Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of
September 15, 2021 Page 1 of 3
MANHATTAN BEACH
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 15, 2021
A. CALL MEETING TO ORDER
A Regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Manhattan Beach, California was held virtually via Zoom on the 15
th day of September, 2021. Chair Morton called the meeting to order at the hour of 3:00 p.m.
B. PLEDGE TO FLAG
C. ROLL CALL
Present: Sistos, Dillavou, Tokashiki, Chair Morton
Absent: Vice Chair Ungoco
Others Present: Carrie Tai, AICP, Director of Community Development Brendan Kearns, Assistant City Attorney
Talyn Mirzakhanian, Planning Manager
Athena Henderson, Agenda Host
D. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
A motion was made and seconded (Sistos/Dillavou) to approve the agenda with no changes.
Roll Call:
Ayes: Sistos, Dillavou, Tokashiki, Chair Morton
Noes: None
Absent: Vice Chair Ungoco
Abstain: None
E. AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION - None
F. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES
9/15/21-1 Regular Meeting – July 28, 2021
It was moved and seconded (Tokashiki/Sistos) to approve the minutes as submitted.
Roll Call:
Ayes: Tokashiki, Sistos, Dillavou, Chair Morton
Noes: None
Absent: Vice Chair Ungoco
Abstain: None
G. GENERAL BUSINESS
9/15/21-2 6th Cycle Housing Element Update Study Session
Chair Morton announced the item and invited staff to provide a report.
Planning Manager Mirzakhanian provided an overview with the aid of a PowerPoint presentation, covering several topics including, but not limited to : background and purpose, required components, housing data and required analyses, the city’s RHNA housing allocation, the review and adoption process, penalties for n oncompliance penalties and public outreach efforts including a n 8/31/21 stakeholder workshop.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of
September 15, 2021 Page 2 of 3
Chair Morton opened the floor to the Commission to ask questions of staff.
Staff clarified or responded to several questions regarding: the review and adoption process and role of the Commission; areas in the city where increased housing density might occur (primarily along major commercial corridors, based on public input at an August 31st meeting); concern for possible economic and other impacts resulting from replacing commercial development with residential units along commercial corridors; analyses to be done regarding possible impacts and effects to public infrastructure due to significant increases to density; possible additional are as to be looked at for adding more density (e.g.
Aviation Boulevard, Manhattan Beach Boulevard east of Sepulveda, sites near the MB Country Club); the feasibility and limitations of applying Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and mixed use development towards housing goals; the challenge of encouraging development of “affordable” housing due to constraints such as lack of vacant property and high land costs although use of density bonus law can offset some development costs through approval of concessions, incentives and waivers for a project.
Assistant City Attorney Kearns emphasized that, in addition to specific penalties, if the city were to be found to be noncompliant, it would be exposed to costly legal challenges.
Chair Morton opened the floor to public input.
Zac Dean asked whether the sites to be suggested for higher density would be selected based on probability that they would be actually developed. He noted a large percentage of the city is made up of low-density residential neighborhoods and questioned and whether there would be any thought to allowing more than one unit within those neighborhoods.
Planning Manager Mirzakhanian noted that staff is looking at a realistic density capacity, e.g., 20 units per acre, in that this is realistically what might be constructed.
Barbara Siegemund-Broka voiced support for considering allowing smaller but more units within existing low density residential areas.
Ray Joseph inquired as to whether more housing woul d be constructed if the parking standard (e.g., 3 spaces required for a condo) were to be decreased ; he is concerned about the environmental impacts of adding significantly more density.
Planning Manager Mirzakhanian noted that a qualifying density bonus project can be approved with a less strict parking standard and an analysis of environmental impacts related to the element’s goals will be done. Some existing goals that encourage environmental sustainability such as incentivizing solar energy will be carried over into the 6th cycle element.
Community Development Director Tai summarized the main areas of discussion and direction to staff as follows:
1. Commercial corridors: the Commission expressed that it is important to retain commercial viability and vitality al ong the major commercial corridors. Staff will look at this issue.
2. Increasing density –existing single-family neighborhoods: public input included a suggestion that duplexes or triplexes might be allowed in low density neighborhoods.
Staff will look at this further, including how this idea aligns with state guidelines.
3. Increasing density -existing multifamily residential neighborhoods: Commission input included a suggestion to create more densi ty where there is existing higher density development, such as along Manhattan Beach Boulevard east of Sepulveda and Aviation Boulevard. Staff will look at this.
Director Tai thanked everyone for their attendance and input, noting that the staff will present input from this study session with the City Council at its September 21st regular meeting.
H. DIRECTOR’S ITEMS
Director Tai provided updates as follows:
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of
September 15, 2021
1. G
oing forward with the Housing Element revision, there will be much effort in the next few months involving much publicity in news outlets and social media.
2. I
n October staff will provide a Work Plan status report to City Council. Staff continues to make progress on existing projects, including updating parking development standards ; the incorporation of climate change impacts, sea level rising assessments, and related climate action and adaptation planning into the Local Coastal Program; and, with the City Manager’s office, monitoring and advocating state legislation on housing policy. The council has added a new p
roject─a study of the feasibility of a permit program to allow outdoor dining parklets on a permanent basis and a description of this project will also be part of next month’s council report.
I. P
LANNING COMMISSION ITEMS - None
J. T ENTATIVE AGENDA – September 22, 2021 – no items yet scheduled.
K. ADJOURNMENT –
At 4:25 p.m. it was moved and seconded (Tokashiki/Morton) that the meeting be adjourned to Wednesday, September 21, 2021 at 3:00 p.m. via Zoom/virtual format. The motion passed 4-1 with a roll call vote.