HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC_Minutes_1990_05_01MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH r ) HELD ON MAY 1, 1990, AT 7:00 P.M. IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Meeting called to order at 7:00 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
Pledge of Allegiance led by Comm. Peirce.
ROLLCALL
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
CONSENT CALENDAR
MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve as written:
The minutes of April 3, 1990, and April 17, 1990;
Resolution P.C. 90-26, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CI1Y OF
HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND A
VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #21814 FOR A 1WO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM FOR 1512
MANHATTAN AVENUE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS THE NORfHERLY 35 FEET OF LOT 14,
BWCK 49, FIRST ADDIDON TO HERMOSA BEACH TRACT;
Resolution P.C. 90-27, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CI1Y OF
HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND A
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #22059 FOR A 1WO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM FOR 711 11 TH STREET,
LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS Lor 7, BLOCK 1, TRACT 6851.
No objections; so ordered.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC
No one appeared to address the Commission.
NR-90-2 --AN EXCEPTION FROM SECTION 13-7{B) TO ALLOW A REMODEL AND EXPANSION
TO AN EXJSTING NONCONFORMING SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING GREATER THAN 50
PERCENT INCREASE IN VALUATION AT 2624 THE STRAND {CONTINUED FROM MEETINGS
OF 3/6/90, 3/20/90, 4/3/90, AND 4/17 /901
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated April 12, 1990. Staff recommended approval of the
request as modified.
At the March 20, 1990, meeting, the Planning Commission continued this request because the
proposed second-story a ddition above the garage on Hermosa Avenue was not set back to meet
minimum front yard requirements. He rmosa Avenue is considered a front yard pursuant to
Planning Commission policy statement 88-1 . The Commission requested the applicant to
return with alternatives to addr ess the problem.
The request was continued again at the meeting of April 3, 1990, because the alternative plans
were not submitted until the night of the meeting.
1 P.C. Minutes 5/ 1/90
l The revised plans propose somewhat of a compromise by tapering the second stoxy addition
back from the point which corresponds to the roof of the existing garage. This has the effect of
reducing the visual impact of continuing the nonconforming setback.
This proposal allows the applicant to accomplish the objective of providing two bedrooms over
the garage while maintaining the required open space in the courtyard.
The slanted portion of the building still encroaches into the required front yard setback,
requiring the Planning Commission to approve this as an exception to the policy statement
which identifies Hermosa Avenue and the Strand as front yards.
Hearing opened at 7:04 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
Geny Compton, 200 Pier Avenue, Hermosa Beach, project architect, addressed the Commission
and: (1) handed out photographs of the project site: (2) explained that the project will be
approximately a 57 percent remodel; (3) commented on the setbacks, explaining that that issue
was addressed at a previous meeting; (4) summarized his conversations with the building
director related to this project and the fact that a variance is not necessary; (5) responded to
questions from Comm. Rue related to the blueprints and the proposed building facade: (6)
requested that the Commission address the Issue of interpreting the setbacks along The
Strand, particularly in relationship to remodels.
Norm Quient, 2630 The Strand, addressed the Commission and: (1) asked about the noticing
requirements for this project, explaining that he did not receive a notice for this hearing, to
which Mr. Schubach responded that this is a hearing, not a public hearing, therefore, noticing
was not required: (2) noted that neither the applicant nor the architect were at the meeting of
April 17; (3) felt that the proposed project will violate the height limit and will definitely
impact his light and air; ( 4) noted that the Commission has previously expressed its
disapproval of tandem parking, and have allowed less than the 17-foot setback for other
projects; (5) explained that this project will have tandem parking and will not have a 17-foot
required setback; (6) noted that the bike path runs along Hermosa Avenue in this area. and the
new garage will be set back only three feet from the sidewalk, to which the bike path is
immediately adjacent; (7) asked that approval of this project be denied.
Hearing closed at 7:08 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
Comm. Moore felt that this remodel falls within the intent of the City's goals; therefore, he
favored approval of the request.
Comm. Ketz agreed, stating that she felt this project is within the intent of the nonconforming
ordinance, noting that an attempt is being made to bring an older structure into conformance.
as much as is possible.
Comm. Rue noted that there appears to be some confusion because the interpretation is not
precise related to setbacks along The Strand properties.
Mr. Schubach replied that more refinement might be necessary in regard to this particular
interpretation. He continued by clarifying the City's intent of the interpretation, explaining
that the policy statement is flexible, not a hard and fast rule.
Comm. Rue felt that this designer's approach in setting the third stoxy back from The Strand
will make a difference related to the neighbors' light and air, stating that the building will not
be a massive, bulky project. He stated that he could therefore support approval of the project.
MOTION by Comm. Moore, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve staff's recommendation,
Resolution P.C. 90-15, as written.
2 P.C. Minutes 5/ 1/90
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Ketz, Moore, Petree, Rue, Chmn. Ingell.
None
None
None
CUP 89-5 -CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A RETAIL SNACK SHOP. GAS PUMPS. AND CAR
WASH, AND ADOPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 931
PACIFIC COAST filGHWAY. MOBIL OIL STATION (CONTINUED FROM MEETINGS OF 1/3/90.
2/6/90. 2/?!)/90. 3/'Jn/90. AND 4/17 /90)
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated April 12, 1990. Staff recommended approval of the
request, as modified, subject to the conditions specified in the proposed resolution.
At their meeting of January 3, 1990, the Planning Commission continued this request because
of the inadequate noise study and the need to address concerns regarding the potential noise
impact of the car wash.
At the meeting of February 20, 1990, the Planning Commission again continued this request to
obtain additional information and clarification on the noise measurements and the City's
noise requirements.
At the meeting of March 20, 1990, the request was again continued as the applicant had not
submitted a revised noise study as requested.
In response to concerns over noise, the applicant has modified the request to eliminate the
blow dryers from the car wash and to replace them with a pure water rinse system. Also, a
noise study of the noise impacts without a blow dryer has been submitted.
The applicant's noise consultant measured noise levels at a comparable facility in San Diego
equipped with the pure water system rather than a blow dryer. Noise measurements were taken
at a distance of 61 feet (the distance at the Hermosa location to the trailer park) and were
estimated for an 80-foot distance. These measurements were compared with the ambient levels
at corresponding locations at the Hermosa location. The report shows that the measured noise
levels as generated from the car wash are in all cases well below the ambient levels measured at
the corresponding Hermosa locations, which meets the requirements of Hermosa Beach's noise
ordinance.
The use of the pure water system also eliminates the need for the use of opening and closing
doors, which appears to be a problem at the location in Manhattan Beach. A noise study was
prepared by Davy and Associates addressing further details related to the anticipated noise
impact.
Staff has also taken noise measurements at the Mobil site at the comer of Aviation and
Manhattan Beach Boulevard. Measured at a distance of 27 feet, with the doors closed, the blow
dryer registered a noise level of approximately 75-80 decibels. During the wash phase, the car
wash was barely audible above the traffic noise, and the reading was approximately 60-65
decibels. Although these are rough measurements and general observations, it seems to be
consistent with the finding in the applicant's noise study that without the blow dryer, the noise
problem is minimal.
It was noted that the door system was in operation at the Manhattan Beach facility; although,
one of the window panes in the door was missing. Interestingly, the loudest noise generated
from the entire operation appeared to come from the mechanism which set the doors in
motion.
Staff was concerned that without the dryer in the car wash system, customers may wish to dry
their cars on the site. The recommended condition for two additional parking spaces will
3 P.C. Minutes 5/ 1/90
satisfy some of this need. Also, in order to avoid congestion at the exit of the car wash, staff
recommended a condition that the area be signed for no stopping.
Staff also noted while at the Manhattan Beach site that several cars were stacked behind the
car wash. This brings up additional concerns. First, staff felt that the proposed layout would
encourage a rather disorderly stacking of vehicles. As such, staff recommended a condition
that a stacking lane be clearly marked on the pavement for a capacity of eight cars. The
stacking lane should be oriented for cars entering from the south and shall not interfere with
the turnaround area for the parking stalls. Second, residents have raised a concern regarding
the telling vehicles and the potential additional emission of carbon monoxide. Given the
existing volume of traffic on P.C.H. and that currently the site is used for a gas station and auto
repair facility that already emits pollutants. staff does not believe that the idling vehicles
would significantly increase the impact.
Another concern has been raised regarding the location of the driveway on 9th Street. The
adjacent resident's driveway backs onto 9th Street at the property line and the proposed
driveway is offset from the property line only 6.5 feet. This may present a visibility problem
and a safety problem for the residential vehicle.
The applicant has been informed of this concern and is willing to offset the driveway an
additional 3.5 feet to be ten feet, but claims that any more of a shift would affect turning radius
needs for entering and exiting vehicles. It is also important to maintain a sufficient offset
from P.C.H. However, staff felt that the driveway can be offset an additional ten feet from the
east property line by reducing the width of the driveway to 25 feet, thereby keeping the offset
from P.C.H. the same. As such, staff recommended a condition that the driveway be offset, as
measured along the property line, a minimum of 16.5 feet. Staff further recommended that
that area have some landscaping.
Staff noted further concern about the location of the trash dumpster and storage building at the
rear of the property and recommended a condition that it be relocated away from the property
line at a location to be approved by the Planning Director.
Mr. Schubach, in response to comments from Comm. Moore related to the customer service air
and water units, stated that a condition has been included requiring that those units be
relocated.
Comm. Rue asked about the constraints of the Planning Commission requiring an eight-foot
wall at this project site.
Mr. Schubach explained that the ordinance prohibits any wall higher than six feet in the City;
however, in this case, an eight-foot wall would be a mitigation measure and would serve as a
buffer between the business and the residential neighborhood. Therefore. it might be possible
to allow an eight-foot wall.
Comm. Rue noted concern over possible carbon monoxide emissions from cars waiting in the
stacking lane. He questioned the possibility of requiring that a sign be posted requiring that
people turn off their engines while waiting in the stacking lane.
Public Hearing opened at 7:22 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
Brian Recksteiner, 9891 Vicksburg Drive, Huntington Beach, applicant, addressed the
Commission. He displayed to the Commission a color rendering of the proposed project.
Mr. Recksteiner stated that they have made many compromises related to this project in order
to be a good neighbor. He noted that he had sent to the Commission a letter addressing the issue
of the doors not operating properly at the Manhattan Beach site. He explained that those
problems have all been solved, and air-operated doors are now being used as opposed to
4 P.C. Minutes 5/ 1/90
electrically-operated doors. He also noted that noise will be eliminated since the blowers are
being eliminated.
Mr. Recksteiner stated that the noise study has been redone, and the noise consultant would
explain his findings.
Bruce Davy, 865 Manhattan Beach Boulevard, Manhattan Beach, noise consultant, addressed
the Commission. He noted that Mobil has decided to el1minate the air dxyers and use instead a
pure water rinse facility. He explained that there is an existing facility in San Diego very
similar to the one being proposed here. He visited that site on April 4 and took extensive noise
measurements using the same type of noise measurement device used by the City.
Mr. Davy noted that the results were included in the packets: however, he desired to go through
the report With the Commission. He continued by showing slides as he explained the
measurements. Slides shown were titled: 'Typical Community Noise Characteristics": "North
Side of 10th Street at Southeast Corner of Trailer Park, 61 Feet From Car Wash"; "Comparison
of Measured Noise Levels With Ambient Noise Levels at the West Property Line, Eight Feet from
Car Wash"; and "North Side of Car Wash at Five Feet From Car Wash Wall." He concluded by
stating that the car wash noise levels will be within the guidelines set by the City.
Mr. Recksteiner again addressed the Commission. He discussed Condition No. 6 related to the
hours of operation. He stated that they would like to have hours of operation of 6:00 AM. to
10:00 P.M. seven days a week. He pointed out that during the noise study at no time did the
noise exceed the allowed ambient noise level; therefore, he did not see any problem with
allowing the longer hours of operation.
Mr. Recksteiner commented on Condition No. 14 which requires a water reclamation system to
be used. He stated that they would prefer not to use a reclamation system, explaining that they
can give a better wash without that system.
Mr. Recksteiner commented on Condition No. 11 which relates to the signage at the site. He
passed out photos depicting the current signage and explained that the sign is blocked from
view of southbound traffic since there is a large tree there. He therefore requested that they be
allowed to have a 45-foot sign so that there is visibility for the business. He further asked that
the ID price sign be allowed to be 19 feet, 9 and a half Jnches so that it can be seen. He passed out
renderings depicting the ID price sign. He noted that the City ordinance allows signs of 35 feet.
He also said that he would be willing to lower the 45-foot sign to 35 feet.
Mr. Recksteiner commented on Condition No.19(e) related to the southerly entrance driveway
along 9th Street. He pointed out on a drawing the route the tanker trucks will use to enter and
leave the site. He explained the route which will be used, and he stated that the trucks need 35
feet in order to safely exit the location; not 25 feet as proposed by staff. He continued by
discussing traffic on 9th Street; however, he said that not all of those people are coming from
the Mobil station.
Mr. Recksteiner continued by discussing Condition No. 19(f) related to the stacking lane for
eight cars as required by staff. Noting that the car wash Will now eliminate the blowers and the
cycle will be shortened by a minute and a half, he did not think the eight-car stacking lane is
necessary. He said that people are cautious and look before backing out. He said that the cycle
will now be two and a half minutes.
Mr. Recksteiner discussed Condition 19(g) related to the location of the trash dumpster and
stated that the dumpster can be moved. He discussed the current location of the trash
dumpsters.
Mr. Recksteiner asked for clarification of Condition No. 24 which states that ''The Planning
Commission may review the conditional use permit and may amend the subject conditions or
impose any new conditions if deemed necessary to mitigate detrimental effects on the
5 P.C. Minutes 5/ 1/90
neighborhood resulting from the subject use." He asked whether additional public hearings
would be held for such a review.
Chmn. Ingell explained that a public hearing would be held, and it is within the purview of the
Plannmg Commission to review the CUP and add new conditions if deemed necessary.
Mr. Recksteiner, in response to questions from Comm. Rue regarding the stgnage, explained
that he would like to have two signs at this site: the 45-foot sign, which he would be willing to
lower to 35 feet: and a 19 foot, nine and a half inch ID price sign. He said that such signage is
necessary so that there is visibility. He said that he has never had a clear understanding of the
sign requirements and whether or not the Planning Commission could approve two signs or
whether he needs to apply for a sign variance in order to allow him to have two signs.
Mr. Schubach clarified that only one sign is allowed at this site. Staff felt that a 45-foot pole
sign is not appropriate for Pacific Coast Highway.
Mr. Lee read from the Municipal Code, Section 28(a)-13 related to signs in the C-3 zone and
confirmed that only one ground sign or one pole sign is allowed: however, there appears to be
no specific wording related to the height of the sign.
Mr. Schubach stated that staff does not feel it is necessary to have a sign of more than ten feet
in height at this location.
Comm. Moore commented on the issue of truck turning radius and noted that this is one of the
larger service station lots in the area. He said that driveways in San Francisco can be very
small: yet trucks can ingress and egress safely. He questioned why this applicant insists that
the south driveway must be 35 feet wide.
Mr. Recksteiner stated that there would be difficulty with the truck turning radius if there is a
narrower driveway. He noted that full-sized tanker trucks will be used. not the smaller bob-
tail types. He continued by referring to the drawing to clarify his point.
Parker Herriott, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and: (1) noted concern over Mobil
Oil's proposed project, stating that it is a disgrace and will destroy more of the City; (2) stated
that insensitive corporate powers do not care about cities; (3) noted concern over what is
happening to the earth: (4) said that the oil companies are not as safe as they assert to be: (5)
stressed that the noise will be very annoying; (6) said that this project will not be compatible
with the neighborhood, noting that there is no need to have more car washes in that area: (7)
commented that the applicant is now trying to get out of the staff-proposed conditions: (8) said
that staff has done a good job; however, he felt that this project should be denied since it is not
compatible to the area: (9) felt that traffic-generating businesses should not be encouraged; ( 10)
stated that the car wash is merely a gimmick to get more people into the station: ( 11) stated that
hours of 6:00 AM. to 10:00 P.M. are not appropriate, noting that others are not allowed to begin
working before 8:00 AM.: (12) noted concern over the health, safety, and welfare of the
residents; (13) suggested that there be a six-month review of the CUP to ensure that this
business is not causing problems: (14) felt that the entire project is hazardous and could be
harmful to people: (15) asked whether this project falls under the precise development plan. to
which Mr. Schubach replied in the negative.
Gloria Kolesar, 714 and 726 10th Street, addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that the car
wash time will actually be four minutes, not two and a half minutes as suggested by the
applicant; (2) stated that on many occasions she has observed eight or more cars stacked up
waiting at the other site: (3) commented on a news story she saw regarding a possible new
requirement by the AQMD which may prohibit any further new drive-throughs with stacking;
(4) stated that such a use does build up accumulated carbon monoxide fumes. and she noted that
the stacking area will be very close to the residences: (5) commented on the letter dated May 1,
1990, which she submitted to the staff; (6) said that the wall will actually be only five feet on the
residents' side due to the slope; (7) noted that since cars would be stacking so close to the
6 P.C. Minutes 5/ 1/90
residents, the noise would be very annoying: (8) commented further that the AQMD advises that
turning the engine off and on emits more fumes than just leaving the engine on; (9) noted
concern over the number of cars which will be lining up for a car wash, and the attendant noise
and emissions: (10) commented on the problems experienced by the preschool which abuts the
Manhattan Beach site; (11) noted concern over the tanks. storage, stacking, emissions, and
venting system which will be so close to the residents, especially since the wall iS actually only
five feet; (12) urged the Commission to give due consideration to allowing higher walls in order
to prevent crime as well as to prevent possible emissions.
Mr. Lee commented on the issue of height and stated that there are two apparently conflicting
statements in the code related to this issue. He said that Chapter 15 of the code states that
unnecessary walls, hedges, or fences of over six feet in height are not allowed: however, Code
Section 1215 provides that a wall, fence, or hedge not more than six feet in height may be
located anywhere on the lot to the rear of the rear line of the required front yard. He
interpreted that to mean that there can be a wall of no more than six feet in height at this
location. However, he pointed out that it has been suggested that the Commission address the
issue of amending the zoning code to provide for these types of conditions when such a use
would be a mitigation measure.
Comm. Ketz asked whether a variance could be approved to allow a fence of more than siX fe et,
to which Mr. Lee responded in the affirmative: however, he noted that there would be difficulty
in making the appropriate findings. He felt that a zoning ordinance amendment would be
more appropriate.
Comm. Rue asked whether the CUP could be approved with the requirement for an eight-foot
wall: the Commission could then take up the issue of amending the code requirements.
Mr. Lee stated that there could be such a requirement, based on Chapter 15 of the code; however,
he felt that the best approach is to amend the code and clarify the wording in Chapter 15.
Mr. Lee continued by discussing the height of pole signs, stating that there is a height limit of
35 feet: in this case, the 45-foot sign was grandfathered in. Any change or alteration would
require that the sign be brought into conformance with the current City standards.
Shu Miho, 731 9th Street, addressed the Commission and read into the record her letter dated
April 16, 1990, addressed to Mr. Schubach and the Planning Commission, regarding her strong
opposition to the proposed remodeling of the Mobil Gas Station.
June Williams, Manhattan Avenue, questioned whether the applicant intends to sell liquor at
the retail snack shop, to which Mr. Schubach responded in the negative.
Comm. Peirce noted t hat the hours of the snack shop and gas pumps are not mentioned in the
application. to which Mr. Schubach responded that since no alcohol will be sold. staff had no
opposition to 24-hour service. Only hours restricting the car wash itself have been included.
Howard Longacre, 1221 7th Place, addressed the Commission and (1) asked who actually owns
this gas station; (2) noted that he has had trouble contacting the owner so he can ask some
questions: (3) stated that the ownership appears to be very mysterious: (4) did not feel that
Mobil wants to be a good neighbor, they merely want to maximize their business and get as
many cars in as they can to pump as much gas as possible; (5) felt that the car wash and snack
shop are merely gimmicks to get more people into the station; (6) said that most other Mobil
snack shops sell liquor: (7) felt that a 35-foot sign would be ludicrous: (8) felt that a minimum-
sized stgn would be appropriate; (9) said there is no reason for the snack shop to operate 24
hours because it would create a nuisance: (10) stressed that safety is the main issue at hand: (11)
stated that this gas station is at a very busy intersection and cars make no effort to slow down
because they want to get through the traffic signal; (12) noted that southbound traffic on P.C.H.
merges from three lanes into two very near to this site: (13) noted concern over the tankers
7 P.C. Minutes 5/ 1/90
which will be entering this station: (14) said that if a building permit ts not taken out by
November 24, this application may fall within the precise development plan.
Mr. Longacre continued and: (1) stated that he favors only three pump islands at this site,
rather than the four proposed; (2) strongly opposed the car wash, stating that it will be a
nuisance and ts merely a gmunick: (3) noted that there are already three other car washes in
the area; (4) suggested that the snack shop be required to close at midnight at the latest; (5)
suggested that the 9th Street exit be carefully scrutinized; (6) urged that the CUP be carefully
studied so that things don't slip through.
Sam Lennox, 845 10th Street, addressed the Commission and: (1) noted concern over
supertankers coming into this gas station, especially since it is located so close to a residential
area, and it could be quite hazardous if there is an accident; (2) stated that the proposed car
wash will only add more problems to the area; (3) opposed the tankers entering the site from
the side streets.
Gloria Kolesar again addressed the Commission and: (1) questioned whether there will be a
speaker system, what the projection level would be, and what the hours would be; (2) asked
whether soil testing would be done regularly, and noted concern over soil contamination; (3)
asked about the disposal sump; (4) asked whether the site will be monitored for soil
contamination; (5) questioned whether the lighting will have conditions so that it does not
interfere With the residential area: (6) asked whether conditions will be imposed requiring that
the landscaping be properly maintained, so that a nuisance is not created by trees, sap, and
intrusion.
Mr. Recksteiner addressed the Commission and responded to the issues raised: (1) stated that
the car wash will last one minute with the new system; (2) stated that he wants 24-hour service
for the snack shop and gas station, explaining that those are the hours used at their other
locations; (3) discussed the high-rise ID sign, and stated that if they can only have one sign,
that is the one they would prefer, at 19 feet, nine and a half inches; (4) stated that Mobil has an
outstanding safety record; (5) explained the vent system and stated that such a system is a
construction requirement; (6) stated that the current operator of the site has been there for
approximately 15 years; (7) explained that the zone office in Burbank can be contacted if there
are problems; (8) explained that Mobil actually owns the land, not the station operator, and
Mobil is applying for the CUP; therefore. the operator should not be responding to questions
related to the CUP; (9) could not predict the sales increase. explaining that a gas station does
not generate traffic because gas purchases are impulse buys; (10) stated that each of the
dispensers does have a small speaker system so that if there are problems, the customer can
contact someone; (11) stated that soil testing is required and will be done.
Public Hearing closed at 8:29 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
Comm. Rue commented on the hours of operation, stating that the Commission had previously
reached a consensus that the operating hours for the car wash shall be limited to 7:00 AM.
unW 9:00 P.M. Monday through Friday and from 8:00 AM. until 8:00 P.M. on weekends and
holidays.
Comm. Moore could see no reason to change the hours of operation as worded in the resolution.
He noted that the condition can be modified in the future, depending upon the operating
experience.
Comm. Ketz agreed that the hours as worded are appropriate, and she felt that 6:00 AM. to
10:00 P.M. would be excessive.
Comm. Rue felt that an eight-foot wall would be appropriate.
Chmn. Ingell asked about the possibility of there being a grading differential to the property to
the west.
8 P.C. Minutes 5/ 1/90
Mr. Schubach stated that the wall should be the same height on both sides of the property line,
especially in cases where there is a slope.
Comm. Peirce commented that a water reclamation system sounds like a great idea; however,
in reality he did not feel it would make that much of a difference at this site.
Chmn. Ingell favored the water reclamation system, noting that it would save five gallons of
water for every car wash cycle, using 12 gallons instead of 17.
Comm. Ketz agreed that the reclamation system would be beneficial, especially in light of the
current drought.
Chmn. Ingell was not convinced, however. that a car wash is an appropriate use at this site. He
did not feel that the use has been mitigated adequately, and he did not think that a car wash
would be good for the neighborhood.
Comm. Peirce commented on the signage, stating that he would not vote for approval of any
sign over 10 or 12 feet in height, and he would oppose more than one sign at the site.
Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Comm. Peirce regarding noticing of this issue,
stated that the matter was properly noticed; however, he pointed out that the matter has been
continued a number of times to a date certain and no new posting was required.
Comm. Peirce stated that he would not speak in favor of the car wash; however, he noted that it
is a permitted use which appears to be compatible so long as the blow dryers are not used. He
stated that cars stacking up do not make as much ambient noise as cars traveling along the
highway; therefore, there will not be a great noise impact to the surrounding neighbors. He
stated that the main issue is whether or not a car wash is desired at that location. He did not
feel such a use would create a nuisance. He said that people should be able to buy gas and have
their cars washed, and that the car wash is a part of competition. With the removal of the noise
from the car wash operation, this just becomes another service station.
Chmn. Ingell discussed the signage and stated that a 45-foot sign is excessive and he would
oppose it. He felt that the sign ordinance is far too liberal along the highway. He felt that a
small monument-type sign would be more appropriate.
Comm. Ketz felt that staff's recommendation for one ten-foot sign is appropriate.
MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve staffs recommendation,
Resolution P.C. 90-1, with the following amendments: (1) Condition No. 10 shall be modified to
require an eight-foot wall along the westerly property line adjacent to the residential property
to the west. exact wording to be provided by staff, to ensure that there is not a nuisance to the
neighbors to the west; (2) Condition No. 19(f) shall be modified to require a stacking lane for
five cars, continent upon design approval by the Planning Director; (3) Condition No. 19(e)
shall be modified to read: 'The southerly entrance driveway shall be located a minimum of !.Q
~ from the westerly property line, as measured along the southerly property line and reduced
to a width of 35 feet."; (4) Condition No. 19 (c) shall be modified to require that low
maintenance trees shall be planted, and that there will be no nuisance created by such trees.
Comm. Peirce stated that noise no longer appears to be a problem since the blowers have been
removed.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Rue
Chmn. Ingell
None
None
9 P.C. Minutes 5/ 1/90
AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Rue, to amend the
previous motion to include a condition requiring that lights shall be directed away from the
residential area and that the lighting will not create a nuisance. No objections: so ordered.
Chmn. Ingell advised that this decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed by
writing to the City Council within ten days.
CON 90-4 --CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #21950 FOR A
THREE-UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 1105 CYPRESS AVENUE {CONTINUED FROM
MEETING OF APRD., 17, 19901
Comm. Moore stated that he would abstain from discussion on this matter, explaining that he
lives within 300 feet of the project site.
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated April 11, 1990. Staff recommended that the Planning
Commission approve the conditional use permit for a three-unit condominium and the
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 designation of high density
residential. The lot size is 4096 square feet. Eight parking spaces are provided. Open space
provided is 900 square feet. The current use is as a duplex. The environmental determination
is categorically exempt.
The subject property is rectangular in shape, with a significant slope upward from front to
back of approximately 14 percent.
The proposed units contain 1 756 square feet and have three bedrooms, including a loft
bedroom, and three and a half bathrooms. The proposed structure consists of two stories and a
mezzanine level above a semi-subterranean garage.
The proposed building elevations exhibit an exterior plaster finish with the use of plastered
band trim, aluminum frame windows. painted pipe railings, and glass block. Also indicated to
enhance the building is a raised planter. an arched. opening, overhead deck structures, painted
chimney stacks. angled walls, painted rootlets, and an aluminum greenhouse structure. These
features enhance both the street appearance and the sides of the building and give the building
an attractive contemporary appearance. Each unit is entered from the side of the building up a
stairway to the first level. The decks, glass block, and other enhancements give visual relief to
the otherwise large and bulky structure.
The plans indicate a front yard setback of five feet, which is adequate, considering the existing
setbacks along the street which average less than five feet. The raised planter in the front yard
is proposed to be 48 inches high, and this must be reduced to 36 inches to meet the requirements
of the zoning ordinance.
Required parking is provided in three tandem two-car garages, and two side-by-side guest
spaces oriented toward the middle of the lot. The proposed curb cut will not result in the loss of
any street parking.
Pursuant to Section 1217 of the zoning ordinance, the side yard setback for multiple units
fronting on a side yard should be one and one-half times the required setback. The project
proposes only the minimum four-foot setback. This setback varies somewhat. as at the
entrance to the stairways at the ground floor there is an eight-foot clearance. Also, the
stairways are open to the side for part of the ascent. Overall, for about half the length of the
building, an eight-foot wide clearance is provided on the ground floor. For the second and third
floors the minimum four feet varies only to six feet, and the variations are less frequent.
P.C. Minutes 5/ 1/90
Staff felt that the building could be redesigned to meet the requirement of Section 1217, but the
proposed variations in setback are somewhat consistent to what the Planning Commission
approved for a similar three-unit project at 1344 Manhattan Avenue. As such, the proposed
design is consistent with the Planning Commission interpretation of this section.
The actual average width of the lot is 40.55 feet, meaning that the sideyard setback must be a
m1nimum of 4.055 feet. Staff recommended a condition to this effect.
The project complies with all other planning and zoning requirements. However, the amount
of cubic feet of storage space is not clearly indicated, although there appears to be plenty
available. Staff included conditions that the amount of storage be clearly identified on revised
plans.
The surrounding area consists primarily of multi-family projects of various ages and styles,
including some newer projects of a similar size to this project. Given the existing high density
character of this area, this project would not be inconsistent with the neighborhood.
Public Hearing opened at 8:47 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
Cheryl Vargo, 5147 Rosecrans Boulevard, Hawthorne, representing the applicant addressed the
Commission and stated that the applicant has read all of the conditions and concurs with the
recommended changes proposed by staff.
Howard Longacre, 1221 7th Place, addressed the Commission and: (1) noted concern that this
project will have a common garage area, which he does not favor for condos. explaining that
each unit should have its own garage: (2) noted conce.m that Ms. Vargo gave a Hawthorne
address when she is a resident of Manhattan Beach and is chairman of the Manhattan Beach
Planning CommiSSton; (3) felt that Ms. Vargo has a conflict of interest since Manhattan Beach
ts the neighboring city to Hermosa Beach; (4) implied that Ms. Vargo does business with local
developers which creates a conflict of interest, particularly since she is a planning
commissioner in a neighboring town; (5) felt that Ms. Vargo should step down from the
Planning Commission if she continues to represent developers.
Ms. Vargo countered and: (1) explained that she gave her business address; (2) confirmed that
she is chairman of the Manhattan Beach Planning Commission, however; (3) she does not
represent developers in the City of Manhattan Beach; (4) commented that people in business
are bound to know many other people in the area.
Public Hearing closed at 8:52 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
MOTION by Comm. Ketz, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve staffs recommendation,
Resolution P.C. 90-29, as written.
Comm. Rue commented that the plans for this project are somewhat scant, and he asked staff
to take note of that fact to ensure that more substantial plans are submitted in the future.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Ketz, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ingell
None
Comm. Moore
None
Recess taken from 8:53 P.M. until 9:00 P.M.
11 P.C. Minutes 5/ 1/90
CON-5 --CONDfflONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #21868 FOR A
THREE-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 350 MANHATTAN AVENUE, AKA 212 4TH STREET
(CQNTINUED FROM MEETING OF APRIL 17. 1990)
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated April 26, 1990. Staff recommended that the Com.mission
request revised plans to be submitted, consistent with the newly adopted ordinance, and to
continue the public hearing to June 5. 1990.
As noted in the staff report prepared for the previous meeting, approval of this project was
contingent upon the City Council taking action to eliminate the 17-foot parking setback on
alleys. On April 24, 1990, the City Council adopted the recommendation of the Planning
Commission to amend the zoning ordinance text to eliminate this requirement. As such, the
Planning Commission may now set this matter for a date certain.
Given that the amendment requires alley setbacks of three feet. nine feet, or 1 7 feet, staff has
included a condition that the parking shall be set back from the alley three feet rather than the
proposed five feet.
Public Hearing opened at 9:03 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
Elizabeth Srour, 820 Manhattan Avenue, Manhattan Beach, representing the applicant, stated
that they agree with staffs recommendation to continue this hearing to the first meeting in
June.
Public Hearing continued at 9:04 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
Comm. Moore commented on the elevations which were submitted for this project, stating that
they make it difficult to visualize the actual impact of the project. He noted that some
applicants have recently been submitting oblique views or other aids to help the Commission
visualize impacts. He felt that such aids are particularly important in this case due to its
location on a prominent corner. He noted that the southern elevation appears to be
particularly uninspired. He commented on the northern elevation, stating that this project
appears to be very unappealing as currently presented. He asked whether additional materials
could be provided to help him visualize the project more easily.
MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve staff's recommendation to
continue this public hearing to June 5, 1990. No objections; so ordered.
CON-90-6 -CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #21754
FOR A 1WQ-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 1010 17TH STREET (CONTINUED FROM MEETING OF
APRIL 17. 1990)
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated April 10, 1990. Staff recommended that the Planning
Commission approve the two-unit condominium and vesting tentative parcel map, subject to
the conditions specified in the proposed resolution.
This project is located in the R-2B zone, with a general plan designation of medium density
residential. The lot size is 5587 square feet. Five parking spaces are provided. Open space of
840 square feet is provided. The current use is an abandoned single-family dwelling. The
environmental determination is categorically exempt.
The subject property is rectangular in shape, with a slight slope downward from front to back.
The proposed units contain 3417 and 3518 square feet and include four bedrooms, three and a
half baths, and a roof deck. The proposed structure consists of two stories and a roof deck
above a semi-subterranean garage.
12 P.C. Minutes 5/ 1/90
The proposed building elevations exhibit a stucco exterior, "S" tile roofing, glass block, bay
windows, entrance porches, and variations in the building facade. These features give the
buildings somewhat of a "Mediterranean" appearance. The use of varying building step-backs
and shapes provide some visual relief to the otherwise large and bulky structures.
The second-story floor plan and the north elevation for Unit A are not consistent. The former
shows a deck which overhangs into the front yard, while the latter shows a window. Th.is
discrepancy needs to be clarified on revised plans. Also. more detailed information needs to be
provided identifying window types and other unspecified architectural elements.
The plans indicate a front yard setback of eleven feet, which is adequate considering existing
setbacks along the street which average about 12.5 feet and range from 5 to 25 feet.
Required parking is provided in two two-car garages, ortented toward the middle of the lot, and
one guest space is provided. No on-street parking is lost as the existing driveway location will
be used, and parking is prohibited on this side of the street.
An existing large mature palm tree located in the back yard of the existing house will be
eliminated as a result of this project, as well as some smaller trees and shrubs. The landscape
plan does not compensate for the loss of the tree. Also, the landscape plan emphasizes the use
of pavtng and lawn and proposes very few plants, especially for a lot of this size.
Given the inadequacy of the landscape plan, staff recommended conditions requiring a revised
landscape plan which compensates for the loss of the mature tree with the use of a specimen
tree, the landscaping of portions of the proposed concrete areas located in front of the two
building entrances, and the provision of shrubs and trees in the sideyard grass area.
The proposed rear yard deck which encroaches into the five-foot rear yard is not a permitted
encroachment and must be eliminated. Staff has included this as a condition of approval.
The project complies with all other planning and zoning requirements. Adequate open space is
provided on the roof decks. and additional space is provided in the excess front yard area. It
appears that adequate storage space is available; although the amount is not clearly indicated.
Staff included a condition that final plans identify the amount of space in the storage areas.
The surrounding area consists of primarily older single-family and two-family structures of
various ages and styles on similarly sized lots.
Public Hearing opened at 9:08 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
Elizabeth Srour, 820 Manhattan Avenue, Manhattan Beach, representing the applicant,
addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that the applicant accepts all of the staff-
recommended conditions and that he is aware of the discrepancies; (2) stated that the deck at
the rear will be eliminated since it is a projection not permitted by code, and that area has been
redesigned so that the projection is eliminated: (3) discussed the front yard and stated that they
intend to have a deck there, however that is not currently shown on the front elevation: (4)
stated that they are aware of staff's concerns related to setbacks and landscaping, and the
owner is prepared to provide and enhance the landscaping plan to compensate for the tree
which will be lost as well as to enhance the facade of the project: (5) asked for approval of the
project, which meets all of the development standards imposed by the City.
Ms. Srour responded to questions by Comm. Rue related to Page 5 of the plans. which depict the
north elevation of Unit A, explaining that the arch shown on the plans will be redesigned;
however, there will be a deck in that area.
Public Hearing closed at 9: 10 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
13 P.C. Minutes 5/ 1/90
MOTION by Comm. Moore, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve staff's recommendation,
Resolution P.C. 90-28, as written.
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 SUBDMSION AT 532, 534, AND 540 20TH STREET, COMMONLY
KNOWN AS THE POWER STREET SUBDIVISION (CONTINUED FROM MEETING OF APRIL 3,
1990)
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated April 26, 1990. Staff recommended that this item be
continued to a date certain, pursuant to the applicant's request. As indicated in the presented
report, the project engineer has been unable to complete his study of the drainage, and
therefore the applicant has requested a continuance.
Comm. Peirce asked whether the County Department of Public Works provided further
information on the drainage and flood control report, particularly related to the one-year
flood.
Mr. Schubach responded in the negative, stating that staff has not yet received any
information from that department.
Public Hearing opened at 9: 13 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
Warner Lombardi, 1849 Valley Park Avenue, addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that he
has submitted several letters regarding the issue of whether or not the County has approved the
connection of this project into the county drainage system; (2) asserted that the county has
never approved it; (3) stated that this is not the first time this letter has been submitted [letter
from the County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works to Tony Antich, dated March 15,
1988); (4) stated that he has talked to someone at the county department, and this connection
has not been approved; (5) stated that Harris and Associates has rescinded its approval; (6)
wanted clarification of the facts related to this issue; (7) stated that the county has not reviewed
any of the documentation or drainage for this proposed development.
Public Hearing continued at 9:13 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve staffs recommendation to
continue this matter to the first meeting in June. No objections; so ordered.
PARK 90·2 --PARKING PLAN TO ALLOW THE ADDITION OF 800 SQUARE FEET TO AN
EXISTING NONCONFORMING BUILDING WITH NO EXISTING PARKING: ADDITIONAL
PARKING REQUIRED TO BE COMPENSATED FOR BY PAYING THE IN-LIEU FEE AT 1238
HERMOSA AVENUE, COLVILLE PUBLISHING COMPANY (CONTINUED FROM MEETING OF
APRIL 3, 1990)
Mr. Schubach stated that the applicant has withdrawn this project request. Staff recognized
the withdrawal and did not present a staff report.
Mr. Lee explained that, since the request had been withdrawn, there is no need to open the
public hearing.
14 P.C. Minutes 5/ 1/90
Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Comm. Moore regarding the reason for the
withdrawal, stated that it does not appear that the project was withdrawn because of the in-lieu
fees; rather, after further examination, the applicant decided not to pursue the expansion.
CUP 90-3 --CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR OFF-SALE BEER AND WINE AND ADOPI'ION OF
AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 302 PIER AVENUE. SIMPSON'S
MARKET
Mr. Schubach explained that the applicant, Sang Chang, was called out of the countzy due to
family illness, and he requested that the matter be continued to the end of June.
MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve staff's recommendation to
continue this matter to the meeting of June 19, 1990. No objections; so ordered.
VAR 90-1 •• VARIANCE TO ALLOW A GARAGE SETBACK OF FIVE FEET RATHER THAN THE
REQUIRED 17 FEET AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENT.AL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT
2U50 CIRCLE DRIVE
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated April 25, 1990. Staff recommended that the Planning
Commission deny the request.
This project is located in the R-1 zone, with a general plan designation of low density. The lot
size is 4385 square feet. The proposed addition is 1056 square feet for garage and storage.
On March 8, 1990, the staff environmental review committee recommended an environmental
negative declaration for the request and also recommended that the Planning Commission
deny the request.
Policy Statement 88-1, regarding front yards on through lots, does not specifically identify
which street is the front yard for this block. However, it does state that the front shall be on the
same street frontage that the majority of the existing dwelling units on the block are located.
The main dwellings on all the through lots on this block front on Circle Drive.
The applicant is requesting to construct a three-car detached garage in the rear portion of the
lot ten feet from the existing house. The driveway access is from Monterey Boulevard. The
proposed garage structure also includes an additional ten feet of depth for a storage area. This
placement of a 31-foot deep detached building results in only a five-foot setback from the
Monterey Boulevard right-of-way line.
In staff's judgment. several other alternatives are available to the applicant to construct the
garage in conformance with the 1 7-foot setback. These can easily be accomplished without
creating problems with the open space requirement, contrazy to the applicant's statement
regarding the need for the variance to allow for adequate open space. The most obvious
alternative would be the use of a detached two-car garage rather than a three-car garage, located
eight feet from the house or attached to the house , meaning that ample side yard and rear yard
areas would be available for open space.
Because of the 80-foot right-of-way of Monterey Boulevard, an excess 13 feet exists between the
rear property line of the lot and the edge of the sidewalk. As the applicant notes, this means the
proposed garage setback of five feet will actually result in an 18-foot setback from the
sidewalk. Although staff agrees this would allow for parking without iD.frtnging upon the
sidewalk, it would force cars to be parked in the excess right-of-way.
Historically, these excess rights-of-way have been considered part of the open space of the
community. For example, the open space element of the general plan specifically identifies
streets and parkways as open space which should be preserved.
15 P.C. Minutes 5/ 1/90
Public Hearing opened at 9:23 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
Kip Kolodziejski, 660 Ocean Park Boulevard, Santa Monica, project architect, addressed the
Commission and: (1) stated that approval of this variance request will allow for a 30-foot
driveway suitable for the parking of four to six automobiles; (2) said that denial of the variance
would not help the neighborhood visually or improve the open space; (3) said that this project
has merit and provides three covered parking spaces where only two are required and where
none currently exist; (4) explained that the project satisfies the 17-foot setback requirement by
using the 13-foot right-of-way along Monterey plus the five-foot rear yard setback, for a total of
18 feet; (5) said that the driveway will be used fo r safe parking.
Mr. Kolodziejski continued and: (1) said that this project provides the required open space on
the lot while continuing to retain the space as open space for the community; (2) said that this
project does not affect the 50 percent rule, since the size of the garage will be less than 50
percent; (3) explained that this project is consistent with existing garages and setbacks on
Monterey; (4) said that the neighboring properties have setbacks ranging from zero to seven
feet; (5) said that the average setback for the neighbors is 3.2 feet; (6) commented that all the
neighbors are therefore encroaching into the front property line more than this project; (7)
continued by discussing the various setbacks.
Mr. Kolodziejski continued and: (1) explained that this project will provide needed storage and
parking spaces in order to remove their cars from the street: (2) noted that this project had an
existing one-car garage which was removed by the owners: (3) said that approval of this
variance will prevent a vast sea of concrete being used as the driveway and Will not interrupt
the character of the neighborhood; (4) felt that if the intent of the 17-foot setback rule was to
allow two additional parking spaces on the driveway, then the implementation of a 30-foot
driveway would be to park four to six cars, which he did not feel is the desire of the community;
(5) felt that this is another case of the 17-foot setback rule doing more harm than good; (6)
suggested that there be flexibility in the rule, and he noted that this project complies with the
spirit of the law, if not the letter; (7) asked for approval of this project.
Phyllis Carson, 2135 Circle Drive , applicant, addressed the Commission and: (1) gave
background information on when she purchased this property and how she was informed by
the City that certain improvements needed to be made, including the parking; (2) explained
that she was told that the garage needed to be demolished, and no one ever told her the garage
could be remodeled; (3) continued by explaining that she did what she thought she was supposed
to be doing in her attempt to comply with the code; (4) noted that she obtained 24 names on a
petition [which was handed to the Commission] from neighbors approving of the proposed
project, and definitely not wanting a 30-foot expanse of concrete; (5) stated that she needs the
parking space, especially since the parking situation is so bad in the area; (6) said that she
desperately needs the additional storage space; (7) in response to a question from Comm. Rue,
stated that she feels more concrete is not the answer, and it would be better to have landscaping
between the buildings and around the garages.
Mr. Kolodziejski explained that as the distance of the garages is increased, the character of the
street will change. Also, people would have to park further back on the 30-foot driveway than
they would on the 18-foot driveway.
Comm. Rue stated that variances are usually based on the uniqueness of a piece of property,
and the appropriate findings must be made. He therefore questioned whether it would be
possible to have a two-car garage and do something else with the property.
Ms. Carson stated that there would still be the issue of 30-foot concrete driveway.
Mr. Kolodziejski explained various design configurations which could be used, noting however
that an attempt is being made to reduce the amount of concrete.
16 P.C. Minutes 5/ 1/90
Ms. Carson noted that her other option was to add a second story for storage; however, the
neighbors are not especially 1n favor of such an option, since views could be lost.
Mr. Kolodziejski explained that if the old garage had not been demolished, it could now be
remodeled. Ms. Carson responded that the garage was tom down approximately three and a
half years ago.
Comm. Rue commented on the plans, stating that the proposed facade appears quite plain.
Mr. Kolodziejski stated that changes could be made; however, costs must be taken into
consideration, and there is not a lot that can be done architecturally with an accessory
building.
June Williams, 2065 Manhattan Avenue, addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that this is
a difficult issue because of the large easement on Monterey; (2) noted that she was unaware
until this evening that this property went through to Monterey: (3) stated that she could not
make the findings for this variance, noting that the topography or uniqueness of the property
is taken into account, and in this case it does not appear that the findings can be made in that
regard; (4) asked for an opinion on the policy of talcing easements int o consideration on
variance requests; (5) asked whether there are standards for such areas; (6) suggested that the
Planning Commission ask the City Council to study the possibility of returning that easement
to the property owners if there are no plans for the City to use it.
Public Hearing closed at 9:40 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
Comm. Peirce stated that the general plan is very clear about what constitutes open space and
what its use should be, and parking is not one of those uses. He stated that he would therefore
vote against this request. He felt that there are other options available to this applicant, other
than paving 30 feet of concrete.
Comm. Moore noted that he has had much difficulty with the 17-foot set back where it is
compounded by the street right-of-way. He did not feel the appropriate solution to that
problem is to grant a variance. because it would then apply to the entire City and would be
unmanagable. He felt that the City needs to confront this issue and maybe the suggestion that
Council consider returning the land to the residents might be appropriate. He did feel that the
issue needs to be clarified.
Comm. Rue did not feel that the appropriate findings can be made.
Comm. Ketz agreed that this problem should not be solved by granting a variance. She also
agreed that this issue needs to be clarified.
MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve staff's recommendation to deny
the variance request. Resolution P.C. 90-32.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ingell
None
None
None
Chmn. Ingell stated that this decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed by writing
to the City Council within fifteen days.
17 P.C. Minutes 5/ 1/90
TEXT 88-9 --SPECIAL STUDY AND TEXT AMENDMENT TO USE AVERAGING METHOD TO
MEASURE HEIGHT IN THE R-1 AND R-2B ZONES
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated April 25, 1990. Staff suggested that the Planning
Commission recommend that the existing height measurement method and existing
maximum heights be maintained.
Staff suggested several alternatives: (1) Use the averaging method of measuring maximum
height in the R-1 and R-2B zones as suggested by the City Council; (2) Reduce the maximum
height allowed in the R-2B zone: (3) Increase the maximum height In the R-1 zone . or only in R-
1 zones which abut R-2B and R-2 zones: or (4) Reconsider applying the averaging method of
measuring height city-wide.
The Planning Commission was directed to study view blockage and methods of height
measurement to resolve the view blockage issues described in a height moratorium adopted by
City Council on July 26, 1988. After special study and several public hearings beginning in
August of 1988, the Planning Commission at their meeting of October 17, 1989, recommended
that no changes be made to the current height measurement method and recommended
amendments only to Section 1201, "Height of Roof Structures."
At their meeting of February 27, 1990, the City Council concurred with the Planning
Commission by not changing the height measurement, and they also amended Section 1201,
"Height of Roof Structures," and Section 1200, "Height of Buildings on Through Lots." In
addition, the City Council referred the issue of height measurement and view blockage back to
the Planning Commission to consider using the averaging method for only the R-1 and R-2B
zones.
The view blockage problem for borderline areas located adjacent to higher density zones is not
only limited to the areas defined in the moratorium especially when northerly and southerly
views are considered. This problem arises because of the five-foot differential between height
limits between the different zones. Staff does not believe an urgency exists to address only the
areas previously identified in the moratorium, since the situation exists in several other
locations in the City.
Staff believes that imposing a different height measurement method based on zoning
classifications, although it may alleviate some view blockage problems, has too many negative
side effects to be seriously considered. For example, as noted by the Building Director, different
height measurement methods would complicate the zoning ordinance. placing a burden on
staff, developers, and homeowners. In addition , it could create undesirable and awkward
situations where zones with differing methods abut.
As another alternative, changing the height limits to eliminate or reduce the differences
between zones could possibly be considered. The height limits in Redondo Beach and
Manhattan Beach show that the diff erentlal between zones is not usually as severe as that in
Hermosa Beach. Height allowances in Manhattan Beach are: 26 feet in LD zone, 26 and 30 feet
in MD zone, and 30 feet in HD zone: in Redondo Beach: 30 feet in LD zone, 30 feet in MD zone,
and 38 feet in HD zone; and in Hermosa Beach: 25 feet in LD zone, 30 feet in MD zone, and 35
feet in HD zone.
Therefore, an alternative would be to reduce the limit in the R-2B zone to 25 feet for consistency
with the R-1 zone, or perhaps to a compromise figure of 27.5 feet. Another option would be to
increase the height limit in the neighboring R-1 zones.
Staff. however, does not believe it would be appropriate to change height limits at this time.
The existing height limits, in most cases, have established a character consistent with the
corresponding zone, and resulted in a certain character for neighborhoods and districts.
Therefore, a lower height limit would give an unfair advantage to those who built to higher
18 P.C. Minutes 5/ 1/90
limits to the detriment of those planning to build, or a higher limit would impact the views of
existing buildings constructed in conformance with existing height limits.
Building heights in each land use or zoning category could be studied as part of the Housing
Element. Then the possibility of relating hetght limits to neighborhoods or districts rather
than to particular zoning classifications could be explored . Also, the establishment of one
height limit for all residential zones could be explored.
No resolution was included with this study. A resolution will be prepared in response to the
Planning Commission's action for the next meeting.
Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Comm. Peirce, explained the averaging method.
He stated that during study on the housing element, the issue of neighborhood averaging could
also be addressed and considered.
Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Comm. Rue, stated that additional data will be
provided during the discussions on the housing element, including information on slopes,
sizes of lots, variations in neighborhoods, and what other cities have done.
Comm. Rue stated that making changes in one standard would affect an entire project. He
therefore felt it would be more appropriate to study this issue in conjunction with the housing
element so that an overall picture can be addressed. He noted concern over the lack of
available data at this time.
Mr. Schubach responded that a great deal of additional data will be presented during the
housing element study.
Public Hearing opened at 9:57 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
Dean Nota, 2467 Myrtle Avenue, Hermosa Beach, architect, addressed the Commission: (1)
discussed recent changes which have affected his neighborhood; (2) stated that the staff report
is not clear on why this particular issue is being addressed at this time: (3) discussed the pros
and cons of having different height measurement methods in various zones; (4) noted that
different areas have different needs, and the requirements can be tailored to meet those
varying needs; (5) said that the current height requirements are very ambiguous in their
definition, and there is no real way to define the actual requirements. especially since the code
says something different than the handouts passed out by the Building Department.
Mr. Nota went on and: (1) discussed problems which can occur because of the grading; (2) felt
that the formula used should be much clearer in order to avoid confusion: (3) discussed the
differences between flat and sloping areas in the R-1 zone: (4) discussed lots with a view access;
(5) commented on downsloping lots and attendant problems with the 1 7-foot setback
requirement and parking; (6) stated that, contrary to the staff report, there are already
differentials in various areas because of the downzonings which have taken place.
Mr. Nota continued and: (1) said that there should be a compromise in the requirements so that
buildings can be designed adequately in the R-1 zones: (2) discussed the Commissions' past
recommendation to the City Council related to the R-1 zone: (3) favored the averaging method
so that view blockage will be prevented.
Steve Taylor, 2468 Myrtle Avenue, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and: (1)
supported the averaging method as one of the better alternatives available, stating that it
eliminates the view blockage problem better than other methods; (2) noted the importance of
the requirements being clear and concise; (3) felt it would be appropriate to study this issue
further: (4) said the averaging method is one of the best ways to monitor what is being built and
the heights being built to; (5) was pleased that the tssue of view blockage ls being addressed, and
hoped that the method will work.
19 P.C. Minutes 5/ 1/90
Howard Longacre, 1221 7th Place, addressed the Commission and: (1) noted that this is the
fourth public hearing being held on this matter: (2) noted that projects of many types are being
built all over the City; (3) said that somebody somewhere will oppose any requirement. but
noted that the appeal process is available; (4) noted concern over the BBB [bigger, bulkier
buildings]: (5) stated that many options are available; (6) noted concern that many months ago
a motion was made to direct that concise, coherent handouts be prepared, however, such a
handout has not yet been prepared.
Steve Peterson, 2416 Myrtle Avenue, addressed the Commission and: (1) discussed the
importance of view preseivatlon; (2) said that inventive architectural procedures are available:
(3) supported the averaging meth od, since it is the most effective way to preseive views.
Comm. Rue noted that his biggest concern with the averaging method is that it creates bulk on
the downhill side of lots and creates a cavernous effect on the streets: however, he agreed that
the averaging method reduces view blockage. He stated, though, that he does not want to
promote bulky buildings.
Mr. Schubach responded that the averaging method may create taller buildings; however, he
did not feel that would necessarily create additional bulk, noting that buildings on one side of
the street would actually be lower.
Comm. Rue noted concern over very tall facades and the cavernous effect they create. He
questioned whether there are other ways to approach this issue.
Mr. Schubach suggested the possibility of a bulk ordinance, utilizing floor area ratio and lot
coverage. He stated that implementation measures will be necessary in the future. He noted,
however, that he supports the averaging method. He continued by discussing various options
which might be addressed.
Dean Nota again addressed the Commission and: (1) discussed buildings along Manhattan
Avenue, stating that they are not comparable to R-1 buildings: (2) noted confusion, explaining
that he thought the Council was requesting the Commission to again address the R-1 zone. not
R-2, R-2B. and R-3: (3) thought that the Council favored the sloping method for R-2 and R-3
zones; ( 4) suggested that the Commissioners study buildings in Manhattan Beach for further
ideas; (5) did not feel that the height limit is a viable means to reduce bulk. stating that he felt
the best way to reduce bulk is to use stepped elevations or floor area ratios: (6) noted that
another of his pet peeves is the 17-foot setback requirement, and he continued by describing
the problems encountered with this rule.
Public Hearing closed at 10:23 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
Comm. Rue stated that perhaps the averaging method would be the best method. He noted
concern, however, that this issue is being addressed apart from the h ousing element.
Comm. Ketz expressed concern with the averaging method, and she also noted concern that the
issue is being discussed in isolation. She felt it is important to look at the Issue as a whole with
the housing element to ascertain what the overall outcome will be and the attendant
ramifications.
Comm. Moore agreed that these issues should not be addressed in a piecemeal fashion. He felt
that t he averaging method might be appropriate for the entire city; however. he noted that
more clarification is necessary, such as a concise definition of "natural grade." He wanted to
ensure that no loopholes are available to allow developers to use different grading. He noted
the importance of homeowners knowing what they can do with their property. He stated that it
is necessary to have visual materials and diagrams so that the Commission can viSualize the
various areas of the City.
20 P.C. Minutes 5/ 1/90
Comm. Peirce felt that the height should be addressed as only one portion of the overall bulk
reducing and floor area issues. He did not feel it is appropriate to discuss this matter alone.
Chmn. Ingell concurred, and stated that it would be appropriate to have additional materials
for study.
MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Moore, to receive and file.
Comm. Rue noted that staffs recommendation is to not change the current height
measurement method.
MOTION WITHDRAWN by Comm. Peirce as maker.
MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve staff's recommendation to not
change the current height measurement method: but rather to study the issue in conjunction
with other building standards, including floor area, open space, 17-foot setback, and other
setbacks.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ingell
None
None
None
LLA 90-2 --LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT AT 1230 OWOSSO AVENUE AND 1063 CORONA STREET
{CONTINUED FROM MEETING OF APRIL 17. 1990)
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated April 10, 1990. Staff recommended that the Planning
Commission approve the proposed lot line adjustment.
The subject parcels were sold to the applicant by the Church of Christ. Lot 27 iS zoned R-1 and
contains a residential dwelling. while Lot 28 is zoned C-3 and contains a parking lot for the
church building which fronts on Corona Street. The 2' by 35' portion of Lot 27 is essentially an
unused excess two-foot wide paved area connected to the parking area.
The applicant is proposing to adjust the property line separating assessors parcel 4185-15-20
(Parcel 1) from assessors parcel 4185-15-1 (Parcel 2) back to the line which marks the
boundary of Lot 27 and 28. This will both simplify the situation and make the subject lots
rectangles of 50 feet by 100 feet. This will also give the existing house on Parcel 1 a greater side
yard setback.
Staff felt that this correction of lot lines is logical and will not have any negative impacts on
the subject properties or surrounding properties. The adjustment will also make the assessor
parcel boundaries consistent with the original subdivision lot lines, and it will make the
property line consistent with the zoning boundary line.
Chmn. Ingell noted that the applicant was not present at the hearing.
MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Moore, to approve staff's recommendation to
approve the proposed lot line adjustment. No objections; so ordered.
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM BUDGET REVIEW AND APPROVAL
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated April 10, 1990. It was recommended that the Planning
Commission adopt the resolution, thereby determining that the 1990-91 Fiscal Year Capital
Improvements Program is consistent with the current and effective general plan for the City of
Hermosa Beach.
21 P.C. Minutes 5/ 1/90
Provisions of the State of California Government Code require the Planning Commission, as
the City's "planning agency," to annually review the capital improvement program and public
works projects proposed for the ensuing fiscal year to determine if they are consistent with the
current and effective city general plan. Upon completion of this review. the code also requires
that the Commission forward a report of its "fmdings" to the City's "legislation body" (i.e., the
City Council).
According to the Governor's Office of Planning and Research, the accepted "rule of consistency"
is: "an action, program , or project that ls consistent with the general plan if it, considering all
its aspects, will further the objectives and policies (i.e .. goals) of the general plan; and not
obstruct their attainment."
All amounts of funds are for FY 90-91 are tentative, and are subject to Council approval.
Comm. Peirce referred to CIP 85-137, Item 3: "to provide preliminary engineering to evaluate
various design alternatives to improve the intersections at Pier Avenue , Valley Drive, and
Ardmore Avenue Intersections (formerly CIP 88-177)" He felt that this item is inconsiStent
with the general plan and should be deleted, explaining that that area was previously studied,
and it was determined that no changes were necessary.
Lynn Terry, Deputy City Engineer. Public Works Department. addressed the Commission and:
(1) explained that some of the projects are ongoing, not just one-time matters; (2) stated that the
purpose at this point iS not to approve the budget. but rather to approve the general projects as
being in conformance with the general plan.
Comm. Peirce discussed an action taken approximately 10 years ago to study signalization in
the City, and he commented that the item was buried, no public hearings were held, and signals
were suddenly installed. He noted deep concern that such an action does not happen again. He
stressed that this particular issue (CIP 85-137, Item 3) is not in the general plan and is in direct
opposition to the City's planning and policy goals.
Mr. Terry diseussed CIP 85-137. Item 3, stating that the City has $40,000 in cash, which has
been provided by the developer of the shopping center, which can be used to study this
particular intersection. The money ls to be used to study the intersection and improve it in
conformance with the desire and approval of the City Council.
Comm. Peirce noted confusion at Mr. Terry's comments, stating that this particular
intersection was recently studied and it was determined that no changes were necessary.
Mr. Terry clarified that the money does not have to be spent; it is merely to study the
intersection. The money is not for construction: it is for study.
Comm. Rue concurred with Comm. Peirce, stating that it was agreed that no changes should be
made at that intersection.
Comm. Peirce commented on CIP 89-150. Item 1: "New type of traffic signal on Pier Avenue
allowing egress and ingress for Fire Department emergency vehicles." He asked why this
particular item is necessary. cautioning that once the nose is in, the rest of the camel follows
quickly. He noted that there are virtually no fires in the City; furthermore, he has heard no
complaints regarding thiS particular signal.
Mr. Terry explained that most of the funds in CIP 89-150 refer to a concrete crosswalk to
provide access to the school; only a small portion of the money will be used to study the traffic
signal near the Fire Department.
22 P.C. Minutes 5/ 1/90
Comm. Peirce continued by commenting on CIP 89-151, Item 2: "Conduct a study and develop a
detailed residential neighborhood traffic control plan to reduce commuter traffic intrusion. 11
He asked for clarification on this item.
Mr. Terry responded by stating that funds were requested for this item; however, money was
not forthcoming. He again clarified that the purpose at this time is merely to approve the
budget as to its conformance with the general plan. He noted that final approval for budgeting
will be at the discretion of the City Council. He continued by explaining this particular item,
stating that it was precipitated by complaints from neighbors in the area.
Chmn. Ingell referred to CIP 90-301, noting that its general plan element/goal is listed as
"none." He asked for clarification.
Mr. Schubach explained that that particular item neither obstructs nor attains any goals;
therefore it is listed as "none. 11
Comm. Peirce asked about State law in regard to the Planning Commission's purview over
capit al improvement program budget review and approval. He thought that in addition t o
approving that the program is in concert with the general plan, it was the duty of the
Commission to screen the capital improvement projects.
Mr. Lee confirmed that Comm. Peirce's assumption was correct. He stated that the
Commission can determine whether each of the items contributes to or obstructs the intent of
the general plan.
Mr. Schubach stated that it is the intent of the City Council to ensure that the Commission has
reviewed the program for consistency with the general plan: however, it is not the intent of the
Council to have the Commission approve , deny, or recommend specific capital improvement
projects.
Comm. Peirce questioned who can add or delete specific items to the budget. He asked for
further information on what State law says in regard to this matter. He asked what body has
the right to input to the capital improvement plan.
Mr. Lee stated that it would be necessary for him to study the code section further on this
matter to ascertain the exact purview of the Planning Commission. He continued by
explaining how the plan is put together and its approval process. He stated that the consistency
finding which must be made by the Commission does not give the Commission authority to add
or direct funds in other directions; however, it does give the Commission authority to state that
a particular line item is not in conformance with the general plan.
Comm. Peirce noted the importance of the capital improvement budget and its study by the
Commission.
Comm. Moore felt that such a study smacks of micromanagement. He felt that the
Commission has neither the time nor the expertise to study the CIP in depth; rather, that
function is left to staff and the Council.
Comm. Peirce disagreed that it would be micromanagement. He felt that citizen input is
important as well as further Commission study.
Chmn. Ingell stated that he would like further information on what the State code says about
this issue.
Comm. Ketz did not feel the Commission has the in-depth knowledge to suggest additions to the
CIP.
23 P.C. Minutes 5/ 1/90
Conun. Rue agreed with Conun. Petree, stating that the Commission should be able to bring up
certain important items to the Council.
Comm. Peirce cautioned against a rubber-stamp approval of the CIP, stating that it would be
wrong to take that type of action before a thorough study is made of the issues.
Mr. Teny stated that it is very important to have Commission approval that the CIP is in
conformance with the general plan. He suggested that the Conunission address each of the
issues as to its conformity. He stated that the Commissioners could come into the Public
Works Department with suggestions if they have strong feelings on certain items which should
be added to the CIP.
MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Rue, to continue this matter for two weeks for
the purpose of directing the City Attorney to obtain additional information related to the
Planning Commission's purview, role, status, and mission over the capital improvement plan
approval process.
Mr. Lee advised that the issue before the Commission is to make a finding of consistency with
the general plan; not to prioritize how the funds will be spent.
Comm. Moore referred to CIP 90-144 and its recommendation to replace Strand wall and
walkway. He noted that this would be a large use of funds, and he did not feel it is particularly
consistent with the general plan. Rather, he felt that this is a simple, yet important,
maintenance issue. He noted the problems at the Strand, and he said that he would like to see
some creative ideas explored in an attempt to help the traffic on the Strand. He suggested the
possibility of a wooden boardwalk as a possible alternative. He noted that a boardwalk would
be far less costly than tearing up the Strand, and it might serve to mitigate the problems in that
area.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Ketz, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ingell
Comm. Moore
None
None
Howard Longacre noted concern that this hearing was not opened for public input.
Mr. Lee noted that it is the discretion of the chair to determine whether or not testimony will be
taken during a hearing.
SECOND QUARTER GENERAL PLAN .AMENDMENT
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated April 26, 1990. Staff recommended that the Commission
direct staff to schedule public hearings for several general plan amendments: (1) parks and
recreation master plan as part of the open space element; (2) revised circulation,
transportation, and parking element; and (3) redesignation of Biltmore Site to residential.
State law allows cities to amend the general plan four times per year. The Planning
Commission and/ or City Council may consider initiating general plan amendments.
MOTION by Comm. Moore, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve staffs recommendation to set
the above-mentioned items for public hearing.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ingell
None
None
None
24 P.C. Minutes 5/ 1/90
STAFF ITEMS
a.) Correspondence from the Marineland Mobilehome Park Homeowner's Association
(Continued from meetluf of April 17. 1990)
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated April 11, 1990. Since the City already has a Mobilehome
Park zone which restricts the use of Marineland Park to mobilehome use, the threat of the
park closing in the near future is not eminent. Staff recommended that the Planning
CommiSsion direct this matter to be studied with the housing element update.
Howard Longacre pointed out the someone has been waiting to speak on this issue this evening.
Parker Herriott stated that it was his understanding that people had an opportunity to speak
on any matter on the agenda. He noted concern over closed meetings. He asked that the City
Attorney give an opinion related to the taking of testimony at public meetings.
Mr. Lee stated that the Brown Act provides for the public to provide testimony on agenda items
as well as agendas not on the agenda, under the "Communications" portion of the agenda. He
noted, however, that it is at the discretion of the chair whether or not to take testimony on
certain issues, especially those items which are being continued to a future meeting. He stated
that it is within the purview of the Commission to take public testimony on staff items if
people have been waiting to speak on an issue.
Mr. Herriott noted that there seems to be confusion between "hearings" and "public hearings"
and whether or not testimony will be taken. He felt that a person should have an opportunity
to speak on any and all items on the agenda.
Comm. Moore felt that input should be encouraged, so long as time permits. He noted, however,
that it is not appropriate to use the time to argue with the Commission or demand responses to
comments.
Sandra Solis, 531 Pier Avenue, Marineland Mobilehome Park, addressed the Commission and
explained that a letter was sent to Mr. Northcraft on March 1, 1990. It was her understanding
that the letter would be forwarded to the City Council, and she expressed surprise that the letter
was sent to the Planning Commission.
Ms. Solis asked where this matter would be going from here. She said that the letter was sent
because of their concerns with protection of their park. She said that the owners and
management say that the park will be closed within five years, and correspondence from them
has become harsher and harsher. She stated that the ordinance would gtve added protection to
the homeowners. She stated that the residents are willing to follow the suggestions of the
planning director in this regard.
MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to direct that the relocation impact report
requirement for the closure of mobilehome parks be studied with the housing element. No
objections: so ordered.
b.) Memorandum Refardinf Planninf Commission Liaison for May 8. 1990, City Council
Meetlnf
No one will attend.
c.) Planninl Department Activity Report for March 1990
No action taken.
25 P.C. Minutes 5/ 1/90
•
d.) Tentative Future Plannini Commission Aaenda
No action taken.
e.) City Council Minutes of March 27 and April 10, 1990
No action taken.
f.) Memorandum Reiard.ln& Memorial Day Entertainment at The End zone
Howard Longacre asked why this matter did not go directly to the Council for approval.
Mr. Schubach stated that the City Attorney had no objection to the Planning Commission
approving the one-day exception to the CUP.
Mr. Longacre felt that this issue should have gone before the City Council, and stated that this
appears to be a rubber-stamped approval.
Mr. Lee stated that he had no objection to approval being granted by the Commission on this
matter. He noted that if there is a citizen objection, the matter can be appealed to the City
Council.
Geny Compton, 200 Pier Avenue, addressed the Commission and stated that it was impressed
upon the owner of The End Zone the importance of complying with his CUP conditions, and he
was pleased to see that the owner is making an attempt to comply.
MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Chmn. Ingell, to approve staffs recommendation to
approve the request to allow a one-day exception on Memorial Day to the conditional use
permit restriction prohibiting entertainment prior to 7:00 P.M.; to allow entertainment to
begin at 4:00 P.M.
Mr. Lee passed out to the Commissioners copies of a summaxy of the Brown Act requirements.
COMMISSIONER ITEMS
a.) RUDAT AIA City Planning Consultation
Comm. Rue asked that staff agendize this item for discussion at a future meeting. He noted that
some local architects would also like to make a presentation at the hearing.
Comm. Ketz asked for clarification on several of the items in the capital improvements staff
report.
MOTION by Chmn Ingell, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to adjourn at 11:33 P.M. No objections; so
ordered.
26 P.C. Minutes 5/ 1/90
•
)
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and complete record of the action
taken by the Planning Commission of Hermosa Beach at the regularly scheduled
meeting of May 1, 1990.
Date
27 P.C. Minutes 5/ 1/90