Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 04.19.84MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON THURSDAY, APRIL 19, 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, Smith. ROLL CALL PRESENT: ABSENT: ALSO PRESENT: Connns, Brown, Newton, Shapiro, Smith, Soulakis, Strohecker, Chmn. Izant None Pamela Sapetto, Planning Director (Connn. Brown joined the meeting at 7:56 P.M.) APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chmn. Izant noted that the approval of minutes of the meetings of the Planning Commission on April 4, 1984, and April 12, 1984, would take place at the Planning Commission meeting of May 1, 1984. APPROVAL OF RESOLUTIONS Chmn. Izant noted that approval of Resolutions P.C. 84-8 and P,C, 84-9 would take place at the Planning Commission meeting of May 1, 1984. PROPOSAL FOR A HOTEL ON THE BILTMORE SITE AND DOWNTOWN AREA WITH .ADJACENT PARKING STRUCTURE (CONTINUED FROM APRIL 12, 1984) Chmn. Izant noted that three areas would be covered in the discussions this evening: the Environmental Impact Report, the specific site plan, and the development agreement between the City and the developer. Ms, Sapetto gave staff report, She stated that after review of the Draft Environmental Impact Report by the Planning Commission, it is anticipated that the Commission will recommend to the City Council that the DEIR be certified. Ms. Sapetto stated that it is anticipated that the specific plan would also be adopted to implement the hotel project. Ms. Sape tto further stated that the Planning Commission will review the development agr eement, stating that this document relates to points of concern with respect to the g en e ral plan and specific plan. This development agreement also describes the fin a n cial mechanisms to be utilized in the project. She noted that this area is within the p urv iew of the City Council, but the Planning Commission is being requested to make recommendations. Ms. Sapetto stated that the preparers of the EIR are present at this meeting. She introduced Mr. James Fer gus, Mr. Paul Wilkinson, and Ms. Gilliam. Also introduced was Mr. Doug Ayres, an MSI consultant, who is also a renowned .:expert on bond financing. Mr. Ayres is also an ex-City Manager of Inglewood. Ms. Sapetto covered some of the questions that were raised at the Planning Commission meeting of April 12, 1984. A concern was raised with respect to the summer/winter demand tables in the EIR regarding traffic and the concerns about the sununer increase being at a five to fifteen percent level. She noted that this is at a peak hour and at any one time during the day. It is not a cumulative increase, but it is the anticipated increase, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -APRIL 19, 1984 Page 2 PROPOSAL FOR A HOT EL ON THE BILTMORE SITE AND DOWNTOWN AREA WITH ADJACENT PARKING STRUCTURE (CONT.) Ms. Sapetto addressed the comments as to whether or not the EIR should include the impacts of development of a parking structure at the Community Center. She noted that there were concerns as to the specific growth effects and to the meaning of "indirect growth." She also noted that there were concerns as to the impacts of the project on the water and beach. Ms. Sapetto noted that any of these concerns could be addressed to the representatives from PBR. Chmn. Izant invited the Commissioners to address their questions to the consultants. Comm. Smith questioned whether the EIR addressed the impact on the beach related to parking during construction of the hotel and the parking structures. Ms. Sapetto stated that the EIR addressed the need to develop a structure on Lot C before the hotel is built. Staff recommended that rather than first erecting a structure on Lot C, one should be erected at Lot B. In regard to beach parking during the summer, Ms. Sapetto noted that it has been the practice of the Vehicle Parking District to price the parking at Lots] and C in such a way as to discourage beach visitors. Beach-goers can park in those lots but at a higher price. Conun. Smith questioned what parking would be available during the peak periods. He noted that this will have an impact on businesses. Ms. Sapetto noted that the Planning Staff has recommended the construction of Lot B take place before that of Lot C to try to mitigate this parking problem. Comm. Smith noted that he would like to see this particular issue addressed in numbers in the EIR. He felt that this is a problem which must be mitigated. Mr. Fergus noted that that can be addressed in the Final EIR. He noted that they are now in the process of public review on the draft EIR. He noted that a response to comments package is to be prepared as part of the final EIR. Comm. Soulakis referred to Page 34 of the DEIR, specifically the portion referring to mitigation measures for parking. He questioned whether the 118 parking spaces would be made available by adding a fourth story to the parking structure on Lot C. He also questioned whether this would put the strucwe above 45 feet, Ms. Sapetto stated that there would be a fourth story, but noted that the structure would then be at 36 feet. She stated that the structure would be 28 feet with three stories. Mr. Langlois noted that the current parking structure is shown at 27 feet. Comm. Soulakis questioned why it has not been decided to put four levels on Lot B in order to have 42 additional spaces. Ms, Sapetto stated that it is felt that Lot Bis too small to do this. She also noted that this area abuts closer to other buildings. To make the structure any higher would be preclusive because of the smallness of the lot. Comm. Soulakis noted that it had been mentioned that a causeway to connect the two lots would be constructed. He questioned why this idea had been abandoned. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -APRIL 19, 1984 Page 3 PROPOSAL FOR A HOTEL ON THE BILTMORE SITE AND DOWNTOWN AREA WITH ADJACENT PARKING STRUCTURE (CONT.) Ms. Sapetto noted that it was staffs' opinion that, because of the massiveness of the project, it was not feasible. Comm. Smith asked whether a .ny of the parking that is to be constructed as part of the project will be used to offset the parking deficiencies included in the coastal plan. He also questioned whether any of the parking is being contemplated for use as a part of any future in-lieu trade-off payments in regard to new construction in the downtown area, Ms. Sapetto stated that one of the reasons additional parking is being requested is to accorrnnodate future growth demands, She noted that 100 spaces will be replaced on Lot C. Staff is recommending that an additional 112 be provided to accommodate future growth, Lot B will also accommodate th .e regulations of the Coastal Corrnnission because 42 spaces would be replaced with 112. Comm. Smith questioned whether these spaces would be available as part , of the in~lieu provision. Ms. Sapetto replied in the affirmative, Comm. Shapiro noted Page 6 of Appendix D referring to Table 2, Re mentioned specifically the portion that reads: "Based on available Caltrans data, it is believed that summer counts could be about , 5 to 10 percent greater on a daily and PM peak hour basis than those depicted in the Table. Volumes during the late morning and early to mid afternoon hours can be expected to increase more dramatically and begin to approach those of the weekday commu .ter hour." He questioned what volumes were being used. He did not see how two days could be selected and from those two days tables figured, He noted concern over this entire portion, He felt that the information in the EIR was lacking in relationship to summer counts. He felt that a more accurate table for parking is necessary. Mr. Wilkinson addressed Comm. Shapiro's concerns. He noted that since the time of year this report was prepared, . they did not have the luxury of making summertime counts. He noted that any data presented is an estimation of what is happening during the summertime period, He stated that data was collected from a period spanning Friday through Sunday, He stated that the analyses indicate that the max i mum hourly demand for that type of period is relatively consistent from day to day , whether it be a weekday or a pleasant weekend .day. In other words, the maximum hour of demand is roughly the same traffic count for a day in March when the count was performed. He stated that, of necessity, the traffic count data in Table 2 is more or less a sampling of existing volumes of the roadway network. Mr. Wilkinson went on to say that other data in the analysis tended to suggest that Sunday is not a critical day but Saturday is, Saturday was in fact closest to the Friday data which was observed to be roughly the maximum hour of traffic demand. Mr. Wilkinson addressed the concerns over the five to ten percent, He noted that the City files had been researched with respect to traffic count data. He noted that they could not find a consistent basis on which to compare average weekday volumes and summertime weekday or weekend volumes. He noted that the five to ten percent came from other studies made by Caltrans with respect to Pacific Coast Highway and an average weekday basis. Mr. Wilkins~n stated that in a summertime situation, the commuter peak hour will PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -APRIL 19, 1984 Page 4 PROPOSAL FOR A HOTEL ON THE BILTMORE SITE AND DOWNT OWN AREA WITH ADJACENT PARKING STRU CTURE (C ONT .) remain the highest in demand. However, there will be hours of the day of that relative volume. In other words, there is a lump of traffic added onto the late morning and throughout most of the afternoon hours such that the total volume for the day is roughly a five to ten percent increase. He stated that this has been substantiated by past studies done and in other beach cities. Comm. Shapiro noted tbat he has seen studies which indicate that Friday evening is the least reliable time to conduct . traffic studies because people have a tendency to leave work early and begin long weekends. Mr. Wilkinson stated that the manual counts indicated in the analysis were done on a Thursday. He noted that it was found that Thursday data was roughly 20 percent less for the evening peak hour than what was observed for a Friday, He noted that typically Fridays and Mondays are avoided when doing the traffic studies. Comm. Shapiro asked whether Thursday, March 1 was a sunny day. Mr. Wilkinson recalled that it was. Comm. Soulakis noted that in the staff notes the Biltmore site is designated as a commercial/recreational type of marketing plan. In the EIR it is referred to as a resort/conference center. He questioned what the parking demands would be in regard to how this property is designated. He noted that the two different designations would have different demands. He questioned what the property is being marketed as. Mr, Wilkinson stated that, because of a lack of a more specific description, the impact of the hotel was determined on basically a recreational/tourist type hotel because this would be the designation generating the most traffic and creating the greatest demand. Comm. Shapiro referred to the drawing illlil1ediately following Page 10 of the EIR. He noted that the loading dock is depicted on this drawing. He questioned whether anything in the EIR addressed the issue of the types of traffic coming down 15th Court and up 15th Street ,in relation to the loading dock. Mr. Wilkinson stated that within the body of the EIR there is an exhibit which indicates the anticipated project traffic volumes. He noted that Exhibits 16, 17, and 18 address this issue. Comm. Shapiro noted that he could not find any traffic information for traffic on 15th Court, which is the street going to the loading dock, Mr. Wilkinson noted that the anticipated volume of traffic during the A.M. peak hour would be roughly the total of five to fifteen vehicles approaching the service dock area. He noted that the A.M. peak hour would be between 7:30 and 8:30 A.M. Mr. Wilkinson noted that extensive studies have been conducted in regard to the type of traffic generated by hotels. He stated that it is anticipated that service trips would be _5 percent of the total generation of traffic. He noted that this does not necessarily represent all heavy service trucks. Many of the vehicles are van-type. He stated that many of the deliveries would be things such as from the florist •, dry cleaners, laundry. He noted that only a small percentage of the deliveries would be by large tractor-trailer type trucks. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -APRIL 19, 1984 Page 5 PROPOSAL FOR A HOTEL ON THE BILTMORE SITE AND DOWNTOWN AREA WITH ADJACENT PARKING . STRUCTURE (CONT.) Ms. Sapetto noted that it has been indicated by Doubletree that it has been their experience in the operation of their hotels that typically ten trucks per day make deliveries to the hotel. Mr. Wilkinson noted that, although traffic is shown only on 15th Street, traffic will be using either 15th Street or 15th Court, depending on the different volumes of traffic at any given time. He noted that the vehicle could select either 15th Street or 15th Court. Re noted that most of the larger vehicles will choose to use 15th Court because it is easier to negotiate into the loading dock. Comm. Shapiro asked for the width of 15th Court. Mr. Wilkinson stated that it is 19 feet wide, also stating that there is no parking on that street, Comm. Shapiro did note that people do have a tendency to park on 15th Court even though there is to be no parking. Comm, Smith noted concern over the unsightliness of a loading dock as viewed from certain portions of 15th Street. Comm, Smith noted that in the EIR it is estimated that 2100 trips per day would be generated' by· the 1 .hotel. He noted that five percent of these trips would be service­ related, amounting to approximately 100 service vehicles per day. Mr. Wilkinson noted that of that 5 percent or 100 vehicles, approximately five to ten percent of those vehicles would be of the heavy tractor'-trailer type, resulting in roughly five or ten heavy-type trucks. Comm, Smith questioned whether there is anything that would preclude heavy trucks from using 15th Street. Mr. Wilkinson noted that, in terms of the circulation aspect and the dimensions of 15th Court and within the residual portion of Beach Drive, it is almost presumed that larger trucks will use 15th Street in order to negotiate turn-arm.irids and approach the loading dock. Otherwise, it would be necessary to have a very large turn-around area. Comm, Shapiro expressed concern for the traffic situation that will occur along 15th Court. He stated that if 15th Court becomes congested, truck drivers might just start using 15th Street instead. He felt that after a period of time ·, there will be practically no one using 15th Court, as they will all be using 15th Street for one reason or another. He questioned whether any consideration has been given to these concerns. Ms. Sapetto stated that the Public Works Department has insisted with the development agreement of this project that 15th Court become a one-way street as all of the alleys are in the commercial area because of the size of the vehicles. Also there will be a median on Hermosa Avenue preventing left-hand turns onto 15th Street, so that the trucks will be forced to come down 15th Court. Mr. Langlois noted that there is already a median on Hermosa Avenue which prevents left-hand turns onto 15th Court. He felt that the trucks will come down 15th Street and exit on a one-way alley heading back toward Hermosa Avenue. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -APRIL 19, 1984 Page 6 PROPOSAL FOR A HOTEL ON THE RILTMORE SITE AND DOWNTOWN AREA WITH ADJACENT PARKING STRUCTURE (CONT.) Comm, Shapiro noted that strict parking enforcement will be necessary. Comm. Smith questioned whether the 59 parking spaces designated for employee parking will be adequate. Mr. Wilkinson noted that Page 32 in the DEIR presents various scenarios in regard to this question. He further stated that Table 8 presents worst-case examples, He noted that there is to be partial reliance on Lot A during ti~es of peak demand. He noted that all employees could park on-site, but other visitors would then need to use Lot A. He further stated that this becomes a question of parking management. Connn. Soulakis noted concern over information contained on Page 37 of the DEIR in regard to soil. He noted that there is some degree of risk from tsunami and seismically-induced liquefaction. He questioned the magnitude of the risk. Mr. Fergus noted that all coastal areas are subject to tsunamis and liquefaction, He stated that certain techniques in building are employed to mitigate possible effects. Connn, Soulakis questioned whether these building techniques are unique for this type of area. Ms. Gilliam stated that they are used in beach areasand have their own set of criteria. Chmn. Izant invited the public to make comments in regard to the EIR. Public Hearing opened at 8:20 P,M. Pat Riggs, 1424 Manhattan Avenue, Hermosa Beach, questioned whether consideration had been given to the potential impact of the hotel combined with the proposed shopping center at Pacific Coast Highway and Pier Avenue. He mentioned specifically the traffic and the wear and tear on the streets, City facilities, and the City's capability to handle these problems, Mr. Wilkinson stated that his firm prepared the traffic study for that project. He noted that the Hermosa intersections with Pier Avenue and 13th and 14th Streets were entered into the calculations. He stated that it is assumed that the impact would not be great. Mr. Riggs noted concern for the traffic and the heavy trucks that would be coming to the hotel. He expressed concern for the wear and tear on the City streets: He also noted concern for the infrastructure. He questioned whether these issues had been addressed in the EIR in terms r;,f increased services and City repairs that will be required to maintain the City streets, Mr. Fergus noted that a statement can be added to the EIR in general terms to address the concerns of Mr. Riggs. He stated that the issues of maintenance and improvement costs are beyond the scope of the EIR, stating that those 1ivould be -Iiscal impacts to the City. Ms. Sapetto also noted that fiscal impacts are outside the scope of the EIR according to state law. Mr. Riggs asked where he could find this information. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -APRIL 19, 1984 Page 7 PROPOSAL FOR A HOTEL ON THE BILTMORE SITE AND DOWNTOWN AREA WITH ADJACENT PARKI NG STRUCTURE (CONT.) Ms. Sapetto stated that those issues would be addressed in the development agreement. Mr. Riggs asked for the date used in the Caltrans data. Mr. Wilkinson noted that it was 1982 data as published in their 1983 reports, stating that this is the most recent information available. Mr. Riggs noted that he had difficulty understanding how the figures in the traffic charts were equated. Mr. Wilkinson stated that the studies have been very thorough. Mr. Riggs noted concern for the increase in traffic. Fred Strible, 1500 Strand, Hermosa Beach, asked questions related to the traffic both on the Strand and on the beach. He stated that during a good day the Strand between Pier and 14th is almost impassable in this area. He questioned whether the hotel would contribute to make thi~ congestion worse or whether the problem would be alleviated~ He further noted that beach traffic is increased by people who park in the lot on Ocean Drive and other locations. He noted that these people park and then walk across the hotel . site to the beach. He questioned whether the hotel would reduce or increase the number of people at the beach, Mr. Fergus noted that as part of the final EIR, information could be included as to the projections of a typical summertime usage rate of hotel occupancy. This number could then be extrapolated from that total number of visitors and expected number of visitors and expected number of actual beach users. This information could then be added into t~e final EIR as a response to the comment. Mr, Strible felt that the hotel might have a beneficial effect of restricting the number of people who come from other areas to use the beach and Strand. He felt that their use could be restricted to limit its use more to people at the hotel. Mr. Fergus noted that he could make an assessment of what beach usage would be as a result of the hotel. Patrick Martyn, 15 15th Street, Hermosa .Beach, asked who paid for the preparation of the EIR. Mr. Fergus noted that they were commissioned by the City. He stated that the consulting fee will be paid for by the developer. Mike Davie, 1427 Bayview, Hermosa Beach, asked a question concerning the height of the hotel and the bell tower. Chmn. Izant noted that this question would be better addressed during the portion of the discussion concerning the physical plant. Public Hearing on the EIR closed at 8:36 P.M. Comm. Soulakis noted concern over how the trucks would best approach the loading dock area of the hotel. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -APRIL 19, 1984 Page 8 PROPOSAL FOR A HOTEL ON THE BitTMORE SITE AND DOWNTOWN AREA WITH ADJACENT PARKING STRUCTURE (CONT.) ' Joseph Langlois, 11726 San Vicente Boulevard, Los Angeles, addressed the comment concerning the loading dock. He noted that when the loading dock was prepared, it was not taken into consideration that there is a median along 15th Court. It was originally designed to have trucks come down 15th Court and back in that direction. Conun. Smith asked for an explanation for the difference between the reflected 200 plus parking spaces that the City would be deficient of and the surplus now reflected in the report. Mr. Wilkinson stated that the initial analysis submitted essentially reflected just a replacement of the existing spaces on Lot.s-B and Candon-street in and around the area. Upon more detailed investigation, Mr. Wilkinson stated that it was discovered that there was a potential for joint use and overla p. He noted that it also be c ame apparent that Lot A, which is two blocks away f rom the s i te, c o uld offer as an ov e rflow support some parking for the hotel for those f ew oc c asions when the hotel will have a full house. This is how the analysis began to sh ow the su rp l us. Comm. Smith noted that there are three mitigating factors where the deficiency was: late evening, early evening, and when the banquet room was in full use. He questioned whether the situation has been completely remedied by that, Mr. Wilkinson replied in the affirmative, stating that in late evening there is virtually no demand on Lots A, B, or C~ He stated that, as he understands it, there is no overnight parking allowed on those lots. He noted that some residual use has been assumed for the late evening timeframe. Comm. Smith questioned whether any projected parking at the Community Center was used as a part of this factor. Mr. Wilkinson stated that that information was not used. Chmn. Izant stated that the EIR is used as a tool by the Planning Commission and the City Council to aid in making an evaluation of the project itself, The do cumen t is not officially approved or denied. He stated that the EIR should be sent forwar d to the City Council with concerns and recommendations made by the Planning Commissi on. Comm, Soulakis noted concerns over the parking areas. Comm. Smith questioned whether those mitigation measures would be equally as valid in terms of any recommendation to the City Council in regard to a specific proposal. Ms. Sapetto replied in the affirmative, stating that when the EIR is forwarded to the City Council, the mitigation measures must be incorporated into the specific plan. Mr. Wilkinson again commented on the use of Lot A as a mitigation measure. He referred to Table 8, Page 32 of the DEIR. He noted that th~re are really only two cases out of six where there is any reliance on Lot A, those beipg the daytime and early evening periods. The reliance would be only six spaces during the daytime and 31 spaces during the early evening out of a total of 90 available spaces. Conun, Soulakis suggested recommending to the City Council Mitigation No. 3, Page 34 of the DEIR. He recommended adding an additional level to Lot C. He also suggested the incorporation of a provision allowing for another level on Lot B. He felt that the parking is ina~equate in terms of lost existing space. He noted PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -APRIL 19, 1984 Page 9 PROPOSAL FOR A HOTEL ON T1ffi BILTMORE SITE AND DOWNTOWN AREA WITH ADJACENT PARKING STRUCTURE (CONT.) that it was difficult for him to believe there will be a surplus of parking while the construction is in progress. He felt that it would be more economical to add the levels to the parking structure now rather than at some date in the future. He recommended four levels at Lot B and five levels at 36 feet on Lot .C. He also would like to see consideration given to compact car spaces in order to more efficiently utilize that parking area. Comm. Smith questioned. whether this is covered in the development agreement. Ms. Sapetto replied in the affirmative. Motion by Comm. Soulakis, seconded by Comm. Strohecker, to find that the draft EIR is adequate, with the exception of the aforementioned exceptions as to the mitigation measures for parking, and recommend that the City Council consider the additional levels. Comm. Strohecker stated that he felt that the draft EIR is very good. He noted that his only concerns were with the parking. He also stated that he would rather see Lot Cat five levels to handle the o~erflow and lessen the impact. Comm. Smith questioned what the height level would be on -Lot Band what the height impact would be. He noted that the current structure at three levels would be 27 feet. Mr. Langlois noted that the difference would be nine feet, stating that three stories would be 27 feet, and four stories would be 36 feet. Comm. Smith asked how many additional parking spaces would be provided. Ms. Sapetto noted that with three stories there is to be parking for 112 cars; therefore, a fourth story would add approxima~ely 40 more spaces. Comm. Smith noted that he would support the motion to send the draft EIR forward to the City Council with that recommendation. He noted that his only concerns with the EIR were the issues related to parking and the areas of circulation as mentioned by Comm. Shapiro. He felt that all the other issues in the draft EIR had been explained to his satisfaction. Chmn. Izant noted that any interested citizen may submit written comments to be appended to the draft EIR before it goes forward to the City Council. Mr. Fergus noted that the public review period ends the first week in May. After that time, preparation will commence on the final EIR. Chmn. Izant noted that May 4, 1984, is the last date of the public comment period. Comm. Shapiro stated that he would support the motion with the addition of one further mitigation measure. He referred to Page 33, Mitigation No. 2 which states: "Designs of 15th Court/replacement Beach Drive and 14th Court/replacement Beach Drive intersections should be tested to verify the turning ability and path ' of · service of vehicles, trash trucks, and fire equipment." He suggested making the alleyway betw~en 15th Street and 15th Court one-'way so that if the trucks do come up 15th Street, go into the loading dock going north to south, they will be forced to go out 15th Court and not give the residents or the streets the double traffic. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -APRIL 19, 1984 Page 10 PROPOSAL FOR A HOTEL ON THE BILTMORE SITE AND DOWNTOWN AREA WITH ADJACENT PARKING STRUCTURE (CONT.) Chmn. Izant questioned whether this request would be appropriate for the EIR. He felt that it might be more appropriate during the discussion of the site plan. Ms. Sapetto felt that this is an appropriate request at this time. Comm. Shapiro noted that his recommendation is nieant to be an additional mitigating measure to be added to the motion. Comm. Soulakis noted that he concurred with Commh .• Shapiro's recommendation, and he agreed to have the motion amended to reflect t is additional mitigation measure. Comm. Strohecker, as the seconder of the motion,. also concurred. (Vote on motion by Comm. Soulakis, seconded by Comm, Strohecker, to send the draft EIR forward to the City Council with the aforementioned mitigation measures,) AYES: Comms. Brown, Newton, Shapiro, Smith, Soulakis, Strohecker, Chmn. Izant NOES: None ABSENT: None Chmn. Izant noted that the discussion would now address the physical plant itself. Chmn. Izant thanked the representatives from PBR for attending and offering their expertise. Ms. Sapetto gave staff report on the issue of the specific plan. She noted that it is staffs' recommendation that a specific plan be adopted which can realize the goals identified in the general plan and local coastal plan. She noted that there are several reasons for this. One is to accommodate the development of the project. She stated that the general plan and the land use pl.an identify where this project is located as a commercial/recreational use. A botel/convention center :i;epresents and is consistent with that use. She stated that al.1 other development standards be_ing proposed by this proposal conform with height, lot coverage, and setback requirements. The project, however, does propose to exceed the story limitation __ three stories are allowed; this project proposes four and a half. Ms. Sapetto noted that since the implementation of this project represents the realizing of several policies in the City's general plan and J.ocal coastal plan, staff proposes that a specific plan should be adopted which would allow four and a half stories and describe the street layout. Ms. Sapetto stated that the importance of an anchor and the importance of preserving the character of the community by striving for a development which is compatible witli the building scale and the form of the downtown have been continual themes throughout the City's planning documents, such as the economic element and the urban design element. All of these goals can be realized through the adoption of the specific plan which will accommodate a project of sufficient size to serve as an anchor for the downtown area. It -will assure that the traffic circulation will be adequate. Ms. Sap et to stated that staff recommends that the attached ordinance be adopted to adopt a specific plan for the area, This allows for four and a half stories with a height limit of 45 feet, which must be adhered to, She further noted that public streets are also included as part of this packet. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -APRIL 19, 1984 Page ll PROPOSAL FOR A HOTEL ON THE BILTMORE SITE AND DOWNTOWN AREA WITH ADJACENT PARKING STRUCTURE (CONT,) Comm. Shapiro questioned why there are to be four and a half stories. Ms. Sapetto stated that there are to be four stories; the half story is the mezzanine portion. Chm.n. Izant asked whether the mezzanine has rooms on it. Ms. Sapetto replied in the affirmative 9 stating that the mezzanine is one-third of the floor space of the floor area below. Chmn. Izant noted that in the drawings, it is depicted that the roof will go above the 45-foot limit. He stated that in the code there are exceptions to this 45-foot limit. He mentioned the examples of parapet walls, housing for mechanical structures, TV antennas, fireplace chimneys, and other things of that nature. He questioned whether the portion of the roof exceeding the 45-foot limit meets any of those qualifications or whether it is being designed purely from an architectural standpoint. Ms. Sapetto stated that it qualifies as a mansard roof which is considered to be a parapet on top of the structure. She further stated that the other structure is for the mechanical needs of the hotel. Both of these would fall within Section 1207 of the code. Chmn. Izant questioned whether Ms. Sapetto was referring to the tower in the center of the building which will house the elevator shaft. Ms. Sapetto replied in the affirmative. Chmn. Izant requested information on how a specific plan differs from building a commercial project in a commercial zone. Ms. Sapetto replied that in Hermosa Beach a commercial project in a connnercial zone requires no discretionary review. A specific plan allows the Commission or the City to 'give -a discretionary approval of a project. It also allows for a definition of the City's best interest on how the project should be implemented. In addition, it requires that whatever is approved via a specific plan must be conformed with. Chmn. Izant questioned the kinds of find 'ings the Commission needs to make in order to approve a specific plan. Ms. Sapetto stated that the purpose of a specific plan is to better enable cities to implement their general plans. This is a fairly new mechanism which has been set up by the state legislature. In order to implement the specific plan, it must be clearly defined how the specific plan is allowing a city to implement its general plan. She noted that there is wording in the ordinance which specifically identifies those goals of the general plan that this specific plan implements. Comm. Smith asked whether there were any hidden ramifications to this tax-wise or in terms of district levies or things of those types which may be associated with the specific plan. Ms. Sapetto stated that state law does require a city to require a developer to contribute towards any costs that are incurred by the city in order to develop a specific plan. Other than that, it should be considered the same as development agreement standards in the zoning code. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -APRIL 19, 1984 Page 12 PROPOSAL FOR A HOTEL ON THE BILTMORE SITE AND DOWNTOWN AREA WITH ADJACENT PARKING STRUCTURE (CONT.) Chmn. Izant invited citizens to address their concerns to the Commission. He also asked for specific recommendations. He asked for comments on the specific plan only. Public Hearing opened at 9:11 P.M. Joseph Langlois, applicant, addressed the Commission. He addressed the questions concerning the height of the roof. He noted that the roof is of mansard style and not a complete roof. It does not come to a point. It is simply an angled parapet wall covered with tile. This is done primarily for architectural benefit. It also serves to shield mechanical equipment that may be beyond that. He noted that the design could survive without this feature, but from an architectural standpoint it is nicer with it. He was told by the Building Department that this does conform to code. It will also provide a better view for the people looking down from the hills. Mr. Langlois addressed the issue of that portio·n which was referred to as the bell tower. He noted that there are to be no bells. He noted that this is simply to be a mechanical penthouse, approximately nine feet tall. Its purpose will be to house the top of the elevator housings. Mr. Langlois addressed the issue of parking. He noted that the worst-case studies contained in the EIR were demand cases done on a worst-case basis, He noted that these studies were done in compliance to CEQA regulations. He felt that the additional parking suggested by the Commission would be good for the downtown merchants of Hermosa Beach, but he did not anticipate actually .having to use it. Patrick Martyn, 15 15th Street, Hermosa Beach, felt that the parking situation will be insufficient. He felt that the traffic studies were inadequate. He felt that the developer is not thinking in the best interests of the community. Fred Strible, 1500 Strand, Hermosa Beach, noted concern for the noise at Strand and 15th Street. He noted that the convention area is to be located near the condominium where he lives. He also noted that the ballroom is to be at the end of the hotel. He noted concern for the noise level at the time that conventions end and people are all attempting to exit at the same time. He said that he has received assurance from the developer that there will not be public egress from the hotel or public access to the hotel at that end of the hotel. This will strictly be for a fire or emergency exit. He also noted that he has received assurance from the developer that the windows on the ground floor of the north end of the hotel will have non-operable windows. He stated that he would like to be assured that these conditions are built into the specifications. Mr. Strible further noted that hospitality suites tend to be very noisy. He requested that the north end rooms not be used as hospitality suites. Wilma Burt, 1152 7th Street, Hermosa Beach, noted concern for the height of the hotel. She did note that she favors the idea of a hotel on this site, stating that it is the best use of the land. She strongly favored limiting the height to 45 feet only. She opposed 55 feet as the maximum height and the possibility of five floors. Pat Riggs 1424 Manhattan Avenue, Hermosa Beach, questioned the possibility of subterranean parking. Ms. Sapetto replied that the:water table is at 8 feet, making this possibility an unfeasible choice. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -APRIL 19, 1984 Page 13 PROPOSAL FOR A HOTEL ON THE BILTMORE SITE AND DOWNTOWN AREA WITH ADJACENT PARKING STRUCTURE (CONT.) Mr. Riggs noted that there was a subterranean swimming pool in the old Biltmore Hotel. Mr. Riggs noted concern for the location of the garbage pick-up area. He also noted concern over the issue of height. He questioned whether this height limitation would be setting precedents in the City. Ms. Sapetto stated that the reason for requesting a specific site plan is to avoid the setting of precedents. In order to adopt this specific plan, there must be assurance that the goals of the City are being met. She noted that this has been discussed with the City Attorney and the Coastal ColllII1ission. Linda Martyn, 15 15th Street, Hermosa Beach, noted concerrn for the five stories at the north end. Chuck Sheldon, 25 9th Street, Hermosa Beach, questioned whether it is possible for the Pianning Commission to outright deny the project. Ms. Sapetto replied in the affirmative, stating that in all fairness, they would need to indicate their reasons for rejecting the proposal. Since the City Council has requested recommendations, it is only fair for the Planning Commission to give their reasons. Mr. Sheldon felt that the project is moving very quickly. He personally favored the idea of the hotel, but he noted concern for the height. He also noted concern for other buildings in the City which will be going to this height. He noted concern over the idea that this might become a precedent in the City. He noted that Hermosa is at a very critical stage in its planning process. He felt much discussion needs to be given to these issues. Ms. Sapetto noted that the future concerns of the downtown development have been discussed by the City and the Planning Commission for quite some time. She·noted that the land use element is currently being revised. She also noted that the comments raised be Mr. Sheldon would be appropriate during the discussions to take place on the land use element. Floyd Ayres, 1292 Bonnie Brae, Hermosa Beach, noted that something must be done on the Biltmore site so long as it stays within the ordinances -and height li~its. He felt that more studies are not necessary, as studies have been taking place for years. He felt that progress is vital for the City. He favored anything that would improve the downtown area. He felt that this has been the best proposal offered. Parker Herriott, 224 24th Street, nermosa Beach, spoke in opposition of the hotel, citing the problems of traffic, noise, and pollution. He stated that he is in the process of obtaining signatures for a petition on the open space initiative. He stated that most people are being misled by the notion that they have a right to say what will happen to that property. He felt that the citizens should be able to vote on this issue. Mr. Langlois addressed the concerns of the public. He noted that much time and thought has ·been given to this project. He stated that many public hearings have been held on this matter. He stated that he has signed into the development agreement the fact that there are to be non-operable windows on the north end, He stated that the door there will be for a fire exit. He further noted that no suites have been · designed into the hotel because of the small size of the hotel. He stated that he PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -APRIL 19, 1984 Page 14 PROPOSAL FOR A HOTEL ON THE BILTI1ORE SITE AND DOWNTOWN AREA WITH ADJACENT PARKING STRUCTURE (CONT,) would be happy to include in the development agreement a provision for the use of hospitality rooms. He noted that he would also be happy to include a provision for the ballroom, Mr. Langlois sympathized with those people who~would lose their ocean views, but he noted that ocean views cannot be guaranteed in perpetuity. Mr. Langlois noted that in order to comply with the 45-foot height limit, it was neces-sary to acquire more land which the developers must make the debt service on. Mr. Langlois stated that it is very difficult to go below grade in this area, stating that crumbling begins at four feet. He also cited the tremendous cost involved. Mr. Langlois addressed the concerns of this project setting a precedent. He noted that the development agreement covers only this project, Mr. Langlois assured the Commission that all regulations would be complied with in regard to the trash area and loading dock area. Mr. Langlois noted the great difficulty in obtaining the surrounding parcels of property for this project, Comm. Smith questioned whether any design features have been incorporated into this project for the handicapped. Ms. Sapetto noted that this is regulated by state requirements. Mr. Langlois noted that the hotel will be designed for 100% handicapped access. Public Hearing closed at 9:58 P.M. Recess from 9:59 P.M. to 10:15 P.M. Comm. Strohecker asked for the approximate height of the mansard roof, Mr, Langlois stated that the roof is approximately 8 . feet with a , 45-degree angle, Comm. Soulakis noted concern over the height of the proposed five-story parking structure. Mr. Langlois stated that the drawings portray early site renderings. Since the drawings were done, two things have been done, He stated that in an effort to decrease the height of the garage, serious re-engineering has taken place on the format and layout of the garage, He noted that a request has been mane for 30% compact car spaces to put the same number of spaces in 27 feet, The height of the garage, therefore, would be 36 feet, He noted the complexity involved in figuring parking structure heights because of the involvement of ramps. He noted that he could explain this to any of the individual commissioners if they were so interested, Comm. Soulakis questioned whether it was ever considered to have 13th or 14th as one-way streets, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -APRIL 19, 1984 Page 13 PROPOSAL FOR A HOTEL ON THE BILTMORE SITE AND DOWNTOWN AREA WITH ADJACENT PARKING STRUCTURE (CONT.) Mr. Langlois stated that that was considered, but it was felt that most people prefer that not to happen. He stated that a situation would occur like this if the area were a major downto~m area, Comm. Newton noted concern for bulk with the additi.on of another level on each of the parking structures, She noted that the makers of the EIR felt that the parking is adequate as proposed. She questioned whether it is appropriate for the Planning Commission to recommend to the City Council that another level be added at each structure, Mr. Langlois noted that this issue has been thoroughly discussed and that the parking structures have been designed so that an additional level may be added at a later date. He stated that this is another option. Comm. Newton again noted concern for the bulk of the project. Comm. Smith felt that the additional stories would not have a great impact as far as blockage of ocean views. Mr. Greenwood displayed the renderings to attempt to explain the height of the parking structures. Comm. Newton felt that the lower the parking structures, the better. She felt that if there is to be a deficit in the parking, though, it might be better at this time to insist that the developer provide the extra levels. She noted that she is still somewhat undecided on this point. Comm. Shapiro felt that since the developer has indicated that the parking structures could be designed to easily accommodate the additional stories at a later date, the Planning Commission should not recommend to the City Council to have the additional levels at this time, He also suggested the possibility of requesting two renderings. one showing the present height, and the other depicting the parking structures with the additional height. Mr. Langlois noted that it is his goal to keep the bulk to a minimum. He again noted that the structures could be designed to accommodate additional levels at a future date or the additional levels could be added when the structures are built. He noted that the additional level would be a municipal expense, stating that he, as the developer, would not be paying for it. He nbted that the City is currently doing studies to determine how many parking spaces it could support. He noted that a decision could be made 12 months from now as the construction commences, Comm. Soulakis felt that it would be cost effective to add the fifth level at this time. Comm. Brown felt that it would be cost effective to add the additional levels at this time instead of waiting five years. He noted the need for additional parking in the City. He also noted that the City would be paying for this parking, and a return on this must be gained sometime in the future. He did note, though, that the EIR presents worst-case examples and states that there is adequate parking. Even though the additional parking would be nice, he questioned whether it would be economically feasible for the City. He felt that the City should remain flexible on this issue. He noted concern for the economic factors of the future, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -APRIL 19, 1984 Page 17 PROPOSAL FOR A HOTEL ON THE BILTMORE SITE AND DOWNTOWN AREA WITH ADJACENT PARKING STRUCTURE (CONT,) the issue of looking into the additional parking on Lots Band C if economically feasible. Chmn. Izant noted the earlier comments of Mr. Strible, specifically the limiting of the egress, the windows on the north end, the hospitality suites, and so on, He questioned whether these comments would be appropriate in the development agreement or in the specific site plan. • Ms. Sapetto replied that these would be appropriate in the specific plan and that they could be added to that. She further noted that she had made note of these. Connn. Soulakis noted that he would like to update the specific plan and include the change in traffic for 15th Street and 15th Court; the realignment of the loading; cosmetic changes for the loading dock area, such as roofing or a ·canopy. Chmn. Izant noted that these would have to be amendments to the motion by Col!llil, Brown. Chmn. Izant reiterated the motion for clarification: To approve the specific site plan with the following additions: addition of the parking 1·evels on Lots B and C if economically feasible; inclusion in the site plan of the agreement between the developer and Mr. Strible, which limits egress on the north end, building to sound standards, first-floor north end windows being non-operable, and hospitality suites not being on the north end. Also included is the provision of changing the site plan to show the traffic patterns for 15th Street and 15th Court, and realignment of the Joadirig dock area, Comm, Brown, as maker of the motion, and Comm. Shapiro, as the seconder, both agreed to the amendments to the motion. Comm. Soulakis felt that it would be appropriate to request that something be done to mitigate the problem of the view looking toward the loading dock from the condo on 15th. Mr. Langlois stated that he would be happy to angle in such a way as to minimize the view to the people on 15th Street. He suggested the possibility of covering it with some type of roof or canopy. Comm. Soulakis questioned whether the area could be gated when not in use. Mr. Greenwood noted that the Fire Department would require that the gate be open as a continuation of the alley. Mr. Langlois stated that it might be a possibility that the actual loading dock could be gated. He noted that he would need to confer with the project architects on this issue. Comm. Smith suggested wording to the effect: 11Make every effort feasible subject to approval of City Staff or the :Building Department," This way things could be left open to alternatives. Comm. Soulakis concurred with Comm. Smith. Comm. Smith asked that the maker of the motion accept another amendment; That none ,.--.,_ PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -APRIL 19, 1984 Page 16 PROPOSAL FOR A HOTEL ON THE BILTMORE SITE AND DOWNTOWN AREA WITH ADJACENT PARKING STRUCTURE (CONT,) Comm, Soulakis concurred with the comments made by Comm. Brown, He suggested recommending to the City Council that if this additional levels are cost effective, it should be looked at. Comm, Brown felt that this is an appropriate request to have the City Council look at the recommendation. Comm. Smith noted that this same recommendation was made in regard to the Draft EIR. This could be considered as a mitigation measure. Comm. Smith noted concern over the issue of precedent. He noted that the benefits of approving a specific plan against the interests of the City that were given up should be weighed. He questioned whether a dangerous precedent is being set in regard to parking structures. He also noted concern for allowing the four and a half stories. Ms. Sapetto felt that this would not be setting a dangerous precedent because a specific plan would be adopted. The reason for adopting the specific plan is that it allows development for only the particular area in question, Also, the reason for adopting a specific plan is justified because of what it is doing for the City as it is spelled out in the ordinance. It would be very difficult to make those findings for another project within the City. She further noted that, because the Comlilission is now looking at the land use plan for the downtown area, it would be appropriate to look at the parking strube question during the discussions on the land use plan. She also noted that an EIR is being prepared for the downtown area, She also stated that this project has already been identified in the preliminary discussion of the land use element. Comm. Soulakis questioned why a 45-foot building can only go to three stories. was Ms. Sapetto noted that it/a judgment call on the part of the people who adopted that ordinance, Chmn. Izant noted that it was the -feeling of those who adopted this ordinance of three stories or 4:S feet was that it would make for a more interesting look from an architectural standpoint. Comm. Soulakis questioned whether one is limited to 12 feet per story. Chmn, Izant replied in the negative, Comm. Brown noted that developers must meet the building code, and he further noted that there is an 8-foot ceiling requirement. Comm, Brown noted that since the proposal falls within the height limit, he is in support of the project, He felt that it is something that could definitely be of benefit to the City. Motion by Comm. Brown, seconded by Comm. Shapiro, to support the project including all of the mitigations that are listed in the EIR and other parking problems that have been discussed, consideration of adding the parking structures on the lots. Comm. Brown noted that his motion specifically covers the entire project, including PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -APRIL 19, 1984 Page l8 PROPOSAL FOR A HOTEL ON THE BILTMORE SITE AND DOWNTOWN AREA WITH ADJAC.ENT PARKING STRUCTURE (CONT.) of the parking planned in the parking structures on Lots Band C without the extra levels be used as off-set parking in lieu in relation to new construction, He noted concern that the few extra spaces that will be guaranteed from those struc­ tures will be garnered away for smaller new construction projects who 'Will not be able to meet the parking requirements. Comm. Brown concurred with Comm. Smith. Comm. Brown, as the maker of the motion, and Comm. Shapiro, as the seconder, both agreed to the amendment as presented by Comm. Smith in regard to the parking. Chmn. Izant noted the importance of this entire project and how it will affect the future of the City. Comm. Brown felt that the project is a good one because economic benefits will be ga ined by the Cit y. He noted the g reat n e e d of these benefits. He noted that the a g re e men t is b ein g ma i ntain ed wit h in the e x isting City codes and zoning codes, 'With onl y on e excep t ion, t ha t being t he n umber o f floors. He felt that it is time that some t hin g be done wit h the Bil t mo re s it e th at is good for the citizens as well as t he City. He n oted tha t t h e downt own a re a definitely needs some type of revitalization a nd t h at this p roject wi ll prov i d e t hat . He noted his concerns 'With the height limits. He stated that he would be in favor of considering to lower the height limit on all future ·projects within a certain portion of the downtown area. He felt that this project will not start a dangerous precedent, He .noted that any developer could have come in with proposals for 45-foot projects at any time. He felt that the project will carry a very nice theme for the City of Hermosa Beach, He further noted the number of letters that have been received by citizens _ who favor the project. He noted that most of those who oppose the project are those who will be losing their ocean views. He did sympathize with those people who would be losing their views, but he noted that a view cannot be guaranteed. Comm. Smith felt that the City would have a serious problem if the project is not approved. He noted the need to develop over the next several years due to the corridor from LAX. He felt that the hotel and the land use plan need to be developed; otherwise, the City might be faced with pressure in the future which will cause much higher development. He stated that a small community has few resources against big money._ He felt that the City should proceed to develop the town reasonably; otherwise, in the future there might be danger of losing everything altogether. He felt that the hotel would be the cornerstone of the downtown development, which is desperately needed. He noted the great amount of time which has been spent in studying this proposal. He felt that the project is the first step in the beautification process of the downtown area. He noted the increased revenues to the City. He further felt that the project will provide badly needed facilities for the City. He felt that a more wholesome type of crowd will be attracted by the project. He · .noted that the developer is contributing to the Community Center, which will be a positive benefit. He noted that the project is consistent with the general plan and zoning of the area. He felt that this is also the best use of the land. He felt that it is time to do something with the Biltmore site. A further benefit is that in 55 years the City will own this. Also the project will pay for it$~lf and will provide revenue for the City. He noted that these are all upside views of the project. Comm. Smith stated what he felt to be the downside views of the project. He noted PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -APRIL 19, 1984 Page 19 PROPOSAL FOR A HOTEL ON THE BILTMORE SITE AND DOWNTOWN AREA WITH ADJACENT PARKING STRUCTURE (CONT,) those citizens who would be losing their ocean views. He did note that this would temporarily debase the value of property, but he noted that no project has ever been denied merely because someone's view will be blocked. He noted that there are no laws to protect views, Comm. Smith felt that the issues of traffic and parking have been adequately addressed . with the amendments to the motion. (Vote on motion by Comm. Brown ·with the aforementioned amendments,) AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Comms. Brown, Newton, Shapiro, Smith, Soulakis, Strohecker, Chmn. Izant None None Chmn, Izant noted that the discussion would now concern the development agreement between the City and the developer. Ms. Sapetto gave staff report, She noted that the Planning Commission's purpose in reviewing the development agreement is to incorporate into that development agreement other additional conditions that they feel should be placed on the project. In the first instance, she suggested that those conditions of approval be placed in the d~_velopment agreement. She stated that this is the purviev1 of the Planning Commission. With respect to the development agreement as far as the financing and the negotia- tions with the City and the developers, this is within the purview of the City Council; but she noted that the Council would welcome comments by the Commission. Ms. Sapetto noted that there still is a draft development agreement because the final financial mechanisms are still being worked on with the bond counsel, Ms. Sapetto noted that Mr. Ayres was available at this meeting to answer questions from the Commission. Comm. Smith asked what the document entitled "Scope of Development" is. Mr. Langlois stated that the Scope of Development document is simply to act as a verbal description of the drawings that have previously been presented to the P.C. He noted that this document do"es not replace anything in the development agreement, that it is simply additional information. Comm, Smith referred to Section H. He questioned what would happen if the bond counsel decides he does not like what the City has done and the project does not pencil out. Mr. Langlois stated that these are tax exempt bonds which need to be used for public purposes such as the acquisition of land eventually to be owned by the City and the conference center and the provisions for parking. He noted that the law is written in such a way that the wording of the development agreement, as applies to a developer, to use those facilities must be very carefully structured. It must be written in such a way that, for example, even though the City owns the conference center, the developer is paying for it. The developer must provide a mechanism to guarantee the bonds. He stated that there are things which are left to the City bond counsel before the proposal goes to the City Council. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -APRIL 19, 1984 Page 20 PROP OSAL FOR A HOTEL ON THE ~ILTMORE SITE AND DOWNTOWN AREA WITH ADJACENT PARK I NG STRUCTURE (CONT,) Comm. Brown asked how a letter of credi~ would protect the City. Mr. Ayres responded by outlining how a letter of credit is written. He stated that it must be written on a bank which has substantial credit, Therefore, the bank is guaranteeing its credit to back the letter of credit. In turn, the developer pays a premium for that, • and that premium is paid out of the bond issue, In effect, this is really an insurance policy. In the event of a default, the bank would then own the hotel. Comm. Shapiro asked, in the case of default, whether the bank must return the hotel to the City in 55 years. Mr. Ayres stated that the bank must comply with all legal requirements .that the bond counsel and the City Attorney would have required. Mr. Langlois stated that he is putting in $15 million in equity in the hotel. He noted that he has no intention of losing that money. He noted that in no event would the security of the land owned by the City be impaired. Comm, Shapiro noted that the developer is to receive 100% of the profits on the store fronts. He questioned whether that is because the developer is giving bdck the hotel and the property to the City in 55 years. Mr. Langlois stated that this is all part of a deal. He noted that there is 2,000 square feet of retail space. He stated that this is three very, very small shops. He noted that the stores will be put in for cosmetic reasons· to improve the appearance of the parking structure on Hermosa Avenue. He stated that the stores will cost more to build than will the parking spaces. He noted that since he is guaranteeing the bond funding which is building that parking garage, he would like to derive the profits. Comm. Shapiro noted that Metropolitan Life Insurance Company is involved in this development agreement. He asked for clarification on this point. Mr. Langlois stated that the development agreement calls for, upon City approval of the project, that the developer meet with the bond counsel and with lending institu­ tions, one of which is Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, which funds and controls the Doubletree Hotels. This meeting must take place within six months of. the approval. It calls for the developer to produce for the City both a mechanism and ultimately a signature as a guarantee as to the bonds. Even though the development agreement is approved, there is a contingency which allows the City the ultimate ability to approve the mechanism and signature which the developer produces during those six months. Mr. Langlois noted that the critical issue is to weigh the strength of the signa~ure and the guaranteeing of the bonds and the leasehold obligations. He noted that in development terms, $15 million is not an enor~ous amount. Comm. Shapiro asked for the life of a hotel. Mr. Langlois felt that it is unlimited. He stated that a hotel would be good as long as the location is good, Connn. Shapiro asked for the lifetime of a parking structure. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -APRIL 19, 1984 Page 21 PROPOSAL FOR A HOTEL ON THE BILTMORE SITE AND DOWNTOWN AREA WITH ADJACENT PARKING STRUCTURE (CONT.) Mr. Langlois stated that a parking structure should last for a long time, He further stated that it is a possibility that the hotel would need renovation in 55 years. He stated that he would need to maintain the property in a first-class manner. Comm, Smith noted that there is an option clause at the end of the 55 years. He asked who holds it. Mr. Lang lois stated t ha t he, the developer, has re q u ested to hold it, that it gives him t he option to exten d for 20 years under the same terms and conditions of the original lease. At thi s point, the bonds would hav e been completely paid off, and ther e would be no rest r ;c.t ions. There would be no special allocations for some of the secondary funds. This seemed unlikely to him. Comm. Smith referred to the provision for signage, particularly on Pacific Coast Highway. Mr. Langlois stated that this site is not visible from major thoroughfares. He noted that they would like to have some signage on the end of the parking structure so that people would be able to see it. He noted that he was denied during the negotiations the request for signage on Pacific Coast Highway. He noted that they would still like to have some Caltrans signs that say "Hotel" with an arrow or something of that nature. He ·no~ed the importance of having people be able to easily locate the hotel. Comm. Smith questioned whether discussionshave taken place in regard to joint funding for developing signage that would serve the community center as well as the hotel. He noted the mutual benefit of such an idea. Mr. Langlois stated that this issue is addressed at the top of Page 4, B. He noted that the issue is presently in dispute. Mr. Langlois addressed a question to Mr. Ayres. He questioned whether the City has any financial liability in this project. Mr. Ayres stated in the negative. Comm. Shapiro asked how the bonds can be raised. Mr. Ayres stated that this would be determined by the strength of the guaranteeing institutions. Whatever their rate is, the bond will carry the same rate. Chmn. Izant asked whether the reason the City has no downside liability is because of 'the letter of credit. Mr. Ayres stated in the affirmative, Comm. Smith questioned the reasoning behind the letter of credit. Mr. Ayres stated that there is no proposal that goes through the general fund .on the hotel proposal. He stated that different standards apply for the parking structure. Mr. Langlois noted that Lot : Band the community center are separate issues from the hotel. The bonds are not related or comingled with the responsibility set forth for the hotel. _ ... ,, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -APRIL 19, 1984 Page 23 PROPOSAL FOR A HOTEL ON THE BILTMORE SITE AND DOWNTOWN AREA WITH ADJACENT PARKING STRUCTURE (CONT,) Mr, Ayres noted that the City is working on two inter-related areas of financing. One area covers the hotel and the hotel parking. The other is for the additional parking over and above, that is, only indirectly related to the hotel. Mr. Ayres stated that the with the line of credit, Parking Authority and the $20 million is for the hotel and the hotel-related parking The other parking is backed by revenue of the VPD and the City. Comm. Shapiro asked for the cost of the other parking, Mr. Ayres stated that it would be between five and ten million dollars, depending on the number of levels. Mr, Ayres noted that all of the figures mentioned are only approximations, He said that further investigation would be necessary to determine the cost of the two additional levels proposed by the Planning Commission. Missy Sheldon, 25 9th Street, Hermosa Beach, asked whether the . approximate $15 to $20 million figure includes the cost of purchase of the optioned land, She questioned whether this is a total figure or additional funds. Ms, Sapetto replied that this is a total figure. Ms, Sheldon questioned whether the tax-free municipal bonds would cover the purchase of the block between 14th and 15th and the construction of the hotel. Ms. Sapetto replied in the affirmative. Ms, Sheldon asked how much of that figure represents the cost of the land and how much covers the cost of construction. Mr. Langlois stated that this figure also includes the interest carried and other things. The land is approximately $4.8 million. The garage is $3..2 million. The conference center is $6.4 million, This comes to a total of approximately $14.45 million. Linda Martyn, 15 15th Street, Hermosa Beach, questioned whether guidelines would be built into the development agreement with regard to a timeframe for construction of the project, Ms. Sapetto noted that there is a time limit in which the project must be built. It is two years. Mr. Langlois noted that heavy penalties will be imposed if construction is not completed by the specified time period, It is built into the agreement that penalties must be paid if there is a delay, but he must pay the loan payments whether the proj .ect is completed or not. Public Hearing closed at 11:44 P.M. Chmn. Izant questioned Section 9.2 on Page 9. He asked whether this section covers the issue of what would happen 25 years ~ram now; that is, do they operate with the new codes or the old codes. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -APRIL 19, 1984 Page 24 PROPOSAL FOR A HOTEL ON THE BILTMORE SITE AND DO~JNTOWN AREA "WITH ADJACENT PARKING STRUCTURE (CONT,) if Ms, Sapetto replied that it means that/an amendment is made to the project in the future, it must conform to the existing codes and standards of the time. Chmn. Izant referred to Section 9.03. He questioned whether there would be an assessment on the project if a maintenance district were to be created, He asked if the assessment district would include the commercial areas, Mr. Langlois stated that he would be happy to amend the language in the document if there .could be a reasonable way to do so. He .noted that he is willing to pay his share of whatever the landscape district might be. He went on to explain the language contained in the document. Mr. Langlois stated that he would consult with his attorney to come up with better wording in the document in this regard as pertains to Section 9.03. Mr. Langlois further noted that he would be happy to pay any taxes that any of the other corrnnercial property owners pay. Comm. Soulakis questioned the time period for the certificate of occupancy on the hotel. He referred to the mention of three and a half years after it goes through the Coastal Commission. l · i \. Mr. Langlois stated that a worst-case scenario is presented in the development agreement, not:!ng that the time periods mentioned are those which are considered to b~ the maximum that the developer would ever need. He noted the importance of keeping the project on schedule. He outlined the different time periods for obtaining all the necessary building permits and so on. Comm. Soulakis questioned whether the project would be complete by 1988. Mr. Langlois stated that 1988 would probably be the outside date for occupancy. Connn. Soulakis asked for a time period when the coastal commission review approval would be made. Ms. Sapetto stated that the City Council review period is in May. It would then go to the Coastal Commission. ·,0 She noted that the director of the regional offices is in support of this project. She anticipated that within three months all of the City and Commission approvals would be in. Comm. Soulakis asked how long the development agreement would be in effect. Ms. Sapetto replied that the development agreement is good for the life of the project as long as it is owned by a third party. Comm. Soulakis noted concern over remodeling or reconstruction. it would be subsequent or after the certificate of occupancy, He asked whether Mr. Langlois felt that this was a good legal question. He noted that if one were to come in and request a significant change that meets all of the criteria in terms of being significant in terms of the ,rariation from the development agreement, one would be affected by the code on the date the request was made or on the day that one applied for the permit for the change; therefore, he felt that tbe changes could take place prior to a certificate of occupancy. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -APRIL 19, 1984 Page 22 PROPOSAL FOR A HOTEL ON THE BilTMORE SITE AND DOWNT OWN AREA WITH ADJACENT PARKING STRUCTURE (CONT .) Mr. Langlois explained the pay back methods for the bonds. Mr. Ayres stated that primarily three revenues are involved: that from the hotel, parking generated by the hotel, arid the hotel/motel tax. He stated that the general fund is riot involved in any kind of security, ColDlll. Smith asked whether these certificates are similar to tax-free municipal bonds. Mr. Ayres stated in the affirmative, stating that a certificate of participation is merely a certificate showing a proportionate interest in the leasehold. Comm. Smith asked whether the interest rate is set at the market rate or if there is a limitation on it. Mr. Ayres stated that it is a municipal bond rate. Public Hearing opened at 11:33 .P.M. Parker Herriott, 224 24th Street, Hermosa Beach, qu~stioned whether there would be any cost to the residents as far as the bonds are concerned. Mr. Ayres stated that there is no way that the hotel project can cost the residents anything. Mr. Herriott questioned whether a cost will be incurred as a result of the parking structures. Mr. Ayres ieplied in the negative. He stated that if the parking should fall off substantially, then the City might be obligated to meet some of the payments. He further discussed the parking lot situation. Mr. Herriott noted concern in the event that the residents would ever have to pay anything on the hotel or the parking structures. Mr. Ayres stated that this is not likely to happen. Chmn. Izant noted that the hotel is covered by the let t er of credit. In the case of the parking structure., there could conceivably be a problem only if not as J/lany people park in the garage as is anticipated. Mr. Ayres noted that all of these economic factors have been studied in depth. He stated that there has not been an upper limit found yet in regard to beach parking. Mr. Herriott questioned whether there would be a chance that the citizens would have a right to vote on the bond issue in regard to the parking structure. Chmn. Izant stated that this is an issue which at the present time does not require a vote. \ _, Mr. Ayres stated that the Parking Authority will issue the parking bond. "' r PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -APRIL 19, 1984 Page 25 PROPOSAL FOR A HOTEL ON THE BILTMORE SITE AND DOWNTOWN AREA WITH ADJACENT PARKING STRUCTURE (CONT.) Coilllil. Soulakis referred to Page 14, Paragraph 10.06 referring to sprinkle~and smoke detectors. Ms. Sapetto stated that smoke detectors and alann systems are required now and those are in addition to what is already required. Public Hearing on the development agreement opened at 11:59 P.M. Pat Riggs, 1424 Manhattan Avenue, Hermosa Eeach, asked what the percentage rate of occupancy would be to obtain a break even factor. Mr. Greenwood stated that that has not been specifically calculated. Mr. Langlois stated that he intends to figure what market studies indicate. Mr. Riggs questioned whether Doubletree has signed a legally binding agreement with the developers that would agree to accept and operate a hotel of this design. Or, he questioned whether they are open to say that certain changes must be made. Mr. Langlois noted that the head of development for Doubletree has been before the City Council and met with City staff several times. He stated that a letter has been provided that indicates Doubletree's relationship.with the project. He noted that it is still necessary to negotiate a management contract. Mr. Riggs noted concerns over the waivers and variances for the downtown area. He questioned the possibility of spot zoning sometime in the future. He felt that the Commission should consider this possibility. (Comm. Shapiro departed at 12: 04 A.M.) Mr. Riggs felt that the occupancy rates of other hotels in the area should be studied. Mr. Langlois stated that the occupancy rates at Barnabey's, Sunrise, and Portofino are all higher than what is projected here. He stated that the average occupancy rate in Los Angeles is 71%. Mr. Riggs questioned whether the City Attorney had been consulted with regard to the hotel whose view would be blocked by the construction of the new hotel. Ms. Sapetto replied in the negative. Mr. Riggs felt that consideration should be given to this matter. Mr. Riggs felt that the architectural drawings were misleading. He recommended that the Commission request another drawing be done from the sea side looking in. Mr. Langlois noted that the EIR contains such a drawing. Mr. Riggs felt that the majority of people who would be working at the hotel would not be living in Hermosa Beach, and he cited the high cost of living in the City. He felt that most of the wages would go outside the City. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -APRIL 19, 1984 Page 26 PROPOSAL FOR A HOTEL ON THE BILTMORE SITE AND DOWNTOWN AREA WITH ADJACENT PARKING STRUCTURE (CONT,) Parker Herriott, 224 24th Street, Hermosa Beach, spoke in opposition of the entire project, citing the problems of size, traffic, noise, pollution, and density. Ms. Sapetto noted that she would place copies of the EIR in the Fire Station so that ·;,ii?, public would be able to have easy access to it. Public Hearing closed at 12:15 A.M. Ms. Sapetto suggested that the items included in the specific plan also be included in the development agreement, Motion by Comm. Smith, seconded by Comm. Strohecker, to approve the specific plan with the development agreement and to include the "Strible Agreement"; recommend that every feasible effort be made to minimize the view impact of the loading and trash areas; recommend that circulation on the alley between 15th Street and 15th Court be made one way; recommend that any parking spaces built will not be used as in-lieu parking for new development (not to include the ad~itional levels being proposed for Lots Band C); with respect to any newly-created districts, after two years of occupancy, the hotel project would confcrm to any City-formed districts, Comm, Soulakis questioned when the Planning Commission would see the plans for the community center and the parking structure on Lot B. He questioned what the time frame would be for these t~o projects, He felt that the parking at the connnunity center should be discussed further. He questioned the effect on the development agreement if the community center parking issue is not approved. Ms. Sapetto replied that if the community center. parking lot is built within the zone standards, it will require no Planning Commission review, She was uncertain whether the Lot B structure would require Planning Commission approval. Comm. Soulakis questioned whether these would go to the Building Department, Ms, Sapetto replied in the affirmative. Comm, Smith questioned whether an EIR would be prepared for these two parking structures. Ms, Sapetto noted that these two structures have been addressed in the present EIR, She stated that she spoke with the preparers of the EIR, and it was felt that further discussions on the parking structures could be incorporated into the EIR. The City Council would then review the comments. Comm. Smith noted that he would be reluctant to go along with the parking structures without a separate EIR, as he felt that the current EIR does not adequately address the issues at the community center. Mr. Langlois noted that he has no difficulty with changing the wording in regard to the parking at the community center. He noted that he wanted that issue to remain separate and distinct from the hotel issue. Comm. Smith again noted that he would like to see a separat'e EIR on the connnunity center parking due to the great impact that it would have. Mr. Langlois suggested adding an amendment to the development agreement stating the ,,,.--, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -APRIL 19, 1984 Page 27 PROPOSAL FOR A HOTEL ON THE BILTMORE SITE AND DOWNTOWN AREA WITH ADJACENT PARKING STRUCTURE (CONT.) issues of the hotel and the parking at the community center are separate issues. He noted that the negotiations could still continue with the addition of the amendment, Ms. Sapetto suggested wording to the effect that approval of the parking structures at Lot :Sand the community center are not incorporated into this development agreement. Comm. Smith accepted that amendment to the motion, Comm. Soulakis strongly recommended that Section 1103 be deleted from the development agreement. CoIIDil. Smith opposed tying the issue down to anything more specific than what has been suggested by staff, (Vote on Comm. Smith's motion to accept the development agreement with the aforementioned amendments . ) AYES: NOES: Comms. Brown, Newton, Smith, Soulakis, Strohecker~ Chmn. Izant None ABSENT: Comm. Shapiro Connn. Soulakis noted that he objected to Section 1103, which refers to the parking structure. STAFF ITEMS None COMMISSIONERS' ITEMS Comm. Smith asked for an update on Critter's, Motion to adjourn at 12:36 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 Planning Commission of Hermosa Beach at their meeting of April 19, 1984. Date