
condemning that property and taking it to enlarge the Valley Vista
School. The Schooi District intended to use that area. However,
now since the District is not going to use it, it doesn't make any
difference what it is called, except in what you permit next to the
mobile park. For example, manufacturing is noisy, with commericial
being less so.
Public hearing was closed by Chrmn Peirce.
r
PAGE 3
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -March 15, 1983
Chrmn Peirce stated that the report from TDC was not specifically
labled as being from the applicant, and said that in the future it
would be a good idea to designate that with a cover letter or some
other form of identification.
Comm Smith asked if the School District had been notified of this
hearing. Chrmn Peirce added that it would help the Commission if
in the future staff would provided them with more information re
noticing.
Ms. Sapetto -responded by saying that the reason why -the list of
persons notified for hearings is not included in the packet is that
it is usually 10 to 15 pages long. Comm. Smith stated that it is
not necessary that the Commission be given the entire list, but that
the particular noticing procedure followed should be contained in
the body of the staff report, so the commission would know and could
say with confidence to the public that the proper noticing procedqre
has been followed. He felt that this would save everyone a lot of
time. Ms. Sapetto agreed.
Ms. Sapetto stated in response to Comm Smith's question,as to whether
the School District had been notified of this hearing, that they had
not been noticed. She explained that the reason was that according
to case law, the courts have established and _defined proper noticing
as that noticing that is prepared from the tax rolls. The School
District is not on the tax rolls, nor is any public agency.
Chrmn Peirce stated that if the School District were not right next
to the property in question, noticing to them would not be as ger-
mane, but since it is right next to it, he felt the District has a
positive interest in this case. He recommended that the District
be noticed and that the hearing be continued to the next meeting. He
apologized to the applicant for the d~lay.
Mr. Miller suggested that since there is an appeal time, that the
commission come to ·a decision tonight, and then the District could
appeal the decision if they were opposed. Ms. Sapetto stated that
that would cause a problem, since if the applicant is accused of de-
fective noticing it invalidates the whole process; if the Planning
Commission review is not conducted in a legal format, it invalidates
the proceedings.
Ms. Sapetto added, in response to Comm Shapiro's question, that
technically this was legal notification because of the use of the
tax rolls. However, if there is a question as to whether legal
notification took place, and since the District is the nextdoor
neighbor, it could jeopardize the procedure. She added that through
the Environmental Review process, the District got a copy of the EIR,
but that would be indirect notification.
In answer to Comm Brown's question, Ms. Sapetto stated that all pro-
perty owners within a 300' radius of the proposed project need to
receive mailed notification.
PAGE 4
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -March 15, 1983
Mr. Miller _stated that Storer Cable is not trying to get around
notification and wants to work with the community on this.
Comm Smitl:,l stated that in regards to the staff report, he had sug-
gested during the last discussion on this item that staff include
in its report an analysis with respect to whether or not Storer is
meeting the public access provisions of their contract with the city
and whether or not, in staff's opinion, they are providing a satis-
factory level of service to the citizens. He also wanted to know
if Storer would be able to pass on an increase to its consumers tiea
to this particular capital improvement. He stated that he would like
to be relatively sure Storer is in compliance with the existing agree-
ment when voting on this issue or any other issue related to them.
REVISED HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN
Mr. Casteneda gave the staff report. He stated that the material
presented ton:Lqht included another sect:Lon of the housing element
toqether w:Lth backqround information on bootlegs that had been re-
quested by the Commission tWO '"t .meet:Lngs ago.
He stated that first the housing program is intended to provide an
opportunity to describe the specifications that the city intends to
undertake in order to address the community housing needs. The
section dealing with this topic is required by State Law. However,
the items which are included in that topic are left up to the dis-
cretion of the city. Overall what is included in this section is
to demonstrate that the city is making the maximum practical efforts in
view of resources, etc., to the housing need. Briefly, staff has
divided the material into 3 sections; housing improvement, housing
production, and the affordability issue. Many of the specific items
are on-going, in the sense that they are already part of the city's
mode of operation and were included to demonstrate that the city is
doing something to address the particular issue.
He continued by saying that the first of these sub-sections is on
land use controls, page 4, re housing improvement incentives. This
is a summary of what ways, other than pouring money into housing,
that is available to encourage improvement. One suggestion is that
since people don't know exactly what some of the processes are or
the exact procedures, that perhaps a booklet explaining the impact
of zoning, etc., could broaden the scope of information to the con-
sumer. Another suggestion is the use of the administrative variance
in certain situations, i.e., dealing with setback requirements, et.
The administrative variance cuts down time and effort, in the sense
that notification is done by the city. And only adjacent property
owners, and not those within the 300' radius, are notified. Finally,
we want to link these to the potential for a residential rehab pro-
gram through the use of block grant funds.
He added that another item which has been discussed before is deal-
ing with where the city stands in terms of the quality of housing;
how much is deteriorating, what are the conditions dealing with boot-
PAGE 5
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -March 15, 1983
legs, etc. ONe of the future actions included for consideration
is to take the time over the next period of years or soorer to get
basic information on the quality of existing stock. Another po-
tential action dealing with residential rehabilatation is that the
city may sometime in the future, through the use of block grant
funds, make resources available for handyman programs or low interest
loans to facilitate housing.
With respect to the bootlegs, staff has included a copy of the memo
that was transmitted to Commission and Council by the Building De-
partment, which provides background information on the issue. Staff
also included a section from an early draft that went to the Commis-
sion and Council about a year ago dealing with the topic. Finally,
for the purposes of illustration, the fact that this is an issue
which many coastal communities are dealing with, we included material
from the City of Laguna Beach. Because no new policy directions
were established at the joint work session of the Commission and
the Council in July, essentially staff has reiterated what the city
is currently doing and provided some additional direction in the
sense of streamlining.
He continued by saying that staff indicated that perhaps to devote
sufficient time to this particular topic, the Commission may want to
deal with this at a public hearing and perhaps bring in the Building
Department and City Attorney to explore ways of accomplishing the
issues in the city.
He stated that the second maj.or category deals with the amount of new
housing developments. Staff indicated some of the ways and means in
which the city currently addresses this. Briefly, staff indicated
the close relationship between the land use element and the housing
element in terms of amount of new housing concerned. The housing
element should not depart from what is in the land use element, it
should reinforce it.
He added that with regard to a potential action in terms of environ-
mental assessment, that policy which was included in an earlier sec-
tion dealing with a preference for environmental review of signifi-
can~ programs at the neighborhood level, should receive priority.
There should be a preference to get involved in residential develop-
ment when they have significant impact on a neighborhood scale.
He stated that with respect to growth forecasts, staff is attempt-
ing to develop a program action which would address the amount of
new housing that could be built, starting from the neighborhood level
on. He added that new stats and numbers will be out around April 8
and that means that at that point it would be transmitted to the
city for review. There is a 90 day review period once they are
approved for distribution, then the city will have three months in
which to react. As soon as those numbers become available staff
and Commision should discuss it and see what its relationship is to
the city.
The next item deals with senior housing site availablity, and it
takes credit for past actions the city has taken in devoting re-
sources to this area.
PAGE 6
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -March 15, 1983
Chrmn Peirce pointed out that there was some information missing
re the second bullet on page 7, which would have explained that
bullet item.
Mr. Castenada stated that that information spoke to the various
residential categories in the zoning ordinance together with mobile
home park zoning which was added last year. It indicates that there
is a broad range of housing allowed in the community, from sing:E-
family to existing mobile homes.
Chrmn Peirce stated that the land use element has a number of
10,225 units and suggested that there should be a similar number
reflected in the zoning ordinance.
Mr. Castenada stated that the information should have been con-
tained in the zoning ordinance, as well as additional tests outlin-
ing the difference between the numbers of units that would be allow-
ed under one system versus the other. Staff is assuming that the
Commission has a preference, or will in the future, on which number
they want to use.
Mr. Castenada continued by saying that the next category deals with
housing affordability and assistance, and staff attempted to re-
flect the latest decisions and interpretations of the Commission
Council, and staff. Staff indicated by way of illustration, it may
be possible to look at the minimum floor space requirement, and,
under select circumstances lower that requirement re senior housing,
etc. The gist of it would be to periodically look at the develop-
ment standards and perhaps modify and revise and upgrade them.
He stated re existing affordability, under mobile home park zones,
what staff reflected is that the city did undertake, after a number
of meetings with Council and Commission, a revision for both the
land use element and the zoning ordinance, to install a mobile home
park zone.
He added that the next item deals with a coastal issue, which in-
dicates what is feasible in providing housing for low and moderate
income households in new developments. What has :.been suggesi;zed 4's
the adoption of feasibility guicelines to test whether or not it
would be practical to develop low and moderate income housing.
Staff has attempted to reflect where the city stands on this issue
at this time, but the details have not been considered by the Council
or Commission as yet.
Chrmn Peirce stated that he understood that the city can offer but
does not have to offer incentives in providing affordable housing
within new housing developments. Comm Smith added that the law
states that cities have to offer something but leave the levels of
what is offered up to the city. Having a variance procedure in it-
self satisfies the minimum of the law.
Mr. Castenada added that the material staff has reviewed seems to
verify the statement that is in the draft, and some of it is up to
interpretation by staff and attorneys. The housing element recog-
PAGE 7
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -March 15, 1983
nizes that there are specific actions, steps that could be taken
which have yet to be developed by either the Commission or
the council. He suggested that this topic should be included but
should be revised because staff doesn't want to leave the im-
pression that the city is committed to density bonuses in the
coastal zone, if that is not the case. Chrmn Peirce agreed.
Comm Smith aSked what happened with the shared housing program
allocation of $S,OOO which ended in 1982. He wanted to know if
there were any measured results re benefits to senior citizens
and if there is that information should be included in the ele-
ment. Mr. Castenada and Chrmn Peirce agreed.
Mr. Castenada continued by saying that the next item deals with
senior citizens' housing program and the several issues related
to it. Staff has tried to summarize where the program stands and
indicate that it is continually under stUQY but has not been imple-
mented.
Chrmn Peirce stated that on page 13 under this topic, the second
sentance referring to "in-lieu fees" that Commission had recommend-
ed that that be deleted and he believed Council had concurred on
that.
Mr. Castenada stated that the next item deals with the shared equity
program and it deals more with the moderate income issue as a result
of the Agreement, i.e. for certain portions of those projects to be
sold to moderate income households and perhaps through the shared
equity program.
Ms. Sapetto stated that the Appletree proje~t has gone thit"0ugh and
possibly the La Playa project has filed afinal. She added that the
finals go to the City council and not to the Commission.
Mr. Castenada explained that the affordable housing fund is like some
of the other actions, in that the Council by resolution has estab-
lished a fund. There is an account in the City Treasury with approx-
imately $50,000, with more to be allocated to that fund by way of the
Commodore Project. The resolution indicates uses for the fund, basic-
ally in the area of housing. The Council requested and has obtained
from staff a report indicating other potential uses of this fund in
an attempt to get insight on uses other than housing. Ms. Sapetto
added that the last programs that have been approved deal mostly with
community center improvement, acquistion of open space, etc. She
continuted by saying the uses for the fund were set up by resolution
so the resolution can be changed. However, any changes should be
within the relm of housing because the way the funds were acquired
were for the purposes of housing. Funds could be used for peripheral
types of housing ·issues was the last determination by the Council.
Mr. Castenada stated that the last item speaks to block grant funds
with potential allocation for reducing the costs for new moderate
income housing.
PAGE 8
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -March 15, 1983
Mr. Castenada stated in conclusion that staff would like to con-
tinue the housing element until the meeting of the 19th and
try to pull together all of the various comments that have been made
on all the other sections, together with this section, and produce
a fairly complete package from beginning to end to be discussed at
that time. Then, depending on Commission's desires, either continue
to work on the element or have a work session with the CitY Council
and citizens.
Chrmn Peirce opened the public hearing.
Wilma Bird, 1152 17th street, Hermosa Beach, suggested that a real
study be done, block by block, as to where there is affordable hous-
ing in Hermosa. She added that Redondo Beach has a rule that no
single-family dwelling can be removed unless it is replaced by the
same. She felt that Hermosa has more than its share of affordable
housing in the illegal units, and the city shouldn't plan more until
they know exactly what the city has now. She didn't think that block
grant funds should be used in this way.
In response Chrmn Peirce stated that oneof the items in the plan is
to initiate~ survey the quality and affordability of housing in
the city.
Public Hearing was closed, there being no more public testimony.
COMMISSIONER'S ITEMS
Ms. Sapetto stated that the Mayor suggested that the Planning
Commission sub-committee meet with the Council sub-committee on the
Seaview Inn property on Wednesday or Thursday of next week. Chrrnn
Peirce and Comm Brown stated that Thursday evening would be good
for them. Ms. Sapetto suggested that the meeting be at 6:30, since
the Biltmore site committee is meeting on that night also. She add-
ed that she can verify that time with Comm Izant. Assuming that he
can make it at 6:30 on March 24th, there will be a meeting between the
Commission sub-committe and Council sub-committee re the proposed
zone change on the Seaview Inn property and any other items that might
be on the agenda.
Comm Smith stated that there is still the issue of the supposed lack
of specific standards re condo conversions which should be discussed.
Ms. Sapetto responded that Staff had suggested that a workshop be
held on the 8th or 20th of April to discuss that issue.
comm Smith stated that on the housing element there are two issues
he would like considered with respect to the particular portion dis-
cussed this evening; one being the use of housing affordability fund
to provide interest free loans to owners of bootlegs to help them
bring it up to code. Two, that the city explore with the South Bay
Board of Realtors some ethical cornrnittment not to sell buildings
that include bootlegs, and perhaps even encourage the owners to
report them to the city. He added that the people who are in con-
trol of property are real estate people and they know more about
PAGE 9
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -March 15, 1983
property in the city than does the city. Since they are ethical
people, this might be a good recourse for the city in terms of ex-
ploring the housing stock. Chrmn Peirce agreed with this suggestion.
Ms. Sapetto stated that the traffic sub-committee did not meet to-
night because the Council is now deliberating about removal of the
highway parking again. since there has been some discussion with
Manhattan Beach re their support of the LACTC study. The· LACTC
study is a study for the use of the railroad right of way as a
transportation system linking the two cities to El Segundo. She
continued by saying that Manhattan Beach has in the past opposed
that link. However, Manhattan Beach conceded they would support
the consideration of that railroad for a corridor for a transpor-
tation use, if the city of Hermosa Beach will consider removing
the lanes on PCH on the south end of town. This topic will be
discussed at the Chamber retreat on Friday. So the sub~committee
delayed further action until after the meeting.
Chrmn Peirce asked to be supplied with the materials to be used
at the retreat which deal with various community planning issues,
as well as a report as to what took place. Ms.Sapetto replied that
she had planned to do that and to present the information in the
packet at the next meeting.
Motion by Comm Smith to adjourn.
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes were approved at a
regulat meeting of the Planning Commission held on the
day of _________ , 1983. ------
DATE
....--.,
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON
MARCH 1, 1983, IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT 7:30.
Meeting called to order at 7:30 P.M. by Chairman Peirce.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Comms. Brown, Izant, Peirce, Smith, Strohecker
ABSENT: Caroms. Loosli, Shapiro
ALSO PRESENT: Pamela Sapetto, Planning Director.
(Comm. Shapiro arrived at 8:00)
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Chrmn Peirce asked that the salient parts of the minutes be high-
lighted in the future to facilitate the reading of the minutes.
Motion by Comm Izant, seconded by Chrmn Peirce, to approve the
minutes as submitted.
AYES: Caroms Brown, Izant, Peirce, Smith, Strohecker
NOES: None
ABS:
APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 83-7
Comm Izant stated that the resolution appeared to correctly reflect
the amendments made to the resolution at the last meeting. He point-
ed out that the vote from the February 1, 1983, meeting should be
added.
Motion by Comm Izant, seconded by Comm Strohecker, to approve the
resolution with the addition of the results of the vote on 2/1/83.
AYES: Conuns Brown, Izant, Peirce, Smith, Strohecker
NOES: None
ABS:
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT & ZONE CHANGE REQUEST: STORER CABLE
Ms. Sapetto gave the Staff Report, and recommended that the Public
Hearing be opened and then continued to the next meeting due to the
fact that the mailed notification required to be given by the appli-
cant to the surrounding land owners was not done. In answer to
Chrmn Peirce's question she stated that the application was for a
legal non-conforming use of the land, involving three issues: A
General Plan Land Use Amendment; a zoning change; as well as a
discretionary approval to allow the 100' height.
Chrmn Peirce stated that there is a similar type tower owned by
CalTrans and located at the southwest portion of the Harbor and
Santa Monica freeways, just north of the Coliseum. He suggested
that Commission and interested parties perhaps take a look at that
PAGE 2
Planning Commission Minutes
March 1, 1983
tower so they will have a better idea of what Storer is proposing
be built in Hermosa Beach.
Comm Strohecker asked if the City is requiring a red light be placed
at the peak of the tower, as previously discussed. Ms. Sapetto
said that that was a suggestion from staff and was not, at this
time, a requirement. She felt that it was an area that could be
discussed by the Commission, with Commission deciding· whether or
not to require the light.
Ms. Sapetto added that this hearing had been noticed in the news-
paper by the City.
Public hearing was opened with the previso that it will be continued
to the next meeting since it had not been noticed properly. There
being no testimony, the public hearing was continued to the next
meeting, March 15, 1983.
R~VISED HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN
Ms. Sapetto stated that because of the bad weather, Mr. Casteneda,
who was to present the Staff Report, was unable to attend the meet-
ing. She asked Commission to continue the item to the next meeting
at Mr. Casteneda's suggestion.
Chrmn Peirce stated for the members of the audience that the Commis-
sion has been reviewing the Housing Element of the General Plan and
trying to rewrite it.
Public Hearing was opened and contined to the next meeting, March 15,
1983.
Chrmn Peirce asked whether it was the concensus of the Commission
that the city should attempt to grandfather these units in or other-
wise legitimatize them, as that was the idea he had from reading
Comm Brown's comments in the minutes from the last meeting. Comm
Brown said that that was his opinion, and not the prevailing
attitude of the Commission.
Chrmn Peirce stated that he would be opposed to grandfathering or
legimatizing any bootlegs, if it was in the wrong zone, i.e. if
there was a second unit on an R-1 lot. However, if the unit in
question was substandard and met the Safety Corle,, that would be a
different matter.
Adele MacIntyre & Client, West Coast Land Company, Hermosa Beach,
stated that her Client owns a piece of property on 7th Street in
Hermosa Beach that is a legal non-conforming unit in that it was built
in 1923 before the zoning or General Plan was changed. She stated
that the lot was 40' x 120', and that the city had told her that
her client would only be allowed to build a duplex on that lot.
However, two houses down on 7th Street, on the same size lot, they
were saying that that lot could support a fourplex. And she wanted
to know if that is true.
PAGE 3
Planning Commission Minutes
March 1, 1983
In checking the zoning, Chrmn Peirce stated that it appears that
all the land in the area in question is zoned R-2.
Ms. Sapetto stated that the way to get accurate information would
be to call the Building Department and ask to speak to Mr. Lee
Alton, Building Director .
Ms. Macintyre's client stated there is now a duplex on the lot and
he would like to build two condominiums there. Chrmn Peirce stated
that it was his interpretation that he could build two units or
one house, but not two condos, since the location of his property
is considered to be a low-density area according to the General
Plan. Ms. Sapetto added that with respect to that area the zoning
is not consistent with the General Plan.
Mark Cava-nagh , Hermosa Beach, asked what the difference would be in
terms of density, between a duplex and two condominiums, in that
both structures would probably be occupied by the same number of
people. Chrmn Peirce answered by saying that state law regulates
condominium construction through the city's General Plan, and that
the General plan would be the authority and not the zoning, and
the City was just following the law as presented by the State.
Ms Sapetto added that the City would like to see a single-family
dwelling there and not a multiple dwelling. She added that the
area in que 9 tion is a small pocket of R-2 in a predominantly R-1
area.
Ms. Sapetto stated the the City Council has authorized a work pro-
gram to amend the Land Use Element to see where they migh t want
'to change the e l e ment. Those hearings will be noticed an d should
be conducted s ome time in April. She suggested that the members of
the audience who testified tonight should also attend the se hearings
in April.
COMMISSIONER ITEMS
Chrmn Peirce asked for a clarification on the City Council minutes
with respect to page 2 regarding the Hotel/Motel, etc. definitions.
Ms. Sapetto s tated tha t b a s i c ally the Council had some difficulty
understanding why we were making t hese definitions and to what
p u rpos e it wo u l d serve. Principal ly, an objection was made that
by cre ating de fin i tions for hote ls and motels we would preclude
mo t el s fr o m be i n g developed downt o wn. Their rationale being that
the way the code is now, with no definitions, hotels are allowed
i n C-2 and C-3, and mo t els i n C-3 only. By not having definitions
yo u can subvert the code re gu lation, i.e., you can call a hotel a
motel and get around t he code .
She added that basically Council has asked staff to comeback with a
further explanation of why the y were suggesting definitions and
wh at purpose they woul d se rve . Further, that the Staff report is
c omp leted a nd will be pr es ented at the riext Coun'cil Meeting. The
Re po rt s p eaks to the re a son s wh y distinctions are being made between
hote ls/mote ls and board ing h ous es/rooming houses in the commercial
zones.
~1 PAGE 4
Planning Commission Minutes
March 1, 1983
And Staff suggests that the Council decide whether they want to
have C-3 motels in C-2 as well.
Comm Brown stated that by not having definitions you can include
either structures in both zones. Ms Sapetto ~ated that if that
is the intent of the Council then they will probably not define
the terms.
Ms Sapetto stated in response to Comm Brown's question regarding
page 4 of the City Council Minutes, that Council had asked Staff
to convene a workshop between the Building and Planning Depart-
ments ne the distinctions between condo and apartment constructions.
Council felt uncomfortable not allowing conversions on the one hand,
or, on the other hand, allowing them without a definite and specific
set 0£ standards by which a commission would judge a conversion pro-
ject. She added that what Council wanted was for Staff to come back
and present to them some of the information that has been present-
ed to Commission.
Chrmn Peirce stated that the problem with definitions is that
developers will uaually build to the limit.
Comm Strohecker stated that it was his impression Council was ask-
ing for specific guidelines and definitions because they misunder-
stood commission's intent to be that commission wanted to have the
conversions before it to approve or disapprove it. They didn't
understand our intent was to have a set established code to follow
re approval of condominium conversions.
Comm Smith stated that the resolution was clearly stated, with the
standards being very specific. He added that if Council is looking
for better guidelines on conversions they should request that of
Commission.
Ms. Sapetto stated that she didn't believe Council knew enough about
it at this point, and that is why they want staff to supply more
details.
Comm Izant reported on the subcommittee. He stated that the sub-
committee was appointed at the last meeting and was comprised of
Comms Strohecker, Brown and Izant. The charge of the Commission
was to consider looking at PCB at the south end of the City.
He continued by saying that the Sub-committee met at 6:30 this
evening and had a discussion amongst themselves to familiarize
themselves with what had been done previously, what the objectives
of the sub-committee would be, and what goals should be achieved.
The sub-committee thought, as stated in the resolution, that the
objective should be for the City to work towards a down growth of
non-residential traffic on the north and south streets through
the City. Also that perhaps there will have to be some action
take on PCH to produce less traffic on those streets. The plan of
action the sub-committee decided to take was to meet informally
with a number of other groups, in an attempt to get the widest
spread of alternatives. Two groups mentioned were the Hermosa
Beach Chamber of Commerce and the Hermosa Beach Home Owners Associa-
PAGE 5
Planning Commission Minutes
March 1, 1983
tion. Hopefully, the sub-committee can get in put and opinions from
these groups so it can come back to the Commi ssion as a whole with
some recommendations. He added that Comm Strohecker will contact
the Chamber of Commerce to get the i r p arti c i pation, and that the
sub-committee will meet again in the near future.
Comm Smith asked that the sub-committee, in regards to· the traffic
on PCH, also sound out the business raen in the area who might not
be represented by the Chamber of Commerce. Also, they should sound
out the home owners in the area that are not members of the Horne
Owners Association, as those groups don't necessarily represent the
general concensus or opinion of the area.
Chrrnn Peirce reported in regards to the sub-committee on the rezon-
ing of the Seaview Inn property. He stated that as of this time
they have not been able to meet due to conflicting schedules with
the members of the Commission and Council sub-committees. He will
attempt to set a meeting date. He added that the status of the
issue at this time is that the City Attorney has filed a Quit
Claim in court for the property, and that proceedings on that will
probably take a number of months.
Comm Izant made a motion to adjourn at 8:35.
CERT! FI CATION
I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes were approved at regular
meeting of the Planning Commission the 1st day of March 1983.
r)
DATE
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON
FEBRUARY 15, 1983, IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT • 7: 30
Meeting called to order at 7:35 P.M. By Vice Chmn. Izant
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Comms. Brown, Izant, Loosli, Strohecker
ABSENT: Comms. Peirce, Shapiro, Smith
ALSO PRESENT: Pamela Sappetto, Planning Director; Ralph Casteneda
TDC Planning
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Comm. Izant pointed out on page 9 that the reference to the letter
from the City Council was mistakenly attributed to the Planning
Commission. Additionally, the spelling of Mrs. Ryan's name on
paga 9 was incorre~t.
Motion by Comm Brown, seconded by Comm Strohecker to approve the
minutes, noting the above changes.
AYES: Comms. Brown, Izant, Loosli, Strohecker
NOES: None
APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 83-7
Comm Izant stated that the vote would be as to whether the resolu-
tion correctly reflected what took place at the last meeting. After
a short discussion the following suggestions and amendments were
offered.
Comm Loosli pointed out with respect to the third "whereas" that he
would like to have the reason stated as to why the 4-story limit
would encourage height limits in the VPD and Paid section of the
City. He added that the argument that parking requirements limit
building heights is an erroneous assumption because you can buy
your way out of providing parking. Parking requirements do not
provide any parking disincentives to limit heights.
Comm Izant stated that with respect to the second "whereas" a state-
ment to the effect-of, " ... and that the 45 foot limit is included
to give architectual flexibility." be added. He further suggested
wording for the third "whereas" as follows: "Whereas, the Planning
Commission has determined that current parking regulations in the
VPD a'."1d the paid sector would not act as a limitation on build-out
to the maximum height." Comm. concurred with that wording
Motion by Comm Strohecker, seconded by Comm Brown, to approve the
resolution as amended.
AYES: Comms. Brown, Izant, Loosli, Strohecker
NOES: None-
Planning Commission Minutes
February 15, 1983
Page 2
REVISED HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN
Staff report was offered by Mr. Casteneda. He explained that at
the last meeting it was decided that Staff should revise the first
sections, which Commission discussed :previously, based on the i:n-
put to date, and produce one new section re Goals, Policies, and
Objectives, The major section following the material submitted to
Commission tonight will be dealing with the Action Plan. He con-
tinued by saying that in terms of the revisions of the earlier
sections there were none made with respect to sections one, two· or
three, except for some minor points. He added that those sections
require some future refinements and elaboration. In terms of section
five, dealing with housing needs, staff condensed the information and
took out the tables and graphs; which tables and graphs will be put
in an appendix to the document. The same revisions were made to the
section dealing with the issues of "Constraints and Resources. Staff
pulled the information together and attempted to summarize the bullet
items, in particular, to reflect the discussion on the neighborhood
preservation issue, and a statement was included that CDBG funding
is a potential resource~
He added further, that Staff also condensed the information in terms
of the Land Use and zoning patterns of the city, and included infor-
mation on available vacant land. He stated that the new section sub-
mitted deals with Goals, Policies, and Objectives. It is a required
section in the sense that the topic has to be addressed, but the manner
in which it is addressed is left up to the City. With respect to
goals, statements are included dealing with a desireable long-range
situation in the City. In terms of policies, it states how the re-
sources and tools will be used to effect the housing situation. In
terms of objectives, it mainly sets forth a quantitative statement
of what will be achieved over the next five years. He added that
much of the material in the new section is based on the December 1979
version of the element which was approved by the Commission and City
council, which was updated by a transmittal made in August of 1981.
He continued by saying that the reason for the extended statements
dealing with energy conservation:was that that is a topic that needs
to be addressed in the Housing Element. Staff dealt further and em-
phasized the areas of prevention and abatement of bootleg units; pro-
tection from conversion re the smaller (3 to 9 units) rental housing
structures, since they represent the lower cost housing in the City;
and promotion of existing conservation of the neighborhoods. With
respect to new housing, staff addressed that need within the scope
of the existing environmental constraints of the City as would be re-
flected in the Land Use Element and other documents. Also included
is the policy of continuing evaluation of the potential housing de-
velopment at the 11th Street Site. Further, that with respect to the
question of affordability Staff attempted to reflect the policies as
they exist Eoday regarding senior citizen affordibility, the Afford-
able Housing Fund, and the CDBG Program. He added that the issue of
expanding the range of uses for the Affordable Housing Fund may be
r
Planning Commission Minutes
February 15,1983
Page 3
investigated further in the future.
He continued by stating _ that Staff attempted to reflect the exist-
ing policies as they are today, though they may change within the
next month or two, depending ,on what the City Attorney reports
back on the eligible uses. The direction with respect to the re-
sources that are available to the City would be a continuing policy
to encourage and facilitate the private administration of the fund
by way of a social service agent, keeping the City out of the day-
to-day roll of administering.
Comm Loosli pointed out on page 10, the land use element figures for
low density, 0-13, and medium density, 14-25, left the area between
13 and 14 not accounted for. Ms. Sapetto stated that the way Staff
reflects numbers in calculations is that the whole number is used;
i.e. 0-13 would mean 0-13.99, She added further that the Commission's
past interpretation that 13 would be the maximum number with 13.1 and
up falling into the nextcategory is not reflected in the land use
element, Mr. Casteneda suggested leaving it as it is but indicating
that through the past seven years the Commission~ and City Council's
interpretations have been 13 is the maximum number with anything over
that falling into the next category. comm Izant stated that it would
be a good idea to clarify that so that it isn't opened to interpre-
tation.
Comm Strohecker pointed out that on page 10 where the Priamos,
Thompson and other properties are listed, that the re were other siz-
able lots that should be included; i.e. the lot on the westside of
the Highway at 21st Street. Mr. Casteneda responded by saying that
Staff would look at that and perhaps include it.
Comm Izant stated that on page 9, second bullet from the bottom,
which speaks to maximum development with reference to the Zoning Code,
that there should be included a statment as to what is believed to be
the current number of existing units. Mr. Casteneda agreed, and said
that could be included, He stated that the reason for that item was
because of a past request by Chrmn Peirce that Zoning be referred .to
on this point. Comm Loosli suggested that the number 13,000 be used
and eliminate the 12,000 to 13,000 range. Comm Izant suggested that
a reference to the current: city density as compared to other areas
be included.
Comm Brown stated that he disliked having so many numbers and sta-
tistics s~attered throughout the document. He thought that the numer-
ical data should be included in an appendix for ease of use and
accessibility. In that way you would have all of the statistices in
one spot. Additionally,the document itself would not go out of date
as quickly, since the numbers could be updated without touching the
body of the document . Corrm Izant pointed out that in some cases the
numbers are ne c es_sar_y, and -suggested a, parenthetical clarification be added
indicating the time references. Comm Brown reiterated that the numbers
should be available, but they should be in an appendix for ease of re-
Planning Commission Minutes
February 15, 1983
Page 4
trieval. Comm Loosli stated that the document is updated every five
years, and this document's numbers are based on the 1980 census, which
census will not be updated for several years. He didn't see a prob-
lem with having the numbers included in the body of the document, but
felt · that a parenthetical time reference would be a good idea.
Mr, Casteneda stated that the section would be prefaced with an ex-
ecutive summary and summary chart, and · in this way an overall picture
of the section would be provided. He added that the more detailed
numbers and statistics, and how they were arrived at, would be put in
an appendix.
Public hearing was opened at 8:30,
Violette Isgreen, 726 Prospect Avenue, Hermosa Beach, stated that she
felt that the Planning Commission would be derelict in its duty if it
did not analyze all feasiAble land use alternatives, such as the legal
non-conforming buildings in the city, Additionally, since there is a
bad financial problem within the city now, if these units were account-
ed for the City would have more revenue sharing monies and more
property tax monies. She suggested the Commission work out a way to
grandfather these units in to a legal status, then the city would find
find a pooling of available moderate income units.
Comm Brown remarked t hat th e bootleg problem, addressed by Ms. Isgreen,
was an important issue that keeps getting swept under the carpet, and
the her suggestion of gra nd:athering them in at some date is at least
one valid alternative that should be considered, Comm Izant pointed
out that Ms. Isgreen was addressing the illegal non-conforming build-
ings rather than the legal non-conforming as she stated, Comms Brown
and Strohecker asked for a summarization of what is contained in the
bootleg abatement memorandum, }~. Casteneda responded by saying, by
way of background on the issue , the memorandum that Staff re:ferred to
was prepared by the Department of Bu ilding in a joint workshop of the
P lanning Commission and the City Council in July of 1982 dealing with
this topic ; hcwever no conclusions were reached at this workshop. He
added that it is a complex legal question what can be done about the
bootlegs and the people inhabiting the units, Additionally, it is a
question that is to be discussed when Phase 3 of the local Coastal
Plan is completed. That plan should indicate what the City will do
to prevent and abate the illegal units,
In answer to Comm Strohecker's question Mr. Casteneda stated that the
City has at this time an abatement program which is based on a com-
plaint system, and not where the Building Department actively attempts
to locate the illegal units. Comm Loosli added that the City has
entered into a prosecution agreement wi ·th the County Prosecutor's
Office, Ms. Sapetto explained further the abatement program procedure,
i.e., the Building Department operates on a complaint basis. After
a complaint is recieved the Department asks the person who owns the
bootleg or is responsible for it, to make an application to the Board
of Zoning Adjustment to legalize it. In that process they determine
Planning Commission Minutes
February 15, 1983
Page 5
if it can be legalized. If they refuse to make the adjustments, then
they will be prosecuted. On the other hand, if the BZA denies the
legalization, they also will be prosecuted. There is an evaluation
system built into it. In answer to Comm Brown's question she responded
that she did not know how many bootlegs exist in the City, Comm Brown
stated that as long as the City has; the bootlegs, he would rather
know where they are, rather than have them and not know where they are,
It seemed to him a good idea, ec.onomically and otherwise, to attempt
to grandfather these units in and attempt to make the units safe, since
they will probably never be brought up to code. Comm Loosli did not
agree, Comm Brown added that the City was not getting many complaints
and felt that the system was not working. Ms. Sapetto stated that some
of the bootlegs have been abated in the turnover process. Comm Izant
ask Staff to supply the background and statistics on this issue to-
gether~eh a statement of the possible solutions, Mr. Casteneda sug-
gested that this topic be dealt with in two respects: in terms of the
housing element, as well as, to reopen the question with respect to
the Coastal Plan; and then, in both respects express these aims by
way of recommendations from the Commission to the Council. Ms. Sapetto
explained that the LCP is to discuss abatement, and since the Council
has not, as yet, come to a conclusion on the LCP this topic is open
to the Commission to discuss and forward the recommendations to the
Council; Further, -the topic can be added to an upcoming agenda, i.e.
that under certain criteria, Commission might grandfather some of thse
units in. In addition, there should be some type of program to
identify the units, The problem to date has been how we can best
identify them, From a legal standpoint, the Building Department~annot g
out and search for the units. Comm Izant asked that the issue be in-
cluded in an upcoming agenda,
Comm Izant suggested in terms of format of the Goals, Policies and
Objectives section, since each sub-section therein has a statement
of philosophy, that should be consistent throughout and so should be
added to the New Housing Development Section. Mr. Casteneda agreed.
Comm Izant asked how the 20 percent figure under the objectives of
existing housing supply was arrived a t; i .e. wh at does 20 percent
represent in terms of numbers of unit s in ne ed of major repairs. He
also asked for a clarification of the 50 per c en t figure. Mr. Casteneda
said those figures represented 125 and approximately 50, respectively,
He ; .added that these are the most seve rel_y deteri orating uni ts, unfit
for habitation, and it is difficult to tell how may of these are boot-
legs. Comm Brown asked how the city would go about replacing the
50 percent of those housing units. Mr. Casteneda stated that in this
case, the underlying value of the land might be enough to attract a
developer. That is one way it could be achieved, On this issue it
has been discussed and recommended that the City look to the private
sector for revitalizing rather than through the use of block grants.
Comm Brown asked how the private sector would know there is a 20 per-
cent improvement need, and, also, how does Commission know if the
city has reached or surpassed that goal. Mr. Casteneda responded by
saying first, ·by way of background, the housing element is not the
only element of the general plan that states that planning and zoning
Planning Commission Minutes
February 15, 1983
Page 6
have to be updated every five years, the State Legislature also re-
quires it. One reason for that is that the progress towards the
goals should be monitored. How one might monitor the actual im-
provement involves establishing a s y stem that tracks the building
permits and remodeling permits, If the City gets involved in the
Hanydman-type programs orl6an programs, that would be an exact way
of tracking it, by the grants and loans issued. If the City is in-
volved in that, there are annual reports filed so the City knows
where the money is going. In addition, all of those programs are
run through the private sector, i.e. B of A and Security Pacific.
Mainly, the city would have to monitor it through a permit issuing
tracking system, and through the involvement of loans and grants.
Then Staff would record and accumulate the data to be used in up-
dating the element. The element would then show the diminishing
level of need, and the goals would be adjusted accordingly. He
added that ways and means will be addressed in the next section,
and if Commission decides it wants to pursue this, it will be in
the implementation section. Comm. Brown stated that the City needs
to establish a tracking system. Com m Strohecker added that over the
next five years there will be additional housing stock that will be
in need of improvement. As the City reaches goals on some housing,
others will be falling into the "in need of repair" category. Mr.
Casteneda responded by saying that this is just the best "guess"
work available, and agreed that as some housing is being improved,
others will slip into that condLtion -• The question is how to
encourage property owners to maintain their property, so the City
doesn't continue to lose ground. He added further that the element
should state that this is an objective to be achieved and how the
City intends to track it.
Comm Izant pointed out, in response to Comm Brown's comment, that
the element needs a starting point so some numbers must be included.
Comm Brown commented that the City cannot follow progress towards
these goals because the City doesn't have any tracking system. Comm
Loosli stated that the intent part of the element should include a
determination of how many houses are in need of repair. Mr. Casteneda
responded by saying that one of the sections in the element de als wi th
an updating and review process; the way it is monitored and evaluate d.
So in that sense, the topic will be discussed in the element. However,
he felt it was another matter to say that the Plannir:gCommissi on see s
this as a high priority to see where the City stands re major repair s,
and if it is a high priority, it should be stated by the Commi s s ion .
Comm Izant stated that Staff indicated that 20 percent represents
125 houses. So the estimate is that roughly 620 houses in the City
are in need of major repairs. Mr. Casteneda responded by saying that
that was correct, He added that a physical survey was done in the
Coastal Zone, and if those survey findings are representative of the
rest of the City, then that is what the figure should be, Comm Brown
inquired as to whether the Coastal Zone is a true representation of
the rest of the City, He felt it might not be a representative samp-
ling. Mr, Castened stated that this is the best available information
at this time. Ms. Sapetto added that Staff keeps records of permits
Planning Commission Minutes
February 15, 1983
Page 7
issued and the Building Department publishes a monthly report on
this topic.
Comm Brown stated that the $2,000-type repairs may not require
application for a permit, and felt the term "dilapidated" should
be redefined, with $2,000 not being considered as "major repairs."
Mr. Casteneda suggested that a tracking system is possible with some
augmentation of existing systems, but the point is whether resources
can be allocated for it and whether it is worth it.
In reviewing the document Commission asked that on page 12 in the
objectives section, that the percentages be taken out. Comm Izant
stated that if Commission chooses not to put the numbers or percent-
ages in, then it needs to be put into footnotes or parentheicals
that the Commission feels that because of the lack of a track record
over the years that it is inappropriate to tab numerical targets at
this time. The commission agreed with that wording.
Comm Izant suggested with respect to the New Housing Goals section,
page 13, first. bullet, that the word "demands" replace the word
"needs". Comm Brmm agreed. Comm Loosli suggested that the bullet
should read: 11 1'0: address, within the scope of environmental con-
straints, the housing needs of the community and its share of
regional housing projections."
Comm Izant asked with respect to the last bullet on page 14, that
the reference to the "11th Street site" be deleted
Comm Loosli stated that the second bullet on page 14 ., re mixed-use
of structures, that the word "certain" should precede" ... community
development,"
Comms Strohecker and Loosli suggested with respect to the third bullet
on page 14, that the word "different" be changed to "var±ed"
Comm Strohecker pointed out that in '.:the objectives section, last bullet,
page 14, which says "one-for-one basis replacement,"that that didn't
necessarily mean replacement at the same site or with the same type
of structure, He felt it could be worded better, Mr. Casteneda said
that basically, the City doesn't want to loose housing, and if certain
housing is eliminated, replacement of inventory is a need. Comm Loosli
suggested that ",,,at least a one-for-one basis" be substituted,
Comm Brown stated that the Philosophy statement -on page 15, that the
1 last sentence --" ... meeting the housing needs of the community and
its share-of regional housing needs"--should be consistent with the
previous sub-section's philosophy statement, using the replacement
words of "demands" and "projections," He also suggested that the
third bullet under goals, that the word "provide" be changed to
"encourage". He felt the same word subs ti tut ion : should be made in
bullet 2 under Policies, He also felt that the reference to "3 to
9 units" in the first bullet on page 15 was too specific. Mr.
Casteneda responded to the last suggestion by saying that the City
r
Planning Commission Minutes
February 15, 1983
Page 8
Council had agreed that in terms of permitting a substandard
building to convert, it will be decided on a project-by-project
basis. Ms. Sapetto added that the Council requested a workshop
to discuss the minimum standards
question and the evaluation procedures for conversion plans. Mr.
Casteneda added that in terms of guiding decisions on a conversion
application which does not meet all of the standards, the Commission
should examine which min"imum standards they want to impose by virtue
of the housing element. The Commission agreed that the entire bullet
should be eliminated.
Comm Izant stated that the Objectives portion on page 15 substitute
wording should be consistent with the previous subsections.
Mr. Casteneda summed up by saying that the next step will be to pro-
ceed to the next section dealing with the "how to." Now that the
objectives have been stated, we need to know how to achieve them.
He stated that Staff hopes to have that section at the next session.
And . on the bootleg item, staff will provide a progress report along
with some background material.
PLANNING COMMISSION MATTERS -TRAFFIC CIRCULATION -SOUTHWEST
QUADRANT -PAC I FIC COAST HIGHWA Y
The Staff report was presented by Ms. Sapetto. She stated that dur-
ing the previous discussion on traffic circulation Staff had provided
Commission with information about parking along the highway, and that
report was submitted again tonight. She added that this was done in
response to the question of removing a lane on PCH. She added that
CalTrans has not taken any action on that, but they do have the
authority to remove parking. However, it might not be a politically
wise decision, although they may be pressured into removing it by
the ~ities. She submitted to Commission a report which was presented
to the City Council by the Public Works Department in October of 1981,
and it dealt specifically with the parking lots on the highway and
where the city could create additional parking. The report identified '
specif:ic areas where there is parking,, including private lots. She
added that since this report/recommendation, there has been a lot
of paved parking made accessible to the south portion of the City,
and at their last meeting City Council gave a direction to meter that
lot.
In answer to Comm Loosli's question Ms Sapetto stated that the signals
are synchronized.
Comm Strohecker ·stated that he would be interested in learning if there
are comparisonsre time travel from one end of the city to the other
during the peak AM and PM hours. His for the request being that the
City provides three lanes during the AM period and only two during the
PM, and he would like to see how they compare.
--
I'
Planning Commission Minutes
• February 15, 1983
Page 9
Ms. Sapetto stated that :information may well be availahl~,in the Pub_lic'Work's--
Depat.tment._ Comm Izant added that he would like to know the time it
takes to travel the length of the city and the number of cars that
complete the trip during that time period, A member of the audience
stated that in Redondo Beach they do not provide left turn lanes,
and suggested If Hermosa followed suit in the southwest quadrant,
the City would have another lane, of traffic. Comm Izant stated that
might be an alternative. He asked the Commission t _heir feelings on
the appointment of a sub;...committee to investigate this issue further
and make a recommendation to the Commission as to what action should
be taken in this area. He added that the City m'fght be forced by
the State to do something about this, as as a Planning Commission he
felt they should take action before being forced to do so.
Comm Loosli stated that the Council appeared to have no interest in
this issue, and felt that the Commission had done as much as they
should with respect to the Council's inaction. Comm Izant pointed
out that the Commission has a responsibility to come back with a
recommendation since the Council didn't accept the Commission's
last recommendation. Comms Brown and Strohecker said they would serve
on the sub-committee.
Comm Brown requested some background on Mr. Nabedian, the engineer
who prepared the report. He also asked how Mr, Nabedian came up with
these suggestions, whether it was at the City's specific request or
on his own. Ms. Sapetto stated that the goal at the time of this
report was to diminish the impact of traffic congestion in the City.
Comm Brown stated that it should be made clear whether the Commission
is trying to keep traffic out of the residential areas and move more
traffic through the commercial areas which need the traffic, Comm
Izant stated that in the past that was the Commission's goal.
In answer to Comm Loosli's question, Ms. Sapetto stated that the
notice of the Proposed Variance was included in the packet for the
Commissions information, stating that the application was a joint
one, and it will be coming before the Commission, She added that the
problem with the lot. is that it is almost "unbuildable" because a
portion of the lot includes a 70 percent slope, providing only one
small portion that.· is buildable. So in that respect it is a classic
case for a variance, i.e. they need the additional height because the
amount of land they can actually build on is so small.
In answer to Comm strohecker's question, Ms, Sapetto stated that the
sub-committee appointed at the last meeting had not met with the
Council sub-committee as yet, and therefore, there was nothing to
report at this time.
Motion to adjourn by Comm Strohecker, seconded by Comm Brown,
(, CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes were approved at a
regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the ___ _
day of _____ .
vrtE -CHAIRMAN EDWARD LOOSLI, ACTING
DATE
; I VI I;~.-
Meeting called to order at 7:30 P.M. by Chairman Peirce
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Comms. Brown, Izant, Loosli, Shapiro, Smith,
Strohecker, Chrmn Peirce
ALSO PRESENT: Alfred Mercado, P1anning Aide; Ralph Castenada,
TDC Planning.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Comm Brown asked how much of the conversation and questions by
the commission is to be reflected in the minutes. He stated
V
that a scenario which he expressed at the last meeting with
respect to asking Staff what would happen if the Land Use Element
were to go against Storer TV, if it were to be continued as open
space, would they be allowed to operate as Storer Cable TV, and
the answer was that they would, His point being it wasn't noted
in the meeting's minutes and that was his reason for abstaining,
He felt that the item should have been voted on at that time,
otherwise it would come back to the Commission in the future,
Comm Shapiro concurred with Comm Brown, and added that it had
been pointed out to him that if you want something specifically
reflected in the minutes, to preface your statement accordingly.
Mr. Mercado mentioned that in addition to the transcribed minutes
the entire meeting is on tape, so if Commission want's the
minutes amended that can be done. Chrmn Peirce added that the
minutes are to reflect, as much as possible, the pertinant state-
ments of fact and not the more casual conversational elements
of the meeting.
Comm Smith agreed with Comm Shapiro that statements you want re-
flected in the minutes should be prefaced with a statement to
that effect. He further stated that he wanted the minutes to
indicate that he had asked Staff to insure that the informational
items that were discussed be included in the packet when the
Storer issue comes before the Commission again, so the same
questions will not be asked over again.
Comm Izant, notinq the amendments and the changes, made a motion
to approve the minutes; seconded by Comm Shapiro.
AYES:
NOES:
ABS:
Comms Brown, Izant, Loosli, Shapiro, Strohecker, Smith.
None
Chrmn Peirce,
RESOLUTION P.C. 83-6
Comm Loosli Pointed out that the Resolution did not reflect the
vote on the Resolution.
:Motion by Comm Izant, Seconded by Comm Smith to pass the resolution
approving a time extension for tract map located at 1833 Pacific
Coast Highway, with the addition of the result of the Commission 's
vote.
AYES:
NOES:
ABS:
Comms Brown, Izant, Loosli, Shapiro, Strohecker, Smith
l\Jone
Chrmn Peirce
Page 2
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -February 1, 1983
REVISED HOUSING ELE MENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN
Chrmn Peirce noted that Commission has been receiving two sec-
tions of the element at one time, with tonight's section being
a description of potential housing resources, and a description
of housing consaaints,
Mr, Casteneda presented the Staff Report. He stated that the
Commission had received additional outlined information regarding
the two sections of the element, along with a summary chart ex-
plaining some items in relationship to constraints and resources.
He explained that the chart was done as a result of previous dis-
cussion of these two topics last year, when it was felt that
there were certain value judgments in terms of explaining what
constraints and resources were. At that time Commission wanted
a summary chart to develop the details of the narrative. Brief-
ly , c nstraints are some local and non-local factors that might
impede addressing housing needs and goals; whereas, resources
might be interpreted as those item s that could be influenced by
the city in a positive direction t o meet community needs and
goals . He continued by saying tha t for purposes of elaboration
certain information was added that was included in a rough draft
of the housing element presented a year ago. He noted that the
function tonight was to gain impressions from the Commission,
then proceed to a refinement of the sections, and then, at the
next continued public hearing all of the sections will be
broug ht back to see if they correctly reflect the sentiments of
the Commission
Briefly, the area under the headin g of "Constraints" in terms
of re gula tory incentives for the i mprovement, maintenance of
housing , and house zoning Ordinance can be modified to encourage
property rehabiLi tation . He added t hat Staffhas yet to review and
complete t he LCP , but that materia l will forth coming soon, He
noted further that at a previ b u s meeting Comm Loosli wanted a
consideration of house zoning with items included as incentives
for owners to maintain and rehabilitate their property.
Further, in terms of the area of ''.'Resources", the i tern that re-
ceived the most attention previously was regarding whether the
interpretation of Community Development Block Grants should be
interpreted as a potential resource, He added that some Commission-
ers favored a "handyman" program and others felt that private
market forces was the better way to preserve housing, However,
this is one area where interpretation needs to be made whether
this resource, which is funneled to the City, is one that should
be included as a potential means of addressing the rehab needs.
He explained further that Staff included language from the Hous-
ing Element Law, which indicates a local community can include in
its element those economic, environmental, and physical factors
which would impede otherwise addressing those needs. Further,
that Staff has also indicated another constraint is the actual
a;vailability of land which is not now considered for residential
use, with the report indicating how much additional housing
could be developed. And, essentially, there is enough that can
r'age .:.S
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -February l, 1983
be available to meet the needs that were projected.
In terms of resources, Staff considers a fair amount of im-
portance attached to the Land Use Element since this is the
guiding factor in deciding how much of existing housing should
be maintained at current density and current development, and
how much new housing should be allowed. In the area of afford-
ability, or housing assistance, Staff listed some constraints
which are non-local in origin, i.e., financing, construction
costs, etc. He added that minimum dwelling size could be re-
duced from the existing standards in some cases and that would
lead to lower housing prices. Under resources, he pointed out,
there is the standing Senior Citizens' Housing Program which
has evolved to a stage where more detailed decisions are yet to
be made; as well as the Affordable Housing Fund and, eventual-
ly, the Shared Equity Program in relationship to the condo con-
version projects.
Continued Public Hearing was opened. There being no testimony
the hearing was closed.
In answer to Comm Strohecker's question, Hr. Casteneda'stated
that the elimination of bootlegs would not be considered a con-
straint. Comm Loosli pointed out that on the page following page
3,19, fifth bullet, he would like to change that paragraph to
read, "Hermosa Beach is identified as a City where long-term
neighborhood preservation and conservation is both a viable
option and a positive contribution to the environment." Comm
Smith thought that that change may indicate that the entire
city is eligible for redevelopment. Comm Izant did not agree
with Comm Loosli, he felt the paragraph said that there may be
certain portions of the City that, should the City want to,
would be desireable to preserve. But that there was no impli-
cation that the other areas should not be considered for preser-
vation. Comm Loosli felt that the paragraph implied that there
are certain segments of the City that do not deserve preservation
and the language could be made clearer or struck out altogether.
Comm Izant suggested that the paragraph include a sentance which
states that "hearings have not yet been held to identify whether
there is a need for long-term neighborhood preservation and
conservation of certain areas of the City. '1' Comm Loosli concurred.
Comm Loosli pointed out on page 4.15 the sentance reading
"For these reasons, it will be important to the City to monitor
residential growth and establish a balance between the not
necessarily incompatible goals of neighborhood conservation and
housing production." He stated that he felt that neighborhood
conservation and housing production were incompatible. Comm
Smith stated that what that sentance said was that it would be
good to establish a balance between those areas of the City
where there is a lot of development and those areas ·where the
City doesn'.t wish to have too much development. Mr. Casteneda
agreed with this interp retation . Comm Brown s ugge sted that the
"not necessarily incomp at i ble" clause be deleted f rom the sen-
tance or to preface "ba l ance" with the word "equ i t able". Mr.
Casteneda stated that what the paragraph was s aying is that there
is some preservation of existing areas and some new development,
and that balance may be different from the current balance,
Page 4
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -February 1, 1983
Comm Izant stated that .the City is going to have to monitor the
growth and is going to have to make choices between neighborhood
conservation and new housing production. Mr. Casteneda stated that
perservation of the character of the neighborhood was also a con-
sideration in any decision. Chrmn Peirce stated that the important
consideration for the Commission is to decide how much of the City
Commission should allow to be developed. Comm Smith stated that
he would like a sample of how this would actually operate. Mr.
Casteneda stated that that would be a good way to approach it.
Chrmn Peirce pointed out that the numbers on page 4.15 re "Low
Density" and "Medium Density" should correspond to the numbers in
the General Plann, since as they are stated in the report it leaves
1 dwelling unit per net acre in limbo. He also stated that the
numbers on Table 9, page 4.14, as to Maximum Number of Housing
Units was misleading, because the Zoning Laws allow for a much high-
er amount of units than the General Plan. Comms Izant and Loosli
suggested that Staff find out which numbers SCAG uses, since this
is a very important point because there is a large discrepancy between
the numbers in the Zoning Code and those in the General Plan.
Comm Izant stated that on page 3.17, fourth line from the bottom,
that he did not agree that new development leads to an increased
demand for parking, since in actuality it is the older buildings in
Hermosa .that have the wors u parking situation. And since new develop-
ments must build to Code, they are required to provide adequate park-
ing. Chrmn Peirce stated that he believed that the new developments
had more square footage per unit than did the older buildings, and,
therefore, could accommodate more people, and that generally increases
the demand for more parking. Comm Loosli stated that it should say
that new developments probably increase traffic congestion. Comm.
Izant agreed. Mr. Mercado stated in answer to Comm Loosli's
question, that if a condo project eliminates an on-street parking
space by a driveway curb cut, they are required to replace the
deleted parking space. He added that was for condo projects only.
Comm Smith stated that on page 3.19, second paragraph, " ... in
addition to making residential rehabilitation economically practical
for very low and low income households;.; .. " He was not sure what
that meant. He asked if the City has at this time a rehamil~tatton
program. Mr. Mercado stated "no," adding that Staff just submitted
to the City Manager a 5-year capital improvement program, and he be-
lieved two years down the line the City is proposing $166,000
for the residential rehab program, with low interest loans, block
grants, etc.
Comm Smith asked on page 3.19, bullet 6, whether the regulatory power
mentioned therein was state law. Mr. Casteneda stated that it was
local. Comm Smith stated with respect to page 4.13,"the review of
major or undeveloped properties in the city,"that he thought the in -
formation was taken from the Housing Study that relates back to site
studies done in relation to senior citizens housing development. He
.. :asked that the reference to senior citizens be eliminated since this
is a general examination. Comm Izant commented that the lead-in
paragraph suggests that the home review is speciffically oriented to
seniors. Comm Smith felt that was not relevant. Chrmn Peirce agreed
that it should be housing in general rather than any specific type of
housing.
, .!:'age :J
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -February 1, 1983
Comm Smith added that on page 5.29, second paragraph, that the argu-
ment seemed to be heading towards lowering unit sizes, and asked it
that is one of the constraints Staff is talking about and should
Commission look at revising minimum living area footage for certain
medium size units as a means to make housing production more attrac-
tive. Mr. Casteneda stated that was correct. Comm Smith also point-
ed out the third paragraph, same page, last sentance where it stated
Hermosa Beach has no capacity to reduce financing costs, he thought
the city could address this in terms of buy-downs through community
block grant loans which are available to moderately high income house-
holds. Mr. Casteneda stated that that was a possibility.
Comm Loosli stated that paragraph 4.15, which referred to the pro-
jected rate of development being faster than originally forecasted,
he suggested that the last sentance be changed to read, "for these
reasons it will be important to the City to monitor residential
growth and establish various options dealing with the goal of neigh-
borhood conservation and housing production." Comm Izant agreed with
that sugg~stion.
Mr. Casteneda stated that he will bring all of the Commissions
thoughts up to date and revise all the sections thus far considered
and, if possible, get into the next section, entitled"Goals, Policies
and Objectives" for the next meeting.
AMENDMENT TO ZONING CODE ARTICL 8, SEC. 802; ELIMINATION OF 3-STORY
HEIGHT LIMITATION ON COMMERCIAL STRUCTURES.
Mr. Mercado presented the Staff Report. He stated that if the Plan-
ning Commission so decides that the intent of the zoning code Article
8 Section 2 is to allow commercial structures to be built to a
height of 45 feet, then staff recommends that the resolution delet-
ing the 3-story height limitation be adopted. He continued by say-
ing that the project was reviewed by the BZA, and, after considering
the PEIR, they declared that the project had potential significant
adverse environmental impacts which could not be adequately addressed
in a PEIR. Therefore, the BZA held that a full scale EIR should be
prepared which would address all the potential impacts of this pro-
ject on the community.
He added that the City Council chose to appeal the BZA's decision and
they adopted Resolution 83-4571 which declared that the removal of
the 3-story height limitation will not have any unmitigable signifi-
cant adverse environment impacts, and that a negative declaration be
filed. He stated further that under the current code provisions a
commercial structure can be built to a height of 45 feet or three
stories, whichever is the lesser. If a builder so desires, they can
include a mezzanine of 1/3 of the size of a full story in order to
increase the square footage of the building, without violating the
3-story limitation, also space undergro~nd, i.e. subterranean park-
ing or a basement, is not counted in the number of stories.
Further, a survey of building permits issued for commercial structures
in the past two years indicated that the majority of buildings do not
reach the 45 feet limit. Staff felt that if this trend continues,
then the removal of the story limitation clause should have no signif-
icant effect on building heights. He added that if a developer is
able to build to four storias, thereby increasing their square foot-
age and increase , their profits, then it is possible that more build-
ings will be developed to the 45 foot limit. He stated that it has
been suggestedthat the inability of a developer to use his property -
.Page o
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -February 1, 1983
its highest and best use that this has the effect of driving
developments to other communities where greater economic incentives
exist. He stated that while it is possible that building heights
will increase as a result of the elimination of the story limit,
Staff believes that for the most part, commercial building heights
will be restricted because of parking limitations. Since most lots
in the City are relatively small, only a limited amount of surface
parking can be provided. Subterranean parking is an option, but
the cost can be prohibitive. Therefore, regardless of whether or
not there is a story limitation, parking restrictions will play a
large role in minimizing building height. Further, if building
heights are increased there may be some cases of obstructing the
views of adjacent property owners, with its greatest impact on res-
idents whose dwelling units are located on sloped grades east of a
commercial zone. He noted that Staff's analysis is predicated on the
assumption that the intent of the zoning code is to allow commercial
structures to reach a limit of 45 feet.
Comm Smith, referring to the minutes from City Council, said the
resolution that referred this· to the Planning Commission was un-
clear to him re "unmitigable adverse impact" "that a negative
declaration be filed" and what "mitigating measures" meant with
regard to reducing the coverage on the first floor". He stated that
those were things that the Council considered and he thought it was
important the the Commission have a clear idea what these things
meant. Mr. Mercado stated that it was his opinion that there was a
consensus amongst the Councilmembers that removing the three-story
limit would not have adverse impact, in that structures would
not exceed the 45 feet limitation. There followed a short discussion
as to what action the City Council was requesting the Planning
Commission to take since the Council minutes and their Resolution
did not coincide.
Mr. Mercado stated there were two items worthy of note, that the
survey done by staff indicated that most structures were not being
built to the .45 foot limit~ Also, most construction in the city is
woodframe and in order to construct four stories, developers have
to provide sprinkler systems throughout and this prohibits, in many
cases, four stories. Comm Loosl i stated that the reason builders
don't go to the 45 feet limit is because that is what the City re-
quires, in that they can only build to the three-story limit. Mr.
Mercado stated that Staff was simply saying that over the two-year
period most buildings haven't been built to the maximum option of
45 feet.
Chrmn Peirce ruled that the Commission consider the 45 feet or three
story limit on its merits without regard to "mitigating measures."
Public hearing opened at 8:45.
Lyn Ocherbaum, 2112-1/2 Monterey, Hermosa Beach, stated that Hermosa
Beach is a very densely populated city and didn't see a need to
eliminate the 3-story height limitation. She thought the area of
concentration should be on rehabilitation, mainten ance, and occu-
pation of the presently existing unoccupied commercial structures.
Robert Carrington, 1707 Pacific Coast Highway, Unit 501, stated
that he didn't want to see any increase in the height of buildings
because the value of his property was based partly on the view
that it offers. He felt others, who would be similarly effected,
felt the same way.
-PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -February 1, 1983
Mary Smith, 316 25th Street, Hermosa Beach, stated that the past
efforts of the City Planning Department and City Council have been
to reduce the residential height from 35 feet and it surprised her
to see a turn around now to consider a means of increasing the
commercial height. She added that builders can now build to 45 feet
and nobody goes that high because of the current restriction on 4-
stories. SHe added that if that is changed there will be a definite
increase in the heights. She reco mmended that the Commission con-
sider leaving the maximum to that of the adjacent residential area.
Further, that the area of concentration should be on cleaning up
the buildings and sidewalks and encouraging the businesses to im-
prove the appearance of their buildings and surroundings. Chrmn
Peirce stated that it is Commission's primary function to gather
public opinion and data and pass iton to the City Council along
with Commissions recommendations. Hearing closed at 8:50.
Comm Smith stated that the view corridor has not been protected
against a property owner's right to build to the maximum limit,
and, unfortunately, that precident has gone on for years. He
then asked if on the C-potential property on Pacific Coast Highway
whether it would affect that property if it is eventually zoned
commercial. Mr. Mercado stated yes, assuming that somebody wanted
to convert the property to commercial. He added that if the three-
story limit was taken off, any C-zoned property would be subject
to the 45 feet limit. Chrmn Peirce added that the C-potential
zoning is only that, "potential," and it is the Commission•s in-
tent to try to remove those particular overlays or second zonings
because it seems to be an unfair representation to potential owners
that that property is any more likely to be zoned C than any other
property in the City.
Comm Smith referred to an argument made in Staff Analysis regarding
limitations on structures that can be built, i.e. parking cover~ge,
he asked what kind of impact this would have on an area where an in-
lieu parking setup is being considered. It seemed that if one could
buy their way out of providing parking, that parking would not be
an effective limitation. He added that staff also indicated that
there is a natural cap, i.e. parking, if we took off the third
story restriction, but added that he thought a certain part of the
City is exempt from that argument. Mr . Mercado responded by say ~
ing that existing structures or bus ines ses were exemp t . He a dde d
that the Direcior of Planning's posi tio n is that those b us ines se s
already have parking provided by them o r paid,· or VPO , an d a ny
new development coming into the are a would have to provide either
in-lieu or additional parking. So there is a natural restriction,
that being when you finally reach the limit of available parking
that can be provided through paid or VPD '.
Comm Smith stated that there was no accompanying arguement based
o n f a ct , experienc e o r o therwise wh ich proves that if the three-
s tory limi t is remo ved that the bu s iness climate in the community
wi l l impro ve . Adding , that until some kind of concrete evidence
is pro v i ded , he wi l l vote t o leave the Ordinance as is.
In answer to Comm Izant's question, Mr. Mercado stated he was not
certain of the height of the Flagship Hotel or the Cove Theater,
but added that there are certain structures which have been con-
sidered for historical preservation which could exceed the existing
height limit.
• PLANNING COMMISSION ~MINUTES -February 1, 1983
Mr. Mercado also pointed out that provided within the Staff pro-
posal, it states that where Commission feels that the obstruction
of view is imminent, then that particular project would come to
the Commission for review. Comm Loosli stated that in the Pier
area, downtown,isn't a view problem but a community character
problem. He added that he felt he would vote to keep the ordinance
as is.
In answer to Comm Strohecker's question, Chrmn Peirce stated that
he didn't believe the in-lieu parking issue will be resolved in
the near future and will most likely continue for some time. Comm
Strohecker stated that he favored forwarding a copy of the minutes
to the City Council with in-lieu of parking issue highlighted
rather than referring to it directly in the Resolution.
Chrmn Peirce stated that Comm Smith.~s comment that new development
would go to the 45 feet limit if Commission allows the limit to
be 4-stories .was valid and that the general intent of the Ordinance
was that it should be a 3-story limit with the 45 feet provision
to allow some architectural variance or flexibility, so that all
buildings are not of the same type. He continued by saying that
with respect to passing this Resolution to apply toevery commercial area
in the city he could not support that because the tendancy would be
to build to that maximum limit. In light of the foregoing Chrrnn
Peirce made a motion, seconded by Comm Izant, to deny the request
to eliminate the three story restriction.
AYES:
NOES:
ABS:
Brown, Izant, Peirce, Shapiro, Strohecker, Smith, Logsli
None
None
In concert with that motion, Chrmn Peirce proposed the following
addition be made to the resolution of denial, "WHEREAS .the four-
story limit would encourage the height limit in the· 'VPD and paid
parking area."
Comm Loosli stated that he thought the wording "would encourage
the 45 feet limit .... which would be detrimental to the character
of the downtown area. 11 wguld be more appropriate wording.
Chrmn Peirce's amendment to the resolution was seconded by Comm
Izant.
AYES:
NOES:
ABS:
Brown, Izant, Peirce, Shapiro, Strohecker, Smith; Loosli
None
None.
REZONING OF SEAVIEW PROPERTY FROM C-3 TO COMMERCIAL PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT
Chrrnn Peirce stated that the City Council's desire was for the
Commission to delay the conclusion of the particular action be-
cause of the City's position involving the title to the property
in question. He introduced and read a letter from the Mayor to
the Commission requesting the aforementioned non-action. He con-
tinued by saying that he felt that the Commission should hold off
on this issue and continue the public hearing to a date in the
future when the City has a better title to the property. Comm
Izant stated that for a variety of reason he disagreed and thought
• .Page ::1
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -February 1, 1983
the Commission should act on this issue. Comm Shapiro wanted to
know how this item got on the agenda for the Commission. Hr .~:.
Mercado .:.:stated that on January 4, 1983 the Planning Commission adopt-
ed a resolution of intention to rezone this property. And at the
termination of a four-year development Agreement between Charles
Gotanda and the City, this land now belongs to the City as of
January 1, 1983. Chrmn Peirce added that at that point we ad-
vertised the Public Hearing and the City Council then had a meet-
ing when they realized Commission was going to consider rezoning
the property.
Comm Shapiro stated that the letter which was composed by the
Planning Director was a very toned-down version of the way the
Commission felt on the matter. He thought that the letter was
supposed to be a very strong letter of protest. Mr. Mercado
answered by saying that staff thought it would be more appropriate
to tone it down.
Public Hearing was opened at 9:10. After opening the hearing,
Chrrnn Peirce withdrew his comment about continuing the public
hearing.
Betty Rein, 588 20th Street, Hermosa Beach, pointed out that there
was an error in the agenda which stated that the proposed zone
change was to R-3 not C-3. She asked Commission how the owners of
adjacent property had been notified, which Chrmn Peirce had question-
ed earlier. Mr. Mercado responded by saying the public hearing was
noticed in the newspaper and that staff did not send out personal
notice to the property owners within a 300 foot radius. Ms. Rein
stated that she felt the nearby property owners should have been
personally noticed that the Commission was considering changing the
zoning on the property. She added that she didn't feel a public
hearing was appropriate at this time because the ownership is still
in question. Chrmn Peirce pointed out that it is the title that is
in question and not the ownership of the property, as the city owns
the property. Ms. Rein still felt, that since the notice did not
seem proper, that the hearing was still inappropriate at this time.
Chrmn Peirce stated that if the property owners were not notified
properly that would inval idate the public hearing because the Plan-
ning Department violated one of the City's constraints. He added
that although this was advertised as a public hearing, he would
close the hearing at this time until it can be readvertised and
re-noticed.
Michael Osterhoff, attorney for Mr. Charles Gotanda, stated that
Mr. Gotanda is contesting the City's claim to the property and also
the public hearing. He added that his client learned of the hearing
by the notice published in the paper, but he woul d certainly want
notice sent to Mr. Gotanda in the future if a new h earing is held.
Further, he wanted to inform the Commission that Mr . Gotanda is
planning legal action to clear up the title to the property.
Comm Izant stated, with respect to the members of the City Council
suµprise re the Planning Commission's action, he pointed out that
the decision by Commission to hold a public hearing was made out in
the open. And he added that he felt it is within the pm-view of
the Commission, without direction of the City Council, to establish
whether it is their desire to rezone or not to rezone a particular
piece of property. Further, that in this case, if it is desire-
-• PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -February 1, 1983
able to have this property be "Planned Development," as opposed
to C-3, it should be decided before the property is sold to be
fair to the future owner.
Chrmn Peirce stated that the notice was faulty and it was his in-
tention to vote for another public hearing, and then report to
the City Council what should be done with the property.
Comm Shapiro asked if staff had informed the members of the Plan-
ning Commission what the status of the property was with respect
to what the City Council was doing. Comm Izant replied that staff
had advised that it might not be timely to hear this item, but that
Commission ·had voted to go ahead with the hearing.
Chrmn Peirce asked when the city started the appraisal process on
the land. Mr. Mercado responded by saying that the 1a>roces_f? began
after the pnoperty became the city's.
Comm Strohecker reiterated Comm Shapiro's comment that staff should
have given Commission all the background information as to the
status of this issue. Comm Brown added that it was his recollection
that after the end of the meeting, in Staff Comments or Commission
Items, that Chairman Peirce had directed staff to look into the
consistency of the zoning re this property. And staff, at that
time, suggested to Commission that since the City was in the middle
of possible litigation that the Commission should delay any de-
cision on this item. It was shortly after that the Commission-
ers unanimously decided to go ahead and and pursue the item and hold
a public hearing. The hearing was held and then continued.
Comm Strohecker stated that wasn't reflected in the minutes.
Comm Smith stated that there seemed to be a hint of conflict of
interest here. He added that he felt a public hearing was in order
but that a resolution would not be. Mr. Mercado stated that it was
his recollection that every time Commission considers a rezoning
item that it was not necessary to get formal approval from the
Council.
Chrmn Peirce stated that he would like to talk to the City Attorney
and find out if he thinks the change of zoning at this point will
have any precedential or prejudical impact with respect to the
City's title. Secondly, he wanted a meeting with the Council to
explain the Commission's position re the rezoning and to get imput
from them as to the reasons behind their letter to the Commission.
He added that if Commision decides to rehear this item notice would
have to be given for the next meeting which would mean a delay of
at least two weeks. Comm Smith suggested the Commission postpone
any action as a courtesy to the City Council. Comm. Izant agreed
with Chrmn Peirce's proposal. He added that the question which
should be considered is, is the City better off having the property
zoned C-3 or CPD, since an appraisal is going on and a CPD zoning
is worth less than a C-3. He felt it would be unfair to the buyer
to change the zoning after he has purchased the property; and out
of fairness to the potential owner he would not vote to change the
zoning after the purchase. Comms Izant and Brown were interested
in attending the meeting that Chrmn Peirce suggested with the Council.
Comm Shapiro stated that he didn't understand why two years ago
the zoning could have been changed and now that there is a possi-
bility that the City owns the property this question now becomes
so critical.
.. Page 11
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -February 1, 1983
Comm Izant stated that at the time the property went into default
the zoning reverted back to C-3, and there must have been an
important reason for this reversion. So,in light of that, he
wants to exam the reasoning in a timely manner so that a future
buyer knows what he is buying.
Comm Smith stated on a peripheral issue re the lack of proper
notice on the hearing, he felt that in the future the Commission
should receive proof of the notice, and perhaps copies of the
notices themselves. He added that this was his second request
for this. Also he would like a copy of the City's rules re no-
ticing public hearings. He stated that a checklist should also
be provided so that the Commission will be satisfied that proper
notice has been given, as well as all other necessary procedures
being fulfilled. He felt that the result would be that a lot
more people would have an opportunity to appear for hearings and
it would give the commission credibility. Mr. Mercado stated
that staff is in the process of preparing a master calander which
will list all of the projects and their status. Chrmn Peirce
stated that he felt Comm Smith's suggestion had a lot of merit.
CONSIDERATION OF REPLACING ALL STREET SIGNS WITH NEW ONES
After a brief discussion it was stated that the signs would not
be replaced at this time.
STAFF REPORTS
Mr. Mercado stated that Resolution 083-4, to amend Article 6 and
Article 10 had never been signed by the commission, although it
had been passed. He submitted it for signature.
COMMISSIONER'S ITEMS
Chrmn Peirce stated that the Planning Commission Institute Seminar
is being held on the 3rd and 4th of March in Monterey. And, since
Comms Loosli and Brown had indicated an interest in attending, they
should be sure to fill out any necessary forms or applications.
Mr. Mercado pointed out that there was an article included in the
Commissioner's packets for tonight on Height Regulations for
Residential Structures. He added that it was a little dated but
it might be of interest. Comm. Brown stated that he read it and
found it very pertinant to the issue before the Commission on the
3-story, 45 foot limitation item.
Motion by Comm Shapiro to adjourn.
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON JANUARY 18, 1983,
IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CH.AMBERS AT 7:30 P.M.
Meeting called to order at 7:40 P.M. by Vice Chairman Izant
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Comms Brown, Izant, Loosli, Shapiro, Smith, Strohecker
ABSENT: Chrm. Peirce
ALSO PRESENT: Pamela Sapetto, Planning Director; Ralph Casteneda, TDC Planning
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Comm. Smith asked for a clarification on page 2 where it stated" ... 61 per-
cent"of the condominiums were owner occupied, adding that it didn't indicate
what it was 61 percent of. Vice Chmn Izant said that figure was not available
at this time. Comm. Shapiro stated that the comment concerning the definition
of "Bed and Breakfast" was taken out of context and thought that this wa.s an
incorrect summarization. Adding that it could be an indication of perhaps
more serious errors in summarization. It was decided to let the minutes stand
as submitted.
Motion to approve by Vice Chmn Izant, seconded by Comm Shapiro. So ordered.
RESOBUTIONS P.C. 83-1, 83-2, 83-3, 83-5.
After a short discussion there was a motion by Comm Strohecker, seconded by
Corrnn Shapiro, to pass the resolutions as a group and as reflecting the intent
Qf what happened at the last meeting.
AYES: Comms Brown, Tzant, Shapiro, Strohecker
NOES:
ABS: Comms Loosli, Smith
REQUEST 'FOR 'lOO FOOT TOWER BY STORER CABLE T.V. AND CUP
Ms. Sapetto gave the staff report. She stated that it was the staff's recommend-
ation that the Planning Commission consider the item and then continue it to
the next meeting so that the necessary General Plan Land-Use Element may be
acted upon first.· Further, that the project had undergone an environmental
review and was issued a negative declaration. She continued by saying that the
project as proposed will consist of a 100 foot tower with microwave antenna for
receiving TV signals and will involve the construction 0f two earth-station
dishes. It will be located where a portion of an existing building will be
removed, with no Storer parking facilities being affected. She further stated
that the tower will be constructed of a galvanized-steel framework, to be tri-
angular in shape with the base being 12' 8 11 and then tapering to a 4' diame.ter
It is to be a needle-type steel structure so as to minimize obstruction of
visibility. Safety will be provided by a 15' wall on the north and west sides
of the structure, and the tower will be equipped with an aircraft warning light
at its peak. Citing the above factors, staff felt that project approval is
warranted. Ms. Sapetto further pointed out that at this time there is a con-
flict between the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance as to permitted land
use. Based on that conflict it was recommended that, with Commission approval,
to change the land-use element of the General Plan from open space first, which
would necessitate a public hearing and would postpone project approval at this
time.
In answer to CommLoosli's question, Ms. Sapetto stated that the legal building
height in the city is 45', adding that the tower in question would not be con-
sidered a building or habitable structure as defined by the Zoning Code, and
Page 2
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -January 18 1 1983
thus is not limited by that code section.
Public Hearing Opened.
Ron Miller, Representative/Applicant, HCB Construction Management Company for
Storer Cable. Mr. Miller stated that as to the discrepancy with respect to
the conflict between the zoning and land use, he would address that at a future
time. He generally agreed with the comments of staff, and noted that Storer
is planning a major improvement of a recently purchased building on Valley,
which improvements include a studio, new headend facility, and other general
improvements to the cable system. He added that the light at the tower's
peak is not required but can be done if Commission feels it necessary. Not-
ing further, that the addition of the tower to the system is to upgrade the
system itself and is a planned expenditure by Sto~er to improve reception.
Comm Loosli pointed out that if the tower was not located at sealevel, as
planned, then a 100' tower would not be necessary. Mr. Miller stated that
this location was purchased because all of their facilities could be at one
location, adding that proximity of the tower to the equipment is very impor-
tant.
Carl Ossipoff, General Manager, Storer Cable, Hermosa Beach, stated in answer
to Comm Loosli question that, according to their survey, a 100' tower was
necessary because reception is affected dramatically under 90 1 , He added
that channels 50 and 18 were must--carry stations by FCC regulations and that
in order to receive them properly the tower must be at least 100', otherwise
the picture would be substandard, Mr. Miller stated that the reason for
tower's being located on the Valley Drive site was to eliminate amplifiers
within the system.
In answer to Vice Chmn Izant's question, Mr. Ossipoff stated that the numbers
contained in the report attributed to reception at Live Oak Park were read
at the tower, without going through the seven amplifiers. Gomm Smith felt
that that should have been stated in the report.
In answer to Vice Chmn Izant's question, Mr. Ossipoff stated that Storer had
a 15 year franchise from the city which expires in 1992. He added that the
cost increas@were written into the franchise with a guaranteed increase of
75 percent of the Consumer Price Index (CPI). Comm, Smith wanted to know if
there is any stipulation in the franchise for special pass-on increases. Mr.
Ossipoff stated that there was, but that it involved City Council approval.
He added that there is a proposal before the City Council at this time based
on the 75 percent CPI provision.
Comm Shapiro asked if in the future the state-of-the-art witn respect to
towers changed so that a smaller tower would do the same job, would Storer
be willing to replace the 100' tower without passing the costs on to , the con-
sumer. Mr. Miller stated that they might,
Comm Smith stated that he was concerned that 100' tower will be located next
to a school and trailer park and wanted to know if the tower would be up to
seismic standards. Mr. Miller stated that the towers are idesigned to the Uni-
form Building Code (UBC) with a safety factor of 2. The foundation is done
with drilled piers going down 25 to 30 feet, with reinforcing steel held down
by high-strength anchor bolts. Adding futher that it is designed by a California
State licensed engineer,and it is designed to withstand the seismic forces des-
cribed by the UBC then doubled. Vice Chmn Izant asked what the City's lia-
bility would be if the tower did not withstand an e~rthquake. Ms. Sapetto
Page 3
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -January 18, 1983
stated that the structure has to conform with the UBC and if it passed in-
spection with respect to that code, the liability would fall on the owner
and engineer and natl, the City. Adding however, that the City would probably
be named in any resulting lawsuits,
Vice Chmn Izant noted that the proposed cable would be of a 1/2' type and
asked whether a larger cable would require less amplification and thus would
eliminate the need for such a large tower. Mr, Ken Gromberg,Storer Repre-
sentative, 19401 Pruitt Drive, Torrance, sta~ed that that was correct, but
that Storer would still have the problem of dual locations,
There being not further testimony the Public Hearing was closed,
In answer to Vice Chmn Izant's question Ms Sapetto informed the Commission
that the hearing tonight was not advertised generally to the public, but
was a mailed-notice hearing with those persons within a 100' radius of the
proposed building site being notified, To the question of the conflict of
land use and zoning, she stated that the open space zoning belongs where the
public school site exists and not where there has been a continued use of the
property by private persons. Adding that what is important at this time is
to decide about the future land use of the site and whether the Commission
wants the site to continue to be for a manufacturing use, After deciding
that the Commission can decide if the structure is appropriate for that site
and whetheLit. falls within the zoning regulations. Additional, an EIR might
be of assistance to the Commission in its consideration of the issue in con-
flict.
Motion by Comm Strohecker, seconded by Comm Smith, to continue the Public
Hearing on the Storer request until after such time as a Public Hearing can
be noticed on the change of the land use element of the General Plan in the
area at issue, and the completion and submission by Storer of a focused EIR
on the proposal before the Cormnission.
AYES:
NOES:
Comms Izant, Loosli, Shapiro, Smith, Strohecker
Comm Brown
TilIB :EXTENSION .OF .TENTATIVE MAP 40578 AND CUP LOCATED AT 1833 PACIFIC COAST
·HIGHWAY
Ms. Sapetto presented the staff report and stated that it was the staff's
recommendation that the resolution be app~oved by the Commission, She added
that,~on request of the Commission at their last meeting, the owner of the
property was present to answer Commission's questions, She added that staff,
after appropriate research, determined that the applicant had the legal
authority to request the extension.In answer to Comm Smith's question, Ms,
Sapetto said that this would be the one and only extension allowed; however,
the applicant could reapply and present the project again as a new project.
Comm Loosli asked for a definition of "substantial building". Ms, Sapetto
stated that the City Attorney defined vesting of rights as being after the
point of breaking ground.and that it would have to be at the point of the
land having been graded.
Public Hearing was opened.
James Lynch, 4345 Mariota Avenue, North Hollywood 91602, applicant, stated
that the reasons for his request were because of the current economic con-
ditions and how they adversely affect interest rates and short-term loans
Page 4
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -January 24, 1983
with respect to construction. He felt that within the near future, with
the interest rates coming down, that the market would be good for this pro-
ject. In answer to Connn Loosli's question he stated that the project was
the same as it was originally submitted but that there could be some changes.
Ms. Sapetto added that, technically, any change would require Plann~~g
Connnission approval with the approval being focused on the specific change.
Motion by Comm Smith, seconded by Connn Brown, to approve the Resolution as
presented; approving the time extension for Tentative Tract Map Number 40578,
located at 1833 Pacific Coast Highway.
AYES:
NOES:
ABS:
Comms Brown, Shapiro, Smith
Comms Izant, Loosli
Comm Strohecker
There being a tie vote, further discussion was held with the result being,
that since the project itself had been previously approved and that tonight's
vote went only to the extension of time, Comm Strohecker changed his vote,
with the final vote being:
AYES:
NOES:
Comms Brown, Shapiro, Smith, Strohecker
Co1llllls Izant, Loosli
REVISED HOUSING -ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN
Mr. Casteneda presented the staff report. He stated that staff has followed
the format and framework approved by the Commission last year, and pursuant to
that he submitted sections 4 and 5 in draft form. He noted that it is not
ready for approval at this time, but is intended to prompt reaction and connnent
to give aid to staff in completing the final document.
He stated that section 4 deals with the use and function of the housing ele-
mentand application of the element in the future. Section 5 deals with hous-
ing needs, including, existing housing supply, the amount of new housing that
may be needed in the connnunity, various p9pulation characteristics, as well
as, the issue of affordability. Issue of illegal and bootleg housing are
also focused on, along with statistics on deteriorating housing. Additional
items deal with senior citizens and other population groups; and with re-
lationship of income to the amount of housing costs. He added that at
the present time staff has no specific number or locations with respect
to the illegal/bootleg housing.
He continued by saying that the information dealipg with the quality of
housing is based on a survey done 4-1/2 lfears ago, and they used those
statistics and applied those figures to the city population as a whole
to extract an estimate of what the conditions are citywide. Finding
further that about 1,000 housing units might be in need of major repairs.
Major repairs include work costing in excess of $2,000.00
With respect to the amount of new housing needed, he noted that the sta-
tistics and figures were supplied by the regional agency (SCAG) to the
city, and they can be revised by the city in consultation with SCAG. He
stated further that by state law the agency is to supply thse figures to
the city. The figures used are based on the latest statistics supplied
by SCAG; however, SCAG is, at this time, in the process of revising those
~igures based on the 1980 census data. He added, that as soon as the new
figures are available they will be brought to the Commission.
Page 5
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -January 18, 1983
Furthermore, the number of new housing that might be needed, based on these
figures, is within the amount that could be built based on the existing
land use element. Noting that, subsequent sections to this element will
allow the Commission to indicate whether or not they feel that in the next
5 years that amount of housing can be built. He continued by saying that
the Connnission is not bound to the total need figure, but they can select
a figure they find is necessary in the next 5 years.
In answer to Comm Loosli's question, Mr, Casteneda stated that the City
is bound by law to use the SCAG figures in their plan, but there is a
time period that the City can work with SCAG to come up with revised figures
that the City can work with that they feel is more generally reflective
of the situation in their particular city. Further, that in subsequent
sections of the Plan, the City can indicate that this is the amount of
needed housing that can be built based on consideration of environment,
congestion, etc., and can limit the number currently allowed, so the
City would not be required to up the density by zone changes, etc., in
order to meet the SCAG figures. Additionally, the number of new housing
stated in the plan would be the bottom line number that can be huilt,
and need not be the same as the amount of housing that theoretically
SCAG has indicated. Noting further, that this is a continuous issue
in most communities.
Comm Loosli noted that considering the way the SCAG figures are arrived
at, that as housing needs grow, so will the SCAG figures and cities will
continuously be required to provide new housing to acconnnodate the p~pu-
lation growth without regard to population density.
Mr. Casteneda continued by saying that the element also must provide in-
formation on various populations groups with special needs, i.e., senior
citizens and female heads of households, And the information supplied
in this draft is based on the 1980 census, With respect to the afford-
ability item, he explained that it was measured in terms of the amount
housing costs in relation to income. He added that the information
supplied in that regard was also from the 1980 census.
Comm Loosli stated that he was concerned about the conflict between
the housing element in the section on new housing and the land use ele-
ment. He added that he thought the General Plan should specifically
state which has superseding authority. Vice Chmn Izant agreed. Mr.
Casteneda said that as a general rule the land use element drives the
housing element unless otherwise stated.
Vice Chmn Izant stated that in section 5, first paragraph, he didn't
feel that "needs" and "conditions" were one in the same. He suggested
that staff specifically list both the needs and the conditions that
affect those needs. He suggested further that in regard to the SCAG
recommendations on the bottom of page 4, last paragraph, that the word
"should" should not be used. Also on page 6, he asked if "household
growth" meant what the City wants to happen over the next 5 years or
if that was someone's opinion as to what is going to happen. Mr.
Casteneda said it was an opinion. Vice Chmn thought that it should be
stated as such.
Page 6
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -January 18, 1983
Comm Strohecker suggested that on page 2 of the draft the wording should
be changed from deteriorating housing which could be brought up to standard
to . "should" be brought up to standard. Also as to bootlegs, there should
be some dialogue as to what the City proposes to do about it.
Comm Brown stated that he thought there should be more imput from the
community as to what the actual needs of the city are.
Comms Smith and Loosli suggest the issue of down-zoning be addressed in the
element.
Mr. Casteneda explained that the replacement of lost inventory number d.s
on a one-to-one replacement. Comm Smith thought that that number should
reflect actual past experience, i.e., when a building is torn down, is it
usually replaced with a single-family dwelling or a multiple-family dwell-
ing. Vice Chmn Izant suggest that the title of section 5 be changed from
"needs" to "goals."
Mr. Casteneda explained that as this plan gets into the Public Hearing phase
it would reflect more public imput. Also he pointed out that upon completion
the growth issue will be consistant with the land use element.
CONSIDERATION OF REPLACING ALL STREET SIGNS WITH NEW ONES COLORED BLUE .AND
WHITE
The staff report was given by Ms. Sapetto. She stated that at the Commission's
suggestion it has been put on the agenda for discussion, adding that only a
minimal amount of research has been done on the issue at this time. However,
staff did find out that repainting the signs is not a possibility because of
the reflective nature of the signs. Additionally, the cost factor for re-
painting would not be economically feasible, in that it outweighs replacement
cost. Replacement cost is approximately $40,000.00. She added that if it
is the consensus of the Commission to investigate further, staff will in-
vestigate further into costs and repercussions.
Gomm Shapiro stated that he belives at this time the signs are replaced on a
rotating basis, and suggested that the next time an area is replaced they be
of the new blue and white, thereby it would not require expenditure of any
new funds. He added that it should not be done on a sporadic basis.
Public hearing was opened, there being no testimony, hearing was closed.
Vice Chmn Izant suggested that the Commission make a determination if they
want the staff to pursue this issue further. Comm Brown was in favor of
replacement if it is done on a rotational basis and it doesn't require extra
funds. He suggested that the Traffic Division of the Public Works Depart-
ment provide commission with some statistics on what would be a more
appropriate color and perhaps give the Commission some choice as to colors.
Comm Loosli stated that the color should not be chosen solely on its visi-
bility factor, but that eBthetics should be considered. Comm Smith stated
that because of the numbers of tourists who visit the City, image enhance-
ment should be co~sidered. However, a special expenditure shouldn't be
used.
./ .
Page 7
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -January 18, 1983
At Comm Strohecker's suggestion, Ms. Sapetto stated that she would find
out if replacement is done on a rotating basis and what the time period
will be for total replacement.
STAFF REPOB:TS
Ms. Sapetto stated that there is a seminar scheduled by the League of
California Cities in Monterey, and inquired whether any of the commission-
ers would be interested in attending. Connns Brown and Loosli said that
they might be able to attend.
She also noted there was an upcoming meeting of the Southwest Area Planrr
ning Council on Friday, January 28. 1983.
Motion to adjourn at 10:55
CERT! FI CATI ON
I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes were approved at a regular
meeting of the Planning Commission held on the ____ day of ___ _
1983.
SPEIRCE , CHA IRM AN JOEL SHAPIRO, SECRETARY
DATE
r ,
MINUTES OF THE PLANNL.~G COM1ISSION OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON JANUARY 4, 1983,
IN TIIE CITY HAU. COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT 7: 30 P .M.
Meeting called to order at 7:55 P.M. by Chnn. Peirce
ROI.L CALL
-PRESENT: Conrns. Brown, Izant, Shapiro, Strohecker, Chnn. Peirce
ABSENT: Conrns . Loosli, Smith
ALSO PRESENT: Panela Sapetto, Plarming Director; Ralph Casteneda, TDC Planning
Corrm. Shapiro arrived at 8:05 P.M.
'
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Motion by Corrm. Izant, seconded by Corrm . Strohecker, to approve the Decerrber 7,
1982, minutes, noting the misspelling of Corrm. Strohecker' s name. No objections .
So ordered.
-------
REVISED HOUSING EIH1ENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN
Mr. Casteneda gave staff report. He stated that the Planning Conmission reviewed
a preliminary work program in Decerrber for working on t..he Housing Elerrent so t."1.at
it may be conpleted in May or Jtme. At that tine, the Conmission was offered to
follow the framework of an outline which was approved by the Planning Conmission
in March, 1982. There was concurrence at that tine that the frmrework could be
used and that the Elerrent should be produced in stages with one or two sections
being reviewed and revised. He stated that the first three secticns up for
review were the General Plan Authorization, the Staterrent of Philosophy, and the
Statemmt of the City's Role in Housing . The first section indicated that the
Elenent is a required elem:nt o f the general p lan, and the City is g o ing forth
with this pursuant t o local nee ds as we ll as coup lying with the Govemrrent Code.
He stated tha t the Planning Corrrni ssion and the City Cotmcil are authorized and
required to deal with the question of Housing. The second section covers much
material borrowed from the first Elenent draft in 1979, the LCP Housing draft
as well as comnents made from time to tine. One of the keys is if the city does
get involved in the area of low-and m:>derate-income housing, it would be for
senior citizens and for the use of local resources only. This statenent reflects
the philosophy at this point in tine. The other philosophy is the philosophy of
supplementing the private sector rather than direct involvenent in supplying
housing. A third item would be the prom:>tion and expansion of home ownership
opporttmities and retaining as diverse a housing envir~nt as possible. The
City has identified three roles in housing, one of them not being the direct
provision of housing assistance or housing subsidies. The City's role in Housing
is one of developers, investors, human service organizations, etc. In terms of
its responsibility in the Land Use regulation, there will be a regulatory role
that will provide positive incentives to the housing sector that will not bind
the production of housing or the delivery of housing. The third role is one of
facilitating and addressing housing needs to the extent that they exist primarily
by fostering local ways and means. He stated that these are surrmary staterrents
-(
PLANNING Ca1MISSION MINUI'ES -January 4, 1983 Page 2
REVISED HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN (Cont.)
arid, fri part, reflect sorre of the sentimmt e:zj>ressed in previous housing
docurrents as well as testimmy. He added that the intent of the draft is for
review and evaluation. He requested guidence from the Corrmission.
Chrrn. Peirce asked for the titles of the next two sections that would be up
for discussion.
Mr. Casteneda replied that the next two sections would deal with the functions of
the Eletrent, that is , how the docl.lIIalt would be used. There will also be a section
on Housing need. He added that those two sections should be discussed at the
rreeting of January 18, 1983.
Chnn. Peirce inforrred the audience that the Housing Elerrent had nine sections,
three of 'Which were up for discussion at this tine.
Public Hearing opened at 8:07 P.M. and continued until January 18, 1983.
REVISIONS TO THE CON!Xl1INIUM CONVERSION ORDINANCE
Mr. Casteneda gave staff report. He stated that on Decenber 7, 19 82 , the Planning
Comni.ssion reviewed several ways in 'Which the existing condominium conversion
ordinance could be changed. The City Council had reviewed the docurrent and asked
that it be returned to the Cormri.ssion for further input. The Corrmission at that
tine cane to five key decisions. The first was that it was not necessary to
control the rate of conversion activity in the City on the basis of vacancy rates
or the annunt of new residential construction. It was felt rather that the yearly
private applicant interest should be the inain factor affecting conversion activity
in the City. With respect to developrrent standards, there was discussion on
'Whether s ome deviation from existing standards ought to be allowed. The Comnission
reaffirrred the ir p osition that the existing property developrrent standards should
exist and that deviations should not be cast in ordinance language, rather that
the Planning Corrmission could evaluate each project based on its rrerits. A third
decision was to reaffirm a previous Conmission desire to eliminate the conditional
approval section of the current ordinance. A fourth decision was to eliminate
the inposition of any fee in relation to the approval of a conversion project .
. A fifth desire was to request that a resolution reflecting the four previous
decisions as well as the previously adopted resolution be developed. Such resolution
was attached to the report. Additional background infonnation was supplied,
dealing with conversion ordinances as they might take place in surrounding
commmities. He noted that the issues of ownership benefits in terms of condominium
conversion and the fact that all condominium convers ions do not end up owner occupied
were brought up at the last rreeting. In 1980, 61 percent of the condominium
conversions were :owner occupied; 39 percent, renter occupied. In 1980, there were
96 00 h o using units. 67 percent were r enter occupied, and 33 percent were owner
occupied . Of the 9600 housing units in the city in 1980, there were 4100 housing
units that we r e s ingle family detatched structures, 'Which was 42 percent of the
entire housing supply. 35 percent of the 4100 single family detached structures
were renter occupied, and 65 percent were owner occupied.
Public Hearing opened at closed at 8:16 P.M.
,.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -January 4, 1983 Page 3
REVISIONS TO THE CONro1INIUM CONVERSION ORDINANCE (Cont.)
Comn. Izant noted that there was an error in the proposed resolution. In the
resolved secticn, it stated that the Planning Conmission recomrend to the
City Council that they delete Section 29Al4 of the Condominium Ordinance.
Ms. Sapetto stated that it should be corrected to read Section 9.5-51.
Motion by Conm. Izant, seconded by Chnn. Peirce, that the Planning Comnission
recOIIlIEnd to the City Council that Section 9.5-51 of the Condominium Conversion
Ordinance be eliminated.
Comn. Izant stated that rrost of the Corrmissioners had expressed the opinion
that a conversion should rreet the standards. Therefore, there is no need for
a set of standards that ultimately does not benefit the city or its residents.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Conms. Brown, Izant, Shapiro, Strohecker, Chrrn. Peirce
None
Conms. Loosli, Smi.th
Motion by Chrnn.. Peirce, seconded by Cornn. Izant, to approve Resolution P .C.
83-1, as submitted by staff with the correction that Section 29Al4 should read
Section 9 .5-51.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Comns. Brown, Izant, Shapiro, Strohecker, Chrrn. Peirce
None
Comns. Loosli, Smi.th
CONCEPTS OF BED & BREA.1<FAST ESTABLISHMENTS IN THE CITY
Ms. Sapetto gave staff report. She stated that staff recomrended that the
Conmission review the idea of alloong bed & breakfast in the city. She stated
that the City Council requested that the Comni.ssion review this item because
they anticipate a demand for lodgings during the 1984 Olympic games. They
requested that the concept of bed & breakfast be explored to detenni.ne whether
or not it is suitable for the City of Hermosa Beach. The Board of Zoning
Adjustn:e:its had filed a mitigated negative declaration. Those mitigations were
the follCMing: 1. to place a limit on the size of the houses that would be
allowed to be converted to bed & breakfast; 2. to prohibit bed & breakfast
for rent rooms in the residential zones; 3. to require that parking be provided
to accoIIDdate the bed & breakfast use, and; 4. to allow bed & breakfast only
under and conditional use pennit process. She noted that, through a survey of
other cities, rrost hones that offer bed & breakfast for rent rooms have an
average of four to six rooms. They normally provide only a breakfast rreal, and
they have no cooking facilities. They are allowed only in the corrnercial zones
and high density residential. She noted that, at this tine, Herrrosa Beach has
limited accom::,datioos for town visitors. According to the general plan,
approximately 1 percent of the accorrodations is used for this purpose. She stated
that the benefits to the city, if the proposal were adopted, would be through
the 1984 Olympics and through business licences, bed tax, etc. She cautioned
the Corrmi..ssion to consider that most cities that have bed & breakfast are
PLANNING COMMISSIOO 1-mru:rns -January 4, 1983 Page 4
CONCEPTS OF BED & BREAKFAST ESTABLISHMENTS IN THE CITI (Cont.)
tourist-oriented on a year-round basis. She stated that a sunset clause may
be considered whereby the bed & breakfast may operate until the Olynpics are
conpleted. She stated that the Comnission mJSt also detennine which zones
should be allowed to offer bed & breakfast. She stated that if they were allowed
in cormercial zones only, it would preclude residents from capitalizing on the
idea of bed and breakfast. If they are permitted in high density residential
zones, nnre residents would be eligible; however, there would be complaints of
the intrusion of nonresidents on a ten:porary basis. She noted that the roost
appropriate zone for bed & breakfast would be the R-1 zone. If the City allowed
the conversion of residences for bed & breakfast, staff recormended a minirrun
square footage requirenent be imposed to limit the nurber of eligible units.
The recomrended square footage for the R-1 zone was 3,000 sq. ft.; R-2 zone,
2,750 sq. ft., and; R-3 zone, 2,500 sq. ft. This would limit the eligible units
to 5 percent of all units in the City.
Public Hearing opened at 8: 30 P .M.
Violette Isgreen, 726 Prospect Avenue, He:rnnsa Beach, agreed with the points
brought up in the staff report. She urged the Corrmi..ssion to consider what it
would cost the City to adopt such a project.
Public Hearing closed at 8:31 P.M.
Chnn. Peirce stated that it would be highly desirable to provide additional
housing for the Olympics; however, he did not believe that the bed & breakfast
was the proper solution . He stated that there would be a potential for bootlegs,
it would be hard to regulate, and the roost desirable area is R-1. He recomrended
that the Planning Comnission give a negative declaration to the City Council,
and instruct staff to follow the problem in the following fashion: that the
City set up a referral service, and the City would act only as an information
center, and that the City establish a list of persons wishing to provide a room,
and that the City only act as a clearinghouse of information. He reconmmded
that it would not be limited to R-1, R-2, or R-3. It would cover a period of
only two weeks.
Corrm. Brawn believed that bed & breakfast, for the purpose of the Olyrrpics only,
would not be worth the tiIIl= and trouble. He, too, stated that it would be a
potential for bootlegs.
Corrm. Shapiro asked for a definition of bed & breakfast.
Conm. Strohecker replied that it is the renting of a room with the service of
an uncooked breakfast.
Motion by Coom. Izant, seconded by Corrm. Strohecker, to recomrend to the City
Council that the bed & breakfast ordinance not be established for Herrrosa Beach.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Comns. Brawn, Izant, Shapiro, Strohecker, Chnn. Peirce
None
Corrms . Loosli, Smith
PLANNING CCM1ISSICN MINUI'ES -January 4, 1982 Page 5
CONCEPTS OF BED & BREAKFAST ESTABLISHMENTS IN THE CITY (Cont.)
Motion by Comn. Izant, seconded by Chnn. Peirce, to approve Resolution P.C. 83-2,
that is, to den7. the bed & breakfast concept, and to add the wo rds "year round"
after the word 'sufficient" in the second WHEREAS and to end the second WHEREAS
with the word "acconodation."
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Corrms. Brown, Izant, Shapiro, Strohecker, Chnn. Peirce
None
Corrms . Loosli , Smi. th
Motion by Cornn. Izant, seconded by Conm. Shapiro; that the Planning Connrl.ssion
recormend to the City Council that they contact the Charrber of Cormerce or any
other body that they so deem appropriate to acconodate for those residents and
those visitors who might wish to establish terrporary residence solely for the
duration of the Olyrrpics in Herrrosa Beach. So ordered.
Comn. Strohecker stated that the Comnissirn should not reconmmd the above
notion. He stated that it could be suggested to the Charrber of Connerce,
but not to get the City involved.
Chnn. Peirce stated that the above notion is a far better way of handling the
housing crisis than the bed & breakfast.
Cornn. Izant stated that the intent of the recormendation was to have the City
Council investigate sorre alternatives to ultimately provide sane sort of
clearinghouse. Havever, it is also intended that the City Council not becoire
directly involved for a variety of reasons .
Cornn. Brown believed that the Connrl.ssion should not be using the word "clearinghouse."
AMENDING ZONING CODE BY REDEFINING/DEFINING THE TERMS HOI'EL, MOTEL, BOARDING HOUSE,
AND ROCMING/LODGING HOUSE AND BY DETERMINING THE APPROPRIATE ZONES FOR THESE USES
Ms. Sapetto gave staff report. She stated that the Board of Zoning Adjustnents
has considered this project via a PEIR, and they detenni.ned that there is not a
significant effect on the environmmt with certain mi.tigation neasures. This is
known as a mi.tigating negative declaration. This is provided that a conditional
use permi.t be required for boarding houses and rooming/lodging houses if they are
allowed in the R-3 zones. She stated that, basically, the city is incorporating
a definition for a hotel and a definition for a notel. At this tine hotels are
allowed in C-2 and C-3 zones; motels, C-3 zones. Currently a rooming house or
boarding/lodging house is allowed in corrm:rcial zones. It is nCMT being suggested
that they not be allowed in the cormercial zones, that they be allowed in R-3
zones only. The reason for that is due to the fact that they are to acconodate
people on a long-tenn basis.
C~QPr
Chnn. Peirce requested that the new law of ~ be provided at the next rreeting.
~~-Public Hearing opened at 9:00 P.M. and closed at 9:01 P.M.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUI'ES -January 4, 1983 Page 6
AMENDING ZONING CODE BY REDEFINING/DEFINING THE TERMS HOI'EL , MITEL , BOARDING HOUSE ,
AND ROCMING/LODGING 'HOUSE AND BY 'DETERtfilITNG THE APPROPRIATE ZONE S 'FOR THESE USES
(Cont .
Motion by Conm. Izant, seconded by Comn . Shapiro , that the Planning Comnission
recoIIIIEnd to the City Comcil that the definition changes be ma.de for defining
notel, hotel, boarding house, and rooming/lodging house and that they be forwarde d
to the City Comcil and that Articles ·2 and 11.5 of the Zoning Code be nodified.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENI':
Comns. BrCMn, Izant, Shapiro, Strohecker, Chnn. Peirce
None
Gorans. Loosli, Smi.. th
Motion by Conm. Izant, seconded by Conm. Shapiro, that the Planning Comnission
adopt Resolution P.C . 83-3.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
CoillllS. Brown, Izant, Shapiro, Strohecker, Chrrn. Peirce
None
Comm . Loosli, Smi.. th
Motion by Cornn. Izant, seconded by Conm. Shapiro , that the Planning Corrmission
recormend to the City Comcil that Article 6 of the Zoning Code be trodified t o
include new definitions of boarding house, rooming house, and lodging house and
their pennitted uses and that the sane appropriate changes be ma.de to Article 10.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Corrmg. BrCMn, Izant, Shapiro, Strohecker, Chml . Peirce
None
Corrmg . Loosli , Smi.. th
Motion by Conm. Izant, seconded by Cornn. Shapiro, to adopt Resolution P .C. 83-:-4.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENI':
CoillllS. BrCMn, Izant, Shapiro, Strohecker, Chrrn. Peirce
None
CoillllS . Loosli , Smi.. th
TIME EXTENSION OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP ffa405 78 LOCATED AT 1833 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY
Ms. Sapetto gave staff report. She stated that the word "public" should be
deleted from the first WHEREAS in Resolution P.C. 83-. She stated that it
had been requested by the app licant tha t this item be extended for another 12-m:mth
period . She clarified the staff report by saying that the city has always allowed
the conditional use p ermit to run with the tentative map, although it was n o t
c larified at the t~ that the conditional use permit should rm with the tentative
map. She believed, however , that if the Corrmission extended the t entative map,
they would b e extending the conditional use permit. She did not believe that it
was appropriate to req uir e that a conditional use permit be requested again.
Crum.. Peirce asked for the relation of Adolph Janes to Jim Lynch. He stated that
there is no information to that effect.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUI'ES -January 4, 1983 Page 7
Til1E EXTENSION OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP #405 78 LOCATED AT 1833 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY
(Cont.
Ms. Sapetto stated that the city had tried to contact Mr. Janes, but they received
no response. She noted concern for not having an owner's affidavi. t.
Chnn. Peirce reco:mrrended continuing this item for two weeks. At that tine, he
wished to see the applicant's plans. So ordered.
Corrm. Strohecker asked if there had been any significant Code changes in the
last two years.
Ms. Sapetto replied that there had been no significant Code changes for the
construction of connercial planned developm:nt.
Chnn. Peirce requested that staff submit all backgrotnd infonnation regarding
this item.
STAFF REPORTS .
Chnn. Peirce stated that there is a section of the Zoning Code which allows
comrercial planned developrrent. The Planning Corrmission had reconnended that
the Thorrpson and Priamos properties be included in that section. The City
Council had decided that the straight C-3 zone should be voted in. A Resolution
of Intention was made, rezoning Seaview Inn to comrercial planned developm:nt.
He believed that the designation was incorrect. He reconnended holding a
pub lie hearing to rezone the property.
Motion by Chnn. Peirce, seconded by Conm. Izant, to adopt Resolution P:C. 83-5,
which is a Resolution of Intention to hold a public hearing to consider rezoning
the Seavi.ew property to corrrrercial planned developrrent. The word "Gotanda" should
be deleted from the title. The"%" sign is to be deleted from the second WHEREAS.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Conms. Brown, Izant, Shapiro, Strohecker, Chrrn. Peirce
None
Cornms . Loosli , Smi. th
Ms. Sapetto stated that included in the packet is infonnation regarding the three
condominium conversion projects.
Chnn. Peirce asked when the Planning Conmi.ssioners Institute will be held.
Ms. Sapetto replied that she had received no infonnation; however, she noted that
she would provide the dates.
Chnn. Peirce stated that he attended the City Council rreeting which covered the
parking on Pacific Coast Highway. He stated that a previous consultant to the
City gave a presentation on parking, traffic flow, gra,;,th of data for parking
spots, etc. They declared that the State would take no action to eliminate
parking on Pacific Coast Highway if the city did not agree. He felt that it was
tine to gather data on circulation and present it to the City Council and make a
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -January 4, 1983 Page 8
STAFF REPORTS
recommendation concerning areas which should be changed. He believed that the
largest impact would be to eliminate parking on Pacific Coast Highway in the
south end of town. This would mitigate traffic on Prospect, Valley, Manhattan,
and Ardmore.
Comm. Strohecker stated that the way to mitigate traffic on the side streets is
there should be stop signs at every block with a miniumum speed limit of 15 m.p.h.
However, he noted that this would be to the detriment of businesses on Pacific
Coast Highway.
Comm. Izant felt that the City would ultimately be forced by the state to remove
that parking. He felt that a third lane will be forced in the south end of town.
He felt that creative solutions such as a northbound third lane or hopscotch
pocket parking were necessary to protect the merchants on Pacific Coast Highway.
Chmn. Peirce requested that staff categorize the parking in the south end of town
and provide some recommendations of how the City can help the merchants. So
ordered.
Ms. Sapetto gave staff report on the general plan/rezoning hearings. She stated
that the Land Use Element should be reviewed at this time. She stated that the
Land Use Element had not been amended since 1970. She stated that a work schedule
will be prepared in order to update the element. She noted that one concern was
what would be the result of changing the Land Use Element.
COMMISSIONER' ITEMS
Comm. Shapiro inquired about the meaning of the flags in the Council Chambers.
Ms. Sapetto stated that she would investigate the meaning of the flags,
Comm. Shapiro requested a reply from the City Council regarding his recommendation
of painting the street signs blue and white.
Ms. Sapetto explained that the process to request an action from the City Council
on this matter would be through a Planning Commission recommendation, Comm,
Shapi"ro could request that the project be placed on the Planning Commission
agenda, Comm. Shapiro requested that the item be placed on the next Planning
Commission agenda.
Chmn. Peirce stated that he would not be able to attend the next Planning Commission
meeting,
Motion to adjourn at 9:45 P.M.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINlJrES -January 4, 1983 Page 9
CERTIFICATICN
I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes were approved at a regular n:eeting
of the Planning Conmission held on the ____ day of _______ , 1983.
JAMES PEIRCE, CHAIRMAN SECREI'ARY
DATE
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes were approved at a regular
meeting of the Planning Commission held on the ___ day of 1~3. -----
--=-=""=,.......,,...=:-=-=-----:~=-=-=-=-:-:-----~ -. -JAMES PIERCE, CHARIMAN JOEL SHAPIRO, SECRETARY
DATE