Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC_Minutes_1983_09_20MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON SEPTEMBER 20, 1983, IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT 7:30 P.M. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Chmn Izant; Conuns Brown, Newton, Shapiro, Smith, Soulakis and Strohecker ABSENT: None ALSO PRESENT: Alfred Mercado, Planning Aide; Ralph Castaneda, TDC Planning. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 6, 1983 Comm Newton pointed out two corrections: l) Page 3, second para­ graph from the bottom, it should read, "In answer to Comm Newton's question ... "; 2) Page 7, second to the last paragraph, it should read " ... proceedings will impact the individual condominium owners." Motion by Comm Newton, seconded by Comm Soulakis to approve the minutes with the above two corrections. There being no objection, it was SO ORDERED. APPROVAL OF RESOLUTIONS 83-23 AND 83-24 Chmn Izant asked staff to provide commission with a copy of the full ordinance. Chmn Izant suggested postponing this item until the next meeting when the ordinance will be provided. He requested that in the future all ordinances be attached unless it was passed verbatim. The item was then continued to the next regular meeting. RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES USED AS PARKING LOTS WITH CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS Mr. Mercado stated that this item had not been addressed by the Board of Zoning the previous night due to a lengthy agenda. He added that they will hear it at their next meeting. Subsequently, the Conunission would not be able to take action on this issue this evening. In answer to Chmn Izant's question, Mr. Mercado stated that the item has been modified since it was originally introduced. Conun Smith asked for a clarification of the difference between primary and accessory parking as used within the reports. Mr. Mercado stated that when a commercial or industrial business needs additionaly park­ ing to maintain their business, they will use off-site parking at a different location,constituting accessory parking. Whereas, when a Page two person who owns a piece of residential property wants to develop that property as a parking lot, that would constitute a primary use. In answer t.o Comm Smith's question, Mr. Mercado stated that re use of a primary lot for commercial purposes, item 3 of the ordinance could be construed that those types of parking lots could be used for commercial purposes, i.e. charging for parking by the hour. In answer to Comm Smith's question, Mr. Mercado stated that the motivation of the Council was to mitigate the parking shortage in the city. He added that the use of the Conditional Use Permit pro­ cedure allows scrutiny on the part of the Planning Commission. Comm Smith stated that it appeared to be one of the purposes of this drdi~ance to develop off-~treet parking on PCH in residential areas because everybody in town has expressed an interest in ex­ panding the commercial depth to accommodate the multi-use corridor, which is an important purpose. He stated that he concurred with that as long as the property owners in that area have an opportunity to be properly noticed and have a say in the matter. He added that his concern is that the ordinance is too vague to measure its impact on the city. He felt that increasing the amount of parking lots will take cars off the street but it will not necessarily reduce circulation. Chmn Izant stated that in the joint session with the City Council he did not recall that the 150' figure in the ordinance had been agreed upon. Mr. Mercado stated that a specific number was not mentioned, but he remembered the language as being "50' or some­ thing appropriate." Therefore, staff was recommending the 150' figure. Comm Brown stated that he did not recollect that all R zones would be included in this ordinance. Mr. Mercado stated that the Council is now pushing for all residential zones as opposed to their initial drive. Chmn Izant commented that all R zones except for R-1 had been mentioned during the joint session. Comm Strohecker added that it was his recollection that Councilman Wood had brought up all the R zones. Comm Izant opened the public hearing and stated that this issue would be re-heard at the next regular meeting. Mr. R. Redo, 720 4th Place, Hermosa Beach, stated that he did not feel that this issue was presented clearly during the Commission's short discussion of it. Chmn Izant presented some background information on the issue. He stated that the original intent of Council was to allow a commercial property owner to buy a piece of property perhaps across an alley or a street from his business which is zoned R-2 or R-3, and allow him to use that lot for parking for his commercial £acility. Since that time it has taken in some other questions, i.e., should there be Page three parking made available in other residential zones which are not necessarily contiguous to a commercial zone, and how far should those lots, secondary or accessory, be allowed to be away from the business itself? He added that there is an ordinance now that says a person can do this in an R-3 zone if it is not more than 50 feet from the commercial property. The ordinance under discussion is a modification or expansion of the existing ordinance for com­ mercial as well as residential uses. He continued by saying that this is the first public hearing and it will be continued until the next meeting. At the next meeting Commission will be given a com­ plete draft of the ordinance. He added that what Commission has be­ fore it now is just a staff recommendation. The hea r ing was continued until the next scheduled meeting. AMENDING THE ZONING CODE 1103 The staff report was given by Mr. Mercado. He sated that this item was dealt with at the -last regular meeting of the Commission, and at that time it had been continued to tonight. He added that the existing procedure for activating a C-Potential classification con­ sists of a developer submitting a precised plan of design for the area to the Commission. A precised plan requires preliminary draw­ ings which are usually prepared by an architect or engineer. He added that this can be a cumbersome and expensive process that may deter commercial development along the Pacific Coast Highway corri­ dor. He continued by saying that the proposal to allow owners o f C-Potential properties along Pacific Coast Highway, which are contiguous to C-3 zones with a common boundary-line, the automatic right to rezone C-3, would provide more clarity and certainty for the developer and such would enhance the City's ability to compete for land development dollars for those C-Potential properties which are presently under­ utilized. Furthermore,. since no precised plan would be required for rezoning a C-Potential lot, the .developer would have to submit such a plan to the Commiss ion f o r ap proval o f an y project. It was staff's recommen­ dati on that the Commi ssion ap pr o v e the resolution provided approving the amendme nt o f sect ion 1103 o f the Zoning Code by allowing C-Potential prop erties cont iguou s to a C-3 z one along Pacific Coast Highway the righ t t o automa ti c all y rezone to C-3, prior to submission of a pre- cise d p l an to t he Pla nning Commis sion. Comm Soulakis asked what had been done re the question of an auto­ matic reversal to C-Potential if for some reason the planned project fell through . .Mr. Mercado stated that he went through the zoning Code and also spoke with the Building Director about this question. With respect to the Zoning Code, it made no mention of a property owner not having any recourse once he or she is granted a zone change to commercial. The owner can always come back and request a reversion. Page four In speaking with the Building Director, he stated that the Director's response was that a property owner has the right to request a re­ versal, but has no guarantee that it will be granted. Chmn Izant stated that the ordinance indicates that this particular rezoning would occur where the C-Potential property abuts a commer­ cial zone. However, in the north end of Pacific Coast Highway be­ tween 18th and 21st there are some C-Potential properties that do not abut any commercial property. He asked if those properties would continue to fall under the existing ordinance. Mr. Mercado stated that they would fall under the existing ordinance. Comm Smith asked if there is any document that inventories C-Potential properties in light of the type of structures existing on the proper­ ties at this time. Mr. Mercado stated that at this time there is no document of that type, but that Mr. Ralph Castaneda of TDC Planning was in the process of documenting that information with respect to the Land Use Element. Comm Smith stated that one of the most important things Commission shoµld analyze would be what the effects of changing a C-Potential p~operty by this ordinance would be versus current residential uses; would there be a serious environmental impact? Also, there has been a lot of talk about the current situation prohibiting owners of that type of property from coming before the city with development plans. However, he had not heard of one complaint in regard to this matter, and he wanted to know if the city staff has documented evidence of developers or owners stating that they have been hindered in regards to these C-Potential properties. He added that he is reluctant to change an ordinance without some public demand. Mr. Mercado stated that staff did not have such evidence, but he felt that what is there may in the future discourage some owner or develop­ er. He added that it is the opinion of the Council that that is the case, and for that reason they would like Commission to look into alternative measures that would facilitate or encourage future com­ mercial development. Chmn Izant opened the public hearing, there being no testimony the public hearing was closed. Chmn Izant asked if under the existing legislation a developer would have to first appear before Commission without any plans and apply for a change of zones, R-3 to C-3. Mr. Mercado stated no, that it is a one step process, i.e., a developer would come in with everything required and would take his ,chances as far as the zone change. However under the proposed change the owner would come in with a plan and if it meets all requirements it would get approval. He added that the new ordinance, in essence, would eliminate the precised plan in order to receive a zone change. Comm Soulakis reiterated that he was still interested in having an auto-• matic reversal and suggested that the ordinance allow the applicant to request the automatic rezoning or use the regulation as it now exists. He :· felt that there may be some cases where the applicant Page Five would want to submit a precised plan and not change the zone unless that is approved. The applicant should have one of these two options, i.e. a one-step approach or a two-step approach. Comm Brown agreed. Comm Izant suggested adding a section or specific paragraph in the ordinance stating that if the project is not approved it reverts to its former zoning status. He added that that would clear up the gray areas of ·the amendment, if a project was denied it would protect property owners, and it would still promote development. Motion by Comm Brown, seconded by Comm Strohecker to approve the language as recommended by staff amending section 1103 of the zoning Code with the following addition: Section 1, subsection c, if the project is denied the status of the property will revert to its original status before the application. Comm Smith stated that he would not support the amendment because it does not encourage developers, nor is there any demand for the change. AYES: NOES: ABS: Chmn Izant; Comms Brown, Newton, Shapiro, Strohecker Comms Smith, Soulakis None Mobion by Comm Brown, seconded by Comm Strohecker, to approve Resolution P.C. 83-25, said resolution to be concurrent with the motion's subsection c, that if the project is denied the status of the property will revert to its original zoning. AYES: NOES: ABS: Chmn Izant; Comms Brown, Newton, Shapiro, Strohecker Comms Smith, Soulakis None ENABLING ORDINANCE TO ALLOW THE CITY TO ENTER INTO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS The staff report was given by Mr. Mercado. He stated that the City Council passed a resolution of intention on August 2nd urging the Commission to consider the enactment of an enabling ordinance that would allow the City to enter into development agreements. Although an enabling ordinance is not specifically required in order for the City to enter into a development agreement, the Council wishes to adopt an ordinance pursuant to the alternative listed in Government Code Section 65864. He continued by saying that enabling the City to enter into such agreements with developers will allow the City to Compel the develop­ er to fulfill certain requirements and, in return, the developer will be assured that the project can progress unmolested without having to meet changing requirements. Entering into a development agree­ ment does not prevent a local agency from subsequently denying or conditioning the project so long as such decisions are not based on zone change or plan amendments which occur after entering into the Page six agreement. In addition, once an agreement has been entered into, a local agency must periodically review the progress made by the developer to insure compliance with the agreement, at least every 12 months. If a local agency finds that the developer is not com­ plying with the terms of the agreement, it may terminate or modify the agreement. He stated further that staff therefore recommends that the Planning Commission approve the ordinance enabling the City of Hermosa Beach to enter into development agreements with developers. Comm Smith requested a copy of t~e Hagen Development agreement. He also stated that inasmuch as the Hagen agreement has already been entered into, he did not understand why the Council wants an enabling ordinance after the fact. He added that Council's reason­ ing was not apparent in staff's analysis. Comm Newton 'stated that from her personal knowledge of the afore­ mentioned Government Code section there is nothing in that section that requires a city to have a blanket enabling clause. Comm Smith reiterated that he was puzzled why Council chose to send something to the Commission for an ·enabling ordinance after they entered into the agreement. He wanted to know the council 1 s moti­ vation. He also stated that he wouldl.ike to see spelled out in the ordinance in specific detail what criteria projects should be judged by and what procedures should be followed. Comm Brown asked how the community could disapprove a development agreement has been signed. Mr. Mercado stated that the format for a development agreement has not beendetermined yet, but a public hearing or forum would probably be the setting. Comm Brown wanted to know what steps are taken and what documents are signed when a development agreement is entered into. Mr.Mercado answered by saying that the procedure is somewhat vague. However, usually a developer negotiates with the City Manager and they out­ line the major aspects of what it is they are seeking. Then it is introduced into the system --what we are trying to c~eate --then it goes to the planning commission for review, then it would go to the Council as a recommendation from Commission. He added that pub­ lic participation would take place at both the Commission and Council levels Comm Smith stated that Commission needs more procedureal material. Comm Brown agreed. Chmn Izant pointed out that the council's reasoning behind this issue was stated on page 10 of their minutes, that the City Attorney had stated that State law provides for adoption of development agree­ ments and regulations as to their processing. He felt that these agreements are designed to form binding agreements that will withstand challenge and are binding on future councils. A development agreement would freeze the zoning in effect at the time an agreement is enter- ed into. Page seven Comm Smith stated that he felt there should be set procedures that are followed and that the public has a right to inquire and to know what those procedures are. Comm Brown stated that he did not feel that one council's potential­ ly bad decision should be binding on the next council. Chmn Izant opened the public hearing. Cathy Anderson gave background in£ormation to the Commission re development agreements. It was her understanding that first a doc­ ument from the City Attorney's office is needed indicating whether a development agreement is necessary and under what circumstances. Also a development agreement that is entered into without an ordin­ ance allowing a development agreement, and providing for its pro­ cedure, is not really a development agreement in the legal sense of the word. She continued by saying that a development agreement becomes an ordinance or law and does in fact bind future city councils, which is really the only purpose for such an agreement. The Hagen agree­ ment is not a development agreement. It is an agreement between Hagen and the City Council, it is somewhat of a guaranty which shows that the Council is in agreement with his conceptual or preliminary ideas. However, it is not a binding agreement that would hold up in court. She stated further that it is her understanding to the school board property, they will have to Environmental Impact report, zone changes, etc. changes and parcel maps have been approved then a development agreement to freeze those actions councils. that with respect go through an Once the zone they will enter into and to bind future She added that a development agreement is an ordinance that outlines what is needed procedurally, so that it will be followed step by step and will not violate the public's due process rights. Also, a developer needs assurances that the next city council will be bound and a development agreement is a legally enforceable document. In addition, the city does have flexibility with these agreements since the only items guaranteed by the city are those items contained in the agreement. All development agreements must come before the Commission, and they must be properly noticed, then it will go to the City Council. She suggested that development agreements should not be entered into unless the developer requests it, it should be at the developer's option. The procedures should be carefully set out. She thought that staff should see what other cities have done by way of procedures and criteria. Comm Smith thanked Ms. Anderson for her explanation. Chmn Izant stated that staff should provide Commission with the fol­ lowing information 1) recommendations of when and in what situations a development agreement will be needed; 2) samples of what procedures Page eight should be followed; and 3) provide Commission with copies of develop­ ment agreements from other cities. Comm Smith also asked for a copy of the League of California Cities model agreement. Chmn Izant continued the public hearing until the next regularly schedulred meeting on October 18, 1983. HOUSING ELEMENT The staff report was given by Mr. Ralph Castaneda. He stated that it was a noticed public hearing for tonight. To refresh the Commission's memory he stated that two weeks ago the element was discussed amongst the Planning Commission and five members of the City Council, primarily as an opportunity for the Council to react to the Commission's work to date. At that meeting the consensus was that the element as it stood was fairly adequate and in the right philosophical direction. Even those who disagreed with certain details of the document agreed that it was acceptable as is. There were not many deletions requested at that time. However, there were six items set out for further discussion .and consideration as to how they might be handled in the housing element or in some other vehicle Comm Soulakis and Comm Brown requested copies of the minutes of the aforementioned joint workshop. Mr. Castaneda continued by suggesting that the Commission separate those issue that should be addressed in the housing element from those issues that should be handled through some other vehicle. The six items presented by Mr. Castaneda were discussed one by one with the following results. 1) Home ownership: The document should encourage home ownership as opposed to absentee ownership, but it should not set specific goals. 2) Density Bonus for Affordable Housing: The Commission's position in the past has been that this is not a viable option for afford­ able housing for this community for a variety of reasons. Density bonuses are not bad in themselves, but Commission was not sure they would be a possibiity. Mr. Castaneda stated that density bonuses with respect to senior housing might merit exploration; Commission agreed. 3) Lot Consolidation: That item would be more appropriately dis­ cussed within the Land Use Element. 4) Accelerating Variance Processes: Should be discussed at length at the next meeting. The thrust of the item seems to suggest that more should be made an administrative task in terms of allowing variances. Page nine 5) Local Sources of Revenue: It was suggested that a statement in the housing element stating that the City will seek to ex­ plore new sources would be sufficient as opposed to stating anything specific. 6) Manufactured Housing: Commission was not sure this should be discussed in the element and requested that staff check this item against the Building Code Mr. Castaneda stated that at the next meeting he will come back with a sample resolution and more discussion on the topic of density bonus­ es with respect to senior housing. Comm Smith requested that Mr. Castaneda also identify the areas where the above six items would be put in the element so if Commission de­ cides to put them in the element it can be done the same night as the approval. All Commissioners agreed. STATUS REPORT ON THE LAND USE ELEMENT The status report was given by Mr. Castaneda. He commented on the following five points. 1) Commercial Land Use Inventory: He stated that his staff has completed the field work for almost the entire city with the main commercial sections of Aviation, Pier and the downtown area. The type of information compiled deals with business name; type of land use; the status, i.e. whether developed or vacant or under construc­ tion; the size of the parcel involved; square footage of the build­ ing, all stories, and square footage for each separate dwellings; existing zoning of the parcel; and existing categories of land use. 2) Retail Market Potential: He stated that his staff has done a market study of sorts to see if there is additional demand for retail c ommer c ial s pa c e . Th e information collected was for the Southbay area and the City it s elf . The informatio n includes total taxable sales generated over five o r s i x year s in the total market area as well as the city a lo ne; di£ferent c ateg o ri es of retail and a determination of the market share of each of these market areas re total sales; per capita taxable sales, what is being generated (the strongest areas being liquor stores and auto sales dealers, and the weakest being apparel and home furnishings). In addition, he stated that there appears to be a leakage, i.e. money earned here that is going out of the community which might be kept here with a different approach. 3) Residential Land Use Inventory: He stated thathis staff is now in the process of collecting information for every parcel and address in the city; the number of units; the lot size; the zoning, the land Use Element census tract and the census block where it is located. He added that this information will allow a verification of the census data, to determine how accurate the information is. Also it will pro­ vide a stock of information that can be used in any number of studies. Page ten 4) Demographic profile: He stated that this would deal with pop­ ulation and income characteristics of the city relating to some of the neighborhoods in the city. 5) Land Use Issues to be Emphasized. He concluded by stating that several of the areas mentioned should be emphasized in the document; i.e., the multi-use corridor, the characteristics of the land, trend of existing policy; the downtown area; the school sites; with the potential of these areas compared to the rest of the city. Also, the general plan zoning inconsistencies should be addressed. STAFF ITEMS None COMMISSIONERS' ITEMS In answer to Comm SmithB questions Mr. Mercado stated that staff is still trying to negotiate a price on the Appletree title search, and that is the reason why the inspection of the project has not taken place. Comm Smith suggested that the title search will not be need- ed if Mr. Todd has taken care of everything that he was supposed to. Comm Shapiro suggested that the meeting night be changed to the first Tuesday of each month because of the up-coming Winter holidays. It was decided that there was time to discuss this at a later date. Comm Shapiro asked that Commission make a suggestion to the City Council that the limitation re commission member's terms be eliminated. Comm Brown was not sure he would agree with that suggestion. Chmn Izant stated that on the whole he thought it was perhaps better to have a limitation to protect against some members becoming too set in their ways and inflexible. He felt it was better to have a limitation. Chmn Izant referred to a December 7th reassignment of Hermosa Improve­ ment Commission to the Planning Commission Section of Ordinance 82- 697. He requested that Ms. Sapetto check into this reassignment since Commission has not dealt with any agenda items with respect to this area of duty. He .wanted to make sure that these items are coming be­ fore the Commission as the reassignment indicates they should. He requested that this topic be added to the next meeting's agenda. ADJOURNMENT fution by Comm Shapiro, seconded by Comm Brown to adjourn.