Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC_Minutes_1982-07-06( MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSSION OF HERL~OSA BEACH HELD ON JULY 6, 1982 I N THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT 7:30 P.M. Meeti ng called to ord er at 7 :30 P.M. by Chinn. Izant Chinn. Izant introduced Comm. Joel Shapiro to the Commission. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Comms. Loosli , Pe i rce, Rue, Shapiro, Smith, Chmn. I zant ABSENT : Comm. Cummings ALSO PRESENT : Pamela Sapetto , Planning Di rector ; Ralph Casteneda , TDC Planning; Chip Post, City Attorney APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm . Peirce, to a pprove t he J une 15 , 1982 minutes with the follow i ng correction: Page 4, Para . 1, s entence 3, s hould read, 11She stated that she di d not want to be locked in t o a mobile home park zone ." No objections. So ordered. APPROVAL OF RESOLUTIONS Mot ion by Comm . Rue, seconded by Comm . Peirce, to approve Re solutions P.C. 82 -1 6, 82-1 7 , and 82-1 8. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms . Pe irce , Rue, Chmn. Izant None Comms. Loos li , Shapiro, Smith Comm . Cummings 845-923 17th STREET, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT , TENTATIVE MAP #32526 FOR A 6-UNIT CONDOMINIUM Ms . Sapetto gave staff report. She stated that t he plans had been revised . She stated that on Apr il 20, 1982 the Planning Commi ssion concl uded that his project was not in compliance with the condominium ordinance a nd denied the project . On May 11, 1982 , the City Council considered an appeal to the denial by the Planning Commission on th is project . The City Council overturned the Planning Commission's decision , and approved the project amend ing a reduction of units from 7 to 6 . The City Council agreed with the standard conditions :iJnpose d by t he Planning Commission wit h the exception of the sideyard setbacks on the exist ing duplexes . The plan conforms substantially with all of the requ irement s of the Condominium Code with the exception that t he re are some 7-foot minimum dimensions of private r ecreation space and sideyard setbacks of the existing structures . Code r equire s that at least 150 sq . ft . per unit of private recreation space be provided with minimum dimensions of 7 ' X 7'. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -July 6, 1982 Page 2 845-923 17th STREET , CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, TENTATIVE MAP #32526 FOR A 6-UNIT CONDOMINIUM (Cont .) Units 3-5 do not meet the minimum dimensional requirement; however, they do provide 743 sq. ft. of private recreation space. Staff recommended approving the conditional use permit and tentative map with the conditions recommended in the Resolution of Approval. Staff also recommended rezoning the property from R-1 to R-2 in order to conform with the additional two units proposed. The lot zoned R-1 is substantially within the multi-use corridor. Comm. Peirce asked for the dimensions of the private recreation space, Ms. Sa pet to replied that there are 7 43 sq. ft. and six locations for Units 3, 4, and 5. Comm. Peirce asked if 11 A" equaled 11 1_"; "B" equals "2" and so forth. Comm. Peirce asked how they could get around the concept that this might be a spot zone. Ms. Sapetto replied that since it is within the multi-use corridor, the zoning is presently not in conformance with the general plan. By rezoning it to R-2, it would be more in conformance with the general plan land use element than it is at present. Zone changes made to conform with the land use element do not constitute spot zoning. Comm. Peirce noted that a substantial amount of the property surrounding it is still R-1. Comm. Loosli asked if the zone change were tied to this project. Ms. Sapetto replied in the affirmative, adding that it iS a specific plan with a zone change. She stated that if the project were not built, it would not be R-2. Comm. Pierce stated that the Building Analysis should be corrected to include four feet on the easterly side. Comm. Loosli asked where in the application was it pointed out that the plans before them were specific plans and that the zone change was tied to the project. Ms. Sapetto replied that the zoning code spells out the types of zone changes that can be made. One of them is that one may have a specific plan to request a zone change. When that is done, the zone change is only effected if one builds to that specific plan. She informed the Commission that they may include that in their resolution. Comm. Loosli asked if it were inconsistent only in the multi-use corridor area. Ms. Sapetto replied in the affirmative. n PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -J uly 6, 1982 Page 3 845-923 17 th STREET, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, TENTATIVE MAP #32526 FOR A 6-UNIT CONDOMINIUM (Cont.) Public Hearing opened at 7:51 P.M. Carlie Puniwai 1117 5th Street, Suite E , Manhattan Beach, agent for the applicants , stated that they found all of the conditions acceptable. Comm. Peirce asked for the location of the private space for the three units that we re substandard. Ms. Puniwai replied that it was the balconies indicated on the plans by cross hatching . Comm . Peirce noted that A is 6; Dis 5; Bis 3; and C is 4 on the plans . Comm. Peirce asked if there were any way the u.~its coul d be made to meet the 750 s q. ft . requirement. Ms. Puniwai rep lied that the buildings were already constructed. Paul Barne, 922 17th Street , Hermosa Beach, stated that the two lots i n question were about 30 feet wide and 76 feet deep. He believed there was no need fo r a zone change . He requested t hat the Planning Commission make the recommendation that the park ing be eliminated between the two extremes of the entire project on the north side of the stre et due to safety hazards. Ms. Sapetto stated that the above is Condition #11 on the Resolution. Comm. Peirce asked for the height of the garage of the new building. He noted conce rn for RVs getting into the garage. Ms . Sapetto rep l ied that it would be approximately 8 feet . Public Hearing continued at 8:03 P.M. Rece ss from 8 :04 P.M. to 8:09 P.M. Comm. Peirce asked how the Building Department measured the height of the building. He believed that the height of the building was approximately 34 feet, and in some places as high as 38 feet . Conm. Loosli stated that the existing grade is 29'6", but they dug down 4 or 5 feet . Ms . Sapetto suggested that the CoITinission either continue this i tem until t he Building De partment submitted an interpretation of how they arrived at a he ~ht limit of 29'6" or to ap prove the pro ject subject to the condition that the building is only 30 feet in height. Comm. Pe i rce asked if it were the City's custom to receive plans which are not ab l e to be scaled. PLANNING COMMISSION -July 6, 1982 Page 4 845-923 17th STREiiiA CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT , TF.NTATIVE MAP #32526 FOR A 6-UNIT7'.XfNDOMIN (Cont .) Ms. Sapetto replied that Ms. Anderson had asked her if she could submit reduced drawings for the existing units. However, she was not aware that Ms. Anderson was going to submit reduced drawings for the new units, Comm. Rue suggested continuing this item until such time that the Building Department submitted an interpretation of the height. Comm. Loosli concurred that this item should be continued. Chmn. Izant asked the representative of the applicant if she favored continuance as opposed to approval or denial at this time. Ms. Puniwai replied in the affirmative. Chrnn. Izant continued the item until such time that the Building Department submitted an interpretation of the height and the applicant submitted scaled drawings. He requested that this information be submitted to the commissioners in adequate time for review. MOBILE HOME PARKS Ms. Sapetto introduced Ralph Casteneda with TDC Planning. Mr. Castenda gave staff report. He stated that this item was continued from the June 15 meeting. He noted that one of the objectives of the Phase 3 program was to conduct further research on ways and means of preserving mobile home parks existing in the cormnunity. Resolution 82-17 indicated the actions taken at the June 15 meeting by the way of adding a classification for mobile home parks in the Land Use Element and also a symbol on the map to denote such parks. He noted that the Commission had also considered a mobile home district. The changes to the mobile home district were noted in Resolution 82-18 which indicated that basically the complete application of materials would be requ ired as part of the redesign for a new mobile home park; whereas 1 in terms of the add itiona l deletion of spaces only a project layout and a space layout would be required. There were only two other act i ons to complete the cycle, those being, 1 ) to am,;;nd the Land Use Element by way of reclassifying one or both parks of the current designation to the new designation, and 2) to rezone either or both mobile home parks, He offered to the Commission 3 alternatives with respect to preserving existing mobile home park uses, namely 7 1) to implement Land Use Element Map changes and rezoning actions with respect to Marineland Mobile Homes only and defer any action on the Hermosa Beach Trailer Court ; 2) to implement Land Use Element Map changes and rezoning act ions with respect to both existing parks; and 3) to maintain the status quo with regard to both mobile home parks. He noted that he had submitted, at the request of Comm. Cummings, some sample regulations which govern the use of the existing parks in San Diego. u PIANNING CCM1ISSION MINUTES -July 6, 1982 MOBILE HCME PARKS (Cont.) Corrrn. Peirce noted that the zoning map showed part of Marineland as being R-1. Mr. Casteneda replied that the Marineland zoning is R-1 with a potential for R-3 and M industrial. Public Hearing opened at 8: 27 P .M. Page S Charles Osbourne, 531 Pier Avenue, Marineland Mobile Home Park, Henrosa Beach, stated that all of the people in the park wanted the park zoned as a mobile hODE area. He stated that the owner also wants it zoned that way. He noted that the trailers will not be worth anything if the park is not zoned as a rmbile horre park. He stated that many of the residents are senior citizens, and they have nowhere else to go. William Beverly, Hitchcock, Boman & Schacter, 21515 Hawthorne Blvd. Suite 1030, Torrance, representing the Bank of Anerica as Trustee under the Testamentary Trust in the Estate of Ester McCullum. He stated that he represented Curtis McCullum, individually, and Susan Moss, individually. He stated that, contrary to Mr. Osbourne's belief, they do resist the imposition of the MHP zoning on the Marineland Mobile Hone Park only. He noted that there may have been a defect in the notification process. No notice had been given to owners of two-thirds of the interest in the park, namely, Susan Moss and Curtis McCulh.DI1. He stated that he had received a mailing list of the indi. vi.duals that had been notified, and neither Susan Moss nor Curtis McCullum' s naIIBs appeared on that list. However, the background information supplied by the consultant listed the owners, Susan Moss and Curtis McC-ullum. Therefore, the consultant had knc,;v1ege of their ownership, but failed to include them in the notification procedure. Ccmn. Peirce ask whose narre appeared on the tax rolls . Mr. Beverly stated that he did not know. Mr. Beverly stated that the owners of this property did not atterrpt to change the use of the park. He stated that there was adequate protection in the California Ci vi.l C.ode which provides that i f there were a change of use, regardless of what the zoning is , there is a one -year notification that must be given to all tenants .of any p roposed change irt use. After that one-year notification of the change of use, there is a 15-day period in which they must inform each tenant before any application for TIDdificaticn or penni.t of any type is given. He stated that the matter of the zoning, when coupled with very restrictive Civil Code provisions regarding the operation of a mbi l e hone park, handcuffs the owner far IIDre substantially than wi th any other type of rezoning . lb.i s would give rise t o an action for declaratory relief, which he felt would be granted by the courts. He stated that he was in.famed that the purpose of this zone change was to maintain low-or moderate-incorre housing in Henmsa Beach. However, the problem is that the burden is not being J.Ill)Osed on everyone; it is being irrp-0sed only on the two people who own the park. He stated that if the City wanted to create low-or rroderate-incorre housing, they should do it collectively, not by legislation or zoning, but by a condermation PIANNING COMMISSION MINUI'ES -July 6, 1982 MOBILE He.ME PARKS (Cont. ) proceeding. Page 6 Conm. Shapiro asked M'r. Beverly if he had been in contact with the owner of the Henrosa Beach Trailer Court. Mr. Beverly replied in the negative. Mrs. Jack Rathbin, 24645 Walnut Street, I..oori.ta, owner of the He:rmosa Beach Trailer Court, stated that at the June 15 ~eting, she voiced her opposition to the Henrosa Beach Trailer Court.only, primarily because of the long sustained effort to try to upgrade the property. She stated that she concurred with Mr. Beverly's remark that if the City wanted to create low-and rroderate-incOOB housing, it should be a collective effort. She stated that the upgrading of the Hermosa Beach Trailer Court should be kept in mind since it is so close to the Highway. and other conmarcial areas . Patricia Ware, 531 Pier Avenue, Marineland Mobile Hooe Park, Henrosa Beach, stated that Henrosa Beach has often expressed its desire to secure housing for senior citizens. Apprmdmately half of Marineland' s residents are retired senior citizens on fixed inc~s. The Coastal Program of Henrosa Beach has also stated that it wanted to maintain diversified housing, which Marineland helps to maintain. She stated that many of her neighbors have invested as much as $50,000 in their coaches. She stated that since the tenants are spending this kind of m::mey, the owners should give theni sorre assurance that they will be able to keep their trailers at the park. She stated that at nUITErous neetings, she and her neighbors have e}q)lained the catastrophic losses each of them would face if the park were terminated. She submitted a staterrent of concern which was signed by 64 adult residents from Marineland Mobile H~ Park. Clairwin Miller, 531 Pier Avenue, Marineland Mobile Hone Park, Hermosa Beach, stated that he had lived at the park since April 19, 1955. He stated that he did not want to live anywhere else. He stated that they added on to their trailer, and they do not want to leave. He believed they should zone the park a mobile hOOE park for the simple reason of protection. Janice Clark, 531 Pier Avenue, Marineland Mobile Harre Park, Henrosa Beach, stated that she lived alone, and she felt protected at the park. Charles Osbourne, 531 Pier Avenue, Marineland Mobile P.orre Park, Heurosa Beach, stated that it was his understanding that Susan Moss was in favor of having the park zoned a rrobile hone park. He offered his apology for his misstaterJEnt. n PLANNING CCl1MISSION MINUI'ES -July 6, 1982 Page 7 MOBD...E HCME PARKS (Cont.) Susan Moss, 8130 Golden Avenue, Kings Beach, owner of Marineland Mobile Hone Park, stated that she was not in favor of the IIDbile hoIIE park zoning. She noted that the park had been in their family for 25 to 30 years , and she stated that it will remain a park for sane tine to coIIE. She noted that year leases are available at the manager's office. She expressed concern that the tenant's felt that the park was going to close down, because that was not the case at all. Denise Dorey, 531 Pier Avenue, Marineland Mobile Harre Park, Hernnsa Beach, asked where the will was that Mrs. McCullum had written. She stated that Mr-s. McCulltnn' s will stressed that she did want the park to reDB:in a nnbile hom: park. She stated that Ms. Moss was conterrplating putting in a retaining wall all around the trailer park. William Beverly, representing the owners of Marineland Mobile Harre Park, stated that any tenant can always be guaranteed a one-year extension of their tenancy. He stated that security does erist. Public Hearing closed at 8:49 P.M. Corrm. Rue asked if notice is defective if it is not given to all owners. He asked if it were sufficient to give notice only to the owner whose narre appears on the tax roll. Chip Post, City Attorney, replied that if the Corrmi.ssion could continue this item, defects in notice could be cured. However, he felt as though adequate notice had been given. Ms. Sapetto stated that notice went to the Trust (Bank of .Arrerica, L.mg Beach), which is the actual owner of record an the tax rolls. Cormn. Peirce asked 'When the original notice was sent out . Ms. Sapetto replied that it was originally sent out an June 12, 1982. Chnn. Izant felt that it would be desirable to change the zoning of the Marineland rrobile hone area to a rrobile ham: park; hawever, he felt that it would not be desirable to change the zoning of the Herrrosa Beach Trailer Court because the City needs to strenghten the comrercial zone along the Highway. Motion by COIIm. Peirce, seconded by Chrrn. Izant, to airend the Land Use Elerrent to Mobile Home Park and rezone the Marineland Mobile Hom: Park to Mobile Borre Park. Comm. Peirce stated that he made the notion to rezone only Marineland because the size and the location of the two parks are drastically different. AYES: NOES: .ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Corrrm. Loosli, Peirce, Rue, Smith, Chnn. Izant None C.Oran. Shapiro c.onm. Ctmrnings PLANNING CCM1ISSION MINUTES -July 6, 1982 Page 8 MOBILE HCM: PARKS (Cont. ) Comn. Loosli stated that the Corrmission should study the Henoosa Beach Trailer Court and have IIDre input from the residents. He noted that it should be part of the corridor study. Mr. Post felt that the Connrl.ssion should rule on both the Marineland Mobile Home Park and the Henoosa Beach Trailer Cour-t at this tine. He stated that any recomnendation would be forwarded to the City Council. Motion by Chim. Izant, seconded by Cornn. Peirce, to take no action at this tine an the rezoning of the HeTIIDsa Beach Trailer Court, the reason be:ing that it is in the multi-use corridor, and the Conmission is plarm.ing a study of changing the multi-use to appropriate zoning. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: CoillIIS. Loosli, Peirce, Rue, Smith, Chnn. Izant None Cornn. Shapiro Conm. Cunmings Motion by Chnn. Izant, seconded by Cornn. Peirce, to make a Resolution with the following WHEHEASs; ''WHEREAS, the Henrosa Beach Trailer Court is currently in the multi-use corridor; WHEREAS, the Planning Corrmi.ssion will be studying the multi-use corridor in the near future to determine its appropriate uses; NOW, ··THEREFDRE BE IT RESOLVED, the Planning Corrrnission recorrnencls that the City Council take no action at this ti.Ire• II AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comns. Loosli, Peirce, Rue, Smith, Crum. Izant None Conm. Shapiro Comn. Cunmings Recess from 9:15 P.M. to 9:22 P.M. RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY Ms. Sapetto gave staff report. She stated that there was an aI!EildnEnt in the report , narrel y, under Recormendation, Ll.ne 1, should read, "To adopt the attached resolution anending the open space zone ... " She stated that the Connd.ssion had two actions to take, to adopt the resolution and to rezone the property, -sta,ff recomrendeq adopting the resolution aIJEI1ding the open space zone of the general plan by establishing rail transit as pennitted use in the open space zone. She stated that on June 15, 1982 the Plarming Conmi.ssion considered and continued to their next ~eting, the rezoning of the railroad right-of-way from tnzoned property to open space. The intent was to bring the railroad property zoning status into conformity with the general plan designation of open space. PLANNING CCM'.lISSION MINUI'ES -July 6, 1982 RAILROAD RIGHI'-OF-WAY (Cont.) Public Hearing opened at 9:26 P.M. Page 9 Betty Laybri, 2206 Ardrrore, Henrosa Beach, stated that she has certain easeIIEilt rights to the railroad right-of-way. She wanted the right-of-way to stay open space for joggers and recreation. She stated that she had spoken with the residents on Ardrrore and Valley between Pier and Gould, and they were all unanim:>us that it should be left open space. Public Hearing closed at 9:30 P.M. Motion by Comn. Peirce, seconded by Conm. Loosli, to allow rail transit use in the open space zone. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Conlns. Loosli, Peirce, Rue, Shapiro, Smith, Chmn.. Izant None Ccmm. Cunmings Motion by C.Orrm. Peirce, seconded by C.Omn. Rue, to make a Resolution as presented by staff with the following arrEn.drrents: Title, change "elerrent of the general plan" to "zone"; Para. 7, Llne 3, change "open space elen:ent" to "open space zone. 11 Corrm. Smi. th asked if they should use wording in the Resolution to the effect that it will be subject to review to detennine whether or not it is exempt from G~A Mr. Post replied that the Conmission ma.y proceed. If a problem is discovered, it would be dealt with at that tine. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Comns. Loosli, Peirce, Rue, Shapiro, Smith, Chnn. Izant None Comn. Curmrings Motion by C.amn. Peirce, seconded by Coran. Rue, to rezone the Santa Fe Railroad RigJ:lt-of-Way to open space. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Corrms. Loosli, Peirce, Rile, Shapiro, Smith, Chnn. Izant None Cornn. Currmi..ngs Motion by Conm. Rue, seconded by Cornn. Smith, to accept Resolution P. C. 82-with the following arrendaETits : third WHEREAS, change "stated" to "State'\ Para. 9, change " ... of the City to 5th Street11 to ". . .of the City to 2nd Street.'' Conm. Loosli requested that the City Attorney study the Resolution before it reached Comcil level. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Comns . Loosli, Peirce , Rue, Shapiro , Smith, Chnn. Izant None Corrm. Cunnd.ngs n PLANNING CCMITSSION :MINUTES -July 6, 1982 Page 10 STAFF REPORTS Ms. Sapetto reminded the Conmi.ssioners that they had a workshop with the City Council on July 29. Not only will housing be discussed, but also the Planning C.orrmi.ssion's Priorities for this fiscal year, the condominium conversion ordinance, and the repeal of the overlay zones in the C-1, C-2, and C-3 zones. Ms. Sapetto noted that the Board of Zoning Adjustrents will hold a workshop with the City Council to discuss bootlegs as it relates to LCP policies on July 13. Ms. Sapetto noted certain item:; that were cut during the Budget hearings. Cornn. Smith recomrended that the Comnission advise the City Cm.ncil that the loss of professional services to provide adequate and complete minutes could cost the City a considerable arrount in terms of lawsuits, inability to defend oneself as a city, and lack of general infonnation provided to the City Council. He believed it was not a wise cut from a financial standpoint. He recomrended using conference rronies to enploy professional services. Chrrn. Izant concurred, stating that the Corrmi.ssion realizes the fiscal plight of the City and is willing to share the bwden, but he believed that the Planning C.onmission needed a secretary as IID.lCh as the other c.omnissions in the City. Cornn. Peirce stated that the potential of action against the City without proper minutes is rmch higher than any other Corrmi.ssion. COMMISSIONERS' ITFMS Collll.1. l.Dosli requested that the Planning Comnission reinstitute procedures to reenact the overlay zone to establish public hearings with the BZA to do an EIR. He recorrmended making a Resolution of Intention to ana1.d the zoning code to include the overlay zone and C-1, C-2, and C-3 developrrent standards. He believed that the zoning code and the general plan should be brougpt into consistency. Col11Il. Smith asked if exenptions should apply to those areas in the City that were included as a part of the LCP in the overlay zone. Ms. Sapetto stated that she would obtain a determination. Motion to adjoum at 10 :02 P .M. ) ) PLANNING CCM1ISSIOO MINUTES -July 6, 1982 CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and conplete record of the action taken by the Plarming Conmi.ssion of Herrrosa Beach at their ~eting of July 6, 1982. Page 11 t STEPHAN ~RMAN ~ .LJJ_1,~~.AA4<~~~~~~~6M~ DATE