HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC_Minutes_1983_02_15MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON
FEBRUARY 15, 1983, IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT • 7: 30
Meeting called to order at 7:35 P.M. By Vice Chmn. Izant
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Comms. Brown, Izant, Loosli, Strohecker
ABSENT: Comms. Peirce, Shapiro, Smith
ALSO PRESENT: Pamela Sappetto, Planning Director; Ralph Casteneda
TDC Planning
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Comm. Izant pointed out on page 9 that the reference to the letter
from the City Council was mistakenly attributed to the Planning
Commission. Additionally, the spelling of Mrs. Ryan's name on
paga 9 was incorre~t.
Motion by Comm Brown, seconded by Comm Strohecker to approve the
minutes, noting the above changes.
AYES: Comms. Brown, Izant, Loosli, Strohecker
NOES: None
APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 83-7
Comm Izant stated that the vote would be as to whether the resolu
tion correctly reflected what took place at the last meeting. After
a short discussion the following suggestions and amendments were
offered.
Comm Loosli pointed out with respect to the third "whereas" that he
would like to have the reason stated as to why the 4-story limit
would encourage height limits in the VPD and Paid section of the
City. He added that the argument that parking requirements limit
building heights is an erroneous assumption because you can buy
your way out of providing parking. Parking requirements do not
provide any parking disincentives to limit heights.
Comm Izant stated that with respect to the second "whereas" a state
ment to the effect -of, " ... and that the 45 foot limit is included
to give architectual flexibility." be added. He further suggested
wording for the third "whereas" as follows: "\'Jhereas, the Planning
Commission has determined that current parking regulations in the
VPD a'."1d the paid sector would not act as a limitation on build-out
to the maximum height." Comm. concurred with that wording
Motion by Comm Strohecker, seconded by Comm Brown, to approve the
resolution as amended.
AYES: Comms. Brown, Izant, Loosli, Strohecker
NOES: None-
Planning Commission Minutes
February 15, 1983
Page 2
REVISED HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN
Staff report was offered by Mr. Casteneda. He explained that at
the last meeting it was decided that Staff should revise the first
sections, which Commission discussed :previously, based on the i:n-
put to date, and produce one new section re Goals, Policies, and
Objectives, The major section following the material submitted to
Commission tonight will be dealing with the Action Plan. He con
tinued by saying that in terms of the revisions of the earlier
sections there were none made with respect to sections one, two· or
three, except for some minor points. He added that those sections
require some future refinements and elaboration. In terms of section
five, dealing with housing needs, staff condensed the information and
took out the tables and graphs; which tables and graphs will be put
in an appendix to the document. The same revisions were made to the
section dealing with the issues of "Constraints and Resources. Staff
pulled the information together and attempted to summarize the bullet
items, in particular, to reflect the discussion on the neighborhood
preservation issue, and a statement was included that CDBG funding
is a potential resource~
He added further, that Staff also condensed the information in terms
of the Land Use and zoning patterns of the city, and included infor
mation on available vacant land. He stated that the new section sub
mitted deals with Goals, Policies, and Objectives. It is a required
section in the sense that the topic has to be addressed, but the manner
in which it is addressed is left up to the City. With respect to
goals, statements are included dealing with a desireable long-range
situation in the City. In terms of policies, it states how the re
sources and tools will be used to effect the housing situation. In
terms of objectives, it mainly sets forth a quantitative statement
of what will be achieved over the next five years. He added that
much of the material in the new section is based on the December 1979
version of the element which was approved by the Commission and City
council, which was updated by a transmittal made in August of 1981.
He continued by saying that the reason for the extended statements
dealing with energy conservation:was that that is a topic that needs
to be addressed in the Housing Element. Staff dealt further and em
phasized the areas of prevention and abatement of bootleg units; pro
tection from conversion re the smaller (3 to 9 units) rental housing
structures, since they represent the lower cost housing in the City;
and promotion of existing conservation of the neighborhoods. With
respect to new housing, staff addressed that need within the scope
of the existing environmental constraints of the City as would be re
flected in the Land Use Element and other documents. Also included
is the policy of continuing evaluation of the potential housing de
velopment at the 11th Street Site. Further, that with respect to the
question of affordability Staff attempted to reflect the policies as
they exist Eoday regarding senior citizen affordibility, the Afford
able Housing Fund, and the CDBG Program. He added that the issue of
expanding the range of uses for the Affordable Housing Fund may be
Planning Commission Minutes
February 15,1983
Page 3
investigated further in the future.
He continued by stating . that Staff attempted to reflect the exist
ing policies as they are today, though they may change within the
next month or two, depending ,on what the City Attorney reports
back on the eligible uses. The direction with respect to the re
sources that are available to the City would be a continuing policy
to encourage and facilitate the private administration of the fund
by way of a social service agent, keeping the City out of the day
to-day roll of administering.
Comm Loosli pointed out on page 10, the land use element figures for
low density, 0-13, and medium density, 14-25, left the area between
13 and 14 not accounted for. Ms. Sapetto stated that the way Staff
reflects numbers in calculations is that the whole number is used;
i.e. 0-13 would mean 0-13.99, She added further that the Commission's
past interpretation that 13 would be the maximum number with 13.1 and
up falling into the nextcategory is not reflected in the land use
element. Mr. Casteneda suggested leaving it as it is but indicating
that through the past seven years the Commission~ and City Council's
interpretations have been 13 is the maximum number with anything over
that falling into the next category. comm Izant stated that it would
be a good idea to clarify that so that it isn't opened to interpre
tation.
Comm Strohecker pointed out that on page 10 where the Priamos,
Thompson and other properties are listed, that the re were other siz
able lots that should be included; i.e. the lot on the westside of
the Highway at 21st Street. Mr. Casteneda responded by saying that
Staff would look at that and perhaps include it.
Comm Izant stated that on page 9, second bullet from the bottom,
which speaks to maximum development with reference to the Zoning Code,
that there should be included a statment as to what is believed to be
the current number of existing units. Mr, Casteneda agreed, and said
that could be included, He stated that the reason for that item was
because of a past request by Chrmn Peirce that Zoning be referred .to
on this point, Comm Loosli suggested that the number 13,000 be used
and eliminate the 12,000 to 13,000 range. Comm Izant suggested that
a reference to the current : city density as compared to other areas
be included.
Comm Brown stated that he disliked having so many numbers and sta
tistics s~attered throughout the document. He thought that the numer
ical data should be included in an appendix for ease of use and
accessibility. In that way you would have all of the statistices in
one spot. Additionally,the document itself would not go out of date
as quickly, since the numbers could be updated without touching the
body of the do cume nt , Corrm Izant pointed out that in some cases the
numbers are ne c es_s a r_y, and suggested a, parenthetical clarification be added
indicating the time references. Comm Brown reiterated that the numbers
should be available, but they should be in an appendix for ease of re-
Planning Commission Minutes
February 15, 1983
Page 4
trieval. Comm Loosli stated that the document is updated every five
years, and this document's numbers are based on the 1980 census, which
census will not be updated for several years. He didn't see a prob
lem with having the numbers included in the body of the document, but
felt that a parenthetical time reference would be a good idea.
Mr. Casteneda stated that the section would be prefaced with an ex
ecutive summary and summary chart, and · in this way an overall picture
of the section would be provided, He added that the more detailed
numbers and statistics, and how they were arrived at, would be put in
an appendix.
Public hearing was opened at 8:30,
Violette Isgreen, 726 Prospect Avenue, Hermosa Beach, stated that she
felt that the Planning Commission would be derelict in its duty if it
did not analyze all feasiAble land use alternatives, such as the legal
non-conforming buildings in the city, Additionally, since there is a
bad financial problem within the city now, if these units were account
ed for the City would have more revenue sharing monies and more
property tax monies. She suggested the Commission work out a way to
grandfather these units in to a legal status, then the city would find
find a pooling of available moderate income units.
Comm Brown remarked t hat th e bootleg problem, addressed by Ms. Isgreen,
was an important issu e that keeps getting swept under the carpet, and
the her suggestion of grancr athering them in at some date is at least
one valid alternative that should be considered, Comm Izant pointed
out that Ms. Isgreen was addressing the illegal non-conforming build
ings rather than the legal non-conforming as she stated. Comms Brown
and Strohecker asked for a summarization of what is contained in the
bootleg abatement memorandum, Mr . Casteneda responded by saying, by
way of background on the issue, the memorandum that Staff re:ferred to
was prepared by the Department. of Bu ilding in a joint workshop of the
P lanning Commission and the City Council in July of 1982 dealing with
this topic; hcwever no conclusions were reached at this workshop. He
added that it is a complex legal question what can be done about the
bootlegs and the people inhabiting the units. Additionally, it is a
question that is to be discussed when Phase 3 of the local Coastal
Plan is completed. That plan should indicate what the City will do
to prevent and abate the illegal units.
In answer to Comm Strohecker's question Mr. Casteneda stated that the
City has at this time an abatement program which is based on a com
plaint system, and not where the Building Department actively attempts
to locate the illegal units. Comm Loosli added that the City has
entered into a prosecution agreement wi .th the County Prosecutor's
Office. Ms. Sapetto explained further the abatement program procedure,
i.e., the Building Department operates on a complaint basis. After
a complaint is recieved the Department asks the person who owns the
bootleg or is responsible for it, to make an application to the Board
of Zoning Adjustment to legalize it. In that process they determine
Planning Commission Minutes
February 15, 1983
Page 5
if it can be legalized. If they refuse to make the adjustments, then
they will be prosecuted. On the other hand, if the BZA denies the
legalization, they also will be prosecuted. There is an evaluation
system built into it. In answer to Comm Brown's question she responded
that she did not know how many bootlegs exist in the City, Comm Brown
stated that as long as the City has, the bootlegs, he would rather
know where they are, rather than have them and not know where they are,
It seemed to him a good idea, ec.onomically and otherwise, to attempt
to grandfather these units in and attempt to make the units safe, since
they will probably never be brought up to code. Comm Loosli did not
agree. Comm Brown added that the City was not getting many complaints
and felt that the system was not working. Ms. Sapetto stated that some
of the bootlegs have been abated in the turnover process, Comm Izant
ask Staff to supply the background and statistics on this issue to
getherYA.eh a statement of the possible solutions, Mr. Casteneda sug
gested that this topic be dealt with in two respects: in terms of the
housing element, as well as, to reopen the question with respect to
the Coastal Plan; and then, in both respects express these aims by
way of recommendations from the Commission to the Council. Ms. Sapetto
explained that the LCP is to discuss abatement, and since the Council
has not, as yet, come to a conclusion on the LCP this topic is open
to the Commission to discuss and forward the recommendations to the
Council; Further, -the topic can be added to an upcoming agenda, i.e.
that under certain criteria, Commission might grandfather some of thse
units in. In addition, there should be some type of program to
identify the units, The problem to date has been how we can best
identify them, From a legal standpoint, the Building Department~annot g
out and search for the units. Comm Izant asked that the issue be in
cluded in an upcoming agenda,
Comm Izant suggested in terms of format of the Goals, Policies and
Objectives section, since each sub-section therein has a statement
of philosophy, that should be consistent throughout and so should be
added to the New Housing Development Section. Mr. Casteneda agreed.
Comm Izant asked how the 20 percent figure under the objectives of
existing housing supply was arrived a t; i ,e, wh at does 20 percent
represent in terms of numbers of unit s in ne ed of major repairs. He
also asked for a clarification of the 50 per cen t figure. Mr. Casteneda
said those figures represented 125 an d ap proximately 50, respectively,
He, .added that these are the most seve rel_y deteri orating uni ts, unfit
for habitation, and it is difficult to tell how may of these are boot
legs. Comm Brown asked how the city would go about replacing the
50 percent of those housing units. Mr. Casteneda stated that in this
case, the underlying value of the land might be enough to attract a
developer. That is one way it could be achieved, On this issue it
has been discussed and recommended that the City look to the private
sector for revitalizing rather than through the use of block grants.
Comm Brown asked how the private sector would know there is a 20 per
cent improvement need, and, also, how does Commission know if the
city has reached or surpassed that goal. Mr, Casteneda responded by
saying first, by way of background, the housing element is not the
only element of the general plan that states that planning and zoning
Planning Commission .Minutes
February 15, 1983
Page 6
have to be updated every five years, the State Legislature also re
quires it. One reason for that is that the progress towards the
goals should be monitored. How one might monitor the actual im
provement involves establishing a s y stem that tracks the building
permits and remodeling permits, If the City gets involved in the
Hanydman-type programs orl6an programs, that would be an exact way
of tracking it, by the grants and loans issued, If the City is in
volved in that, there are annual reports filed so the City knows
where the money is going. In addition, all of those programs are
run through the private sector, i.e. B of A and Security Pacific.
Mainly, the city would have to monitor it through a permit issuing
tracking system, and through the involvement of loans and grants.
Then Staff would record and accumulate the data to be used in up
dating the element. The element would then show the diminishing
level of need, and the goals would be adjusted accordingly. He
added that ways and means will be addressed in the next section,
and if Commission decides it wants to pursue this, it will be in
the implementation section. Comm. Brown stated that the City needs
to establish a tracking system. Comm Strohecker added that over the
next five years there will be additional housing stock that will be
in need of improvement. As the City reaches goals on some housing,
others will be falling into the "in need of repair" category. Mr.
Casteneda responded by saying that this is just the best "guess"
work available, and agreed that as some housing is being improved,
others will slip into that condLtion -• The question is how to
encourage property owners to maintain their property, so the City
doesn't continue to lose ground. He added further that the element
should state that this is an objective to be achieved and how the
City intends to track it.
Comm Izant pointed out, in response to Comm Brown's comment, that
the element needs a starting point so some numbers must be included.
Comm Brown commented that the City cannot follow progress towards
these goals because the City doesn't have any tracking system. Comm
Loosli stated that the intent part of the element should include a
determination of how many houses are in need of repair. Mr. Casteneda
responded by saying that one of the sections in the element de als wi th
an updating and review process; the way it is monitored and evaluate d.
So in that sense, the topic will be discussed in the element. However,
he felt it was another matter to say that the Plannir:gCommissi on see s
this as a high priority to see where the City stands re major repair s,
and if it is a high priority, it should be stated by the Commi s s ion .
Comm Izant stated that Staff indicated that 20 percent represents
125 houses. So the estimate is that roughly 620 houses in the City
are in need of major repairs. Mr. Casteneda responded by saying that
that was correct. He added that a physical survey was done in the
Coastal Zone, and if those survey findings are representative of the
rest of the City, then that is what the figure should be, Comm Brown
inquired as to whether the Coastal Zone is a true representation of
the rest of the City. He felt it might not be a representative samp
ling. Mr. Castened stated that this is the best available information
at this time. Ms. Sapetto added that Staff keeps records of permits
Planning Commission Minutes
February 15, 1983
Page 7
issued and the Building Department publishes a monthly report on
this topic.
Comm Brown stated that the $2,000-type repairs may not require
application for a permit, and felt the term "dilapidated" should
be redefined, with $2,000 not being considered as "major repairs."
Mr. Casteneda suggested that a tracking system is possible with some
augmentation of existing systems, but the point is whether resources
can be allocated for it and whether it is worth it.
In reviewing the document Commission asked that on page 12 in the
objectives section, that the percentages be taken out. Comm Izant
stated that if Commission chooses not to put the numbers or percent
ages in, then it needs to be put into footnotes or parentheicals
that the Commission feels that because of the lack of a track record
over the years that it is inappropriate to tab numerical targets at
this time. The commission agreed with that wording.
Comm Izant suggested with respect to the New Housing Goals section,
page 13, first. bullet, that the word "demands" replace the word
"needs". Comm Brmm agreed. Comm Loosli suggested that the bullet
should read: 11 1'0: address, within the scope of environmental con
straints, the housing needs of the community and its share of
regional housing projections."
Comm Izant asked with respect to the last bullet on page 14, that
the reference to the "11th Street site" be deleted
Comm Loosli stated that the second bullet on page 14 , re mixed-use
of structures, that the word "certain" should precede" ... community
development,"
Comms Strohecker and Loosli suggested with respect to the third bullet
on page 14, that the word "different" be changed to "varied"
Comm Strohecker pointed out that in :.the objectives section, last bullet,
page 14, which says "one-for-one basis replacement,"that that didn't
necessarily mean replacement at the same site or with the same type
of structure, He felt it could be worded better, Mr, Casteneda said
that basically, the City doesn't want to loose housing, and if certain
housing is eliminated, replacement of inventory is a need. Comm Loosli
suggested that ",,,at least a one-for-one basis" be substituted,
Comm Brown stated that the Philosophy statement -on page 15, that the
1 last sentence --" ... meeting the housing needs of the community and
its share-of regional housing needs"--should be consistent with the
previous sub-section's philosophy statement, using the replacement
words of "demands" and "projections," He also suggested that the
third bullet under goals, that the word "provide" be changed to
"encourage". He felt the same word subs ti tut ion : should be made in
bullet 2 under Policies. He also felt that the reference to "3 to
9 units" in the first bullet on page 15 was too specific. Mr.
Casteneda responded to the last suggestion by saying that the City
Planning Commission Minutes
February 15, 1983
Page 8
Council had agreed that in terms of permitting a substandard
building to convert, it will be decided on a project-by-project
basis. Ms. Sapetto added that the Council requested a workshop
to discuss the minimum standards
question and the evaluation procedures for conversion plans. Mr.
Casteneda added that in terms of guiding decisions on a conversion
application which does not meet all of the standards, the Commission
should examine which min"imum standards they want to impose by virtue
of the housing element. The Commission agreed that the entire bullet
should be eliminated.
Comm Izant stated that the Objectives portion on page 15 substitute
wording should be consistent with the previous subsections.
Mr. Casteneda summed up by saying that the next step will be to pro
ceed to the next section dealing with the "how to." Now that the
objectives have been stated, we need to know how to achieve them.
He stated that Staff hopes to have that section at the next session.
And . on the bootleg item, staff will provide a progress report along
with some background material.
PLANNING COMMISSION MATTERS -TRAFFIC CIRCULATION -SOUTHWEST
QUADRANT -PAC I FIC COAST HIGHWAY
The Staff report was presented by Ms. Sapetto. She stated that dur
ing the previous discussion on traffic circulation Staff had provided
Commission with information about parking along the highway, and that
report was submitted again tonight. She added that this was done in
response to the question of removing a lane on PCH. She added that
CalTrans has not taken any action on that, but they do have the
authority to remove parking. However, it might not be a politically
wise decision, although they may be pressured into removing it by
the ~ities. She submitted to Commission a report which was presented
to the City Council by the Public Works Department in October of 1981,
and it dealt specifically with the parking lots on the highway and
where the city could create additional parking. The report identified '
specif:ic areas where there is parking,, including private lots. She
added that since this report/recommendation, there has been a lot
of paved parking made accessible to the south portion of the City,
and at their last meeting City Council gave a direction to meter that
lot.
In answer to Comm Loosli's question Ms Sapetto stated that the signals
are synchronized.
Comm Strohecker ·stated that he would be interested in learning if there
are comparisonsre time travel from one end of the city to the other
during the peak AM and PM hours. His for the request being that the
City provides three lanes during the AM period and only two during the
PM, and he would like to see how they compare.
Planning Commission Minutes
• February 15, 1983
Page 9
Ms. Sapetto stated that :information may well be availah.le~in the Puqlic'Work's-
DeJ,~t.tment .. Comm Izant added that he would like to know the time it
takes to travel the length of the city and the number of cars that
complete the trip during that time period, A member of the audience
stated that in Redondo Beach they do not provide left turn lanes,
and suggested If Hermosa followed suit in the southwest quadrant,
the City would have another lane . of traffic. Comm Izant stated that
might be an alternative. He asked the Commission t _heir feelings on
the appointment of a sub ... committee to investigate this issue further
and make a recommendation to the Commission as to what action should
be taken in this area. He added that the City might be forced by
the State to do something about this, as as a Planning Commission he
felt they should take action before being forced to do so.
Comm Loosli stated that the Council appeared to have no interest in
this issue, and felt that the Commission had done as much as they
should with respect to the Council's inaction. Comm Izant pointed
out that the Commission has a responsibility to come back with a
recommendation since the Council didn't accept the Commission's
last recommendation. Comms Brown and Strohecker said they would serve
on the sub-committee.
Comm Brown requested some background on Mr. Nabedian, the engineer
who prepared the report. He also asked how Mr. Nabedian came up with
these suggestions, whether it was at the City's specific request or
on his own. Ms. Sapetto stated that the goal at the time of this
report was to diminish the impact of traffic congestion in the City.
Comm Brown stated that it should be made clear whether the Commission
is trying to keep traffic out of the residential areas and move more
traffic through the commercial areas which need the traffic, Comm
Izant stated that in the past that was the Commission's goal.
In answer to Comm Loosli's question, Ms. Sapetto stated that the
notice of the Proposed Variance was included in the packet for the
Commissions information, stating that the application was a joint
one, and it will be coming before the Commission. She added that the
problem with the lot. is that it is almost "unbuildable" because a
portion of the lot includes a 70 percent slope, providing only one
small portion that : is buildable. So in that respect it is a classic
case for a variance, i.e. they need the additional height because the
amount of land they can actually build on is so small.
In answer to Comm strohecker's question, Ms. Sapetto stated that the
sub-committee appointed at the last meeting had not met with the
Council sub-committee as yet, and therefore, there was nothing to
report at this time.
Motion to adjourn by Comm Strohecker, seconded by Comm Brown.
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes were approved at a
regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the ----day of _____ .
vrC E-CHA IRMAN EDWARD LOO SLI , AC TING
DATE