Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC_Minutes_1990_04_03MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON APRIL 3, 1990, AT 7:00 P.M. IN THE CI'IY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS Meeting called to order at 7:00 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell. Pledge of Allegiance led by Comm. Peirce. ROILCAIL 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. Peirce, to approve the minutes of March 20, 1990, as written. Noting the abstention of Comm. Rue, no objections; so ordered. APPROVAL OF RESOLUTIONS MOTION by Comm. Ketz, seconded by Comm. Moore, to approve Resolution P.C. 90-14, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A REQUEST FOR AN EXCEPTION FROM SECTION 13-7{B) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO ALLOW AN ADDITION AND REMODEL TO AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE TO EXCEED 50% OF REPLACEMENT VALUE AT 1570 PROSPECT AVENUE AND LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 1, TRACT 1562. Noting the abstention of Comm. Rue, no objections; so ordered. MOTION by Comm. Moore, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve Resolution P.C. 90-21, 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 , 8 FOR THE AREAS AS DESCRIBED BELOW AND SHOWN ON THE ATTACHED MAPS' AND ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION. Noting the abstention of Comm. Rue, no objections; so ordered. MOTION by Comm. Ketz, seconded by Comm. Moore, to approve Resolution P.C. 90-23, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW A MODIFICATION TO EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS FOR A 1WO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 1460 LOMA DRIVE, DESCRIBED AS LOT 15, HISS ADDITION TO HERMOSA BEACH. Noting the abstention of Comm. Rue, no objections; so ordered. MOTION by Comm. Moore, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve Resolution P.C. 90-24, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND A TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #21160 FOR A '!WO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AND APPROVING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A 1WO- FOOT SIDEYARD SETBACK RATHE;R THAN THE REQUIRED FOUR FEET AND TIIE ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR 333 10TH STREET, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS THE EASTERLY 45 FEET OF LOTS 25 AND 26, TR.ACT 1516. Noting the abstention of Comm. Rue, no objections; so ordered. MOTION by Comm. Ketz, seconded by Comm. Moore, to approve Resolution P.C. 90-25, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, 1 P.C. Minutes 4/ 3/90 u CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A REQUEST FOR AN EXCEPTION FROM SECTION 13-7(B) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO ALLOW AN ADDITION AND REMODEL TO AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE TO EXCEED 50% OF REPLACEMENT VALUE, AND APPROVAL, PURSUANT TO SECTION 13-7(B) 3. TO ALLOW THE CONTINUATION OF AN EXISTING WALL WITII A NONCONFORMING SIDEYARD AT 576 21ST STREET AND LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS TIIE WESTERLY 30 FEET OF LOT 44 AND TIIE EASTERLY 25 FEET OF LOT 43, 1RACT 1868. Noting the abstention of Comm. Rue. no objections; so ordered. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC No one appeared to address the Commission. CON ~2 -CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #22059 FOR A 'IWO- UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 711 11 ffl TREET Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated March 28, 1990. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve the conditional use permit for a two-unit condominium and tentative parcel map, subject to the conditions specified in the proposed resolution. This project is located in the R-2 zone. with a general plan designation of medium density residential. The lot size is 2582 square feet. Five parking spaces are provided. 685 square feet of open space is provided. The current use is as a single-family dwelling. The environmental determination is categorically exempt. The subject property is rectangular in shape and essentially flat. It is the last residentially- developed lot going east up 11th Street and it is adjacent to the church parking lot. The church parking lot is also zoned R-2. The proposed units contain 2491 and 2445 square feet and include four bedrooms, a ground- floor bonus and laundry room, a roof deck and three bathrooms. The proposed structure consists of two stories above a semi-subterranean garage. The proposed building elevations indicate a plaster exterior with plaster trim, wrought iron railings, clay tile roofing, and decorative wood-frame windows towards the front. Each unit has an entry patio; the front unit entrance is from the street, and the rear unit is from the side. The deck, the front entry patio feature, the railings, and the wood windows give the front of the building an attractive appearance, while the windows, railings, and varying building step- backs provide visual relief to the otherwise large and bulky structure as viewed from the side. The ground-floor laundry rooms/workshops are designed with garage and exterior access, and no interior access is provided from the ground floor to the main living area. Besides being an inconvenience for the owner (to access the garage and the laundry facilities requires going outside), this is a potential bootleg unit. Staff therefore recommended a condition that the plans be revised to prohibit exterior access to these ground-floor bonus rooms and to require that interior stairway access be made available to the main floor. The plans indicate a front-yard setback of six feet, which is less than the average of about ten feet on the street. However, staff believes that it is adequate, considering that the three newer projects on the street (approved in 1984 and 1988) have front setbacks of five feet and that this lot is the last residential lot going east up the hill. The structures with the setbacks of ten to thirteen feet are the older single-family homes located to the west and below the subject property. Required parking is provided in two, two-car garages oriented toward the middle of the lot and one open guest space. No on-street parking spaces will be lost. 2 P.C. Minutes 4/3/90 Required open space is provided on roof decks, and on a second-floor open deck provided in the rear unit. The project complies with all other planning and zoning requirements. However, neither the amount of cubic feet of storage is clearly indicated nor is the location for trash receptacles. Staff included conditions that these requirements be identified on the revised plans. The surrounding area consists of primarily older single-and two-family projects like the one being demolished for this project, except for the three newer projects indicated which are large two-unit condominiums. Public Hearing opened at 7:08 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell. Carl Buhlert, 25318 Belle Porte, Harbor City, applicant. addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that a stairway on this narrow lot would totally ruin the floor plan of this project; (2) said that he would be willing to remove the wall separating the garage and the storage area, and have the storage area located on the service porch; (3) explained that the trash area would then be in the garage in the storage area; (4) stated that he does not want to remove the door because it is necessary to get outside. rather than having to go through the garage each time; (5) said that he would be willing to modify the plan so that there is a garage with a service area and storage area inside the garage; (6) said that the laundry area would remain in the service area of the garage, and he discussed with Comm. Rue various options for the laundry area. Mr. Buhlert continued in response to a request from Comm. Rue by describing the proposed materials to be used for this project. Public Hearing closed at 7: 13 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell. Comm. Moore reiterated his opinion on deed restrictions, stating that he feels the best enforcement against bootleg units is the owner(s) of the other condo unit(s). In this case, however, he feels that there is strong potential for a bootleg, and he would therefore prefer inclusion of a condition guarding against such a use. He discussed the wall between the garage and the work area, stating that he does not feel it would be necessary to totally eliminate the wall; however, he favored a revision to the plans to show a small laundry room enclosed and the rest of the area open. He agreed that he would not want to have to open the garage door each time he wanted to go in and out. He felt that an exterior exit is a reasonable request. Comm. Moore commented on the issue of deed restrictions and stated that in the past the City had the authority to inspect premises from time to time to ensure that they were not being used as bootleg units. Mr. Schubach responded by explaining that the previous city attorney advised that arbitrary inspections were not legal; that it was necessary to show cause before property could be inspected, and it was necessary to first obtain a search warrant. Comm. Moore stated that he could support the request if the plans were modified. He noted, however, that this particular project appears to be quite heavy and ponderous. Comm. Ketz asked for clarification on the dimensions of the parking spaces and guest parking. MOTION by Comm. Moore, seconded by Comm. Peirce. to approve Resolution P.C. 90-27, with the following amendments: (1) that the floor plan of the garage areas in both units be modified to produce a small walled-off laundry room, and the rest of the area shall be left open, with one large garage work area; and. (2) that the outside door into the laundry area. opening into the garage area, be allowed to remain. Comm. Moore stated that the intent of the motion is to ensure that the laundry room should be a feasible laundry area, not a larger room which could be used for many other purposes. 3 P.C. Minutes4/3/90 AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ketz, Moore , Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ingell None None None Chmn. Ingell advised that this decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed by writing to the City Council within ten days. CON-90-3 --CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #21814 FOR A 1WO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 1512 MANHAITAN AVENUE Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated March 26, 1990. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve the conditional use permit for a two-unit condominium and vesting tentative parcel map, subject to the conditions specified in the proposed resolution. This project is located in the R-3 zone, with a general plan designatio n of high density residential. The lot size is 3502 square feet. Eight parking spaces are p rovided . 652 square feet of open space is provided. The current use is as a single-family dwelling. The environmental determination is categorically exempt. The subject project is rectangular in shape with a significant slope upward from front to back of about 11 percent. The proposed units contain 2580 and 2540 square feet and include three bedrooms, a study, a mezzanine level, and two and a half bathrooms. The proposed structure consists of two stories and a mezzanine level above a semi-subterranean garage. The proposed building elevations propose a stucco exterior, composition shingle roof, glass block, and metal frame windows. These features give the building somewhat of a Mediterranean appearance. Each unit is entered from the side of the building. The use of varying building step-backs and shapes and the decks give visual relief to the otherwise large and bulky structures. The plans indicate a front yard setback of six feet, which is adequate considering existing setbacks along the street which average approximately five feet, and in consideration of the 60- foot right-of-way along Manhattan Avenue. Required parking is provided in two, two-car garages, one oriented toward the street and the other toward the alley; and four guest spaces are provided in the 17 -foot setbacks behind the garages whic h c ompensate for the loss of one parking space on the street. Staff included a c ondition t o ensure that only one space will be lost on the street. The front unit is slightly deficient in providing countable private open space, as only 192 square feet are provided. The rear patio's 161 square feet cannot be counted because it is enclosed on three sides. The two studies located at the ground level have exterior access through a sliding glass door. To reduce the potential of this being used as a bootleg unit, staff recommended a condition to prohibit exterior access. The project c omplies with all other planning and zoning requirements. However, the amount of cubic fee t of s t orage is not clearly indicated, nor is the location for trash receptacles. Staff included conditions that these requirements be identified on revised plans. The surrounding area consists of primarily multi-family development of various ages and styles and includes some older single-family structures like the one being demolished for this project. 4 P.C. Minutes4/3/90 Comm. Moore expressed concern over bootleg conversions and asked whether the City has any evidence regarding problems related to this particular type of development. Mr. Schubach stated that there are many condos being built, and more than half of them are rental units; however, bootlegs are less apt to happen in condos. He stated that many times the occupant of the other unit is most likely to report a bootleg situation. He continued by explaining the process undertaken by the City to enforce the prohibition against bootleg units. Comm. Ketz commented on the statement that the 161 square feet cannot be used because the area is enclosed on three sides. Mr. Schubach stated that the ultimate decision on whether the area can be counted is based upon whether the wall is too solid, as opposed to being partially open. In this case, he noted that the proposed patio area is open to the sky. Public Hearing opened at 7:27 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell. Robert Corry, 1452 Loma Drive, applicant, addressed the Commission and: (1) discussed the concerns related to potential bootlegs, stating that the front unit has a window, not a door, as suggested by staff; and the rear unit opens onto a deck so that the area is used to its fullest potential: (2) discussed the space in between the two buildings. stating that the only access to the deck area is through the study, not from the outside area; (3) stated that there are no toilet facilities on the first level, and it would be very difficult to turn the area into a bootleg; (4) stated that he feels the door in the study is very important in order to avoid a claustrophobic feeling; (5) asked that he be allowed to retain the door in the rear unit from the study onto the deck, and he noted that he would not oppose a condition requiring that there be no exterior access from the deck to the outdoor area. Mr. Corry continued and: (1) stated that attempts were made to keep the building from being bulky; (2) explained that he originally thought there was adequate open space because of the deck in the back, but now staff asserts that the project is lacking eight feet because there is only 192 square feet; (3) discussed the issue of the deck being enclosed on three sides and therefore not being countable in the open space calculations; (4) explained that the south deck is approximately a foot and a half lower than the north deck: (5) said that there is a fence between the two decks for privacy, but the fence could be lowered if that would be a way to legally count the additional space. Mr. Corry, in response to questions from the Commission regarding the fence stated: (1) the fence at the south deck is approximately five to six feet, and the northerly deck has a fence several feet higher; (2) an attempt was made to keep the two decks separate to provide privacy; (3) that the perspective drawings that he provided to the City were prepared by his architect because they felt that the 3-D drawings enable people to better visualize a project, and the drawings cost approximately $250. Garth Heitman, 1516 Bayview Drive, addressed the Commission and: (1) noted concern over the crowding and congestion along Bayview Drive, stating that it is a very small area; (2) noted concern over potential problems during construction, especially related to vehicles occupying the fire zone; (3) was advised by Comm. Peirce that he can contact the traffic enforcement department if problems arise related to construction vehicles; (4) noted concern over the height of the proposed project. Public Hearing closed at 7:38 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell. Comm. Rue did not see a great bootleg potential at this project because there is no bathroom on the ground-floor level. Also, the second unit deck will have no exterior access. Comm. Rue commented on the patio in the rear and stated that the exterior wall is probably necessary as a retaining wall. He also felt that if the privacy fence between the two decks is 5 P.C. Minutes 4/ 3/90 required to be lowered, the owners would probably put it back up later; therefore, he did not see a problem. He felt that this is a good project, and he could support its approval. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve Resolution P.C. 90-26, with the following amendments: (1) to modify Condition 12(d) to state that no sliding glass door access shall be allowed on the front ground-floor bonus room; (2) that the rear study be allowed to have the sliding glass door to the deck, but there shall be no access from the deck to the outside area; (3) related to Condition 12(a), that the 161 square-foot rear deck shall be countable towards the open space. Comm. Peirce stated that 161 square feet of open space in the rear is acceptable because that is the area where there is a grade change. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Comms. Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ingell None None None Chmn. Ingell advised that this decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed by writing to the City Council within ten days. Recess taken from 7:44 P.M. until 7:49 P.M. PARK 90-2 --PARKING PLAN TO ALLOW THE ADDITION OF 800 SQUARE FEET TO AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING BUil,DING WITH NO EXISTING PARKING: ADDITIONAL PAR.KING REQUIRED TO BE COMPENSATED FOR BY PAYING THE IN-LIEU FEE AT 1238 HERMOSA AVENUE. COLVILLE PUBLISHING COMPANY Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated March 27, 1990. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission deny the requested parking plan unless the applicant pays the in-lieu fee for all required parking spaces. This project is in the C-2 zone, with a general plan designation of general commercial. The present and proposed use is as an office for an art warehouse and distribution facility, with 73 percent being used for the office, and 27 percent being used for storage and distribution_ The lot size is 4000 square feet, and the building size is 3128 square feet The-proposed addition is 800 square feet. The environmental detennination is categorically exempt. The plans do not correctly show that the size of the lot is 40 feet by 100 feet, for a total of 4000 square feet. The applicant has indicated that the business has ten employees who work during daytime business hours. Toe business is licensed as an office use, although it is a warehousing/distribution business. Warehousing/distribution is not permitted in the C-2 zone. Staff has visited the site, however, and believes t hat even though the primary function of the business is warehousing/ distribution, the primary use of the building is office, as the product involved in not excessively bulky. The subject lot is in the coastal zone and therefore the building addition would be subject to Coastal Commission approval. The applicant is requesting to construct a two-story expansion of an existing building. The applicant indicates that the additional 800 square feet proposed is for needed additional storage. Currently there is space on the site for parking two vehicles, although access to these 6 P.C. Minutes 4/ 3/90 spaces is through the Rea's Hardware parking lot. The proposed addition would eliminate these two spaces. The proposal to add square footage to a nonconforming commercial building is subject to the following requirements of the zoning ordinance: (1) Section 1162(d): For every building in a "C" or "M" zone hereafter erected, or reconstructed. or expanded, the parking requirements and the turning area for the entire building shall be as set forth in this ordinance. In no case shall new construction reduce the parking serving an existing use below the requirements of this ordinance; and, (2) Section 13-7: Expansion of existing nonconforming manufacturing or commercial structures shall be prohibited. Because of these requirements. the only way to legally expand the building is to bring the parking up to code. Therefore. the applicant has applied for a parking plan to provide required parking by contribution of an in-lieu fee. Since the property is located within the vehicle parking district, the code allows for contributions to an improvement fund in-lieu of required parking. subject to approval of a parking plan. This lot qualifies for use of the in-lieu fee to compensate for all required parking as the lot is less than 4001 square feet, with less than a 1: 1 floor area to lot area ratio. The in-lieu fee per parking space is $7564, based on the base 1985 fee of $6000 adjusted in line with the Consumer Price Index. The applicant has requested to pay the fee only for the additional parking that would be required by the proposed addition. Based on one space per 250 square feet, there would be three parking spaces, or a contribution of $22.692. However, to bring the entire building up to current parking requirements would require 16 parking spaces or a contribution of $121,024. Unless the applicant modifies the request to pay this amount, staff would recommend denial. The Planning Commission may wish, however, to continue this item to allow the applicant time to explore other alternatives. Section 1169 of the zoning ordinance pertaining to parking plans allows for the Planning Commission to approve a reduction in required parking, taking in the following considerations: van pools. bicycle and foot traffic , common parking facilities, varied work shifts, valet parking, and unique features of the proposed use. The only applicable consideration for this business might be the last option. This business basically creates a demand for parking for its employees only. According to the applicant, practically no walk-in customers or clients visit this location. In this regard, if parking requirements were based on need, the uniqueness of the business could perhaps justify a parking requirement of 10 or 11 spaces. The in-lieu fee would thus be reduced significantly. A covenant with the City a party thereto recorded with the property limiting the type of use and total occupancy would be recommended. Another option would be to provide only one story of additional storage and then use the roof, which would be accessible from the alley, to provide some parking. A combination of several alternatives would also be possible. Public Hearing opened at 7 :55 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell. Lee Oates, 1316 3rd Street. Santa Monica, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission and: ( 1) stated that they want to add storage space: (2) explained that the function of this business is to warehouse and distribute art prints: (3) said that the prints are stored in the rear portion of the building and the business is now in dire need of additional storage space for stacking of the prints; (4) explained that there is a 20 by 20 area at the rear of the building 7 P.C. Minutes 4/3/90 which they are now requesting to use as print storage stacking space; (5) commented that the staff report mentioned several alternatives of which he was not aware and he therefore favored a continuance of this matter so that the alternatives could be explored with the staff. GenyCompton, 200 Pier Avenue, addressed the Commission and: (1) commented that the issue of parking in the downtown area is very difficult; {2) felt that this is a good project in the downtown area which should be studied; (3) discussed the past history of parking in the downtown area; (4) said that there are not parking problems in the downtown area during the daytime hours; (5) suggested that the applicant contact the Chamber of Commerce, since they will soon be discussing this issue; (6) favored a continuance of this item; (7) felt that the applicant's request is reasonable. Public Hearing closed at 8:00 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell. Comm. Peirce stated that there are several categories which determine the parking requirements in the downtown area. Noting that the Commission does not have a specific policy on downtown parking. he did not feel it would be appropriate to require this applicant to have to provide so much parking. He felt it would be appropriate to continue this matter so that the applicant can discuss the alternatives with staff. He felt that this issue should be placed high on the list of studies. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Chmn. Ingell, to continue this public hearing to the meeting of May 1, 1990. Chmn. Ingell stated that this appears to be a successful business downtown which does not use a great deal of parking or adversely impact the area. Mr. Lee discussed the mitigation of parking requirements as specified in the municipal code, and he cautioned that any compromise between this applicant and the City must be within the guidelines as set forth in the code. He continued by suggesting that the Commission may wish to direct staff to study the possibility of amending the ordinance to provide for potential mitigation measures. Comm. Moore commented that there is an economic strangle-hold in the downtown area because of the parking requirements, and something must be done to remedy this problem. He further noted that he strongly opposes car stackers. because of liability. maintenance, and appearance issues. Comm. Ketz agreed that she opposes car stackers in the downtown area. Comm. Rue hoped that the Chamber of Commerce can accomplish what they have set out to do in regard to parking in the downtown area. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ingell None None None SUB-86-2 --SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE REVISED GRADING PLAN FOR AN EIGHT-LOT SUBDIVISION AT 532. 534. AND 540 20TH STREET. COMMONLY KNOWN AS ''THE POWER S1REET SUBDIVISION'' Mr. Lee discussed a letter dated April 3, 1990, from Warner Lombardi. asserting that Comm. Peirce has a potential conflict of interest in this matter because he lives in close proximity to the subject project. He explained that Comm. Peirce is outside of the 300-foot range; therefore. he would not be precluded from participating in discussion of this matter. 8 P.C. Minutes 4/3/90 Mr. Lee, referring to new rulings on this matter, asked Comm. Peirce whether he feels the proposed project would have an economic impact (decrease or increase) on property that he personally owns, due to its distance from the proposed project. Comm. Peirce did n~t feel that the proposed project would economically impact his property. Mr. Lee stated that Mr. Schubach has advised that it is very difficult to ascertain whether the proposed project would financially impact Comm. Peirce's property. Mr. Lee stated that, in his opinion, he did not feel Comm. Peirce has a conflict of interest related to this matter, and Comm. Peirce can therefore take part in this hearing. Mr. Lee, noting that staff may recommend that this matter be continued, stated that a continuance would provide an opportunity for him to contact the Fair Political Practices Commission to ensure that there is no conflict of interest for Comm. Peirce in this matter. Comm. Peirce felt that there is no reason to delay this hearing, based on the fact that both he and staff have ascertained there would be no conflict of interest. Comm. Rue concurred, stating that action should be taken on this matter as soon as possible. Comm. Moore agreed, stating that this City is very small and any large project could have a potential impact on virtually every property in the City. He therefore favored going ahead with the hearing. Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated March 27, 1990. The staff environmental review committee recommends that a focused EIR. be prepared to address possible impacts as noted in the initial study of the supplemental assessment, at the applicant's expense. Mr. Schubach specified three alternatives: ( 1) recommend a negative declaration if a finding can be made that the revised grading plan does not result in a significant impact, and the incremental impact of the storm water runoff into the deficient storm system is not cumulatively considerable because the watershed is built out and the potential for future land coverage is, therefore, extremely limited; (2) recommend a mitigated negative declaration. This would only be possible if a modification is made to the subdivision and grading plan which reduces environmental impacts to an insignificant level. Consider the mitigation measure as recommended by the Public Works Department; or, (3) to continue the matter pending the receipt of additional information from the developer and/ or the Public Works Department. On January 17, 1989, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve the revised grading plan. The attached L.A County hydrology study was not available, nor was the preliminary information from L.A County, which resulted in the City Council's requesting the study. The City Council at their meeting of June 13, 1989, directed staff to conduct a subsequent environmental assessment of the revised grading plan because of the change in grade, a hydrology study error made by the developer, and new information from the County about the hydrology of the watershed. On September 20, 1989, the staff environmental review committee conducted the initial study and completed the checklist to identify possible impacts. Findings and recommendations, however, were continued until completion of the watershed study by L.A County. On March 8, 1990, the staff environmental review committee made a finding that the project would have a significant environmental impact and recommended the preparation of a focused EIR. to address the items checked for possible impact. The committee relied on the CEQA definition of "cumulatively considerable" impacts in making the finding that the project's impact would be significant. 9 P.C. Minutes 4/3/90 Staffs finding that the project has a significant environmental impact was primarily based on Section 15065 of the Public Resources Code, "Mandatory Findings of Significance," which states: The project has possible environmental effects which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable. As used in the subsection, "cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects. The staff review committee believed that this section applied to this project and therefore was completed to make a finding of significance. Also, given the information from the County about potential flooding of the area, staff noted concern about the possibility of allowing homes to be built where they might be subject to flood damage. The County's study generally indicates that the flood control system within the watershed area is not capable of handling a one-year frequency of rainfall at this time, and it should be designed for a 50-year storm. None of the information received has clearly indicated what the level of water would be in the case of a 50-year storm and whether or not this is a valid concern. Therefore, the main benefit of preparing a focused EIR would be to obtain specific data regarding the amount of runoff contribution from this project as compared with the overall contribution of the watershed, and data regarding the flood elevations and ponding locations that would result from a 50-year storm and the risks, if any, to private property. The Public Works Department has been working on this project in conjunction with the Planning Department and is expected to provided additional analysis. This analysis will be provided to the Planning Commission as soon as it is available. Len Terry, Deputy City Engineer, representing the Public Works Department, addressed the Commission. He responded to a question posed by Comm. Peirce regarding the County report and the issue of additional runoff by stating that the report did not address that topic. He stated that the City does feel that is an issue which should be addressed. Mr. Terry read into the record a comment stating that the Public Works Department is of the opinion that insufficient information has been provided from the developer in regard to the drainage concerns involving the subject property and surrounding area. He noted that some information has been submitted; however, the information does not solve the problem. He felt that it would therefore be appropriate to require additional information and that a focused EIR be provided related to the drainage. Mr. Terry commented on staffs suggestion that this item be continued and stated that a continuance would allow the developer's engineer time to submit the appropriate data to resolve the problems that have not yet been fully answered. Mr. Terry stated that the County study was received only one month ago; therefore, the developer's engineer has not had an opportunity to address the concerns. Mr. Terry, in response to a question from Comm. Peirce, explained a one-year storm versus a fifty-year storm. He stated that the volume of water which would occur in a one-year period would give the one-year storm figure. He stated that the County report relates primarily to flows and volumes of water which would pass a property in a particular time frequency and with the existing storm drain system. Comm. Peirce noted that specific back-up data has not been provided by the County engineer (Mr. Hildebrand) to support the County figures contained in the report. 10 P.C. Minutes4/3/90 Mr. Terry stated that the information would be in the County's rough data. He continued by explaining the type of data which would have been used in preparation of the document. Comm. Peirce noted that the report appears to address only the issue of pipes. Mr. Terry suggested that the developer's engineer be given an opportunity to provide information related to expansion of the County's data and to provide information on drainage and flooding problems which have not yet been addressed. He felt that there can be a reasonable and timely solution to this problem. Mr. Terry stated that his department would like the developer to ensure that no flooding will occur as a result of this project, with the existing County flood control system in place at the current ti.Ine. Mr. Terry, in response to technical questions from Comm. Rue, explained that he would be unable to provide specific answers until additional information is provided to the City by the engineer. He again noted that if this item is continued, it would allow the engineer time to provide information for the staff to review so that questions can be answered. Comm. Moore questioned whether there are problems with the currently existing drainage system in the area of this proposed project. He questioned whether the system would even be able to handle the one-year storm. Mr. Terry replied that there could be a problem; however, Comm. Peirce countered by stating that the report asserts that the problem arises with a fifty-year storm. Comm. Peirce stressed that he has lived in that area for 21 years, and there has never been any ponding at 20th Street and Power Street due to water back-up. Comm. Moore perceived that the system is inadequate even for a one-year storm. He asked whether staff feels there are problems with the system. Mr. Terry attempted to clarify the issue and explained that the County study is based upon the capacity of the underground storm drain pipe, which is the County facility. Neighbors in the area have testified that there has been no flooding; however, that does not mean that there has not been ponding in small amounts. He said that there are two different points of view; whether one looks at it from the County's standpoint, or whether one looks at it from the neighbors' standpoint. He stated that the two answers do not appear to be similar. Comm. Moore noting that there has been a four-year drought. stated that a key issue is how much water can be absorbed by the land, noting that the more the land is paved over. the less absorption there is. He questioned whether there are technologically-advanced techniques which can be used. Mr. Terry stated that there are a number of technological alternatives; however, the answer depends upon the method proposed by the engineer. He stated that it is incumbent upon the developer's engineer to propose an adequate solution to resolve the problems, and the City's purpose is to review the proposal to ensure that it is viable. Chmn. Ingell commented on the CEQA guidelines which state that "cumulatively considerable means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects." Noting that most single-family homes do not need CEQA approval, he asked Mr. Lee how he would feel using that specific definition. Mr. Terry felt that the applicant should address any run-off problems before the project is approved. In this particular case, he felt that the applicant has not had adequate time to address the concerns, since the County report was received only a short time ago. 11 P.C. Minutes 4/3/90 Chmn. Ingell stated that the CEQA definition appears to target every type of project. Mr. Schubach expanded on the issue of cumulative impacts as related to new projects. He stated that there will continue to be newer and bigger homes being built in the City. Chmn. Ingell noted, then, that any new project which will affect drainage would trigger the CEQA guidelines. Mr. Schubach agreed, and stated that these issues will be addressed in the housing element. Mr. Lee clarified the issue of cumulative impacts. He stated that any projects deemed to cause a significant problem can be addressed. He continued by explaining the assessment of cumulative impacts as well as the issue of categorical exemptions allowed by CEQA Mr. Lee. in response to comments from the Commission, explained when EIRs would be necessary for specific projects. Comm. Peirce noted that other large projects have not triggered the flooding requirements; he therefore said that this appears to be selective enforcement. Mr. Lee responded by explaining the triggers which require extensive reports and EIRs. Mr. Terry continued by discussing another project two blocks away from this proposed project as it relates to the issue of water drainage. He stated that the project engineer was required to provide mitigation measures in regard to the water which would be generated. and measures were proposed. He stated that the engineer for this developer should be given an opportunity to provide mitigation measures. In response to a question from Chmn. lngell, he continued by explaining what requirements were placed on that other project, and he noted that 100-year storm figures were used. Comm. Moore, noting that a letter had been set to the Commission asking about the density, asked about this particular. Mr. Schubach explained the size of the lots in question, stating that the average lot size is 6000 square feet. He said that the density will be approximately seven units per acre, and up to 13 units per acre is allowed. Chmn. Ingell reminded everyone that the only topics at issue at this time are the grading plan and the hydrology report. Public Hearing opened at 8:50 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell. Jim Marquez, representing the property owners, addressed the Commission. He stated that they are attempting to follow the rules and comply with the conditions of the original tentative tract map. He noted that the environmental issue is not subject to the appeal process. He said that he objects to the process, noting that they originally complied with the requirements. He continued by discussing all of the various studies which they have been required to do and which in fact they have done. He handed out copies of a letter dated May 16, 1989, from the County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works to Mr. Antich, Director of Public Works, which states that the county has known since 1973 that the storm drain system is inadequate. Mr. Marquez stated that the applicant would like to have a continuance so that he can meet with the Public Works Department people to discuss these issues. He noted, however, that it has been years since approval was given to the tentative tract map. He continued by discussing the conditions imposed in the tentative tract map and what actions the applicant has taken. He stated that all County requirements have been met; however, when the issue was presented to the City Council, a request was made to do a further study on the system. He noted that an 12 P.C. Minutes 4/ 3/90 entire year has gone by since that time. He requested that this matter b e c on tinue d for 30 days so that the applicant can work out solutions for the drainage problem. H e stre ssed tha t the County has already accepted the drainage calculations as being a dequate; ther efor e, the applicant does not feel it is necessary to provide an EIR.. Mr. Marquez stated that, pursuant to a request from the Public Works Department, the grade line of the street has been changed so that drainage is in contour with the land. Mr. Marquez stated that in the past a sump system has been suggested, and they are willing to do that; however, he felt it would be more appropriate to require this as a condition of the mitigated negative declaration, rather than requiring an EIR. He stated that this is not an issue of re-evaluating the entire storm drain system. He stated that there have not been severe storm situations in this area. He noted that this is a sand terrain, and the soil is very porous. He asked that the project not be delayed any further and that the Commission approve a mitigated negative declaration with conditions so that they can go forward with their grading plan at the City Council level. Al ternatively, he requested a 30-da y c ontinu a nce to discuss these issues with staff. Gerry Compton, 200 Pier Avenue, addressed the Commission and asked for clarification on whether single-family homes in that area will be required to do hydrology studies, to which staff replied that that is correct. Comm. Peirce asked who is responsible for imposing the r equirement that single-family projects provide h ydrology reports. He felt that further .information is necessary on this issue. Mr. Compton continued and: (1) stated that the City Council should be the body to decide whether this requirement is to be enforced; (2) discussed the area from Pier Avenue to Gould Avenue and stated that the entire area drains into this system; (3) said that half of the single- family homes would be impacted by this new drainage requirement, and a public hearing should be held on it. Bill Bryson, 2017 Power Street, addressed the Commission and: (1) commented on the fifty- year flood, noting that even though this is a drought -pot ential area. whe n it rains many times there is flooding, as evidenced by the Los Ang ele s River almost overflowing: (2) note d that the County report asserts that this project will cause a potential problem; (3) stressed that it is important to think about what impacts this project will have; (4) stressed that it is important to address all the issues. Comm. Peirce commented on the County report, and stated that any engineer who provides assumptions without also providing back-up data is inadequate in his preparation of the report. He stressed the importance of being able to check the data and calculations as related to the assumptions. He felt that unless additional information is provided, the report should not be used as a basis for making the decision. Warner Lombardi, 1849 Valley Park Drive, addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that a year ago the residents discovered serious errors in the hydrology report prepared by the developer, which fact was brought to the attention of the City Council; (2) noted that Harris and Associates has withdrawn some of their calculations, based on the fact that they were provided with inaccurate data; (3) stated that the residents applaud the recommendation of the environmental review committee to require a focused EIR with the corrected information; (4) thanked the City for notifying him well in advance of this public hearing; (5) thanked the attorney for responding to his letter; (6) asked whether this decision of the Commission can be appealed, to which Mr. Lee responded in the affinnative; (7) addressed the issue of ponding, stating that it has occurred in the project area numerous times; (8) asked about the status of the tentative tract map, to which Chmn. Ingell pointed out that that is not at issue at this time. Mark Ca vanaugh, 912 Torrance Boulevard, Redondo Beach, project developer, addressed the Commission and: ( 1) stated that the hydrology calculations provided by his engineer were 13 P.C. Minutes 4/ 3/90 accepted by the county as were the storm drain system reports; (2) submitted copies of the letters from the County related to that fact [letters dated March 29, 1990. and March 15. 1988]; (3) said that they have provided everything which was required, and the County is ready to approve the project; (4) noted that the report was revised because originally there were no calculations for the drainage coming from the neighboring property; (5) said that the storm drain plan is ready to be stamped off by the County. Mr. Cavanaugh continued and: (1) said that their storm drain can be hooked up to the existing storm drain system; (2) in response to a question from Comm. Peirce regarding the fifty-year storm drain system, he replied that his engineer was not present to answer technical questions; (3) stated that information from the Public Works Department was not available until only today; (4) noted that he had asked that department to provide additional information related to what more the City wants; (5) noted that the City's consultant. BSI, has approved the plan; (6) said that the sewer plan has been approved; (7) commented that the only thing holding up this project is approval by the City Council of the grading plan; (8) explained that the only reason the grading plan was sent back was to require that the retaining walls along the hillside are kept under a certain height; (9) said that he has now been thrown a wrench by the City asserting that the storm drains are not adequate, but the storm drain plan is ready to be approved by the County; (10) questioned whether there is another possibility which he could discuss with staff; (11) stated that he should not be responsible for a substandard system which is substandard all over the area. Mr. Cavanaugh continued and: (1) stated that he has already been through an environmental review process; (2) responded to questions from Comm. Rue related to the revised hydrology report and explained that the original report did not include the property up the hill on Loma Drive which would drain down onto this project; (3) said the engineer revised the calculations to take into account that other property; (4) stressed that he has gone through the proper channels, has fulfilled all the County requirements, and has submitted all requested materials; (5) stated that the revised calculations involved only an insignificant amount of water, and the County has no opposition to their tying into the County storm drain system; (6) said, in response to a question from Comm. Rue, that later concerns surfaced related to whether the County's storm drain system was adequate for this project to tie into; (7) noted that the City Council does not feel the system is inadequate enough to impose a moratorium, however, they feel that this developer should be held up; (8) said that he should not be penalized, noting that all projects are tying into an overall substandard storm drain system; (9) noted that he has been attempting to have this project approved for the past four years, and he is willing to work with staff to mitigate the amount of water going into the storm drain system; (10) in response to a question from Comm. Rue, explained the revision made to the originally approved tentative tract map because of an error in calculating the height of the culvert, stating that the grading changed 18 inches. Guillermo Garcia, 1835 Valley Park, addressed the Commission and: (1) discussed the 18 inches needed to drain the water, but he noted that it is almost four feet to the street; (2) stated that the plan is not only insufficient, but it will also destroy several large trees; (3) proposed alternative drainage solutions; (4) stated that three lots will now be eight lots and he noted concern over the water which will drain to Valley Park; (5) said that a sump pump was proposed in the past; (6) said that the grade has been changed substantially, from 18 inches to four feet; (7) questioned who is going to make the final determination; i.e., the City, the County, BSI, the engineer, etc. Public Hearing closed at 9:28 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell. Comm. Rue questioned who is liable in the event of a flood, and he asked about the risks being taken. Mr. Lee explained that this is a difficult issue to address; however, he continued by discussing other instances which resulted in mudslides and earth movement. He said that the litigation is only now being settled and it has been a very complex case. He stated that he is not aware of all 14 P.C. Minutes 4/ 3/90 the facts; therefore, he cannot assess liability in this case. He stated that the risks must be detennined before liability can be ascertained. Comm. Rue noted that the County asserts the proposal is adequate; therefore, he questioned whether it should not just go forward. Comm. Peirce stated that the County did not recommend that this project hook into the storm drain system, noting that the report is actually silent on this issue. Chmn. Ingell pointed out that the county report did not specifically address this particular project; it merely discussed what is currently existing there. Comm. Peirce stated that the key issue is whether or not the Commission has enough information to determine whether the excess capacity from this property, when this property is built up, into the storm drain will be a significant impact. He questioned whether there is adequate information at this time to make such a determination. He stated that without the back-up data, the County report is not useful. He questioned how this material can be obtained. Comm. Ketz agreed that there is not enough back-up data to make a decision. Comm. Peirce suggested that staff work with the applicant and County engineer on this project. He noted the importance of this decision. explaining that it will set a precedent as related to future projects. He said that the Commission needs more facts. Comm. Moore stated that key information relates to the current flow off the property versus the flow after the property is developed. If there is a large increase, mitigation measures should be addressed. Mr. Marquez addressed the Commission and stated that they can work with staff to address these issues. Chmn. Ingell pointed out, however, that a focused EIR would address these issues. Mr. Marquez disagreed, stating that the issues can be addressed and solved without having to go through the process of a focused EIR, which entails much preparation and a great deal of time. He felt that the problem can be solved by working with staff. Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Chmn. Ingell, explained that a focused EIR would address only the issues of the grading and water run-off and would not be terribly time consuming, and would take approximately three months. He continued by further explaining the procedure followed for a focused EIR. He noted that another option would be to recommend a negative declaration with mitigation measures. Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Comm. Peirce, stated that it is his understanding that the County has given their approval for this project to tie into the County storm drain system. Comm. Peirce asked what body is ultimately responsible for determining the risk on the flood control system. Mr. Schubach stated that it is up to both the City and the County to determine, after review, that the system is adequate. Mr. Lee explained that the County is the responsible agency, under the environmental review process, to address the adequacy of taking the run-off into their system. The City, in tenns of being the lead agency in this discretionary review process, must review the information provided and verify that the information is true and accurate. Such determination must be based upon the professional opinion given by staff. He noted that testimony has been given by 15 P.C. Minutes 4/ 3/90 a representative of the Public Works Department that there is not adequate information to make the final determination. Comm. Moore stated that the issue here is the believability of the engineering study. He did not feel that an environmental impact report, focused or not, is necessary. He felt that a satisfactory engineering study is necessary which specifies: the current drainage from the site, the calculated drainage with the improvements and alternates, and a match-up of that information with the existing sewer system to determine the probability of floods. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Rue, to continue this item to the meeting of May 1, 1990, for the purpose of obtaining the following additional information on the engineering report: the current drainage from the site, the calculated drainage with the improvements (including alternate improvements), and a match-up of that information with the existing sewer system to determine the probability of floods. Also, at the next hearing to ask the County engineer, or other suitable representative, how the calculations were derived and what the numbers mean. Mr. Lee, in response to a question from Comm. Peirce, stated that it would be appropriate to reopen the public hearing at the next meeting so that people can give additional testimony on the new information. Warner Lombardi addressed the Commission and stated that there is a letter which asserts that the County did not approve the tie-in to their storm system. Comm. Peirce, after discussion with Chmn. Ingell, did not feel it is appropriate for the Planning Commission to request mitigation measures at this time. Chmn. Ingell noted, however, that staff had recommended a negative declaration with mitigation measures. He therefore favored requiring mitigation measures at this time so that the cumulative impacts of the excess run-off can be addressed. The item can then be sent to the City Council for approval. Comm. Peirce disagreed, asking why the developer should be required to provide mitigation measures for a potentially minor impact. He stated that there are agencies within whose purview it is to ensure that the system is adequate. Chmn. Ingell stated that he would vote against the motion, based upon staffs recommendation to recommend a negative declaration with mitigation measures. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comm. Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Rue Chmn. Ingell None None NR-90-2 -AN EXCEPTION FROM SECTION 13-7(B) "IO ALLOW A REMODEL AND EXPANSION TO AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING GREATER THAN A 50% INCREASE IN VALUATION AT 2624 THE STRAND (CONTINUED FROM MEETINGS OF MARCH 6 AND MARCH 20. 1990) Mr. Schubach explained that this item was continued from the meeting of March 20, 1990, to allow the applicant time to return with alternative plans. No alternative plans had been submitted until this evening; therefore, staff recommended that the request be continued so that staff can study the plans. Hearing opened at 9:57 P.M. byChmn. Ingell. 16 P.C. Minutes 4/ 3/90 Gerry Compton, 200 Pier Avenue, project architect, addressed the Commission and: (1) apologized for not having the plans in on time; and, (2) continued by discussing the revised plans for the project. Hearing closed at 10:03 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell. Comm. Peirce stated that he would prefer not to discuss the project until staff and the Commissioners had a chance to review the revised plans. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Chmn. Ingell, to continue this item to the meeting of April 17, 1990, and to direct that this item be placed at the beginning of the agenda. No objections; so ordered. STAFF ITEMS a) Memorandum Regardin,g Planning Commission Liaison for April 10. 1990. City Council Meeting No action taken. b) Planning Department Activity Report for Februai::y 1990 No comments; no action taken. c) Tentative Futw:e Planning Commission Agenda Mr. Schubach advised that the Commission, at their next meeting, would be viewing a home video depicting a Mobil Car Wash. He stated that arrangements are currently being made as to the method to be used to show the video. d) City Council Minutes of March 13 and 15. 1900 No comments; no action taken. COMMISSIONER ITEMS Comm. Moore felt that there is no sensitivity on the part of the City regarding the scheduling of meetings as related to the observance of religious holidays, noting that a City Council meeting is scheduled on Passover. Comm. Peirce made several comments: (1) noted concern about three parking spaces at the north side of 2nd Street adjacent to The Strand, to which Mr. Schubach responded that he would check into this matter; (2) noted concern that buses on 8th Street going north are too large for the street and he asked about the turning radius for busses, to which Mr. Schubach responded that he would check into the matter; and (3) stated that he favors buses, however, many streets in the City are too small to accommodate them. Comm. Moore suggested that resolutions be approved as a group rather than individually. Mr. Schubach also suggested that the minutes be included with the resolutions for approval. Mr. Lee advised that all resolutions and minutes can be approved as consent items, unless a specific item is pulled for discussion. All five Commissioners favored approving the resolutions and the minutes as a group, rather than individually. 17 P.C. Minutes 4/ 3/90 • Comm. Rue commented on a memo from the City of Hesperia regarding criteria for new development, and he discussed topics which could be addressed in the future by the City. Comm. Ketz commented on an article in the "California Planner" regarding the flexible standards used in Pasadena. She suggested that staff obtain a copy of the Pasadena ordinance so that their specifications can be studied. Chmn. Ingell noted that he attended a meeting of the League of California Cities held in San Diego. One interesting topic which was raised at the meeting concerned the Brown Act and whether commissioners should or should not visit project sites, to which Mr. Lee responded that commissioners are allowed to visit sites. Chmn. Ingell stated that another item discussed at the meeting was the issue of videos depicting project sites, to which Mr. Lee responded by stating that he will provide information on that issue. Mr. Lee stated that he will provide to the Commissioners an information sheet outlining Brown Act requirements. MOTION by Comm. Moore, seconded by Comm. Rue, to adjourn at 10:23 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 mee~fApril3,u ...-,.,:,__,_.-~~~;___ Date 18 P.C. Minutes 4/ 3/90