Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 02.21.84.... MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 1984, IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT 7:30 P.M. Meeting called to order at 7:32 P.M. by Chmn. Izant. Pledge of Allegiance led by Comm. Newton. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Cornms. Brown, Newton, Shapiro, Smith, Soulakis, Strohecker, Chmn. Izant ABSENT: None ALSO PRESENT: Alfred Mercado, Planning Aide APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chmn. Izant noted that both he and Comm. Smith were not present at the Planning Commission meeting of December 20, 1983, and that both would abstain from participating in the discussion of those minutes. Motion by Comm. Soulakis, seconded by Comm. Brown, to approve the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of December 20, 1983. No objections. So ordered. Motion by Connn. Soulakis, seconded by Comm. Brown, to approve the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of January 31, 1984, with the following correction: Page 11, Paragraph 6, Sentence 5: "R-2 planning" should read "R-2 planned development." Chmn. Izant made reference to the lengthy and well-thought-out letter to the Planning Commission by Lance Widman. He noted that this letter was not received in time to be included in the packets of the Planning Commissioners. He felt that Mr. Widman deserved an apology from the City because of this fact. Chmn. Izant felt that Mr. Widman was entitled to recognition for taking the time to write such a coherent letter. Comm, Shapiro stated that the letter by Mr. Widman contained the wording "for your information as a matter of record." Comm. Shapiro did not feel that the letter could be considered a matter of record because the matter was closed, He noted that he would like to see a cover letter prepared to accompany the letter, The letter by Mr. Widman and the attached cover letter could then accompany the Planning Commission minutes when they go to the City Council and in this way could better inform the City Council on the school site issue. Chmn. Izant noted that there were no objections and so ordered the matter. C_oifun~_· ·so~laki s · ask.eel. ·whether .~ny minutes were prepared from the EIR workshop session. APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 84-3 Comm. Soulakis felt that there was a problem with the third WHEREAS, which stated, "WHEREAS, economic impacts unfavorable to the City are created," He felt that this issue was not addressed by the Commission. He also felt that none of the commissioners made a statement to that effect, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -FEBRUARY 21, 1984 APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 84-3 (Cont.) Page 2 Comrn. Soulakis noted that the question that was raised was the City's ability to apply the resources, He noted that he would like to see the third WHEREAS removed from the resolution. Comrn, Smith stated that in the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of January 31, 1984, there was mention of several WHEREASs as presented by Staff. This information is on Page 14 of those minutes. He noted that a motion was passed to accept those particular WHEREASs. Comm, Newton noted that she would like to see the third WHEREAS deleted from the Resolution. in Chmn. Izant noted/the past Planning Commission practice has been to allow modification of resolutions upon a majority feeling of the Commission. Connn. Strohecker suggested removal of the third WHEREAS. Comm, Brown concurred with Comm. Strohecker. Chmn. Izant noted that the third WHEREAS would be stricken from the resolution. He further noted that there was a concurrence from all five commissioners who voted on the resolution to remove the third WHEREAS. Motion by Comm. Brown, seconded by Comm, Shapiro, to accept P,C. 84-3 with the aforementioned modification. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Cornrns. Brown, Newton, Shapiro, Smith, Soulakis, Strohecker, Chnm, Izant None None THREE-UNIT CONDOMINIUM, CUP, AND PARCEL MAP #16164 LOCATED AT 630-632 ARDMORE Mr, Mercado gave staff report. He noted that the project consists of a three­ unit condominium on a 6,544 square foot lot zoned R-2 which is medium density. Mr, Mercado noted that the project meets all the subdivision Map Act require­ ments as well as the Condominium Ordinance requirements; there is one secondary inconsistency in the plans, that is, two of the units are eight square feet short of meeting the 1,400 square foot requirement for units with three bedrooms. Mr. Mercado noted that this eight square feet represents only about one-half of one percent of the required unit size. Being such an insignificant deviation, he noted that the project is viewed as complying with the intent of the ordinance. Mr. Mercado stated that, based on the merits of the project and compliance with all state and local requirements, staff reconnnends that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution approving a three-unit condominium, Conditional Use Permit, and Parcel Map #16164 located at 630-632 Ardmore Avenue. Coin!Il, Newton asked what the difference is between a primary and a secondary inconsistency. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -FEBRUARY 21, 1984 Page 3 THREE-UNIT CONDOMINIUM, CUP, AND PARCEL MAP #16164 LOCATED AT 630-632 ARDMORE (Cont.) Mr. Mercado stated that the eight square feet was deemed to be immaterial .in this case. He further stated that it has been determined what constitutes a significant deviation on a case-by-case basis. Comm. Soulakis noted that information had been penciled in on the plans. Mr. Mercado noted that the applicant was allowed to do this. Comm. Soulakis commented on the portion that had been penciled in. He asked whether there were plans to change this on the drawing. He noted that the area in question was of the storage area. Mr. Mercado noted that the applicant was permitted to draw this in, but if there were concerns, this could simply become a condition. Public Hearing opened at 7:50 P.M. Allen Juckes, 27310 Rainbow Ridge Road, Palos Verdes Peninsula, applicant, responded to questions from the Commission. He noted that the storage area was inked in because he was told by staff that the storage area was needed. He stated that when the plans are submitted to the City for the planning check, everything will be in order, He further noted that with the addition of the storage area, there will not be a shortage of the eight square feet which was previously in question. He stated that the storage area will have more than eight square feet. Comm. Soulakis asked about the storage area being penciled in. He questioned why this was not caught by the Building Department. Mr. Mercado stated that this was caught by the Environmental Review Board. Comm. Soulakis questioned whether the electrical would be underground or overhead. Mr. Juckes replied that it would be underground. Comm. Shapiro asked whether the storage area had been added simply to make up for the eight square foot deficiency. Mr. Juckes stated that the storage area was added to comply with fact that the City requires a separate storage space. Chmn. Izant noted for the benefit of the public that the Planning Commission makes it findings based on the zoning conditions and on the general plan. He stated that the Commission cannot arbitrarily approve or deny a project because it is Ii.ked or disliked by the Commission, Rather, the plan must follow the guidelines as set forth by the zoning conditions and the general plan. He asked for input from the audience to help the Commission come to a finding. Dave Riddle, 647 Seventh Street, Hermosa Beach, stated that the density in Hermosa Beach is already astronomical, He noted the lack of parking in the City. He stated that there is no driving on any of the through streets because of all the building going on. He noted concern over the parking situation that will be aggravated by the new condominiums that are being proposed. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -FEBRUARY 21, 1984 Page 4 THREE-UNIT CONDOMINIUM, CUP, AND PARCEL MAP #16164 LOCATED AT 630-632 ARDMORE (Cont.) Mr. Riddle could not see what good it would do to allow three units on this particular piece of property. Mr. Riddle noted that that site now has two units which are apartments. He noted that the people who live there are unable to park on their own street because of the lack of parking spaces. Comm. Soulakis asked Mr, Riddle how many apartments are on the site. Mr. Riddle replied that he had not been inside the apartments, but he felt that there were two, each of approximately 800 square feet. He further stated that of the two apartments, there appeared to be six cars. Comm, Shapiro asked what the parking situation is at the present time at this site, He asked whether there are garages or whether there is a common garage. Mr. Riddle stated that there is a driveway which leads into a gate and that there is an area which might accommodate one car. He stated that there is no garage on that property. Comm. Shapiro asked Mr. Riddle if he were aware of the parking that is to be provided for the proposed three units. Mr. Riddle stated that he was not aware of what the parking would be. Chmn. Izant suggested to staff that the plans be laid out so that the people in the audience could view them. Betty Ryan, 588 20th Street, Hermosa Beach, stated that she was the selling agent on the property. She stated that there are two garages to the south end coming off Ardmor:e. She stated that it is a double garage with two doors. John Aull, 625 7th Street, Hermosa Beach, described the parking situation in the area. He noted that there is a dead-end street. He said the employees from Learned Lumber park on 7th Street. He stated that the residents of the two units in question have never parked on their own property. They always park on Ardmore or 7th Street. He stated that this creates a traffic hazard. He noted that it is not always possible to pull out from 7th Street onto Ardmore. He felt that the lot is only adequate for a single-family residence, not three units. He felt that the proposai would be detri- mental to 7th Street. He stated that the people on 7th Street do not need any more cars or any more people. Chmn. Izant noted that the area in question is presently zoned R-2. He asked whether any of the citizens present would care to petition the City for a zone change to R-1. Mr. Aull stated that he would be more than willing to do this. He questioned whether this would be before approval of the project or after. Chmn. Izant stated that discussion of the petition would come at a later time. He noted that, in terms of future actions, he would make comments after the public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -FEBRUARY 21, 1984 Page ;5 THREE-UNIT CONDOMINIUM, CUP, .AND PARCEL MAP #16164 LOCATED AT 630-632 ARDMORE (Cont.) Mr. Aull stated that the renters on 7th Street do not maintain their residences in an appropriate manner, He said that those rented properties are eyesores. Louis Stoke, 626 7th Street, Hermosa Beach, stated that the block is land­ locked. He noted that his house is one house removed from the project. His lot is approximately the same size as that of the proposed project. He noted the density and parking problems. He felt that that area of the City is being overdeveloped. He felt that the propos~L is silly and insensitive. Mr. Stoke noted that he would be in favor of petitioning the City for a down­ zoning to R-1 in his area, but he noted that he would like to do it before approval of the project, Chmn. Izant noted for the record that the Commissioners received in their packets correspondence from both Fran Winters and Gertrude Urhausen. Maury Heidbrink, 3609 227th Place, Torrance, stated that he is one of the developers of the property. He felt that the project would improve the property. He stated that he has just completed a three-unit project in Lomita which is very similar to the project ed being proposed here. That project in Lomita is gorgeous. He also noted that he received a beautifi­ cation award from Hermosa Beach Chamber of Commerce last year for a project that he did on 6th Street, He felt the project would be a definite asset to the City. Mr. Heidbrink stated that all of the plans comply with all of the requirements in the City Building Code, Public Hearing closed at 8:03 P.M. Comm. Smith made reference to staff's comment concerning the addition of the storage space. He asked whether there was any basis for thtl:.s ,·in the zoning code. Mr. Mercado stated that his statement was based on his recollection of a conversation that he had with the building director. His understanding of this is that it is a perspective of the buiJding director. Comm. Smith asked for clarification of what would be a significant deviation. Mr. Mercado stated that a significant deviation could be a deficiency in the floor area of a hundred feet. One hundred feet would be significant; eight feet would not. Mr. Mercado noted that other significant deviations could also apply to parking; square footage is not the only area which could constitute signi­ ficant deviations in a proposal. Mr. Mercado felt that the project would be an asset to the City. He also noted that adequate parking is to be provided, Comm. Soulakis noted that on the plans a provision is made for guest parking at unit one, and that it has a setback of six feet from the sidewalk. He asked whether the setback is applicable to a driveway or parking area. PLANNING CO:MMISSION MINUTES -FEBRUARY 21, 1984 Page 6 THREE-UNIT CONDOMINIUM, CUP; AND PARCEL MAP #16164 LOCATED AT 630-632 ARDMORE (Cont.) Mr. Mercado replied that the applicant is meeting all of the setback require­ ments. He was not certain whether there is a setback requirement for a driveway or parking area, He also noted that for the front, rear, and side setbacks the applicant is exceeding the front setback by one foot, and he is meeting the rear and side setbacks. Comm. Soulakis noted that each of the three units would have a two-car garage. Only one of the garages would be accessed from 7th Street; the other two would be accessed from Ardmore. He felt that this would help the traffic and parking problems. He felt that this would address those who oppose the project. Chmn. Izant concurred with Connn. Soulakfs. two problems. He noted that there must be or parking stall. He stated that although because of the necessary six foot setback, in any legal parking on that spot, He felt that there are technically a certain width in any guest parking there is enough length provided there is not enough space to put Comm. Brown felt that it would not be appropriate to ask the applicant to provide more parking than is required. He did note that he is not in favor of putting in any more condominiums~ howeve~ the area is zoned for condos. He stated that he is in favor of the project because the applicant has met all of the requirements necessary. He felt that the eight square feet is insignificant. Comm. Shapiro noted that the eight foot deficiency problem had been taken care of. Motion by Connn. Brown, seconded by Connn. Strohecker, to approve the project as presented by staff. Comm. Smith spoke in favor of the project. He felt that all requirements in the code had been met by the applicant. He also noted that the applicant is not using the full height allowed by the zone. Connn. Smith also felt that the City does not need any more condominiums; however, he noted that there is no legal basis to deny the project, so he therefore noted that he would support the project. Comm. Shapiro addressed the concerns of those citizens who are in opposition to the project. He noted that more parking would be provided than already exists at the location. Chmn. Izant noted that he is in agreement with the comments made by Comm. Smith. He noted that he does sympathize with the 7th Street residents; however, from a legal standpoint there is no ' reason to deny the project. He noted that the height is lower than the height permitted for this particular zone, as is the density. Chmn. Izant noted that the citizens have been asked to come before the Commission with a petition to downzone that particular block, He noted that people then say that they do not want their property downzoned because of economic factors. He noted that if it were to happen, he would favor a downzone and would support such a proposal. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -FEBRUARY 21, 1984 Page 7 THREE-UNIT CONDOMINIUM, CUP, AND PARCEL MAP #16164 LOCATED AT 630-632 ARDMORE (Cont.) (Vote on Comm. Brown's motion to approve the project.) AYES: Comms. Brown, Newton, Shapiro, Smith, Soulakis, Strohecker, Chmn. Izant NOES: None ABSENT: None Chmn. Izant noted that the decision of the Planning Commission can be appealed to the City Council in writing within ten days. He noted that this decision is final unless appealed, Motion by Comm. Brown, seconded by Comm. Shapiro, to approve P.C. 84-4, a resolution to approve a three-unit condominium, C,U.P., and tentative parcel map #16164 located at 630-632 Ardmore Avenue, Comm. Soulakis questioned whether a section should be added to P.C. 84-4 pertaining to the storage. Comm. Brown felt that there would be no harm in adding a sentence applying to the storage. Comm. Soulakis suggested adding a No. 11 to the resolution stating that the project meets all necessary storage requirements for the inked in portion. Chmn. Izant noted that there were no objections and so ordered the matter. AYES: Comms. Brown, Newton, Shapiro, Smith, Soulakis, Strohecker, Chmn. Izant NOES: None ABSENT: None C-POTENTIAL ZONE Mr. Mercado gave staff report. He noted that there are two aspects to this item. The first is consideration of the preliminary environmental impact report. The project is viewed as having no adverse environmental impacts. Mr. Mercado stated that it is staff's opinion that removing the requirement 6£ a speci~ic plan enhances the highway corridor's ability to attract new as well as larger scale commerce. It appears that this action will promote realization of the original goal of the C-Potential zone, that is, to create additional depth for larger scale commercial developments. Mr. Mercado continu .. ed by saying that the adoption of a floating zone will prescribe clearly defined development standards tailored to preserve, as much as possible, the residential ambiance directly east or west of the proposed development. Mr. Mercado stated that staff recommends first, to declare that this project has no significant adverse environmental impacts and request that a negative declaration be filed; and, second, that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution as presented by staff, Mr. Mercado stated that the first resolution amends Section 1103 and eliminates Section 1104, both within the Hermosa Beach zoning code. The second resolution introduces development standards tailored to complement commercial abutting residential, which would apply to C-Potential as a floating zone. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -FEBRUARY 21, 1984 c-POTENTIAL ZONE (Cont.) Page 8 Mr. Mercado stated that, in staff's opinion, the resolution pertaining to development standards needs to be modified slightly. Mr. Mercado noted that this item came before the Commission approximately two years ago. The proposal at that time was that the height restriction of 35 feet only applied east of Pacific Coast Highway. He noted that he provided the connnissioners with a drawing that depicts what would happen if that height standard were imposed on conunercial abutting residential west of Pacific Coast Highway. Mr. Mercado continued by saying that, in effect, the connnercial property on the section where it does not abut residential would not be permitted a 45-foot height on the development, in that there is a terrain moving eastward. Mr. Mercado suggested amending the resolution to simply indicate that the 35-foot requirement only apply to properties east of Pacific Coast Highway. Chmn. Izant suggested another alternative: keep the 35-foot height where it abuts residential, but allow 45 feet on the highway and have some type of a stepped slope. Comm. Soulakis asked for clarification on the intent of the resolution. Chmn. Izant made a drawing on the blackboard to help illustrate the matter. Clnnn. Izant outlined the matter before the Commission at this time. He stated that there is commercial property located along Pacific Coast Highway. This particular property abuts residential property. The question is should the Planning Commission make certain changes in this potential commercial property. He noted that the primary consideration, as proposed by staff, is the modifica­ tion to the current collllllercial standards, Current commercial standards would allow building to 45 feet if it is abutting residential. One of the considera­ tions would be to move the setback five feet and lower the height to 35 feet. Public Hearing opened at 8:27 P.M. There being no citizens who wished to testify at the Public Hearing, Chm.n. Izant closed the Public Hearing at 8:28 P.M. Chmn. Izant elaborated on his drawing. He noted that planning normally talks about having buffer zones between residential and commercial areas. Oftentimes with cities with larger spaces, buffer zones between commercial and residential many times will be developed with apartments or condominiums. Because of the lack of space in Hermosa Beach, there is not the luxury of putting in apartments or condos in this buffer zone, He noted that staff is proposing what they feel are some mitigating measures for this problem of building commercial right to the lot line. Chmn. Izant felt that there are two basic alternatives in terms of what to do on the downside. One is to require that there be a requirement of no more than a 35-foot height. The other alternative is to allow a 35-foot height to go to a height of no more than 45 feet depending on the slope of the land. Chmn. Izant noted that there are a variety of other alternatives also. These could include the recommendation that no changes be made; or that PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -FEBRUARY 21, 1984 C-POTENTIAL ZONE (Cont.) Page 9 changes be made to staffs1 recommendations; or entirely different alternatives could be suggested to present to the City Council. Chmn. Izant noted that there is also another significant question before the Planning Commission. He stated that the City Council has recommended to the P.C. that the P.C. consider the elimination of the filing of a specific plan for a variety of reasons. Comm. Strohecker stated that, disregarding the height limits and setbacks, he feels the setback is necessary. He noted that the slope on the west side of P.C.H. is not as dramatic as it is on the east side. Comm. Strohecker suggested something to the effect on the east side of the highway, maybe 35 feet within 15 feet of residential. He felt that this might mitigate some of the overshadowing effect that would be caused by the 45-foot height limit. Connn. Strohecker noted that he favors the idea of a concept of fiavfng _a 35- foot !height limit bordering any residential property. He also would support the idea of a setback, as he felt that is important as well. He noted that he was speaking in terms of both sides of the highway. He also felt that the 35-foot height limit should pertain to both sides of the highway, in terms of the 35-foot abutting residential within a certain distance of its abutting the property. Comm. Newton commented on the large office buildings at Artesia and P.C.H. She noted that there is a parking lot between the structures there and the residential area, but she noted that there is still that feeling of large buildings looming over i_thc residential properties. Connn. Newton also noted that 15 feet might not be enough to accomplish the the purpose for which it would be designed. ColDIU. Soulakis asked when a C-Potential is converted, whether it becomes C-1, C-2, or C-3. He asked whether the designation would mandate the height limit. Mr. Mercado replied that in all commercial zones the height limit is 45 feet with the existing grade. Comm. Soulakis noted the condition where it states if it goes 35 feet on the east side abutting a residential, one could slope upwards to 45 feet. Comm. Soulakis made a drawing on the blackboard to illustrate his point. Mr. Mercado noted that the code does not cover every conceivable situation. He also noted that it could be conceivable to exceed the 45-foot height limitation based on the slope of the land, with Comm. Brown noted that the commissioners were provided/some very elaborate guiaelines :for working out the differences in grades. The information was provided by staff several months ago. He felt that the information contained in that report would be very helpful in considering this matter. PLANNING COMMISSION MINlITES -FEBRUARY 21, 1984 C-POTENTIAL ZONE (Cont.) Page 10 Comm. Brown questioned whether the 45-foot height limit would be adequate in all cases. He questioned whether it would be beneficial. He noted that if the 45-foot limit were allowed,·, then the parking requirements would need to be increased. Also the office square footage would need to be increased. Comm. Soulakis questioned whether the 45-foot limit could be restricted if it were allowed by the zoning code. Comm. Brown felt that the real question is an area that is specifically in the C-Potential and that abuts commercial properties. He noted that there is a question of diminishing returns. Comm. Strohecker noted that at the present time, parking restricts the size of a building. He noted that it would be difficult to go to the 45-foot height because of the parking restrictions currently in effect. Mr. Mercado stated that the intent is to minimize the negative effects of different land uses, not necessarily the general impact of commercial development. Comm. B1rown noted that the Commission is limited by the main criteria of square footage and number of cars per square foot. He questioned whether the question of the 45-foot height limit is moot. He thought that maybe the question that should be addressed is how to minimize the effect between residential areas. He questioned whether areas besides the 45-foot height limit should be addressed. Mr. Mercado concurred with Comm. Brown. He noted that his concern is for the residential property. Comm. Smith felt that the issue of parking is an important consideration. He noted that the traffic circulation problems are critical issues in terms of development. Comm. Smith stated that the land use element is now being studied. He noted that an inventory of C-Potential properties would be appropriate in regards to the land use element. Comm. Smith felt that a precise plan should not be given up-. Comm. Smith stated that he would like to see some comparisons in terms of all the zone requirements between what the proposed floating zone would allow versus what current zoning allows. He said he would like to see a comparative chart. He felt a chart would be useful in reviewing the project. Comm. Smith commented that he had yet to see any evidence that the current C-Potential designation and the current zoning code outside of the natural delimitations that the parking problem presents discourages any private construction. Comm. Smith noted that he has seen many C-Potential properties utilized on the highway which did not need an EIR. Ccmn. Smith felt that it is important to separate and define some uses where commercial abuts residential. He felt that the issues should be taken ,, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -FEBRUARY 21, 1984 C-POTENTIAL ~QNE(cont.) separately. Page 11 Comm. Smith felt that the issue becomes hazy when the use of C-Potential and the precise plan becomes intermingled. He felt that it is a serious tactical mistake to mix the different topics together. Comm. Smith stressed that he would like to see the issues separated. Comm. Brown noted that oftentimes there is the temptation to fix things up by co.ming up with a Band-aid solution. He felt that there are many problems in the City with regards to the C zones. He noted that it is .-difficult to come up with ordinances that will e-1:i,m~m;ateall adverse effects in an area. He felt that more creative avenues could be looked into and studied. Comm. Brown felt that the Commission would be amiss in creating another zone change that will put a limit on someone else's creativity in this particular area. CoIIIlll. Brown suggested that there might be other alternatives to the proposal. He felt the issues are really parking and the square footage. He felt that much more work is needed on this project. Comm. Shapiro asked where the term "floating zone" originated. Mr. Mercado replied that the term is frequently used in journals and planning text books. Comm. Shapiro made drawings on the blackboard to illustrate some of his views. Comm. Shapiro felt that maybe the length of a building could be taken into consideration when the building is constructed on Pacific Coast Highway. If it exceeds a certain length, the frontage along P.C.H. could then be only 35 feet. the Chmn. Izant again utilized the blackboard for/purpose of illustrating other alternatives. Chmn. Izant questioned the significance of taking the length of a building into consideration. He noted that the key factor would be the height, because it is the height that would determine the shadows cast onto the residential properties. Comm. Newton noted that there is a lack of consensus in regard to possible uses of the multi-use corridor. She noted that, because of the general indecision in the area, it would be better to consider that area on a lot­ by-lot basis what the proposal is. She felt that the precise plan should be left in place unless there is a better suggestion, Comm. Brown stated that he is in favor of a precise plan; however, he noted that if development were to be encouraged, a conceptual drawing would suffice for a time, but somewhere along the line a precise plan would be necessary. Comm. Brown questioned what would be done for the residential neighbors. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -FEBRUARY 21, 1984 C-POTENTIAL ZONE (Cont.) Page 12 Comm. Brown noted that some maximum height requirements would be necessary if it were to be developed near residential property. He suggested going back to the planned development if it were C-Potential, Comm. Newton felt that it might not be unreasonable to allow a developer to put a 45-foot building abutting residential use in an area, Comm. Brown stated that that would be all the more reason to have a planned development. The Commission could then decide whether proposed projects meet all the requirements. He stated that problems will always arise from unknown factors. Chrnn. Izant noted that with developers, time is money. The developer may not want to come before the Planning Commission with a plan and then have the Connnission say they don't approve of the plan. He stated that guidelines must be formed to avoid wasting time and effort. Chmn. Izant noted that a precise plan is fine, but there should also be more definite guidelines. This would save developers time. Comm. Newton stated that instead of saying there is a 45-foot limit on buildings abutting connnercial and a 35-foot limit on buildings abutting residential,it might be more appropriate to say something to the effect of no more than ten feet higher than the existing residential use or more than fifteen. This way it could be taken into account how high the existing residential building is. Comm. Brown felt that Comm. Newton's suggestion is a good alternative. Chmn. Izant questioned what would happen, though, if the ~commercial property fronts both R-2 and R-3. He did like the basic concept, though, Comm. Smith felt that it would then be possible that all of the R-2 would then be rezoned R-3. He noted that he would be frightened to encourage too much development ·because all the businessmen could be moved out very easily. He questioned whether that would be a good idea. Comm. Smith agreed that there should be specific guidelines. That is why he suggested a comparative analysis. He felt that a precise plan allows for a more considered development. He felt this avoids some wholesale moving out of small businesses. He felt that this is a problem that needs to be addressed. Comm. Smith felt that it is absolutely essential to encourage a good business climate. He felt that the Planning Commission needs to consider the open- ended effects when changes are made to the zoning code, Connn. Soulakis felt that the C-Potential is being created as a vehicle to encourage commercial development along Pacific Coast Highway. In effect, he felt this has not worked. He noted that, in fact, most of the properties are going R-3 and developing condominiums, He too felt that this is nothing more than a Band-aid approach to the problem. Comm. Soulakis te~ded to agree with Comm. with a general -plan.and land use element. addressed individually. Smith in the matter of coming to grips He felt that the issues should be , I PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -FEBRUARY 21, 1984 C-POTENTIAL ZONE (Cont.) Page l3 Comm. Soulakis stated that he would like to see this matter postp.oned for the time being. Comm. Brown concurred with Comm. Soulakis. He felt that the solution would not be an easy one, He felt that more research was needed on this issue. He would like to develop some type of dialog between the City and the developers to see what the developers would like. He also felt that it might be appropriate to talk to business owners and members from the Chamber of Commerce. Homeowners might also have input on the issue. Gomm. B:r:own also felt that the most important questions concern the general plan and the land use element. Comm. Shapiro noted concern. He wanted to be sure there would be no waste of time. Comm. Strohecker shared Comm. Shapiro's concerns over the wasting of time. He would like to see some alternatives studied. He also stated he would like to see a worst-effect example given. He would like to see several alternatives drawn out and discussed. Comm. Strohecker felt that it is rare for a successful business to be driven out by any development. He noted that very successful businesses generally own their property or they are in a position to buy it or to pay the higher rents. He noted that he is very much in favor of small individual businesses. He felt that these businesses are very valuable to the City. He felt that the small businesses that have gone have been the marginal businesses. Comm. Strohecker stated that development along the highway in the commercial zone is very important. This will bring vital new businesses into the City. Comm, Strohecker also agreed that concentration should focus on the general plan and the land use element. He felt that other alternatives could be studied along the way. Chmn. Izant agreed that consideration should be given to the land use planning as a whole. But he also noted that this issue would not just disappear by the Planning Commission deferring the issue until more study can be done. Chmn. Izant recommended an alternative course of action. He suggested the formation of a subcommittee to seek out the participation of the Chamber of Commerce and several prominent developers. The subcommittee could then study some of the alternatives and worst-case situations. He felt that a worst-case situation would be to develop to the maximum allowed. Chmn. Izant stated that he would not advocate deferring this particular issue. He felt that both issues should be taken together by the Commission. Comm. Brown felt that it might be more appropriate to say "continue" than "defer." He felt that it is necessary to seek out as many alternatives as possible before taking action on the issue. Chmn. Izant noted that if the issue is to be continued, then the Public Hearing would need to be continued, and the Public Hearing would need PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -FEBRUARY 21, 1984 C-POTENTIAL ZONE (Cont.) to be renoticed. Page 14 Comm. Brown stated that more alternatives are necessary. He felt that there is not enough information. He would like to get the information on the formula for upslopes and downslopes. He felt that this formula would be invaluable, Comm. Brown asked for other alternatives as far as deferring the issue, tabling the issue, He asked what the repercussions would be in each instance. Chmn. Izant noted that one alternative would be to reconnnerid to the City Council that no action be taken because the Planning Commission feels that the land use element should come first, Another alternative would be to recommend to the City Council that no action be taken at all. Another option would be the formation of a subcommittee charged with investigating other alternatives. Another alternative would be to tackle the issue at this meeting. Mr. Mercado noted that it was a 5-0 vote on the part of the City Council to reconnnend that the Planning Connnission consider this specific proposal. He noted that, if the P.C. feels it needs more information on the issue, that is well within reason. Chmn. Izant suggested that rather than closing the Public Hearing, it can be continued until next time. Staff would be directed to bring back additional information to the Planning Commission. Mr. Mercado felt that Chnm.. Izant's suggestion would be the most practical thing to do. Motion by Comm. Brown, seconded by Comm. Smith to continue the issue until the first meeting of the Planning Cormnission in April, and that staff be directed to provide more alternatives. Comm. Strohecker asked whether Comms. Brown and Smith would consider splitting the issue into two separate issues, those issues being the specific plan requirement and the questions of the height limits. He noted that he would prefer to deal with the issues separately. He felt that these two issues do not really belong together. Comm. Brown stated that he had no objections to Comm. Strohecker's suggestion. He did question what the repercussions of that would be, though. He asked what the benefits would be of separating the items. Comm. Soulakis felt that the idea of splitting the issues might be beneficial in case the P.C. approves one part and not the other. Chmn. Izant noted that the issue could be looked at more closely when it comes back before the Planning Commission. AYES: NOES: Comms. Brown, Newton, Shapiro, Smith, Strohecker Comm. Soulakis, Chmn. Izant ABSENT: None Chmn. Izant noted that staff should be given some direction as to what infor­ mation they should bring back to the Counnission. PLANNING CO:t-Il1ISSION MINUTES -FEBRUARY 21, 1984 C-POTENTIAL ZONE (Cont,) Page l5 Connn. Brown stated that he would like to see some information on the height criteria that was previously distributed. He would like to see the formula on determining the upslope and downslope, Comm, Brown also stated that he would like to see a worst-case example on both sides of the highway, Comm. Brown would also like to address the question of open area green space. He mentioned perhaps the possibility of a green space buffer zone, Comm. Shapiro suggested obtaining input from the Chamber of Connnerce rather than having a workshop or a subcommittee, He felt that input from the Chamber of Commerce could be submitted in the form of a letter. Chmn, Izant asked whether Comm. Shapiro meant that the Chamber of Commerce should be notified by staff of the next public hearing so that they could give their input, Connn. Shapiro stated that that is exactly what he was suggesting. Connn, Smith noted that the Planning Commission and the Chamber of Commerce have met frequently on the issue, Comm. ~rown noted that he would like to get input on the parking situation. Connn. Smith felt that information could be obtained on that topic from a comparative analysis. He noted that he would like to see a zoning chart that includes parking. He noted concern on the issue of the0impact of the proposals in terms of the various percentages on untrapped and trapped parking places before and after the parking requirements are met. He asked for information on this. Comm, Smith also felt that he would like to see some information on what the consultants are doing in relation to the land use and planning elements. He felt that some type of cataloging of the C-Potential properties would be in order by groupings as to how they stand vis-a-vis certain types of residential properties. He wanted to know how many of the C-Potential propertdes abut R-2 and how many abut R-3, If this were determined the effects could be gauged, Comm. Smith stated that he would like to see input on what other cities have done in addressing this problem of the encouraged development in the C-Potential area and development agreements. Comm. Smith noted that he agreed with Chmn. Izant in that it is important to come to a decision on this issue. Comm. Brown stated that he wanted to see examples of the parking situation. He noted particularly the cases of trapped and untrapped parking spaces. ZONING CODE INTERPRETATION: VETERINARY OUT-PATIENT CLINIC IN C-1 ZONE Mr. Mercado gave staff report. He stated that on February 1, 1984, the applicant submitted a request for a code interpretation regarding the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -FEBRUARY 21, 1984 Page 16 ZONING CODE INTERPRETATION: VETERINARY OUT-PATIENT CLINIC IN C-1 ZONE ont. compatibility of his proposed use with the intent of the spectrum of uses permitted in the C-1 zone. Mr. Mercado stated that the C-1 zone permits pet shops (sale and housing of animals) as well as doctors' offices. He stated that if one is permitted to provide medical services, and one is permitted to sell animals, it would seem logical to be able to provide medical services to animals without creating an additional disruption to the neighborhood. Mr. Mercado stated that staff recommends that the Commission adopt the position that a veterinarian out-patient clinic is an appropriate land use in a C-1 zone. He stated that authority for such an interpretation is granted in Code Section 8-A(3 I). Dr. Robert Mason, 1171 Shelley Street, Manhattan Beach, stated that he has been a veterinarian in the area for the past seven or eight years. He detailed the area in which he hopes to open his clinic. He stated that the location is at 2629 Manhattan Avenue. The corner in question is that which contains South Bay Realty and June Huston Escrow. It is across from the market and catty-corner to Skinner's. It is on the far southwest corner. It is a relatively new building, not more than ten years old. The building contains approximately five or six on-site parking spaces located underneath the building. Comm. Newton asked for clarification on the parking space situation. Dr. Mason stated that there are five assigned spaces and the possibility of a sixth space in the far west corner of the building. Comm. Newton asked where the animals staying overnight for treatment would be kept. Dr. Mason noted that the business would be a general veterinary out-patient clinic, meaning that there would be no animals staying overnight. He stated that the clinic would not be strictly out-patient; although, it will not provide for boarding or grooming services. In emergency cases that require overnight stays for recuperation, the animals will be housed in the smaller area which is now the escrow office. The animals will be kept in either runs or cages depending on the size of the animal. He said that this would be minimized, though, because approximately .BS percent of the animals that will be coming through the clinic will be in and out. Dr. Mason continued by saying that the facility would be a complete veterinary facility offering X-rays, surgeries, dentals, diagnostic work, and hospitalization work when required. Comm. Newton asked how many animals could be kept overnight in the case of an emergency. Dr. Mason stated that tentative plans call for starting out with four runs for the larger animals. There will be approximately nine cages for the smaller animals. He did stress, though, that he is not interested in volume because the facility would not be equipped to handle a large volume of animals. He said that both buildings together are approximately 1500 feet. Into this space will go the waiting area, reception area, and so forth. He PLANNING COMMISISON MINUTES -FEBRUARY 21, 1984 Page 17 ZONING CODE INTERPRETATION OF VETERINARY OUT-PATIENT CLINIC IN C-1 ZONE (Cont.) noted that he is quite limited in the number of animals coming in due to the space. Comm. Newton asked whether the runs would be indoors. Dr. Mason replied that the runs would be within the building. Comm. Newton asked whether the building is soundproof. Dr. Mason stated that his architect would be better able to answer that question. He stated that the architect has the plans and the technical information on the building. Chmn. lzant asked how many members would be on Dr. Mason's staff. Dr. Mason replied that the staff would consist of only two or three in the beginning. There would be someone to answer telephones and make appointments. There would also be an employee to assist Dr. Mason himself. Comm. Newton asked who would be cleaning the doggie runs. Dr. Mason stated that he would be cleaning the doggie runs. He noted that in the beginning he would have to be a jack of all trades. Comm. Brown asked how many dogs there would be. Dr. Mason estimated that there would be four to five runs which would be for the larger animals. He stated that with the bank of nine cages, the number would vary. He said that the cages ore 18" by 18" and that they ore cat-size. He noted that it will be a dog and cot hospital. He stated that the maximum number of dogs at any given time would be four or five in the runs and possibly nine in the cages. Robert Terrell, 30758 Ganado Drive, Rancho Palos Verdes, stated that he is Dr. Mason's architect for the project. He sta ted that he hos reviewed the existing plans that are on file. He noted that the building is basically a type five construction for the office area. The lower portion appears to be a type one construction, which is concrete block with steel beams that are protected. The wall along the side that would affect the neighbors is insulated. He noted that another layer of chipboard with Marolite would be installed for washing of the cloggie runs. He felt that this would help cut down on the noise level. He also noted that the buiding is off of the ground, with the parking underneath. This fact would also help cut down on noise from the animals. He further stated that most of the animals in the clinic would be sedated, thereby eliminating noise. Comm. Newton questioned whether the windows would be single glazed or double glazed. Dr. Mason stated that the windows in the building would be single glazed. He also noted that there is a sliding glass door along the westerly wall which faces the ocean. He said there is a window which faces the street, but that there are no windows which face the neighbors. Comm. Brown asked whether there is a large doorway that enters the escrow office. ,, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -FEBRUARY 21, 1984 Page 18 ZONING CODE INTERPRETATION OF VETERINARY OUT-PATIENT CLINIC IN C-1 ZONE (Cont.) Dr. Mason stated that the doorway is on the street side, not facing the neighbors. He noted that the doorway is in the center of the building. Comm. Brown asked what the method of disposal would be for the waste materials. Dr. Mason stated that a drainage system would be added into the doggie runs. This drainage system would attach to the sewer. He also added that approximately six drains would be added to the area. Dr. Mason stated that an air handling system would be added to the area where the animals will be kept. This would help minimize doggie scents. Chmn. lzant asked what the size is of the building. Dr. Mason replied that the area of the building is 1440 square feet. Comm. Newton asked what is immediately to the south of the proposed clinic. Dr. Mason replied that it is a residence. He stated that there is 81811 between the two buildings. He also noted that there is a block wall between the build i ngs. Comm. Shapiro noted that two such facilities already exist, one at Aviation and another at Pacific Coast H i ghway. He agreed with the point made by staff that if one can have a pet store or a doctor in a C-1 zone, then it would be logical to be able to provide medical services to animals in such a zone. Comm. Shapiro questioned whether a public hearing would be in order in this matter. He felt that because of the location of the proposed clinic, residents would want to be informed. He felt certain that a pet shop would never be at this location; therefore, this matter should be a public hearing. He stated that if the residents have no objections to the clinic, he certainly has none. Comm. Brown noted that the neighborhood is predominately residential. He noted the restaurants, bar, and store in the area. He felt that it would be a mistake to put a clinic in this particular neighborhood. He felt that to do so, would open the City up to other repercussions in the future. Comm. Soulakis asked Dr. Mason how many animals he would be seeing on a daily basis. Dr. Mason could not accurately guess the number of animals he would be seeing on a daily basis. He noted that he presently makes housecalls covering an area from Beverly Hills to Palos Verdes. His activities are approximately 60 to 70 percent veterinary because he does not have a base of operation. He stated that in the first year of his business, he would probably spend one morning a week at the facility. He noted that the reason this particular site was chosen was because of the people and animal density in the area. He felt that people would pref er to walk their pets to the vet rather than having to take them somewhere by car and risk carsickness. He noted that there is a clinic in Manhattan Beach, and residents in that area prefer taking their pets there because they can stay in their own neighborhoods. He also noted that most people prefer PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -FEBRUARY 21, 1984 Page 19 ZONING CODE INTERPRETATION OF VETERINARY OUT-PATIENT CLINIC IN C-1 ZONE (Cont.) to remain west of Pacific Coast Highway. Comm. Soulakis asked Dr. Mason to venture a guess as to how many animals he would be seeing on a daily basis. Dr. Mason stated that the number would be lower in the beginning, possibly 8 to 15 per day. As word of the clinic begins to spread, he estimates th at there will more patients. He stated that this is not an easy projection to make. Many factors will determine the number of patients -how people like him, the parking factor, the location of the clinic, and the convenience. Comm. Newton asked whether a night attendant would be present. Dr. Mason replied that he would be the night attendant if the need arose for one. He noted that there are no facilities available to warrant the hiring of a night attendant. If an animal were critically ill, Dr. Mason lives in the area and would be able to either come in to check on the animal or he would just stay at the clinic. Comm. Shapiro aggreed with Comm. Brown's comments. He felt that it would not be appropriate to make exceptions in this case. Chmn. lzant noted that the Commission should ask itself whether this is an appropriate use of a C-1 zone. He questioned whether this would be similar to other C-1 uses or whether it would be more appropriate in a C-2 zone. He suggested thinking in terms of whether the clinic is an appropriate use, not in terms of the particular corner where it will be located. Comm. Brown asked what specific category the clinic would fall under. Mr. Mercado replied that it would fall under the M zone. Chmn. lzant noted that the M zone is for manufacturing. He stated that this particular use in noted under Item No. 30 which refers to veterinarians, kennels, and small animal hospitals. He noted that the other vets in the City are exceptions because they are located in C-3 zones. Comm. Brown felt that it is more appropriate to try to utilize each particular zone, rather than trying to fit the zone to a particular use. He questioned why the clinic should not be located in the M zone. Mr. Mercado felt that the clinic does not differ substantially from a medical office or from a business that sells animals. He felt that the clinc is consistent with a commercial zone as well as a manufacturing zone. Chmn. lzant suggested that the Commission perhaps t ake a view of level of usage. He noted that the Commission has the authorit)I' to move or redefine as it sees appropriate, because uses do sometimes change and evolve. He noted that the section on the manufacturing zone is dated 1969. He noted that there may be some reason to redefine that portion. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -FEBRUARY 21, 1984 Page 20 ZONING CODE INTERPRETATION OF VETERINARY OUT-PATIENT CLINIC IN C-1 ZONE (Cont.) Comm. Brown asked for clarification on what the Planning Commission is being asked to do in this particular case. He asked for alternatives. Chmn. lzant noted that this is an informal request that the Planning Commission interpret the code. He noted that, if the Commission so desired to hold a Public Hearing on the issue, a hearing could be noticed on whether or not the veterinary uses would be appropriate or whether the zoning should be changed to allow the clinic in a C-1 or C-2 zone. Chmn. lzant noted that there are three routes that the Commission can take. One would be to say that the clinic is not an appropriate use of the C-1 zone. Another would be to say that the use would be consistent. A third alternative would be to say that the use is not consistent with C-1 and that it should remain in the M zone and therefore have no Public Hearing. Comm. Brown felt that possibly the applicant would choose to formally continue the matter with a Public Hearing. He questioned whether that is where the issue is going to ultimately lead. Comm. Brown stated that he his opposed to a facility of this type in this particular area. He feels that the issue is adequately covered in the manufacturing zone. He stated that he is not opposed to further discussion of the matter, though, if it is felt that the use should not be in the manufacturing zone. Comm. Smith questioned whether an opinion of the Planning Commission would be subject to City regulations. He then asked, if the applicant went forth with an application, whether it would require a conditional use permit, either because it would be a variance to the zoning or for any other reason. Mr. Mercado felt that it would be necessary to obtain a CUP. It would receive environmental review, and it would go before the Board of Zoning Adjustments. Comm. Smith felt that the only reason this use is in the manufacturing zone is because of the boarding provision. He felt that this should be looked at in more depth by the Planning Commission in terms of regulations. Comm. Smith noted that this neighborhood is a small commercial area, which is surrounded by a residential area. This differs from the busier C-3 areas. He saw no problem with having a doctor's office located there, but noted that it is the question of boarding which might make it an inappropriate use. He noted the questions of having the night attendant and of sick animals remaining overnight. Comm. Smith felt that a Public Hearing would be in order on this issue. He liked the idea of residents being able to walk their pets to the vet; but as far as business reasons, he felt the residents should be aware of what is happening in their neighborhood. Comm. Newton questioned the hardships to the applicant and the City if there were to be a Public Hearing on this matter versus indicating that the Planning Commission feels that this is an inappropriate use of C-1, but allowing the applicant to apply for a zone PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -FEBRUARY 21 , 1984 Page 21 ZONING CODE INTERPRETATION OF VETERINARY OUT-PATIENT CLINIC IN C-1 ZONE (Cont.) change. Mr. Mercado felt that it would be highly unlikely that a manufacturing zone would be allowed in that neighborhood. It would not be compatible with the surrounding uses. There would be no justification for this. Comm. Newton asked whether the applicant could request a variance. Mr. Mercado replied that the only real recourse for the applicant would be the procedures before the Planning Commission. He noted that a request for a variance would not be appropriate in this case. Chmn. lzant asked Comm. Smith a question regarding the Public Hearing on the matter. If residents do come to the hearing and all agree that a clinic would be a good idea, would he then be willing to define that veterinary clinics, out-patient only, would be permitted in all C-1 zoning in the City, or only on this particular piece of property. Comm. Smith stated that he hoped that during the Public Hearing, some reasons would either emerge or not emerge as to why an establishment such as this should be in a C-1 zone. He felt it is necessary to develop land use planning reasons in the issue. Comm. Smith felt that it might be more appropriate for staff to give another opinion of the matter, rather than taking it before a Public Hearing. Comm. Brown felt that it is not appropriate that the Commission should make up the applicant's mind as far as the question of a Public Hearing goes. He felt that the Planning Commission should give the applicant what he asked for, an informal opinion. The applicant could then weigh the consensus of the Planning Commission and then decide what his next step will be. Comm. Smith referred to the letter written by Lee Alton, Building Director, dated February 12, 1981. He felt that this letter constitutes the City's opinion in the matter. He noted that the letter says in part: "There is only one zone in the City within which the boarding of animals is allowed, and that is the manufacturing (M) zone." Comm. Smith stated that he is in concurrence with the contents of this fotter. Motion by Comm. Shapiro, seconded by Comm Newton, that the Commission take the position that a veterinarian out-patient clinic is not an appropriate land use of the t-1 zone. Comm. Strohecker stated that he felt veterinary out-patient clinics are of good use in a neighborhood atmosphere. He felt that the applicant has the noise and waste problems under control. He felt that if veterinary out-patient clinics are not allowed in C-1 zones, then pet shops should not be allowed in C-1 zones. He felt that a pet shop would create much more of a noise and waste problem than would a veterinary out-patient clinic. He stressed that he sees no problems at all with a veterinary out-patient clinic located in a C-1 zone. He did note that he respects the other arguments, though. Comm. Brown stated that he favors Comm. Shapiro's motion. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -FEBRUARY 21, 1984 Page 22 ZONING CODE INTERPRETATION OF VETERINARY OUT-PATIENT CLINIC IN C-1 ZONE (Cont.) Comm. Soulakis asked what the next step would be for the applicant. Chmn. lzant noted that the applicant would need to file the necessary applications with the City. He would be treated as any other applicant applying under the C-1 zone. He would have to comply with all requirements listed under the C-1 zone. If he complied with all requirements, he could then proceed as could any other business. Chmn. lzant noted that a Public Hearing would not be held if such were the case, just as a Public Hearing would not be held in the cases of other businesses complying with all of the requirements and then proceeding with the project. Comm. Soulakis questioned whether the applicant would have to apply for a variance if he were given a favorable opinion by the Planning Commission. Comm. Smith felt that it would be unnecessary for him to apply for a variance because the City would be allowing him a permissable use for the clinic. This would, in effect, be the variance. Comm. Smith felt that an opinion given by the Planning Commission could be appealed to the City Council. He questioned what remedy would be available to the applicant if no opinion were given. Comm. Brown noted that there is a system which should be followed. He felt that the Commission should give the applicant the opinion that he requested. Comm. Smith felt that if a sub-section of the code were to be studied, then a Public Hearing should be held in the matter. Comm. Soulakis suggested a change to the motion. He suggested having a resolution to open a Public Hearing to consider changing the C-1 zoning to include this use of a veterinary out-patient clinic. Chmn. lzant noted that it would be appropriate to make this motion. Motion by Comm. Soulakis, seconded by Comm. Smit"1, to open a Public Hearing to consider changing the C-1 zoning to include this use of a veterinary out-patient clinic. Chmn. lzant questioned whether the second motion by Comm. Soulakis should take the place of the first motion by Comm. Shapiro. Comm. Brown noted that the Commission is doing something that has not been asked of them. He noted that the applicant has not submitted an application. He felt that if the Commission takes action, then they are making up the applicant's mind for him. He felt that this is an inappropriate position for the Commission to be taking. He noted that the applicant may decide not to submit an application in the future. He cited economic factors if th is were to be the case. Comm. Shapiro noted that he was the maker of the first motion. He felt that it is important for the Commission to do what it was asked to do, give an opinion to the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -FEBRUARY 21, 1984 Page 23 ZONING CODE INTERPRETATION OF VETERINARY OUT-PATIENT CLINIC IN C-1 ZONE (Cont.) applicant on appropriate land use in the C-1 zone. He suggested taking the first motion, and then discussing the second motion. Chmn. lzant stated that he would support the motion by Comm. Shapiro. He did note that he is sympathetic to the applicant in terms of the possible reasonable use of a veterinary out-patient clinic; therefore, he would support a Public Hearing on the issue to discover whether the zoning should be reclassified or redefined in the C-1 zone and removed from the M zone. Chmn. lzant did note that, since this is only an informal opinion, he would prefer not to have it go to a Public Hearing until there is a formal application by the applicant. Chmn. lzant asked that the Commission defeat the substitute motion made by Comm. Soulakis and support the motion by Comm. Shapiro. Chmn. lzant noted that the question before the Commission is whether the motion by Comm. Soulakis should become the primary motion. (Vote on whether the substitute motion should become the primary motion.) AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Comms. Smith, Soulakis, Strohecker Comms. Brown, Newton, Shapiro, Chmn. lzant None (Vote on Comm. Shapiro's motion stating that the veterinary out-patient clinic is not an appropriate land use for a C-1 zone.) AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Comms. Brown, Newton, Shapiro, Chmn. lzant Comms. Smith, Soulokis, Strohecker None Chmn. lzont noted that it is the opinion of the Planning Commission that a veterinary out-patient clinic is not an appropriate use of C-1 zoning. He suggested that the applicant discuss with staff what his remedies would be. He can then, if he wishes, pursue the matter. Recess from I 0:30 P .M. to I 0:35 P .M. HOUSING ELEMENT, PEIR Mr. Mercado gave staff report. He stated that an updated draft Housing Element was first presented in April of 1983. The document hos been reviewed and discussed at a joint session of the City Council and Planning Commission and at Planning Commission meetings in September and October. Mr. Mercado stated that the Housing Element is a necessary port of the General Plan. Without a complete General Plan, the City may lose its authority in certain planning and zoning matters. The element discusses community goals, policies, and objectives. It identifies housing constraints and resources and makes an assessment of community PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -FEBRUARY 21, 1984 HOUSING ELEMENT, PEIR (Cont.) housing needs (including Hermosa Beach's fair share of regional housing.) Page 24 Mr. Mercado noted that staff recommends that the Planning Commission find that this project will not create significant adverse effects to the environment and requests that a negative declaration be prepared. Chmn. lzant questioned what the Housing Element would really do. As it stands now, he questioned what would happen with regards to air quality emissions and the objectionable odors. He also noted concern over the water usage. He felt that this could not be quantified. Mr. Mercado stated that the major impact is social rather than environmental. He stated that, unless environmental effects can be associated with social effects, there are no grounds for determining an environmental impact. Chmn. lzant noted that the more social impacts that exist, the more they impact on the environment. Comm. Smith questioned whether the Housing Element specified a certain quantified build-out for future housing needs. Mr. Mercado referenced the last section of the PEIR. He noted that it indicates that the Housing Element is providing a pattern and framework for anticipated growth. The actual development will be monitored. Comm. Smith questioned whether mitigation measures are built into the PEIR. Mr. Mercado replied in the affirmative. He stated that that is one of the functions of the Housing Element. Another is to indicate what the infirmities are in the housing stock and the housing policies. Another area addresses mitigation measures. Public Hearing opened at 10:40 P.M. There being no citizens who wished to testify, Chmn. lzant closed the Public Hearing at 10:41 P.M. Motion by Comm. Soulakis, seconded by Comm. Brown, to approve the Housing Element: PEIR. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Com ms. Brown, Newton, Shapiro, Smith, Soulakis, Strohecker, Chmn. Izant None None COMMISSIONERS' ITEMS Mr. Mercado noted that there will be a workshop on March 5 at 7:30 P.M.concerning the land use element. Chmn. lzant mentioned Comm. Soulakis' question in regards to whether any minutes were prepared at the workshop held on the EIR. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -FEBRUARY 21, 1984 COMMISSIONERS' ITEMS (Cont.) Page 25 Comm. Soulakis questioned whether those minutes would be made available to the City Council. He also questioned whether they could be made available to the Planning Commission. Chmn. Izant felt that the only minutes would be the formal questions that were posed to the consultants and the responses to those questions. Comm. Soulakis noted that he would like to see those questions and responses. Comm. Brown stated that he would also like to see those minutes. Chmn. Izant so ordered that the minutes of that workshop be mode available to the Commission. Comm. Soulakis questioned whether the P .C. minutes of January 31, 1984, would be made available to the City Council. He wanted to make sure that the City Council received those minutes. Comm. Smith requested that the P .C. minutes of January 31, 1984, be included in the packets for the next City Council meeting. Chmn. lzant so ordered the request concerning the minutes. Comm. Soulakis questioned whether the chairman could approve minutes of a meeting at which he was not present. Chmn. lzont replied in the negative. He noted that commissioners who are absent from a meeting should abstain from participating in discussions concerning those minutes. Comm. Brown noted that he had questioned at an earlier meeting whether the City Attorney had put his opinions in writing concerning the automatic C-Potential zoning. He noted that he would like to see that written opinion. He felt those reasons should be included in the packets. Comm. Newton noted that in the P.C. minutes of December 20, 1983, Comm. Shapiro asked Mr. Mercado for an update on the Poop Deck. Mr. Mercado stated that he is awaiting further information on the Poop Deck. Comm. Newton noted that at the Planning Commission meeting of December 20, 1983, a motion was unanimously passed to consider a Public Hearing on the matter of considering an amendment to the zoning code with regard to curb cuts. She stated that she would like to hold that Public Hearing. Comm. Brown felt that it is necessary to have a method to recapture action items that are mentioned in the minutes. Comm. Brown questioned the feasibility of having two Planning Commission meetings per month. ( PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -FEBRUARY 21, 1984 COMMISSIONERS' ITEMS (Cont.) Page 26 Comm. Smith suggested that staff could discuss items that will be discussed at the next meeting so that the Commissioners would know what would be coming up. He felt that this would be in the interest of time management. Motion by Comm. Brown to adjourn at I I :00 P .M. CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and complete record of the action taken by the Planning Commission of Hermosa Beach at their regularly scheduled meeting of February 21, 1984. s&rz~@an Joel Shapiro, Secretary Date ? )21j(l(