Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 10.16.84MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON TUESDAY, OCTOBER 1-6, 1984 IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT 7:30 P.M. Meeting called to order by Chmn. Izant at 7:31 P.M. Pledge. of Allegiance led by Comm. Compton. ROLL CALL PRESENT: ABSENT: Conrrns. Compton, Peirce, Schulte, Shapiro, Sheldon, Chmn. Izant Comm. Newton ALSO PRESENT: Kim Reardon-Crites, Planning Assistant APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 18, 1984 Comm, Peirce noted that on Pages 3 and 4 of the minutes, a name was misspelled. The correct spelling should be "Widman. 11 Motion by Comm. Sheldon, seconded by Comm. Compton, to approve the Planning Commission minutes of September 18, 1984. No objections. So ordered. APPROVAL OF RESOLUTIONS Motion by Comm, Compton, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to approve Resolutions P,C, 84-27, 84-28, 84-29, AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Compton, Peirce, Schulte, Shapiro, Sheldon None Chmn. Izant Carran. Newton Gregory T. Me yer, Hermo~a Beach City Manager, addressed the Planning Commission on the topic o f the vacancy for the position of City Planning Director, noting that the previous Plan ning Director had resigned effective October 1, 1984. Mr. Meyer stated that on Octob er 9, 1984, the City Council had been apprised of this situation, and they were presente d with three alternatives: (1) to contract for the services of the Planning Depar tment; (2) to merge the Planning Department into the Building Department; (3) to retain the position of Planning Director and proceed with open, competitive civil service examinations. Mr. Mey er's re commen dation t o the Cit y Council in regard to this matter was to retain the p o s ition o f Planning Di r ec tor an d to increase the compensation for recruitment pur p os e s, This suggestion wa s appro ve d by the City Council, Examination has been ord er e d from t he Co unty Ex amination De partment, and the qualification interview process will begin in November, Mr. Meyer felt that many qualified candidates would apply for the position of Planning Director. He noted that the Civil Service ~oard would then certify a list in the early part of December, He noted that a new, pennanent Planning Director shouLd be on board by January 2, 1985. Mr. Meyer con t inued by stating that it i s n o t h is in t ent i on to as s ume th e role of Acting Plannin g Dir ec tor, He noted that Mr . Ra lph Cast an ed a has been re tained to assume the r es ponsi bil ities of Acting Pl ann i ng Dir ec t or f o r a pe ri od of 90 days, ending January 2, 1985, Mr, Castaneda will be in t he Pl ann ing Departmen t office several days per week. He will also provide technical assistance to the Planning Staff not only in current planning matters but also in matters of a.dvance planning PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -OCTOBER 16, 1984 PAGE 2 and in those matters which are still before the Planning Commission or City Council. Mr. Meyer further noted that Mr. Castaneda's position of Acting Planning Director will in no way impede his other assignment of being contracted for to work on the Land Use Element. Comm, Sheldon questioned whether there was any precedent in having the Planning Commission involved in the selection process, Mr. Meyer knew of no such precedent~ He stated that the County acts as an impartial body, and all applications and resumes are submitted ·to the County for their review. The County will then narrow down the applicants to approximately ten at which time an interview board will be selected. The board will then certify the list of top candidates. At this time, Mr. Meyer is obligated to interview only three of the top candidates. Comm. Sheldon questioned whether it would be of value for the Planning Commission to interview a list of candidates. Mr. Meyer stated that he would be happy to discuss this matter further -with the Planning Commission chairman. He noted, though, that the appointment is the responsibility of the City Manager. He further noted that it might be helpful for the Planning Commission to draw up a list of qualifications in order to assess what kind of person they would like to have serve as Planning Director. Co1IDI1, Sheldon noted the importance of the Planning Director, Chmn. Izant concurred with Comm, Sheldon on the point of the importance of the Planning Director. He felt that the Commission could draw up a list of qualifi­ cations in regard to what is of value to the Planning Commission, Comm. Sheldon felt that it is important to discuss thi~ issue as a Commission. He felt that then the recommendations could be put into written fonn and then given to Mr. Meyer. Mr. Meyer outlined the qualifications for the position: a degree in planning or a related field; five years of professional experience, several of those years having beeri spent in a supervisory capacity, Mr. Meyer did note that the County could be provided with a list of other things that the City would like to have in its candidate. He noted some possibilities: someone who had experience working in a plannin,ng department in a coastal city; one who has had experience in aealing·with the Coastal Commission; one who has experience in California. He noted that these would only be preferences, not mandatory requirements. Chmn, Izant questioned the types of individuals who would be applying for this position. Mr. Meyer stated that the typical applicant would have a graduate degree, would be working in a l _arger city, and would most likely be in a supervisory position. He noted that the applicant would most likely not be working as a director. r PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -OCTOBER 16, 1984 ZONE CHANGE FROM R-1 TO C-3 AT 754 24th PLACE PAGE 3 Ms. Reardon-Crites gave staff report, stating that the lot at 754 24th Place is currently zoned R-1 , although most recently it ha d been used for c ommer cial purposes, that be ing a restaurant. The building on th e lot was r ec e nt l y removed, and the lot is no w vacant. On September 20, 1984, the Envi ronmen t al Re view Committee deemed that the Zone Change could not h av e a ny si gnific a n t ad verse impacts on the environment and asked that a negative declaration be prepared for this project. Ms. Reardon-Crites stated that the project being discussed is located at 754 24th Place, between Pacific Coast Highway and Ardmore. This lot is in the area desig­ nated as the Multi-Use Corridor. Ms. Reardon-Crites noted that the subject lot is one of six lots which constitute a develo pmen t site which fronts on Pacific Coast Highway. This lot is the only lot zoned R-1 ; the remainder are zoned C-3. This property is adjoined on the north, south, and east by highway commercial property, The proposed zoning of this lot and the proposed project are consistent with the surrounding uses. • Ms. Reardon-Crites continue d by stating t hat the proposed use of this site is a two­ story, 25,000 squ ar e foot comme rcial bui l d in g. A parking structure will be constructed to adequately se rve the parking needs of th is office building, Ms. Reardon-Crites noted that the Environmental Review Committee, ~hen asking that a negative declaration be prepared for this project, recorranended one condition .. The condition is that drainage be directed to storm drain facilities rather than the curb, as none exists on 24th Place, The applicant has agreed to this condition. Ms. Reardon-Crites requested that the Planning Comm is sio n cont inue this pub li c he a r in g to t he next me eting, the reason being that t he a d dre s s i ndicated on t he ap pli cation was inc or rec t . Even tho ugh t he legal d esc ri ption tha t cir c ulated was co r re ct, th e City Att o r ney fel t t hat to sat i sfy the int ent o f t he publ ic h earin g proc e ss, t he Plann i ng Conuniss i on sho uld c ontin u e t he publi c heari n g and reno ti ce t he p ub lic he ar i ng •wi t h t h e c or r e c t a ddre s s . Comm. Sheldon noted that there appeared to be some discrepency in the ianing. He requested that staff provide him with a plot map identifying the zoning in each of the surrounding lots. Chmn. Izant opened the Public Hearing at 7:53 P.M., noting that this hearing would be continued to the next meeting of the Planning Commission, scheduled for Tuesday, October 30, 1984. Thomas Arm s h:r un g, 1717 Vi a Arriba, Pa lo s Verdes Estate s ,t1 add~essed t h e Plann ing Commis s i on .' He stated t h a t t he pro pe rt y i n question i s s omewh at un i q uely s ituat ed i n a ph ysic al s ense. The pro perty wa s improved approx ima t ely 50 y e ar s ago, with re t ain ing walls along the wes t and s out h s ides so that th e pre se nt l e vel of th e lot, and the level which has existed there for many years, is perhaps 10 to 12 feet above the property immediately to the south, which is presently a single-family residence. Mr. Armstrong continued by describing the physical characteristics of the property in question. Mr. Armstrong also noted that this site has been used for many years as a cornmere±al site, stating that it had been a restaurant for many years, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -OCTOBER lb, 1984 PAGE 4 ZONE CHANGE FROM R-1 TO C-3 AT 754 24th PLACE (Cont,) Mr. Armstrong stated that with the present zoning of R-1, this lot is not usable. He also noted that with the geography and nature of the lot, this zoning would preclude the lot's being used for any worthwhile purpose: Mr. Armstrong noted the policy of the Planning Commission in encouraging development along the multi-use corridor.· He noted that he would like to develop a handsome two-story office building on this particular site, Also included would be a parking structure. Comm. Sheldon asked for the current use of Lot 10. Mr. Armstrong stated that Lot 10 is presently vacant. He stated that its previous use was that of commercial, in conjunction with the restaurant. Comm. Sheldon questioned whether Mr. Armstrong has discussed this proposed project with the occupant of the house on Lot 11, which is immediately west of Lot 10. Mr. Armstrong replied in the negative _ but stated that he would be happy to discuss the project with those occupants. Mr. Armstrong stated that the condition which currently exists at Lot 11 (which is a two-foot wall) would be essentially the same were this zone change approved. The only difference would be that the wall would be higher. Comm. Compton asked Mr. Armstrong's plan for the rear portion of the property in question. Mr. Armst~ong stated that a parking structure was planned for that portion of the property, Alan De Lancey, 740 24th Place, Hermosa Beach, noted that he lives on the lot immediately west of the lot in question. He stated that to put commercial on this site would completely destroy the property for those people immediately south of the proposed office building. He felt that an office building on this site would be completely inappropriate. He further noted that 25-foot lots are legal in Hermo$a Beach. He continued by stating that the lot in question is surrounded by residential on three sides. Re felt that to grant this request, the applicant would be encroaching into the R-1 zones. He noted the fine homes in the area, and stated that he saw no reason to grant the applicant's request for a zone change. Mrs. De Lancey, 740 24th Place, Hermosa Beach, noted that her property is immediately west of and adjoining the property in question. She stated that she and her husband . bought this property approximately ten years ago knowing that they were surrounded by residential property. She stated that their property was purchased in good faith. She further stated that their property is ·worth close to a third of a million dollars, Mrs. De Lancey felt that to grant this zone change request would not only ruin their property but also two or three other lots in t11e area. She noted that on her property there is an expensive sideyard, waterscaping, and a deck which is tied into a structurally unsound 10-foot retaining wall immediately on their west. Mrs. De Lancey further rioted that when the restaurant was occupying that site, the parking lot was abutting the De Lancey's property line on the east. She noted that the City would not allow parking within five feet of the property line because of the possibility of land slippage. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -OCTOBER 16, 1984 PAGE 5 ZONE CHANGE FROM R-1 TO C-3 AT 754 24th PLACE (Cont.) Mrs. De Lancey further stated that to remove this substandard retaining wall, the possibility would exist that there would be structural damage to their yard and deck, and the possibility that their entire home would be undermined, Mrs, De Lancey noted concern over the possibility of having a 55-foot wall next to their property, She also noted concern for the following: distance of commercial from residential, plant life, human life, air circulation, noise pollution, destruction of yards, water, and landscaping, and primarily the undermining of her home. Mrs. De Lancey requested that the lot in question remain R-1 so that it can act as a buffer zone, She felt that to deny this zone change request would be in the best interests of the community, Mr, Armstrong addressed the comments and concerns raised by the De Lanceys, He noted that the retaining wall in question is of no structural value; therefore, in the process of construction, it would need to be removed and replaced. The replacement would form the west wall of the parking structure. Mr. Armstrong stated that they would not be removing the wall and expos_ing the property to the west to any landslide hazard because all dirt on the east side of the wall, in any case, would need to be removed to get down to the natural grade. Mr. Armstrong stressed that he would make every effort to cooperate with the De Lanceys in the construction of this project. Mr. Armstrong further noted that the height of the project will be under 45 feet ; due to the grad~ of the land. Comm, Shapiro asked what the height of the building would be. Mr. Armstrong replied that it is difficult to give an exact answer because the lot slopes in two directions, south and west. He noted that the height is to be determined from the natural grade, not the existing grade, He noted the difficulty in visuali~ing this concept, Comm. Shapiro questioned whether any setbacks were being planned. Mr. Armstrong stated that the office building will be set back ten feet .on the west side and partially on the south side. He noted that this would be ten feet from the De Lancey's property line, The parking structure wall would basically be on the property line. Comm. Schulte felt that it would be in the best interest of the applicant to discuss this proposed project with those people who live in the area and who would be affected by this proposed office building and parking structure. Mr, Armstrong stated that he would consider this suggestion, Comm. Compton questioned whether conceptual plans-have been made for the project, Mr. Armstrong stated that there are plans in terms of the parking structure and the floor plans for the office building, In the sense of exterior elevations and exterior material treatments, plans have not been ·prepared for those. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -OCTOBER lb, 1984 PAGE 6 ZONE CHANGE FROM R-1 TO C-3 AT 754 24th PLACE (Cont.) Comm. Shapiro noted that he would feel more comfortable with the project knowing that the applicant had attempted to discuss the project 'With those people who own property surrounding the lot in question. Chmn. Izant continued the Public Hearing at 8:26 P.M. to the next meeting of the Planning Conunission, scheduled for Tuesday evening, October 30, 1984. Comm, Compton felt that it would be nice to see some plans for this project before Planning Commission approval of the zone change. He noted the impact that this project could have, He further noted that situations similar to this could be forthcoming in the future, He felt that this is a problem which should be addressed~ Chmn. Izant noted that the Planning Connnission has dealt with this type of problem in the past. He noted that once a zone is changed, a project then becomes ministerial, The developer is then free to build whatever he chooses, regardless of what he has said he will build, as long as the project conforms to the building standards. Chmn. Izant further noted that a change in zoning is a privilege and not a right. He did note that in the past certain conditions have been exchanged for zone changes, He stated that a fair condition in this proposed project would be that there be a 10-foot setback, which the applic~nt has already agreed to. Chmn. Izant asked staff what protection exists for ow,;i'ers of adjacent property in regard to cave-ins, Ms. Reardon-Crites stated that she would research this issue and return with an answer. Chmn. Izant requested that staff research several possibilitaes, such as: 1) can the Planning Commission make a zone change conditional on asking the developer to agree to particular conditions, such as restoring properties to their original condition should damage occur; or 2) agreeing in advance to certain criteria, such as setback requirements. Comm. Shapiro noted that he would like some background information on why Lot 9 is C-3 and Lot 24 is R-1. ZONE CHANGE FROM C-3 TO R-3, FOUR-UNIT CONDOMINIUM, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #16650 LOCATED AT 736 4th STREET Ms. Reardon-Crites gave staff report, stating that the Environmental Review Collllllittee reviewed this project on September 20, 1984, for the zone change request and -on October 11, 1984, for the CUP/condominium application. Both were given negative declarations indicating that neither the zone change nor the condominium would have significant adverse impacts on the environment. She noted that certain conditions were placed on this project. Ms. Reardon-Crites stated that the lot in question is located in the multi-use corridor. It is currently zoned C-3 which precludes the property from being developed residentially. The Environmental Revie-w Board made the following findings: 1. This property is not a viable commercial one unless it is made a part of the connnercial development along Pacific Coast Highway. This is not a possibility at this time as there is no single ownership of the lots, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -OCTOBER lb, 1984 PAGE 7 ZONE CHANGE FROM C-3 TO R-3> FOUR-UNIT CONDOMINIUM, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #16650 LOCATED AT 736 4th STREET (Cont.) 2. A commercial structure would create more adverse impacts than a residential one due to the additional traffic generated by a commercial structure and the 45-foot height limit allowed in a commercial zone. Ms; Reardon-Crites noted that it is staff's recommendation that the zoning be changed from C-3 to R-3~ stating that it is consistent with the uses around it and the multi-use corridor in which the lot is located allows for both residential and commercial uses. Without signalization at 4th Street and Pacific Coast Highway, this block has little hope of becoming a viable commercial area, Ms. Reardon-Crites stated tbat the second phase of this project is the application for a four-unit condominium. Assuming that the z one change is granted, the lot will be an R-3 lot that consists of 4,597 square feet Four units on this size lot would be equivalent to 38 dwelling units per acre and hence would comply with the high density maximum of 40 du/a allowed in the multi-use corridor. Ms . Reardon-Crites stated that currently there exists a two-story, single family dwelling on this site, with no landscaping and a concrete front yard. The applicant would be replacing this structure with a four-unit condominium d eve lopment. Each unit will have two bedrooms and compris·e 1,103 square feet in area. The project meets all of the Subdivision Map Act requirements as well as the Condominium Ordinance requirements with two exceptions. The first is a question of lot coverage. If the proposed ordinance that would exclude decks (that are less than five feet) from compu;tations of lot coverage is adopted by City Council, then this project has a 65% lot coverage which is the allo·wable limit. If, however, the ordinance does not pass Council approval, then this project has a 66.8% lot coverage. Staff felt that the project has merit nonetheless. Ms. Reardon-Crites stated that the second area of disparity occurs in the provision of storage space. The Condominium Ordinance requires that 200 cubic feet of storage space be provided, The applicant is providing 100 cubic feet inside each unit and 200 cubic feet per dwelling unit overhanging the parking area. The Environmental Review Board recommended that the Planning Commission allow two-thirds of the storage space to be provided in facilities overhanging the parking area since the applicant is providing 100 cubic feet of storage space in excess of that which is required. Ms. Reardon-Crites stated that the layout of the project consists of parking on the ground floor, two units (two bedrooms, kitchen, living, dining, two bathrooms, and laundry area in each unit) on the second flo or, and two units on the third floor. Ms. Reardon-Crites statea that th e Environmental Review Board specified a standard condition as follows: that a fire alarm and sprinkler syst em be provided which is acceptable to the Hermosa Be ac h Fire Department. She furth er noted that the applicant has agreed to this condition. Ms. Reardon-Crites noted that staff r ecommended adbption of resolutions which would approve the zone change from C-3 to R-3 and to approve a four-unit condominium, conditiona l use permit , and tentative map /116650 for 736 4th Street. Comm. Sheldon questioned whether the current single-family dwelling is occupied. Ms. Reardon-Crites replied in the affirmative. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -OCTOBER 16, 1984 PAGE 8 ZONE CHANGE FROM C-3 TO R-3 , FOUR-UNIT CONDOMINIUM, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT , AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #16650 LOCATED AT 736 4th STREET (Cont.) Chmn. Izant opened the .Public Hearing at 8:39 P.M. Jesse Negrete, 4231 181st Street, Torrance, stated that he was representing the owner. He noted that a written statement had been prepared in regard to the request for zone change. Re further noted that the property in question has been thoroughly analyzed, and he felt that justification had been given on why that site should not be developed for a commercial project. Mr. Negrete stated that this site is more viable for residential development. He noted that there is an easement on the property which is for the benefit of the adjacent neighbor; therefore, that easement limits the design of what can be put on the site, whether it be commercial or residential. Mr. Negrete felt that the proposed project is an attractive one and one which will harmonize with the surrounding neighborhood. Mr. Negrete stated that negotiations are currently underway to try to get reciprocal five-foot easements on either side of the property line so that a better driveway is possible. At the present time, everything is in conformance with the existing easement. He stated that if the other easement could be obtained, the project would be much better; but he further noted that they are not counting on that possibility at this time. Mr. Negrete presented some renderings and a radius map to the Planning Commission. Conun. Sheldon noted that, in looking at his map, there appeared to be an office building situated on a postage stamp~sized lot. Re noted concern over this discovery. Mr. Negrete stated that that office building was constructed approximately five years ago. Comm. Sheldon again noted concern over the fact that an office building could be built on a lot of such small size. Comm. Peirce noted that this map is only purporting to show what exists on each of the lots in question. Mr. Negrete stated that his map was taken directly from the assessor's maps. He noted that he walked the entire area to see the location of things, and this information has been included in his map. Connn. Peirce felt that staff should review the plot plan of the City to determine whether or not that map is up-to-date. Mr, Negrete continued by displaying his plans to the Planning Commission. Mr. Negrete further noted that there is no traffic signal on 4th Street; therefore, it is difficult to put in any viable commercial development without having some type of signalization. Chmn. Izant questioned whether any of the owners of the surrounding area are aware of the fact that this proposed project is taking place. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -OCTOBER 16, 1984 PAGE 9 ZONE CHANGE FROM C-3 TO R-3, FOUR-UNIT CONDOMINIUM, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #1 66 50 LOCATED AT 736 4th STREET (Cont,) Mr. Negrete stated that, because of the notifications, people should be aware of what is taking place, He further noted that the radius map required that each individual within 300 feet of the project be notified of this particular hearing. He also stated that the owner has tried to discuss this project with the owner of the property directly to the west, but he has not had luck in contacting him, Chmn. izant questioned whether anyone at the church had been contacted. Mr. Negrete replied in the negative, Wilma Burt, 1152 7th Street, Hermosa Beach, noted concern over the inconsistencies in regard to density. William Simas, 1214 10th Street, Hermosa Beach, noted that he has lived in Hermosa Beach for 43 years and has witnessed many changes over the years, He felt that a member of the Planning CollUllission should be delegated -to go out personally to look at these projects so that the evidence would be at hand at the time of the meetings~ He felt that this could cut down on the length of the meetings, Mr. Simas also noted concern over the inconsistencies in regard to density. Mr. Negrete addressed the issue of density by noting that this site is in the multi­ use corridor and that high density is allowa ble in this area. He noted that this is consistent with the General Plan. He felt that this project would be a good buffer for the area, Comm, Sheldon questioned whether this proposed project conforms in every way with the parking requirements, including the guest parki ng requirements. Mr. Negrete replied in the affirmative, stating that this provides for two enclosed spaces per unit plus one guest ~pace. Public Hearing closed at 8:55 P.M. Comm. Compton noted that he has professional dealings with the applicant in this request; therefore, he noted that he would abstain from voting on this issue. Comm. Peirce felt that this project appeared to be a step backwards in view of the past actions of the Planning Commission. He noted that every attempt has been made to attract commercial development in .this area to increase the commercial depth, He noted that to rezone this site to residential would be to take a chunk out of the connnercial zone of this city, Comm. Peirce noted that he will vote against this zone change because he feels that the commercial zone in the south end of the cit y is too narrow. He felt that development needs to be encouraged in this particular area of the city, Comm. Shapiro asked what the four-unit apartment building in the area is currently zoned as, Ms, Reardon-Crites stated that it is currently zoned R-3, noting that the area is currently a mixture of R-3 and C-3. ,r- PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -OCTOBER lb, 1984 PAGE 10 ZONE CHANGE FROM C-3 TO R-3, FOUR-UNIT CONDOMINIUM, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #1 6650 LOCATED AT 73 6 4th STREEI' (Cont,) Comm, Shapiro asked what could be developed on the property as it is zoned now. Ms. Reardon-Crites stated that a commercial building could go to 45 feet with zero setbacks, providing the parking requirements could be met. Conun. Shapiro questioned whether the area would be more congested with commercial development than with residential development, Comm. Sheldon conjectured on the outcome if this zone change is .not granted. He fore·saw the possibility that this parcel could become four separate commercial buildings with four separate own ers and each be ing used for separa te uses. He questioned whether surroundin g t enants would pr efer co have a 45-foot c omm ercial structure with a lot line to l o t line coverage rather than the proposed f our-unit condominium, He noted the great difficulty in makin g a determination o n t h is issue. Comm. Sheldon felt that the question is not one of whether or not this project is part of a development in the multi-use corridor, but on this particular lot only, whether it is in the best interests of the city to have it be a residential structure or a commercial structure, Comm, Sheldon stressed the importance of determirdng which would be the best ··planning vehicle for this particular lot. Comm . Shap i ro a l so no ted t h e grea t di fficul ty in arriving at the best decision in re gar d to t h is is s ue. He did n o te t hat he tended to agree with the opinions e x p r e s sed b y Comm . P eirce in t h is mat t e r. He noted the great amount of time that has b een exp end ed on the conc e pt o f t rying to develop the connnercial area, Comm, Peirce felt that zoning individual lots is not so important as zoning them with regard to long-term planning. He no ted that to rezone th is piece of pro p erty to R-3 would preclude any commercial d eve lopment on that pro pe rty for ever. Re further felt that it is import a n t to look at t he lo ng -range effects o f this zon ing, ra ther than just the short-term effect of the rezo ni ng of this indi vi dual pi ec e of pr operty. Comm. Shapiro stated that were this proposed project not situated in the multi-use corridor, more weight could be given to the four~unit condominium, Since the site is in the multi-use corridor, he felt that it would be appropriate to deny the zone change to residential. Comm. Sheldon asked for the zoning of the church. Ms, Reardon-Crites stated that the church is situated in a commercial zone. Comm . Sheldon noted that, in looking at his plot map, the entire area seems to be qui te inconsistent. He felt that it is important to determine exactly where the mult i-use corridor is to begin and where it is to end. Cormn. Peirce stated that the question is not so much one of the multi-use corridor, but tather of consistency with the general plan. Motion by CollIIIl. Peirce, seconded by Connn, Shapiro, to deny the zone change from C-3 to R-3 at 736 4th Street, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -OCTOBER lb, 1984 PAGE 11 ZONE CHANGE FROM C-3 TO R-3, FOUR-UNIT CONDOMINIUM , CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #16650 LOCATED AT 73 6 4 th STREET (Cont.) Comm. Sheldon felt that to rezone this property to residential would lower the density and also be more healthy; on the other hand, he f elt that it is important to protect the multi-use corridor for the future. He did note, though, that by maintaining it as commercial, there would be no guarantee in the future that the site would not be divided into four individual lots; therefore, he would vote against the motion. Chmn. Izant concurred with the opinions expressed by Comm. Peirce. He stated that there are several probabilities in the event that this request for a zone change is denied, He felt that it is important to weigh those probabilities. He noted that it is possible that a fourth commercial structure would be built on that property; on the other hand, a commercial developer may decide, after evaluation, that the property is not adequate for comme~cial development. He may then wish to sell the property as residential. Chum. Izant noted that it is important to look to the future, He felt that whenever possible, commercial development should be encouraged; therefore, he felt that the site should remain commercial. Conun, Schulte spoke in opposition to the motion, stating that to rezone this property to residential would tend to lessen -the adverse effects of density. (Vote on motion to deny the zone change from C-3 to R-3 at 736 4th Street,) AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Cornms. Peirce, Shapiro, Cbmn, Izant Comms. Schulte, Sheldon Comm, Newton Comm, Compton Motion by Cornm. Peirce, seconded by Conun. Shapiro to send forth a resolution to the City Council outlining the-~easons for the denial of the request for zone change from C-3 t9 R-3 at 736 4th Street. C~mm. Peirce suggested the following WHEREASs: WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered the surrounding area of the project site, its traffic use, and neighboring use; WHERF.AS, the Planning Commission has determined that the C-3 zoning is consistent with the General Plan designation of multi-use corridor; WHEREAS, the Planning Conunission has determined that the depth of the commercial property of 160 feet is desired in that area, AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Connns. Peirce, Shapiro, Sheldon, Chmn. Izant Conun, Schulte Comm. Newton Cotmn. Compton Chmn. Izant informed the applicant that he had the opportunity to appeal the decision of the Planning Commission to the City Council within ten days. Mr. Negrete asked if the City Council did grant him the zone change, wbuld it be necessary for him to appear again before the Planning Cornmission for approval of the condominium project. Chrnn. Izant replied in the affirmative, stating that the Planning Commission would then make its decision strictly on the merits of the project. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -OCTOBER 16, 1984 LAND USE ELEMENT REVISION PAGE 12 Ms. Reardon-Crites gave staff report, stating that at the previous meeting of the Planning Commission, it was suggested that a new direction be established for purposes of achieving a revised Land Use Element which incorporated significant input by the community, That ne-w direction was to include a Work Program, or the set of issues to be considered by the Planning Commission, a well-defined schedule, and multiple ways of obtaining community input. In addition, the new direction was to include decisions on the process that the Planning Commission would use during the course of selecting a preferred Land Use Element for adoption as part of the General Plan. Ms. Reardon-Crites stated that there are several methods that the Planning Commission could use during the course of deciding upon the recommended Land Use Element, For example, special study sessions could be conducted either day or evening. Also, the Land Use Element could continue to be a regular part of the agenda, One practical alternative is to alternate meetings on current projects and advance planning (i.e., the revised Land Use Element). Thus, one meeting a month would be completely devoted to project applications and other similar matters. The other meeting would be to consider the revised Land Use Element in detail. This option for handling the recommendation process avoids having to conduct special meetings and enables setting a firm timetable schedule, one that could be published in the newspaper and noted in the calendars of the persons interested in providing input on the revised LUE while it is in the process of being prepared, Ms. Reardon-Crites stated that consideration of the revised LUE could be handled in several ways. The analysis could focus on the land uses for various community sectors or geographic areas. A different option is to analyze the LUE in terms of each land use category. Another alternative is to consider in detail the major issues or land use questions which have received attention. If the foregoing option were preferred, the issues could be placed in the following categories: • Pacific Coast Highway/Multi-Use Corridor • Downtown Area Policy Plan • Residential Neighborhoods/G_P-Zoning Inconsistencies • Other Land Use Issues • • 0 Composite Land Use Element Ms. Reardon-Crites noted that a schedule can be set forth in relation to the regular meetings of the Planning Commission and the foregoing list of issues or land use questions. The second meeting of the month could be devoted to the Land Use Element. Assuming this were to be done, she noted a schedule: which could be implemented: • November 20 -Land Use Element (purpose, scope, topics, etc.) • December 18 • January 15 • February 19 • March 19 Pacific Coast Highway (existing conditions, future trends) Multi-Use Corridor (residential/commercial land use issues) -Downtown Area Policy Plan -Residential Neighborhoods (future build-out) -Other Land Use Issues -Composite Land Use Element First Planning Commission Public Hearing Ms. Reardon-Crites stated that to achieve an enhanced level of community participation, several approaches will be required, First, it is suggested that the schedule for consideration of the LUE be published in the newspaper and an article prepared PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -OCTOBER 16, 1984 LAND USE ELEMENT REVISION (Cont.) PAGE 13 explaining the function and purpose of the revised Land Use Element. The nature of the topics to be considered by the Planning Commission should be described in the newspaper article. In addition, persons and groups who are interested in only one or two issues should be invited to contact the Planning Department so that they can be notified of that particular meeting, To further enhance community involvement, a special effort should be made to contact the individuals and groups most likely to be interested and/or affected by the topic to be considered by the Planning Commission. Moreoever, the background material to be received by the Planning Commission in advance of each regular meeting also could be made available at the same time at the Planning Department, library, newspaper, and to major groups in the city such as the Chamber of Commerce and School District. Two other ideas for improving community participation are to conduct the Planning Commission meetings on the revised LUE in a workshop atmosphere to enhance dialogue with the members of the participating audience and to conduct occasional presentation/status report meetings with major groups in the City. Ms. Reardon-Crites concluded staff report with a related matter, stating that it is suggested by staff that the Planning Commission transmit a-reconnnendation to the City Council to request that they allocate financial resources in order to have the land use survey completed in a timely fashion, About one third of the City has been completely surveyed, and a wealth of useful information has been collected. It would be very helpful to the Planning Commission if the land use survey were completed in the remaining portions of the City. Comm, Compton questioned the length of time necessary to complete the land use survey and the number of people needed, Ms. Reardon-Crites stated that it would take four to six weeks with one person actually walking up and down the streets and indicati,,3 the actual use of each site. Connn. Sheldon questioned the cost of such a project and questioned where the money would come from, Ms, Reardon-Crites replied that the cost would be approximately $1500 funds were not available, she volunteered to do the work herself, To project, it would now be necessary to hire an intern to do the work, accomplished at a cost of approximately $5 per hour and would be done direction. to $2000; since finish the It would be under her Motion by Comm. Compton, seconded by CoTilln, Sheldon, directing staff to prepare a letter to the City Council and City Manager detailing this method by which the land use survey could be completed. AYES: Comms. Compton, Peirce, Schulte, Shapiro, Sheldon, Chmn. Izant NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Comm. Newton Public Hearing opened at 9:43 P.M. Wilma Burt, 1152 7th Street, Hermosa Beach, requested that the notices be made more definitive so that people have a better understanding of what is happening. She felt that many of the notices have been very ambiguous. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -OCTOBER ]6, 1984 LAND USE ELEMENT REVISION (Cont.) PAGE 14 Comm. Compton thanked Mrs. Burt for her comments and noted that it is a goal of the Planning Commission to have the notices in th~ newspaper be more clear and concise, Mrs. Burt also noted that the notice for this public hearing was sent out on October 8 with the name of Pam Sapetto appearing on the notice, As far as she is concerned, this public hearing is illegal since Ms. Sapetto is no longer employed by the City. Violet Isgreen, 726 Prospect Avenue, Hermosa Reach, wholeheartedly agreed with the concept of obtaining more community input on the issues, She suggested that the notices could always be placed on the same page in the newspaper; this would ensure that interested persons would not miss the notices. Connn. Peirce concurred, stating he felt that this is a very good idea. He further noted that it is the intention of the Planning Conrrnission to go beyond this idea. They would like to see an entire page devoted to Planning Commission activities, thereby getting more people involved. Carran. Compton further noted that a newsletter would also be coming out from the City. William Simas, 1214 10th Street, Hermosa Reach, noted that 4th Street runs east and west, He noted that he was adding this comment for clarification. Mr. Simas also noted that many times he has gone to the Planning Department only to be turned away because the planning director was not available. Henry Rado, 720 24th Place, Hermosa Reach, felt that the term "Land Use Element" is too vague. He felt that it needs to be .·more explicit. Chmn. Izant agreed that the Land Use Element is a weighty document, but he noted that it will cover many issues .over a period of time. He noted that the Planning Commission has recorrnnended that the document be broken up into smaller portions so that it is more manageable both for the Planning Commission and the public, Public Hearing closed at 9:54 P.M. Comm. Compton noted that he liked the approach being made toward the Land Use Element. He liked the idea of a schedule. Comm. Shapiro noted the _ suggestion of having every other meeting deal with the Land Use Element. He questioned what would happen if there were priorities from applicants . Ms. Reardon-Crites anticipated that this would not be a problem at this time, judging from the number of applications that have come through the Planning Department, She did note, though, that in cases of extreme emergency, exceptions could be made so that the applicant could be heard. Comm. Shapiro wanted to make certain that applicants would not be put off an extra two weeks. Ms. Reardon-Crites felt that this would not be a problem. PLANNING .COMMISSION MINUTES -OCTOBER 16, 1984 LAND USE ELEMENT REVISION (Cont.) PAGE 15 Chmn. Izant felt that the Planning Commission should meet on the second meeting of each month to discuss the Land Use Element; that the schedule as presented by staff should be followed; and that community involvement and participation is necessary. He felt that a workshop format would be beneficial. Conun. Sheldon felt that the schedule needs to be more definitive. He felt that of the topics were vague, He would like to see more specific subjects outlined discussion. He noted that the noticing would then go out in more clear terms. specifically felt that 11 0ther Land Use!:l" is too vague. some for He Chmn. Izant concurred with Comm. Sheldon and recommended that staff prepare more specific information. He also noted that the Cormnissioners should return with more specific suggestions. This would be of benefit not only to the public, but also to the Planning Commission. Comm. Compton noted that he would like to see a sample of a notice with the more clear and concise wording. He also suggested that the topic of the school sites should be discussed at the next meeting of the Planning Conunission. He also felt that it is important to discuss the railroad right-of-way. He further suggested that the issue of Aviation could be addressed along with the multi-use corridor. Comm, Sheldon suggested that Ralph Castaneda break down these·issues for purposes of clarification. He noted that each issue should be of a manageable size, STAFF ITEMS Ms. Reardon-Crites noted that the next meeting of the Planning Commission would take place on October 30, 1984, instead of the regularly scheduled meeting of November 6, due to the election. COMMISSIONERS' ITEMS Comm, Peirce suggested that a new zoning map be made available to place behind the dais. Chmn. Izant so ordered Comm, Peirce's request. Chmn. Izant questioned whether the City Council has taken any action on the funding for the Downtown Study, Ms. Reardon-Crites stated that that item has not yet come before the City Council. Comm. Peirce requested that staff also provide a current zoning map for the benefit of the Commission. He also requested a new plot plan map, Connn. Compton stated that he would like to know the status of items that the Planning Commission has sent forward to the City Council, He suggested this information could be made available at the beginning of each Planning Commission meeti-µg. Chmn. Izant returned to the issue of what qualities are desirable in a planning director. Comm. Peirce commented that it is important that planning should be the first priority, noting that the planning director should not wear several hats. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -OCTOBER 16, 1984 COMMISSIONERS' ITEMS (Cont,) PAGE 16 Comm. Sheldon noted that a person having Coastal Commission experience is desirable bu t n ot mand a t ory . He sta t ed that i t wo ul d be desirable to have a person with vast expe ri en c e in the code o f a general law cit y. He would also like someone who has had experien c e in dealin g with a plannin g c ommi ssion. He felt that it is necessary that th e pe rso n h as public exp e r ienc e . Comm. Shapiro also agreed that one possessing Coastal Commission experience is not mandatory. He would like to have someone who is experienced in dealing with a densely populated city. Chmn. Izant noted that another desirable quality would be someone with experience in downtown revitalization programs. Co mm . Compton felt tha t it is imp o r t ant to have someone with Coastal Commission ex pe ri ence. He stat e d that t his is h igh on his priority list, He al s o f elt that i t i s imp ortant to have a pl ann ing d i rector who is straightforward a nd on e who has . a good pub l ic presenc e . B e fe lt that public speaking exp er i enc e would be invaluable. Comm . Schulte questioned what methods are available to the City Manager in regard to reference checks of applicants. He felt t hat the number one priority is that the applicant have outstanding references, He further noted that he would like to have someone who is the director of a smaller city. Comm, Sheldon suggested that a letter be drafted outlining these issues, Chmn. Izant directed staff to draft an appropriate letter. Motion to adjourn at 10:21 P.M. No objections. So ordered, CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a the action taken by the Planning Commission of Hermosa scheduled meeting of October 16, 1984. true and complete record of Beach at their regularly ~airman Leslie Newton, Secretary