Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC_Minutes_1983_05_03MINUTES OF THE REGULAR .MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON MAY 3, 1983, IN CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT 7:30 P.M. I. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Chrmn Peirce Comms Brown Loosli, Shapiro, Smith, Strohecker and Izant ABSENT: None ALSO PRESENT: Pam Sapetto, Planning Director; Ralph Castenada, TDC Planning, A. Mercado, Planning Aide I II. MINUTES Motion by Comm Strohecker, seconded by Dhrmn Peirce, to approve the minutes as submitted. AYES: Comms Brown, Loosli, Peirce, Shapiro, Strohecker NOES: None ABS: Comms Izant, Smith III. RESOLUTIONS P.C. 83-10 and .83-ll Motion by Chrmn Peirce, seconded by Comm Smith to approve both res­ olutions as prepared. AYES: NOES: ABS: IV. Comms Brown, Loosli, Peirce, Shapiro, Smith, Strohecker None Comm Izant Housing Element of the General Plan (continued) Comm Izant asked, with respect to the technical appendix, the source of the tables and figures. Mr. Castenada replied that they were from the SCAG figures. He added that SCAG is designated by the Census Bureau as a regional center and they assemble all the information and produce it for the cities in Southern California. It is a standardized report that cities and counties can request and obtain for a fee. So staff ob­ tained it two months ago. The source of the figures is the 1980 Census. He added that the Census Bureau does not print the reports but gives the information ·.to SCAG andthey prepare the reports and sell them to the cities. Comm Izant asked, with resepct to table A-6 of the technical apendix, what the figures represent in actuality. Mr. Castenada replied that the figures represented the maximum development potential per the general plan and not what is actually on the ground at this time. Comm Izant sug­ gested that an A-7 table be added based on what the zoning build out would be it that is possible to calculate. Mr. Castenada stated that staff can obtain that information from the research done by the Planning and building departments. Ms. Sapetto stated that staff had the build PAGE TWO out figures for those areas that were inconsistent and not an overall build out figure based on zoning. She added that the land use element RFP requires that that information be generated, so it will be a part of the land use element. Some of the residential areas have been done (R-1, 2 & 3). Comm Izant asked Mr. Castenada ·with respect to table A-3, re potential additional units,per zoning requirements, if that represented the addi­ tional potential build out of the city, although there were no numbers attached to it? Mr. Castenada stated that this was drawn from the Coastal Plan, and mainly it reflected areas outside of the low density category. Comm Izant asked whether the 25 units figures represented 25 dwelling units are allowed there per acre or if it represented 25 additional units over and above what is there already. Mr. Castenada stated that it was the latter. Comm Izant stated that the map included in the technical appendix is a forerunner of the zoning build-out chart. Mr. Castenada agreed. Comm Izant asked for an explanation of table A-2. Mr. Castenada re­ plied that the figures there represent the various income households which live in owner-occupied housing. Chrmn Peirce opened the public hearing. There being no testimony, the public hearing was continued. Chrmn Peirce stated that there was a workshop session with the City Council scheduled for this coming Thuilsday evening at 7:00 o'clock, and suggested that another workshop be scheduled for the early part of June to consider and discuss this document further. (Discussion was then had about the council meeting scheduled for the same date as the nextCommission meeting, May 17, 1983. It was decided that the Commission would change it's next meeting date to Tuesday, May 31, 1983). Mr. Castenada stated that the staff had given a draft of the document to the City Council as Commission instructed at the last meeting. Comm Smith stated that the document is representative of what the commun­ ity wants. Chrmn Peirce, not hearing anymore comments from Commission, moved to continue the item to the first meeting in June. Chnmn Peirce asked the Commission to next address comments re the Regional Housing Allocation Model. Mr. Castenada stated that on page 765, the number should read 477. • PAGE THREE Chrmn Peirce asked for the definition of "upper income." Mr. Castenada responded by saying it would be generally defined as 120% of the median income and above (median is approximately $24,000., with $30,000. and above being considered upper income). He added that the Roos bill dele­ gated to agencies like SCAG the responsibility to develop "Share region­ al housing needs" for all cities and they needed to do it by an income distribution and come up with a reasonable factor. Comm Loosli asked if in the body of the text whether only the 477 number will be reflected or if the breakdown between the very low, moderate and upper incomes be reflected also. Mr. Castenada stated that both have to be reflected in the element. Comm Loosli said that he could see no way that 137 low or very low housing units would be built in Hermosa. Mr. Castenada agreed. Comm Smith stated that based on table A-2 he had calculated the number of 61 households paying 35% plus of their income, with the end result being that those 61 households ; would be paying $142.00 per month, which would make that very very low income housing. Mr. Castena&. stated that the memo gave additional data which defined this in a little more detail. He stated that the two numbers that are comparable are the 765 and 477 numbers, total projected new housing for the community. In each case the numbers reflect basically three factors which SCAG generally considers as a factor causing a need for new housing. One, is additional households moving into the area or from within the area; two, is housing that you lose by way of casualty losses or inten­ tiona·l losses (there are certain losses from inventory that need to be replaced). Three, vacancies. In other words, every community needs a healthy vacancy rate to keep prices and rents in balance. Of the 477 figure, 247 is attributable to growth; 110 is attributable to vacancy deficit; and 120 is lost from the stock. The only units that would add population is the 247. So the 247 is what needs to be reflected on the first page of the memo rather than the 477. Comm Loosli stated that if, in using the 247 figure,there is a projected need of 241 upper income dwellings then that would fit the formula stat­ ed because new units would all most likely be expensive since that is what is being built now. Comm Brown stated he was in favor of stating that 247 goes to growth and the 110 figure indicates additional units, rather than having a number that has to be defined, as that would leave it open to misin­ terpretation. Chrmn Peirce stated that if you put specific numbers in the document, then you are held to those numbers, therefore, it should be somewhat vague. Mr. Castenada stated that the law delegates the responsiblity to SCAG, then SCAG develops these figures; the city is then to reflect them in the housing element as its share of regional housing needs. If a city has an argument with a number, then they have a period of time to raise their doubts and problems with SCAG to see if they can come to some agreement on some revised figures. The city needs to state its case within 90 days. Our 90 period started as of April 8 or 15, 1983. Once SCAG has officially received the request, then they have 60 days to res­ pond and come to a conclusion. r ( PAGE FOUR Comm Smith stated with respect to the 247 figure, that he felt there was no way to meet it since there is no way to measure it. He felt it was unrealistic and that the city needs a plan based on what it knowsis going to happen in Hermosa. Mr. Castenada stated that even though the implication is that these units would be by way of new construction, there are arguments that you can use existing housing stock to address these needs, i.e., shared housing, that would meet the criterion by which SCAG would judge this and would be attributable to addressing that need. Also the shared equity program, with respect to the condo conversion projects, addresses the moderate income need. Chrmn Peirce suggested that the 477 figure be used on page 6 and the 247 figure on page 8 and not break it down into percentages. V. C-Potential Along Pacific Coast Highway (continued) Chrmn Peirce stated that the City Council would like to change the c­ potential property into commercial. He added that the Planning Commission delayed that and decided they would like to see an examination of the pieces of property which are now C-potential and then decide which should become commercial and which should remain residential. (At this point there was an interruption with respect to Thursday's sub-committee meet­ ing as to the topics that will be addressed. It was learned that three topics would be covered including this issue). Ms. Sapetto stated in answer to Chrmn Peirce's question that the consul­ tant hired by the city would be dealing with this issue. Chrmn Peirce stated that he felt that the consensus on this particular issue is that the Commission would like to exam the properties that are at issue individually; with the question being how best to approach it. He suggested that the Commission can take the report and modify it by a sub-conunittee or by the full commission and come up with a recommend­ ation for the multi-use corridor before the consultant completes his study,or Commission can wait until the consultant's study is complete. In any event, Commission should get a recommendation to the Council in the next 2 months or so. In answer to Comm Loosli's question, Ms. Sapetto stated that the consul­ tant would be addressing and amending the land use plan and updating and dealing with the multi-use corridor. Comm Loosli asked if the con­ sultant would be recommending which lots should remain residential and which should not. Ms. Sapetto replied that he would not make that type of reconunendation, that the commission would have to do that. Comm Loosli suggested that the Commission just begin methodically studying each individual lot in the area in question and making decisions. Chrmn Peirce suggested having staff make recommendations on the lots at issue with the results being discussed by the commission or sub-committee PAGE FIVE Ms. Sapetto stated that Commission needs to make a recommendation to the Council in an expeditious manner as requested by council. Commission should recommend that the best way to approach this is to examine the C-potential lots individually and decide which can be rezoned to C-3 and which cannot. She added that the Zoning Code gives the Commission only a certain number of days on which to act on a City Council item. She suggested further that the Commission's recommendation be that the City stay with what is in the code at the present time, i.e., that it comes before Planning Commission review on a case-by-case basis. Comm Smith stated that originally Commission wanted to set a plan for development along., the highway to stimulate commerical growth. Chrmn Peirce stated that staff should send a memo to the City Council stating that the best method is to not change the regulations with re­ spect to changing C-potential to commercial, but to examine each lot individually and make a judgement. Then Commission can do a zone change on the lots designated C-potential with the thought of strengthening the multi-use corridor. Comm. Loosli added that the Commission has already examined the south­ west quadrant, so Commission can eliminate C-potential there without reexamination. Comm. Strohecker asked if there is a problem leaving as . is a lot which is presently zoned residential with C-potential. Ms. Sapetto stated that the Council does not think that C-potential is bad, but they feel that it eliminates Planning Commission review. However, the solution may be to lea v e it as is. Comm Strohecker stated that he felt the city needs the extra commercial depth along the highway. However, he did not want to be in a position where the Commission is dictating what a p~rson may build on their lot if the original building is torn down. He suggested that there be a requirement that the C-potential property be contiguous to commercial. Ms. Sapetto stated that the original concept was that the C-potential would be to change the zoning regula t ions to include a provision that any property that is contiguous to a C-3 zone would be automatically rezoned to C within the C-potential zone. Chrmn Peirce reiterated that Staff should send a memo to Council stating Commission's recommendation. Comm Smith stated that the approach would be best served by waiting for andutilizing the comprehensive data for the area in question which will be generated as a result of the RPF and the land use element. Chrmn Peirce opened ,·the public hearing. Violet Isgreen, 726 Prospect, Hermosa Beach, asked if the property owners a f fected would be notified again . Chrmn Peirce replied that all the rules will be followed re noticing. • PAGE SIX There being no further testimony, Chrmn Peirce closed the public hearing. Ms. Sapetto suggested that Commission do the memo as a motion providing no changes to the regulations but to examine each lot individually, and making any zone changes with the thought of deepening the multi-use corridor. And perhaps adding that" ... the best method to address the C-potential zone would be to not change the regulations as they current­ ly stand in the zoning code." Motion by Chrmn Peirce, seconded by Comm Smith, to send the motion as stated by Ms. Sapetto to the Council. Comm Strohecker stated that he didn't like the wording. He suggested that a definition of C-potential be added to the Code and included in the above motion. Comm. Brown agreed. Chrmn Peirce suggested that the above-mentioned motion be amended to read as follows: "The best method to address the C-potential zone is to not change the regulations as they are currently described in the zoning code; but to, one, determine a method to clarify in the zoning code what is meant by C-potential; and, two, examine individually whether the C­ potential applies or does not apply to the lots in this area." There being no objection, it was SO ORDERED. VI. Consideration of Amending Stanaa·ra Cohdi tions for Subdivisions Ms. Sapetto gave the Staff Report. She stated that it has been suggest­ ed by the Building Department that a number of modifications be made in the standard conditions of approval for residential condo projects. She added that a number of the standard conditions included in the re­ solution of approval are already mandated by the condo ordinance. There­ fore, including those standard condit~onsagain in the resolution of approval is somewhat redundant and unnecessary. The Planning Department agrees with the Building Departments interpretation. She stated that condition 1, which states, "Project shall meet all standards in Chapter 9.5-1 through 9.5-28, Articles I & II of the Condo rinium Ordinance." it was suggested that the condition be revised to read "Project shall meet all construction standards in Article II, section 9.5-27 of the Condominium Ordinance." With respect to condition 2, she stated that the Commission might want to include as a special condition that the final CC&R's be filed before final map approval. Technically, it appears that a condo project and tentative map should not be considered until a complete set of CC&R's is filed. She added that the key word is "final.", in that if staff has the final CC&R before it· reviewsthe map, they will have better con­ trol over getting the CC&Rs back. Also we will -not have the projects in limbo for · long periods of time pending the final map approval. As to condition 4 she stated that any units that are between 2 and 4 . staff has the capacity in-house to inspect those units and they do so. However, in the majority of the projects in the city the city does not require a civil engineer, so the Building Department is suggesting that , PAGE 7 a registered civil engineer be required and that the applicant bear the burden of procuring the engineer and not the city. She continued by saying that the condition that all utilities be placed underground is already required in a section of the Condo Ordinance and does not have to be included as a standard condition. Lastly, she stated that the one condition that really causes the most confusion is the condition that deals with passive solar systems being described in a report at the time of the filing of the final map. Passive solar systems should be incorporated at the time one designs a project and not afterwards, unless one does so the passive solar uses will be insignificant, i.e. providing a water heater insulator. So, in this case, the condo Ordinance should be changed to include a provision that the passive solar report be given at the time of appli­ cation. In summation she stated that there are 10 standard conditions, with the 10th, which was not reflected, being a deed restriction being· placed on the property which limits the project to the planned number of units. Chrmn Peirce stated that he did not see where some of these articles, 9.5-1 through 28, and particularly 9.5-26, would be addressed. He felt there were a number of items that should not be eliminated as was being suggested. Comm Brown asked for what reasons these standards were enacted originally. Ms. Sapetto replied that they were established to provide builders with the city requirements in writing. Comm Brown didn't feel that the recommended changes covered everything that builders have to meet. Comm Loosli recommended that 9.5-1 through 28 be reinstated in the resolution. Chrmn Peirce stated that the would then make the deed restriction number seven in the resolution. MOTION by Comm Izant, seconded by Comm Smith, that Commission accept the staff recommendations numbered 2, 3, 6, and 7 of the resolution, and that the old recommendation number 1, whib.h r.eads "Project shall meet all standards in Chapter 9.5-1 thru 9.5-28, Articles I & II of the Condo­ minium Ordinance." be retained. There being no objection, it was SO ORDERED. VII. R-3 Properties to be Used as Parking Lots Chrmn Peirce stated that parking lots are permitted, with certain limi­ tation, as a subsidiary use in R-3 zones. Now council is requesting that parking lots be allowed in R-3 as a primary use. Mr. Mercado gave the staff report. He stated that staff feels that the proposed change would have the following impacts: (1) there will be a reduction of land available for residential use; (2) Police surveillance , PAGE EIGHT may be required in greater than normal numbers to prevent vandalism; (3) Property adjacent th ereto nay experience a decline in property value. He added tha t it is staffs'opinion that the positive points outweigh the negative and recommend the appro"l.al of 1165 of the zoning code to allow a parking lot as a prinary use in the R-3 zones. Comm Smith asked about the EIR report. Mr. Mercado stated that the Board of Zoning Adjustment had just considered this project and they felt it would have no negative environmental impact. He added that this issue is being considered on a motion by the council after they decided that there is a measureable lack of parking in the city, it is a major pereriial problem, and this could provide a method to miti­ ate the problem. Comm Brown inquired as to what the height limitation would be on a parking structure if thes:e ·recommendation were adopted. Mr. Mercado responded by saying that the particulars had not been worked out yet, but at this time lt would have to be consistent with the R-3 require­ ments. In answer to Comm Izant' s ques:tion Mr. Mercado stated that currently section 11.52 indicates that one can have a parking lot in an R-3 zone .but that parking facility can be no further than 50 feet from a commercial or industrialuse~he parking has to be to accommodate that commercial use. Lots at this time are only allow as an accessory use. Chrmn Peirce stated that the gest of council's motion is that a person can buy a lot in R-3; demo the building, and put a parking lot in and charge for parking. Comm Loosli stated that if this use were allowed, Hermosa would permit 35 foot high parking structures. Chrmn Peirce opened the pub.lie hearing-. There being no testimony, the hearing was closed. In answer to Comm Smith's question as to the background of this issue Ms ... Sa.petto stated that there was no di·scussion on the part of the city council with respect to thi.s recommendation and that it was done by way of a motion. comm Izant stated that he recognized that there is a need for parking on Pa ci f ic Coas t Hig hwa y a nd , aft er studying the individual property, he wo uld be will in g t o gra nt s ome parking use. However, he felt that the c urr ent mech a n ism l n se ct i on 1165 currently gives the Commission fl exib ility to gr ant t hat par k ing when needed and it also maintains adeq uat e control s to main tain o th er sections of the city that do not want pa rking lo ts i n t h eir mi d st . Co.mm. Brown agreed with Corom Izant that there is a need for parking in the city. But he felt that this proposal might cause problems and was not well thought out. • -PAGE NINE Chrmn Peirce stated that he did not think it .was a good idea to have a parking structure in the midst of an R-3 zone. Comm Loosli stated that if this proposal passes there will be no public hearings on it. Also, he felt this would have a very negative affect on adjacent property values. Motion by Comm Izant, seconded by Comm Smith, to accept the wording of the resolution 83-14 .. denying the amendment to the zoning code, with the addition of one additional "Whereas" which reads "WHEREAS the Planning Commission has determined that an adequate mechanism in section 1165 exists for permitting the use of R-3 zones for parking." AYES: Comm Brown, Izant, Loosli, Peirce, Shapiro, Smith, Strohecker NOES: None ABS: None VIII. Staff Items Ms. Sapetto stated with respect to the Condo Conversion Ordinance that the council did hold a workshop on this issue on April 20, 1983 and they decided to agree with the Planning Commission recommendation to delete the conditional approval section and the in-lieu fee provision. Also, they wanted to incorporate a mechanism, such as the city of Torrance has, which allows for a variance of certain standards on a project-by­ project basis. Chrmn Peirce asked for an explanation of the Torrance Ordinance. Ms. Sapetto stated that since the Commission had not had a chance to pro­ perly familiarize themselves with the ordinance, and since she was not prepared to analyse the Ordinance tonight, that this item be discussed at a later time. Comm Loosli stated that he didn't like section 91.36.7 of the Torrance Ordinance as it referred to "goals and guidelines" which are not en­ forceable. Comm Izant stated that he was disappointed with this recommendation from council. He felt that the consensus of the Commission was that it was too vague, but that they would be interested in seeing something more concrete. Comm. Smith was also disappointed. Chrmn Peirce requested that staff find out the definition of "base zone". Comm Strohecker wanted to know specifically what the council would like to see done differently in a conversion project than in a new condo project. Ms. Sapetto suggested that this be discussed at the joint workshop. IX. Commissioners' Items Comm Izant stated that a few months back there was a subcommittee deal- PAGE 10 ing with the question of parking along Pacific Coast Highway, which because of his recent travelling has not met. He asked Commission whether they would like that subcommittee to continue. Chrmn Peirce stated that that issue was suspended at present, pending some further action. Comm Izant asked Ms. Sapetto to check on it. Comm Smith requested a status report on the Storer Cable project. Ms. Sapetto stated that at present there is a motion to recon5ider the issue, with three items being looked at specifically: (1) They want to hire someone to give them technical advice that the structure is reliable (at applicant's expense); (2) whether it is technically re­ quired; and (3) They want to conduct a public hearing on the 28th. Ms. Sapetto stated that the council took an action to return to the Planning Commission the Appletree project to determine whether or not the conditions of approval are being met. She added that the City Attorney is preparing some information on this issue. Motion to adjourn by Chrmn Peirce, seconded by Comm Izant. SO ORDERED at 10:50 p.m. CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes were approved at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the day ------of May, 1983. S PEIRC~ CHAIRMAN