Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 05.15.84MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON TUESDAY, MAY 15, 1984, IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT 7:30 P.M. Meeting called to order at 7:32 P.M. by Chmn. Izant Pledge of Allegiance led by Chmn. Izant ROLL CALL PRESENT: Comms. Brown, Shapiro, Soulakis, Strohecker, Newton, Chmn. Izant ABSENT: Comm. Smith ALSO PRESENT: Pamela Sapetto, Planning Director; Gregory Meyer, City Manager; Charles Clark, Director of Public Works APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion by Comm. Strohecker, seconded by Comm. Newton, to approve the April 19, 1984 minutes, as submitted. No objections; so ordered. Chmn. Izant announced that approval of the May l, 1984 minutes wi 11 be made at the next Planning Commission meeting. APPROVAL OF RESOLUTIONS Comm. Brown noted a spelling error on Pagel, 2B. He stated that it should read, 11 ••• loading dock be updated on the plans." He added that Page 2, line 12, states that there will be windows on the ground floor. He recalled that the Commission had discussed there being windows on the first floor. He questioned whether ground floor and first floor were one i in the same. Ms. Sapetto believed that the ground floor and the first floor were one in the same. Comm. Newton noted that the windows on the first floor that are public rooms are to have windows that are nonoperable. She stated that if the ground floor is the floor with the public rooms, the resolution is correct. Comm. Soulakis stated that the minutes set forth that based on the current plan, the in-lieu parking would not be allowed; however, should the City add the additional floors, the in-lieu parking would be allowed. He stated that that was not his recollection. Comm. Brown stated that the discussion of the Commission was that if those floors were added, the City would not be allowed to take them and use them for other development projects. This is regarding the fourth and fifth levels. If there were any levels over and above that that were built, they could use those. He felt that Comm. Smith's concern was that there appeared to be inadequate parking. That is why the Commission considered the fourth and lffifth JeveJ,s.• .Cqmm =, Smith wanted to be certain that if the fourth and fifth levels were added, that the City could not use those in the parking district. Ms. Sapetto stated that the concern was that anything below the additional levels that were not being proposed should not be used with respect to the in-lieu provision; however, the fourth and fifth levels that were not PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -May 15, 1984 Page 2 APPROVAL OF RESOLUTIONS (Cont.) part of the proposal could be used for it. She felt that Comm. Smith was questioning the language that was used. She noted that staff ·'incorporated Comm. Smith 1 s suggested language in the resolution. Comm. Brown stated that the discussion is noted on Page 18 of the April 19, 1984 minutes. Comm. Smith again restated his feeling on Page 2 of the May l, 1984 minutes. Ms. Sapetto stated that at one point the Commission was not certain on how many levels were proposed and what constituted additional levels. She felt, however, that it was clear by the end of the discussion that the fourth and fifth levels which constituted levels that were not proposed by the project were recommended by the Commission to be considered and could be used with the 40 in-lieu provision but not any levels below that. The fourth and fifth levels are not incorporated in the s~ecific plan. Comm . Brown questioned whether the specific plan that the Commission approved did not include additional levels 4 and 5. Ms. Sapetto replied that the Commission considered it; however, it was not approved. Motion by Comm. Strohecker, seconded by Comm. Newton, to approve Resolution P.C. 84-10. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Comms. Brown, Newton, Shapiro, Soulakis, Strohecker, Chmn. Izant None Comm. Smith Motion by Comm. Strohecker, seconded by Comm. Shapiro, to approve Resolutions P . C . 84-11 and P . C. 84-12 . AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN : ABSENT: Comms. Brown, Shapiro, Soulakis, Strohecker, Chmn. Izant None Comm. Newton Comm. Smith THREE UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 650 11 STREET Comm. Newton stated that she would abstain from discussion and vote due to a conflict of interest. Ms. Sapetto gave staff report. She stated that before the Commission was a proposal for a three-unit condominium located at 650 11th Street. The staff recommended that the Commission adopt the resolution which approves the three-unit condominium, a conditional use permit, and a tentative parcel map. The project was reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee on April 26, 1984, and they granted the project and gave declaration subject to the following conditions: l) that the wing of the driveway approach must fall entirely within the property line, and 2) the landscaping or wall and the size of the driveway may not exceed 42 inches. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -May 15, 1984 Page 3 THREE-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 650 11th STREET (Cont.) The project is located on a 6,780 square foot lot. zoned R-2 with a medium density land use designation. Each unit proposed is 1,800 square feet of floor area. The project meets Condominium Ordinance requirements; therefore, staff recommends approval of the project. The storage space has been amended to include 540 cubic feet per unit. The project will be 30 feet in height, and it has a 61 % 1 ot coverage. It proposes 176 ~qua re feet of private recreational space. It proposes two parking spaces per unit and one guest parking space. It conforms to the setbacks. It has a front setback of seven and one half feet; it has a rear setback of nine and a half feet; it has a sideyard setback of six feet. The landscaping plan was attached to the application. She noted that the plans fall within the Ordinance requirements. Chmn. Izant asked for the density calculation. Ms. Sapetto stated that the density calculation would be in the Zoning Ordinance. Comm. Soulakis questioned whether a 42-inch hedge is all that would be al lowed if it were proposed as opposed to a 42-inch wall. Ms. Sapetto replied in the affirmative. She stated that the Ordinance states that one cannot block, whether it be through vegetation or a wall, by going higher than 42 inches. Ms. Sapetto stated that the project density calculation is 19.4. Comm. Soulakis questioned how many parking spaces or curb spaces the City will lose as a result of this project. Ms. Sapetto replied that the City will apparently lose no parking spaces. Chmn. Izant stated that the existing plan shows a garage on the rear -of the property. Ms. Sapetto stated that the pre-zone analysis takes into consideration whether there is a curb cut. If there is a curb cut already existing, parking does not need to be replaced. She noted that the curb cut in this case is facing 11th Street. Public Hearing opned at 7:58 P.M. Mark Kavenau, 944 15th Place, Hermosa Beach, applicant, stated that the project will be 30 feet in height. He stated that the project will be landscaped very nicely, and he believed that it would benefit the neighborhood. Public Hearing closed at 7:59 P.M. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -May 15, 1984 Page 4 THREE-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 650 11th STREET (Cont.) Comm. Soulakis noted dissatisfaction with .the spark arresters being proposed for the chimneys. He questioned whether different spark arresters could be used. He believed they were somewhat out of context with the rest of the structure. Mr. Kavenau stated that he would work with the architect on trying to make the spark arresters atop the chimneys a bit less obvious. Motion by Comm. Brown, seconded by Comm. Strohecker, to approve the three­ unit condominium project at 650 11th Street subject to the wing approach falling entirely within the property line and that the landscaping or wall on the sides of the driveway not exceed 42 inches and that the architect of the project consider other alternatives to the spark arrester on the chimneys. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Brown, Shapiro, Soulakis, Strohecker, Chmn. Izant None Comm. Newton Comm. Smi t,h Motion by Comm. Brown, seconded by Comm. Strohecker, to approve Resolution P.C. 84-13 with the addition of No. 13 being that the architect of the project consider other alternatives to the spark arresters. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Brown, Shapiro, Soulakis, Strohecker, Chmn. Izant None Comm. Newton Comm. Smith STREET VACATION -15th STREET BETWEEN ARDMORE AND PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY Ms. Sapetto intr.oduced Chiirles CJ;ark,·dtr.ector of Public Works. He stated that a portion of 15th Street which lies within the Haagen Development Company is going to be developed. This request entails the vacation of that portion of the street. It also signals the beginning of the process for a street vacation. At this point, it will continue on to the City Council. He stated that they will need the portion of Pacific Coast Highway 156.64 feet west for access to the International House of Pancakes. He requested that that remain a public right of way. Ms. Sapetto stated that the Commission has the right to review whether or not a vacation of a street is consistent with the General Plan. It was the opinion of the Planning staff that the vacation of the street is consistent with the General Plan. The street is indicated as a local street in the Circulation Element. The Circulation Element indicates that the City should consider closure of some local streets to help create superblock functions. Streets intersecting Hermosa Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway should be reviewed individually as possible closures. The Economic Element addresses street vacations by stating that there has been an effort to divert through traffic from penetrating residential I PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -May 15, 1984 Page 5 STREET VACATION -15th STREET BETWEEN ARDMORE AND PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY (Cont.) neighborhoods. By vacating 15th Street, the development will be well enclosed within the shopping and entertainment activities and will not be directing traffic flow to the residential neighborhoods but will direct the traffic flow to those streets that are capable of handling it, i.e., Pacific Coast Highway, Pier Avenue, 16th Street, and Ardmore. The eastern quarter of 15th Street would remain open to allow access to the existing businesses, those being, the International House of Pancakes and the 76 Gasoline Station. The development project will contain more on-site parking than is required, that being, 32 % more than is required. 554 spaces are planned, and 420 spaces are required. Hence, 15th Street will not be needed for circulation or for parking. The Board of Zoning Adjustments certified an E.I.R. for this project which addresses the environmental impacts of this Haagen Shopping Center development. She noted that staff will draft a resolution and bring it back to the next Planning Commission meeting. Comm. Newton questioned why the street vacation was not part of the development agreement. Ms. Sapetto replied that it is the oprn1on of the City Attorney that the vacation of a street is not the subject of a development agreement. It would be the subject of a specific plan or another discretionary approval. Public Hearing opened at 8:11 P.M. Tom Corley, 3500 Sepulveda, Manhattan Beach, representing the owner of the adjacent property of the proposed vacation, stated that they are requesting approval of the vacation. Chmn. Izant asked for a description of what will be replacing the area that will be vacated. Mr. Corley replied that it will be parking. The cars will be parked in portions which is now 15th Street. There will be no structures built in the area of what is now 15th Street. Violette Isgreen, 726 Prospect Avenue, Hermosa Beach, questioned whether vacation of the street meant "giving" that portion of the street to the Haagen project, If so, do the people of the City get just compensation for it since it belongs to the people of the City. Mr. Meyer replied that since it is being vacated, each side will revert back to its previous zoning. The owner of the land is the Haagen Company, and with that purchase of the property, they purchased the right to do so. Ms. Is green noted concern for a precedent being set because 15th Street has been opened for 45 years. She stated that she was confused by the fact that after 45 years the street resorts back to the original owners. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -May 15, 1984 Page 6 STREET VACATION -15th STREET BETWEEN ARDMORE AND PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY (Cont.) Mr . Corley stated that traditionally when a street is abandoned, it reverts back to the original property owners. The main reason for that is to get the land back on the tax roll so that revenue comes back to the City from taxes from that property; therefore, the City benefits directly from that reversion. Public Hearing closed at 8:17 P.M. Comm. Newton felt that the City wants the development, and the City needs the parking. She felt it silly to leave a street in the middle of a shopping center. Motion by Comm. Newton, seconded by Comm. Soulakis, to recommend to the City Council the vacation of 15th Street between Ardmore and Pacific Coast Highway. Comm. Strohecker felt that the development will be beneficial because it is providing more than the required parking spaces. Ms. Sapetto stated that the environmental impact report for this project was done when the project was originally proposed. At that time it was the purview of the Board of Zani ng Adjustments to certify the env a,ronmental impact report; therefore, the Commission need not take any action on the certified environmental impact report. However, she stated that if the Commission feels there are statements in the environmental impact report that contribute towards the Commission's decision on the vacation of the street, the Commission should include those in the approval. Chmn. Izant questioned whether the official comment period for the environmental impact report was expired. Ms. Sapetto replied in the affirmative. Comm. Brown spoke in favor of the vacation of the street. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Comms. Brown, Newton, Shapiro, Soulakis, Strohecker, Chmn . Izant None Comm. Smith Comm. Brown questioned whether the street vacation of a small street, not a major street, would revert back to the original owner, free of charge. Mr. Meyer replied that it would not be decided on the basis of the size of the street. It would be decided on the basis of a title search that would show whether or not that 1 and was 1 oaned :to the City for street purposes, which is done frequently as an easement for utility purposes. In many cases an easement has been granted, giving it the appearance of being public property. It is very common to have an easement for a water or sewer 1 i ne. Ms. Sapetto recommended that the C()ril!J1i s.sifon adopt Resolution P. C. 84-14 which would recommend to the City Council to vacate 15th Street because PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -May 15, 1984 Page 7 STREET VACATION -15th STREET BETWEEN ARDMORE AND PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY (Cont.) it is consistent with the General Plan. It would set forth those reasons which were given in the staff report with respect to circulation element and the economic element "as to its consistency. Motion by Comm. Newton, seconded by Comm. Strohecker, to approve Resolution P.C. 84-14 as worded by staff. AYES : NOES: ABSENT: Comms. Brown, Newton, Shapiro, Soulakis, Strohecker, Chmn. Izant None Comm. Smith CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM REVIEW Mr. 0lark gave staff report. He stated that before the Commission was the suggested 1984-85 Capital Improvement Project. Those will be the projects that the City will be attempting to focus on next year in the area of capital improvements. There are several different funds such as state gas tax, county gas tax, general fund, and open space funds that fund these projects. Some of them have been developed over a period of years. Some of the projects are broad and vague, specifically for the purpose of allowing the City to move into areas that require attention as the year progresses. Examples of this are the areas of street lights where the City has requests from citizens to install street lights. The City has a capital improvement project which would allow the City to create a lighting system. He stressed that this was a suggested list for the Commission's perusal and comments. Chmn. Izant stated that he did not see a general capital improvement contingency fund for unbudgeted items. Mr. Clark gave examples of the above. Chmn. Izant questioned the length of time it would take for the City to receive a pay back if they were to buy $100 lights as opposed to $75 lights. Mr. Clark replied that the pay back period is anywhere from two to five years. Chmn. Izant asked for the City's procedure on installing lights in front of a residence or business where one would not normally be installed. He 9~e~t i o~~d if someone wanted a light in front 6f their house where one would not normally be installed, would that resident have to pay for it. Mr. Clark replied that there is a criteria as to how mahy foot canel lights there should be on a residential street. The light systems that the City utilizes use a design that should have a stree t light located every 125 to 150 feet . The be am s pread of the light determines the distance between the street li gh ts . With regard to the pla cement of additional street lights, the Ci ty wil l cons ider a r equest from a neigh borhood that is requesting additio nal l ight in g . Before the exp e nditure is made, it would PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -May 15, 1984 Page 8 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM REVIEW (Cont.) go before the City Council. Therefore, the ultimate decision as to whether a street lamp should be installed in a location where one is not normally installed is made by the City Council. The neighborhood is not charged anything for that additional lamp. Comm. Soulakis questioned whether the projects for the 1984-85 fiscal budget have any priorities. He questioned how this tied in with the capital improvement program presented by Mr. Meyer at the last Planning Commission meeting. He questioned why a good portion of the projects budgeted for the fiscal year 1983-84 were not spent and completed. He questioned why some $300,000 is being allocated for lighting when the sewer systems is one of the City's major priorities. Mr. Clark replied that it is the City Council or other official bodies who prioritize the projects. Comm. Soulakis asked Mr. Clark if he not only prepares the lists for the budget but also sets the priorities for the budgets. Mr. Clark replied that he preparesithe list of priorities, and oftentimes he has seen lists that he has put in order of priority be changed from week to week. He noted that the streets, sewers, and storm drains are the main priorities of the City. Comm. Soulakis asked Mr. Clark if he presents the City Council with a list of priorities in the order that he deems fit. Mr. Clark replied in the affirmative. Mr. Meyer stated that, for example, under Lighting District Fund, the monies described under that category may only be spent for lighting. Many of the City's sources of funds are restricted. This came about as a result of a property tax levy. Comm. Shapiro questioned whether Lighting District Fund was under the General Fund. Mr. Meyer replied in the negative, stating that it is a separate fund. He stated that under CIP 89, Item l for $5,000, there is not a street in mind for that $5,000. He noted that this year they are suggesting that $10,000 be allocated for a part of the Strand, and they are not sure whether it will be needed for Second Street or 32nd Street .along the Strand. He stated that all items on the list for the budget are being presented to the City Council for approval; however, that does not mean that they are set out in order of priority. It also does not mean that all of the monies will be expended during the year .because in some cases, such as CIP 89, the City may not be aware of some intersection on the Strand that needs lighting. Comm. Soulakis questioned why only $19,000 of $390,000 was spent from the 1983-84 budget. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -May 15, 1984 Page 9 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM REVIEW (Cont.) Mr. Clark replied that more of the monies than that were spent. He noted that those were the figures as of March. He estimated that closer to $30,000 was spent. Comm. Soulakis felt that by not spending the monies deliniated in the Capital Improvement budget the City is not improving the city and feeding back to the public the tax monies that they put into it. Mr. Clark stated that part of the monies that are drawn by the Lighting District also pay for the salaries of the Street Lighting section which handle the maintenance and upkeep of all of the city lighting systems. Mr. Meyer stated that it is not possible to do all the projects budgeted for each and every year. The City must have the monies ahead of time. Comm. Brown recommended that it should be noted on the recap sheet that if an item could be used only from a specific fund, that it read, "Specific Fund Only." He also stated that the Commission has little knowledge on the subject, and if the City wishes the Commission to approve the recommendation, they must have more information than what was provided. He questioned whether the City has at this time all the monies that will be needed for the projects listed. Mr. Clark stated that the amount of monies assessed for the Lighting System District will be the same amount as it was last year. There will be no increase. Comm. Brown questioned whether the amount of $425,000 is higher for 1984-85 than the $390,000 for 1983-84 because the City has recieved that much more taxes. Mr. Clark replied that the budget for this year in the Lighting System District to include the Capital Improvement budget is over $800,000. The assessment district will raise approximately $400,000. Comm. Brown questioned whether the $425,000 will automatically come to the City, or will the City have to go out and raise the $425,000. He stated that the City has a remainder of $372,000 from the last fiscal year. He stated that something is going to happen to increase that budget. He stated that the City will receive another $50,000 between March l, 1984 and this year. He questioned where the $50,000 will come from. Mr. Clark replied that it is cumulative from past years. He stated that the total budget is $800,000 for the entire year. The City will raise approximately $400,000, and out of that between $275,000 and $300,000 of that will go to pay the City's utility bills. He noted that the district was in either its eighth or ninth year. It is cumulative, and that is why there is the increase. He stated that approximately :·25 percent of the items listed for the budget are completed. He noted that it would be virtually impossible to complete all of the items listed. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -May 15, 1984 Page 1 O CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM REVIEW (Cont.) Comm. Brown stated that under #175, once the preliminary report is paid for, the City is down to zero. He stated that the project will cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. He questioned where that money will come from. Mr. Meyer replied that the money will come from the district as it saves up capital money. Comm. Soulakis questioned whether CIP 113 is likely to be implemented this year. Mr. Clark replied that the City has had to transfer funds into this account because this year the fund was completely depleted. He noted that a few mainlines in the City were replaced. He noted that the Sewer Deficiency Study, CIP 177, should be implemented in 1984-85. Council has authorized the City to hire an engineering firm , and they are in the bid process at this time. This study will require the $100,000 very quickly. Once that is done, the City is looking at a project of much greater magnitude o in the area of $15,000,000 to $20,000,000. Comm. Soulakis questioned whether CIP 190 and 196 will be implemented this year. Mr. Clark replied in the affirmative, stating that the monies in both of those accounts are likely to be spent. He noted that the slurry seals of all asphaltic streets west of Valley was a monumental project, and that was done this year. Every street marking had to be replaced, and the project took six months to complete. He stated that CIP 190 and 196 are essentially new projects that are being proposed for the first time this year. They deal with the Community Center and with the addition of the new theater. Mr. Meyer stated that the new director of Public Works will be responsible that all four of those projects are done in 1984-85. He noted that CIP 190 will need certain General Fund expenditures for that facility. He stated that this is the first time where they are saying to the City Council that it is necessary that they assume certain funds from .the General Fund. To date it has either been block grant monies or general revenue sharing. Comm. Brown noted that he would rather see the total amount of money that is in the budget and how much is expended and how much went for capital improvements. He felt that it was difficult for all of the Commission members to agree on each and every project that is listed in the budget. He felt that the City should give the City Council the list of priorities and say that that is the order they should be received. He felt that it would be too time consuming to analyze each line item unless they were offered much more information. He felt that the Commission should see the big picture instead of analyzing each and every project. Comm. Shapiro stated that State Law requires that the Commission review the budget for the fiscal year. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -May 15, 1984 Page 11 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM REVIEW (Cont.) Ms. Sapetto stated that the role of the Commission is to look at the plan, look at the issues described in the plan, and determine whether or not there is a consistency with what is being spent on cppital projects in the city and the general plan. It should determine whether or not there are any projects listed in the capital improvement program that are blatantly in opposition to policies adopted by the Commission. The Commission should also determine whether or not there are any additional items that should be considered that are not listed in the capital improvement plan. She felt that the Commission should consider capital improvements in the downtown area, such as benches and landscaping. Comm. Brown noted that there was some difficulty in determining whether or n©t the projects listed in the capital improvement program are in conflict with the general plan. He felt that the document submitted to the Commission for their review was not detailed enough to make such a determination. Comm. Soulakis f~lt that the staf,f provided the Commission witb enough information regarding this item. He noted that this is the first time the Commission has dealt with this item, and it will come before the Commission again in the future. He stated that the entire budget for the fiscal year was submitted to the Commission. Comm. Brown disagreed, stating that the entire budget for the fiscal year was not presented to the Commission. Ms. Sapetto stated that the capital outlay is at the maximum of what the City Council feels should be spent. She stated that the document before the Commission deals with the maximum dollars of capital outlay that the City has to deal with at this point. Comm. Soulakts stated that $45,000 may not be appropriate for CIP 1O4A. Comm. Soulakis stated that the budget was prepared by persons who have the most experience and expertise in that area. He stated that he likes to see the detail of how the monies are being spent. He felt that the document submitted by staff provides enough detail, and it is perfectly adequate. Mr. Clark stated that they attempted to put some flexibility in the projects so that if the Commission determines that another project needs to be added, it could be done. Comm. Brown felt that the Commission needed to know where the flexibility lies and how much flexibility is present. Mr. Clark stated that the comment section would delineate where the flexibility is present. Mr. Meyer , noted that if a specific 1 ocaUon is not named, then the monies are there for the concept. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -May 15, 1984 Page 12 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM REVIEW (Cont.) Comm. Newton felt that the Commission had adequate information regarding this item. She stated that people with expertise have put the budget together. She stated that she would view the budget as reference material to keep along with the Zoning Code so that when the Commission is considering various projects, it can look at the proposed budget and see if there are any considerations with respect to the proposed project. Sne did not feel that the Commission needed to analyze minutely all of the projects at this time. Mr. Meyer represented to the Board that there are no inconsistencies in the proposed Lighting District Fund expenditure funds capital improvements. Comm. Newton accepted that representation. Chmn. Izant questioned which items did not make the priority list. He felt that maybe the Commission would think of the items that did not make the list a greater priority than the items that did make the list. Mr. Meyer stated that it would be possible to submit to the Commission a list of items that did not make the priority list; however, he stated that he was reluctant to take the time to make up a list of alternatives on how the monies could be spent. Comm. Shapiro felt that the document was sufficient. He questioned what the $100,000 Sewer System Study would cover. He asked if it would consist of paperwork only or if someone will actually inspect the sewer system by going underground. Mr. Clark replied that the sewer lines will be photographed, and it will be determined which lines need to be replaced. Comm. Shapiro felt that the Commissioners should do their research prior to coming to the meeting. He stated that it takes up too much time for staff to answer questions of the Commissioners, those questions being questions that could have been answered by research. Public Hearing opened and closed at 9:48 P.M. Motion by Comm. Brown, seconded by Comm. Soulakis, to recommend to the City Council that they approve the Capital Improvement Program Review. Mr. Meyer stated that he has signed a document that came as a result of the City Council 1 s motion that he is to file the recommended budget by May 30, 1984. He suggested that the motion of the Commission be that that the items proposed by staff in general do not violate the general plan and are in conformance with the general plan. He stated that if the Commission had other concerns, such as improvement of the downtown area, those concerns could also be addressed in the motion. Comm. Soulakis stated that one glaring item that he found in the capital improvement program was the $50,000 allocated for the engineering study PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -May 15, 1984 Page 13 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM REVIEW (Cont.) along Hermosa Avenue. He questioned whether that could be changed by the Commission. Mr. Meyer replied that the City Council is the body that may change that expenditure. He stated that the monies have not been spent for that study as of yet; however, the persons in that part of town are now being taxed at a hjgher rate in order to collect the monies for that study. Chmn. Izant recommended amending the motion to the effect that the Commission has reviewed the Capital Improvement Program and has found it to support the goals of the general plan. The Commission notes, however, that because of the creation of a downtown zone, that there may be capital needs which the Commission will perhaps address at the midyear budgeting cycle and that the Planning Commission, after the Land Use Element, plans to take up the trafficcirculation problems of the city and there may be additional Capital Improvement needs at that time. Comms. Brown and Soulakis accepted the amendment to the motion. Motion by Comm. Brown. seconded by Comm. Str0hetker ;cJto recommend . to' the City Council that the Planning Commission has reviewed the Capital Improvement Program and has found it to support the goals of the General Plan. The Commission notes, however, that because of the possibile creation of a downtown zone, there may be capital needs which the Commission will perhaps address at the midyear budgeting cycle. Also, that the Planning Commission, after the Land Use Element, plans to take up the traffic circulation problems of the city and there may be additional Capital Improvement needs at that time. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Comms. Brown, Shapiro, Newton, Soulakis, Strohecker, Chmn. Izant None Comm. Smith Recess from 10:01 to 10:08 P.M. Chmn. Izant stated that the Commission would now consider part two of the Capital Improvement Program. Mr. Meyer gave staff report. He stated that the purpose of the memorandum presented to the Commission is to focus on the big picture of the Capital Improvement Program. He stated that Item #2 suggests that it would be in the interest of the Planning Commission to convey to the City Council three specific things which deals with the Management Services Institute report which was discussed at the last meeting. He noted that the City Council met for several hours on May 10, 1984 in a study session to review the 100-plus-page report . The general consensus was to proceed along the lines outlined in the report. He suggested to the Commission to urge to the City Council to adopt a policy that the services should be borne by the user. He stated that there are 17 cross centers that are related. To perform those kinds of services, it costs the general resident PLANNINr, COMMISSION MINUTES -May 15. 1984 PagP 14 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PijOGRAM REVIEW (Cont.) of the community $136,000. He noted that the consultant is recommending that that percent subsidy be zero. The second recommendation is that the Commission urge the City Council to enact a fee system that would recover from the users of the system the monies expending so as to adequately maintain the sewer system. At ' this point there is a $547,00 maintenance cost, and the City is collecting less than $1,000. The recommendation is that the Commission convey to the Council that that ought not to be borne out of sales tax, but ought to be specific to the user. The effect of that is to suggest to the City Council that there be a fee system. The suggestion of the consultant is that each household of the city pay a monthly fee of $5.00. Those fees would then be set aside to be used only for sewer maintenance. Those fees would maintain the current system; it would not provide for replacement of the existing sewer system. Also, the recommendation is that the City Council should pursue development impact fees in all of the areas permitted by State law. At this point, the City has only dealt with one of the areas, and there are seven areas. The last recommendation is that the City Council should direct the City Manager and the Planning Director to prepare a five-year plan of capital improvements;therefore, when the 1985-86 budget is presented to the Commission, the Commission will be able to see a budget for the following five years. Comm. Brown asked from what fund the $547,000 maintenance cost was taken. Mr. Meyer replied that at this time the City is setting aside $695.00. He stated that the City now has a sewer division of the Public Works department and it is funded out of the monies in the sewer account. He noted that $50,000 per year is the budget for that division of Public Works. For the maintenance crew for the year 1983-84, the amount was $50,000. He stated that the City should have set aside $500,000. Mr. Meyer stated that the fee for sewer maintenance would be approximately $4.00 per month per apartment, $5.00 per month per household, and $7.00 p~r month per enterprise. Comm. Brown questioned how those figures compare to surrounding cities. Mr. Meyer replied that it is a comprable fee to surrounding cities. Comm. Soulakis stated that with regard to S55 Sewer Service Call, he would find difficulty in putting an assessment on the property owners of the magnitude listed in the document. He felt that the $16,000 should be incorporated into the S54. He recommended that if a resident needed a service call with regard to the sewer system, that it should be handled at no additional expense. He believed that the Development Services should be on a sliding scale. Comm. Brown asked if there were a method of streamlining some of the departmental procedures in order to reduce the cost per item. He noted that the fee may need to be increased. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -May 15, 1984 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM REVIEW (Cont.) Comm. Shapiro questioned whether a resident of the City should call the City if there is a problem with their pipes, rather than calling a plumber. Mr. Clark replied that if there are problems with the sewer, especially Page 15 in the middle of the night, the resident should call the City, and they will come out and inspect the ,sewer line. He noted that if the line leading from the house to the street is obstructed, the resident should call the City for repair. He added that it is the owner's responsibility; however, if it occurs late at night, the City will assist the owner. Mr. Meyer stated that their estimation is that the City receives one call a week at a cost of $200.00. Comm. Shapiro asked what the charge for a service call is at the present. time. Mr. Meyer replied that there is no charge for a servi:ce call at this time. He noted that the $200 is for the gasoline for the vehicle, the depreciation of the vehicle, and the cost of supervision. He stated that it is using good business sense to charge the $200. Chmn. Izant stated that the Commission should consider Item A and then proceed to Items Band C. Public Hearing opened at 10:37 P.M. Violette Isgreen, 726 Prospect Avenue, Hermosa Beach, stated that she was appalled that a resident would call on the City when they had a sewer problem in their own home. She stated that if the City eliminated the Sewer Call Service, it would be saving $200 per week. She stated'that the City will be charging the single-family dwelling the same amount as the persons who have the illegal units, and she felt that to be neithec honorable or fair. She felt that if the Commission did not address that problem they would be derelict in their duty. Public Hearing closed at 10:39 P.M. Comm. Soulakis recommended that the charges on Page 67, Numbers Sl through 17, be on a sliding scale; therefore, there would not be a flat fee for all units. He also recommended consolidating some of the S's to short circuit some of the paperwork and expenses involved. Comm. Newton questioned whehter or not the charges are already based on a sliding scale because the charges are determined according to the scope of the development. Mr. Meyer replied that the sliding scale is already in practice. Comm. Newton asked whether staff felt that the imposition of greater fees is going to disuade people from rehabilitating older structures and/or disuade PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -May 15, 1984 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM REVIEW (Cont.) developers from coming into the area. Mr. Meyer replied in the negative, stating that he believed developers will consider it a necessary expense of remodling. He added that philosophically the cost should be borne by the specific recipient and not by the other 19,000 people in the city. Comm. Newton stated that the argument is inconsistent with regard to sewer systems and development. Mr. Meyer stated that it was using two different rationales; hov,ever, as a property right, it is purely one 1 s discretion as to how much one invests in a parcel. He added that the City lacks the ability to charge a person by the number of fixtures in the unit because the City does not have a Water Department. Comm. Brown questioned whether it would be more beneficial to put the charge on the tax bill rather than charging the household. He noted that it would not be based on the number of fixtures; however, it would be charging the persons with the larger houses to pay more for the sewer system. Comm. Soulakis stated that even if a house is larger than another, it does not necessarily mean that they will use more water if there are the same number pf persons living in the larger house. Chmn. Izant stated that the Commission could recommend that Sl through Sl7 be fully implemented. The other alternative is to recommend no change, and the third alternative is that the Commission recommend something in between the other two alternatives. Comm. Brown stated that he was in favor of the City not subsidizing anything. He felt that the citizens should pay for all costs. He Page 16 stated that he would be in favor of implementing all of the recommendations of staff except for the item dealing with the sewer system. Re spoke in favor of increasing the user 1 s fees. Motion by Comm. Soulakis, seconded by Comm. Brown, to accept the recommendations of staff regarding 2(a). (Amended below.) Mr. Meyer stated that the grand sum for this item is $136,000, which is a small sum compared to the $6,000,000 operating budget. He stated that he would recommend to the City Council that these recommendations be implemented at this time. Motion by Comm. Soulakis, seconded by Comm. Brown, to accept the recommendations of staff regarding 2(a). It is recommended that these fees be immediately implemented as soon as feasible. Comm. Soulakis stated that SB and S1O appear to be showing a profit rather than being subsidized. He saw no reason to cut back on those fees since people have been paying those fees in the past. He believed PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -May 15, 1984 Page 17 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM REVIEW (Cont.) that the fees should be left as is, and they should not be reduced. Mr. Meyer stated that it is against the law for a City to show a profit. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Comms. Brown, Newton, Shapiro, Soulakis, Strohecker, Chmn. Izant None Comm. Smith Chmn. Izant stated that the Commission will now discuss Item 2fb). Mr. Meyer stated that this item is much more controversial and complicated. He noted that staff will be urging the City Council that costs will be borne by the user and that some form of an equitable system will be implemented. He stated that the Commission should determine whether or not some of the costs should be picked up via the user rather than the way it is at this time under the general property and sales tax. Motion by Comm. Brown, seconded by Comm. Soul a.kB ,,• , to accept the recommendations of staff regarding 2(b). The specifics will be worked out at a later date. Comm. Brown noted concern for the City providing these services to the citizens and then increasing the taxes to pay for these services. He felt that the City should attempt to find a method to decrease these costs. Comm. Newton stated that, unlike the community development services, sewers do benefit the general tax-paying public. She felt that certain things should be paid from general taxes, property taxes, and sales taxes.She did not feel that sewers should be charged for separately. She felt that it was a service that should be provided by the government. She noted that she could not vote in favor of a recommendation that would pass on a separate and additional charge to the residents of the City of Hermosa Beach for this service. Chmn. Izant stated that those traditional sources that provide the general services have been cut off because of Proposition 13. Comm. Newton stressed that sewers should be paid for by general taxes, not by special assessment. Mr. Meyer stated 'that the general property tax and sales tax for the City is less than $2,000,000. The police and fire costs for the City is just under $3,000,000. He stated that police and fire costs alone consume more than 100 percent of all the property tax collected, all the sales tax collected, and all of the business licenses. Comm. Strohecker questioned whether a citizen will be charged if the main line of the sewer system is blocked. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -May 15, 1984 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM REVIEW (Cont.) Chmn. Izant replied in the negative. Comm. Brown n:oteiLthat it is the obligation of the City to inform the resident that if they have to come 6ut to inspect the property, it will be at a charge of $200. He stated that the City should not go out to inspect the sewer system until it is determined by a plumber that the main sewer line is the culprit. Motion by Comm. Brown, seconded by Comm. Soulakis, to accept the recommendations of staff regarding 2(b) with the general provision that the costs of S55 be included in S54. S56 and S57 wil 1 be part of the B package. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Comms. Brown, Soulakis, Strhoecker, Chmn. Izant Comms. Newton, Shapiro Comm. Smith Chmn. Izant stated that the Commission will now consider Item 2(c). Page 18 Mr. Meyer stated that this recommendation, Item 2{c), does not set forth a s pecfi c amount for the fees. 1 Comm. Newton questioned whether all developments will be subject to contributing to any or all of the categories. She questioned whether this will relate to commercial developments or larger developments only. Mr. Meyer replied that the intent of this recommendation is envisioned for new uni ts. Comm. Shapiro asked whether all of the fees in 2(c) dealt with new development only. Mr. Meyer replied in the affirmative, adding that they are to collect monies for physical plant only. Comm. Shapiro questioned whether the Public Safety Facilities Development fee will apply to new development only. Mr. Meyer stated that the recommendation is that it will be applied to new development because it will be increasing the need for police and fire. Comm. Shapiro asked if Items l through 6 dealt with new development oply. Mr. Meyer replied in the affirmative. Comm. Strbbecker stated that he was aware of a statement regarding the new hotel project that there will be no additional police protection required over what is there presently. He questioned how that statement will impact this recommendation. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -May 15, 1984 Page 19 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM REVIEW (Cont.) Mr. Meyer replied that the recommendation sets forth that it causes a faster wear and tear on the current plant. He stated that it was addressed in the environmental impact report that five pdfi ce i officers would not have to be added. Comm . Soulakis asked if the City presently charges a fee for hookup to the sewer system. Mr. Clark replied in the negative, adding that the Los Angeles Sanitation Department does charge a fee. Motion by Comm. Brown, seconded by Comm. Shapiro, to accept the recommendations of staff regarding Item 2(c) and to forward this approval to the City Council. AYES : NOES: Comms. Brown, Newton, Shapiro, Strohecker, Chmn. Izant Comm. Soulakis ABSENT: Comm. Smith Chmn. Izant stated that the Commission will now consider Item 3. Mr. Meyer stated that the Commission should consider recommending to the City Council that staff draw up a five-year capital improvement program. Motion by Comm. Newton, seconded by Comm. Brown, to urge the City Council to direct the City Manager and the Planning Director to prepare a five-year Capital Improvement Program plan. AYES: NOES: Comms. Brown, Newton, Shapiro, Soulakis, Strbbecker, Chmn. Izant None ABSENT: Comm. Smith Comm. Shapiro departed at 11:25 P.M. LAND US E ELEMENT AMENDMENT -GENERAL PLAN Chmn. Izant stated that this item wi 11 be postponed until the next meeting. Ms. Sapetto stated that this item wi 11 be readverti sed. C-POTENTIAL AMENDMENT Chmn. Izant stated that this item wi 11 be postponed unti 1 the next meeting. Ms. Sapetto stated that this item wi 11 be readvertised. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -May 15, 1984 Page 20 AMENDING THE PARKING STANDARDS TO INCLUDE PROVISIONS FOR COMPACT PARKING SPACES Chmn. Izant stated that this item will be postponed until the next meeting. Ms. Sapetto stated that this item will be readvertised. REMOVAL OF 25 DU/AC LIMIT IN R-2 ZONES FOR CONDOMINIUM CONSTRUCTION Chmn. Izant stated that this i tern wi 11 be postponed until the next meeting. Ms. Sapetto stated that this item will be readvertised. PLANNING COMMISSION PRIORITY LIST AND PROPOSED BUDGET FY 84-85 Ms. Sapetto stated that submitted to the Commission was a brief description of items the Commission has covered in the past year and a suggested priority list for the upcoming year and a Planning Department and Planning Commission budget. She stated that the Planning Department budget was for informational purposes only; however, the Commission was able to make changes in the Planning Commission budget. Chmn . Izant stated that the Commission would first review the priority list and then proceed on to the proposed budget. Comm. Soulakis stated that the Commission constantly has problems with the General Plan and Zoning inconsistencies. Chmn. Izant stated that those inconsistencies are currently being worked on in the Land Use Element. Ms. Sapetto stated that the Land Use Element was continued until the next meeting. She noted that Mr. Casteneda is currently working through the inconsistencies of the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance. She stated that Mr. Casteneda is addressing commercial use in the Land Use Element and he is also addressing residential use and where the inconsistencies lie. Chmn. Izant stated that Mr. Soulakis' concerns are addressed in #1 of the Priority List. Ms. Sapetto stated that she could add another bullet to the Priority List regarding the inconsistency issue. Comm . Soulakis questioned whether the Priority List was set forth in order of the priorities. Ms. Sapetto replied in the affirmative. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -May 15, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION PRIORITY LIST AND PROPOSED BUDGET FY 84-85 (Cont.) Ms. Sapetto stated that the Commission may want to add an Economic Element to the Priority List. She stated that the Economic Element describes the economic situation of the community with respect to the commercial sector. She stated that the City has an Economic Element at this time; however, it is outdated. Chmn. Izant stated that the question before the Commission is whether or not they want an Economic Study. He questioned whether five major items could be completed in one year. Ms. Sapetto stated that she has allocated her budget money for revision of at least one element. Comm. Strohecker questioned whether the Economic Element was separate from the Land Use Element. Ms. Sapetto replied in the affirmative. Motion by Comm. Brown, seconded by Chmn. Izant, to approve the Priority List with the revision that Inconsistencies Between the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance be added. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Comms. Brown, Newton, Soulakis, Strohecker, Chmn. Izant None Comms. Shapiro, Smith Chmn. Izant stated that the Commission will now review and discuss the Proposed Budget FY 84-85. Page 21 Chmn. Izant asked Ms. Sapetto if she used the title of Planning Director only one third of the time. Ms. Sapetto stated that one third of her time is spent with the Commission and two thirds of her time is spent on other tasks. Comm. Brown felt that having one or two commissioners attend conferences would save money in the budget. He believed the meetings should be attended on a rotational basis. Ms. Sapetto felt that the Commission was lacking in training, and she would like to spend more money in this regard. She stated, however, that there is not enough staff for her to attend and conduct additional training sessions. Comm. Newton asked if it were in the budget for all commissioners to attend the League of Cities seminars. Ms. Sapetto replied in the negative. I PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -May 15, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION PRIORITY LIST AND PROPOSED BUDGET FY 84-85 (Cont.) Motion by Comm. Strohecker, seconded by Comm. Newton, to recommend to the City Council approval of the Playing Commission Budget FY 84-85. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Comms. Newton, Soulakis, Strohecker, Chmn. Izant Comm. Brown Comms. Shapiro, Smith Motion to adjourn at 11:52 P.M. CERTIFICATION Page 22 I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and complete record of the action taken by the Plannin Commission of Hermosa Beach at their meeting of May 15, 1984. CHAIR MAN