Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC_Minutes_1982-02-03MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON FEBRUARY 3~ 1982, IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT.· 7:30 P.M. Meeting called to order by Chmn. Izant at 7:33 P.M. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Comrns. Cummings, Donnelly, Loosli, Peirce, Rue, Smith, Chmn. Izant ABSENT: None ALSO PRESENT: Pamela Sapetto, Planning Director. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Comm. Loosli stated that on Page 4 the reason he recommended that the R-2 Low Density area be mapped in the Housing Element was because that provides an opportunity to add rental housing in the form of duplex construction even if the density exceeds ~he low density numbers, Motion by Comm. Smith, seconded by Comm, Cummings) to approve the January 19) 1982, minutes. No objections, so ordered, APPROVAL OF RESOLUTIONS Comm. Smith questioned whether the fourth "WHEREAS" of P,C, 82-5 should say exactly what the Commission was advised of in the City Att9rney 's Office, Comm. Loosli stated that it could state that the Commission was informed of the City Attorney's opinion, that this involved no taking of development rights. Comm, Smith concurred with Comm, Loosli's suggestion ­ Chmn. Izant stated that the changed wording will stand. Motion by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Cummings, to approve Resolutipns P,C. 82-5 and P,C, 82-6, AYES: Comms, Cummings, Donnelly, Loosli, Peirce, Smith, Chmn. Izant NOES: None ABSTAIN: Comm. Rue ABSENT: None PRELIMINARY DRAFT OF THE HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN :.1s. Sapetto gave staff report. She stated that information has been combined from various sources since the last revision 'of the Housing Element. She stated that input from the Commission would be submitted to the City Council Workshop, which has been scheduled for Thursday, February 11, 1982, at 7:30 P.M. Comm. Donnelly asked whether this item was on the Public Hearing agenda. Chmn. Izant replied in the affirmative. Comm. Donnelly pointed out that not only would the Commission's input be provided, but also the input of the public. ,, n PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -February 3, 1982 Page 2 PRELIMINARY DRAFT OF THE HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN (cont.) Mr. Castanada gave his presentation to the Commission. He gave soNe background in terms of why the item was before the Commission. H~ stated that there is a general plan requirement of all cities and counties in California, and that the general plan consists of nine mandatory elements. The Housing Element is one of nine elements that must be included in the general plan and has precise requirements in terms of detail and specifics. He stated-lthis probably ranks along with the noise element in terms of detail and specificity. Hr. Castanada went on to say that the Housing Element has been a requirement through planning and zoning law since 1967. He stated there have been a number of changes in modifications to both the legislation and to the guidelines provided by the Stat:e legislature in terms of its preparation. Mr. Castanada stated that in 1979, in order to provide a level of effort to comply, the initial Housing Element was adopted by this community and forwarded to the State Department. The State Department's review was com­ pleted in June of 1980. He said that under the old guidelines, one had to have a letter form the State saying that one was found in conformity in order to have an adequate Housing Element. If one did not have an element by October, 1981, which complied to those guidelines, then the only alternative was to comply with theRoos Bill, which was one of the significant changes in legislation. Mr. Castanada discussed the primary functions of the Housing Element; the element provides au opportunity to consolidate information and actions which have developed over a number of years. In many instances, it is felt that the element will provide a quantam leap inpublic policy, this is usually not the case, it is a document which brings together the pieces which have deve­ loped over a number of years. As you review the document you will see pieces you've seen before and roughly the same language and some which may be more refined. The basic topics you have dealt with in the past or maybe have dealt with under another label or category. The element serves as a necessary mechanism to consolidate the policy statement with regard to housing for the community. As a by product, it will convey to the public a document for infor­ mation. A third function is a tool for continuous. planning. The Roos bill requires that updates be made in July 1984, and in 1989. The emphasis is to contiually take a look at public policy and to offer an opportunity for the public to provide input from time to time The fourth function is one of measuring indivdual proposals as they come be­ fore Planning Commission and City Council. It provides a framework to evaluate individual proposals. Finally, it establishes through Planning Commission and City Council actions a direction to staff a first go-around of activities in terms of housing. The main categories of the element are four, 'the assessment of housing needs, the review of constraints which impede the City's capacity and resources which enable the city to address needs and a statement of goals, policies and objectives u PLANNING CONMISSION MINUTES-February 3, 198 2 Page 3 PREL IMINARY DRAFT OF THE HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN (cont.) with an emphasis on the latter, that is a quantitative statemen t of the direc ­ tion of the communi ty and lastly a statement of program actions to ad dres s the hous ing need . Comm . Cummings asked for a definition of affordability. Mr. Cas tanada gave his v iews on the definit ion of af forda bility. Comm . Cummings asked for a typical pro f i l e of af ford able hous ing. Mr . Cast anada stated ·th at no definitions are provided in the legi sla tion. He sa id that each time t here is a sale ·, there is going t o be a differ ent profi l e. Comm . Donnelly asked who e stabli s hed the sec ond goal on Page 2, Doc . 3. Chmn . Iz ant r esponded that tha t was some t h i ng put to t he Commission by the Sta ff which is to be decided whether or not it is a d e sirable goal . Corrnn . Lo osl i stated that ~twas in the old Housin g Element and i n the current Coast al Plan . Comm . Donnelly stre ssed tha t he would like to h ave some informat ion as to how many housing units in the private sector are currently being taken care of und er Object i ves 1 and 2 . PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -February 3> 1982 Page 4 PRELIMINARY DRAFT OF THE HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN (cont.) Mr. Castanda stated that there has been an allocation of approximately $125,000 for three types of -rehabilitation. Comm. Smith mentioned that nowhere in the Housing Element does it note the phenomenon of absentee landlords in relation to deteriorating housing. He questioned whether this was relevant. Chmn. Izant replied that there is no such provision in the Housing Element, He stated that the Commission has the option to incorporate such a provision. Comm. Cummings asked for a definition of the Housing Information System. Mr. Castanada replied that it is a recommendation included in the Housing Element with regard to housing ·, prices, rents, and number of uni ts. Comm. Cummings asked whether there is ·a conflict between the goals of energy conservation and the goals of affordable housing. Mr. Castanada replied that in certain instances there might be a conflict. Comm. Donnelly asked what elements make up household growth. ~r. Castanada stated a household is that group of persons who occupy separate housing units. Factors affecting the household growth include population growth, people growing older and forming individual households, and marriages and divorces. Comm. Rue asked whether the time constraints for the objectives on Page 2.3 on Chart I were a ten-year plan. Mr. Castanada replied that it is a five-year plan. He said that the Commission has the opportunity to make modifications at the July, 1984, deadline. Comm, Rue asked where the three to nine units came from, as outlined in the fifth policy. Mr, Castanada replied that a survey of all apartments having three or more units was conducted in March of 1981, It was found that the rental stock of three to nine nnits was of the lower cost. Comm. Cummings stated that the City can build a sufficient amount of new housing .to cover the City's needs for the next five years. He questioned what would happen after that five-year period. Mr. Castanada replied that, after the first five years, the growth forecast .should reflect the capabilities of the City to accommodate additional growth past this five-year period. Comm. Donnelly asked whether two thirds of the-housing units in thP. City are west of Ardmore. Mr. Castanada replied in the affirmative. PLANNING COMMI SSION MINUTES-Februa ry 3, 1982 Page 5 PRELIMINARY D.RAFT OF THE HOUSI NG ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN (c ont.) Publi c Hearing opene d at 8:50 P.M. Rober t Curry, 1509 Monter ey Boul evard, He rmosa Beach, s tate d that h e has been in the City since 1965, and h e has s een hi s prop e rty ri g hts ove rzoned and has not iced a los s of v a lue on p ro per ty he owns. He fe lt it i s futi le f or t he citi zens o f Hermo sa Bea ch to sp eak before the Commi ss ion. He said one c•.annot h a ve af fo rdable housing when t here is infl a tion. He do es not want hi s house to b e set up either as a ff ordab le or as unaf for dabl e . He want s to own it for himself . Viole t Isgr een , 726 Prosp ect Avenue , H~rmosa Beach, s ta ted t hat 16,5 00 people l i v i ng in one s quare mi l e is over whe lming . She questi oned how t he Commissi on could prop ose buil ding a ffo rdab l e housing in t he Cit y . She f el t the e ntire situat i on could be r emedied by inf ormin g SCAG that 16 ,5 00 p e opl e a re l'iving in one square mile. Wilma Burt, 1152 7th Stre e t, Hermo sa Be ach·, spok e in oppositi on to t he c oncept of a ff orab le housing . She ques tioned whether or no t a build ing will b e c ondemn ed if the owner of the propert y c a nn ot o r will no t ma ke improvements t o said prop e rty. Sh e pointed out that older c itizens a re n ot always f i nancially able to make the n eeded improv ements. She sta ted t ha t c i t izens do n ot want t o utili ze c ommunity b l ock grant fun ds, She s tre ssed th e f act t hat cit i zens do not want ou tside monies b e i n g brought i nto the City. Sh e was op p osed t o any group o f peopl e deci d ing some body el se's personal property h as to be divid ed or develo ped ac co r d ing to their p hiloso phical v iews . Sh e stress ed that s he wi l l not s u ppor t d o wnzoni og . She sp e cified that s he is ag ainst urban r enewal . She believe s tho se p ersons who a re alr eady living in the Ci ty who a re handicapp e d, eld e rly, or ec o nomi c a l l y di sadv antaged d eserve to remain i n t he City and b e give n help. She i s agains t bui lding a ff ordabl e hous ing to ac commoda te outs ider s moving into t he Ci ty . Public Heari ng clo sed at 9 :13 P.M. Comm. Pe irc e s tate d t hat the requirements for the do cument do not thorough - l y id ent i fy t he ne eds o f t he Ci ty . He f e l t that t he need s of t he Ci ty s hould be i ncorp or ated i nto t h e docume nt it se lf. He con curred wi th much of t he tes timony g iven a t th e p ubli c hearin g . Hi fe lt tha t a h ou sing inventory is n eeded t o be i nco r por ated i n to the Hou s i ng El e me nt. He also felt the ba sic issues were n ot a dd ress e d such as how to dea l with t h e remai ning p roper ty to be d evelop ed. The c i ty's r o le on a fford a ble hou s ing is not s pe cific al ly d ef ined. Comm. Donnal l y , was concern ed t hat the ci t y i s r equir ed t o ass ist in mee t i ng t he needs o f the r egional hou sing growth whe n the ci ty i s s o dense already. We sho uld c ompar e our d e nsity p ~r ac re to t h e regi on's s h a re o f densit y per ac re. He a l so t oo k i ssue wi th the city 's having t o p r ovid e f o r h o use hold growth b ecau se o f n e w family formati on of the exi sting p opul ati on. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -February 3, 1982 Page 6 PRELIMINARY. DRAFT OF THE HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN (cont.) Comm. Cummings felt that the Housing Element does not commit the City to any specific program. Comm. Cummings suggested a program whereby the City would support the landlord if the landlord provides afforable housing. He did not see any specific program commitment. Comm. Rue believedthe question regarding individual property rights and keeping density at a minimum is not addressed in the Housing Element as proposed. Comm. Smith, stated that a public document should be a statement of public policy. It should be the result of public input and support. To this extent, the commission should give a clear direction of their position -by voting on each section of the Element with respect to the objectives, goals and policies. Comm. Izant stated that after City Council workshop the commission can establish a CTethodology to review the document. It was ordered by the Cornmiss\on to include the minutes of this meeting and the last commission meeting on the Housing Element with the transmittal of'the document to the City Council. u PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 3, 1982 Page 7 PRELIMINARY DRAFT OF THE HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN (cont,) Recess from 9:33 P.M. until 9:42 P.M. CONCEPTUAL PLAN REVIEW FOR 440 -2nd,,STREET -THE BOATYARD SITE Ms. Sapetto gave staff report. She stated that at the January 19, 1982, meeting, the Planning Commission considered a zone change request and conceptual plan review for this project. Before adopting a decision on the conceptual plan phase, the Commission felt it should have more data, and thus requested, from staff, information on the impact upon neighbor­ hood circulation and parking from the proposed project. Two circulation .plans have been submitted by the developer. The first, Plan A, proposes one central outlet on Valley Drive and one entrance and exit on Herondo. This is destined to bottleneck both circulation within and external to the project during peak hours and will undoubtedly add considerably to the congestion in this area at these two points. The second, Plan B, proposes five points of entry/exit encircling the project, each serving a portion of the project units commensurate with its location, i.e., capacity of streets to incur a greater intensity of use, It is estimated that a project of this size an average of 395 vehicular trips per day. per day would be in the 200-300 range. and density range will produce It seems that the actual trips Except for Herondo Avenue, the streets surrounding the project are operating in excess of their intended capacity. Plan B proposes that 31% of the project 1 s traffic will be located at Herondo. It appears th~t a light signal sys tern is inevitable for this location; especially with the advent of this project. There are orte hundred and forty-four (144) parking spaces on the streets surrounding the project. During the summer period, parking becomes a major problem. During the remaining months, according to a General Services Officer .who has worked that area, parking is still a concern, but not a major one. However, there have been numerous resident complaints as a result of competition for spaces between the residents and commercial users along the Highway. Obviously, this project will not enhance this situation; the actual impact, if there will be one, is difficult to gauge. The guest parking, under Plan B, at the corner of 2nd and Valley, and at Valley and Herondo seem to be prime targets for summer visitors. The area surrounding the project is already experiencing more traffic than intended, availability of parking is marginal, and other aspects of the infra-structure will be affected. Despite these existing and perceived conditions, the devloper has, to some extent, mitigated these impacts by virtue of Plan B which decentralizes the circulation system of the project. Further alternatives would be to reduce the traffic volume at Hill Street and Ardmore and increase the volume at Herondo, i.e., 10% at Hill,-10% at Ardmore, and 39% at Herondo. Staff recommends that Plan B receive conceptual approval. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -February 3, 1982 Page 8 CONCEPTUAL PLAN REVIEW FOR 440 -2nd STREET -THE BOATYARD SITE (cont.) Comm. Peirce asked whether a minor collector"is a secondary collector. Ms. Sapetto replied that it is a secondary collector. Ms. Sapetto stated that 2nd street is not classified in the traffic study as a minor collector; however, it is classified as a secondary collector. Comm. Peirce noted that· 2nd Street was not indicated under the category of secondary collector streets on Page 7. Comm. Peirce stated that if 2nd Street is not a secondary collector street, it could not be overutilized. Ms. Sapetto stated that the Commission must determine the volume on 2nd Street, if judging form what designation 2nd street should be. Comm. Smith noted that Page 5 states that 2nd Street is designated to be analogous to 8th Street, and 8th Street is designated to be a minor collector. Comm. Peirce stated that the Commission should be considering what the traffic ~irculation element states with regard to the City's plans for 2nd Street. Cornms. Donnelly and Smith concurred that the above statement should be considered. Chrnn. Izant stated that the Commission must determine the recommended usage, not the actual usage, for a secondary collector street. Comm. Donnelly asked for the recommended volume of traffic on local streets. Ms. Sapetto replied that the general planning principles for traffic planning designate and describe streets as to the number.of units they serve. A minor collector street is a local street which serves adjoining property, but they do not serve more than 150 dwelling units or more than 1,500 trips per day. Comm. Donnelly asked how many dwelling units 2nd Street serves at this time. Hr. Mercado replied that 2nd Street does not serve more than 150 units per day. Comm. Cummings asked what time of the day is the peak load for traffic on Ardmore. Mr. Mercado replied that traffic reaches its peak in the evening . ....) Comm. Loosli asked if the visitor parking spaces of 8 1/2 X 19 feet are adequate. Ms. Sapetto replied in the affirmative. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -Febraury 3, 1982 Page 9 CONCEPTUAL PLAN REVIEW FOR 440-2nd STREET -THE BOATYARD SITE (cont.) Comm. Peirce stated that the minimum space shall be 8 1/2 X 19 with pro­ visions of columns on center. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -February 3, 1982 Page 10 CONCEPTUAL PLA."l" REVIEW FOR 440 -2nd STREET -THE BOATYARD SITE (cont.) Public Hearing opened at 10:15 P.M. Dick Leonard, 17442 s. Prairie, Torrance, applicant, stated that Plan B generates approximately 10,000 square feet more active, usable common area than Plan A. He stated that Plan A is appr·oximately 46,000 square feet, and Plan Bis 56,000 square feet, He stated the difference in the two is the lack of need to provide circulation driveways through the project. He went over his plans to relandscape .the entire Santa Fe right-of-way along the unused Ardmore and Hill Streets. He said his position on this has not changed. He stated that if the· parking plan is beneficial, the property will be purchased. Santa Fe requires a fence or block wall to be constructed along the property line to keep residents away from the tracks. He stated that he felt this project would provide needed housing, beautify the City, provide employment to the depressed construction industry, provide work for local residents, and bring money into the City. He said it was his understanding that the Gity received one fourth of the property tax and all of the sales tax collected. For a buyer to purchase one of the units at $180,000 with an 80% loan, that tenant would have to have a.yearly income o.f approximately $70,000. Based on the Federal tax tables for that income range, it would be approximately $450 per year in sales tax. This $450 times the 79 units is $36,000 for the City. The present property taxes are $4,371. The present assessed valuation is approximately 1.1%. Seventy-nine units at $180,000 each would generate $156,000 in property tax, making a difference of $151,000. A quarter of this is the City's, which is $38,000. This makes a total annual benefit of approximately $74,000 a year. In addition, for the first year, the park fee of $500 for each of the 79 units is $39,500, The sewer use fee is $100 per unit, which is $7,900. The building permit would be approximately $1,500. The plan check fee of $1,500 was not. taken into consideration because it was Mr. Leonard's feeling that that would be used in total by staff in checking the plans. That first year total is approximately $121,000. He stated that the increased services that would be required by the City would be considerably below that figure. He felt these services would be of minimal cost. Comm, Smith asked whether or not Mr. Leonard had done any calculations in relation to the cost to the City for this number of units per year. Mr. Leonard replied that he had not. Comm. Smith asked whether there were a prototype cost per unit to the City in terms of additional servic~s to be used. Comm. Loosli stated that Palo Alto's study was $27,000 per house, Ms. Sapetto stated that those figures are not available for Hermosa Beach. Comm. Donnelly asked Mr, Leonard which of the two plans he personally preferred and asked him to state his r.easorr. Mr. Leonard felt that Plan B was the better plan, He stated that the additional 10,000 square feet of active common area is in the usable area where the pool, spa, and playground equipment are located, He stated that this fact makes it more saleable. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -February 3, 1982 Page 11 CONCEPTUAL PLAN REVIEW FOR 440 -2nd STREET -THE BOATYARD SITE (cont.) Comm. Donnelly asked whether the major differenc.e would be in the usable open space. Mr, Leonard replied in the affirmative. Comm, Cummings asked how tall the Santa Fe fence is going to be. Mr. Leonard replied that the City has not yet specifically put anything in writing. He stated that the City has mentioned putting up a five-foot fence or wall. Comm. Cummings then asked if the City would be satisfied with a three-foot wall. Mr. Leonard replied that the City would probably not find that satisfactory. He explained that the property line is fifteen feet away frcim the center line of the tracks. Assuming a railroad car is twelve feet wide, that puts the rails cars, as they go by, six feet from the property line. The City wants suitable fencing so that children are not jumping over and so forth. Conun. Cummings asked for clarification on why a fence or wall is necessary • . Ms. Sapetto replied that it is a condition of the purchase. Comm. Smith asked what the limitations are on the 35 feet zoned open space. Ms. Sapetto replied that it is for recreational purposes. Buildings may be constructed for recreational use. Comm. Smith questioned the use of the easterly 35-foot right-of-way. Ms. Sapetto stated that both plans are projecting the use of that space for parking. They do have a right to use at least 10% of that for parking. The Commission can, if it deems, agree to an additional 10% or to waive' that requirement. This is provided for in the Open Space Ordinance. Mr. Leonard added that the Zoning Ordinance does state that buildings in the open space area cannot exceed 10%. It also says that parking cannot exceed 10%. It goes on further to say in 9.5-4 that the Commission can waive any and all of those conditions, if they· deem it proper. Ms. Sapetto stated that the open space that is required within a site when something is constructed is simply for the benefit of that project. When a piece of property is zoned open space in the Zoning Ordinance, it means that it shall be used for the purpose of open space. Ho.wever, if it is still private property, it can be developed for private recreational use. It is still an open space use. She st;ated if the City wished it to be open space, the City, must be pr~pared to acquire the property. Herb Schneider) 157 Ardmore, Hermosa Beach, stated that he is against the density and all of the traffic exits. He expressed his dissatisfaction toward the special considerations given the open space at the site. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -Februai;-y. 3, 19 82 Page 12 CONCEPTUAL PLAN REVIEW FOR 440 -2nd STREET -THE BOATYARD SITE (cont,) Wilma Burt, 1152 7th Street, Hermosa Beach, -stated that a developer should not be given consideration on property he might purchase but does not yet already own. She stated that she ho~ed the City would prevent the railroad from ever being used by a developer. She stated density includes not only people and houses, but also cars. Robert Curry, 1509 Monterey, Hermosa Beach, felt if traffic from both Valley and Ardmore was opened up to Herondo, the traffic problem on Monterey would be alleviated somewhat. He stated the areas for access to the people who are going to live in the properties should not inconvenience or further burden the people who already live to the west of 2nd Street. He objects to 2nd Street as being one of the access areas into this development. He felt that perhaps Hill Street could be widened. He feels that Valley should also be able to handle some of the traffic load. He felt the rail road track sho.uld not even be a part of the builder I s option. He would rather have the open space remain open space. Jerry Moss, 539 2nd Street, Hennosa Beach, stated that Ardmore is already a dangerous street. He felt that anything that would increase the traffic situation on that street would be a dangerous precedent to set. He felt the question of ingress and egress on Ardmore should be forgotten. He also felt that putting more traffic on Hill Street would not benefit the residents. He felt that a recommendation should be made to the developer to use Herondo and Valley and a small portion of 2nd Street, but not Hill or Ardmore. Ron or·r, 168 Hill Street, Hermosa Beach, questioned whether 2nd Street could be used as an exit for 20% to 40% of the traffic volume if, and only if, it is blocked off at Valley so that one could trade a high proportion of the 400 trips a day from the boatyard for the 3,100 trips a day generated by properties located elsewhere. Chmn. Izant stated th.at might be a possibility if the City saw it as potentially good planning, but that would be something the City would have to decide. Mr. Orr suggested to the Commission that they do not allow the egress on 2nd Street, the egress on Hill Street, and the egress on Ardmore unless 2nd Street were blocked off. He did not approve of 2nd Street being one-way west up to Valley. He recommends Plan B only if 2nd Street were blocked off at Valley and if the linkage were complete between the two projects, that is, the approval ano building of the boatyard and the blockage of 2nd Street, Polly Schneider, 157 Ardmore, Hermosa Beach, stated she is against Plan B because of the way the traffic problem is handled. She questioned the figuring of the number of cars coming out of each of these exits. She wanted to know how many cars are being figured per double master bedroom unit, and how many double master bedro.om un-i.ts there are in this particular plan. Ms. Sapetto replied that vehicle trip calculations are based on what a residence will generate, and the average generation of a residence is between seven to ten vehicle trips daily. • PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -February 3, 1982 Pa ge 13 CONCEPTUAL PLAN REVIEW FOR 440 -2nd· STREET -THE BOATYARD SITE (con t,) Mrs, Schn e i der a sked whethe r this were true even i f t here are f ewer c a rs connected to the re s i d ence,· Ms. Sape t t o re p l i ed that the calcula tions are based on the seven to ten fi g u re. That t a k es int o c o n s ideration t h e number of b ed rooms and t h e number of persons living there, on an average . Mrs , Schneider suggeste d that there be a few more c a r trips conne cted with those lar g er units . She que s tione d -whether t h e Commission h as control over the nmnber of units p e r acre . Sh e also questioned the Commiss i on 's straw vote on this i ssue , Chmn . Izant replied th at t h ere is l imite d control , in that a d e v elop er has a .ri ght, as long as h e con f orms with l ot coverage a nd meets parking . He h a s a legal ri ght to develop up to, in this case b ecause o f th e Gene ral P l a n, 25 dwelling units per ac-re. If there i s a· le g al r e a s on tha t can be supported i n a court of law , the Commission coul d limit him to something l e ss. Chmn . Izan t s t a t ed that s t raw votes are taken by the Commission in many i n s tance s, but they h a ve no legal binding . Mr s . Schneider asked wheth e r a roadway was a l lowed on the open space . <;:hnm, I z ant s t ated tha t it is l e g a lly a llowable; however, it d o e s not cons.titute an a ddit ional p ercentage o f land t h at i s used . Mrs. Schneide r asked what t he maximum amount is that can be used. Chmn. Izan t replied that 10% may be us e d for bu~lding s, and 10 % may be used for parking ;. h owever , there are mit i gating c i r cumstanc es i n which the . Commission could grant a gr e a t er l e v e l of usag e . Bill 0 1 Claire , 540 1s t Street, Hermosa Beach , stated he i s oppos eq to the e n t rance /e xit on 2n d Stre et and Hi ll ' St r e et , He f e lt the developer s hould b e l i mited on the open space to whateve r the Code says . Rita Newkirk, 5 40 1st Street , Hermosa Beach, s tated that s he f e lt the a dvantag e of Plan Bis that it d e c entr a lizes traffic for t he project . She express e d conce rn for her n e igh b orhood . Jer ry Moss , 5 39 2nd Street, Hermo sa Be a ch. s t ated that textured concrete s u c h as c ob bles t one s coul d be us ed. fo r the d riveways. Di c k Leonard, applican t, g ave his vi ew on wh a t h a s happe n e d to t he d ens ity . He stated that with the intended purchas e of the San t a Fe proper t y and with the exte nsive lan d scapi ng , the density comes down t o 21.35 units to t he a cre . With the unus ed p o rtio n of. Ardmore which wi l l be l andscaped , and the installation o f the bike path all the way around the project , the density comes down to· 1 8 .9" dwel ling units per a c re : He stated t ha t a new sewer line will h a v e to b.e put in to d eve lop this par ticular piece of p ~operty , This sewer line would go directly into th e County t runk lin e. n o t the City's s ewer s . He s t ated t hat b o th _p l a n s PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -Feb ruary 3, 1982 Page 16 CONCEPTUAL PLAN REVIEW FOR 440 -2nd STREET -THE BOATYARD SITE (cont.) show the completion of Hill Street up to the northerly portion that has been vacated. Public Hearing closed at 11:19 P,M. Comm . Cummings stated that he would favor Plan B if 2nd Street we re closed off. Comm . Donnelly felt that both Plans A and B were good. Comm . Cummings reinforced his tendency toward Plan B. Comm . Loosli questi oned whether the· approval wa s in the public int e rest or the private interes t. Comm . Rue asked if a ny improvements. were to be made on 2nd Street. Ms. Sapetto replied t h at 2nd Str e et is e armarked in the T~affic Study as a street to be examined . She said that the inst31lation of curbs and lightin g is a condition of the approval. Comm. Rue · asked if Public Works looked over Plan A to d e t e rmine whether the emergency vehicle ·access was adequate. Ms . Sapetto replied that any condition on the p roj ect should be contin g e n t on the access being granted a nd provided.a nd subject to the fire chief's recommondations. Comm . Loosli asked i f 2nd Street is a local street on the Gene r al Plan , what kind o f find ings would h ave to be made to -justify a dding 7% more traffic to s omething that the General Plan states is already overloaded. Ms . Sapetto replied that the General Plan took that i n t o consid eration and ·desighated it r e sidential . Chmn. Izant stated that he f e lt Plan B was the better plan from the standpoint of interior usage. Comm. funne lly asked if open space can be used for recreational purposes. Ms . Sapetto replied in the affirmative. Comm. Smith .stated that the additional 10,000 square feet in P l an Bis relevant, because the more att r active the development is> the less impact it will have on the surrounding nei ghborhood s . Comm. Donnel ly discussed t h e parking question . He stated that Plan B, wi th 16% parking, i s acceptable. Comm. Rue noted the difference of 6% g r een common area between Plans A a nd B. He sugg ested that it might be p o s s ible to up the green common area on Plan A . He f elt the 6% could be g ott e n down possibly 3% or 4%. r') PLANNING COMMI S S I ON MINUTES -February 3 , 1982 Pa g e 15 - CON CEPTUAL PLAN REVIEW FOR 440 -2nd STREET -THE BOATYARD S I TE (cont .) Mr . Leonard responded to the difference by say i ng that the Fire Depar t me nt r equi res a 25 -foo t-wide driveway. The plan re f l ects this requirement . Comm. Rue asked whe t her both plans have 25-foot-wide driveways . Mr. Leonard rep l ied in the aff inna tive. Mo t i on by Comm, Peirce,•s econded by Comm . Don n e lly, to a p p r ov e Plan B as s ubmitt e d b y the developer , with t he p r evious six conditions plac e d on it. Comm . Loosli f e lt that Pl an B d o e s not take i nto consideration the City 's p r oblem of o p en s p a ce, density, or parking. He felt th a t Plan B was not innovative in a ny way. He f elt approval of Plan B would not be in the public inte r e st. Comm . Rue s t a t ed t h at he is voting against Plan B because h e be lieved that the traffic i s going t o a dversely a f f e ct t he abutting property . Chmn. Izant recommended a vot e a gainst Plan B f or two r e a sons. Although h e felt that Plan B was better architecturally, he felt t h at the additional green space did not overcome the. traffic p r o b l e m, Also, he f e lt t hat the City should a cquire the op e n s p ace right-o f -way. AYES : Comms. Cummings, Don nelly , Peirce, Smi th NOES : Comms. Loosli , Rue, Chmn . Izant ABSENT: -No n e Motion by Comm, Donnelly, s e c o nded by Comm . Smi th, to approve Plan A, with the s a me c onditions a s the prior mot i on . AYES : NOES : ABSENT : ~mms. Donne l ly, Rue, Smith, Cummin g s Comrns . Loosl i, Peirc e, Chmn. I z a n t None Ms . S a p e t t o re commended a Resolution on the c onceptual p l a ns . Comm. Cummings r ecommended tha t the fo l lowing WHEREASs be inc o rp orated in t h e Re s o lution for Plan B : "WHEREAS, t h e i n te r nal traffic circulation concept was o r i g i n a lly developed f or a common s u bte rranean garage"; "WHEREAS , t he i mpact of Plan B t r a f f i c will b e s mall in absolute a n d relative t e rms, that is, relative to a s tand a rd s ubdivision of the p r ope rty"; "WHEREAS, P.C.H, southbound eveni ng parking lane traffic is a planned r e medy for traffic on Ardmore and 2nd Stre e:t"; "WHEREAS ., blockade of 2nd Stre e t at Val l e y i s a gene r al a nd desirable additional possible remedy "; 11WHEREAS , Ardmore may be rer,cuted west of t h e S anta Fe r a ilroad r~ght-of-way , d e tracting from the d esirability of p o t e n tial public o~en ~p ace use of t h e right-o f -way east o f t he tracks ," THEREFORE,IT BE RESOLVED we u s e Plan B . Comm. Donnelly a d ded : "WHEREAS, the proje c t conforms to the General P l an zoni ng designation as to number of dwe l l i n g units p e r acre , that it i s in confo rmance to the height l i mitation and ail zoning r e quirements rela t ive to p a rking , and that the p l ans meet th e c u r r e nt zoni n g a n d General P l an desig n a t ion ." .. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - February 3, 1982 Page 16 CONCEPTUAL PLAN REVIEW FOR 440 -2nd STREET -THE BOATYARD SITE (cont.) Comm. Smith a dded: 11WHEREAS, it has no substantial adverse impa ct on adjoining properties." Motion by Comm. Cummings, seconded by Comm. Donnelly, to accept the fore­ going Re solutions in regard to Plan B. AYES: NOES : ABSENT: Cornms. Cummings, Donnelly, P e irce, Smith Comm. Rue , Chmn . Izant Comm. Loosli Mot ion b y Comm . Donnelly, seconded by Comm. Smith, for a Re s olution relative to Plan A with identical WHEREASs as previously stated for Plan B. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Cornms. Cummings, Donnelly, Rue, Smith Comm. Peirce, Chmn . Izant Comm. Loosli Mr . Leonard thanked the Commissioners for their consideration. He s tate d tha t he expected to be back at the next hearing with a ful1 and complete submis sion. Ron Orr , 1 68 Hill Street, Hermosa Beach, stated that he felt he had a right to comment in opposition to t h e applicant . Chmn , Izant advised Mr. Orr that the decision of the Planning Commission may.be appealed to th e City Co uncil. STAFF REPORTS Comm. Smith asked what happened in regard to the LCP hearing that was scheduled which the Commission had no knowledge of until the last minute. Ms. Sapetto replied that it wa s her understanding that the LCP workshop was not for the P lanning Commission. At the City Council meeting it was determined that they did, in fa ct , wan_t the Planning Cornmis s ion to be contacted.by staff . Comm, Smith req u ested that more advan ce not i ce be given to the Planning Commission in regard to joint workshops . Chmn. Izant asked Ms, Sapetto to convey to the Mayor that the Planning Commission is desirous of full p a rticipation, and the Commission supports the joint workshop concept'. however more adequate noticing must . be given. Ms. Sapetto r epli e d that she would do that. Ms . Sapetto brought up an action t aken at the last City Council meeting , That a ction was to not extend the Sunset Oroinance on th e Cl, C2> a nd C3 standards, which expir e March 21 , The City Council wa~ts a recommendation from the Planning Commi ssion with respect to those o rdinance s b_efore March 27; She suggested that the issue be discussed at the next meeting of the Planning Commission , Chmn . Izant r ecommended that the Commission take steps t o have public hearings on the direction of the multi-use c o rridor , and that the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -February 3, 1982 STAFF REPORTS (cont.) Page P Commission recommend to the City Council a continuance of the current standards. COMMISSIONER'S ITEMS Chmn. Izant suggested that the next meeting of the Planning Commission deal with the multi-use corridor. Comm. Donnelly asked if this would include a public hearing. Chmn, Izant replied in the affirmative. Chmn, Izant-stated that the Commission had a choice of recommendations to make to the City Council. They could recommend to continue the present standards, do nothing at all, or pass permanent standards. Chmn. Izant asked which of the Commissioners favored doing nothing at all, Conuns. Donnelly, Peirce, Rue favored this suggestion. Cormns. Cummings, Loosli, Smith, and Chmn. Izant did not favor this choice. Chmn. Izant asked which of the Commissioners favored a continuance of the current standards .that are in force. Comms. Cummings, Loosli, Peirce, Smith, and Chmn. Izant favored, Comms. Donnelly and Rue voted in opposition. Chmn. Izant asked which of the Connnissioners favored holding hearings on permanent standards that will be in place prior to the exploration of the Sunset Ordinance, Comms. Cummings, Loosli, Peirce favored this suggestion, Commissioners Donnelly, Rue, Smith, and Chmn. Izant voted in opposition. Chmn. Izant stated that the Planning Commission would recommend to the City Council that the temporary standards be extended. Comm. Donnelly stated that he would like to have an outlined program put before the Commission that will enable the Commission to establish pennanent standards for Cl, C2, and C3. Chmn. Izant requested staff to find out 0 what steps this would involved and report it at the next meeting, Motion by Comm. Loosli, seconded by Comm. Cummings, to have hearings on notice to rezone the area commonly known as the railroad right-of-way to open space. AYES: Comms, Cummings, Donnelly, Loosli, Rue, Smith, Chmn. Izant NOES: None ABSENT: Comm. Peirce Motion to adjourn at 12:26 A.M. n PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -Fepruary 3, 1982 Page 18 CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the for~going minutes are a true and complete record of the action taken by the Planning Commission at their regular meeting of February 3, 1982. STEPHEN !ZANT, CHAIRMAN ROBERT CUMMINGS, SECRETARY DATE