HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC_Minutes_1990_06_05MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CI'IY OF HERMOSA BEACH
HELD ON JUNE 5, 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. Ketz.
ROLLCAI.L
Present:
Absent:
Comms. Ketz, Peirce. Rue, Chmn. Ingell
Comm. Moore
Also Present: Michael Schubach, Planning Director; Casey Vose, City Attorney:
Sally White. Recording Secretary
CONSENT CALENDAR
MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve as submitted the following
Consent Calendar items:
Planning Commission minutes of May 15, 1990;
Resolution P.C. 90-34, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF TI!E CITY OF
HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DETERMINING THAT THE PROPOSED 1990-91 FISCAL
YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM IS CONSISTENT WITI! THE GENERAL PLAN FOR
TI!E CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH;
Resolution P.C. 90-35, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF TI!E CITY OF
HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #22156 FOR A 1WO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM FOR 829 15TI! S1REET,
LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 5, HEFFNER, FIORINI, AILEN 'IRACT;
Resolution P.C. 90-36, A RESOLUTION OF TI!E PLANNING COMMISSION OF TI!E CITY OF
HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT
AND PARKING PLAN TO ALLOW TI!E INSTALLATION OF A PORTABLE CLASSROOM IN TI!E
PARKING LOT OF AN EXISTING CHURCH AND SCHOOL LOCATED AT 340 MASSEY AVENUE,
LEGAILY DESCRIBED AS LOTS 1-5 INCLUSIVE, LOTS 7 AND 8, AND LOTS 21-40 INCLUSIVE,
HERMOSA HEIGHTS 'IRACT, AND ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION;
Resolution 90-37, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF TI!E CITY OF
HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PARTS
STORAGE FACILITY TO BE OPERATED IN CONJUNCTION WITI! EXISTING VASEK POLAK
AUTOMOBILE DEALERSHIPS AT 737 TI!IRD S1REET, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 56 AND
57 AND TI!E WESTERLY 20 FEET OF LOTS 26, 27, AND 28, WALTER RANSOM CO'S VENABLE
'IRACT AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION;
Resolution P.C. 90-38, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF TI!E CITY OF
HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DENYING AV ARIANCE REQUEST TO ALLOW PARKING IN
TI!E FRONT 20 FEET OF A LOT, AN ENCROACHMENT INTO TI!E FRONT YARD ON THE
STRAND FOR THE ROOF OF AN EXISTING BALCONY, AND DENYING A VARIANCE FROM
SECTION 13-3(C) OF TI!E ZONING ORDINANCE FOR A REDUCTION IN A NONCONFORMING
AMOUNT OF OPEN SPACE FOR THE REMODEL OF A NONCONFORMING USE WHICH
EXCEEDS 45 UNITS PER ACRE AT 2634 TI!E S1RAND, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 26,
BLOCK 27, HERMOSA BEACH TRACT;
1 P.C. Minutes 6/ 5/90
Resolution P.C. 90-39, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF TiiE CITY OF
HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE FOR A LOT
LINE ADJUSTMENT BE1WEEN 120 25Tii S'IREET (ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 4182-011-012)
AND 2463 MANHATTAN AVENUE (PARCEL NO. 4182-011-013) LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS
LOTS 12 AND 13, BLOCK 29, FIRST ADDITION TO HERMOSA BEACH 1RACT;
Resolution P.C. 90-40, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF TiiE CITY OF
HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTION 1215 OF THE HERMOSA BEACH
ZONING ORDINANCE REGARDING REQUIREMENTS FOR FENCES AND HEDGES, AND
ELIMINATING CHAPTER 15 OF TiiE HERMOSA BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE, AND ADOPTION
OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION;
Resolution P.C. 90-41, A RESOLUTION OF TiiE PLANNING COMMISSION OF TiiE CITY OF
HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A REQUEST FOR AN EXCEPTION FROM
SECTION 13-7(B) OF TiiE ZONING ORDINANCE TO ALLOW AN ADDITION AND REMODEL TO
AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE TO EXCEED 50 PERCENT OF THE
PLACEMENT VALUE, AT 834 BARD S1REET AND LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 5, BLOCKS,
1RACT2002.
There being no objections to approval of the Consent Calendar, so ordered.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC
No one appeared to address the Commission.
SUB 86-2 --SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE REVISED GRADING
PLAN FOR AN EIGHT-LOT SUBDIVISION AT 532. 534 & 540 20TH STREET. COMMONLY
KNOWN AS ''THE POWER STREET SUBDIVISION'' (CONTINUED FROM 4/ 3/ 90 AND 5/ 1 /90
MEETINGS)
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated May 31, 1990. Staff recommended that this item be
continued to a date certain, pursuant to the applicant's request.
The Planning Commission continued this item from the meeting of April 3, 1990, because the
developer had provided inadequate information from which to base a decision. The developer
was requested to work with the Department of Public Works and to generate sufficient
information on drainage and storm sewer capacity so the Commission could make a
determination as to the level of environmental impact.
The Planning Commission, at their meeting of May 1, 1990, continued this item pursuant to
the applicant's request to allow more time to gather the needed information.
The applicant has again requested a continuance for 45 days , stating that a new project
engineer has been hired and again stating that more time is needed to obtain the appropriate
information upon which to decide a solution. The Planning Commission does not have to
accept this request for an exception and may alternatively require that the applicant prepare a
focused EIR.
The tentative map which was originally approved for two years on April 15, 1986, has been
extended twice by the City, giving it an expiration date of June 15, 1990. According to the State
Map Act, the tentative map may only be extended one more time. At this time the applicant has
not requested any further extensions. However, pursuant to Section 66452.6(b) of the State
Map Act, the length of time allowed prior to expiration shall not include any period of time
during which a development moratorium existed. Section 66452.6(£) defines development
moratoria to include any period of time which a condition imposed by the City could not be
satisfied because it necessitated action by the City and said action caused a delay.
2 P.C. Minutes 6/ 5/90
For this project. the supplemental environmental assessment required by the City Council was
delayed because it required the completion of a study from the county in regard to the adequacy
of the storm drain system. Staff believes that the delay caused by the City and county
comprised 8 months and 25 days. This was the period in between the date the City Council
requested staff to conduct a supplemental environmental assessment (June 13, 1989) and the
date the staff environmental review committee made its recommendation (March 8, 1990). The
primary reason for the delay was that staff was forced to wait for the county to complete its
study before making its detennination on the environmental impact.
Therefore, the effective expiration date for the tentative map is March 10, 1991. This should
provide ample time for the applicant to resolve the drainage problems. As such, staff felt that
the continuation request should be granted.
Mr. Schubach discussed the property itself. stating that it appears to be a nuisance at this time.
He said that the area contains barbecue remnants, blankets, graffiti, and weeds, and it appears
that the area is being used for partying and/ or playing. He noted that the area is now dangerous
and unsightly, and he therefore suggested imposing a condition to require that this area be
cleaned and fenced. He further noted that both the Fire and Building Departments have been
informed of this matter.
Public Hearing opened and closed at 7:07 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell, who noted that no one appeared
to speak on this issue.
MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to continue this item to August 21, 1990, and
to add a condition requiring that the property be cleaned and fenced as suggested by staff in
order to eliminate the dangerous and offensive conditions of the site.
Mr. Vose, in response to a question from Comm. Rue, explained that the imposition of a
condition to clean the property conveys a message to the developer that the Planning
Commission desires the property to be kept clean and safe.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Ketz, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ingell
None
None
Comm. Moore
CON 90-5 --CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #21868
FOR A THREE UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 350 MANHATIAN AVENUE. AKA 212 4ffl STREET
(CONTINUED FROM MEETINGS OF 4/ 17 / 90 AND 5 / 1 /90)
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated May 31, 1990. Staff recommended that the Planning
Commission approve the requested CUP and vesting tentative parcel map, subject to the
conditions specified in the proposed resolution.
The Planning Commission continued this application because it involved the use of parking
off the alley with a three-foot setback, and at the time of the last meeting the City Council had
not yet adopted the ordinance allowing less than 17 feet. The ordinance was adopted at the May
8 meeting of the City Council.
The applicant has revised the plans to reflect a three-foot parking stall setback from the alley
and also revised the plans to correct previous problems with open space. Staff reviewed the
plans and found that all planning and zoning requirements have been met.
It should also be noted that the project provides for three guest spaces which are necessary
because of the loss of one on-street parking space. The applicant has demonstrated, and staff
3 P.C. Minutes 6/5/90
has verified, that the driveway can be designed so that only one space would be lost. Staff
included a condition to ensure that only one on-street space will be eliminated.
The elevations have been slightly modified to indicate more details regarding the exterior
features.
Public Hearing opened at 7: 11 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
Huntley Houck, Redondo Beach, project architect, addressed the Commission and stated that
he would answer any questions that the Commission had; however, there were no questions.
Public Hearing closed at 7:12 P.M. byChmn. Ingell.
MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve staffs recommendation,
Resolution P.C. 90-30, as submitted.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Ketz, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ingell
None
None
Comm. Moore
CUP 90:5 -CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR OFF-SALE GENERAL ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES
AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 1031 HERMOSA AVENUE. GOLDEN LION LIQUOR
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated May 30, 1990. This project is located in the C-2 zone, with
a general plan designation of general commercial. The lot size is 7885 square feet, and the
building size is 1125 square feet. The current use is as a liquor store/ convenience market.
There are 11 parking spaces.
Simpson's Market is one of the remaining existing businesses selling alcoholic beverages.
subject to the alcohol amortization ordinance, which has not obtained a conditional use
permit.
At their meeting of March 8, 1990, the staff environmental review committee recommended an
environmental negative declaration and recommended that conditions be included to enclose
the trash dumpster, to provide and maintain landscaping in the landscape planters, to restripe
the parking lot, to properly install the bumper blocks , and to bring the signs into conformance
with the sign ordinance.
The requested CUP would authorize the continued sale of liquor, beer, and wine from the
premises.
The applicant has already responded to some of the concerns noted at the staff review meeting:
the trash dumpster has been screened behind a wooden structure, the parking stalls have been
repainted, and the bumper blocks bave been properly aligned. Also. the window signage has
been reduced and appears to be in conformance with the sign ordinance.
Staff is still concerned, however, about the landscape planter areas which currently contain
only dirt and weeds. Also, the perimeter curbing around these areas is either in disrepair or is
completely gone. As such. staff recommended a condition that these areas be landscaped,
surrounded with raised curbing, and maintained with an irrigation system.
In regard to controlling the sale of single containers of alcohol, it has been estimated that this
store will be in the area that the police department will target for this requirement. Therefore,
staff felt that this condition should be included.
4 P.C. Minutes 6/5/90
Since this is an existing establishment and is located in the commercial area of Pier Avenue,
and the business owner has shown good faith to resolve some of the concerns of staff, staff felt
that the sale of liquor should be allowed to continue. subject to the conditions in the proposed
resolution.
Mr. Schubach noted that since the staff report was prepared, two additional memos have been
received: a letter dated June 4, 1990, from Commander Anthony Altfeld of the Police
Department recommending modifications to the proposed conditions of approval; and a letter
dated May 31, 1990, from City Attorney Vose recommending a continuance of this hearing for
the purpose of awaiting a decision by the City of Los Angeles related to alcohol control.
Mr. Vose expanded on his memorandum and explained that the City of Los Angeles is currently
addressing the issue of reassessing their position as it relates to alcohol control. He continued
by explaining that a recent court action severely restricted what conditions may be imposed on
businesses selling alcohol. As it currently stands .. municipalities are preempted from applying
conditions upon the serving or sale of alcohol, since the area is within the purview by the ABC.
He concluded by recommending that this matter be continued until such time that the City of
Los Angeles makes a final decision on this matter.
Mr. Vose, in response to a question from Comm. Peirce regarding whether the CUP can dictate
the hours of operation, explained that hours of operation can be imposed only if they are the
same hours for all business within a certain area. Varying hours of operation, however,
cannot be imposed only for liquor stores according to the new ruling.
Comm. Peirce, noting that landscaping requirements are not within the purview of the ABC,
asked whether conditions can be imposed requiring landscaping.
Mr. Vose replied in the affirmative, explaining that zoning-related issues, such as parking and
landscaping can be regulated in the CUP. He stated that the case in question involves issues
such as the sale of single containers of alcohol. the age of people selling alcohol, and the hours
of operation. He stated that it is important to make a strict distinction between zoning
regulations which relate to all types of business and those which relate only to establishments
selling alcohol.
Mr. Vose, in response to a question from Comm. Rue, stated that if a city continues to impose
and enforce conditions on only liquor stores, there is a possibility of litigation because of the
conditions being in violation of the preemption doctrine.
Mr. Vose stated that he wants additional clarification on this matter so that there is no
question as to what can and cannot be done related to this issue. He therefore felt that a
continuance would be appropriate.
Public Hearing opened at 7:20 P.M. byChmn. Ingell.
Farid Bader, 1031 Hermosa Avenue, applicant, addressed the Commission and: (1) noted
concern over whether he can still sell single containers of alcohol, to which Chmn. Ingell
replied in the affirmative; (2) said that if people are required to purchase six-packs,
consumption will increase, not decrease; (3) stated that the landlord has informed him that the
landscaping will soon be improved; (4) said that he has read the conditions, and he
understands that he is ultimately responsible for compliance.
Mr. Vose stated that the only condition which appears to be in conflict with the recent court
decision is Condition No. 6, related to single-container sales of alcoholic beverages.
June Williams, 2065 Manhattan Avenue, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and: (1)
expressed amazement at the business owners' assertions as to how important single-container
sales are to their businesses; (2) felt that single-container sales of beer cause many problems on
the beach and it is impossible for the police to control the problems related to such sales; (3) felt
5 P.C. Minutes 6/ 5/90
that the City Attorney provided a very good memo and she agreed with his recommendation; (4)
noted that under the current zoning code, alcoholic beverages are permitted in certain zones
with a CUP and questioned what the impact will be if such establishments are to be
conditioned by the ABC; (5) questioned whether such uses will need to be eliminated from the
permitted use list and whether the wording will need to be changed in the code; (6) asked that
Condition No. 6 be included until this matter is resolved, stating that she feels it would help the
City's environmental problems as well.
Public Hearing continued at 7:28 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Chmn. Ingell. to accept the City Attorney's
recommendation to continue this matter to the meeting of September 4, 1990.
Comm. Peirce agreed with Ms. Williams' comments regarding the sale of single containers of
alcohol, stating that he too feels such sales cause problems and they are not vital to the
survival of liquor stores.
Comm. Peirce stated that unless landscaping is provided at this site by the next hearing of the
matter, he will vote against the request. He noted that the property has not been landscaped for
at least ten years, and it is very unsightly.
Mr. Vose interjected that a move is on to preclude municipalities from imposing any
conditions whatsoever on these types of businesses.
Chmn. Ingell commented on the memo from Commander Altfeld, stating that the
recommendations are excellent, and he asked that staff incorporate some of those
recommendations in the resolution.
AMENDMENT TO fflE MOTION by Chmn. Ingell as second, and agreed to by Comm. Peirce as
maker, to direct staff to incorporate the Commander Altfeld's recommendations in the
resolution.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comm. Ketz, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ingell
None
None
Comm. Moore
CON 90-9 --CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #22184 FOR A 'IWO-
UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 126 MANHATIAN AVENUE. AKA 160 MANHATIAN AVENUE
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated May 21, 1990. Staff recommended that the Planning
Commission approve the conditional use permit for a two-unit condominium and tentative
tract map, subject to the conditions specified in the proposed resolution. As an alternative, the
Commission may desire to continue this matter to require the project to provide access from
the alley only.
This project is in the R-3 zone, with a general plan designation of high density residential. The
lot size is 3000 square feet, or 30 by 100 feet. Six parking spaces are provided. Open space
provided is 760 square feet. The property is currently vacant.
The subject property is rectangular in shape with about a ten percent slope upward from front
to back.
This lot is one of the six lots that previously made up the Bayshore Sanitarium property
addressed as 160 Manhattan Avenue. Only one curb cut exists for the entire site. This is the
first lot to be proposed for development. The sanitarium structure, although abandoned, is
still standing and straddles lots 6 through 9.
6 P.C. Minutes 6/5/90
The proposed units contain approximately 2300 square feet and each includes three bedrooms,
three and a half bathrooms, and a roof deck. Each structure consists of three stories and a roof
deck.
The proposed building elevations exhibit an exterior composed of both rough stucco and
smooth stucco, clay-tile roofing, aluminum windows, and pipe railing. This combination of
features gives the building somewhat of a Mediterranean appearance.
Access to the garages is from both the alley and the street. Staff has previously advised the
applicant that it would be preferable to access all the parking from the alley so as not to require
a curb cut on Manhattan Avenue. This could be accomplished by providing a driveway along
the side of the alley unit to access a garage for the front unit. Staff believes this is a critical
concern since this is one of six lots to be eventually developed on this block, meaning that if
this design is approved for each lot, several new curb cuts will drastically change the parking
and appearance of this block.
The applicant, however, has chosen to provide access from both the street and the alley to give
the units more of an appearance of being separate and distinct and to avoid the use of tandem
garages or having a driveway along the side of a unit.
Section 7.2 of the zoning ordinance states that "the purpose of this division is to promote the
following standards for condominiums .... " and includes subsection (c) stating "a layout of
structures and other facilities to effect conservation in street, driveway, and curb cut and other
public or quasi-public improvements .... " Although this does not prohibit curb cuts where alley
access is available, staff believes that the Planning Commission has the authority to require
the use of the alley in appropriate situations.
Staff therefore requested direction from the Planning Commission in regard to this project
and any future similar projects which may result in unnecessary curb cuts on City streets.
Because of staff's concern, the driveway accessing the street has been designed in such a
manner that will cause the loss of only one on-street parking space, therefore making the
proposed two guest spaces adequate to meet the parking requirements.
It should be noted that this proposal uses a nine-foot garage setback from the alley which is
currently allowed by the zoning ordinance. This nine-foot wide area qualifies as a guest space,
and a guest space is also provided behind the garage facing Manhattan Avenue.
The project complies with all other planning and wning requirements. Lot coverage is 64.9
percent. Adequate open space is provided on the roof decks, and the height of the structure is at
or less than 35 feet.
Although it appears that adequate storage space is available, the amount is not clearly
indicated. Staff included a condition that final plans identify the amount of space in the
storage areas.
The surrounding residential area consists of primarily older multi-family structures.
Although the density of the proposed project will be consistent with the surrounding area, the
proposed scale and height of this project is larger than most of the surrounding projects.
Public Hearing opened at 7:33 P.M. byChnm. Ingell.
B. M. Barsoum, 4015 Pacific Coast Highway, Torrance, owner and architect. addressed the
Commission and: (1) displayed color renderings of the project; (2) stated that alley-only access
is not feasible because the lot is only 30 feet wide by 100 feet and after all setbacks are provided,
only a narrow portion (17 feet) ofbuildable space remains; (3) said that a large landscaped area
will remain with his proposed access; (4) said that the currently existing six lots are all
7 P.C. Minutes 6/5/90
designated as "no parking" and are used only for loading/ unloading purposes; (5) explained
that the parking provided at this project will be in excess of what is actually required.
Mr. Barsoum continued and: (1) stated that the design of the project is compatible with the
surrounding area; (2) said he is proud of his design; (3) noted that the required storage space will
be provided.
Comm. Rue commented on access from Bayview only. Noting that the plans now depict the
Manhattan Avenue side of the project as having a garage door and some landscaping, he
questioned what the effect would be of having access only from Bayview. He asked whether
there would then be additional usable open space on the ground floor level.
Mr. Barsoum explained that to provide all of the parking at the rear would require using
mostly tandem parking. He pointed out that guest parking would be at the front, and it would
be inconvenient for guests to then have to walk around to the rear unit. In other words, if all
resident parking is at the rear, there would be no room for guest parking in that location.
Comm. Rue pointed out that there are six lots at this location, all of which will probably be
developed. He noted that it would be preferable to have parking at the rear, rather than having
a bank of garage doors along Manhattan Avenue. He felt that it would be nice to have
something with some architectural value, rather than just garage doors.
Mr. Barsoum stated that if he had two or three lots, he would be happy to put in a subterranean
garage; however, this one lot is the only one at issue for this project. He noted that the use of the
lot would be defeated if all parking were at the rear, since the rear unit would then have less
space. He said that the other units in the area have parking in the front and there are curb cuts.
Mr. Barsoum, in response to a question from Comm. Rue, stated that the other five lots have
not yet been sold, and they are covered by the one existing building.
Ron Riggs, 1435 Manhattan Avenue, partner of Mr. Barsoum, addressed the Commission and:
(1) felt that this project will enhance the neighborhood; (2) discussed a project he wants to do at
143 Manhattan Avenue; (3) noted that this is the only neighborhood in the area with metered
street parking and discussed a neighborhood undertaking to have those meters removed; (4) did
not feel that this project's curb cut access would be a detriment to the neighborhood; (5) stated
that this project is compatible with other projects in the area, and parking in the rear would be
a hindrance to the project.
Sandra Aden, 158 Bayview Drive, addressed the Commission and: (1) spoke on her own behalf
as well as on the behalf of other concerned citizens in the neighborhood; (2) expressed
widespread concern over the development of this property; (3) stated that this project is only
the first phase of continued full-scale development on the property; (4) stated that whatever
happens on this property will set a precedent for the other five lots; (5) passed out a petition
with approximately 40 signatures of concerned neighbors who concur with her comments and
concerns; (6) said that more signatures could have been obtained if adequate notice had been
given.
Ms. Aden continued and: (1) stated that the three major concerns are the economic impact,
environmental impact, and the aesthetic consideration; (2) expressed concern over the
potential loss of ocean views, which would have a negative impact on property values; (3) said
that many of the older properties behind the nursing home site have recently been renovated
and are quite attractive; (4) noted concern that each of the six double lots could be developed as
two units, thus requiring a total of 36 parking spaces; (5) said that the alley is not large enough
to accommodate such an increase in vehicular traffic; (6) noted that the alley is very narrow
and there is no room to expand it; (7) commented that there are several very nice trees on this
property which should be preserved for environmental purposes.
8 P.C. Minutes 6/5/90
Ms. Aden went on and: (1) commented on the aesthetics and concurred that the nursing home
itself is not very attractive, however, the building does not block ocean views, nor were traffic
or parking problems caused by its use; (2} said that the nursing home courtyard provided some
green space; (3) asked that the residents be allowed to participate in the planning process for
the development of this property; (4) asked that ocean views be allowed to remain; (5} requested
that subterranean parking be included for the projects being developed to help mitigate the
parking and traffic problems; (6) asked that Bayview Drive and Manhattan Avenue be
resurfaced to accommodate the future increase in traffic; (7) requested that landscaping be
required which is responsible and professionally done; (8) asked that the entire design and
construction be done in a professional manner with consideration being given to the
neighborhood.
Jean Hadley, 220 Monterey, addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that the surrounding
homes are quite attractive: (2) noted concern over loss of ocean views; (3) questioned whether
the lot slope is actually ten percent: (4) noted concern over solid decking walls, which block
views and obstruct air flow: (5) requested that the rooftop decking not have solid walls; (6) said
that she lost her curb cut and questioned why someone else should be allowed to have one; (7)
stated that there is a desperate need for parking in this area and additional curb cuts will
exacerbate the problem, and stressed that the curb cuts should be removed; (8) noted that
construction noise will compound the already existing problems in the area; (9) said that she
would favor a view protection ordinance for the City.
June Williams, 2065 Manhattan Avenue, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and: (1)
noted that there have been noise complaints related to bars in the area; (2) said that there is a
noise crisis in the City; (3) stated that the problem will be impacted now that the City Council
has abolished the requirement for driveway approaches in alleys: (4) stressed that everyone
has visitors and repairman, and there will be nowhere for these people to park.
Mr. Barsoum rebutted and: (1) stated that he is very sensitive to the concerns of the surrounding
neighbors; (2) noted that he plans to live in one of the units himself, and his partner plans to
live in the other unit: (3) said that this will be a family•type development with no noise
problems; (4) commented on the parking and noted that he has provided one extra guest space
than is required; (5) said that construction will be professionally done and will conform to the
code requirements for hours of work; (6) said that this project is within the height limitation;
(7) stated that he will attempt to keep the construction height to a minimum, and he would be
willing to use pipe railing in order to minimize view obstruction.
Mr. Riggs again addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that Mr. Barsoum is very
professional; (2) noted that the parking was taken into consideration when this project was
designed; (3) asserted that the current site is very ugly; (4) said that the concerns of the
neighbors do not specifically refer to this particular project, noting that there are no trees on
this particular lot: (5) said that this project will benefit the neighborhood; (6} stated that the
nursing home generated a lot of traffic, and this project will not; (7) noted that this project
provides one additional parking space; (8} said that they are willing to work with the City to
reach a compromise; (9) stated that this project is within the code requirements; (10) felt that
this project will enhance the neighborhood, rather than detract from it.
Mr. Barsoum, in response to a question from Comm. Rue regarding the proposed landscaping,
explained that there will be full landscaping at the south side of the project. On the north side
between the two units there will be a small courtyard fully landscaped with mature trees. He
said that professionally done full landscaping will be provided. He noted, however, that the
landscaping details have not yet been discussed with staff. A sprinkler system will also be
provided.
Mr. Barsoum, in response to a question from Comm. Rue related to the height of the parapet
walls, explained that an attempt was made to keep the height to a minimum, and pipe railings
will be used on top. He explained that the code requires 42 inches, so he put it to 30 inches and
9 P.C. Minutes 6/ 5/90
provided railing on top of that. He noted that the front unit is approximately nine feet lower
than the rear unit because of the slope of the lot.
Mr. Barsoum, in response to Comm. Rue's comments, clarified what is depicted on the plans in
regard to the gabled roof and the small projection at the rear of the project. He explained that
the projection is to create a break in the elevation; however, if so desired by the Commission,
the design can be changed.
Mr. Riggs addressed the Commission and: (1) commented on the petition, stating that he has
received nothing but favorable comments in response to this project; (2) said that this project is
preferable to having a big-time investor come in and develop a large scale project on the site; (3)
said that he could produce signatures of people in favor of this project.
Mr. Barsoum stated that the decking is low and no matter what is built at this site, there will be
some view obstruction.
Public Hearing closed at 8:00 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
Comm. Rue noted that the City has no view ordinance, and there has not been a large public
response to adopting one.
Comm. Rue, after studying his parcel map, stated that the slope of this lot appears to be seven
feet, or less than ten percent. He felt that the applicant has taken time with these plans and it
should be a nice project. His only concern related to the east parapet wall and the projection
which protrudes approximately five feet. He did not think the projection will block any views;
however, if it does, he suggested that the issue be addressed. He felt that the projection adds a
nice line to the project, which is not often seen on projects. He therefore stated that he would
support approval of this project.
Comm. Peirce commented on staffs recommendation that alley-only access be considered. He
asked for clarification on what staff meant by that recommendation. He noted that the
Commission has an opportunity here to utilize the alley in a manner in which it was intended.
He asked what the Commission must do to implement alley-only access for a condominium
project.
Mr. Schubach stated that if that is the desire of the Commission, a condition of approval could
be imposed requiring that access be from the alley.
Mr. Vose, in response to a question from Comm. Peirce regarding whether alley-only access is a
defensible condition, replied in the affinnative. He explained that imposition of such a
condition is indeed enforceable.
Comm. Peirce noted that this is the first time the Commission has addressed a situation where
an area will be rapidly developed on lots which will soon be tom down. He said that the only
purpose of alleys is for access, to allow cars to enter and leave properties. He disagreed that it is
necessary to have both sides of this project for development. From a pJauuiog standpoint, he
felt that the best thing is to have access from the alley, thereby leaving parking on the street.
Furthermore, the vista from the street would be more attractive than if there were a lot of
garage doors. He therefore favored adding a condition requiring that the project be redesigned
to provide alley-only access. He felt that this would be the best planning standpoint to take.
one which would set a precedent for future projects to beautify the City and make the City more
habitable from a pedestrian standpoint, and a way to prevent developers from maxing out
projects on small lots. He concluded by stating that unless alley-only access is required, he
could not support the project.
Comm. Ketz agreed with Comm. Peirce's comments. Noting that the traffic circulation element
provides for alley-only access, she felt that it should be encouraged. She felt that such access
10 P.C. Minutes 6/5/90
will provide more street parking and better circulation on the street. She felt that alleys
should be used for access purposes.
Comm. Peirce commented on the bedroom on the ground floor on the rear unit, stating that it
appears to have a great bootleg potential since it has direct outdoor access, it is large, and it has
an attached bathroom. He therefore could not support approval of the project unless that
configuration is changed.
Comm. Ketz felt that the project is much too high for the neighborhood, even though it is
within the height limitations of the R-3 zone.
Chmn. Ingell asked whether there is an extra 30 feet on Manhattan Avenue because of the street
vacation, to which Mr. Schubach stated that the street is 60 feet wide.
Chmn. Ingell commented on the parking. stating that most projects with parking coming in
from two sides are usually more attractive than those with parking coming in from one side.
He also noted that tandem parking just does not seem to work very well. He stated that he
would rather see the proposed parking than tandem spaces in the rear.
Comm. Peirce stated that the object is not to redesign this project. Rather, there is a fairly
strong requirement from the City's standpoint that the area would be much more attractive for
pedestrians if the parking and driveways are located in the rear, rather than at the front of the
structure. Tilis project has an opportunity to enter from the rear. and he felt that opportunity
should be used order to make a better project and a more attractive neighborhood. He agreed
that the project is too high; however, the height is allowed under the R-3 zoning standards.
Comm. Rue agreed with Comm. Peirce's sentiments that this would be a nicer project from a
planning standpoint if access was from the rear; however. in this case only one lot is at issue
and it is not known at this time what will happen on the other five lots. He also questioned
whether this project will actually be any more attractive if access is .from Bayview only. He
noted that there is not a great deal of buildable space on this lot. He continued by asking staff
questions related to tandem parking configurations.
Mr. Schubach stated that he would not want to speculate on design configurations for parking
without first studying the options.
Comm. Peirce stated that the issue is to determine whether it is desirable for the City to have
access from the alley or the street.
Public Hearing reopened at 8: 10 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
Gerry Compton, 200 Pier Avenue, local architect, addressed the Commission and: (1) discussed
the lot configuration and the related tandem and guest parking; (2) cautioned that 30-foot lots
have a tendency to create concrete seas to provide for parking; (3) stated that he favors a City
goal of requiring alley access; however, such a requirement makes no sense at all on 30-foot
lots.
Greg Aden addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that even though only one lot is at issue
here, there is concern that this decision will set a precedent for the development of the other
five lots; (2) urged the Commission to address the overall project, rather than just this one
project; (3) stated that alley-only access for all the lots is a situation of half dozen of one. half
dozen of the other.
Mr. Barsoum stated that 30-foot lots cannot have parking without backing up for a long
distance. He noted that it is difficult to turn around. and it would be very difficult to provide six
parking spaces where there would be two, three-space parking configurations.
11 P.C. Minutes 6/5/90
Comm. Rue proposed a parking configuration to Mr. Barsoum, to which Mr. Barsoum replied
that no additional parking would be obtained. Comm. Rue noted, however, that there are other
ways to provide parking, to which Mr. Barsoum replied that it is not fair for him to be
penalized merely because he is the first one to develop one of these lots. Comm. Rue stated that
no one is being penalized, noting that this will be a precedent-setting decision.
Mr. Barsoum stated that if alley-only access is required, the rear unit would be impacted and he
might as well just build one house on this lot.
Mr. Riggs addressed the Commission and: (1) stated they are not here to rewrite the ordinance;
(2) said that the only way they want to change this neighborhood is to beautify it; (3) felt that it
would be nonfunctional to have people entering from the rear, and it would adversely impact
the value of the project.
Ms. Aden addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that she has no objection to alley-access
for all six spaces for this project; (2) noted, however, that she would not want access for the
other five lots to be alley-access only, especially due to the small size of the alley; (3) suggested
that a mix of accesses might be appropriate.
Gerry Compton stated that guest parking and tandem parking can be accomplished entirely at
the rear; however, he cautioned that the two units would then be attached, thereby creating
other problems. He commented that all projects in town have the right to have a curb cut, and
it would not be fair to penalize this applicant.
Public Hearing closed at 8:20 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
Comm. Rue stated that if the other five lots are assembled, design options could be addressed.
For this project, however, he felt that the rear unit would be penalized if all the parking must be
under it. He felt that this is one of the better projects he has seen, and he did not feel that rear
access would benefit the project. He noted that this is only one project on one small lot.
Chmn. Ingell agreed with Comm. Rue, stating that there is a small possibility of aesthetic value
on Manhattan Avenue if alley-only access is required; however, he questioned whether the
project would be very much improved by such a requirement. He stressed that he did not want
to encourage a sea of concrete at this project. He felt that the proposed landscaping is quite
nice.
Comm. Peirce noted that the longest journey starts with the smallest step; therefore, he urged
the other Commissioners to vote for alley-only access. He disagreed that people have a right to
a driveway, especially in cases where condos are maxed out on small lots.
MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve staffs recommendation,
Resolution P.C. 90-42, with the modification that Condition No. 10 be amended to require that
access shall be from the alley only.
Chmn. Ingell stated that he would vote against the motion, explaining that there will be no real
benefit obtained.
Comm. Rue did not feel that alley-only access will create a better project. He stated that he
would like to see the parking coming in off of the street on these kinds of projects on these types
of lots.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Ketz, Peirce
Comm. Rue, Chmn. Ingell
None
Comm. Moore
(TIE VO'IE; MOTION FAn.s.)
12 P.C. Minutes 6/5/90
Comm. Rue noted that the Commission is at an impasse. He favored continuing the matter so
that the applicant can come back and present alternative plans.
Mr. Vose suggested that the hearing be continued to a date certain.
Mr. Barsoum asked for clarification.stating that alley-only access is not feasible. He said that
he has considered other options; however, there does not appear to be any other way to provide
parking which will make the project any better.
Comm. Rue suggested that Mr. Barsoum prepare materials to demonstrate that other options
are not feasible.
Chmn. Ingell noted that there is a possibility that the project might be approved when the fifth
commissioner is present to vote.
Mr. Vose, in response to a question from Comm. Peirce as to what would happen if no further
action is taken, explained that a 2-2 vote constitutes no action. He stated staff would then
probably reschedule this matter before the Commission at a future date. Alternatively, the
applicant could appeal the "no decision" to the City Council. He suggested, however, that the
matter be continued to a future meeting when all Commissioners are present.
MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Chmn. Ingell, to continue this hearing to the meeting of
June 19, 1990, with a recommendation that the applicant submit alternative plans for
vehicular access off of Bayview.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Ketz, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ingell
None
None
Comm. Moore
CUP 90-10 --CONDI11ONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW LIVE ENTERTAINMENT
FROM 4:00 P.M. TO 1:30 A.M. ON WEEKENDS AND HOLIDAYS AT 22 PIER AVENUE. THE END
ZONE
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated May 29, 1990. Staff recommended that the Planning
Commission approve the requested amendment which would extend the hours for live
entertainment, which is currently allowed from 7:00 P.M. to 1:30 A.M. on Thursdays through
Sundays and holidays, to include afternoon hours from 4:00 P.M. to 7:00 P.M. on Saturdays,
Sundays, and holidays.
On January 6, 1987, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution P.C. 87-4 amending the
conditional use pennit to allow live entertainment and dancing in addition to the sale of
general alcoholic beverages. This CUP amended the original CUP and resulted in the addition
of several conditions regarding such issues as noise attenuation, hours of operation, the
serving of hot meals, and the hours of live entertainment.
The hours of live entertainment were restricted to between 7:00 P.M. and 1:30 AM. by the
Planning Commission as requested by the applicant.
The interior of the establishment has been recently remodeled by moving the music stage
towards the rear and reorienting the bar. This remodel, along with the provision of an alcove
entrance, double glazed windows, the installation of air conditioning, and other features
required by the CUP has eliminated any serious noise problems.
At this date, the business is operating in compliance with its conditional use permit. Staff has
checked with both the Police Department and Building Department to determine whether any
13 P.C. Minutes 6/5/90
problems exist. The Police Department, through their routine inspection reports of the CUPs
in the downtown area, have noted in all cases that the End Zone is in compliance. Also, the
Building Department has not received any complaints and has verified that the applicant has
completed construction of required interior improvements.
The applicant, however, still has not complied with the conditions requiring the owner to sign
an acceptance of conditions form and requiring that the CUP be recorded with the deed.
The project is located in the C-2 zone, with a general plan designation of general commercial.
The present and proposed use is as a bar with live music. The building size is 1506 square feet.
The applicant is requesting to extend live entertainment hours to include the hours from 4:00
P.M. to 7:00 P.M. on weekends and holidays. The applicant desires to have performances at
these hours to compete with nearby establishments which provide entertainment during these
afternoon hours.
The Planning Commission established that the starting time for entertainment was at 7 :00
P.M. in response to the applicant's original request for those hours.
Starting at an earlier time of 4:00 P.M. on weekends would not appear to present any problems
so long as compliance with all the conditions for keeping sound levels controlled are
maintained throughout the period. This could become a problem during these hours in regard
to the condition that doors and windows be closed, as the manager on site may be tempted to
open doors or windows on a hot day. Therefore, it would be important that the same conditions
be enforced.
Otherwise, the noise ordinance permits a greater amount of noise during the hours between
8:00 AM. and 10:00 P .M. Therefore, staff felt that this request is acceptable.
Mr. Schubach noted that a letter had been received from Police Commander Altfeld dated June
4, 1990. The Commander recommended that this CUP amendment be denied for several
reasons: noise impact, increased police services which would be required, and the desire not to
increase and/ or compound problems or calls for police services associated with citizen
complaints concerning noise.
Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Comm. Peirce, stated that other similar
establishments with these hours of operation include Pier 52, the Lighthouse, and Hennessey's.
Comm. Peirce pointed out, however, that those three establishments do not currently have
CUPs, and they will probably soon be coming before the Commission for conditional use
permit approval, at which time the hours can be modified.
Mr. Schubach concurred and stated that staff hopes the Commission will be consistent in their
imposition of hours of operation, especially since all of the businesses are close to each other.
Public Hearing opened at 8:33 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
Jim Furbee, 24 11th Street Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and: (1) strongly
opposed any extension in hours of operation for live entertainment in this area since it is
already so loud it keeps him awake at night; (2) stated that he has complained to the police
about the noise on numerous occasions; (3) stated that he has twice written to the police chief
about the noise pollution and handed out copies of the letters; (4) stated that other bars are also
responsible for the noise; (5) said that live entertainment contributes to the general character
of the neighborhood and causes problems for the area; (6) noted concern that the peace and
quiet of the neighborhood is being destroyed and additional extensions will only make the
problem worse; (7) said that he wrote to the City Council in January about the noise problems;
(8) noted concern that the noise ordinance is not being enforced; (9) felt that the hours of live
14 P.C. Minutes 6/5/90
entertainment should be restricted and that the CUP should be enforced; (10) stated that his
apartment faces 11th Court.
June Wi11iams, 2065 Manhattan Avenue, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and: (1)
noted there have been a high number of complaints received in the past related to noise in the
downtown area; (2) felt it is fair to ask the businesses to confine noise to their own premises; (3)
stated that bars purposely want to open their doors and windows to lure customers into the
party atmosphere; (4) noted that these establishments are very close to residential areas and
they should confine noise to their own premises; (5) noted concern that the noise ordinance
and conditional use permit requirements do not appear to be enforced in the downtown area;
(6) commented that she has seen bars with their doors and windows open when there is live
entertainment.
Dale Jones, 46 11th Street, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and: (1) said that many
people are at the beach at 4:00 and she would rather see them at the beach than in the bars; (2)
said there is no reason to encourage more noise at 4:00 in the afternoon; (3) felt that allowing
live entertainment to begin at 4:00 would create additional traffic, parking, and noise
problems as well as parking lot confrontations; (4) felt that if this action will set a precedent
for the other three bars, 7:00 P.M. is more than reasonable to begin live entertainment.
Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Chmn. Ingell, stated that the applicant was
notified of this hearing; however, he was not present.
Public Hearing closed at 8:42 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
Comm. Rue noted that there is a proliferation of establishments with liquor in the downtown
area. He felt that enough is going on in that area at 4:00 P.M. and it would not be appropriate to
allow live entertainment to begin at that hour. He felt that 7:00 P.M. is a more appropriate
time to begin entertainment.
Comm. Peirce noted that the End Zone has been very cooperative in complying with the City's
requirements, stating that this is the only one of the four businesses mentioned which has put
money into the business in an attempt to reduce noise. He stated that the main issue at this
time is when the party should begin in the downtown area. He stated that he is adamantly
opposed to allowing live entertainment to begin at 4:00 P.M. He cautioned that other
businesses would also then want to begin at 4:00 P.M. He therefore opposed the extension of
hours for live entertainment at this location.
Comm. Ketz agreed that 4:00 P.M. is too early to begin live entertainment and she did not want
to set a precedent for the other businesses in this area to begin at 4:00 P.M. She therefore
opposed the extension of hours.
Chmn. Ingell noted that the applicant previously came before the Commission to request
additional hours for live entertainment on a holiday. He felt that the applicant acted in good
faith since the applicant could have just gone ahead with earlier live entertainment on a
holiday when he knew City officials would not be working.
Chmn. Ingell had no problem with allowing this business to begin live entertainment earlier
on holidays. He felt that it would be appropriate to allow the applicant the same rights on a
holiday weekend as on regular weekends.
Mr. Vose pointed out that Condition No. l(a) could be modified to accomplish the intent: "Live
musical entertainment shall be permitted from 7:00 P.M. until 1:30 AM. on Thursday through
Sunday and on Federal and State holidays, Cinco de Mayo, and St. Patrick's Day."
MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Chmn. Ingell, to approve Resolution P.C. 90-45, with
the modification that Condition No. l(a) shall be modified to read: "Live musical
15 P.C. Minutes 6/5/90
entertainment shall be pennitted from 7:00 P.M. until 1:30 AM. on Thursday through Sunday
and on Federal and State holidays, Cinco de Mayo, and St. Patrick's Day."
Comm. Rue pointed out, however, that the applicant's existing CUP has the exact same
condition which is now being proposed.
MOTION WITHDRAWN by Comm. Peirce, who concurred with Comm. Rue's observation.
MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Rue, to deny the conditional use pennit
amendment request to extend the hours of live entertainment from 4:00 P.M. to 1:30 AM. on
weekends and holidays at the End Zone, 22 Pier Avenue.
Comm. Rue commended the applicant for his efforts to correct the noise problems at the End
Zone.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Ketz, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ingell
None
None
Comm. Moore
Recess taken from 8:49 P.M. until 8:55 P.M.
SS 89-13 •• ADOPTION OF THE ''PARKS AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN" AS AN
AMENDMENT TO THE OPEN SPACE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN AND ADOPTION OF
A NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated May 31, 1990. Staff recommended that the Planning
Commission recommend to the City to amend the open space element of the general plan t<:> add
the "Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan" with the corrected page ES-16 and to
recommend adoption of an environmental negative declaration by adopting the proposed
resolution.
On January 3, 1990, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the document as a
general policy statement subject to several modifications noted by the staff. On February 22,
1990, the City Council also adopted the document.
The document provided to the Commission is the final document prepared by the consultant in
response to the comments of staff.
On May 3, 1990, the staff environmental review committee recommended an environmental
negative declaration, based on the finding that this document is a statement of policy for
recreation programs and for potential future improvements and acquisition of park sites and
consequently does not have indirect or direct significant environmental impacts.
Staff reviewed the final document and found that the requested modifications have been
incorporated into the document. However, an omission on page ES-16 needs to be replaced by
adding a sentence at the end of the last paragraph.
Staff also noted that a table of contents for the text of the document needs to be provided.
In regard to including this as part of the open space element, staff felt it is appropriate because
the policies included in the document are consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of
the open space element in regard to upgrading and improving existing park sites and pursuing
the acquisition of additional sites. Also, the sites identified are in most cases already
designated for open space on the general plan and zoning maps.
16 P.C. Minutes 6/ 5/90
Public Hearing opened at 8:58 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
Wihna Burt, 1152 7th Street, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and: (1) noted no
specific objections to approval; (2) discussed what is taking place in the school district and
noted that a large portion of Valley Park belongs to the school district and should not be used
for City maintenance and storage purposes unless the district deeds that land to the City; (3)
noted concern that the City's school district might be combined with that of Manhattan Beach;
(4) felt that it would be a questionable expenditure of money to use the school site, which might
go to another city; (5) suggested that the issue of North School be further addressed before a
final decision is made.
Public Hearing closed at 9:02 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
Comm. Peirce commented on several items in the report: Page 2 lists him as chairman, which
is not; and his name is spelled incorrectly. He further noted that Page 2 refers to the
Department of Community Resources, which no longer exists. He therefore suggested that Page
2 of the document be updated.
Chmn. Ingell stated that he has no objection to approval of the document.
Comm. Rue addressed the comments made during the public hearing and explained that this
document is a master plan and will not be implemented directly; rather, it is more of a long-
term plan. He felt that the City will study the long-term impacts before action is taken. He
stated that he has no objection to approval.
MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Chmn. Ingell, to approve adoption of said amendment and
negative declaration and to forward the document to the City Council.
Chmn. Ingell commended staff and the advisory committee for their fine work on this
document.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Ketz, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ingell
None
None
Coilllll. Moore
SS 86-9 --ADOPTION OF THE GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION, TRANSPORTATION, AND
PARKING ELEMENT, AND AOOPl1ON OF THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated May 31, 1990. Staff recommended that the Planning
Commission recommend that the City Council adopt the Circulation, Transportation, and
Parking Element as part of the City's General Plan, with the corrected pages 45, 46, 48, 50, and
51; and to recommend adoption of the environmental negative declaration by adopting the
proposed resolution.
On March 27, 1990, the City Council approved the final Circulation, Transportation, and
Parking Element document. The final approval included five minor changes which are noted
in the City Council minutes of January 23. 1990. The revised pages which reflect those changes
are included as an attachment and are incorporated _into the final document.
On January 23, 1990, the City Council adopted several modifications to the document as
recommended by the Planning Commission. Resolution 90-5339 adopted by the Council
specifies the items which were changed or eliminated.
Final adoption of the element into the general plan requires an environmental assessment.
The staff environmental review committee, at their meeting of May 1, 1990, recommended
adoption of an environmental negative declaration because the final document as approved by
17 P.C. Minutes 6/ 5/90
the City Council essentially recommended no significant changes to the existing circulation
system.
The final document as approved by the City Council eliminated the recommendations that
possibly would have an environmental impact. For example, the recommendation to
eliminate a parking lane and add a southbound lane on P.C.H. was eliminated. Also, the
Planning Commission recommendations to add "no left turn" signs on P.C.H., to study
widening Ardmore Avenue , and to reclassify several streets from local to collector were
eliminated.
As a result of the elimination of some of these key recommendations for changes, the
document essentially serves as an informational and general policy document with no
recommendations for significant change. As such, staff felt that the finding that no
significant direct or indirect environmental impacts will be caused by adopting this as part of
the general plan can easily be made.
In regard to comments made by D.R. Suess in his letter to the City, the City Traffic Engineer
feels that Mr. Suess is correct and that his concerns need to be addressed. Implementation of
Policy 2.1 of the element, although not specific to the problems on Prospect Avenue, does allow
the City Council to address the issue of reducing through vehicle traffic on Prospect if and when
it is desired.
Therefore, adoption of the element in no way precludes the City from addressing this
important issue in the future.
Public Hearing opened at 9 :55 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
Wilma Burt, 1152 7th Street, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and: (1) discussed the
third lane going south on P.C.H. and noted concerns over safety; (2) stated that traffic is very
heavy in that area and the third lane next to the curb is hazardous; (3) felt that a very bad
accident will occur in the third lane, and she therefore objected to that lane since it is being
designated in a piecemeal fashion; (4) requested that the turn arrow onto Pier Avenue be
replaced.
Public Hearing closed at 9:07 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
Comm. Peirce acknowledged the letters written by Mr. Suess.
Comm. Rue noted that several of the Commission's recommendations were not incorporated
into this document: removal of parking along southbound P.C.H. during peak rush hour traffic;
elimination of turning restrictions onto P.C.H. from residential streets during peak commuter
hours; and elimination of widening of Valley/ Ardmore from Pier Avenue to 1st Street. He
noted concern over said widening for safety purposes.
MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve staffs recommendation,
Resolution P.C. 90·48, to recommend adoption of said element and negative declaration.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Ketz. Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ingell
None
None
Comm. Moore
18 P.C. Minutes 6/ 5/90
GP 90-2/ZON 90-2 --TO CONSIDER GENERAL PLAN REDESIGNATION AND REZONING OF
THE Bil,TMORE SITE PUBLICLY OWNED PORTION FROM A SPECIFIC PLAN AREA FOR A
HOTEL TO RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL DESIGNATIONS OR TO SUCH OTHER
DESIGNATIONS/ZONES AS DEEMED APPROPRIATE BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND
ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE PUBLICLY OWNED PORTION OF THE
BIL1MORE SITE
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated May 29, 1990. Staff made the following
recommendations: (1) to redesignate the Biltmore Site to medium density residential and
rezone the site to residential specific plan area allowing a maximum of 14 units with a 30-foot
height limit and include the vacated portion of Beach Drive and 15th Court; (2) to
redesignate/rezone the public parking lot back to general commercial, C-2; (3) to use the
proceeds from the sale of the Biltmore Site to buy the most excess school property and/ or
railroad right-of-way for open space purposes.
The previous election involving the Biltmore Site resulted in two failing initiatives. The
initiative for a combination of urban public plaza, commercial, and residential failed by a 72
percent vote and the initiative for open space only on the Biltmore Site failed by a 53 percent
vote.
The City Council has now requested staff and the Planning Commission to study the option of
designating the property for residential purposes.
On April 19, 1990, the staff environmental review committee recommended an environmental
negative declaration for the general plan amendment and rezoning because the change in
designation would be to a lower intensity use than what is allowed under the current general
plan and zoning designation of SPA for a hotel. When and if a specific residential project is
considered for this site, it will require a precise development plan, and at that time the project
would be subject to environmental review.
Given the direction of the Council to study the Biltmore Site for residential purposes, staff is
focussing only on the alternative of residential in this analysis. Residential is considered to be
a preferable alternative because of the current high value of residential property and because of
its limited environmental impact.
In tenns of the design and layout of a residential project, two distinct approaches are available.
One approach is to use the existing lot configuration of 12 substandard lots of 2400 to 3263
square feet and under an existing zoning category allow the development of these separate lots.
This would also mean using the previously vacated alleys. This approach was suggested by a
minority report of the task force. Their suggestion was to use R-2 zoning, meaning that each lot
could be developed with one unit to a height of 30 feet. The advantage of this approach from a
developer's perspective is that individual single-family lots could be sold rather than requiring
a condominium form of ownership.
The other option would be to merge all the lots and the vacated public rights-of-way into one
large parcel. establish the density limits, and permit the buyer of the property several options
for the layout of the units on the site. This could be accomplished either through a specific plan
area designation or through one of the City's zoning categories.
There are several advantages to the concept of merging the lots; for example, it would provide
the developer the flexibility to design the units to maximize views for all units, including those
that would not have Strand frontage; it would allow for a more efficient use of the property
towards providing open space; and space would be available for a usable common recreation
area. In general, the rather uniform appearance of row houses on 30-foot wide lots would
likely be avoided.
In staff's judgment, the eHmioation of the substandard lots would be a benefit to the City as it
would encourage a better, more innovative design of the site, and would also make the site more
19 P.C. Minutes 6/5/90
valuable. However, as noted, there are benefits to both approaches and staff felt the zoning for
the site could allow either situation to occur, but provide an incentive to a developer wishing to
develop an integrated project.
The next issue is the determination of the number of units to be allowed on the site. In staffs
judgment, a density within the range of the medium density classification would be
appropriate. This would not be significantly inconsistent with the multi-family character of
the immediately adjacent areas, and it would be directly consistent with the density of
surrounding residential areas to the north and east just beyond the limits of the high density
designated area.
The medium density range is 14 to 25 units per acre. The surrounding residential areas are
zoned either R-2B or R-3.
Although it is difficult to justify any specific density appropriate for the Biltmore Site, staff
felt that an amount consistent with the medium density character of the blocks north of 16th
Court would make the most sense, approximately 16 units per acre. This is both for the purpose
of retaining the character and scale of the majority of surrounding residential areas and to
minimize the environmental impacts which could be generated from a high density residential
development.
According to density figures, a density of 16 units per acre would be 12 units if the right-of-way
is excluded, or 14 units if the right-of-way is included.
In conclusion, staff recommended an SPA with a maximum of 14 units and a 30-foot height
limit because of the advantage that would be gained by merging the lots.
This proposal would also allow the City to sell or a buyer to develop 12 separate single-family
units on the existing parcels if it is desired, based on design and market considerations.
However, the SPA allows up to 14 units if the parcels are merged, which may be an adequate
incentive for a developer to develop the site as one project and to pay a price higher than could
be obtained selling 12 individual lots. However, it should be noted that utility lines exist under
Beach Drive and either an easement or relocation would be necessary.
The recommended SPA also includes provisions to require three parking spaces per unit and a
limit on the lot coverage to 50 percent of the entire site.
Also provided to the Commission was an opinion from the City Attorney regarding the
potential for this action to be considered "spot zoning." The attorney concludes that the City
has wide discretion to rezone the site and withstand an attack based upon a claim of spot
zoning. One limitation, however, would be a consideration to rezone the property to single-
family residential.
The use of this site for residential purposes constitutes a significant change in the Coastal
Commission adopted land use plan. This has historically been identified for visitor-oriented
commercial. It has been argued, however, that the City may be able to justify this change
because the proceeds gained from the sale of the property would be used to purchase the
greenbelt property and perhaps some additional open space property within the coastal zone.
Staff proposed other alternatives: (1) to redesignate/rezone the site to medium density/R-2B,
which would keep the current lot configuration and allow a total of 12 units; and, (2) to
redesignate / rezone the site to medium density/ R-2, which would allow up to 21 units on the site
if the lots were merged and the vacated portion of Beach Drive and 15th Court are included.
Parking Lot C was rezoned to specific plan area for a hotel project along with the Biltmore Site
proper, and the privately owned property between 13th and 14th Streets. Since that time, the
privately owned portion has been redesignated and rezoned back to its original GC/C-2
designation. Staff felt it would also be appropriate at this time to redesignate this public
20 P.C. Minutes 6/5/90
parking lot to GC/C-2. which was its previous designation. This is an appropriate designation
for a parking lot which serves a commercial area.
Comm. Peirce noted that staff has made no suggestion to recommend the Biltmore Site to be
zoned as open space, and he asked whether that would be an alternative.
Mr. Schubach explained that. according to the Resolution of Intent adopted by the City Council,
open space is not an option at this time. The City Council has specifically requested that the
Planning Commission address the issue of redesignating the site to residential. He noted.
however, that the Commission, if it so chooses, can reject the option of redesignating the site to
residential and in turn recommend a designation to open space.
Mr. Schubach. in response to questions from Comm. Rue related to the height, explained that a
30-foot height limit is desirable since that height lends itself to loft areas, which in turn
increases floor area.
Public Hearing opened at 9:27 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
Wihna Burt, 1152 7th Street, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and: (1) discussed the
issue of lot mergers and the City's requirements to now have 40-foot lots; (2) noted that many
people who had their lots merged were not given the 30-foot height limit; (3) felt that it is unfair
to allow certain things on the Biltmore Site which are not being allowed for other property
owners in the City; (4) cautioned the Commission to address the issue of legal lot sizes; (5)
stressed that the City has no right to propose single-family dwellings on 25-foot lots on The
Strand, even if it is to pay for additional open space; (6) felt that R-2 zoning is illogical on those
25-foot lots; (7) stated that only four houses would be allowed if the lots were reconfigured to
currently-required lot sizes; (8) stated that there is already a tax in place to pay for the
greenbelt.
Public Hearing closed at 9:33 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
Mr. Schubach, in response to questions from Comm. Peirce, stated that the 12 lots could be sold
and could either be developed individually, or one large project could be developed.
Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Comm. Ketz who asked how these lots were
exempted from the 4000 square foot requirement, explained that the lots in question are
existing lots and are therefore not subject to the 4000 square foot requirement; related to the
lot mergers, he explained that the lots which were required to be merged had structures
straddling the property line.
Mr. Vose stated that the issue at hand is the zoning of property, rather than subdivisions. He
eJi..-plained that the number of lots is not integral to the zoning; ra:ther, it must be determined
what zoning is appropriate for the area.
Comm. Peirce stressed that this property should be open space and he would therefore vote
against any other zoning designation. He stated that there is very little open space existing in
the City. From a planning .standpoint. he did not feel the area should be anything but open
space.
Comm. Ketz did not feel the site should be residential. noting that it is downtown and is located
on the busiest section of The Strand. She further noted that a large hotel will be built nearby,
and residential would not be appropriate. She did not feel that the City should be exempted
from requirements which are being imposed upon private developers. She noted concern that
these lots are not 4000 square feet.
Comm. Peirce explained that the lots are preexisting and therefore are legal nonconforming
and constitute valid size lots.
21 P.C. Minutes 6/5/90
Mr. Vose concurred that the lots are currently legal sized.
Comm. Ketz was not certain that open space is the best use; however, she definitely felt that
residential would not be appropriate.
Cbmn. Ingell noted that this issue has been voted upon several times, and the voters have
rejected open space. He felt that the area should be utilized to generate funds to pay off the
greenbelt. He noted that a tax has been imposed to pay for the greenbelt, and he favored getting
rid of that debt, which is an extreme burden on the City. He felt it would be nice to look at this
piece of property strictly from a planning standpoint; however, the voters of the City have
made their feelings known, and they do not want open space. He felt that if residential had
been an option on the last ballot, it would have been approved.
Chmn. Ingell favored residential zoning at this site. Noting concern over splitting of lots that
small, he felt that a specific plan area would address that issue.
Comm. Rue felt that the Commission should be addressing the issue of residential zoning at
this site, regardless of personal feelings.
Comm. Rue agreed with Chmn. Ingell's comments regarding the site, stating that he favors a
specific plan area. He felt that staffs recommendations are appropriate related to parking and
lot coverage. He noted concern over the proposed height of 30 feet and potential loss of views.
He urged that caution be used in malting a decision.
Comm. Rue stated that his main concern is with the height. Even though no view ordinance is
in place, he felt that the issue should be addressed.
Comm. Ketz felt that regardless of the height limit imposed at the site, residential would not be
an appropriate use from a planning standpoint.
Comm. Rue was not certain that residential is the best use; however, he felt that a good
residential use can be created, and some of the City's long-term goals can be accomplished by
such a designation and the income it would generate. He cautioned that he did not want to see
the area left open space and become a haven for transients.
Comm. Rue felt that it is important to study the ramifications of residential zoning, as
requested by the City Council.
Chmn. Ingell commented on the proposed resolution, P.C. 90-43, Item D, and suggested that
wording be added at the end of the paragraph " ... such as a hotel or retail commercial uses, and
o,pen space."
Comm. Peirce noted that he has never voted to designate this site as residential.
Chmn. Ingell had no opposition to a height of either 25 or 30 feet, noting that a specific plan
area would address that issue. He further noted that the property to the north is 35 feet, and the
new hotel will be 30 feet. He therefore favored approving staffs recommendation.
MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Chmn. Ingell, to approve staffs recommendation,
Resolution P.C. 90-44, with the following changes: (1) Item D shall include additional wording
at the end of the paragraph stating "and open space"; (2) Item E shall be added stating that
"Proceeds to buy open space, railroad right-of-way, and excess school property in the coastal
zone"; and (3) the development standards shall include a 25 -foot height limit.
Comm. Rue felt that inclusion of a 25-foot height limit in the development standards would be
advantageous in that it would set a good example and would possibly retain some of the white
water views which would otherwise be lost.
22 P.C. Minutes 6/5/90
-,.,J
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comm. Rue, Cbmn. Ingell
Comms. Ketz, Peirce
None
Comm. Moore
(TIE VO'IE; MOTION FAILS.)
MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to continue this item to the next meeting,
when the fifth Commissioner is present.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Ketz, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ingell
None
None
Comm. Moore
Mr. Vose suggested that if a consensus cannot be reached at the next meeting, the resolution be
revised to reflect the fact that a consensus could not reached; however, if the area is to be
rezoned residential, the Commission's recommendations should be included for conditions.
Don Falkenstien, 30th Street, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and complained
that the past ballot measures have been too complicated. He suggested that the site be used for
sorely needed parking.
Cbmn. Ingell suggested that Mr. Falkenstien return to the next meeting when the public
hearing will be reopened on this matter.
Parker Herriott, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that he is currently
preparing his open space petition; (2) noted that he is trying to include a drawing with the
November ballot; (3) said that he will soon be circulating bis petition throughout the City; (4)
hoped that a park would ultimately be at this site.
LM 89-1 -EXIBNSION OF A LOT MERGER AT 1712 'IHE S'IRAND
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated May 29, 1990. Staff recommended that the Planning
Commission grant an additional extension of the proposed lot merger to October 31, 1990.
On April 4, 1989, the Planning Commission placed the merging of lots at 1712 The Strand on
continuance for one year in order to give property owners an opportunity to remove the nine
dwelling units existing on the property. In addition, the property owners wanted to obtain a lot
line adjustment to create two larger lots rather than having the lots merged.
The parcel is comprised of two lots and 20 feet of an adjacent lot; total parcel size is 6400
square feet. Aerials indicate that the existing structures straddle the contiguous lot lines.
Building records show the existing structures to have nine units.
The general plan designation is medium density, with a zoning of R-2B. There are seven lots
within one block. Three. or 43 percent, of the lots are individually developed.
At the time of the initial lot merger hearing, it was found that the contiguously two and
approximately one-half lots of R-2B zoned property totaling over 3500 square feet could
encompass two dwelling units on merged or unmerged lots. However , it was determined by staff
that this matter should be placed on continuance for one year in order to give the applicant an
opportunity to remove the nonconforming units and to obtain a lot line adjustment. As a
result. two larger lots could be created as opposed to merging them.
To date, the applicant has not removed the nonconfonning units, but he has intentions of
starting construction of two new homes in the fall. Furthermore, the applicant is currently
23 P.C. Minutes 6/5/90
working on proposed elevations and floor plans for the City as well as the Coastal
Commission. Staff felt that an extension to the end of October should be a sufficient a.mount of
time to allow the property owners to prepare the necessary documents for submittal.
Hearing opened at 9:59 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
Wilma Burt, 1152 7th Street, addressed the Commission and: (1) said that the applicant's house
straddles the lot and the lot is only 6400 square feet; (2) said that the applicant has had a year,
during which time nothing has been done; (3) questioned whether everyone living on the
property was legal; (4) said that two condos can be built in an R-2 zone; (5) felt that just because
the applicant is wealthy. he should not be allowed to split his lots when others are not allowed
to do so; (6) resented the fact that this applicant seems to be getting special consideration; (7)
opposed approval of the lot split.
Steve Legare, 1712 The Strand, applicant, addressed the Commission and: ( 1) said that when he
bought the property, it had nine units, not a single-family dwelling; (2) said he wants to tear
down what is currently existing and build two single-family homes; (3) said that with the
market the way it is, he has not yet finished the project; (4) said that if he cannot build two
units, he will leave the nine units and sell them as is; (5) stressed that he does not want a lot
split, he is requesting a lot line adjustment.
Hearing closed at 10:05 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
Comm. Peirce discussed areas where lot mergers occurred and the criteria used for those
mergers. He asked staff questions regarding the percentages used in determining whether lots
could be merged and whether the appropriate findings could be made for merger in this case, to
which Mr. Schubach replied that more lots are together than are split in this area.
Mr. Schubach continued by explaimng, in response to questions posed by Comm. Peirce,
criteria for lot mergers. He stated that it would be necessary for him to do further research
related to what is existing on other lots in this area.
Chmn. Ingell questioned how it is possible that action on this property has been delayed.
Mr. Schubach stated that it would be necessary for him to go back and research this matter. He
noted, however, that this issue was carefully addressed and it was determined that it could
legally be continued. He said that the applicant can legally build two units; however, the
question is whether the existing nine units will be demolished and what will ultimately be
built.
MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve staffs recommendation to
continue this matter for six months.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
STAFF ITEMS
Comms. Ketz, Peirce, Rue, Cbmn. Ingell
None
None
Comm. Moore
a) City Council/ Pl;:mnlng Commission Workshop
Staff and the Commissioners agreed upon the date of August 8. 1990, for the workshop.
b) Memorandum Regarding 1061 Raymond Avenue
No action taken.
24 P.C. Minutes 6/5/90
c) Memorandum Regarding Planning Commission Liaison for June 12. 1990. City Council
Meeting
Comm. Peirce asked for clarification on Item No. 1, "Text amendment to use averaging method
to measure height in the R-1 and R-2B zones," to which Mr. Schubach clarified that this matter
was referred back to the Planning Commission for determination. The Commission's
recommendation is now going back to the Council.
d) RUDAT AIA City Planning Consultation
Mr. Schubach stated that this item refers to the Regional Urban Design Assistance Team.
Dean Nata, 2467 Myrtle Avenue, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and: (1) stated
that he is speaking on behalf of himself, Mr. Compton, and Mr. Killen, all local architects; (2)
noted that they all share a common interest in the downtown area; (3) said that RUDAT has
helped many other cities; (4) explained what RUDAT is and its primary goals; (5) explained
when the RUDAT process begins, after planning problems have been designated; (6) said that
intensive workshops are held to address the issues; (7) stated that many professionals
participate in the RUDAT process.
Mr. Nata continued and: (1) stated that it is up to each community to identify their problems;
(2) commented that citizen participation is integral to the RUDAT process; (3) said that the
application for this process must demonstrate community-wide support; (4) noted that
resolutions have been initiated by the Chamber of Commerce to begin a strategy process for the
revitalization of the downtown area; (5) said that they have received a letter of intent from the
Council, and now it is hoped that the community will become involved in the process; (6)
requested support from the Planning Commission as a prelude to the introduction of the
program at the City Council level.
Mr. Nata went on and: (1) stated that it is necessary that a steering committee be formed so that
direction can be given to the RUDAT process; (2) hoped that the Commission would designate a
P1aooing Commissioner to serve on the steering committee; (3) stated that a Pismo Beach study
is available for the Plaooiog Commission's perusal; (4) said that materials were provided
demonstrating why this process is preferable to that of hiring consultants: (5) stated that the
professional advice donated to this project is free, and funding is necessary only for expenses,
which oftentimes is donated by the business community.
Comm. Peirce requested a copy of the Pismo Beach study, to which Mr. Schubach replied that
staff would prepare copies of the report and provide them to the Commissioners.
Mr. Nata stated that he would be happy to discuss the program individually with the
Commissioners.
MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to direct staff to bring back information
on this subject at the next meeting, June 19, 1990. No objections; so ordered.
Comms. Ketz and Peirce felt that this would be an advantageous opportunity for the City to
pursue.
Pat Killen addressed the Commission and: ( 1) stated that a wide variety of professionals
participate in the program. not just local people; (2) stated that out-of-town professionals can
provide a fresh approach to looking at old problems.
Chmn. Ingell thanked Mr. Nata and Mr. Killen for their input on this subject.
25 P.C. Minutes 6/5/90
e) Planning Department Activity Report for April 1990
Comm. Peirce asked whether any numbers are available related to how many people are using
MAX, to which Mr. Schubach replied in the negative; however, figures will be provided when
they are available.
f) Tentative Future Planning Commission Agenda
Mr. Schubach, in response to questions from Comm. Ketz, stated that some liquor store CUPs
will have to be deferred until after the City of Los Angeles decision is made.
g) City Council Minutes of April 24. May 3. and May 8. 1990
No action taken.
COMMISSIONER ITEMS
Chmn. Ingell discussed Redondo Beach's implementation of the "boom box" ordinance. which
he favors as an attempt to reduce noise. He asked whether Hermosa Beach is taking such steps,
to which Mr. Schubach stated that he would .have to check on that matter.
Comm. Ketz expressed an interest in the method used for determining floor area ratio as used
in Manhattan Beach.
MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to adjourn at 10:37 P.M. No objections; so
ordered.
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and complete record of the action
taken by the Planning Commission of Hermosa Beach at the regularly scheduled
meeting of June 5, 1990.
~~£
Michael Schubach, Secretary
Date
26 P.C. Minutes 6/ 5/90