Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC_Minutes_1983_02_01VI I' u Meeting called to order at 7:30 P.M. by Chairman Peirce ROLL CALL PRESENT: Comms. Brown, Izant, Loosli, Shapiro, Smith, Strohecker, Chrmn Peirce ALSO PRESENT: Alfred Mercado, P1anning Aide; Ralph Castenada, TDC Planning. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Comm Brown asked how much of the conversation and questions by the commission is to be reflected in the minutes. He stated V that a scenario which he expressed at the last meeting with respect to asking Staff what would happen if the Land Use Element were to go against Storer TV, if it were to be continued as open space, would they be allowed to operate as Storer Cable TV, and the answer was that they would. His point being it wasn't noted in the meeting's minutes and that was his reason for abstaining. He felt that the item should have been voted on at that time, otherwise it would come back to the Commission in the future, Comm Shapiro concurred with Comm Brown, and added that it had been pointed out to him that if you want something specifically reflected in the minutes, to preface your statement accordingly. Mr. Mercado mentioned that in addition to the transcribed minutes the entire meeting is on tape, so if Commission want's the minutes amended that can be done. Chrmn Peirce added that the minutes are to reflect, as much as possible, the pertinant state­ ments of fact and not the more casual conversational elements of the meeting. Comm Smith agreed with Comm Shapiro that statements you want re­ flected in the minutes should be prefaced with a statement to that effect. He further stated that he wanted the minutes to indicate that he had asked Staff to insure that the informational items that were discussed be included in the packet when the Storer issue comes before the Commission again, so the same questions will not be asked over again. Comm Izant, notinq the amendments and the changes, made a motion to approve the minutes; seconded by Comm Shapiro. AYES: NOES: ABS: Comms Brown, Izant, Loosli, Shapiro, Strohecker, Smith. None Chrmn Peirce. RESOLUTION P,C, 83-6 Comm Loosli Pointed out that the Resolution did not reflect the vote on the Resolution, Motion by Comm Izant, Seconded by Comm Smith to pass the resolution approving a time extension for tract map located at 1833 Pacific Coast Highway, with the addition of the result of th e Commission 's vote. AYES: NOES: ABS: Comms Brown, Izant, Loosli, Shapiro, Strohecker, Smith None Chrmn Peirce .t'age L. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -February 1, 1983 REVISED HOUSING ELE MENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN Chrmn Peirce noted that Commission has been receiving two sec­ tions of the element at one time, with tonight's section being a description of potential housing resources, and a description of housing const.r-aints, Mr, Casteneda presented the Staff Report. He stated that the Commission had received additional outlined information regarding the two sections of the element, along with a summary chart ex­ plaining some items in relationship to constraints and resources. He explained that the chart was done as a result of previous dis­ cussion of these two topics last year, when it was felt that there were certain value judgments in terms of explaining what constraints and resources were. At that time Commission wanted a summary chart to develop the details of the narrative. Brief­ ly, constraints are some local and non-local factors that might impede addre sing housing needs an d goals; whereas, resources might be interpreted a s those item s that could be influenced by the city in a positive direction t o meet community needs and goa ls . He continued by saying tha t for purposes of elaboration certain information was added that was included in a rough draft of the housing element presented a year ago. He noted that the function tonight was to gain impressions from the Commission, then proceed to a refinement of the sections, and then, at the next continued public hearing all of the sections will be broug ht back to see if they correctly reflect the sentiments of the Commission Briefly, the area under the headin g of "Constraints" in terms of re gu latory incentives for the i mprovement, maintenance of housing , and house zoning Ordinanc e can be modified to encourage property rehabil¼tatlon . He added t hat Staffhas yet to review and complete t he LCP , but that materia l will forth coming soon. He noted further that at a previ b u s meeting Comm Loosli wanted a consideration of house zoning with items included as incentives for owners to maintain and rehabilitate their property. Further, in terms of the area of ·~Resources", the i tern that re­ ceived the most attention previously was regarding whether the interpretation of Community Development Block Grants should be interpreted as a potential resource, He added that some Commission­ ers favored a "handyman" program and others felt that private market forces was the better way to preserve housing. However, this is one area where interpretation needs to be made whether this resource, which is funneled to the City, is one that should be included as a potential means of addressing the rehab needs. He explained further that Staff included language from the Hous- ing Element Law, which indicates a local community can include in its element those economic, environmental, and physical factors which would impede otherwise addressing those needs. Further, that Staff has also indicated another constraint is the actual availability of land which is not now considered for residential use, with the report indicating how much additional housing could be developed. And, essentially, there is enough that can ra1:,1e .:) PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -February l, 1983 be available to meet the needs that were projected. In terms of resources, Staff considers a fair amount of im­ portance attached to the Land Use Element since this is the guiding factor in deciding how much of existing housing should be maintained at current density and current development, and how much new housing should be allowed. In the area of afford­ ability, or housing assistance, Staff listed some constraints which are non-local in origin, i.e., financing, construction costs, etc. He added that minimum dwelling size could be re­ duced from the existing standards in some cases and that would lead to lower housing prices. Under resources, he pointed out, there is the standing Senior Citizens' Housing Program which has evolved to a stage where more detailed decisions are yet to be made; as well as the Affordable Housing Fund and, eventual­ ly, the Shared Equity Program in relationship to the condo con­ version projects. Continued Public Hearing was opened. There being no testimony the hearing was closed. In answer to Comm Strohecker's question, Hr. Casteneda'stated that the elimination of bootlegs would not be considered a con­ straint. Comm Loosli pointed out that on the page following page 3.19, fifth bullet, he would like to change that paragraph to read, "Hermosa Beach is identified as a City where long-term neighborhood preservation and conservation is both a viable option and a positive contribution to the environment." Comm Smith thought that that change may indicate that the entire city is eligible for redevelopment. Comm Izant did not agree with Comm Loosli, he felt the paragraph said that there may be certain portions of the City that, should the City want to, would be desireable to preserve. But that there was no impli­ cation that the other areas should not be considered for preser­ vation. Comm Loosli felt that the paragraph implied that there are certain segments of the City that do not deserve preservation and the language could be made clearer or struck out altogether. Comm Izant suggested that the paragraph include a sentance which states that "hearings have not yet been held to identify whether there is a need for long-term neighborhood preservation and conservation of certain areas of the City. '1' Comm Loosli concurred. Comm Loosli pointed out on page 4.15 the sentance reading "For these reasons, it will be important to the City to monitor residential growth and establish a balance between the not necessarily incompatible goals of neighborhood conservation and housing production." He stated that he felt that neighborhood conservation and housing production were incompatible. Comm Smith stated that what that sentance said was that it would be good to establish a balance between those areas of the City where there is a lot of development and those areas where the City doesn'.t wish to have too much development. Mr. Casteneda agreed with this inter p retation . Comm Brown s ugge sted that the "not necessarily incomp atible" clause be delet ed f rom the sen­ tance or to preface "ba l an ce" wi th the word "e qu i t able". Mr. Casteneda stated that what the paragraph was s ay i n g is that there is some preservation of existing areas and some new development, and that balance may be different from the current balance. Page 4 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -February 1, 1983 Comm Izant stated that .the City is going to have to monitor the growth and is going to have to make choices between neighborhood conservation and new housing production. Mr. Casteneda stated that perservation of the character of the neighborhood was also a con­ sideration in any decision. Chrmn Peirce stated that the important consideration for the Commission is to decide how much of the City Commission should allow to be developed. Comm Smith stated that he would like a sample of how this would actually operate. Mr. Casteneda stated that that would be a good way to approach it. Chrmn Peirce pointed out that the numbers on page 4.15 re "Low Density" and "Medium Density" should correspond to the numbers in the General Plann, since as they are stated in the report it leaves 1 dwelling unit per net acre in limbo. He also stated that the numbers on Table 9, page 4.14, as to Maximum Number of Housing Units was misleading, because the Zoning Laws allow for a much high­ er amount of units than the General Plan. Comms Izant and Loosli suggested that Staff find out which numbers SCAG uses, since this is a very important point because there is a large discrepancy between the numbers in the Zoning Code and those in the General Plan. Comm Izant stated that on page 3.17, fourth line from the bottom, that he did not agree that new development leads to an increased demand for parking, since in actuality it is the older buildings in Hermosa .that have the worsu parking situation. And since new develop­ ments must build to Code, they are required to provide adequate park­ ing. Chrmn Peirce stated that he believed that the new developments had more square footage per unit than did the older buildings, and, therefore, could accommodate more people, and that generally increases the demand for more parking. Comm Loosli stated that it should say that new developments probably increase traffic congestion. Comm. Izant agreed. Mr. Mercado stated in answer to Comm Loosli's question, that if a condo project eliminates an on-street parking space by a driveway curb cut, they are required to replace the deleted parking space. He added that was for condo projects only. Comm Smith stated that on page 3.19, second paragraph, " ... in addition to making residential rehabilitation economically practical for very low and low income households;.; .. " He was not sure what that meant. He asked if the City has at this time a rehahil~tatton program. Mr. Mercado stated "no," adding that Staff just submitted to the City Manager a 5-year capital improvement program, and he be­ lieved two years down the line the City is proposing $166,000 for the residential rehab program, with low interest loans, block grants, etc. Comm Smith asked on page 3.19, bullet 6, whether the regulatory power mentioned therein was state law. Mr. Casteneda stated that it was local. Comm Smith stated with respect to page 4.13,"the review of major or undeveloped properties in the city,"that he thought the in­ formation was taken from the Housing Study that relates back to site studies done in relation to senior citizens housing development. He .. :asked that the reference to senior citizens be eliminated since this is a general examination. Comm Izant commented that the lead-in paragraph suggests that the home review is speciffically oriented to seniors. Comm Smith felt that was not relevant. Chrmn Peirce agreed that it should be housing in general rather than any specific type of housing. , .t'ctye ::, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -February 1, 1983 Comm Smith added that on page 5.29, second paragraph, that the argu­ ment seemed to be heading towards lowering unit sizes, and asked it that is one of the constraints Staff is talking about and should Commission look at revising minimum living area footage for certain medium size units as a means to make housing production more attrac­ tive. Mr. Casteneda stated that was correct. Comm Smith also point­ ed out the third paragraph, same page, last sentance where it stated Hermosa Beach has no capacity to reduce financing costs, he thought the city could address this in terms of buy-downs through community block grant loans which are available to moderately high income house­ holds. Mr. Casteneda stated that that was a possibility. Comm Loosli stated that paragraph 4.15, which referred to the pro­ jected rate of development being faster than originally forecasted, he suggested that the last sentance be changed to read, "for these reasons it will be important to the City to monitor residential growth and establish various options dealing with the goal of neigh­ borhood conservation and housing production." Comm Izant agreed with that sugg~stion. Mr. Casteneda stated that he will bring all of the Commissions thoughts up to date and revise all the sections thus far considered and, if possible, get into the next section, entitled"Goals, Policies and Objectives" for the next meeting. AMENDMENT TO ZONING CODE ARTICL 8, SEC. 802; ELIMINATION OF 3-STORY HEIGHT LIMITATION ON COMMERCIAL STRUCTURES. Mr. Mercado presented the Staff Report. He stated that if the Plan­ ning Commission so decides that the intent of the zoning code Article 8 Section 2 is to allow commercial structures to be built to a height of 45 feet, then staff recommends that the resolution delet­ ing the 3-story height limitation be adopted. He continued by say­ ing that the project was reviewed by the BZA, and, after considering the PEIR, they declared that the project had potential significant adverse environmental impacts which could not be adequately addressed in a PEIR. Therefore, the BZA held that a full scale EIR should be prepared which would address all the potential impacts of this pro­ ject on the community. He added that the City Council chose to appeal the BZA's decision and they adopted Resolution 83-4571 which declared that the removal of the 3-story height limitation will not have any unmitigable signifi­ cant adverse environment impacts, and that a negative declaration be filed. He stated further that under the current code provisions a commercial structure can be built to a height of 45 feet or three stories, whichever is the lesser. If a builder so desires, they can include a mezzanine of 1/3 of the size of a full story in order to increase the square footage of the building, without violating the 3-story limitation, also space undergro~nd, i.e. subterranean park­ ing or a basement, is not counted in the number of stories. Further, a survey of building permits issued for commercial structures in the past two years indicated that the majority of buildings do not reach the 45 feet limit. Staff felt that if this trend continues, then the removal of the story limitation clause should have no signif­ icant effect on building heights. He added that if a developer is able to build to four storias, thereby increasing their square foot­ age and increase , their profits, then it is possible that more build­ ings will be developed to the 45 foot limit. He stated that it has been suggestedthat the inability of a developer to use his property .t'c:1':jt::: 0 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -February 1, 1983 its highest and best use that this has the effect of driving developments to other communities where greater economic incentives exist. He stated that while it is possible that building heights will increase as a result of the elimination of the story limit, Staff believes that for the most part, commercial building heights will be restricted because of parking limitations. Since most lots in the City are relatively small, only a limited amount of surface parking can be provided. Subterranean parking is an option, but the cost can be prohibitive. Therefore, regardless of whether or not there is a story limitation, parking restrictions will play a large role in minimizing building height. Further, if building heights are increased there may be some cases of obstructing the views of adjacent property owners, with its greatest impact on res­ idents whose dwelling units are located on sloped grades east of a commercial zone. He noted that Staff's analysis is predicated on the assumption that the intent of the zoning code is to allow commercial structures to reach a limit of 45 feet. Comm Smith, referring to the minutes from City Council, said the resolution that referred this· to the Planning Commission was un- clear to him re "unmitigable adverse impact" "that a negative declaration be filed" and what "mitigating measures" meant with regard to reducing the coverage on the first floor". He stated that those were things that the Council considered and he thought it was important the the Commission have a clear idea what these things meant. Mr. Mercado stated that it was his opinion that there was a consensus amongst the Councilmembers that removing the three-story limit would not have adverse impact, in that structures would not exceed the 45 feet limitation. There followed a short discussion as to what action the City Council was requesting the Planning Commission to take since the Council minutes and their Resolution did not coincide. Mr. Mercado stated there were two items worthy of note, that the survey done by staff indicated that most structures were not being built to the .45 foot limit~ Also, most construction in the city is woodframe and in order to construct four stories, developers have to provide sprinkler systems throughout and this prohibits, in many cases, four stories. Comm Loosli stated that the reason builders don't go to the 45 feet limit is because that is what the City re­ quires, in that they can only build to the three-story limit. Mr. Mercado stated that Staff was simply saying that over the two-year period most buildings haven't been built to the maximum option of 45 feet. Chrmn Peirce ruled that the Commission consider the 45 feet or three story limit on its merits without regard to "mitigating measures." Public hearing opened at 8:45. Lyn Ocherbaum, 2112-1/2 Monterey, Hermosa Beach, stated that Hermosa Beach is a very densely populated city and didn't see a need to eliminate the 3-story height limitation. She thought the area of concentration should be on rehabilitation, maintenance, and occu­ pation of the presently existing unoccupied commercial structures. Robert Carrington, 1707 Pacific Coast Highway, Unit 501, stated that he didn't want to see any increase in the height of buildings because the value of his property was based partly on the view that it offers. He felt others, who would be similarly effected, felt the same way. . • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -February 1, 1983 Mary Smith, 316 25th Street, Hermosa Beach, stated that the past efforts of the City Planning Department and City Council have been to reduce the residential height from 35 feet and it surprised her to see a turn around no w to consider a means of increasing the commercial height. She added that builders can now build to 45 feet and nobody goes that high because of the current restriction on 4- stories. SMe added that if that is changed there will be a definite increase in the heights. She rec o mmended that the Commission con­ sider leaving the maximum to that of the adjacent residential area. Further, that the area of concentration should be on cleaning up the buildings and sidewalks and encouraging the businesses to im­ prove the appearance of their buildings and surroundings. Chrmn Peirce stated that it is Commission's primary function to gather public opinion and data and pass iton to the City Council along with Commissions recommendations. Hearing closed at 8:50. Comm Smith stated that the view corridor has not been protected against a property owner's right to build to the maximum limit, and, unfortunately, that precident has gone on for years. He then asked if on the C-potential property on Pacific Coast Highway whether it would affect that property if it is eventually zoned commercial. Mr. Mercado stated yes, assuming that somebody wanted to convert the property to commercial. He added that if the three­ story limit was taken off, any C-zoned property would be subject to the 45 feet limit. Chrmn Peirce added that the C-potential zoning is only that, "potential," and it is the Commission•s in- tent to try to remove those particular overlays or second zonings because it seems to be an unfair representation to potential owners that that property is any more likely to be zoned C than any other property in the City. Comm Smith referred to an argument made in Staff Analysis regarding limitations on structures that can be built, i.e. parking coverage, he asked what kind of impact this would have on an area where an in­ lieu parking setup is being considered. It seemed that if one could buy their way out of providing parking, that parking would not be an effective limitation. He added that staff also indicated that there is a natural cap, i.e. parking, if we took off the third story restriction, but added that he thought a certain part of the City is exempt from that argument. Mr . Mercado respo nded by say ~ ing that existing structures or bus ines ses were exemp t . He a dde d that the Direcior of Planning's pos itio n is that those b u s ines ses already have parking provided by th em o r paid, or VPD , an d a ny new development coming into the are a would have to pr ovid e ei the r in-lieu or additional parking. So there is a natural restriction, that being when you finally reach the limit of available parking that can be provided through paid or VPD '. Comm Smith stated that there was no accompanying arguement based o n fact , experien c e o r ot h erwise wh ich proves that if the three­ story l imit is remo ved that the business climate in the community wil l impr o ve . Adding , that until some kind of concrete evidence i s pr o v i ded , he wi l l vote t o leave the Ordinance as is. In answer to Comm Izant's question, Mr. Mercado stated he was not certain of the height of the Flagship Hotel or the Cove Theater, but added that there are certain structures which have been con­ sidered for historical preservation which could exceed the existing height limit. • PLANNING COMMISSION ~MINUTES -February 1, 1983 Mr. Mercado also pointed out that provided within the Staff pro­ posal, it states that where Commission feels that the obstruction of view is imminent, then that particular project would come to the Commission for review. Comm Loosli stated that in the Pier area, downtown,isn't a view problem but a community character problem. He added that he felt he would vote to keep the ordinance as is. In answer to Comm Strohecker's question, Chrmn Peirce stated that he didn't believe the in-lieu parking issue will be resolved in the near future and will most likely continue for some time. Comm Strohecker stated that he favored forwarding a copy of the minutes to the City Council with in-lieu of parking issue highlighted rather than referring to it directly in the Resolution. Chrmn Peirce stated that Comm Smi th.~s comment that new development would go to the 45 feet limit if Commission allows the limit to be 4-stories .was valid and that the general intent of the Ordinance was that it should be a 3-story limit with the 45 feet provision to allow some architectural variance or flexibility, so that all buildings are not of the same type. He continued by saying that with respect to passing this Resolution to apply toevery commercial area in the city he could not support that because the tendancy would be to build to that maximum limit. In light of the foregoing Chrmn Peirce made a motion, seconded by Comm Izant, to deny the request to eliminate the three story restriction. AYES: NOES: ABS: Brown, Izant, Peirce, Shapiro, Strohecker, Smith, Loo 'sli None None In concert with that motion, Chrmn Peirce proposed the following addition be made to the resolution of denial, "WHEREAS .the four­ story limit would encourage the height limit in the' 'VPD and paid parking area." Comm Loosli stated that he thought the wording "would encourage the 45 feet limit .... which would be detrimental to the character of the downtown area. 11 wguld be more appropriate wording. Chrmn Peirce's amendment to the resolution was seconded by Comm Izant. AYES: NOES: ABS: Brown, Izant, Peirce, Shapiro, Strohecker, Smith; Loosli None None. REZONING OF SEAVIEW PROPERTY FROM C-3 TO COMMERCIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT Chrmn Peirce stated that the City Council's desire was for the Commission to delay the conclusion of the particular action be­ cause of the City's position involving the title to the property in question. He introduced and read a letter from the Mayor to the Commission requesting the aforementioned non-action. He con­ tinued by saying that he felt that the Commission should hold off on this issue and continue the public hearing to a date in the future when the City has a better title to the property. Comm Izant stated that for a variety of reason he disagreed and thought .t:'Cl'::JC: ';;/ PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -February 1, 1983 the Commission should act on this issue. Comm Shapiro wanted to know how this i tern got on the agenda for the Commission. Hr.~:­ Mercado .:.:stated that on January 4, 1983 the Planning Commission adopt­ ed a resolution of intention to rezone this property. And at the termination of a four-year development Agreement between Charles Gotanda and the City, this land now belongs to the City as of January 1, 1983. Chrmn Peirce added that at that point we ad­ vertised the Public Hearing and the City Council then had a meet- ing when they realized Commission was going to consider rezoning the property. Comm Shapiro stated that the letter which was composed by the Planning Director was a very toned-down version of the way the Commission felt on the matter. He thought that the letter was supposed to be a very strong letter of protest. Mr. Mercado answered by saying that staff thought it would be more appropriate to tone it down. Public Hearing was opened at 9:10. After opening the hearing, Chrmn Peirce withdrew his comment about continuing the public hearing. Betty Rein, 588 20th Street, Hermosa Beach, pointed out that there was an error in the agenda which stated that the proposed zone change was to R-3 not C-3. She asked Commission how the owners of adjacent property had been notified, which Chrmn Peirce had question­ ed earlier. Mr. Mercado responded by saying the public hearing was noticed i n the newspaper and that staff did not send out personal notice to the property owners within a 300 foot radius. Ms. Rein stated that she felt the nearby property owners should have been personally noticed that the Commission was considering changing the zoning on the property. She added that she didn't feel a public hearing was appropriate at this time because the ownership is still in question. Chrmn Peirce pointed out that it is the title that is in question and not the ownership of the property, as the city owns the property. Ms. Rein still felt, that since the notice did not seem proper, that the hearing was still inappropriate at this time. Chrmn Peirce stated that if the property owners were not notified properly that would inval ida te the public hearing because the Plan­ ning Department violated one of the City's constraints. He added that although this was advertised as a public hearing, he would close the hearing at this time until it can be readvertised and re-noticed. Michael Osterhoff, attorney for Mr. Charles Gotanda, stated that Mr. Gotanda is contesting the City's claim to the property and also the public hearing. He added that his client le arn ed of the hearing by the notice published in the paper, but he woul d certainly want notice sent to Mr. Gotanda in the future if a ne w h earing is held. Further, he wanted to inform the Commission that Mr . Gotanda is planning legal action to clear up the title to the property. Comm Izant stated, with respect to the members of the City Council suµprise re the Planning Commission's action, he pointed out that the decision by Commission to hold a public hearing was made out in the open. And he added that he felt it is within the ptrrview of the Commission, without direction of the City Council, to establish whether it is their desire to rezone or not to rezone a particular piece of property. Further, that in this case, if it is desire- . . -, • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -February 1, 1983 able to have this property be "Planned Development," as opposed to C-3, it should be decided before the property is sold to be fair to the future owner. Chrmn Peirce stated that the notice was faulty and it was his in­ tention to vote for another public hearing, and then report to the City Council what should be done with the property. Comm Shapiro asked if staff had informed the members of the Plan­ ning Commission what the status of the property was with respect to what the City Council was doing. Comm Izant replied that staff had advised that it might not be timely to hear this item, but that Commission ·had voted to go ahead with the hearing. Chrmn Peirce asked when the city started the appraisal process on the land. Mr. Mercado responded by saying that the Jia>roces_i;; began after the pnoperty became the city's, Comm Strohecker reiterated Comm Shapiro's comment that staff should have given Commission all the background information as to the status of this issue. Comm Brown added that it was his recollection that after the end of the meeting, in Staff Comments or Commission Items, that Chairman Peirce had directed staff to look into the consistency of the zoning re this property. And staff, at that time, suggested to Commission that since the City was in the middle of possible litigation that the Commission should delay any de­ cision on this item. It was shortly after that the Commission­ ers unanimously decided to go ahead and and pursue the item and hold a public hearing. The hearing was held and then continued. Comm Strohecker stated that wasn't reflected in the minutes. Comm Smith stated that there seemed to be a hint of conflict of interest here. He added that he felt a public hearing was in order but that a resolution would not be. Mr. Mercado stated that it was his recollection that every time Commission considers a rezoning item that it was not necessary to get formal approval from the Council. Chrmn Peirce stated that he would like to talk to the City Attorney and find out if he thinks the change of zoning at this point will have any precedential or prejudical impact with respect to the City's title. Secondly, he wanted a meeting with the Council to explain the Commission's position re the rezoning and to get imput from them as to the reasons behind their letter to the Commission. He added that if Commision decides to rehear this item notice would have to be given for the next meeting which would mean a delay of at least two weeks. Comm Smith suggested the Commission postpone any action as a courtesy to the City Council. Comm. Izant agreed with Chrmn Peirce's proposal. He added that the question which should be considered is, is the City better off having the property zoned C-3 or CPD, since an appraisal is going on and a CPD zoning is worth less than a C-3. He felt it would be unfair to the buyer to change the zoning after he has purchased the property; and out of fairness to the potential owner he would not vote to change the zoning after the purchase. Comms Izant and Brown were interested in attending the meeting that Chrmn Peirce suggested with the Council. Comm Shapiro stated that he didn't understand why two years ago the zoning could have been changed and now that there is a possi­ bility that the City owns the property this question now becomes so critical. Page 11 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -February 1, 1983 Comm Izant stated that at the time the property went into default the zoning reverted back to C-3, and there must have been an important reason for this reversion. So,in light of that, he wants to exam the reasoning in a timely manner so that a future buyer knows what he is buying. Comm Smith stated on a peripheral issue re the lack of proper notice on the hearing, he felt that in the future the Commission should receive proof of the notice, and perhaps copies of the notices themselves. He added that this was his second request for this. Also he would like a copy of the City's rules re no­ ticing public hearings. He stated that a checklist should also be provided so that the Commission will be satisfied that proper notice has been given, as well as all other necessary procedures being fulfilled. He felt that the result would be that a lot more people would have an opportunity to appear for hearings and it would give the commission credibility. Mr. Mercado stated that staff is in the process of preparing a master calander which will list all of the projects and their status. Chrmn Peirce stated that he felt Comm Smith's suggestion had a lot of merit. CONSIDERATION OF REPLACING ALL STREET SIGNS WITH NEW ONES After a brief discussion it was stated that the signs would not be replaced at this time. STAFF REPORTS Mr. Mercado stated that Resolution 083-4, to amend Article 6 and Article 10 had never been signed by the commission, although it had been passed. He submitted it for signature. COMMISSIONER'S ITEMS Chrmn Peirce stated that the Planning Commission Institute Seminar is being held on the 3rd and 4th of March in Monterey. And, since Comms Loosli and Brown had indicated an interest in attending, they should be sure to fill out any necessary forms or applications. Mr. Mercado pointed out that there was an article included in the Commissioner's packets for tonight on Height Regulations for Residential Structures. He added that it was a little dated but it might be of interest. Comm. Brown stated that he read it and found it very pertinant to the issue before the Commission on the 3-story, 45 foot limitation item. Motion by Comm Shapiro to adjourn.