Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 08.21.84MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 21, 1984, IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT 7:30 P.M. Meeting called to order by Chmn. Izant at 7:30 P.M. Pledge of Allegiance led by Comm. Shapiro. ROLL CALL PRESENT: ABSENT: ALSO PRESENT: Comms. Sheldon, Compton, Shapiro, Newton, Schulte and Chmn. Izant Comm• Peirce Pamela Sapetto, Planning Director; Kim Reardon-Crites, Planning Assistant APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion by Comm. Sheldon, seconded by Comm. Newton, to approve the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of July 31, 1984. No objections. So ordered. APPROVAL OF RESOLUTIONS Motion by Comm. Sheldon, seconded by Comm. Newton, to approve Resolution P.C. 84-19. No objections. So ordered. Comm. Shapiro informed the audience that the order of the agenda would be changed so that the public hearing on the merged lbts would be the second public hearing, not the fourth. 867 AUBREY COURT -4-UNIT CONDOMINIUM, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 16404 Comm. Newton informed the Commission that she had a conflict of interest regarding this resolution and removed herself from participation. Ms. Reardon-Crites gave the staff report and recommended adoption of the attached resolution approving a 4-unit condominium, conditional use permit, and tentative tract map No. 16404. Comm. Compton asked whether the Police Department and the Fire Department was represented at the preliminary staff review of this resolution. Ms. Reardon-Crites replied in the affirmative. Comm. Sheldon asked if the Fire Department felt there was any access problem to these unites as a result of there being only one entryway. Ms. Reardon-Crites replied that at the time they discussed the project, they didn't make any comments in terms of access. They felt the access was adequate. Comm. Sheldon asked how much of the 16,000 square feet of land is topographically usable. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -AUGUST 21, 1984 page 2 867 AUBREY COURT -4-UNIT CONDOMINIUM, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 16404 (Cont.) Ms. Reardon-Crites replied that all of the land is usable. Comm. Shapiro asked if it was correct that the R-2 Zoning Code required a lot width of 40 feet at the rear line of the required front yar<l and that having a substandard width of less than 30 feet can be utilized for a single family dwelling only, but that there was no section in the R-1 zoning for any specific continuous width. Ms. Reardon-Crites replied that that was correct. She also stated that regarding the section covering condominiums, the developer is not actually subdividing into four separate parcels. They are going to ·be four condominium units on one parcel. However, the size of the one parcel allows the four units. Comm. Shapiro asked if it was correct that as long as each unit was at least 4,000 feet, then they could be any shape. Ms. Reardon-Crites responded in the affirmative. Comm. Sheldon asked what relevance the zoning appendix had regarding condominiums. Ms. Reardon-Crites replied that they were provided in reference to the definition of a story and the definition of a basement. Comm. Sheldon asked why the staff did not attempt to provide them with the R-1 Code that would allow four condominiums Qn 16,000 square feet. Ms. Reardon-Crites replied that if he was interested in that, that Section was 9.5-22 of the Zoning Code. Comm. Compton asked if there were provisions in the R-1 Code regarding condominiums. Ms. Reardon-Crites replied in the affirmative. Public Hearing opened at 7:50 P.M. Mark Cavanaugh, representing Westward Development, 944, 15th Street, stated that he would be willing to answer any questions that the Commission may have of the applicant. Comm. Sheldon asked why he was electing to build four contiguous condominiums as opposed to subdividing and building four single­ family dwellings. Mr. Cavanaugh explained that he felt the subdivision procedure was much more elongated and elaborate procedure. After speaking with the Planning Department, he felt that this lot could be utilized much better by building condominiums. He did not feel the 40-food frontage could be attained with four individual lots. He felt it would be a much nicer project by going with the PUD. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -AUGUST 21, 1984 page 3 8 67 AUBREY COURT -4-UNIT CONDOMI NIUM , CONDITIO NAL USE P ERM IT, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 1640 4 (Cont.) Cornm. Compton asked Mr. Cavanaugh if he felt there would be a problem with parking because of the lack of parking on the street. Mr. Cavanaugh responded that there was only one guest parking space required and that he has provided two. He felt that would be adequate parking. Mr. Cavanaugh pointed out that if this project was made into four individual lots, that there would only be two parking spaces required for each lot. Chmn. Izant invited members of the audience to speak either in favor or in opposition to this project. Sharon Frye, 931 Montgomry, indicated that the site for the condominium project is situated on a high hill above and to the rear of her property. She complained that if a tw o-story project is built with living quarters on the second story, her home and the two homes adjoining hers would become fishbowls. She voiced strong opposition to four units being built overlooking her property stating that it would distroy the privacy in her backyard and kitchen area. She also felt the value of her property would be diminished. Lena Cord, 1245 Bonnie Brae, indicated that her house backs onto Ocean between 14th and Aviation and that, just as the woman before her, her living room and dinning room and kitchen would be a fishbowl and that her property would diminish in value. She felt that building four un its where there was previously only one would not lend itself to res idential R-1 conformity because of increased density, parking congestion, and inadequate access £or emergency ·v~hicles. Public Hearing closed at 8:00 P.M. Chmn. Izant requested the applicant to come foward to answer further questions from the Commissioners. Comm. Sheldon asked what kind of landscaping the applicant intended to put in in order to mitigate the fishbowl effect. Mr. Cavanaugh reviewed the landscaping with the Comm issioners and indicated that this property was significantly set back off the west property line and that there shouldn't be any fis hb owl effect. Comm. Sheldon asked the applicant if he had spoken with any of the surrounding property owners as a matter of politics. Mr. Cavanaugh said he had spoken with one person and a ft e r fi e ldi n g h e r quest!~ she wa 8 pretty satisfied that it was going to be a nice project. Comm. Sheldon asked Mr. Cavanaugh if he would be willing to meet with surrounding property owners to attempt to work out landscaping plans. Mr. Cavanaugh said he absolutely would be willing to do that. He did indicate, though, that he did not want to ruin the ocean view , _,.. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -AUGUST 21, 1984 page 4 867 AUBREY COURT -4-UN IT CO NDOMI NIUM, CO NDITIONAL USE PERMIT, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 16404 (Cont~) for the people in the four units. He said he would be willing to plant more trees and shrubs to obviate any privacy problems for the people down the hill. Comm.Schulte asked the staff if the lot could be subdivided and four two-story homes put on each lot. Ms. Reardon-Crites answered in the affirmative. Comm. Schulte then indicated to the homeowners that if four two-story homes were erected as opposed to four condominiums, you would still get the same fishbowl effect. He asked the homeowners to comment on that point. Sharon Frye felt that if they were four individual homes, they would be much more commensurate with the neighborhood simply because they are all single family homes. She felt that they all bought in that nieghborhood to live in that kind of neighborhood. She also felt that the small condominiums would affect the comparable values of the other properties in the neighborhood. Motion by Comm Sheldon, seconded by Comm. Shapiro, to approve the condominiums as proposed with the exception that the applicant is to meet with the surrounding property owners individually to attempt to mitigate the fishbowl effect by landscaping, if it's not already provided. Ms. Sapetto indicated that it is the purview of the Planning Commission to also approve a landscaping plan with this approval. She therefore recommended that the Planning Commission include in that motion that the landscaping plan with that amendment can be approved by staff as presented to them, and at that point they can proceed. Otherwise, it would have to come back to the Commission as an amended landscaping plan. A revised motion was made by Comm. Sheldon, seconded by Comm. Shapiro, to approve the condominiums as proposed with the exception that the applicant is to meet with the surrounding property owners in an attempt to mitigate any fishbowl effect, and that the new landscaping plan be submitted to staff for their review and approval. Comm. Compton asked the staff if it was appropriate for the Commission to require an applicant to meet with surrounding neighbors to mitigate such circumstances. He felt that this was a good idea, but he was troubled with the idea of the Planning Commission requiring that action and perhaps setting a precedent for future applicants. He asked if this has been done before. Ms. Reardon-Crites responded that this has been done before and that it is within the Commission's scope to require this. Comm. Schulte asked, if the applicant had decided to divide into four parcels and built houses, whether he would have had to come before PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -AUGUST 21, 1984 page 5 867 AUBREY COURT -4-UNIT CONDOMINIUM, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 16404 ContJ the Commission, or whether he could have done whatever he wanted with the landscaping. Ms. Reardon indicated that he would have come before the Commission with a tentative map only, and the Commission would not have seen the project. The Commission would only have seen the subdivision of land. Ms. Sapetto indicated that she felt it was a superior project because of the planned development. Mr. Schulte felt that the Commission should approve the subdevelopment. He felt that it was arbitrary of the Commission to expect the applicant to have to meet greater requirements than he would have to meet if he had subdivided into four lots. Chmn. Izant asked if there was further discussion on the motion. There was none. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Cornms. Sheldon, Compton, Shapiro, and Chmn. Izant Comm. Schulte Comms . Peirce . and Newton None. Chmn. Izant then called for a motion to approve Resolution P.C. 84-20. Motion by Comm. Sheldon, seconded by Comm. Shapiro, that Resolution P.C. 84-20 be approved with the stipulation that a 14th condition be provided requesting that, as per the previous motion, the developer meet with the residents to seek to work out a landscaping plan and that that be approved by the staff. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Comms. Sheldon, Comptom, Shapiro,Schnite , and Chmn. Izant. None. Comm. Newton, Peirce None. MERGED LOTS Ms. Reardon-Crites gave the staff report. The staff recommended that a Resolution of intension be adopted that would amend the combined lot ordinance in order to comply with Senate Bill 894. Mr. Grove then gave the Commission additional information regarding the merged lots issue which the Commission requested at the July 31 meeting. The Commission had requested information regarding, (1) How many lots that are eligible for merger would have been subject to the requirements of the combined lot ordinance, or Section 1203.l~ (2) How many lots or parcels of this type have in fact been developed since 1980; (3) To indicate where the majority of these parcels are. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -AUGUST 21, 1984 MERGED LOTS (Co n t.) page 6 Mr. Grove, in response to those questions, indicated that the number of eligible R-1 parcels is now 283, and that results in a potential for 291 new lots; R-2 properties are 67 parcels with the potential of 95 new lots; and R-3 properties are 46 parcels with a potential for 58 new lots. Mr. Grove stated that out of all these lots, there are only 15 that he could determine that would have been able to develop at least one lot separately under Section 1203.2. Out of all those parcels of multiple lots of either two or three, all but 15 appear to have been constructed over the contiguous lot line, an4 therefore, would have been subject to the combined lot ordinance. Mr. Grove stated that since 1980, there have been 14 R-1 parcels comprised of two lots each that have been developed resulting in 28 new single family residences. Mr. Grove then went to a large map and pointed out to the Commissioners the predominate locations of the merged lots. Chrnn. Izant indicated that there was a City ordinance that was passed in 1965 or 1967, and asked why these lot splits were allowed. Mr. Grove indicated that "lot split" is not the correct terminology. He indicated that these lots are and were legal lots of record. As long ago as 1978, State law was enacted that, in effect, made Hermosa Beach's combined lot ordinance defective. The law has undergone two or three changes since that time, but the City really hasn't had an effective combined lot ordinance since that time. Chrnn. Izant inquired as to how many applications have been filed for lot splits since the moratorium was lifted. Mr. Grove replied that he believed there have been four building permits. One parcel resulting in two building permits for two single family houses has been issued, and those are under construction on 24th Place. The remaining three were submitted while the moratorium was in effect, and they were held in abeyance, but are now going through the plan check process. Chmn. Izant asked Mr. Grove if he could estimate how many of these specific types of applications they might get a year. He pointed out that they have had 14 in four years, which is only about three and a half per year. And now, in effect, in a month and a half they have had potentially four. This is as many as they have had in a normal year. Mr. Grove indicated that 14 since 1980 is misleading. It was near the end of 1980 when they saw the first one. He estimated that 10 of those 14 happened in the last year. Chmn. Izant then pointed out that, in effect, the only thing the Commission could do legally is pass a resolution of intension to hold PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -AUGUST 21, 1984 MERGED LOTS (Cont.) page 7 the hearing to start the process for the issuing of the City ordinance to comply with Article 1.5 and 1.7 of Chapter 3 of Division 2 of Title 7 of the California Government Code. And he indicated that it bothered him that they had, advertised for a meeting legally and had begun the public hearing process last time, and then they have to, in effect, advertise all over again. He felt that the Commission was getting caught up in the bureaucracy. Ms. Reardon-Crited stated that the intent of the State l aw was to enable the public to have input on the process. But, al th ough a public hearing process has been st a rted, that doesn't mea n that you cannot start to formulate an ordin a nce. If the Comm±ssion adopted a resolution of intension tonight, that starts a time limit of a minimum of 30 days before an ordinance can be legally adopted. During that time the Commission can have other hearings to fine tune the ordinance, but it can't be legally adopted until 30 days after the Commission has adopted the resolution of intension. Chmn. Izant asked if that 30 days was at the Planning Commission level or 30 days until it reaches the City Council. Ms. Reardon-Crites replied that it was 30 days until the ordinance is officially adopted, which means to the City Council. Chmn. Izant asked when the public hearing to hear the individual property owners affected by the ordinance would be held --before or after the ordinance is actually passed. Ms. Reardon-Crites replied that those hearings would be held after the passage of the ordinance. The lots would not be merged just because the ordinance was adopted. The ordinance would set up the process by which the lots could be merged. Chmn. Izant noted that if the ordinance passed, there would be a potential for having to have 369 public hearings. He asked if it would be possible to hold five or ten public hearings at a time and still affect due process of law. Ms. Reardon-Crites replied that, yes, that could be done, as long as the property owners were each separately noticed and as long as they each had their own public hearing on the night it was described. Chmn. Izant then asked if it was correct that it would be a mini mum of 30 days before the ordinance could be passe~ and that even though the ordinance is in effect, that does n 't combine lots. Ms. Reardon-Crites answered in the affirmative. Mrs. Burt stated, as a point or order, that the City Mayor said to remind the Commissioners that noticing was to be individually made to every single person, not just in the newspaper. Noticing in the newspaper was not what the City Council voted for. Co:rrun. Sheldon asked if the Commission could also persue a moratorium at this time. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -AUGUST 21, 1984 MERGED LOTS (Cont.) Mr. Grove answered in the affirmative. page 8 Comm. Shapiro asked Mr. Grove if he had read and concurred with the report from the Planning Department concerning statistics on how the Cities of Redondo Beach and Santa Monica have chosen not to act on this. Mr. Grove indicated he has read the report. He said he has no personal knowledge of Santa Monica, but in speaking with people who work in Redondo Beach and Manhattan Beach, he knows that information to be correct. Comn. Shapiro asked if Manhattan Beach has a great deal more 25 foot lots than Hermosa Beach. Mr. Grove replied that he doesn't know the number, but that they have a similar situation in that they have a number of substandard lots. Gomm. Shapiro asked if staff has any statistics on the number of substandard lots or lots that can be split in Santa Monica, Redondo Beach, and Manhattan Beach. Ms. Reardon-Crites replied in the negative. Comm. Shapiro asked Mr. Grove if he thought the number of current lot split applications was a significant amount over other permits he has pulled. Mr. Grove did not feel it was a significant number. Corrun. Shapiro then asked Mr. Grove if he concurred in the Planning Department's recommendation. Mr. Grove answered in the affirmative. Comm. Sheldon asked Mr. Grove if it was possible for the Planning Commission to redefine the word "substandard" to mean less than 4,000 square feet to affect the lots falling into that catagory. Mr. Grove answered that he believed to change the definition of "standard sized lot" to less than 4,000 square feet would require a different zoning amendment. Mr. Grove pointed out that if you redefine ''substandard lots," you may go beyond what you intend to do because it would mean that anybody who wished to subdivide a larger parcel of land into separate lots could then divide it into a 3,000 square foot lot. Mr. Compton asked how many other permits have been issued other than the four already discussed since the moratorium was lifted. Mr. Grove indicated that there is one other project that would result ih two single family residences. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -AUGUST 21, 1984 MERGED LOTS (Cont.) page 9 Corum. Compton then asked Mr. Grove if there have been many inquiries related to 25 foot lots and whether he felt there would be a run on these 25 foot lots. Mr. Grove didn't feel there would be a run on them. He indicated that the structures that are sitting on two lots don't lend themselves to be demolished and replaced with two single family residences. He felt developers could not afford to pay $180,000 to $200,000 just for the land. The public Hearing was opened. Mrs. Burt, 1152 7th Street, presented two maps to the Commission which she stated she got from the Planning Commission. She pointed out that the two maps had different zonings on them. Mrs. Burt was against the City's changing the definition of a 25xl00 foot lot from standard to substandard. She also felt that the City was interferring with the people's property rights. Bob Fleck, 620, 24th Place, provided the Planning Commission with a copy of a sample resolution for the Commission's consideration. Mr. Fleck urged that the moratorium be recommended by the Planning Commission to the City Council. He also indicated that he personally knows of a situation where a developer was willing to pay approximately $180,000 to demolish a structure and use the land. Comm. Sheldon asked Mr. Fleck why he thought his ordinance or resolution differs from the one the City Council had in plac~ or why did he think one doesn't interfer with the disposition of school property. Mr. Fleck replied that he wished to specify in his resolution that "single family residences" be subject to the moratorium and not "structures" because the school is a structure, and it is R-1. Comm. Sheldon pointed out that this resolution would eliminate 67 parcels of R-2 property which would result in 95 potential new lots. Mr. Fleck responded that he had not considered that and that he would be interested in hearing commentary on that if the Cormnissioners felt it significant enough to include. Conm. Compton asked Mr. Fleek if he was in favor of passing the ordinance to start the process of having a combined lot ordinance. Mr. Fleck responded in the affirmative. Ray Waters, 615 24th Place, wished to speak in favor of establishing the moratorium and also of passing this ordinance. Gean Dockins of 24th Place stated that he worked with Mr. Fleck to draft the resolution. He explained that his main purpose in coming to tonight's meeting was to get some kind of recommendation from the Commission that would show support for what he is trying to do. .,..., PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -AUGUST 21, 1984 MERGED LOTS (Cont.) page 10 Mr. Dockins indicated that all the residents want is a chance to have their views heard, which cannot be done the way the rules are set up presently. He stated that he is an MAI appraiser and did not feel that the present situation is condusive to affordable housing. He also expressed concern over congested parking and the increase of new construction in his neighborhood. Henry Rado, 720 24th Street, complained that the ordinance book which he purchased for $20 has not been updated. The new State law which voids certain Hermosa Beach ordinances regarding lot splits is not reflected in the current ordinance book. Mr. Rado indicated that the Planning Commission was involved in a similar action of this type in 1980, and asked if there was any provision to let the owners of these properties who are affected by these new ordinances know what action the Planning Commission decides to take. Chmn. Izant replied that if the City decides to go ahead with the combining of lots, each individual whose lot is affected will be personally notified. But the City would not notify any people that they were sitting on multiple lots. Mr. Rado felt that the people should be notified of this. He stated that he approved of the moratorium and ordinance. C. O. Smith, 2026 Hillcrest Drive, complained about the considerable parking congestion on his street and the problem that emergency vehicles have had driving up the street. He indicated that recently four units have been developed on two single residential lots in his neighborhood and that this will cause further congestion. He recommended the moratorium and the ordinance forbidding the splitting of lots. Willie Schmidt, 1245 Corona Street, asked the Commission to consider the fact that she has three lots, 25xl06 each, and that she would not be able to divide her lots and sell only one of them if she chose to. Lou Beffee, 1865 Hillcrest, complained that houses on 50 foot lots were being torn down and two houses were being built in their place. He felt that, for families that had children, this would leave no room for children to play except in the street. He also complained of the parking congestion. He asked the Commissioners who is running Hermosa Beach, the developers or the people. He indicated that he was in favor of the moratorium and the ordinance. Vickie Garcia, 1231 7th Place, stated that she lives on a 50 foot wide lot, and she bought the lot with the understanding from the City that she could not split her lot. Neighbors of hers with the same kind of lot sold to developers who plan to split the lot. Ms. Garcia stated she called the Planning Department to ask whether it was true that they could split the lot, and the Planning Department replied that they could not split the lot. This was as of last Friday. It is now her understanding that the plans are in for splitting that lot and they will probably be approved by the end of the week. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -AUGUST 21, 1984 MERGED LOTS (Cont.) page 11 ,,,,.-) Ms. Garcia objects that the people of the City had no notice of this, no public hearing, and, therefore, had no say in the splitting of that lot. She stated that she approved the moratorium and the ordinance. Jane Allison, 620 24th Place, stated that she approves of the moratorium and wants the resolution recommended to the City Council. She complained that the parking on her street is already very, very congested, and yet there are 11 lots that could be split on her street. Ms. Allison wished to point out that people who have lots that are going to be merged do have the opportunity to present their case in a public hearing. She stated that most of the people she has talked to do not wish to split their lots. A recess was taken at 9:40 P.M. Willis Dobbins, 644 24th Place, indicated that he was an active worker on the original moratorium petition drive, and his views have not changed. He urged the Planning Commission to put the moratorium in effect. Mark Cavanaugh stated that to put an emergency moratorium in effect indicates that there is immediate threat to the welfare of the community. Mr. Cavanaugh, as a realtor, stated that other realtors are constantly trying to find 25 foot lots to develop and that there are virtually none to develop. He stated that the new buildings being build are top quality and that Hermosa Beach is not a low-income area. He stated he was against the emergency moratorium on the basis that there is no emergency at this time. The public hearing was closed. Comm. Newton indicated she was in favor of adopting the resolution of intension to reactivate a combined lot ordinance. She asked if this ordinance could be drawn to include only certain areas of Hermosa Beach, therefore giving consideration to those areas where most of the lots are 25 foot lots with single family residences. Ms. Sapetto replied that when adopting the ordinance, you may specify which particular types of property you wish to address. You may declare a minimum lot size, but it must be consistant in its application and may not single out particular parcels irrespective of others. Comm. Newton rephrased her question asking if the ordinance could be applied from neighborhood to neighborhood, depending upon the different conditions of each neighborhood. Ms. Sapetto replied that she thought that could be done. Chmn. Izant asked, as an example, if 75 percent of one side of a street is already 25 foot lots, then you could go ahead and allow them to be unmerged. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -AUGUST 21, 1984 MERGED LOTS (Cont.) Ms. Sapetto answered that that could be done. page 12 Comm. Compton asked Mr. Grove what he felt about that idea. Mr. Grove responded that it may be possible to fashion an ordinance that way, but that it would be much more difficult. He thought it would be better to make a uniform ordinance which would apply to certain lot sizes or conditions rather than by neighborhood. Comm. Sheldon stated that it was precisely the street that was predominantly 25 foot lots that he would not want to exempt. He stated he would like to have a moratorium on the development of 25 foot lots. He wished to preclude the look of very skinny, very tall homes in a row tenement fashion. He also wished to narrow the definition of "substandard lot" to a 30 foot lot. Comm. Sheldon wished to define the ordinance with the following criteria: 1. That the lots would have to be contiguous. 2. That the lots would have to be owned by the same owner. 3. That they would have to be less than 50 feet in width. 4. That they are presently developed with residential structures. Comm. Sheldon felt these four definitions would except school property, would refashion the definition of "substandard lot" to something that is palatable, would zero in on the contiguous question and the fact that they are owned by the same party. He agreed with the comments that the new development on 25 foot lots is not affordable housing. He felt that the original zoning that gave Hermosa Beach 25 foot lots is unsatisfactory. Motion by Comm. Sheldon, seconded by Comm. Shulte, to fashion the ordinance in a way which would define lots to be combined as contiguous, owned by the same owner, less than 30 feet at the front and a total of 3,000 square feet, and presently developed with a residential structure. Comm. Newton expressed concern that the motion as fashioned would allow 25 foot lots to be developed on school property. Ms. Sapetto pointed out that by establishing a minimum lot size for the School District property, it would, in effect, lower the value of the School's property. She indicated that the City Council has agreed with the School District that they will not attempt to rezone their property at this time. Ms. Sapetto recommended that the Commission try another solution to the 25 foot lot problem such as recommending that the school sites be allowed to develop in a different fashion such as zero lot line development so that you don~ get the row house effect. She recommended that the Commission -recommend to the City Council that the spirit of the 25 foot lot is not suitable to Hermosa Beach and that the Commission prefers a 30 foot lot line. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -AUGUST 21, 1984 MERGED LOTS (Cont.) page 13 Comm. Newton recommended that the Commission adopt a motion which would evidence the Planning Commission's intension to adopt a lot merger ordinance which would include the school properties, but in the Commission's recommendation for a moratorium, exclude the school properties to give the Commission time to work out negotiations between the City and the School Board. Comm. Sheldon stated that would be acceptable to the maker of the motion if that could be done. Ms. Sapetto replied that that could be done. She stated that the way they have proposed the moratorium does that. Chmn. Izant recommended the motion be in two parts, the first part passing on the resolution of intension, and the second part dealing with the moratorium. Comm. Shapiro stated that he could not support a motion for the entire City for what a few people want on 24th Place. Motion by Comm. Sheldon, seconded by Comm. Shulte, that the Planning Commission moves to consider the combining of lots through amending the Zoning Code, Section 1203.32 to be in conformance with Article 1.5 and 1.7 of Chapter 3 of Division 2 of Title 7 of the California Government Code. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Comms. Sheldon, Compton, Newton,Schhlte ! and Chmn. Izant. Comm. Shapiro. Comm. Peirce None. Motion by Comm. Sheldon, seconded by Comm. Newton, to approve Resolution P.C. 84-21. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Comms. Sheldon, Compton, Newton, Schulte, and Chmn. Izant. Comm. Shapiro. Comm. Peirce None. Motion by Comm.Sabulte ., seconded by Comm. Newton, that the Planning Commission recommenn to the City Council a moratorium on further development of lots which fall into the following catagories: 1. That they are contiguous. 2. That they are owned by the same owner. 3. That the lot split would result in lots less than 30 feet wide and less than 3,000 square feet. 4. That they have residential structures on them over the lot line. 5. That R-3 lots would be exempted. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -AUGUST 21, 1984 MERGED LOTS (Cont.) page 14 AYES: NOES: Comms. Sheldon, Compton, Newton, Schulte -, and Chmn. Izant. Comm. Shapiro. ABSENT: Comm. Peirce ABSTAIN: None. Motion by Comm. Schhlte , seconded by Comm. Sheldon, to recommend to the City Council that school property be developed with a minimum of a 30 foot width and not less than 3,000 square feet. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Comms. Sheldon, Newton, Schulte-, and Chmn. Izant. Comms. Compton and Shapiro. Comm. Peirce None. DOWNTOWN WORK POLICY PROGRAM Ms. Sapetto stated that the Commission had asked staff for additional information regarding what was to be proposed to be done in the downtown area with respect to policy and what had been previously done. She stated that she has Mr. Fergus to discuss the process the staff went through to develop the work schedule. She wished to answer some of the questions from the Commission such as the cost of the plan, how it would be paid for, and if they could get funding from other sources to pay for the plan. Ms. Sapetto stated that the answer to the last question is no. The money from the Costal Conservancy is generally used to fund tangible things. They do not prefer to fund plans. They consider that a local responsibility. There are dollars a~ailable on a competitive basis for implementation of whatever the Commission decides to incorporate in the plan. Ms. Sapetto stated that the Costal Conservancy h~s been supportive and enthusiastic with the City's participation with them for implementation of projects. Ms. Sapetto then responded to the Commission's question on will do for traffic circulation. She stated that it makes circulation a No. 2 priority rather than a No. 1 priority. doesn't have the time to deal with two plans at once .. She staff is dealing with the land use element right now. what this traffic The staff stated the Ms. Sapetto then answered the question of what kind of bidding process has this gone through. She stated that they have gone through the bidding process to get the original land use element. They have received many bids and have selected the one they felt to be the most reasonable. The firm they chose has been working with the City in the land use element. This firm developed the EIR for the hotel. They are intimately acquainted with the downtwon area .. They have presented the staff with some preliminary ideas. For these reasons, the staff doesn't wish to have to start all over again by bringing in someone new. This is why the staff has selected to amend the contract instead of going out and getting a new bid. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -AUGUST 21, 1984 DOWNTOWN WORK POLICY PROGRAM (Cont.) page 15 Mr. Compton asked when the staff could get to the circulation element. Ms. Sapetto felt that by the mid-year budget they could get into it. She stated that the City does have limited funding, and to do the circulation element, they would have to go to the City Council to get more money. Chmnr Izant asked Ms. Sapetto what kind of return they would be getting for their $20,000 investment. Mr. Fergus gave the Commissioners some backround on the Costal Conservancy and stated that they had approximately $30 million specifically for waterfront programs which the downtown area does qualify for. There is another $650 million available through bonding for a variety of improvements including urban waterfront improvement. Mr. Fergus, in response to a question by Comm. Sheldon, stated that there are approximately a dozen communities up and down the coast that are qualified and are receiving funds under the urban waterfront program. He also stated that in talking with the executive director and the staff from the Costal Conservancy, they feel that the type of work needed in Hermosa Beach fits very nicely with their criteria for the types of projects that they are funding. Chmn. Izant asked what kinds of things would Hermosa Beach be applying for to get the .funds available. Mr. Fergus stated that the Conservancy is heavily oriented toward implementation. He stated that in order to get started on the improvements, they had to do some very specific analyses such as financial feasibility and very specific improvement plans in order to get funding. They are equipped to deal with those types of studies and also with capital improvements. He stated that the Costal Conservancy is structured such that it can provide through grant or through bonding mechanisms money on a loan to the City and establish a payback mechanism based upon the ability of the City to pay back as revenues are recaptured. Chmn. Izant asked that if the City needed $2 million to move several buildings to creat a larger center plaza, would that be a program that they could apply for which the Conservancy would fund and the City would then have to pay it back. Mr. Fergus replied in the affirmative. Comm. Compton asked if it was always a pay-back situation. Mr. Fergus stated that it was, to his knowledge. He stated that there are limited amounts of grants available, but primarily they deal with the philosophy that the roughly $700 million is permanently available and continues to recycle itself. Chmn. Izant asked if there were certain application periods, or could you apply any time. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -AUGUST 21, 1984 DOWNTOWN WORK POLICY PROGRAM (Cont.) page 16 Mr. Fergus replied that there is no specific application period. Comm. Sheldon asked Mr. Fergus if he knew of any cities approximately the size of Hermosa Beach who have successfully applied recently. Mr. Fergus replied that Huntington Beach has just finished a fairly detailed downtown study, and they are now in the process of applying for $5 million in funds through the Costal Conservancy. Comm. Sheldon asked if Huntington Beach would share their plan with this Planning Commission. Mr. Fergus replied that that was one of his suggestions to Pam. He felt there was no reason why they would not. He would encourage it. Mr. Compton asked how many communities similar to Hermosa Beach would be applying in the next year. Mr. Fergus stated he did not know, but he could get back to the Commission on that. Comm. Sheldon asked if this is a well-known opportunity to most cities. Mr. Fergus stated that it was farily well-known. Ms. Sapetto stated that an important outcome of this plan is that by putting together this plan, if the Commission looks at Task II and Task III, they may have the ability to amend the zoning ordinances. Tasks II and III will allow the Co mmission to come to a consensus of how the zoning and urban design of the area should be. Tasks IV and V are also subsequent to zoning. Comm. Sheldon asked if the optional Task is necessary for the City to apply to the Costal Conservancy, or must the City have an economic analysis of the downtown area. Mr. Fergus didn't believe that would be necessary. He felt this would be one of the follow-up items that the Commission could ask help from the Conservancy on, and they would help to fund that. Comm. Compton asked Ms. Sapetto if her recommendation was to go ahead with the study. Ms. Sapetto replied in the affirmative. The Public Hearing was opened. Mrs. Burt, 1152 7th Street, asked if this study has been discussed with the businessmen in the downtown area. Chmn. Izant replied that it has not. Mrs. Burt recommended that it be discussed with the businessmen of the downtown area. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -AUGUST 21, 1984 DOWNTOWN WORK POLICY PROGRAM (Cont.) page 17 Ms. Sapetto stated that the plan provides for input from actual workshops within the business community. The Public Hearing was closed. Comm. Compton stated that he believed they had a question last time regarding the time period and also the feasibility related to the number of meetings that was specified regarding the budget. Mr. Fergus responded that they were on a rather strict budget of $23,000 including six presentations, two community or downtown workshops, two Corr@ission meetings, two City Council meetings. To meet budget, they are proposing to do all the products or efforts within a four-week period from authorization. He stated the only way they could meet budget was to do it very quickly and get it to the City Council for their review. Ms. Sapetto stated that most of the time will be spent analyzing and changing that product at the workshops and at the public hearings. Comm. Compton asked what they would do if they ended up needing twice as many workshops, Planning Commission meetings, and City Council meetings. Ms. Sapetto replied that would mean more budget, and the staff would probably have to do it as opposed to having the consultant helping. Comm. Sheldon stated he had a problem with Task III because of where it is placed in the general scheme of the Tasks. He felt there should be conversations with the owners of businesses in the downtown area. He felt that the plans for downtown renovation should come from the people and then go to the consultants rather than the consultants to the people. Comm. Newton felt that opinion downtown would be so divergent that you would have to start with something from the consultants to give the people an idea of what they might want. Ms. Sapetto agreed that the people do need a focus point, something on paper, so that they can then make changes from there. Mr. Fergus agreed that the basic ideas should be put on paper for the community to react to. Comm. Sheldon agreed with the statements but was concerned that he didn't want to do another $23,000 study that just went on the shelf. He wanted to make sure that notice is given so that the people have a chance to participate. And if they choose not to participate, then they could not come back to the Commission and complain that they had no input. Comm. Newton replied that it was her belief that the people would be given notice and would be able to participate in the workshops. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -AUGUST 21, 1984 DOWNTOWN WORK POLICY PROGRAM (Cont.) page 18 Comm. Sheldon stated that he felt there should be a problem statement first because people will have different ideas as to what the problems of the downtown area are. Mr. Fergus stated that there would be a list of necessary improvements and their cost. This list will go from the Commission to the City Council as well as downtown. He stated they have included as part of their group Peat Marwick Mitchell, financial analysts, to do a variety of things including financial feasibility. Mrs. Burt asked who would be paying for this. She asked if the taxpayers would be paying for it or if it was urban renewal. Chmn. Izant replied that it was not urban renewal and that it depended on what they implemented and what the costs would be. Ms. Sapetto stated that either the City would pay for it or they would go to the Costal Conservancy for a loan. Comm. Compton stated that they would hope this would upgrade the economic viability of the City so that the City would be able to pay back the loan which they took out. Comm.Schfrl:te_ asked if Peat Marwick Mitchell would be doing the optional Task. Mr. Fergus replied that their primary function would be to do the economic overview as discussed on Task V(a) and V(b). They will also work with the City on Tasks VII and VIII where the staff comes up with improvement costs, and they will help to establish a priority system. Comm. Schulte asked how much of the $23,000 is paying for Peat Marwick Mitchell's services. Mr. Fergus stated they have not worked out all the numbers yet. He stated that on page four the marketing input was scheduled at $1,500 and the implementation was scheduled at approximately $1,250 for the services of Peat Marwick Mitchell. Comm.Schulte stated that he was very familiar with Peat Marwick Mitchell, and he has never gotten a bill from them that was less than $100,000. He expressed concern that they are dealing in numbers too small for Peat Marwick Mitchell. Mr. Fergus stated they have worked with them before and that it would not be detailed information involving the financial and economic analysis of the downtown area. Comm. Compton asked when the public workshops would be scheduled. Mr. Fergus replied that they planned to take approximately two PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -AUGUST 21, 1984 DOWNTOWN WORK POLICY PROGRAM (Cont.) page 19 weeks organizing thoughts and doing quick sketches, and they would then present those to the workshops. They would then take the comments from the workshops back and do more sketches and take the final product back to the second workshop. Chmn. Izant stated that he felt the landowners in the downtown area must be invited to participate with more than just a notice in the newspaper. He felt a certified, return address mailer inviting the owners individually to participate would be proper. He also felt that rather than a workshop, these people should be dealt with on a smaller basis, perhaps groups of two or three, to get the kind of input that you don't get from a larger, more formal meeting. Chmn. Izant stated that in order to be sucessful on this project, they need a specific plan, and he is concerned that they may not be able to get a specific plan if they race through the process. Comm. Sheldon expressed concern over spending $23,000 on a plan, taking it to public hearings, and finding out that they have spent $23,000 solving problems that the people don't consider problems. Mr. Fergus felt that with those concerns, it would be a good idea to get subcommitties representing the City involved in the plan. Comm. Compton asked Mr. Fergus if they could break the process down into three steps --the first two weeks of intensive data base gathering in which Mr. Fergus would give the City the information it needed to get the public input; give the City a couple of months to investigate the plan; and use the final two weeks to put the whole package together. Mr. Fergus stated that that would be no problem. Mrs. Bert felt that if the City tried to do anything without the help of the three very large businesses in the downtown area, they would have serious problems. Comm. Sheldon asked if the staff, in accordance with the ideas expressed by the Planning Commission at this meeting, could go back and redefine the time schedule for this plan. Mr. Fergus recommended taking this product and putting it on a flow chart to make it clear when the staff will deliver things and when they get reviewed, when they get activated and when they get reactivated. Comm. Schulte asked, then, if a motion was needed at this point in time. Chmn. Izant stated that it is so ordered by the Chairman that a revised work program be prepared. Comm.schhlte wished to state for the record that he felt Peat Marwick Mitchell is a very competent C.P.A. firm. Chmn. Izant asked the Commissioners to examine the documents closely and contact Ms. Sapetto and give her an idea as to how they feel ...--, I PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -AUGUST 21, 1984 DOWNTOWN WORK POLICY PROGRAM (Cont.) page 20 information should be passed back and forth between the Commissioners and the staff consultants. Comm. Sheldon told Mr. Fergus that he felt they would be using his services. Comm. Compton concurred ·with Comm. Sheldon. Chmn. Izant stated that the land use element would be continued until the next meeting. Comm. Shulte was interested in whether the money available for urban waterfront could be used to refurbish the restrooms at public facilities. He asked if there were funds available through other agencies to do this. Ms. Sapetto replied that she would give them the capital improvement plan for the City because that tells what the priorities are for improving restrooms and where the funding comes from. Schul te Comm.~ responded that when he suggested this to the Council, he thought that the money had to come out of the City of Hermosa Beach.General Fund. But if .there is another fund available, he felt it should be explored. Chmn. Izant confirmed with Ms. Sapetto the meeting to be held Monday, August 27, 1984, at 7:30. Comm. Schulte stated he appreciated staff's attempts to put agenda items that appear to be of citizen interest early on the agenda. Comm. Sheldon moved to adjourn at 11:32 P.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 thei gul rly scheduled meeting f ugust 21, 1984. Chairman Date ~