Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC_Minutes_1982-02-16r MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON FEBRUARY 16, 1982, IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT 7:30 P.M. Meeting called to order by Chmn, Izant at 7:32 P,M. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Comms. Cummings, Loosli, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Izant ABSENT: Caroms. Donnelly, Smith ALSO PRESENT: Pamela Sapetto, Planning Director APPROVAL OF MINUTES Comm. Cummings requested that the discussion on Page 3 concerning affordability be expanded: Mr. Castane.da stated that there are two parts to the affordability question. One is the cost part, which is the actual price or rent or consideration given to be able to live in whatever kind of dwelling; and by being affordable, then it would have to be affordable within the context of being within the economic means of certain income groups. Comm. Cummings asked if affordability is attached to the situation of the owner. in his mortgage payments on the property, or is it attached to the renter? Mr. Castaneda. replied that there are two points of view. The manner in which we deal with it in the Housing Element, for the most part in the section of Housing Assistance, is a combination of two factors: income and housing payment matched to give you the idea of whether the housing occupied by that person is affordable or not. Connn. Donnelly posed a question to Mr. Castareda: Let's assrune we have two identical apartments. Both rented at $200 a month, one being occupied by someone earning a million dollars a year, and one being occupied by someone earning $5,000 a year. Are both considered part of our affordable housing stock? Mr, Castane..da replied that two units would be considered part of the affordable housing stock. The person with the problem would be the one with the $5,000 income, when you compare the payments versus the income, whether that exceeded ability to pay, Comm. Donnelly asked: If the payment does not exceed capability to pay, you then look at the amount of the payment to determine affordability. If the payments exceed capability to pay, and someone is in the low and moderate income level, then does the income level determine affordability or not? Mr. Cas tane..da replied that this is true. / Mr. Castaneda stated: You have to consider the fact that you have a price in the cost structure and that at the lower end that would accordingly be called affordable from a cost standpoint. Then once you had the occupant and his income, then that's another matter. That's when you are measuring something else . ._v., Mr. Cas ta~.da further stated: In terms of definilig existing affordable housing, take your income groups and find what is affordable to them, based on a percentage of income; and that translates to a housing payment. And then one can measure the housing supply against the price category. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -Fe ~t uary 16, 1982 APPROVAL OF MINUTES (cont.) Comm. Smith asked: What is the basis of any definition? Page 2 Mr. Castan~da responded that it is income, with income and percentage of income that should be spent on housing, This could also be determined by family size. Comm. Loosli stressed that his comments on Page 15~ Paragraph 5 were preceded by his reading the intent and purpose of the Plan Development Ordinance: "The intent is to provide specific planning on larger parcels within the city to deal effectively with neighborhood and citywide concerns such as traffic, circulation, utilities, buffering, and open space, density~ height, and layout," Motion by Comm. CUIIDil.ings, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve the February 3, 1982, minutes. No objections, so ordered. APPROVAL OF RESOLUTIONS Comm, Cummings stated that certain WHEREASs in P,C. 82-8 pertain to/Plan B, not Plan A. He suggested that those WHEREASs be deleted from P. C. 82-6: 11WHEREAS, Pacific Coast Highway southbotn1d evening parking lane traffic is a planned remedy for traffic on Ardmore and 2nd Street"; "WHEREAS, blockade of 2nd Street at Valley is a general and desirable additional possible remedy." "IJlHEREAS, the internal c.irculation conc.ept was originally developed for a common subterranean garage" shall be revised to read_, "WHEREAS, Plan A maintains the internal circulation .... " (P .C. 82-8) Chrnn, Izant stated that the following WHEREASs shall be incorporated into P.C. 82-7: "WHEREAS, this traffic plan w;ith separa:t_e entrances & exits allows for more internal usable open space -in the project"; WHEREAS this traffic plan was so devised as to minimize impact on surrounding surface streets." Motion by Col!Wl, Rue, seconded by Cormn. Cummings, to approve Resolutions P.C. 82-7 and 82-8 as revised. AYES: -,NOES: ABSENT: Comms. Cummings, Loosli, Peirce, Rue, Ghmn. Izant None COllllIIS. Donnelly, Smith PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATION OF THE SPECIFIC PLAN FOR 440 -2nd STREET - BOATYARD SITE Violet Isgreen, 726 Prospect Avenue, Hermosa Beach, stated for the record that, since the City Council saw fit to hold an equally important meeting in conflict with the Public Hearing meeting involving basic, vital changes in the City, she requested that the Planning Commission meeting be adjourned as an expression of good faith to the public of Hermosa Beach. Ms. Sapetto stated that the specific plans for Plans A and B will be submitted to you and the city at your meeting, The purpose of the submittal is to give the Commission an opportunity to review over the next two (2) weeks the elevations, floor plans, etc., of both plans which have received your conceptual approval. No action can be taken by the Commission at this time since you, one, will not have a staff analysis, and, two, will not have had the plans submitted to you previous to your meeting. Staff recommends that you receive and file the submittal until your next ·regular scheduled meeting. ' PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -Fe brua ry 16 , 1982 PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATION OF THE SPECIF I C PLAN FOR 440 -2nd STREET - BOATYARD SITE Page 3 Ms. Sapett o pointed out that, since the Concep tual Plan i s in the process of an appeal to the City Council, further action on the specific plan will be delayed until the results of that appeal are known. Cbnn, Izant asked Ms. Sape tto i f the Public Hearing had been advertised, Ms. Sapetto stated that she did n o t advertise it . Chmn . Izant stated that the Publ ic Hearing on the Conce ptual Plan had been c losed at the previous meeting of t he Planning Collllllission; therefo r e , a public notice for a specific plan would be i n orde r fo r a spec ific planned hearing. Chmn . Izant s .tated that the re was no legally advertised public hearing. Ms . Sapet t o concurred with Chmn. I zant but added that that fa ct does not preclude the Commiss ion f rom hearin g publ ic testimony, if t here be any. Chmn . Izant rei t erated the fact that thi.s was not a legal pub lic hearing for the Boaty ard Site and asked t he Commi ssioners h ow they wished to dispose of this particular item. Comm , Loosli felt that the people opposed to this project wh o have appealed it we re not present because they were not aware of the fact th at it would be at the Planni ng Commission level becaus e all ap peals , once they are ap pealed , are then at the Council level, an d they are not running concurrent hearings while an app eal is on. Comm . Peirce f elt that the fa ct that it was not notified was the re as on why a Public Hearing should n ot be held. He said there is no reason why a public hearing cannot be run on a specific plan even though the Conceptual Plan has not been approved or is on appeal to the City Council. Comm, Cummin gs stated that he would like to receive and fil e the plans , but he did not think a Public Hearing should be he ld . He agreed with Comm , Loosli's view that it sh oul d not be discussed until the appeal result is known. Comm. Rue ag reed with Comms. Cummings and Lo osli. Chmn. I zant s tated that, sin ce the Publ i c Hearing was not notified, and since there was not time to study th e plans , he fe lt it would be i nappropriate to take tes timony at the meeting. Comm, Cummings asked if he could receive th e plans and take them fo r his rev iew . Chmn . Izant stated t hat if the Collllllission, as individuals, were to receive the plans in the mail, ·they could then be reviewed. The City Attorney or someone on staf f would then have t o make a determination as to whether or n ot the Commission could offi cially hear them at the next meetin g. He stated he saw nothing wrong with taking the plans to review, but as far as having i t at the public level , it would be inappropriate based on the situation. n PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -February 16, 1982 DRAFr HOUSING ELEMENT Page 4 Chmn, Izant e xplained to the audience that the State of California requires that c i ties, along with their General Plan, have a number of elements. There are required elements, and there are optional elements . One of the required e lements is a Housing Plan . A Hous ing Plan has many items in it. Currently we are at a draft stage. Copies are currently available in the City Hall and in the library. This is the third of a series of public h earings. The last public hearing was a jo int workshop between the Planning Commission and the City Council, The prior was a public hearing b y the Plannin g Commission . He stated that the Commission would be taking testimony on items that the Housing Element should or should not contain, not whether or not an element is nee ded, because the element is mandated by law. Mr. Castanada gave staff report. He stated that a work session with the City Council was held last Thursday on the Housing Element. The purpos e of that work session was for the City Council to receive some of th e initial reactions or concerns of the Planning Conunission on the draft version as well as a synops is of community input at the public hearing of February 3. He felt progre ss was made at that session. He felt that a better understanding of what a Housing Element is was gained. There was quite a bit of discussion on the section dealing with what we call Hous ing Production, and that is mainly that section dealing with new development that may occur in the community. It appeared to us-that there seems to be a question in terms of the additional amount of housing that should be permitted in the City and that perhaps it is necessary to not only take a look at this in terms of the Housing Element but as well other elements of the General Plan. In t erms of procedures, at the last work session it s eemed as if one procedure was to take each of the major sections and review those sections until there seemed to be some satisfaction with what s hould be in it and what sh ould not be in it. And it also seemed that the section which was obtaining the most interest and wliich might influence the other two sections was the section on housing production. I think it's quite open in terms of procedures and how you would like to review the document contingent on terms of what actions or what kinds of decisions you want to make. Chmn. Izant asked if staff was suggesting that one vehicle for reviewing this both at the Commission and public level i s to take it by its three identifiable sections, that is, housing improvement, housing production, and housing assistance. Mr. Castanada replied in the affirmative. Comm, Cummings asked whether any progress was made in listing out the resources versus the constraints. '? Mr. Castanada replied in the affirmative. Mr. Castanada explained the chart illustrating affordable housing; What we attempted to do here is to examine that question from the standpoint of income as well as measure affordable housing costs relative to the percentage of income s pent on housing. Comm . Cummings asked if the information on the char~ was from a particular survey. . . .., Mr. Castanada replied it was not. It is jus t a conceptual idea of how one would take a look at defining affordable housing costs in r e lation to income. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -February 16, 1982 DRAFT HOUS ING ELEMENT (cont.) Page 5 Mr. Castanada further explained: What we have at the bottom are four bullet items which define the various income categories. These categories are defined with ref e rence to the median income in Los Angeles County. That is the standard definition of these income groups. When one makes adjustments for household size, there are changes. These are the various categories and how they are defined, whether we are talking about Hennosa Beach or another community. Comm. Cummings asked if one could conceptualize the adjustments for family size by other tables, Mr. Castanada replied in the affirmative. Comm, Cummings asked what is as sume d to be the size on this chart. ~ Mr, Castanada replied that it is the average in terms of all the households in Los Angeles County, Mr. Castanada continued: Under the first column what we have done is to develop seven income categories with the second, the fourth, and the sixth corres ponding to these various income groups. In tenns of the income group of 50% and below, we bas ically create two subcategories. In t e rms of 50 to 80%, we create two income categories. In terms of 80 to 120% once aga in two income categories. We then take those income groups and determine the monthly income in terms of a range, and then we take that and apply the fa cto rs of 25%, 30%, 33%, 35%, and 40% in terms of the amount of income that ought or can be spent on housing. It is really these income groups together with these percentages of income spent on housing which determine the kinds of affordable housing costs. In the Housing Element as it stands now, the 30% fa ctor is used in terms of renter households, This is somewhat higher than the commonly us ed 25% factor. That was the factor used according to the 1977 guidelines. Comm. Cummings asked if there are adminis trative guidelines any longer, ·~ Mr. Cas tanada replied that th ere are not. The legislation speaks to ability to pay. 0 Mr, Castanada continued: It do es not giye you a standard; so in the context of the Housing Element, we have looked at various factors and on that basis selected 30%. So if one were to use 30% for those households at the upper level of th e various income groups --very low, low, and moderate--it would have payme nts of $235, $37 6, and $556, Comm. Cummings asked if those are the upper ends of the very low, low, and moderate categories. Mr. Castanada replied in the affirmative. Mr. Castanada explained: Alternatively, if one were to say in today's market 40% seems more practical, then obviously what is defined as a ffordabl e increases dramatically, and we see that on the far right column. So that would be a definition of affordable housing costs. We then would say what portion of the housing inventory falls into this various price category. u Mr. Castanada explained the chart entitled "Cumulative Prequency Distribution of Monthly Apartment Rents." This information was compiled from a survey taken in March of 19 81. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -Fe bruary 16, 1982 DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT (cont.) Page 6 Continuing his explanation of the chart -~"Cumulative Frequency Distribution of Monthly Apartment Rents," Mr, Castanada said: What we have on the horizontal plane are various monthly rent categories . These were drawn from the survey that we conducted in March , 1981. Then, on the vertical is the percentage category. What we are trying to measure is the percent of apartment housing that falls into these various price categories. The second item is labeled "All Apartments." That i s the cumulative distribution for all apartments in the comDlunity that were surveyed, Connn. Cunnnings asked for a clarification of the survey. Mr , Castanada replied that the survey included a random selection of all apartments of three tmits or more. Comm. Cummings asked wh ether Mr. Castan.iida was going to go over the chart entitled~ "City of Hermosa Beach -Inventory of Constraints and Resources ." ·' Mr, Castanada replied that the chart is the outcome of the work sess ion on the 11th of February where we discuss ed that it might be helpful to take a look at what we in the narrative discussed in terms of constraints and resources which are somewhat conceptual in the document and as a point of possible departure for further discussion in terms of additions or delet ions. So essentially this is drawn f rom the information that is already in the document and just kind of puts them in summary form. Public Hearing opened at 8:26 P ,M. Violet Is green, 726 Prospect Avenue, Hermosa Beach, again asked that the meeting of the Planning Commission be adjourned because so many of the interested citizens we re attending the ad hoc meeting, Chmn. Izant responded that he fel t it was the obligation of the Commission to continue the meeting in the interests of the citizens who did come for the publ icly schedul ed hearings. Har per Clemons, 901 16th Street, Hermo sa Beach , stated that it was his under­ standing that the number of people in the household is also a vital factor of affordable housing . He questioned why that information was not included. Mr. Castan,da replied that there is no information available right now in terms of income by number of persons in the household. The most recent information that is available is just in terms of overall income for t he community. It is not until the 19 80 census becomes available--perhaps in six months to a year-­ that that kind of information will be readily available. Mr. Clemons asked if a survey was taken toiget the rents~ why weren't t he household incomes also obta ined. Mr. Castanada replied that the intent of the survey was to determine the rent, vaca·ncy. and those kinds of characteristics. He felt tha t had an income question been asked, the response t o the survey might not have been as good. Mr, Clemons felt it was vital to answer the question of income per person in a household to determine the affordability. Comm. Loosli questioned the availability of the 1980 census. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -February 16, 1982 DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT (cont.) Page 7 Mr. Castanada replied he did not see the availability of the census before September, Delma Peery, 720 8th Street, Hermosa Beach, stated that she felt the entire plan has no value whatever. She felt it was a waste of time, effort, and money. Pat Riley, 725 24th Place, Hermosa Beach, requested more information on the Draft Housing Element. Chmn. Izant advised her that there is a draft of the Housing Element available in the public library that she may review. Ms, Riley wanted to go on record as being against low-cost housing in Hermosa Beach, She said she does not want public housing. Jack Wood, 803 Loma Drive, Hermosa Beach, questioned the graph: Am I to assume from reading the graph that I can afford every apartment in the City of Hermosa Beach if I have $649. Is that the way I anticipate this? CoI!llll.. Cummings rep 1 ied, 11 almost . " Comm, Loosli replied, "except for three bedrooms .11 Mr, Wood continued: What I am trying to say is that we have charted several numbers-25, 30, 33, 35, and 40% of the gross income-and used those nmnbers to make some attempts to determine how the affordability of housing based on this graph. Now, there is a lot of information available that indicates that a higher percentage of disposable income--take-home pay--is spent by the lower income people for housing. This number is, in some cases, for those on fixed incomes, social security people, in excess of 70%. Now, when you have a relationship that does not exceed 40% as your basic data, you are not at the point where you are hitting what these people are willing--if you want to call it willing--to pay for housing. My point is that you haven't even scratched the surface until you get into the 50-60% range of what these people are, in fact, paying. This information is quite available. The County Housing Authority has it available as well as the City of Los Angeles. Comm. Cummings queried: You are saying we should have the data on the actual distribution as well as this ideal we are talking about here? Mr, Wood replied: In today's market people who are buying houses will qualify at 45% of their income to make the payments. So what I am saying is that this affordable housing cost element is too low in the actual spectrum of things, and there is much data that supports this. Mr. Wood continued: In excess of 40% is now normal for people who are of high income. Lower income people have ilso paid a far higher percentage of their income for shelter. If the graph is cut off at 40%, you have not even described the ability or the percentage of units that can be used up. Mr. Wood questioned staff: Why did you stop at 40%2 Are you not aware there isa vast amount of information that many people in lower income brackets spend '-_,..,,,' more than 40% of their income on housing? PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -February 16 , 1982 DRAFr ROUSING ELEMENT (cont.) Page 8 Mr. Castaneda replied: In response to your first question, the function of the table per the req uest of the Planning Commission at the last meeting was to define affordable housing costs, not necessarily what people are willing to spend or what they actually spend. If we decided to add that as another item, and define affordability in t erns of either the actual or the percentage of income spent on housing, then that's a different way of de f ining it. In terms of the second item, the person in the very low and low income categories do spend a great percentage of their income on housing and certainly 50% or more, That is not what we were measuring here, Chmn. Izant pointed out that the basic function of the graph was to give a graphic idea of af f ordable housing rents as opposed to in relation to income. Connn. Cummings added that the chart was just to show us where we are in terms of what is the commonly accepted notion of affordability, And affordability is very closely tied to the p e rcentage of your income that you have to spend on housing, not that you are willing t o spend, but you have to spend. Mr. Wood felt that the fa cts on the graph were about 20% too low. He would appreciate the use of facts and figures more consistent with what is happening in the real world. He . asked · the Commission to encourage staff to provide a graph that includes a housing cost at 50 % and at 60%, Mr. Wood spoke in reference to the "Inventory of Constraints and Resources." He felt there is a substantial negative effect on the production of housing incurred by all of the zoning overlays and changes in the standards. He felt every one of the changes in the standards has a negative effect on it, Mr. Wood spoke about enforcement of housing quality standards. He failed to se·e how enforcement of a quality standard is a resource for housing improvement. He stated that there is a lot of low cost housing that is actually substandard housing, and that is why it i s low cost. Mr . Wood discussed the community development block grants, He stated th ere is no reason to believe they are going to continue. Comm. Rue asked if any block grants were allocated, Mr. Wood stated there were none for housing improvement. Mr. Cas tare·.da stated that there has been an allocation of approximately $126,000 from the fifth and sixth year combined grants. That has been allocated to rehabilitation prog rams .for 1980-81. Mr. Wood viewed the land use element and the zoning ordinance as the same thing. He realized that in Hermosa Beach they are separate, but in most places they are the same. He did not see them as a dual resource but only as one or two components. He also felt the same could be said about the general plan e lement s . Mr, Wood presumed that everyone was aware they would have to decrease the development standards to facilitate production. Mr. Wood felt that the environmental analys is does not seem to be an applicable r es ource within the City of Hermosa Beach, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -February 16, 1982 DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT (cont.) Page 9 Comm, Cummings asked how the environmental analysis was treated as a resource for housing production. Mr, Castaneda replied: In terms of the overall package, the meaning of the resource is that the City if it wished could have environmental analysis conducted on residential projects as they come before the Planning Commission or City Council. That could be in terms of zone change requests, plan amendments, in terms of size whether that had an impact at the neighborhood scale or community scale. What we are saying is that tool is available to the City in order to assess the impacts of any particular development on the City as a whole, on any particular part of it. Mr, Wood moved on to the section of housing assistance. He could not under­ stand how changing the general plan of the zoning ordinance is going to have any effect on assistance, He can see how it covers improvements and production, but he felt that housing assistance means the government pays money to somebody to live somewhere. He did not see what this had to do with the zoning ordinance. Comm. Loosli stated that this housing element is part of the general plan, So if that were part of it, it would be part of the general plan. Mr. Wood asked if this meant so many number of units or percentage of the population would be assisted public housing, Comm, Loosli stated that this was a possibility, Mr. Wood stated that he cannot see how changing the zoning ordinance has any­ thing to do with assisted housing. Comm Cununings stated that is where he felt density bonuses would go. Comm Cummings felt that the resources were there but that they can't be used because of the constraints on them. He felt the constraints were not the problem. The constraints are the things that prevent us from dealing with the affordable housing crisis as defined by the State. So, if you look over there, it says that one of the constraints in Hermosa Beach is land costs. Mr. Wood felt that the resources were going in the wrong direction as far as a solution was concerned. Mr. Wood asked why land cost and values are a constraint on housing assistance. Comm, Cummings replied: The land cost means that the person who owns the rental property is paying a huge mortgage, and he is going to want a huge differential to buy down the rent for this housing assistance person. We'd have to pay this huge differential between the person's mortgage payments and what the person can afford; so that's why it's a constraint. The City can't afford to pay that big a differential, Cormu. Peirce said he didn't see anywhere in the housing element where it mentions subsidizing anybody's rent. He said he was personally opposed to that, '-/ Connn. Peirce felt that there was a lack of focus at this time. Mr. Castantda replied: There were three specific items that you requested from the standpoint that perhaps your inclination was to include this kind of PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -February 16, 1982 DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT (cont.} Page 10 material within the element. One was the housing inventory. I think the second item was in relationship to the density patterns in the community, and then I think the third item related to terms of overall growth that might be allowed in the community. I think that those were the three items that you mentioned, and I think that during the session it was a matter of, are those kinds of considerations in terms of the actual decisions or conclusions within the actual scope of this element. There are two ways to treat it--either as trying to decide within the context of this element or establishing a priority in the sense that those are items that come back to the Commission on a priority basis. After that meeting I then had a chance to review the legislative council 1 s report. I would think that a good 50 to 60% of the session we had with the City Council all revolved around the issues of the growth and additional growth. And one of the key items was whether one can establish limits on additional growth within the housing element safely, from a standpoint of legislation and statutes or whether one looks at it from the standpoint that that limit is implicit in the open space policies of the city, the land use policies and so forth. The opinion of the legislative council seemed.to be pointing that a general plan is a consolidated integrated set of policies that if there are overriding considerations impeding additional growth in the policy or an actual fiscal environmental concern or community values, that that can serve as an input to the housing element in terms of saying how many units ought to be there, rather than vice versa saying in the housing element now you direct the other elements. So I felt that a great part of that session on the 11th was devoted to discussing the issues that you are concerned with. I think that there is a good feedback among the Commissioners, the City Council, and the members of the public. The sense of direction that I had was that really an overall concern was additional growth in the community. Secondly. like trying to get a handle on that as a priority item. Comm. Peirce stated that he felt the Roos Bill was not applicable to the City of Hermosa Beach because the City is not in the position of having large tracts of land to zone. He asked if the legislature had ever addressed the condition of the city which is fully built out to their so-called fair share housing. Mr. Castane.da replied that that question was brought up in a slightly different context in terms of whether they have ever looked at the community. The original figures and the base figures from which the regional planning agency develops total amount of housing need are indeed drawn from the general plan of the community as it stands now. The figures that the regional planning agency uses for the entire city are 10,220. As you noted in the housing element, it's about 10,225. So the original input to the regional planning agency, SCAG, is drawn on the land use element of the community. The manner in which the figures were then derived for purposes of the housing element were at the time that element was adopted and at the time that was input to the regional agency on additional growth, the City had a certain percentage of the overall growth in the region. Then the total growth in the region equals a total percentage. In terms of the revised figures, this is a larger population growth forecasted for the region. The percentage figure was applied to that, and you come up with a new figure. That new figure is still within the limits of additional growth as allowed by the general plan. The end result is really that the build out, so to speak, is forecasted to occur sooner let's say, than the year 2000. Our recommendations and our suggestions in the element really say that one ought to get a handle on what the community wants by way of additional growth, feed that into the next revisions of the forecast for SCAG so that the additional population fore­ casted for the community, as well the "housing needs 11 are in sync in relation- ship to what the community wants to accommodate. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -February 16, 1982 DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT (cont.) Page 11 Mr-. Wood suggested that the Commission vote against the concept of affordable housing. Ron Orr, 168 Hill Street, Hermosa Beach, suggested the possibility that the City might buy schools and use the land for senior citizen housing. He said if the need ever arose, the cost to reconvert back to schools would be little. Chmn. Izant responded that this is a possibility should the community as a whole decide that it is a desirable goal. Mr. Castaneda stated that SCAG has been notified that there will be changes. The exact nature of the changes have not been communicated; so they are on record, and they are anticipating a revision of these statistics. The reason the changes have not been formally communicated is the need to have sessions to get the community input, but the process has already been started. If at the end of the process the regional agency is dissatisfied with the figures, then the last item on that page means that the City can still include its figures as long as it provides the methodology for those revisions. The public hearing will be continued. Comm. Peirce felt that the Commission could proceed no further until the census is made available. He stated that the inventory is almost mandatory. Comm. Peirce asked what the allocation was over the next ten-year period. Mr. Castati!da replied that in terms of projected need, somewhere around 550 with the net addition being somewhere around 350. This is not 350 affordable units, but overall housing needs regardless of income or whatever else. Comm. Peirce asked what is the number of affordable units that are supposed to be produced over that period of time. Mr. Castaneda. replied that there is a number which says in terms of the four income groups what ought to be produced for those income groups in terms of the need. We have not included any new affordable housing apart from what has been discussed in the last year in terms of perhaps modest scale senior 1 s housing, 15 to 25 units. And even that is mentioned as an alternative. Comm. Peirce again asked what the number is of affordable housing units that are supposed to be produced. Mr. Castan e:la replied that out of that 550 figure, that is distributed across four income groups. Comm. Peirce asked if that is the number of additional housing units that have to be produced in that period of time. Mr. Cast~neda. replied that it is, in terms of what one would say is a housing need to the total units and housing need by income category. Comm. Peirce asked how this plan is monitored by the State or SCAG. Mr. Castan~a replied: There are constraints and resources, and based on all those facts and figures and ideas, you come up with the statements of what you intend to do. There is no necessary correlation, one on one, between the need and what you set out to do. And even the legislature recognizes that you can't have a one on one. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -February 16, 1982 DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT (cont.) Page 12 Comm. Peirce asked if the statement must be specific or whether it can be general. Mr. Castaneda replied that it must be specific in terms of actions or programs. It must also be specific in terms of time. Comm. Cummings pointed out that, even though there is no enforcement by any state agency, there are public interest groups that will be monitoring local governments to be sure they are adhering to the intent of the state laws. Comm. Peirce asked where it is mentioned that Hermosa Beach must have a plan of affordable housing. Mr. Castaneda replied that the legislative definition of the housing element includes language saying that the element should address the ~ousing need of all economic segments of the community. It also says that one should identify the actions which were directed to assist the development of housing for low and moderate income households. It says you must do this unless there are reasons which indicate you cannot. Chmn. Izant stated that the growth number of 550 is not a number that Hermosa Beach City government will direct builders to build, but rather it is a projection of what is seen as the growth potential of the area according to land usage. Comm. Peirce said that the inventory will be necessary before the City can determine whether or not it is past the build out. Chmn. Izant stated that the ultimate effect of the document could be that it might be desirable to have 50 units but that economic constraints, and land constraints, and density, and parking, and air pollution would not permit anymore than five units. But there must be findings to support this contention that the City cannot afford to put in more than five units. He felt it is necessary for the City to determine what has already been done and what the City can afford to do. Chmn. Izant questioned the possibility of rewriting the document to reflect the needs of the citizens. Comm. Peirce pointed out that this was done in the Coastal Commission housing element. The statements of policies, goals, objectives, and programs were in the front of the document and the remainder of the material was in appendices. Chmn. Izant suggested directions the Commission could take concerning this document. He suggested hearings on the three major elements or the formation of a subcommittee to revise and redraft the document. Comm. Loosli asked Mr. Castare.da if he had a copy of the Coastal Commission housing element that thei Cammi ssion worked on. Mr. Castanada replied that he has reviewed that document as well as most other public documents related to housing. '._.....-Mr. Castan,.da agreed that all data and other elements that pertain would be included in an appendix. He would look at it as an expanded version of an executive summary. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -February 16, 1982 DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT (cont.) Page 13 Chmn. Izant felt that the document does not bring out clearly and specifi­ cally enough the ecomonic constraints and resources. He felt that both the theoretical and practical factors need to be included. He also felt that the areas concerning high land cost, density, and so forth are not pulled together strongly enough. Mr. Castan:c'{:fa concurred with Chmn. Izant. He felt that there are three items that can be worked on. One, the mechanics; that is to say, something along the lines of an expanded executive summary. Two, a statement of philosophy, a statement of the City 1 s involvement in housing as a statement of policy to pull items together. Three, statements expressing the City 1 s constraints in terms of addressing need. Mr. Castan'.ecta proposed having a statement saying this is how the housing element implements the statewide housing policies, and this is why this is the maximum number, either in terms of new production or other matters. Chmn. Izant stated that that kind of document should be before the Commission before a series of final public hearings is begun. Chmn. Izant asked the Commissioners their feelings about a redrafting of the document. He also asked whether public hearings should be held on the matter. Comm. Peirce felt action should be halted until the document is redrafted Comm. Loosli felt that Mr. Castari,aja should review the Coastal draft of the Planning Commission. He thought that this would be a good starting point .. Comm. Cummings felt that less should be said about goals and more said about constraints. He felt that the goals have already been stated by various other state and administrative bodies. He felt that it is too early to have the document revised. He expressed a desire to have more discussion on potential actions to solve the housing needs. Comm. Rue suggested that the document be revised and clarified. He suggested assembling the facts in an outline form and having an appendix available. He felt that then each of the goals could be touched upon in the outline form. Input could then be gained on the constraints. He felt that maybe this could begin on a committee basis. Comm. Peirce felt that an outline would be appropriate and time-saving. Chmn. Izant concurred with the outline method. Chmn. Izant so ordered an outline of the document. Ms. Sapetto stated that Mr. Castaniec:Ja would be unavailable for the Planning Commission meetings on March 2 and 16. She said outlines would be presented to the Commission at the March 16 meeting for review. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -February 16, 1982 Page 14 CONSIDERATI ON OF RECOMMENDATION ON AMENDMENTS TO THE MULTI-USE CORRIDOR BY THE MULTI-USE CORRIDO R SUBCOMMITTEE Ms Sapetto gave staff report. In September., 1981, the Planning Commission examined the issue of commercial zone5 abutting residential property. As a result, temporary standards for the commercial zones were adopted in order to lessen the impact of the adjacent zoning conflicts. The Comm i ssion recommended temporary standards as opposed to permanent standards because it was generally felt that the goals and objectives of the commercial zones were not well defined. particularly with respect to the multi-use corridor. As such the existing development standards ought to be re-examined once the goals and objectives were identified through a study of the commercial areas. Since a study was imminent on the downtown commercial areas via the VPD/PAID commissions, the Planning Commission chose to focus upon the multi-use corridor. It was hoped to have the multi-use study completed and new deveop­ ment standards recommended to the Council by the end of the six-month period. The Planning Commission appointed a sub-committee consisting of-Comms-:-Peirce, Rue)-and Smith {Donnally-replaced Smith). The sub-committee held six meetings in order to evaluate the existing nature of commercial development, the needs of the area and to solicit input from local business interests and experts in the field of commercial development. The sub-committee has prepared recommended goals, objectives, and program actions for evaluation by the Commission. Staff's analysis of the committee 1 s recommendations is the following: The Goals 1) to encourage viable commercial growth on the highway 2) to eliminate the conflict between parking and moving traffic 3) to create a harmonious relationship between commercial and residential growth The Objectives 1} to create parking lots/facilities off the highway and easily accessible to the businesses 2) to create focal points in the multi-use corridor where appropriate commercial depths exist in order to allow for more intense commercial use 3) to allow the existing high density\residential uses and neighbor­ hood commercial uses to continue 4) to change the development standards at the focal points to maximize commercial development 5) to make commercial development more profitable in the multi-use corridor than residential 6) to increase where possible the commercial depth along the highway 7) to expedite commuter traffic and reduce congestion along the highway 8) to change the development standards of abutting commercial/ residential uses PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -February 16. 1982 Page 15 CONSIDERATION OF RE COMMENDATI ON ON AMENDMENTS TO THE MULTI-USE CORRIDOR BY THE MU LT I-USE CORRIDOR SUBCOMM I TTEE (cont.) ~, Staff report (cont.) u Alternative Action Programs A. 1) to create focal points where existing undeveloped properties are now, and emphasize those which are already deve1 oped: a) Thompson property b) Priamos property c) 21st and Pacific Coast Highway d) commercialize the community center, or use it in conjunction with another development e) Artesia and Pacific Coast Highway f) Alpha Beta center 2) at the identified focal points: a) allow increased height b) allow mixed uses c) reduce parking requirements if parking can be reasonably provided on adjacent property d) consider a public-private development between the community center and Thompson properties B. Change the multi-use residential use from 40du/a to medium density in order to make commercial development more profitable than residential C. Rezone 16th streets to 14th streets from Pacific Coast Highway up to Raymond Avenue and 18th to 21st on the highway to commercial {C-3) D. Use the Vehicle Parking District mechanism {in-lieu fees) to improve existing parking lots and create new ones. This would be particularly useful in the south part of town. E. Retain the temporary development standards This recommendation represents a preliminary direction which the multi-use corridor study can take. It is the result of the committee 1 s overview of what is existing in the multi-use corridor, what has been historically public input on the issue, what the needs/problems of the area are, interested business concerns and professionals in the field of commercial development who currently represent landowners in the area. The Commission should review the recommendations from the sub-committee and expand or revise the goals and objectives first, then, discuss the action programs. Staff would suggest the following time frame: l)Since the temporary development standards are expiring. the Commission should a) take an action this evening on the concept of creating harmony between the residential and commercial uses. [Goal #3 and Objective #8], and b) conduct a public hearing at your next meeting on the C-1, C-2, and C-3 standards in order to make a recommendation to City Council. '-......,/ PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -February 16, 1982 Page 16 CONSIDERATION OF RE COMME NDATIO N ON AMENDMENTS TO THE MULTI-USE CORRIDOR BY THE MULTI-USE CORRI DOR SUBCOMM ITTEE (cont.) Staff report (cont.) 2) Examine the overall goals and objectives for the multi-use corridor and make comments. You may at this point either endorse the document or continue the item for further input to your next meeting. Staff would recommend more public opinion particularly from business groups. Chmn. Izant asked for Comm. Peirce 1 s comments or observations. Comm. Peirce stated that there was not agreement on Item B: 11 Change the multi-use residential use from 40 du/a to medium density in order to make commercial development more profitable than residential .11 He also did not agree with this item because there are some pieces on the highway zoned multiple unit, and they should be zoned at the highest density allowed. He said this would agree with the City's goal of increased housing. Ms. Sapetto pointed out that Item B possibly is in conflict with Objective #3: "To allow the existing high density residential uses and neighborhood commercial uses to continue.~ She felt the intent was to identify what was wanted as commercial and those wanted as residential. Comm. Peirce stated that there is much property on the east side of the highway in the north end of the City from approximately 15th Street to Artesia where there is C potential in residential property which is now zoned R-1 and R-2. Because of the sloping land, this land probably will not be commercially developed in the -near future. He stated that it is not feasible to widen the commercial area in that location. Comm. Loosli questioned the concept of mixed commercial/residential zoning. Comm. Peirce stated that that concept was not being ruled out. Ms. Sapetto said that it is possible to have a mixed commercial/residential on commercial property. The Planning Commission's last interpretation of what that mix would be was defined at 65% commercial/35% residential. Public hearing opened at 9;55 Jack Wood, 803 Loma Drive, Hermosa Beach, asked staff to clarify Goal #2; "To eliminate the conflict between parking and moving traffic.11 Ms. Sapetto stated that there is a conflict between the amount of traffic that is on the highway and the availability of parking. Comm. Peirce stated the intent was to create an awareness of the availability of parking in the commercial area, particularly in the south end of the City. Mr. Wood did not agree with the word 11 conflict 11 between parking and moving traffic. Comm. Peirce agreed with Mr. Wood. He stated that they were trying to increase the availability of parking. Comm. Cummings asked how parking would be increased. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -February 16, 1982 Page 17 CONSIDE RATIO N OF RECOMMENDATION ON AMEN DMENTS TO THE MULTI-USE CO RR I DOR BY THE MULTI-USE CORRIDOR SUBCOMMITTEE {cont.) Comm. Peirce stated that there are several ways to increase the availability of parking: blocking off streets, restriping streets~ using lots that are currently being used for public storage. Mr. Wood felt that a better goal would be to make the parking better serve the needs of the City and the businesses. Mr. Wood felt that Objective #3 should not be a goal. He felt that the highway is not a good location for residential use. He had no objection to maintaining what already exists there, but he felt residential use should not be encouraged. He questioned what would happen to single family residences. He felt that one of the goals should be to assuage the problem of single family residences as a unique residential use. Mr. Wood recommended that the Planning Commission consider the concept of overlay zone with development standards in it that is going to provide the vehicle to allow the residential use to continue. Comm. Rue pointed out that zoning the R-1 property along the highway as commercial might ultimately make it more valuable. Mr. Wood felt that that would create an economic hardship for those people who are already living there because the rezoning of the property denies them the ability t6 remodel or do anything to the property without a variance. He felt that zoning it commercially would also create a political problem. He felt that if people want to live on Pacific Coast Highway, they should be able to do so. Comm. Cummings questioned the land parallel to the Pacific Coast Highway corridor that is C potential. He wondered how developers would accumulate those lots without cutting off residential use. He felt one way to avoid this would be to restrict the density to drive costs down. Mr. Wood stated that it is possible to get a radical increase in value if things are done correctly, but someone can also be cut off which drives the value down. Mr. Wood stated that the basic opposition to zoning the area commercially is the single family residence owner. He said it is necessary to allow them to build to the density, allow them to remodel, and allow them to replace whatever they have if there is a natural disaster. Chmn. Izant felt that there is a greater possibility of the single family residence being bought out and rebuilt as commercial than there is of the larger apartments being bought out because the apartments have a longer life and will probably be maintained longer. Chmn. Izant stated that, by changing the R-3 to commercial, we are indicating to the people in the commercial area that we do desire new commercial building there as opposed to residential. He realized that the people already there in single family residences are going to be very concerned about their economic value. He felt that if they could be given some comfort factor, then that can be passed and the economic market place will take over and developers will be able to approach the single family residence owner. If the owner decides to sell to a developer who wants it for commercial use, the developer will have commercial zoning already and will not have to apply for a zone change. He felt that the ultimate goal is to have that area changed to commercial. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - Febr uary 16, 1982 Page 18 CONSIDERATION OF RECOMMENDATION ON AMENDMENTS TO THE MULTI-USE CORRIDOR BY THE MULTI-USE CORRIDOR SUBCOMMITTEE (cont.) Mr. Wood felt that the property owners should retain all of the property rights they now have. Comm. Cummings asked if Mr. Wood was convinced that the goal of attracting viable businesses could be achieved with that kind of plan. Mr. Wood replied in the affirmative. Mr. Wood stated that certa in rules would have to be imposed with regard to the ultimate development if it exceeds what is already there. In other word s , the R-3 property that is now R-1 must have rules that it must be contiguous to residential, and it must start at one side of the block and only go in one direction. He said other rules would have to put before the Commission. Mr. Wood stated that Objectives #5 and #6 lend themselves to the concept of overlay or C potential. Mr. Wood stated, that in regard to Objective #7, he foresees traffic problems on Pacific Coast Highway as one that is part of the traffic element. He does not see that as a goal to be accomplished by the multi-use corridor analysis. Comm. Cummings felt that this is a goal to be in the traffic element as well. Mr. Wood felt that Objective #7 would reduce available parking. Comm. Peirce stated that the object was to monitor the location of driveways and parking on the property so that they do not come out on the sidestreets. Comm. Rue felt that if larger commercial lots could be obtained, more commercial parking could be on those bigger lots. Mr. Wood felt that Objective #8 was going in the wrong direction. He felt that the existing standards of the commercial property should be maintained, and then the usage or the ability to use the property adjacent to the commercial should be increased.· He felt that this is the desirable goal to be accomplished. Mr. Wood stated that, because of Proposition 13 and a 1 imit on taxes for housing, the only potential for increased governmental revenue is to create a viable busine ss enterprise that can afford by the mechanisms already there to provide the increased sales tax,business license tax, and property tax assessments. He stated that residential property taxes are $970,000 a year while business related taxes are $1,400,000. Business pays more taxes on its 24 acres than all of the residents of the City pay .in property taxes Henry Rado, 720 24th Place, Hermosa Beach, stated that he has been a resident of Hermosa Beach since 1946. He felt that every time a plan like this i s set up, it is deviated from. He spoke of changes that have occurred in Hermosa Beach in the pa st. He felt that the City should work out some of the parking problems by using some of the lots in the south portion of the City. He said that he will fight the proposition of hi s property being zoned C-3 Harper Clemmns, 901 16th Street, Hermo sa Beach, concurred with Mr. Rado's comments. He stated that he is particularly interested in the traffic problems in the area of the east side from 16th Street on Pacific · Coast Highway. He felt that there is no conceivable way to alleviate traffic PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -February 16. 1982 Page 19 CONS IDERATI ON OF RECOMMENDATION ON AMENDMENTS TO THE MULTI-USE CORRI DOR BY THE MULTI-USE CORRIDOR SUBCOMMITTEE (cont.) if the area has large commercial buildings back to Raymond Street. Comm. Peirce stated that the Commission has no definite plans to do anything with the area of Raymond Street. He stated that this is just a hearing to try to decide what course of action to take. Mr. Clemons felt that there .. i.s a conflict of interest because Chmn. Izant owns property in the area in question. Mr. Clemons felt that the Commission should be helping those businesses that already exist. Robert Curry, 1509 Monterey Boul~vard, Hermosa Beach, said that he resents the various things that ha~e come before the Planning Commission. He said that he will be watching the Commission very closely in the interests of the general public. Delma Peery. 720 8th Street, Hermosa peach, asked the width of the multi-use corridor. Comm. Loosli replied that it varies from block to block. Chmn. Izant continued the public hearing. Comm. Peirce felt that it was necessary that staff come back with a zone change and that the multi-use corridor be removed from the general plan as a first phase so that the wording of the general plan can be clarified. He felt it would be a good idea to remove any mention of the multi-use corridor from the general plan. Comm. Cummings felt that it should be rewritten, not abandoned in the general plan altogether. Comm. Cummings asked what the difference was between redefining 11 multi-use corridor" to include the overlay zone concept discussed earlier versus changing it to a commercial designation. He questioned why it just couldn't be called a multi-use corridor. Comm. Peirce stated that "multi-use corridor 11 is a misnomer. He said that it is really a commercial corridor with perhaps a few residential dwellings sea ttered a bout. Chmn. Izant stated that a multi~use corridor confuses developers and residents alike. If it is rezoned to commercial allowing the existing residential to remain, in effect, it is a clear signal to both developers and residents. This is something that the City and the Commission must decide upon as a desirable goal in order to send one specific. clear signal. Comm. Peirce stated that if it is left multi-use, then development standards must be put in for the multi-use corridor. Ms. Sapetto stated that she thought the main idea of this study was to come to a definition for the multi-use corri dor; and then by doing that, development standards can be adopted with some justification. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - February 16, 1982 Page 20 CONS I DE RATION OF RECOMMEN DATI ON ON AME NDMENTS TO THE MULTI-USE CORRIDOR BY THE MULTI-USE CORRI DOR SUBCOMM ITTEE Chmn. Izant questioned whether the City Council had received the Planning Commission 1 s recommendation that the current temporary standards be extended. Ms. Sapetto replied that the Planning Commission~s recommendation had been received and filed by the City Council the first time it was recommended. Chmn. Izant stated that the Plann i ng Commission again recommended at its meeting of February 3 that the City Cou ncil extend the current temporary standards. Until the City Council dec ides to either extend or not extend the standards, he felt that, perhaps, it was premature to schedule a public hearing. Chmn. Izant asked the Commissioners if they felt they should continue to refine the goals and at some future time, if desirable, hold public hearings. Comm. Peirce questioned whether a discussion should be held to determine whether or not the multi-use corridor should remain in the general plan. Comm. Cummings felt that it should remain .in the general plan. Chmn. Izant stated that this js a very definite first step. Chmn. Izant asked Comm. Loosli if he was in favor of further examining this issue and possibly eliminating the multi-use corridor. Comm. Loosli stated that it is immaterial whether it is called commercial or multi-use. He said the standards must still be the same. Comm. Cummings stated that he is alarmed at the aspect of changing it to commercial in a general plan because that seems to close out any kind of consideration of continuing residential usage. He felt that there will .be very little consideration for residential usage in that multi-use corridor. Chmn. Izant felt that that might be a very desirable goal. Comm. Peirce felt that the general precepts of the Planning Commission should be bound by what they feel are good planning precepts. He stated that the Planning Commission is an advisory group for the City Council. Comm. Rue felt that the commercial aspect of making it a commercial zone in the general plan should be discussed mainly because the commercial has definite standards and also it is good planning. He felt the multi-use should be knocked out because it doesn't mean anything. He felt it would be useless to make standards for the multi-use corridor which are going to be obsolete within the next few years. Comm. Cummings wanted to leave it multi-use in the general plan and zone it commercial in the zoning code with an overlay. Comm Rue felt that the general plan should guide zoning. He stated that the general plan is the main tool. c._,/ Comm. Cummings stated that a designation of multi-use corridor is more consistent with the C-3 designation with an overlay than a commercial designation is with a C-3 with an overlay. • .... ..___/✓ PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -February 16, 1982 Page 21 CONSIDERATION OF RECOMMENDATION ON AMENDMENTS TO THE MULTI-USE CORRIDOR BY THE MULTI-USE CORRIDOR SUBCOMMITTEE {cont.) Chmn. Izant agreed that the Planning Commission should examine the idea of eliminating the multi-use corridor and either zone it as commercial or as residential to send out a clear signal. Chmn. Izant directed staff to begin preparing some more specific information along that area. based on these goals and objectives. He realized that more discussion will be necessary on specifics, and it will be necessary to hold a public hearing to gain public input. Chmn. Izant stated that this will merely be information. Commission agrees with the information, we will then use general plan and the zoning. This information will be a Planning Commission to make specific changes. Comm. Cummings asked where is the general plan changed. If the Planning it to change the guidepost for the Comm. Peirce replied that it is changed in the commercial section. Comm. Cummings asked how these changes are going to be retained in the general plan. Comm. Peirce replied that the general plan would need to be revised to include that land use element. Ms. Sapetto stated that she could submit a recommendation on how to make this consistent with the existing general plan. Comm. Peirce asked what happened on the issue of C-1, C-2, and C-3. Chmn. Izant responded that at the last meeting, the Planning Commission specifically requested the City Council to extend the temporary standards~ and that the Planning Commission would hold public hearings in the future on developing permanent standards. Chmn. Izant stated that one of the questions that the Planning Commission needed to address is can we develop those permanent standards before we change the zon~dg in the multi-use corridor area. Comm. Loosli felt that they could. Chmn. Izant stated that the Planning Commission must examine those particular standards again soon. He questioned whether they should be examined at the next meeting or after the multi-use corridor is squared away. Comms. Loosli, Peirce, Cummings, Chmn. Izant suggested examination of the standards now. Comm. Rue felt that valuable information could be obtained while studying the multi-use corridor. Chmn. Izant requested staff to schedule public hearings on the commercial standards in the City, that is, the C-1, C-2, and C-3 zones. Chmn. Izant gave an explanation to the audience. He stated that approximately six months ago, the Planning Commission passed temporary standards to replace permanent standards that were felt by the Commission to be inadequate. These PLAN NING COMMI SSION MINUTES -February 16, 1982 Page 22 CONS IDERATI ON OF RE COMMEN DATION ON AMENDMENTS TO THE MULTI-USE CORRI DOR BY THE MULTI-USE CORRIDOR SUBCOMM ITTE E (cont.) temporary standards were to last s ix months, and t hey are now about to exp i re. The preliminary focus of the temporary standards was to take care of prob l ems where commerc ial zones abutted residential zones. The Planning Comm i ssion debated whether to make these temporary standards permanent or whether they shou ld come up with new standards based on the information that we have at the public hea rings. Ms . Sapetto stated that all public hearings are advertised in the Hermosa Beach Review. Public Hearing closed at 11:10 P.M. STAFF REPORTS None COMMISSIONERS' ITEMS Comm. Loosli felt that the Planning Commission should a s k the City Counc il to take a position on off-shore oil drilling. Comm. Cummings suggested that the Planning Commission recommend the City Council to take a mail survey to get more public input. Ms . Sapetto sta ted t hat there i s no staff time available for such a survey . The Planning Commis s ion will make a recommendation to the City Council that they take a position on off-shore 011 drilling . Ms. Sapetto stated that she would address a memo to the City Council on the recommendation. Chmn. Izant s tated that he is applying to the City Council for a leave of absence for the next three meetings. He felt that this i s appropri ate in view of the upcoming elections. Meeting adjourned at 11 :16 P.M. J PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -February 16, 1982 Page 23 CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and complete record of the action taken by the Planning Commission at their regular meeting of February 16. 1982.