Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC_Minutes_1982-09-07l., MINUTES OF THE PLANNING CO"'JMISSION OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON SEPTEMBER 7, 1982, IN THE CrI'Y HALL COUNCIL CHATVJBERS AT 7:30 P.M. Meeting call ed to order by Chun . Izant at 7 :35 P .M. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Conms . Cwrmings, Rue , Shapiro , Smith , Chnn. Izant .ABSENT: Corrms. Loosli , Peirce ALSO PRESENT: Pamela Sapett o , Planni ng Director; Ralph Casteneda, TDC Planning; Alfred :1'13rcado , Planning Aide Chrnn . Izant noted, that Comm. Loosli was away on bus:iness and t hat Comtn. Peirce was on vacation . APPROVAL OF MINUTES M:>tion by Cornn. Rue, seconded by Contn . Shapiro , to approve the August 3, 1982, minutes. No objections , so ordered . APPROVAL OF RESOLDrIONS !Ybtion by Cornn . Rue, seconded by Corrm. Cummings, to approve P .C. 82-26 , with the deletion of the second WHERF_Ac;; and P . C. 82-27 , with the stipulation t hat Staff review soelling and grarmnar. AYES : NOES: ABSTAIN : ABS.ENI': Comms. Cummings , Rue, Shapiro , None Comm. Smith Comms . Loosli , Peirce Chnn . Izant .AMENDMENT 'IO SECTION 1167 OF WE ZONING CODE: METHOD FOR DECIDING WHETHER PARKING SPACES OR FEES SHALL BE PROVIDED IN THE VPD DISTRICT #1 -CONTINUED FROM AUGUST 3, 1982 Mr . Casteneda presented the staff report . He surrmarized to t he Plann1ng Commission what s t aff fel t were the cooments of t h e Planning Conmission _, as well as the direction of the public testimony , that were given prior to the continuance of the matter t o this meeting. He stated five points : 1 .) To dete nnine a rationale for establishing a fee amount ; the fee amount could b e based on the actual c ost of providing parking spaces. 2 .) To determine a fee amount in relationship to its impact on encouraging or disc ouraging current and fut ure business activity in the VPD . 3 .) To determine the proposed future uses o.f t h e in-lieu fees ; that it, est ablish the manner in which parking f ees will be met. 4.) To determine whether a parking structure actually is needed to meet the parldng needs . 5 .) To explore alterna tive ways of meeting the parking needs, such as r eserved park ing for busine sses . PLANNING COJVll.VIISSION MINUTES -September 7, 1982 Page 2 AJVIENDMENT TO SECTION 1167 OF THE ZONING CODE: METHOD FOR DECIDING WHETHER PARKING SPACES OR FEES ·sHALL BE PROVIDED IN 00 VPD DI STRICT # 1 -CONTINUED FROM AUGUST 3, 1982 (Cont . ) Mr. Casteneda noted that these five points were presented to the City Council. The City Council in turn added £'our additional items to be cmsidered by the Plarming Commission: 1.) To determine what is being accomplished by enactment of the proposed drai't ordmance. 2.) To consider whether in-lieu fees should only be spent in VPD, District 1 (Lines 12-13). 3.) To determine and include within the ordinance the actual amount of the in-lieu f'ee. 4. ) To consider the nurriber of par:V..ing spaces per lot area ( or other specific standard)· that would allow the Planning Commission to grant an approval for an in-lieu fee, Mr. Casteneda stated that, in response to some of the corrments and public testimony, the Planning Conmi.ssion had the f'ollowing options: 1.) Add a section of the proposed ordinance which identifies the community goals which the in-lieu fee is intended to accomplish. 2.) Add a statement that the in-lieu fees which are collected could be expended within either the VPD area or outside that area if the expenditure alleviates the parking problems within the downtown area. Another idea would be to expand the boundaries of the district itself to encompass a larger commercial area. 3.) Add a section which establishes the fee amount (per parking space) and a related sliding scale based on the uses which should be encouraged in the downto;.m areas or establishing a fee which reflects the actual cost of constructing parking. 4.) Suggest to the City Council that the referenced "parking improvement fund" (Line 10) should be spelled out for purposes of identifying the planned use or uses of the in-lieu f'ees which are collected. Mr. Casteneda reminded the Planning Corrnnission that the LCP condition is that the in-lieu fee provision could be continued up to a threshold limit of 100 additional parking spaces. He stated that that converts to approxi­ mately 25 ,ODO square feet of additional corrmercial area. He stated that when the threshold limit is reached, the condition is for the City to embark on a program to reduce the density below threshold. He stated that there are no specifics regarding this m the LCP; but merely that when the limit is reached, sane action must be taken to reduce the density. Camn. Smith asked what percentage represented the present square footage in the area for corrmercial space. Mr. Casteneda replied that, from his review of the parking study, there is apprcixirri_a_t e ly 350 ,ooo feet of commercial-related space within the related subject area. He stated that he believed this figure is for the study area which included the PAID area, which is slightly larger than the VPD . He PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -September 7, 1982 Page 3 AMENDMENT TO SECTION 1167 OF THE ZONING CODE : METHOD FOR DECIDING WHETHER PARKING SPACES OR FEES SHAIJ., BE PROVIDED IN THE VPD DISTRICT # 1 -CONTINUED FROM AUGUST 3, 1982 (Cont .) further stated that the carrmercial development on the Strand near La Playi ta would, under this kind of provision, consume 27 of the 100 parking spaces. Chim. Izant asked whether the oromance pertained to individuals purchasing an already established bus.iness. He noted specifically the people who created the new Hermosa Collection and questioned whether or not they would have to pay in-lieu fees under this particular ordinance, since the building WaB already standing. Mr. Casteneda replied that the ordinance relates to new development. He added that the structure of the LCP related to all new buildings. He suggested that the Plarming Comnission might want to consider whether or not there should be some clarification in the ordinance as to existing buildings which are added on to. Chmn. Izant asked whether staff knew of any cities that have an in-lieu fee for parking. Ms. Sapetto stated that, even though she knows .some cities do have an in-lieu fee for parkmg, she could not recall any offhand. Chrm. Izant requested staff to investigate cities having an in-lieu parking fee and cities using a sliding scale. Ms. Sapetto said that she would research these points. Chinn. Izant asked whether there would be anything illegal or discriminatory about it. He asked whether the City would have the power, in effect, to use that as a way of directing the development of their downtown area. Ms. Sapetto said that those points need to be researched. Chmn. Izant noted that, originally., a two-unit condominium conversion project was to be on the Planning Commission agenda for this meeting. He stated that it had been withdrawn because the Planning Department is investigating whether or not the project is eligible to be heard. Bertha Dorsey, 1954 Monterey Boulevard., Hermosa Beach, questioned whether she will be notified when the issue comes up again. Ms. Sapetto stated that notification must be given to any resident within a 300-foot radius of the property. Public Hearing reopened at 8: 00 P .M. Violet Isgreen, 726 Prospect Avenue, Hermosa Beach., referred to Section II, Item 4. She asked: If it doesn't apply to the established need, are we talking about the economic study of downtown and redevelopment of' downtown? She asked for more clarification on this point. l PLANNING COJ\IIMISSION MINUTES -September 7, 1982 Page 4 AMENDMENT TO SECTION ll67 OF THE ZONING CODE: METHOD FOR DECIDING WHETHER PARKING SPACES OR FEES SHALL BE PROVIDED lli THE VPD DISTRICT 'Ill -CONTINUED FROM AUGUST 3 , 1982 (Cont . ) Chrnn. Izant n oted that , when ref'erring to the "downtown area,11 there have been two recent bodies of do cumentation that have dealt with the parking in the area -the Local Coastal Plan , with its specific re levance , goals , and objectives for parking in the downtcwn area; and , secondly, the nnre recent downtown parking area commissioned by VPD . He stat ed that the Planning Comni s sion is responding specifically in terms of the Local Coa stal Plan; that 1s, s ome measure has been proposed to mit igate the potent i a l parking deficit in that area. He further stated that the point was to try to plan for pos sible future n eeds; that is, when more building takes plac e, what the requirements will be. He said that if more parking space c annot be found, is it a reasonable altemati ve t o have them pay an in-lieu fe e to allow t hem to have parking somewhere else , e ither in VPD #1 or possibly elsewhere in t he City . Wilma Burt, 1152 Seventh Street > Hermosa Beach ., report ed that she had received f'eedback on t his i ssue . She stated that most people felt tha t no more build­ ings should be leveled off in the downtown area to make way for flat parking spaces . She felt that the business area should be expanded., not cut down. She also s tated that most p eople a.re in opposition to the f our-story parking s tructure proposed by the VPD. She mentioned a l aw m the City that says the limit is three-story or 45 f eet, whichever is less. She hoped that t he Planru.ng Canmi ssion and/or t he City Council would uphold that limit. She felt that a four-story parking structure would add to the already serious crirre p roblem in t he area , a s was the case at LAX . Ms. Burt also felt that , not only should the downtown area be considered , but also Pier Avenue, s:ince it is an access from Pac ific Coast Highway leading into the b usiness area. She noted that other c i t ies have fee adj ustments and tax adj ustments to certain businesses that COJre into an area and fulfill a need . She felt that downtown Hermosa Beach needs a grocery store , dune store, bakery, toy stare :, sports store --businesses that would bring people back on a regular basis. Ms. Burt questioned what happened to the 20 par.king spaces near the straw­ berry Patch. Chim . I zant replied that:, even though the area wi ll be encrnipassed within the h otel, that area would s till remain part of the City's park ing. Comm . Smith noted that there has been no loss of parldng there ; in fact, rrlne t o twelve spaces have been added. Ms. Burt s uggested s etting aside a park ing area for t he business people to reduce in-and-out-type parking. She said that thought needed to be given to creating more parking spaces on the highway and on the railroad tracks. She expre ssed concern over the in-lieu fees being ac curately kept count of and not b e ing put into the general funds to be used or wasted in some other wa:y. Ms . Burt felt that a sliding scale could be adopted for a strict period of time, but she f'elt that it should not be open-ended. Ms. Burt agam opposed the four-story parking structure downtown. PLANNING CCNMISSION MINUTES -September 7 , 1982 Page 5 .AMENDMENT TO SEC'l'ION 1167 OF THE ZONING CODE: MErHOD FOR DECIDING WHEI'HER PARKJNG SPACES OR FEES SHALL BE PROVIDED IN THE VPD DISTRicr #1 -CONI'INUED FRfl·1 AUGUsr 3,, 1982 (Cont . ) Public Hearing continue d at 8 :10 P .M. Comm . Shapiro requested a breakdown of days when lot s are in u se . He also requested information concerning the parking situation i n the area of 10th Street and Hermosa Avenue (next to Sandcastle). Comm . Smith asked for t he p osition of VPD on this issue. He asked whether or not t h ere i s a published op inion . Mr . Casteneda r eplied that the draf't ordinance was prepared by t he City Attorney; and staff of VPD have indi cated, in t erms of content and s tructure., they handle problems with i t. He stated that they have not worked with it at a meeting o f this 1dnd. He said that the City Council i s to receive input from VPD, a s well as the Planning Corrn:nission, in making their final decision. Corrm. Smith f elt that t his approach might be at cross purposes. He felt that some consist ency needs to be develope d . He was :inte rested in what VPD would have to say in general;since those pers ons represe nt the business :interes ts in that p articular area . Canm. &rd.th a lso want ed t o know whether there is a position by the Chamber of Corrnnerc e, especially that particular p art of t h e Chamber of Corrrnerce that represents those bus ines ses in the area. Coom. Smith concurred wi th Ms . Burt I s opinion regarding the n eeds of decent busines ses in the downtown area. He f'elt that the i ssue of parking is absolute ly necessary to those busines ses. Comm . Smith s aid that h e would be intere sted in the opinions of the VPD on the issue of :in-lieu fee s. Camm . Snrl.th felt that the implementation of a sliding scale could be used for busine sses that are desirable and undesirable in that part icular area. He questioned whether it could be de termine d what i s desirable or unde sirab le without being discriminatory. Carrm . Smith s aid that he as sumed t hat the business health relies on growth and on increasing the quality of t he kinds o f businesses the re. He felt that the r e was a problem with the wordi ng "other areas . 11 Comm. Smith felt that it is absolutely necessary to rec eive some m po.t from the VPD and the Chamber of Corrmerce to avoid fishing in the dark for statistics . Chlm . Izant s uggested having a subcommittee meeting with the VPD and elements of the Chamber of Ccmnerce before the next meeting of the Planning Conmission . Camms . &nith and Shapiro and Chlm. I zant voluntegred to set up a temp orary subcommittee mee ting to meet with the VPD., Chamber of Corrnnerce and other interested parties . ., u PLANNING C(]',M[SSIOO MmUTES -Septenber 7, 1 982 Page 6 AMENDMENT OF SECTION 1167 OF 'Ilfil ZON]NG CODE: METHOD FOR DEC IDING WHE'"l'HER PARKING SPACES OR FEES SHALL BE PROVIDED IN THE VPD DISTRICT #1 -CONTJNUED FROM AUGUST 3 1 1982 (Cont .) Violet Isgreen:, 726 Prospect Avenue:, Hermosa Beach ., asked that a discussion 15e held cmcern:i:ng winter parking versus surmner parking . Chnn . Izant stated t hat that was a good point . He noted that the pub lic would Be noti.fied, since it would be a public meeting . Chmn. I zant stat ed that be felt t hat :in-lieu fe es and p arking were part of a much larger pr oolem; that is·:, what is the direction o.f t he downtown area? Chmn . Izant re c ommended some strong language m the re solution t hat says that t his parking is only a small tip of the problem . He felt t hat the problem as a whole needs t o be considered . He felt · that direction is needed as far as the growth of the downtown area is concerned. He felt that the downtown area can be and should be influenced . Caron . Rue stated t hat l ast year t he Chamber of Corrmerce held a meeting which di s cussed these problems . He suggested t hat the Chamber of Commerce and the people who were involved with t his group get together and compile some of the minutes from that joint meeting . He felt that the discussi on and input frcm that meeting would be bene ficial . He said that Jack Wood and Joyce BickeJm.yer participated in this meeting t hat was held at the Holiday Irm in Torrance. Chrrn . Izant r eferred to the items mentioned by staff. He f e lt that certain que stions need t o be asked if the prob lems are t o be deaJ.t with directly. He asked what was really trying to be accomplished in the area. Comn. Smith aske d .for the bottom line rationale for in-lieu p arking fees . He questioned why it is actually needed . He asked why additional p arking spaces should be allowed , and why people should be charged for thErn. lVlr . Casteneda felt t hat the provision for an in-.lleu p arking fee is more a means to a larger end , the larger end meaning what kind of land use and what kind of deve lopment can be encouraged in the downtown area . He felt that it does n ot r esolve the parking problem, but it does provide the private developer an opportl.fility to meet the obligations per City standards in a means other than on-site parking. He pointed out that, with the remaining lots, it is very diffi cult to p lace parking on-s ite. This method allows another means to sti ll gain that p arking in the long run t hrough the collection of in-lieu fees. He felt that, generally speaking., this is a good idea because the design and visual appearance could be enhanced by not hav:l.ng to provide on-site parking . Carro. Smith asked how the City would benefit . Mr . Cast eneda rep lied t hat, since there is no game plan for the downt own area, he could not answer that question. Corrrn . &rd t h asked : So what you are saying is , if:, you can take that parldng and put it somewhere e lse where it wouldn 't be congested by the use of in-lieu fees ., then there might be same kind of connective relationship between not doing the parking down there and doing i t sanewhere else? PLANNING COJVl!VIISSION JVill'ruTES -September 7, 1982 Page 7 AIVJENDJVJF1'7.r OF SECTION 1167 OF 'IHE ZONING CODE~ .METHOD FOR DECIDING WHETHER PARKING SPACES OR FEES SHALL BE 'PROVIDED IN rnm VPD DISTRICT #'J. -CONI'INOED FRalI AUGUST 3, 1 982 (Cont .) Mr. Casteneda replied that the actual language states: "Thou shalt provide one parking space for every 250 square feet of conmercial area in new development or in the expansion of an existing building. 11 He said that if the private owner carmot handle that because of physical limitations on site and so forth, what this is saying is you allow procedure for the in-lieu fee in those instances. It is the private applicant who will come to the City Planning Department and then the Planning Commission asking for that. Cormn. Smith said that it is not the money; it is what the money can provide somewhere else. Mr. Casteneda replied that the money is .intended to create those parking spaces that otherwise would have been provided in the areas that are developed. Comm. Smith felt that the issue of whether the money should be spent within the VPD or somewhere else or both is at question. Wilma Burt stated that when the VPD was started, there were h.o vacant lots in the area. She stated that 20 years ago a group of busmessmen put money up fnont and were given 1D or 20 years to pay those bonds off'. She said that it was done for the benefit of their businesses in their area. She questioned whether this would be appropriate now. She felt that, when taJJcing about in-lieu fees, the Commission should question whether it would be a one-time payment for the building, whether it would be for each business as it comes into town, and what the tme limit would be for the payment. Comm. Currmings felt that t1).~ q_~town _area is somehow canmercially disadvantaged. He felt that it possibly /4et:H:tfuted to environment or parking problems. He felt that it would be wrong to reduce the parking places per square foot stan­ dards from what they currently are. He felt that there are canmercial disad­ vantages downtown that cannot be overcome. He felt that the parking threshold may not peak for many years to come. Conm. Cunrnings wondered what harm would be done if no m-lieu fees were charged. He suggested letting the deficiency build up to the 100 threshold and let the City thlnk of it as in investment in this commercially disadvan­ taged area downtown. Chrrrn. Izant asked if a current figure is available as to what it costs per parking space to build a parking structure. He asked for a range of costs. Mr. Casteneda replied that he has spoken with the individuals who prepared the parking study for VPD. He stated that the current figure, exclusive of land, is $6,000 per space for the construction within a two-story structure. Chmn. Izant asked whether the amount of $6,000 would drop if a four-story structure were built. Mr. Casteneda replied that he would have to research that point. PI.ANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -September 7~ 1982 Page 8 AMENDMENT OF SECTION 1167 OF THE ZONING CODE: METHOD FDR DECIDING \IBET.HER PARKING SPACES OR FEES SHALL BE PROVIDED .IN THE VPD DISTRICT #1 -CONTINUED FROM AUGUST 3, 1982 (Cont.) Comm. Smith asked whether there has been any discussion with the City of Manhattan Beach in regard to their downtown parking problems. He said he was curious to know the experiences of Manhattan Beach m terms of cost and in terms of whether or not their par1dng structures have alleviated any parking problems downtown. He felt that Manhattan Beach and Hermosa Beach had rrany s:irnilarites, and that the situation might be worthy of future study. Comm. Currnnings pointed out that it is difficult to foresee conditions 20 years from now. He said that possibly in the future a three-day work week would be in e:ffect, thereby havmg people home four days per week instead of the present two days. He stated that that could be a possible argument for twice as much parking in the future because people would be downtown more often. He :felt that it might not be advisable to become locked into a position at this time. He felt that perhaps the allowed parking should be eased into, and when the 50,000 square feet of new commercial development downtown is completed, then it inight be possible to give some thought to the in-lieu parking fee. He felt that some type of program should be set up to trigger the in-lieu fee program, and to build a parking structure withm so many years. Cbmn. Izant felt that an overall plan or set of' objectives is necessary before any decisions can be made specifically on parking. He felt that it is difficult to make decisions concerning parking in the downtown are when it has not yet been detenn:lned whether the do-m-itown area 'Will remain where it is now. He felt that objectives are needed to deterndne the future location of the downtown area. Corrrn. Rue concurred with Chmn. Izant I s remarks, but he felt that the present downtown area will always fulfill a need. He felt that the City needs that kind of revenue. He said that many small, spread-out malls succeed~ and, therefore, in-lieu fees should not be charged. He felt that the shopping centers could charge a tax or have some jtype of lease agreement whereby a percentage of the amount of revenue created in that bus:iness could be put into funds which maintain parking, create new parking, and maintain the facilities. He felt that this might be an alternative idea, as opposed to cash up front which might discourage some people. He felt that in-lieu fees would discourage small businesses. Conm. Rue felt that the beach traffic is beneficial to the business area~ but he felt. that perhaps a lesser fee could be charged for beach parking if it were further away from the business area. He suggested the possibility of Lot .A being validation parking. Conm. Rue also felt that the basic goals and objectives need to be defined. Corrm. Shapiro felt that there is no reason for an .in-lieu fee. He felt that the businessmen need to give thell' input. He felt that an in-lieu fee would discourage busmess. He suggested a charge of $1 per parldng space for now, and then having a review of the situation when it becomes necessary m the future. Corrrn. Shapiro :felt that Comn. Rue 1 s suggestion of having a taxing district is better than charging an in-lieu fee. PLANNING COJi!Il.11ISSIDN J'!IINIJTES -September 7, l982 Page 9 AMEND~!JENT OF SECTION 1167 OF THE ZONING CODE: METHOD FOR DECIDING WHETHER PARKING SPACES OR FEES SHALL BE PROVIDED IN THE VPD DISTRICT # 1 -CONTINUED FROM AUGUsr 3, 1982 (Cont .) Corrrn. Rue amplified his point. He felt that the creation of more business would create a need for more parking; as new businesses are created, more funds are created for maintenance and the acquisition of parking and the building of parking structures. Connn. Smith said that this could be more equitable, too, based on the size of the business, sales, and so on. Ccmrn. Smith felt that, as long as $4,000 to $6,000 is a substantial amount to a small businessman, the dovmtown area will never develop, because the area is going to go up in terms of cost to operate a business. It is going to require the kinds of businesses that can afford $10,000. He felt that it is simply a matter of investment, not on the part of' :individuals, but on the part of groups of investors. He felt that businesses were needed that would attract a greater dollar aIIDunt per square foot than are currently located in the area. Chim. Izant suggested that staff' investigate how shopping centers currently assess therr tenants for maintenance of tbe exterior and corrrrnon areas. Cormn. Cummings asked whether there was any kind of district in the area for any kind of maintenance. Chmn. Izant stated that that was probably the intent of setting up the PAID district. Comn. Cummings asked whether that was for local improvements. Ms. Sapetto replied that the charter does allow that kind of expenditure for beautification and so forth. Chim. Izant said that no specific action could be taken until there is a set of goals and objectives an where the downtown area is to be located. He felt that that would determine the drrection of any action to be taken. Chmn. Izant noted that the Public Hearing would be continued at the next meeting of' the Planning Commission. CONSIDERATION OF REVISIONS TO THE ZONING CODE CHAPTER 9 .5, .ARI'ICLE III. CONS'IRUCTION , MAINrENANCE AND DEVELOPMENT CCT'1MERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL CONDOIVITNIOMS, AND ARI'ICLE V. CONVERSIONS ·To CQ'llMERCIAL/INDUSI'RIAL CONDCMrNIUMS Mr. Mercado presented the staff report. He stated that Ordinance No. 81-675, which created provisions for specific assessment of Corrrnercial/Industrial Condominiums, was adopted on October 13, 1981. Since its adoption, this tool has manifested infirmities which hinder the approval process . .Mr. Mercado supplied two lists. One provides various changes to the Commercial Condominium Ordinance for new construction, and the other pro­ vides numerous changes to the Commercial Condominium Conversion ordinance. PLANNING COMIVJISSION JVIINUTES -September 7, 1982 Page 10 CONSIDERATION OF REVISIONS TO THE ZONING CODE CHAFTER 9.5 2 ARTICLE III. CONS'JRUCTION > MAINTENANCE AND DEVELOPMENT COMMERCIAL/L'NDUSI'RIAL CONDOMINTIJMS, AND ARTICIB V. CONVERSIONS TO Ca'/lMERCIAI)INDUS'IBIAL CONroMINIUMS ( Cont . ) lYh". Mercado stated that the research performed to this point demonstrates that few cities have adopted ordinances or mechanisms for specific assessment of construction of corrnnercial condominiums. He said that the efforts of most cities consist of a combined comnercial/residential ordinance, He said that our existihng ordinance appears to be at its weakest under General Design Standards (Section 9-5-35). Aside from vagaries, it says little. Several changes are proposed concerning tenant assistance; their source being the City of Santa Monica. Staff recorrmended consideration of the preliminary suggested changes; and that through discourse within the Planning Commission and between staff and the public, that a more specific course for revision be established. Ms. Sapetto suggested that a number of the items listed ill1der 11New Construction11 be deleted from the Comrilerc·1aJ;.-'-Ordinance. Chmn. Izant noted that he did not .f:ind mention of the portion pertaining to laundry facilities. He asked whether that section needs to be deleted. ]\If['. Mercado stated that that was be:ing -proposed. He said that was found in the section pertaining to conversions. He stated that it deletes Sections 9.5-55 (e) and (f) (Page 118.62). Comm. Rue asked whether the City has ever entered into any type of arbi­ tration in an association dispute. Ms. Sapetto replied in the negative. She stated that the reasons cities do become involved with the Homeowners' Association is that, in the case of' a default on the responsibility of maintenance of the building, the City ultimately could be held liable for the maintenance of the building, espe­ cially if it should fall into a state of disrepair that would pose a public health or safety hazard. Ms. Sapetto stated that when a number of homeowners are conglomerated into the Homeowners' Association, the only remedy that the City has to assure that that building be maintained would be to enter into that building and assure that those things are maintained. She stated that that type of assurance was necessary as opposed to apartment units or single ownership commercial units. Corrnn. Rue felt that the City has that kind of obligation concerning those kinds of problems. He felt that the chance of a number of owners allow.mg a building to becane I'lm-down would be very remote. Ms. sapetto stated that it was being proposed to clean up both of the ordi­ nances with respect to references to residential condominiums and to take away those things from that ordinance that are obviously pertinent only to a residential condominium and to more clearly illustrate the canmercial standards for corrnnercial condominium developments. She stated that another provision is included for .fire. As opposed to the typical residential solution, another proposal would be made as recommended by the Fire Department. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -September 7, 1982 Page 11 CONSIDERATION OF REVISIONS 'ID THE ZONING CODE CHAPTER 9 .5 , ARTICLE III. CONSTRUCTION, .MAINTENANCE AND DEVEIJJPMENT CCTl'lMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL CONDavo:NIUMS, AND ARrICIB V. CONVERSIONS TO C<MVIERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL CONDCMINIOMS (Cont . ) Ms. Sapetto .felt that it is crucial to the issue of commercial condominiums to discuss the importance of requiring a certain number of units be approved and maintained in a commercial subdivision. Ms. Sapetto stated that it is necessary to return to the basic reasons of why it is necessary to legislate or review residential condominiums. She .felt that it is needed to protect the interests of each .individual owner in terms of what he is buying. Comm. Cummings asked for clarification of Item No. 4, Paragraph 2: "No commercial condominium project shall be required to provide setbacks, except as may be required by a precise plan." Mc. Mercado replied that that is verbat:iJil from the Zon:rng Code. He stated that those are basically all requirements of new construction. He stated that they are not delineated in the existing corrmercial condominium ordinance. He felt that it might be more appropriate for an applicant who wants to see, prior to actually formalizing an application procedure> what it is that he must adhere to. Corrm. Currmings asked whether the temporary ordinances between carrnercial and residential zones have been repeated. Chmn. Izant replied in the affirmative. Comn. Cummings asked why cities differ so much in their courses of action. He asked whether this was a recommended practice of developers. He referred specifically to the City of laguna Beach. Ms. Sapetto replied that l.a.guna Beach has stricter coornercial development standards than does Hennosa Beach. She noted that last year it was recorrmended that Hermosa Beach reduce their development standards for commercial structures. She said that that has been repealed by the Hermosa Beach City Council. Chmn. Izant asked whether corrmercial condominiums would be subject to the same parking standards that a regular commercial development would be subject to. Ms. Sapetto replied in the affinnative. Chmn. Izant referred to Item No. 4, Paragraph 5: "When the intensity of use is :increased through the addition of floor area or change in use> additional parking and loading for such increased use shall be provided." He asked for clarification of this. Ms. Sapetto replied that tbe requirement for commercial parking is based on one figure. For corrrrnercial space it is one parking space for every 300 square feet . For hotels, there is one parking space for each room and two spaces for the manager's unit. She stated that a case in point would be a hotel develop­ ment with a restaurant included and a conference room, banquet rooms~ and hotel rooms. She noted that that is the kind of area that the section is referring to. PLANNING COM[v[[SSION MINUTES -September 7, l982 Page 12 CONSIDERATION OF REVISIONS TO THE ZONING CODE CHJl.PIBR 9 . 5 , ARTICLE III. CONSI'RUCTION, MAINTENANCE AND DEVEIDPMENI' CC111MERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL CONDCMINIUMS , AND ARI'ICIB V. CONVERSIONS TO COMMERCIAL/INDUS'IBIAL CONDQVIINIUMS (Cont . ) Ms. Sapetto stated that the required amount of parking would have to be calculated on the amount of' gmss f'loor area of the restaurant, banquet and conf'erence roams at 1-300, and the hotel rooms at 1-1. Comm. Smith asked whether this would apply in terms of conversions. Mr. Mercado replied that, generally speaking, that for conversions, that situation would not be encountered. He said it would not be as prevalent as with new construction. He stated that the situation may nevertheless arise, and it would not be harmful to have that condition. Comm. Cummings-felt tbat perhaps an owner might be motivated to propose only as man,y units as be has parking for. He felt that possibly there should be same type of criteria f'or monitoring this. Ms. Sapetto replied that the existmg ordinance provides for the ratio of 1-300 and at least two spaces per ill1it, whichever is the most. Crrrnn. Izant referred to Item No. 2, Paragraph 4, under 11Conversions": 11 Section 9-5-48. .Amend Second to last sentence to read: Provision of a smoke detection system which rings a local alarm and transmits a signal rn.rectly to the Fire Department dispatch.n He asked whether that was normal in a corrmercial condominium or a ccrnmercial building. He also asked whether there is some other option that should be allowed. He questioned the possibility of hundreds of lines coming :into the Fire Department. He asked whether there could be a division where it rings a corrmercial service that mvestigates and then in turn would dial the Fire Department. litr. Mercado stated that that was a possible option. He stated that Item No. 2, Paragraph 4 was simply an option suggested by the Fire Department. Comm. Cummings asked whether a ccmnercial space could be split in half and one half rented. Ms. Sapetto replied that the subdivision ordinance has a provision stating that if any approved plans or conditions of approval are changed, then it mu.st receive the approval of the Homeowners' Association and the Planning Camnission. Comm. Shapiro questioned Item No. 2~ Paragraph 3, under 11Conversions": 11Delete Sections 9,5-55 (e) and (f)" (laundry facilities). Mr. Mercado replied that, based on the research which includes the cities of Los Angeles, Torrance, Napa, Santa Monica, and Long Beach, most of those cities have a combined ordinance for commercial and residential. He could not recall an incidence of major corrnnercial condominiums where that might be a matter worthy of extensive consideration. Chmn. Izant referred to Item No. 4~ Parawaph 1, under 11 Conversions": "An application for a conversion cannot be made for a building that is less than (5) years old. 11 He questioned the figure of five years. PLANNING COMMI SSION MINUTES -September 7, 1 982 Page 13 CONSIDERATION OF REVISICNS 'IO THE ZONING CODE CHAPIBR 9 . 5 , .ARI'ICIE III . CONSTRUCTION , MAINTENANCE AND DEVELOPMENT COM!VIERCIAL/I.NDUSTRIAL CONDOMINIUMS, AND ARI'ICIE V . CONVERSIONS TO Ca1MERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL CONDOONIUMS (Cont .) Mr . Mer cado repl ied that that number was c hosen from one of the cit i es that has a propo sed ordinance. He stated that t hat can b e modified a s is seen fit. Chrnn . I zant asked what the need is for tha t provision. Mr. Mercado felt that l ong-term occupants could be d isplaced, and they may n ot be able to find similar l.ffiits .in the area. Chrnn . I zant noted t hat sane conversi ons d o not displace anyone . He asl{ed. how a c onversion would be ac complished in t hat instance . Mr. Mercado rep lied that a revision could b e made t o the particular subsection . CO!lIDl. Smith f elt that , if conversions were t o be made contingent upon c orrpliance wit h exist ing codes, it seems t o be a s tringent and good provi s ion far pro­ t e cti ng against certain kinds of buildings t hat should n ot b e converted . He stated that he c ould not recal l ever seeing any l aws that prevent a condo conversion because of t he length of residency by it s tenants, although he did concur with this. He questioned wh ether that provision had any validity i n the l aw. He que stioned the crit eria for conversion . Comm. Rue r eferred to I tem No . 4., Paragraph l J under "Conversi ons ": "Al l new t enants, a fter f i ling application to convert ., shall be told of the appl ication and shaJ.l not be eligible for moving expenses. 11 He felt t hat thi s wordin g might be misleading . He .felt that it shoul d read :" After .filing application t o convert , all new tenants . , , .. " Public Hearing opened at 9:25 P .M. Wilma Burt., 11 5 2 Seventh Street., Hermosa Beach , sta ted that she f elt other smaller cities should be studied in an effort to find solutions to the prob lems of Hermosa Beach. She felt that, m s tudying l arger cities, their problems are too dif f erent to cooipare them to the problems of Hermosa Beach. She felt t hat c onversions should be permit t e d only if the s tandards are according to t he best of our l i ving standfil'ds today. I f they are not s mmd­ proofe d or do n ot meet the r equirements that are required, then the c onversion s h ould not be permitted . Public Hearing continued at 9 : 27 P .M. Chm. I zant felt t hat new const ruction should be k ept separate fr an conver­ sions . Recess from 9 :30 P.M. t o 9:35 P .M. Moti on by Comm . Rue, seconded by Corrrn . Smith , to a pprove t h e "New Construc tion" section with t he foll owing changes: Deletion of t he first line of Item No. 3. ~le tian of Lines 28 and 29 and t h e s ubstituting of : ''that the r ebuilding if it i s burned 75% or more shall c onform t o the c urrent Residential Ordinance." PLANNING COMMISSION MrnUTES -September 7, l982 Page 14 CONSIDERATION OF REVISIONS TO THE ZONING CODE CHAPTER 9 . 5, ARTICLE III, CONSTRUCTION> MAINTENANCE A.1'ID "DEVELOPMENT CCMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL CONDarnrnJMS , AND ARI.'ICLE V . CONVERSIONS ·w CC!1MERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL CONDCMINIUMS (Cont .) AYES: NOES: .ABSENI': Comns. Cwrm:ings _, Rue , Shapiro, Srni th, Chmn. Izant None Connns. Loosli, Peirce Comm. Srni th recanmended that staff review Llnes 28 and 29 to make certain that the language is consistent. Ms. Sapetto replied that she will return with a drafted ordinance. Corrm. Shapiro referred to Item No, 4, P&agraph3 under HConversions11 : 11Relocation payments may be applied to down payments for those tenants purchasing uni ts." He felt that the word.mg might be ambiguous to a prospec­ tive tenant. He suggested ad.cling n:1n the existing building." Conm. Smith concu:rTed with the amended language proposed by Conm. Shapiro. Chmn. Izant noted that he would like to see the deletion of the first paragraph on the second page of the "Conversions 11 section: "An application for a conversion cannot be made for a building that is less than (5) years old (age being measured from the date of' issuance of certificate of occupancy) or sh (6) years f'rom the date of issuance of a building permit." He felt that that would preclude them of aJ.lowing someone to convert a building that does not have any occupants in it. Comn. Rue concurred with G.llmn. Izant 's statements. Comm. Rue referred to Item No. 3, under "Conversions": He asked to restructure the first paragraph to concur with the restructure done an the "New-Construction" section, where, in the event of an abolishment, reconstruction shall be in accordance with the Residential Ordinance. He felt that Section 3, Paragraph 3 (9.5-34 (e)) should be deleted. Motion by Corrnn. Shapiro, seconded by Comm. Smith, to approve the "Conversions 11 section:. with the aforementioned changes. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Comms. Cummings, Rue, Shapiro, Smith, Chrrm. Izant None Comrns. Loosli, Peirce SI'AFF REPORI'S Ms, Sapetto imformed the Commission that it -was necessary to ap prove Resolutions P.C.82-24 and P.C. 82-25, Motion by Corrrrn. Rue, seconded by Conm. Cummings, to approve P.C. 82-24 and P.C. 82-25. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Comms. Curnmings, Rue, Shapiro, Smith, Chun. Izant None Corrms. Loosli, Peirce PLANNING COMMISSION r-mru1IES -September 7, 1982 srAFF REPORTS (Cont .) Page 15 Mr. Mercado presented a status report of Pac i f ic Coast Highway Street Improve­ ments. Undergrounding o f utilities by Edison is scheduled to begin in March o.f 1983 , and will t ake 1 2-15 months t o canplete . Thereafter, Caltrans will asphaJ.t overlay Pacific Coast Highway between 14th Stre et and Herondo Street. Corrnn. Curnnings asked about channelization and whether t here will be three lanes north and south . Mr. Mercado replied that he would need to obtain the necessary input on that point . .Mr. Mercado referred to Video Arcades in C-2 Zanes. He stated that on July 27 , 1982) the City Council approved a motion to refer to t he Plann:ing Cormnission for analysis the concept of video arcades :in C-2 Zones . He stated that at their meeting of August 10 , 1982 , the City Council reversed its position on this matter by unanimously vot ing to deny a resolution of intention to request that the Planning Comnission consider video arcades in C-2 Zones . For this reason., t he item was wi t hdrawn from the August 17, 1982 , meeting o.f the Planning Cam'nissi on . Ms. Sap etto di s cussed t he reassigrnnent o.f responsibilities from the He rmosa Beach Inprovement Commissi on to the Hermosa Beach Planning Corrmission. On August 10, 1982, the City Council adopted Ordinance 82-697 abolish1ng the Hermosa Improvement Ccrnmi ssion and reassigning certam functions to other departments and commissions. As a r esult of this act ion ., the Planning Ccmnission has acquired two additional r esponsibilities . First, members of the Planning Commis sion will now s erve as the members o.f the n ewly created Desifgl Review .Board. Sections 2-120 and 2-121 o.f Ordinance:.:: 82-697 detail the types of projec ts the Boaro must r eview and which projects are exempt .from such r eview. If a project is determined to f all within the scope of t he Board's authority., the Building Department will ref'er the following in.formation to the Board for approval -- 1.) Site Development Plan 2.) landscaping Plan 3 . ) Architectural Drawings 4. ) Upgrading of Existing Buildings and Site. The Board s hall approve a proj ect if i t meets the criteria listed in Section 2-24 of the City Code . If t he Board does not approve a project , the Chairman must make available to the applicant a written summary of the findings of· the Board . The Board must take a ct ion on the project, whether it be approval or denial , within 30 days after the .first hearing, tmless t he appli cant waives the time limit. 'Ihe second r esponsibility delegat ed t o the Planning Commission is that it shall now serve as the appellate body for any applicant desiring t o appeal a decision rendered by the Building Department ., regarding construction., erection, or alterati on of signs within the City . The Planning Commission may grant a condi tional approval or variance to the City's sign r equirement if condit ions PLANNING COMMISSION JVIINUTES -September 7, 1 982 SI'AFF REPORI1S (Cont . ) Page 16 listed in Sect ion 2 8-17 and Section 28-18 of t he City Code are found appli­ cable to the project. COMMISSIONERS'· ITEMS Corrm. Rue announced his resignation as Carmnissioner o f t he Planning Canmissi on. He stated t hat h e h as a new positi on which will b e in another town. He t hanked his f e llow commissioners for their c ooperation and the enj OY!J1ent that he has received while serving on the Planning Corrnnission . Cornn. CUrnmings annrn.mced his res i gnation . He stated t hat he has been given a very challenging n ew assignment at work, and he would not be able to continue with bis Planning Commission r espons ibilities at this time . He expressed h is regret at having to leave the Planrililg Cormnissian . Chmn. I zant expressed good luck wishes to Comms . Rue and Cummings , and he thanked them .for their valuab l e service to the Plann:ing Commission. Motion to adjourn at 10 : Ol P .M. CERrIFICATION I h ereby certify t hat t he foregoing minutes were approved at a regular Commission held on the ____ day of ______ , SECREI1ARY