Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 04.12.84r MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON THURSDAY, APRIL 12, 1984, IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT 7:30 P.M. Meeting called to order at 7:33 P.M. by Chmn. Izant. Pledge of Allegiance led by Comm. Strohecker. ROLL CALL PRESENT: ABSENT: Comms. Brown, Newton, Shapiro, Smith, Strohecker, Chmn. Izant Comm. Soulakis ALSO PRESENT: Pamela Sapetto, Planning Director APPROVAL OF MINUTES Ms. Sapetto noted that the Planning Commission minutes of Wednesday, April 4, 1984, would be available for Planning Commission review at their meeting of May 1, 1984. APPROVAL OF RESOLUTIONS Motion by Comm. Strohecker, seconded by Comm. Shapiro, to approve P.C. 84-7. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Newton, Shapiro, Strohecker, Chmn. Izant None Comrns. Brown, ·-Smith Comm. Soulakis ZONE CHANGE -2604 HERMOSA AVENUE (-'. Comm. Newton noted that she would not participate in the discussion of this issue because of her possible conflict of interest with the case. Ms. Sapetto gave staff report. She stated that at the last meeting, the Planning Commission requested answers to several questions to use as a basis for guiding their decision regarding this zone change request. Ms. Sapetto stated that the first question was: Cannot the property be rezoned to R-3 because some adjacent property is zoned R-3 and is within the medium density General Plan designation? She noted that it is the opinion of the City Attorney that, although some of the property adjacent to the project is zoned R-3 and is within the General Plan designation of medium density, the zoning of the project to R-3 is still inconsistent with the General Plan, To zone this property R-3 would further exacerbate the existing discrepencies. Ms. Sapetto stated that the second question was: Would a deed restriction limiting the property to one unit and zoning the property R-3 resolve the conflict? She stated that the answer is no. The medium density designation not only defines the number of allowable units, but also it defines the intensity of development in .which height plays a part. Again, this would create an inconsistency. Ms. Sapetto stated that the third question was: Could an exception to the story limitation with an R-2 zone designation be allowed? She stated that the answer is no, no·t .witli • the ·rezoning decision; however j it is possible for the applicant to request a variance for the exception if the applicant can prove the points necessary to obtain a variance, specifically, that he is being denied property rights which his neighbors have. Ms. Sapetto stated that it is apparent that the only zone consistent with the General PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -APRIL 12, 1984 ZONE CHANGE -2604 HERMOSA AVENUE (Cont.) Page 2 Plan within the area is C-1 or R-2. Since Government Code section 65860 specifically states that zoning ordinances shall be consistent with the General Plan, it is staff's opinion that the Planning Commission has the option of leaving this property C-1 or rezoning it to R-2. These are the only options available. The Planning Commission may then direct the applicant to request a variance to the height or story limitation. Comm. Smith noted that the issue is not that of the C-1 or R-2, but rather whether or not the Commission accepts or rejects the application. Ms. Sapetto stated that the Commission has the option to rezone the property to R-2 if it is felt that R-2 is th e best zoning designation for that area. She noted that it may well be that the a pp licant would prefer R-2 zoning over C-1. She stated that what should guide the Commis sion's decision is the general plan and what is in the best interest of the area. Chmn. Izant questioned whether the Commission should first reject the application for R-3 and then pass a recommendation to the City Council to rezone this property to R-2. Ms. Sapetto stated that this would be an appropriate course of action. Chmn. Izant asked where the applicant would apply to obtain a variance. Ms. Sapetto replied that he would apply to the Board of Zoning Adjustments. Coilllll, Shapiro commented on the legality of zoning the property to R-3. He felt that if this were illegal, there should be clearly stated guidelines. Chmn. Izant felt that section 65860 of the Government Code clearly addressed this issue. CoI!lIIl, Shapiro felt that the wording in (a) "County or city zoning ordinances shall be consistent with the general plan of the county or city ... " did not set anything in concrete. Chmn. Izant noted that, in legal terminology, "shall" means "it must be," and is not a permissive word. He noted the difference between "shall" and "may." Public Hearing opened at 7:43 P.M. Cathy Anderson, 1003 Broadway, Santa Monica, spoke on behalf of the applicant, Mr. Niger. She , bi:ieflyoutlined the project before the Commission. She noted the importance of having the three floors in the home due to the fact that Mr. Niger wishes to install an elevator in the home. Ms. Anderson noted that staff has said that rezoning this property to R-3 would be illegal. She noted that she was proposing a deed restriction to restrict the property to one unit, which would in essence restrict it to R-2. She noted that staff's concerns are not only for the density, but also for matters of zoning relative to height and bulk. She noted that the question of three floors concerned the issue of height; therefore, she questioned how they r could come back and request a variance. Ms. Sapetto again stated that, run order for one to obtain a variance, proof must PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -APRIL 12, 1984 ZONE CHANGE -2604 HERMOSA AVENUE (Cont.) Page 3 be given that he is being denied property rights enjoyed by his neighbors. She noted that, because of the small size of the property, the applicant has a very good argument in favor of obtaining a variance. Ms. Anderson felt that there _ /a~Kough R-3 designations in the surrounding area to justify Mr, Niger's property being rezoned to R-3 also. Ms. Anderson felt that if the rezoning to R-3 is illegal, there should have been no reason to hold a public hearing on the matter. She asked for the Commission's consideration, noting the small lot size. She also stated that rezoning this property to residential would be of benefit to the City. Comm. Smith questioned whether it would be of benefit to the applicant for the Commission to deny the R-3 and then look at the possibility of rezoning it to R-2. He felt that the real issue is the approval or denial of the R-3 zoning request, He disagreed with staff, stating that unless an applicant applies for a specific zone request, the Commission should be looking at the .consistencies on a spot basis. Ms. Anderson concurred with Comm. Smith, asserting that when an application is made for a specific zone, that is the zone that the applicant wishes to have. Ms. Anderson questioned whether the City Council could rezone this property to R-2 if the zone change request is denied by the Planning Commission. Ms. Sapetto replied in the affirmative, stating that if the request is denied by the Commission and the applicant fails to appeal, the issue would die; however, if an appeal is made, the issue can be raised before the City Council, Ms. Anderson felt that her client would prefer to fight for the R-3 or accept the R-2 and return with a request for a variance. She noted that they are stand~ng firm in their desire for the three stories. Chmn. Izant noted that it had been determined that in the R-2 zone, the applicant could build a two-story with a loft and be between 1,600 and 2,000 square feet. Ms. Anderson noted that in t..:.1.king with the designer, she learned that the liv.eable space will be approximately 2,000 square feet. She noted that the ground floor will not be considered as liveable space, citing the garage, laundry area, elevator, and stairwell that will occupy that first floor. Ms. Anderson stated that it is not feasible for her client to build a loft, citing his needs of the elevator. She noted that a loft may only be ten percent of the area that it opens up into. Comm. Strohecker questioned the square footage of the home that burned down. Ms. Anderson did not know the square footage, but she noted that it was a single­ story house, which was encroaching on the commercial property next door. She felt that the house could not have been over 1,000 square feet and also noted that there was no garage. James Hagel, 5580 E. Second Street, Long Beach, spoke on behalf of the applicant, Mr. Niger, stating that he is the applicant'-s attorney. He complimented the Commission for the thorough consideration which they were giving the applicant. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -APRIL 12, 1984 ZONE CHANGE -2604 HERMOSA AVENUE (Cont.) Page 4 Mr. Hagel noted that many friends and neighbors of Mr. Niger wished to be heard on this issue, stating that many of them could hot be present. He presented a petition to the Commission signed by many people in the neighborhood with 'R-3 zoning. He felt that the Commission should be aware of the sentiment in the community toward this issue in favor of the applicant. Mr. Hagel commented on the question of density. He noted that if the property were to remain C-1, it could go to 45 feet with no setbacks, He felt that the zoning laws must be consistent with the general plan, He noted that the keywords are density requirements, He felt that the medium density would be more in keeping with the residential designation than with the commercial. Mr. Hagel thanked the Commission and staff for the time and effort being put into this issue. Public Hearing closed at 7:56 P.M. Chmn. Izant questioned the number of vacant lots at the site. Ms. Sapetto stated that one lot is part of the other. There are not two full vacant lots. She stated that there is one full vacant lot and a partial part of another. She noted that the partial lot belongs to the Denim Duck, stating that they have come in and made application to make improvements to build in that area. Comm. Brown felt that it would be inappropriate to deny the R-3 and grant an R-2 and have the applicant come back to apply for a variance and end up with the same thing~, He questioned the practice of doing this. He personally felt that the lot should remain C-1, noting that the lot was zoned C-1 when it was purchased. He felt that it would not be proper for one to profit from an unfortunate event, such as a fire. He noted that the entire corner is commercial and felt that this should also remain commercial. He felt that the applicant has the right to pursue the issue, but he felt that the Commission should not instigate such an event. Comm, Shapiro questioned the outcome were the Planning Commission to grant the request for R-3. Chmn. Izant stated that the City Attorney might return to say that the Commission was going against state lawthereby putting the City in legal jeopardy. He also noted that any citizen could bring suit against the City because the City would be violating the +aw. He also felt that it is a possibility ~that the issue of spot zoning could be raised. Ms. Sapetto concurred with Chmn. Izant{s remarks. Comm. Smith noted that there are several issues before the Commission. He noted the issue of planning and trying to resolve the inconsistencies between the general plan and zoning. He also noted the issue of the variance process. He felt that the issue of granting variances differs from the issue of zoning. Comm. Strohecker noted that he would not be opposed if the request were for R-2, but he noted his opposition to the R-3. He also noted that he had no objection to having the property remain C-1. He felt that the applicant should not be stopped from building a home, though, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -APRIL 12, 1984 ZONE CHANGE -2604 HERMOSA AVENUE (Cont.) Page 5 Motion by Comm. Smith, seconded by Comm. Brown, to deny the request for a zone change from C-1 to R-3. Comm. Smith stated that it has been made clear by staff that R-3 zoning would be inconsistent with the general plan in that area. He felt that it is a primary responsibility of the Commission to resolve those inconsistencaes as they arise. He felt that the denial of the R-3 would not place an onerous burden on the applicant, as there are other avenues for the applicant to pursue. He noted that the applicant may apply for R-2 with a variance. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Brown, Shapiro, Smith, Strohecker, Chmn. Izant None Comm. Newton Comm. Soulakis Motion by Comm. Smith, seconded by Comm. Brown, to approve P.C. 84-8, recommending that R-3 is inconsistent with the general plan. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Caroms. Brown, Shapiro, Smith, Strohecker, Chmn. Izant None Comm. Newton Comm. Soulakis Chmn. Izant noted that this action may be appealed to the City Council within ten days. A.MENDING THE PARKING STANDARDS TO INCLUDE PROVISIONS FOR COMPACT PARKING SPACES Ms. Sapetto gave staff report. She noted that staff recommends adoption of the resolution amending the parking standards to include provisions for compact cars. She also noted that staff recommends that the Connnission review the PEIR and find that this project could not have a significant adverse impact on the environment, and asked that a negative declaration be filed, Ms. Sapetto noted that many cities have adopted parking standards that make allowances for a percentage of compact car spaces in parking areas. At their regular meeting of March 13, 1984, the City Council adopted a Resolution of Intention (84-4684) directing staff to consider this item. Ms. Sapetto noted that one of the main advantages of allowing a certain percentage of compact car spaces in parking lots would be an increase in the number of available spaces per lot. A direct corollary of more spaces per lot is an increase in the number of cars able to park there and hence increased exposure for the businesses served by such a lot. Ms. Sapetto stated that standard car stalls are approximately 8 1/2 feet by 18 feet. Compact car stalls are approximately 7 1/2 feet by 15 feet, She noted that approximate sized are used because these vary according to the angle of the stall. Both Manhattan Beach and Santa Monica allow up to 30% of corrnnercial parking lot spaces to be provided specifically for compact cars. Ms. Sapetto noted that in Hermosa Beach the Vehicle Parking District has already included compact stalls in their lots. She noted that staff recorrrrnends that the City include a restriction similar to Santa Monica which specifies that a lot must have 20 or more stalls before the provisions for compact cars apply. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -APRIL 12, 1984 Page 6 AMENDING THE PARKING STANDARDS TO INCLUDE PROVISIONS FOR COMPACT BARKING SPACES (Cont.) Comm. Smith questioned how many of the lots in Hermosa Beach area meet the criteria of 20 or more spaces, He questioned the impact of this issue. Ms. Sapetto replied that this provision would apply to mostly larger developments and within any parking structures that might be built, as well as City parking lots. Comm. Smith noted that he was thinking in terms of existing City lots. Ms. Sapetto stated that there are not many lots in the City that this provision would apply to. She m:.oe d :..he' Hage u deoelopme!\1: afte eeiv:elapmoat Gn t-J;ie cbu r cb site, though. Comm. Smith noted that many of the City-owned lots currently have thirty percent of their spaces designated for compact cars. He questioned whether this provision would result in more parking spaces on the same amount of land. He also questioned whether this could result in a greater buildout on land. He questioned whether the same number of parking spaces is really being proposed. Ms. Sapetto replied that the City requirements would remain the same; therefore, Comm. Smith's comments are correct. Cormn . Newton noted concern over condominium developments trying to provide for compact parking places. She questioned whether this is the intent of the proposal. Ms. Sapetto replied in the negative. Comm. Brown expressed concern ,over the fact that this proposal would create a higher buildout in the larger commercial office areas. He noted concern over the density of these projects, but noted the need for more parking spaces. Ms. Sapetto stated that this would not necessarily happen. She did not feel that the dimensions of the change would do that. She noted that there are limited numbers of areas which this would be applicable to, mainly the Hagen project or other large projects that could be involved in. She noted that the Planning Commission will always have discretionary approval in these instances. She felt that the buildout would not make that much of a difference in terms of the number of spaces allowed. Public Hearing opened at 8:17 P.M. I:Gli I.ar'tz _ , 1524 Monterey Boulevard, Hermosa Beach, noted his concerns over the increased buildout potential. He stated that if one were allowed a certain number of compact spaces which allows for restriping and increased parking, it would then be possible for additions to be made to the building for increased buildout. He felt that a better way would be to say that any building or square footage must be related to the existing size of parking spaces. Compact spaces could be included if desired, but not as a tradeoff for increased buildout. He felt that more parking spaces are necessary but not at the risk of increased buildout. Public Hearing closed 8:19 P.M. Chmn. Izant concurred with Mr. Ldriz's comments. He stated that he felt that one of the provisions in the code could say that the density or the buildout,the size of the building,could be calculated on full-size parking spaces; however, partial would PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -APRIL 12, 1984 Page 7 AMENDING THE PARKING STANDARDS TO INCLUDE PROVISIONS FOR COMPACT PARKING SPACES (Cont.) be allowed based on the size, Comm, Brown questioned why a developer would go to the trouble to add more parking spaces if he is not to benefit in some way. Chmn. Izant felt that there is a benefit, stating that shops do not run at one hundred percent capacity at all times. He noted that this proposal will allow more people to park at the shops; therefore, more clerks will be necessary to process t ncre a.sed sales. This would be of benefit to shopowners. Ms. Sapetto stated that she would like to return to the Commission with more infor­ mation and specifics on what it means in terms of buildout to allow this proposal. Comm. Smith noted that he was thinking in terms of existing structures, Comm. Strohecker stated that he would like to see some figures from staff on this proposal. Chmn . Izant noted that this item will be continued to the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission to be held May 1, 1984, LAND USE ELEMENT Chmn. Izant noted that this item will be continued to the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission to be held on May 1, 1984. OFF-STREET PARKING ZONING CODE AMENDMENT -CURB CUTS Ms. Sapetto gave staff report. She asked that the Planning Commission review the PEIR, find that this project could have no significant adverse effects on the environment, and requested that a negative declaration be prepared. She also asked that the Commission adopt the resolution as presented by staff. Ms. Sapetto stated that a discrepency in the code was recently demonstrated when a developer submitted plans for a single-family residence and made curb cuts on his property which did not have to be replaced on-site because only subdivisions are required to replace on-street spaces lost due to curb cuts with on~site spaces. This developer later developed the lot ·as a five-unit condominium and did not have to replace the spaces as the curb cuts had already been made, As a result, on December 20, 1983, the Planning Commission passed a Resolution of Intention to consider this issue of curb cuts and parking space replacement (P.C. 83-33). Ms. Sapetto stated that as the code now stands, only subdivisions are required to replace the on-street parking lost due to curb cuts with on-site parking. If this part of the code is amended, almost all developments, regardless of type, would be required to replace parking lost due to curb cuts with on-site parking, There wo uld be cert ain limit a ti on s t o th e a ppli cab ili ty of this cod e . The Ci ty o f Hermo sa Beach h as no int enti on of mak in g i t s o dif fi cult for peo ple to b ui ld, re novate , or rehab ilita te dwe ll in gs that tbey will ce as e to do so, This wo ul d b e i n direc t conflict wi th the goa ls and pl a ns o f the gene ral plan of Herm o sa Be ach . There is, however, a need to include parking issues in the consideration of devel­ opment since Hermosa Beach does have a significant parking problem, Ms. Sapetto stated that there are several possibilities that may be considered to solve the dilemma of the replacement of on-street parking. These include: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -APRIL 12, 1984 Page 8 OFF-STREET PARKING ZONING CODE AMENDMENT -CURB CUTS (Cont.) 1 . In Lieu Fees -these fees may be assessed to a developer if a curb cut was made and no corresponding on-site parking was provided. A fee of $6,000 per s pace has been set by the Parking Au thori t y f or p ark ing spaces. Th is fee would be paid by the developer to th e Park in g Au t hority and the mo ney would be used to provide parking in area s wbere su c'h lot s and/or pa rking structures allowed. It has been argued that providing on-site parking to make up for on-street parking lost due to curb cuts does not help to resolve the parking problem. It merely removes on-street public parking and replaces it with off-street private parking and h en c e is an ineffectual solution to the parking problem. In light of this, an in-l ieu fee would help keep residential parking for the 'residents and would prov ide the funds to develop parking areas for visitors and the general public. 2. Another possibility would be to apply the replacement rule to all properties zoned R-2 or greater. This would prevent single-family lot developments from being "priced-out" of the ability to develop. Most of the R-1 lots in the City already have curb cuts or are backed by an alley, so their ex emp t ion would not have a great effect on the code. Now, a multi-unit apartment b ui lding can be developed and the builder has no responsibility to replace the parking spaces lost due to curb cuts. By contrast, a two-unit condominium development is responsible for such replacements. By including all types of developments on lots zoned R-2 or greater, it is hoped that a greater degree of fairness will be achieved, 3. A third possibility would be to uniformly apply the requirement that all developments must replace the on-street parking due to curb cuts with on­ site parking. 4. The City cou l d repeal the existing requir ements for subdiv isions. Thus, no type of development would be required to n e pl ace on-street parking lost due to curb cuts wi t h off-street parking.Whil e th is would be eminently fair in its applicability, it would do nothing to solve the parking problem. 5. A possibility s im i l ar to #2 would be to apply the requir em ent to all properties zoned R-3. This (as well as #2) could be cons i dered to be discriminatory. Also~ some condominiums are located in R-2 zones and, if this option were chosen, would no longer have to replace spaces lost due to curb cuts. 6. Another option would be some combination of In-Lieu fees and across-the­ board applicability. A developer could opt to either pay an in-lieu fee or replace the on-street parking with off-street parking. 7. Finally, the City can opt to leave the requirements as they now stand. Ms. Sapetto stated that staff recommended that in-lieu fees be assessed to developers who decline to replace parking lost due to curb cuts. The question is at what point do we begin to enforce the replacement rule? Unless it is uniformly applied, discrimination of some sort will result. Ms. Sapetto stated that staff is asking the Planning Commission to consider implementation of this requirement for all zones. The developer would have the option of paying the in-lieu fee or replacing the on-street parking with off-street parking. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -APRIL 12, 1984 Page 9 OFF-STREET PARKING ZONING CODE AMENDMENT -CURB CUTS (Cont,) f ~ Comm. Newton commented on the recommendation by staff that the replacement rule should be uniformly applied. She questioned whether the small, single-family development would be penalized because they would not be able to replace lost parking spaces lost due to curb cuts on site. She questioned the fairness of this proposal. She questioned whether it would be fair if every lotlbe it single-family or multiple, was entitled to one curb cut. She stated that most sites are already developed and already have one curb cut. She asked whether all curb cuts after the first one could be replaced on-site or in-lieu fees paid. Ms. Sapetto stated that this would be equitable to properties which do not have an alley access. If they did have an alley access, it would be because they are developed more to a two-unit. Comm. Newton stated that every lot is entitled to either one curb cut or an alley access. As long as one of those requirements are met, then any parking spaces lost due to a curb cut must be replaced on-site or an in-lieu fee paid. She felt that it would not be unfair to give a developer the choice of either providing the parking space or providing the in-lieu fee. Public Hearing opened at 8:33 P.M. Jerry Compton, 200 Pier Avenue, Hermosa Beach, noted that he is a local architect and must deal with this particular provision of the City. He noted that no other city he has dealt with has this provision. He noted that it is interesting that Hermosa Beach is the only city with the provision. He noted that there are functional design problems related to this provision, noting the special site circumstances and certain ingress and egress problems. He noted that by not adding curb cuts, access must be from the alley, He noted that in some instances it is desirable to access certain properties from a certain height. He noted that many times problems arise from trying to add curb cuts, He felt that the best of the alternatives is No. 4, which suggests that the City repeal these existing requirements for subdivisions. He stressed that it is important for the Commission to look at these problems realistically. He noted that many times guest parking is not really used for guest parking. He also noted that a new development requires much more parking than exists as on-site parking. He felt that new developments are being penalized, Chmn. Izant asked whether he would support Comm. Newton's idea if alternative No. 4 were not an available choice, Mr. Comption replied that the idea makes some sense to him in several respects. He did note, though, that he had problems with this issue. Public Hearing closed at 8:40 P.M. Comm. Brown noted that he concurred with Comm. Newton's suggestion. He noted concerns over the in-lieu fees, stating that normally the developer ends up passing ·-those .,costs along to people who buy the properties, He noted that he would like to do things that do not increase the cost of bui[ding a house. Comm. Shapiro noted that in-lieu fees do not always increase the cost of building a house because of the parking because one would have more square footage. Ms. Sapetto noted that now, if one cannot provide a space on-site, it reduces the number of units even though it is being built to the general plan and zoning. I f an in-lieu provision is provided for, you have a unit which you would normally not have; so, in this case, it wouldn't figure in the price. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -APRIL 12, 1984 Page 10 OFF-STREET PARKING ZONING CODE AMENDMENT -CURB CUTS (Cont.) Comm. Smith noted that his objection to in-lieu fees is that they seldom replace the parking that is lost, They may tend to replace that parking somewhere else in the City, but he noted that much public :parking tends to be lost. He noted that tremendous numbers of parking spaces have been lost due to the number of condos that have recently gone up in the City. He suspected that businesses have lost business as a result of this difficulty in parking, He noted that this is a real problem, Comm. Smith noted that the problem is that the City is just too small and has too many cars. He noted that there must be some type of trade-off. He noted that it is of benefit for the resident when a lost parking space must be replaced with off-street parking. He noted that he also liked Comm. Newton's suggestion; however, he noted that he would seek to modify it by eliminating the $6,000 in-lieu payment and si~ply require an'extra parking space for every curb cut, period, Comm. Smith noted that he favored alternative No. 3 because he felt it is more honest and does not delay the problem to sometime in the future, Comm. Newton questioned whether Comm. Smith would still give each lot one curb cut, Comm. Smith agreed that there must be either a curb cut or an alley access. Conun. Smith referred to the case of the developer making a single curb cut and then building a five-unit condominium, claiming he did not have to make more curb cuts. He questioned whether the City could have taken legal action in this case. Ms. Sapetto said that staff felt that the developer had actually found a loophole. Comm. Strohecker directed a question to Comm. Newton. He asked whether the size of the curb cut would be limited if there were only to be one curb cut per lot. He questioned the possibility of limiting the size of the curb cut to 16 feet, Gomm. Newton felt that staff would be better able to address this question. Ms. Sapetto stated that for a double garage, 16 feet would be needed. Comm. Strohecker questioned whether an older unit would be penalized if it were to expand from a single to a double garage. Ms. Sapetto suggested wording to the effect that "curb cut sufficient to allow for the required pn~site .parking." Motion by Comm. Newton, seconded by Comm. Smith, to amend the zoning code to provide that each lot be permitted one curb cut of sufficient width to accommodate a garage that will provide parking as required by the code for the use in that zone or alley access and any curb cuts lost after those requirements have been met must be replaced on-site by the developer. Ms. Sapetto noted that she would review the motion to make certain that it states what it is intended to say. Chmn. Izant questioned whether an apartment building with ten garages all in a row and facing the street would then mean there would be a curb cut that would be 160 feet long. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -APRIL 12, 1984 Page 11 OFF-STREET PARKING ZONING CODE AMENDMENT -CURB CUTS (Cont,) Ms. Sapetto replied that the intent is to suggest that there be a limit to the width of the curb cut. Connn. Newton noted that the intent of her motion is that no one should be deprived of at least one curb cut unless they have alley access; and after that, they must meet the requirements. (Vote on Comm. Newton's motion.) AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Comms. Brown, Newton, Shapiro, Smith, Strohecker, Chmn, Izant None Comm, Soulakis Motion by Comm. Newton, seconded by Comm. Smith, to adopt P.C. 84-9. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Comms. Brown, Newton, Shapiro, Smith, Strohecker, Chmn. Izant None Comm. Soulakis PROPOSAL FOR A HOTEL ON THE BILTMORE SITE AND DOWNTOWN AREA WITH ADJACENT PARKING STRUCTURE: DRAFT EIR, SPECIFIC PLAN (LOCAL COASTAL PLAN AMENDMENT ), AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Ms. Sapetto gave staff report. She stated that staff recommends approval of the project in the following manner: (1) (2) (3) Approval of a Specific for the project site. adopt Ordinance I) Recommend to the City Recommend to the City Plan and Local Coastal Plan amendment (Recommendation to City Council to Council to certify the DEIR Council to adopt the development agreement, Ms. Sapetto stated that the Biltmore site has a long and arduous history. From a one-time bustling enterprise, it fell upon hard economic times, became abandoned, and was then purchased by the City in 1968. Ms. Sapetto noted that since 1968 a series of studies and committees have been focused on development alternatives for the site. The many alternatives that have been considered are: oil production, parking, general commercial use, residential use, vacation-condominiums, senior housing, public park, and hotel. One of the primary difficulties in coming to a connnunity consensus on the site has been the concern that the unique value of the site should be fully utilized, The recurring theme of all past efforts has been to emphasize the role the site must play in community revitalization and as a financial asset to the City. Ms. Sapetto stated that in 1979 the City issued a formal Invitation for Proposals to lease the Biltmore site. Four responses were received: (1) Low-income housing (2) Vacation condominiums (3) Two proposals for oil production After receipt of these proposals, the Council could not reach a consensus on how best to proceed. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -APRIL 12, 1984 Page l2 PROPOSAL FOR A HOTEL ON THE BILTMORE SITE AND DOWNTOWN AREA WITH ADJAC ENT PARKING STRUCTURE: DRAFT EIR, SPECIFIC PLAN (LOCAL COASTAL PLAN AMENDMENT), AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (CONT.) In 1981, during the formulation of the Local Coastal Program, the concept of a visitor-serving commercial/recreational use was endorsed by the City Council and approved by the Coastal Commission. In 1982, the City Council rejected all proposals submitted in 1979 and directed to prepare a five-year financial plan for the City and appointed a Blue Ribbon Committee to examine this plan and rewrite a Request for Proposals on the Biltmore site based on the results of the plan. A financial plan was prepared which showed an increasing deficit projected for the City. Although the Biltmore Site Committee determined that the most financially beneficial use for the City was oil production, it was their unanimous opinion that a hotel use was overall the most beneficial use, as it can provide the City with financial gain, can serve as an anchor for downtown revitalization and is consistent with the City's Planning documents. The City Council concurred with the Biltmore Committee's recommendation to consider hotel development on the site. The City Council issued a Request for Proposals with specific guidelines for developer qualifications and design criteria. Through this competitive process, Greenwood & Langlois -Doubletree Inn were selected. The original scope of the project included the City-owned Biltmore site and Lot C. It was the Biltmore Site Committee's recommendation to allow a height variance to seven stories to accommodate a quality hotel. Agreeing with the concept of a quality hotel which would serve as an anchor to downtown revitalization, the City Council placed on the ballot of November 1983 the issue of height variance. This issue failed with 2,431 people voting: 1,067 for the hotel at a seven-story height; and 1,364 people voting against the issue. The City Council interpreted the vote as a consensus against a seven-story height but not necessarily the concept of a hotel. The City Council directed City staff to proceed to negotiate with Greenwood & Langlois on the development of a hotel within the 45-foot height limit. A project description was provided to the Planning Commission at their meeting of March 20, 1984. The Planning Commission is being requested to make a recommendation to the City Council regarding the consistency of this project proposal with the General Plan, Local Co~stal Plan, and zoning regulations; to approve a Specific Plan for the project and to evaluate the adequacy of the Draft Environmental Report and general parameter.s of the Development Agreement. Following is a discussion of each item. DRAFT EIR The Draft EIR fully discusses the areas of concern identified in the Initial Study: o Land Use and Land Use Plans o Traffic and circulation o Soils and construction issues o Air quality o Acoustics o Public services and utilities In staff's opinion the area of primary concern is parking. The project proposes to PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -APRIL 12, 1984 Page 13 PROPOSAL FOR A HOTEL ON THE BILTMORE SITE AND DOWNTOWN AREA WITH ADJACENT PARKING STRUCTURE: DRAFT EIR, SPECIFIC PLAN (LOCAL COASTAL PLAN AMENDMENT ), AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (CONT.) exceed the City's and Coastal Commission's standard by 100 spaces: 265 spaces are required, 385 spaces are provided. In addition, certain mitigation measures are identified in the report and should be examined by the Commission for implementation: (1) The requirement of employee parking at the Com:munity Center which is to be encouraged, (2) The construction of an additional parking level to accommodate 112 more spaces on Lot C (which would bring the height to 36' rather than 28 ''). These would be public spaces to accommodate future demands. (3) The construction of Lot B (not Lot C) prior to initiating the construction of the hotel/convention center. Of the other issues described in the DEIR, the mitigation measures described adequately address those concerns. GENERAL PLAN, LOCAL COASTAL PLAN The Draft Environmental Impact·Report has included a section on the project's relevency and consistency with the City's planning documents. Staff has requested PBR, the consulting firm preparing the amendment to the Land Use Plan and this DEIR, to examine this project's consistency with the City's plans. They have done so on Pages 15-18. ZONING AND A SPECIFIC PLAN The commercial/recreational uses which the hotel/convention center being proposed represents are wholly consistent with the zoning code. All other development standards, height, lot ·coverage and set backs are also consistent. However, the proj-ect proposes to exceed the story limitation: three stories are allowed, and the project proposes 4 1/2. Since implementation of this project represents the realizing of several policies established in the City's General Plan and Local Coastal Plan, staff proposed that a Specific Plan should be adopted for this project site which would allow for 4 1/2 stories and describe the street layout. The importance of an anchor for downtown revitalization and the importance of preserving the community character by striving for development which is compatible with the building scale and form of the downtown have been continual themes through­ out the C.ity's plannip:g documents. Both of these goals can be reali~ed through the adoption of a specific plan which can: (1) Accommodate a project of sufficient size to serve as an anchor, (2) Assure the scale of the project does not overwhelm the downtown area. (3) Assure the traffic circulation will be adequate. The Specific Plan addresses the goals as ,-:stated in the General Plan and identifies the parameters of the development standards and street layout. The Specific Plan is adopted as an amendment to the Land Use Plan and Local Coastal Plan and is adopted by ordinance and becomes part of the zoning code, ( PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -APRIL 12, 1984 Page 14 PROPOSAL FOR A ROTEL ON TRE BILTMORE SITE AND DOWNTOWN AREA WITH ADJACENT PARKING STRUCTURE: DRAFT EIR, SPECIFIC Pl.AN (LOCAL COASTAL PLAN AMENDMENT), DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (CONT.) DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT The Draft Development Agreement will be available to the Planning Commission soon. Chmn. Izant noted the main issues before the Planning Commission at this time: to look at the Draft EIR, look at the draft development agreement between the City and the developer, and look at the specific plan. Chmn. Izant invited the Commissioners to address questions to staff concerning the EIR, Comm. Smith noted that a substitution had been made by staff of the Draft EIR. This portion in question concerned the parking section. Ms. Sapetto noted that the Commissioners had received exactly the same document as they had received previously with the exception of the appendix portion of the traffic calculations. Chmn. Izant noted page 54 of the DEIR. He questioned whether the storm drainage system would be inadequate whether or not a hotel is to be built on the site. Ms, Sapetto replied in the affirmative, stating that the City has already entered into into a preliminary contract with the County Flood Control. There are plans to do a substantial upgrade of the storm drainage system, Chmn. Izant referred to page 57 of the DEIR, He noted that it mentions relocation of water lines in the area. He questioned things that should be done if a hotel is to go onto this property. Ms. Sapetto stated that the California Water Authority requires that water lines be improved if necessary as a result of a project. Chmn. Izant questioned who would pay for this upgrading of the water lines. Ms. Sapetto stated that the developer would pay. Comm. Newton referred to the mitigation measures proposed with respect to the parking structure. She noted that there was an indication that one more level could be added that would provide 112 additional parking spaces and would bring the total to 36 feet. She noted that in the drawing following page 20 of the DEIR it appeared to already be at 36 feet. Ms. Sapetto stated that this issue could be better addressed by the developer, Chmn. Izant noted that the purpose of the DEIR is to help in the decision-making process. It is not for the Planning Commission to either reject or accept this DEIR. Any questions that the Commission might have will become appended to the DEIR and will accompany it when it goes to the City Council. He further noted that the document is available in the library for interested citizens to review. Citizens may also submit questions which will be added to the DEIR. Comm. Shapiro referred to page 23, "Traffic and Circulation." He stated that there is reference to Appendix C; but he noted that Appendix C deals with soil. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -APRIL 12, 1984 Page 15 PROPOSAL FOR A HOTEL ON THE BILTMORE SITE AND DOWNTOWN AREA WITH ADJACENT PARKING STRUCTURE: DRAFT EIR , SPECIFIC PLAN (LOCAL COASTAL PLAN AMENDMENT), DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (CONT.) Ms. Sapetto noted that these inconsistena~s were corrected on the sheet containing errata corrections. Comm. Shapiro questioned whether statistics are included for summer as well as winter traffic. :Ms. Sapetto replied in the affirmative, stating that this information is included in the summary tables included in the text. Chm.n. Izant noted that mention is made that a city structure is to be built to accommodate hotel employees. He questioned whether there is a time table for the construction of this parking structure, Ms. Sapetto stated that they are striving to have Lot B built first. She noted that there is nothing definite as to the time, but it is anticipated that they will be built around the same time. She noted that the financing mechanisms might be the same for Lot Bas for the Community Center. Comm. Smith noted that he would like to see the makers of the DEIR include some specifics and back-up data on specific growth-inducing impacts. He noted his concern over this portion of the DEIR. He questioned the meaning of indirect growth. He wanted specific examples in relation to the downtown development area. Comm. Shapiro again noted concern over the portion on 'traffic and circulation. He noted that he would like to see statistics for both sum.mer and winter. Ms. Sapetto noted that she would further delineate this issue at the next meeting. Comm. Smith noted concern over the number of parking spaces to be at the proposed parking structure :at the Community Center. He noted that in one portion of the DEIR it is mentioned that there will be space for 250 parking spots; another area mentions 400 parking spaces. He felt that this issue needed clarification. Ms. Sapetto noted that economic research is now underway in regard to the feasibility of const r ucting a parking structure at the community center, At this time one is not able to tell what size the structure will be. She noted that the figure of 250 is mentioned in the development agreement b ecause it is felt that that is the lowest number of parking spaces that could be provided; 400 would be the maximum number, Comm. Smith felt that the most important area of the EIR is the portion addressing the issue of parking. He felt that many of the parking problems could be resolved by the construction of a parking structure at the Community Center. He felt that more information is necessary on this topic. Comm. Smith questioned whether there is any obligation with respect to the Haagen development. Ms. Sapetto stated that the tie-in with the Haagen development is that if a parking structure is built, the City may require parking in the structure by the hotel employees if it is felt that the pa r king provided at the center is inadequate. Chmn. Izant noted that the discussion would now be directed toward the draft of the development agreement between the City of Hermosa Beach and the developer, PLANNING C01'1MISSION MINUTES -APRIL 12, 1984 Page 16 PROPOSAL FOR A HOTEL ON THE BILTMORE SITE AND DOWNTOWN AREA WITH ADJACENT PARKING STRUCTURE: DRAFT EIR ., SPECIFIC PLAN (LOCAL COASTAL PLAN AMENDMENT) , DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (CONT.) Chmn, Izant questioned the lifespan of the development agreement. Ms. Sapetto replied that the development agreement is good for the life of the project. If it is not implemented, generally there is a termination date where it is no longer in effect. Chmn. Izant questioned whether the same rules would apply 25 years from now for the hotel in terms of if the owner wanted to remodel at some time in the future. Ms. Sapetto replied in the negative, stating that the development agreement is very carefully worded to allow for other discretionary approvals if they are required. She noted that the City Attorney can be consulted on this issue. Chmn. Izant asked who negotiated the price on the current option properties. Ms. Sapetto replied that it was the developer, Chmn. Izant referred to page 4, section 1,02 Economic Benefit of the development agreement. He mentioned specifically Senten ce 2 : "B eca us e of the high cost of development today in the City, it is recognized that the proposed project is not being developed to its highest economic return," He questioned how the following statement fits in with this. "The City, or other public entity, therefore, intends to issue Municipal Tax Exempt Certificates of Participation, or other instruments, tax exempt not to exceed 20 million dollars, for the long-term financing of portions of the project." He asked for clarification of these statements. Ms. Sapetto stated that this refers to issues based on market conditions and the price of property and the ability to assemble the parcels as well as packaging the entire project. Without City assistance this would not be possible in terms of financing, She noted that further information could be obtained from the developer on this issue. Comm. Smith questioned whether the figure of 20 million dollars was arrived at by a specific economic study or just within the realm of a maximum amount at this point in time. Ms. Sapetto replied that it was arrived at because it is within the realm of maximums at this point in time. Comm. Smith asked what the 20 million dollars refers to, Ms. Sapetto stated that it refers to the acquisition of the property that would be conveyed to the City as well as the construction of the parking structure and the convention c e nter portion of the hotel. Comm. Smith noted that the issue would come up at some point of the need of a fairly inclusive explanation of the mechanisms involved for acquiring the property that has been optioned, a reconveyance, and then a leaseback ar~angement. Ms. Sapetto replied that that is correct. Corrnn. Smith noted that these issues are the issues which make ~he project make sense. He noted that he had trouble understanding these issues. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -APRIL 12, 1984 Page 17 PROPOSAL FOR A HOTEL ON THE BILTMORE SITE AND DOWNTOWN AREA WITH ADJACENT PARKING STRUCTURE: DRAFT EIR, SPECIF.IC PLAN (LOCAL COASTAL PLAN .AMENDMENT), DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (CONT.) Ms. Sapetto noted that this is a draft development agreement, and these are areas which need to be gone over, She stated that these are areas which need to be further renegotiated, Comm. Smith noted that a clear distinction needs to be made as to whether or not the certificates of participation and different bonds are all adequately addressed. Ms. Sapetto noted that the City has retained a bond counsel to determine exactly how this project should be funded, She noted that Jim Williams has also been hired to work on this issue. Comm. Smith noted that his reason for asking these questions is :that :.these mechanisms relate to the issue of parking, which he felt was of utmost importance, He noted that this is an unusual method of meeting the parking requirements. He felt that more discussion is necessary on this issue. Comm. Brown questioned whether the 20 million dollars is to be paid back by the developer. He read it to mean the City is helping the developer arrange financing at a lower interest rate so that the project makes sense economically. Ms. Sapetto stated that the developer will be paying back the money. The developer will also be guaranteeing the bonds. She noted that the reason the City is entering into this is because it is felt by the City Council that there is a community benefit to be derived from the hotel, She noted that these benefits have been outlined in the WHEREASs in the specific plan resolution. Chmn. Izant questioned what the City's liability would be were the developer to default on the bonds. He asked whether the City would then get the hotel. Ms. Sapetto stated that that question Manager. would be better addressed by the City Chmn. Izant mentioned Page 4 of the development agreement, specifically Section 2.04 Contribution to Shuttle. He noted that it mentions that a specific fee is to be paid per annum. He questioned whether this would continue for the life of the hotel. Ms, Sapetto replied in the affirmative, stating that is the intent of the wording, Chmn. Izant referred to Section 2,08 Hiring; In this section it states: ... 11Developer agrees to give first Notice of Employment Opportunities to residents of the adjacent CDBG impact area and then to other City residents for all Hotel jobs not otherwise filled by then-existing Hotel employees .... 11 He noted that since there is not now a hotel, then there are no hotel employees, Ms. Sapetto noted that the City Manager, Gregory T. Meyer, would be better able to address many of these questions. Gregory T. Meyer, City Manager, addressed the Planning Commission. In regard to the question of hiring, he noted that it was requested by the City and was premised on the possibility of the City being able to use block grant funds to assist in the infrastructure and other portions of the development. He noted that the County has given assurance that the City would be eligible for those kinds of funds. He noted PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -APRIL l2, 1984 Page 18 PROPOSAL FOR A HOTEL ON THE BILTMORE SITE AND DOWNTOWN AREA WITH ADJACENT PARKING STRUCTURE: DRAFT EIR, SPECIFIC 'PLAN (LOCAL COASTAL PLAN AMENDMENT), DEVEL OPMENT AGREEMENT (CONT.) that a higher priority must be given to low-and moderate-income families in the community for the City to be eligible f or these block grant funds. He stated that this clause was inserted by the City and is intended to cover those jobs other than the management positions brought in by Doubletree and from elsewhere, Comm. Smith questioned whether it is reasonable to expect that the operator of Doubletree would have hired a substantial number of people already at the time the certificate of occupancy is is~ued. Mr. Meyer replied in the negative, stating that the operator will not have hired a substantial number of employees. He noted that first consideration will be given to employees who reside in the City. Mr. Meyer addressed the comments concerning the fee on the shuttle. He stated that the figure was derived based on the current year costs-and the assumption that the planning director and he had-and the assumption that it would be a 20 percent total cost contribution. Chmn. Izant noted that it says that the fee is not to exceed $14,000. He questioned whether that would be a cap. Mr. Meyer stated that this will be dealt with more fully in the continuing discussions with the developer. He noted that the intent is, over the life of the project, to have 20 percent of the entire cost of the shuttle. He did note that this is a draft document. Chmn. Izant referred to Section 3.02 Transient Oc cu p ancy Tax, He noted that it says: "The City agrees to impose a transient occupancy tax of not less than eight percent (8%) against the project and to apply funds generated thereby in accordance with this Agreement." He questioned whether these funds would be for a specific purpose or whether they would go into the City's general fund. Mr. Meyer stated that, as proposed in the development agreement, this is a concept that is very commonly used for these kinds of projects. He stated that the bed tax for this project, and not any other motels in town, goes toward paying the debt that is engendered for the public portions, parking, and convention center. Basically, the person paying for this construction is the visitor who comes in. He noted that it is being proposed to have the 8% instead of 6% to create more income. He stated that it would be at the discretion of the City Council whether to have the 8% apply just to the hotel or whether to have it apply City-wide. Chmn. Izant asked for clarification in regard to the bond financing. Mr. Meyer stated that the whole method of financing can only be used for public purposes. The public purposesare therefore defined as parking, convention center, and land thereof. He noted that the areas of La Playita and the Argonaut.,which is the optioned land, must be used for public purposes in order that public financing mechanisms can be used, He stated that the cost of the parking structure is an eligible use for this tax exempt certificate of participation, and the number is more than five million dollars. The cost of the convention center will also be more than five million dollars . He stated that the hard number could be fifteen million dollars, The cost of the conference center will also be approximately five million dollars. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -APRIL 12, 1984 _Page 19 PROPOSAL FOR A HOTEL ON THE BILTMORE SITE AND DOWNTOWN AREA WITH ADJACENT PARKING STRUCTURE: DRAFT EIR, SPECIFIC PLAN (LOCAL COASTAL PLAN AMENDMENT), DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (CONT,) Mr. Meyer stated that the figure of twenty million dollars was arrived at to serve as _a figure which is not be exceeded. Mr. Meyer stated that the bottom line is that the developer will guarantee the payments over a period of thirty years, Mr. Meyer explained the procedure by which the developer will pay the debt. Mr. Meyer noted that the City does not have any risk on those payments. Comm. Shapiro noted that the City is basically going into business with the developer on this project. Mr. Meyer stated that this is a fair representation, stating that the City will become the land owner on the project. Comm. Shapiro questioned whether an in-depth analysis has been done to determine projected income and other factors connected with this project, He questioned the solidity of the venture. Mr. Meyer stated in the affirmative, stating that in-depth studies have been made on all aspects of the project, CotmD., Shapiro questioned why the shuttle contribution is to be at an 80-20 split. Mr. Meyer noted that it turned out that way because the City got 100% of the payments paid for by someone else, Comm. S~api~o noted that he is in favor of the hotel, but he felt that the draft EIR lacks some pertinent information. He noted concern over Page 6 which refers to the summer counts. He felt that the traffic charts are inadequate, Ms. Sapetto stated that there are reasons for the information being presented in the way it is. She noted that she would like to return with further information from the traffic engineer on the reasoning presented in the EIR, She felt that the issues have been adequately covered. Chmn. Izant noted concern over the wording in the development agreement which would allow the agreement to run to infinity. He questioned whether there is another way to address this issue. He suggested revisions in the language of the document. Mr. Meyer stated that the agreement would not run into infinity, stating that the agreement must be for a specific term. He noted that state law requires periodic review annually. He noted that the agreement should be in effect as long as there is a debt. He noted that he would be happy to request the City A~torney to provide in writing these conditions. Chmn. Izant stated that the wording in the development agreement needs to be more precise. Mr. Meyer assured Chmn. Izant that things would be clarified in writing. CotmD., Smith questioned Section 2.09 Community Center Contributions. He asked PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -APRIL 12, 1984 Page 20 PROPOSAL FOR A HOTEL ON THE BILTMORE SITE AND DOWNTOWN AREA WITH ADJACENT PARKING STRUCTURE: DRAFT EIR, SPECIFIC PLAN (LOCAL COASTAL PLAN AMENDMENT), DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (CONT,) for clarification on this point, Mr. Meyer stated that this was a request to the developer by City staff. He noted that this would also be additional funds for the City. He noted that this provision could ensure economic stability, Cornin, Smith questioned whether any thought has been given to discussing . with the developers and operators the possibility of overflow business in regard to overflow of conference rooms and t ~ings of that nature, Mr. Meyer stated that no specific discussions have taken place on this issue, but he felt ~onfident that the developer will be very cooperative in this regard, Comm, Newton questioned if there was any idea what the yearly minimum guaranteed rent is to be. Mr. Meyer stated that discussions are still in progress on this particular issue, Comm, Smith asked for clarification of the term "logical evolution," Mr. Meyer felt that the term refers to a timely and orderly procedure on the project and in a way which is consistent with the uses outlined in the agreement. , Recess from 9:59 P,M. to 10:12 P.M, Chmn. Izant noted that the Commission would ask questions of staff on the issue of the physical plan itself. He further noted that this proposal for a hotel on the Biltmore site would be continued to the next meeting of the Planning Commission scheduled for Thursday, April 19, 1984. Chmn. Izant noted that the site is zoned R-2 and a height limit of 45 feet. He noted that according to the drawings, the slanted roof exceeds the 45-foot height limit. He asked whether this is in violation of the code or whether it is allowed by ordinance, Ms. Sapetto stated that there is every intention of enforcing the limit. She noted that there is a provision in the code that says that certain appurtenances are exempt from this height restriction, She noted that the drawings are only preliminary drawings, She stated that a pre -zone analysis has not yet been made. Chmn. Izant felt that the roof was being designed for appearance and therefore should not exceed the 45-foot limit. Ms. Sapetto gave assurance that the hotel will not be allowed to exceed the 45 feet, Comm. Shapiro questioned whether the proposal is deviating from the code because four and a half stories are being proposed where only three are allowed. Chmn. Izant replied in the affirmative, stating that the zoning allows for 45 feet or three stories, whichever comes first. By asking for a specific site plan, the developer is in a round-about way asking for a variation of that particular aspect of the zoning code. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -APRIL 12, 1984 Page 21 PROPOSAL FOR A HOTEL ON THE BILTMORE SITE AND DOWNTOWN AREA WITH ADJACENT PARKING STRUCTURE: DRAFT EIR, SPECIFIC PLAN (LOCAL COASTAL PLAN AMENDMENT), DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (CONT.) Comin. Smith questioned the improvements to be made in front of the hotel. He asked whether this would interfere with the flow of bicyciists, roller skaters, and the melange of people on the Strand. He also asked what kind of security problems will be created. Ms. Sapetto stated that the improvements in that area will be a CDBG project. She noted that the City Manager could further elaborate on the plans. Mr. Meyer stated that the intent is to redo the Strand in the entire commercial district from 8th to 15th Streets. He mentioned the using of Spanish tile, concrete, and other design ideas, He stated that definite decisions have not yet been made, He noted that there is to be a clear demarcation between the Strand and the hotel. Comin, Smith felt that the EIR does not address the issue of inducements"to clean up the area. He noted the increased need of police services. He noted his concern for control in the a~ea. Public Hearing opened at 10:26 P.M. Joseph Langlois, 11726 San Vicente Boulevard, Los Angeles, addressed the Planning Commission. He gave the history of his involvement with the proposal. He also outlined for the benefit of the audience the proposal, He noted that he has met with almost all of the neighbors in the area surrounding the proposed hotel. Mr. Langlois discussed each of the drawings which are also contained in the Cominissioners' packets. He noted that a hotel with 260 rooms is considered to be very small. Mr. Langlois exhibited the drawings for the benefit of the audience. Mr. Langlois stated that the hotel was developed so that the noise levels would be kept down in the portion facing 15th Street, He noted that he has met with the condominium owners on 15th Street in this regard. He noted that it was agreed with those owners that meeting rooms facing 15th Street will not have operable windows. He noted that the ballroom will be isolated in the center of the hotel. Mr. Langlois noted that two-way traffic will be maintained on 14th and 15th Streets. Mr. Langlois outlined some of the design features to be incorporated in the proposed project, citing the idea of having small retail shops in the parking structure. Mr, Langlois felt parking. He felt a minimum of 285. He also noted the that the way the proposal stands now, there is an excess of that 260 spaces is adequate and noted that the City code requires He stated that the developers are willing to pay for 385 spaces. mitigation measures being taken. Mr. Langlois noted that the primary asset is the beach, He noted that it is important to maximize the ocean-front rooms. Mr. Langlois mentioned the financing mechanisms and noted that he would like to provide the Cominission with more detailed information ·on this issue before the next meeting. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -APRIL 12, 1984 Page 22 PROPOSAL FOR A HOTEL ON THE BILTMORE SITE AND DOWNTOWN AREA WITH ADJACENT PARKING STRUCTURE: DRAFT EIR, SPECIFIC PLAN (.LOC AL COASTAL PLAN AMlmDMENT ), DEVELOPMENT ,--AGREEMENT (CONT.) CoIIlIIl, Smith noted concern for the security of the project in regard to the financing. Mr. Langlois stated that security of the City. He will be rated Triple A. for the developer. the rating of the bonds with have nothing to do with the noted that if he purchases insurance on the bonds, they He noted that this would really be a problem and concern Chmn. Izant requested that interested citizens address the three issues that were discussed: the EIR, the development agreement, and the physical plan itself, He noted that all questions and answers will become appended to the final EIR. Doug Pickard, 1264 Seventh Street, Hermosa Beach, noted his concern for the impacts to be made on the beach, He also noted concern for the environmental impacts on the ocean, Howard Cohen, 48 14th Street, Hermosa Beach, noted that Mr. Langlois did not make an attempt to speak with him in regard to this proposed project. He noted concerns over the issues of the parking structure, cars, trash, noise, pollution. He also noted concerns over the possibility of transients that might be living in the parking structure. He felt that, as a property owner in Hermosa Beach, he is being ignored, that his property is being invaded, that his health might be endangered, He noted that he interids t _o fight the parking structur~ proposal. He did note, though, that he is in favor of the hotel. Chmn. Izant questioned whether Mr. Cohen had any suggestions f or modifying this particular project. Mr. Cohen stated that a three-or four-story parking structure would invade the privacy of his backyard. He suggested a parking structure offsite or the possibility of a shuttle. He suggested keeping parking at one level as another alternative, Mr. Cohen did state that he would like to see a hotel on the site, Chmn. Izant asked whether Mr. Cohen had been approached by the developers to sell his property. Mr. Cohen replied in the negative. Linda Martyn, 15 15th Street, Hermosa Beach, spoke in opposition to the proposal, stating that the renderings provided by the developer are not in correct proportion, She felt that the renderings are misleading. She provided transparencies to show the proposed project. Ms. Martyn noted further concerns: preservation of the unique blend of tranquility and excitement in Hermosa Beach; beaches and neighborhoods; density; traffic; traffic problems especially on 15th Street because of heavy trucks approaching the loading dock of the hotel; parking shortages for citizens of Hermosa Reach; noise along the beach; transients; dirty beaches; loss of ocean views by homeowners; the possibility that the hotel will exceed the 45-foot height limit. Ms. Martyn noted the added responsibilities of the City, citing the costs of additional police, sanitation, street repairs. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -APRIL 12, l984 Page 23 PROPOSAL FOR A HOTEL ON THE ]ILTMORE SITE AND DOWNTOWN AREA WITH ADJACENT PARKING STRUC TURE : DRAFT EIR, SPECIFIC PLAN (LOCAL COASTAL PLAN AMENDMENT), DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (CONT.) Ms. Martyn noted that her first suggestion would be for a complete denial of the project. She also suggested angling the end of the hotel building. That way residents could retain their ocean views and the hotel would not be as close to the homeowners. Jerry Doyle, 15 15th Street, Hermosa Beach, noted his concern over the brevity of the financial mechanisms to be utilized in this project. He felt that it is not right for the City to back the bond. He felt that more consideration on this issue is necessary. He questioned what would happen if the hotel cannot fill its rooms. Mr. Doyle also noted concern over the issue of the loading dock and the heavy trucks . He felt a further analysis is necessary to determine the noise and the impacts to the streets. Vernon Foster 15 15th Street, Hermosa Beach, noted concern over the issue of the financing. He noted that he is a Los Angeles Superior Court judge and a former lawyer. He noted his concerns over the City entering into an agreement with Doubletree. He questioned whether there is any security for the bond and then went on to explain the method for payment of bonds. He stated that a guarantee is only a promise, not security. He questioned whether any collateral has been posted by Doubletree. He stated that the hotel would be a credit to the community, attracting tourists from many areas. He noted that the developer has stated that he does not anticipate to break even for at least five years. He questioned whether there would , be any way for the City to get out of the deal if the rooms cannot be rented. He noted that the City cannot depend solely on a bed tax. Mr. Foster stated that to approve this project with such limited financial knowledge would be very foolish. He felt that much more study needs to be given to this issue. He stated that he would like to see a contract and go over it in detail. He noted concern over the structure itself and especially the loading dock, Mr. Foster stated that he had met with the developer but he noted that there has been no follow-up by the developer on the suggestions made by the citizens. Mr. Foster stated that something needs to be done to ameliorate the massive size of the building and the impacts it will create. William Keith-, , 55 14th Street, Hermosa Beach, stated that he is the manager of the Grand View Hotel. He noted that if this hotel is built, there will be an obstruction of views for over half of the rooms at his hotel; therefore, this will result in a large loss of income, He questioned where he would turn for reimbursement of his financial loss. He questioned whether he -would be permitted to add on two more storfes to his hotel to regain ocean-view rooms, resulting in a six-story hotel. He questioned whether guests at his hotel would be able to use the parking structure. His recommendation is that the Planning Commission look favorably upon his future request for a six-story hotel. He also stated that he planned to request that there be a public access on 14th Street to the Strand and the beach, He noted that he will feel a loss of income. Pat Riggs, 1424 Manhattan Avenue, stated that he represented a condominium association not contacted by the developer. He noted that ocean views will be lost at this condominium. He noted concern over the method of financing. He doubted the adequacy PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -APRIL 12, 1984 Page 24 PROPO SAL FOR A HOTEL ON THE BILTMORE SITE AND DOWNTOWN AREA WITH ADJAC ENT PARKING STRUCTURE: DRAFT EIR , SPECIFIC PLAN (LOCAL COASTAL PLAN AMENDMENT ), DEVEL OPMENT AGREEMENT (CONT.) of the EIR in regard to the hotel and the downtown retail area. Mr. Riggs also noted concerns over the traffic and parking, wear and tear on the infrastructure and streets, noise, and increased pollution. Mr. Riggs felt that the perspective shown in the renderings provided by the developer are misleading. He felt that things are progressing too rapidly in this project. Mr. Riggs felt that an amendment should be placed on the ballot asking whether or not the citizens of Hermosa :Beach want a hotel on that site at all. The decision should be made by the citizens. He felt that the significant financial impacts on the City should be studied before making any financial decisions. Ron Simpson, 36 Strand, Hermosa Beach, noted concern for traffic and parking, particularly during conventions. He also questioned whether provisions would be made in regard to trucks that are waiting to approach the loading dock during peak periods, He felt that it would be inappropriate to have the trucks lining up on 15th Street while waiting to get to the loading dock, Fred Strible, 1502 Strand, Hermosa Beach, stated that he is representing the 1500 Str and Homeowne rs Association at this meet in g. He noted that the association members had me t wit h th e d ev elopers and all of the ir ques tio n s were answered in a satis fac tory manner . He not ed th at most of the concerns wer e wi t h noise, pedestrian traffic, a nd ingress and egress from the north end of the hotel. There were also concerns over the noise coming from the convention hall. He noted that he has received in writing from the developer an assurance that this area would have non-opening windows. He no .ted that the homeowners in the association are in agreement with the project. Patrick Martyn, 15 15th Street, Hennosa Beach, stated that more issues need to be more thoroughly addressed in the EIR. He mentioned specifically the impact of summer traffic and the effects of crime in the area. He felt that the term "indirect growth" needs to be clarified. He also noted concern for the security measures of the loans. Mr. Martyn stated that he is in favor of a nice hotel in the area, but he did state that he felt it is questionable whether the aerospace companies in the area would utilize the hotel facilities. John Inscho, stated that he owns two pieces of property at 53 15th Street, and another at 1500 Hermosa Avenue. mechanisms to be utilized in the project are adequate. with erecting a hotel on this site. in Hermosa :Beach, one being He felt that the financing He sa~ no problems whatsoever Bill Fowler, Chamber of Commerce of Hermosa Beach, felt that there have been no counter offers or solutions presented by the citizens. Mr. Fowler noted tle great need to generate income from this particular piece of property. He noted that in the first year , the hotel wi ll generate half a million dollars, not including th e b ed tax. This money is gr eat ly neede d for the general fund. He noted that the hot el will gener a-fu. $2.3 mill ion p er year and provi de 182 jobs in the City. He stated that the payroll and money spert: by tourists will recirculate in the City 25 times. • .1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -APRIL 12, 1984 Page 25 PROP OSAL FOR A HOTEL ON THE BILTMORE SITE AND DOWNTOWN AREA WITH ADJACENT PARKING STRUCTURE: DRAFT EIR, SPECIFIC PLAN (LOCAL COASTAL PLAN AMENDMENT), DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (CONT.) Mr. Fowler stated that he felt that the issues of crime, overcrowding of beaches, and traffic congestion have all been adequately addressed in the EIR. Mr. Fowler noted that Doubletree has built hotels in other areas, and the crime in those areas has been tremendously reduced. Mr. Fowler noted that the parking will be adequate and there will be no deficiencies. Mr. Fowler noted that many letters :of support have been received by citizens in the community. Edward Bernosky, 1143 7th Street, Hermosa Beach, spoke in opposition to the hotel, He felt that the City is becoming too dense and the area is becoming too expensive. He noted concern for this trend of over-development. Tom Russell, 15 15th Street, Hermosa Beach, noted concern for the vibrations that will be caused due to passing trucks. He doubted the financial aspects of this agreement. He stated that the view along 15th Street needs further consideration and investigation. Mr. Langlois responded to comments made by the citizens. He stated that the project is still in the process of being negotiated. He felt that the City is being very well represented in regard to the financial standpoint. Mr. Langlois noted that the developer will be signing on the loans and guarantees and does not intend to take these matters lightly, He further noted that Doubletree is controlled by the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company. Mr. Langlois stated that ultimately the City will be the landowner, and he as k ed that people look into the future to see that this pnoject will be an asset to the City. He noted that there is a very small percentage of land in the City zoned for commercial, and he stated that this project will be a very good use of the site. Mr. Langlois felt that the citizens who oppose this project are mainly those people who will be losing their ocean views. Mr. Langlois felt that the issues of police service, parking, noise, infrastructure, have all been adequately addressed in the EIR. One issue not addressed in the EIR is that of the impact of effects on the beach. He stated that an additional 280 people on the beach will not be noticeable on a crowded day when as many as 20,000 others are on the beach at any one time. Mr. Langlois noted that anything to be built on the site will have an impact of some type, He noted that he has dealt with many of these problems and has tried to mitigate many of them, Mr. Langlois noted that the City Council will have the ability to weigh all financial aspects of the project before making a final approval. STAFF ITEMS None ly PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -APRIL 12, 1984 COMMISSIONERS' ITEMS None Page 26 Motion by Conun. Brown to adjourn at 12:05 A.M. No objections. So ordered. CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and complete record of the action taken by the Plann1ng Co at their regularly ril 12, 1984. Steven Date