Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC_Minutes_1990_02_20MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON FEBRUARY 20, 1990, AT 7:00 P.M. IN 'IBE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS Meeting called to order at 7:03 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell. Pledge of Allegiance led by Comm. Rue. ROLLCALL Present: Absent: Also Present: Comms. Ketz. Moore, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ingell None Michael Schubach, Planning Director; Edward Lee, Assistant City Attorney; Sally White. Recording Secretary APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION by Comm. Rue. seconded by Comm. Moore, to approve the minutes of February 6, 1990, as written. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Comms. Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ingell None None None APPROVAL OF RESOLUTIONS MOTION by Comm. Moore, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve Resolution P.C. 90-9, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A VARIANCE FROM THE GUEST PARKING REQUIREMENT AND A REQUEST, PURSUANT TO SECTION 13-7(B) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, TO CONS1RUCT AN ADDITION TO A NONCONFORMING S1RUCTURE WHICH EXCEEDS 50% OF THE REPLACEMENT VALUE OF THE EXISTING S1RUCTURE AND ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 1419 MONTEREY BOULEVARD, AND LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 31 , BLOCK 49, SECOND ADDITION TO HERMOSA BEACH 1RACT. No objections; so ordered. MOTION by Comm. Moore, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve Resolution P.C. 90-11, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF TIIE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND A VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #21728 FOR A 1WO-UNIT DETACHED CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 914 7TH S1REET, DESCRIBED AS LOT 25, WILSON AND LIND'S 1RACT. No objections; so ordered. MOTION by Comm. Moore, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve Resolution P.C 90-12, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE FOR A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT BE1WEEN 737 AND 739 LONGFEILOW AVENUE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS 4, 5, AND 6 AND THE EAST HALF OF LOT 7, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA CONVENTION HALL AND MARINE VIEW PARK 1RACT. No objections; so ordered. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC Ron Reiman addressed the Commission and stated that he owns two pieces of property in a manufacturing zone, and he asked what the current buildings can be used for. He said that the 1 P.C. Minutes 2/20/90 people next door to his property would like to use his second story for storage. He asked if a business can expand into an adjoining building. Cbmn. Ingell suggested that Mr. Reiman consult with the planning staff. Mr. Schubach suggested that Mr. Reiman prepare a written request asking that the Commission make an interpretation in regard to his specific property. Comm. Rue suggested that this issue be put on a future agenda for Commission consideration. Mr. Schubach stated that staff needs a written letter from the applicant explaining exactly what is being requested. Gerry Compton, 200 Pier Avenue, addressed the Commission and described a project he is currently working on, one which is a nonconforming unit in a nonconforming zone. He stated the property is on The Strand, and he questioned the requirements for front yard setbacks on both The Strand and Hermosa Avenue. He said that the current code reads that both streets are considered front yard setbacks; therefore, he needs an interpretation in order to meet the parking requirements. He felt that The Strand would be the front yard, and Hermosa Avenue would be the rear yard. He questioned whether parking could be utilized from Hermosa Avenue. Mr. Compton requested that the Commission address this issue when the nonconfonning section of the code is discussed. He asked that the matter be heard at the March 6 meeting. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A RETAIL SNACK SHOP. GAS PUMPS. AND CAR WASH, AND ADOPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 931 PACIFIC COAST IDGHWAY. MOBIL OIL STATION {CONTINUED FROM MEETINGS OF JANUARY 3 AND FEBRUARY 6. 1990) Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated February 15, 1990. Staff recommended a continuance of this matter unless the applicant can satisfactorily explain how this project is in compliance with the noise ordinance, which the project does not appear to be. If this project is approved, staff recommended that approval be subject to the conditions specified in the proposed resolution. At their meeting of January 3, 1990, the Planning Commission continued this request because of the inadequate noise study and the need to address concerns regarding the potential noise impact of the car wash. The applicant has submitted the revised noise study and has also provided revised plans which show four new gas pump islands instead of three and which relocate the northerly entrance ten feet to the west, resulting in the relocation of the car wash ten feet closer to Pacific Coast Highway. The noise study indicates that the project can comply with the City's noise ordinance as the rather high decibel levels at a 20-foot structure (81 dbs) are shown to be significantly reduced by the additional distance to the residential area and from the attenuation of a sound wall. Furthermore, ambient noise measurements were taken at the northwest corner of the site and are shown to be less than the projected levels. However, the study assumes a 104-foot distance to the residential area when the actual distance to the property line is 80 feet. The study measures to the house, while the noise ordinance requires sound levels to be measured from the property line. The measurement which shows that the sound levels meet the noise ordinance are based on attenuation due to distance and the sound wall. Also, other residential locations across 9th and 10th Streets are not considered. Further, there seems to be a lack of compliance with at least two other sections of the noise ordinance. 2 P.C. Minutes 2/20/90 Staff is still concerned about the noise impact of the automatic car wash. Staff investigated the Mobil car wash site at the corner of Aviation and Manhattan Beach Boulevard which is identical to this proposed car wash, and it was noted that the higher pitched noise during the automatic drying with the doors open is not a very pleasant sound. Although the sound wall utilized at this location significantly mitigates this noise, it is clear that there is still impact. Therefore, in the absence of any certainty that sound levels will not cause a nuisance, staff is recommending conditions requiring that an automatic door be installed on the west end of the car wash to be closed during the drying operations. According to the applicant's study, keeping the doors closed can reduce the noise level at 20 feet from the car wash at 8 decibels. This becomes important when the noise impact down the street and across the street is considered where sound wall attenuation is not provided. The applicant has indicated that he would be willing to install one door at the entrance to the car wash but that he does not think requiring a door on the side of the car wash facing P.C.H. is necessary. Unfortunately, the sound study provides information regarding the impact of having two doors closed; however, staff has discussed this with a noise consultant who indicated that closing the one facing the residences should have a similar effect. Other concerns are the height of the sound wall and the noise frequency. The zoning ordinance allows walls of only a maximum height of six feet, but the applicant's consultant has recommended an 8-foot high sound wall. There are some numbers in the study correlating noise frequency and effectiveness of the wall, but the sound frequency of the car wash dryer is not clearly noted. To further address the noise impact, staff is recommending that the hours of operation of the car wash be limited to 7:00 AM. to 9:00 P.M. and 8:00 AM. to 8:00 P.M. on weekends. The applicant is opposed to this and would like to the hours to be 6:00 AM. to 10:00 P.M.; however, the noise study only identifies ambient noise levels to 9:00 P.M. Staff has attempted to address the apparent inadequacy of the noise study by recommending some additional conditions. If clearer explanations are not provided at the meeting to show that the car wash can comply with the noise ordinance, the Planning Commission should again consider continuing this request. Another concern was the location of the air and water compressor equipment. The applicant has agreed to move these facilities, and new plans submitted today show that they have been relocated to the southwest corner of the car wash. Staff has contacted the City of Manhattan Beach regarding the conditions imposed on the Mobil Car Wash at the corner of Aviation and Manhattan Beach Boulevard and found that there are conditions to keep the doors closed during dryer operations and there are limitations on hours from 7:00 AM. to 9:00 P.M. on weekdays and 8:00 AM. to 8:00 P.M. on weekends. Also, Manhattan Beach requires an alarm system to signal a door malfunction, requiring that the car wash be turned off until the doors are repaired and that there be a back flow prevention device to prevent spilling of the wash water. Staff is recommending similar conditions in the proposed resolution. Staff continued to recommend conditions prohibiting vacuum cleaners, outdoor sales of merchandise, and the removal of the 45-foot-high pole sign. Also, conditions have been added regarding the water reclamation system, the use of biodegradable materials, and drainage. Mr. Schubach, in response to a comment from Comm. Peirce regarding clarification of the City's noise ordinance, stated that the ordinance is quite technical. He continued by giving a brief description of the ordinance; however, he noted that staff could provide more detailed information for the next meeting. 3 P.C. Minutes 2/20/90 Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Chmn. Ingell regarding the Mobil Car Wash in Manhattan Beach, stated that he is aware of no complaints about that operation. Public Hearing opened at 7:21 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell. Brian Rechsteiner. 9891 Vicksburg, Huntington Beach, applicant, addressed the Commission and explained that since the last meeting, a noise consultant was hired to perform the required noise study of the car wash. Mr. Rechsteiner discussed Condition No. 5 and the proposed hours of operation of the car wash, stating that they are requesting hours of 6:00 AM. to 10:00 P.M. seven days a week, including holidays. He noted that the ordinance does allow those hours: therefore, they are not requesting anything above and beyond the noise ordinance. Mr. Rechsteiner discussed Condition No. 9 regarding the six-foot wall. He stated that they have proposed an eight-foot wall along the westerly property line as a further mitigation measure to reduce the noise emanating from the car wash. He continued by stating that the car wash meets current City noise requirements with or without the doors closed. Mr. Rechsteiner said that. since the last meeting, the car wash has been moved ten feet toward Pacific Coast Highway, not because of the noise factor, but because the pumps needed to be relocated closer to the driveway so that deliveries can be made easily. Mr. Rechsteiner discussed Condition No. 13, which requires that a water reclamation system shall be utilized. He stated that such a requirement was not originally mentioned. and they would prefer not to have that requirement unless there is a drought situation. He said that such a system would cost approximately $15,000 to install. He requested that the condition be modified to require the reclamation system only in the event of a drought. Mr. Rechsteiner discussed Condition No. 16, wherein the City is requiring that the automatic doors shall be closed during the operation of the automatic dryer. He noted that they have agreed to comply with this condition; however. the noise study shows that the noise ordinance can be met whether the doors are open or closed. Mr. Rechsteiner discussed Condition No. 18, which requires that an alarm system shall be installed to signal to an employee on site any malfunction of the automatic doors. He said that the purpose of the signal is actually to alert someone if both doors become stuck. An attendant could then come and open the door. Mr. Rechsteiner discussed Condition No. 19(a). which states that "complaints from residents shall constitute a nuisance." He asked that the condition be clarified by the addition of wording stating that "legitimate complaints" shall constitute a nuisance. Mr. Rechsteiner explained that Mobil is attempting to upgrade this property in order to bring it into the 21st century, and he asked for approval of the project. Bruce Davie, 865 Manhattan Beach Boulevard, Manhattan Beach, noise consultant, addressed the Commission. He explained that he was asked by Mobil Oil to prepare a noise study document to determine the potential noise impacts at the car wash. He said that a report was submitted which consists of calculations of noise levels at the nearest residences as well as a measurement of ambient noise levels. He said that the Planning Department had requested information regarding the noise level at the closest property line, which is 80 feet, including the ten-foot movement of the car wash. Mr. Davie explained that he also included measurements including an eight-foot wall; however, he was informed by staff that the City allows walls of no more than six feet. Mr. Davie explained that his report included information with both doors open and both doors closed, as well as calculations for a six-foot wall and an eight-foot wall. 4 P.C. Minutes 2/20/90 Mr. Davie discussed his calculation of the noise level at 80 feet from the property line, based on the assumption of a six-foot wall with the west door being closed. This basis indicates a noise level of 52 dba The City's noise ordinance adopted in 1989 contains two types of standards. One is the LEQ standard, which is the average noise allowed during the measurement period. The other aspect is known as a stair step ordinance, which allows a certain noise level at a particular location for so many minutes out of an hour. He said that this City's ordinance is unique in that it is based on half hours. allowing so many minutes of noise per half hour. Mr. Davie stated that the Mobil car wash has a maximwn noise level only at times when the air blower is in operation. He said that the air blower will be on for approximately one minute out of every four minutes, assuming that cars are waiting in line. This would be 25 percent of the time during a measurement hour. The noise ordinance refers to this as the L25 noise level, the level that would be allowed for seven and a half minutes out of every thirty minutes. Mr. Davie continued by discussing the computer printout which was generated on the ambient noise monitoring at the west property line. The chart indicates times of measurement from 6:00 A,M. to 10:00 P.M. on January 24, 1990. He directed the Commissions' attention to the column pertaining to the L25 level, stating that shows the ambient noise level existing at this location 25 percent of the time. He noted that the ambient noise level in the morning is in the low 60s; in the afternoon the noise level falls off to the high 50s. At no time during the day does the ambient noise level fall below 58.0 dba. Mr. Davie discussed the ambient noise levels in regard to the City's ordinance, explaining that in R-1 and R-2 zones adjacent to commercial the L25 allows for 50 dba during the evening hours (10:00 P.M. to 8:00 AM) and 55 dba during the day (8:00 AM. to 10:00 P.M). The ordinance states that if the ambient noise level goes above those amounts, it can be increased by 5 dba increments in order to accommodate the noise level So long as the ambient is not exceeded, one would not be in violation of the noise ordinance. Taking into account the allowable ambient noise level of 65 dba during the day and 60 dba during the evening, this project with its projected dba of 52 is clearly below the requirements of the ordinance. Mr. Davie continued by explaining that the City's noise ordinance is written in terms of A- weighted sound levels, and the calculations projected A-weighted levels. Also, considered in the calculations were the frequency characteristics of the air dryer. He explained the octave band noise measurements which were made at the existing facility. He also explained how A- weighting is done. He said that the analysis was done by taking the frequencies into consideration. Mr. Davie, in response to a comment from Comm. Peirce, explained that the measurements were taken when the air dryer was in operation. Mr. Davie stated that this project, with the doors closed and a six-foot wall in place, would comply with the City's noise ordinance. Mr. Davie, in response to a question from Comm. Rue, explained that the noise measurements were taken at the northern end of the westerly property line. as opposed to being taken from the existing residences. He explained that there are problems in going onto private property to take noise measurements. He noted that the automatic collection device measures virtually everything, and the device was secured to a post on 10th Street in order to record the measurements. Mr. Davie, in response to questions from Comm. Moore regarding the estimates of decibel attenuation of various-height walls as a function of frequency, explained that the noise level behind a six-foot wall would be 52 db; whereas the level just above the wall would be 62 db. Mr. Davie responded to questions from the Commission regarding the computer printout related to how the measurements were made, taking into account the fact that the noise 5 P.C. Minutes 2/20/90 emanating from the car wash would be directional. He explained that the calculations were based on corrections to measured levels, with both doors open and closed He stated that measurements were not taken with one door open and one door closed; however, very little change is anticipated if the door toward P.C.H. is open. Mr. Davie, in response to technical questions from Comm. Peirce, explained how the point of noise radiation is determined. He further stated that the ground surface will provide some noise attenuation, which will of a positive benefit. Comm. Moore asked whether data is available related to future two-story structures in this area and possible noise levels at a height of fifteen feet where a wall would do no good. He questioned whether there are unpredictable effects of noise radiating upward. Mr. Davie stated that the only difference would be the attenuation of the wall, explaining that a wall would provide an approximate 10 db noise shielding. He did not feel that the noise is particularly directional, stating that most of the noise would go out toward Pacific Coast Highway. Comm. Peirce asked questions about the noise ordinance, particularly regarding the LEQ 25 and the L25. He asked for clarification on the LEQ 25, to which Mr. Davie responded by explaining it in further detail and explaining how noise ordinances are typically drafted. Comm. Moore, noting that building design itself has a great effect on how much sound radiates out, asked whether Mr. Davie is aware of any variations in building construction and materials used which would provide sound attenuation. He mentioned acoustical seals on the doors and various other materials such as padding. Mr. Davie stated that he is not aware of any locations where this standard manufactured product has been modified in an attempt to reduce noise. He said that this building is metal. He went on to say that most of the noise transmits out from the door and the doors seals. Comm. Rue commented on the length of the cycle during which the air dryer would be on, stating that it was previously asserted that the cycle would be 1 1 /2 minutes; however, the report states that the worst-case scenario indicates one minute on for every four minutes. He asked for clarification on the length of the cycle. Mr. Davie said that the numbers were based on their observations during the study. He noted, however, that the manufacturer states that the air blower is on for less than 1.5 minutes per cycle. Noting that he did the measurements himself at the site, he explained that the entire time is approximately four minutes per car; 2.5 minutes for the car wash, and approximately 1 minute for the air dryer, depending on the length of the car. Mr. Rechsteiner clarified that the building is not metal; it is a concrete fiberglass material. 'This is the same material used for their other buildings. He stressed that this building will not be a "tin shed," but rather will be a very substantial building. Mr. Rechsteiner, in response to questions from Comm. Moore regarding design alternatives for noise attenuation, stated that of all the buildings they have completed and are proposing in the future, they have never been in a situation where a city required a building modification to mitigate noise. When the doors are down and operation is during the appropriate hours, noise has not been a problem. Comm. Moore was quite interested in whether there is an alternative which is relatively low- cost that Mobil could use to further reduce the sound. He questioned the feasibility of a short, sound-proof entry tunnel or the use of extra insulation on the interior or exterior of the doors. Mr. Davie did not feel that such modifications would be necessary, noting that the project will meet the noise ordinance requirements. He stressed that it is not the intention to create noise 6 P.C. Minutes 2/20/90 problems with the neighbors. He explained the configuration of the drive-t:hru area and stated that, if necessary, other materials could be used to reduce the noise in the event problems arise. Roger Otte, 521 Kings Road, Newport Beach, representing the car wash equipment manufacturer, addressed the Commission on the issue of the reclamation system. He said that the equipment used in the car washes is actually very miserly in terms of the amount of water used per car wash. He said that the equipment in use at the Manhattan Beach site does not have a reclamation system. His company makes approximately 85 percent of the systems of this type in use in Southern California, and only about one out of ten have a built-in reclamation system. If necessary, reclamation systems can be built into the equipment later. Mr. Otte said that each wash cycle uses 17 gallons of water. People washing at home by using a hose use approximately 34 gallons of water to wash one car. Comm. Moore, noting that an alarm system to be used in the event of a breakdown of the doors is being proposed, asked what assurances the manufacturer can provide to ensure that the system will be shut down in the event the doors do malfunction. Mr. Otte stated that the standard equipment used by Mobile has been a Code-a-Wash 3 computer inside the cashier's area which generates a code for the customers' use. There is a shut-off at the cashier stand in the event of a malfunction; although, the shut-off is not related to the doors. There is a buzzer inside, though, in case of emergency. Mr. Rechsteiner stated that the new station will have automatic sprinklers, timers, and low- flow toilets, all in an effort to save water. He also noted that there will be no mechanical repairs; therefore, the area will not need to be washed down, so water will not be used for that purpose. Mr. Rechsteiner continued by discussing Condition No. 10, requiring that the existing 45-foot pole sign, located at the southeast corner of the site, shall be removed. He said that they would like to apply for a variance to maintain the sign. Mr. Lee explained that the 45-foot sign is a grandfathered use at that site. If the applicant desires to add to the pole sign, a variance would be necessary. Only one sign is allowed; therefore, if the applicant adds another sign, it would force the property into violation of the sign ordinance. Mr. Rechsteiner explained that there are currently two signs at the site, the 45-foot pole sign and the sign at the other end of the property. The pole sign will remain as is, and the other sign will be modernized. In addition to the freestanding signs, there will also be building signage. Chmn. Ingell pointed out that if the signage is changed on a piece of property, the sign ordinance is triggered, thereby requiring that all signs be in conformance with the current standards unless a variance is obtained. He noted that no action can be taken on a variance at this time. Mr. Rechsteiner passed out photographs depicting the site and the current signage. He said that it is necessary to upgrade the signage so that the business will be visible from southbound traffic on P.C.H. He noted that trees currently block the large pole sign completely from view on P.C.H. The only place the sign is visible is from traffic on Aviation. This is why he wants to maintain the other sign. He stated that nothing can be done about the trees since they are on private property. Mr. Rechsteiner stated that the success of this business is dependent almost entirely upon visibility by passersby and by gasoline pricing. If people don't know the Mobil station there, they will not stop in. 7 P.C. Minutes 2/20/90 Mr. Rechsteiner noted that Condition No. 10 also requires that the other sign be limited to ten feet. He discussed the other proposed signage, stating that the ID sign is five and a half feet high, the price portion of the sign is four feet, ten inches, and the car wash portion of the sign is three feet, eight inches, which totals 14 feet. Adding five feet so that the sign will be visible over the height of a car brings the total sign request height to 19 feet. He noted that this is still well below the maximum 35-foot height allowed by the code. He stated that, if necessary, he will return with a variance request. Comm. Rue asked whether it is possible to obtain a street elevation of this project, stating that it is difficult to tell from the plans what is where on the site. He stated that it would be easier to discuss the signage if it were clearly detailed on the plans. Mr. Rechsteiner directed the Commissions' attention to Page 4 of the plans which depicts the locations of the proposed signage. Comm. Rue stated that he would like to have project elevations from the west, north, and east, noting that it would make it easier to visualize the project in its entirety. Comm. Rue asked whether the use of landscaping is a viable solution to sound mitigation. Mr. Rechsteiner said that there will be 20-foot trees spaced along the area, and the landscaping could be further enhanced in an attempt to reduce the noise. Mr. Lee returned to the issue of the signage and explained that the code allows for either one ground sign or one pole sign in the C-3 zone. A pole sign is defined as a permitted use only in the C-3 zone and may be a maximum of 35 feet. Therefore, the existing 45-foot pole sign which was grandfathered in probably existed before the current ordinance was adopted. He felt, therefore, that the sign is not in compliance at the current time. Margaret Rathbun, owner of the Bob's Big Boy Restaurant property and the trailer park to the west of the property in question, addressed the Commission. She stated that she had not received notice of this hearing; therefore. she did not attend the first meeting at which this matter was discussed. Mrs. Rathbun noted concern over the noise. She said that the tenants at the trailer park live 110 feet back from the front property line on P.C.H. She noted concern over the location of the car wash on the site in relation to the location of the trailers to the southeast. She noted further concern over: (1) high frequency noise; (2) the operation of two large doors which can be disturbing to people who are resting; (3) other attendant noise from this project; (4) loss of parking on 10th Street; (5) tankers which will be entering the site from 10th Street and using the northerly driveway, which could mean additional loss of parking spaces; (6) impacts on the property because there are no left-hand turns from 9th Street; and (7) problems with cars using private property to egress the gas station. Mrs. Rathbun discussed the trees, stating that the Bob's property is up for redevelopment, and plans may be made as early as spring of 1991; therefore, the trees may be removed in the future. Mrs. Rathbun felt that Mobil is in a position to modify their plans, stating that car washes should be adjacent to commercial uses rather than residential. She felt that the car wash should be on the southerly portion of the property, since that area is completely commercial and people are not there after work hours. Mrs. Rathbun stated that it is more feasible to have cars exiting on 9th Street rather than on 10th Street. She disagreed with Condition No. 2 which states that this project will not adversely affect the welfare of residents. She also felt that the proposed hours of operation are excessive and should be reduced as recommended by staff. 8 P.C. Minutes 2/20/90 Mrs. Rathbun questioned the feasibility of a six-foot sound wall along some portion of the northerly boundary of the property to protect the people in the trailer park. Shu Miho, 731 9th Street, noted concern that Mobil seems to have changed their comments regarding this project. She felt that it is not appropriate to compare this car wash, which is next to residential property, to the car wash in Manhattan Beach, which is next to a preschool and a market. She noted concern over the proposed hours of operation, stating that the proposed hours are excessive. She noted concern over traffic congestion on 9th Street as well as safety of the children in the area. Gerry Compton, 200 Pier Avenue, stated that this Mobile site is very under-utilized for its size. He felt that the site is large enough to accommodate the four pumps; however, he noted concern over a car wash at this location, stating that it could be a potential problem. He urged the Commission to use extreme care in studying the noise study results and in making their determination. He noted that the owner wants to extend a currently existing use; however, stringent conditions should be imposed on the project. Gloria Kolesar, 714 and 726 10th Street, noted that she sent a letter dated February 19, 1990, to the Commission regarding this matter. She stated that her property is actually the closest to the proposed site. She noted that the people in the trailer park are elderly and rest during the daytime hours. Mrs. Kolesar stated that she went to the car wash site in Manhattan Beach, and she gave her observations of the operation at that time: (1) autos exiting the car wash are wet, and people stop to dry off their cars; (2) both doors were open at all times during all car washes; (3) water was being emitted during the washes; (4) when air dryers are on, the noise is excessive; (5) noise was clearly audible on the other side of the wall at Trader Joe's. Mrs. Kolesar noted concern that the doors are not closed at the Manhattan Beach site, other than during times when the system is not in operation. She continued by explaining the four various types of washes which are available at the station, each of a varying duration of time. Mrs. Kolesar noted concern over the noise which can be very disturbing to residents. She was pleased that the Commission expressed concern over possible two-story development to the west. Mrs. Kolesar urged each of the Commissioners to go to the Manhattan Beach site to listen to the noise emanating from that car wash. She noted that noise does not seem to emanate laterally from the car wash, but rather from the ends of the building. Mrs. Kolesar noted that there will be only 68 feet from the car wash to the trailers, and the noise will radiate to that area and will be quite disturbing, especially for prolonged hours all day long. She felt that this project will adversely impact the property values. Mrs. Kolesar discussed the landscaping, stating that trees planted 20 feet apart will not do much to mitigate the noise, other than at the first-story level. She suggested alternate types of trees in her letter to the Commission. Mrs. Kolesar noted concern that the doors at the Manhattan Beach site are not closed; however, she said that she would not like to be inside a car wash when the doors are closed. Mrs. Kolesar, in response to questions from Comm. Rue, discussed plantings which would be appropriate to reduce the noise. Wilma Burt, 1152 7th Street, addressed the Commission and noted concern over large delivery trucks entering the site to fill the gas pumps, and she reminded the Commission that this site is adjacent to residential property. She noted that because of the depth and narrowness of 10th 9 P.C. Minutes 2/20/90 Street, there have always been problems on that street. She agreed with previous testimony that people do use the private property at Bob's, and she noted concern over safety and suggested that that route be blocked to protect the residents. Mrs. Burt noted concern not only over noise, but also over loading of the gas tanks. She commented on the snack shop and noted that several other food establishments are being proposed near this site; therefore, she noted concern over congestion. Mrs. Burt felt that Mobil is discriminating to older people and women because they provide no service to customers. Mrs. Burt felt there is potential danger in regard to the delivery and loading of the tanks, the possible underground contamination caused by buried tanks, and unsafe entry into the station because of the narrowness of the street. She felt that the proposed hours are excessive and there will be too much noise. She noted that two-story condos as well as the trailer court are adjacent to this site; therefore, the hours should be restricted. Mrs. Rathbun clarified that, contrary to rumor, there is not going to be a McDonald's restaurant at the Bob's site in the future. Howard Longacre, 1221 7th Place, addressed the Commission and stated that he opposes a car wash at this location. He favored only three gas pumps at the station, with no more than three cars allowed per pump. He questioned whether Mobil has indicated a desire to sell alcoholic beverages at the snack shop; however, he opposed the sale of any liquor at this site since it is within 100 feet of the residential zone. Mr. Longacre noted concern over possible accidents related to the gas tankers and deliveries, especially since there is so much traffic in that area. He noted that it is not appropriate to have tankers unloading in the middle of the night so near to a residential area. Mr. Longacre felt that this project will totally max out the property. Since it will be a completely new project, he did not feel it would be appropriate to allow any grandfathered signs to remain. He felt that everything should be brought up to current code requirements. If the 45- foot sign is not in compliance, he felt it should be removed. Mr. Longacre reminded the Commission that there are very expensive homes to the west of the proposed car wash. He speculated that the new business will generate a great deal of traffic which will spill onto 9th Street and Ardmore. Mr. Longacre felt that Mobil wants to build another car wash merely as a gimmick to pump gas, stating that they are not providing a service. He almost felt defeated in his battle against such a huge conglomerate. He felt that Mobil does not care about the City; they are only interested in their profits. Mr. Longacre felt that the proposed hours of operation are excessive, and he recommend hours of 8:00 AM. to 7:00 P.M. Mr. Longacre felt that residents have more rights than a giant corporation which puts in a computer-operated gas station which is totally impersonal. Mr. Longacre felt that the issue of the 9th Street entrance should be addressed. He continued by expressing concern over the noticing of this issue and questioned whether everyone was properly noticed. He noted that the agenda contains wording that staff recommends this matter to be continued. He said that some people might see that statement and decide that no action will take place; therefore, they do not attend the meeting. He felt that such wording should be omitted in the future so that as many people as possible attend these important meetings. When matters are continued, he suggested that people be sent another notice so they P.C. Minutes 2/20/90 know when to attend. He also noted concern that the site itself was not noticed prior to this meeting. Mr. Longacre questioned whether an environmental impact report was done for this project. Mr. Schubach stated that the Planning Commission is the lead agency in deciding whether or not to require an EIR. He explained that the staff environmental review committee recommended that this project receive a negative declaration with mitigation measures. He stated that the planning staff studied this issue and recommended that more infonnation be provided in regard to the noise. Sybil Hess, 64 7 9th Street, noted concern over traffic and noise. She lives on the downside of 9th Street and said that the noise will be very loud for the residents. She gave staff several self- addressed stamped envelopes and asked that she be notified of any future hearings on this matter. Mrs. Hess stated that this project will generate heavy traffic on 9th Street. She said that the street is already so crowded with multiple dwelling units that it is difficult to back out of one's own driveway, especially since the street is so narrow. Since the City is requiring that the cars from the car wash exit on 9th Street, she felt that the neighbors would bear the burden of the increased traffic. Mrs. Kolesar again addressed the Commission and asked whether a new sound study will be considered due to the fact that there are residents only 40 feet from the car wash. She also noted concern that four to ten parking spaces might be lost, and she asked whether the Commission has considered this. She asked whether it has been considered to install a signal at 10th Street. Mr. Rechsteiner offered rebuttal to the comments made during the hearing. He stated that the 9th Street driveway will be left open by request of the City. He could not see how the Mobil station would affect traffic going behind the Bob's Big Boy. as mentioned by several people. He said that the original plans showed the 9th Street driveway closed, but the plans were changed at the City's request. Mr. Rechsteiner stated that cars exiting the car wash will exit on Pacific Coast Highway, explaining that the cars will stack to the rear before exiting; however, the logical flow will be onto P .C.H. He noted that most of the business will be from southbound traffic on the highway. and people will then exit on P.C.H. to continue driving south. Mr. Rechsteiner discussed the proposed hours of operation and stated that they are requesting hours of 6:00 AM. to 10:00 P.M. Mr. Rechsteiner agreed with comments that this site is under-utilized; that is why Mobil is attempting to upgrade the property in order to keep up with the times and use the property to its full potential. Mr. Rechsteiner discussed the trailer park and stated that he does not have the actual figures, but he remembered that it was 72 feet from the car wash opening to the trailers. He said that he could verify the exact distances. Mr. Rechsteiner commented on people stopping to dry off their cars, and he stated that the car wash is designed to dry the cars off by 80 percent. He was not sure how people could be prevented from stopping to dry their cars. Mr. Rechsteiner discussed testimony regarding the doors being opened at the Manhattan Beach car wash. He stressed that he will look into the matter in order to ascertain why the doors are not being kept closed. 11 P.C. Minutes 2/20/90 Mr. Rechsteiner discussed the tanks being next to the residential area. He stated that gasoline deliveries are safe operations, and they have had no accidents in the past. He said that delivery people have been contacted and told that they are not to make noise, such as radio noise, when they are making their deliveries. Mr. Rechsteiner stated that trucks will enter the site from 10th Street; however, he noted that there will still be a parking space there. But he noted that the curb is currently painted red on either side of the driveway; therefore, it will be easy for people to get in and out of the driveway. Mr. Rechsteiner addressed the issue of personal property rights and stated that as property owners, Mobil has rights too. They are in a commercial zone; however, the people in the abutting residential zone were aware they were next to commercial when they purchased their homes. He stated that they are trying to be good neighbors. and he took umbrage to the comments made regarding the business being operated by a computer, explaining that the business is leased to an independent operator. Mr. Rechsteiner addressed the issue of cars racing down 9th Street and stated that Mobil left the 9th Street driveway open per the City's request. He again noted that the majority of traffic will enter and exit on Pacific Coast Highway. Comm. Moore noted concern over the doors being left open at the other site. He noted that some operators do not comply with requirements, and he asked where citizens could go to make a complaint. Mr. Rechsteiner stated that citizens can contact Mobil directly. He suggested that they call the marketing office in Burbank if problems arise. Comm. Peirce asked if they would be willing to install an interlock on the doors so that the dryer fan cannot be activated unless the doors are closed. Mr. Rechsteiner replied in the affinnative, noting that this has not been done in the past; however, he is sure that that technology is available. He said that he would accept such a condition. Comm. Rue discussed the issue of walls and asked what materials would be used for the wall. He also asked how any property disruptions to surrounding properties would be handled. Mr. Rechsteiner stated that the wall would be built on Mobil property; therefore, there should be no disruption to surrounding private property. He stated that if any plants were damaged, they would be replaced. He continued by stating that the wall would probably be some type of concrete block construction. Comm. Rue asked about the trade-offs between water reclamation and energy consumption. Mr. Otte stated that water is run through a motor-driven cyclone separator and then pumped out; therefore, some energy must be used. He noted, however, that he has not done any studies on the exact numbers. He stated that in reclamation 12 gallons out of 17 are saved, explaining that five gallons are lost in evaporation. Mr. Davie explained that the noise study was based on ambient noise measurements taken at the west property line. He discussed the location of the homes in relation to the location of the car wash and stated that the difference in noise at 72 feet as opposed to 80 feet is negligible. He said that the ambient noise levels on P.C.H. are quite high; however, he said that the proposed retaining wall will mitigate noise. He stated that a wind-wall along the north property line can be constructed in order to attenuate noise. He said that the wall would possibly the same height as the building. 12 P.C. Minutes 2/20/90 Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Comm. Rue regarding the allowable height of walls, explained that the current code allows walls to be no more than six feet in height. If it is desired to allow a higher wall, it would be necessary to amend the code. He stated that staff is currently studying this issue. Mr. Davie stated that an attempt will be made to provide the same noise attenuation to the northwesterly property line as is being provided to the westerly property line. Mr. Davie stated that a material which can be used in noise attenuation is Tecktum which is manufactured by National Gypsum. He explained that this is an absorbant material made of compressed wood fibers, and if required to do so, they could apply this material to the face of the walls. Mention of this product was not made in the report due to the fact that they were so far below the ambient noise level, he did not think the issue would arise. Mrs. Rathbun again addressed the Commission and stated that she cannot agree with Mr. Rechsteiner. She said that the program is to install a snack shop; therefore, traffic will increase. She said that parking spaces will be impacted because the driveway has been moved to the rear of the property to accommodate delivery tankers. She said that people who want to travel north will exit on the 10th Street side of the property. She discussed the possibility of a sound wall being constructed on the 10th Street side; however, she questioned whether a six- foot wall would be effective. Mrs. Rathbun felt that Mobil should utilize their properties abutting residential differently than they use properties abutting commercial zones. She noted that airborne pollutants will be emitted and there will be underground containers holding volatile fuels. These factors, along with the noise, make such a use inappropriate and dangerous so close to a residential area. Mr. Rechsteiner stated that there is 17 feet from the driveway to the end of the property. There is another 10 to 12 feet to where the street stops. He continued by discussing the dimensions for the driveway. He said that more traffic will not be drawn to a gas station, because gasoline is an impulse purchase. He stated that they hope to bring in more business from the street, not attract more business from another area. Public Hearing closed at 9:34 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell. Comm. Peirce stated that there are three issues before the Commission in making its decision: hours, signs, and noise. He felt that if this project is approved, a condition requiring that there be an interlocking door should be included. He also said that he could not favor this project unless the hours are restricted to nothing beyond 7:00 AM. to 9:00 P.M. on weekdays and 8:00 A.M. to 8:00 P.M. on weekends. He disagreed with the applicant's assertion that it is necessary to have a 45-foot sign and a 14-foot sign at the entrance of this gas station, and he felt that the project should be in compliance with the sign ordinance. Comm. Peirce continued by discussing the noise issue and stated that a critical question is whether the noise is 55 db or 60 db on the LEQ measurements. He stated that a reading below 60 db on the LEQ would make the project in compliance with the noise ordinance. Mr. Schubach read from the noise ordinance and explained that certain circumstances allow adding 5 db to the total; whereas, in other circumstances, 5 db is decreased from the total. He stated, therefore, that these two actions can cancel one another out; therefore, staff felt that the reading is 55 db on the LEQ. Comm. Peirce discussed the handwritten chart submitted by the applicant regarding the figures, and he stated that the total would appear to be 61 db. He stated that the sound wall cannot take credit for noise attenuation because there is every possibility that surrounding new construction will be built to two stories. Unless a sound wall is built to 20 feet, there can be no sound attenuation from the wall above the wall. 13 P.C. Minutes 2/20/90 Comm. Peirce stated that the project appears to be 5 db above the allowable maximum. He felt that the appropriate location for the car wash would be parallel to the highway so that the noise perpendicular to the car wash would be quite small. He stated that the noise figures would need to be verified by staff. Comm. Peirce did not feel that the water reclamation system is necessary because of the small amount of water which will be used. Comm. Peirce stated that the main issue is noise, noting that this project will be very noisy, especially to the people in the trailer park and those down the street. He questioned whether this is an appropriate use at this location which is so close to a residential area. Comm. Ketz was not certain that this is an appropriate use at this location, stating that she is not totally satisfied that the project will not create an adverse impact. She was not convinced that the proposed measures will mitigate the noise, stating that the residences will be able to hear the noise, especially anything at two levels. She, therefore, could not support the project at this time. Comm. Rue noted that there appears to be a discrepancy between staff's opinion and that of the noise consultant in regard to the numbers. He felt that the matter needs to be clarified before a decision can be made. Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Comm. Rue, stated that staff felt this project would not create sufficient additional traffic to warrant a traffic study. He continued by explaining that staff felt the relocation of the driveway would improve the situation. Comm. Rue, noting that concerns had been raised about the traffic to the rear of the Big Boy, questioned whether something could be built to stop traffic flow to the north. Comm. Rue asked whether there would be any positive aspects to closing off 9th Street, to which Mr. Schubach replied that he would need to discuss that issue with the public works director; however, he did not feel there would be a significant problem with closing it off. Comm. Peirce felt that the noise could be mitigated by putting walls around the property; however, sometimes the cure can be worse than the illness and the site could look like a prison. Mr. Schubach stated that he has seen very high walls covered with vines and they looked somewhat attractive; however, high walls have an impact on light, air, and ventilation. Comm. Moore did not feel that high walls are the answer. He was convinced that the appropriate measure is the proper selection of door materials, insulation, and gasketing to reduce the noise. He stressed. however. that the key to success is to be sure that everyone understands the required standards before the project is built so that there are no surprises. Comm. Moore stated that he can support the car wash once there is a clear statement of the noise standard and assurances that the noise ordinance will be enforced. He wanted to make it clear to Mobil that the standards will be enforced. He further questioned the feasibility of closing off 9th Street before a study is done. He agreed that the sign ordinance must be met at this project. Comm. Moore agreed with Condition No. 10, which requires that signage shall be in compliance with the sign ordinance. Comm. Moore agreed that water reclamation is an important public issue; however, he did not feel this project is the appropriate place to begin. He therefore favored deleting Condition No. 13. 14 P.C. Minutes 2/20/90 Comm. Moore discussed Condition No. 19(a): "Complaints from residents shall constitute a nuisance." He felt that such a condition would be worthless as worded; therefore, he favored amended wording delineating specific noise standards upon which complaints must be based. Comm. Moore discussed Condition No. 20(b): "The air and water facilities shall be located a minimum of 50 feet from the rear property line." He wanted to ensure that such a requirement is carried out. Comm. Moore concluded that he could support approval, with the inclusion of his above- suggested modifications. Comm. Rue felt that additional noise information is necessary before a final decision can be made. Comm. Moore felt that the noise information is very close; however, a final determination cannot be absolute until the project is built. Comm. Peirce agreed that it is probably possible to mitigate the noise and meet the standard; however, to allow the project to be built before obtaining additional information could cause confusion. He felt that it is important for everyone to agree on the noise standards before the project begins. Comm Peirce wanted to ensure that the project can meet the standards before it is built. Chmn. Ingell agreed and stated that he would prefer to see the mitigation measures on paper before final approval is given. He felt that the proposed hours are too long, and he felt that the hours should be limited to 8:00 AM. to 7:00 P.M. Noting that this project abuts residential, he felt that the proposed delivery hours are also excessive. MOTION by Comm. Rue to continue this matter to a date agreeable to both staff and the applicant. Mr. Schubach reminded the Commission that staff had included a condition requiring a water reclamation be used. Chmn. Ingell also favored requiring a water reclamation system, and he noted that it is never too soon to prepare for a drought. Chmn. Ingell discussed the number of gas islands and the snack shop, and he questioned whether the traffic will indeed be increased. Mr. Schubach stated that staff did not feel there would be an increase; however, additional information regarding the traffic can be provided if this matter is continued. MOTION WITHDRAWN by Comm. Rue. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Rue, to continue this matter to the meeting of March 20, 1990, for the purpose of ol:Jtaining additional information, specifically: (1) to reach an agreement between the City and Mobil in regard to the actual noise measurement, the value it will be held to, and how it is measured; and (2) to request a design of the car wash, which by analysis or test, will show that they can meet the numbers Mobil agrees to before this project is actually built. Comm. Moore noted concern over this matter again being continued when there are only two areas of concern. Comm. Peirce suggested that a straw vote be taken on all items, with the exception of the two issues contained in his motion. 15 P.C. Minutes 2/20/90 With the exception of Chmn. Ingell, all the Commissioners agreed that Condition No. 10 regarding hours of operation is adequate. Chmn. Ingell felt that the hours are excessive and should be limited. Comm. Peirce suggested hours of 7:00 A.M. to 8:00 P.M. on weekdays, and 8:00 AM. to 8:00 P.M. on weekends. Chmn. Ingell opposed the proposed weekend hours, stating they are excessive. Comm. Moore favored the proposed hours of operation, and continued by stating that if the applicant can prove superior noise reduction, they could in the future request the additional hour to be open. Comm. Peirce favored wording in Condition No. 10 requiring that all signage shall be in confonnance with the Hermosa Beach Sign Ordinance. All Commissioners agreed. Comm. Peirce favored deletion of Condition No. 13 requiring a water reclamation system. Chmn. Ingell favored retaining that condition. Comm. Peirce discussed Condition No. 16 and favored additional wording requiring that an interlock shall be installed to prevent the operation of the air blowers when the doors are open. All Commissioners agreed. Comm. Peirce suggested the deletion of Condition No. 18. Comm. Peirce discussed Condition No. 19, stating that the wording should be deleted and replaced with wording specifying how and where the measurements shall be taken. He also suggested inclusion of the actual wording from the code so that there are no discrepancies. Comm. Moore stated that he is ready to vote on the entire matter, with the exception of the two above-mentioned issues related to noise. He noted concern that if the matter is continued, all of the issues will again be discussed at the next meeting. He felt that with the exception of the noise, this matter has been adequately discussed and studied. Mr. Lee stated that the matter could be continued, at which time the public hearing could be re- opened solely for the purpose of taking additional testimony on the issue of noise. He suggested, however, that it would be appropriate to leave the entire matter open in the event other relevant testimony is given. Comm. Rue reminded the Commission that he had requested additional information from staff regarding the closure of the 9th Street exit. Comm. Peirce did not feel closure of 9th Street would be appropriate, stating that that exit is necessary for ease of leaving the property. Mr. Lee reminded the Commission that Mr. Schubach had been requested to provide additional information on the issue of increased traffic caused by this use. Chmn. Ingell stated that the matter would be continued, and that public testimony would be taken in the future on the issue noise; however, if deemed necessary, other additional comments will also be taken. (Vote on motion to continue. See Page 15.) AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ingell None None None 16 P.C. Minutes 2/20/90 Recess taken from 10:13 P.M. until 10:23 P.M. Chmn. Ingell and the Commissioners discussed the remainder of the agenda. It was noted that a great deal of time will be necessary to cover the remaining items; therefore, it was decided that it may be necessary to continue some of the items if it becomes too late this evening. ZONE CHANGES FROM C-3. R-1. R-2. AND R-P '.IQ COMMERCIAL SPECIFIC PLAN AREA OR TO SUCH OTHER ZONE AS DEEMED APPROPRIATE BY mE PLANNING COMMISSION AND ADOPl10N OF mE NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF THE COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR ALONG EAST AND WEST SIDES OF PACIFIC COAST filGHWAY BETWEEN SOUTH CITY BOUNDARY TO EIGHm STREET (CONTINUED FROM MEETING OF JANUARY 16. 1990) Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated February 7, 1990. Staff recommended that the areas designated commercial corridor on the general plan, located south of 8th Street, be rezoned from their current zoning classifications of C-3, R-1, R-2, R-3, and R-P (the majority being C-3) to commercial specific plan area. Mr. Schubach displayed an overhead slide depicting the area in question as he gave the staff report. The P]aooiog Commission, at their meeting of January 16, 1990, continued this item and directed staff to consider alternatives to address comments at the meeting and to return with a modified proposal. This has not been a simple task, given that a variety of different and conflicting concerns were noted. Consequently, staff proposed a modified recommendation with the emphasis on refining the procedure, requirements, and criteria for review of precise development plans. Also, staff included three other alternatives to staffs recommendation for the PJanning Commission to consider. Staff emphasized that it is extremely important that a final decision be made on this matter because of the pending expiration of the moratorium in August of 1990 and the need to also complete zone changes and a specific plan area for the northern portion of the commercial corridor. Staffs previous approach was to develop standards and limitations which are more restrictive than those in the C-3 zone relating to height, landscaping, and buffering of residential zones. Also, the proposal included a requirement for precise development plans for all commercial projects to give the Planning Commission the authority to impose conditions recognizing the unique features of each particular project and to lessen the adverse environmental impacts of a project. Staff felt that it is still a generally appropriate method for dealing with the problem; however, the Planning Commission expressed concern about the requirement for precise development plans in all cases. as it would often require the Commission to make tough decisions to impose more restrictive standards on proposed projects and possibly lead to inconsistency in decisions and perhaps create uncertainty for developers as to what can be built As such, staff modified the precise development plan procedure in a manner which would keep the positive attribute of flexibility to consider the unique features of particular projects but would provide a level of certainty for developers willing to meet some basic standards. The concept is to provide a first tier of development standards that, if complied with, would not require any discretionary approvals. making a project exempt from environmental review and requiring only a building permit from the City, although the Planning Department would be involved in plan check regarding the approval of site plans and landscape plans. Projects that contain any elements that go beyond these standards, however, would trigger the requirement of a precise development plan, requiring public hearings, Planning Commission approval, and 17 P.C. Minutes 2/20/90 environmental review. Traffic impacts would be considered as part of the environmental review. Staff believes that this would provide somewhat of an incentive for developers to build projects of an appropriate scale and height. Also, there would be flexibility to go beyond the standards, and the Planning Commission would be in a position to allow more bulk, higher structures, or extremely large projects only if certain guidelines are followed to their satisfaction. This concept requires two tiers of development standards: (1) standards that, if exceeded, would trigger the precise development plan requirement and which the Planning Commission would have authority to waive if certain guidelines are followed; and (2) maximum or minimum standards which could not be exceeded except though a variance. Staff recommended the following standards for the first tier which would trigger the precise development plan: Height east of P.C.H. would be 30 feet; height west of P.C.H. of 35 feet; bulk of 1.0 FAR; size of 15,000 square feet; and landscape coverage of 5 percent of the lot area. The second tier maximum/minimum standards would be: height east of P.C.H. of 40 feet: height west of P.C.H. of 45 feet; no bulk or size requirement; and landscaping coverage of two percent of the lot area. Mr. Schubach, in response to questions from Comm. Ketz regarding the landscaping, stated that the Commission may want to clarify that section of the ordinance. Comm. Rue, noting that most of the lots in the City are quite small, asked how many projects in the City could potentially trigger the 15,000 square foot requirement. Mr. Schubach stated that the motel project as well as other projects which involve assemblage of lots or recycled properties would trigger the requirement. He clarified that any project which exceeds the first tier requirements would trigger the ordinance. Comm. Rue asked about requirements used in other cities. Chmn. Ingell recalled that the Commissioners had previously desired to make the ordinance as simple as possible in order to attract good development. He questioned the feasibility of automatic review for all projects in the area in question, such as is done in other cities. Mr. Schubach stated that developers have expressed their desire to have concise standards in writing so that they do not have to appear before the PJanoiog Commission to clarify what can and cannot be built in the City. Public Hearing opened at 10:28 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell. Mike Xenos, 705 Pacific Coast Highway, explained that his father had owned the property in question for a number of years with a partner. He continued by giving background information about the property, and stated that he has been in the process of deciding what to do with this property. He said there is not much frontage on the property; therefore, he feels the best use would be as a motel, which it has been for quite some time. He therefore asked if the use could be grandfathered in in order to avoid having to go through the precise plan process. He said that the spirit and intent of the plan is acceptable; however, he felt that imposition of these requirements would diminish the marketability of the property. He said that they could work with the Planning Department to meet the standards and thus avoid the necessity of having to go through the entire hearing process. Gerry Compton, 200 Pier Avenue, addressed the Commission and stated that he was very pleased to see the staff work which was done on this project. Even though he does not agree with everything in the document, he felt that it will help developers know what is allowed. 18 P.C. Minutes 2/20/90 Mr. Compton favored the concept of setting reasonable restrictions for developers. If they want to build upwards, they can then make a request to the City to deviate from the requirements. Mr. Compton discussed the fact that many cities require conditional use permits for all projects, and he felt that that is an attempt to limit development. He continued by discussing development along the highway and the fact that many developers were not aware of what kinds of development could take place. Mr. Compton discussed the specific requirements and felt that the 15,000 square foot trigger might be excessive, and he suggested that 10,000 square feet might be a more reasonable number to trigger the additional new requirements. Mr. Compton stated that he had been grappling with the issue of allowing a different height on each side of the highway, noting that this might be a reasonable requirement, especially taking into account the various slopes along that area. Mr. Compton discussed the fact that developers must be given an incentive to create attractive- looking buildings. He stated that large, boxy buildings are not desirable, and the wording in the ordinance seems to address this issue. Mr. Compton discussed the way the height is measured in Manhattan Beach as opposed to Hermosa Beach and how buildings will be different because of the different methods of measurement. Mr. Compton stated that, on the whole, he agrees with the staff work on this document. Mr. Compton stated that he would prefer to see a mix of buildings along the highway. He stressed the importance of developers knowing what can be built in order to encourage good development. He stated that the guidelines must be very clear. Comm. Peirce asked for Mr. Compton's opinion on the issue of strip commercial development and whether it should be allowed. Mr. Compton did not feel that the City needs any more strip development along the highway. However, if the economics dictate that strip development is the only feasible alternative, a person has property rights and should be allowed to put in such a development. He felt that people should be encouraged to do better projects than strip developments. Jim Wellbaum, 222 North Sepulveda, El Segundo, stated that he has read the report and wanted to commend staff on their fine work. He felt that the document is very thorough, and he highly recommended approval at this time. He said that the moratorium has taken the wind out of the sails of many developers. He felt that the document will give developers a clear idea of what direction they can take in regard to their projects. Although he does not agree with everything in the report, he agrees with approximately 95 percent of the suggestions. Public Hearing closed at 10:58 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell. Comm. Peirce agreed that the document is good; his only concern is over the square footage which will trigger the requirements. He felt that 10,000 square feet would be a more appropriate figure to trigger the tier. Comm. Moore favored approval as written by staff, with the 15,000 square foot figure. MOTION by Comm. Moore, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve staffs recommendation as written. Comm. Moore felt that it is important to use a technique which will set up fairly restrictive standards which are clear. So long as a developer stays within the standards, it will not be 19 P.C. Minutes 2/20/90 necessary for him to deal with the bureaucracy. In this way, people will not be robbed of their property rights in that if they want to develop further, they have the right to come to the City and ask to do so. Chmn. Ingell agreed that staff did an excellent job; however, he felt that the 15,000 square-foot trigger is excessive, and it should be reduced. Comm. Ketz agreed that the triggering square footage should be smaller, especially because of the small lots in town and the fact that not many would accommodate a project of more than 15,000 square feet. She continued by discussing mini mail and strip development. noting that such projects have been outlawed in many cities. She questioned the feasibility of a ban on such development along the highway. Comm. Peirce felt that the issue of mini malls and strip development should be addressed in the future. He personally felt that such development is very ugly. Mr. Schubach suggested that the issue be addressed along with the land use element. Comm. Moore argued in support of the motion to approve, stating that the standards are reasonable, and he felt that the first and second tier triggers are appropriate. Comm. Rue discussed strip centers, stating that the intensity of use appears to be the main issue regarding such centers. He felt that if strip centers are going to be allowed, the quality must be better. He questioned how better quality projects can be encouraged. Comm. Rue suggested amendments to the motion: (1) that the floor area be reduced to 10,000 square feet of gross floor area to trigger the first tier requirement; (2) in regard to Condition No. 3, wordage shall be added to encourage low maintenance landscaping and to provide for its upkeep; (3) wording shall be added stating that the required landscaping shall be in excess of the required landscaping buffer. Mr. Schubach, in response to concerns raised by Comm. Rue, suggested the addition of a condition requiring that the development, grounds and landscaping, shall be maintained in a neat and clean manner. Comm. Rue discussed Section 9.67-6, Section B, Item le, and questioned whether the wording is redundant; i.e., " ... This is not a prescription for architectural similar architectural styles .... " He felt that the wording is not clear. He also felt that Item la appears to cover the same issue as that in Item ld. ComnL Rue discussed Section 9.67-6, Section B, Item ld and questioned whether it would be appropriate to include wording stating that three-dimensional models may be required as deemed appropriate by the Planning Director, or at the discretion of the Planning Commission. He felt that models could be quite helpful in certain projects. A discussion ensued regarding the feasibility of requiring models. Comm. Moore stated that he does not feel it would be appropriate to require models in some cases and not in others, stating that if the code says a model "may be required" the standards would not be clear. Public Hearing reopened at 11: 11 P .M. by Chmn. Ing ell. Gerry Compton, 200 Pier Avenue, addressed the Commission and explained that three- dimensional models can be quite expensive and time consuming to make. He said that computers can now generate detailed 3-D images which serve to depict projects in greater detail. Howard Longacre stated that models many times prove to be worth their weight in gold. He felt that it is ridiculous for an architect to assert that models are too expensive to make. 20 P.C. Minutes 2/20/90 Public Hearing closed at 11: 15 P.M. by Chmn Ingell. Comm. Peirce felt that only 3-D renderings should be required, not models. He felt that models are very expensive, and the 3-D renderings from several angles are adequate to give a feel for a project. Comm. Peirce stated that the standards should be quite clear; he therefore did not favor conditions stating that certain things "may be required." Comm. Rue suggested a change to Section 9.67 -6, Item 4, Landscaping, from: "The objective of the landscaping requirement is to enhance the streetscape .... " to: "The objective of the landscaping requirement is to enhance the project in total .... " (Vote on Comm. Moore's MOTION TO APPROVE, with 15,000 square feet as the trigger, but including the following amendments as suggested by Comm. Rue and agreed to by Comm. Moore: (1) addition of wording in Section 9.67-6, Commercial Development Standards, Item C3, Landscaping Buffer from the Residential Zone, to state: "The landscape buffer between the project and residential zones is not included in the calculations of the landscape area"; (2) addition of a condition to Section 9.67-6, Item 1, (to be Condition No. 6) stating that "The development shall be maintained in a neat and clean manner"; (3) Section 9.67-6, Precise Development Plan, Item B4, Landscaping, shall be modified to state: "The objective of the landscaping requirement is to enhance the prQj ect in total .... " AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: (MOTION FAILS.) Comm. Moore Comms. Ketz, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ingell None None MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve staffs recommendation, Resolution P.C. 90-8, with the modification that the trigger be 10,000 square feet, and with the inclusion of the three above-mentioned amendments. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Comms. Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ingell None None None TEXT AMENDMENT REGARDING SEVENTEEN-FOOT PARKING SETBACK AND CONSIDERATION OF THE ELIMINATION OF SETBACK REQUIREMENT FROM ALLEYS AND ADOPI10N OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION Chmn. Ingell, noting the lateness of the hour, suggested that this hearing be continued. Comm Ketz agreed and stated that this very important issue will need to be discussed at length. Comm. Peirce concurred. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to continue this hearing to the meeting of March 6, 1990. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Com.ms. Ketz, Moore. Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ingell None None None 21 P.C. Minutes 2/20/90 REVIEW OF THE PLAN FOR VASEK POLAK AUTO DEALERSHIP AT 2775. 2981. 2901. AND 3001 PACIFIC COAST mGHWAY FOR COMPLIANCE wrm THE CONDmONAL USE PERMIT Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated February 13, 1990. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve the subject site plan. At the December 5, 1990, m eeting , the Planning Commission a p proved Vasek Polak's r equest, with m odifications , for a conditional use p ermit t o a u thorize the oper a tion of a u to d ealer ships on the subject contiguous properties. The conditions included a requirement that complete site plans be submitted to the Planning Commission for the February 20, 1990, meeting. The site plan incorporates the BMW dealerships, the Subaru dealership, and the Volkswagen dealership. The plans show that adequate parking is available and that each dealership can stand on its own in r egard to p arking. The plans also show the location of the p roposed car s tackers along the westerly property line and indicate that the stack ers will not en croach int o the required eight-foot set b a ck from r e siden tial zones or int o the 20-foot fir e lane; alt hough, the stacked cars will overhang closer than ei ght feet from the p r operty line. The cars, however, are not considered structures and are not subject to the eight-foo t setback. Staffs only concern is that within the Subaru dealership parking lot the identified customer parking is situated in tandem. Staff believes that these tandem spaces would be more appropriate for employee parking. Otherwise, the submitted plans are consistent with the conditions of the conditional use permit. Mr. Schubach stated that this matter has again come before the Commission to ensure that the plans meet all the requirements as specified by the attached resolution and approved by the City Council. Comm. Peirce was under the impression that the Commission was to receive a set of dimensioned plans so that when a dispute arises, the plans can be consulted. Mr. Schubach clarified that dimensioned plans were received by staff. Hearing opened by Chmn. Ingell at 11:25 P.M. Gerry Compton, 200 Pier Avenue, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission. He said that he did submit large-scale plans to the City. He said that he went through the conditions to ensure that they are being met. He continued by discussing the parking in terms of legal spaces versus additional spaces. He said that there are 86 legal spaces and 32 spaces in tandem. He continued by explaining the parking as depicted on the plans. Larry Bryant, 2960 La Carlita Place, commended the Commission on the fine work they have done in regard to this project. He asked that the conditions be enforced as soon as possible. He noted concern over the placement of the car stackers for the reasons of noise and appearance. He also noted concern over the number of parking spaces, stating that even though the project meets the required number of spaces, he doubted whether there are actually enough spaces to accommodate the employees. Mr. Bryant hoped that the City's noise ordinance will be enforced; however, after studying the ordinance, he feels that the ordinance is somewhat vague. Mr. Bryant noted further concern over the erosion created by cars and trucks parking on the slope. He questioned whether there will be any landscaping in that area, and he felt that this issue is being overlooked. 22 P .C. Minutes 2/20/90 Jim Deutch, 707 30th Street, stated that the Concerned Citizens' Group has reviewed the staff recommendation, and they still have several concerns regarding the location of the car stackers in relation to whether there is an adequate turning radius. He noted concern over the ingress and egress of emergency vehicles. He questioned how many employees will be parking in the car stackers. Mr. Schubach stated that there is an adequate turning radius. He further noted that employee parking is correctly depicted on the submitted plans. Mr. Deutch noted that one of the conditions is that the business clearly post a driving location map diverting traffic away from the residential area. He stated that no such map has yet been posted. Mr. Schubach stated that the applicant has until March 6, 1990, in which to comply with the required conditions. Mr. Deutch, noting that another condition stipulates that Mr. Polak must sign the CUP, asked whether he has yet signed. Mr. Schubach was not certain whether the CUP had yet been signed; however, he again noted that the applicant has until March 6, 1990, to comply. Mr. Bryant said that the police have informed residents that they may call 911 to report complaints occurring at this business. Comm. Moore expressed alarm that people would call the emergency 911 number to report a violation. He said that this is a number to be used in cases of life-threatening emergencies, and the number is burdened enough as it is. Chris Howell, 2966 La Carlita Place, commented on the issue of calling 911, and he said that the police commander directed people to use that number so that there would be a record of complaints maintained in the log. Comm. Moore directed staff to obtain more information in regard to the use of 911. He noted concern over this matter and stated that he would like additional facts. Mr. Schubach stated that staff is currently studying a method to use to log messages and complaints. Mr. Howell thanked the City and staff for its fine work regarding this business and the document. He hoped that the conditions would be enforced, and he noted that some minor violations are still occurring. He noted concern that these isolated incidences of violations could become the norm in the future. Gerry Compton discussed the stacker locations and stated that an opening has been left in the rear to ensure that there will be an adequate fire lane. He continued by discussing the actual measurements of the stackers, and he felt that all issues related to the stackers have adequately been addressed. Mr. Compton stated that he hopes to have a meeting with the manager and all employees for the purpose of ensuring that everyone is aware of the conditions in the CUP and the importance of complying with those conditions. Mr. Compton continued by discussing the required route map, and he stated that an acceptable route will need to be studied. Hearing closed by Chmn. Ingell at 11:53 P.M. 23 P.C. Minutes 2/20/90 . - MOTION by Comm Ketz, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve staffs recommendation to approve the subject site plan. AYES: NOES: Comms. Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ingell None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None STAFF ITEMS a) Memorandum Regarding Planning Commission Liaison for February 27. 1990. City Council Meeting No one will attend as liaison. b) Tentative Future Planning Commission Agenda No action taken. C) City Council Minutes of Januaxy 9. 11, and 23. 1990 No action taken. COMMISSIONER ITEMS None. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Rue, to adjourn at 11:56 P.M. No objections; so ordered. CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and complete record of the action taken by the Planning Commission of Hermosa Beach at the regularly scheduled meeting of February 20, 1990. ~ Michael Schubach.Secretary Date 24 P.C. Minutes 2/20/90