Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC_Minutes_1983_04_05MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON APRIL 5, 1983 IN CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT 7:30 P.M. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Comms. Brown, Loosli, Peirce, Shapiro, Smith, Strohecker ABSENT: Comm. Izant ALSO PRESENT: Ms. Sapetto, Planning Director, Linda Braden, TDC Planning APPROVAL OF MARCH 15, 1983 MINUTES Chmn. Peirce pointed out that the spelling of Wilma Burt's name was incorrect. Motion by Comm. Smith, seconded by Chmn. Peirce to approve the minutes of March 15, 1983 as submitted, noting the above correction. AYES: Comms. Brown, Peirce, Smith NOES: None ABSENT: Comm. Izant, ABSTAIN: Comms. Loosli, Shapiro, Strohecker GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, ZONE CHANGE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A 100 FOOT TOWER AT 1529 VALLEY DRIVE: STORER CABLE FACILITY -CONT'D. Chmn. Peirce divided this item into two issues, the first dealing with the zone change from Manufacturing to C-2; the second dealing with the Conditional Use Permit for the 100 foot tower. Ms. Sapetto gave the staff report. She stated that staff recommends that the resolution be adopted and determine whether or not the 100 foot tower is a compatible use with the city zoning code. The zoning ordinance designates the site as manufacturing and the general plan designates it as open space, two incompatible land uses. The lot in questjon has been used for commercial purposes for several years. The proposed general plan and zone change will not pose any changes to the physical environment and will afford greater compatibility with the adjacent development in staff's opinion. A CUP for the tower may be allowed in a C-2 zone, under Section 800 and 1000. She continued by saying that Commission should consider if the tower would diminish the land value of the surrounding properties thereby unjustly affecting substantial vested rights of the property owners. Staff recommends that the proposed general plan amendment and zone change be approved and the tower CUP be considered and examined under the above code sections. She added that the 100 foot tower did receive a negative declaration by the Environmental Review Board, which stated that there would be no adverse impact to the environment. Commission's decision should be guided by the compatibility with the environment and by its con­ tribution to the community as a public utility. Comm. Smith asked Storer to address their efforts to provide public access facilities. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED ON THE ZONE CHANGE ISSUE. ·PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -APRIL 5, 1983 PAGE 2 Chmn. Peirce stated that the general plan now shows open space for this particular property, and the recommendation is that it be changed to commercial; and the zoning is now manufacturing and that should be changed to C-2. Rom Miller, Construction Manager for Storer Cable, Phoenix, Arizona, representing the applicant stated that the requirement that the conflict between the zoning and general plan be resolved was required by the City as a condition of approval of the tower, and Storer has no objection to the recommendations of staff or with the consultant's report re. the zone change. It is Storer's desire to having the zoning compatible with their facility. Carol Resnichek, 2234 Strand, speaking as President of the Hermosa Beach School Board. She stated that the change to the zoning to a commercial zone would have no effect on the school's property and there would be no objection to that portion of Storer's request. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED. Chmn. Peirce stated that he saw this as an opportunity to make the commercial use a correct one and compatible with the zoning and general plan. Motion by Chmn. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Smith to modify the general plan to commercial and the zoning to C-2. AYES: Comms. Brown, Loosli, Peirce, Shapiro, Smith, Strohecker NOES: None ABSENT: Comm. Izant Motion by Chmn. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Smith, to adop ·t Resolution 83-8 modifying the first whereas to include tonight's public hearing date. AYES: Comms. Brown, Loosli, Peirce, Shapiro, Smith, Strohecker NOES: None ABSENT: Comm. Izant CUP PORTION OF THE ABOVE ITEM Comm. Loosli asked staff what the basis for denial would be as set forth in code Section 800. Mrs. Sapetto stated that what the Commission should look at is whether or not any other uses stated in Section 800 would require a structure that would go beyond the height limit such as the tower in Storer's proposal. She stated that there was also Section 1201 that must be interpreted. Basically the section talks about mechanical devices that one might need to operate a building, such as, air conditioning, television antennas and certain structures that are included in the section, i.e. elevator shafts, fire parapet walls, flagpoles, chimneys, smoke stacks, etc., that may be erected above the heighb limit. How­ ever, no penthouses or roof structures shall be allowed for providing additional floor space. ' PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -APRIL 5, 1983 PAGE 3 She added that the findings the commission should consider with respect to 1 Section 800 in discussing this issue are those that deal with noise, dust, glare or esthetics. For example, the Commission may find that this tower is more obnoxious than warehouses, storage, service stations, radio and television repair stores, etc. She added that there is nothing in the code that talks about antennas in the section which covers CUPs, however Section 1000 does discuss "apparatus or appertances incidental to public utilities". She stated in summary that if the Commission is concerned with the above referred code section 800, the findings the Commission should make would deal with glare, noise, traffic etc. If Commission is concerned with Section 1201, then the findings should deal with whether the structure falls within the definition of television aerials or similar equipment required to operate and maintain a building. Com­ mission can address the issue of height as well as the issue of use. In answer to Comm. Brown's question, Ms. Sapetto stated that one can have a business without a tower and a CUP is not required for the business, only for the tower. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED ON THE CUP PORTION OF THE ABOVE ITEM Ron Miller, Applicant's representative, Phoenix, Arizona. He stated that during the previous hearings several issues were raised and have been previously addressed in the material submitted on the 8th of March. The main issues were with respect to certain structural safety, security, technical modifications and signal testing at Live Oak Park. The planned facility at Valley Drive is to provide the best service avail­ able to the Hermosa Beach area. He added that this is a city-wide issue and the system evaluation and design of the facility has been made by engineers that are experienced in the field of cable communi­ cation. The tower is not required by the City Franchise, and it is not required to maintain a minimum satisfactory signal. The existing sys­ tem currently exceeds the minimum FCC requirements. The tower is an integral part of the entire cable system. Mr. Miller continued by saying that the Live Oak Site is not capable of supporting a higher tower and did not warrant further investigation as it is not feasible to improve the system that would have the same weaknesses as the current system. There is no cable operator in the country that would design a system that separates satellite antennas receiving equipment from the off-air receiving equipment. It is not efficient, and it doesn't make sense. The alternate proposal sites like the fire station would produce a split-head end arrangement and keep the weaknesses that currently exist. Reviewing the submittal of March 8th, the diagrams show the existing split-head end system would require putting the off-air reception equipment at one site and the satellite equipment would be at the Valley Drive site and the system would remain the same. With respect to the issues of security, maintenance, accessibility, elimination of amplifiers, he stated that these are dealt with in the proposal. He added that as it is now a malfunction of a receiver at Live ·oa:k r.equ;tres that ·a -bechriician be sent tflro"m Valley Drive to make the repair which would not be the case if the entire PAGE 4 facility were in one location. The primary issue is the one of visual impact vs. benefit to the entire community. He stated that currently 50 percent of the population of Hermosa is served by Storer with a projection of 70 percent penetration in the future. The bene­ fits of the tower will outweigh the negative visual impact of the tower. He felt that the staff reports reinforced that point, and added that the subcribers will be benefited directly and the city indirectly. In response to Comm Smith's question, Mr. Miller stated that the pro­ posed facility at Valley Drive remodel would provide a production studio and control room for public access. Ricky Luke, Western Regional Manager for Storer Cable, Phoenix, Arizona. He stated that basically there is a little concern as to how relocating the tower to the new position would benefit the over­ all operation of the system. Basically it would help the operation from three standpoints; one, maintenance of the location; two, access­ ibility; three, it would reduce operational costs and less down time. Also, by increasing the height it would improve the picture quality. He added that presently the receive location has 16 processors and 7 trunk line amps coming back to the existing office; with the new location the amps would be deleted by the 16 processors would remain. In answer to Chrmn Peirce's questions,Mr. Luke stated that Storer presently uses one full rack of equipment. Also that as far as main­ tenance and accessibility the new tower location would save outage time and in that way ultimately benefit the customers and the city. He felt that any minute saved is an important part of the service. He stated that each channel fails approximately once a year. Chrmn Peirce stated that benefit of cutting down outages for the en­ tire city have to be weighed against the individual service calls. Mr. Luke stated that if the technicians don't have to dedicate time to outage problems, they can use that time to work on the individual subscriber problems. In answer to Chrmn Peirce's question, Mr. Luke stated that all channels that fall within a certain radius of Storer's location are considered "must-carry'' stations by the FCC, at this time there are 16 of these stations. In answer to Comm Smith's question Mr. Luke stated that the 100 foot tower would increase Starer's capacity to carry more channeJs. However at this time he was not certain if the company would choose to add stations. In answer to Chrmn Peirce's and Comm Brown's questions Mr. Luke stated that Storer is trying to give the city the best possible service they can from a technical standpoint. He added that at this time there is some concern with ghosting on some of the channelsand interference on channel 2. He said that the new tower would reduce those problems to a negligible amount. He stated further that the tower and foundation will cost $22,000, but he did not konw how or if that expenditure would fit into a rate increase or not. In answer to Comm Smith's inquiry he stated that the Franchise Agreement states that decreases can take effect also,not just increases, but any reduction in costs would prob- PAGE 5 ably offset a normal increase and not translate into a decrease for the subscribers. In answer to Comm Loosli's question Mr. Luke stated that Storer wants the entire operation in one place, from a technical and operational standpoint. Comm Shapiro stated that the tower will benefit the city in perhaps providing better communication for the Fire and Police Departments. Mr. Luke agreed if the departments locate some equipment there. In answer to Comm Smith's inquiry, Comm Strohecker gave some back­ ground re the above-mentioned issue of Police and Fire communication. He stated that the Fire Department presently is not happy with their communications in the South Bay system. The Police Department is happy with it because it caters more to the Police Department than the Fire Department. However, the Police are not sure they will continue with the South Bay System. He added that the Fire Depart­ ment will be getting out of the South Bay System and will go to a tower above the station. Ms. Sapetto suggest that the Commission attach this request as a condition for approval of the CUP Comm Brown stated that if the dollars Storer invests now is passed on the the subscribers in the form of an increase and the reception improvement is negligible, then the city will have a lot of unhappy citizens. Comm Shapiro stated that the City Council makes the determinations as to whether to grant increases and is not something that is just automatically passed on. Carl Ossipoff, representing applicant, 1529 Valley Drive, stated that the tower is to be purchased with capital dollars and depreciated over 20 years approximately. If there is an increase it would be minimal. He added that Storer is granted increases by the Council based on the current CPI. Carol Resnichek, 2234 Strand, Hermosa Beach. She stated that the applicant's major problem was the location of a 100 foot tower next to a school as it is esthetically unappealing and a temptation for the school children. As a citizen she was unhappy because it will violate the city height restrictions. She added that most complaints about Storer have to do with service and not signal. She was also concerned whether Storer will have sufficient parking for their em­ ployees as many of them now use school property for parking. Al­ though the school does not need the space at the present time and has not said anything to Storer about it, Storer cannot depend on using school property for parking purposes. Comm Smith stated that Storer had agreed earlier to enclose the tower with fences so that it will not pose a temptation to the children. Mr. Miller agreed. Roy Schubert, 553 21st Street, Hermosa Beach, stated that he was PAGE 6 against this issue on two grounds. First, it is a very large device 65 feet above the city hall, it will become a landmark. To approve a structure which exceeds the city height limitations there should be a good reason .. The benefits of the project are Starer's it does not help the city. Secondly, seven years ago there was a proposal for a 50 foot tower which was turned down by the Commission as im­ compatible with the area. Chrm Peirce stated that the subscriber will have to get an additiona~ piece of equipment for their sets to receive any new channels. Mr. Miller stated that the subscriber would need a converter, which they could get with no extra monthly charge and with a refundable deposit of $65.00. Mr. Miller added two comments with respect to the school board's testimony. He stated that a portion of the existing Storer building will be demolished to provide space for the tower and 25 parking spaces on site. He added that the tower will be surrounded by 12 or 13 foot walls for security. With respect to the parking he sated that there will be 17 spaces along the south property line, six more spaces just south of the tower and earth station, and two spaces against the south side of the building. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED. In answer to Comm Shapiro's question, Comm Loosli stated that it was a private party involved in the 50 foot radio shortwave station tower that Mr. Schubert had referred to earlier and not a business. Comm Strohecker stated that he didn't see a problem with the construc­ tion of the tower on the site, but was opposed to the aircraft warning light at its peak as esthetically unappealing. Comm. Brown stated that it is not feasible for Storer to change their location, although it may be ideal it is not feasible. Further, that he understood Starer's benefits, but felt there were not many bene­ fits accruing to the subscribers. Chrmn Peirce added that the bene­ fits to Storer are substantial, but the benefits to the city are quite small. Comm Loosli stated that he felt the tower is detrimental and intrusive on the city in its violation of the height limitation, and is incom­ patible with the goals of the city. He added that it violates the general plan and felt there is no public need for the tower. Comm Shapiro asked if the resolution just passed by the commission re the zone change might increase the value of the property. Comm Strohecker made a motion to approve the resolution as set forth in the sample provided by staff, approving the 100 foot tower for receiving television signals at the storer facility. He suggested that there be no warning light affixed to the tower and Commission attach a request to the resolution to that effect, seconded by Comm Shapiro. Motion to approve the 100 foot tower on the property at Storer Cable on Valley Drive. PAGE 7 Chrm Peirce stated that from a citizen's and commissioner's stand­ point, it didn't seem that this is a benefit to the citizens but gives a business advantage to the operator. He added that the tower may ob­ struct some of the views from the nearby apartments. Also it would be difficult to remove it once it was constructed. Comm Loosli felt it would be a precident-setting decision to allow the tower and felt the Commission would not be able to turn down other requests for future violations of the height limit. Ms. Sapetto stated that Commission looks to the merits on each project and it shouldnthave any negative precidential effect. Comm Brown asked what would happen to the tower if Storer lost its franchise or failed to exercise their option to renew. Ms. Sapetto stated that the new owner of the property would have the option to keep the tower or tear it down. If they decided to keep it they would have to use it for the same purpose as Storer did. The CUP runs with the land. In answer to Comm Smith's question Chrm Peirce suggested that the Commission take action on the motion set forth above by Comm Strohecker and then take action on the conditions of the CUP. Comm Strohecker made an addendum to his motion to the effect that-- the city retains the right to improve the Police and Fire Departments communication efforts, and that numbers 2,3,4,5, and 6 of the sample resolution remain, with an additional item stating that the tower will be removed with the termination of use by Storer Cable. AYES: Shapiro, Smith, Strohecker NOES: Loosli, Peirce, Brown ABSENT: Comm. Izant There being a tie vote, the issue will go to the council for approval or denial. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #15562 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A 2-UNIT CONDOMINIUM LOCATED AT 732 MANHATTAN AVENUE The staff report was given by Ms. Sapetto. She stated that the pro­ ject consists of demolishing a duplex and constructing a two-unit condominium on a 3,650 square foot lot zoned R-3 with a high density land use residential designation. The project meets all of the condo­ minium ordinance requirements. The s t o rag e ar e a adja c ent to th garage and trash area should be provided. If this project meets ~ith Commi s ­ sion approval, as a condition of ap proval the use of thi s area , 312 square feet, should be restricted t o s tora g e. She added that in addi­ tion to the 10 conditions suggested in the staff rep o rt , an eleventh condition be added that a deed restriction limiting the project to 2 units be imposed. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED. PAGE 8 Jess Negrete, 24259 Los Codona Avenue, Torrance, representing appli­ cant. He stated that this project meets or exceeds all the criteria imposed by the city. He added that this lot is an unusual size in that it is a lot and a half, with the side yards being bigger than the others in the neighborhood. He stated that they agree basically with all of the 10 conditions imposed by staff in their report, and he asked for one clarification re condition number 8. Ms. Sapetto stated that ccmdi-tion No. 8 should read "design approval by the Planning Commission has been granted." Re condition number 9 she stated that generally it is brought back to the Planning Director and not the Commission as it .states. Re condition number 10 she stated that to secure the area as storage.Staff wants a note on the plans to that effect. Thus giving the City an arm to enforce the area being used as storage. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED Lou Negge, 718 Manhattan Avenue, stated that he had no objections to the project, but he wanted to make sure that the demolishing and con­ struction of the project was to be done during the day hours. Ms. Sapetto told Mr. Negge that there is a city ordinance restricting construction etc. to certain hours of the day. She was not sure if the starting time was 7:00 or 8:00 a.m. and she suggested that he call the Building Department to get the correct hours. Comm Smith also suggested that if the time ordinance is violated that he report it to the city. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED Chrmn Peirce commended the designer for providing the Commission with a well founded project that is within the height limitations and zon­ ing requirements. Motion by Chrmn Peirce, seconded by Comm Brown, to approve the two- , unit condominium at 732 Manhattan Avenue, subject to the conditions in the staff analysis with the modifications of number 9 and the addition of condition 11. AYES: Comms Brown, Loosli, Peirce, Shapiro, Smith, Strohecker NOES: None ABS Motion by Chrmn Peirce, seconded by Comm Brown, to adopt resolution no. 83-9. AYES: Comms Brown, Loosli, Peirce, Shapiro, Smith Strohecker NOES: None ABS PARKING AND TRAFFIC PROVISIONS OF THE LOCAL COASTAL PLAN The report was given by Linda Braden, TDC Planning. She stated that staff has been working for some time on the completion of the phase III program for the LCP, and tonight they were presenting three issues. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -APRIL 5, 1983 PAGE 9 She wanted the Commission to review the issue re parking to determine if they are still relevant considerations in the LCP or whether they should be addressed elsewhere. The three issues are: one, adopt an ordinance requiring donation of land for parking as part of the· condominium conversion standards; two, establish an ordinance,whether by a fee in-lieu,of providing additional on-site parking for curb cuts. three, to futher mitigate the parking situation, establishment of an ordinance permitting parking on both sides of two-way streets. She continued by saying that options that were considered would be in­ lieu fee for the purchase of acquiring land for parking lots,adding that there might be some restrictions on this because of the high cost of land. The only economically viable means of doing this would be acquisition of public land, and another alternative would be to have a condo project donate land off site for parking. In answer to Chrmn Peirce's question Ms. Braden stated that the condo conversion ordinance states that it is a requirement that two on-site parking spaces be provided for residents. Ms. Sapetto added that the conditional approval section of the ordinance is still in effect, and the workshop.with the Council on April 20th would try to resolve this issue. Ms. Braden continued by asking that if the policy is determined that they don't want any more condo conversions, would these two items still be addressed in the LCP. She added that this is an area where they would like some direction from the Commmission. Chrmn Peirce added background information on the issue by stating that the Commission made recommendations that they didn't want any loopholes in the condo conversion standards, and if projects didn't meet the standards they would be denied; the commission was unanimous on this. Thereafter it went to the City Council, they thought about it. Ms. Sapetto stated that the council was concerned if commission deleted the conditional approval section it would therefore be eliminating the potential for conversions, except for those units that were building to the conversion ordinance. Also they didn't feel comfortable with the exception that if the particular project had merit to the city it could be approved, it was not objective enough. Council was looking for reasonable standards that could be established. Chrmn Peirce then stated that it came back from the council and commis­ sion sent it back unchanged. In light of the past actions, the council is now having the workshop on the 20th to reach some understanding on this issue. Chrmn Peirce stated that Commission has never talked about the donation of land eleswhere from the condo project for parking purposes. Comm Smith felt that it was in the best interests of the city that condo conversions meet the existing condo standards because that is what provides decent housing. Ms. Braden continued by saying that to further mitigate the parking situation establishment of an ordinance permitting parking on both sides of a two way street. She added that the one-way circulation system was PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -APRIL 5, 1983 PAGE 10 tried and rescinded. In answer to Chrmn Peirce's question, Ms. Braden stated that the making of two-way streets into one-way streets and providing parking on both sides of the street had upset the residents and business­ men in the community, as it would be destructive to their businesses because of the difficult accessibility. Chrmn Peirce referred to page Sa of the report to the section entitled "Future Policies" and asked for comments and imput from Commission on each of the six policy statements, which resulted in the following. Number one, consideration of land donations or equivalent for parking as part of a condominium conversions, had not been discussed in the the past. Number two, consideration of establishing a fee in lieu of providing additional parking on-site for curb cuts; commission had unanimously decided against this. Number three, investigation of the possibility of lease or purchase of parking lots dispersed throughout the City to minimize impact on parking demands to city and residents; should be investigated, but probably difficult to implement because of the high costs. Number four, ~xamination of the current status of public lands leased and the rents received; sounded like potentially good policy. Number five, consideration of converting city streets with two-way traffic with parking on one side into one-way streets with parking on two sides; should be deleted as parking is a secondary consideration to circulation. Number six, consideration of the reorientation of the city's current transporatation service providing service for visitors and residents according to needs, has merit. Ms. Sapetto stated in ,.answer to Comm Brown's questions that the maps for the free bus routes were available in the library. STAFF REPORTS & COMMISSIONER ITEMS Ms. Sapetto stated that the City Council agreed to the hiring of a consultant to update and revise the land use element, and they are in the process of writing it; and it will be on the Council agenda. She added that Council is requesting Commission to discuss the whole plan and examine the utility of as a whole. In answer to Comm Brown's inquiry, Ms. Sapetto stated that TDC Planning had developed an initial study for the city, but Storer had paid for it. So there is no conflict of interest on TDC's part. In answer to Chrmn Peirce's question re parking on the highway, Ms. Sapettostated that Council has tentatively agreed to implement re­ moval of the parking and said they will be looking at alternative parking there, and looking at ways to utilize to a better extent the existing parking lots in order to make it more viable to the business community to remove the parking along the highway. With respect to PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -APRIL 5, 1983 PAGE 11 the trolley, the City has appealed to ICC their decision and the appeal was denied. The City now has six months to acquire the property. Staff found out today that the L.A. Transportation Commission has put the South Bay corridor rail in their first tier cut off for examination; in other words, the City will be considered for appropriations by the commission to use this as a transit system, but not a heavy rail. She added that there is a possibility the City will get L.A. Country Transportation monies to develop the corridor for transit use, but not in time for acquisition purposes. El Segundo, Hermosa, and Redondo are committed to the Joint Powers Agreement, but doen't know if Manhattan Beach will become a part of it. Tbe cities hope that by forming this they can generate some funds to purchase the railway. Motion to adjourn by Comm. Shapiro, seconded by Comm. Smith. CERTIFICATION I hereby certify ,·that the foregoing mini.ti.:tes were approved at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 19th day of April, 1983. J ~S PEIRCE, CHAIRMAN ~Sk,~ 0 SHAIO, SECRETARY / q hf X1L g J DATE