Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC_Minutes_1990_03_06MINUTES OF TIIE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF TIIE CI1Y OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON MARCH 6, 1990, AT 7:00 P.M. IN 11IE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS Meeting called to order at 7:08 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell. Pledge of Allegiance led by Chmn. Ingell. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Comms. Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ingell None Also Present: Michael Schubach, Planning Director; Edward Lee, Assistant City Attorney; Sally White, Recording Secretary APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION by Comm. Ketz, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve the minutes of February 20, 1990, as written. No objections; so ordered. APPROVAL OF RESOLUTIONS MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve as amended (incorporating staffs corrected page of the resolution), Resolution P.C. 90-8, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING AMENDING THE ZONING MAP AND THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO CREATE SPECIFIC PLAN AREA NO. 7, FOR THE AREAS AS DESCRIBED BELOW AND SHOWN ON THE ATTACHED MAP AND ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION. No objections; so ordered. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC Larry Peha, 67 14th Street, applicant for Agenda Item No. 11, noted the length of the agenda and asked that this matter be continued to the next meeting. He also requested that the matter be moved up on the next agenda. He explained that a continuance would allow also him additional time to discuss the project with staff. Howard Longacre, 1221 7th Place, addressed the Commission and asked questions about the Greenwood hotel project. He noted concern that there was not Planning Commission review and approval prior to this project's commencement. He continued by describing City Council actions in regard to this project, and he questioned the appropriateness of a "ministerial review" of the hotel with no public hearing held. He went on by describing the proposed project and its very large size and attendant impacts. He questioned whether the Planning Commission took part in the review of this project. He felt that the City should put the interests of the residents first. MOTION by Comm. Moore, seconded by Comm. Rue, to move Agenda Items 11 and 12 up to this point for discussion by the Commission. No objections; so ordered. AN EXCEPTION FROM SECTION 13-7fB) TO ALLOW A REMODEL AND EXPANSION TO AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING OF GREATER THAN 50% INCREASE IN VALUATION AT 1570 PROSPECT AVENUE (AGENDA ITEM NO. lll MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to continue this item, at the applicant's request, to the next regularly scheduled meeting, March 20, 1990. No objections; so ordered. 1 P.C. Minutes 3/6/90 AN EXCEPTION FROM SECTION 13-7(Bl TO ALLOW A REMODEL AND EXPANSION 1Q AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING GREATER THAN A 50% INCREASE INV ALUATION AT 2624 mE STRAND (AGENDA ITEM NO. 12) Cbmn. Ingell asked whether anyone in the audience was present to speak on this item. to which one citizen responded and stated that he would be able to return to the next meeting to speak on this matter. MOTION by Comm. Moore, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to continue this item to the next regularly scheduled meeting, March 20, 1990. No objections; so ordered. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO ELIMINATE THE CONDITION PROHIBITING THE SALE OF SINGLE CONTAINERS OF BEER AT 74 PIER AVENUE, ROBERTS LIQUOR Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated March 1, 1990. This condition was recommended by the Police Department, which now recommends approval of this request, provided Condition No. 5 is amended. Staff recommended adoption of the proposed resolution incorporating said amenchnent. Robert's Liquor was one of eight packaged liquor stores which was being operated as an off-sale alcohol beverage establishment without a conditional use permit. The Planning Commission, at their meeting of January 3, 1990, granted a CUP, subject to the conditions recommended by staff. The applicant clearly stated at the meeting that he was aware of the conditions being imposed. Upon further review of the conditions, however, the applicant became concerned about Condition No. 4(a) which reads: "Sale of single containers of beer. in a can or bottle, shall be prohibited." This condition was recommended by the Police Department, and it was the first time that the Planning Commission had imposed such a condition. The applicant is justly concerned about a significant loss of business because of this condition. No other liquor establishment has such a requirement, and he feels this puts him at a great disadvantage to his competition. Nonetheless. this condition could be justified in this instance because of the location of this store near the beach and downtown areas. However, staff doubts that the application of the condition will significantly reduce the problems of litter and public drinking. as customers obviously can still purchase beer in four-packs or six-packs. individual containers of wine, and individual containers of liquor or mixed cocktails. The question the Planning Commission should ask is whether or not the harm to this business in terms of loss potential sales is really worth the moderate or perhaps non-existent impact it will have on alleviating the problems. The Commission was provided with a copy of a letter dated March 1, 1990, from Commander Altfeld to the Planning Director, the subject of which is a response to conditional use permit amenchnent by Robert's Liquor. Staff noted that the new language has been incorporated into the amended resolution. Public Hearing opened at 7:28 P.M. byChmn. Ingell. Sei Chan Kim, 74 Pier Avenue, applicant, addressed the Commission. He stated that he did not understand the conditions at the time of approval; therefore, he is now requesting to amend the condition prohibiting single-container sales of beer. Comm. Rue noted concern that Mr. Kim had specifically stated at the public hearing at which this matter was first heard that he had read and understood the conditions being imposed on his business. 2 P.C. Minutes 3/6/90 Mr. Kim stated that he was unaware of the imposition of a condition prohibiting single- container sales of beer until after he had received a letter from staff informing him of this condition. He then went to the Planning Department and requested an amendment to the CUP. He said that he did not receive a copy of the conditions prior to the public hearing. Mr. Schubach explained that copies of the conditions are sent to applicants prior to hearings; however, it is possible that the letter was not received by the applicant. Comm. Peirce noted that single containers are ready invitations to be taken outside and consumed. He asked what assurances the applicant can provide to ensure that people will not purchase single containers of beer and drink them in a public place. Jerry Dowling, Dana Point, the applicant's landlord, addressed the Commission. He said that he and the applicant have discussed this matter and concern has been raised. Regarding the issue of posting a sign as recommended by the Police Department, he said that there should be uniform signage required at all such businesses within a certain radius of the beach advising that fines will be imposed if beer is consumed in a public area. Mr. Dowling continued by stating that it is not feasible to expect the applicant to provide a guarantee that beer sold at his store will not be consumed in a public place. He felt that the posting of signs, coupled with adequate police enforcement. should provide a deterrent. He stated that it is the responsibility of the police, not the applicant. to ensure that people are not drinking on the beach. He noted, however, that the applicant will cooperate and provide the proper signage as requested. He said that there can be no one hundred percent guarantee that people will not drink on the beach, regardless of where the beer is purchased. Mr. Dowling said that Robert's Liquor store has been in existence for approximately fifty years. He said that the applicant is willing to cooperate, and he also wants to prevent drinking on the beach. Mr. Dowling further noted that downtown businesses are not doing very well at this time; therefore, such a condition would not be fair, especially since this business has been there for so long. Mr. Dowling, in response to a question from Chmn. Ingell regarding whether the imposition of this condition has hurt his business, explained that the applicant is still selling single containers of beer. He said that the beer sales comprise a very small percentage of total sales; however, many people do come in to purchase two or three cans of beer, rather than an entire six-pack. They then take the beer home to drink it. He said that many import beers are sold only in single containers. He noted that the applicant has a language difficulty, and it would be hard for him to try to explain to people why they cannot purchase single containers. Wilma Burt, 1152 7th Street, opposed all single-container sales of all alcoholic beverages anywhere in the City. She noted that there are 85 liquor establishments in the City, which is a tremendous number. She felt that single containers are invitations to be consumed in public places. She felt that the Planning Commission should consider amending the ordinance to prohibit single-container sales of all alcoholic beverages in the City, stating that it would be a good first step in eliminating drunk driving and trash. She did not feel it would be appropriate to allow single sales just because the applicant has a language problem. She stressed that single-container sales cause too many problems. Mr. Dowling stated that it would be more fair to require that all liquor stores have the same conditions imposed on them; however, he did not agree that there should be such a condition because it is the responsibility of the police to enforce the requirements that there shall be no drinking in public places. Public Hearing closed at 7:39 P.M. byChmn. Ingell. 3 P.C. Minutes 3/6/90 Mr. Schubach, in response to questions from Comm. Ketz, stated that this is the first liquor store to have a condition imposed prohibiting single-container sales of beer. He said that other older liquor stores which have been operating without CUP's will be coming in for conditional use permit approval in the future. Comm. Peirce felt that businesses should be able to sell what they want and make a profit; however, this business is adjacent to the beach, and there are three large parking lots near the store. He noted that Robert's had been operating without a CUP in the past. He felt that the recommendation by the Police Department is an alternative correction method rather than police agreement. Comm. Peirce stated that the Commission has an obligation to look at a business and its surroundings in relation to the rest of the City to represent the citizens. He noted that there is definitely a problem with people consuming single containers of beer and its attendant trash problems. He sympathized that foreign beer is sold only in single containers; however, the best interests of the City must be considered. For these reasons, he stated that he would vote against the requested amendment. Comm. Moore stated that no one would argue that alcohol is a major problem in society; however, he did not feel that the problem would be solved by prohibiting single-container sales of beer. He felt that single cans of beer sold in brown paper bags will probably be consumed on the street, in a car, or on the beach in the hopes that the police will not see it. He felt that prohibiting this store from selling single cans will not solve anything because there are too many other places where a single can could be purchased. He therefore stated that he would support the requested amendment. Chmn. Ingell, noting that the police had proposed an alternative, stated that he tended to support the amendment. He felt that it would be a burden on the applicant to prohibit single- container sales, especially since many imported brands are only sold individually. He felt that if there is a problem with single-container sales, the problem should be addressed by amending the code, not by penalizing one owner. He felt that such a condition would be a burden on the applicant's competitiveness in the market. He felt that requiring a sign to be posted would be a proper step in the right direction. Chmn. Ingell noted that Robert's Liquor has been operating for 50 years without a conditional use permit. Because the applicant complied with the City and requested a CUP, he did not think it would be appropriate to penalize him for his compliance. He stated, therefore, that he would support the amendment. Comm. Rue agreed with Comm. Moore's and Chmn. Ingell's comments, stating that it might be appropriate to study the ordinance since single-container sales are a problem. He pointed out, however. that beer is not the only problem, noting that mixed cocktails are also sold individually, as well as other types of alcoholic beverages. He stated that he supports the CUP amendment; however, he feels that the ordinance should be addressed since this is a City-wide problem. Comm. Ketz agreed that it would be unfair to penalize this one business. She felt that if there is to be a single-container sale prohibition, it should be City-wide. Comm. Moore stated that the proposed wording for the sign is so bureaucratic that no one will bother to read it. He therefore suggested that the wording be very clear, very short, and very concise so that people know exactly what the intent is. Comm. Peirce stated that everyone has agreed that single-container liquor sales is a problem. He felt that if such sales are allowed to continue, it sends a message that people can continue to drink on the beach, so long as they are not caught. To vote against this request would send a clear message that such activities will not be tolerated in the City. 4 P.C. Minutes 3/6/90 Comm. Rue noted, however, that this request relates only to beer. He noted that many other alcoholic beverages are available in individual containers. Comm. Peirce stated that this involves not only an alcohol abuse issue, but also an atmosphere problem involving the types of people drinking in public. To let a known problem continue would not be appropriate. Comm. Moore suggested that a condition be added requiring that single cans be sold in a clear plastic bag with the name of the store printed on it. Comm. Rue noted that a letter had been received from a citizen asserting that the police are not enforcing the rules related to drinking in public. He questioned whether staff has discussed this matter with the police. Mr. Schubach stated that the City intends to enforce all its conditional use permits. He also stated that the police make every effort to cite people drinking in public. Chmn. Ingell, noting that he lives and works close to the beach area. stated that he has seen a tremendous improvement in the downtown area over the past five years. He said that the police have done a great job in curtailing problems in the area He further stated that problems are not emanating from Robert's Liquor Store. but from other stores. MOTION by Comm. Moore, seconded by Chmn. Ingell, to approve staff's recommendation, Resolution P.C. 90-20, eliminating the condition prohibiting the sale of single containers of beer at 74 Pier Avenue, Robert's Liquor, with the inclusion of two additional conditions: (1) to require that the sign shall be prominently placed in the store. and the precise wording of the sign, which shall be clear and concise, shall be drafted by staff. Such language shall contain large type and be in plain language advising that Hermosa Beach vigorously enforces it liquor laws; and (2) to require that single-container sales of beer shall be placed in clear packaging. allowing clear visibility of the product even though it is in a container. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Comms. Ketz, Moore, Rue. Chmn. Ingell Comm. Peirce None None Mr. Dowling stated that the applicant feels all liquor stores should be required to adhere to the same condition. MOTION by Comm. Rue. seconded by Chmn. Ingell, to direct staff to study the issue of what other cities are doing in regard to single-conta:iner sales of alcoholic beverages No objections; so ordered. Chmn. Ingell suggested that the issue of packaging of alcoholic beverages also be studied. TEXT AMENDMENT REGARDING SEVENTEEN-FOOT PARKING SETBACK AND CONSIDERATION OF THE ELIMINATION OF SE1BACK REgUIREMENT FROM ALLEYS AND ADOPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION (CONTINUED FROM MEE'lING OF FEBRUARY 20. 1990J Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated February 20, 1990. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission adopt the proposed resolution recommending adoption of the subject text amendment. At the meeting of December 12, 1989, the City Council directed staff to prepare an interim ordinance which would waive the 17 -foot setback requirement for garages if four parking 5 P.C. Minutes 3/6/90 spaces are provided on site. This came about as a result of the discussion of a variance request at 3133 Toe Strand. At their meeting of January 9, 1990, the City Council, instead of adopting a proposed interim ordinance, directed staff to prepare text amendments for consideration that would eliminate the 17 -foot parking setback requirement on alleys. The 17-foot setback requirement for garages was established in 1986 for the purpose of providing enough room behind garages in all zones to park a standard vehicle which would not block sidewalks and to provide additional off-street parking. The City Council when establishing this requirement modified the Planning Commission recommendation to allow setbacks on alleys to be either 17 feet, 8 feet, or 3 feet. Application of the 1 7 -foot setback has indeed accomplished the objectives of the Council. Many residential buildings have been constructed in conformance with the 17-foot setback requirement, and in most cases it has resulted in the provision of more than the required parking. Therefore, when considering the elimination of the 1 7 -foot setback requirement on alleys, it must be realized that it will likely result in less off-street parking in the future. Complaints and objections regarding the 1 7 -foot setback requirement have come primarily from owners of shallow single-family lots who are concerned about dedicating such a large portion of their ground-floor area to parking area. For example, lots with a 70-foot depth after providing for the setback, the required garage depth, the front and rear setbacks, and the open space requirements are left with a maximum ground floor dimension of only 20 to 27 feet, limiting the potential uses of the ground floor. the situation is not much better for 80-foot deep lots. It can also be argued that this concern applies to all residential lots where the options for the ground floor plan, perhaps unnecessarily, are being limited by the 17 -foot requirement on alleys. For many of the average-sized lots in the City, three or four parking spaces can easily be provided without the use of the 17-foot setback. To address these concerns regarding the 1 7 -foot setback, staff has resurrected the original recommendation of the Planning Commission regarding this issue. Toe recommendation was to require one of the following setbacks for garages facing an alley: 1 7 feet, 8 feet. or 3 feet; and for projects on alleys of 15 feet or less the turning radius requirements of Section 1161 would apply. Sta.ff is including a modification to this recommendation that the garage setback be either 3 feet. 9 feet, or 17 feet. Staff believes that the 9-foot setback is necessary to provide the minimum dimension for a car parked parallel behind a garage. This space would qualify as a required guest space. Staff is also recommending dimensional standards for parallel parking of a minimum. length of 22 feet to provide the necessary maneuvering space. To lessen the impact on parking, staff also included a provision that single-family houses containing four or more bedrooms, or more than 3000 square feet, be required to provide two guest spaces. In all other cases, however, projects will only have to meet the minimum parking requirements as established in the zoning ordinance. Staff felt that the proposed amendments address the immediate concerns noted in a manner that does not sacrifice the integrity of existing parking and zoning requirements. Staff also felt that these amendments may have an ancillary benefit of providing a greater incentive for developers trying to maximize floor space to use the alley for access rather than the street. Comm. Ketz asked for clarification on the amount of area required for the turning radius off of an alley. Mr. Schubach explained that when a parking space is extended in width. there is greater maneuverability for vehicles backing out and turning around; therefore, the space behind it can be reduced. If there is a minimum size parking space, there would need to be a minimum of 23 feet behind the space in order for cars to back out. 6 P.C. Minutes 3/6/90 Comm. Ketz noted that if three parking spaces are required on a lot of 30 by 70 feet with a ten- foot alley, a great portion of the lot would therefore be unbuildable. Mr. Schubach disagreed, stating that if the 17 -foot setback requirement is removed, 23 feet of area would be required rather that the current requirements of even more area for the setback (17 feet), the garage (18 feet), and the additional 8 feet, for a current total of 43 feet. Mr. Schubach and Comm. Ketz discussed the required parking spaces and turnaround areas on various sized lots. Mr. Schubach noted that for quite some time staff has been aware of the problems with the 17- foot setback and the fact that there should be exceptions, particularly for lots on alleys of 10 feet and 15 feet. Mr. Schubach, in response to questions from Comm. Rue, explained the required lengths and widths for parking spaces. Mr. Schubach, in response to questions from Comm. Rue, stated that staff hopes the proposed provisions will encourage parking in the rear. Comm. Peirce asked how staff arrived at the figure of 3000 feet for the cutoff between requiring three parking spaces versus four parking spaces. Mr. Schubach explained that staff was directed to bring this matter back immediately. At this time, staff used a cutoff point of 3000 square feet since houses of that size are quite large. He noted, however, that staff intends to study this matter further when the housing element is addressed. Comm. Ketz asked whether staff studied the parking requirements for other beach cities in terms of whether three or four spaces are required based on the size of the home. Mr. Schubach replied in the negative. He noted, however, that most other cities require more parking than Hermosa Beach. He continued by explaining that most other (non-beach) cities have fifty-foot lots and very wide streets which can accommodate more on-street parking. Unfortunately, this City does not have the luxury of lower density and wider streets thereby allowing for more parking spaces. Comm. Moore asked whether staff is aware of any data which correlates the number of cars at a house based on the size of the house. He felt that larger houses probably will have more interior storage area; therefore, the parking spaces will be used as parking spaces. Smaller houses without the storage space might utilize the garage for storage, thereby using the parking space for something other than parking. Mr. Schubach stated that large houses usually do not provide much storage space beyond what is required by the code. Comm. Moore was not convinced that large houses necessarily have more cars, noting that no data has been provided verifying this fact. Mr. Schubach stated that staff will continue to study this issue and will return with additional data in the next few months. Chmn. Ingell noted concern that action on this issue is taking place before all available data has been provided. He felt that this matter could wait and be studied along with the housing element. Public Hearing opened at 8:12 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell. 7 P.C. Minutes 3/6/90 Dean Nata, 2467 Myrtle Avenue, architect, addressed the Commission and: (1) discussed projects he has worked on in the R-1 zone; (2) stated that he designs custom homes for people who intend to live in them themselves; (3) reported that there is a good trend afoot where people want to build homes to live in rather than for speculation; (4) said that quality construction is good for cities; (5) stated that most people are concerned with three issues when they are designing a home: size, view, and livability; (6) stated that the 1 7-foot setback is one of three elements which must be taken into account when building a home, the other two being measurement of height and the open space element; (7) said that people are being turned away from the community because the requirements are too restrictive, especially the 17-foot setback requirement; (8) explained that there are too many variables in the requirements, and the issue of aesthetics is not adequately addressed; (9) felt that the issue of parking off the street should be addressed; (10) stated that he supports the staff recommendation, however, he would like the option of being able to handle the three parking spaces in his own manner rather than having inflexible requirements. Mr. Nata continued and: ( 1) stated that the 17 -foot setback is a significant issue, especially in light of the other setback requirements; (2) agreed that building bulk is a significant problem, but with the 17 -foot setback requirement, a building tends to become an elevated mass in order to accommodate the ground-level setbacks; (3) felt that flexibility should be provided and that the 17 -foot setback should be eliminated. Mr. Nata went on: (1) discussed on-street parking on public rights-of-way, stating that requiring someone to provide a 17-foot setback in addition to the very wide area of the right-of- way is unreasonable; (2) felt that staff should address this issue further, stating that the measurement should be taken from the back of the sidewalk; (3) continued by discussing the lots on his street, Myrtle Avenue, in regard to the width of the street; (4) noted that property is very expensive and people tend to want to park off of the street and use the rear yard setback for open space, which he felt goes against the spirit of the requirement to provide additional parking; (5) disagreed with staff's suggestion that homes over 3000 square feet will require four parking spaces, explaining that no other cities he has ever worked in have such a requirement, and most do not require more than two parking spaces; (6) did not agree with three spaces either, but said he could work with such a requirement: (7) said that real estate is actually more expensive in Hermosa Beach because so much of the building area is taken away; (8) urged that there be flexibility in the requirements so that good designs can be provided. Wihna Burt, 1152 7th Street, addressed the Commission and: (1) opposed piecemeal legislation; (2) said that most of the lots in the R-1 areas and some R-2 areas east of the highway do not have alleys; (3) said that 90 percent of the lots are not more than 25 feet apart, other than those which have been combined; (4) discussed properties on narrow lots on her street, stating that some people do not park in the garages but on the street; (5) discussed the various setback requirements, stating that many of the lots east of the highway are only 25 feet, and the 17 -foot setback requirement eliminates too much of the buildable area; (6) said that there must be a variety of rules to accommodate different situations; (7) stated that this decision is being done piecemeal, and she did not feel it is imperative that a decision be made on this issue immediately; (8) felt that the maneuvering area in alleys does not have to be as large as that being suggested, stating that she has a large car and can get in and out of her garage easily; (9) stated that she does not want to see more paving at new buildings. Steve Breed, 429 31st Street, addressed the Commission and: (1) said that he will soon be moving because his current home is too small to do anything with based on all the current restrictions, and he will be renting it out; (2) said that there are problems on building on 30-by 70-foot lots because the 17 -foot setback requirement renders the lot practically unbuildable; (3) suggested that the 17 -foot setback requirement be waived on lots of 25 and 30 feet in width: (4) also felt that the 23-foot turning radius should be waived, especially since that is not a State requirement; (5) agreed with the requirement of three parking spaces for houses under 3000 square feet; (6) discussed the north end of the City, stating that no houses there have the 17-foot setback; (7) said that the houses in the north end have aprons of between three feet and eleven feet, and there does not appear to be any problem; (8) urged the Commission to address this 8 P.C. Minutes 3/6/90 issue immediately, especially in light of the fact that many people are moving away and renting out their homes because they can't do anything with them; (9) suggested that this issue be studied further before action is taken; {10) discussed open space and stated that people with small lots should be given greater flexibility and creativity. Howard Longacre, addressed the Commission and: (1) supported the 17-foot setback requirement, stating that it has done wonders for the City and has contributed to older units being able to have more residents since additional parking spaces are provided; (2) said that new homes are providing more parking; (3) noted that older homes in the City were designed as cottages, and now much larger homes are being built; (4) said that the 17-foot setback requirement is not applicable to many of the lots in the City; (5) felt that the requirement for three parking spaces should be maintained, but did not think that the nine-foot setback should be used as a guest space; (6) felt that all houses, especially those over 2000 square feet, need at least three spaces, and houses over 3000 square feet should have four parking spaces; (7) did not favor this piecemeal approach; (8) favored flexibility so that architects can design attractive projects; (9) said that he will continue to support the 17 -foot setback requirement until a better solution is found. Gerry Compton, 832 7th Street, addressed the Commission and: (1) noted that neither staff nor the Commission has ever suggested that there be a 1 7 -foot setback off alleys; (2) gave background history on the issue of the 1 7 -foot setback; (3) said that setbacks off of alleys remove potential ground space; (4) noted that the original purpose of the 17 -foot setback was to prevent people from parking over the sidewalk; (5) felt that the 1 7 -foot setback should be measured from the inside edge of the sidewalk; (6) noted that many streets are public rights-of- way and are very wide, therefore, it is not feasible to require the 17 -foot setback in addition to the width of the street; (7) did not feel that a sea of concrete should be created in order to meet the 1 7 -foot setback; (8) opposed the requirement of four parking spaces for homes over 3000 square feet; (9) felt that the issue which needs to be addressed is the loss of on-street parking; (10) said that no other cities require so many parking spaces; (11) said that new people coming into town should not be penalized for trying to build a new project in the R-1 wne; (12) said that R-1 builders are going to other cities, because so much property is being taken away to meet the requirements; (13) stated that bulk is being pushed up into the air in order to meet the requirements. Mr. Compton continued: (1) said that the issue of through lots is very important; (2) said that people want to park in front rather than in the rear, thereby losing their rear yards; (3) felt that people should be allowed to use the front yard as open space; (4) favored the text amendment except for the portion requiring four parking spaces; (5) discussed with Comm. Rue various ways to provide green open space rather than a sea of concrete in front yards. Public Hearing closed at 8:49 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell. Comm. Rue stated that he is not particularly a proponent of the 17 -foot setback, explaining that he feels architects should have the flexibility to provide an attractive, livable building. He felt that the proposed amendment appears to be a viable solution. He felt that three parking spaces is acceptable; however, he did not support requiring four spaces for projects over 3000 square feet. He does not feel it is appropriate to encourage people on through lots to park on the street and thereby use on-street parking. Comm. Peirce noted that everyone's major concern is with loss of parking, and he noted that parking is the biggest problem in the City. He felt that it is important for new projects to provide the proper amount of parking. He said that people tend to want to max out their projects and therefore don't want to provide an additional parking space. He stated that he supports staffs recommendation one hundred percent. Comm. Ketz stated that she hears more complaints about the 17 -foot setback requirement than anything else in the City. She felt that the proposed text amendment is a good first step in remedying the problem because the 1 7 -foot setback puts a burden on small lots trying to 9 P.C. Minutes 3/6/90 develop homes and meeting all of the requirements. She did not support the four parking spaces, however, stating that this is a beach town and such a requirement would be too much of a burden on single-family homes. She did not feel that single-family residences create as many problems as condominiums. She stated that condos put more of a demand on street parking than single homes. She further noted that other cities do not require as much parking as is being proposed now. She concluded by stating that she supports the text amendment with the exception of the required four parking spaces for homes of over 3000 square feet, noting that no data has been provided proving that four spaces are necessary. Comm. Moore stated that he feels three parking spaces are sufficient, and he did not feel that the City should be legislating requirements of more than three spaces. He felt that the designer should be allowed flexibility to detennine where the spaces will be. He discussed the problem of people parking over the sidewalk and the implementation of the 17 -foot setback requirement as an attempt to curtail that problem. He felt that the 17 -foot setback is rather a draconian measure to cure the problem, and he felt it would be appropriate to enforce the current requirements that people not block sidewalks. He stated that he could support the issue as related to alleys; however, he favored removing the 17 -foot setback requirement so long as the adequate parking can be provided. Comm. Moore felt that the measurements should be taken from the sidewalk rather than from the property line. Chmn. Ingell agreed with staff's proposal; however, he noted the importance of the issue and the fac t that it is being further studied by s taff and will come back b efor e the Commission with the housing element. He did not feel that all the applicable data has been studied at this time; therefore, he tended to be more conservative in his opinion since not all the material has been examined related to parking. He felt that if action is to be taken on this one small piece of the issue, the action should be very conservative. Chmn. Ingell suggested that the staffs recommendation be approved, with the requirement for four parking spaces for houses of more than 3000 square feet. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Moore, to approve staffs recommendation, with the following amendments: (1) that wording be added to Section 4 specifying that the measurement for the 17-foot setback (front and back) shall be taken from the inside portion of the existing sidewalk, or future sidewalk if none is currently existing. He clarified that his motion also includes measuring setbacks other than those on alleys; and (2) that the provision requiring four parking spaces for buildings over 3000 square feet be deleted. Chmn. Ingell asked whether this matter was noticed to include areas other than alleys. Mr. Schubach stated that, since this item was continued from a previous meeting, it would be necessary for him to obtain a copy of the original notice. Comm. Peirce asked about the legality of measuring from a point in the public right-of-way. Mr. Lee explained that there could be a problem of potential liability on the part of the City if the measurement is taken from the public right-of-way. He continued by explaining that private use of a public right-of-way could cause problems. He suggested, instead, that a recommendation could be sent to the Council that the measurements be studied in regard to public rights-of-way. He continued by discussing the issue of encroachments into the public rights-of-way and stated that it is currently being studied in regard to the liability issue. Chmn. Ingell stated that it would be more appropriate to vote on staff's recommendation and suggest that staff study the issue of measuring from the inside of the sidewalk and return with additional information when the housing element is addressed in several months. P.C. Minutes 3/6/90 Comm. Rue stated that rights-of-way have not been studied in the past for inclusion because they have provided additional open space in the City. Chmn. Ingell noted that Mr. Schubach had left Council Chambers to get a copy of the original noticing for this matter. Recess taken from 9:04 P.M. until 9: 14 P.M. Mr. Schubach informed the Commission that the Council had specially requested that action be taken in regard to setbacks off of alleys. Comm. Rue stated that the Commission is making ::t. recommendation to the Council; therefore, he felt his motion is appropriate. He clarified that his intent is that if there is a 17 -foot setback and the easement exceeds that, then the structure would be placed at the regular front yard setback. Comm. Ketz stated that she would feel uncomfortable voting on the front yard setback at this time. especially since the attorney has advised that there could be a potential liability problem. She felt that the entire 17 -foot setback issue should be studied, noting that this action is focused on alleys. Comm. Rue stated that recycling of older properties will not be encouraged with the requirements to provide huge front yard setbacks for parking. He stated that it is currently being encouraged to maintain multiple-unit dwellings without adequate parking. He said that many people will not build in this City because of all the restrictions , and he felt that more should be done to encourage high-quality projects. He felt that his motion would offer that encouragement. Mr. Lee stated that the motion as proposed is in keeping with the noticing of the issue. (Vote on Comm. Rue's motion, Page 10) AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: (MOTION FAILS.) Comms. Moore, Rue Comms. Ketz, Peirce, Chmn. Ingell None None MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Chmn. Ingell, to approve staffs recommendation, Resolution P.C. 9013, as written. Comm. Moore stated that he would vote against the motion solely on the basis that he does not favor requiring four parking spaces for homes of 3000 square feet and more. Comms. Ketz and Rue concurred. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: (MOTION FAILS.) Comm. Peirce, Chmn. Ingell Comms. Ketz, Moore, Rue None None MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve staffs recommendation, Resolution P.C. 90-13 with the following amendment: to delete the requirement of four parking spaces for single-family residences over 3000 square feet. 11 P.C. Minutes 3/6/90 AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: (MOTION PASSES.) Comms. Ketz, Moore, Rue Comm. Peirce, Chmn. Ingell None None Comm. Rue urged those in the audience who spoke on this matter to return when the issue is again addressed during the housing element. FIRST QUARTER GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENI'S ADOPTION OF THE ''PA.QKS AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN" AS AN AMENDMENT TO THE OPEN SPACE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN Mr. Schubach explained that the study for this item was not yet completed. He therefore suggested that it be continued to the second quarter general plan amendments. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve staffs recommendation to continue this item to the second quarter general plan amendments. No objections; so ordered. GENERAL PLAN REDESIGNATION FROM GENERAL COMMERCIAL TO LOW-DENSITY RESIDENI'IAL AND ZONE CHANGE FROM R-P TO R -1 FOR THE RESIDENTIAL PORTION, AND ZONE CHANGE FROM R-P TO C-2 FOR THE COMMERCIAL PORTION, OR TO SUCH OTHER DESIGNATIONS / ZONES AS DEEMED APPROPRIATE BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE PROPER1Y BOUNDED ON PROSPECT AVENUE ON THE WEST. ARTESIA BOULEVARD ON THE NORTH, AND 24TH STREET ON THE soum, AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated February 28, 1990. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission recommend adoption of the proposed general plan amendment and zone changes by adopting the proposed resolutions. The subject area is one of the remaining inconsistent areas throughout the City. This amendment and zone change was initiated by the Planning Commission in response to a request to open a child care center in an existing office building located on Artesia Boulevard. The residential area consists of eight lots with four fronting on Prospect Avenue and four fronting on 24th Street. All four of the lots on Prospect Avenue are developed with duplexes, while two of the four lots on 24th Street are developed with duplexes, and two contain single- family dwellings. The six duplexes were developed in 1973, and the single-family dwellings before 1950. The subject area has a general plan designation of general commercial, and a zoning designation of R-P, with a C-2 potential. The total area is 26,030 square feet. Lot sizes range from 2900 to 3750 square feet. Of the eight lots, six have duplexes and two have single-family homes. There are 14 units, with a density of23 dwelling units per acre. The subject properties are bounded to the north by office and commercial uses fronting on Artesia Boulevard. The surrounding residential areas to the south and southwest are designated low density and zoned R-1. A multiple-unit condominium is located to the west across Prospect Avenue with a designation of high density and is zoned R-3. The residential area to the east is within the city of Redondo Beach and is zoned R-lA 12 P.C. Minutes 3/6/90 Staff recommended the change to low density and R-1 primarily because the surrounding residential neighborhoods are designated low density and R-1, and this neighborhood has a similar character. This is a significant change as it would essentially downzone the properties from R-3 to R-1. Staff believes that it would be justified because the standards of the R-1 zone in respect to height, density, and open space will protect the single-family character of the neighborhood and surrounding neighborhoods. Although most of the existing development consists of duplexes, they are generally of a size and scale consistent with single-family structures. The existing density of the area would be more consistent with medium density and R-2 designations. Because lot sizes are less than 3500 square feet even with an R-2 zoning classification, most of the lots would be limited to one unit, and the existing duplexes would become nonconforming. Mr. Schubach recommended two alternatives: (1) redesignate the subject area to medium density residential and rezone to R-2. This would allow the two single-family lots of 3750 square feet to be developed as two units each. The duplex lots would become nonconforming because of the small lot sizes; however, the height and open space standards would not be as restrictive as R-1; (2) redesignate the subject area to high density residential and rezone to R-3. This would keep the duplex lots conforming but would allow rebuilding to a 35-foot height which would have a significant impact. The impact on overall density, however, would likely not be too severe as to construct any more than two units per lot unless the lots were combined. The commercial portion consists of three parcels fronting on Artesia Boulevard with uneven depths, currently developed as a flower shop, a vacant office building, and a new office building under construction. The general plan designation of the subject area is general commercial, with a zoning designation of R-P, with a C-2 potential. There are 14 lots and 3 parcels. Total area is 25,277 square feet. The parcels sizes are 7010, 6057, and 12,317 square feet. Although the zoning along Artesia Boulevard to the west across Prospect Avenue is C-3, staff is recommending C-2 restricted commercial zoning for the subject area because of the proximity to residential uses. Also across Artesia Boulevard in Manhattan Beach is a church and a nursery school. Certain C-3 general commercial uses would obviously not be appropriate for this location. Under current zoning, these lots could potentially be developed as high density residential. Changing the zoning to C-3 will ensure that this highway frontage is utilized for commercial purposes in the future. It should be noted that nurseries, preschools, and day-care centers are permitted in the C-2 zone with a conditional use permit. Public Hearing opened at 9:30 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell. Henry Eisler, 2404 Prospect Avenue, addressed the Commission and: (1) discussed the proposed R-P to R-1 zoning, which relates to his property, and described what is currently at this location; (2) stated that the currently existing duplexes serve as a buffer between the street and the residential; (3) stated that it would be inappropriate to rezone this area to R-1, especially because of the traffic, a three-story condo across the street, and the wrapping around of the currently existing commercial buildings on Prospect; (4) stated that the three-story condo will overshadow other projects; (5) said that the comer parcels should not be rezoned to R-1, but rather he would favor an R-2 designation since there are duplexes which act as a buffer. Harvey Tempkin, 2035 Westwood Boulevard, Los Angeles. addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that he owns the flower shop on the corner of Artesia; (2) asked for clarification on the 13 P.C. Minutes 3/6/90 height limit which would be allowed and questioned whether properties could be grandfathered in to retain the 35-foot height; (3) stated that he is contemplating erecting a professional building at this site, stating that R-P zoning would require a five-foot setback: whereas a commercial designation would require eight feet. plus an additional two feet for each story, which would total 12 feet for his proposed project; (4) asked whether he could be grandfathered in to retain the five-foot setback as opposed to the additional setback which would be required in commercial; (5) felt that he should not be penalized if the property is redesignated to commercial. Karen and Don Goldberg, 1207 24th Street, Hermosa Beach: (1) have owned their duplex for two years, and they felt a downzoning would adversely impact their property value; (2) stated they would rather see this rezoned to a legal duplex lot; (3) noted that their lot has ample parking, stating that there are six spaces on-site. William Woodson, 230 South Catalina, Redondo Beach: (1) stated that he owns a duplex in the subject area; (2) stated that the duplexes are well-maintained and are an asset to the neighborhood; (3) took umbrage at staffs assertion that duplexes are not appropriate in that area; (4) felt that duplexes should act as a buffer, which these are; (5) asked that the Commission to rezone so that if there is a catastrophe, the duplexes can be rebuilt without having to request a variance; (6) was informed by Comm. Peirce that most of the lots are not large enough to allow the duplexes to be rebuilt under the current zoning; (7) stated that he is not well-informed enough with the zoning code to request the appropriate zoning, but he noted that he would like to be able to rebuild in the event of a disaster; (8) was informed by Comm. Peirce that his lot is large enough to rebuild only one unit unless a variance is granted; (9) felt that a hardship would be inflicted on the owners if the zoning is changed; (10) asked whether his property is nonconforming at the present time; (11) was advised by Mr. Schubach that even if the property were rezoned to R-2, the lot is not large enough to rebuild two units; (12) was advised by Mr. Schubach that R-3 zoning would allow two units to be built, but there would be additional density and spot zoning; (13) asked why the property can't just remain R-P, noting that it is well-maintained. Mr. Schubach, in response to questions from Chmn. Ingell regarding the feasibility of designating this area as a specific plan area, stated that staff could address the issue of redesignating this area as an SPA; however, he would want to further study this suggestion before making a recommendation to the Commission. Henry Eisler again addressed the Commission and: (1) asked for clarification on the issue of legal R-2 lots based on lot sizes versus legal R-3 lots; (2) asked what could be allowed on R-3 lots; (3) asked about specific lots and what would be allowed; (4) stated that he would favor a redesignation to R-3 in order that the duplexes could be rebuilt if necessary; (4) again pointed out that the current duplexes serve as a buffer. Karen Goldberg again addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that she would favor a redesignation to R-3 so that the duplexes could be rebuilt if necessary; (2) stated that a redesignation to R-1 would be detrimental to the buff er effect. Gerry Compton, 200 Pier Avenue, owner of the property on the corner currently under construction: (1) felt that the buffer between commercial and residential is necessary; (2) stated that, except for the three R-1 split lots, this area could be redesignated to R-3; (3) agreed that duplexes on these properties are reasonable, and he therefore did not favor R-1; (4) discussed the issue of split lots and what could be built on them; (5) favored an R-3 designation for the subject area; (6) stated that if the area is rezoned to R-1, there will be problems in the future with having single-family residences abutting a commercial zone. Public Hearing closed at 9:53 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell. Comm. Peirce did not favor additional commercial creeping down Prospect. He felt that there should be a way for people to rebuild to two units in the case of a catastrophe. He also favored 14 P.C. Minutes 3/6/90 the lots on 24th Street being able to rebuild to two units, since those properties act as a buffer between the commercial and the R-1 property to the south. He asked how this could be accomplished. Mr. Schubach explained that the R-2 standards could be retained, but the allowable density could be R-3. He suggested that the Commission, if desired, consider a specific plan area for this entire area, including the commercial zone. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Rue, to adopt a specific plan area for the residential lots, with R-2 standards and R-3 density; and to rezone the area along Artesia Boulevard (the area which is cross-hatched on the chart) to C-2 standards; further, to specify that building will be limited to two units per lot with R-2 standards; therefore, no combining of lots shall be allowed. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Comms. Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ingell None None None TO RECOMMEND CERTIFICATION OF TIIE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE PROPOSED OIL EXPLORATION AND PRODUCTION FACILITY AT THE CITY YARD. 555 61H STREET. AND AT THE SOUTH SCHOOL SITE. 425 VALLEY DRIVE Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated March 1, 1990. He stated that the purpose of this action is: (1) to recommend certifying the Effi; (2) to amend the general plan open space element of the general plan to allow for oil drilling at the City yard and South School site; (3) to amend the zoning ordinance to permit oil drilling with a conditional use permit and a vote of the people in the manufacturing zone and the open space zone. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council the following: (1) certification of the Effi as being adequate and accurate with the staffs recommended list of mitigation measures included; (2) adoption of the alternative project utilizing the City yard as the sole location for the drilling and storage facility of oil production; and (3) adoption of the proposed general plan and text amendments resolution necessary for oil production at the City yard only. Mr. Schubach noted that staff is no longer recommending that the South School site be utilized for oil drilling. In 1984 two oil drilling exceptions were approved by the voters. Ordinance No. 84-758 excepted the City maintenance yard from a drilling prohibition and allows the City to drill into the tidelands and other onshore areas within the City. To the extent that monies can be diverted from the tidelands trust. such monies will be used for open space and parkland purposes. Under Ordinance No. 84-759 the school district has the right to drill from the South School site to oil and gas deposits onshore. Once the ballot measure was approved, the City began drafting an oil code to regulate oil and gas development by new developers. After several drafts which were reviewed by the Oil Recovery Committee, the Planning Commission, and the City Council, a comprehensive oil code was adopted regulating the new oil and gas development. Any driller must obtain a conditional use permit from the City, and drilling must take place from one or both of the voter-approved sites. 15 P.C. Minutes 3/ 6/90 After the oil code was completed, the City filed an application with the State Lands Commission to allow for oil and gas drilling. The Commission required an Effi prior to application approval. The City Environmental Review Committee prepared an assessment of the impacts of drilling for oil. A request for proposal (RFP) was then proposed for the purpose of obtaining hids for the preparation of the Effi. The school district also had Ultrasystems prepare an Effi for chilling at the South School site. After preparation and review by the City staff and school staff of the two EIR's. both the City and School District determined that a joint EIR would be appropriate and consequently had the two documents merged into one. The joint development was found environmentally superior to two separate operations. Once the draft document was complete, it was distributed to State and County agencies and to City departments for review and comment. On July 17, 1989, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider certification of the EIR. The matter was continued to provide for response to the public comments. At the September 1989 meeting, additional comments were accepted and the matter was again continued. At the November 8, 1989, meeting this matter was again continued, since the City Council had requested that the consultants consider other alternatives to the relocation of the City yard. On February 5, 1990, the draft Volume m was made available to the public for 30 days. At this time there are three volumes to the Draft EIR.: Volume 1 --the original EIR is provided in this volume; Volume II --all the original comments and responses to comments regarding Volume 1; and Volume III --contains additional comments/responses, expanded environmental assessment for City Maintenance Yard and consolidated project alternative, relocation of existing City maintenance yard, expanded analysis of pipeline impacts, and proposed project trucking plan. Opportunity for public input has been extended beyond the minimum State requirements. Ultimately, three opportunities totaling approximately 105 days will be provided prior to the Planning Commissions' recommendation to certify the EIR. Further, additional public input opportunity will be provided at the City Council public hearing. Based on the data found with the EIR Volume m, dated February 1990, staff believes that the alternative of placing the entire oil production facility on the City yard will significantly reduce some of the negative impacts which could occur. Under this alternative, the South School site will not be utilized whatsoever. Another potential location of the drill site is at the current oil production facility in Redondo Beach. Staff felt that these are both economic and legal factors which make this site unfeasible. A legal opinion which the staff, including the City Attorney, concurs with, was attached as Exhibit A In regard to the impacts and mitigation measures for the production facility. there will be certain temporary unavoidable adverse effects which will occur during the initial site preparation and construction phase of the project. Short term impacts include: (1) Noise. An increase in ambient noise levels during site preparation and exploratory phase may be perceived; (2) Air Quality. Air emissions will result from construction equipment, truck, and personal vehicle traffic; (3) Visual. The 135-foot derrick will be visible over a substantial distance and from residences for several years; (4) Llght and glare. Llght from the site security and from drilling derrick in addition to the aircraft safety lights atop the derrick will be visible to the surrounding area; (5) Shade/ shadow. Shade from the derrick will extend from about 177 feet from the site at the summer solstice to about 920 feet during the winter. Shadows will be narrow and effects confined to about one hour per day for nearby properties; (6) 16 P.C. Minutes 3/6/90 J Transportation/ circulation. A potential for traffic disruption to accommodate the hauling of material and equipment to and from the site and during pipeline construction will occur. Long-term impacts include: (1) Air Quality. Some hydrocarbon odor may be detected periodically; (2) Mineral resources. The project will result in an incremental contribution to the depletion of the underlying reservoir of oil and natural gas; (3) Visual. The upper portions of the 16-foot oil storage tanks will be visible from some locations at the City yard for the duration of the project; (4) Utilities. The pipeline will consume space in the underground utility corridor. Mr. Schubach stated that staff feels that subsidence could be a potential impact; therefore, material has been included regarding that issue. He said that mitigation measures have been provided for this. Mr. Schubach noted that staff has proposed an alternative to the recommendation of certifying the EIR. with mitigation measures included. He stated that an alternative resolution which would allow the Commission the opportunity to place conditions on the project once the project has been approved has been provided. At that time, conditions could be imposed on the CUP. He therefore suggested that the EIR., Volumes I-III, be certified at this time, with the mitigation measures as shown in the document. Once the general plan and text amendments are approved, additional stringent conditions can be imposed. Mr. Schubach continued by explaining that the pipeline development mitigation measures are very good. Also, it is no longer necessary to relocate the City yard; however, once the precise location is determined, additional mitigation measures can be included. Mr. Schubach stated that in order to implement initiatives P and Q passed by the voters, it is necessary to amend the general plan and zoning ordinance. Although the proposed ordinance includes discussion of allowing drilling in the open space zone, this portion of the ordinance will not be necessary if the staffs recommendation is adopted to allow drilling only at the City yard on industrial designated, manufacturing zoned property. In any case, the ordinance allows oil drilling by a vote of the people and with a conditional use permit. CEQA requires the decision-maker to balance the benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve the project. If the benefits of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered "acceptable." Where the decision of the City allows the occurrence of significant effects which are identified in the final Em but are not at least substantially mitigated, the City needs to state in writing the specific reasons to support its action based on the final Em and/ or other information in the record. If the City makes a statement of overriding considerations, the statement should be included in the record of the project approval and should be mentioned in the Notice of Determination. The general funds of the City which will be ultimately available if the project is successful are earmarked to buy open space. Staff believes this clearly is an overriding consideration. Further, restricted funds which also will be available to the City may be used to maintain the beach. The City needs to provide findings which indicate that for each negative impact, a change or alteration has been required which avoids or substantially lessens the effect. The staff-recommended alternative and recommended mitigation measures clearly avoid or reduce the effects noted within the Em except for the elimination of a natural resource; oil and gas. Mr. Schubach stated that one overriding consideration is in regard to the tower which will be visible for three years. He noted that there is just no way to mitigate this impact. 17 P.C. Minutes 3/6/90 Additional data regarding subsidence and alternative drill sites has been provided by Macpherson Oil Company. Subsidence has become a particularly important factor because of the recent revelations regarding subsidence at Redondo Beach King Harbor. The staff has attempted to develop conditions which are more along the lines of being preventative. Mr. Schubach, in response to questions from Comm. Peirce, noted that staff had just today received a letter from the State Lands Commission, dated March 6, 1990. He continued by explaining the function of the State Lands Commission. Mr. Lee explained that the State Lands Commission undertook a review of this EIR and provided comments during the review period. At the last moment they faxed to the City additional comments on the EIR. He stated that it would be appropriate to ask the environmental consultant whether the current three volumes of the EIR adequately address the issues raised by the State Lands Commission. He continued by more fully explaining the purpose of the State Lands Commission. Comm. Peirce noted that only today the City had received a letter asking that the EIR not be certified. He asked whether the State Lands Commission actually has any jurisdiction over this matter. Mr. Lee responded that this particular project does not fall within the direct jurisdiction of that agency. Comm. Peirce stated that the individual who wrote the letter was commenting under the letterhead of the State Lands Commission; however, that agency does not have purview, even though the individual raised several points. Mr. Lee, in response to questions from Comm. Rue, explained that the State Lands Commission has purview over projects which drill into the tidelands, which this project does not propose to do. This project proposes only onshore drilling; therefore, the State Lands Commission does not have purview, although they do have a right to submit comments in regard to the EIR which must receive a response. Tom Morley addressed the Commission and discussed the issue of the State Lands Commission and applicable California law. Peter Cohen, 16865 Von Karmen Avenue, Irvine, representing mtrasystems Environmental Services, addressed the Commission. He stated that the staff report was adequate. He stated that he received the letter from the State Lands Commission only this evening, and he noted that he feels they have adequately responded to the concerns raised by that Commission in the current document. He said that the issues raised in the letter are not new and are redundant and the Commission is not clear in stating its reasons for not accepting the previous responses. For this reason, he suggested that certification be delayed so that they can further address in detail the concerns of the State Lands Commission. A response can be prepared and reviewed by staff and the attorney and presented to the Planning Commission at the next meeting. Don Macpherson, representing Macpherson Oil Company, addressed the Commission and stated that the EIR addresses both onshore and tidelands development. He therefore felt that the State Lands Commissions' concerns should be considered. He said that he would not oppose continuing this matter to the next meeting so that the concerns can be addressed. Public Hearing opened at 10:27 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell. Harry Kahn, 523 3rd Street, addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that he had asked that the issue of turning radius be addressed and studied, and he does not feel that the document 18 P.C. Minutes 3/6/90 adequately covers that issue; (2) stated that he specifically had asked about the effects of a dozen or so trucks weighing approximately 65,000 pounds and the dynamic effects of these trucks on Valley Drive; (3) stated that he did not see this concern addressed in the document: (4) stated that the original EIR said that trucks would come to this project between 8:00 AM. and 7:00 P.M., and there would be no truck traffic on the weekends; (5) commented that the current EIR now asserts that truck traffic will occur on the weekends with one to three trucks daily, (6) said that weekend truck traffic will be used for removal purposes from the site; (7) asked why the facts on the trucks has now changed; (8) challenged IBtrasystem's position on what will be happening at this project; (9) stated that his comment is listed in the document as Number 31; (10) stated that the only reason for weekend truck traffic would be in case of an emergency. Comm. Peirce noted that Mr. Kahn's comment had been addressed and is noted as response No. 207 on Page 104 of the document (Volume III) under the heading of "dynamic moving weight." Mr. Kahn noted, however, that the issue of truck traffic has now changed from the assertions contained in the initial document. He felt that ~ the facts should be presented. George Sacks, 225 Valley Drive, addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that the letter from the State Lands Commission should be addressed before a decision is made; (2) discussed the three criteria on which that Commission bases its decisions: (3) stated that if there is not proper drainage at the project, the project can be turned down; (4) noted that Redondo Beach is draining Hermosa's fields, and he questioned whether the proposed project will have proper drainage; (5) said that the State Lands Commission raised several points which have not been fully answered; (6) commented that there is no plan for verifying and enforcing compliance with environmental regulations, complaints, and operations; (7) noted that staff has proposed many mitigations, however, he felt that a method of follow-up and verification on a day-to-day basis is necessary; (8) felt that there should be a continuing program for the continual monitoring of pollutants; (9) felt that overall the EIR is still an adversarial document for the oil project rather than an unbiased analysis; (10) commented on an article in the L.A Times, dated January 14, which addressed the issue that there maybe major gaps in the underground layer of silt and clay from the aquifers, from which most of the South Bay's drinking water is derived; (11) noted that the aquifers may not be adequate, and he continued by reading from the actual article; (12) was not convinced that the project is safe and will not have many adverse impacts. Tom Morley, 516 Loma Drive, addressed the Commission and: (1) noted that he has done much study on this issue and has submitted a great deal of information to the City; (2) stated that additional issues will need to be addressed by the City Council; (3) stated that his comment No. 308 has not been adequately addressed; (4) discussed the CEQA criteria related to his comment No. 308: (5) read from CEQA Section 15204; (6) stressed that alternative sites must be adequately and thoroughly addressed: (7) felt that the project should actually be in Redondo Beach, and he continued by discussing the revenue aspects of the project; (8) discussed Response No. 39, stating that it is not adequate; (9) discussed the potential revenue from Redondo Beach, and he felt that more analysis needs to be done on that issue; (10) discussed the issue of alternatives to the proposed action, and he read from CEQA Section 15126(d); (11) stated that the report does not address the comparative alternatives to the project; (12) stated that an objective analysis has not been performed. Mr. Morley went on: (1) stated that the specifics of the document are not adequate to certify; (2) again discussed his comment No. 308 and the fact that he does not feel the response is adequate; (3) noted that there are many different ways to obtain oil, some of which might be more expensive, and they have not been addressed adequately, (4) continued by reading additional sections from the CEQA guidelines in regard to mitigation measures; (5) felt that alternative locations for the tank farm have not been addressed; (6) discussed short-term use of the project in relation to the long-term outcome; (7) asked whether he can submit his comments in writing. 19 P.C. Minutes 3/6/90 Mr. Lee, in response to comments by Comm Peirce, recalled that at the last Commission meeting on this issue, the public hearing was closed off to new public input. The purpose of this hearing is to obtain only new comments to the responses to comments previously given. Mr. Morley stated that review of the EIR should focus on the sufficiency of the document, and he is not giving new testimony. Comm. Peirce stated that just because someone doesn't like the response given to his comment, certification cannot be denied on that basis. Mr. Schubach stated that it is now the decision of the Commission to determine whether or not the EIR is certifiable. He noted that the review period has already been extended several times; therefore, new information should not be taken. He stated that additional new data on the adequacy of the EIR is not appropriate at this time since the time period has elapsed. Mr. Morley stated that he thought certification of the EIR was being addressed at this time; he merely wanted to share his information on why the document is not certifiable. He requested that the State Lands Commission letter (dated March 6, 1990) be included in the record. He also requested that he be allowed to submit written comments as to why the EIR is not certifiable. Mr. Lee stated that there is nothing to prevent Mr. Morley from submitting his written comments to the City Council, should the Commission recommend certification of the EIR. Public Hearing closed at 10:55 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell. Comm. Peirce felt that the only outstanding issue appears to be the letter received today from the State Lands Commission; however, he felt that the consultants have adequately answered all of the questions that have been raised. He therefore did not feel it would be appropriate to delay certification for another two weeks because of the letter. He noted that the State Lands Commission had ample time in which to submit a response; however, they waited until the very last moment. Comm. Rue questioned whether sufficient information has been given related to the specific facts and figures requested by CEQA He said that he was not certain that he feels comfortable recommending certification at this time. He was not certain that this is a true, complete, and independent EIR. Chmn. Ingell agreed with Comm. Rue and noted that the applicant has suggested that the matter be continued to allow time to respond to the comments raised by the State Lands Commission. Comm. Moore asked what additional, specific data is desired. He stated that there are bound to be potential negative impacts; however, he feels that the document has adequately specified those impacts. He noted that the study should propose mitigation measures for the impacts, and he felt that the document proposes adequate mitigation measures. He did not feel that the Commission could be enlightened much more on this issue, noting that this matter has been studied for many months. He stated that the City owes a responsibility to the applicant to render a timely decision. He felt that the study and the Commission have performed their duty. He anticipated in-depth study on additional issues at the City Council level. He stated that he is ready to support recommending approval of this EIR. Comm. Rue noted that Mr. Macpherson has agreed to a continuation in order to address the concerns raised by the State Lands Commission, which appear to be quite specific. He stated that the concerns raised are related to safety, and he felt that additional information is necessary. Mr. Schubach noted that the proposed resolution states that this project will be subject to additional conditions being placed on it if determined necessary. 20 P.C. Minutes 3/6/90 Comm. Peirce maintained that the six items contained in the State Lands Commission letter are adequately addressed in the document. Comm. Ketz stated that she could not support delaying this action unless very specific requests are made. She noted that there are three very comprehensive documents related to the issue, and she felt that the issues have been adequately addressed. She further noted that during the conditional use pennit process additional conditions and mitigation measures can be placed on this project if they are deemed necessary. Mr. Lee clarified for the benefit of the Commission the CEQA requirements for EIR approval. He advised that projects are not to be studied ad infinitum, but rather that the issues should be adequately addressed and mitigation measures be recommended. He further noted that the project will be studied by many other agencies as the project goes through the normal processes. He suggested that a condition be included requiring that the operator consent to additional review if there are changed circumstances or conditions which would warrant further environmental review. Tom Morley again addressed the Commission and read from Section 15146 of the CEQA guidelines regarding the degree of specificity for projects. Comm. Rue noted that other agencies, as well as the City Council, will study this project in more detail. Therefore, he could support approval at this time. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Moore, to recommend approval of the alternative Resolution P.C. 90-18, with the amendment that Item B be modified to state: " ... thus reducing substantially the potential adverse impacts as noted above." Comm. Peirce noted that the alternate resolution provides for the imposition of additional conditions and constraints in the future if deemed necessary after further study. Mr. Schubach clarified that many of the conditions are required by the oil ordinance; however, additional conditions may also be imposed. He noted that the motion on the floor would include all conditions included in Volumes I through III of the report as well as future proposed conditions. Mr. Lee advised that approval of this motion does not preclude the Commission from further discussion on environmental issues at the time the conditional use permit is addressed. Chmn. Ingell stated that he would vote against the motion, based on the fact that both Ultrasystems and the oil company representative had requested that the matter be continued so that the concerns raised in the letter from the State Lands Commission could be addressed. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Rue Chmn. Ingell None None Mr. Lee, in response to comments from Chmn. Ingell, stated that, even though not legally required, it would be appropriate to include in the text of the resolution the dates of all public hearings held on this matter. TEXT AMENDMENT TO GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING ORDINANCE TO PERMIT OIL AND GAS DRILLING AND PRODUC110N WHEN ALLOWED BY A VOIE OF nm PEOPLE Mr. Schubach gave staff report. He stated that the general plan is being amended to allow for oil and gas drilling and production when allowed by a vote of the people. 21 P.C. Minutes 3/6/90 Public Hearing opened at 11:24 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell. Tom Morley, 516 Loma Drive, addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that this action will change allowable uses on a particular piece of land; (2) discussed environmental law, which states that the matters are not supposed to be separated; (3) read from the California Primer on Environmental Law provided by the State of California in regard to chopping up projects; (4) said that the example given in the law primer specifically addresses this particular project. Public Hearing closed at 11:28 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve staff's recommendation, Resolution P.C. 90-19, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING TO IMPLEMENT INITIATIVES P AND Q THEREFORE ALLOWING OIL DRILLING AT THE CITY YARD. Chmn. Ingell explained that he would vote against the motion, based on the fact that the consultant and applicant both favored a continuance of this matter. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Rue Chmn. Ingell None None Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Comm. Peirce, explained what will occur next in regard to this matter. STAFF ITEMS a) Planning Department Activity Report of January 1990 No action taken. b) Tentative Future Planning Commission Agenda No action taken. c) City Council Minutes of Februmy 5 and 13. 1990 No action taken. COMMISSIONER ITEMS Comm. Moore pointed out that the first City Council meeting in April falls on the first night of Passover. He asked staff to advise the City Manager of this fact to determine whether there is any City policy on meetings falling on significant religious holidays. Comm. Peirce suggested the formation of an ad hoc committee composed of local architects and developers who could make recommendations to the City in regard to issues such as height, bulk, design, and development standards. He felt that architecturally creative ideas, which would also mitigate negative impacts, would be quite beneficial for the future of the City. He suggested that staff send a letter to the Chamber of Commerce advising of the fonnation of such a committee. He suggested that areas of discussion be limited to the R-1, R-2, and R-3 zones. He 22 P.C. Minutes 3/6/90 I further suggested that a workshop meeting be held between the committee and the Commission to discuss these matters; the public could also be invited to provide input. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Rue, to direct staff to initiate the formation of the above-mentioned ad hoc committee. No objections; so ordered. Chmn. Ingell noted that one of the applicants who appeared this evening stated that he had previously read and understand the conditions of his CUP; however, upon further questioning, it was clear that he was not aware of the conditions. He asked whether there is a way staff can ensure that applicants actually read and understand the proposed ,conditions. He suggested that the applicants sign each condition as it is read. Mr. Schubach stated that staff can thoroughly review the conditions with each applicant to ensure that the applicants are aware of the conditions. Comm. Peirce suggested that a copy of Commander Altfeld's letter regarding calling 911 be sent to the Easy Reader for informational purposes. MOTION by Chmn. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Rue, to adjourn at 11:43 P.M. No objections; so ordered. CER11FICATION 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 March 6, 1990. Date 23 P.C. Minutes 3/6/90