Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC_Minutes_1982RES . NO . 82-23 $2-24 82-25 82-26 82-27 82-28 82-29 82-30 82-31 DATE ADOPTED 7/6/82 7/20/82 7/20/82 7/20/82 8/J/82 8/3/82 9/7/82 9/21/82 11/3/82 11/3/81 1982 LOCATION 845-923 17th St. 3201 Pacifi c Cs t Hwy &p arcel map #1521 5 CITY-WIDE CI TY-WI DE CITY-WIDE 2605 Pacific Cst. Hwy. & tentative map #3 2528 21 08-2ll0 Monterey Blvd . tent ative map #15304 CI TY-WIDE CI TY-WIDE 1502 Strand, tract map #3 2173 DESCRIPTION RESOLUTION approving a 6-unit Condominium and tentative map #32 526. RESOLUTION approving a 4-Unit c ommer c ial Cond omi nium con- versi on. RESOLUTION denying a proposed f or s econ d units on R-1 lots of 5,000 or more squa re feet, with such units being i ntended for one or t wo p ersons of sixty years of age or older, and such unit n ot exceedi ng 640 square feet o f floor area . OLUTION t o consider amend- the Commer cial Condo- ium conversion ordinance and the commerc ial c ondo- niwn ordinance . SOLUTI ONto delete s ecti on 9A-14 conditiona l appr oval f the condominium ordinance. SOLUTIONapproving a 12-uni t ommerc ial c ondominium c on- ersion. SOLUTI ON approving a 2-unit ondominium t entative map #1530 SOLUTION denying a proposal econd units of R-1 l ots of ,700 or more square feet in- ended f or one or two persons ixty yrs . of age or older. RESOLUT ION APPROVING REVISIONS TO THE ZONING CODE, CHAPTER 9 .5 TICLES III & V COMMERCIAL/ INDUSTRIAL CONDOMINIUMS SOLUTION appr oving a r emode l of exis ting deck . \ RES . DATE NO. ADOPTED ·LOCATION 82-17 7/6/82 82-18 7-6-82 82-19 7/6/82 CITY-WIDE 82-20 7 /6/82 82-21 7 /6/82 CITY-WIDE 82-22 7 /6/82 CITY-WIDE • ,.. DESCRIPTION RESOlUTION of amendments to the Gen- eral Plan Land Use Element relating to mobile home park uses in the city. RESOLUTION approving and recommending to the City Council certain changes to the proposed "Article 6.5 MHP- Mobile Home Park Developement Distri ct" RESOLUTION approving and recommending to the City Council of Hermosa Beach a zone change from unzined to open space for property described as the AT&SF Railroad Right-Of-Way which is bounded bj Ardmore Ave and Valley Dr from the north boundary of the city to as far south as • RESOLUTION approving and recommending to the City Council of Hermosa Beach a zone change from unzoned to open ~pace for property described as the AT & SF Railroad Right-of-Way which is bounded by Ardmore Ave. & Valley Dr., from then. Boundary of the City to the S. boundary of the City. RESOLUTION approving and recommending to the City Council of Hermosa Beach certain amendments to the Land Use Element Map and rezoning of two areas in the City for exclusive use as Mobi e Home Parks. RESOLUTION recommending to the City Council of Hermosa Beach that no ac- tion be taken at this time, which woul d culminate in the rezoning of H.B. Tra i1 er Court. \ RES. NO. 82-9 82-10 8 2-11 8 2-12 82-13 82-14 82-15 82-16 DATE ADOPTED 3/16/82 LOCATION CITY-WDIE 4/7/82 CITY-WIDE 1982 4/20/82 710 Second St. 4/20/82 845-923 17th St. 5/4/82 CITY-WIDE 5/4/82 CITY-WIDE 6/15/82 CITY-WIDE 7/6/82 CITY-WIDE DES CR I Pn ON RESOLUTION OF INTENTION to amend Article 14 of the Zoning Ordinance of HB, by extending the validity of Conditional Use Permits to coincide withe 24-month validity of tentative maps. .RESOLUTION APPROV I NG AND RECOMMENDTNG to C.C. the establishment of a 'mobile home park zone to the H.B. Zoning & re l ate zone and code provisions 'RESOLUTION denying zone chan 'request from R-3 to C-3 RESOLUTION denying zone chang CUP, Tentative Map 32526 for 7 condo units RESOLUTION approving & recom- mending to CC the addition & deletion of uses permitted by Section 800-B of Zoning Code in the C-2 11General Commercia l District" for purposes of encouraging Commercial- Recreational Uses. RESOLUTION amending Article 18, Section 1803 of Zoning Ordinance, by extending the validity of Cond_itional Use Permits to coincide withe 24-Month validity of Tentative Maps. RESOLUTION To examine the zoni g and general plan in the multi- use corridor with the intentio of cHanging the general plan to conform with the zoning. RESOLUTION of intention of the Planning Commision to amen ,the open space zone to includ railwaj uses. RES. NO. 82-1 82-2 82-3 82-4 82-5 82-6 B2-7 82-8 DATE ADOPTED 1/05/82 1/05/82 1/15/82 1/19/82 1/19/82 1/19/82 2/3/82 12131a2 r 1982 LOCATION CITY-WIDE CITY-WIDE CITY-WIDE CITY-WIDE Lot 39 1 Rancho Sausal Redondo Tract Lots 1,2,3 & 4 of Tract No. 256 440 Second St. 44 0 Second St. DESCRIPTION RESOLUTION OF INTENTION to amend the condominrnum conver sion ordinance wherein all conversions would produce a white paper delineating the deviations from the condomin ·um development standards. RESOLUTION OF INTENTION to consider rezoning all propert ~es over one-half acre that are rpm- open space zoned. RESOLUTION recommending to the City Council of Hermosa Beach that there be no change to the overly zone ordinance. RESOLUTION requesting to extend the effective dates of the temporary devel©pment standards for the C-1, C-2, & C-3 zones as adopted in ordinance No. 81-674 & 81-676 RESOLUTION recommending a zone change from R-1 to open space for property legally described as a portion of Lot 39, RanchoSausal Redondo Tract, commonly known as ,he AT & SF Railroad Right- of-Way which is bounde~ by Second St., Valley Dr., and Herondo St. RESOLUTION approving a change in Zone from R-1 to planned development residential/mediun density for property legally described as lots 1 1 2,3&4 , f tract No. 256, southwest corner of Second & Hill St. RESOLTUION approving con- ceptual Plan B for 440 Second St., commonly known as the 11Boatyard Site11 RESOLUTION approving con- ceptual Plan A for 440 Second St, 11 Boatyard Si te11 . _ ..... 'I I MINUTES OF THE PLANNING 'COM1ISSION OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON DECEMBER 7, 1982, IN µIE CITY HALL COUNCD... CHAMBERS AT 7:30 P.M. Meeting calle d to order by Cbnn. Peirce at 7: 30 P .M. ROU. OOL PRESENT: Corrms. Brown, Izant, Loosli, Shapiro, Smith, Stroehecker, Chrm. Peirce ABSENT: None ALSO PRESENT: Alfred Me rcado, Planning Aide; Ralph Casteneda, TDC Planning APPROVAL OF MINUI'ES Motion by Corrm. Izant, seconded by Cornn. Shapiro, to approve the Noverroer 16, 1982 minutes, as submitted. AYE S: NOES: ABSTAIN: AB.SENT: Coums. Brown, Izant, Shapiro, Stroehecker None Corrms. Loosli, Smith, Chun. Peirce None APPROVAL OF RESOLUTIONS Motion by Comn. Snti.th, s econded by Corrm. Brown, to approve Resolution P .C. 82-35. AYES: NOES: ABSTAJN: ABSENT: Comns. Br~, Izant , Shapiro, Smith, Stroehecker, Chrm. Peirce None Conm. Loosli None Motion by Comn. Bra.-m, seconded by Comn . Shap~ro, to approve Resolution. P .C. 82-37. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comns. BrOiJil, Shapiro, Snith, Stroehecker, Cbnn. Peirce None Comns . Izant, Loosli None Motion by Cqmn. Brown, seconded by Cornn. Shapiro , to approve Resolutions P.C. 82-38 and P.C. 82-39. AYES: NOES: AB.5TA IN : ABSENT: Conrns. Brown, Loosli, Shapiro, Stroehecker, Chrm. Peirce None Conm:;. Izant, Smith None REVISIONS TO THE CONOOMilHUM CONVERSION ORDJNANCE Ralph Casteneda gave sta£f report . ... • PLANNING COM1ISSIQ\f MINUTES -Decenber 7, 1982 REVISIONS TO THE CONDCMINTIM CONVERSION ORDINANCE (Cont.) Due to technical difficulties, much of the acti~ity concerning this item is unavailable. The Planning Conmission took no action on this item. REVISED HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PIAN Page 2 Ralph Casteneda gave staff report. He stated that a sarrp le· resolution should be prepared for the rIEeting of January 4, 1983. Due to technical difficulties. much of the activity concerning this item is unavailable. Mr. Casteneda stated -that he would obtain information regarding single duplexes and multiples of renter-and owner-occupied units. The Plarming Corrmission noted that appendixes should have been included. Public Hearing opened at 8: 08 P .M. Mike Franzel, Henrosa Beach, stated that short-term effects, such as rrore affordable living, may not be realized by the city. Public Hearing continued at 8: 10 P .M. Corrm. Izant stated that more information was needed. u . ) PLANNING CCl-1MISSION MrnurES -Decent,er 7, 1982 Page 3 REVISED HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE GENEAAL PLAN (Cont.) Public Hearing opened at 8:45 P.M. Violette Isgreen, 726 Prospect Avenue, Hernosa Beach, stated that better and ~re extensive research in this matter was needed. Public fuaring continued at 8:50 P.M. to January 4, 1983 Mr. Casteneda stated that he would return with more information regarding Items 2 and 3, those i terns being AMENDING ZONING CODE , SECTION 802 TO DELEI'E CCl1MERCW.. STORY HEIGI-Il' LJMITATION The Planning Corrrnission postponed this item from the agenda until further notice . SfAFF REPORTS None CCM1ISSIONERS ':, ITEMS Conm. Smith asked for the status of the Boatyard site. Conm. Brown wished to be notified of any upcoming League of Cities conferences. Meeting adjourned at 9 :00 P .M. PLANNmG Ca-MISSION MJNUTES -Decenber 7, 1982 Page 4 CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes were approved at a regular meeting of the Planning Comaission held on the • day of _______ _ JAMES PEIRCE, C~ SECRETARY DATE ) u . ' MINUTES OF THE PI.ANNING C(l.1MJSSION MEETING OF TIIE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON NOVEMBER 16, 1982, IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HAIL, AT 7: 30 P .M. -11eeting called to order at 7:30 P.M. by Cormn. Izant ROIL CAI.L PRESENT: Comns. Bro;,m, Izant, Shapiro, Strohecker ABSENI': Ganns . Loosli, Smith, Chnn. Peirce ALSO PRESENT: Parrela Sapetto, Planning Director Comn. Izant was appointed Chai:rman for this rre.eting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion by Corrm. Shapiro, seconded by Comn. Brown, to approve the November 2, 1982, mi.nutes, as subrrri.tted. No o~jections. So ordered. (Chnn. Izaht; abstained.) APPROVAL OF RESOLUfIONS Motion by Coran. Shapiro, seconded by Corrm. Strohecker, to approve Resolutions P.C. 82-34 and 82-36. No objections. So ordered. (Chnn. Izant abstained.) CoIIIIl. St~obecker stated that Resolution P.C. 82-35, #11, should read, "Each unit shall provide a minim.m of 200 cubic feet of storage area." No. 12 should read, '' . . . removal of door leading from the stairs to the den. '' Ms. Sapetto stated that the concern was that the wall would provide a separate & private access to the upstairs if it were left in place. Cornn. Shapiro asked if the item in question will go before the City Council. :Ms. Sapetto replied in the negative, adding that the Planning Corrmission approval is final. Chrm.. Izant recon:mended granting conditional approval , subject to the rennval of the wall. This would expedite matters for the applicant. If it is determined · that it is a b earing wall , the app licant will have to reappear before the Comnission. Cbnn. Izant recoITIIEJ:lded that /fl2 read, ''The wall and the door between the stairs and the den is to be removed." Motion by Comn. Shapiro, seconded by Cornn. Strohecker, to approve Resolution P.C. 82-35 with the foll?wing additions: No. 11 should read, "Each unit shall provide a minimum of 200 cubic feet of storage area.'' No. 12 should read, "The wall and the door between the stairs and the den is to be rerrove d. " AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comns . Bro;m, None Chnn. Izant Conms. Loosli, Shapiro, Strohecker Smith, Chrm. Peirce n PLANNlliG COMMISSION MINUTES -Noverroer 16, 1982 Page 2 AMENDING THE ZONING CODE, CHAPI'ER 9.5, ARTICLES III & V, COMMERCIAL & INDUSTRIAL CONDOMINIUMS , DEVELOPMENT AND CONVERSIONS Ms. Sapetto gave staff. report. She stated that the City Corneil reviewed the Planning Cornnission's recorrn'Enclations with respect to arrending the comrercial condominium ordinance. Staff had presented additional arrendrrents to the City Corneil, and the City Corneil is TIOW' requesting that the Planning Corrmi.ssion review those additional am:ndrrents. Staff submitted the following arrendrrents: 1. The additional requiremmt that within 30 days of submitting CC&R's to the Los Angeles County Recorder, the applicant is to provide the City with certified copies of the CC&R' s. 2. Section 9.5-34 has the additional requirellEilt that when the intensity of use has increased the addition of floor area or change in use, additional parking and loading shall be provided. Furtbemore, a minimum of two parking spaces per unit shall be required. Public Hearing opened and closed at 7 :55 P .M. Motion by Cornn. Shapiro, seconded by Conm. Strohecker, to approve the additional revisions to Section 9. 5, Articles III & V, Cornnercial & Industrial Condomi.niumc;. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Conrns. Brown, Shapiro, Strohecker, Chrm. Izant None Comns . Loosli, Srni_ th, Chnn. Peirce Motion by Conm. Shapiro, seconded by Coran. Strohecker, to approve Resolution P .c. 82-38. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: CamE. Brown, Shapiro, Strohecker, Chnn. Izant None Conrns . Loosli , Smith , Chrm . Peirce PRELIMINARY FILil~G FEE FDR RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPl.'1ENI'S Ms. Sapetto gave sta£f report. She stated that sta£f was recomIEI1ding that a resolution be adopted which arrEnds the Zoning Code dealing with residential planned clevelopnents and co:rmercial planned developrrents. The aIIEndrrent would be to include a provision for collecting a preliminary filing fee of 10 percent of the total application fee upon submission of a preliminary developmmt plan. She stated that prior to this tine, the applicant was required to pay the full application fee. The City has 30 days with which to approve an application. After that tine, the city must assist the applicant in completing that application. She felt it were rrore equitable to charge 10 percent of any given fee. Chim. Izant noted that this item applies only to special c~rcial and residential planned developments. It does not apply to the normal applications in the normal cOIIIDercial and residential zones. Public Hearing opened at 8: 10 P .M. Delma Peary, 720 Eighth Street, Hermosa Beach, asked for a clairificatirn of the filing fee. PLANNING COMMISSION lfiNUI'ES -Novenber 16 , 19 82 Page 3 -PRELJMINARY FILING FEE FOR RESIDENTIAL 'PLANNED DEVELOR1ENTS (Cant.) Ms. Sapetto offered that clarification , stating that a $75.00 filing fee is required in order for the Corrmi.ssion to review a preliminary plan. Paying 10 percent of the fee would be nore equitable t o the applicant, but at the saIIE tine, it would be equitable to the city by assuring a strong interest from the applicant. Public Hearing closed at 8:14 P.M. Motion by Cornn. Brown, seconded by Corrm. Shapiro, to adopt staff's recomnendation to streamline and implem:nt the 10 percent application fee for residential planned developrrents and connercial planned developnents. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Conms. Brown, Shapiro, Strohecker, Chmn. Izant None Comns. Loosli, Smith, Chlm. Peirce Motim by Conm. Brown, seconded by Conm. Shapiro, to approve Resolution P .C. 82-39 with the vl!EREAS' s reconnended by staff. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Corrm3. Brawn, Shapiro, Strohecker, Chnn. Izant None Comns. Loosli, Smith, Chim. Peirce Ms. Sapetto stated that Item 6 of the Agenda was withdrawn because it needed an Environmental Impact Report. DEFINING SPECIFIC DIMENSIONS FOR OFF-STREEI' PARKING STALLS IN PRIVATE DEVELOPMENTS Ms. Sapetto gave staff report. She stated that the Planning Corrmission had acted to take an interpretation of the Zoning Code to include that the standard parking stall dinEnsion for parallel parking be included on any type of developm:nt that is off street. She stated that this item was advertised because it was not known that the Planning Comnission would take an interpretation rather than.a Zoriing Code amm.drrent. She stated that the Code is not clear on what the size of a parallel parlcing diITEnsian should be when an off-street parking space is built inside a development. The Planning Corrrnission 1 s interpretation was that it be 8': X 24'. Public Hearing opened and closed at 8: 20 P .M. Chmi. Izant stated that the standard size for off-street parking stalls in private developments will be 8' x 24'. STAFF REPORTS None CCM1ISSIONERS' ITEl1S Motion to adjourn at 8:30 P.M. • I n ) PLANNING CCM1ISSION MINUTES -. Novenber 16, 1982 Page 4 CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and complete record of the action taken by the Planning Corrmi.ssion of Herroosa Beach at their regular neeting of Novenber 16, 1982. STEPHAN IZANT, ACTING CHAIRMAN CG1M. SHAPIRO, SECRETARY DATE u -, MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COM1ISSION OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON NOVEMBER 3, 1982, IN THE CITY HAIL COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT 7:30 P.M. Meeting called to order by Cbrm. Peirce at 7:30 P.M. PRESENT: Conms. Brown, Shapiro, Smith, Strohecker, Chlm. Peirce ABSENI': Conms . Izant, Loosli ALSO PRESENT: PaIIEla Sapetto, Planning Director; Alfred Mercado, Planning Aide APPROVAL OF MINlJI'ES Motion by Chrrn. Peirce, seconded by Comn. Shapiro, to approve the October 5 , 1982 minutes, as submitted. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Cormis . Brown, Shapiro, Smith, Chrm. Peirce None Comm. Strohecker Cormns . Izan t , Loosli APPROVAL OF RESOLUTIONS Motion by Cornn. Smith, seconded by Comn. Shapiro, to approve Resolutions P.C. 82-32 and 82-33. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN : ABSENI': COIIIDB . Brown, Shapiro, Smith, Chnn. Peirce None Cornn. Strohecker Conms . Izant, Loosli 1431 MONTEREY -REQUEST OF CONSTRUCTION OF '00 C.ONDJMINilM UNITS AND TENI'ATNE MAP 1/14627 Chnri. Peirc.e stated that this item will be postponed until after Item 5. ZONING C.ODE INTERPRETATION -PER APPLICATION FOR A TWJ-UNIT HOTEL fil 1100 STRAND .AS AN ANNEX TO THE ST. FRANCIS Ms. Sapetto presented slides of the project to the Ccmnission. She introduced Alfred Mercado who gave the staff report. Mr. Mercado presented staff report . He stated that staff recomIEnded that the Planning Comni.ssion consider the definitions listed on Attachrrent I and their proposed zone designations as a basis for determining the land use status of the St. Francis "hotel'" in regards to its application to expand its operatirn. Staff also reconmended that the Corrmi.ssion adopt a resoluticm of itention, to hold a public hearing to consider anEI1ding the zoning code by introducing new definitions of hotel, notel, boarding house, rooming house and lodging house. Hotel and rrntel are defined but not distinguished. Additionally, staff recormaided PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -November 3, 1982 Page 2 ZONING CODE IlITERPRETATION -PER APPLICJ\.TION FDR A ThD-UNIT HOl'EL AT 1100 STRAND AS AN ANNEX TO "THE 'ST. FRANCIS (Cont. ) that the Corrmi.ssion anend the code to indicate zones for those uses.and that the Planning Comnission adopt the resolution which finds that the St. Francis "hotel" is a non-conforming use. He stated that there is presently an application for a two-unit extension to the St. Francis ''hotel.11 The true status of the St. Francis has been questioned. That is, is it a hotel, boarding house, rooming house, motel, etc. Initially, the City zoning code was thought to provide the answer. Unfortunately, it does not distinguish between hotel and note 1. Furtherroore , it does not define boarding house, rooming, house , lodging house, etc. He stated that staff had provided sorre definitions along with a statenent of where such uses are rrost appropriate. If the Conrni.ssion concured with these or modifies them then the next step is to determine the status of the St. Francis. Based on the proposed definitions, the St. Francis contains characteristics of a hotel . This interpretation is b ased on the fact that it cannot be either a boarding house, rooming house or l odging house because such are herein defined as consisting of no nore than five (5) guest rooms. Additionally, the St. Francis is consistent with the proposed definition of a hotel in that the St. Francis provides access through a comnon entrance, lobby or hallway. Most of the roOIIB at the St. Francis are occupied by long tenn residents and since it contains nineteen rooms, it does not conveniently fal l within any of the proposed definitions. Therefore, assuming that the proposed definitions are approved, then the St. Francis is operating as a non-conforming use. If the Planning Corrmission concurs with this perspective , then the current application to expand the St. Francis is invalidated by Sections 1301 and 1 302 of the Zoning Code which prohibit expansion of non-conforming use where structured alterations will occur. Public Hearing opened at 7: 36 P .M. Chnn. Peirce inforned the audience that the hotel is located each of Beach Drive on the south side of the street. The applicant wished to add two rooms on the second floor of the newly-constructed structure on the Strand to be called an annex. He noted that the pertinent question is if the St. Francis is actually a hotel, or is it sooe other designation. Pete Mangurian, 2419 Ralston, Re dondo Beach, applicant, stated that the slides presented t o the Conmission were not slides of the property in question. He stated that they. did not intend to call it an annex . The property is IMnaged by two persons. He stated that the property will be developed within a short period of tirrB. He noted that the owner atterrpted to sell the property as a hotel site but failed to do so. Chm.1.. Peirce asked for the address of the St. Francis hotel. Mr. Mangurian replied that the address is 24 11th Street. Coom. Smith asked the applicant if the proposed annex were 1100 Strand. 1'1r. Mangurian rep lied in the affirmative ; h0ivever, he clairred it was not an annex. He noted that the City asked how it would be run. PIA"'iJNING C<l1MISSION MilHJTES -November 3, 1982 Page 3 ZONING CODE INI'ERPRETATION -PER APPLICATION FOR A 'TIJO-TJNIT HOTEL .Kr 1100 STRA."t\JD AS A"J ANNEX TO THE 'ST. FRANCIS (Cont.) Comn. anith questioned why this item would be before the Corrmission if it were not an annex. Ms. Sapetto stated that the project was to cmrprise an annex to the s tructure. Te chnically, the applicant i s saying that it will not be the same hotel; hCY.vever, it wil l be the s ane managerrent. She noted that the concern of the City is that --- there nrust be a lobby and a desk clerk in that lobby at all tinEs to function as a hotel. The applicant's suggestion was that it bec:orm part of another operation; therefore, the City was defining it as an addition to the other hotel. She noted that the trouble lied with defining the use that the applicant was requesting. A hotel must contain six (6) or nnre guest rooms. If the applicant wished to make it a single entity, the Comnission should discuss it being a b oarding house and not a hotel. She stated that it would not be a hotel because it would not have a lobby, and it would not have six or nnre guest rooms. It could rreet the standards of being a boarding h ouse; however, boarding houses are not a use allowed in that zone. Therefore, it would be a noncanfonni.ng use . M'r. Mercado stated that the St. Francis is not perceived as a hotel because most of the tenants are long-term, and in defining a hotel, the tenants would be terrporary. Chnn. Peirce stated that it cannot be a hotel because it does not have six guest rooms, and it cannot be a boarding house because it is in the wrong zone. If it is an -annex to the St. Francis, the City has de~d that it does not rreet the characteristics of a hotel. Corrm. Brown asked what the project was approved as when the applicant began construction. M'r. Mangurian replied that it was approved as office space. Corrm. Br™I1 stated that it would then be considered office space. He asked the applicant why it will not be rented as office space. Mr . Mangurian replied that he has had absolutely no response to renting it as office space . He has had many requests for using the property as a restaurant. Chrnn. Peirce believed that the applicant was requesting a variance. Mr. Mercado stated that the representatives of this proposed project went before the Enviroru:rental Review Board on October 20, and the Review Board requested as follows: "The Staff Review of 10/20/82 was in response to a request to change a second floor to a two-roorr. annex of the St. Francis hotel." Cornn. Brown stated that it had nothing to do with the St. Francis hotel. Ms_ Sapetto stated that it was UJ.derstood that it was to be an annex. She stated that the applicant wishes to rent it as s ormthing other than office space because he does not wish to offer a permanent lease; therefore , his wish is to rent it as hotel space. She stated that this item was brought before the Conmission to obtain PLANNING C01MISSION MINlJI'ES -Noverrber 3, 1982 Page 4 ZONING CODE INTERPRETATION -PER APPLICATION FOR A TWO-UNIT HCITEL Kr 1100 STRAND AS AN ANNEX TO THE ST . FRANCIS (Cont.) definitions for a hotel, IIDtel, boarding house, and rooming house/lodging house. She stated that if the Corrmission concurs with the definitions on Attachment I, the proposed project would not be an allowable use. Conm. Brown asked in which zone the property was located. Ms. Sapetto replied in the C-2 zone. Chon. Peirce asked the applicant if he was before the Corrmission because he requested the project to be used as a two-unit hotel, and the Environmmtal Review Board claimed it was not a hotel. Mr. Mangurian replied in the affirmative. Cbnn. Peirce stated that the Conmission Im.1St determine whether or not the two units on the second floor are a hotel. Comn. Shapiro clarified for the audience that the construction in question is located above 'I'omboy's Restaurant on 11th Street and the Strand. No one else appeared to speak in favor of this item. No one appeared to speak in opposition to this item. Public Hearing closed at 7:50 P.M. Corrm. Brown questirned whether it IIEets the standards of a hotel at the present titre. Ms. Sapetto replied in the negative. Chnn.. Peirce stated that it does not neet the generally accepted standards of a hotel, although the standards are not specifically pointed out in the Zoning Code; therefore, an interpretation rrrust be made by the Conmission. Corrm. S:-iapiro asked if the St. Francis is defined as a hotel at this tine. Ms. Sapetto replied that it is a nonconforming use. Mr. Mercado stated that St. Francis is not operating as a hote 1 at this time. He stated that he was told by a representative of the St. Francis hotel that • ,,.: • .:.: persons live there, for the rrost part, on a pennanent basis. Conm. Shapiro asked the applicant if the rent is paid daily, weekly, or m.:mthly. Mr. Mangurian replied that rent is paid, for ·the rrost part, by the week. He added that it is listed as a hotel, and it pays bed tax to the City .. Conm. Brown asked where the hotel lies in relation to the annex. Ms. Sapetto replied that it is across the street. PLANNING CQ1MISSION lffiIDTES -November 3, 1982 • .Page .5_-__ ZONlNG CODE L.'-:rI'ERPREI'ATION -PER APPLICATION FOR A 'rnO-UNIT HOTEL AT 1100 STRAND AS AN ANNEX ·ro "THE 'ST: FRANCIS (Cont.) Mr. Mangurian stated that it is 100 feet away, and it is separated by a public street. Cornn. Smith noted that there was not a specific request in either the packet or the analysis in regards to whether that particular parcel of land tree ts the zoning . He noted that they were previously informed that persons stayed on a long-titre basis; however, the applicant infonred the Comnission during the publ ic hearing that persons pay on a weekly basis. Crum., Peirce stated that the Conmission ITn..lSt detennine whether the definitions on Attac.hmmt I are definitions that the Connli.ssion interprets the Zoning Code to mean when it says "hotel, m::,tel, etc." He stated that the Ccirrmi.ssian will not be approving the applicant's request for a hotel. Corrm.. Smith asked under what category a bed-and-breakfast establishnent would cOIIE under. Ms. Sapetto replied that a bed-and-breakfast establishm2.nt would be defined as either a boarding house or a lodging h ouse. Chmn. Peirce stated that the Conmission may make m::,difications to the four r definitions listed on Attachment I. P..e noted that it did not mm.tion a garage mder the definition of a hotel. r Mr. Mangurian questioned why he was instructed to appear before the Conmi.ssion if the Conmission was not going to approve his request for a hotel. Ms. Sapetto e>g>lained that the applicant has asked for a use that is not clear in the Zcming Code; therefore, the COIIIllission needs to make an interpretat ion as to what those uses are. Once that is determined, if the project falls within those guidelines, the applicant would have a ministerial-type project. At that ti.1re, the applicant may obtain approval from the Building DepartrrEnt. If the project does not fall into the category of the interpretations, a variance will need to be requested from the Board of Zoning Adjustments. Mot icm by Chnn. Peirce, seconded by Corrm. Smith, to recorrrnend t o the Building Dep a.rtnEnt that the definitions listed on Attac.hnalt I of the packet be used as guidelines to determine the status of the building, whether it be a hotel , ootel, boarding house, or rooming house/ lodging house . Cornn. Shapiro noted that Mr. Alton's opinion was, as stated in Para. 3 of his rrerro, that the St. Francis was a rooming house. Crum.. Peirce stated that Mr. Alton's opinicn was not based on approved guidelines. Lee Alton, Director of Building and Safety , stated that if the project falls within the category of one of the definitions, the project may be approved. However, if it does not fall within one of those categories , a variance will be needed by the Board of Zoning Adjustments. He added that the Building Departrrent was pleased • that the definitions do not contain such subjects as sheets, laundry facilities, etc. PLANNWG C<l-'lMISSION lffiIDTES -Noverrber 3, 1982 Page 6 ZONWG CODE INTERPRETATION -PER APPLICATION FDR A TI.0-UNIT HOTEL AT 1100 STRAND AS AN ANNEX TO THE ST. 'FRANCIS (Cont. ) Corrm. Strohecker ·stated that he was not comfortable with the clause under Motels relating to kitchen facilities. Mr. Alton advised the Corrmi.ssion that if they adopt or arrend the four definitions, the Corrmissian should address the question as to whether the last use in the C-2 zone is applicable, that is, that this is a use no rrore deleterious than all the uses listed above . AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COl1111S. Brown, Shapiro, Smith, Strohecker, Chnn. Peirce None COIIIIlS . Izan t , Loosli Crum. Peirce stated that the Conmission should hold a public hearing to amend the Zoning Code by redefining the definitions. Motion by Chrm. Peirce, seconded by Corrrn. Shapiro, to hold a public hearing to aIIEnd the Zoning Code by redefining hotel, trotel, boarding house, and rooming house/lodging house. • AYF$: Corrms. Brown, Shapiro, Smith, Strohecker, Chnn. Peirce NOES: None ABSENT: CoIIIllS , Izant , Loosli Motion by Chnn. Peirce, seconded by Comn. Shapiro, to approve Resolution P .C. 82-34 with the deletion of the first WHEREAS. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Corrms. Brown, Shapiro, Smith, Strohecker, Chnn. Peirce None Corrms . Izant , Loos 1i 1431 MONTEREY -REQUEST ·oF C~~STRUCTION 'OF 2 CONDCMilUUM UNITS AND TENTATIVE YJAP 1/14627 11s. Sapetto presented slides of the lot at 1431 Monterey. Mr. Mercado presented the staff report. He stated that staff recomrended that the Connti.ssion adopt the resolution approving this project. He noted that this project was considered by the Enviranrraital Review Board on October 20, 1982, and was granted a negative declaration which irnplys that the project will not have a significant in:pact on the environment . He stated that this project consists of construction of two condorni.niums on a 2,902 sq. ft. lot. The project is a two-story structure over a garage. The garage contains space for two cars; den, and bathroom facilities. The first floor consists of two bedrooms, two walkways and closets, and two bathrooms. The second f l oor consists of a f amily room, kitchen, dining room, living r oom, and a balcony . He noted that the project IIEets all of the Condominium Ordinance requiremmt s except three, those being , that it does not ~et the minirm.Jm lot width of 30 feet, that Unit 2 does not provide 200 cubic feet of storage space, and that the trash s torage location is not indic ated in the plans . In addition, the garage floor h as con:plete bathroom facilit ies which brings to mind the potential for a bootleg unit. Staff reconnended the Comnis sion to require either that the door leading to the stairs frcm the den be rerroved. In its place PIA.1NING COMMISSION MINUI'ES -November 3 , 19 82 Page 7 1431 MONTEREY -REQUEsr OF GONSTRIJCTION OF 2 CONDCMrNIUM UNITS AND TENTATIVE MAP //14627 (Cont .) there would be a continuous wall, and the stairs leading to both floors would be rroved adjacent to the den area . The other recomnendation of staff would be , , • that the washing facilities be enconpassed within the den area. Chnn. Peirce noted concern for the height in t.l-iat in times past, the approved height is sorne tines less than the height after final construction. Mr. Alton stated that he understood t1"1e Chairman.' s concern that approval of a 28-foot structure may be built to 35 feet. He stated that the Building Dep artrrent checks to see 'Whether the height conplies with t he rnax:imum heigpt requirement during the framing stages . He stated that he was speaking because he h eard there was a nri.scalculation on the gross floor area o f the building. Ms. Sa:r,e tto read the following definition of gross floor area from the Zoning Code: 'The tota l area occupied by a building or structure excepting therefrom only the area of any inner courts, exterior corridors, open balconies , open stairways, and designated garages. Such total area shall be calculated by rreasuring along the outside clim:msions of the exterior services of such building or structure at each floor level and adding the total of each floor level." Mr. Alton stated that the balconies and garages are easy to delete . He stated that his calculation included the stairways for this proj ect and concluded that the building is 155 sq. ft . over the 1.25 ti~s the size of the lot . He stated that the plan checker deleted the stairways> leaving the Conmission two options. Che option would be to ask the applicant if he can delete 155 sq. f t. from the building, the other option being to interpret the stairways as open stairways. The second option would be difficult unless the app licant left o ff the too£. Chim. Peirce asked for Mr . Alton's interpretaticn of an open stairway. Mr. Alton replied that an open stairway is any stairway open to the sky. Cbnn. Peirce asked Mr. Alton i f the stairway would be excluded on both floors to constitute an open stairway. Mr. Alton rep lied in the affinnati ve . Public He aring opened at 8:30 P .M. Dennis Cleland, 444 29th Street, Hernosa Beach, owner and builder, stated that the landscaping plan indicated the trash area on each unit. He stated that the stairway was not included when he made the calculaticns. He noted that the storage area on the front unit is indicated on each side of the garage, and the storage area on the back unit is indicated next to the washer and dryer. Chrm. Peirce asked for the height of the underfloor space on the unit without the den on the bottom floor. Mr. Cleland stated that it will be a stepped-up foundation on a sloped lot. PLANNING COMMISSION l1INUI'ES -NoVeIIIDer 3, 1982 Page 8 1431 MONI'EREY -REQUEST OF CONSTRUCTION OF 2 CONDQ1INIUM UNITS AND TENTATIVE MAP #14627 (Cont.) Chml. Peirce stated that it has been the Ccmn:i.ssion' s policy in the past not to have fences segregating units. He asked if the private open space would remain private open space if the fence were delete d. }1s. Sapetto replied in the negative, stating that it would be conm:n space at that point. Crum. Peirce asked if COilTCOil open space were required for this project. Ms. Sapetto replied in the negative. Chrrn. Peirce noted concern for the unit on the first floor being converted into a bootleg unit in the future. Mr. Cleland stated that the walls around it are retaining; therefore, a door could not be put in the den leading from the outside. Chrm. Peirce stated that one could have separate units if a door were put on the upstaircase and the den. Mr. Cleland stated that they had to use a split entrance, due to the subterranean garage. Conm. Smith suggested having the staircase inside the den, as opposed to outside the den. Mr. Cleland stated that he wished to keep the den separate from the garage. No one else appeared to speak in favor of the new construction. No one appeared t o speak in oppos ition to the new constructirn. Public Hearing closed at 8:37 P.M. Oum.. Peirce stated that he would like to see the Analysis changed to reflect the true values of the presented project , i.e., the floor area, the lot coverage of 61. 7%, and a height of 28 feet . He stated that the project could be made into a bootleg with the additi on of only one door. Motion by Corrm. Smith, seconded by Conm. Shapiro for discussion, to approve a resolution including staff's reconnended conditions 1/1 -11, with the additim of Candi tion f/12 which would rrodify the den unit by removing the door leading f rom the stairs to the den. Th.at door would be replaced by a continuous wall. Chnn. Peirce stated that the project does not rreet the criteria of being 1.25 tinEs the lot area. Comn. Brown believed that the situatim with the den should be anended, and he believed that the staff report should be corrected. PI.ANNING CCM1ISSION MINUTES -November 3, 1982 Page 9 1431 MONTEREY -REQUEST OF CONSI'RUCTION OF 2 CONDOMINIUM UNITS AND TENTATIVE MAP 1114627 (Cont .) Chmn. Peirce asked if the project was 155 sq. ft. over allowable if the staii:wells were included. Mr. Alton replied in the affinnative, adding that the project is 3790.9 sq. ft. if the stairs are deleted by taking off the roof and calling it an open stairway. It would then be 154. 6 sq. ft. over allowable. Crum. Peirce stated that fences are used as a criteria for al.Jrost all projects that have coire before the Conmi.ssion. Ms. Sapetto concurred, stating that the Coomission has used fences as a criteria for several years in the past. Conm. Smith stated that the issue of the fence was not significant. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COIIlIIIS • Brown, Shapiro, Smith, Strohecker, Chnn. Peirce None Corrms . Izant , Loosli Crum. Peirce requested that nemo be sent concerning height and lot coverage to the Building Departmmt. So ordered. Mr. Alton stated that the Building Departmmt requires a deed restriction which will not allow an exterior opening into the stiarway from the landing level. He infoITIEd the Comnission that they may also require this in the Cc.&Rs. Motion by Corrm. Sini.th, seconded by Chnn. Peirce, to adopt a resolution with wHEREASs dealing with the floor area and the other deviations of the project . This resolution also includes Condition :f/12. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Cams. Brown, Shapiro, Smith, Strohecker, Chnn. Peirce None Comns . Izant , Loosli Chrrn. Peirce infonIEd the audience that this item may be appealed by writing to the City Council within ten days. REZONING OF THE 11THOMPSON"' "PRIAMOSll AND11BILTI-ORE 11 PROPERTIES TO CPD Ms . Sapetto gave staff report. She presented slides of all three locations in question. She stated that staff's recomnendation was to rezone to cOIIJrercial r.lanned development the area conmonly known as the "Thon:pson property" and the 'Priarros property" and to await any action on the Biltmore Site until the Council received a report from the to-be-established "Blue Ribbon" conmittee set up to make recorrmendations on the Biltnore Site . She noted that on the Cornmissicn' s goals and priority list of this year is the rezoning of coome.rcial parcels over 1/2 acre to conrrErcial planned developrrent . The Comni.ssion and Council enacted this zone PLANNING CCl1MISSION MINUTES -November 3, 1982 Page 10 REZONING OF THE "THOMPSON" 1 "PRIAM.OS" A."'ID "BILTMORE" PROPERTIES TO CPD (Cont.) in 1973 with the intent of expediting Corrmercial Development by creating greater flexibility in the development standards. The Conmission and Council also created the sarre. type of zone for residential planned development and implemented it on the "Boatyard" site in 1980. The Plarming Conmission created the CPD Zone with the intent of assisting property aivners in rrore imaginative use of their land. This is particularly inportant on larger parcels of land. This is done by allCMing greater flexibility in the development standards . The IIEthod used is that at the time a property owner wishes t o develop, he will submit his application for a conditional use permit and p ay a fee o f $75 .00. The P lanning Comnission would provide a general statement o f rrodified developm;nt criteria at the ti.rre an application is filed for a conditional use pennit to initiate a project. This would include the general perameters such as height, setba~ parking, lot coverage, any of which could be varied if mitigated. This IIEthod would not exenpt projects from any applicable State Law or local ordinances, such as environerrntal impact reports and the provisions of the California Coastal Zone Conservation Act. The p roperty owner would a lso continue to have the right to develop property in accordance with the underlining zone, which would be the C-3 zone. The first property is the "Thonpson property" which is located between Pier Ave, 16th Street, Ardmore and Pacific Coast Highway, It is a parcel of about 6. 26 acres . Four point one acres are zoned for manufacturing, and 2 1/ 4 acres are zoned C-3. The parcel is entirely within the multi-use corridor which does not address a manufacturing use, only comnercial and residential. It is the intent of the general plan land use desigpation. to develop the parcel as a cormercial parcel. It is currently used as a textile manufacturer. In order to zone the project CPD-C-3, the portioo. of the property zoned manufacturing would be entirely rezoned to C-3, and the total parcel would have an overlay zone imposed upon it of CPD. With the overlay CPD, the developer is required to follow the CPD process. However, the developer will :;till maintain the right to develop at C-3 developmmt standards if no agreenent can be reached on developmmt standards. To rezone this property would bring the zoning into conformance with the general plan and ease the process and future rezoning. If they want to do it corrnercially, they will have to rezone their property. The purpose would be to allow a developer nore ease in developing the site. It will, however, exclude the manufacturing use, thereby making the manufacturing use,:legal nonconforming. The "Prianns property11 is located adjacent to Pacific Coast Highway between 16th Street and 19th Street on the west side of the highway. Approximately . 44 acres of the property are zoned C-3 and 1.56 acres are zoned manufacturing. A florist and tool shop are located on the portion of the property which is adjacent to Pacific Coast Highway, while just to the rear of the structures there is a single family ct.Jelling. The majority of the property is vacant. The s~ rezoning procedure applies to this property as the Thompson property. Lastly to be considered is the "Biltnore site .11 The Biltmore site is currently zoned C-2 with a cormercial-recreational land use designation in the general plan. It is entirely a vacant lot. The Local Coastal Plan has placed no specific use on the site and, in fact, states that the City should keep all options open for the site including public, COIIIrercial and residential uses. The Local Coastal Plan also states that at the titre the City determines the use of the site, an arrendrralt to the LCP will be made and presented to the Coastal Coornissian. Although the CPD Zone allCJWs all the above uses in a mixed ratio, it does not allow all the above uses as a single use, specifically an all residential use. It also does not allow some other uses which were listed for consideration PLANNING C<MYJISSION" MINUI'ES -Noverrber 3, 1982 Page 11 REZONING OF THE "THCMPSON" 1 11PRIAMOS" AND ''BlLTMORE" PROPERTIES TO CPD (Cont.) on the site. She stated that impleirenting a CPD Zone on the Biltrrore Site at this time may be premature in staff's opinion. The City Council is in the process of appointing a connrittee to examine and reconnend uses for the Biltmore Site which will then be placed on the ballot. Rezoning the property at this tine could be misleading since any project needs to await the City decision process . To rezone the Thonpson and Prianns properties would bring the zoning into conformance with the general plan and at the s~ tine, it would ease the process for a potential developer on these sites. It will, h ONever , exclude manufacturing use and make manufacturing use on that property legal , nonconfonning. She stated that she held a ~eting with the owners of the Priarros s ite, and they were supportive of the zone change. She had not had any discussions with the owners of the Thorrpson property, hONever, it was her understanding from agents seeking to develop the property, that future connercial use of the property is being considered. She stated that she has received no opposition from any of the owners in response to the notification. Pub lie Hearing opened at 9: 04 P .M. Mike Franzel, 15 15th Street, Henrosa Beach , representing Pacifi c Hon:eowners Association , urged the Conmission to accept the staff 's reconnendation for the Bilt::rrore site. He stated that there is cons iderable interest and activity in that site, and to wait a few rrore m:mths will not make any difference. Alice Veolobos, 1560 Pacific Coast Highway, Henrosa Beach, owner of the pet clinic, stated that her clinic is located across the s treet from the land in questicn. She stated that there is no sidewalk in front of that lot, vfu.ich she clairred was rather primi. ti ve. She spoke in favor of the proposed zoning. Public Hearing closed at 9: 08 P. M. Chnn. Peirce concurred with staff that the BilttIDre site should be withheld from this particular rezoning until a study is made of the area. Conm. Smith asked what kind of impact the rezone would have on the continued use of manufacturing with regard to the Thompson property. Ms. Sapetto replied that it may continue to be used as manufacturing. The new zone refers to new construction on the site. Conm. Smith asked if the mininrum uses under CPD for the Thompson and Primros properties were C-3. Ms. Sapetto replied in the affinnative. Motion by Chim. Peirce, seconded by Corrm. Brown, to rezone the Thompson and Priamos properties. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Corms . Brown, Shapiro, Smith, Strohecker , Chnn. Peirce None Conms. Izant, Loosli ( PLANNING CCl1MISSION ML""IDTES -Novenber 3, 1982 Page 12 REZONING OF THE 'THCl1PSON11 , 11PRIAMOS 11 AND "BILTMORE" PROPERTIES TO CPD (Cont.) Motion by Chim. Peirce, seconded by Comn. Strohecker, to approve Re~olution P .c. 82-35. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Conms . Brown,. Shapiro, Smith, Strohecker, Chmn. Peirce None Comm . Izant, Loos 1i STAFF REPORTS Cormn. Smith suggested establishing a policy of off-street parallel parking standards by notion. Motion by Corrm. Smith, seconded by Chrrn. Peirce, to send a merro to the Building Dep artrrent to consider all off-street parallel parking stalls to be 8 1 x 24'. No objections. So ordered. Ms. Sapetto stated that staff recomrended instituting a preliminary filing fee for residential planned deve lopn:ents because at the time an application is submitted, the City has a certain tima frarre to make an approval. If the Corrmission needs tine to negotiate with the developer, it would be fair to not ask for the full fee. She had two suggestions, one being that the City could ask for a $75 .00 fee in conformance with the CPD. The other suggestion was for the City to ask for a 10% deposit of the total fee due. Motion by Chrm. Peirce, seconded by Conm. Bram, to adopt Resolution P.C. 82-36. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Conms . BrO'wil, Shapiro , Smith, Strohecker, Clum . Peirce None Conms. Izant, Loosli COMMISSIONERS' ITEMS Conm. Shapiro requested that staff make certain that the packets are complete before they are distributed to the Corrmissioners. Cornn. Shapiro stated that as Secretary of the Corrmission, he will not sign anything which does not have the "AYES" and "NOES. 11 Coom. Shapiro requested that the City Council change the street signs from brown and yellow to a nore appropriate connination. Motion to adjourn at 9: 42 P .M. ( PLANNING C<MITSSION MINUI'ES -Novenber 3, 19 82 Page 13 CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes were approved at a regular neeting of the Planning Corrmi.ssion held on Novenber 16, 1982. J PEIRCE , Cl I q ;vvv yL..- DATE MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON OCTOBER 5, 7982, IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT 8:30 P.M. Meeting called to order at 8:45 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Comms. Brown, Loosli, Shapiro, Smith, Chmn. Peirce ABSENT: Comm. Izant ALSO PRESENT: Pamela Sapetto, Planning Director APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chmn. Peirce noted that there was a sentence missing from Page 70, Paragraph 2, of the minutes of September 21, 7982. He stated that it should read: That 35 of the 770 lots are over 8,000 square feet, thus could be developed as condominiums instead of 11 granny flats 11 thus leaving 75 units between 6,700 and 8,000. Motion by Chmn. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Shapiro, to approve the September 21 1 7982, minutes as corrected. No objections. So ordered. APPROVAL OF RESOLUTIONS Chmn. Peirce noted that P.C. 82-30 would be moved to the end of the agenda, thus giving the Commissioners an opportunity to review it. Motion by Comm. Smith, seconded ·by Chmn. Peirce, to approve P.C. 82-28 and P.C. 82-29. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Shapi"o, Smith, Chmn. Peirce None Comms. Brown, Loosli Comm. Izant PUBLIC HEARINGS 7502 STRAND -REMODEL OF AN EXISTING CONDOMINIUM UNIT Ms. Sapetto gave staff report. She stated that the Planning Commission approved this seven-unit subdivision in 1974. This approval was granted in accordance with the planned development ordinance at the time. The originally approved tentative map expired1 and the project was approved again in 1975. She stated that the applicant is requesting a modification to their unit which requires Planning Commission approval pursuant to Section 9.5-2S(J) of the Condominium Ordinance. She stated that the modification consists of extending the upper deck of the unit westward to align with the decks of the other units; the area which currently constitutes the deck will be enclosed. This will serve to enlarge the deck and create an enclosed deck area adjacent to the open deck area. The enclosed portion of the deck will be .co.vered with skylights, and the south opening will be enclosed with glass. She stated that the modification will result in an increased livable area of 209 sq. ft. It will also result in a net decrease in private recreation of 704 sq ft. She stated that there is now 210 sq. ft. provided where 150 sq. ft, is the required minimum. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -October 5, 1982 Page 2 1502 STRAND -REMODEL OF AN EXISTING CONDOMINIUM UNIT (Cont,) Ms. Sapetto stated that the existing floor area is 9,951 sq. ft. The applicant is proposing 209 sq ft. more. for a total of 10,160 sq. ft. She stated that tne R-3 requirement is 125%. She stated that since this project already exceeds the current standards of floor area as it was approved prior to the 125% requirement, and the 3% change as proposed is minimal, staff recom:nends approval of the proposal. Chmn. Peirce questioned whether this item would go before the Coastal Commission. Ms. Sapetto replied in the affirmative. Comm. Smith noted that the property is a very clean building with good design, and that it is very well kept. Public Hearing opened at 8:52 P.M. Fred Strib1e, 1502 Strand, Hermosa Beach, applicant, felt that the proposed change is a very modest one. He stated that the change does not extend beyond the boundaries of the building. He stated that it is his intention to make the building as attractive as it is now and to keep the architectural aspects as good as they are. He stated that he has received the approval of the other members of the condominium, who all feel that this is a welcome addition to the property. He stated that he did not intend to enclose this as part of the living area, since the existing bedroom and sliding glass doors that go out to the deck will remain where they are. Public Hearing closed at 9:52 P.M. Chmn. Peirce stated that he went to view the building, and in his opinion the proposed change would pose no problems whatsoever. Motion by Comm. Smith, seconded by Chmn. Peirce, to approve the resolution of the Planning Co1T111ission approving the remodel as a portion of the subdivision as outlined and suggested in the resolution. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Comms. Brown, Loosli, Shapiro, Smith, Chmn. Peirce None Comm. I zant Motion by Chmn. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Shapiro, to approve P.C. 82-31, approving -~_-: the remodel at 1502 Strand.;_-. -, AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Comms. Brown, Loosli, Shapiro, Smith, Chmn. Peirce. None Comm. Izant Chmn. Peirce announced that the Commission's decision may be appeal~d by writing to the City Council within ten days. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -October 5, 1982 Page 3 715 3rd STREET -REQUEST FOR A 6 UNIT CONDOMINIUM. CUP AND TENTATIVE MAP #36125 Ms. Sapetto gave staff report. Staff suggested that, if the Planning Commission determines that this project provides adequate common recreation space, this project be approved, and that the resolution certify such approval be adopted. She stated that if the Planning Commission determined otherwise, then this project should be denied. She stated that in May of 1979 the Planning Commission denied a project for eight units at this address because the site was not deemed physically suitable for proposed density; removal of two low income units from City housing stock; development did not properly utilize topography; and intensified noise and density. In September of 1979, the City Council granted an appeal to this Planning Commission denial, based on merits of revised plans which mitigated the above. Ms. Sapetto stated that this project meets all of the condominium ordinance requirements, except for common recreation space. The project provides 773 square feet of such space, where 800 square feet is required, Furthermore, the space that is provided consists of a spa area, landscaping, and a walkway. Since the condominium ordinance does not provide enough clarity on what is and what isn't common recreation space, the Planning Commission needs to determine whether this walkway adjacent to the spa area is to be calculated as common recreation space, and whether the fact that the project is 27 square feet short of the minimum common recreation space required : is a significant factor. If the Planning Commission determines that this project provides adequate common recreation space, and meets the intent of the condominium ordinance, then staff recommends approval with the standard conditions which are included in the packet, Comm. Brown asked how the condominium ordinance reads and why it is unclear. Ms. Sapetto replied that the condominium ordinance does not define common recreation space, She stated that it gives diminsions for private recreation space but not for common recreation space. She stated that the condominium ordinance is silent on this point, Comm. Brown asked whether this omission was intentional. Chmn. Peirce replied that it is not. He stated that it is very difficult to write an ordinance that contains every possibility. Chmn. Peirce noted that this point came up once before. He stated that the Planning Commission decided that a walkway to the front door could not be included as a part of the common recreation area. He noted that the decision of the Planning Commission was reversed by the City Council on this matter, Chmn. Peirce asked whether the City Council 1 s reversal meant that a standard was set, or that the Planning Commission should go by their standard4 ( PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -October 5, 1982 Page 4 715 3rd STREET -REQU EST FOR A 6 UNIT CONDOMINIUM, CUP AND TENTATIVE MA P #36 125 (Cont.) Ms. Sapetto replied that common sense should take precedence. She stated that the intent of the ordinance is to provide a substantial common recreation space that provides an amenity for the units. She said that in this particular instance, the applicant has provided a spa facility. She stated that in the previous project, there Was no common amenity. Cotm1. Smith asked whether staff could recall what the question was in tenns of improper utilization of the topography and how this plan addresses this issue. Ms. Sapetto stated that the plan was substantially different the first time. Comm. Loosli stated that it was basically bulk. Ms. Sapetto replied in the affirmative. Comm. Smith asked how the housing stock question was addressed at the City Council level . Ms. Sapetto replied that that question was not addressed at the City Council level . Comm. Smith brought up the question that the development did not properly utilize topography. He asked whether that referred to bulk. Ms. Sapetto replied in the affirmative. Comm Smith asked about the intensified noise and density. Ms. Sapetto replied that that relates to the bulk of the density that was originally proposed. Comm. Smith asked whether the City Council did approve the eight units. Ms. Sapetto replied in the affirmative. Ms. Sapetto stated that this plan is a totally different plan than the plan previously submitted. Chmn. Peirce brought up the question of recreational vehicles. Ms. Sapetto replied that this question has come up before. She noted the project at 17th Street. Prior to that project, the Comnission had not required recreationa1 vehicle spaces at any ratio. She stated that the applicant at the 17th Street project did ultimately come back with a plan that provided recreational vehicle parking. She stated that this was not a condition of approval by the City Council. Comm. Loosli asked whether the walkway was adjacent to the spa. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -October 5, 1982 Page 5 715 3rd STREET -REQ UEST FO R A 6 UNIT CONDOMINIUM , CUP AND TENTATIVE MAP #36125 (Cont.) Ms. Sapetto replied in the affirmative. Comm. Loosli noted that in the other plan. the applicant was using walkways that went to the front door of the unit. Chmn. Peirce noted that it is a slightly different interpretation. Comm. Brown felt that this a nice project. He felt that the applicant has more than met the requirements. He questioned whether something should be done in the way of setting a precedent to provide for the future in terms of walkways. Ms. Sapetto replied that staff would like to see a policy statement from the Commi.i&ion as to when a walkway would be included and when it would not. Comm. Brown stated that he would like to see something like that done. He noted his concern for the future. Chmn. Peirce felt that it is a good idea from a long-range perspective. Comm. Shapiro asked if the common recreation space was met, would this issue still come before the Planning Commission. Ms. Sapetto replied in the affirmative. She stated that a project would come before the Commission any time it is a subdivision. Comm. Shapiro asked what is more important, the 27 feet that is lacking or the walkway. Ms. Sapetto replied that it is a matter of interpretation. She felt that the question is whether the Commission wishes to include walkways at any time, and, if so, under what conditions. She stated that she did not feel that the 27 feet is a significant factor. Public Hearing opened at 9:07 P.M. Michael Jukes, 121 3/4 South Broadway. Redondo Beach, applicant, stated that he plans to occupy one of the units being built. He stated that when the plans were originally submitted, all units were to be three bedrooms and two and a half baths. He stated that he obtained a negative declaration on the environmental impact study. He stated that at that time, he was under the impression that he did have adequate common area space for the amount of square footage. Since that time a slight modification has been made to the floor plans of two of the units. Approximately 400 square feet of living space has been eliminated, He stated that this should provide for the adequate common area space. Comm. Loosli asked the applicant when the new plans were submitted. Mr. Jukes replied that they were submitted on September 26. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -October 5, 1982 Page 6 715 3rd STREET -REQ UEST FO R A 6 UNIT CONDOMINI UM, CUP AN D TENTATIVE MAP #36 125 (Cont .) Mr. Jukes replied that after going through the environmental impact study, a negative decla·ration was obtained. He stated that they were concerned about the common area space, and they implied that he had enough recreational space at that time. Mr. Jukes stated that he tried to design the project so that it would fit in with the neighborhood. He stated that he designed it to complement the neighborhood with the appearance of single-family residences, rather than an apartment-type structure of condominiums. He felt that he has succeeded in doing this. Comm. Smith asked Mr. Jukes if he thought·: famH1es would buy these three-bedroom units. Mr. Jukes stated that he has no way of knowing the answer to that question. He said that that is what he is aiming for, though. Comm. Smith asked whether the property is currently up for sale. Mr. Jukes replied that it is, and that he has made an offer on the property, and the offer has been accepted. He said that the property is currently owned by the bank. Conm1; Smith asked whether the City requires evidence of an agreement between the owner and the bank. Ms. Sapetto replied in the negative. She stated that the City requires the owner's signature on the application in concurrence that the project can be approved. She stated that the signature should be on the conditional use permit application. Chmn. Peirce asked Mr. Jukes whether he considered having the buildings be attached. He felt that there would be additional space if the six buildings were attached. Mr. Jukes replied that he hadn 1 t really considered that. He felt that the plan is the highest and best use for the property, rather than putting eight '.~nits in there. He feels that the detached plan is much more appealing. He felt there is more privacy with the six units detached. He felt that the space between the buildings gives space to the younger child. Corrm. Loosli asked whether there are any walls between the units. Mr. Jukes replied that there will be retaining walls. Comm. Loosli asked whether the condominium ordinance says anything about detached condos. He said that he thoughtcondos had to be attached. Ms. Sapetto replied that they do not. Comm. Loosli asked Mr. Jukes if he felt that this was the best use of open space, PLANNING· COMMISSION MINUTES -October 5, 1982 Page 7 715 '3rd 'STREET ·~·REQ UEST 'FOR 'A 6 UNIT 'CONDOMINIUM, CUP AND TENTATIVE MAP #36125 '(Cont.1 Mr. Jukes stated that he felt it is because of the privacy factor. Comm. Smith asked Mr. Jukes whether he felt that this is adequate space for small children. Mr. Jukes stated that there will be private yards in between each unit. He felt that there is adequate recreation space. Comm. Loosli stated that he did not feel this was a very good use of land from a planning standpoint. Public Hearing closed at 9:21 P.M, Chmn. Peirce felt that the applicant has met all of the requirements. He felt that the 27 feet is not a major concern. Comm. Smith felt that this project would not particularly enhance family living in Hermosa Beach. He felt that the kinds of families that could afford these units will not buy them. He did not feel that the recreation space would be attractive for children; however, he stated that he will support approval of this project because he felt that it meets the requirements of the ordinance. Motion by Comm. Shapiro, seconded by Comm. Brown, to approve the project and adopt the resolution. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Comms. Brown, Loosli, Shapiro, Smith, Chmn. Peirce None Comm. Izant Motion by Chmn. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Smith, to approve P.C. 82-32. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Comms. Brown, Loosli, Shapiro, Smith, Chmn. Peirce None Comm. Izant STAFF REPORTS Ms. Sapetto stated that she would like a policy statement from the Commission on the issue of walkways. Comm. Brown insisted that something be done on that issue. Chmn. Peirce suggested saying that any walkway leading to a private residence door be excluded from the common recreation area Comm. Loosli suggested saying walkways are not included, period, Ms. Sapetto stated that it could simply be used as a policy for staff to follow. in their interpretation of the ordinance. Chmn. Peirce stated that, other than the policy statement he just mentioned, that the Commission should try to exclude walkways leading PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -October 5, 1982 Staff Rep orts (cont.) Page 8 to private residences, front or back doors, and that the Commission take it on a case-by-case basis. Comm. Loosli suggested, rather than limiting it to private walkways, walk- ways in general should not be considered as public open space. Ms. Sapetto continued with staff report. Ms. Sapetto passed out copies of the minutes of the City Council meeting held on September 28, 1982. She stated that the Commission recommended to establish an ad hoc committee and institute a sunset provision for those in-lieu fees. The Council acted instead to request that members of the Planning Commission, members fo the Vehicle Parking District, and the Chamber of Corrmerce, and the subcommittee for the downtown area, meet before the eity Council meeting of October 26 to give the Council a reco!Mlendation on where they want to go with the downtown area. Ms. Sapetto stated that she is tentatively trying to schedule this meeting for Thursday October 14, 1982, at 8:00 A.M. Comm. Smith asked what the purpose was of reconvening a meeting that has already taken place. Ms. Sapetto replied that the Council felt, since they had not been present at that meeting, that they would like to participate in the same meeting again. They also did not feel comfortable with the formation of an ad hoc committee. They felt the timeframe was too long. Chum. Peirce suggested bringing the 18-month timeframe down to a sub- stantially shorter perior. Comm. Smith felt that that would be fine, but there was nothing to pre- vent the Council from doing that. Chmn. Peirce concurred with Connn. Smith 1 s suggestion of having another meeting. Ms. Sapetto felt that the City Council would perhaps like to have more input from the suggested meeting before they act on the in-lieu provision. Chmn. Peirce felt it is necessary to try to determine what the longrange goals will be for the d9wntown area. He felt that the group should try to determine what the goals and directions should be. Comm. Smith asked whether this group was to take the place of an ad hoc committee. Chmn. Peirce replied in the affirmative. He replied that there is a need for a group 'with its focus on the downtown area. Comm. Smith stated that he was at a loss as to the lack of specificity. Violet Isgreen state that se was at the meeting. She stated that there was a recommendation to have eleven members on the ad hoc committee. The Council felt that eleven is far too many, because it is too difficult to come to any determination with that many people. u PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -October 5, 1982 STAFF REPORTS (Cont.) Page 9 Ms. Sapetto also noted some other workshop sessions that she had planned. Chmn. Peirce noted that workshop sessions should be scheduled to accommodate Comms. Shapiro and Brown. since they would benefit most from the meetings. Ms. Sapetto noted that Wedhesday, November 3, 1982, at 5:30 P.N. will be the first workshop. Chmn. Peirce asked for the status on parking on the west side of Pacific Coast Highway after Cal Trans finished there. Ms. Sapetto replied that Cal Trans said that they would like to see the parking removed. One of the things they are trying to do is to link up a third lane for southbound traffic during rush hour, They are presently negotiating with Redondo Beach on this matter. If they can get a consensus :with Redondo 1 they will remove the parking in the southbound lanes. Chmn. Peirce requested that staff give the Planning Commission periodical updates on this matter. Cbmn. Peirce noted some conferences~that are being held that might be of benefit to the new Commissioners. Ms. Sapetto urged the commissioners to attend the conferences if they are able to do so. COMMISSIONERS 1 ITEMS Comm. Smith suggest·ed that when a new ordinance is put into effect, that the old ordinance be lined through so it is possible to see exactly what has been changed. Ms. Sapetto replied that that is a very good idea. She stated that that can be done. Ms. Sapetto stated that she would include the changes of the revision to the City Council. (P.C. 82-30) Motion by Chmn. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Smith. to approve P.C. 82-30, with the changes made by staff. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Shapiro, Smith. Chmn. Peirce None Comms. Brown, Loosli Comm. Izant Comm. Shapiro thanked staff for the commission policies and especially No. 9. Motionby Chmn, Peirce, seconded by Comm. Shapiro, to adjourn at 9:54 P.M. ) u PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -October 5, 1982 Page 10 GERTI FI CATION I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes were approved at a regular meeting of the Planning Corrrnission held on October 19, 1982. Jt,SPEIRCE~ IRMAN 1l-}-t1- DATE ( MINUTES OF THE PLANNING CCMMISSION OF HERMOSA BEA.CH HELD ON SEPTEMBER 21, 1982, IN THE CITY HAIL COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT 7: 30 P .M. Meeting called to order at 7: 34 P .M. by Chnn. Izant ROIL C'.ALL PRESENT: Conms. Peirce , Shapiro, Smith, Chan. Izant ABSENr : Conrn. I.Dos 1i ALSO PRESENT: Pamela Sapetto, Planning Director; Ralph Casteneda, T0C Planning; Alfred Mercado, Planning Aide; Dana Stoike, Planning Intern APPROVAL OF MINUTES Conm. Smith suggested that Conm. Shapiro be presented with a copy of the downtown parking study in response to his request concerning the p arking situation in the area of 10th Street and Henrosa Avenue. (Page 5, Septerrber 7, 1982 minutes.) Chmn. Izant concurred with Corrm. Smith I s suggestion. Motion by Cornn. Smith, seconded by Comn. Shapiro, to approve the September 7, 1982 minutes. No objections. So ordered. Chnn. Izant infonred the audience that Item 117, Ccmsideration of Irql lementing a Coornercial Planned DevelopIIE.I1.t zone on the PriamJs Property, the Thorrpson Property and the Biltrrore Site, had been withdrawn from the agenda due to :inproper noticing. He stated that it would be renoticed for a later date. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1208 arid 2110 MONTEREY BLVD. -PARCEL MAP 15309 , 2 UNIT CONVERSION 1'1s. Sapetto introduced Dana Stoik.e to the Comni.ssion. Ms. Stoik.e gave staff report. She stated that the analysis included the zoning analysis and an issue that pertains to the condorninitm1 conversion as part of that housing elerrent. She noted that the analysis described the project as exceeding the general plan density requirements, the general plan allowing 13 du/ac, and the proj ect being 32. 99 du/ac. The project exceeded the ma.x:i.Im.nn allowable lot coverage by 1 percent, Code allowing 64 percent , and the project being 65 percent. The height of the front unit exceeded the ma.ximJrn height of the zone by 1. 5 feet, ma.x:i.Im.nn allowable being 30 feet. The parking was sufficient. There was not sufficient recreation space in either unit. Code requires that there be 150 sq. ft. usable open space per unit with a mininrum of seven (7) feet in any one spot. The front unit had only 114 sq. ft; the rear uiit had 373 sq. ft. of open space, but 310 sq. ft. of the space is covered by a patio. The Code only allows that 50 percent of the open space be c.overed. She stated that the front setbacks are adequate; h~ver, the side setbacks are under allowable by 1/2 foot. The rear setbacks on the ground floor and the second floor are both below the minimum. The rn:inimJm unit size for both wits is below the minimum required by Code . The front PLANNlliG CCMMISSION MINlJI'ES -Septerrber 21, 1982 Page 2 1208 and 2110 MONTEREY 'BLVD. ...: PARCEL MAP 15309 , ·z UNIT COOVERSICN (Cont.) unit is 1466 sq. ft. , 1600 sq. ft. are required. Eight huidred and ten square feet are provided in the rear unit, and 900 sq. ft. are required. Conm.. Peirce stated that the floor space is over allowable, not the lot coverage. He noted that the floor area is 86, as opposed to 85. Ms. Stoike stated that the applicant contends that this project should be considered regardless of the general plan because of a section in the governIIElt code v.hich stipulates that condominilDil conversions do not have to ~et the condominium conversion requiretrnnts unless there are definite objectives and policies directed at the conversion of existing buildings into condominiums. Staff concluded that there are certain objectives and policies stated in the Housing Element directed toward condominium conversions; therefore, staff maintained that the applicant's contention is not correct because there are policies and objectives directed toward condominium conversions. She noted that even if the position is taken that the general plan does not apply to this project, the city still has the right to review all the projects to detennine if they are consistent with the zoning code. Canm. Shapiro asked whether it was the turret in the front of the house which made the height over allowable. Ms. Stoike replied that the entire roof was over allowable. Cc:mn. Smith stated that it was the rear unit that was in excess of the height requirerrent as noted on the staff report and suggested resolution. Ms. Stoike replied that the staff report was in error, and it was the height of the front unit that was in excess of the allowable. Ccxmi. Shapiro asked whether the rear unit was the only unit in violation of the proper setbacks. Ms. Stoike replied that the rear setbacks were deficient. Conm. Shapiro asked if the duplex, men constructed, net all of the requirements of a duplex on that lot. Ms. Stoike replied that it mist have rr:et the requirements at the ti.Ire it was constructed. Conm. Peirce asked if it needed a variance because the back unit is nonconfonning. Ms . Stoike rep lied that she was not certain if it required a variance. U Comn. Shapiro asked if the front house was a re.rrodel or new construction . Ms. Stoike replied that it was existing. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -September 21, 1982 Page 3 1208 and 2110 MONTEREY 'BLVD. ~ PARCEL MAP 15309 , ·2 UNIT COl'.\1\TERSION (Cont.) Chnn. Izant stated that lhit A was constructed on 11/79 and conpleted on 10/81; lhit B was constructed as a duplex on 4/15/22, and converted to a single farrd.ly dwelling and rerrodel on 1/1/79. Public Hearing opened at 7 :55 P .M. Steve Kaplan, 1413 Sepulveda Boulevard , Manhattan Beach, stated that he and Mr. Bill Ross represent the owner for this project. He stated that the project was ~ritorious, even though there was a negative staff report submitted. He stated that the project consisted of a quality building and would add a great deal to the connrunity. He stated that his argurrent is three-fold, those argurrents pertaining to the subdivision map, the condominium conversion ordinclnce, and the reasons why the city should grant this project. He stated that the letter of August 30 to the Planning and Environrrental Services section of the city stated that the Subdivision Map Act deliniates within it findings that a city must make before they can approve a condominium conversion being a subdivision. In 1978, a section was brought into the Subdivis ion Map Act that s aid that those provisions did not apply unless the city had passed specific language in its general plan that spoke to the condominium conversions and mandated that conversions ~et present day standards that would apply to new construction. If it did not have that exact language, a subdivision to an existing dwelling could not be denied as long as it met other applicable ordinances within the city. He stated that it was his position that the Housing Elenent as referenced in the September 9, 1982 letter from the c ity is not the sufficient general plan criteria that the state law was spe aking to. He noted that on the second page, second p aragraph , Ms. Sapetto state d that "even if the Hous ing Ele.IIEnt is suspect. . . 11 He did not believe it was an integrated part of the general plan. If it is not, he stated that they would take the positim that Section 66427.2 of the Subdivision Map Act would apply, and they would take the benefit of that section. He believed it should b e judged solely on the merits of the city's condominium conversion ordinance. Collin. Peirce asked Mr. Kaplan if he were maintaining that the Housing Elenent was not part of the general plan. Mr. Kaplan replied that if one were to read the general plan in sun, it would not be apparent that there was l anguage ill it in terms of density that would alert a prospective property owner that i f he chose to subdivide his air space, he would have to reet present day density standards. Comn. Peirce again questioned whether Hr. Kaplan were maintaining that the Housing Element is not part of the general plan. Mr. Kaplan replied in the negative. He stated that if one read the general plan, one i;..ould not see the appropriate language in the general plan. He stated that he was not aware where the Housing Elenent was in tenns of the general plan. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -September 21, 1982 Page 4 1208 and 2110 MONTEREY ·m.vn. -PARCEL MAP 15309, '2 "UNIT CONVERSION (C',ont. ) Conm. Snith asked the applicant if his argunent was that in reading the general plan including the Hous:ing Elerrent, it does not address specifically the issue of density to the extent that it warns a buyer sufficiently. Mr. Kaplan replied that the above was a fair representation of his position. He noted that Section 9.5-2 of the C',ondominiurn Ordinance gives the Planning Comnission and the City Council the power to deviate if there are unusual cirCU1I1Stances regarding the development, location, size, or configuration of the property. He believed that section of the Condominit.m Ordinance would enable the Commission to make the appropriate findings. Conm. Smith asked the applicant if he believed the project were :in substantial corrpliance. Mr. Kaplan replied that there are a nurrber of defects, but they are all relatively minor. Conm. Smith asked mat unusual circunstances would c.arry weight with this particular project. Mr. Kaplan asked how the project could be deficient. He asked why that project was allowed to be built in the first place. If it did not rreet the R-2 standards when it was built, why is it now being called upon. He believed that it were an unusual circunstance that the building was allowed to be built in an R-2 zone, and now it is being called nonconforming. Conm. Shapiro asked if there was a variance granted for the project. Mr. Kaplan replied in the negative. Mr. Kaplan continued, stating that the density was high, although it was his position that by changing the legal nature of the property in the condominium, the intent of the general plan is not being impacted to any great extent other than providing a more permanent form o f ownership , as opposed to a transient rental situation. With regard to the excess of height, he believed the deviation was not that extrerre. He stated that the architect failed t o indicate storage space in the p lans ; ho~ver, storage space will be built to Code. ~ asked how the setbacks could be divergent to Code when appropriate permits had to be pulled to build the addition. He believed that, with regard to unit size, people who want to live close to the beach are willing to give up c.ertain things. He stressed that the building is extrerrely well-built, and it is aesthetically pleasing. He urged the Comnission to consider the section of the ordinance which allows them to deviate fran the strict specifics of the ordinance and approve the project. Comn. Shapiro asked if most of the deviations were in the rear unit. Mr. Kaplan replied in the affirmative. PLANNIN3 COM1ISSIOO MINUI'ES -September 21, 1982 Page 5 1208 and 2110 MONTEREY BLVD. -PARCEL MAP 15309 , 2 UNIT CONVERSION (Cont. ) Ms. Sapetto stated that the standards for duplex developrrent are not as strict as the standards for condominium developrrent . With respect to the unit sizes, the unit sizes for condominiums require larger units than they do for apartnEnt units or duplexes. She stated that the above i s the reason that the duplex was in confonnance with duplex standards, but was not in confm:mance with condominiun s tandards . She infonred the CoIIIllission that staff corrpared it to condominium. standards, and those standards were the standards used in the .Analysis. She added that the setbacks are con£onning on the new unit; they are nonconforming on the rear unit. Conm. Peirce stated that the height, recreation space, and minim.lm unit size were nonconfornrlng on the front unit. Ms. Sapetto stated that last year the City Council made a ruling that height was t o be calculated by the eristing grade, and the eristing grade was to be determined by the grade that could be determined between eristing street levels. Prior to that , the building height was calculated on the existing grade at the tine of construction on that lot. She noted that this is the reason the height was calculated at 31 feet on the duplex, as opposed to 30 feet. Comn. Shapiro asked for the nane of the owners. Mr. Kaplan replied that the narre of his client is Mr. Ofeld. Comm. Shapiro asked how the density was all~d i.mder R-2 standards. Ms. Sapetto replied that duplex construction or apartlIEnt construction are considered ministerial, neaning that they do not have to have a review to detennine if they are in conformance with the general plan. She noted that this is the one reason why zoning should b e in conformance 'With the general plan. Duplex construction does not cone 1.nder a general plan review. Jerry Newton, 2110 lDma, Hermosa Beach,stated that he owned the property directly behind the proposed condominium. conversion. He stated that the notice of the hearing that was on the second unit gave the date of September 7. He noted that there are other residents an Loma Drive in opposition to the proposed project who -were not aware this item was on the agenda at this particular tine. He stated that the older unit has two garage doors, but they have never been used as garages. One has been used as storage. The. renters have never parked in the garages; they have parked on the street. vhen they park on the street, he cla.irred he cannot get out of his garage. If the second unit is converted to a condominium, it would be inexcusable. He stated that, at this tine, he cannot park in his garage. He added that he is opposed to lot spliting in this fashion and creating additional units on loma Drive. Leslie Newton, 2110 Loma, Hernosa Beach, stated that the damage had already been done by allowing a second unit. She stated that if the staff report is PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -September 21, 1982 Page 6 1208 and 2110 M:>NI'EREY BLVD. -PARCEL MAP 15309, 2 UNIT CONVERSICN (Cont.) adopted, and the lot split is not granted, sone day the owner may abate the second unit. She noted that she was in favor of strict enforcemmt of the zoning law'S. She believed the conversion was rrerely for profit. Wilma Burt, 1152 Seventh Street, Hernx>sa Beach, stated that there was no reason to do away with apartrrents for the sake of condos. She stated that if it cannot rreet the code, it should not be allowed. Public Hearmg closed at 8: 24 P .M. Conm. Peirce asked if the building permits were for a duplex or a single family house. Cornn. Smith stated that it was originally a duplex and converted later to a single family house. Ms. Sapetto replied that the only way to ascertain what had happened would be to do a master file and a report on the history. Motion by Crum. Izant, seconded by Cornn. Peirce, that the Planning Comnission deny the plan and reconnend to the City Council that it not be approved for the reasons stated on Pages 4 and 5 of the staff report. Chnn. Izant stated that the general plan is enforced. He stated that the deficiencies may be smtll; however, when added together, the project does not rreet the standards. Corrm. Shapiro pointed out that the density problem is the sane as before; the floor area is 1 percent over allowable; the lot coverage is 1 percent over allowable; parking rreets the requirenents; the recreation space and the minimum unit size is below allo-wable, but the buyer realizes that he must make exceptims for living at the beach; the storage is going to m?et Code; the setbacks an the £rant are sufficient; the setback en the rear unit does not IIEet Code, but that unit has been there for a nunher of years. He stated that he has seen the building, and he believed it was a trenendous asset to the City of Herm:,sa Beach. Coran. Peirce stated that the general plan was written under the precept that there is a difference between a condominium and an apart:Irent. He stated that this project has serious defects in several areas. He noted that the project is above the density, and it is deficient in other areas. le stated that one either believes a condon:dnium is a condominium, or me believes that a condominium is an apart:Irent. Cornn . &nith stated that the building is definitely a quality building; however; he was not quite satisfied with the facts. He believed there ~re no·unusual circumstances, and the building does not substantially conform to the Condominium Ordinance as it currently stands. • • Conm. S'iapiro asked if the City Attorney had given his opinion on this matter. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -September 21, 1982 Page 7 1208 and 2110 MONT EREY BLVD. -PARCEL MAP 15309, 2 UNIT CONVERSION (Cont.) Ms. Sapetto replied that she consulted with the City Attorney, and he agreed with staff's interpretation. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Corruns. Peirce, Smith, Chmn. Izant Connn. Shapiro Comm. Loos 1-i Motion by Chmn. Izant, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to approve Resolution P.C. 82-28 with the correction that the front unit is over the allowable height, as opposed to the rear unit. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Comms. Peirce, Smith, Chmn. Izant Comm. Shapiro Corrun. Loos l i Chm. Izant announced that the Commission 1 s decision may be appealed by writing to the City Council within ten days. AMENDMENT TO SE CTION 11 67 OF THE ZONING CODE: METHOD FOR DEC ID ING WHETHER PARKING SPAC ES OR FE ES SHALL BE PROVIDED IN TH E VPD , DIST RICT #1 -CONTINU ED FROM SE PTEMBER 7, 1982 Mr. Casteneda gave staff report. He stated that this is a continued item, from September 7, 1982. At that time, the Commission considered certain revisions and modifications to the ordinance. The Corrmission agreed that it would be beneficial to have a joint meeting with members of the VPD and the Chamber of Corrunerce to discuss the areas of common interest on this particular matter. A meeting was held on September 17, at which time Chmn. Izant, Comm. Smith, three members of the VPD, Mr. Fowler, and staff attending the meeting. It appeared that there was basic support for the procedure of an in-lieu fee; however, before it could become an effective tool for the city in the downtown area, some guidelines for the downtown area were needed. For this reason, the principal recommendation was to establish a recommendation to be:·forwarded to the City Council suggesting the establishment of an ad hoc advisory group on a volunteer basis to be called the Land Use Development Committee to deal with the entire area of development in the downtown area. They would establish guidelines for the City Council with an 18-month period of existence. Coinciding with this particular reconmendation would be to have a sunset clause provision for the in-lieu fee not to last longer than the 18-month period and to establish the in-lieu fee amount as $1,000 to $6,000. He believed there was unanimous tonsensus on these points; however, be believed the Chamber had some concern with the magnitude of the fee amount. In essence, the recommendation was to recommend to the City Council the establishment of an ad hoc group to examine land use in the downtown area and to approve the in-lieu fee provision on an interim basis with some modifications. Public Hearing opened and Closed at 8:43 P.M. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -September 21, 1982 Page 8 AMENDMENT TO SECTION 1167 OF THE ZON ING CODE: MET HOD FO R DECIDING WH ETHER PARKIN G SP ACES OR FEES SHALL BE PROV ID ED IN THE VPD, DISTRICT #1 -CONTIN UED FROM SE PTEMBER 7, 1982 (Cont.) Chmn. Izant stated that the City Council had ashed the Planning Commission and the VPD if there should be certain allowances made if there were mitigating circumstances for a business to pay an in-lieu fee rather than to provide the actual parking. He stated that the majority of the subcommittee members agreed to a fee amount of $6,000; however, he stated that some believed that was too high, and some believed that was too low. He asked the Commission to consider whether this should apply to everyone and should it be a lesser amount if there was a business that fell into a desirable category to encourage more than others. Chmn. Izant stated that he would like to knwo whether there was support from the Commission as a whole for recommending to the City Council a ad hoc advisory group, and, if so, what would be the composition of that group. Secondly, he stated that the Commission should come to the consensus on recommending an in-lieu fee to the City Council. Comm. Peirce agreed that Chmn. Izant;s above suggestion to form an ad hoc committee must be developed. Comm Smith stated that the purpose of the in-lieu fee is to provide actual parking. He concurred that an ad hoc committee should be formed, especially to determine the direction of the downtown area. Comm. Shapiro al,so concurred that an ad hoc committee should be formed. Motion by Chmn. Izant, seconded by Comm. Smith, that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that an Ad Hoc Advisory Group be formed consisting of the following members; two (2) Planning Commission members; two {2) members from the VPD; two (2) members from the Chamber of Commerce; two (2) business or property owners, and; three (3) residents not in business in Hermosa Beach. The purpose of the Ad Hoc Committee would be to suggest a series of recommendations for the development of the downtown area. This group should complete its guidelines and recommendations within an 18-month period. AYES NOES: ABSENT: Comms. Peirce, Shapiro, Smith, Chmn. Izant None Comm. Loosli Motion by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Chmn. Izant, to have a sunset ordinance and establish an in-lieu fee of $6,000. The sunset ordinance is to expire 18 months after its approval from the City Council. (MOTION WITHDRAWN) Chmn. Izant asked if Comm. Peirce would accept an addition to the motion, that being that there be a condition that no more than 50 percent of the parking spaces are able to be purchased by the person asking for the in-lieu fee. He stated that they have a theoretical available deficit of 100 parking spaces. Theoretically, two or three projects would come in and PLANNING CCM1ISSION MlNUTES -Septen:ber 21, 1982 Page 9 AMENIMENT TO SECTION 116 7 OF THE ZONING aJDE: METHOD FOR DECIDING WHETHER PARKING SPACES OR 'FEES 'SHAU. • m 'PROVIDED ·rn THE VPD' "DISTRICT 'ffl -aJNTINUED FROM .SEPI'EMBER '7 ,· 1982 (Cont.) each buy 33 spaces a piece. Therefore, no in-lieu fees could be gi. ven to anyone else since they would be precluded to any further developmmt downtown. Cornn. Peirce rejected the above anE1dnent. Cornn. ~th suggested that rather than do a formal resolution, the Ccmni.ssian should make a notion that states that the Planning COtlllli.ssion feels that if the City Council is interested in the ad hoc conmittee, a sunset ordinance should be developed in the interim that parallels the corrmi..ttee. Corrm. Peirce's concern was t hat this be accooplished in a ti.nely f ashion. He stated that he could change the nntion to note that if an advisory corrm:Lttee is fonred, the Planning Conmissicn r e conmmds that an ordinance be passed that a $6,000 in-lieu fee be established for 18 rronths. Comn. Shapiro state d that the Comni.ssion agrees that an advisory comnittee urust be forried; hm;ever, the anount of the in-lieu fee is still under dispute. Cl:um. I z ant s tated that the Planning Conmission should reconnend to the City Council that, if it is concurred that an Ad Hoc Corrmi.ttee needs to be established, a tenporary in-lieu fee structure should be set up at $6,000, and a terrporary in-lieu fee ordinance should be set up which would be draw:i up by the Coumission . Or, if the City Comcil does not accept the need for a plan, a pennanent ordinance needs to be consi dered, and the Planning Com:ni.ssion will resubmit answers to the four questions in the form of a pennanent ordinance. Motion by Comn. Peirce, seccnded by Chnn . Izant, that the Plarming Conmission reca:immd that if an Ad lbc Ccmn:i.ttee is foitied, that a sunset ordinance be established by the Planning Coomission in the am:mnt of $6,000 on an interim basis to expire 18 tronths after approval from the Council, and if the Ad I-be Comni.ttee is not formulated, the Planning Coamission reconmends a permanent ordinance which will answer the four questions previously asked by the Council. AYES: NOES: AB.SENT : Comm. Peirce, 9ni.th, Chnn. Izant CoIIIID.. Shap iro Conrn.. Loos l i Re cess from 9:12 P.M. to 9:17 P.M. SECOND 'LIMITS ON R..:l I.DTS FOR SENIORS OVER 6,700 SQUARE FEET, PJ...00 KNOvJN AS ·"GRANNY F1ATS " Mr. M:rcado gave staff report . He presented a map of all the lots that were 6 700 or rrore square feet north of Pier Avenue and Aviaticn. He stated that in Septenber of 1981, SB 1160 was passed into law, allowing for the construction of a second unit on R-1 lots . He noted that the report is PI.ANNlliG COMMISSION MJNurES -Septerrber 21, 1982 Page 10 SEOOND LIMITS ON R-1 LOTS FOR SENIORS OVER 6 ,700 SQUARE FEET , ALS'.) KNOWN AS "GRANNY FLATS" (C,ont.) being returned to the c.onmi.ssion with two major revisions, me being that second units are being proposed for lots of at least 6,700 square feet and that the ma:timum second unit size be 900 square_ feet. le stated that the 6, 70 0 square foot figure had been chosen because a lot of this size with two units would equal 13 du/ac; the maxim.lIIl penrri.tted in the low density catagory of the general plan. Of the 2,283 R-1 lots in the City, 110 of them are at least 6,700 square feet. He stated that the City Council was requesting that the Commission consider second units at a maximum square footage of 900 square feet. c.omm. ~th stated that, in effect, 75 'lIDits "WOuld be affected. Public Hearing opened at 9 :23 P .M. Wilma Burt, 1152 Seventh Street, Henrosa Peach, stated that the county notified her that her lot is 5,000 sq. ft. , which the city claims is only one lot; the county says it is two lots, and by the ruling of the county it is two lots; therefore, she clained she was entitled to have two units on her 5,000 sq. ft. The county said that this information was given to Mr. Alton :in February and was held up by Mr. Wi dman because he did not want it made known just before the election. The infonnation is that the canbining of these lots was not done legally by notification and other ramifications of which can be supplied by Mr. Alton; therefore, the combined lots that the C.onmission is now speaking of are not ccmbined lots. She stated that roost of that area was divided in 25 x 100 lots. She noted that she had two lots, 50 at 25 x 100. According to Mr. Alton I s staterrent, she does have two lots; therefore, the City cannot call her lot a canbined lot. She stated that the ~' s Club has three lots , one of which is at the comer of Prospect and Aviation and is 25 x 100. She stated that the County was upset that they would have to refund a great deal of tax mmey to the WJrren' s Club who had been paying on three lots, and that the City had never notified them of any changes of lots . She stated that the county will have to pay her a great deal of mmey for the years that the City said it was a combined lot. She stated that she knows of a man who has 7 ,500 sq. ft. , and he is entitled to have three uni ts, because he has three lots . Public Hearing closed at 9:32 P.M. C.Omn. Peirce stated that increasing the square footage of the lots does not alter his position that an R-1 area is an R-1 area. He stated that there is a very large potential for bootlegs, and it will destroy the character of sOIIE of the R-1 areas. He did not believe that this type of plan justified the change. Conm. Shapiro stated that he was not satisfied with the plans for senior citizens. He stated that he would agree with staff's second alternative, that the floor space be 640 sq. ft. to conform with the state's requirerr.ents. le added that this would have the least impact. PLANNING CCMMISSION :MINUTES -Septen:ber 21, 1982 Page 11 SECOND LIMITS ON R-1 IDTS FOR 'SENIORS OVER 6, 700 SQUARE FEET, ALSO KNO~ AS "GRANNY 'FLATS" (Cont.) Cl:mn. Izant agreed that the irrpact would be minimal , but he believed that the concept of R-1 zoning IIEaning single family housing is rrost irrq:lDrtant. Motion by Chnn. Izant, seconded by Coran. Snith, that the Planning Cormrission recorrrrend to the City Council to deny the proposal for second units in R-1 lots for the following reasons: to build a second tnit in an R-1 zone, regardless of its intended use, would contradict the basic premise for R-1 zoning; there is no way to enforce a senior citizen ordinance by a deed restriction or any other m:ans, and; that the recomrendation of 900 sq. ft. violates the recomrended state law of 640 sq. ft. Conm. Shapiro stated that he would support the rotion; however, he wished to add that the Conmission would support a lot size of 8,000 sq. ft. in the R-1 zone. Chrm. Izant did not accept the above arnendnent. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENI': ComIB. Peirce, S:nith, Chrm. Izant None Conm. ~apiro Comn. Loosli .c.oom. Ehapiro stated that he abstained from vote because he did not see enough detail of what is being proposed for senior citizens. Motion by Chnn. Izant, seconded by Conm. anith, to accept Resolution P.C. 82-29 as written by staff wi.th the following addition: ''WHEREAS, the Planning Canmi.ssion has concluded that there is no way to enforce the ordinance through deed restrictions or by any other rreans, and" AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comns. Peirce, Smith, Chim. Izant None Conm. Shapiro Corrm. Loosli OONSIDERATION OF REVISIONS 1D THE ZONJNG OJDE CHAPTER 9. 5 , ARTICLE III. CONSI'RUCTION, MAINTENANCE AND DEVEIDPMENT OF C01MERCIAL/ INDUSI'RIAL C.0Nro1INIUMS AND ARTICLE V, OJNVERSIOOS TO COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL CONDOMINIUMS Mr. Mercado gave staff report. fu stated that the resolution incorporates all of the aIIEndrrents to the cormercial/industrial condominium orclinan~, new constntction and conversions which were approved by the Cormti.ssicn at the Septerrber 7, 1982 IIEeting. Staff felt that it was appropriate to require separate electric neters and shut-off systems for each unit, only if it is required that the developer corrmit to a specific nunber of i.mits. ~arate maters and shut-off systems are best because they provide the greatest degree U of individual tenant control. Unforttnately, the cost for such are rather PLANNING COMMISSION MINUI'ES -September 21, 1982 Page 12 CONSIDERATION OF REVISIONS TO THE ZONING CODE CHAPTER 9. 5 , ARTICLE III. CONsrRUCTION, MAINI'ENANCE AND DEVELOPMENT ·oF COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL CONDOMINIUMS AND ARTICLE V, CONVERSIONS TO COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL CONJXMINIUMS (Cont. ) prohibitive and therefore mjustified if retrofitting is required. le stated that the City Corneil has requested that the Connrl.ssion review whether the mmer of mits in a conmercial condominium should be regulated at the time of approval. le stated that staff suggested that, although it is not mandatory to establish a number of i.mits at the time. of approval, consideration should be given to the number of parking spaces that will be provided in relation to the number of mits or density created. Staff suggested that density in the long run can be a significant factor . He added that retail and office establishnents need cmly provide one space per 300 sq. ft. of gross floor area. Therefore, a tenant may sublet a portion of his unit without providing additional parking. Staff suggested that at least two parking spaces per 1.ID.it should be required. He stated that the ordinance would have to be arrended to include the following should the Connrl.ssion agree to grant the resolution: "NOW, THER EFORE, .BE JT RESOLVED, that the Planning Corrmission of Hermosa Beach does hereby approve revisions to the Zoning Code, Chapter 9 .5, Articles 3 and 5 of the Contrercial/Industrial Condominium Ordinance." The Caption would read, "A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNTIJG CDMMISSION OF HERM)SA.. BEACH APPROVING REVISICNS TO THE ZONING CODE, CHAPI'ER 9. 5, ARTICLES 3 AND 5 OF THE COM1ERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL CONOOMIN"IUM ORDINANCE.'' Coom. Snith asked for the rationale of having two parking spaces per unit. Mr. Mercado replied that the basic premise is that the ntmher of units one can provide would be lillli.ted by the number of parking spaces one can provide. Public ~aring opened and closed at 9:53 P.M. Motion by Corrm. Shapiro, seconded by Conm. S:nith, to approve the revisions to the Zoning Code to include the establisbrrent of two p arking spaces per unit and to require separate electrical rreters and shut-off systems for each system, and where feasible, gas rreters. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Conms. Peirce, Shapiro, Smith, Chtm. Izant None Corrm. Loosli Motion by Comn. Shapiro, seconded by Comm. Smith, to adopt Resolution P.C. 82-30 approving revisions to the zoning code, Chapter 9,5, Articles 3 and 5 with the revision of two parking spaces per unit and to require separate e lectrical IIBters and shut-off systems for each system, and, where feasible, gas rreters. This notion includes the caption of the resolution as stated above and the last paragraph of the resolution, also stated above. This notion also incorporates the aIIEI1chmnts made for new construction and conversions. AYES: NOES: ABSENI': Corrms . Peirce , Shapiro, Srni. th, Chnn. Izan t None Conm. Loosli ( PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -September 21, 1982 Page 13 COMMISSIONER'S ITEMS Comm. Peirce asked if Mr. Mercado had obtained information as to whether there was going to be three lanes north and south on Pacific Coast Highway. (See September 7, 1982 minutes, Page 15.) Mr. Mercado stated that he would investigate that point. Comm. Smith suggested going through a workshop in terms of taking over the duties of the Improvement Commission. Chmn. Izant asknowledged and concurred with Comm. Smith's suggestion. So ordered. Ms. Sapetto suggested having a workshop an hour before a meeting. Comm. Smith suggested holding a workshop on reading plans. Ms. Sapetto stated that she could set a workshop for that purpose. She stated that she would assign two dated for workshops, along with topic for those workshops. ELECTION OF OFFICERS Ms. Sapetto stated that the office of Chairman will be open until June 30, 1983. Motion by Comm. Shapiro, seconded by Comm. Smith, to reelect Stephan Izant for Chairman. Chmn. Izant respectfully declined. Motion by Chmn. Izant, seconded by Comm. Smith, to elect James Peirce for Chairman for the upcoming year. Chmn. Izant declared that James Peirce will be the Chairman for the 1982-83 season. Motion by Comm. Smith, seconded by Comm. Shapiro, to elect Stephan Izant for Vice-Chairman. Chmn. Izant accepted the position of Vice-Chairman. Motion by Comm. Smith, seconded by Chmn. Iazant, to elect Joel Shapiro to fill the office of Secretary for the upcoming term. Chmn. Izant declared that Joel Shapiro will be Secretary for the upcomming year. Comm. Smith commended Chmn. Izant for his service as Chairman. He described Chmn. Izant as being very equitable and an excellent explainer of the issues at hand in the public hearings. He also acknowledged Chmn. Izant for exhibiting a great deal of patience. Motion to adjourn at 10:11 P.M. ( u PLANNING OOM1ISSION MINUI'ES -September 21, 1982 CEKI'IFICATICN I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes were approved at a regular 11'.Eeting of the Planning Conmission held an October 5, 1982. CREI'ARY DATE Page 14 l., MINUTES OF THE PLANNING CO"'JMISSION OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON SEPTEMBER 7, 1982, IN THE CrI'Y HALL COUNCIL CHATVJBERS AT 7:30 P.M. Meeting call ed to order by Chun . Izant at 7 :35 P .M. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Conm s . Cwrmings, Rue , Shapiro , Smith , Chnn. Izant .ABSENT: Corrms. Loosli, Peirce ALS O PRE SENT: Pamela Sapetto , Planni ng Director; Ralph Casteneda, TDC Planning; Alfred :1'13rcado , Planning Aide Chrnn . Izant noted, that Comm. Loosli was away on bus:iness and t hat Comtn. Peirce was on vacation . APPROVAL OF MINUTES M:>t ion by Cornn. Rue, seconded by Contn . Shapiro , to approve the August 3, 1982, minutes. No objections , so ordered. APPROVAL OF RESOLDrIONS !Ybtion by Cornn . Rue, seconded by Corrm. Cummings, to approve P .C. 82-26 , with the deletion of the second WHERF_Ac;; and P . C. 82-27 , with the stipulation t hat Staff review soelling and grarmnar. AYES : NOES: ABSTAIN : ABS.ENI': Comms. Cummings , Rue, Shapiro , None Comm. Smith Comms . Loosli, Peirce Chnn . Izant .AMENDMENT 'IO SECTION 1167 OF WE ZONI NG CODE: METHOD FOR DECIDING WHETHER PARKING SPACES OR FEES SHALL BE PROVIDED IN THE VPD DISTRICT #1 -CONTINUED FROM AUGUST 3, 1982 Mr . Casteneda presented the staff report . He surrmarized to t he Plann1ng Commission what s t aff fel t were the cooments of t h e Planning Conmission_, as well as the direction of the public testimony , that were given prior to the continuance of the matter t o this meeting. He stated five points : 1 .) To dete nnine a rationale for establishing a fee amount ; the fee amount could b e based on the actual c ost of providing parking spaces. 2 .) To determine a fee amount in relationship to its impact on encouraging or discouraging current and future business activity in the VPD . 3 .) To determine the proposed future uses o.f t h e in-lieu fees ; that it, establish the manner in which parking f ees will be met. 4.) To determine whether a parking structure actually is needed to meet the parldng needs . 5 .) To explore alterna tive ways of meeting the parking needs, such as r eserved park ing for businesses . PLANNING COJVll.VIISSION MINUTES -September 7, 1982 Page 2 AJVIENDMENT TO SECTION 1167 OF THE ZONING CODE: METHOD FOR DECIDING WHETHER PARKING SPACES OR FEES ·sHALL BE PROVIDED IN 00 VPD DI STRICT # 1 -CONTINUED FROM AUGUST 3, 1982 (Cont . ) Mr. Casteneda noted that these five points were presented to the City Council. The City Council in turn added £'our additional items to be cmsidered by the Plarming Commission: 1.) To determine what is being accomplished by enactment of the proposed drai't ordmance. 2.) To consider whether in-lieu fees should only be spent in VPD, District 1 (Lines 12-13). 3.) To determine and include within the ordinance the actual amount of the in-lieu f'ee. 4. ) To consider the nurriber of par:V..ing spaces per lot area ( or other specific standard)· that would allow the Planning Commission to grant an approval for an in-lieu fee, Mr. Casteneda stated that, in response to some of the corrments and public testimony, the Planning Conmi.ssion had the f'ollowing options: 1.) Add a section of the proposed ordinance which identifies the community goals which the in-lieu fee is intended to accomplish. 2.) Add a statement that the in-lieu fees which are collected could be expended within either the VPD area or outside that area if the expenditure alleviates the parking problems within the downtown area. Another idea would be to expand the boundaries of the district itself to encompass a larger commercial area. 3.) Add a section which establishes the fee amount (per parking space) and a related sliding scale based on the uses which should be encouraged in the downto;.m areas or establishing a fee which reflects the actual cost of constructing parking. 4.) Suggest to the City Council that the referenced "parking improvement fund" (Line 10) should be spelled out for purposes of identifying the planned use or uses of the in-lieu f'ees which are collected. Mr. Casteneda reminded the Planning Corrnnission that the LCP condition is that the in-lieu fee provision could be continued up to a threshold limit of 100 additional parking spaces. He stated that that converts to approxi- mately 25 ,ODO square feet of additional corrmercial area. He stated that when the threshold limit is reached, the condition is for the City to embark on a program to reduce the density below threshold. He stated that there are no specifics regarding this m the LCP; but merely that when the limit is reached, sane action must be taken to reduce the density. Camn. Smith asked what percentage represented the present square footage in the area for corrmercial space. Mr. Casteneda replied that, from his review of the parking study, there is apprcixirri_a_t e ly 350 ,ooo feet of commercial-related space within the related subject area. He stated that he believed this figure is for the study area which included the PAID area, which is slightly larger than the VPD . He PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -September 7, 1982 Page 3 AMENDMENT TO SECTION 1167 OF THE ZONING CODE : METHOD FOR DECIDING WHETHER PARKING SPACES OR FEES SHAIJ., BE PROVIDED IN THE VPD DISTRICT # 1 -CONTINUED FROM AUGUST 3, 1982 (Cont .) further stated that the carrmercial development on the Strand near La Playi ta would, under this kind of provision, consume 27 of the 100 parking spaces. Chim. Izant asked whether the oromance pertained to individuals purchasing an already established bus.iness. He noted specifically the people who created the new Hermosa Collection and questioned whether or not they would have to pay in-lieu fees under this particular ordinance, since the building WaB already standing. Mr. Casteneda replied that the ordinance relates to new development. He added that the structure of the LCP related to all new buildings. He suggested that the Plarming Comnission might want to consider whether or not there should be some clarification in the ordinance as to existing buildings which are added on to. Chmn. Izant asked whether staff knew of any cities that have an in-lieu fee for parking. Ms. Sapetto stated that, even though she knows .some cities do have an in-lieu fee for parkmg, she could not recall any offhand. Chrm. Izant requested staff to investigate cities having an in-lieu parking fee and cities using a sliding scale. Ms. Sapetto said that she would research these points. Chinn. Izant asked whether there would be anything illegal or discriminatory about it. He asked whether the City would have the power, in effect, to use that as a way of directing the development of their downtown area. Ms. Sapetto said that those points need to be researched. Chmn. Izant noted that, originally., a two-unit condominium conversion project was to be on the Planning Commission agenda for this meeting. He stated that it had been withdrawn because the Planning Department is investigating whether or not the project is eligible to be heard. Bertha Dorsey, 1954 Monterey Boulevard., Hermosa Beach, questioned whether she will be notified when the issue comes up again. Ms. Sapetto stated that notification must be given to any resident within a 300-foot radius of the property. Public Hearing reopened at 8: 00 P .M. Violet Isgreen, 726 Prospect Avenue, Hermosa Beach., referred to Section II, Item 4. She asked: If it doesn't apply to the established need, are we talking about the economic study of downtown and redevelopment of' downtown? She asked for more clarification on this point. l PLANNING COJ\IIMISSION MINUTES -September 7, 1982 Page 4 AMENDMENT TO SECTION ll67 OF THE ZONING CODE: METHOD FOR DECIDING WHETHER PARKING SPACES OR FEES SHALL BE PROVIDED lli THE VPD DISTRICT 'Ill -CONTINUED FROM AUGUST 3 , 1982 (Cont . ) Chrnn. Izant n oted that , when ref'erring to the "downtown area,11 there have been two recent bodies of documentation that have dealt with the parking in the area -the Local Coastal Plan , with its specific relevance , goals , and objectives for parking in the downtcwn area; and , secondly, the nnre recent downtown parking area commissioned by VPD . He stat ed that the Planning Comni s sion is responding specifically in terms of the Local Co a stal Plan; that 1s, s ome measure has been proposed to mi t igate the potent i a l parking deficit in that area. He further stated that the point was to try to plan for possible future n eeds; that is, when more building takes place, what the requirements will be. He said that if more parking space c annot be found, is it a reasonable altemati ve t o have them pay an in-lieu fee to allow t hem to have parking somewhere else , e ither in VPD #1 or possibly elsewhere in t he City . Wilma Burt, 1152 Seventh Street > Hermosa Beach., reported that she had received f'eedback on t his i ssue . She stated that most people felt tha t no more build- ings should be leveled off in the downtown area to make way for flat parking spaces . She felt that the business area should be expanded., not cut down. She also s tated that most p eople a.re in opposition to the f our-story parking s tructure proposed by the VPD. She mentioned a l aw m the City that says the limit is three-story or 45 f eet, whichever is less. She hoped that t he Planru.ng Canmi ssion and/or t he City Council would uphold that limit. She felt that a four-story parking structure would add to the already serious crirre p roblem in t he area , a s was the case at LAX . Ms. Burt also felt that , not only should the downtown area be considered , but also Pier Avenue, s:ince it is an access from Pac ific Coas t Highway leading into the b usiness area. She noted that other c i t ies have fee adjustments and tax adj ustments to certain businesses that COJre into an area and fulfill a need. She felt that downtown Hermosa Beach needs a grocery store , dune store, bakery, toy stare :, sports store --businesses that would bring people back on a regular basis. Ms. Burt questioned what happened to the 20 par.king spaces near the straw- berry Patch. Chim. I zant replied that:, even though the area wi ll be encrnipassed within the h otel, that area would s till remain part of the City's park ing. Comm . Smith noted that there has been no loss of parldng there ; in fact, rrlne t o twelve spaces have been added. Ms. Burt s uggested s etting aside a park ing area for t he business people to reduce in-and-out-type parking. She said that thought needed to be given to creating more parking spaces on the highway and on the railroad tracks. She expressed concern over the in-lieu fees being accurately kept count of and not b e ing put into the general funds to be used or wasted in some other wa:y. Ms . Burt felt that a sliding scale could be adopted for a strict period of time, but she f'elt that it should not be open-ended. Ms. Burt agam opposed the four-story parking structure downtown. PLANNING CCNMISSION MINUTES -September 7 , 1982 Page 5 .AMENDMENT TO SEC'l'ION 1167 OF THE ZONING CODE: MErHOD FOR DECIDING WHEI'HER PARKJNG SPACES OR FEES SHALL BE PROVIDED IN THE VPD DISTRicr #1 -CONI'INUED FRfl·1 AUGUsr 3,, 1982 (Cont . ) Public Hearing continue d at 8 :10 P .M. Comm . Shapiro requested a breakdown of days when lots are in u se . He also requested information concerning the parking situation i n the area of 10th Street and Hermosa Avenue (next to Sandcastle). Comm . Smith asked for t he p osition of VPD on this issue. He asked whether or not t h ere i s a published op inion . Mr. Casteneda r eplied that the draf't ordinance was prepared by t he City Attorney; and staff of VPD have indi cated, in t erms of content and s tructure., they handle problems with i t. He stated that they have not worked with it at a meeting o f this 1dnd. He said that the City Council i s to receive input from VPD, a s well as the Planning Corrn:nission, in making their final decision. Corrm. Smith f elt that t his approach might be at cross purposes. He felt that some consistency needs to be develope d . He was :inte rested in wh at VPD would have to say in general;since those pers ons represe nt the business :interests in that p articular area. Canm. &rd.th a lso want ed t o know whether there is a position by the Chamber of Corrnnerce, especially that particular p art of t h e Chamber of Corrrnerce that represents those businesses in the area. Coom. Smith concurred wi th Ms . Burt I s opinion regarding the n eeds of decent businesses in the downtown area. He f'elt that the i ssue of parking is absolute ly necessary to those businesses. Comm . Smith s aid that h e would be interested in the opinions of the VPD on the issue of :in-lieu fees. Camm . Snrl.th felt that the implementation of a sliding scale could be used for busine sses that are desirable and undesirable in that particular area. He questioned whether it could be de termine d what i s desirable or unde sirab le without being discriminatory. Carrm . Smith s aid that he assumed t hat the business health relies on growth and on increasing the quality of t he kinds o f businesses the re. He felt that the r e was a problem with the wordi ng "other areas . 11 Comm. Smith felt that it is absolutely necessary to receive some m po.t from the VPD and the Chamber of Corrmerce to avoid fishing in the dark for statistics . Chlm . Izant s uggested having a subcommittee meeting with the VPD and elements of the Chamber of Ccmnerce before the next me eting of the Planning Conmission. Camms . &nith and Shapiro and Chlm. I zant voluntegred to set up a temp orary subcommittee mee ting to meet with the VPD., Chamber of Corrnnerce and other interested parties . ., u PLANNING C(]',M[SSIOO MmUTES -Septenber 7, 1 982 Page 6 AMENDMENT OF SECTION 1167 OF 'Ilfil ZON]NG CODE: METHOD FOR DECIDING WHE'"l'HER PARKING SPACES OR FEES SHALL BE PROVIDED IN THE VPD DISTRICT #1 -CONTJNUED FROM AUGUST 3 1 1982 (Cont .) Violet Isgreen:, 726 Prospect Avenue:, Hermosa Beach., asked that a discussion 15e held cmcern:i:ng winter parking versus surmner parking. Chnn . Izant stated t hat that was a good point . He noted that the pub lic would Be noti.fied, since it would be a public meeting. Chmn. I zant stated that be felt t hat :in-lieu fees and p arking were part of a much larger pr oolem; that is·:, what is the direction o.f t he downtown area? Chmn . Izant rec ommended some strong language m the resolution t hat says that t his parking is only a small tip of the problem. He felt t hat the problem as a whole needs t o be considered. He felt · that direction is needed as far as the growth of the downtown area is concerned. He felt that the downtown area can be and should be influenced . Caron . Rue stated t hat l ast year t he Chamber of Corrmerce held a meeting which dis cussed these problems . He suggested t hat the Chamber of Commerce and the people who were involved with t his group get together and compile some of the minutes from that joint meeting. He felt that the discussi on and input frcm that me eting would be bene ficial . He said that Jack Wood and Joyce BickeJm.y er participated in this meeting t hat was held at the Ho liday Irm in Torrance. Chrrn . Izant r eferred to the items mentioned by staff. He f e lt that certain que stions need t o be asked if the problems are t o be deaJ.t with directly. He asked what was really trying to be accomplished in the area. Comn. Smith aske d .for the bottom line rationale for in-lieu p arking fees . He questioned why it is actually needed. He asked why additional p arking spaces should be allowed, and why people should be charged for thErn . lVlr . Casteneda felt t hat the provision for an in-.lleu p arking fee is more a means to a larger end , the larger end meaning what kind of land use and what kind of deve lopment can be encouraged in the downtown area . He felt that it does n ot r esolve the parking problem, but it does provide the private developer an opportl.fility to me et the obligations per City standards in a means other than on-site parking. He pointed out that, with the remaining lots, it is very difficult to p lace parking on-s ite. This method allows another means to sti ll gain that p arking in the long run t hrough the collection of in-lieu fees. He felt that, generally speaking., this is a good idea because the design and visual appearance could be enhanced by not hav:l.ng to provide on-site parking . Carro. Smith asked how the City would benefit . Mr . Casteneda replied t hat, since there is no game plan for the downt own area, he could not answer that question. Corrrn . &rd t h asked : So what you are saying is, if:, you can take that parldng and put it somewhere e lse where it wouldn 't be congested by the use of in-lieu fees ., then there might be same kind of connective relationship between not doing the parking down there and doing i t sanewhere else? PLANNING COJVl!VIISSION JVill'ruTES -September 7, 1982 Page 7 AIVJENDJVJF1'7.r OF SECTION 1167 OF 'IHE ZONING CODE~ .METHOD FOR DECIDING WHETHER PARKING SPACES OR FEES SHALL BE 'PROVIDED IN rnm VPD DISTRICT #'J. -CONI'INOED FRalI AUGUST 3, 1 982 (Cont .) Mr. Casteneda replied that the actual language states: "Thou shalt provide one parking space for every 250 square feet of conmercial area in new development or in the expansion of an existing building. 11 He said that if the private owner carmot handle that because of physical limitations on site and so forth, what this is saying is you allow procedure for the in-lieu fee in those instances. It is the private applicant who will come to the City Planning Department and then the Planning Commission asking for that. Cormn. Smith said that it is not the money; it is what the money can provide somewhere else. Mr. Casteneda replied that the money is .intended to create those parking spaces that otherwise would have been provided in the areas that are developed. Comm. Smith felt that the issue of whether the money should be spent within the VPD or somewhere else or both is at question. Wilma Burt stated that when the VPD was started, there were h.o vacant lots in the area. She stated that 20 years ago a group of busmessmen put money up fnont and were given 1D or 20 years to pay those bonds off'. She said that it was done for the benefit of their businesses in their area. She questioned whether this would be appropriate now. She felt that, when taJJcing about in-lieu fees, the Commission should question whether it would be a one-time payment for the building, whether it would be for each business as it comes into town, and what the tme limit would be for the payment. Comm. Currmings felt that t1).~ q_~town _area is somehow canmercially disadvantaged. He felt that it possibly /4et:H:tfuted to environment or parking problems. He felt that it would be wrong to reduce the parking places per square foot stan- dards from what they currently are. He felt that there are canmercial disad- vantages downtown that cannot be overcome. He felt that the parking threshold may not peak for many years to come. Conm. Cunrnings wondered what harm would be done if no m-lieu fees were charged. He suggested letting the deficiency build up to the 100 threshold and let the City thlnk of it as in investment in this commercially disadvan- taged area downtown. Chrrrn. Izant asked if a current figure is available as to what it costs per parking space to build a parking structure. He asked for a range of costs. Mr. Casteneda replied that he has spoken with the individuals who prepared the parking study for VPD. He stated that the current figure, exclusive of land, is $6,000 per space for the construction within a two-story structure. Chmn. Izant asked whether the amount of $6,000 would drop if a four-story structure were built. Mr. Casteneda replied that he would have to research that point. PI.ANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -September 7~ 1982 Page 8 AMENDMENT OF SECTION 1167 OF THE ZONING CODE: METHOD FDR DECIDING \IBET.HER PARKING SPACES OR FEES SHALL BE PROVIDED .IN THE VPD DISTRICT #1 -CONTINUED FROM AUGUST 3, 1982 (Cont.) Comm. Smith asked whether there has been any discussion with the City of Manhattan Beach in regard to their downtown parking problems. He said he was curious to know the experiences of Manhattan Beach m terms of cost and in terms of whether or not their par1dng structures have alleviated any parking problems downtown. He felt that Manhattan Beach and Hermosa Beach had rrany s:irnilarites, and that the situation might be worthy of future study. Comm. Currnnings pointed out that it is difficult to foresee conditions 20 years from now. He said that possibly in the future a three-day work week would be in e:ffect, thereby havmg people home four days per week instead of the present two days. He stated that that could be a possible argument for twice as much parking in the future because people would be downtown more often. He :felt that it might not be advisable to become locked into a position at this time. He felt that perhaps the allowed parking should be eased into, and when the 50,000 square feet of new commercial development downtown is completed, then it inight be possible to give some thought to the in-lieu parking fee. He felt that some type of program should be set up to trigger the in-lieu fee program, and to build a parking structure withm so many years. Cbmn. Izant felt that an overall plan or set of' objectives is necessary before any decisions can be made specifically on parking. He felt that it is difficult to make decisions concerning parking in the downtown are when it has not yet been detenn:lned whether the do-m-itown area 'Will remain where it is now. He felt that objectives are needed to deterndne the future location of the downtown area. Corrrn. Rue concurred with Chmn. Izant I s remarks, but he felt that the present downtown area will always fulfill a need. He felt that the City needs that kind of revenue. He said that many small, spread-out malls succeed~ and, therefore, in-lieu fees should not be charged. He felt that the shopping centers could charge a tax or have some jtype of lease agreement whereby a percentage of the amount of revenue created in that bus:iness could be put into funds which maintain parking, create new parking, and maintain the facilities. He felt that this might be an alternative idea, as opposed to cash up front which might discourage some people. He felt that in-lieu fees would discourage small businesses. Conm. Rue felt that the beach traffic is beneficial to the business area~ but he felt. that perhaps a lesser fee could be charged for beach parking if it were further away from the business area. He suggested the possibility of Lot .A being validation parking. Conm. Rue also felt that the basic goals and objectives need to be defined. Corrm. Shapiro felt that there is no reason for an .in-lieu fee. He felt that the businessmen need to give thell' input. He felt that an in-lieu fee would discourage busmess. He suggested a charge of $1 per parldng space for now, and then having a review of the situation when it becomes necessary m the future. Corrrn. Shapiro :felt that Comn. Rue 1 s suggestion of having a taxing district is better than charging an in-lieu fee. PLANNING COJi!Il.11ISSIDN J'!IINIJTES -September 7, l982 Page 9 AMEND~!JENT OF SECTION 1167 OF THE ZONING CODE: METHOD FOR DECIDING WHETHER PARKING SPACES OR FEES SHALL BE PROVIDED IN THE VPD DISTRICT # 1 -CONTINUED FROM AUGUsr 3, 1982 (Cont .) Corrrn. Rue amplified his point. He felt that the creation of more business would create a need for more parking; as new businesses are created, more funds are created for maintenance and the acquisition of parking and the building of parking structures. Connn. Smith said that this could be more equitable, too, based on the size of the business, sales, and so on. Ccmrn. Smith felt that, as long as $4,000 to $6,000 is a substantial amount to a small businessman, the dovmtown area will never develop, because the area is going to go up in terms of cost to operate a business. It is going to require the kinds of businesses that can afford $10,000. He felt that it is simply a matter of investment, not on the part of' :individuals, but on the part of groups of investors. He felt that businesses were needed that would attract a greater dollar aIIDunt per square foot than are currently located in the area. Chim. Izant suggested that staff' investigate how shopping centers currently assess therr tenants for maintenance of tbe exterior and corrrrnon areas. Cormn. Cummings asked whether there was any kind of district in the area for any kind of maintenance. Chmn. Izant stated that that was probably the intent of setting up the PAID district. Comn. Cummings asked whether that was for local improvements. Ms. Sapetto replied that the charter does allow that kind of expenditure for beautification and so forth. Chim. Izant said that no specific action could be taken until there is a set of goals and objectives an where the downtown area is to be located. He felt that that would determine the drrection of any action to be taken. Chmn. Izant noted that the Public Hearing would be continued at the next meeting of' the Planning Commission. CONSIDERATION OF REVISIONS TO THE ZONING CODE CHAPTER 9 .5, .ARI'ICLE III. CONS'IRUCTION , MAINrENANCE AND DEVELOPMENT CCT'1MERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL CONDOIVITNIOMS, AND ARI'ICLE V. CONVERSIONS ·To CQ'llMERCIAL/INDUSI'RIAL CONDCMrNIUMS Mr. Mercado presented the staff report. He stated that Ordinance No. 81-675, which created provisions for specific assessment of Corrrnercial/Industrial Condominiums, was adopted on October 13, 1981. Since its adoption, this tool has manifested infirmities which hinder the approval process . .Mr. Mercado supplied two lists. One provides various changes to the Commercial Condominium Ordinance for new construction, and the other pro- vides numerous changes to the Commercial Condominium Conversion ordinance. PLANNING COMIVJISSION JVIINUTES -September 7, 1982 Page 10 CONSIDERATION OF REVISIONS TO THE ZONING CODE CHAFTER 9.5 2 ARTICLE III. CONS'JRUCTION > MAINTENANCE AND DEVELOPMENT COMMERCIAL/L'NDUSI'RIAL CONDOMINTIJMS, AND ARTICIB V. CONVERSIONS TO Ca'/lMERCIAI)INDUS'IBIAL CONroMINIUMS ( Cont . ) lYh". Mercado stated that the research performed to this point demonstrates that few cities have adopted ordinances or mechanisms for specific assessment of construction of corrnnercial condominiums. He said that the efforts of most cities consist of a combined comnercial/residential ordinance, He said that our existihng ordinance appears to be at its weakest under General Design Standards (Section 9-5-35). Aside from vagaries, it says little. Several changes are proposed concerning tenant assistance; their source being the City of Santa Monica. Staff recorrmended consideration of the preliminary suggested changes; and that through discourse within the Planning Commission and between staff and the public, that a more specific course for revision be established. Ms. Sapetto suggested that a number of the items listed ill1der 11New Construction11 be deleted from the Comrilerc·1aJ;.-'-Ordinance. Chmn. Izant noted that he did not .f:ind mention of the portion pertaining to laundry facilities. He asked whether that section needs to be deleted. ]\If['. Mercado stated that that was be:ing -proposed. He said that was found in the section pertaining to conversions. He stated that it deletes Sections 9.5-55 (e) and (f) (Page 118.62). Comm. Rue asked whether the City has ever entered into any type of arbi- tration in an association dispute. Ms. Sapetto replied in the negative. She stated that the reasons cities do become involved with the Homeowners' Association is that, in the case of' a default on the responsibility of maintenance of the building, the City ultimately could be held liable for the maintenance of the building, espe- cially if it should fall into a state of disrepair that would pose a public health or safety hazard. Ms. Sapetto stated that when a number of homeowners are conglomerated into the Homeowners' Association, the only remedy that the City has to assure that that building be maintained would be to enter into that building and assure that those things are maintained. She stated that that type of assurance was necessary as opposed to apartment units or single ownership commercial units. Corrnn. Rue felt that the City has that kind of obligation concerning those kinds of problems. He felt that the chance of a number of owners allow.mg a building to becane I'lm-down would be very remote. Ms. sapetto stated that it was being proposed to clean up both of the ordi- nances with respect to references to residential condominiums and to take away those things from that ordinance that are obviously pertinent only to a residential condominium and to more clearly illustrate the canmercial standards for corrnnercial condominium developments. She stated that another provision is included for .fire. As opposed to the typical residential solution, another proposal would be made as recommended by the Fire Department. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -September 7, 1982 Page 11 CONSIDERATION OF REVISIONS 'ID THE ZONING CODE CHAPTER 9 .5 , ARTICLE III. CONSTRUCTION , .MAINTENANCE AND DEVEIJJPMENT CCTl'lMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL CONDavo:NIUMS, AND ARrICIB V. CONVERSIONS TO C<MVIERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL CONDCMINIOMS (Cont . ) Ms. Sapetto .felt that it is crucial to the issue of commercial condominiums to discuss the importance of requiring a certain number of units be approved and maintained in a commercial subdivision. Ms. Sapetto stated that it is necessary to return to the basic reasons of why it is necessary to legislate or review residential condominiums. She .felt that it is needed to protect the interests of each .individual owner in terms of what he is buying. Comm. Cummings asked for clarification of Item No. 4, Paragraph 2: "No commercial condominium project shall be required to provide setbacks, except as may be required by a precise plan." Mc. Mercado replied that that is verbat:iJil from the Zon:rng Code. He stated that those are basically all requirements of new construction. He stated that they are not delineated in the existing corrmercial condominium ordinance. He felt that it might be more appropriate for an applicant who wants to see, prior to actually formalizing an application procedure> what it is that he must adhere to. Corrm. Currmings asked whether the temporary ordinances between carrnercial and residential zones have been repeated. Chmn. Izant replied in the affirmative. Comn. Cummings asked why cities differ so much in their courses of action. He asked whether this was a recommended practice of developers. He referred specifically to the City of laguna Beach. Ms. Sapetto replied that l.a.guna Beach has stricter coornercial development standards than does Hennosa Beach. She noted that last year it was recorrmended that Hermosa Beach reduce their development standards for commercial structures. She said that that has been repealed by the Hermosa Beach City Council. Chmn. Izant asked whether corrmercial condominiums would be subject to the same parking standards that a regular commercial development would be subject to. Ms. Sapetto replied in the affinnative. Chmn. Izant referred to Item No. 4, Paragraph 5: "When the intensity of use is :increased through the addition of floor area or change in use> additional parking and loading for such increased use shall be provided." He asked for clarification of this. Ms. Sapetto replied that tbe requirement for commercial parking is based on one figure. For corrrrnercial space it is one parking space for every 300 square feet . For hotels, there is one parking space for each room and two spaces for the manager's unit. She stated that a case in point would be a hotel develop- ment with a restaurant included and a conference room, banquet rooms~ and hotel rooms. She noted that that is the kind of area that the section is referring to. PLANNING COM[v[[SSION MINUTES -September 7, l982 Page 12 CONSIDERATION OF REVISIONS TO THE ZONING CODE CHJl.PIBR 9 . 5 , ARTICLE III. CONSI'RUCTI ON, MAINTENANCE AND DEVEIDPMENI' CC111MERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL CONDCMINIUMS , AND ARI'ICIB V. CONVERSIONS TO COMMERCIAL/INDUS'IBIAL CONDQVIINIUMS (Cont . ) Ms. Sapetto stated that the required amount of parking would have to be calculated on the amount of' gmss f'loor area of the restaurant, banquet and conf'erence roams at 1-300, and the hotel rooms at 1-1. Comm. Smith asked whether this would apply in terms of conversions. Mr. Mercado replied that, generally speaking, that for conversions, that situation would not be encountered. He said it would not be as prevalent as with new construction. He stated that the situation may nevertheless arise, and it would not be harmful to have that condition. Comm. Cummings-felt tbat perhaps an owner might be motivated to propose only as man,y units as be has parking for. He felt that possibly there should be same type of criteria f'or monitoring this. Ms. Sapetto replied that the existmg ordinance provides for the ratio of 1-300 and at least two spaces per ill1it, whichever is the most. Crrrnn. Izant referred to Item No. 2, Paragraph 4, under 11Conversions": 11 Section 9-5-48. .Amend Second to last sentence to read: Provision of a smoke detection system which rings a local alarm and transmits a signal rn.rectly to the Fire Department dispatch.n He asked whether that was normal in a corrmercial condominium or a ccrnmercial building. He also asked whether there is some other option that should be allowed. He questioned the possibility of hundreds of lines coming :into the Fire Department. He asked whether there could be a division where it rings a corrmercial service that mvestigates and then in turn would dial the Fire Department. litr. Mercado stated that that was a possible option. He stated that Item No. 2, Paragraph 4 was simply an option suggested by the Fire Department. Comm. Cummings asked whether a ccmnercial space could be split in half and one half rented. Ms. Sapetto replied that the subdivision ordinance has a provision stating that if any approved plans or conditions of approval are changed, then it mu.st receive the approval of the Homeowners' Association and the Planning Camnission. Comm. Shapiro questioned Item No. 2~ Paragraph 3, under 11Conversions": 11Delete Sections 9,5-55 (e) and (f)" (laundry facilities). Mr. Mercado replied that, based on the research which includes the cities of Los Angeles, Torrance, Napa, Santa Monica, and Long Beach, most of those cities have a combined ordinance for commercial and residential. He could not recall an incidence of major corrnnercial condominiums where that might be a matter worthy of extensive consideration. Chmn. Izant referred to Item No. 4~ Parawaph 1, under 11 Conversions": "An application for a conversion cannot be made for a building that is less than (5) years old. 11 He questioned the figure of five years. PLANNING COMMI SSION MINUTES -September 7, 1 982 Page 13 CONSIDERATION OF REVISICNS 'IO THE ZONING CODE CHAPIBR 9 . 5 , .ARI'ICIE III. CONSTRUCTION , MAINTENANCE AND DEVELOPMENT COM!VIERCIAL/I.NDUSTRIAL CONDOMINIUMS, AND ARI'ICIE V . CONVERSIONS TO Ca1MERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL CONDOONIUMS (Cont .) Mr. Mer cado repl ied that that number was c hosen from one of the citi es that has a proposed ordinance. He stated that t hat can b e modified a s is seen fit. Chrnn . I zant asked what the need is for tha t provision. Mr. Mercado felt that l ong-term occupants could be d isplaced, and they may n ot be able to find similar l.ffiits .in the area. Chrnn . I zant noted t hat sane conversi ons d o not displace anyone . He asl{ed. how a c onversion would be ac complished in t hat instance . Mr. Mercado replied that a revision could b e made t o the particular subsection. CO!lIDl. Smith f elt that , if conversions were t o be made contingent upon c orrpliance with existing codes, it seems t o be a s tringent and good provis ion far pro- t e cti ng against certain kinds of buildings t hat should n ot b e converted. He stated that he c ould not recal l ever seeing any l aws that prevent a condo conversion because of t he length of residency by its tenants, although he did concur with this. He questioned wh ether that provision had any validity i n the l aw. He questioned the criteria for conversion . Comm. Rue r eferred to I tem No . 4., Paragraph l J under "Conversi ons": "Al l new t enants, a fter f i ling application to convert ., shall be told of the appl ication and shaJ.l not be eligible for moving expenses. 11 He felt t hat this wordin g might be misleading. He .felt that it shoul d read :" After .filing application t o convert , all new tenants . , , .. " Public Hearing opened at 9:25 P .M. Wilma Burt., 11 5 2 Seventh Street., Hermosa Beach , sta ted that she f elt other smaller cities should be studied in an effort to find solutions to the prob lems of Hermosa Beach. She felt that, m s tudying l arger cities, their problems are too dif f erent to cooipare them to the problems of Hermosa Beach. She felt t hat c onversions should be permit t e d only if the s tandards are according to t he best of our l i ving standfil'ds today. I f they are not s mmd- proofe d or do n ot meet the r equirements that are required, then the c onversion s h ould not be permitted. Pub lic Hearing continued at 9 : 27 P .M. Chm. I zant felt t hat new const ruction should be k ept separate fran conver- sions . Rec ess from 9 :30 P.M. t o 9:35 P .M. Moti on by Comm . Rue, seconded by Corrrn . Smith, to a pprove t h e "New Construc tion" section with t he foll owing changes: De letion of t he first line of Item No. 3. ~le tian of Lines 28 and 29 and t h e s ubstituting of: ''that the r ebuilding if it i s burned 75 % or more shall c onform t o the c urrent Residential Ordinance." PLANNING COMMISSION MrnUTES -September 7, l982 Page 14 CONSIDERATION OF REVISIONS TO THE ZONING CODE CHAPTER 9 . 5, ARTICLE III, CONSTRUCTION> MAINTENANCE A.1'ID "DEVELOPMENT CCMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL CONDarnrnJMS , AND ARI.'ICLE V . CONVERSIONS ·w CC!1MERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL CONDCMINIUMS (Cont .) AYES: NOES: .ABSENI': Comns. Cwrm:ings _, Rue , Shapiro, Srni th, Chmn. Izant None Connns. Loosli, Peirce Comm. Srni th recanmended that staff review Llnes 28 and 29 to make certain that the language is consistent. Ms. Sapetto replied that she will return with a drafted ordinance. Corrm. Shapiro referred to Item No, 4, P&agraph3 under HConversions11 : 11Relocation payments may be applied to down payments for those tenants purchasing uni ts." He felt that the word.mg might be ambiguous to a prospec- tive tenant. He suggested ad.cling n:1n the existing building." Conm. Smith concu:rTed with the amended language proposed by Conm. Shapiro. Chmn. Izant noted that he would like to see the deletion of the first paragraph on the second page of the "Conversions11 section: "An application for a conversion cannot be made for a building that is less than (5) years old (age being measured from the date of' issuance of certificate of occupancy) or sh (6) years f'rom the date of issuance of a building permit." He felt that that would preclude them of aJ.lowing someone to convert a building that does not have any occupants in it. Comn. Rue concurred with G.llmn. Izant 's statements. Comm. Rue referred to Item No. 3, under "Conversions": He asked to restructure the first paragraph to concur with the restructure done an the "New-Construction" section, where, in the event of an abolishment, reconstruction shall be in accordance with the Residential Ordinance. He felt that Section 3, Paragraph 3 (9.5-34 (e)) should be deleted. Motion by Corrnn. Shapiro, seconded by Comm. Smith, to approve the "Conversions11 section:. with the aforementioned changes. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Comms. Cummings, Rue, Shapiro, Smith, Chrrm. Izant None Comrns. Loosli, Peirce SI'AFF REPORI'S Ms, Sapetto imformed the Commission that it -was necessary to ap prove Resolutions P.C.82-24 and P.C. 82-25, Motion by Corrrrn. Rue, seconded by Conm. Cummings, to approve P.C. 82-24 and P.C. 82-25. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Comms. Curnmings, Rue, Shapiro, Smith, Chun. Izant None Corrms. Loosli, Peirce PLANNING COMMISSION r-mru1IES -September 7, 1982 srAFF REPORTS (Cont .) Page 15 Mr. Merc ado presented a status report of Paci f ic Coast Highway Street Improve- ments. Undergrounding o f utilities by Edison is scheduled to begin in March o.f 1983 , and will t ake 1 2-15 months t o canplete . Thereafter, Caltrans will asphaJ.t overlay Pacific Coast Highway between 14th Stre et and Herondo Street. Corrnn. Curnnings asked about channelization and whether t here will be three lanes north and south . Mr. Merc ado replied that he would need to obtain the necessary input on that point . .Mr. Mercado referred to Video Arcades in C-2 Zanes. He stated that on July 27 , 1982) the City Counc il approved a motion to refer to t he Plann:ing Cormni ssion for analysis the concept of video arcades :in C-2 Zones . He stated that at their meeting of August 10, 1982 , the City Council reversed its position on this matter by unanimously vot ing to deny a resolution of intention to request that the Planning Comnission consider video arcades in C-2 Zones . For this reason., t he item was wi t hdrawn from the August 17, 1982 , meeting o.f the Planning Cam'nissi on. Ms. Sap etto di s cussed t he reassigrnnent o.f responsibilities from the He rmosa Beach Inprovement Commissi on to the Hermo sa Beach Planning Corrmission. On August 10, 1982, the City Council adopted Ordinance 82 -697 abolish1ng the Hermosa Improvement Ccrnmi ssion and reassigning certam functions to other departments and commissions. As a r esult of this action., the Planning Ccmnission has acquired two additional r esponsibilities. First, memb ers of the Planning Commis sion will now s erve as the members o.f the n ewly created Desifgl Review .Board. Sections 2-120 and 2-121 o.f Ordinance:.:: 82-697 detail the types of projec ts the Boaro must r eview and which projects are exempt .from such r eview. If a project is determined to f all within the scope of t he Board's authority., the Building Department will ref'er the following in.formation to the Board for approval -- 1.) Site Development Plan 2.) landscaping Plan 3 . ) Architectural Drawings 4. ) Upgrading of Existing Buildings and Site. The Board s hall approve a proj ect if i t meets the criteria listed in Section 2-24 of the City Code . If t he Board does not approve a project , the Chairman must make available to the applicant a written summary of the findings of· the Board . The Board must take a ction on the project, whether it be approval or denial, within 30 days after the .first hearing, tmless t he appli cant waives the time limit. 'Ihe second r esponsibility delegated t o the Planning Commission is that it shall now serve as the appellate body for any applicant desiring t o appeal a decision rendered by the Building Department ., regarding construction., erection, or alterati on of signs within the City . The Planning Commission may grant a condi tional approval or variance to the City's sign r equirement if conditions PLANNING COMMISSION JVIINUTES -September 7, 1 982 SI'AFF REPORI1S (Cont . ) Page 16 listed in Sect ion 2 8-17 and Section 28-18 of t he City Cod e are found appli- cable to the project. COMMISSIONERS'· ITEMS Corrm. Rue announced his resignation as Carmnissioner o f t he Planning Canmissi on. He stated t hat h e h as a new positi on which will b e in another town. He t hanked his f e llow commissioners for their c ooperation and the enj OY!J1ent that he has received while serving on the Planning Corrnnis sion. Cornn. CUrnmings annrn.mced his resi gnation. He stated t hat he has been given a very challenging n ew assignment at work, and he would not be able to continue with bis Planning Commission r espons ibilities at this time . He expressed h is regret at having to leave the Planrililg Cormniss ian. Chmn. I zant expressed good luck wishes to Comms . Rue and Cummings , and he thanked them .for their valuab l e service to the Plann:ing Commi ssion. Motion to adjourn at 10 : Ol P .M. CERrIFICATION I h ereby certify t hat t he foregoing minutes were approved at a regular Commission held on the ____ day of ______ , SECREI1ARY I / / MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON AUGUST 3, J. 1982, IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT 7:30 P.M. Meeting called to order at 7:35 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Cummings, Loosli, Peirce, Rue, Shapiro Chairman Izant ABSENT: Commissioner Smith STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Pamela Sapetto, Planning Director Alfred Mercado, Assistant Planner Ralph Castenato APPROVAL OF MINUTES COMMISSIONER PEIRCE moved, seconded by COMMISSIONER RUE THAT THE MINUTES OF THE JULY 20, 1982 MEETING BE APPROVED, NOTING THAT THE TWO DIFFERENT VERSIONS SHOULD BE CONSOLIDATED INTO ONE SET OF MINUTES, AND THAT THE VOTES BE REFLECTED THERE BEING NO OBJECTION, THE CHAIRI'-'.IAN SO ORDERED APPROVAL OF RESOLUTIONS COMMISSIONER RUE moved, seconded by COMMISSIONER PEIRCE AYES: NOES: TO APPROVE RESOLUTIONS NO. 82-23, 82-24, 82-25, and 82-26 AS SUBMITTED, NOTING THAT THE VOTE SHOULD BE ADDED TO EACH OF THESE RESOLUTIONS Commissioners Cummings, Peirce, Rue, Shapiro, Chmn. Izant None ABSENT: Commissioner Smith ABSTAIN: Co:rmnissioner Loosli PUBLIC HEARINGS 2605 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT,; 1TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 32528 FOR A 12-UNIT COMMERCIAL CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION Staff report was given by Mr. Mercado. He noted that the project complies with all requirements of the conversion ordinance, with the exception of the laundry facilities, storage requirements, and separate utility shut-off systems. Staff recommends that this project be exempted from the laundry facilities and storage space requirements, as such provisions were designed for residential projects. The requirement for separate utilities with shut-off systems can be met by requiring such installation within sixty days of close of escrow. Public hearing opened 7:45 p.m. Fran Baker, Triad Engineering, 200 Pier Avenue, spoke on behalf of the applicant. She stated that condominiums provide for continuous maintenance, tenant stability and better quality of business in the city. As no one else wished to speak, the public hearing was closed at 7:50 p.m. 2605 Pacific Coast Highway (continued) COMMISSIONER CUMMINGS moved, seconded by COMMISSIONER SHIPIRO TO APPROVE TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 32528 AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION AT 2605 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, WITH THE DELETION OF CONDITION NO. 2 FROM THE PROPOSED RESOLUTION -2- AYES: NOES: Commissioners Cummings, Loosli, Peirce, Rue, Shapiro, Chmn. Izant None ABSENT: Commissioner Smith R~SOLUTION NO. 82-27 ADOPTED COMMISSIONER CUMMINGS moved, seconded by COMMISSIONER SHAPIRO THAT RESOLUTION NO. 82-27 BE ADOPTED, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF CONDITION NO. 2 (REQUIREMENT FOR SMOKE DETECTORS) AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Cummings, Loosli, Peirce, Rue, Shapiro, Chmn. Izant None Commissioner Smith AMENDMENT TO SECTION 1167 OF THE ZONING CODE: METHOD FOR DECIDING WHETHER PARKING SPACES OR FEES SHALL BE PROVIDED IN VPD, DISTRICT NO. 1 Staff report was given by Mr. Castaneda. He noted that the proposed ordinance implements the Local Coastal Plan and is one of the suggested implementing actions contained in the Phase III LCP. One of the con- ditions of approval/certification of the LCP called for the payment of in-lieu fees to the VPD in those instances where physical constraints limited the provision of on-site parking spaces. Mr. Castaneda stated that this ordinance would permit an applicant to apply to the Planning Commission to pay fees in lieu of providing parking, that a public hearing would be conducted to determine if in-lieu fees would be appropriate, and that this would take place on an individual basis--this is not a blanket decision. The ordinance establishes a process and the role of the Planning Commission in making this decision. Public hearing opened 8:08 p.m. Mr. Jack wood, 803 Loma Drive, spoke in favor of the ordinance. He provided the Commission with a copy of the implementing ordinance of the Vehicle Parking District, and noted that this was started by the businesses to create an appropriate atmosphere for competition. He said that adding more parking in the downtown area may not be in the best interest of the City--that there is a limit on the amount of "asphalt" desired at the beach. Chairman Izant asked Mr. Wood if he had a suggested fee in mind, and Mr. Wood suggested keeping the $1,500 fee, that $3,000 would be sub- stantial and $4,000 would be prohibitive. Mrs. Wilma Burt, 1152 Seventh Street, said ·that asking the downtown people to provide parking is not practical because the lots are too small~ -3- In-Lieu Fees (continued) Mrs. Burt said that the parking structures should not be "4-stories high", but that two stories with the upper level reserved for employee parking would be o.k. She said she objected to any fees being collected without a specific use in mind~ and that the parking requirements should not be too restrictive. Violet Isgreen, 726 Prospect, said beach-goers should be encouraged to park on the railroad right-of-way and at other locations a few blocks from the beach. Public hearing closed 8:55 p.rn. Extensive discussion followed, with some commissioners not real sure that more parking is needed in the downtown area~ and if no more parking is needed then why collect the fee. Commissioner Cummings expressed concern that if the fee does not cover the actual cost of a parking space, then who will pick up the extra cost. Chairman Izant suggested that in order to guide and determine the future use of the downtown area, maybe there should be no in-,lieu fee for the type of businesses the city wants to have, and that a fee would be charged for "less desirable" businesses. Commissioner Peirce suggested separating the business parking from the beach-goer parking. Commissioner Loosli suggested charging no fee, because if the VPD doesn't have any money then they cantt construct more parking areas, and it is his opinion that no more parking structures/lots are needed. CHAIRMAN IZANT MOVED TO CONTINUE THIS PUBLIC HEARING TO THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING. THERE BEING NO OBJECTION,, SO ORDERED. AMENDMENT TO CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION ORDINANCE SECTION RELATING TO CONDITIONAL APPROVAL Staff report given by Mr. Castaneda. The suggested changes are related to conditional approval. The proposed ordinance has the effect of taking the City out of the category of recipient and/or administrator of fees/units, per staff memo dated July 30, 1982. Public hearing opened at 9:28 p.m. Jack Wood, 803 Loma Drive, explained the difference between the various types of condominiums and stock co-operatives. He said he is the author of the ordinance, and recommends adoption. He said this ordinance provides a way to give the money to the Courity or State to provide housing in an area where it is needed. Jim Rosenberger, 156 First Court, reminded the Commission of the 11 older" apartment buildings which were allowed to convert for a donation of units/dollars, and suggested that these are not quality condominium and if they can not meet the code they should not be allowed to convert. -4- ·condominium Conversions (continued) Wilma Burt, 1152 -7th Street, said she would like to see apartments stay apartments, and that 2-unit condominiums (small projects) should be discouraged. Public hearing closed at 10:58 p.m. commissioner Cummings said he does not feel there should be an allowance for non-conforming apartments to convert to condominiums and that he is against an in~lieu fee. Commissioner Pierce that in his opinion an in-lieu fee is nothing but extortion. He feels that condominium conversions must meet all code standards, and that there is no benefit to the city in allowing old units to convert, but rather this is a disservice to the city and to potential owners. COMMISSIONER PEIRCE moved, seconded by COMMISSIONER IZANT (for purposes of discussion) THAT SECTION 29-A-14 OF THE CONDOMINIUM ORDINANCE, CONDITIONAL APPROVAL BE DELETED DISCUSSION Commissioner Rue said he doesn't feel the Commission is looking into the future enough; that the City is embarking on a housing shortage, and not allowing for in-lieu fees could cause the city to deny many people from owning a piece of property. He said that perhaps there needs to be a limit on how much of a deviation there should be--10% for example. Commission Loosli suggested placing a condition on the "year" the building was built in order to convert. VOTE ON MOTION ABOVE: AYES: Commissioners Cummings, Loosli, Peirce, Chmn. Izant NOES: Commissioners Shapiro, Rue ABSENT: Commissioner Smith RESOLUTION COMMISSIONER PEIRCE moved, seconded by COMMISSIONER CUMMINGS THAT RESOLUTION NO. BE ADOPTED, INCORPORATING THE FOLLOWING "WHEREASES": WHEREAS, the previous Planning Commission's have always differentiated between apartment dwellings and condominium ownership, and that is why the Commission believes the standards should be different for the two; WHEREAS, the Commission looked at arguements for and against the conditional approval of a project that does not meet the condominium buinding standards and it did not look like the City was benefiting from allowing said in-lieu fee; Condominium Conversions (continued) WHEREAS, an in-lieu fee was not appropriate for a housing program or Parks & Recreation, as it being a form of leverage the City would have to obtain money; 1% or 10%. WHEREAS, the City should not be in the business of receiving units or dollar~ as this type of donation does not mitigate the fact that a building is substandard; WHEREAS, the in-lieu fee doesn't provide a public benefit substantial enough to allow a substandard conversion. VOTE ON RESOLUTION: AYES: NOES: Commissioners Cummings, Loosli, Peirce, Chmn. Izant Commissioners Rue, Shapiro ABSENT: Commissioner Smith MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS Commissioner Peirce informed staff and the Commission that he would be on vacation for the next two meetings. So noted. Ms. Sapetto informed the Commission that the Improvement Commission has been dissolved, and some of their functions have been transfered to the Planning Commission. Election of -Officers Chairman Izant ordered that the election of officers be continued to the next meeting. No objection. so ORDERED. Proposition EE Commissioner Loosli inquired with regard to placing a similar measure on the November ballot to "Proposition EE''. Staff informed the Commission that the deadline has passed for placing items on the ballot, and that this issue will be placed on a future agenda. SO ORDERED. ADJOURNMENT COMMISSIONER PEIRCE moved, seconded by COMMISSIONER RUE THAT THE MEETING BE ADJOURNED, THE TIME BEING 10:45 P.M . THERE BEING NO OBJECTION, THE CHAIRMAN SO ORDERED. CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes were approved at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the day of ________ , 1982. CHAIRMAN DATE SECRETARY MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON JULY .20, 1982 IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT 7:30 P.M. SUMMARY OF ACTIONS TAKEN Meeting call to order at 7:34 p.m. All Commissioners present, with the exception of Mr. Loosli. Also present were Pamela Sapetto and Alfred R. Mercado, both from the Planning Department. Motion by Comm. Smith, seconded by Comm. Rue to approve July 6, 1982 minutes; motion passed with no objections. The following Resolutions were passed on a motion by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Smith (approved by all with Comm. Cummings' abstaining): Resolution 82-19 -Amend Open Space Zone to allow Rail Transit Uses Resolution 82-20 -Rezone Railroad Property to Open Space Resolution 82-21 -Amendments to Land Use Element and Rezoning of two areas in the City for exclusive use as Mobile Home Parks Resolution 82-22 -Recommending to the City Council that the latter take no immediate action which would culminate in rezoning of Hermosa Beach Trailer Court 845-923 17th STREET , CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, TENTAT IVE MAP #32526 FOR A 6-UNIT CONDOM I NIUM AND ZONE CHANG E RE QUE ST FROM R-1 TO R-2 Staff Report fiven. Public hearing opened at 8:03 p.m. Mr. O'Brien spoke against project. Public hearing closed at 8:24 p.m. Motion by Comm. Smith, seconded by Chmn. Izant to adopt Resolution P.C. 82-23 approving Tract Map #32526 and zone change request with amendments. Motion passed on a 4-2 vote. 3201 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY , 4-UNIT CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION AND PARCEL MAP #15215 Staff report given; indicated that subsections {d), (e) and (f) of Section 9.5-55, and that (d) be addressed in the cc & R's. Public hearing opened at 9:11 p.m. Fran Baker, representing applicants, spoke in favor of project. Public hearing closed at 9:17 p.m. Motion by Chrnn . Izant, seconded by Comm. Rue to approve project and Parcel Map #15215 with amendments; motion passed by a 6-0 vote. Minutes Planning Commission July 20, 1982 845-923 17th St~eet Application for CUP, Tentative map #32526 and Zone Change from R-1 to R-2 Staff report by Planning Director, Pamela Sapetto Public hearing opened 8:0J P.M. Two individuals spoke against the project. Applicant spoke in favor of project. Public Hearing closed 8:24 P.M. Discussion by Commissioners regarding interpret_ation of height and the existing structures conformance to the General Plan. Motion by Comm. Smith to approve project, tentative map #32526 and zone change _ request from R-1 to R-2 with conditions as proposed in Planning Commission • resolution with amendments; second by Chlnn. Izant AYES: NOES::· ABSENT: Co!D!Ils. Rue, Shapiro, Smith, Cbmn. Izant Comms. Peirce, Cwnmings Comm. Loosli • Motion passes 4-2. Comm. Peirce's no vote based on height interpretation, violates condominium conversion ordinance and does not agree with general plan interpretation allowing the maxi.mum density in the multi-use corridor. Motion to adopt Resolution 82-23 as amended: 1. To include the phrase from R-1 to R-2; and 2. Condition# 1 shall also except the private recreation space in three of the units, seconded by Comm. ·rzant. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Comms. Rue, Shapiro, Smith, Chmn. Izant Comms. Peirce, Cwnmings Comm. Loosli None Item ended 9:04 P.M. Unadopted n PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -July 20, 1982 Page 2 Chmn. Izant, seconded by Comm. Peirce, made a motion to conduct public hearings to review the Commercial Condominium Ordinance - motion passed on a 6-0 vote SECOND UNITS FOR SENIOR CITIZENS ON R-1 LOTS Staff report given. Dr. Lopdato spoke in at 10:15 p.m. Public hearings opened at 10:05 p.m. favor of the project. Public hearing closed Motion by Chmn. Izant, seconded by Comm. Rue, to deny project with the following two Whereases: WHEREAS, there would not be any reasonable way for the City to enforce the proposed ordinance; and WHEREAS, the purpose of R-1 zoning is to provide single family dwellings should not be diluted. Motion passed on a 4-2 vote. Motion to adopt. Resolution 82-25 (with two additional WHEREASES as mentioned above) passed by a 4-2 vote. STAFF REPORTS Reminder of 7/29/82 workshop. COMMISSIONERS' I TEMS 1 . Appoint a substitute secretary to sign documents in absence of Secretary Currunings -substitute is Comm. Peirce. 2. 17th Street project makes note of a zone change, yet the specific zone change is not indicated in-Resolution to Approve. Motion to adjourn at 10:40 p.m . r ) PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -July 20, 1982 Page 3 CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and complete record of the action taken by the Planning Commission of Hermosa Beach at their meeting of July 20, 1982. STEPHEN IZANT, CHAIRMAN ROBERT CUMMINGS, SECRETARY DATE ( MINUTES OF THE PLANNI NG COMMISSSI ON OF HERL~OSA BEACH HELD ON JULY 6, 1982 I N THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT 7:30 P.M. Meet i ng called to ord er at 7 :30 P.M. by Chinn. Izant Chinn. Izant introduced Comm. Joel Shapiro to the Commissi on. ROLL CALL PRES ENT: Comms. Loo sli , Pe i rce, Rue, Shapiro, Smith, Chmn. I zant ABSENT : Comm. Cummings ALSO PRESENT : Pamela Sapetto , Planning Di rector ; Ralph Casteneda , TDC Plann ing; Chip Post, City Attorney APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm . Pe irce, to a pprove t he J une 15 , 1982 minutes with the followi ng correction: Page 4, Para . 1, s entence 3, s hould read, 11She stated that she di d not want to be locked in t o a mobile home park zone ." No objections. So ordered. APPROVAL OF RESOLUTIONS Mo t ion by Comm . Rue, seconded by Comm . Peirce, to approve Re solutions P.C. 82 -1 6, 82 -1 7 , and 82 -1 8. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms . Pe irce , Rue, Chmn. Izant None Comms. Loos li , Shapiro, Smith Comm . Cummings 845-923 17th STREET, CONDITIONAL USE PERM IT , TENTATIVE MAP #32526 FOR A 6-UNIT CONDOM INI UM Ms . Sapetto gave staff report. She stated that t he plans had been revised . She stated that on Ap r il 20, 1982 the Planning Commi ssion concl uded that his project was not in compliance with the condominium ordinance a nd denied the project . On May 11, 1982 , the City Council considered an appeal to the denial by the Planning Commission on this project . The City Council overturned the Planning Commission's decision , and approved the project amend ing a reduction of units from 7 to 6 . The City Council agreed with the standard conditions :iJnpose d by t he Planning Commission with the exception of the sideyard setbacks on the existing duplexes . The plan conforms substantially with all of the requ irement s of the Condominium Code with the exception that t he re are some 7-foot minimum dimensions of private r ecreation space and sideyard setbacks of the existing structures . Code r equires that at least 150 sq . ft . per unit of private recreation space be provided with minimum dimensions of 7 ' X 7'. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -July 6, 1982 Page 2 845-923 17th STREET , CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, TENTATIVE MAP #32526 FOR A 6-UNIT CONDOMINIUM (Cont .) Units 3-5 do not meet the minimum dimensional requirement; however, they do provide 743 sq. ft. of private recreation space. Staff recommended approving the conditional use permit and tentative map with the conditions recommended in the Resolution of Approval. Staff also recommended rezoning the property from R-1 to R-2 in order to conform with the additional two units proposed. The lot zoned R-1 is substantially within the multi-use corridor. Comm. Peirce asked for the dimensions of the private recreation space, Ms. Sa pet to replied that there are 7 43 sq. ft. and six locations for Units 3, 4, and 5. Comm. Peirce asked if 11 A" equaled 11 1_"; "B" equals "2" and so forth. Comm. Peirce asked how they could get around the concept that this might be a spot zone. Ms. Sapetto replied that since it is within the multi-use corridor, the zoning is presently not in conformance with the general plan. By rezoning it to R-2, it would be more in conformance with the general plan land use element than it is at present. Zone changes made to conform with the land use element do not constitute spot zoning. Comm. Peirce noted that a substantial amount of the property surrounding it is still R-1. Comm. Loosli asked if the zone change were tied to this project. Ms. Sapetto replied in the affirmative, adding that it iS a specific plan with a zone change. She stated that if the project were not built, it would not be R-2. Comm. Pierce stated that the Building Analysis should be corrected to include four feet on the easterly side. Comm. Loosli asked where in the application was it pointed out that the plans before them were specific plans and that the zone change was tied to the project. Ms. Sapetto replied that the zoning code spells out the types of zone changes that can be made. One of them is that one may have a specific plan to request a zone change. When that is done, the zone change is only effected if one builds to that specific plan. She informed the Commission that they may include that in their resolution. Comm. Loosli asked if it were inconsistent only in the multi-use corridor area. Ms. Sapetto replied in the affirmative. n PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -J uly 6, 1982 Page 3 845-923 17 th STREET, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, TENTATIVE MAP #32526 FOR A 6-UNIT CONDOMINIUM (Cont.) Public Hearing opened at 7:51 P.M. Carlie Puniwai 1117 5th Street, Suite E , Manhattan Beach, agent for the applicants , stated that they found all of the conditions acceptable. Comm. Peirce asked for the location of the private space for the three units that we re substandard. Ms. Puniwai replied that it was the balconies indicated on the plans by cross hatching . Comm . Peirce noted that A is 6; Dis 5; Bis 3; and C is 4 on the plans . Comm. Peirce asked if there were any way the u.~its coul d be made to meet the 750 s q. ft . requirement. Ms. Puniwai replied that the buildings were already constructed. Paul Barne, 922 17th Street , Hermosa Beach, stated that the two lots i n question were about 30 feet wide and 76 feet deep. He believed there was no need for a zone change . He requested t hat the Planning Commission make the recommendation that the park ing be eliminated between the two extremes of the entire project on the north side of the street due to safety hazards. Ms. Sapetto stated that the above is Condition #11 on the Resolution. Comm. Peirce asked for the height of the garage of the new building. He noted conce rn for RVs getting into the garage. Ms . Sapetto rep l ied that it would be approximately 8 feet . Public Hearing continued at 8:03 P.M. Rec e ss from 8 :04 P.M. to 8:09 P.M. Comm. Peirce asked how the Building Department measured the height of the building. He believed that the height of the building was approximately 34 feet, and in some places as high as 38 feet . Conm. Loosli stated that the existing grade is 29'6", but they dug down 4 or 5 feet . Ms . Sapetto suggested that the CoITinission either continue this i tem until t he Building De partment submitted an interpretation of how they arrived at a he~ht limit of 29'6" or to approve the pro ject subject to the condition that the building is only 30 feet in height. Comm. Pe i rce asked if it were the City's custom to receive plans which are not abl e to be scaled. PLANNING COMMISSION -July 6, 1982 Page 4 845-923 17th STREiiiA CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT , TF.NTATIVE MAP #32526 FOR A 6-UNIT7'.XfNDOMIN (Cont .) Ms. Sapetto replied that Ms. Anderson had asked her if she could submit reduced drawings for the existing units. However, she was not aware that Ms. Anderson was going to submit reduced drawings for the new units, Comm. Rue suggested continuing this item until such time that the Building Department submitted an interpretation of the height. Comm. Loosli concurred that this item should be continued. Chmn. Izant asked the representative of the applicant if she favored continuance as opposed to approval or denial at this time. Ms. Puniwai replied in the affirmative. Chrnn. Izant continued the item until such time that the Building Department submitted an interpretation of the height and the applicant submitted scaled drawings. He requested that this information be submitted to the commissioners in adequate time for review. MOBILE HOME PARKS Ms. Sapetto introduced Ralph Casteneda with TDC Planning. Mr. Castenda gave staff report. He stated that this item was continued from the June 15 meeting. He noted that one of the objectives of the Phase 3 program was to conduct further research on ways and means of preserving mobile home parks existing in the cormnunity. Resolution 82-17 indicated the actions taken at the June 15 meeting by the way of adding a classification for mobile home parks in the Land Use Element and also a symbol on the map to denote such parks. He noted that the Commission had also considered a mobile home district. The changes to the mobile home district were noted in Resolution 82-18 which indicated that basically the complete application of materials would be required as part of the redesign for a new mobile home park; whereas 1 in terms of the add itional deletion of spaces only a project layout and a space layout would be required. There were only two other acti ons to complete the cycle, those being, 1 ) to am,;;nd the Land Use Element by way of reclassifying one or both parks of the current designation to the new designation, and 2) to rezone either or both mobile home parks, He offered to the Commission 3 alternatives with respect to preserving existing mobile home park uses, namely 7 1) to implement Land Use Element Map changes and rezoning actions with respect to Marineland Mobile Homes only and defer any action on the Hermosa Beach Trailer Court ; 2) to imp lement Land Use Element Map changes and rezoning actions with respect to both existing parks; and 3) to maintain the status quo with regard to both mobile home parks. He noted that he had submitted, at the request of Comm. Cummings, some sample regulations which govern the use of the existing parks in San Diego. u PIANNING CCM1ISSION MINUTES -July 6, 1982 MOBILE HCME PARKS (Cont.) Corrrn. Peirce noted that the zoning map showed part of Marineland as being R-1. Mr. Casteneda replied that the Marineland zoning is R-1 with a potential for R-3 and M industrial. Public Hearing opened at 8: 27 P .M. Page S Charles Osbourne, 531 Pier Avenue, Marineland Mobile Home Park, Henrosa Beach, stated that all of the people in the park wanted the park zoned as a mobile hODE area. He stated that the owner also wants it zoned that way. He noted that the trailers will not be worth anything if the park is not zoned as a rmbile horre park. He stated that many of the residents are senior citizens, and they have nowhere else to go. William Beverly, Hitchcock, Boman & Schacter, 21515 Hawthorne Blvd. Suite 1030, Torrance, representing the Bank of Anerica as Trustee under the Testamentary Trust in the Estate of Ester McCullum. He stated that he represented Curtis McCullum, individually, and Susan Moss, individually. He stated that, contrary to Mr. Osbourne's belief, they do resist the imposition of the MHP zoning on the Marineland Mobile Hone Park only. He noted that there may have been a defect in the notification process. No notice had been given to owners of two-thirds of the interest in the park, namely, Susan Moss and Curtis McCulh.DI1. He stated that he had received a mailing list of the indi. vi.duals that had been notified, and neither Susan Moss nor Curtis McCullum' s naIIBs appeared on that list. However, the background information supplied by the consultant listed the owners, Susan Moss and Curtis McC-ullum. Therefore, the consultant had knc,;v1ege of their ownership, but failed to include them in the notification procedure. Ccmn. Peirce ask whose narre appeared on the tax rolls . Mr. Beverly stated that he did not know. Mr. Beverly stated that the owners of this property did not atterrpt to change the use of the park. He stated that there was adequate protection in the California Ci vi.l C.o de which provides that i f there were a change of use, regardless of what the zoning is , there is a one-year notification that must be given to all tenants .of any p roposed change irt use. After that one-year notification of the change of use, there is a 15-day period in which they must inform each tenant before any application for TIDdificaticn or penni.t of any type is given. He stated that the matter of the zoning, when coupled with very restrictive Civil Code provisions regarding the operation of a mbil e hone park, handcuffs the owner far IIDre substantially than with any other type of rezoning. lb.is would give rise t o an action for declaratory relief, which he felt would be granted by the courts. He stated that he was in.famed that the purpose of this zone change was to maintain low-or moderate-incorre housing in Henmsa Beach. However, the problem is that the burden is not being J.Ill)Osed on everyone; it is being irrp-0sed only on the two people who own the park. He stated that if the City wanted to create low-or rroderate-incorre housing, they should do it collectively, not by legislation or zoning, but by a condermation PIANNING COMMISSION MINUI'ES -July 6, 1982 MOBILE He.ME PARKS (Cont. ) proceeding. Page 6 Conm. Shapiro asked M'r. Beverly if he had been in contact with the owner of the Henrosa Beach Trailer Court. Mr. Beverly replied in the negative. Mrs. Jack Rathbin, 24645 Walnut Street, I..oori.ta, owner of the He:rmosa Beach Trailer Court, stated that at the June 15 ~eting, she voiced her opposition to the Henrosa Beach Trailer Court.only, primarily because of the long sustained effort to try to upgrade the property. She stated that she concurred with Mr. Beverly's remark that if the City wanted to create low-and rroderate-incOOB housing, it should be a collective effort. She stated that the upgrading of the Hermosa Beach Trailer Court should be kept in mind since it is so close to the Highway. and other conmarcial areas . Patricia Ware, 531 Pier Avenue, Marineland Mobile Hooe Park, Henrosa Beach, stated that Henrosa Beach has often expressed its desire to secure housing for senior citizens. Apprmdmately half of Marineland' s residents are retired senior citizens on fixed inc~s. The Coastal Program of Henrosa Beach has also stated that it wanted to maintain diversified housing, which Marineland helps to maintain. She stated that many of her neighbors have invested as much as $50,000 in their coaches. She stated that since the tenants are spending this kind of m::mey, the owners should give theni sorre assurance that they will be able to keep their trailers at the park. She stated that at nUITErous neetings, she and her neighbors have e}q)lained the catastrophic losses each of them would face if the park were terminated. She submitted a staterrent of concern which was signed by 64 adult residents from Marineland Mobile H~ Park. Clairwin Miller, 531 Pier Avenue, Marineland Mobile Hone Park, Hermosa Beach, stated that he had lived at the park since April 19, 1955. He stated that he did not want to live anywhere else. He stated that they added on to their trailer, and they do not want to leave. He believed they should zone the park a mobile hOOE park for the simple reason of protection. Janice Clark, 531 Pier Avenue, Marineland Mobile Harre Park, Henrosa Beach, stated that she lived alone, and she felt protected at the park. Charles Osbourne, 531 Pier Avenue, Marineland Mobile P.orre Park, Heurosa Beach, stated that it was his understanding that Susan Moss was in favor of having the park zoned a rrobile hone park. He offered his apology for his misstaterJEnt. n PLANNING CCl1MISSION MINUI'ES -July 6, 1982 Page 7 MOBD...E HCME PARKS (Cont.) Susan Moss, 8130 Golden Avenue, Kings Beach, owner of Marineland Mobile Hone Park, stated that she was not in favor of the IIDbile hoIIE park zoning. She noted that the park had been in their family for 25 to 30 years , and she stated that it will remain a park for sane tine to coIIE. She noted that year leases are available at the manager's office. She expressed concern that the tenant's felt that the park was going to close down, because that was not the case at all. Denise Dorey, 531 Pier Avenue, Marineland Mobile Harre Park, Hernnsa Beach, asked where the will was that Mrs. McCullum had written. She stated that Mr-s. McCulltnn' s will stressed that she did want the park to reDB:in a nnbile hom: park. She stated that Ms. Moss was conterrplating putting in a retaining wall all around the trailer park. William Beverly, representing the owners of Marineland Mobile Harre Park, stated that any tenant can always be guaranteed a one-year extension of their tenancy. He stated that security does erist. Public Hearing closed at 8:49 P.M. Corrm. Rue asked if notice is defective if it is not given to all owners. He asked if it were sufficient to give notice only to the owner whose narre appears on the tax roll. Chip Post, City Attorney, replied that if the Corrmi.ssion could continue this item, defects in notice could be cured. However, he felt as though adequate notice had been given. Ms. Sapetto stated that notice went to the Trust (Bank of .Arrerica, L.mg Beach), which is the actual owner of record an the tax rolls. Cormn. Peirce asked 'When the original notice was sent out . Ms. Sapetto replied that it was originally sent out an June 12, 1982. Chnn. Izant felt that it would be desirable to change the zoning of the Marineland rrobile hone area to a rrobile ham: park; hawever, he felt that it would not be desirable to change the zoning of the Herrrosa Beach Trailer Court because the City needs to strenghten the comrercial zone along the Highway. Motion by COIIm. Peirce, seconded by Chrrn. Izant, to airend the Land Use Elerrent to Mobile Home Park and rezone the Marineland Mobile Hom: Park to Mobile Borre Park. Comm. Peirce stated that he made the notion to rezone only Marineland because the size and the location of the two parks are drastically different. AYES: NOES: .ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Corrrm. Loosli, Peirce, Rue, Smith, Chnn. Izant None C.Oran. Shapiro c.onm. Ctmrnings PLANNING CCM1ISSION MINUTES -July 6, 1982 Page 8 MOBILE HCM: PARKS (Cont. ) Comn. Loosli stated that the Corrmission should study the Henoosa Beach Trailer Court and have IIDre input from the residents. He noted that it should be part of the corridor study. Mr. Post felt that the Connrl.ssion should rule on both the Marineland Mobile Home Park and the Henoosa Beach Trailer Cour-t at this tine. He stated that any recomnendation would be forwarded to the City Council. Motion by Chim. Izant, seconded by Cornn. Peirce, to take no action at this tine an the rezoning of the HeTIIDsa Beach Trailer Court, the reason be:ing that it is in the multi-use corridor, and the Conmission is plarm.ing a study of changing the multi-use to appropriate zoning. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: CoillIIS. Loosli, Peirce, Rue, Smith, Chnn. Izant None Cornn. Shapiro Conm. Cunmings Motion by Chnn. Izant, seconded by Cornn. Peirce, to make a Resolution with the following WHEHEASs; ''WHEREAS, the Henrosa Beach Trailer Court is currently in the multi-use corridor; WHEREAS, the Planning Corrmi.ssion will be studying the multi-use corridor in the near future to determine its appropriate uses; NOW, ··THEREFDRE BE IT RESOLVED, the Planning Corrrnission recorrnencls that the City Council take no action at this ti.Ire• II AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comns. Loosli, Peirce, Rue, Smith, Crum. Izant None Conm. Shapiro Comn. Cunmings Recess from 9:15 P.M. to 9:22 P.M. RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY Ms. Sapetto gave staff report. She stated that there was an aI!EildnEnt in the report , narrel y, under Recormendation, Ll.ne 1, should read, "To adopt the attached resolution anending the open space zone ... " She stated that the Connd.ssion had two actions to take, to adopt the resolution and to rezone the property, -sta,ff recomrendeq adopting the resolution aIJEI1ding the open space zone of the general plan by establishing rail transit as pennitted use in the open space zone. She stated that on June 15, 1982 the Plarming Conmi.ssion considered and continued to their next ~eting, the rezoning of the railroad right-of-way from tnzoned property to open space. The intent was to bring the railroad property zoning status into conformity with the general plan designation of open space. PLANNING CCM'.lISSION MINUI'ES -July 6, 1982 RAILROAD RIGHI'-OF-WAY (Cont.) Public Hearing opened at 9:26 P.M. Page 9 Betty Laybri, 2206 Ardrrore, Henrosa Beach, stated that she has certain easeIIEilt rights to the railroad right-of-way. She wanted the right-of-way to stay open space for joggers and recreation. She stated that she had spoken with the residents on Ardrrore and Valley between Pier and Gould, and they were all unanim:>us that it should be left open space. Public Hearing closed at 9:30 P.M. Motion by Comn. Peirce, seconded by Conm. Loosli, to allow rail transit use in the open space zone. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Conlns. Loosli, Peirce, Rue, Shapiro, Smith, Chmn.. Izant None Ccmm. Cunmings Motion by C.Orrm. Peirce, seconded by C.Omn. Rue, to make a Resolution as presented by staff with the following arrEn.drrents: Title, change "elerrent of the general plan" to "zone"; Para. 7, Llne 3, change "open space elen:ent" to "open space zone. 11 Corrm. Smi. th asked if they should use wording in the Resolution to the effect that it will be subject to review to detennine whether or not it is exempt from G~A Mr. Post replied that the Conmission ma.y proceed. If a problem is discovered, it would be dealt with at that tine. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Comns. Loosli, Peirce, Rue, Shapiro, Smith, Chnn. Izant None Comn. Curmrings Motion by C.amn. Peirce, seconded by Coran. Rue, to rezone the Santa Fe Railroad RigJ:lt-of-Way to open space. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Corrms. Loosli, Peirce, Rile, Shapiro, Smith, Chnn. Izant None Cornn. Currmi..ngs Motion by Conm. Rue, seconded by Cornn. Smith, to accept Resolution P. C. 82-with the following arrendaETits : third WHEREAS, change "stated" to "State'\ Para. 9, change " ... of the City to 5th Street11 to ". . .of the City to 2nd Street.'' Conm. Loosli requested that the City Attorney study the Resolution before it reached Comcil level. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Comns . Loosli, Peirce , Rue, Shapiro , Smith, Chnn. Izant None Corrm. Cunnd.ngs n PLANNING CCMITSSION :MINUTES -July 6, 1982 Page 10 STAFF REPORTS Ms. Sapetto reminded the Conmi.ssioners that they had a workshop with the City Council on July 29. Not only will housing be discussed, but also the Planning C.orrmi.ssion's Priorities for this fiscal year, the condominium conversion ordinance, and the repeal of the overlay zones in the C-1, C-2, and C-3 zones. Ms. Sapetto noted that the Board of Zoning Adjustrents will hold a workshop with the City Council to discuss bootlegs as it relates to LCP policies on July 13. Ms. Sapetto noted certain item:; that were cut during the Budget hearings. Cornn. Smith recomrended that the Comnission advise the City Cm.ncil that the loss of professional services to provide adequate and complete minutes could cost the City a considerable arrount in terms of lawsuits, inability to defend oneself as a city, and lack of general infonnation provided to the City Council. He believed it was not a wise cut from a financial standpoint. He recomrended using conference rronies to enploy professional services. Chrrn. Izant concurred, stating that the Corrmi.ssion realizes the fiscal plight of the City and is willing to share the bwden, but he believed that the Planning C.onmission needed a secretary as IID.lCh as the other c.omnissions in the City. Cornn. Peirce stated that the potential of action against the City without proper minutes is rmch higher than any other Corrmi.ssion. COMMISSIONERS' ITFMS Collll.1. l.Dosli requested that the Planning Comnission reinstitute procedures to reenact the overlay zone to establish public hearings with the BZA to do an EIR. He recorrmended making a Resolution of Intention to ana1.d the zoning code to include the overlay zone and C-1, C-2, and C-3 developrrent standards. He believed that the zoning code and the general plan should be brougpt into consistency. Col11Il. Smith asked if exenptions should apply to those areas in the City that were included as a part of the LCP in the overlay zone. Ms. Sapetto stated that she would obtain a determination. Motion to adjoum at 10 :02 P .M. ) ) PLANNING CCM1ISSIOO MINUTES -July 6, 1982 CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and conplete record of the action taken by the Plarming Conmi.ssion of Herrrosa Beach at their ~eting of July 6, 1982. Page 11 t STEPHAN ~RMAN ~ .LJJ_1,~~.AA4<~~~~~~~6M~ DATE MINUTES OF TIIE PLANNING COMMISSION OF HERMOSA BEACH HEID ON JUNE 15, 1982, IN THE CITY HAIL COUNCIL CHAMBERS Kr 7: 30 P .M. Meeting called to order at 7:35 P.M. by Chnn. Izant ROI.J.. CAIL PRESENT: Conms. Cumrings, Peirce, Rue, Chrm. Izant ABSENT: Garms . Donnelly, Loosli, Smith ALSO PRESENT: PaIIEla Sapetto, Planning Director; Ralph Casteneda, TDC Planning; Alfred Mercado, Planning Aide APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion by Conm. Peirce , seconded by c.orrm. Rue, to approve the June 1, 1982 minutes with the following correction: Page 2, Motion, should read, ". . . ''WHEREAS, the Planning Coornission is not pursuing widening comnercial interests or restricting what is zoning nov;r. ' '' No objections. So ordered. COirm. Peirce noted that the above arrendrrEnt also applies to the Resolution.. APPROVAL OF RESOLUITONS Motion by Conm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Cmmi.ngs , to approve Resolution P.C. 82-15 with the following anenc1rnent: First WHERFAS, second line, should read, ''WHEREAS, the Planning Corrmissian. is not pursuing widening ccmrercial interests in the multi-use corridor or restricting the existing zone." AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comns . Currmings , Peirce , Chim. Izan t None Corrm. Rue Corrms. Donnelly, Loosli, Smith MOBilE HaiE PARKS ·Ms. Sapetto introduced Ralph Casteneda to the Cornnission. Mr. Casteneda presented his report. He stated that docUIIEilts he submitted to the Comnission were various rrethods by which to inplenent previous actions of the Planning Corrmission and Council established for creating PI..ANNING CCM1ISSION MrNUTES -June 15, 1982 Page 2 MOBILE HrnE PARKS (Cont.) an exclusive zone for use of IIDbile hone parks. He stated that it was one of the first steps taken in implerrenting the objectives of the Local Coastal Program. He submitted various ways to irnpleIIEnt the zone and to achieve consistency between the Land Use Elenent of the general plan and zoning and the Zoning Or dinance. To further the obj ectives of preserving nobile hone parks, consideration was given to add to the Land Use EleTIEnt text a residential category for the trobile horn: p ark uses and consideration of adding to the Land Use Eleirent a symbol for trobil e hones. He stated that the aspect of rrobile h.orres as a use are not covered in the four land use c.ategories permitting residential uses. As a result, consideration was given for a fifth category for m:ibile hone parks. He noted that the definition for nobile hOOE parks consists of three sentences. He stated that they nrust determine whether or not the definition should be added to the text of the Land Use Eleirent. If it is added, a category should be added to the map with an appropriate syrmol for nobile barre parks. He noted that the cormn.mity currently has two rrobile hone parks, one of which is located within the Coastal zone. and would be considered before the other. If the Cormrission did arrend the general plan via changjng the Land Use ElelIEilt text and did augrrEnt the Land Use Elenent wap, the consideration would then be to change the map itself in connection with the two parks. Marineland has an open space parks school designation, which would be considered if a nobile horn: park designation were added. Subsequently, there would be a rezoning action to the n:obile hon:e park district. The Henrosa Beach Trailer Park is currently classified as nedium density, which could be ammded t o reflect the trobile horre park designation. He stated that there has been a consideration of adding an Article 6.5 creating and establishing a zone for exclusive use of rrobile hones. The current zoning desigµations for the parks in question are R-1 ·with a potential for R-3 in connection with the Marinc~land mobile horres and Herrrosa Beach Trailer Park, C-3 and R-2 in various sectors. He stated that both parks have net the required standards of developrrent in the zone, as noted by the State Depart:nent of Housing and Coomunity Developrrent in their last review. Cornn. Rue asked for the date of the last review. Mr. Casteneda replied that the last review for Marineland was June, 1979, and the last review for the Hemnsa Beach Trailer Park was Septerru:>er, 1978. Conm. Rue asked if there were regularly-scheduled inspections. Mr. Casteneda replied that they are scheduled regularly, and inspections are also prompted by corrplaints. Chrm. Izant asked if the nobile barre parks conforned to the standards of developirent of Title 25 for 1980-81. Mr. Casteneda replied in the negative, adding that the standards of developn::ent would vary according to construction. He stated that they corrply with the standards of developIIEnt at the tine they were developed. ( ( PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -June 15, 1982 MOBILE HOME PARKS (Cont.) Page 3 Ms. Sapetto informed the Commission that additional input regarding this item had been distributed to the Commissioners. Comm. Peirce asked for a clarification of who conducts the reviews. (referring to the proposed ordinance which spells out a review process for changes in existed sites.) Ms. Sapetto replied that there· is a Planning Commission and City Council review. To shorten the process, one could have an administrative approval or have a Planning Commission approval only. Mr. Casteneda stated that the document suggests that perhaps the existing park could obtain approval by either the Planning Director or the Planning Commission; however, a new park to the City would be required to go through the entire process of approval. Comm. Rue asked if staff had reviewed Title 25 to be certain it meets all of the needs of the City. Mr. Casteneda replied that their review did not indicate any problems whereby the Planning Commission would want to establish higher standards. Comm. Cummings asked if Title 25 is changed by state legislature, would Title 25 continue to exist after it has been amended. Ms. Sapetto replied that the Planning Commission could cite Title 25 if they wished to maintain the regulations as they exist listing specific reasons for doing so. Public Hearing opened at 7:57 P.M . Patricia Ware, 531 Pier Avenue, Hermosa Beach, stated that she was under the impression that at the last Council meeting a zone had been created for mobile homes, and at this time the Commission would either include or exclude the two mobile home parks in the zone. Ms. Sapetto stated that the Council referred the ordinance back to. the Planning Commission because they were concerned that the ordinance might exclude or place an unreasonable burden on the parks. Ms. Ware stated that the State Inspector visits yearly, and Marineland currently meets the present Code. Mrs. Jack Rafkin, 24645 Walnut Street, Lomita, owner of Hermosa Beach Trailer Park, stated that they purchased the park in 1948. She asked whom Mr. Casteneda was representing. Ms. Sapetto replied that he is a consultant contracted by the City to implement the Local Coastal Plan policies. u PLANNING CCTv1MISSION MINUI'ES -June 15, 1982 Page 4 MOBILE HCME PARKS (Cont.) Mrs. Rafkin stated that she objected to the prospect of the rezoning of the park. She stated that they are technically a trailer park, not a nobile hOIIE park. She s tated that they are locked into a nobile hone park zoning, and they are z oned C-3. She stated that she was not aware of any R-2 zoning. She noted that the park is 108 ' x 180'. Corrm. Peirce asked for the existing nurriber of trailers at the park. Mrs . Rafkin replied that there are 19 spaces, and there are 18 tenants with one tenant renting two of the spaces . She confinred that the State Inspector visits once or twice a year. Barney Ellerson , 531 Pier Avenue , Henmsa Beach, stated that he has lived at Marineland Trailer Park for 27 years, and he would like to keep it that way . He noted that 60% of the residents at the park are senior c itizens, and they have no other place to live. Vivian Claire, 531 Pier Avenue, Hernosa Beach, stated that she had three children, and no other parks would allow children. Public Hearing continued at 8:19 P.M. Corrm. Ctmnings asked if there is a provision for nubile hone. park residents to be provided with relocation assistance if forced to nove due to developnE1t. :Mr. Casteneda replied that it is up to the City to determine -whether or not such a procedure is appropriate. Mr. Casteneda stated that Phase III of the LCP actually deals only with Marineland Mobile Hone Park. Motion by Corrm. Peirce , seconded by Corrrn. Currmings , that the Planning Conmi.ssion generate a new land use classification in the Land Use Elerrent of the general plan as stated on Page 2 of the presentation, which, in effect , creates a Land Use Elerrent Mobile Horre Park. This rroticm. includes the syni>o 1 on the map . AYES: Corrms. Curnnings , Peirce, Rue, Chnn. Izant NOES: None ABSENT: Cooms . Donne 11 y, Loosli , Smith Cornn. Cumnings recormended that the words "the addition of any new spaces or the deletion of five or TIDre spaces" be added to Item 2, and that Item 3 be deleted. Comn. Peirce stated that he would rrodify Page 3 and put Ll.ne 6 and 7 at the bottom of Line 20 and add, "additicm. or deleticn. of spaces in existing park must provide a project layout and space layout." The paragraph from Line 10 to Line 19 should stay as is. Pl.ANNING CCM1I.SSION MINUTES -June 15, 1982 Page 5 MOBILE HCME PARKS (Cont.) Motioo. by Cornn. Peirce, seconded by Qmn. Cunmi.ngs, to create a new part of the Zoning Code, Section 6.5-1 through 6.5-5 dealing with the Mobile Harre Park zone. COIIm. Cumnings requested staff to keep a record of the ordinance. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Corrms . Currmings , Peirce, Rue , Chrrn. Izant None c.onms. Donnelly, 1.Dosli, Smith C.Omn. Peirce stated that the Conmission had not been supplied with data concerning the spaces available, the square footage of the two parks, etc. Conm. Rue stated that he would like m:::>re information on the two parks in question. Ms. Sapetto stated that if the Co111Ili.ssion wished to request additional data from staff, she suggested that the public hearing be continued and that Items 3 and 4 as listed in the Resolution be considered for the next rreeting. Chnn. Izant concurred that additional data was needed. Mr. Casteneda stated that he would provide mre information at the July 6, 1982 rreeting. Motion by Corrm. Peirce, seconded by Corrm. Ctmmings , to adopt Resolution P.C. 82-citing Nos. 1, 2, and 7. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: C,onms . Currrnings , Peirce , Rue , Chnn. Izant None Corrms. Donnelly, Loosli, Smith Cornn. Cuamings requested that the Corrmi.ssion be provided with a copy of San Diego's ordinance dealing with relocation assistance. Recess from 8:55 P.M. to 9:05 P.M. RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY Ms. Sapetto gave staff report. She stated that staff recomrended zoning the railroad right-of-way property to open space, thereby bringing the zoning of the property in conformance with the general plan land use designation of open space. The Land Use designation of open space was adopted on February 25, 1975. The City has rmde sorre open space investn:ents on the property since the adoption in the form of a jogging path and sorre parking uses . She stated that Manhattan Beach uses the PLANNING CCM1ISSION MINUTES -June 15, 1982 Page 6 RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY (Cont.) railroad right-of-way as open space, and the zoning of this open space represents a continuity. She noted that as of January 1, 1974, county and city zoning ordinances were required to be consistent with the general plan through state Goverrnrent Code 65860 and 659:io. Staff proposed that this requirerrEnt be rret by rezoning. She stated that the property represents approximately 20 acres of land. She stated that one consideration that the Comni.ssion should make is vktether or not the open space designation rerroves substantially all of the economic value of the land. If it does, then the designation may be considered a taking for which the City is responsible and would have to conpe.nsate the owner. The C.Orrmission should consider whether zoning this property to open space could still penrri..t the property to secm-e rreasurable economic return. through educational buildings, public and private recreatian centers, public utility structures, and public gove~nt buildings as defined in the open space ordinance. Cornn. Cl..lllllii.ngs asked if the action would involve a change in the open space zone to include the use of the railroad right-of-way. Ms. Sapetto replied in the affirmative, adding that it would change from an R-1 status to open space. Conm. Cumnings noted that it is not R-1 until it is abandoned. He stated that even though it is zoned R-1, it is prohibited for any use other than transportation. Mr. Mercado stated that it is currently unzoned, but once it is abandoned, it automatically becOOE.s R-1. Chrm. Izant stated that Section 305.3 says, "when a public street or alley is officially vacated or abandoned, the area corrprising such vacated street or alley shal l acquire the classification of the property to 'Which it reverts . 1 ' Comn. Cunmi.ngs stated that it is not a street or alley. He noted that if the Planning Comnission zones it open space, it will preclude activity as transit. Mr. Mercado concurred, adding that it is not a permitted use in the open space zone. Corrrn. Currm:ings stated that the open space zone must include the use of a railroad right-of-way. Coom. Peirce stated that the nntion should include a clause that to rezone it open space, it becones effective on the abancionrrent of the property. COIIIIl. Curnnings stated that they should zone it open space before the abandonnent hearing. ( PLANNING COM1[SSION MINUI'ES -June 15, 1982 RAILROAD RIGITT-OF-WAY (Cont.) Corrm. Peirce noted that none of the categories of permi. tted uses apply in this case. Page 7 Ms. Sapetto stated that the Planning Conmi.ssion could continue the public hearing and advertise for a public hearing on aIIEnding the open space elenent to include the use of private utility transportation. At that tiIIE, both changes could be made. Corrm. Cunmi.ngs requested that staff cc:nsult the City Attorney to be certain that the wording is inclusive of the use of a railraod. Public Hearing opened at 9:22 P.M. Robert Curry, 1509 Monterey Boulevard, Hernosa Beach, stated that the City Attorney should be present because this is a major change in the City. He believed that the Planning Conrnission was not conpetent to make this change. Chnn. Izant noted that the City Attorney had given SOIIE input on the issue. Debby Brink, 2206 S. Ardnnre, Hern:osa Beach, asked who owned the right-of-way. :Ms. Sapetto replied that a title search had not been conducted on the property, due to the expense involved. However, Santa Fe had inforIIEd the City that approximately one-third of the right-of-way is owned by Santa Fe. Therefore, the City does not know the reversion.ary rights at this ti.Ire. It is possible that the property may revert to the adjacent properties, or it may revert to the original owners. Crnm. Izant noted additional written correspondence submitted to the Corrmission. Public Hearing continued at 9:34 P.M. l.1otion by Conm. Peirce , • seconded by Conm. Currm:ings , to make a Resolution to hold a public hearing on adding a category to the open space zone allowing transportation uses. No objections. So ordered. Coran. Currmings requested legal counsel at their July 6, 1982 rreeting. :Ms. Sapetto acknowledged his request. STAFF REPORTS :Ms. Sapetto asked the Corrmissioners to read the material given to them on the Santa Fe abandomiEnt. PI.ANNING CCM1ISSION MINUTES -June 15, 1982 Page 8 STAFF REPORTS (Ccmt. ) Ms . Sapetto stated that the City Budget will be discussed at the next City Council rreeting. MISCELLANEOUS None Motion to adjourn at 9:40 P.M. CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and con:plete record of the action taken by the Planning Conmission of Hernosa Beach at their rreeting of June 15, 1982. CHAIRMAN ROBERT CUMMINGS, SECRETARY DATE MINUI'ES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF HERMJSA BEACH HELD ON JUNE 1, 1982, IN TI-IE CITY HAIL COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT 7:30 P.M. Meeting called to order at 7:30 P.M. by Chrm.. Izant ROLL CAIL PRESENT: Corn:ns. Currmings, Loosli, Peirce, Smith, Chnn . Izant ABSENT: Corrms. Donnelly, Rue ALSO PRESENT: PaIIEla Sapetto, Planning Director; Linda Brayton, 'IDC Planning Coran. Rue had an excused absence from this ~eting. APPROVAL OF MINlITES Motion by Conm. Loosli, seconded by Comn. Smith, to approve the May 8, 1982 minutes, as submitted. No objections. So ordered. REVISION OF CON1XMINTIJM ORDINANCE, SECTION 9.5-22(2) WHICH LIMITS THE NUMBER OF DWEILING UNITS ON ANY R..:2 OR R..:2B LOTS TO 25 'IMELLINC;°-- UNITS Ms. Sapetto gave staff report. She stated that staff recornrended that Section 9.5-22(2) be deleted from the ordinance. She stated that on all of the combined lots, the existing dwelling tmits per acre is 12.8. This is .05% of the total number of dwelling units in the City. The potential developrrent to R-2 or 25 dwelling units per acre is 105 units. This represents 1% of the total dwelling units in the city. She stated that the potential developnent for all affected areas as allowed by the general plan designation of TIR.llti-use is 162.4 dwelling units, which is 40 dwelling units per acre. This represents 1. 6% of the total dwelling units in the City. A change from 25 dwelling units per acre to 40 dwelling units per acre would increase the total number of dwelling units in the City by .6%. Comm. loosli stated that he had requested a description. of what was on each lot. COillil. Peirce suggested changing the general plan areas that are zoned R-2 in the Ililllti-use corridor to rre.dium density. Ms. Sapetto stated that in order to change the general plan, staff must advertise and do an envirorurental impact report. She stated that a Resolution of Intention rrrust be made directing staff to do an environnEI1tal impact report. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -June 1, 1982 Page 2 REVISION OF CONDOMINIUM ORDINANCE ; SECTION 9.5-22(2) WHICH LIMITS THE NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS ON ANY R-2 OR R-2B LOTS TO 25 DWELLING DN1TS (Cont.) Public Hearing opened at 7:42 p.m. Wilma Burt, 1152 7th Street, Hermosa Beach, stated that there is a steep hill on the east side of the Highway on 7th, 8th, 9th, and 10th Streets. If the multi-use corridor goes up to Ocean, the view and air will be blocked for eyeryorie up to Prospect. She urged the Commission to forbid the destruction of single family homes between Aviation Boulevard and 5th Street. She stated that Areas 7, 8, and 9 on the map are the only areas in Hermosa Beach where family living could be maintained. Public Hearing closed at 7:52 p.m. Comm. Cummings asked if it would be possible to have a density in the general plan of 25 dwelling units per acre for the areas where there is a conflict with zoning. Ms. Sapetto replied that there would have to be a change in the general plan. Any change in the general pian within the multi-use corridor should form part of an overall study of the corridor as recently embarked upon by the Commission and not made to simply reflect zoning. Motion by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Cummings, to make a Resolution of Intention to hold a public hearing with the effect of changing the general plan to reflect the zoning of the area. The Resolution would be, 11WHEREAS, the Planning Commission is not pursuing widening commercial interests and restricting what is zoning now; WHEREAS, R-2 becomes medium density, and R~1 becomes low density; WHEREAS, in 1979 when the Planning Commission attempted to rezone the south part of the town and extend the zoning, there was opposition from the homeowners and no support from the commercial community, except for Jim Fucile; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has currently sent a letter to the Chamber of Commerce in an attempt to mediate increased commercial usage in the north end of town. Comm. Cummings asked if all of the abutting residential areas to commercial zones were zoned R-2. Comm. Peirce replied in the negative. Comm. Cummings asked if the above motion would cause downzoning. Comm. Peirce replied in the negative, adding that it would only change what is now multi-use to medium density or commercial. AYES: Comms. Cunnnings, Loosli, Peirce, Smith, Chmn. Izant NOES: None ABSENT: Cormns. Donnelly, Rue (Comms. Loosli and Smith originally voted against the motion.) PLANNING CCM1ISSION MINUTES -June 1, 1982 Page 3 REVISION OF CONOOMINilM ORDINANCE, SECI'Ictil Q.5-22(2) WHICH Lil1ITS THE NUMBER OF DWEILING UNITS ON ANY R-2 OR R-2B lDTS TO 25 m,JEU,ING UNITS (Cont.) Cornn. Loosli wished to see a notion to change the general plan to IIEdium or law density in the rrn.tl.ti-use corridor citywide when the zoning is R-2 or R-1. 'Ms. Sapetto reiterated the Planning Conmissicm.1 s concerns, those being, to examine all areas in the nrulti-use corridor -which are not consistent and to consider changing the general plan designation to be either for cormercial or residential. CoIIID. Loosli added that if it is zoned conmercial, the general plan will be cormercial. If it is zoned R-2, the general plan will be IIEdium density residential. If it is zoned R-1, it will be low density. PHASE III -LCP , PRESERVATION AND REHABILITATION OF EXISTING STRUCTURES - REVIEW OF RIC REOJMMENDATICNS Ms. Sapetto introduced Llnda Brayton of ±Ix:; Planning. Ms. Brayton gave a report on Phase III of the I.CP. She stated that the City Council directed TDC to solicit rrore input from the conmunity and the Henrosa Improvenent Commission. She stated that the following components of the Phase III LCP Work Program were addressed: 1) to adopt an ordinance m:,difying the Building Code in order to make preservation/ rehabilitation of older units an easier process; 2) to revise the Zoning Code in order to encourage rehabilitation of cormErcial-residential structures; 3) to examine the Zoning Code to rennve unnecessary impedinents to the rehabilitation of existing cOIIIIErcial and residential structures. She stated that after discussing with the Building Depart:nent staff the possibility of rrodi:fymg the Building Code, it was determined that IIDdifications were not necessary or practical. It is difficult and lengthy to rrodify the Building Code, and there were already provisions in the Building C.Ode encouraging restoration of historical structures. The Herzrosa J.mproverent C,onmi_ssion concurred that the Unifonn Building Code was adequate to i.nplenent I.CP policies without rrodifications. She noted that, with regard to No. 2 (above) , she spoke with the Local Historical Society, City Staff, architects in the area specializing in restoration, and the Henrosa ImproveIIEilt Corrrnission. She stated that the Historical Society believed that the City should set an exarrple by restoring public buildings of historical value. Clark Stadium was suggested as the nurrber one priority. 'The original Prospect Avenue School was also suggested as having local historical interest. City staff indicated that the restoration of Clark StadilDil. is currently in progress. Th.e interior of the Clark building will be corrpletely redone. 'Ihe Historical Society favored encouragerrent of a maintenance program to conserve existing structures. Most buildings of significant interest have already been destroyed. Remaining structures that may have local historical interest consist of the Cove theater, the Baptist Church and the Pueblo Apartrrents. It was also their PI.ANNING CCMv!ISSION MINUTES -June 1, 1982 Page 4 PHASE III -LCP , PRESERVATION AND REHABILITATION OF EXISTING STRUCTURES - REVIEW OF RIC RE<Il1MENDATIONS (Cont.) suggestion that there be a location where various items of historical interest could be stored. She noted that preservation of historical structures were discussed with a local architect specializing in restoration. He had indicated that rrost of the major architectural buildings have already been renoved and that no significant public buildings are left. He believed that the Cove theater had the greatest historic potential. She stated that s orre publications and catalogues that provide tecbnical information, services, and supplies available were the Old House Journal, the Renovator's Supply, and the Old House Catalog. The Henmsa Improven:ent Comni.ssion believed that the nunber one priority should be to establish criteria for what constitutes local historical value. They did not feel that there were enough things left in the City to have a Historical Elenent, but perhaps a Master Ll.st of remaining stn.1Ctures. The Irnproverrent Conmission suggested that a local historian., Pat Gazin, be consulted in this task as she has done considerable research in Henrnsa Beach. It was the concensus of the Comnission that people owning structures of historic interest should be apprised that their property has historic significance. However, restoration activities should be left to the discretion of the property owners. 'Th.e City should not interfere with the property rights of private individuals. With regard to revising the Zoning Code to rerrove impedinents to rehabilitation, she stated that the nnst comron building pennit issued in Hermosa Beach is for a second story addition. When the addition occurs, the original structure is also updated. Currently 85% of the structures in Herm:::,sa Beach do not IIEet current setback require~ts, so a variance is necessary for alnost all second story additions. An administrative variance is at a staff level and requires noticing to adj acent property owners by staff. In order to obtain an administrative variance, there rrn.JSt be a mi.ninrum 3-foot setback on the sideyard, required front yard setback, and the enlargeirent cannot increase the building over 40% of the gross floor area. Chly two structures have qualified £or an achninistrative variance. Expanding the scope of the Administrative Variance procedure would renove an impedinent to rehabilitation. Processing t ine and developn:ent costs would be reduced. The Herrrosa IrrproveITE11t Conrni.s sion agreed that the Administrative Variance section of the Zoning Ordinance should be clill:mded. She stated that, based on the input from the vari0us groups, the following recOIIIIEI1dations regarding housing rehabilitation and preservation were suggested: 1) establish criteria for determining local historical significance; 2) expand the scope .of the Achninistrative Variance procedure; 3) make information avail able to the corrrm.mity through the Building DepartrrBnt and His torica l Society regarding the preservation of historical structures; and 4) develop a Master Ll.s t of Historic and Cultural Landrmrks. Other approaches which ma.y IIErit consideration would be to publish a booklet detailing the requiren:ents and associated cost impacts of the Zoning Code on the repair, rehabilitation, and 1.Jll)roverrEnt of existing residential and corrrrercial structures or to negotiate with local lending institutions to establish a special loan PLANNING CCM1ISSION MINUTES -June 1, 1982 Page 5 PHASE III -I.CP , PRESERVATION AND REHABILITATION OF EXISTING STRUCTURES - REVIEW OF HIC RECOMMENDATIONS (Cont.) program as part of an incentive program for historic buildings so that they can IIEet their obligations under the Conmunity Reinvestrrent Act or to nndify the existing rehabilitation loan program to include certified local historical landmarks. COI11I1. loosli noted that the words "rehabilitation" and "addition" were used interchangeable throughout Ms. Brayton' s report. His interpretation of rehabilitation was fixing up, while addition. TIEant adding an to. Corrm. loosli asked for the cost difference for the applicant between an administrative variance and a regular variance. Ms. Sapetto replied that she did not know the dollar arrount; however, she stated that the difference relates to tine, noticing, and application. fees. Cornn. Loosli asked if the Corrnri.ssion could con.sider changing the City Code so that a variance would require noticing all property owners within 100 feet, as opposed to 300 feet. Ms. Brayton replied that it .is part of Goverrurent Code that property owners within 300 feet be notified. Ms. Sapetto added that the Coastal Corrmission also requires the 300-foot noticing. Corrm. Loosli asked Ms. Brayton if she were suggesting that the requiremmts for a variance be relaxed. Ms. Brayton replied that she was suggesting that the Corrmission look at what has been routmely approved. The ones that have been routmely approved would be allowed to have second-story additions through an administrative variance process rather than go through the public hearing. The administrative variance process had not been ~eful. Public Hearing opened at 8: 42 p. m. Wilma Burt, 1152 7th Street, Herrrosa Beach, stated that she would not like to see the noticing of a variance go less than 300 feet. She stated that Mrs. Gazin noted around 100 buildings that were historical; however, windows and doors have been changed. She stated that the Historical Society was given a parrphlet by Mr. Widman stating ·that to be considered historical, no shrubbery, painting, or landscaping could be changed. Also, no one within eyesight could change the outside appearance of their hones. She stated that the question. is whether or not the City has the right to control property around the historical building. She stated that the Historical Society wished to see the Cove theater preserved, even though it is taller than other buildings in the area. She noted that srnre old buildings in Hernosa Beach are where the Either/Or Bookstore is currently located. Public Hearing continued at 8:57 p.m. PLANNrnG CCMITSSION MINlil'ES -June 1, 1982 Page 6 PHASE III -LCP , PRESERVATION AND REHABILITATION OF EXISTING STRUCTURES - REVIEW OF HIC RECCM1ENDATIONS (Cont.) Chrrn. Izant stated that Ms. Brayton should submit a report to the Board of Zoning AdjustnEnts for their input. Comn. Peirce believed that the administrative variance should be in two parts. One part should cover single family houses and single- floor houses, and one part should cover two-story houses. He believed that administrative variances for single-story houses should be expanded, and administrative variances for two-story houses should be rrore difficult to obtain. COIIIIl. loosli felt that Section 1309 did not necessarily deal with rehabilitation. Chnn. Izant concurred, stating that rehabilitation was one thing, and expansion and renoceling was another. Conm. Smith expressed his disappoint:TIEnt in the report in that the majority of it dealt with historic preservation. and it ignored the issue of additions, rehabilitation, and rerroceling. He believed there should be sorm strategies for preserving sane of the structures. Ms. Brayton stated that TDC was looking strictly at the Zoning Code, and many things such as additions and reroodels were beyond the scope of the Zoning Code. Ms. Sapetto stated that Corrm. Smith's concerns were incorporated in the Housing Elem:mt. Cornn. Loosli stated that they IIIl..lSt find a definition of "rehabilitation." Conm. Loosli suggested that Ms. Brayton give a full report to the Board of Zoning Adjustrrents. Conm. Cumn:ings stated that the Corrmi..ssion should separate the preservation of interesting or historical buildings from the preservation of old buildings which may be cheap buildings. Cl.-um. Izant directed Ms. Brayton to appear before the Board of Zoning Adjustrrents with a full report. Corrm. Srrti.th concurred with Corrnr. • Cumrcings' above remark in that there should be a clear separation between that which has to do with historic preservation and that which has to do with residential and comrercial structure preservation and continued use with the intent of retaining the current character of the City and affordability. COlllll. loosli requested that there be a distinction between an addition and rehabilitation to preserve a structure. Also, a definition of rehabilitation was needed. n PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -June 1, 1982 Page 7 PHASE III -LCP PRESER VATION AND REHABIL ITATION OF EXISTING STRUCTURES - REVIEW OF HIC RECOMMENDATIONS (Cont:) Comm. Peir'ce felt that the Commission should focus in on what the Zoning Code says about rehabilitation and additions. Mr. Brayton reiterated the Planning Commission 1 s concerns, those being, that there is no need to change the Uniform Building Code; in regards to rehabilitation, the word 11 restoration11 should be used in relation to historical structures as distinguished from rehabilitation; thatthere are not enough historical buildings left in the City worthy of a major restor- ation effort; to review Comm. Loosli 1 s document and investigate what type of tax incentives are available; in terms of rehabilitation, that Ms. Brayton will approach the Board of Zoning Adjustments to obtain input from them and have them look at the second stories versus horizontal additions; that the strategy is to rehabilitate existing housing to pre- serve affordable market housing; to determine if there are market strategies associated with zoning. Comm. Cummings requested criteria as to whether something is rehabilitation or a complete rebuild. He also requested that rehabilitation be separated from historical preservation when the report is presented to the Board of Zoning Adjustments. Comm. Loosli stated that he is not in favor of relaxing the requirements for a variance. He believed that variances should be granted in extreme hardship cases. MISCELLANEOUS STAFF REPORTS Update on Parking Program -Coastal Permit Ms. Sapetto stated that the document was merely an informational update, Upcoming Commission Agendas Ms. Sapetto noted that this was also included as an informational update. COMMISSIONERS 1 ITEMS Comm. Smith requested that some inforamtion be provided in relation to the possible impact of the Declaration of Abandonment by Santa Fe. He noted that they posted abandonment. Ms. Sapetto stated that she would consult with Charles Clark. Motion to adjourn at 9:42 p.m. PI.ANNING COMMISSION MINUI'ES -June 1, 1982 CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and corrplete record of the action taken by the Plarming Conmi..ssion at their regular neeting of Jtme 1, 1982. Page 8 ( MINUTES OF THE PLANNING CCMITSSION OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON MAY 18, 1982, lli THE CITY HAIL COUNCIL CH.AMBERS Kr 7:30 P.M. Meeting called to order at 7:38 P.M. by Crum. Izant ROU. CA1l... PRESENT: Corrms. Cmmi.ngs, Loosli, Rue, Smith, Chnn. Izan.t ABSENT: Conrns. Donnelly, Peirce ALSO PRESENT: Alfred Mercado, Plarming Aide APPROVAL OF MINUrES Motioo. by Comn. Smi.. th, seconded by Coom. Rue, to approve the May 4, 1982 minutes as submitted. No objections. So ordered. APPROVAL OF RESOLUTIONS Motion by Cornn. Rue, seconded by Corrm. Cumrings, to approve Resolutions P.C. 82-13 and P.C. 82-14. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Corrrns. Currmings, l.Dosli, Rue, Smith, Chrm.. Izant None Cormis. Dormelly, Peirce HOUSlliG ELEMENT , SECTIONS II AND III , STATEMENTS OF PHII.l)SOPHY AND STATEMENT OF THE CITY'S ROI.E IN HOUSING Mr. Mercado requested a postponerrent of this item until Ralph Casteneda was present to give staff report. REVISION OF THE mNDOMINIUM ORDINANCE -SECTIOO 9 .5-22 (2) WHICH LIMITS THE NUMBER OF 'DWEI.LING UNITS ON mi. R-2 OR R-2B "LOTS TO 25 DWEILING UNITS Mr . Mercado gave staff report. He stated that on July 14, 1981, the City Council adopted Ordinance 81-666 which ammded the Condominium Ordinance by adding: "The number o f units to be allowed in this zone shall be consistent with the general plan and shall be corrpatible with residential uses in the surrounding area; but in no case greater than 25 dwe lling units per acre.1 ' This anEndrrent refers t o the R-2, R-2B zones throughout the City. Subsequent to this comcil action, on November 3, 1981, the Plarming Corrmission considered a condominium project that falls within the area of the City where the zoning is inconsistent with the general plan, i.e., general plan designation of rrulti-use which all ows up to 40 dwelling units per acre and is zoned R-2 which pennits up to 24 dwelling units per acre. Consequently, this project was exerrpted from Ordinance 81-666. If Ordinance 81-666 were PLANNING CCM1ISSION MINUTES -May 18, 1982 Page 2 REVISION OF THE CONDCMrNilM ORDINANCE -SECTION 9.5..;22 (2) WHICH LJl1ITS TIIE NUMBER .OF "DWELLING "UNITs ·oN •AfN •R-2 OR "R_;2B LOTS TO 25 DWELLING UNITS (Q:m t . ) applied to this project, the City would be in effect acting in contradictioo to State Law, which states, GoverruIEnt Code, Section 65860, "(a) County or city ordinances shall be consistent with the general plan of the city; (b) !my resident or property owner within a city or county as the case be, may bring an action in the superior court to enforce compliance with the provisions o f subdivision (a) .. " Locally, there are three areas in the City which are adversely impacted by the subject section of Ordinance 81-666. Those areas are: 1) R-2 east of Hi ghway between 6th and 8th Streets and in the IlR.llti-use corridor; 12 lots are affected. 2) Rw2 west of Hi ghway between the C.Orrmrnity Center and 8th Street in nmlti-use corridor; 27 lots are affected. 3) R-2 on Loma Drive between 8th Street and South School and in the high density residential corridor; 47 lots are affected. He stated that since all of the subdivisions rrn.JSt be compatible with the City's general plan, it becorres quite dysfunctional in sorre cases and contrary to State law, to limit 25 dwelling units per acre in R-2 and R-2B zohes where the land use designation penuits a greater density. Staff recomrended that the phrase, ''but in no case greater than 25 dwelling units per acre'' be deleted from the Condominium Ordinance. If the Corrmi.ssion feels it appropriate to retain this phrase, staff recOIIIIEnded adding, "except" where the general plan specifies "otherwise" imnedi.atel y after subject phrase . Chan. Izant asked how the over lay would affect the three zones that are adversely impacted by the subject section of Ordinance 81-666. Mr. Mercado replied that the overlay reduces the nurrber of units that could be built within the affected areas. C.Onm. l.Dosli stated that Areas No. 1 and 2 are not affected by the overlay. Mr. ~rcado stated that the property on Loma Drive would not be affected by the overlay. Cornn. Loosli suggested that the subcomni.ttee study the two areas in the multi-use corridor to determine if those areas should be in the nmlti-use corridor. If they determine that they should be in the nmlti-use corridor, they should possibly be in c orm:ercial. If it is determined that those areas should not be in the multi-use corridor, the Conmission should consider changing the general plan. Public Hearing opened at 8 : 01 p. m. Delma Peery, 720 8th Street, Herrrosa Beach, asked if the Highway is west of or inside the nmlti-use corridor. Chnn. Izant replied that it is inside the corridor. Public Hearing conttinued at 8:03 p.m. PIANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -May 18, 1982 Page 3 REVISICN OF THE CONDCMINillM ORDINANCE -SECTICN 9.5-22 (2) WHICH LIMITS THE NUMBER OF DWEILING .UNITS 'ON ANY ·R-2 ORR-2B LOTS T0 '25 'DWELLING UNITS (C,ont.) Corrm. Loosli stated that they could adopt staff's recomrendation, .:but that the C.Orrmission should change the general plan or have the subcorrmittee look at the two areas in the nrulti-use corridor to determine whether they should be coDIIErcial or residential. Comn. Rue felt as though the Corrmi.ssion should study the situaticn on lDma Drive. He felt that the general plan and zoning should be corrpatible. Chrm. Izant stated that the C'.omn:ission must study Loma Drive to detenrri.ne whether the general plan should be changed to reflect n:edium density. Cornn. Loosli reconnended that staff provide the Comnission with information regarding the two Illlllti-use· areas and with a subdivision map of the area and what currently exists on the lots. The Comnission should then make a determination at their next rreeting. Motion by Corrm. Rue, seconded by Comn. CUIIIIIi.ngs. for the purposes of discussion, to approve Resolution P.C. 82- Corrm. Curm:rings asked why they should approve the Resolution when the Conmission will be hearing it at the next rreeting. Cornn. Rue withdrew his notion, and Conm. Cumnings withdrew his second. Cornn. Loosli directed staff to provide the Corrmission with the lots and their descriptions, what currently exists on the lots and a subdivision map. Chrm. Izant stated that this item would be continued to the next reeting. HOUSING ELEMENT , SECTIONS II AND III , STATEMENTS OF PHILOSOPHY AND STATEMENT OF THE CITI'S ROlE m HOUSING (Cont.) Mr. Mercado gave staff report. He stated that Mr. Casteneda' s recornrendationwas to receive the preliminary infonnation concerning a Staterrent of Housing Philosophy and the City's Role in Housing. Coran. Smith asked if the preliminary infonnation were available in the library. Mr. Mercado replied that it was their policy to keep the information in tlie library. Public Hearing opened and closed at 8:21 p.m. PlANNING CCMITSSION MINUTES -May 18, 1982 HOUSING ELEMENT, SECTIONS II AND III , STATEMENTS OF PHILOSOPHY AND STATEMENT OF TIIB CITY'S ROLE IN HOUSING (Cont.) Motion by Conm. Smith, seconded by Corrm. Ct.mmings, to receive and file Sections II and III of the Housing Elerrent. No objections. So ordered. STAFF REPORTS Mr. Mercado noted that a study was done on the northwest quadrant. COM1ISSIONERS' ITEMS Corrm. Loosli suggested that the Conmission study Senate Bill 1534 and make a recomrendation to the City Council. Chnn. Izant directed staff to schedule a public hearing on Senate Bil: 1·160 (Mello Bill). Page 4 Mr. Mercado stated that an Environrrental Impact Report was prepared and the Board of Zoning Adjust:nEnts held a public hearing on Senate Bill 1534. He noted that the Board of .zoning Adjustrrents determined that it would have a neasurable impact on the City; therefore, staff was going to provide mitigation neasures and return to the Board. June Williarm, Conrni.ssioner for the Board of Zoning Adjustrrents, stated that they did hear Senate Bill 1534 and voted for a full preliminary enviro.nm:mtal irrpact report. Chnn. Izant stated that it is the Planning Corrmi.ssion's responsibility to advise the City Council on potential rreasures before the state. Chnn. Izant announced that SCAG will be holding a public hearing on Wednesday, June 2, 1982 from 3:00 to 5:00 p.m. and 7:00 to 9:00 p.m. at the SCAG offices at 600 S. Corrm:mwealth Avenue, Suite 1000. Th.is will be a public hearing on their draft for the 1982 Growth Forecast Policy and their draft Fnvirorurental Impact Report. Conrn. Loosli requested that the City Council minutes spell out the n.arrES of persons in their minutes. Crum. Izant directed staff to request that the names be spelled out in the minutes. Motion to adjourn at 8:40 P .M. PIANNING CCMMISSION MINUTES -May 18, 1982 Page 5 CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and ccmplete record of the action taken by the Plarntlng Comrrission of Henmsa Beach at their neetin of May 18, 1982. CHAIRMAN w~, .J DA'.IB ' ( • MINUTES OF THE PLANNING CCM1ISSICN OF HERMOSA BFACH HELD ON MAY 4, 1982, IN TIIE CITY HAIL COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT 7:30 p.m. Meeting called to order at 7:32 p.m. by Chrrn. Izant ROIL CALL PRESENT: Conms . Cunnti.ngs , Loosli , Peirce , Rue , Smith , Chrm. Izant ABSENT: Cornn. Donnelly AI.SO PRESENT: Panela Sapetto, Planning Director Linda Brayton, TDC APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion by Conm. Peirce, seconded by Corrm. Smith, to approve the April 20, 1982 minutes with the following correcticn: Page 5, para. 1, should read," ... He spoke against C-3 developnent in that area. " No objection. So ordered. APPROVAL OF RESOLUTIONS Comn~ Loosli recornrended the following verbage to replace the 11th WHEREAS in Resolution P. C. 82-12 , ',-JHEREAS, it is the developer's required responsibility to be properly infonrE.d about proper condominium construction standards." Corrrn. Peirce suggested the following verbage for the 11th WHEREAS in Resolution P.C. 82-12, "WHEREAS, the developer should have examined the developnent standards 1mre carefully to deternti.ne what he could or could not build on that property." Motion by Cornn. Peirce, seconded by Cornn. Curmrings , to approve Resolutions P.C. 82-10, P.C. 82-11, and P.C. 82-12 with the 11th WHEREAS of P.C. 82-12 reading, ''WHEREAS, the developer should have examined the developnent standards more carefully to deternti.ne what he could or could not build on that property." AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Corrms . Cunmings , Loosli , Peirce , Srni th None Coom. Rue, Crum. Izant Comn. Donnelly COMMERCIAL RECREATIOOAL DISTRICT -REVISION OF USES FOR THE C-2 ZONE Linda Brayton of TDC gave staff report. She stated t hat the Planning Comnission was given the option of doing an overlay zone or to add or PLANNING CCM1ISSION MINUIES -May 4, 1982 CCM1ERCIAL RECREATIONAL DISTRICT -REVISION OF USES FOR THE C-2 ZONE (Cont.) Page 2 delete uses from the current C-2 zoning. The Planning Connd.ssion, at their rreeting of April 7, 1982, did not wish an overlay zone. She stated that several uses in the C-2 zone would be applicable to a COIIlffircial recreation district. She added that rootels and visitor serving retail might be added to those uses, and nechanical car washes and warehouse_ storage might be deleted. Corrm. Peirce asked for the difference between a hotel and rrotel, if they are defined in the Code. Ms. Sapetto replied that the only difference is the configuration of the structure; that is , a rootel has parking by the room, and a hotel has parking a!ilay from ~e rooms. Also, nntels are in the C-3 zone, while hotels are in the C-2 zone. Parking requiren:ents for hotels and rrotels are exactly the sam:, two spaces for the managers and one space for each lil1i t. Corrm. Loosli asked if there were a definition of visitor serving retail in the C.Ode. Ms . Brayton replied in the negative. She added that many uses in the C-2 zone would qualify as visitor serving retail, such as stores geared nore towards tourists than the residents. Public Hearing opened and closed at 7 :58 p .m. Motion by Cornn. Peirce, seconded by Conm. Cunmings , to make a Resolution that, having looked at 'What is presently in the C-2 zone, the Conrnission feels that it generally covers anything that would be in cormercial recreation which would satisfy the intent of Item J of the LCP Phase 3 work program. Conrn. Smith asked for the purpose, outside of IJErely corrplying with the requiret1EI1ts of the Local Coastal Canmi.ssion, of examining the C-2 zone for comrercial recreational uses. Ms. Sapetto explained that the I.Deal Coastal Plan requires a study to determine if there are additional anendrrents that should be made to encourage cormErcial recreational uses in the C-2 zone. She stated that the Connrl.ssion nrust determine if it needed to be revised. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Corrms. Currmings, loosli, Peirce, Rue, Crum. Izant c.onm. Smi. th Corrm. Donne l _l y PIANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -May 4, 1982 COMMERCIAL RECREATIONAL DIS1RICT -REVISION OF USES FOR THE C-2 ZOOE (Cont.) Page 3 Motion by Crum. Izant, seconded by Corrm. Peirce, to make a Resolution as follows: ''WHEREAS, the Planning Comnissirn has examined the uses permitted by the C-2 zone; WHEREAS, the purpose of the examination was to determine whether or not the current zoning net the goals providing recreational and coastal-related needs to the area; NCU, THEREFORE, IT BE RESOLVED, the Planning Conmi.ssion has determined that the current C-2 zone does allow an encouraged recreational use." AYES: NOES: ABSENT : CoIIl!E. Cun:mi.ngs, Loosli, Peirce, Rue, Chirn. Izant Corrm. Smi. th Comn. Donnelly EXTENSION OF THE VALIDITY OF CONDITICNAL USE PERMITS FOR SUBDIVISIONS ro ·coINCIDE WITH THE 24..:.MQNTH VALIDITY OF TENTATIVE MAPS Ms. Sapetto gave staff report. She stated that staff recomrended that the Planning Corrmission approve Resolution P.C. 82-14, which 8lIEilds Article 18, Secticm 1801 of the City Code. She noted that the anendnEnt referred to the extension of the tine validity of conditirnal use permits (for subdivisions only) so that they can run concurrently with tentative map approval s. She stated that the conditional use penni.t currently has a ti.Ire validity of 12 m:mths; whereas, the tentative map has a ti.Ile validity of 24 m:mths. She stated that the Planning Comnission, at their April 7, 1982 neet:ing, passed a Resoluticm of Intention to arrend the City Code so that conditional use permits are consistent with the tllIE franE of tentative maps. She added that a tentative map cannot be approved without a conditional use penni.t approval. Public Hearing opened and closed at 8:12 p.m. Motion by Corrm. Peirce , seconded by Comn. Smi.. th. to approve Resolution P.C. 82-14. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Corrms. Curmri.ngs, Loosli, Peirce, Rue, Smith, Chnn. Izant None Conm. Donnelly PLANNING CCM1ISSION MINUTES -May 4, 1982 Page 4 }{[SCELIANEOUS Planning Conmission Priorities FY 82-83 Ms. Sapetto requested that the Planning Cormrl.ss ion review the tentative priority list and establish their priorities for FY 82 -83 to submit to the City Council. Comn. Peirce stated that No. 7 of the priori ties for FY 82-83 should rrention that the Planning Conmi ssion will coordinate a s tudy and recomrendation for problem areas. Conm. Curmings asked for an update on bootleg units. Ms. Sapetto replied that the process of bootleg units has, up until this tine, been handled by the Building Departn:Ent . Corrm. Rue felt that the Highway ~rcial Corridor -Multi-Use Corridor should go under "have to" for FY 82-83. Corrm. Smith felt that the "like to" s ubjects listed for FY 81-82 should go under ''have to" for FY 82-83. He stated that No. 8 should go under ''have to . " Ms. Sapetto inforned the Planning Comrri..ssion that she had included under No. 6 that the Corrmission could detennine their role in the downtown study. Corrm. Peirce stated that the downtown study is an impact on the City. Corrm. Peirce asked how much effort is involved in the Condominiu:n Developrrent patterns. Ms . Sapetto replied that she was not certain, but that she could do a preliminary study with an intern. She added that the basic question is what effect does the condominium developnent have in the neighborhoods experiencing intense developnent. Conm. Peirce suggested deleting No. 11, relating to the Solar Elerrent. Corrm. Currmings concurred. Conrn. Rue asked if there were any provisions that protect persons' solar rights. Ms. Sapetto replied in the negative. Motion by Comn. Currmings, seconded by. Conm. Peirce, to approve the Priority List FY 82-83, as arrended. No objection. So ordered. Ms. Sapetto stated that she would submit the Planning Departrrent budget to the Comnissian, and she noted that she would be keeping the Corrrnission inforrred on the budget workshops. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -May 4, 1982 Page 5 Extension of Tentative Map #13437 at 1512-16 Henmsa Avenue Ms. Sapetto stated that staff recOII1TEnded granting the extension of the map for an additional six m:nths. Motion by C,orrrn. Cumn:i.ngs, seconded by Corrrn. Smith, to approve the six- nnnth extension at 1512-16 HernDsa Avenue . So ordered. Comn. Peirce objected. STAFF REPORTS Ms. Sapetto submitted a log sheet for the Conmission as a result of Conm. Curming' s request. Chrm. Izant was not in favor of using the log sheet as an official Conmi.ssion docment. Conm. Currmi.ngs offered conposing a log sheet as his duty of Secretary of the Planning C.omnission. Ms. Sapetto requested the Corrmissioners to make note of the Planning Corrmission/City Corneil Work.shop on the Housing Elerrent for May 26, 1982, at 7:00 p.m. COIIm. Smith asked what topics will be discussed at that Workshop. Ms. Sapetto replied that they will discuss the philosophy and intent of the Housing Elenent . She stated that the Planning Comnission will hold a public hearing an Sections 2 and 3 of the Housing Elerrent at their May 18, 1982 neeting. Clmn. Izant noted the two rrerrbers of the Planning Corrmission subcorrrnittee, Mayor MacFaden and Council.nerrber Wood. Ms. Sapetto noted that on July 29, 1982, there will be a workshop on Housing. Ms. Sapetto requested input from the Comnission on-what topics they wished to schedule for the Planning Institute. Corrm. Loosli noted concern for SB 1425 (Ayala) and SB 1534 (Mello) Bills in the weal Gove rnrrent Planning News . He asked if i t would be appropriate to hold public hearings regarding these Bills. Ms. Sapetto replied that the Comrrission is going to have a public hearing on inplerrenting the granny flat ideas. Ccnrrn. Loosli asked if the Planning Cormrl.ssion will hold a public hearing on the Mello Bill. Ms. Sapetto replied in the negative, stating that it was state legislature action. PLANNING CCM1ISSICN MINUrES -May 4, 1982 Page 6 STAFF REPORTS (Cont.) Cornn. lDosli requested that the City study the Ayala and ~11o Bills. CCM1ISSIONERS ' ITEMS None Motion to adjourn at 9:05 p.m. CERTIFICATICN I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and conplete record of the action taken by the Plamiing Corrmission of Henmsa Beach at their rreeting of May 4, 1982. ~(j ~ BCUMMINGS, SECRETARY( ------ MINUTES OF THE PlANNING COMMISSION OF HER.1.-...0SA BFACH HELD ON APRIL 20, 1 982 , IN THE CITY HAIL COUNCIL CHAMBERS Kr 7 : 30 P. M. Meeting called to order at 7 :42 P .M. by Coom. Peirce ROIL CAIL PRESENT: Conms. Cumnings, Donnelly , Loosli, Peirce, Smith ABSENI' : Conms . Rue , Chrrn. Izant AI.SO PRESENT: Panela Sapetto, Planning Director Conm. Peirce acte d as Chairman for the meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUrES M:>tion by Cornn. Loosli, seconded by Clmn. Peirce, to approve the April 7, 1982 , minutes as submitted. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENI': Comns . Cunmi.ngs , Loos li , Chm . Pe irce None Comns. Donnelly, Smith Conms . Rue, Chrm . Izant RAILROAD RIGHI'-OF-WAY Ms . Sapetto gave staff report. She stated that the Conmission took an action on the railroad right-of-way to continue mtil further notice had been made and until a Preliminary Impact Report could be developed . At the tine that action was taken, the public hearing was not closed. She stated that the public hearing technically needs to be closed. A public hearing would be rescheduled and notices would be mailed to the property owners 'Wb.o are -within 100 feet of the railroad right-of-way city -wide. She requested the Comnission to close the public hearing at this tine. Chrm . Pe irce announced that the City ·will notify everyone within 100 feet of the railroad right-of-way property and the omers of the property. He added that the previous noticing was only a quarter-page ad and was not sufficient for a change of this magnitude . He state d that the publ ic hearing will be opened and closed, renoticed, and heard a t a future date. Public Hea ring opened and closed at 7 :58 P .M . Conm. Loos li asked if the noticing i s to r e zone the railroad right-of""way to open space . Ms. Sape tto replied in the affirmative. Ms. Sapetto stated that there will be a quarter-page ad in the newspape r a s well as mailed notices to property owners. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -Apr i l 20 , 1982 Page 2 ZONE CHANGE REQUEST FROM R-3 TO C-3 AT 710 SECOND STREET Ms . Sapetto gave staff report. She stated that the request i s to c hange the zone from R-3 t o C-3 withi n the multi-use corridor . Currently on the lot is a s ingl e family residence bound on the west, north , and s outh for residential us a g e, a nd i t is bou nd on the east by comme rcia l us a g e. Although this property i s z oned R-3, it does have a C-potential de s i gna t i on on the lot which me ans t h a t t he Planning Commission may c onsider t o rezone this property t o commercial. She stated that the rezoning of t hi s property, with respect t o t he de f i ni tion of the multi-use corri dor and the Ge ne r a l Pl an, refer to t hat area being used f or primarily commercial and a l s o a pa r t me nt and multi-family us a g e . Th e e xp~nsion and conversi on of this pr ope rty to commercial woul d be c on s i s tent with the general plan Land Us e Element as well as prior polic y of t he Planning •Commi ssion . Staf f recomm ende d granti ng the zone chang e t o C-3. Chmn . Peirce asked how f ar the east s i de of the property was f r om the r ight-of-way . He a s k e d for the de pth of the commercial area at this time and what the depth will become. Chmn Peirce calculated that the east side of the property is 280 feet , Tbs i would increase the commercial depth of that area f r om 280 f e et to 320 feet. Comm. Cummings aske d what development standards would appl y to this property i f it were approved . Ms . Sapetto stated that the City Council , when t hey t ook an acti on on the commercial development s tandards , moved to permanently a dopt the C-1, C-2, and C-3 development standards that we r e recommended to them by the Planning Commission . Comm. Smi t h a s ke d if Vasek Polak 's developed pr operty c urre nt l y ex t e nds beyond the R-3 , C-potential to the R-3 on the z oning map. Chrnn . Peirce s t a t e d that there is a lot between Lot 99 a nd Va s e k Polak wh i c h i s not C-3 . This particular lot is not contiguous t o the C~3 lot . That l ot i s currently zoned R-3. Chmn . Peirce .s t a t e d that the lot in question is not zone d C-3 , b ut the lot t o t h e e a s t i s z oned R-3. Ms . Sapetto s t ated that the zoning map shows that the lot is z on ed C-3 to the e a s t; Lot 98 i s zoned C-3. This change was enacted by the Pl a nn ing Commission and City Council approximately 2 ye ars a go . Pub l i c Hearing o pen ed at 8 :01 P.M. Jim Ni sbett, 705 Se cond Street, Hermosa Beach , read a statement to the Commission from citi zens .who were not able to attend the meeting . The statement was in oppositi on to the proposed rezoni ng f or the following \ PLANNING CCM1ISSION MINUTES -April 20 , 1982 Page 3 ZONE CHANGE REQUEST FROM R-3 TO C-3 1u 710 SECOND STREET (Cont. ) reasons: 1) because Second Street already has a large volure of traffic. This proposal will add to the problem. 2) the increased traffic will make it nore dangerous for children. 3) at the present tine, Vasek Polak uses Second Street to park repaired cars, and increased business will only add to the increased use of Second Street. 4) neighbors will have to endure a greater volun:e of traffic and repair noise. He stated that all four residences surrounding the business are single-family dwellings with small children. He stressed that the n:echanics illegally test drive the autonobiles down Second Street at speeds of 150 m. p. h. He noted that granting the rezoning of this property will represent a significant public safety hazard . Ms. Sapetto presented slides of the property to the Comnission and the audience. She stated that if the property were rezoned to corI11Erc ial, the com:rerci al depth would be 260 feet. John Reeves, 715 Second Street, Hernnsa Beach, spoke in opposition to extending the service bays onto Second Street. He stated that he is on 24-hour call, and he has had at least 20 cars towed out of his driveway and directly across from his driveway. He stated that one of his grandchildren was alrrost hit by a car which was driven by one of Vasek Polak ' s test driver s . He s t ressed that they speed down Second Street leav:ing 50-foot skid marks at the bot tom of the street. Sam Perody, 650 6th Street, Henrosa Beach, asked i f t he property ~st of the business could request a zooe change if this property is rezoned to comrercial. Chrm. Pe i rce replied in the a f f irmative . Ms . Sapetto stated that the zoning, if changed, nrust conform with the Land Use Elen:ent of the general plan. She noted that the multi-use corridor ends at this lot, so if a zone c'-iange were requested, the Land Use Elerrent would still be residential. Therefore, a request would also have to be made to change the Land Use Elemmt. Mr. Perody noted concern for cO!llrercial coming down Second Street. He noted that if it were all rezoned com:rercial, residents would not make hone improvements if they knew their houses would be derrolished when sold. He stated that he has owned his property for three years, and the property is zoned R-2. Alan Johnson, 717 Second Street, Hernnsa Beach, stated that at least once a week sonEone blocks his driveway. He stated that the test drivers errployed by Vasek Po l ak speed down Second Street late in the afternoon and early in the evening . PIANNING COMMISS ION MINU'IES -Ap ril 20, 1982 Page 4 ZONE CHANGE REQUEST FRCM R-3 TO C-3 AT 710 SECOND STREET (Cont.) Lee Kline, 969 WColorado Boulevard, Los Angeles, representing the owner of the property, stated that they are requesting to get a rezone to C-3 in accordance with the Master Plan . He stated that there is no specific plan for the proper ty, because before making a s pecific plan, the owner mus t know if the p r operty is R-3 or C-3. Cornn. Loosli asked i f t his will be a project of Vasek Polak's . Mr. Kl ine r eplied that he did not know. Delma Peary, 720 8th Street, He rrrosa :Beach, a sked if the wes t side of Vasek Po lak is leased from the City of Henno sa Beach. Cornn. Donnelly replied in the affirrmt i ve . Mrs . Peary believed that that property should be turned over to the businesses on the Highway . She noted that Mr. Polak has a way of taking over parts of the Ci ty. Jim Nisbett , 705 Second Street, Henms a Beach , stated that h e has been inf orned by the s ales manager that the property in question is going t o be a service bay. Publi c Hearing closed a t 8:25 P .M. Conm . Ctm:mi.ngs not e d that the Comnission i s trying to respond to an e conomi.c need in the c0Illlll1ity to hel p increase revenues , and , r e alizing that Vas ek Polak is a large source of revenue for the City, t he Conmi ssion will lend an ear t o his s ituation. However , he was distressed to hear t hat Mr . Polak is s uch a bad citiz en in the comnuni ty. He b elieved that the proposal was consistent with the general plan and the goals that the City has for expanding the cornrercial district. However, he requested that a review be held in the near future on Vasek Po l ak 's conditional use permit . Ms. Sapetto stated that the Corrmi.ssion can request a s p e cific p lan in or der t o allow the zone change or t he Conrni.ssion can rezone t he p roperty connercia l, under s t anding the varie ty of t he COIIIrercial uses that are allowed as C-3 . The cornrercial proj ect will t hen go bef ore t he Design Review Conmi.ssion, which -woul d be the only review it would have . It would not require a conditional use permi.t. Conm. l.Dosli stated that he would like t o s e e a s pecific plan before approving a zone change . Chrm. Peirce s t ate d chat good planning requires cornrerci a l on both sides of the street , and, in this c ase, the cornrercial is on the s outh side of the street but not the north. He stated that he could not vote for the zone change e ven if they were presented with a s p ecific p l an . PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -April 20, 1982 Page 5 ZONE CHANGE REQUEST FROM R-3 TO C-3 AT 710 SECOND STREET (Cont.) Comn. Smith stated that the problem was that the cormercial area along Pacific Coast Highway was so shallow. DevelopIIEilt does not necessarily IIEan expanding the cormercial area, so much as upgrading the quality. He did not want to see the replacerrent of R-1 dwellings with cormercial use mless it improved the quality of the comrercial area on Pacific Coast Highway . He believed that Second Street was heavily overcongested in i ts current use. He spoke against R-3 developrrent in that area m til such tirre that inproveffi2Ilts have been made with the traffic circulation. Comn. Cumnings stated that he believed there were sorre type of conditional use permit control over the bus:iness that is adjacent to the lot. Howe-ver, since there was no control, he did not believe that the property should be rezoned to C-3. Motion by Conm. Donnelly, seconded by Coom. Smith, to approve the zone change request from R-3 to C-3 at 710 Second Street. AYES: NOES: ABSENI': Corrrn. Donnelly CoDIIIS. Cunmings, Loosli, Smith, Chrm. Peirce CoIIID. Rue, Chrm. Izant Comn. Cmmings stated that he voted against the notion because he did not feel that the Planning Departrrent' s .Analysis included sane of the problems with the next-door business that was brought out by public testimmy at the public hearing. Motion by Chrrn. Peirce to deny the zone change request at 710 Second Street from R-3 to C-3. (No vote.) Motion by Chrrn. Peirce, seconded by Cornn. Smith, to make a Resolution to deny the zone change request from R-3 to C-3 at 710 Second Street for the following reasons :_ the south side of cormercial already extends beyond the north side of the street; this will increase traffic on Second Street; the current zoning is consistent with the general plan :in the TID.1lti-use corridor; the property is surrounded on three sides by residential devel opn:ent of R-1 character, and extending the cOTIIIercial zone any further on that side would disrupt that pattern. Ms . Sapetto suggested that one WHEREAS for denial could be that the potential classification says that the area in question may be made permissible by the adoption of a precise plan. Chnn. Peirce stated that he would not like to include that because he felt that the COimErcial area is up far enough on that side of the street. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Conrns. Currnings, Loosli, Smith, Chrm. Peirce COIIIIl. Donnelly Conm. Rue , Chrm. Izant ,,,.. I ( v PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -April 20, 1982 Page 6 ZONE CHANGE REQUEST FROM R-3 TO C-3 AT 710 SECOND STREET {Cont.) Chmn. ·rei~ce informed the applicant that he may appeal the Corrnnission's decision to the City Council in writing within ten days. A REQUEST FOR ZONE CHANGE I CUP I AND TENTATIVE MAP 1132526 FOR SEVEN CONDOMINIUM UNITS AT 845-923 17th STREET Ms, Sapetto pre8ented slides to the Commission of the property in question. Ms, Sapetto gave staff report. She stated that the applicant is requesting to construct condominium units and convert four existi_ng units, which are two duplexes built to condominium standards, to form a seven-unit project. One of the two duplexes was an existing signle faroily dwelling which underwent a major remodel to conform with the condominium standards. She stated that the property consistated of a portion (3800 sq. ft,) in the multi-use corridor and a portion (13493 sq. ft.) in the low density corridor. Based on allowable dwelling unit per acre designations, this would allow 3,49 units on the multi-use portion and 4.02 on the low density portion. The total allowable would be seven units. She stated that the applicant requested an interpretation from the Commission on November 17, 1981, The Commission approved a general plan interpretation for the site of seven units. She stated that the existing zoning on the property does not conform with the general plan. The property in the multi-use corridor is zoned R-1, and the property within the low density is now OED, formerly R-2. She stated that the Zoning Analysis had come up with the following problems with the site plan: 1) some of the areas calculated in the common recreation area have limited use as a common recreation area; namely, the area north of Unit 3 and the areas adjacent to Units 1 and 2 on t he southeast and northeast corners and between the two units up to the concrete walk and the jacuzzi area are those used in the calculation. She noted that in the past the Planning Commission has interpreted common recreation areas as those areas which can be·used by all units and are accessable to all units; 2) the allowable building height for the new units at this point is dependent upon the zone change request, and the Commission's discretion. At R-2 in the multi-use zone, the allowable is 30 feet, and at R-2 in low density (R-2 OED), the .allowAble is 25 feet. The existing units in the R-2 OED are 30 feet because they were constructed prior to the overlay zone. She noted that the Commission had the option to zone R-2 and R-2 OED for the new units or 30 feet to 25 feet.· The applicant proposed an average 28 foot or worst case 29-foot structure; 3) the allowable sideyatd setbacks are to be calculated at 10% of the lot width. For Lot 1, this would mean 8 feet on each side. For Lots 1 and 2, this would be 15.6 feet on each side, She noted that the applicant proposed 5 feet; 4) the recreation vehicle requirement states resulting fractions are rounded up. She noted that it has not been the policy of the Commission in the past to round up. If such a policy were to be pursued, the requirement would be 1 recreation vehicle FIANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -April 20, 1982 Page 7 A REQUEST FOR ZONE CHANGE, CUP, AND TENTATIVE MAP #32526 FOR SEVEN 00Nro1INIUM UNITS AT 845 -923 17th STREET (Cont.) for each six units; 5) the guest parking space depth does not appear to be adequate according to the location of the garage on the existing plan; 6) the applicant has submitted revised plans showing trash. facilities and adequate storage space; 7) an additional problematic aspect of the plan is access from the garage to Units 1 and 2. There are no stairs or sidewalk provided for access from the garage to the units. It appears that the resident will have to go onto the street and over to Unit 7 in order to gain access to his unit. This creates a 'worst tiase" distance of 177 feet from the garage to the unit. She noted that the ordinance requires no more than 150 feet; 8) the location of the entrance to the garage of the new units is near a blind comer. She stated that parking is now allowed on the street and parked cars pose a potential hazard. She noted that the Staff Review Comni.ttee recomn::mded to rennve this hazard by eliminating on-street parking beginning on the northerly curb adjacent to Lot 2 and proceeding beyond the driveway approach on the easterly curb adjacent to Lot'l to the comer. She stated that alterations to the existing plan can be ma.de in order to satisfy the City requirerrents . However, in order for the Comni.ssion to make a determination of confonnance, the Corrmi..ssion should review a revised set of plans before approving such a project. She gave the Comni.ssion two options, narrely, to deny the plan on the basis of non-conformance to the code and in corrpliance with the State required tirrE limits for processing applications or to allow the applicant to return with revised plans for Conmi.ssion consideration under the condition that he waive the tine limi.ts. Staff recorrrrended 14 conditions i f the Comni.ssion should approve the project . Omn. Peirce asked if the project must have a zone change before considering a conditional use pennit. Ms. Sapetto replied in the affinnative . Chnn. Peirce stated that the maps do not show the setback for the existing units on the east side of the property . He noted that the staff analysis does not show that one of the units is a rerrodel of a house and not a new project. Ms . Sapetto explained that, according t o the Building Depart:nent, a major rerrodel is one wni.ch the major portion o f the building is rebuil t, and it is considered a new dwelling. Comn. Loosli stated that i t was his unders tanding that in an R-1 zone only one dwelling unit can b e built. Ms. Sapetto replied in the affinnative. Conm . l.Dosli noted that the applicant was proposing three dwelling units. Chrm . Peirce asked if the entire property was in the R-1 area. PLANNING CCl,lMISSION MINUTES -April 20, 1982 Page 8 A REQUEST FOR ZONE CHANGE , CUP , AND TENTATIVE MAP if 32526 FOR SEVEN C0NDO1INIUM UNITS AT 845-923 17th STREET (Cont .) Ms. Sapetto replied in t.~e negative. Chim. Peirce stated that the upper part is R-2, but it has an over lay on it, making the property l(JI;.., density. t[s. Sapetto replied in the affirmative. CoIIlll. Currmings stated that he had requested a map of conclusions that were reached by the multi-use subcorrmi ttee. The subcorrmittee felt that certain sections of the multi-use corridor had been found to be inappropri ate for inclusion in the multi-use corridor. This requested ma.p was t o show an altered nn.ilt i-use corridor eliminating those areas which the subcorrmittee found t o be unsuitable for inclusion. He asked if the area in question was one of those areas ,;:vhich wc,uld be rnsuitable for the rrrulti-use corridor. Chrm. Peirce replied that this area is rnsuitable for the multi-use corridor, the rationale being that the street is very steep, and it is fully built out to residential on both sides of the street. Chnn. Peirce stated that he would hold two public hearings, the first one being on the zone change only. Cornn. Loosli noted that Section 550 stated that only two dwelling rnits per lot are allowed in the overlay zone provided that they are designed for families as a duplex or condominium. Ms. Sapetto e:xplained that there is a conflict in the Code. The conflict was that the Conmission, in the past, had interpreted subdivisions an the allQ\ivable dwelling units per acre. Hmvever, duplex developrrent has been confined to two on any lot. She noted that the existing structures, in this case , are two duplexes on two lots . Comn. Donnelly stated that since the conditional use pennit is tied to the zone change, they cannot be separated in consideration. }fe stated that the zone change is only mitigated by its use. Ch.m. Peirce announced that he would hear both requests at once if the applicant would agree that the zone change is to be used only in accordance with the project as presented on the conditional use pennit and Tentative Tract Map. Therefore, this p roject is the only project that could be built on the property at 845-923 17th Street. If the project were not built, the property would revert to the previous zone. Public Hearing opened at 9: 11 P .M. Kathy .Anderson, 1117 5th Street, Suite E, tranhattan Beach, representing the applicant, submitted photographs of the existing structures. She stated that the property consists of four lots, two of them being zoned R-2 and consisting of two duplexes. The other t"wo lots are R-1 , and she requested that those lots be zoned R-2. She stated that in PLANNING CCM1ISSION MINUTES -April 20, 1982 Page 9 A REQUEST FOR ZONE CHA.~GE, CUP, AND TENTATIVE MAP if 32526 FOR SEVEN CONDOMINru'! UNITS AT 845-923 17th STREET (Cont.) Noven-ber 1981, the Comni.ssion approved the determination of the general plan , and her client was inforrred that seven units would be penni tted on the four lots in question. She stated t.~at it had been determined by staff at that tirre that they did have adequate square footage for comn:m recreational space. She stated that the question is if it is developed in a usable manner. She stated that they would agree to provide additional recreational facilities between Units 1 and 2 on t.11e proposed plan. She proposed putting in a barbeque set up and picnic benches between those two m.its . As far as the problem with access, she proposed stairs at the exit of the garages. She stated, with regard to the sideyard setbacks of the existing units , they are four feet . She added t~at Bill Grove of the Building Departrrent felt that they should consider the sideyard setbacks of the proposed struc tures to be in the R-3 z one with a max:i..."1..lffi of five feet . The reason they allow that maximum is because of combined lots . She stated that they could go with the eigi."'1t-foot setback ; however, it would require a variance. Chun . Peirce asked why the app lica11.t did not start with the proper setback on the east side . Ms . .Anderson stated that the Building Depart:Irent did not inform her client that he needed to have that setb ack. 'Ihey infonred him that i t could be four feet. She stated that her client was not trying to build the four mits as an apartnEnt to convert in the future. She noted that it was a situation forced on him due to a m:,ratoriur:n. :t-'IS. Andersen stated that the original working drawings for the two duplexes s haw a p lanter which caused the two guest parking spaces t o be short. That planter was n ot ccnstructed , and the parking spaces are 19 feet. In regards to the height, they have proposed a maximum of 28 to 29 feet. However, they are Im.lch lower than that an the westerly sides. She stated that it would not be possible to go to 25 feet. She a dded that she agreed with staff that they should not be required to provide recreational vehicle space. In regard to trash storage, revised plans showed t.hat trash storage for the t.11ree mi.ts would be separate from the four units. Storage for t.he t11ree units would be within the gar age . Chnn . Peirce asked if the trash storage would take the place of one of the existing unit's laundry. Ms. Andersm r eplied t.11at all of the units do have laundry facilities. Ms. Anderson stated that t.1-iey are removing two curb cuts from the street and rep l acing it with only one curb cut. Conm. Smith asked Ms. Anderson if she would be wil ling to waive the 60 -day requireirent and return to t~e Corrmi.ssion with a specific plan. Pl.ANNING CG1MISSION MINUTES -April 20, 1982 Page 10 A REQJEST FOR ZONE CHA1TGE, CUP, AND TENTATIVE MAP #32526 FOH. SEVEN CONDCMINIUM UNITS AT 845 -923 17t.t1 S'IREET (Cont.) Ms. Anderson wished to reserve a willingpess to make that waiver. She did not want to concede to a continuance only to COIIE back to receive a denial. Torn O'Brien, 912 18th Street, Henrosa Beach, stated that his property is directly to the rear of both projects . He asked what the setback requirerents were for a duplex verses a condominium. Ms. Sapetto replied that the condominiums rrust have a minimum setbac.1<. of five feet, and the duplex requires 10%. Mr. O'Brien noted t11at his objection was that this project was inconpatible with the single family area. He stated t.l-iat there will be a safety problem witi."1. fire equiprent if it is necessary to go up the street. F.e stated that he was inforrred by persons tearing out sane trees that four condominiums were going to be built on t.11e site. He IIEntioned that he was also approached by Mr. Jarvis, the applicant, to sell his property. Mr. Jarvis identified himself as the owner of four condominiums and that he needed to buy adjacent property. He believed that the project was desigp.ed as a condominium from day one. He felt that there was a deliberate intention to get around the law. Robert Curry, 1509 Monterey Boulevard, Henmsa Beach, stated that he was in opposition to the proposed project. Mary Maychoffee, 850 18th Street, Herroosa Beach, asked why a condominium. can have a five-foot minimum frontyard setback when she, living in a single family dwelling, has a 20-foot setback. Crum. Peirce stated that the setbacks are dete rmined by the zone. Ms. J:.1aychoffee asked if a ccndi.tional use pennit is granted only when you have a specific plan. Chnn. Peirce replied :in the affinnative. 'Ms . t1aychoffee felt that l1s . Anderson did not present a specific plan. Joseph Egerer, 833 17th Street, Hernnsa Beach, s tated that the condominiums are very attractive and enhance the area; however, t..1-ie area does not lend itself to any rrore than two units. H.e stated that he had a lot 100 feet west of the property :in question, and :in 1978 he care before the Com:nission to h ave it r ezoned to !t-2. That request was denied, and he felt that t1i.e Conmission should deny t'lis proj ect. Kathleen Berlin, 1030 8th Place, Henrosa Beach , stated that she owned the property located at 1010 17th Street. Sb...e noted that parking should not be a llowed on both sides of the street. She did not believe that the rerrodled structure should be considered a new structure. PIANNING COM1ISSION 11INTJI'ES -P..pril 20, 1982 Page 11 A REQUEST FOR ZONE CIW1GE , CUP , A..~ TENTATIVE MAP 1fo32526 FOR SEVEN CONDOMINIUM UNITS AT 845-923 17th STREEI' (Cont .) Paul Bame, 922 17th Street, Herrmsa Beac.,, stated that he was concerned about the traffic hazards that will appear by increasing the density. He did not think that the developer should be entitled to any rore than a private individual. Kathy Anderson, representing the applicant, stated that the easterly-roost lot is 50 feet, and the westerly-roost lot is 30 feet. She stated that her client had two lots, and he carre forward to find out what steps were necessary to corrply with the law. He was infonred that he should pull his permit and start construction. They (the Coamission) also told him that he must purchase additional property for reasons of density. She stated that if the Corrmis sion does not approve their request , they will h ave seven rental units as opposed to seven ownership units . She added that if the Conmission does decide that the zone change ±s appropriate, but the specific plan is in question, she was in favor of a tine waiver and a continuance. Bill Grey, 1115 17th Street, Herrrosa Beach, questioned whether the rem:del was major. He stated that the utilities were never shut off at the site. Brish Rightaway, 920 17th Street, stated that she was opposed to rezoning the property to R-2. Blair Smith, 316 25th Street, Herrrosa Beach, stated that he could see no reason for the Conmission to grant the zone change. Violette Isgreen, 726 Prospect Avenue, Hennosa Beach, urged the Conmisssion to deny the plan because it was nonconfornring. Kathleen Berlin, 1030 8th Place, P..ermosa Beach, asked how many garages exist at this t:irre in the two R-2 dwellings. Ms. Sapetto replied that there are eight enclosed parking spaces. Ms . Berlin asked if 16 garages would be required for the seven condornini 1.JIT1S . Jv'..s. Sapetto replied in the affirmative, adding that tw:, enclosed parking spaces are required per unit plus an additional one guest parking space per three units. Public Hearing closed at 10 :21 P .M. Ch.'111. Peirce stated that in Novenilier of 1981, the City said that seven condorrdniums could be constructed on the property. He stated that if the developer rreets all of the s tandards imposed by the City's Condominium ( PIANNING C01'1MISSION MINUTES -April 20, 19_82 Page 12 A REQUEST FOR ZONE CHANGE , CUP , AND 'l'fil;'TATIVE MAP f/3 2526 FOR SEVEN CONDOMINIUM UNITS AT 845 -923 17th STREITT (Cont .) Ordinance, the developIIEilt of condominiums becones a rig..1-it. However , if they do not meet even one of those standards, it becoITEs a privilege. Chmn. Peirce stated that he found five negative aspects to the project, narre 1 y, recreation space , height , setbacks , access , and parking. Comn. Loosli stated that the applicant felt as thoug;i the City should be guided by the general plan; however, the City voted on a referendum that wherever there is a conflict between zoning and the general plan, the designation that carried the lowest density W"Ould prevail. In t..li.is case, the general plan should be changed to confonn with the lower zoning. Corrm. Donnelly stated that the basic guiding docUITEnt is the general plan. He felt that the applicant should use the general plan. He suggested voting for the zone change but denying the specific plan because of the nonconfonnity to the code and ordinances. Comn. Loosli noted that the Housing Elerrent called for tl1e preservation of rental housing wh.erever possible. Corrm. Donnelly stated that condominiums and duplexes may have the sane density. He noted that the type of ownership does not determine density. Chrrn . Pe irce stated that , in general, a c ondominium represents a higher standard of l iving than a dup lex. The higher standard of living jncluded insulation, setbacks, roore parking and recreation space, etc. Ms. Sapetto stated tl1at the difference between the condominium ordinance and a duplex developm:mt is the type of arrenities that are required for a condominium, that is, corrrron recreation space, sideyards, parking, guest parking, storage requ:lremmts, and trash enclosure spaces. She noted that condominiums that are built in a comoon wall situation that are linked as in a townhouse fashion, then there is a higher standard of interior building standards. There is a higher grade of insulation, and plumbing facilities cannot be on a cormon wall. Conrn. Curmrings noted concern for the setbacks. Conm. Smith stated that he found no evidence that would allow him to vote for a zone change which would entail changing the predominance of R-1 zoning throughout the area as it e xtends north and south between Prospect and the narrow comrercial zone on Pacific Coast Hig..h.way. He felt that the specific plan offered no improverrent to the area. PJ4NN]NG COMMISSION MINUTES -April 20, 1982 Page 13 A REQUEST FCR ZONE CHANGE, CUP, AND TENTATIVE MAP /132526 FOR SEVEN CONDOMINIUM UNITS AT 845 -923 17th S'JREET (Cont.) Motion by Cornn. Donnelly, s econded by Cornn. Loosli, to deny t he zone xihange request and specific plan for 845-923 17th Street. Cornn. Donnelly stated t."1at a vote to disapprove the substandard condominium should b e taken into light of the many votes of Herrrosa Beach to approve substandard conversions. He stated that the City had approved substandard condominiums that have nothing to do with the exterior of the building. He stated that the one thing the applicant cannot change in this particular c ase is the 12 inches of the · sideyard setback. Se reconmmded that the applicant pursue this with the City Corneil. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Corrms . Cunmi.ngs , Loo s li, Smith, Chon . Peirce Cornn . Donne lly Corrrn. Rue , Chrrn. Izant Motion by Chnn. Peirce , seconded by Corrm. Ctmnings, t o make a Re solution with the following WHERFASs: WHEREAS, the setbacks, as presented by the specific proj ect, do not ueet the code either on the west or east side of the project ; tJHEREAS, the project does not IIEet code on the easterly four units which are at 30 feet as opposed to 25 feet; WHEREAS, the westerly tnits (Units 1, 2 and 3) are above the 25 -foot height limit; WHEREAS, the project does not ueet the recreational vehicle requirerrents which is one for each 10 unit s with the zoning ordinance calling for rounding up; WHEREAS , the pres ent plan has access from one of the units in excess of the 150 feet in the ordinance; 'WHEREAS, the present p l an does not have enough cormon recreation space; WHEREAS, this proje ct is in a predominately R-1 area; i~-IERFAS, the project does nothing t o mitigate the current traffic circulation safety problems on that stree t; WHEREAS, the developer could have asked a serie s of ques tions that w:mld have led t o a nore adequate preconclusion as to what he could build on the lot; WHEREAS, the greater portion of the parcel is in low density, and the general plan should be changed to conform with the zoning because o f the intent of Propos ition EE. AYES: IDES : ABSENT: Conms. Cumnings, Loosli, Smith, Chnn. Peirce Corrm. Donnelly Comn. Rue, Chnn. Izant Chnn. Peirce infonred the applicant t h at she has 10 days to appeal in writing to the City Council. STAFF R...li1'CRTS Ms. Sapetto stated that t."1e City Council took an action to adopt t.11e C-1, C-2, & C-3 DevelopIIEnt Standards permanently. Because of the expiration of the temporary standards , the City Council had to adopt an interim ordinance for four rronths and then adopt the permanent ordinance . She noted that the Planning Corrmission should continue with the multi-use corridor. PIANNING CQ1MISSION MINUI'ES -April 20, 1982 Page 14 STAFF REPCRTS (Cont. ) Ms. Sapetto stated t."1at the Planning Comnission was given findings for denial of the Boatyard site. Ms. Sapetto stated that she would like the Planning Conrnission to go over their :J?riority List at the next rreeting. COJ.vMISSIONERS' IT.EMS Corrm. Loosli stated that the Planning Comnission had previously requested that the Biltrrore site, the Priaroos property, and the Thompson property be put in the Plarmed DevelopTIE11.t zone. Ms. Sapetto stated that the Land Use Plan dealt with the Biltrrore site. }'JS. Sapetto stated that the Chamber of Comrerce is in the process of developing a cormri.ttee to work with the subconmittee for the multi-use corridor. Coran. Smith stated that he had requested a detennination of whether or not the Charrber of Cor!Irerce would adequately represent the businesspersons on and off the Highway. Delma Peary, 720 8th Street, Eenoosa Beach, stated that t..he businesses along the Highway have room for parking behind their businesses. Conm. Cunrni..ngs reiterated his request for staff to corrpose a log sheet of public hearings and another log sheet for exhibits submitted to the Planning Conmission.. Comn. Loosli asked if Henoosa Beach had any control over SCAG' s actions. He stated that Herrrosa Beach should oppose rurendrrents to weaken the Clean Air Act. Ms. Sapetto stated that the City pays a fee to belong to SCAG. Motion to adjourn at 11:18 P.M. CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and complete record of the action taken by the Planning Conmi.ssion at their regular IIEeting of April 20, 1982. ~ i nl~ EDWARD LCOSLI, SECRETARY DA'IE MINUTES OF TIIE PLANNING CCM1ISSION OF HERMOSA BF.ACH HEID ON APRIL 7, 1982, IN THE CI'IY H.A..IL COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT 7: 30 P .M. Meeting called to order by Conm. Peirce at 7:52 P.M. ROLL CALL IRESENT: C.omns. Currmings, Loosli, Peirce, Rue ABSENT: Conms . Donnelly, Smith, Chrrn. Izant AI.SO PRESENT: Alfred R. Mercado, Planning Aide Ralph Casteneda, Housing Consultant Linda Brayton, 'IDC Planning Comn.. Peirce acted as Chairman for the rreeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion by Chrrn. Peirce, seconded by Cornn. Rue, to approve the March 2, 1982, minutes . No objections , so ordered. ZONE FOR MOBILE Ha,JE PARKS Mr. 'Mercado introduced Llnda Brayton from 'JDC Planning who gave the staff report. Cornn. Loosli asked for the definition of TDC. Mr .. Mercado replied Torres, Diaz, and Casteneda, consultants to the City. Ms . Brayton stated that the zoning code anendrrents were prepared to irrpleIIEnt the policies of the LCP. Phase III of the LCP work program states. that ''in order to preserve existing mobile barre parks, rezoning of these areas will be required." She offered two basic altemati ves , those being, to create an exclusive zone for roobile hone parks or to establish a conditional use permit procedure. She stated that a rrobile hone park zone had been developed and the following section of tbe zoning ordinance could be added to the City's zone --intent and purpose of the zone, permitted uses, permitted structures, developnEnt standards, and review procedures. The other option available to the City would be to add rrobile hoIIE parks to the list of conditional uses contained in Section 1000 of the zoning code. The disadvantage of this option is that it does not restrict the zone to mobile hone park development. The land use could revert to any permitted use allowed by the base zoning established for the area. If a rrobile hOIIE park zone was established for the areas where roobile hOIIE parks currently exist, then the pennitted uses would be retained as rrobile horre parks. ( PLANNING CCM1ISSION MINUrES -April 7, 1982 Page 2 ZONE FDR MOBILE HOME PARKS (Cont. ) Chirn. Peirce asked if the Corrmission should determine whether they should incorporate a nobile hone park zone or a conditional use permit. Ms . Brayton replied in the affirmative. She stated that they have very minimal standards because the IIXJbile hone parks in Henmsa Beach are older and nonconforming, but if any additions or changes were made, they would have to IIEet Title 25 requirem:mts. Crum. Peirce asked for a surrrnary of the requirenents of Title 25. Ms. Brayton replied that the rnax:inrum for setbacks and coverage for mobile home. parks is 75% of the lot area. The mobile home. nrust be separated from any other IIDbile home. ten feet side to side, eight feet side to rear, and six feet front to front or rear to rear. It also must be three feet from any lot line. Crum. Peirce asked if the mobile hone parks confonn to those requi.rerrents at this tine. Ms. Brayton replied in the affirmative. She added that for the interior roadways, if the park is constructed prior to 1961, it must have access to a roadway of not less than 15 feet in width. If it were constructed after that tine, it nrust have access to a roadway of not less that 25 feet in width. Coom. Rue asked if Title 25 covers all rnobile hare parks at this tine. Ms. Brayton replied in the affinnative. Comn. Rue asked if Title 25 would be the enforcing agent on these requirerrents. Ms. Brayton replied that Title 25 covers building and maintenance. Conm. Loosli questioned the definition of a "roobile hone" in the new ordinance. He asked if the words "two dwelling units" rreant duplexes. Ms. Brayton replied that"two dwelling units11 constitutes a double-wide mobile hone. Corrm. Loosli stated that the wording must be changed in the ordinance because Hernosa Beach considers a dwelling unit to be a living unit. Chmn. Peirce stated that the new ordinance excludes all factory-built housing. Corrrn. Loosli stated that factory-built house is a m:,bile hone if it is trailerable. Chrrn. Peirce stated that the Comnission must define a rrobile hone. PIANNING CCl:ft-ITSSION MINUTES -April 7, 1982 Page 3 ZONE FOR MOBILE Hav:tE PARKS (Cont.) Ms. Brayton stated that Title 25 does exclude factory-built housing. COIIIIl. Rue asked if Title 25 defines factory-built housing. Ms. Brayton stated that the ordinance has a developrrent plan review procedure subject to the appr oval of a Planning Conmission. Items such as c onstruction of a new m:,bi le hone park, addition or deletion of spaces in an existing parlc, redesign of an existing park,inwlving relocation of spaces, new driveways or relocation of driveways providing access to and from the public right-of-way rrrust be approved by the Planning Corrnd.ssion. Ms. Brayton stated that the only a dvantage of establishing a zone, rather than doing it by a conditional use permit, is that the basic permitted uses would be ·confined to the rrobile hOIIE park. Public Hearing opened at 8: 07 P .M. Francis Olbrick, 531 Pier Avenue, Space 46, HenIDsa Beach, stated that she has been at the park for 20 years. She stated that the park is inspected by the state, and they are conforming to all of those rules. She stated that the roobile hone p ark i s being upgra ded , and new hones are coming in. She stated that i f the property is sold to cormercial uses , there will be 65 p ersons wi thout a place to live . She added that it is now in the trusteeship with the Bank of Arrerica. She rrentioned that the residents, ,of the m:)bile hone park have never given any trouble to the City of Herrrosa Beach or to the Police DepartrrEnt. She stated that the residents want the park to remain open space. Jack Darlington, 531 Pier Avenue, Space 3, Henmsa Beach, asked for the definition of LCP. Ms. Brayton replied that U:::P stands for the I.Deal Coastal Plan. Mr. Darlington asked if the rrobile home park is covered by the LCP. Chrnn. Peirce replied'in the affirmative. Patricia Ware, 531 Pier Avenue, Space 18, Herroosa Beach, urged the Comn:i.ssion not to: place any conditional ~es -on the zoning of the trailer court. Charles Ausburn, 531 Pier Avenue, Hennosa Beach, stated that conditional use of the park is frightening to all residents of the park. Jerry Hankins, 531 Pier Avenue, Henrosa Beach, stated that they would like to maintain the park in its current condition. He believed they should follow the LCP the way it was written. Public Hearing closed at 8:16 P.M. 9t- PI.ANNlliG Ca1MISSION MINUTES -April 7, 1982 Page 4 ZONE FOR MOBILE Ha1E PARKS (Cont.) Chrm. Peirce asked if other cities have a rrobile hoITE park zone. Ms. Brayton replied that San Juan Capistrano, Yorba Llnda, and various cities in Orange County have n:obile hoIIE park zones. Chrm. Peirce noted that the public w:mld like the protection of the rrobile hone park zone, and the conditional use pe:rnrit offers no such protection. He preferred the wne, as opposed to the condi ti anal use permit. Conm. Curmri.ngs also preferred the zone. Chrm. Peirce noted concern, however, for incorporating the zone without being certain that the parks rreet the standards of Title 25. Coom. Loosli stressed that the definition of rrobile hares must be made rrore clear. Ms. Brayton asked the Conmission if they 'WOuld prefer having the definition of rrobile horre parks in Title 25 delete the section '1to contain not more than two dwelling units." Coom. Rue suggested that it read, 11to contain not 11Dre than one dW:lling unit" or "to contain not rrore than a single dwelling unit." Coom. Loosli suggested the verb age 11 to contain not rrore than two sections. '' Chnn. Peirce stated that Title 25 shall read, ''A structure transportable in one or m:,re sections designed and equipped to contain not IIOre than one dwelling unit . " • Cornn. Loosli stated that Hemosa Beach's definition of a nobile barre would now read, "A n:obile horre is a structure transportable in one or n:ore sections designed and equipped to contain not nore than one dwelling lUlit and shall not include recreational vehicles, cormErcial coach, or factory-built housing. '1 Conm. Cmrnrings noted that the ord:inance made no ITED.tion of any type of a fee for an application to go before the Planning Commission. Chrm. Peirce reconmmded that a fee be established by staff and incorporated at the City Corneil level. Motion by Cornn. Currmings, seconded by Cbnn. Peirce, to adopt the draft Mobile Hone Park z.one ordinance as arrended, this being a rootion to arrend the current City zoning code. PLANNING CCM1ISSION MINUTES -April 7, 1982 Page 5 ZONE Fffi MOBILE HCME PARKS (Cont. ) Corrm. Loosli stated that the words "permitted uses, horre occupations" are c onfusing. He s uggested saying, ''hone occupations as p ernri..tted by local Code. 11 Ms. Brayton stated that she would arrend the wording to read, ''hone occupations as perrni tted by local Code. '' AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Corrms . Ci.mrri.ngs, Loosli, Rue, Chnn. Peirce None Coorns. Donnelly, Smith, Chrrn. Izant Clum. Peirce stated that one WHEREAS for the Resolution would be, ''WHEREAS, having heard public testinony to the desirability of the establishrrent of a nnbile horre park zone, the mobile hone park zone irrp le!IEI'lts one 0 £ the phases· of the Local Coastal Plan which states that 11in order to preserve existing trobile horrE parks , rezoning of these areas will be required." Conm. Loosli stated that another WHEREAS would be, ''WHEREAS, it conforms with the intentions of the Housing EletIEnt to help preserve low-and rroderate-incone housing." Motion by Chrrn.. Peirce, seconded by Conm. Rue, to incorporate the two WHEREASs into a Resolutim. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Comns. Currmi.ngs, Loosli, Rue, Chon. Peirce None Corrms. Donnelly, Smith, Cbn-n. Izant Chnn. Peirce inforned the audience that the Planning Corrmi.ssion has made a recorrmmdation to the City Council to rrodify the Zoning Code. C-1 , C-2 & C-3 DE.VELOPMENT STANDARDS Ctnm. Peirce noted that there was a Resolution in his packet, nanely, Resolution P.C. 82-9 of March 2, 1982 entitled Resolution of the Planning Comnission to Alrend Article 14 of the Zoning Ordinance· by Setting the Validity of the Conditional Use Permits to coincide with the 24-month Validity of Tentative Maps. Corrm. Loosli stated that the Planning Conmissian had previously voted an that Resolution. Motion by Chirn. Peirce, seconded by Cornn. Rue, to approve Resolution P.C. 82-9. Comn. Currmings noted that Resolution P.C. 82-9 is only a Resolution to hold a public hearing. PIANNINS CCMMISSICN MINUI'ES -April 7, 1982 Page 6 C-1, C-2 & C-3 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS (Cant.) Mn Mercado stated that the Planning Corrmission acted on a particular subdivision to extend the validity of the tentative map, and, at that tiIIE, the Plann:4lg Coomission also indicated an interest to rrodify the City code which would apply to all forthcoming projects of that nature. He stated that the Resolution needed only a signature. Crum. Peirce stated, for the record, that it was a Resoluticn of Intention to Adopt. Mr. Mercado gave staff report. He stated that the City Council voted to extend the telll)orazy ordinance regulating the developrrent standards for C-1, C-2 & C-3 for a period of four nnnths at their March 23, 1982, IIE eting. As a result, there is no reason to pursue this item. The Planning Conmi.s sion now has an additional four months to pursue the comrercial study of the Imilti-use corridor to develop pennanent standards. Chnn. Peirce asked if the four-rronth extension began on March 23, 1982. -Mr. Mercado replied that it beca.IIE effective._, 15 days°"'a fter approval of the extension. ~ Public Hearing opened and closed at 8:37 P.M. Clum. Peirce asked for volmteers to 'WOrk on a subcorrrnittee to establish developrrent standards. Conms. Cmm:ings and Rue volunteered to work on the _subconrni.ttee. Coran. Loosli stated that he was satisfied with the developrIEilt standards that have been adopted. COillII. Cuamings preferred having staff work on the first subcorrmi.ttee workshop. Chnn. Peirce asked :Mr. Mercado to give a report to Ms . Sapetto. Chmn. Peirce stated that he would contact Ms. Sapetto. DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT Ralph Casteneda gave staff report. He stated that the Planning Conmission has held two public hearings on the rough draft version of the Housing Elerrent as well as one workshop session with the City Comcil. In mid-February, the public and rrembers of the Planning CoillI!ission contributed an extensive aroomt of input. At that tirre, it appeared to be unclear and perhaps bulky in terms of what was being stated by way of housing policies Pll\NNING Cc.MUSSION MINUTES -April 7, 1982 Page 7 DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT (Cont.) for the City. There were also questions in terms of its relationship with the Local Coastal efforts and the adopted version of Decerrber 1979. For clarification, an outline was prepared for the initial step. The bulk of the docUIIE.Ilt would be in 10 sections, and it v:10uld be streamlined in trying to focus on the essential iterrs. It woulli contain two major sections dealing with the stateIIEI1t of philosophy yet to be prepared as well as a s taterrent of the City's role in housing . Attention has also been paid to the area of those resources that the corrmunity possesses in order to address the concerns of the Housing Elen:ent as well as those overriding c onstraints, n:eaning growth and irrpact at the neighborhood level. He s tated that the Housing Elen:ent rrrus t be a part of the General Plan. He recorIIIEnded that the Planning Corrmission not proceed too extensively on reorganization of a docurrent at this tine, but to wait for an appropriate tirre at a joint -workshop session. Clum. Peirce stated that it would be early May before a workshop session could be held with the City Council. Public Hearing opened at 8:49 P.M. Henry Rado, 720 24th Place, Hermosa Beach, asked what the "Housing Elerrent11 is. He stated that the public did not receive any outline, so how can they know what is being proposed. Th.e Planning Corrmission holds a public hearing, but the public is blind to the matter. Cornn. Curmrl.ngs stated that the Planning Comnission requested that the docU11Ent be in the library for the use of the public. Public Hearing continued at 8:50 P.M. Chrm. Peirce stated that the public hearing is continued to the May 4, 19 82 , n:ee ting . Chmn. Peirce recOITIIEI1ded that Mr. Casteneda fonnulate Sections II and III to be available before the workshop rreeting with the City Council. Comn. Loosli recornrended reviewing Sections II and III at a Planning Corrmission TIEeting before the workshop session. Mr. Casteneda stated that he would prepare Sections II and III for initial review by the Planning Cormri.ssion, and at the sane tine, make a progress report to the City Council on April 27, 1982. The Planning Conmission could then thorougply review Sections II and III in early May. A joint -workshop session could be held in mid-May with the City Council. Mr. Casteneda noted that he has another public hearing on May 4, 1982 ; however, he would make arrangerrents with staff. u P1ANNING CCM1ISSION MINUTES -April 7, 1982 Page 8 CCH1ERCIAL/RECRFATION ZONE DIS'IRICT Ms. Brayton gave staff report. She stated that Item "j" of the LCP program stated that, ''Revision of the cormercial (C-2) zone will be necessary to encourage connercial-recreation use.11 After further analysis, she felt it would be nore effective to develop a suppleIIEI1.tal C-R zone to be added to a base zone. The advantage would be that if the uses currently permitted in the C-2 z one were aug,rented, areas would be affected that are not ·within the coastal zone, and sane of the corrrrercial recreation uses may not be appropriate for the other areas. The C-R zone would be a supplemmtal zone that would be applied as an additional classification to any land zoned for comrercial use within the coastal zone. The developnent of the C-R zone would conform to the · standards, and the Cormri.ssion could add conditions. Chnn. Peirce felt that the only difference between the supplemental zone and the C-2 zone is that the suppleIIEntal zone is Im..lch rrore restrictive. Ms. Brayton stated that many citizens expressed concern for having uses added to the C-2 zone because it would affect any C-2 zoning throughout the City. Mr. ~rcado believed that all C-2 is west of Valley Drive; however, there may be an exception. C0111Il. Loosli believed that they were all in the coastal zone. Ms. Brayton felt that the suppleIIEI1tal zone would enable better control in a coastal area, such as architecture, landscaping, etc. Corrm. Loosli asked if hotels are permitted in the C-2 zone. Mr. Mercado replied in the affirmative. Conm. Rue felt as though this might duplicate effort since there is a design review board in Hermosa Beach. Conm. Loosli asked if there --were any added uses. Ms. Brayton replied that note ls and nightclubs that do not serve food as a primary part of their business would be an added use. Public Hearing opened at 9:08 P.M. Jerry Rado, 720 24th Place, Hermosa Beach, requested the difference between corrrrercial and recreation. He asked what types of businesses would encompass the recreation zone. Ms. Brayton replied that it would encompass theatres, entertainnEnt establishrIEnts, etc. Public Hearing continued at 9:11 P.M. PI.ANNIN:; CCM1ISSION MINUTES -April 7, 1982 Page 9 CCM1ERCIAL/RECRFATION ZONE DISTRICT (Cont. ) Chnn. Peirce stated that four IIEnibers rrrust approve the .zone change in able to enact it, and he, for one, would not vote for the zone change. Corrm. Rue found it to be rrore restrictive and did not believe it would prorrote any kind of developn:ent. He would also vote against it. Conrns. Currrnings and wosli also felt that they would vote against the zone change . Corrm. Curmrings asked what they would add to the list if they did not go with the suppleuental zone. Ms. Brayton replied that Redondo Beach is doing a C-R zone, and recreational facilities that they are looking at are nulti-use recreational facilities, fishing facilities, tennis and racquetball courts, arcades, swirrming facilities, and uses incidental thereto, such as public restrooms. Mr. Casteneda requested that the CoIIIlli.ssion compose an augITEI1tation of the list as the primary TIEans of encouraging C-R uses. He would then corre back to the Corrrnission with that list as "the answer" to that objective in the LCP. Chnn. Peirce agreed, but he recorrrrended readvertising if they were to add uses to the C-2 zone. Motion by Chrm. Peirce, seconded by Conm. Rue, to reject the establislment of a comrercial recreational zone in the suppleIIEntal zone. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Comns . Currmings, Loosli, Rue,'" Chnn. Peirce None Cooms. Donnelly, Smith, Chnn. Izant Chnn. Peirce asked that staff corre back with a list of what they feel would enhance the desirability of visitors in the coastal zone with additional uses or deletions. Conm. wosli asked for the status of the Biltrrore site and other properties that were to be added to the Planned Developnent zone. Mr. Mercado was not certain of the status; however, he stated that he would report back with that information. He stated that the General Plan shows those sections of the City that are designated.-cOI11TErcial recreation are the properties north and south of Pier between the Strand and Henrosa Avenue. PIANNING COMMISSION MINillES -April 7, 1982 Page 10 REZONING RAIIRGID RIGHT-OF-WAY TO OPEN SPACE Mr. Mercado gave staff report. He stated that the railroad right-of-way is designated as open space in the City 's open space elenent of the general plan, which was adopted on February 25, 1975. On J anuary 19, 1982, the Planning Comnissioh considered a zone change request from R-1 to open space or Planned Developrrent Residential/ O.S. for the portion of the railroad right-of-way adjacent to the Boaryard site. At that ~eting the Planning Comnission wted to rezone this potion of the railroad property to open space. Since January 1, 1974, County and City Zoning Ordinances are required to be consistent with the general plan. He stated that staff is proposing that this requirerrETit be net by rezoning the railroad right-of-way property, which is currently zoned R-1 as stipulated in Section 305(4), (5), and (6) of the City's code, to open space which is the current land use designation in the open space elerrent of the general plan for this property, which comprises appronmate ly twenty acres. The open space eleirent is based on several premises, one of which is that the City will retain and gain additional use of the railroad right-of-way including creation of a p athway for walkers and nn:mers . It goes on to say, "to obtain and preserve open spaces within the City limits of Henmsa Beach sufficient t o provide for anticipated needs of both present and future residences .11 A potential problem that accorrpanies zone changes from z ones that are conm::m.ly recognized as economically feasible to open s p ace is that of "taking" or rerroving the market value of such property. This issue has been discussed at length in the United States and California Suprene Courts. It is generally considered that a land use restriction is not invalid when it reduces the economic expectancy of its owner so long as the permitted use yields a reasonable r ate of return. He stated that rezoning this property to open space will still permit this property t o secure a rreasurable economic return through various uses such as e ducational buildings, pub lie and private recreation centers , public utility structures, public goverrurental buildings, etc. This being the case, staff reconnended that said property be rezoned to open space, thereby bringing this property into ccmformity with the general plan land use designation. He added that the City Attorney felt that the open space zcne in HenIDsa Beach ITII.Jrlicipal code pe:rnrits uses which appear to allow reasonable economic use. He was not aware of whether or not the allowed uses would be available for this particular property mder consideration. Corrrn. Loosli asked the audience and staff to consider changing one of the penni..tted uses in open space to be railroad tracks. Mr. Mercado stated that once it loses its function of transporting or being a railroad rigpt-of-way, it automatically becorres R-1. Staff's recomrendation was to mitigate that by zoning it open space. Corrm. Cunmings stated that his can.fusion stermed from the definition of a railroad right-of-way. He believed that the 100 feet was the right-of-way. He asked if there were a definition of a railroad right-of-way in the Code. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -April 7, 1982 Page 11 REZONING RAU.ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY 'IO OPEN SPACE (Cont .) Chnn. Peirce asked i f a piece of property that is unzoned and has tracks an it i s a railroad right-of-way . Corrm. Loosli replied in the affirmative. Comn. Cumnings stated that the Code could be rewritten to the effect that the only way it is prevented from being a railroad right-of-way is when the tracks are taken out. Public Hearing opened at 9: 37 P . M. Benjamin Salvaty, 5200 East Shiela Street, Los Angeles, attorney for Santa Fe Railroad Conpany, stated that the only notice they had of the hearing was by accident. It consisted of a letter dated March 31, 1982 from Alfred Mercado requesting a legal description of Santa Fe's property. Other than that, Santa Fe Railroad Corrpany received no notice of the hearing. Chrm. Peirce asked i f any notice was sent to the owner. Mr. Mercado stated that the Oii7Der was not given notice . Chnn. Peirce stated that they could not proceed further until such tine that the CMner had been properly noticed. A public hearing would then be held. Mr. Salvaty requested the City Attorney's narre. Corrm. Loosli replied Charles Post. Mr . Sal vaty requested that this i tern be heard towards the beginning of the next reeting. Chrm. Peirce concurred with Mr. Salvaty 1 s r e quest. STAFF REPORTS None CCM1[SSIONER'S ITEMS Chnn. Peirce stated that there is a request in their packet that the Planning Comnission hold their next reeting on either April 19, 1982 or April 21, 1982, since elections will be certified that week. Crnm. Peirce stated that the ~eting will be held Tuesday, April 20, 1982. PLANNING C<H1ISSICN MINUTE.5 -April 7 , 19 82 Page 12 COMMISSIONER 'S I TEM.S (Cont.) Coran . Loosli asked staff to obtain a copy of Manhattan Beach's railroad right-of-way ordinance and put it in the packets when the item c 011Es b ack to the Corrmiss i on . Camn . Cunnings requested that s t a f f keep a running l og sheet t h a t stays with the original packet noting wh at a c t i ons have t aken place on certain i s s ues. He also request e d that staff neke a list of exhibits submitted t o the Comnis s ion. Mo t ion to adj ourn at 9:55 P .M. CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing minute s are a true and C<Jillllete record of the action taken by the Planning Corrmis s i on of Henoosa Be a ch at their rreeting of April 7, 1982. ~S PEIRCE, ACTING CHAIRMAN DAIE r \ MINUTES OF THE PIANNING COMMISSION OF HffiMOSA BFACH HELD ON MARCH 2, 1982, IN TIIE CilY HAIL COONCIL CI-!..I\MBERS AT 7: 30 P .M. Meetmg called to order by Conro. Peirce at 7:30 P.M. ROIL CALL ERESENT: Corrms . Cumnings , Donnelly, Loosli, Peirce, Rue , Smith ABSENT: Crum. Izant AI.SO PRESENT: Parrela Sapetto, Plarming Director Corrrn. Peirce annomced that he will be acting as Chairman for the next three rreetings in the absence of Chrrn. Izant. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Cbnn. Peirce referred to Page 8, 10th para., and asked what happens to the moneys when it has not been spent. }'Is. Sapetto replied that the allocated frnds will be carried over until the City implerrents the program. Motion by Coran. 1.Dosli, seconded by Cornn. Rue, to approve the February 16, ( 1982, minutes . No objections , so ordered. APPROVAL OF RESOLUTIONS Cbrrn. Peirce stated that the Planning Corrmission had requested staff to roodify P.C. Resolution 82-7 and 82-8. Corrm. Currmings noted an error in P.C. 82-7, 7th WHEREAS should read, " . . . evening parking lane traf fie. . " Comn. Rue noted an error in spelling in the 9th 1il.1HEREAS. It should read, ". . . east of the tracks. . . " l:fotion by Comn. Il:ue, seconded by Corrm. Donnelly, to approve Resolutions P.C. 82-7 and 82-8. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COI1IT1S. Curnnings, Donnelly, Loosli, Rue, Smith, Crnm. Peirce None Crum. Izant CONTINUED PUBLIC HF.A.._tUNG -Programs irnplem:mting C..QI\IS & OBJECTIVES OF THE MOLTI -USE CORRIDOR Chrrn.. Peirce questioned Page 2, 1/6 of the Multi-Use Corridor. He suggested adding, " ... more profitable in the multi-use corridor than residential in appropriate zone." He clarified his addition by stating that the City does not want to discourage residential if it is zoned r esidential. PIANNING CCM1ISSION MINUIES -:rf.:arch 2, 1982 Page 2 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING -Programs inplerrenting ~ & OBJECTIVES OF THE MULTI-USE CCRRIDffi (Cont .) Ms. Sapetto gave staff report. She stated that staff recomrends that the Cormrl.ssion review the goals and objectives as arrended at their February 16, 1982, ~eting, and choose the appropriate implerrentation progra'IlS as listed in the staff analysis and to invite t..~e Chamber of Conrnerce to participate in a joint v:orkshop to discuss the Commis sion's outline. She stated that the first step in the inpleirentation of the study will be a recorrmendation to tr..e City CoLmci l as to whether or not to retain the temporary devel oprrent standards as pennanent in that they mitigate the abutting residential/conrnercial uses. This public hearing will be held on March 16, 1982. The Corrmis sion' s recorn:rendati on will then go before the Council on March 23, 1982. She reconm2nded to the Comnission to request a formal joint workshop between themselves and IIEnbers of the Chamber of Conrrerce to discuss the outline. Cornn. Smith asked if the Planning Corrmission were to meet with the Chamber of Comrerce because the businessnen on the hig..1-iway are the ones rrost affected by the multi-use corridor. :t-'",s. Sapetto replied that the only body that encorrpasses the rrerchants in the City is the Chamber of Comnerce. Corrm. Smith stated that the February 16, 1982, minutes reflected that the Planning Corrmi.ssion chose not to becore involved with the downtown area. He stated that, if the Planning Corrmissian is going to discuss the highway, he would rather work with the businesses in the area rather than the Chamber of Comrerce. Ms. Sapetto stated that sOIIE. persons from the Chamber of Cormerce do have businesses on the highway. Cornn. Donnelly stated that he would like to see public notices going to every business on the highi;,m.y. He recomrended staff sending a letter to each business on the highway and having the Chamber of Comrerce send notices to those businesses. Crum. Peirce so ordered Conm. Donnelly 1 s recorrmendation. Corrm. Rue stated that all persons along the highway are involved in this issue; therefore, all persons should be notified, i.e. residents, property owners, etc. However, he did not feel that all persons, such as tenants in an apartrrent building, should be notified. Cornn. Smith suggested noticing all persons so that the City may receive rrore input. Corrrn. Loosli stated that there will be no input from residents until a zone change is proposed. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -March 2, 1982 Page 3 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING -Programs implementing GOALS & OBJECTIVES OF THE MULTI-USE CORRIDOR (Cont .) Ms. Sapetto stated that the City should start by hearing those persons in the commercial zones to receive more input. Following that, the residents may give input on the Multi-Use Corridor. She felt that the most desirable way to receive resident input is to go to the neighborhood or to hold a block meeting. Chmn. Peirce recommended dealing with the business community at this time, and if sufficient interest is shown by the residents, a meeting will be arranged to include them. Corrnn. Donnelly agreed; however, he offered the suggestion of holding a meeting for the residents in the Councils Chambers, as opposed to the resident's neighborhoods. Comm. Cummings felt that not enough data was provided. He wanted more information on sales tax and business licenses. Chmn. Peirce referred to the Multi-Use Corridor document and stated that on Page 2, 4f6, 11 in the commercial zone 11 should be added. He explained that the purpose of this item is to keep commercial in the commercial zone and residential in the residential zone. Comm. Donnelly suggested deleting #6 in its entirety. Comm. Donnelly then suggested the verbage, 11 ••• to enhance commercial development in commercial zones.11 Chmn. Peirce accepted the above suggestion. Comm. Loosli asked for the location of the Thompson and Priamos properties. Ms. Sapetto replied that the Thompson property is bordered on the east by the highway, on the south. by Pier Avenue, on the west by Ardmore, and on the north by 15th Street. This property is currently zoned manufacturing. The Priamos property is across 16th Street and goes to 17th Street. Public Hearing opened at 8:03 P.M. Delma Peery, 720 8th Street, Hermosa Beach, connnended the Commission for holding a workshop with the Chamber of Commerce. She stated that many residents in the area do not know what the multi-use corridor is. She believed that education was very important. Violette Isgreen, 726 Prospect Avenue, Hermosa Beach, stated that Hermosa Beach is the only City that has business built out to the sidewalk. She was concerned that a public state-owned easement is being violated. She also believed a geologist should survey the area up the hill to determine if it would be dangerous to build a more intense commercial use. Pat Riley, 24th Place, Hermosa Beach, asked what plans the Commission has PLANNING COMMISSION :MINUTES -March 2, 1982 Page 4 CONTINUED PUBLIC HFARL~G -Progr-ams implerrenting OOU.S & OBJECTIVES OF TI-IE MULTI-USE CORRIDCR (Cont.) for 24th Street and 24th Place. Crnm. Peirce stated that t..li.e depth of 24th Place is about 90 feet on the north side of the street and 115 feet on the south side. He stated that the subcorrmittee did not discuss any additional depth on the west side of the highway. Corrm. Loosli added that all persons who would be affected by a zone change would receive written notificatdi.on. Public Hearing closed at 8:26 P.M. Cornn. Currmings requested a zone map ·which has the outline of the plausible IID.llti-use corridor that could be tUilled into a corrmercial corridor. He believed that the subconmittee had elirrdnated much of the rrrulti-use corridor. Chnn. Peirce stated that the subcorrmittee had discussed the conmercial corridor which was one lot depth in the north part of t0vm. Cornn. Cunnings believed that the subcorrmi.ttee carre up with a way to shrink the rm.rlti-use corridor as it is currently outlined. Ms. Sapetto stated that the subcorrmittee has corre up with that, and it is color coded for easy intei:pretation. She stated that she would bring it to the joint 'W'Orlcshop. Chrm. Peirce asked that Ms. Sapetto deliver that information to the Comnissioners three days before the workshop. He asked ~'Is. Sapetto to put heavy lines arorn.d the proposed corme.rcial corridor. Conm. Loosli asked if the naned focal points in the report will be allowed an increased height m the Zoning Code. Conm. Cu:rmings stated that it deals with making comnercial uses more viable. Ms. Sapetto stated that the suggestion was not to look at the height regulations with respect to the whole corridor , but to look at the focal points that would best be able to absorb c orrmercial depth, no view blockage to the ocean, and no irrpact to adjacent neig..11borhoods. It was suggested as an idea that would merit examining. Conm. Smith hoped that the subcorrrni.ttee was not IIHking conclusions that increased height will necessarily attract rrore business. Chnn. Peirce stated that no conclusions have been reached; they are Irerely ideas. Conm. Loosli recormended that the issue of increased height be left in the report because he felt it w::>uld bring the residents down to give input on /' PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -Marc h 2, 1982 Page 5 CONTINUED PUBL IC HEARING -Programs imp lementing GOALS & OBJECTIVES OF THE MULTI -USE CORRIDOR (C ont .) t he Multi-Us e Corridor. Comm. Don nelly believed that the Commission should not accept truisms as being necessarily true . He felt that the Commi ssion should ke ep an open mi nd on items such as t andem parking, increased height , increased traff ic , etc. Ms. Sapetto offered to labe l this i nformation as simply ideas and that no conclusi ons have been made. Chmn. Peirce asked fo r a da te to hold the next workshop me eting. Ms . Sapetto replied that it shoul d be held in April or May. She stated that she wi l l go to the Cham ber of Commerce to obtain a date. REVIEW Ex tension of CUP for Tentative Map 14619, 1079 Loma Ms. Sa petto gave staff report. She s tated that the request is to extend the COP to correspond with the Tentative Map. In staff 's review of the Code 1 the CUP does not automatically extend to correspond with the Tentative Ma p. Staff recommended extending the CUP to run with the Tentative Map, and , t hat the Commiss ion adopt a R~solution of Intention to amend t he Zoning Code . Chmn. Peirce saw no reason und er the law not to allow the extension a t 1079 Loma. Comm. Loo sli state d that he would need to know how he voted when the project was approve d before he could grant an extens ion. Motion by Cbmn . Pe irce , seconded by Comm. Donnelly, to extend the CUP and the Tentative Map as recommended by staff . AYES : NOES: AB STAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Cummings, Donnelly, Rue , Smith, Crunn. Peirce None Comm . Lo osli Chmn . Izant Comm. Loosl i stated t ha t he abstained from vote due to l ack of informat i on. Chmn. Peirce asked i f a Conditional Us e Permit and a Tentative Map is always approved at the same time. Ms. Sapetto replied that one cannot approve a Tentative Map without app roval of the Conditional Use Permit . She s tated that it i s possible that the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -Marc h 2, 1982 Page 6 Extension of CUP for Tentative Map 14619, 1079 Loma (Cont.) Conditional Use Permit can be approved prior to the Tentative Map. Chmn. Peirce recommended that the Commission go through the process to mod ify the City Cod e . No objections, so orde red. Ms. Sapetto stated that the Conditi onal Use Permit is good for one year, and the Tentative Map is good for 24 months. The Conditional Use Permit does not expire if the Building Permit is pulled within the 12-month period, and the Tentative Map becom es the Final Map if the Final Map i s approved within the 24-month period. She agreed that the Conditi onal Use Permit approval should be good as long as the Tentative Map approval. COMMISSIONER'S ITEMS Chinn. Peirce asked if the City Council ~oak a stand on off-short drilling. Ms . Sapetto replied that they wi l l be discussing it at thei r March 9, 1982 meeting. Comm . Cummi ngs, referring to the Environmental Review Report on the proposed hotel at Pier and Manhattan Avenues, asked if the Review Committee felt that the repQrt is responsive to th~~ori ginal question about c ircu- lation. Ms. Sapetto replied that the Traffic Circulation Maps were i ncluded i n the report at the second meeting of the Review Committee . Comm. Smith asked fo r the status of rezoning the railroad right-of-way, Ms. Sapetto replied that the hearing will be held at the first meet ing in Apri l. Comm. Smith asked for the status of the specific plan for the Boatyard . Ms. Sapetto replied that the Planning Comm ission took no action at all at their last meeting and cannot review the specific plan until the Council renders a decision on the conceptual plan. Comm. Cumm ings state d that he spoke with the appellant of the Boatyard site who wanted the City Council to blockade Second Street at Valley Drive on the east side . He accepted Plan Bas a superior site plan ; howev e r, he thought that the impact of traffic circulation would be mitigated if there were a blockade on Second Street . ( . u PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -March 2, 1982 Page 7 COMMISSIONER'S ITEMS Chmn. Peirce stated that the Economic Element appears to be five to six years old. Ms. Sapetto replied that was tru~j however, it is the current Eeonomic Element. Comm. Cummings asked if it were originally compiled by a consultant. Ms. Sapetto replied that she did not know. PIANNING CCMl'-ITSSION MINUTES -March 2, 1982 Page 8 COMMISSIONER'S ITEMS include such things as the nunber of households in 1970 and 1980, population in 1970 and 1980, etc. He felt that he and the other Conmissioners needed a set of data to refer back to. He volunteered to make up a sheet of the key nunibers that he would like to have, and he requested staff to fill in those m.1rooers. Chnn. Peirce accepted Cami. Donnelly's proposal. Ms. Sapetto stated that the General Pl.an supplies all those numbers in an organized fashion. Those figures are based upon 1970 data, plus any additional 1975 data. She a dded that tndst of the 1980 data is not available at this tine. She stated that she wi,.11 fill in the sheet once the data becorres available. Chnn. Peirce stated that he attended a ITEeting in San Diego, and he felt it was very reneficial. He covered nine items that helped to make an effective Planning Commissioner, those being: 1. if you want to get your point across, do not give highly teclnical data to an audience that cannot receive it and visa versa; 2. there are four ways to make a decision; narrely, 1. facts 2 . experience 3. City policy; and 4. gut reaction; 3. deal with obstacles before the project is complete; 4. recognize that a change makes things worse before they get better; 5. very little we know we have experienced; 6. recognize that 1.nless things change, they stay the sane; 7. some needs are IIOre basic than others; 8. recognize that truisms can always be changed, and you will always be judged; 9. do not worry. There will always be another ~eting in b,xJ weeks. Chnn. Peirce stated that the rrost important .thing the speaker felt a Planning Corrmissianer should do is to keep a sense of hUIIDr. Conm. Donnelly stated that he also enjoyed the session in San Diego. He reconnended that all Conmissioners attend one of these sessions at least once. Chmn. Peirce suggested holding a session for all the Commissioners and the rrerooers of the Board of Zoning AdjustnEnts in other cities to discuss City matters. PLANNING CCM1ISSIOO' lITNUTES -March 2, 1982 Page 9 C0M.".IISSIONER'S ITEMS (Cont.) Ms. Sapetto noted concern for new Conmi.ssioners not having any type of orientation. She suggested having an an-going training session for Comnissioners and the public. Motion to adjourn at 9: 21 P .M. CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and complete record of the action taken by the Planning Comnission at their regular rrEeting of March 2, 1982. DATE r MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON FEBRUARY 16, 1982, IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT 7:30 P.M. Meeting called to order by Chmn, Izant at 7:32 P,M. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Comms. Cummings, Loosli, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Izant ABSENT: Caroms. Donnelly, Smith ALSO PRESENT: Pamela Sapetto, Planning Director APPROVAL OF MINUTES Comm. Cummings requested that the discussion on Page 3 concerning affordability be expanded: Mr. Castane.da stated that there are two parts to the affordability question. One is the cost part, which is the actual price or rent or consideration given to be able to live in whatever kind of dwelling; and by being affordable, then it would have to be affordable within the context of being within the economic means of certain income groups. Comm. Cummings asked if affordability is attached to the situation of the owner. in his mortgage payments on the property, or is it attached to the renter? Mr. Castaneda. replied that there are two points of view. The manner in which we deal with it in the Housing Element, for the most part in the section of Housing Assistance, is a combination of two factors: income and housing payment matched to give you the idea of whether the housing occupied by that person is affordable or not. Connn. Donnelly posed a question to Mr. Castareda: Let's assrune we have two identical apartments. Both rented at $200 a month, one being occupied by someone earning a million dollars a year, and one being occupied by someone earning $5,000 a year. Are both considered part of our affordable housing stock? Mr, Castane..da replied that two units would be considered part of the affordable housing stock. The person with the problem would be the one with the $5,000 income, when you compare the payments versus the income, whether that exceeded ability to pay, Comm. Donnelly asked: If the payment does not exceed capability to pay, you then look at the amount of the payment to determine affordability. If the payments exceed capability to pay, and someone is in the low and moderate income level, then does the income level determine affordability or not? Mr. Cas tane..da replied that this is true. / Mr. Castaneda stated: You have to consider the fact that you have a price in the cost structure and that at the lower end that would accordingly be called affordable from a cost standpoint. Then once you had the occupant and his income, then that's another matter. That's when you are measuring something else . ._v., Mr. Cas ta~.da further stated: In terms of definilig existing affordable housing, take your income groups and find what is affordable to them, based on a percentage of income; and that translates to a housing payment. And then one can measure the housing supply against the price category. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -Fe ~t uary 16, 1982 APPROVAL OF MINUTES (cont.) Comm. Smith asked: What is the basis of any definition? Page 2 Mr. Castan~da responded that it is income, with income and percentage of income that should be spent on housing, This could also be determined by family size. Comm. Loosli stressed that his comments on Page 15~ Paragraph 5 were preceded by his reading the intent and purpose of the Plan Development Ordinance: "The intent is to provide specific planning on larger parcels within the city to deal effectively with neighborhood and citywide concerns such as traffic, circulation, utilities, buffering, and open space, density~ height, and layout," Motion by Comm. CUIIDil.ings, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve the February 3, 1982, minutes. No objections, so ordered. APPROVAL OF RESOLUTIONS Comm, Cummings stated that certain WHEREASs in P,C. 82-8 pertain to/Plan B, not Plan A. He suggested that those WHEREASs be deleted from P. C. 82-6: 11WHEREAS, Pacific Coast Highway southbotn1d evening parking lane traffic is a planned remedy for traffic on Ardmore and 2nd Street"; "WHEREAS, blockade of 2nd Street at Valley is a general and desirable additional possible remedy." "IJlHEREAS, the internal c.irculation conc.ept was originally developed for a common subterranean garage" shall be revised to read_, "WHEREAS, Plan A maintains the internal circulation .... " (P .C. 82-8) Chrnn, Izant stated that the following WHEREASs shall be incorporated into P.C. 82-7: "WHEREAS, this traffic plan w;ith separa:t_e entrances & exits allows for more internal usable open space -in the project"; WHEREAS this traffic plan was so devised as to minimize impact on surrounding surface streets." Motion by Col!Wl, Rue, seconded by Cormn. Cummings, to approve Resolutions P.C. 82-7 and 82-8 as revised. AYES: -,NOES: ABSENT: Comms. Cummings, Loosli, Peirce, Rue, Ghmn. Izant None COllllIIS. Donnelly, Smith PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATION OF THE SPECIFIC PLAN FOR 440 -2nd STREET - BOATYARD SITE Violet Isgreen, 726 Prospect Avenue, Hermosa Beach, stated for the record that, since the City Council saw fit to hold an equally important meeting in conflict with the Public Hearing meeting involving basic, vital changes in the City, she requested that the Planning Commission meeting be adjourned as an expression of good faith to the public of Hermosa Beach. Ms. Sapetto stated that the specific plans for Plans A and B will be submitted to you and the city at your meeting, The purpose of the submittal is to give the Commission an opportunity to review over the next two (2) weeks the elevations, floor plans, etc., of both plans which have received your conceptual approval. No action can be taken by the Commission at this time since you, one, will not have a staff analysis, and, two, will not have had the plans submitted to you previous to your meeting. Staff recommends that you receive and file the submittal until your next ·regular scheduled meeting. ' PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -Fe brua ry 16 , 1982 PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATION OF THE SPECIF I C PLAN FOR 440 -2nd STRE ET - BOATYARD SITE Page 3 Ms. Sapett o pointed out that, since the Conceptual Plan i s in the process of an appeal to the City Council, further action on the specific plan will be delayed until the results of that appeal are known. Cbnn, Izant asked Ms. Sape tto i f the Public Hearing had been advertised, Ms. Sapetto stated that she did n o t advertise it . Chmn . Izant stated that the Public Hearing on the Conce ptual Plan had been c losed at the previous meeting of t he Planning Collllllission; therefor e , a public notice for a specific plan would be i n orde r for a spec ific planned hearing. Chmn . Izant s .tated that there was no legally advertised public hearing. Ms . Sapett o concurred with Chmn. I zant but added that that fact does not preclude the Commiss ion f rom hearing public testimony, if t here be any. Chmn . Izant reit erated the fact that thi.s was not a legal pub lic hearing for the Boatyard Site and asked t he Commi ssioners h ow they wished to dispose of this particular item. Comm , Loosli felt that the people opposed to this project wh o have appealed it we re not present because they were not aw are of the fact that it would be at the Planni ng Commission level becaus e all appeals , once they are appealed , are then at the Council level, and they are not running concurrent hearings while an appeal is on. Comm . Peirce f elt that the fact that it was not notified was the reas on why a Public He aring should n ot be held. He said there is no reason why a public hearing cannot be run on a specific plan even though the Conceptual Plan has not been approved or is on appeal to the City Council. Comm, Cummin gs stated that he would like to receive and file the plans , but he did not think a Public Hearing should be held . He agreed with Comm , Loosli's view that it should not be discussed until the appeal result is known. Comm. Rue ag reed with Comms. Cummings and Lo osli. Chmn. I zant s tated that, sin ce the Publi c Hearing was not notified, and since there was not time to study the plans , he fe lt it would be i nappropriate to take tes timony at the meeting. Comm, Cummings asked if he could receive the plans and take them fo r his review . Chmn . Izant stated t hat if the Collllllission, as individuals, were to receive the plans in the mail, ·they could then be reviewed. The City Attorney or someone on staff would then have t o make a determination as to whether or n ot the Commission could officially hear them at the next meetin g. He stated he saw nothing wrong with taking the plans to review, but as far as having i t at the public level , it would be inappropriate based on the situation. n PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -February 16, 1982 DRAFr HOUSING ELEMENT Page 4 Chmn, Izant e xplained to the audience that the State of California requires that c i ties, along with their General Plan, have a number of elements. There are required elements, and there are optional elements . One of the required e lements is a Housing Plan . A Hous ing Plan has many items in it. Currently we are at a draft stage. Copies are currently available in the City Hall and in the library. This is the third of a series of public h earings. The last public hearing was a joint workshop between the Planning Commission and the City Council, The prior was a public hearing b y the Planning Commission . He stated that the Commission would be taking testimony on items that the Housing Element should or should not contain, not whether or not an element is nee ded, because the element is mandated by law. Mr. Castanada gave staff report. He stated that a work session with the City Council was held last Thursday on the Housing Element. The purpos e of that work session was for the City Council to receive some of the initial reactions or concerns of the Planning Conunission on the draft version as well as a synops is of community input at the public hearing of February 3. He felt progress was made at that session. He felt that a better understanding of what a Housing Element is was gained. There was quite a bit of discussion on the section dealing with what we call Hous ing Production, and that is mainly that section dealing with new development that may occur in the community. It appeared to us-that there seems to be a question in terms of the additional amount of housing that should be permitted in the City and that perhaps it is necessary to not only take a look at this in terms of the Housing Element but as well other elements of the General Plan. In t erms of procedures, at the last work session it s eemed as if one procedure was to take each of the major sections and review those sections until there seemed to be some satisfaction with what s hould be in it and what should not be in it. And it also seemed that the section which was obtaining the most interest and wliich might influence the other two sections was the section on housing production. I think it's quite open in terms of procedures and how you would like to review the document contingent on terms of what actions or wh at kinds of decisions you want to make. Chmn. Izant asked if staff was suggesting that one vehicle for reviewing this both at the Commission and public level i s to take it by its three identifiable sections, that is, housing improvement, housing production, and housing assistance. Mr. Castanada replied in the affirmative. Comm, Cummings asked whether any progress was made in listing out the resources versus the constraints. '? Mr. Castanada replied in the affirmative. Mr. Castanada explained the chart illustrating affordable housing; What we attempted to do here is to examine that question from the standpoint of income as well as measure affordable housing costs relative to the percentage of income s pent on housing. Comm . Cummings asked if the information on the char~ was from a particular survey. . . .., Mr. Castanada replied it was not. It is just a conceptual idea of how one would take a look at defining affordable housing costs in r e lation to income. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -February 16, 1982 DRAFT HOUS ING ELEMENT (cont.) Page 5 Mr. Castanada further explained: What we have at the bottom are four bullet items which define the various income categories. These categories are defined with refe rence to the median income in Los Angeles County. That is the standard definition of these income groups. When one makes adjustments for household size, there are changes. These are the various categories and how they are defined, whether we are talking about Hennosa Beach or another community. Comm. Cummings asked if one could conceptualize the adjustments for family size by other tables, Mr. Castanada replied in the affirmative. Comm, Cummings asked what is assume d to be the size on this chart. ~ Mr, Castanada replied that it is the average in terms of all the households in Los Angeles County, Mr. Castanada continued: Und er the first column what we have done is to develop seven income categories with the second, the fourth, and the sixth corresponding to these various income groups. In tenns of the income group of 50% and below, we basically create two subcategories. In t e rms of 50 to 80 %, we create two income categories. In terms of 80 to 120% once again two income categories. We then take those income groups and determine the monthly income in terms of a range, and then we take that and apply the fa ctors of 25%, 30%, 33%, 35%, and 40% in terms of the amount of income that ought or can be spent on housing. It is really these income groups together with these percentages of income spent on housing which determine the kinds of affordable housing costs. In the Housing Element as it stands now, the 30% factor is used in terms of renter households, This is somewhat higher than the commonly used 25% factor. That was the factor used according to the 1977 guidelines. Comm. Cummings asked if there are administrative guidelines any longer, ·~ Mr. Cas tanada replied that there are not. The legislation speaks to ability to pay. 0 Mr, Castanada continued: It do es not giye you a standard; so in the context of the Housing Element, we have looked at various factors and on that basis selected 30%. So if one were to use 30% for those households at the upper level of the various income groups--very low, low, and moderate--it would have payme nts of $235, $37 6, and $556, Comm. Cummings asked if those are the upper ends of the very low, low, and moderate categories. Mr. Castanada replied in the affirmative. Mr. Castanada explained: Alternatively, if one were to say in today's market 40% seems more practical, then obviously what is defined as a ffordabl e increases dramatically, and we see that on the far right column. So that would be a definition of affordable housing costs. We then would say what portion of the housing inventory falls into this various price category. u Mr. Castanada explained the chart entitled "Cumulative Prequency Distribution of Monthly Apartment Rents." This information was compiled from a survey taken in March of 19 81. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -Fe bruary 16, 1982 DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT (cont.) Page 6 Continuing his explanation of the chart -~"C umulative Frequency Distribution of Monthly Apartment Rents," Mr, Castanada said: What we have on the horizontal plane are various monthly rent categories . These were drawn from the survey that we conducted in March , 1981. Th en, on the vertical is the percentage category. What we are trying to measure is the percent of apartment housing that falls into these various price categories. The second item is labeled "All Apartments." That i s the cumulative distribution for all apartments in the comDlunity that were surveyed, Connn. Cunnnings asked for a clarification of the survey. Mr , Castanada replied that the survey included a random selection of all apartments of three tmits or more. Comm. Cummings asked wh ether Mr. Castan.iida was going to go over the chart entitled~ "City of Hermosa Beach -Inventory of Constraints and Resources ." ·' Mr, Castanada replied that the chart is the outcome of the work sess ion on the 11th of February whe re we discuss ed that it might be helpful to take a look at what we in the narrative discussed in terms of constraints and resources which are somewhat conceptual in the document and as a point of possible departure for further discussion in terms of additions or deletions. So essentially this is drawn f rom the information that is already in the document and just kind of puts them in summary form. Public Hearing opened at 8:26 P ,M. Violet Isgreen, 726 Prospect Avenue, Hermosa Beach, again asked that the meeting of the Planning Commission be adjourned because so many of the interested citizens we re attending the ad hoc meeting, Chmn. Izant responded that he felt it was the obligation of the Commission to continue the meeting in the interests of the citizens who did come for the publicly schedul ed hearings. Harper Clemons, 901 16th Street, Hermo sa Beach , stated that it was his under- standing that the number of people in the household is also a vital factor of affordable housing . He questioned why that information was not included. Mr. Castan,da replied that there is no information available right now in terms of income by number of persons in the household. The most recent information that is available is just in terms of overall income for t he community. It is not until the 1980 census becomes available--perhaps in six months to a year-- that that kind of information will be readily available. Mr. Clemons asked if a survey was taken toiget the rents~ why weren't t he household incomes also obtained. Mr. Castanada replied that the intent of the survey was to determine the rent, vaca·ncy. and those kinds of characteristics. He felt that had an income question been asked, the response t o the survey might not have been as good. Mr, Clemons felt it was vital to answer the question of income per person in a household to determine the affordability. Comm. Loosli questioned the availability of the 1980 census. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -February 16, 1982 DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT (cont.) Page 7 Mr. Castanada replied he did not see the availability of the census before September, Delma Peery, 720 8th Street, Hermosa Beach, stated that she felt the entire plan has no value whatever. She felt it was a waste of time, effort, and money. Pat Riley, 725 24th Place, Hermosa Beach, requested more information on the Draft Housing Element. Chmn. Izant advised her that there is a draft of the Housing Element available in the public library that she may review. Ms, Riley wanted to go on record as being against low-cost housing in Hermosa Beach, She said she does not want public housing. Jack Wood, 803 Loma Drive, Hermosa Beach, questioned the graph: Am I to assume from reading the graph that I can afford every apartment in the City of Hermosa Beach if I have $649. Is that the way I anticipate this? CoI!llll.. Cummings rep 1 ied, 11 almost . " Comm, Loosli replied, "except for three bedrooms .11 Mr, Wood continued: What I am trying to say is that we have charted several numbers-25, 30, 33, 35, and 40% of the gross income-and used those nmnbers to make some attempts to determine how the affordability of housing based on this graph. Now, there is a lot of information available that indicates that a higher percentage of disposable income--take-home pay--is spent by the lower income people for housing. This number is, in some cases, for those on fixed incomes, social security people, in excess of 70%. Now, when you have a relationship that does not exceed 40% as your basic data, you are not at the point where you are hitting what these people are willing--if you want to call it willing--to pay for housing. My point is that you haven't even scratched the surface until you get into the 50-60% range of what these people are, in fact, paying. This information is quite available. The County Housing Authority has it available as well as the City of Los Angeles. Comm. Cummings queried: You are saying we should have the data on the actual distribution as well as this ideal we are talking about here? Mr, Wood replied: In today's market people who are buying houses will qualify at 45% of their income to make the payments. So what I am saying is that this affordable housing cost element is too low in the actual spectrum of things, and there is much data that supports this. Mr. Wood continued: In excess of 40% is now normal for people who are of high income. Lower income people have ilso paid a far higher percentage of their income for shelter. If the graph is cut off at 40%, you have not even described the ability or the percentage of units that can be used up. Mr. Wood questioned staff: Why did you stop at 40%2 Are you not aware there isa vast amount of information that many people in lower income brackets spend '-_,..,,,' more than 40% of their income on housing? PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -February 16 , 1982 DRAFr ROUSING ELEMENT (cont.) Page 8 Mr. Castaneda replied: In response to your first question, the function of the table per the request of the Planning Commi ssion at the last meeting was to define affordable housing costs, not necessarily what people are willing to spend or what they actually spend. If we decided to add that as another item, and define affordability in t erns of either the actual or the percentage of income spent on housing, then that's a different way of def ining it. In terms of the second item, the person in the very low and low income categories do spend a great percentage of their income on housing and certainly 50% or more, That is not what we were measuring here, Chmn. Izant pointed out that the basic function of the graph was to give a graphic idea of aff ordable housing rents as opposed to in relation to income. Connn. Cummings added that the chart was just to show us where we are in terms of what is the commonly accepted notion of affordability, And affordability is very closely tied to the p e rcentage of your income that you have to spend on housing, not that you are willing t o spend, but you have to spend. Mr. Wood felt that the facts on the graph were about 20% too low. He would appreciate the use of facts and figures more consistent with what is happening in the real world. He . asked · the Commission to encourage staff to provide a graph that includes a housing cost at 50% and at 60 %, Mr. Wood spoke in reference to the "Inventory of Constraints and Resources." He felt there is a substantial negative effect on the production of housing incurred by all of the zoning overlays and changes in the standards. He felt every one of the changes in the standards has a negative effect on it, Mr. Wood spoke about enforcement of housing quality standards. He failed to se·e how enforcement of a quality standard is a resource for housing improvement. He stated that there is a lot of low cost housing that is actually substandard housing, and that is why it i s low cost. Mr . Wood discussed the community development block grants, He stated there is no reason to believe they are going to continue. Comm. Rue asked if any block grants were allocated, Mr. Wood stated there were none for housing improvement. Mr. Cas tare·.da stated that there has been an allocation of approximately $126,000 from the fifth and sixth year combined grants. That has been allocated to rehabilitation prog rams .for 1980-81. Mr. Wood viewed the land use element and the zoning ordinance as the same thing. He realized that in Hermosa Beach they are separate, but in mo st places they are the same. He did not see them as a dual resource but only as one or two components. He also felt the same could be said about the general plan e lements . Mr, Wood presumed that everyone was aware they would have to decrease the development standards to facilitate production. Mr. Wood felt that the environmental analys is does not seem to be an applicable r esource within the City of Hermosa Beach, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -February 16, 1982 DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT (cont.) Page 9 Comm, Cummings asked how the environmental analysis was treated as a resource for housing production. Mr, Castaneda replied: In terms of the overall package, the meaning of the resource is that the City if it wished could have environmental analysis conducted on residential projects as they come before the Planning Commission or City Council. That could be in terms of zone change requests, plan amendments, in terms of size whether that had an impact at the neighborhood scale or community scale. What we are saying is that tool is available to the City in order to assess the impacts of any particular development on the City as a whole, on any particular part of it. Mr, Wood moved on to the section of housing assistance. He could not under- stand how changing the general plan of the zoning ordinance is going to have any effect on assistance, He can see how it covers improvements and production, but he felt that housing assistance means the government pays money to somebody to live somewhere. He did not see what this had to do with the zoning ordinance. Comm. Loosli stated that this housing element is part of the general plan, So if that were part of it, it would be part of the general plan. Mr. Wood asked if this meant so many number of units or percentage of the population would be assisted public housing, Comm, Loosli stated that this was a possibility, Mr. Wood stated that he cannot see how changing the zoning ordinance has any- thing to do with assisted housing. Comm Cununings stated that is where he felt density bonuses would go. Comm Cummings felt that the resources were there but that they can't be used because of the constraints on them. He felt the constraints were not the problem. The constraints are the things that prevent us from dealing with the affordable housing crisis as defined by the State. So, if you look over there, it says that one of the constraints in Hermosa Beach is land costs. Mr. Wood felt that the resources were going in the wrong direction as far as a solution was concerned. Mr. Wood asked why land cost and values are a constraint on housing assistance. Comm, Cummings replied: The land cost means that the person who owns the rental property is paying a huge mortgage, and he is going to want a huge differential to buy down the rent for this housing assistance person. We'd have to pay this huge differential between the person's mortgage payments and what the person can afford; so that's why it's a constraint. The City can't afford to pay that big a differential, Cormu. Peirce said he didn't see anywhere in the housing element where it mentions subsidizing anybody's rent. He said he was personally opposed to that, '-/ Connn. Peirce felt that there was a lack of focus at this time. Mr. Castantda replied: There were three specific items that you requested from the standpoint that perhaps your inclination was to include this kind of PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -February 16, 1982 DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT (cont.} Page 10 material within the element. One was the housing inventory. I think the second item was in relationship to the density patterns in the community, and then I think the third item related to terms of overall growth that might be allowed in the community. I think that those were the three items that you mentioned, and I think that during the session it was a matter of, are those kinds of considerations in terms of the actual decisions or conclusions within the actual scope of this element. There are two ways to treat it--either as trying to decide within the context of this element or establishing a priority in the sense that those are items that come back to the Commission on a priority basis. After that meeting I then had a chance to review the legislative council 1 s report. I would think that a good 50 to 60% of the session we had with the City Council all revolved around the issues of the growth and additional growth. And one of the key items was whether one can establish limits on additional growth within the housing element safely, from a standpoint of legislation and statutes or whether one looks at it from the standpoint that that limit is implicit in the open space policies of the city, the land use policies and so forth. The opinion of the legislative council seemed.to be pointing that a general plan is a consolidated integrated set of policies that if there are overriding considerations impeding additional growth in the policy or an actual fiscal environmental concern or community values, that that can serve as an input to the housing element in terms of saying how many units ought to be there, rather than vice versa saying in the housing element now you direct the other elements. So I felt that a great part of that session on the 11th was devoted to discussing the issues that you are concerned with. I think that there is a good feedback among the Commissioners, the City Council, and the members of the public. The sense of direction that I had was that really an overall concern was additional growth in the community. Secondly. like trying to get a handle on that as a priority item. Comm. Peirce stated that he felt the Roos Bill was not applicable to the City of Hermosa Beach because the City is not in the position of having large tracts of land to zone. He asked if the legislature had ever addressed the condition of the city which is fully built out to their so-called fair share housing. Mr. Castane.da replied that that question was brought up in a slightly different context in terms of whether they have ever looked at the community. The original figures and the base figures from which the regional planning agency develops total amount of housing need are indeed drawn from the general plan of the community as it stands now. The figures that the regional planning agency uses for the entire city are 10,220. As you noted in the housing element, it's about 10,225. So the original input to the regional planning agency, SCAG, is drawn on the land use element of the community. The manner in which the figures were then derived for purposes of the housing element were at the time that element was adopted and at the time that was input to the regional agency on additional growth, the City had a certain percentage of the overall growth in the region. Then the total growth in the region equals a total percentage. In terms of the revised figures, this is a larger population growth forecasted for the region. The percentage figure was applied to that, and you come up with a new figure. That new figure is still within the limits of additional growth as allowed by the general plan. The end result is really that the build out, so to speak, is forecasted to occur sooner let's say, than the year 2000. Our recommendations and our suggestions in the element really say that one ought to get a handle on what the community wants by way of additional growth, feed that into the next revisions of the forecast for SCAG so that the additional population fore- casted for the community, as well the "housing needs 11 are in sync in relation- ship to what the community wants to accommodate. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -February 16, 1982 DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT (cont.) Page 11 Mr-. Wood suggested that the Commission vote against the concept of affordable housing. Ron Orr, 168 Hill Street, Hermosa Beach, suggested the possibility that the City might buy schools and use the land for senior citizen housing. He said if the need ever arose, the cost to reconvert back to schools would be little. Chmn. Izant responded that this is a possibility should the community as a whole decide that it is a desirable goal. Mr. Castaneda stated that SCAG has been notified that there will be changes. The exact nature of the changes have not been communicated; so they are on record, and they are anticipating a revision of these statistics. The reason the changes have not been formally communicated is the need to have sessions to get the community input, but the process has already been started. If at the end of the process the regional agency is dissatisfied with the figures, then the last item on that page means that the City can still include its figures as long as it provides the methodology for those revisions. The public hearing will be continued. Comm. Peirce felt that the Commission could proceed no further until the census is made available. He stated that the inventory is almost mandatory. Comm. Peirce asked what the allocation was over the next ten-year period. Mr. Castati!da replied that in terms of projected need, somewhere around 550 with the net addition being somewhere around 350. This is not 350 affordable units, but overall housing needs regardless of income or whatever else. Comm. Peirce asked what is the number of affordable units that are supposed to be produced over that period of time. Mr. Castaneda. replied that there is a number which says in terms of the four income groups what ought to be produced for those income groups in terms of the need. We have not included any new affordable housing apart from what has been discussed in the last year in terms of perhaps modest scale senior 1 s housing, 15 to 25 units. And even that is mentioned as an alternative. Comm. Peirce again asked what the number is of affordable housing units that are supposed to be produced. Mr. Castan e:la replied that out of that 550 figure, that is distributed across four income groups. Comm. Peirce asked if that is the number of additional housing units that have to be produced in that period of time. Mr. Cast~neda. replied that it is, in terms of what one would say is a housing need to the total units and housing need by income category. Comm. Peirce asked how this plan is monitored by the State or SCAG. Mr. Castan~a replied: There are constraints and resources, and based on all those facts and figures and ideas, you come up with the statements of what you intend to do. There is no necessary correlation, one on one, between the need and what you set out to do. And even the legislature recognizes that you can't have a one on one. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -February 16, 1982 DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT (cont.) Page 12 Comm. Peirce asked if the statement must be specific or whether it can be general. Mr. Castaneda replied that it must be specific in terms of actions or programs. It must also be specific in terms of time. Comm. Cummings pointed out that, even though there is no enforcement by any state agency, there are public interest groups that will be monitoring local governments to be sure they are adhering to the intent of the state laws. Comm. Peirce asked where it is mentioned that Hermosa Beach must have a plan of affordable housing. Mr. Castaneda replied that the legislative definition of the housing element includes language saying that the element should address the ~ousing need of all economic segments of the community. It also says that one should identify the actions which were directed to assist the development of housing for low and moderate income households. It says you must do this unless there are reasons which indicate you cannot. Chmn. Izant stated that the growth number of 550 is not a number that Hermosa Beach City government will direct builders to build, but rather it is a projection of what is seen as the growth potential of the area according to land usage. Comm. Peirce said that the inventory will be necessary before the City can determine whether or not it is past the build out. Chmn. Izant stated that the ultimate effect of the document could be that it might be desirable to have 50 units but that economic constraints, and land constraints, and density, and parking, and air pollution would not permit anymore than five units. But there must be findings to support this contention that the City cannot afford to put in more than five units. He felt it is necessary for the City to determine what has already been done and what the City can afford to do. Chmn. Izant questioned the possibility of rewriting the document to reflect the needs of the citizens. Comm. Peirce pointed out that this was done in the Coastal Commission housing element. The statements of policies, goals, objectives, and programs were in the front of the document and the remainder of the material was in appendices. Chmn. Izant suggested directions the Commission could take concerning this document. He suggested hearings on the three major elements or the formation of a subcommittee to revise and redraft the document. Comm. Loosli asked Mr. Castare.da if he had a copy of the Coastal Commission housing element that thei Cammi ssion worked on. Mr. Castanada replied that he has reviewed that document as well as most other public documents related to housing. '._.....-Mr. Castan,.da agreed that all data and other elements that pertain would be included in an appendix. He would look at it as an expanded version of an executive summary. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -February 16, 1982 DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT (cont.) Page 13 Chmn. Izant felt that the document does not bring out clearly and specifi- cally enough the ecomonic constraints and resources. He felt that both the theoretical and practical factors need to be included. He also felt that the areas concerning high land cost, density, and so forth are not pulled together strongly enough. Mr. Castan:c'{:fa concurred with Chmn. Izant. He felt that there are three items that can be worked on. One, the mechanics; that is to say, something along the lines of an expanded executive summary. Two, a statement of philosophy, a statement of the City 1 s involvement in housing as a statement of policy to pull items together. Three, statements expressing the City 1 s constraints in terms of addressing need. Mr. Castan'.ecta proposed having a statement saying this is how the housing element implements the statewide housing policies, and this is why this is the maximum number, either in terms of new production or other matters. Chmn. Izant stated that that kind of document should be before the Commission before a series of final public hearings is begun. Chmn. Izant asked the Commissioners their feelings about a redrafting of the document. He also asked whether public hearings should be held on the matter. Comm. Peirce felt action should be halted until the document is redrafted Comm. Loosli felt that Mr. Castari,aja should review the Coastal draft of the Planning Commission. He thought that this would be a good starting point .. Comm. Cummings felt that less should be said about goals and more said about constraints. He felt that the goals have already been stated by various other state and administrative bodies. He felt that it is too early to have the document revised. He expressed a desire to have more discussion on potential actions to solve the housing needs. Comm. Rue suggested that the document be revised and clarified. He suggested assembling the facts in an outline form and having an appendix available. He felt that then each of the goals could be touched upon in the outline form. Input could then be gained on the constraints. He felt that maybe this could begin on a committee basis. Comm. Peirce felt that an outline would be appropriate and time-saving. Chmn. Izant concurred with the outline method. Chmn. Izant so ordered an outline of the document. Ms. Sapetto stated that Mr. Castaniec:Ja would be unavailable for the Planning Commission meetings on March 2 and 16. She said outlines would be presented to the Commission at the March 16 meeting for review. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -February 16, 1982 Page 14 CONSIDERATI ON OF RECOMMENDATION ON AMENDMENTS TO THE MULTI-USE CORRIDOR BY THE MULTI-USE CORRIDO R SUBCOMMITTEE Ms Sapetto gave staff report. In September., 1981, the Planning Commission examined the issue of commercial zone5 abutting residential property. As a result, temporary standards for the commercial zones were adopted in order to lessen the impact of the adjacent zoning conflicts. The Comm i ssion recommended temporary standards as opposed to permanent standards because it was generally felt that the goals and objectives of the commercial zones were not well defined. particularly with respect to the multi-use corridor. As such the existing development standards ought to be re-examined once the goals and objectives were identified through a study of the commercial areas. Since a study was imminent on the downtown commercial areas via the VPD/PAID commissions, the Planning Commission chose to focus upon the multi-use corridor. It was hoped to have the multi-use study completed and new deveop- ment standards recommended to the Council by the end of the six-month period. The Planning Commission appointed a sub-committee consisting of-Comms-:-Peirce, Rue)-and Smith {Donnally-replaced Smith). The sub-committee held six meetings in order to evaluate the existing nature of commercial development, the needs of the area and to solicit input from local business interests and experts in the field of commercial development. The sub-committee has prepared recommended goals, objectives, and program actions for evaluation by the Commission. Staff's analysis of the committee 1 s recommendations is the following: The Goals 1) to encourage viable commercial growth on the highway 2) to eliminate the conflict between parking and moving traffic 3) to create a harmonious relationship between commercial and residential growth The Objectives 1} to create parking lots/facilities off the highway and easily accessible to the businesses 2) to create focal points in the multi-use corridor where appropriate commercial depths exist in order to allow for more intense commercial use 3) to allow the existing high density\residential uses and neighbor- hood commercial uses to continue 4) to change the development standards at the focal points to maximize commercial development 5) to make commercial development more profitable in the multi-use corridor than residential 6) to increase where possible the commercial depth along the highway 7) to expedite commuter traffic and reduce congestion along the highway 8) to change the development standards of abutting commercial/ residential uses PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -February 16. 1982 Page 15 CONSIDERATION OF RE COMMENDATI ON ON AMENDMENTS TO THE MULTI-USE COR RIDOR BY THE MU LT I-USE CORRIDOR SUBCOMM I TTEE (cont.) ~, Staff report (cont.) u Alternative Action Programs A. 1) to create focal points where existing undeveloped properties are now, and emphasize those which are already deve1 oped: a) Thompson property b) Priamos property c) 21st and Pacific Coast Highway d) commercialize the community center, or use it in conjunction with another development e) Artesia and Pacific Coast Highway f) Alpha Beta center 2) at the identified focal points: a) allow increased height b) allow mixed uses c) reduce parking requirements if parking can be reasonably provided on adjacent property d) consider a public-private development between the community center and Thompson properties B. Change the multi-use residential use from 40du/a to medium density in order to make commercial development more profitable than residential C. Rezone 16th streets to 14th streets from Pacific Coast Highway up to Raymond Avenue and 18th to 21st on the highway to commercial {C-3) D. Use the Vehicle Parking District mechanism {in-lieu fees) to improve existing parking lots and create new ones. This would be particularly useful in the south part of town. E. Retain the temporary development standards This recommendation represents a preliminary direction which the multi-use corridor study can take. It is the result of the committee 1 s overview of what is existing in the multi-use corridor, what has been historically public input on the issue, what the needs/problems of the area are, interested business concerns and professionals in the field of commercial development who currently represent landowners in the area. The Commission should review the recommendations from the sub-committee and expand or revise the goals and objectives first, then, discuss the action programs. Staff would suggest the following time frame: l)Since the temporary development standards are expiring. the Commission should a) take an action this evening on the concept of creating harmony between the residential and commercial uses. [Goal #3 and Objective #8], and b) conduct a public hearing at your next meeting on the C-1, C-2, and C-3 standards in order to make a recommendation to City Council. '-......,/ PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -February 16, 1982 Page 16 CONSIDERATION OF RE COMME NDAT IO N ON AMENDMENTS TO THE MULTI-USE CORRIDOR BY THE MULTI-USE CORRI DOR SU BCOMM ITTEE (cont.) Staff report (cont.) 2) Examine the overall goals and objectives for the multi-use corridor and make comments. You may at this point either endorse the document or continue the item for further input to your next meeting. Staff would recommend more public opinion particularly from business groups. Chmn. Izant asked for Comm. Peirce 1 s comments or observations. Comm. Peirce stated that there was not agreement on Item B: 11 Change the multi-use residential use from 40 du/a to medium density in order to make commercial development more profitable than residential .11 He also did not agree with this item because there are some pieces on the highway zoned multiple unit, and they should be zoned at the highest density allowed. He said this would agree with the City's goal of increased housing. Ms. Sapetto pointed out that Item B possibly is in conflict with Objective #3: "To allow the existing high density residential uses and neighborhood commercial uses to continue.~ She felt the intent was to identify what was wanted as commercial and those wanted as residential. Comm. Peirce stated that there is much property on the east side of the highway in the north end of the City from approximately 15th Street to Artesia where there is C potential in residential property which is now zoned R-1 and R-2. Because of the sloping land, this land probably will not be commercially developed in the -near future. He stated that it is not feasible to widen the commercial area in that location. Comm. Loosli questioned the concept of mixed commercial/residential zoning. Comm. Peirce stated that that concept was not being ruled out. Ms. Sapetto said that it is possible to have a mixed commercial/residential on commercial property. The Planning Commission's last interpretation of what that mix would be was defined at 65% commercial/35% residential. Public hearing opened at 9;55 Jack Wood, 803 Loma Drive, Hermosa Beach, asked staff to clarify Goal #2; "To eliminate the conflict between parking and moving traffic.11 Ms. Sapetto stated that there is a conflict between the amount of traffic that is on the highway and the availability of parking. Comm. Peirce stated the intent was to create an awareness of the availability of parking in the commercial area, particularly in the south end of the City. Mr. Wood did not agree with the word 11 conflict 11 between parking and moving traffic. Comm. Peirce agreed with Mr. Wood. He stated that they were trying to increase the availability of parking. Comm. Cummings asked how parking would be increased. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -February 16, 1982 Page 17 CONSIDE RATIO N OF RECOMMENDATION ON AMEN DMENTS TO THE MULTI-USE CO RR I DOR BY THE MUL TI-USE CORRIDOR SUBCOMMITTEE {cont.) Comm. Peirce stated that there are several ways to increase the availability of parking: blocking off streets, restriping streets~ using lots that are currently being used for public storage. Mr. Wood felt that a better goal would be to make the parking better serve the needs of the City and the businesses. Mr. Wood felt that Objective #3 should not be a goal. He felt that the highway is not a good location for residential use. He had no objection to maintaining what already exists there, but he felt residential use should not be encouraged. He questioned what would happen to single family residences. He felt that one of the goals should be to assuage the problem of single family residences as a unique residential use. Mr. Wood recommended that the Planning Commission consider the concept of overlay zone with development standards in it that is going to provide the vehicle to allow the residential use to continue. Comm. Rue pointed out that zoning the R-1 property along the highway as commercial might ultimately make it more valuable. Mr. Wood felt that that would create an economic hardship for those people who are already living there because the rezoning of the property denies them the ability t6 remodel or do anything to the property without a variance. He felt that zoning it commercially would also create a political problem. He felt that if people want to live on Pacific Coast Highway, they should be able to do so. Comm. Cummings questioned the land parallel to the Pacific Coast Highway corridor that is C potential. He wondered how developers would accumulate those lots without cutting off residential use. He felt one way to avoid this would be to restrict the density to drive costs down. Mr. Wood stated that it is possible to get a radical increase in value if things are done correctly, but someone can also be cut off which drives the value down. Mr. Wood stated that the basic opposition to zoning the area commercially is the single family residence owner. He said it is necessary to allow them to build to the density, allow them to remodel, and allow them to replace whatever they have if there is a natural disaster. Chmn. Izant felt that there is a greater possibility of the single family residence being bought out and rebuilt as commercial than there is of the larger apartments being bought out because the apartments have a longer life and will probably be maintained longer. Chmn. Izant stated that, by changing the R-3 to commercial, we are indicating to the people in the commercial area that we do desire new commercial building there as opposed to residential. He realized that the people already there in single family residences are going to be very concerned about their economic value. He felt that if they could be given some comfort factor, then that can be passed and the economic market place will take over and developers will be able to approach the single family residence owner. If the owner decides to sell to a developer who wants it for commercial use, the developer will have commercial zoning already and will not have to apply for a zone change. He felt that the ultimate goal is to have that area changed to commercial. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - Febr uary 16, 1982 Page 18 CONSIDERATION OF RECOMMENDATION ON AMENDMENTS TO THE MULTI-USE CORRIDOR BY THE MULTI-USE CORRIDOR SUBCOMMITTEE (cont.) Mr. Wood felt that the property owners should retain all of the property rights they now have. Comm. Cummings asked if Mr. Wood was convinced that the goal of attracting viable businesses could be achieved with that kind of plan. Mr. Wood replied in the affirmative. Mr. Wood stated that certa in rules would have to be imposed with regard to the ultimate development if it exceeds what is already there. In other word s , the R-3 property that is now R-1 must have rules that it must be contiguous to residential, and it must start at one side of the block and only go in one direction. He said other rules would have to put before the Commission. Mr. Wood stated that Objectives #5 and #6 lend themselves to the concept of overlay or C potential. Mr. Wood stated, that in regard to Objective #7, he foresees traffic problems on Pacific Coast Highway as one that is part of the traffic element. He does not see that as a goal to be accomplished by the multi-use corridor analysis. Comm. Cummings felt that this is a goal to be in the traffic element as well. Mr. Wood felt that Objective #7 would reduce available parking. Comm. Peirce stated that the object was to monitor the location of driveways and parking on the property so that they do not come out on the sidestreets. Comm. Rue felt that if larger commercial lots could be obtained, more commercial parking could be on those bigger lots. Mr. Wood felt that Objective #8 was going in the wrong direction. He felt that the existing standards of the commercial property should be maintained, and then the usage or the ability to use the property adjacent to the commercial should be increased.· He felt that this is the desirable goal to be accomplished. Mr. Wood stated that, because of Proposition 13 and a 1 imit on taxes for housing, the only potential for increased governmental revenue is to create a viable busine ss enterprise that can afford by the mechanisms already there to provide the increased sales tax,business license tax, and property tax assessments. He stated that residential property taxes are $970,000 a year while business related taxes are $1,400,000. Business pays more taxes on its 24 acres than all of the residents of the City pay .in property taxes Henry Rado, 720 24th Place, Hermosa Beach, stated that he has been a resident of Hermosa Beach since 1946. He felt that every time a plan like this i s set up, it is deviated from. He spoke of changes that have occurred in Hermosa Beach in the pa st. He felt that the City should work out some of the parking problems by using some of the lots in the south portion of the City. He said that he will fight the proposition of hi s property being zoned C-3 Harper Clemmns, 901 16th Street, Hermo sa Beach, concurred with Mr. Rado's comments. He stated that he is particularly interested in the traffic problems in the area of the east side from 16th Street on Pacific · Coast Highway. He felt that there is no conceivable way to alleviate traffic PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -February 16. 1982 Page 19 CONS IDERATI ON OF RECOMMENDATION ON AMENDMENTS TO THE MULTI-USE CORRI DO R BY THE MULTI-USE CORRIDOR SUBCOMMITTEE (cont.) if the area has large commercial buildings back to Raymond Street. Comm. Peirce stated that the Commission has no definite plans to do anything with the area of Raymond Street. He stated that this is just a hearing to try to decide what course of action to take. Mr. Clemons felt that there .. i.s a conflict of interest because Chmn. Izant owns property in the area in question. Mr. Clemons felt that the Commission should be helping those businesses that already exist. Robert Curry, 1509 Monterey Boul~vard, Hermosa Beach, said that he resents the various things that ha~e come before the Planning Commission. He said that he will be watching the Commission very closely in the interests of the general public. Delma Peery. 720 8th Street, Hermosa peach, asked the width of the multi-use corridor. Comm. Loosli replied that it varies from block to block. Chmn. Izant continued the public hearing. Comm. Peirce felt that it was necessary that staff come back with a zone change and that the multi-use corridor be removed from the general plan as a first phase so that the wording of the general plan can be clarified. He felt it would be a good idea to remove any mention of the multi-use corridor from the general plan. Comm. Cummings felt that it should be rewritten, not abandoned in the general plan altogether. Comm. Cummings asked what the difference was between redefining 11 multi-use corridor" to include the overlay zone concept discussed earlier versus changing it to a commercial designation. He questioned why it just couldn't be called a multi-use corridor. Comm. Peirce stated that "multi-use corridor 11 is a misnomer. He said that it is really a commercial corridor with perhaps a few residential dwellings sea ttered a bout. Chmn. Izant stated that a multi~use corridor confuses developers and residents alike. If it is rezoned to commercial allowing the existing residential to remain, in effect, it is a clear signal to both developers and residents. This is something that the City and the Commission must decide upon as a desirable goal in order to send one specific. clear signal. Comm. Peirce stated that if it is left multi-use, then development standards must be put in for the multi-use corridor. Ms. Sapetto stated that she thought the main idea of this study was to come to a definition for the multi-use corri dor; and then by doing that, development standards can be adopted with some justification. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - February 16, 1982 Page 20 CONS I DE RATION OF RECOMMEN DATI ON ON AME NDMENTS TO THE MULTI-USE CORRIDOR BY THE MULTI-USE CORRI DOR SU BCOMM ITTEE Chmn. Izant questioned whether the City Council had received the Planning Commission 1 s recommendation that the current temporary standards be extended. Ms. Sapetto replied that the Planning Commission~s recommendation had been received and filed by the City Council the first time it was recommended. Chmn. Izant stated that the Plann i ng Commission again recommended at its meeting of February 3 that the City Cou ncil extend the current temporary standards. Until the City Council dec ides to either extend or not extend the standards, he felt that, perhaps, it was premature to schedule a public hearing. Chmn. Izant asked the Commissioners if they felt they should continue to refine the goals and at some future time, if desirable, hold public hearings. Comm. Peirce questioned whether a discussion should be held to determine whether or not the multi-use corridor should remain in the general plan. Comm. Cummings felt that it should remain .in the general plan. Chmn. Izant stated that this js a very definite first step. Chmn. Izant asked Comm. Loosli if he was in favor of further examining this issue and possibly eliminating the multi-use corridor. Comm. Loosli stated that it is immaterial whether it is called commercial or multi-use. He said the standards must still be the same. Comm. Cummings stated that he is alarmed at the aspect of changing it to commercial in a general plan because that seems to close out any kind of consideration of continuing residential usage. He felt that there will .be very little consideration for residential usage in that multi-use corridor. Chmn. Izant felt that that might be a very desirable goal. Comm. Peirce felt that the general precepts of the Planning Commission should be bound by what they feel are good planning precepts. He stated that the Planning Commission is an advisory group for the City Council. Comm. Rue felt that the commercial aspect of making it a commercial zone in the general plan should be discussed mainly because the commercial has definite standards and also it is good planning. He felt the multi-use should be knocked out because it doesn't mean anything. He felt it would be useless to make standards for the multi-use corridor which are going to be obsolete within the next few years. Comm. Cummings wanted to leave it multi-use in the general plan and zone it commercial in the zoning code with an overlay. Comm Rue felt that the general plan should guide zoning. He stated that the general plan is the main tool. c._,/ Comm. Cummings stated that a designation of multi-use corridor is more consistent with the C-3 designation with an overlay than a commercial designation is with a C-3 with an overlay. • .... ..___/✓ PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -February 16, 1982 Page 21 CONSIDERATION OF RECOMMENDATION ON AMENDMENTS TO THE MULTI-USE CORRIDOR BY THE MULTI-USE CORRIDOR SUBCOMMITTEE {cont.) Chmn. Izant agreed that the Planning Commission should examine the idea of eliminating the multi-use corridor and either zone it as commercial or as residential to send out a clear signal. Chmn. Izant directed staff to begin preparing some more specific information along that area. based on these goals and objectives. He realized that more discussion will be necessary on specifics, and it will be necessary to hold a public hearing to gain public input. Chmn. Izant stated that this will merely be information. Commission agrees with the information, we will then use general plan and the zoning. This information will be a Planning Commission to make specific changes. Comm. Cummings asked where is the general plan changed. If the Planning it to change the guidepost for the Comm. Peirce replied that it is changed in the commercial section. Comm. Cummings asked how these changes are going to be retained in the general plan. Comm. Peirce replied that the general plan would need to be revised to include that land use element. Ms. Sapetto stated that she could submit a recommendation on how to make this consistent with the existing general plan. Comm. Peirce asked what happened on the issue of C-1, C-2, and C-3. Chmn. Izant responded that at the last meeting, the Planning Commission specifically requested the City Council to extend the temporary standards~ and that the Planning Commission would hold public hearings in the future on developing permanent standards. Chmn. Izant stated that one of the questions that the Planning Commission needed to address is can we develop those permanent standards before we change the zon~dg in the multi-use corridor area. Comm. Loosli felt that they could. Chmn. Izant stated that the Planning Commission must examine those particular standards again soon. He questioned whether they should be examined at the next meeting or after the multi-use corridor is squared away. Comms. Loosli, Peirce, Cummings, Chmn. Izant suggested examination of the standards now. Comm. Rue felt that valuable information could be obtained while studying the multi-use corridor. Chmn. Izant requested staff to schedule public hearings on the commercial standards in the City, that is, the C-1, C-2, and C-3 zones. Chmn. Izant gave an explanation to the audience. He stated that approximately six months ago, the Planning Commission passed temporary standards to replace permanent standards that were felt by the Commission to be inadequate. These PLAN NIN G COMMI SSION MINUTES -February 16, 1982 Page 22 CONS IDERATI ON OF RE COMMEN DATION ON AMENDMENTS TO THE MULTI-USE CO RRI DOR BY THE MULTI-USE CORRIDOR SUBCO MM ITTE E (co nt.) temporary standards were to last s ix months, and t hey are now about to exp i re. The preliminary focus of the temporary standards was to take care of prob l ems where commerc ial zones abutted residential zones. The Planning Comm i ssion debated whether to make these temporary standards permanent or whether they shou ld come up with new standards based on the information that we have at the public hea rings. Ms . Sapetto stated that all public hearings are advertised in the Hermosa Beach Review. Public Hearing closed at 11:10 P.M. STAFF REPORTS None COMMISSIONERS' ITEMS Comm. Loosli felt that the Planning Commission should a s k the City Coun c il to take a position on off-shore oil drilling. Comm. Cummings suggested that the Planning Commission recommend the City Council to take a mail survey to get more public input. Ms . Sapetto stated t hat there i s no staff time available for such a survey . The Planning Commis s ion will make a recommendation to the City Council that they take a position on off-shore 011 drilling . Ms. Sapetto stated that she would address a memo to the City Council on the recommendation. Chmn. Izant s tated that he is applying to the City Council for a leave of absence for the next three meetings. He felt that this i s appropri ate in view of the upcoming elections. Meeting adjourned at 11 :16 P.M. J PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -February 16, 1982 Page 23 CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and complete record of the action taken by the Planning Commission at their regular meeting of February 16. 1982. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON FEBRUARY 3~ 1982, IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT.· 7:30 P.M. Meeting called to order by Chmn. Izant at 7:33 P.M. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Comrns. Cummings, Donnelly, Loosli, Peirce, Rue, Smith, Chmn. Izant ABSENT: None ALSO PRESENT: Pamela Sapetto, Planning Director. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Comm. Loosli stated that on Page 4 the reason he recommended that the R-2 Low Density area be mapped in the Housing Element was because that provides an opportunity to add rental housing in the form of duplex construction even if the density exceeds ~he low density numbers, Motion by Comm. Smith, seconded by Comm, Cummings) to approve the January 19) 1982, minutes. No objections, so ordered, APPROVAL OF RESOLUTIONS Comm. Smith questioned whether the fourth "WHEREAS" of P,C, 82-5 should say exactly what the Commission was advised of in the City Att9rney 's Office, Comm. Loosli stated that it could state that the Commission was informed of the City Attorney's opinion, that this involved no taking of development rights. Comm, Smith concurred with Comm, Loosli's suggestion - Chmn. Izant stated that the changed wording will stand. Motion by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Cummings, to approve Resolutipns P,C. 82-5 and P,C, 82-6, AYES: Comms, Cummings, Donnelly, Loosli, Peirce, Smith, Chmn. Izant NOES: None ABSTAIN: Comm. Rue ABSENT: None PRELIMINARY DRAFT OF THE HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN :.1s. Sapetto gave staff report. She stated that information has been combined from various sources since the last revision 'of the Housing Element. She stated that input from the Commission would be submitted to the City Council Workshop, which has been scheduled for Thursday, February 11, 1982, at 7:30 P.M. Comm. Donnelly asked whether this item was on the Public Hearing agenda. Chmn. Izant replied in the affirmative. Comm. Donnelly pointed out that not only would the Commission's input be provided, but also the input of the public. ,, n PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -February 3, 1982 Page 2 PRELIMINARY DRAFT OF THE HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN (cont.) Mr. Castanada gave his presentation to the Commission. He gave soNe background in terms of why the item was before the Commission. H~ stated that there is a general plan requirement of all cities and counties in California, and that the general plan consists of nine mandatory elements. The Housing Element is one of nine elements that must be included in the general plan and has precise requirements in terms of detail and specifics. He stated-lthis probably ranks along with the noise element in terms of detail and specificity. Hr. Castanada went on to say that the Housing Element has been a requirement through planning and zoning law since 1967. He stated there have been a number of changes in modifications to both the legislation and to the guidelines provided by the Stat:e legislature in terms of its preparation. Mr. Castanada stated that in 1979, in order to provide a level of effort to comply, the initial Housing Element was adopted by this community and forwarded to the State Department. The State Department's review was com- pleted in June of 1980. He said that under the old guidelines, one had to have a letter form the State saying that one was found in conformity in order to have an adequate Housing Element. If one did not have an element by October, 1981, which complied to those guidelines, then the only alternative was to comply with theRoos Bill, which was one of the significant changes in legislation. Mr. Castanada discussed the primary functions of the Housing Element; the element provides au opportunity to consolidate information and actions which have developed over a number of years. In many instances, it is felt that the element will provide a quantam leap inpublic policy, this is usually not the case, it is a document which brings together the pieces which have deve- loped over a number of years. As you review the document you will see pieces you've seen before and roughly the same language and some which may be more refined. The basic topics you have dealt with in the past or maybe have dealt with under another label or category. The element serves as a necessary mechanism to consolidate the policy statement with regard to housing for the community. As a by product, it will convey to the public a document for infor- mation. A third function is a tool for continuous. planning. The Roos bill requires that updates be made in July 1984, and in 1989. The emphasis is to contiually take a look at public policy and to offer an opportunity for the public to provide input from time to time The fourth function is one of measuring indivdual proposals as they come be- fore Planning Commission and City Council. It provides a framework to evaluate individual proposals. Finally, it establishes through Planning Commission and City Council actions a direction to staff a first go-around of activities in terms of housing. The main categories of the element are four, 'the assessment of housing needs, the review of constraints which impede the City's capacity and resources which enable the city to address needs and a statement of goals, policies and objectives u PLANN ING CONMISSION MINUTES-February 3, 198 2 Page 3 PREL IMINARY DRAF T OF TH E HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE GENE RAL PLAN (cont.) with an emp hasis on the latter, that is a quantitative statemen t of the direc- tion of the community and lastly a statement of program actions to address the housing need . Comm . Cummin gs asked for a definition of affordability. Mr. Castanada gave his v iews on the definition of affordability. Comm . Cumming s asked for a typical prof i l e of affordable housing. Mr . Castanada stated ·that no definitions are provided in the legislation. He said that each time t here is a sale ·, there is going t o be a differ ent profi l e. Comm . Donnelly asked who e stablis hed the second goal on Page 2, Doc . 3. Chmn . Iz ant r esponded that tha t was some t h i ng put to t he Commission by the Staff which is to be decided whe ther or not it is a d e sirable goal . Corrnn . Lo osli stated that ~twas in the old Housing Element and i n the current Coastal Plan . Comm . Donnelly stressed that he wou ld like to h ave some information as to how many housing units in the private sector are currently being taken care of under Object i ves 1 and 2 . PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -February 3> 1982 Page 4 PRELIMINARY DRAFT OF THE HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN (cont.) Mr. Castanda stated that there has been an allocation of approximately $125,000 for three types of -rehabilitation. Comm. Smith mentioned that nowhere in the Housing Element does it note the phenomenon of absentee landlords in relation to deteriorating housing. He questioned whether this was relevant. Chmn. Izant replied that there is no such provision in the Housing Element, He stated that the Commission has the option to incorporate such a provision. Comm. Cummings asked for a definition of the Housing Information System. Mr. Castanada replied that it is a recommendation included in the Housing Element with regard to housing ·, prices, rents, and number of uni ts. Comm. Cummings asked whether there is ·a conflict between the goals of energy conservation and the goals of affordable housing. Mr. Castanada replied that in certain instances there might be a conflict. Comm. Donnelly asked what elements make up household growth. ~r. Castanada stated a household is that group of persons who occupy separate housing units. Factors affecting the household growth include population growth, people growing older and forming individual households, and marriages and divorces. Comm. Rue asked whether the time constraints for the objectives on Page 2.3 on Chart I were a ten-year plan. Mr. Castanada replied that it is a five-year plan. He said that the Commission has the opportunity to make modifications at the July, 1984, deadline. Comm, Rue asked where the three to nine units came from, as outlined in the fifth policy. Mr, Castanada replied that a survey of all apartments having three or more units was conducted in March of 1981, It was found that the rental stock of three to nine nnits was of the lower cost. Comm. Cummings stated that the City can build a sufficient amount of new housing .to cover the City's needs for the next five years. He questioned what would happen after that five-year period. Mr. Castanada replied that, after the first five years, the growth forecast .should reflect the capabilities of the City to accommodate additional growth past this five-year period. Comm. Donnelly asked whether two thirds of the-housing units in thP. City are west of Ardmore. Mr. Castanada replied in the affirmative. PLANNING COMMI SSION MINUTES-Februa ry 3, 1982 Page 5 PRELIMINARY D.RAFT OF THE HOUSI NG ELEMENT OF THE GEN ERAL PLAN (c ont.) Public Hearing opene d at 8:50 P.M. Rober t Curry, 1509 Monterey Boulevard, He rmosa Beach, s tated that h e has been in the City since 1965, and h e has s een his prope rty rig hts ove rzoned and has not iced a loss of v a lue on p roper ty he own s. He fe lt it i s futi le f or t he citizens o f Hermo sa Beach to sp eak before the Commi ss ion. He said one c•.annot h a ve affo rdable housing when t here is infla tion. He does not want his house to b e set up either as a ff ordable or as unaffordable . He wants to own it for himself . Violet Isgreen , 726 Prospect Avenue , H~rmosa Beach, s ta ted t hat 16,5 00 people l i v i ng in one s quare mi l e is over whe lming . She questioned how t he Commission could prop ose buil ding a ffo rdab l e housing in t he City . She f elt the e ntire situat i on could be r emedied by informing SCAG that 16 ,5 00 p e ople a re l'iving in one square mile. Wilma Burt, 1152 7th Stree t, Hermo sa Be ach·, spok e in opposition to t he c oncept of a ff orable housing . She questioned wh ether or not a build ing will b e c ondemn ed if the owner of the propert y c a nn ot o r will no t ma ke improvements t o said prope rty. Sh e pointed out that older c itizens a re n ot always f i nancially able to make the n eeded improvements. She stated t ha t c i t izens do n ot want t o utili ze c ommun ity b l ock grant funds, She s tressed the f act t hat cit i zens do not wa nt ou tside monies b e i n g brought i nto the City. Sh e was opp osed t o any group o f people decid ing som e body else's personal property h as to be divided or developed ac cor d ing to their p hiloso phical v iews . Sh e stressed that s he wil l not s u ppor t d o wnz oniog . She spe cified that s he is against urban r enewal . She believe s tho se p ersons who a re already living in the Ci ty who a re handicappe d, elde rly, or eco nomi c a l l y disadv antaged d eserve to rema in i n t he City and b e give n help. She i s agains t building a ff ordable hous ing to accommodate outsiders moving into t he City . Public Hearing closed at 9 :13 P.M. Comm. Peirce s tated t hat the requirements for the do cument do not thorough - l y identi fy t he needs o f t he Ci ty . He f e l t that t he needs of t he Ci ty s hould be i ncorp orated i nto t h e docume nt itself. He concurred with mu ch of t he tes timony g iven a t the p ublic hearing . Hi fe lt tha t a h ousing inventory is n eeded t o be i nco r por ated i n to the Hou s i ng El e me nt. He also felt the ba sic issues were n ot a dd resse d such as how to deal with t h e remaining p roperty to be d evelop ed. The c i ty's r o le on a fford a ble hous ing is not s pe cifically d efined. Comm. Donnall y , was concerned t hat the ci t y i s r equired t o assist in meet i ng t he needs o f the r egional housing growth wh e n the city i s s o dense already. We should c ompare our d e nsity p ~r acre to t h e region's s h a re o f density per acre. He a l so t oo k i ssue wi th the city 's having t o p r ovid e f o r h o usehold growth b ecause o f n e w family formation of the exi sting p opulation. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -February 3, 1982 Page 6 PRELIMINARY. DRAFT OF THE HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN (cont.) Comm. Cummings felt that the Housing Element does not commit the City to any specific program. Comm. Cummings suggested a program whereby the City would support the landlord if the landlord provides afforable housing. He did not see any specific program commitment. Comm. Rue believedthe question regarding individual property rights and keeping density at a minimum is not addressed in the Housing Element as proposed. Comm. Smith, stated that a public document should be a statement of public policy. It should be the result of public input and support. To this extent, the commission should give a clear direction of their position -by voting on each section of the Element with respect to the objectives, goals and policies. Comm. Izant stated that after City Council workshop the commission can establish a CTethodology to review the document. It was ordered by the Cornmiss\on to include the minutes of this meeting and the last commission meeting on the Housing Element with the transmittal of'the document to the City Council. u PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 3, 1982 Page 7 PRELIMINARY DRAFT OF THE HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN (cont,) Recess from 9:33 P.M. until 9:42 P.M. CONCEPTUAL PLAN REVIEW FOR 440 -2nd,,STREET -THE BOATYARD SITE Ms. Sapetto gave staff report. She stated that at the January 19, 1982, meeting, the Planning Commission considered a zone change request and conceptual plan review for this project. Before adopting a decision on the conceptual plan phase, the Commission felt it should have more data, and thus requested, from staff, information on the impact upon neighbor- hood circulation and parking from the proposed project. Two circulation .plans have been submitted by the developer. The first, Plan A, proposes one central outlet on Valley Drive and one entrance and exit on Herondo. This is destined to bottleneck both circulation within and external to the project during peak hours and will undoubtedly add considerably to the congestion in this area at these two points. The second, Plan B, proposes five points of entry/exit encircling the project, each serving a portion of the project units commensurate with its location, i.e., capacity of streets to incur a greater intensity of use, It is estimated that a project of this size an average of 395 vehicular trips per day. per day would be in the 200-300 range. and density range will produce It seems that the actual trips Except for Herondo Avenue, the streets surrounding the project are operating in excess of their intended capacity. Plan B proposes that 31% of the project 1 s traffic will be located at Herondo. It appears th~t a light signal sys tern is inevitable for this location; especially with the advent of this project. There are orte hundred and forty-four (144) parking spaces on the streets surrounding the project. During the summer period, parking becomes a major problem. During the remaining months, according to a General Services Officer .who has worked that area, parking is still a concern, but not a major one. However, there have been numerous resident complaints as a result of competition for spaces between the residents and commercial users along the Highway. Obviously, this project will not enhance this situation; the actual impact, if there will be one, is difficult to gauge. The guest parking, under Plan B, at the corner of 2nd and Valley, and at Valley and Herondo seem to be prime targets for summer visitors. The area surrounding the project is already experiencing more traffic than intended, availability of parking is marginal, and other aspects of the infra-structure will be affected. Despite these existing and perceived conditions, the devloper has, to some extent, mitigated these impacts by virtue of Plan B which decentralizes the circulation system of the project. Further alternatives would be to reduce the traffic volume at Hill Street and Ardmore and increase the volume at Herondo, i.e., 10% at Hill,-10% at Ardmore, and 39% at Herondo. Staff recommends that Plan B receive conceptual approval. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -February 3, 1982 Page 8 CONCEPTUAL PLAN REVIEW FOR 440 -2nd STREET -THE BOATYARD SITE (cont.) Comm. Peirce asked whether a minor collector"is a secondary collector. Ms. Sapetto replied that it is a secondary collector. Ms. Sapetto stated that 2nd street is not classified in the traffic study as a minor collector; however, it is classified as a secondary collector. Comm. Peirce noted that· 2nd Street was not indicated under the category of secondary collector streets on Page 7. Comm. Peirce stated that if 2nd Street is not a secondary collector street, it could not be overutilized. Ms. Sapetto stated that the Commission must determine the volume on 2nd Street, if judging form what designation 2nd street should be. Comm. Smith noted that Page 5 states that 2nd Street is designated to be analogous to 8th Street, and 8th Street is designated to be a minor collector. Comm. Peirce stated that the Commission should be considering what the traffic ~irculation element states with regard to the City's plans for 2nd Street. Cornms. Donnelly and Smith concurred that the above statement should be considered. Chrnn. Izant stated that the Commission must determine the recommended usage, not the actual usage, for a secondary collector street. Comm. Donnelly asked for the recommended volume of traffic on local streets. Ms. Sapetto replied that the general planning principles for traffic planning designate and describe streets as to the number.of units they serve. A minor collector street is a local street which serves adjoining property, but they do not serve more than 150 dwelling units or more than 1,500 trips per day. Comm. Donnelly asked how many dwelling units 2nd Street serves at this time. Hr. Mercado replied that 2nd Street does not serve more than 150 units per day. Comm. Cummings asked what time of the day is the peak load for traffic on Ardmore. Mr. Mercado replied that traffic reaches its peak in the evening . ....) Comm. Loosli asked if the visitor parking spaces of 8 1/2 X 19 feet are adequate. Ms. Sapetto replied in the affirmative. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -Febraury 3, 1982 Page 9 CONCEPTUAL PLAN REVIEW FOR 440-2nd STREET -THE BOATY ARD SITE (cont.) Comm. Peirce stated that the minimum space shall be 8 1/2 X 19 with pro- visions of columns on center. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -February 3, 1982 Page 10 CONCEPTUAL PLA."l" REVIEW FOR 440 -2nd STREET -THE BOATYARD SITE (cont.) Public Hearing opened at 10:15 P.M. Dick Leonard, 17442 s. Prairie, Torrance, applicant, stated that Plan B generates approximately 10,000 square feet more active, usable common area than Plan A. He stated that Plan A is appr·oximately 46,000 square feet, and Plan Bis 56,000 square feet, He stated the difference in the two is the lack of need to provide circulation driveways through the project. He went over his plans to relandscape.the entire Santa Fe right-of-way along the unused Ardmore and Hill Streets. He said his position on this has not changed. He stated that if the· parking plan is beneficial, the property will be purchased. Santa Fe requires a fence or block wall to be constructed along the property line to keep residents away from the tracks. He stated that he felt this project would provide needed housing, beautify the City, provide employment to the depressed construction industry, provide work for local residents, and bring money into the City. He said it was his understanding that the Gity received one fourth of the property tax and all of the sales tax collected. For a buyer to purchase one of the units at $180,000 with an 80% loan, that tenant would have to have a.yearly income o.f approximately $70,000. Based on the Federal tax tables for that income range, it would be approximately $450 per year in sales tax. This $450 times the 79 units is $36,000 for the City. The present property taxes are $4,371. The present assessed valuation is approximately 1.1%. Seventy-nine units at $180,000 each would generate $156,000 in property tax, making a difference of $151,000. A quarter of this is the City's, which is $38,000. This makes a total annual benefit of approximately $74,000 a year. In addition, for the first year, the park fee of $500 for each of the 79 units is $39,500, The sewer use fee is $100 per unit, which is $7,900. The building permit would be approximately $1,500. The plan check fee of $1,500 was not. taken into consideration because it was Mr. Leonard's feeling that that would be used in total by staff in checking the plans. That first year total is approximately $121,000. He stated that the increased services that would be required by the City would be considerably below that figure. He felt these services would be of minimal cost. Comm, Smith asked whether or not Mr. Leonard had done any calculations in relation to the cost to the City for this number of units per year. Mr. Leonard replied that he had not. Comm. Smith asked whether there were a prototype cost per unit to the City in terms of additional servic~s to be used. Comm. Loosli stated that Palo Alto's study was $27,000 per house, Ms. Sapetto stated that those figures are not available for Hermosa Beach. Comm. Donnelly asked Mr, Leonard which of the two plans he personally preferred and asked him to state his r.easorr. Mr. Leonard felt that Plan B was the better plan, He stated that the additional 10,000 square feet of active common area is in the usable area where the pool, spa, and playground equipment are located, He stated that this fact makes it more saleable. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -February 3, 1982 Page 11 CONCEPTUAL PLAN REVIEW FOR 440 -2nd STREET -THE BOATYARD SITE (cont.) Comm. Donnelly asked whether the major differenc.e would be in the usable open space. Mr, Leonard replied in the affirmative. Comm, Cummings asked how tall the Santa Fe fence is going to be. Mr. Leonard replied that the City has not yet specifically put anything in writing. He stated that the City has mentioned putting up a five-foot fence or wall. Comm. Cummings then asked if the City would be satisfied with a three-foot wall. Mr. Leonard replied that the City would probably not find that satisfactory. He explained that the property line is fifteen feet away frcim the center line of the tracks. Assuming a railroad car is twelve feet wide, that puts the rails cars, as they go by, six feet from the property line. The City wants suitable fencing so that children are not jumping over and so forth. Conun. Cummings asked for clarification on why a fence or wall is necessary • . Ms. Sapetto replied that it is a condition of the purchase. Comm. Smith asked what the limitations are on the 35 feet zoned open space. Ms. Sapetto replied that it is for recreational purposes. Buildings may be constructed for recreational use. Comm. Smith questioned the use of the easterly 35-foot right-of-way. Ms. Sapetto stated that both plans are projecting the use of that space for parking. They do have a right to use at least 10% of that for parking. The Commission can, if it deems, agree to an additional 10% or to waive' that requirement. This is provided for in the Open Space Ordinance. Mr. Leonard added that the Zoning Ordinance does state that buildings in the open space area cannot exceed 10%. It also says that parking cannot exceed 10%. It goes on further to say in 9.5-4 that the Commission can waive any and all of those conditions, if they· deem it proper. Ms. Sapetto stated that the open space that is required within a site when something is constructed is simply for the benefit of that project. When a piece of property is zoned open space in the Zoning Ordinance, it means that it shall be used for the purpose of open space. Ho.wever, if it is still private property, it can be developed for private recreational use. It is still an open space use. She st;ated if the City wished it to be open space, the City, must be pr~pared to acquire the property. Herb Schneider) 157 Ardmore, Hermosa Beach, stated that he is against the density and all of the traffic exits. He expressed his dissatisfaction toward the special considerations given the open space at the site. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -Februai;-y. 3, 19 82 Page 12 CONCEPTUAL PLAN REVIEW FOR 440 -2nd STREET -THE BOATYARD SITE (cont,) Wilma Burt, 1152 7th Street, Hermosa Beach, -stated that a developer should not be given consideration on property he might purchase but does not yet already own. She stated that she ho~ed the City would prevent the railroad from ever being used by a developer. She stated density includes not only people and houses, but also cars. Robert Curry, 1509 Monterey, Hermosa Beach, felt if traffic from both Valley and Ardmore was opened up to Herondo, the traffic problem on Monterey would be alleviated somewhat. He stated the areas for access to the people who are going to live in the properties should not inconvenience or further burden the people who already live to the west of 2nd Street. He objects to 2nd Street as being one of the access areas into this development. He felt that perhaps Hill Street could be widened. He feels that Valley should also be able to handle some of the traffic load. He felt the rail road track sho.uld not even be a part of the builder I s option. He would rather have the open space remain open space. Jerry Moss, 539 2nd Street, Hennosa Beach, stated that Ardmore is already a dangerous street. He felt that anything that would increase the traffic situation on that street would be a dangerous precedent to set. He felt the question of ingress and egress on Ardmore should be forgotten. He also felt that putting more traffic on Hill Street would not benefit the residents. He felt that a recommendation should be made to the developer to use Herondo and Valley and a small portion of 2nd Street, but not Hill or Ardmore. Ron or·r, 168 Hill Street, Hermosa Beach, questioned whether 2nd Street could be used as an exit for 20% to 40% of the traffic volume if, and only if, it is blocked off at Valley so that one could trade a high proportion of the 400 trips a day from the boatyard for the 3,100 trips a day generated by properties located elsewhere. Chmn. Izant stated th.at might be a possibility if the City saw it as potentially good planning, but that would be something the City would have to decide. Mr. Orr suggested to the Commission that they do not allow the egress on 2nd Street, the egress on Hill Street, and the egress on Ardmore unless 2nd Street were blocked off. He did not approve of 2nd Street being one-way west up to Valley. He recommends Plan B only if 2nd Street were blocked off at Valley and if the linkage were complete between the two projects, that is, the approval ano building of the boatyard and the blockage of 2nd Street, Polly Schneider, 157 Ardmore, Hermosa Beach, stated she is against Plan B because of the way the traffic problem is handled. She questioned the figuring of the number of cars coming out of each of these exits. She wanted to know how many cars are being figured per double master bedroom unit, and how many double master bedro.om un-i.ts there are in this particular plan. Ms. Sapetto replied that vehicle trip calculations are based on what a residence will generate, and the average generation of a residence is between seven to ten vehicle trips daily. • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -February 3, 1982 Pa ge 13 CONCEPTUAL PLAN REVIEW FOR 440 -2nd· STREET -THE BOATYARD SITE (con t,) Mrs, Schne i der a sked whether this were true even i f t here are f ewer c a rs connected to the res i d ence,· Ms. Sape t t o rep l i ed that the calcula tions are based on the seven to ten fig u re. That t a k es into c o n s ideration t h e number of b edrooms and t h e number of persons living there, on an average . Mrs , Schneider suggested that there be a few more c a r trips conne cted with those lar g er units . She ques tione d -whether t h e Commission h as control over the nmnber of units p e r acre . Sh e also questioned the Commiss i on 's straw vote on this i ssue , Chmn . Izant replied that t h ere is l imite d control , in that a d e v eloper has a .right, as long as h e con f orms with l ot coverage a nd meets parking . He h a s a legal right to develop up to, in this case b ecause o f the Gene ral P l a n, 25 dwelling units per ac-re. If there i s a· leg al r e a s on that can be supported i n a court of law , the Commission could limit him to something l e ss. Chmn . Izan t s t a t ed that s t raw votes are taken by the Commission in many i n s tance s, but they h a ve no legal binding . Mr s . Schneider asked wheth e r a roadway was a l lowed on the open space . <;:hnm, I z ant s t ated that it is l e g a lly a llowable; however, it d o e s not cons.titute an a ddit ional p ercentage o f land t h at i s used . Mrs. Schneide r asked what t he maximum amount is that can be used. Chmn. Izan t replied that 10% may be us e d for bu~lding s, and 10% may be used for parking ;. h owever , there are miti gating c i r cumstances i n which the. Commission could grant a gre a t er l e v e l of usage . Bill 0 1 Claire , 540 1s t Street, Hermosa Beach , stated he i s oppos eq to the e n t rance /e xit on 2n d Street and Hi ll' St r e et , He f e lt the developer s hould b e l i mited on the open space to whateve r the Code says . Rita Newkirk, 5 40 1st Street , Hermosa Beach, s tated that s he f e lt the a dvantag e of Plan Bis that it d e c entra lizes traffic for t he project . She expresse d conce rn for her n e igh b orhood . Jer ry Moss , 5 39 2nd Street, Hermo sa Be a ch. s t ated that textured concrete s u c h as c obbles t one s could be us ed. fo r the d riveways. Di c k Leonard, applicant, g ave his view on wh a t h a s happe n e d to t he d ensity . He stated that with the intended purchas e of the Sant a Fe proper t y and with the exte nsive lan d scapi ng , the density comes down t o 21.35 units to t he a cre . With the unus ed p o rtio n of. Ardmore which wi l l be l andscaped , and the installation o f the bike path all the way around the project , the density comes down to· 1 8 .9" dwelling units per a c re : He stated t hat a new sewer line will h a v e to b.e put in to d eve lop this particular piece of p ~operty , This sewer line would go directly into the County t runk lin e. n o t the City's s ewers . He s t ated t hat b o th _p l a n s PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -Feb ruary 3, 1982 Page 16 CONCEPTUAL PLAN REVIEW FOR 440 -2nd STREET -THE BOATYARD SITE (cont.) show the completion of Hill Street up to the northerly portion that has been vacated. Public Hearing closed at 11:19 P,M. Comm . Cummings stated that he would favor Plan B if 2nd Street we re closed off. Comm . Donnelly felt that both Plans A and B were good. Comm . Cummings reinforced his tendency toward Plan B. Comm . Loosli questioned whether the· approval wa s in the public inte rest or the private interes t. Comm . Rue asked if a ny improvements. were to be made on 2nd Street. Ms. Sapetto replied t h at 2nd Stre et is e armarked in the T~affic Study as a street to be examined . She said that the inst31lation of curbs and lighting is a condition of the approval. Comm. Rue· asked if Public Works looked over Plan A to d e t e rmine whether the emergency vehicle ·access was adequate. Ms . Sapetto replied that any condition on the p roj ect should be conting e n t on the access being granted a nd provided.a nd subject to the fire chief's recommondations. Comm . Loosli asked i f 2nd Street is a local street on the Gene r al Plan , what kind o f findings would h ave to be made to-justify a dding 7% more traffic to s omething that the General Plan states is already overloaded. Ms . Sapetto replied that the General Plan took that i n t o consideration and ·desighated it r e sidential . Chmn. Izant stated that he f e lt Plan B was the better plan from the standpoint of interior usage. Comm. funne lly asked if open space can be used for recreational purposes. Ms . Sapetto replied in the affirmative. Comm. Smith .stated that the additional 10,000 square feet in P l an Bis relevant, because the more attr active the development is> the less impact it will have on the surrounding neighborhoods . Comm. Donnelly discussed t h e parking question . He stated that Plan B, wi th 16% parking, i s acceptable. Comm. Rue noted the difference of 6% g r een common area between Plans A a nd B. He sugg ested that it might be p o s s ible to up the green common area on Plan A . He f elt the 6% could be g otte n down possibly 3% or 4%. r') PLANNING COMMI S S I ON MINUTES -February 3 , 1982 Pa g e 15 - CON CEP TUAL PLAN REVIEW FOR 440 -2nd STREET -THE BOATYARD S I TE (cont .) Mr . Leonard responded to the difference by sayi ng that the Fire Depart me nt r equi res a 25-foo t-wide driveway. The plan ref l ects this requirement . Comm. Rue asked whet her both plans have 25-foot-wide driveways . Mr. Leonard repl ied in the affinna tive. Mo t i on by Comm, Peirce,•s econded by Comm . Don n e lly, to a p p r ov e Plan B as s ubmitte d b y the developer , with t he p r evious six conditions place d on it. Comm . Loosli f e lt that Plan B d o e s not take i nto consideration the City 's p r oblem of o p en s p a ce, density, or parking. He felt th a t Plan B was not innovative in a ny way. He f elt approval of Plan B would not be in the public inte r e st. Comm . Rue s t a t ed t h at he is voting against Plan B because h e believed that the traffic i s going t o a dversely a f f e ct t he abutting property . Chmn. Izant recommended a vote a gainst Plan B f or two r e a sons. Although h e felt that Plan B was better architecturally, he felt t h at the additional green space did not overcome the. traffic p r o b l e m, Also, he f e lt t hat the City should a cquire the ope n s p ace right-o f -way. AYES : Comms. Cummings, Don nelly , Peirce, Smith NOES : Comms. Loosli , Rue, Chmn . Izant ABSENT: -No n e Motion by Comm, Donnelly, s e c o nded by Comm . Smi th, to approve Plan A, with the s a me c onditions a s the prior mot i on . AYES : NOES : ABSENT : ~mms. Donnel ly, Rue, Smith, Cummi n g s Comrns . Loosli, Peirc e, Chmn. I z a n t None Ms . S a p e t t o recommended a Resolution on the c onceptual p l a ns . Comm. Cummings r ecommended that the fo l lowing WHEREASs be inco rporated in t h e Re s o lution for Plan B : "WHEREAS, t h e i n ter nal traffic circulation concept was o r i g i n a lly developed f or a common s u bterranean garage"; "WHEREAS , t he i mpact of Plan B t r a f f i c will b e s mall in absolute a n d relative t e rms, that is, relative to a s tanda rd s ubdivision of the p r operty"; "WHEREAS, P.C.H, southbound eveni ng parking lane traffic is a planned r e medy for traffic on Ardmore and 2nd Stree:t"; "WH EREAS ., blockade of 2nd Stre e t at Va l l e y i s a gener al a nd desirable additional possible remedy"; 11WHEREAS , Ardmore may be rer,cuted west of t h e S anta Fe r a ilroad r~ght-of-way , d e tracting from the d esirability of p o t e n tial public o~en ~p ace use of t h e right-of -way east o f t he tracks ," THEREFORE,IT BE RESOLVED we u s e Plan B . Comm. Donnelly a d ded : "WHEREAS, the projec t conforms to the General P l an zoni ng designation as to number of dwe l l i n g units p e r acre , that it i s in confo rmance to the height l i mitation and ail zoning r e quirements rela t ive to p a rking , and that the p l ans meet the c u r r e nt zoni n g a n d General P l an desig n a t ion." .. PLANNIN G COMMISSION MINUTES - February 3, 1982 Page 16 CONCEPTUAL PLAN REVIEW FOR 440 -2nd STREET -THE BOATYARD SITE (cont.) Comm. Smith a dded: 11WHEREAS, it has no substantial adverse impact on adjoining properties." Motion by Comm. Cummings, seconded by Comm. Donnelly, to accept the fore- going Re solutions in regard to Plan B. AYES: NOES : ABSENT: Cornms. Cummings, Donnelly, P e irce, Smith Comm. Rue , Chmn . Izant Comm. Loosli Motion b y Comm . Donnelly, seconded by Comm. Smith, for a Re s olution relative to Plan A with identical WHEREASs as previously stated for Plan B. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Cornms. Cummings, Donnelly, Rue, Smith Comm. Peirce, Chmn . Izant Comm. Loosli Mr . Leonard thanked the Commissioners for their consideration. He s tated tha t he expected to be back at the next hearing with a ful1 and complete submis sion. Ron Orr , 1 68 Hill Street, Hermosa Beach, stated that he felt he had a right to comment in opposition to t h e applicant . Chmn , Izant advised Mr. Orr that the decision of the Planning Commission may.be appealed to the City Co uncil. STAFF REPORTS Comm. Smith asked what happened in regard to the LCP hearing that was scheduled which the Commission had no knowledge of until the last minute. Ms. Sapetto replied that it wa s her understanding that the LCP workshop was not for the P lanning Commission. At the City Council meeting it was determined that they did, in fact , wan_t the Planning Cornm iss ion to be contacted.by staff . Comm, Smith requ ested that more advan ce noti ce be given to the Planning Commission in regard to joint workshops . Chmn. Izant asked Ms, Sapetto to convey to the Mayor that the Planning Commission is desirous of full p a rticipation, and the Commission supports the joint workshop concept'. however more adequate noticing must . be given. Ms. Sapetto r eplie d that she would do that. Ms . Sapetto brought up an action t aken at the last City Council meeting , That a ction was to not extend the Sunset Oroinance on the Cl, C2> a nd C3 standards, which expir e March 21 , The City Council wa~ts a recommendation from the Planning Commi ssion with respect to those o rdinance s b_efore March 27; She suggested that the issue be discussed at the next meeting of the Planning Commission , Chmn . Izant r ecommended that the Commission take steps t o have public hearings on the direction of the multi-use c o rridor , and that the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -February 3, 1982 STAFF REPORTS (cont.) Page P Commission recommend to the City Council a continuance of the current standards. COMMISSIONER'S ITEMS Chmn. Izant suggested that the next meeting of the Planning Commission deal with the multi-use corridor. Comm. Donnelly asked if this would include a public hearing. Chmn, Izant replied in the affirmative. Chmn, Izant-stated that the Commission had a choice of recommendations to make to the City Council. They could recommend to continue the present standards, do nothing at all, or pass permanent standards. Chmn. Izant asked which of the Commissioners favored doing nothing at all, Conuns. Donnelly, Peirce, Rue favored this suggestion. Cormns. Cummings, Loosli, Smith, and Chmn. Izant did not favor this choice. Chmn. Izant asked which of the Commissioners favored a continuance of the current standards .that are in force. Comms. Cummings, Loosli, Peirce, Smith, and Chmn. Izant favored, Comms. Donnelly and Rue voted in opposition. Chmn. Izant asked which of the Connnissioners favored holding hearings on permanent standards that will be in place prior to the exploration of the Sunset Ordinance, Comms. Cummings, Loosli, Peirce favored this suggestion, Commissioners Donnelly, Rue, Smith, and Chmn. Izant voted in opposition. Chmn. Izant stated that the Planning Commission would recommend to the City Council that the temporary standards be extended. Comm. Donnelly stated that he would like to have an outlined program put before the Commission that will enable the Commission to establish pennanent standards for Cl, C2, and C3. Chmn. Izant requested staff to find out 0 what steps this would involved and report it at the next meeting, Motion by Comm. Loosli, seconded by Comm. Cummings, to have hearings on notice to rezone the area commonly known as the railroad right-of-way to open space. AYES: Comms, Cummings, Donnelly, Loosli, Rue, Smith, Chmn. Izant NOES: None ABSENT: Comm. Peirce Motion to adjourn at 12:26 A.M. n PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -Fepruary 3, 1982 Page 18 CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the for~going minutes are a true and complete record of the action taken by the Planning Commission at their regular meeting of February 3, 1982. STEPHEN !ZANT, CHAIRMAN ROBERT CUMMINGS, SECRETARY DATE r ' MINUTES OF 'IHE PLANNING CCM1ISSION OF HERMOSA BF.A.CH HELD ON JANUARY 19, 1982, IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT 7:30 P.M. Meeting called to order by Chon. Izant at 7:30 P.M. ROIL CALL PRESENT: Comns. Currmings, Donnelly, Loos li, Peirce, Smith, Chan. Izant ABSENT: Cornn. Rue AI.SO PRESENT: Panela Sapetto, Planning Director APPROVAL OF MINUTES Barm. loosli stressed that the Corrmission was taking part only in straw votes on Pages 11 and 12. He asked i f "felt" should be used in place of "voted." Chnn. Izant stated that on Page 12 the Corrmission was rrerely :indicating their preference. Motion by C,onm. Donnelly, seconded by Cornn. Smith, to approve the January 5, 1982, minutes with the following correction: Page 12, should indicate that the Corrmissioners we.re stating the ir preference for du/a; they did not specifically vote on this item. No objections, so ordered. APPROVAL OF RESOLUITONS Conm. Donnelly noted that Resolutions P.C. 81-46 and P.C. 81-47 should be nurrbered P.C. 82-03 and P.C . 82-04. Corrm. Smith noted that the Resolution rmkes no mention that the Planning Con:mission was willing to study the matter at a future date. Cornn. Loosli stated that the above was a point of discussion, but was not made part of the Re solution. Chrm. Izant asked if the Comni.ssioners recalled stating in the Resolution that the Planning Corrmi.ssion would study the matter at a future date. Comns. Donnelly, Peirce, Smith, and Chrm. Izant felt as though the Resolution stated that the Planning Conmission would stuiy the rmtt~r at a future date. Com:ns. Currmings and Loosli felt as though the Resolution adequately reflected what transpired at the January 5, 1982, meeting. Ms. Sapetto recOIT1IEnded incorporating a third WHEREAS in the Resolution, ''WHEREAS, the Planning Comniss ion would be willing to study the protection pf private view corridors as a separate issue, if so directed by City Council." I I ; , ) 'PLANNING COMMISSION MI NUTES -January 19, 198 2 APPROVAL OF RESOLUTI ONS (cont .) Page 2 Motion by Comm . Cummings , seconded by Comm, Pe irce, t o a pprove Re solutions P.C. 82 -03 and P .C.82-04 (formerly P.C. 81 -46 & 81 -47) with the added WHEREAS to P.C. 82-04: that i s "WHEREAS, t he Planning Commission woul d be willing to study the protection of private view corridors as a separa te issue , i s so d irected by the City Council. 11 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Comms. Cummings, Donnel l y, Loosli, Pei rce , Smith , Chmn. Izant None Comm. Ru e Comm. Smith stated that he voted 11AYE 11 onl y to the accuracy of the Resolut i on; however , he was against the motion and Resolution P.C. 82 -03. PRELIMINARY DRAFT OF THE HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN Ms. Sapetto gave staff r eport. She stated that the Planning Commission established a target date of this meet ing for the receipt of the prelimi nary draft of t he Revised Housing Element. However, the c onsultant was unabl e to attend the meeting, and the data gathering and t he policy decisions at the City Council l evel have not yet been accomplished; therefore, the Housing Element was not presente d to the Planning Commission. She requested the Planning Commissi on to reschedule the recei pt of the rough draft of the Hous i ng Element to the February 3, 1982 meeting . She added that review of the rough draft coul d be done at a work shop with the City Counc il on Februa ry 4 or 11. Sh e s uggested reviewing the (complete ) draft of the Housing Element on February 16, 1982. On Ma rch 9, 1982 , the Housing Element will be returned to the City Counc il. She asked that the Plann ing Connni ssion either concur with or recommend changes for the timetable . Comm . Donnelly stated that a great dea l of t he data i s based on the 1970 c ensus. Ms. Sapetto stated that they did not ha ve the full scope of the 1980 f i gures. However, they had som e population figures and some prel iminary figures. They a l so had the SCAG projections based on their 1978 proje ctions . Comm. Donnelly felt a s t hough it were a n excellent job based on e xtreme ly dated data . He noted concern f or using 12-year old data for making pro jections. Ms. Sapetto clarified that the report is part of the working material; it i s not necessarily the only data t hat will be used in the preparation of the Housing Element. Con1~. Smi th asked i f the Commission will get a copy of the actual Housing Element that is being proposed when t he rough draft come s before the Commi ssion. He asked if it will specify those items that were changed from the last Ho using Element . He asked if the Commi?sion will get a copy of the HCD revisions plus any additional i nforma tion that may be added to the Housing Element . PUNNING CCM1ISSION MINUrES -January 19, 1982 Page 3 PRELil1INARY DRAFT OF TIIE HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN (Cont.) Ms. Sapetto suggested naking a reconrnendation that the above be included with the rough draft. Comn. Peirce asked if SCA.G 1 s number of 1465, relating to resident households experiencing housing needs, is a rock-hard figure or if that figure is up for discussion. Ms. Sapetto replied that they are up for discussion. However, those figures are the figures that the Roos Bill has requested the City to work with. The Roos Bill says that every regional planning agency must arrive at figures via certain rrethodology. The City may accept those figures or they rmy challenge those figures based on their current data. Corrm. Curmrings accepted that the Corrmission rrnJSt follow the Roos Bill guidelines. He asked if Henoosa Beach is entitled to soire relief on the fair-housing shares. Ms. Sapetto stated that Herm:>sa Beach has a large share of heads of households ratio, that is, single persons sharing the rent. However, the majority of the rental stock is in the single fami lies and duplex developrrent. There has not been an esti.nate of what the rents are and what the incotres are of people that rent those places. Conm. Cunmings stated that he would like comparative data between •Herroosa Beach and neighboring commnities. Chrm. Izant asked how the public hearing was advertised. Ms. Sapetto replied that it was advertised for discussion of the preliminary draft. Public Hearing opened at 8:06 P.M. Clarence Hines, 1965 Manhattan Avenue, Herrrosa Beach, asked if there have been estimates of the cost of the Housing Eleirent. He stated that there are 28 substandard units in Hernx>sa Beach at this ti.Ire. He suggested that the Comnission determine the cost per living unit. He asked what the qualifications will be for living in these units. He said these issues IIDJSt be determined in the preliminary stages. Public Rearing closed at 8:17 P.M. Corrnt. Donnelly stated that he would like to review the tiough draft on February 18, 1982, at a workshop session. Chim. I zant stated that February 3, 1982, is acceptable to the Corrmi.ssion for the public hearing on the rough draft of the Housing Elerrent . . ( PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -January 19, 1982 Page 4 PRELIMINARY DRAFT OF THE HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN {cont.) Comm. Smith preferred reviewing the rough draft on February 18, 1982, Comm. Cummings felt that a public hearing should be held on February 16, 1982 because there is enough public interest. He was agreeable to a workshop session on February 18, 1982. Comm. Izant declared that the Commission would like to have a public hearing on February 3, 1982 and February 16, 1982 and have a joint workshop session with the City Council on February 18, 1982. He added that another public hearing should be held at the February 3, 1982 meeting. Comm. Smith stressed that he would like to see a rough draft with the changes indicated, along with a copy of a letter from the Housing and Community Development Department notine those changes. He asked that the changes in the Housing Element be underlined. Comm. Donnelly asked that the comparison of the breakdown by age group be shown in the survey comparing the respondents to the actual breakdown within the City. Comm. Loosli recommended that the R-2, Low Density area be mapped in the Housing Element. Comm. Cummings asked for a sensitivity study to medium income. ZONE CHANGE REQUEST FOR 1) THE AT & SF RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY , BOUND BY SECOND STREET , VALLEY DRIV~, & HERONDO STREET ALSO 2) THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SECOND & HILL STREETS FROM R-1 TO PDR & CONCEPTUAL PLAN REVIEW OF 440 -2ND STREET -THE "BOATYARD " SITE Chmn. Izant stated that a flyer was distributed around the Boatyard area. He briefly clarified the four points indicated on the flyer to the audience. Ms. Sapetto gave staff report. She stated that the Rickert property is the subject of the zone change as well as a portion of the Railroad Right- of-Way. She indicated the exact size and location of the properties on the City parcel map. Staff recommended that the Rickert property located at the corner of Second & Hill Streets be rezoned from R-1 to Planned Development Residential/Medium Density. Staff recommends to rezone the Railroad Right-of-Way to Open Space from its current R-1 status or to Planned Development Residential/Open Space. Staff also recommended to review the revised conceptual plan and to adopt the plan or to request a further revision of the plan. She stated that the Rickert property is currently zoned R-1, Medium Density, which is equivalent to an R-2 zone. The Rickert property is 14,060 sq. ft. and could contribute eight units to this project if calculated at 25 du/a. Comm. Donnelly asked for the acreage of the Rickert property. Comm. Peirce replied .33 acres. PIANNING CCMMISSIONMINUTES -January 19, 1982 Page 5 ZONE CHANGE REQUEST FDR 1) THE AT & SF RAilROAD RIGHT-QF..:WAY , BOUND BY SECOND STREET, VALLEY DRIVE, & HERONDO S'IREET ALSO • 2) THE SOUTIIWEST CORNER OF SE:COND & HilL STREETS FRCM R-1 TO PDR & CONCEPTIJAL PIAN REVIEW OF 440 -2nd STREET ..: THE "BOATYARD" SITE (Cont.) Ms. Sapetto continued staff report, stating that the Planned Development Residential, :nedil.'[Il density will bring the project into confonnance with the General Plan, as would an R-2 zone. The railroad right-of-way is 22,651 sq. ft. and would contribute 13 units to the project if it 'vl:ere calculated at 25 du/a. The railraod right-of-way is designated open space. This property should not be used in calculating the number of allowable du/a. If the Conrni.ssion wished to include that property in the calculation, they would have to change the General Plan. Cornn. Loosli stated that the Canmi.ssion has been using the railroad right-of-way in their density calculations in the 104-mit plan and the 92-unit plan. Conm. Loosli asked if the allowable is now 79 du/a. Ms. Sapetto replied in the affinnative. Corrm. Donnelly stated that the allowable is 80 du/a. Corrm. Donnelly asked for the anount of acreage currently owned or in escrow by the applicant, the arrount of acreage of the Rickert property, and the arrount of acreage of the railroad right-of-way. Comm. Currmings asked mat the applicant's present developrrent rights are. Ms. Sapetto replied that they are R-1. Corrm. Donnelly asked if a vote of 4-2 or greater is required to make the zone change. Ms. Sapetto replied in the affirmative. Comn. Smith stated that the,owner of Sunnyglen has certified by affidavit that Sunnyglen now owns the Rickert property. He asked whether or not this was correct. Ms. Sapetto replied that the applicant has indicated that he is in the process of acquiring ownership. Camn. Smith requested that that be clarified. Conm. l.Dosli stated that the Rickert property is currently zoned R-1. If the zone is not changed, it adds approxirrately four units to the project. If the zone is change\ to R-2 or PDR, it adds approximately eight units. He asked if the project could be left at R-1, low density . • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUI'ES -January 19, 1982 Page 6 ZONE CHANGE REQUEST Fffi. 1) THE AT & SF RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-W-\Y, BOUND BY SECOND STREET, VPJLEY DRIVE & HER.ONDO STREET ALSO 2) THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SECOND & HilL STREETS FRCM R-1 TO PDR & CONCEPTUAL PlAN REVIEW OF 440 -2nd S'IREET -THE ''BOATYARD'' SITE (Cont. ) Ms. Sapetto replied that the project could be left at R-1, if the General Plan was changed to Low Density Residential. Conm. Loosli added that they could either change the ~oning or the General Plan. Comn. Peirce asked, even though the property is General Plan open space, R-1 zoning, if only recreational buildings can be built there or can residential housing developmmts also be built there. Ms. Sapetto stated that she knew of no provision regarding that. Chrm. Izant stated that the first decision the Conmission will take is whether or n ot the Cormrl.s s ion shouilld take any action on rezoning the Rickert property, and the second decision is whether or not the Corrrnission should take any action on rezoning the railroad right-of-way. Clum. Izant added that the second part of the public hearing will concern the conceptual plan for the boatyard site. Public Hearing opened at 9:03 P.M. Dick Leonard, 17 422 S. Prairie, Torrance, applicant , stated that the Rickert property is 14, 060 sq . ft. , which is 3. 23 acres. That prope rty was in escrow, the escrow was closed, and Sunnyglen now owns the property. He stated that the entire Santa Fe right-of-way is 100 feet wide . The east erly 35 feet of that right-of-way is in escr01il. Sunnyglen has no control over the balance of the property whatsoever. The easterly 35 feet of the right-of-way is . 52 acres . The balance of the property is 2,857 a cres , making a total of 3.7 acres or 161,172 sq. ft. He stated that if the Santa Fe property were left out of the density c alculation, but the Rickert property and the balance of the property owned by Sunnyglen ~re included, Sunnyglen would be allowed 79 units to the acre if calculated at 25 du/a. I f the Sant a Fe property -were included at R-1 density, it would add another .52 ~.)m i ch w:,uld make a total of 84 units. If the Rickert property were considered a s R-1 and Santa Fe were considered as R-1 and the balance at 25 du/a, there would be a viable density of 79 units. If the railroad right-of-way -were considered open space and the Rickert property were considered R-1, they w:,ul d be allowed 74 units. However , he felt as though this would not be beneficial for Sunnyglen. He added that Sunnyglen intends to develop the 35-foot strip. Comn. Smith asked the applicant if he is definitely interested in seeing the rezone from. open space to PDR. Mr. Leonard replied in the affirmative , explaining that the zone change specifically included only the 35-foot strip that is in escrow, not the balance of the railroad. Cornn. Cunmings asked how the railroad right-of-way is being used by the proposed project. PI.ANNING CCJaiISSION MINUTES -January 19, 1982 Page 7 ZONE CHANGE REQUEST FOR 1 ) THE AT & SF RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-Wt\Y , BOUND BY SECOND STREET, VAI.LEY DRIVE & HERONOO STREET ALSO 2) THE SOlITHWEST CORNER OF SECOND & HILL STREETS FR<l1 R-1 TO PDR & CONCEPI'UAL PIAN REVIEW OF 440 -2nd STREET -THE ''BOATYARD'' SITE (Cont. ) Ms . Sapetto stated that the applicant did not request a General Plan change . He requested a zone change, but in order for the Comniss ion to grant a zone change t o PDR with no stipulation on that being an open space, the General Plan will need to be changed. Corrm. Cunmings asked about changing the zone to Planned De"\Jeloprnent Residential/ open space. Ms. Sapetto replied that .the General Plan would not need t o be changed. It would be keeping it open space in the General Plan, but allowing it to becane part of that developmmt. It would not be used in the density calculation. Jim Ros enberger, 15 6 First Court, Henrosa Beach, stated that the public does not have any background material, a nd he noted concem for the lack of information available to the public. He wanted a clarification as to the use and coverage of the open space area. He 1nderstood there to be a 10 or 15% maximum coverage, and the use could not be residential. He asked what the other cities in the area are doing with their railroad right-of-ways. Conm. Peirce stated that one question that had not been answered was could the developer develop the railroad property R-1 open space General Plan. Wilma Burt, 1152 7th Street, Henrosa Beach, stated that she is dissatisfied with the public right-of-way being all~d to any private developer either for his land usage or for his density calculations. She s tated that the streets bel ong to the citizens. Allowing the developer to use this land would be depriving the citizens of a natural r esources . She urged the Corrmission to keep enough land on the east side of the tracks for Ab:h:rore in the future. Herb Schneider, 157 Ardnnre, He:rrrosa Beach, stated that he is directly behind the boatyard site, so why can't bis property be rezoned. He spoke in opposition to any type of increased den sity. Jerry Moss, 539 Second Street, Hen:ros a Beach, fe lt that the e a sterly portion of the railr.0ad r ight-of-way should be rezoned PDR so that i t becorres part of the parcel. He suggested using a deed restriction that no impr6veIIEI1ts be put on it. Polly Sclmeider, 157 Ardrrore, Henoosa Beach, stated that her standard of living in no way irrproves with higher density . She opposes allowing the developer to use the railroad right-of-way to be used in calculating the 1nits. She stated that this project does not blend in with the surrounding neighborhood; it only blends in with Su:myglen ' s developrrent to the west. She suggested that the Rickert property be left R-1 or be zoned open space . She added that she looked at Sunnyglen's developrrent on the northwest c omer of Valley and Second, mich she described as a total block of concrete. She said it was built at 23 du/a, and the open space is driveways. PIANNING CCM1ISSION MINUTES -January 19, 1982 Page 8 ZCNE CHANGE REQUEST FOR 1 ) THE AT & SF RAILRQ\D RIGHI'--OF-WAY , BOUND BY S&:OND STREET, VALIEY DRIVE & HERONOO STREET ALSO 2) THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SECOND AND HILL STREETS FRCM R-l TO PDR & CONCEPTUAL PIAN REVIEW FOR 440 -2nd STREET -THE ''Brn..TYARD' 1 SITE (Cont.) Kurt Bovee, 1209 Eighth Street, Herrrosa Beach, stated that there is no reason to increase the density in Hernnsa Beach. Rita Newkirk, 540 First Street, HerIIDsa Beach, stated that she is against any zone changes that "WOuld increase the density in south HeTIIDsa. Jerry fuss, 539 Second Street, Herrrosa Beach, stated that there are four firetraps on the Rickert property. He suggested that the Rickert property be made contiguous with the boatyard and be rezoned from R-1 to PDR, rredium density. Gertrude Errhousen, 648 7th Street, Hennosa Beach, objected to oore housing and higher density. She suggested building horres as opposed to a townhouse- style developrrent. Delma Peery, 720 8th Street, Henrosa Beach, stated that Sln111yglen has brought many problems to Hernosa Beach. Dick Leonard, applicant, stated that Santa Fe does not have the right to sell the land arbitrarily. They IIDJSt first obtain approval from the Public Utilities Cormrission. He added that his conceptual plan has a swim:ning pool, spa, the tot lot, and passive landscaping and walkways which constitute 17% o f the property. That l 7o/o is in exces s of the required comron area for the Condominium Ordinance. He added that the building coverage is 36%. Mr. l.eonard stated that Sunnyglen is only interested in the first option. if Sunnyglen c onsurrnates the e scrow with Santa Fe and purchases the 35-foot strip. Public Hearing closed at 9 : 4 7 P .M. Recess from 9:48 P.M. to 9:58 P.M. Coran. Peirce presented a matrix of the project, as follows: TOI'AL UNITS 74 79 83 92 B~TYARD SITE R-2 R-2 R-2 R-2 RICKERT PROPER.TI R-1 R-2 R-2 R-2 RAIIROAD RIGHT--OF-WAY OS OS R-1 R-2 PI.ANNING CCM1I.SSIONMINUTES -January 19, 1982 Page 9 ZONE CHANGE REQUEST FOR 1) TIIE AT & SF RAIIP-.OAD RIGHT-OF-WAY, BOUND BY SECOND STREET, VAfJEf DRIVE & HERONOO STREET ALSO 2) TIIE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SECOND & Hil.L S'IBEE1l?S FReM R-1 TO PDR & CONCEPTUAL PIAN REVIEW OF 440 -2nd STREET-· -· ±HE ''BOATYARD'' SITE (Cont . ) Cornn. Peirce felt it necessary to determine the use of the railroad property before considering the other properties. Cornn. Loosli felt that the railroad right-of-way should remain open space. Cornn. Donnelly stated that one of the advantages of having the railroad right-of-way zoned open space is that there will be better landscaping and better aesthetic value to the open space; however, he did not ~t to see any stn.1etural developmmt in that open space. He added that he would be willing to trade the applicant's owning the right-of-way and a provision in the CC &R's of maintaining it and landscaping it and integrating it rrore into the developmmt without developing on that portion of it. He felt that the applicant could landscape that area better than the City could. Corrm. Smith stated that he would not want to see the property included in PDR because it may set a dangerous precedent . Coom. Cunmings felt that the railroad right-of-way should be zoned open space. He also felt that rezoning this property rna.y set a dangerous precedent. COIIII1. Peirce felt that the developer should not have to maintain the 35-foot strip m the easterly part without doing anything with the ~sterly 65 feet. He believed that the only viable options ,;.;,ere to allow the developer to build or not ho build at all. Chun. Izant felt that if the developer is going to maintain that property, the developer would gain rrore ~lling units per acre. However, he was not willing to allow the developer nore units. Cornn. Donnelly noted that citizens will not benefit from open space in the middle of a walled corrrnunity. He preferred the concept of a 35-foot maintained, visible part of the corrm.mity without any developrrent. Cornn. Loosli stated that it may be rrore beneficial to incorporate the property into the project as PDR open space because it is part of the project. He added that the developer would not have to own it. Chrm. Izan.t agreed with Conm. Loosli' s above comrents; however, he suggested that the entire Santa Fe right-of-way in the City of Herrrosa Beach be purchased. PlANNING COMMISSIONMINUI'ES -January 19, 1982 Page 10 ZONE Cl-t.t\liGE REQUEST FOR 1) THE AT & SF RAILRO\D RIGHT-OF-Wt\Y , BOUND BY SECOND STREET, VAI.LEY DRIVE & HERONOO STREET AI.SO 2 ) THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SECOND & HTIL STREETS FROM R-1 TO PDR & CONCEPTUAL PIAN REVIEW OF 440 -2nd STREET -THE "BOATIARD" SI1E (Cont.) Motion by Conm. Loosli, seconded by Coom. Curnnings , to change the zoning to conform with the General Plan in this area from R-1 (unzoned) to open space. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Conms. Cuumings, Loosli, Chrm. Izant Corrms. Donnelly, Peirce, Smith Coom. Rue Conm. Peirce stated that he was against the motion because he saw no compelling reason for the City to mainta:in a 100-foot open space verses a 65-foot open space. Corrm. Smith stated that it wuld be a dangerous precedent . He believed there should b e no prece dents for incorporating open space land in a developable area. Comn. Cumnings noted that the rrotion was not to include it in a developable area. Cornn. Smith asked for the ITDtion to be repeated. Corrm. Loosli stated that the rrotion was to bring the zoning into confo:rmance with the current General Plan. The railroad right-of-way is General Plan open space . His rrotion was to bring this proper ty into conformance with the General Plan and zone it open space. He added that this is in regards to the 35-foot easterly strip. Motion by Conm. Loos li, seconded by Comn. Currmings , to bring the zoning of the 35-foot easterly strip of the railroad right-of-way into conformance with the current General Plan to open space. Comn. Smith asked if that property can be developed. Cornn. Loosli stated that it can be developed open space. Therefore, 10% can be dew.loped with t~ stories, 25 feet maximum. Conm. Cun:mings stated that by zoning it Planned Developnent Residential/open space would cause the sane effect. Cornn. Loosli replied in the negative. Corrm. Smith stated that a "yes" vote rreans that it cannot be used in the density calculation. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Conms. Cumnings, Loosli, Smith, Clmn. Izant Corrms. Donnelly, Peirce Corrm. Rue PL!-\NNING CCM1ISSION MINUTES-January 19, 1982 Page 11 ZONE CHANGE REQUEST FOR 1) TI:IE AT & SF RAILRG..\D RIGHT-OF-w.ti,.Y , BOUND BY SEX::OND STREET, VALLEY DRIVE & HERONOO STREET ALSO 2) TIIE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SECOND AND HII.L STREETS FRCM R-1 TO PDR & CONCEPTUAL PIAN REVIEW OF 440 -2nd STREET -THE "BOATYARD " SITE (Cont.) Cornn. l.Dosli stated that the Resolution would be that state law requires that the General Plan be consistent with the zoning and the action brings zoning into conformance with the General Plan. Cornn. Peirce asked if the only finding would be that it brings the zoning into confonnance with the General Plan. Corrm. Loosli replied in the affimative. He stated that a greenbelt to the City is fine, and this precludes developmm.t in mat is currently an open space area, and the Comnission feels it should rerrain an open space area. Ms. Sapetto rrentioned that staff has a drafted Resolution (b) for that open space. Comn. Loosli stated that a WHEREAS could be, ''WHEREAS, the General Plan designates this area open space." Ms. Sapetto stated that the above would be the third WHEREAS. Cornn. Loosli suggested adding a WHEREAS; that is, ''WHEREAS, it is stated law that zoning shall conform to the General Plan.'' Comn. Curn:n:ings stated that he would like to add another WHEREAS; that is, ''WHERE\S, the Planning Comnission was inforrred of the City Attorney's opinion regarding the taking of deve loprrent rights and the question as to whether the open space designation of the General Plan envisioned the applicant's use of the parcel to corrpute his allowable number of units in his project. '' Motion by Corrm. Loosli, seconded by Comn. Currmings, to make the Resolution, as arrended . AYES: NOES: ABSENI': . Conrns . Currmings , Loosli , Srni th, Chrm.. Izant Conrns. Dormelly, Peirce Corrm. Rue Comn. Smith asked for a clarification of the notion. Corrm. I.Dosli replied that the previous rrotion was to rezone the railroad property from an unzoned designation to open space. Comns. Donnelly and Peirce stated that t hey were opposed to the nntion because they did not agree with the Findings. Chrm. Izant asked for input on the Rickert property. PI..ANNIID CCM1ISSIONMINUTFS -January 19, 1982 Page 12 ZONE CHANGE REQUEST FOR 1) THE AT & SF RAILRQAf) RIG!IT-OF-WAY , BOUND BY SECOND STREET, VAI..J.EY DRIVE & HER.ONDO STREET ALSO 2) THE SOU'IHWEST CORNER OF SF.cOND & HilL STREETS FRCM R-1 TO PDR & CONCEPI'UAL PLAN REVIEW OF 440 -2nd S'IREET -THE ''BOATYARD'' SITE (Cont.) Conm. Loosli stat~d that the City of Henocisa Beach is dense enough. He recornnended rejecting the zone change and rehearing it to a low density desigpation at a future date. Corrm. Peirce was in favor of changing the zone from R-1 to R-2. Comn. Ctmnings was in favor of changing the zone from R-1 to R-2. Comn. Smith was also in favor of changing the zone to R-2 because it is consistent with the proposed project. Comn. Dannelly stated that they have addressed the p roblem of increased density. He was also in favor of zoning the Rickert property R-2, rrediurn density. Motion by Conm. Peirce, seconded by Conrn. Donnelly, to rezone the Rickert property from R-1 to Plarmed Developnent Residential/ nedium density. AYES: NOES: ABSENT : Cooms. Curmdngs, Donnelly, Peirce, Smith, Chrrn.. Izant Corrm. Loosli Comn. Rue Ms. Sapetto stated that there is a drafted Resolution (a) which may be used. Motion by Conm. Peirce, seconded by Coom. Dormelly, to approve Resolution P.C. 82-06. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Comn.s. Cunmings, Donnelly, Peirce, Smith, Chrrn. Izant 'Corrm, Loosli Conm. Rue Chrm. Izant asked for a staff report on the conceptual plan. Ms. Sapetto gave staff report. She stated that the Corrmission should review the plan and detennine whether or not it rreets the criteria spelled out previously from the Planning Corrmission. If the plan does not meet the criteria, the Planning Connri.ssion nay request that provisions be made. Conm. Donnelly asked if the applicant ~re still under 65% lot coverage since the figure is now 3.18 acres. Ms. Sapetto replied in the affirmative. Public Hearing opened at 10:18 P.M. '---j Dick Leanard, 17422 S. Prairie, Torrance, applicant, stated that the revised plans are for 82 units, which neans that three of the units would have to be PIANNINJ COMMISSION MINUTES -January 19, 1982 Page 13 ZONE CHANGE REQUEST FOR 1 ) THE AT & SF RAIIROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY , BOUND BY SECOND STREET , VALLEY DRIVE & HER.ONDO STREET ALSO 2) TrlE sounIWEST CORNER OF SECOND & HIIL S'IREETS FROM R-1 TO PDR & CONCEPTIJAL PI.AN REVIEW OF 440 -2nd STREET -THE ''BG.t\.TYARD'' SITE (Cont.) eliminated. He stated that the plans do not include floor plans. He m2ntioned that the density would be slightly less than 20 duf.a. He inforrred the Comnission that there are four basic plans; narrely, the two-bedroom mits at 1200 sq. ft. which constitute 16%; the double master-bedroom concept which constitute 28%; the three-bedroom at 1400 sq. ft. which constitute 26%; and the two bedroom plus a den is 1400 sq. ft. which constitutes 27%. The garages as proposed are 23 feet wide by 20 feet deep, making a square footage of 460 sq. ft. There is a stairway mit vihich would take the occupant from his garage up to the living unit above. Under that stairway, there would be 160 sq. ft. of storage area. He stated that they are proposing private patios which span across the depressed driveway on sorre. of the units. The units that do not have the patios will have balcony patios which protnrle ten feet out onto the driveway. The exterior materials to be used on the building are painted wood s iding and composition shingles. The proposed color is gray. The underside o f the balconies and the garage faces would be stucco. He added that the comron. area available to the tenant is 17%. He said it would be to his advantage and the City's advantage to landscape all the public right-of-way including the entire railroad rig..ht-of-way and charge the 1-JooEowners Association with the perpetual maintenance as long as the City has a landscape permit with Santa Fe Railroad. He added that they would also c onstruct a bike path which wou-li b e appro ximately one-third of a mile. He requested that the nine guest parking spaces be allowed to remain on the Ardrmre right-of-way. Ee stated that electric garage door openers would corre. with every unit and would be included in the sales price. Cornn. Loosli asked if there will be any park, either public or private. Mr. Leonard replied that he previous 1 y presented a plan with a park, and the plan was rejected by the Planning Corrmission. Cornn. Donnelly stated that it was not rrade part of the detailed recormendations. Cornn. Loosli asked ¥..r. Leonardi£ he realized that 23 units of his project will have to be renoved from the railroad right-of-way. Mr. Leonard replied in the affinnative. CiDmn. Loosli asked Mr. Leonard if he realized that those units will have to go in where the plan shows open space or roads or parking. Mr. Leonard stated that he does not have the capability of designing the project. Cornn. Donnelly asked Mr. Leonard if he were aware that he has a rounded 3.2 acres on which to build a project of a maximum of 79 units. Mr. Leonard replied in the affirmative. PI.ANNING C01MISSION MINUIES -January 19, 1982 Page 14 ZONE CHANGE RE UEST FOR 1 ) THE AT & SF RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY , BOUND BY SECOND STREET VPJ..J..Ef. DRIVE & HERONDO STREET ALSO 2 THE SOUI'FIWEST CORNER OF SECOND & HI.IL STREETS FRCM R-1 'IO PDR & CONCEPTUAL PI.AN REVIEW OF 440 -2nd S'IREET -THE 11:ro\TYARD" SITE (Cont.) Herb Schneider, 157 Ardroore, Herrrosa Beach, noted concern for the applicant's request to use the Ardrrore right-of-way for guest parking. Polly Schneider, 157 Ardnnre, Herrrosa Beach, stated that 3.2 acres with 79 units is not less than 20 du/a. She s poke in opposition to allowing any City property for this developrrent . She fe lt that the p roject still has too mmy units. She asked what benefits the City will receive by zoning this land FDR. Cornn. Peirce stated that the project is 25 du/a. Mrs. Schneider stated that there should be four garage spaces for each mit. Rita Nevlkirk, 540 First Street, Hermosa Beach, asked if the Comnission will respond at this tire as to whether or not the parking spaces will be allowed to rerrnin on the Ardrrore right-of---way. She suggested allowing anyone to use those spaces, not only the residents of the project. Jerry Moss, 539 Second Street, Henmsa Beach, stated that the developer has nade a suprerre effort to try to satisfy the demands of the Planning Corrmission. He felt that once this project is built, it will enhance Herroosa Beach. He supported the amount of density decided upon, and he supported the design of the project. He felt the project would be a great inproveITEnt to ', • southwest Hernosa Beach. Charles Eurichson, 551 Second Street, Herrrosa Beach, supported Mr. Moss's comnents. Bill O'Claire, 540 First Street, Herroosa Beach, noted concern for nine parking spaces to be used on public property. Mr. Leonard, applicant, explained that the parking could be used for the public at large. Public Hearing continued at 11:15 P.M. to February 3, 1982. Conm. Peirce stated that by restricting the entrance off o f Herondo, there will be m:ire concrete. He felt that it v.0uld be better to allow a small block of the project to come off of Second Street and Valley. Conm. Loosli felt that the Planning Conmission must address the density again. He stated that there would be less roadways and IIDre green space by eliminating sorre of the m.its . Conm. Smith supported Coom. Peirce's remarks . He added that the Pl811Iling Conmission does not have substantial data as to the impact this project PIANNING Cel-fflSSION MINUI'ES -January 19, 1982 Page 15 ZONE CHANGE REQUEST FOR 1) TIIE AT & SF RAILRQ\D RIGlIT--OF-WA.Y, BOUND BY SECOND STREET, VAJ.1.Ef DRIVE & HERONDO STREET ALSO 2) THE SOUI'HWEST CORNER OF SECOND & HILL STREETS FRCM R-1 TO PDR & CONCEPTIIA.L PIAN REVIEW OF 440 -2nd S'IREET -THE "BQ\.TYARD" SI'IE (Cont. ) will have on parking. He recormBnded studying the inpact in the irmediate area in regards to traffic circulation. Cornn. Cunnings agreed with Corrms. Peirce and Smith. He felt that the original circulation plan dealt with the undergromd garage concept. He was in favor of having the applicant corre back with plans showing a different internal circulation pattern. Conm. Donnelly agreed with C,orrm. Cun:mings. Chn:n. Izant asked for input regarding the number of parking spaces provided for each 1.11.it. Corrm. Donnelly felt there should be tID parking spaces per unit. Chim. Izant stated that it is 4-2 that the Planning Corrmission would consider an alternative circulation plan with access out onto the other streets. Motion by Comn. Peirce to allow no trore than 20% of the project to be accessed from Second Street, 20% from First Street, 20% from Valley and the remaining 40% from Herondo with the result of nore green space in the project. None of these streets are to interconnect. (Straw vote.) COlllffi. Curnnings, Peirce, and Smith voted for the above straw vote. Corms. Donnelly, Loosli, and Chnn. Izant voted against the above straw vote. Conm. Donnelly voted against the straw vote because he is rrore concerned with the impact of the neighborhood. Chrrn. Izant stated that he voted against the straw vote because he felt that the traffic could be handled on Valley and Herondo, but not on the smaller streets . Ms. Sapetto stated that the Planning Conmi.ssion could have a special rreeting to review the data on the traffic circulation. The Planning Corrmission could require the applicant to allow the Planning Coornission to evaluate it at the next meeting of the applicant could get a determination on his conceptual plan. Coom. Smith requested that the Planning Comnission get the traffic and parking circulation information for that area. Ms. Sapetto replied that she vX>uld submit that information to the Planning Coomission. Cornn. Smith:,stated that he wo\tl.d be willing to attend a special workshop session to study the traffic and parking circulation. PIANNL~G COM1IS SION MINUTES -January 19, 1982 Page 16 ZONE CHANGE REQUEST FOR 1) THE AT & SF RAILROAD RIGlIT-OF-~Y, BOUND BY SECOND S'IREET, VALIEY DRIVE & HF.RONDO STREET AI.SO 2) THE SOUIHWEST CORNER OF SECOND & HILL S'IREETS FRCM R-1 TO PDR & CONCEPTUAL PLAN REVIEW OF 440 -2nd S'IREET -THE 1100\TYARD" SITE (Cont . ) Comn. Peirce stated that he would also be willing to attend a special workshop session. Cbrrn. Izant asked what t ype of determination could be made at the workshop session. ~s . Sapetto r eplied that the Planning Cornnission could rmke a determination on the traffic circulation and guest parking on the Ardrrore stub. Chm. Izant recOIIIIEilded each Corrmi.ssion revisit the property. Coom. l.Dosli was in favor of discussing t he dens ity at t he -workshop sessi on. Coom . Cunmings felt that the issue of guest parking on the Ardtrore right- of-way should be discussed and finalized at this tin:e , and the ~rkshop session should deal only with the traffic circulation. Chnn. I z ant a sked the Comnissioner s i£ they wished to hold a special session. Cornn. Donnelly stated that no special session should be held. Conms. Cun:mings, Peirce, Smith, and Chlm. Izant ~re in favor of holding a special session. Conm . Loos li stated that if a special session is held, he will attend. Mr. Leonard stated that he would rather cooe back with two sets of plans, one addressing the alternate accesses and one addressing the conditions as they now stand. Chim. Izant s tated that that would be acceptable to the C,oomission .. Crum. Izant asked for input regarding guest parking on the Ardroore stub. Cornns. Cuumings and Donnelly stated that they would like to see gues t parking on the Ardnore stub. Conms. l.Dosli, Smith, and Clmn . I zant stated that they would not like to see guest parking on the Ardm:rre s tub. Conm. Peirce stated that he would lean toward not conmingling this property. STAFF REPORTS Ms . Sapetto stated that the Planning Institute by the League of California Cities is holding a rreeting on February 24, 25, a nd 26 in San Diego. She asked what Comnis sian.ers would like to attend. ,, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -January 19, 1982 Page 17 STAFF REPORTS Cooms. Peirce and Donnelly wished to attend the ~eting. Corrms. Smith and Currrnings stated that they may be interested in attending. C(lvlMISSIONER'S ITEM'S None Motion to adj oum at 12: 03 P .M. CERTIFICATION' I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and complete record of the action taken by the Planning Corrrnission at their regular rreeting of January 19, 1982. , CHAIBMAN DATE r, r ' \ ( ' , __ MINUTES OF THE PIANNING COMMISSION OF HERMOSA BFACH HELD ON JANUARY 5, 1982, IN THE CITY H.luL COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT 7:30 P.M. Meeting called to order by Chrm. Izant at 7:35 P.M. ROLL CALL IBESENT: Comns. Currnri.ngs, Donnelly, lnosli, Peirce, Rue, Smith, Crnm.. Izant ABSmT: None ALSO PRESENT: Panela Sapetto, Planning Director APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion by Conm. Curmrings, seconded by Comn. Rue, to approve the December 15, 1981, minutes with the following corrections: Page 13, last para., should read, 11 ••• He cot1ID211ded the Comnission for resuming their meetings at a tirre when more of the conmunity can attend." Page 14, sixth para., should read, "School properties are not included in this Resolution." Page 14, sixth para., should re.ad, 11 • • • that are non-open-space-owned. . No objections, so ordered. APPROVAL OF RESOLUTIONS Cornn. Loosli stated that Resolution P.C. 82-02 should have an additional sentence; that is, "School properties are not inclu:led in this Resolution." Motion by Corrm. Rue, seconded by CoIIIn. Currmings, to approve Resolutions P.C. 82-01 and 82-02 with the additional sentence in Resolution P.C. 82-02 to exclule school properties. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Camns . Currmings , Donnel 1 y, Loosli, Peirce , Rue , Smith, Chrm. Izant None None OVERI.AY ZONE AMENDMENT Ms. Sapetto gave staff report. She stated that the overlay zone did reduce the height limits on certain properties. The lowering of the height limit rray have a negp.tive inpact on those properties with respect to their view corridors to the ocean. Those areas which might have a negative i.rrpact would be those properties an Myrtle Avenue between 24th and 25th Streets and on Manhattan Avenue between 22nd and 24th Streets. She gave the Conmissian two alternatives to consider, one being to disregard the concept of PLANNING CCM1ISSI ON MINI.ITES -January 5, 1982 Pa ge 2 OVERI.AY ZONE AMENDMENT (Cont .) protect ing the view corridor and t he other would be to allow the 30' height of R-2 zoning to r emain in this area. If the latter alternative were chosen, a l l pr operties up to and fronting on Park Avenue should be allowed the 30 ' height limit. Anothe r alternative is to change the Gener al Plan from tredium density to low density between Ozone Court and Palm Drive. She stated that the other are as which are impac t ed in a simil ar fashion by the overlay zone are those R-2 lots abutting the rrn.tl.ti -use corridor. The height for these lots have been reduced to 25 feet. She gave the Coo:mission four alternati ves, narrE l y, to disregard the concept of pr otecting the view corridor, to further r educe the height limit of the properti es in the rrulti-use corridor , to raise the height limit in the overlay zone area (R-2), or to consider a staggered height limit corresponding to the slope of the land. Corrm. Loos l i asked i f there i s pres ently any view s hed protection in the Ci t y of Hemosa Beach . Ms . Sapett o r eplied in the n e gative . Coom. Loosli correc t ed the l ast sentence on the first page of the Ana lysis . He s t a ted that t he area between Palm Drive and Herrms a Avenue has a 30-f oot height limit . Coom. Ctmnings asked if pass ing t his i s s ue would s e t a pre cedent wherein other s may apply for a change of t heir allowable height limit . }1s . Sapett o stated t hat it i s po s sible . Public Hearing opened a t 7: 53 P .M. Mike Lawton, 1840 Hermosa Avenue, Henrosa Beach, stated that his l ot is zoned R-3, iredium density. He stated that his lot runs from Palm Drive to Hemosa Avenue, and it is surromded by high density properties that are 40 to 50 du/a. He stated that many houses on Hermosa Avenue are in excess of 35 feet . He added that if this item were passed, the Con:mi.ss i on would be making a discriminatory-type of ruling. He believed that the City should provide an equal opportunity for all property owners to have a view cor ridor . Publi c Hearing c l os ed at 8:04 P .M. Coum . Donnelly a ske d if view r ights are de t ennined a s property right s in California. Mr . Po s t s t at ed t hat pr operty right s keep changing, and i t i s dif f i cult to make ordinances for views that are enforce able . • Chxm. Izant s t ated that anot her alt ernative would be t o change the R-2 zone from 30 f e et t o 25 f eet that has Ozone Court on t he west and Myrtle on t he eas t . PLANNING COMMISSION MrnUTES -J anuary 5, 198 2 Pa ge 3 CNF:Bl.A Y ZONE .AMEIDMENT (Cont.) Cornn. Dcmne lly recorrmmded disregarding the conc ept o f protec t ing the view c orridor mtil nore informat i on i s in hand. Comn. Pe irce rrentioned that t he Cormri.ss i on coul d change the General Plan. Motion by CODI11. Donne lly , seconded by Conm . Cumnings , t o r ecomnend that t he City Council take no act i on in changing t he over lay z one . The Planning Corrmission is will ing t o study and evaluat e the concept of view prot ection at a future date. AYES : NOES : ABSENT : Conms. Cunmings , Donne lly , L::>osli , Pei r c e , Rue, Chnn . Izant Gonm . Smith None Motion by Cl-nm. Izant, s econded by Comn . Peir ce , to make a Resolution; WHEREAS , t here is n othing in the Genera l Plan or in the zoning ordinances protecting private viewr corridors, and WHEREAS, there are other p ossibl e m:ans of protecting view corridors. THEREFCRE , I T BE RESOLVED that the Pl anning Corrmission reconmmds that there be no change in the Overlay Zone Ordinance passed by the City Council. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Coorn.s. Cwmings , Donne l l y , Loosli , Pe i r c e, Rue, Cl:mn. I z ant COITIIl . Smit h None CONCEPIUAL PIAN FCR 440 -2nd S'IREET AI.SO KNOWN AS THE BQl\.TYARD SITE Ms. Sapetto gave staff r eport . She stated that the tentative map was denied a t a prior neet ing, and the app licant has r eapplied for a tentative map. She stated that the Corrmission can approve a conditional use permit before the tentative map; however, the tentative map cannot be approved before the conditi onal use permit. She inform:d the Corrmission that there are tv.Q tentative maps, Sc herre A showing 92 units and Schem: B showing 104 units. CCTIIn. CllIIIIlings asked i f there -we r e only one parce l map. Ms. Sapet t o r e plied in t he affinm.tive . "Ms. Sapetto continued staff report, stating that the plans for 92 units rreet rore of the conditions in:posed upon the project by the Planning Conmission . It meets the General Plan density designation; however, Schene B exceeds the all owable du /a by 3.1. Scheme A provi des 30% family-type unit s, and Schem: B provides 18% family-type units . Both scheDEs are deficient in the storeage space at ground level . Both scherres also have plumbing fixtures locat ed on com:oon wall s. Sorre units will be in excess of 150 feet from their parking spaces, and areas above parking garage slab will be landscaped by means of planters but will not have earth cover . She discussed the six recomnendations and tID conditions previous l y set forth by the Corrmission . PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -January 5, 1982 Pa ge 4 CONCEPTUAL PLAN FOR 440 -2nd STREET ALSO KNOWN AS THE BOATYARD SITE ( Cont . ) Comm. Loosli a sked for s taf f 's definition of a family unit. Ms . Sapetto r eplied that a family unit could be considered anything o ver tW0 units . Comm. Peirce asked what portion of the project is actually the b oatyard site as it was rezoned . Ms . Sapetto replied that fuhe boatyard site does not include the railroad right of way or the Rickert property. She stated that the railroad right of way is General Plan open space, but it is unzoned; therefore, that property is zoned R-1 . She added that the applicant has designated a jogging path for that property on bis site plan . Comm. Loosli stated that t h e Rickert property is R-1 me dium dens i ty, so there is a conflict bet we en t h e Gen eral Plan and zoning . He stated that this con- fli c t must be resolved bef ore the Commi s sion passes judgement on the property. Ms. Sapetto state d that it will be resolved by r ezoning the pr operty to R-2 . Comm . Cumming s state d that the General Plan should be modified before the zoning . Ms. Sapetto state d t hat they can be changed at the same time. Ms. Sapetto i nformed the Commission that they could cont~nue the condition- al use permit until the next meeting when the zone change request will be studied, or they could review Scheme A and B to determine whether either alternative i s a cceptable to the Connni s sion . Cbmn. Izant a sked if the conditional use permit were still in the concep- tual phase. Ms . Sap etto r eplied in the affirmative . Chmn. I zant a sked the applicant if he f elt t h e c onditional use p ermit were s til l i n the conceptual phase. Mr. Leonard replied in the affirmative . Comm. Smith asked f or a step-by-ste p process of what the Commissi on should f oll ow for the conditional use permi t and the tentative map . Ms. Sapetto replied that the Commission would determine which conceptual plan is acceptable, and the appli cant w~uld c ome back with a spe cific plan. At that point, the t entative map and the specific plan would be approved or denied by the Commission and sen t on to t h e City Council. Comm. Peirce asked if the applicant can move into the specifi c phase wi thout conceptual approval. '---. PLANNING CCM1ISSION MINUTES -January 5, 1982 Page 5 CON:EPIUAL PIAN FCR 440 -2nd S'lREET ALSO KNCMN AS THE BOATIARD SITE (Cont.) Ms. Sapetto replied in the negative. She stated that if the Corrmission denies the conceptual plan, the applicant could appeal it to the City Council. Comn. Cunmings asked if reviewing Scherres A and B would prejudice the vote on the zone change request . Mr. Post stated that the Corcmission's decision would not be prejudiced. CO!llll. Cunnings stated that he would be prejudicing the irerits of the zone change by hearing the plans at this point. However, hearing the plans would not prejudice his decision for the Rickert property because that property has already been zoned for residential use. Comn. Donnelly asked if it were true that the Comn:issicm may approve a conceptual plan and deny the specific plan based on that conceptual plan. Comn. Loosli replied in the affirmative. He stated that the ordmance says that a specific plan will not necessarily be adopted as a result of the passage of a conceptual plan . ., Mr. Post stated that if the specific plan is based 100% on the conceptual plan, the Cormrission must have valid reasons for denying the specific plan. Cornn. Loosli stressed that the Conmission should discuss what constitutes a family unit. Coom. Cunmings asked what the nurrber of allowable units would be if the railroad right of way property were not included in the density calculaticm. Ms. Sapetto replied that she would have to research that. Conm. Donnelly asked how many square feet are in the railroad right of way. Mr. Leonard stated that it is between 11 and 12 units calculated at 25 du/a. It is approximately half an acre. Ghrm. Izant referred to Sunnyglen I s letter, Page 4, and asked if the sound quotient will be 60 to 64%. Ms . Sapetto replied that the applicant will have to address himself to that. Chrrn. Izant asked if the proposed cast-iron plumbing is a mitigating factor to having the pluming on coomon ,;,,alls . Ms. Sapetto replied that the cast-iron plurooing is for sotm.d attenuaticm reasons. Coran. Donnelly stated that the reason the tentative map was denied was because it was not in conformance with the General Plan. It was in excess of 25 du/a. PIANNING CCM1ISSION MINlIT'ES -January 5, 1982 Page 6 COOCEPruAL PIAN FCR 440 -2nd S'IREET AIBO KN<l-JN AS lliE BQ\TIARD SI TE (Cont . ) Public Hear ing opened at 9:03 P.M. Dick Leonard, 17422 S. Prairie, Torrance, applicant, stated that Sunnyglen Corporation had filed a new tentative n:ap. The zone change request was filed with the tentative map, and that request will be heard at the next meeting. He stated that Sunnyglen has considered a tc:Mnhouse concept for the property which would have a "tuck-under" plan. This "tock-under" plan constitutes a garage with two stories above it , and next to the gprage is a subterranean alley. He stated that the buildings, on-grade parking and the separation be~en the rnits cons'l.lID:::d approximately 96% of the property when calculated at slightly less than 25 du/a (90 tmits). This would leave approximately 8000 square feet as comron area . The townhouse "tuck-under" plan would not be a family-oriented project. At the subterranean alley, the height would be in excess of 30 feet. The only way to lower the height would be to construct a parking gprage as proposed on the three-story plan. Conm . Donnelly asked how many bedrooms are proposed in the townhouse-style developrent. Mr. Leonard replied that roost of the units would have two bedrooms, a few units would have three bedrooms, and a few units would have one bed.roan with a den . Coom. Loosli asked for the width of the units. Mr. Leonard replied that the footprint would be approximately 900 square feet . Coum. Peirce asked how mmy 1.mits are at the site on the north~st corner of Valley and Second Street . He also requested the acreage. Mr. Leonard replied that there are 64 units, and the density is slightly over 23 du/a. Coum . Peirce felt that stacked three-story units should not be constructed at the boatyard site. He added that one of the six conditions set forth at a prior meeting was that the project be two stories or thirty feet, and the applicant has still not net that condition. Mr . Leonard stated that he did not believe the Coo:mission had the authority to limit the project to two stor ies. Clum. Izant stated that the Camli.ssion had requested that the project coma in at 30 feet or two stories at their Decen:ber 1 , 1981, meeting. This request was set forth as an arrendrrent to the Planning Corrmission 's Resolution. Comn . Peirce asked Mr. Post if the Planning Comnission had the authority to place a two-story height limit on this project. PI.ANNlliG CCM1ISSION MINUTES -January 5, 1982 Page 7 CONCEPTUAL PLAN FCR 440 -2nd S'lliEET AI.SO KNGlN AS 'IHE BOATYARD SITE (Cont. ) Mr . Post replied that he -oould need to review the ordinance. Con:m . Loosli stated that the ordinance says that the Planning Conmission can set other standards . Chun. Iza:nt stated that the Planned Developmmt Standards say that no building shall exceed a,;o stories or 30 feet, whi_chever is less, in an R-2 zone. Mr . Post f elt that~ stories or 30 feet is a reasonable condition to be inposed upon this project. Mr. Leonard urged the Comnission to take straw votes to guide him in the right direction. Cornn. Peirce stressed that if Mr. Leonard is not going to submit plans that conform to the conditions set forth by the Coomi.ssion, there is no need to discuss the natter any further. Mr. Leonard stated that both Scherres A and B include a landscaped path around the entire property. 'This path would be const:ru:ted with materials acceptable by the Coomi.ssion. He stated that they are proposing to put IDod chips on the Santa Fe right of way. Both plans showed a pool, a conm:,n -use area, a spa, picnic tables, an active playfield, a children 's play area with playground equipment , and extensive landscaping in the courtyards betw:en the units. Schema A would not include a triangle of land t-hich is approxi.mately 1800 square feet. Scheme B 'OOuld incluie the triangle which bas four elevators in lieu of t'OO and four stairs. Sunnyglen will of fer to pay the purchase price for that peice of property; however, they will allow it to remain in City ownership. Comn. Smith asked Mr. Leonard if they are offering the comn::m space in Schene A, ~ as a public park. Mr. Lecnard replied that they would be willing to offer a public park in Schene B, but not in Sc~ A. Chmn. Izant asked the applicant if there will be a wall or sorre type of barrier be.~en his property and the raiJroad. Mr. Leooard replied that they are proposing to place a chain link fence bet~en the two properties. Coom. Smith stated that Santa Fe requested that the applicants constnrt a wall to buffer the noise in addition to a restraining wall to keep persons from wandering cnto the tracks. Coorn. Cunrnings asked if the units along the railroad right of way that have patios on gromd level will be closed off. ~ COMMISSION MINUTES -January 5, 1982 Page 8 CONCEPIUAL PIAN FCR 440 -2nd S'Il{.EET Al.SO KNOON AS THE BQ\TYARD SITE (Cont.) Mr. Leonard replied that they have not yet made that determination; however, in the past they have used divider screens. Comn. Smith asked if the triangle was calculated into the du/a of either plan. Mr. Leon.ard replied that the triangle was not calculated into the du/a of either plan. Comn. Smith asked if Scheire A includes the railroad right of way and the Rickert property in the du/ a calculation; and Schen:e B includes tre Ardnore stub, railroad right of way, and the Rickert property. Mr. Leonard replied in the affinmtive. Mr . Leonard stated that Schen:e A has 42% tandem parking, and Scheire B has 4mo tandem parking. Corrm. Smith noted that the staff Analysis is incorrect in that Schetre A does not fall within the O to 40% range for tandem parking. Mr . Leonard requested that the Corrmission give him sone direction in regards to the height limit 6£ a t<.Jw'rlhouse-type developnent. Chrrn . Izant asked if the subterranean parking would IIEet Code with respect to proper ventilation, sprinkler systems, etc. Mr. Leonard replied in the aff innati ve. Mr. Leonard stated that he could nake either Scheme within the 30 -foot height limit; however, he requested a variance within the 10% range. The height w:,uld exceed 30 feet if the n:easuremmt v.ent to the bottom of the ventilation shafts. Chm. Izant stated that staff noted that the basic height of the building was 30 feet except for the entrances to the garage. Chnn. Izant asked the applicant to address the comron v-all plunbing that currently does not ireet Code. Mr. Leonard stated that the walls are not actually conm::m -walls; they are double 'Walls. The Building Departrrent had informed him that with the use of cast-iron plumbing, it w:>uld treet the criteria for noise abaterrent. He aclied that the cast -iron plurrbing would be for vaste only; the danestic -water w:,uld be copper. Mr. Leonard urged the Comnission to give him sorre guidence on three issues; those being, one, the m.n:nber of stories; tw:>, IDuld the Ccmnission be agreeable to the "tuck-under" garage concept. If so, could there be sorre deviation on the height limit within the interior of the property in those areas 'Ml.ere PIANNING CCM1ISSION MINUTES -January 5 , 1982 Page 9 CONCEPID\L PIAN FCR. 440 -2nd S'IREET AI.SO KNOON AS THE BOATYARD SITE (Cont.) there are~ stories above a gp.rage; and, three, the number of units. Coom . Smith asked Mr. Leonard what qua l ity of the project will attract families. Mr. Leonard replied that the price will attract families. Jerry Moss, 539 Second Street, Henoosa Beach, stated that he was happy to see the Comnission discuss in detail the design of the project. He stated that the Ch:vron property in Manhattan Beach is using the "tuck-under" IIEthod and a townhouse-type configuration . He suggested allowing an R-1 density for the railroad right of way. In regard to a park, he believed it is a dangerous policy to comingle public usage of private property. He requested that a deed restriction ce put on the railroad right of way so that at no titre can anything be built on it. He suggested that the applicant wrap the plumbing to reduce the sound. He added that he was speaking neith:r in support of or opposition to this project. Herb Schneider, 157 ArdmJre, Henrosa Beach, asked why this hearing was not noticed to the public. Clnin. Izant explained that men an item is continued from a previous reeting, that constitutes a public notice. Mr. Schneider stated that the developer is asking for the ma.xi.mun density or more. Jim Rosenberger, 156 First Court, Hermosa Beach, stated that the zoning for the boatyard site was under discussion due to the last project that w:i.s proposed at this site. At that tine, there ~e ~ parcels involved. Because of the conditions that have developed in tenm of this property, the Comni.ssion should not feel obligated to any one particular project. Polly Schneider, 157 Ardrwre, Herrrosa Beach, stated that her n:ajor concern... was that the developmmt on the southt-:est corner of Valley is 23 du/a. She asked wbo owns the Rickert property. It w:i.s her understanding that the Rickerts still owned the property. Chm. Izant asked Mr. Leonard if he ~re the owner of the Rickert property or if he had permission from the owner to use the land. Mr. Leonard replied that they have the pennission of the owner, and it is in escrCM . Mrs. Schneider stated that she has heard noth:ing about this project that will enhance the neighborhood. Rita N:wkirk, 540 First Street, Henrvsa Beach, spoke in opposition to the proposed 92 mits. She stated that the particular area is too dense at this tim:. She added that the developer should ce granted the minimum du/a . PI.ANNING COMMISSION MINlITES -January ~. 1982 Page 10 CONCEPTUAL PI.AN FOR 440 -2nd STREET ALSO KNOWN AS THE BOATYARD SITE (Cont. ) Ron Orr, 168 Hill Street, Herrrosa Beach, urged the Conmission to hold the applicant to a 30-foot height limit for his project. He felt that the applicant should be able to build a three-story unit if he desires. He believed that a park on the property, public or private, would be an asset to the conmunity. Crom. Smith asked that the conditions that \\ere put on the parcel map affecting the railroad right of way be reiterated. Ms. Sapetto reiterated those conditions. CcxtlII. Donnelly felt that a townhouse developrrent could be constructed with less than 92 units that still neet all the con.di tions and would be beneficial to both the developer and the City. Public Hearing continued at 10: 27 P .M. Recess from 10:27 P .M. to 10:35 P.M. Cami. Donnelly stated that a townhouse-type developrrent w::iuld ad:lress concerns of both the Comnission and the public relative to family orientation, design capabilities, etc. Chnn. Izant asked for straw votes from the Coumission on ~tber they felt that townhouses frcm the exterior view should be no higher than 30 feet above existing grade. All Comnissioners felt that the townhouse-type developuent from the exterior view should be no higher than 30 feet above existing grade. Chun. Izant stated that there are t~ alternatives for parking for the townhouse developuent. One is the "tuck-mder" garrage, and the other is the corrm:m garage. Coom. Donnelly stated that he was very much in favor of the utuck-under" garage to each unit along the lines of maintaining the family -use concept . Comn. L.Josli stated that with the rrtuck-under" garage, there W'OUld be only buildings and asphalt; however, with the comron garage there would be nore landscaped open space. Conms. Cua:mings, Donnelly, Rue, Smith, and Chm. Izant v-ere in favor of the "tuck-under" concept. Corrm. Loosli was in favor of the conmm garage, and Com:n. Peirce stated that he w::iuld go for either one. Cbrrn . Izant asked for straw votes for a max::i.mum of 65% lot coverage. Comns . Cua:mings, Donnelly, Peirce, Rue, and Srni th voted for a maximum of 65% lot coverage. Conm. Loosli voted for les s than 65% lot coverage. PLANNING CO-lMISSION MINUTES -January 5, 1982 Page 11 CONCEPTUAL PLAN FDR 440 -2nd S'IREET ALSO KNOWN AS THE BOATYARD SITE (Cont . ) Chm Izant asked for a straw vote for the nuroer of stories that should be allowed for this project. Corrms . Cum:ni.ngs, Donnelly, Loosli, and Cbnn. Izant did not care whether the project cane in at two or three stories. Comns. Peirce and Smith felt that the project should be tvX> stories. Cornn. Dormelly noted that he did not care 'wrlether the project was tm or three stories provided it did not exceed 30 feet . Chim.. Izant asked for a straw vote on tandem parking. Gorans. Cum:ni.ngs, Donnelly, and Smith voted for no tandem parking. Coom=i. Loosli, Peirce, and Rue voted for tandem parking only if they have completed the m:inimlm for regular parking and guest parking. Chnn. Izant asked for input regarding the dwelling units per acre for the project. Cornn. Donnelly stated that he could not figure the anount of tmits because he did not kna;v the nUIDer of acres. However, he believed the project should not allow the rmx:im.ml of 25 du/a. He felt that the project should be less than 20 du/a. Coom. Loosli felt that 15 du/a, nediun density at 55 mits is dense enough. Comm. Cumnings stated that if the zone change were granted, he would be in favor of less than 25 du/ a. If the zone change ¾ere not approved, he would be in favor of 25 du/a. Mr . Post cautioned the Corrmi.ssion about setting a maximum du/a, because it is up to the developer to set the project between 14 to 25 du/a. He stated that the Comnission must have the rationale for setting the du/ a below 25. Comn. Smith stated that he would like to see substantially less mits in Scherre A than is proposed; however, he would not set a firm number . Cbnn. Izant asked if the Conmi.ssion wished to set a specific figure for the du/a to be IJBde a condition of the project. Conms. Ctmmi.ngs, Donnelly, Peirce, Rue, Smith, and Chrrn. Izant stated that they would not like to set a specific nuaber for the du/a to be made a condition of the project. Comn. Loosli wished to set a specific number, that nuaber being 15 du/a. Chnn. Izant asked the Comnission what they would like to set the du/a at far this project , a figure that would not be binding on the developer. PlANNING CCM-1ISSION MrNUTES -January 5, 1982 Page 12 COOCEPI'UAL PLAN Fm. 440 -2nd STREEI' ALSO KNGJN AS 1HE BOA'IYARD SITE (Cont . ) Coom. Donnelly stated that he would like the project to care in at· son:eching substantially less than 25 du/ a. However, he stated that he may still vote for it if it is 25 du/a. Coom. Smith voted for a max:i.mlm of 20 du/a. Comn. Curmrings stated that he would accept 25 du/a, but he noted concern for the railroad right of way. Conm. Rue voted for a figure within the 15 to 20 du/ a range . Conm. Peirce agreed with Conm. Cumrlngs, stating that he would go for the maximum of 25 du/ a because the developer may have a right to use the maximun. COIIJU. Loosli voted for 15 du/a. Chm. Izant voted for 20 du/a; however, he felt that legally the developer tmy have a xight to go to 25 du/ a . Chrm . Izant asked if the square footage of the units should be set by the Condominium Standards. All Comni.ssioners and Chrm . Izant felt that the square footage of the mits should be based upon the Condominium Standards. Chrrn. Izant infernal the applicant that the Coami.ssion may either act on the conceptual plan at this time or the applicant nay appear at the next reeting with a townhouse layout based on the guidelines set forth by the Conmi.ssion. Mr. Leonard stated that he v,'Uuld like to appear at the January 19, 1982, ~eting with a new set of plans. STAFF REPCRTS None CCM1ISSIONER'S ITEMS Comn. Peirce stated that Ms . Sapetto will be incorporating sooe of the ideas and coommts which arose from a subcomni.ttee meeting with persons from Coldwell Banker. The summry of the cOIIDE11ts from those persons was that extending the depth ~uld be a lost cause. Chm. Izant asked if the City Council nrust be notified that the sunset ordinance needs to be extended. Ms. Sapetto stated that she would nake that notification . Motion to adj oum at 11: 40 P .M . I"""-\ I PLANNING COMMISSION MINUI'ES -January 5, 1982 Page 13 CERTIFICATIOO I hereby certify t h at the foregoing minutes are a true and conplete record of the action taken by the Planning Comnission at their regular reeting of January 5, 1982. s • CHAIRMAN DATE