|
|
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Present: | Allen, Perrotti, Pizer, Chairman Hoffman |
| Absent: | Kersenboom |
| Also Present: |
Sol Blumenfeld, Community Development Director Kent Robertson, Senior Planner Denise Bothe, Recording Secretary |
Oral / Written Communications
Howard Longacre, resident, in preparation for a follow-up statement, expressed his belief that there was insufficient parking in the Downtown and questioned Chairman Hoffman if any plans were under way to construct any new parking garages.
Chairman Hoffman reminded Mr. Longacre that those issues are usually taken up by the Public Works Department and Public Works Commission.
Director Blumenfeld stated there are no plans to develop any more public parking structures in the near future; and mentioned that as part of an improvement to the Civic Center, the City may eventually build a public parking structure.
Mr. Longacre encouraged the City to take into consideration the numerous projects being built which are qualifying their parking requirements by purchasing in lieu parking spaces the City does not have to sell; and he stated that the parking in lieu fees of $12,500 per space is too cheap given the expensive land values and lack of parking; and expressed his belief the fee for an in lieu parking space should be raised upwards to $30,000 each.
Chairman Hoffman mentioned that the pricing structure for the in lieu parking spaces have recently been addressed by City Councilman Reviczky; and he suggested that the speaker bring this issue up before the City Council.
Consent Calendar
-
Approval of March 21, 2006 Minutes.
MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Vice-Chairman Allen, toAPPROVE the March 21, 2006, Minutes as presented. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Perrotti NOES: None ABSTAIN: Hoffman, Pizer ABSENT: Kersenboom -
Resolution(s) for consideration
None
-
Staff Recommended Action: 1) To adopt the attached Resolution amending Resolution No. 03-45 to require that the property owner provide free parking for customers with validation only during peak operating periods of the fitness club in order to increase use of the parking structure by the fitness club members and prevent spillover parking in the neighborhood; and 2) Re-evaluate the effectiveness of the validation program in six months to determine whether it is necessary to impose new conditions on the Parking Plan or repeal the mandatory validation program and initiate public parking measures to mitigate spill-over neighborhood parking.
Director Blumenfeld stated that the Commission has received a request from the property owner’s attorney to continue this matter; noted that staff is not recommending this matter be continued, believing Mr. Shook had full knowledge of this hearing; and mentioned that this issue would be further addressed at the March 21, 2006 Commission meeting when staff was directed to set this matter for public hearing. He stated that prior to commencing with the actual hearing, the Commission will need to make a determination whether it wants to continue this matter, determine why the matter needs to be continued, why his consultants cannot adequately speak on his behalf or why he isn’t prepared at this point. He advised that if the Commission decides to proceed with the hearing this evening, City Attorney, John Cotti, is present to respond to legal issues that were raised in the April 13, 2006, correspondence submitted by Mr. Shook’s attorney.
Mr. Shook, Shook Development applicant, stated he knew this matter was set for a future date but not a specific date and that he only got word of it at the end of last week when he was leaving town; advised that his attorney was also not in town at the same time and that they believe adequate notice of this evening’s hearing was not afforded them.
Commissioner Perrotti noted that Mr. Shook and his consultants were at the last meeting and expressed his belief the Commission was clear on its intent/discussion; and pointed out that this issue started last winter and that it shouldn’t be of any surprise to anyone that it is on this evening’s agenda. He added that the April 13, 2006, letter from Mr. Shook’s attorney is detailed and that it is difficult to believe the attorney was not prepared to move forward if he had the time to prepare such a detailed letter to be submitted for the Commission’s review this evening. He stated this matter should move forward.
Commissioner Pizer echoed Commissioner Perrotti’s comments.
Chairman Hoffman stated that while the City has an obligation to notify the applicant involved, the owner also has a due diligence/responsibility to pursue this matter as well; noted that the Commission typically grants continuations at the will of the applicant because they’re not prepared to move forward; but noted that in this case, there is a tremendous advantage to the applicant to delay this matter; and agreed that Mr. Shook’s attorney has provided a detailed letter and that he believes this matter needs to proceed.
Mr. Longacre mentioned that a large orange sign/notice of this evening’s hearing was placed on the front door of Mr. Shook’s building and that notice was on the City’s website and in the Easy Reader.
MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Pizer, toPROCEEDwith this hearing this evening. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Kersenboom Director Blumenfeld stated that the purpose of this evening’s hearing is to determine whether to modify the conditions of approval for the Hermosa Pavilion Parking Plan and Precise Development Plan that was approved in August 2003; and explained that the Commission has the authority to modify or revoke a permit under the provisions of the Zone Code if the Commission finds the building operations are having detrimental effects upon the neighborhood. He stated that at the March 2005 meeting following the 6-month review of the parking operations at the Pavilion, the Commission determined there was significant evidence that spill-over parking was occurring in the surrounding neighborhoods and that it resulted from the price of parking at the Pavilion since the fitness club users were choosing to park on the street rather than pay to park in the garage – pointing out that the patrons were compelled to pay a dollar for a second hour of parking with respect to the use of the fitness club; and noted this was verified by the Parking Intercept Surveys that were performed by Mr. Shook’s parking consultant who indicated that between 30 to 40 percent of the people parking on the street had the Pavilion as their destination.
Director Blumenfeld advised that the Commission must make specific findings that the use is not in compliance with the Parking Plan and Precise Development Plan in the Conditions of Approval in order to modify this permit, noting that some of those findings may be found on Page 3 in staff report; and stated that if the Commission decides to modify the permit, staff would recommend the Commission require a mandatory parking validation program be immediately put in place by the property owner during the peak operating periods of the fitness club -- between 10:00 A.M. and noon and 5:00 P.M. to 7:00 P.M. daily, the highest peak demand and greatest potential for spill-over parking in the surrounding neighborhood. He noted staff is also recommending this issue be revisited in 6 months to assess whether the new parking conditions are adequately addressing the nuisance parking problems in the surrounding neighborhoods or whether the price of parking is not the reason for spill-over parking; added that the owner will be required to have his parking consultant provide a similar parking analysis to survey the parking conditions; and that the Commission can use that analysis in its assessment in the next 6 months.
Director Blumenfeld explained that in the event the price is not the determining factor causing the spill-over parking, then the use of the validation program for the parking garage can be removed by this Commission in a follow-up review and that other measures should then be considered, such as a parking district or other restrictions to ease the neighborhood parking burdens. He highlighted staff’s recommendation to adopt the resolution amending Resolution 03-45, requiring the property owner provide free parking for his customers with validation only during those peak operating periods of the fitness club in order to increase use of the parking structure by the fitness club members and prevent spill-over parking in the neighborhoods; and secondly, that the Commission re-evaluate the effectiveness of the validation program in 6 months to determine if it’s necessary to impose other conditions.
Director Blumenfeld stated that Page 7 of the Shared Parking Analysis prepared for the original project approval indicates the highest peak period for parking demand for the fitness club, noting that the fitness club members by far are the highest number of patrons for the parking garage; and stated that the free parking validation program would be available to all business customers in this facility.
Commissioner Pizer expressed his belief 2 hours of free parking should be available at any time of day, believing this is much easier to handle.
Director Blumenfeld explained that staff’s intent to deal with the spill-over parking issue was to not unduly affect the property owner’s parking revenue, but to address those peak hours that generated the most potential spill-over parking.
Chairman Hoffman opened the public hearing.
Mr. Shook reiterated that he did not have adequate notice of this evening’s hearing. Mr. Shook stated that the current parking study and charts for 2006 are more reflective of what is taking place today; advised that there is a large traffic volume on Mondays and Tuesdays from 5:00 P.M. to 7:00 P.M.; and explained that he has tried to be a good corporate citizen in Hermosa Beach; that he has invested a lot of money to make this the best project he could provide; and stated that it has always been clear he had the expectation of being able to charge for parking. He stated that when the theatres were approved for this site, they were originally charging $1.25 per hour for parking; and he stated there is no evidence that giving 2 hours free parking will solve the neighborhood parking problem, pointing out that people will quickly take advantage of the first and most convenient parking spaces directly in front of the Pavilion or on 16th Street; and added that some people do not want to park in parking structures. He expressed his belief the residents will be impacted from the beach parking no matter what he does with this structure. He stated that a number of things being recommended is speculation; advised that he has been proactive in his attempts to provide adequate parking; and he requested that he be given a full 6 months to fine tune the parking garage operations. Mr. Shook advised that he met with some of the business owners in the affected community; noted that those business owners are requesting green 30-minute parking zones in front of their businesses; and pointed out that parking problems existed in this area even before this center was open for business.
Mr. Shook highlighted the importance of providing a secure and safe parking facility, noting the need to maintain an adequate number of parking garage employees; stated that he has offered 60 parking spaces, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week that will be double validated on Level 2; and stated that the parking rates are extremely low, some working out to 7.2 cents per hour. He urged the City to allow him more time to work on this issue.
Ron Miller, Hermosa Beach resident, stated that he is the closest resident to the parking garage; advised that the parking garage operations are a nuisance because of the vehicle lights shining into his property, the loud noise coming from the car radios of people sitting in their cars waiting for people to come out of the fitness club; and noted that around 5:00 P.M. and 6:00 P.M., these cars verge on the entrance, blocking 16th Street. He added that people are parking in the Vons unloading area to wait for fitness club patrons, causing the semi trucks to blow their horns at night to move these people out of the way. Mr. Miller stated he would welcome a parking permit district and to put in place one-way traffic to help maintain the safety and sanctity of this area.
Richard Thompson, Hermosa Beach resident, stated that the free parking in this structure should be offered 24 hours a day, 7 days a week; stated that because of the increase in traffic and high speed, he is concerned for pedestrians; and he noted that the new signal is diverting traffic up 16th Street.
Elizabeth Styles, Hermosa Beach resident, stated that parking on her street has become almost impossible; advised that only today, the City put in a light and painted the curb red half way up the street, now losing even more parking spaces; and expressed her belief that free parking would help. She noted that since the fitness club has opened, the parking has become a problem every day of the week.
Linda Miller, Hermosa Beach resident, stated that 16th Street between Ardmore and PCH has gotten too busy and dangerous for pedestrians; expressed her belief that the only way to solve the problem is with permit parking, asking that it be implemented on a trial basis; and she also suggested that this street be a one-way street going from the school westbound.
Lee Grant, Hermosa Beach resident, noted his concern that he did not receive notification of this evening’s meeting; stated that when the movie theatre was in operation, the parking was validated for the patrons; advised that the traffic and parking on 16th Street has become a major problem; and suggested that this matter be revisited sooner than 6 months.
Lisa Holcombe, owner of the Pet Care Company, noted her concern that what is being recommended will not solve the problem; and she urged the City to implement a permit parking program and to be more proactive in parking and traffic enforcement all around this area. She noted her support of providing shorter hours of validation, stating it is not fair to take all the revenue away from the parking structure.
Patty Egerer, Hermosa Beach resident, expressed her belief that a parking district will ultimately be the thing that will stop the parking problems; and stated that Mr. Shook should be financially responsible for the cost borne by the residents to preserve their neighborhoods. She stated that the parking problem should be free to all, with a minimum of 2 hours, 7 days a week, 24 hours a day; and noted her opposition to painting green 30-minute parking spaces on PCH, believing it will have a negative impact on those businesses. She stated that people need to be encouraged to park in the parking structure that provides adequate and visible security at all hours, with active, uniformed security guards circulating the structure 24 hours a day; and she stated that the loitering and graffiti should be handled in an immediate fashion. She expressed her belief that only patrons of this center should be using the parking structure, not beach-goers or those participating in an event such as the Fiesta.
There being no further input, Chairman Hoffman closed the public hearing.
Chairman Hoffman stated that staff has identified in its report 10 specific findings which are indicative of the Commission’s prior discussion and requested that those findings in staff report be reflected in the minutes as follows:
Findings for Modifying the Conditions of Approval:
The parking facility is currently not operating in compliance with the terms of the Parking Plan and Precise Development Plan as amended in 2003:
The six-month review of operations of the parking facility as required by the Parking Plan and Precise Development has demonstrated that parking operations are inefficient. This review, based upon parking intercept surveys and testimony from residents, indicates that a significant percentage of customers of the building are utilizing on-street parking in the residential neighborhoods rather than using the parking structure. The parking in the structure costs at least one dollar with validation for two hours, with an additional dollar for each hour, while the parking on the nearby streets is free. This disparity in cost is the primary reason for this inefficient use of the parking facility.
The demonstrated spill-over parking is causing a detrimental effect on these residential neighborhoods, as shown by the parking study and supported by testimony from residential property owners and occupants in the neighborhoods along 16th Street.
Review of parking operations within 6 months, after removal of the disparity in the cost of the parking, will clearly show if parking cost is causing spill-over parking in the neighborhoods.
The allocation of uses and the use of the parking facility with shared parking to meet parking requirements, for which the Parking Plan was granted, is not being exercised in accordance with the approval and the assumption of the shared parking. Instead, the operation of the parking facility is resulting in a detrimental impact to the public health and safety and constitutes a nuisance.
Spill-over parking into nearby public parking areas along both residential and commercial streets is detrimental to the existing businesses and residences, which have a long established practice of using this on-street parking.
The use of on-street parking across Pacific Coast Highway is forcing customers and patrons of the Pavilion to cross PCH, which is a hazard to both the pedestrians crossing the street and the vehicles traveling on PCH.
The applicant has not demonstrated that his proposals to mitigate the demonstrated spill-over parking will result in any substantial reduction or alleviation of the inefficient use of the parking facility and spill-over parking into nearby neighborhoods.
The tandem assisted free parking would only be available for those willing to park on Level 2, which is not the most convenient location in the structure and may not be more convenient than nearby on-street parking.
The monthly parking passes are aimed only at frequent users, as it would not make any sense for those parking 2 hours or less per visit who use the structure less than 20 times a month to spend $20 for a monthly pass. So a typical gym patron that comes 2-4 times a week would have no reason to purchase a pass.
The smoothie validation program provides for free validated parking for customers purchasing a $5 or $6 smoothie. As such, its potential effect is limited, and instead of addressing the cost disparity, results in a substantial cost to park in the structure.
Commissioner Pizer noted his support of the findings to solve the parking problems; stated he understands the owner always intended to charge for parking, but pointed out that it’s not working; and stated that the free parking may not completely solve the problem but that the Commission needs to take the first step in dealing with the parking problems. He reiterated his desire to see the 2-hour free parking program be offered at any hour of the day, offered to all patrons of this center, and not restricted to one level of the garage; and he suggested revisiting this issue in 3 months to see if the operation is working.
Director Blumenfeld clarified the 2006 survey reiterates the findings in the 2003 Shared Parking Analysis/survey which reflects the peak parking times and noted there is a parking accumulation survey, a count of occupancy in the garage – pointing out that these numbers are not speculative; and noted there is hard data reflecting that the peak demand for parking is from 10:00 A.M. and noon and 5:00 P.M. to 7:00 P.M.
Commissioner Perrotti stated that in order to make the 2-hour parking program less complicated to enforce, it should be offered at any hour of the day; and stated that he is able to support the findings.
Vice-Chairman Allen stated that in order to keep this less complicated for all, the 2-hour free parking should be offered at any hour of the day; expressed his belief that further mitigation measures will be necessary to solve the parking problems; and stated he can make the findings as noted in staff report.
Chairman Hoffman stated that any action taken should guarantee the resolution of the parking problem, not experiment to see if it works; stated he is reluctant to engage in this experiment given the punitive effect it may have on Mr. Shook; and expressed his belief that the only solution to the spill-over parking is the creation of a free parking district. He noted his belief that a 30-minute parking limit would unduly punish the retail establishments and residents along PCH in this area.
Commissioner Pizer stated that adequate signage and notification should be made of the free parking program.
City Attorney Cotti mentioned that not only is the Commission required to make the 10 findings, but those findings must be supported by substantial evidence. He stated that the residents’ testimony demonstrates this project is causing spill-over parking; but explained that the issue here is whether providing 2 hours free parking will alleviate the spill-over parking; and that this is where the Commission needs to focus its inquiry.
Director Blumenfeld reminded the Commission that it has the ability to rescind or modify this new condition in 6 months if this plan does not have a material effect in the neighborhood. He explained that the Commission needs to isolate these issues and ultimately find a solution. He stated that the proposal for 2 hours free parking is a good place to start, to encourage people to park in the garage; and reiterated that this can be rescinded/modified or a new condition can be imposed if this does not work.
Commissioner Pizer reiterated his support for a 3-month review period.
Director Blumenfeld noted the necessity of proactive advertising/signage; and expressed his belief that 6 months is necessary to adequately test the program.
MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Pizer, to APPROVE the attached resolution, to require that the property owner provide 2 hours free parking with validation; that this program be offered to any center patron at any hour of the day/night, 7 days a week; and that this issue be reviewed in 6 months. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: Hoffman ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Kersenboom -
Staff Recommended Action: To continue to October 17, 2006 meeting.
Director Blumenfeld advised that the owner is attempting to sort out issues relative to the County Health Department and is seeking several months to resolve his issues; and he noted that this would require a new hearing notice.
Chairman Hoffman opened the public hearing. There being no input, Chairman Hoffman closed the public hearing.
MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Vice-Chairman Allen, to CONTINUEto October 17, 2006 CUP 06-3 -- Conditional Use Permit to allow on-sale beer and wine in conjunction with a restaurant at 424 Pier Avenue, Crème de la Crepe. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Kersenboom -
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.
Senior Planner Robertson advised that the subject lot is on a fairly flat lot located on the north side of 16th Street, a walk street, between the beach and Hermosa Avenue; stated that the existing dwelling located on the front part of the lot was constructed in 1937 and remodeled in 1978; and that the applicant is proposing to demolish the existing detached garage and add a second unit above a new garage and carport with alley access at the rear of the property. He stated the applicant is proposing the addition of a new second dwelling unit that is 1,747 square feet, with a lot size of 3,652 square feet; that the proposed new dwelling unit is a 3-story building that contains 2 stories above the garage; that the parking is provided within a new 2-car garage and 3-car carport; that the dwelling unit contains 3 bedrooms and 3 baths; that the garage and carport will provide the required parking for the two units in tandem; and that the guest parking is located to the side of the tandem parking. He explained that typically, this type of tandem parking is the only option available on walk streets such as this because alley access is the only way to get to the property unless one builds a major subterranean garage. Senior Planner Robertson stated that this project meets all requirements/codes; and noted that the plans are not completely clear on the exterior design of both units, indicating only that the exterior of the second unit has a contemporary design with stucco finish, mitered glass window details and formed pop-outs for the parapet and windows.
Commissioner Perrotti suggested that the tandem parking spaces should be assigned and suggested that the trash area be enclosed.
Director Blumenfeld stated that the trash area will be enclosed, open to the area above.
Chairman Hoffman opened the public hearing.
Charlie Schwartz, Grover Beach, owner’s representative, stated that the tandem spaces will be assigned to the tenants; and confirmed that the trash area is open to the sky but screened from public view.
There being no further input, Chairman Hoffman closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Pizer explained that tandem parking isn’t often approved, only with special cases where the lot has a unique configuration; and noted his opposition to tandem parking on this site, believing that the construction of an additional building does not warrant the necessity for tandem parking. He added that there is no architectural consistency with the add-on building.
Commissioner Perrotti expressed his belief the tandem parking is appropriate because this lot is on a walk street, with the only access being from the back; reiterated his desire to have the tandem parking assigned/designated on the final plans; and stated the trash area should be enclosed.
Chairman Hoffman noted his concurrence with the tandem parking being an appropriate parking solution for this lot, given this is a walk street and the limited conditions of this site for development; and noted the project conforms to all requirements.
With regard to the interest for an enclosed trash area, Senior Planner Robertson mentioned that the City does not allow for a covered enclosure in a side yard.
MOTION by Vice-Chairman Allen, seconded by Commissioner Perrotti, to APPROVEPDP 06-3 -- Precise Development Plan to construct a second dwelling unit on a property in the R-2B zone at 33 16th Street; that the trash area be enclosed on the sides, a wall and a gate, screened from the side property and alley; and that the tandem parking be assigned/designated on the plans. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Kersenboom RECESS AND RECONVENE
Chairman Hoffman recessed the meeting at 8:55 P.M. and reconvened the meeting at 9:02 P.M.
-
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.
Senior Planner Robertson stated that the Planning Commission previously approved the above-referenced items for a 3-unit condominium project; explained that the Vesting Tentative Parcel Map has expired and that the applicant is reapplying for the map approval; and noted the applicant is near completion of this project.
Chairman Hoffman opened the public hearing.
Cheryl Vargo, representing the applicant, urged the City to extend the approval period for these maps.
There being no further input, Chairman Hoffman closed the public hearing.
MOTION by Commissioner Pizer, seconded by Commissioner Perrotti, toAPPROVE CON 06-5 -- Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 060571 for a three-unit condominium at 403, 405 & 407 11th Street. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Kersenboom -
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.
Senior Planner Robertson advised that this subject property is zoned R-2, containing 10,561 square feet; noted there are two existing lots that currently contain a total of 3 dwelling units, one lot containing a duplex and the other lot containing a single-family dwelling; and advised that the site is located on the east side PCH, between 19th and 20th Streets. He stated that the proposed project consists of six units, with two 3-unit structures; noted that each structure contains basements with two stories above; that the 3 units along the PCH frontage have 3 bedrooms and 3.5 baths; that the 3 units along the alley have 4 bedrooms and 3.5 baths; and that each unit has a roof deck. He advised that the buildings are designed in a traditional style, with wood siding and cultured stone veneer exterior; noted that the project is designed to comply with the R-2 zone requirements with respect to lot coverage, building height, required yards – providing a larger front and side yard than what is required, adequate parking, common recreation area, storage areas, and landscaping. He noted staff’s concern with the utility of the proposed common recreation area, being that it is narrow, abuts the rear property line and located at the rear of the property, best describing it as a passive recreation area that will be in shade for most of the day.
Chairman Hoffman opened the public hearing.
Nagy Bakhoum, project architect, representing the applicant, commented on the building elements and the unusual lot configuration, which creates some unusual requirements with respect to creating adequate parking and open space; and explained that because of the unusual lot configuration, 3 parking spaces were placed on the alley, centralized to the project; noted that the setback on 19th Street was increased to 7.5 feet. He stated they could shift the building closer along PCH towards 19th Street, but he recognized a need to be consistent with the other homes in this area that have 10-foot setbacks. He stated this project is in full compliance with City codes.
Commissioner Perrotti stated he would prefer to see some benches in the common recreation area rather than a sandbox.
Mr. Bakhoum stated they will work with staff to provide something different in this area.
Chairman Hoffman questioned if this area is going to be useable open space.
Mr. Bakhoum expressed his belief this will be useable, but stated it does have a passive feel. He stated that most people would rather barbeque on the roof decks than in this area.
Vice-Chairman Allen noted his prior experience with using an even smaller area, believing this will be an adequate space for some purpose, such as the neighbors sitting around and conversing.
Ray Riddle, Hermosa Beach resident, stated this is a nice project, but expressed his concern that the density is too high and that it will have a negative impact on the growing problems with traffic, noise and parking in this neighborhood. He suggested that this street be blocked off to through traffic, noting his concern for pedestrian safety. He suggested that the common recreation area be placed along the frontage of 19th Street and to set the building back to the north.
Susan Asbjornson-Ziegler, Hermosa Beach resident, recommended that the recreational area be placed on the north side of 19th Street, noting that the bedrooms to all these homes are located at the back of the house near the alley.
Jake Crawford, Hermosa Beach resident, addressed his concern with the increased noise, traffic, and pedestrian safety; and he asked for input on construction activity and potential damage to his property.
Director Blumenfeld explained that the builder has the responsibility to protect the adjacent properties from damage during construction.
Bruce McPhee, Hermosa Beach resident, questioned what his rights will be as a tenant and how much eviction notice his landlord has to provide when the project starts.
Director Blumenfeld and Chairman Hoffman commented on the typical requirement for landlord notification to tenants, noting it will depend on his agreement with his landlord.
Tim Norian, Hermosa Beach resident, noted his concern with the increased traffic in this area, the high speed of traffic, safety of the pedestrians and quality of life issues; stated that the City needs to be more proactive in enforcing the high speed of traffic in the residential neighborhoods; and suggested that the City widen the narrow alley. He asked that 19th Street be limited to one-way traffic.
Cheryl Vargo, representing the applicant, clarified that this property contains four lots; advised that the guest parking spaces are located on the alley; that the project meets all zoning criteria for the R-2 zone; and stated that the tenant at 1906 PCH will be given adequate notice to move.
Mr. Bakhoum explained that widening the alley will reduce parking; and expressed his belief this new project will have a positive impact upon the noise coming from PCH.
There being no further input, Chairman Hoffman closed the hearing.
Senior Planner Robertson clarified that the common open space shall be in addition to the required setback area on the plans, that it does not count as part of the setback area.
Commissioner Pizer stated that this proposed project is well balanced and that he would not like to see it altered to accommodate a larger recreation area.
Commissioner Perrotti reiterated his preference for the applicant and staff to provide something different than a sandbox in the recreation area, and to remove Section 5-1A.
Vice-Chairman Allen stated this is a good project sensitively designed with the neighboring properties.
Chairman Hoffman stated his support for this project is contingent on the architect being able to provide sufficient open space without encroaching an additional 2.5 feet on 19th Street.
MOTION by Vice-Chairman Allen, seconded by Commissioner Pizer, to APPROVE CON 06-6/PDP 06-5 -- Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 65466 for a six-unit condominium at 1906 and 1918 Pacific Coast Highway as proposed. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Kersenboom -
Staff Recommended Action: To direct staff as deemed appropriate.
Director Blumenfeld advised that the project is located in the R-2B zone, allowing for a height limit of 30 feet; and he noted that this lot, along with others along the west side of this block, slopes down gently from the street frontage for the majority of the lot and then slopes steeply down thereafter. He explained that the method for determining grade is at the corner point elevations of the lot, but where it can be demonstrated the slope is a convex slope, sloping upward, then the Commission has the latitude to make a convex slope determination and take alternative points which may represent an altered grade, which is what the applicant is requesting. He advised that the applicant has submitted a profile that indicates this lot arches upward; and that there is enough evidence to indicate this is a convex slope. He mentioned there was some missing information on the survey, which has been corrected since producing the staff report; and that staff is recommending to either decide by minute order that this is a regularly sloping lot or that the Commission find, based on the evidence, this is a convex slope.
Charlie Schwartz, representing the applicant, noted the applicant’s request for a determination that this is a convex slope.
It was the consensus of the Commission that this is a convex sloping lot.
-
Staff Recommended Action: To extend the expiration date by one year to March 16, 2007.
Senior Planner Robertson stated that the Commission approved this project in March of 2004; advised that the project is near completion, but that the applicant needs an extension to complete the final map.
MOTION by Vice-Chairman Allen, seconded by Commissioner Pizer, to APPROVE the request for a one-year extension, to March 16, 2007, for CON 04-3 -- Request for extension of Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 060971 for a two unit condominium at 233 Lyndon Street and 232 1st Court. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Kersenboom -
Staff Recommended Action: To extend the expiration date by one year to March 16, 2007.
Senior Planner Robertson stated that the Commission approved this project in March 2004 and that the applicant is seeking an extension; and he added that the project is near completion.
MOTION by Commissioner Pizer, seconded by Vice-Chairman Allen, to APPROVE the request for a one-year extension, to March 16, 2007, for CON 06-7 -- Request for a one-year extension of Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 060945 for a two unit condominium at 1107 Manhattan Avenue (AKA 1106 Palm Drive). The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Kersenboom -
STAFF ITEMS
-
Aviation Corridor Specific Plan Status Report.
Senior Planner Robertson stated that more time is needed to complete the final work program that will be given to the Commission and ultimately set for a kickoff public workshop.
-
-
COMMISSIONER ITEMS
With regard to Commissioner Pizer’s inquiry concerning a joint meeting with the Public Works Commission, Director Blumenfeld stated that he will need to coordinate further with the Public Works Department staff and Commission and provide a status report on those efforts at the next meeting.
Chairman Hoffman questioned what needs to take place to consider lengthening the time for approval of tentative parcel maps.
Director Blumenfeld noted that because of staff’s efforts to complete the Aviation Corridor project, staff anticipates a text amendment proposal can be prepared by the end of this year.
Chairman Hoffman stated that Councilman Reviczky was correct when he stated that Hermosa Beach experienced a net loss of one unit in FY 2003-2004 to the present, in spite of what people believe in the City.
Addressing Commissioner Perrotti’s inquiry regarding remaining lot mergers, Director Blumenfeld noted that City Council directed staff to make sure there were no other projects in the planning pipeline that fell into this category, but added that staff was not directed to undertake a citywide survey.
-
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 10:18 P.M.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
HEARING(S)
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 the regularly scheduled meeting of April 18, 2006.
| Peter Hoffman, Chairman | Sol Blumenfeld, Secretary |
| Agendas / Minutes Menu | Planning Commission Agendas | Planning Commission Minutes |