Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC_Minutes_1990_06_19! I MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON JUNE 19, 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. ROIL CAIL Present: Absent: Comms. Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Chmn. Ingell Comm. Rue* Also Present: Michael Schubach, Planning Director; Edward Lee, Assistant City Attorney; Sally White, Recording Secretary *Comm. Rue arrived at 7:05 P.M. CONSENT CALENDAR Mr. Schubach pulled for discussion the minutes of June 6, 1990. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve the following consent calendar items (Resolutions): Resolution P.C. 90-30, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CI1Y OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND A VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #21868 FOR A THREE-UNIT CONDOMINIUM FOR 350 MANHATTAN AVENUE (AKA 212 4TH S'IREET), LEGAILY DESCRIBED AS LOT 12, BLOCK 44, FIRST ADDITION TO HERMOSA 1RACT; Resolution P.C. 90-45, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CI1Y OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DENYING A REQUEST TO AMEND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ON-SALE GENERAL ALCOHOL AND LIVE ENTERTAINMENT AND DANCING TO EXTEND THE HOURS ALLOWED FOR LIVE ENTERTAINMENT AT 22 PIER AVENUE, THE END ZONE; Resolution P.C. 90-47, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING AMENDING THE OPEN SPACE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN BY ADDING "THE COMPREHENSIVE PARKS AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN" AS A GENERAL POLICY STATEMENT AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION; Resolution P.C. 90-48, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CI1Y OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THE ADOPTION OF THE FINAL CIRCULATION, TRANSPORTATION, AND PARKING ELEMENT AS AN AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. Noting the abstention of Comm. Moore, there were no objections to approval of the above consent calendar items. Mr. Schubach, discussing the minutes of June 6, 1990, stated that the motion on Page 6 should have been to continue the matter to the meeting of September~. 1990. MOTION by Comm. Ketz, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to approve as amended the minutes of June 6 , 1990. Noting the abstention of Comm. Moore, no objections; so ordered. 1 P.C. Minutes 6/ 19/90 I • COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC No one appeared to address the Commission. CUP 90-3 --CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR OFF-SALE BEER AND WINE AND ADOPTION OF THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 302 PIER A VENUE. SIMPSON'S MARKET (CONTINUED FROM MEETING OF MAY 1. 1990) Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated June 14, 1990. Staff recommended that this request be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of September 18, 1990. The City Attorney has advised that all pending requests regarding conditional use permits for existing alcohol establishments should be postponed. The request by Golden Lion Liquor was postponed to the first meeting in September. The subject request was noticed for public hearing prior to the City Attorney's opinion. The remaining pending requests will also be postponed and will not be publicly noticed until the appropriate dates. This request may involve issues relating to either the control of sale of single containers of alcohol and/ or the hours of operation. Therefore. staff recommended that it be continued to the second meeting in September. Public Hearing opened at 7:03 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell. June Williams, Manhattan Avenue. Hermosa Beach, stated that she would like to reserve the chance to speak on this matter at the continued public hearing. Public Hearing continued at 7:04 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell. MOTION by Comm. Moore, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve staffs recommendation to continue this public hearing to the meeting of September 18, 1990. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Chmn. Ingell None None Comm.Rue CUP 90-6 --CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ON-SALE GENERAL ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES IN CONJUNCTION Wlffl A RESTAURANT AND ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 11 PIER A VENUE, MERMAID RESTAURANT Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated June 14, 1990. Staff recommended that this request be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of September 18, 1990. The City Attorney has advised that all pending requests regarding conditional use permits for existing alcohol establishments should be postponed. The subject request was noticed for public hearing prior to the City Attorney's opinion. The remaining pending requests will also be postponed and will not be publicly noticed until the appropriate dates. This request may involve issues relating to either the control of sale of single containers of alcohol and/ or the hours of operation. Therefore, staff recollllllended that it be continued to the second meeting in September. 2 P.C. Minutes 6/ 19/90 I • Public Hearing opened and continued at 7:06 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell. MOTION by Comm. Moore, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve staffs recommendation to continue this public hearing to the meeting of September 18, 1990. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ingell None None None CON 90-9 --CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND 'IENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #22184 FOR A 'IWO- UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 126 MANHATTAN AVENUE, AKA 160 MANHATTAN AVENUE {CONTINUED FROM MEETING OF JUNE 6. 1990} Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated June 14, 1990. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve the conditional use permit for the two-unit condominium and tentative parcel map, subject to the conditions specified in the proposed resolution. An alternative would be to continue this application to require the project to provide access from the alley only by means of a driveway along the side of the lot. The Planning Commission continued this request because of concern about additional curb cuts along Manhattan Avenue. The applicant was directed to present alternative plans which utilize an alley-only access. Staff discussed alternatives with the applicant which included using driveway access from the alley along the side of the lot to access two 2-car garages oriented towards the middle of the lot, or by using tandem parking. Sketch plans depicting these alternatives as well as the original alternative of using the street access have been reviewed by staff. Upon review of the sketch plans, staff felt that the initial alternative of providing access from Manhattan Avenue with a driveway designed to cause the loss of only one on-street space is the best alternative. The reason is because of the constraints of building two units on a 30-foot wide lot which slopes down from the alley. The other alternatives can work; however, the results appear to be less desirable than using the street access. The use of a driveway along the side of the alley results in a very tight turning situation and is not possible at all if a retaining wall is necessary. Measuring along the width of the lot, the code requires a 17-foot clear garage, a three-foot sideyard, and a nine-foot driveway, leaving only one foot for garage walls and any side yard wall along the driveway. This means that it is not possible if a semi-subterranean garage is used. As such, the parking level would have to follow a fairly even grade from the alley to the front of the lot. In this case, since the alley is at a higher grade, a significant amount of square footage would be lost, and it would force a design to reach the height limit. Examples of this type of parking design on 30-foot wide lots with no alley access all appear to either be on flat lots or lots for which the access is provided from the lower side of the lot. The use of tandem parking directly accessing the alley, in staffs judgment, is clearly less desirable than using the street access. Staffs position on this issue would be completely different if this were a wider lot or if this project were being developed in conjunction with the adjacent property. Another alternative which is certainly available to the applicant which would resolve some of these concerns would be to scale the project down to a single-family dwelling. 3 P.C. Minutes 6/ 19/90 Public Hearing opened at 7:08 P.M. byCbmn. Ingell. B. M. Barsoum, 4015 Pacific Coast Highway, applicant and project architect, addressed the Commission and: (1) passed out copies of a report he prepared related to this project; (2) made a presentation showing view graphs on the overhead projector; (3) explained that in the past, alley-access only was feasible, but in this case the lot is lower than the alley and this configuration presents design problems; (4) said that there has been a change in the building code which now dictates that if there is a third floor, there must also be a third stairway access. one for each unit and one common stairway in the middle for exit purposes; (5) displayed on Sheet No. 2 the configuration he proposed. Mr. Barsown continued and: (1) discussed his Scheme B as it relates to parking and the retaining wall; (2) noted that retaining walls are necessary in several locations, thereby creating problems with the parking; (3) commented on the rear dimension and explained that alley-only access would not be able to accommodate the required turning radius; (4) noted that he had included in bis report copies of the City's turning radius requirements; (5) demonstrated with a toy car the difficulties which would be experienced in accessing the parking if alley-only access is used. Mr. Barsoum continued and: (1) stated that the lot in question is very small, only 30 feet wide; (2) said that a single-family home would not have parking problems, but he noted that this R- 2B lot is allowed to have two units; (3) stated that street access as depicted on Plan A is not as bad as the existing accesses; (4) said that Manhattan Avenue is not continuous at this certain location, noting that it ends at 1st Street, which is one house from where his property is located; (5) said that this is not a main street, but rather it is the end of the alley, which is a collector. Mr. Barsown went on and: (1) discussed the front of his proposed project, explaining that it will be half parking and half landscaping; (2) said that most cities allow a curb cut and ramp for parking, not to exceed 50 percent, in an effort to maintain sidewalks, frontage, and landscaping; (3) said that if the next unit to be developed is flip-flopped, landscaping can be consolidated to lessen the impact of the garage; (4) said that the garage doors could be treated in an architecturally pleasing manner; (5) did not feel that this project is defeating the purpose of the code or the aesthetics of the area. Mr. Barsown continued and: (1) stated that parking can go straight in; (2) noted that tandem parking is never a good choice; (3) stated that he is faced with two problems, the requirement to provide the third stairway, which would block the parking maneuvering area, and the fact that the area is not level and it would be very costly to level it; (4) stated that he can see no other alternatives in this case. Comm. Moore commented on the design of the front driveway, which narrows down at the curb. He stated that such a configuration could prove to be useful on other projects, and he questioned whether this particular design has been used by the applicant on other projects and what the disadvantages are. He noted that the advantages of this configuration allow for additional planting area and it also reduces the size of the curb cut. Mr. Barsoum stated that he has used this S-design in the past. Noting that it is sometimes difficult at first, people do get accustomed to the configuration. In this case, he noted that he intends to live in one of the units, and his partner intends to live in the other; therefore, there is not a problem with the driveway. Comm. Moore stated that this driveway configuration appears to have a good advantage and could be used elsewhere in town if there are not too many disadvantages. Ron Biggs, partner of the applicant, stated that they met with the City staff prior to .finalizing the plans, and they have attempted to reduce the impacts of the driveway on this project and therefore chose this design. 4 P.C. Minutes 6/ 19/90 ' . Mr. Barsoum went on and: (1) in response to Comm. Peirce's question related to Scheme D with its tandem parking. explained that each unit would have a two-car garage and the guest parking would be parallel, thereby creating a three-car tandem situation which is not allowed in the City; (2) stated that such a configuration is not appropriate because of the existing sloping grade and the requirement that a retaining wall be erected. Glen Tanner, 170 Manhattan Avenue, president of the Coral Terrace Homeowners Association, addressed the Commission and: (1) opposed any plan which would allow more than one unit parking on Bayview; (2) noted that Bayview is called an avenue, however, it is a very narrow alley, only 16 to 18 feet wide; (3) felt that traffic on Bayview is already too heavy; (4) hoped that as much parking as possible would be encouraged on Manhattan Avenue; (6) did not want to see the other lots all using Bayview for access; (7) suggested that the currently existing curb cut on Manhattan Avenue be used as the only access into the other lots once they are developed; (8) stated that he spoke on behalf of the other homeowners in his association. Chris Carbone!, 24254 Hawthorne Boulevard. Torrance, addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that he is a local developer; (2) concurred with the applicant's assertion that it would be very difficult to provide alley-only access. noting that because of the narrowness of the lot, the only viable alternative is two cars coming in from the front, and two cars coming in froµi the rear; (3) stated that the proposed driveway configuration, with its smaller curb cut, will allow for additional landscaping; (4) stated that he favors the proposal as presented by the applicant. Sandra Aden, 158 Bayview Drive, addressed the Commission and: ( 1) asked questions related to environmental and aesthetic issues; (2) commended the applicant's proposed landscaping plan and overall design; (3) wanted to ensure that quality plants and shrubbery will be used; (4) noted that Bayview is very narrow and is unable to handle all the traffic which would be generated by full-scale development of the nursing home property; (5) discussed full-scale development and suggested that the developers be required to pay for the cost of resurfacing Bayview Drive and Manhattan Avenue between 1st and 2nd Streets since their projects will generate not only additional traffic but also heavy construction traffic; (6) suggested that a fund be started for this purpose; (7) stated that Bayview is referred to as an "alley," but she noted that her house does front on Bayview. Public Hearing closed at 7:29 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell. MOTION by Comm. Moore, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve the originally-submitted plan, Resolution P.C. 90-42. Comm. Moore felt that the applicant did a good job helping the Commissioners understand the problems associated with this project. He continued by stating that the Building Department will ensure that what is being done on the site is in conformance with the plans which are approved. Comm. Rue stated that he appreciated the trouble the applicant went to in preparing his report, and he noted that it will be quite useful as other similar projects are addressed. He felt that the applicant's proposal is the most viable alternative, and he stated that he favors any design which increases landscaping and decreases concrete. He further noted that this project will utilize stamped concrete which will enhance the project. Comm. Ketz felt that this lot is too small to accommodate a multi-unit development; however, the zoning does allow the condos. She felt that alley-only access should be utilized whenever possible, but in this case the lot is too narrow for alley-only access. She could therefore favor approval of this project. 5 P.C. Minutes 6/ 19/90 AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ingell None None None Comm. Moore noted that the Commission had received a petition signed by a number of residents opposed to this project based on the fact that their views will be blocked. He stated that this project meets the City's height standards. He noted that small areas of people oppose projects which affect them directly; however, there has not been a consensus in the City to implement a view ordinance. CON 90-8 --CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #22100 FOR A 'IWO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 626 SEVENTH STREET Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated June 7, 1990. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve the conditional use pennit and vesting tentative parcel map, subject to the conditions specified in the proposed resolution. This project is located in the R-2 zone, with a general plan designation of medium density residential. The lot size is 4325 square feet. Five parking spaces are provided. Open space provided is 798 square feet. The current use is as a single-family dwelling. The environmental detennination is categorically exempt. The subject property is rectangular in shape with a slight side-to-side slope. The proposed units are slightly different in size and layout. Unit A contains 2520 square feet and includes three bedrooms, two and a half bathrooms, and a roof deck. Unit B contains 3000 square feet and includes four bedrooms and three and a half baths. The fourth bedroom is labeled as a "game room" and is located on the ground floor. The units consist of two stories and a roof deck above a semi-subterranean garage. The proposed building elevations exhibit a stucco exterior, "S" tile roofing, and wrought iron railings. These features give the buildings a contemporary Mediterranean appearance. The plans indicate a front yard setback of ten feet. Existing setbacks along the street range from eight to fifteen feet and calculate to average about eleven feet. The four-unit condominium projects located across the street from this project are set back eight feet. Therefore, staff felt that the ten-foot setback is adequate for this street. Required parking is provided in two 2-car garages oriented to the middle of the lot accessed by a 9.5 foot wide driveway. One open guest space is provided at the end of the driveway. No on- street parking will be lost as the proposed driveway will replace an existing driveway. The ground floor room in Unit B includes a wet bar, bathroom, and separate patio access. Staff felt that this would be too easily converted into a bootleg unit. Therefore, staff recommended a condition that the wet bar be eliminated and that either the separate exterior access or the bathroom be eliminated. The project complies with all other planning and zoning requirements. Lot coverage is 64 percent; adequate open space is provided on the roof decks; and the height of the structures is less than 30 feet. The plans do not, however, indicate a location for trash receptacles. Staff included a condition that final plans identify the location for the trash receptacles. The surrounding area consists of a mix of older single-family and two-family structures, and a new four-unit condo is across the street. Public Hearing opened at 7:35 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell. 6 P.C. Minutes 6/ 19/90 Elizabeth Srour, 820 Manhattan Avenue, Manhattan Beach, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that the applicants presently live at the site; (2) said that this project meets all of the City's requirements; (3) noted that this project involves two completely separate units; (4) discussed the game room and concurred that staffs concerns are valid; (5) explained that the applicants intended that this room be used as a game room and they desire to have a powder room at this level; (6) stated that the bathtub/ shower could be eliminated in the powder room; (7) said that the applicants would like to retain the wet bar as well as the door which leads to the utility area; (8) explained that the utility area contains the hot water heater as well as the forced air unit, and it is convenient for the owners to have inside access to that area; (9) asked that the Commission consider removal of the tub/shower as an alternative. Ms. Srour went on and: (1) discussed whether the entry stairway can be opened up, and she stated that the architect says that area can be opened up; (2) explained that opening up the area would cause the loss of a small portion of the storage area, however, there would still be the required amount of storage area remaining; (3) stated that approval of these two alternatives would eliminate the bootleg concerns but would still allow the applicants to have a game room; (4) requested that the plans be approved with the modifications that the lower bathroom be modified and that the stairway be opened up to some extent. Comm. Moore asked whether it is the intention, if the tub/ shower is removed, to have the powder room floor plan remain the same. He noted that the wall could be relocated to actually shrink down the size of the bathroom. He stated that mere removal of the shower at this time would be a weak step in preventing a future bootleg use, noting that it could easily be added later. He noted that making the room smaller would preclude such an addition at a later date. Ms. Srour responded by explaining that reducing the size of the bathroom would create additional storage area on the other side of the wall; therefore, reducing the size of that bathroom would be an acceptable condition. She stated that the owners are interested in having a powder room at that level. Comm. Peirce discussed the patio as depicted on the plans, noting that it appears to be covered 60 percent on the west side, and it is very small. He asked what purpose would be served by that area, other than being an entrance to the game room. Ms. Srour stated that that area provides access to the water heater and forced air unit, and it is more convenient and desirable to have access from inside the unit, rather than having to go outside. Comm. Peirce questioned how often the water heater and forced air unit need to be serviced. He felt that that is a weak argument, because if the door remains, it would be perfect for a bootleg unit. Ms. Srour stated that if the game room is opened up to the area above and the bathroom size is reduced, the bootleg potential is removed. She stated that such modifications will make the game room an integral part of the house. She concluded by stating that, if so desired, the applicants would also be willing to change the french doors. Public Hearing closed at 7:44 P.M. byChmn. Ingell. Comm. Rue questioned the bootleg potential of a small powder room with only a toilet and sink. He stated that he has no opposition to the proposed french doors, noting that they are attractive and bring a more open feel to the house. Comm. Peirce stated that he objects to the separate access provided by the french doors, noting that the proposed game room is fairly large and could be easily turned into a bootleg unit. He stated that it is very difficult for the City to gain access to a unit to see whether additional 7 P.C. Minutes 6/ 19/90 plwnbing has been installed; however, it is easy to see whether outside access is being used. He stated that even though this owner may have no interest in creating a bootleg unit, future owners may do so. He felt that the proposed configuration is an invitation to create a bootleg. He also could see no purpose to the alcove I patio area, other than its providing some additional light into the room. He questioned why the wall is not extended out over that area, stating that a window could then be installed, thereby making the room even larger. He stressed that outside access is not appropriate in this case. Comm. Moore stated that he feels the best enforcement against bootleg use is the owner of the other condo unit. He felt that if people are determined to have a bootleg, they will find ways to do so. He stated that he could therefore support approval of this project as is, or with minor modifications, if so desired by the other Commissioners. Comm. Rue noted that if a window were required, it would be easy to later tear it out and create a door. He therefore felt that removal of the tub/ shower would prevent a bootleg conversion. Chmn. Ingell did not feel that the patio serves a useful purpose. He felt that access to the water heater and air unit is not that necessary. He noted, however, that he agrees that the owner of the other unit is the best enforcer against bootleg use. Comm. Rue discussed the patio area and pointed out that the patio has a ramp up to the backyard. He stated that the french doors will be opened, thereby creating a feeling of ambience and malting the game room an integral part of the house which will be useful. Comm. Ketz stated that the patio area is quite closed off and doesn't provide a great deal of light. She also noted that the area is only about five feet, and the wall will be almost right outside the french doors. Cornm. Rue pointed out, however, that children can play in such an area, even if it is quite small. Cornm. Ketz felt that outside access from the patio area should be closed off, stating that the area appears to serve no useful purpose. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Chmn. Ingell, to approve staffs recommendation, Resolution P.C. 90-49, with the modification that Condition 1 l(c) be modified to state: "The ground floor "game room" in Unit B shall not contain a wet bar, and the shower/bathtub in the bathroom shall be eliminated, and the size of the bathroom shall be reduced." Comm. Rue clarified that his motion does not include elimination of the separate patio access. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: CollllilS. Moore, Rue, Chmn. Ingell Comms. Ketz, Peirce None None TEXT 88-7 ° TEXT AMENDMENT REGARDING AMORTIZATION PERIOD FOR BUSINESSES CURRENTI,Y OPERATING WITHOUT CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS AND ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated June 11, 1990. Staff recornmended that the Planning Commission adopt the proposed resolution recommending that the City Council amend the zoning ordinance. At their meeting of 9 / 20 / 88, the Planning Commission directed staff to proceed with the study of this issue, recognizing that implementation of the program would be delayed. 8 P.C. Minutes 6/ 19/90 On 3 / 8 / 88, the City Council adopted a Resolution of Intent directing the Planning Commission and staff to study the possibility of amending the zoning ordinance to create an amortization period. On 11 / 25 / 86, the City Council adopted an ordinance to require an amortization period for existing on-and off-sale alcohol establishments operating without a conditional use permit. The City Attorney has examined this issue and determined that the City has the authority to require nonconforming uses to come into compliance with the conditional use permit process and has the discretion to establish a uniform time period for bringing these uses into conformance. Although the Planning Department supports the concept of amortizing with a uniform time period, staff is concerned about the logistics of amortizing all these nonconforming uses. Staff estimates that the number of such nonconforming businesses is approximately 40 to 60. The process of inventorying all the businesses in the City to detennine who is to be notified and the actual notification, in addition to explaining this rarely understood process and requirements, is very cumbersome and time consuming. It could seriously hinder other efforts of staff. Staff is especially concerned with amortizing these businesses at the same time. Processing the CUP applications and researching each individual business for the appropriate conditions will involve a great deal of staff time. Therefore, staff is recommending that the ordinance require a two-year time period beginning from the date the business is notified by the City of the need for a CUP. In this way, the review of the subject businesses could be staggered over time, with the priority businesses being amortized/reviewed first. As such, staff would recommend that the types of businesses be prioritized and the timing of the administration of the program will depend upon when the initial notification letter is sent to the affected businesses. The following priority list is suggested: (1) entertainment; (2) game arcades; (3) adult book stores/theaters; (4) motor vehicle repair/sales/body shops; (5) service stations/car washes; and (6) remaining uses, such as snack bars, ticket brokers, musical instrument stores, fortune tellers, et cetera. Another issue which concerns staff is the inequities that could be created by imposition of conditions on existing establishments. While the text amendment would bring uses permitted by CUPs into compliance, it does not address nonconforming uses which are not permitted at all in the zones where they are located, and thus a nonconforming use establishment which may have much greater impacts would not be subject to amortization or to equivalent conditions. An example would be the automotive repair establishments located in the M-1 zones on Ardmore Avenue and Cypress Avenue. These uses can only be amortized out of existence, and currently the zoning ordinance has no amortization period for abatement of nonconforming uses. Also, those uses with currently active CUPs which were granted in the past often have very different and less restrictive conditions than the new CUPs. Thus, the imposition of conditions on the oldest businesses may create inequities as compared to some newer businesses which are essentially the same. Staff and the Planning Commission have been experiencing an amortization process for alcohol establishments with mixed results. The benefits of the process have been that some businesses have upgraded and cleaned up their exterior appearance, and standard conditions will eventually apply to all businesses equally. Otherwise, the legal limitations on applying innovative and more restrictive conditions has, for the moment, limited the City's efforts, meaning that the accomplishments of the program may fall well short of expectations. 9 P.C. Minutes 6/ 19/90 In considering this proposed amendment, the Planning Commission should consider if these limited gains have been worth the efforts of the City and the inconvenience to the business owners. Comm. Rue, noting that conditions cruinot be imposed on nonconfonning uses, stated that those are usually the uses that most need to be conditioned. He asked for clarification on this issue. Mr. Schubach explained that staff is currently studying that issue. He noted that such a problem has arisen with alcohol-related uses, and staff wants to ensure that these problems do not arise in regard to other uses. Mr. Lee stated that his office is also currently looking into the issue of whether or not a conditional use permit can be imposed on a nonconfonning use. He continued by explaining that preexisting uses are currently being studied in relation to what conditions can be placed on those uses and whether or not regulations can be imposed. Comm. Rue continued by asking questions related to what uses can be conditioned, to which Mr. Lee clarified the laws pertaining to this issue. Public Hearing opened at 8:08 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell. June Williams, Manhattan Avenue, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and: (1) discussed the amortization of nonconforming uses process which was implemented in Big Bear and stated that it was quite effective; (2) stated that, ideally, zoning restrictions would eliminate the need for conditional use permits; (3) said that it is impossible to foresee every potential problem, therefore, CUPs should be tailored for specific uses: (4) stated that this tiny City is unique in that different uses are so close together, such as residential and commercial; (5) noted that in many areas there is an overabundance of certain types of businesses. Ms. Williams went on and: (1) stated that this amortization process will provide a tool to bring certain businesses into the process so that there is better control and the City can be upgraded; (2) felt that new construction may not need CUPs. since there are now precise development plans in effect; (3) felt that the Council erred when they did not include provisions to provide relief from the cost of the amortization process, noting that it can be quite expensive, especially for smaller businesses; (4) suggested that a recommendation be sent to the Council recommending that the City share some of the expense, or that the cost could be recovered when there is a new owner so that existing businesses are not penalized. Richard Sullivan, 3rd Street, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and: (1) read into the record a letter related to the issue of installation of boom boxes and other noise-related uses as they pertain to the amortization process; (2) continued by reading about uses in the M-1 zone; (3) suggested that stereo and car alarm shops be allowed only in the M-1 zone; (4) stated that he is grateful that the City now has a noise meter. however. he did not feel that the noise meter helps in cases of boom box and stereo installation because the workers will merely stop working when a police officer approaches; (5) felt that it would be appropriate to require such businesses to work indoors. Public Hearing closed at 8:21 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell. Chmn. Ingell stated that he favors the idea of CUPs being amortized: however, he does not feel that the businessman should bear the cost of the process. He felt that businesses should be given reduced business license rates if they are required to amortize. He further suggested that the City should bear the costs. Comm. Peirce disagreed, stated that that would be giving an unfair advantage to businesses already existing in the City, who should have been in compliance anyway. He noted that 10 P.C. Minutes 6/ 19/90 newcomers must obtain the proper permits; therefore, why shouldn't the older businesses also be required to comply. Chmn. Ingell disagreed, stating that that older business have been buying business licenses as well as paying the Utility Users' Tax; therefore, he did not feel they are getting an advantage over new businesses. Comm. Rue felt that one of the best incentives for a business to comply with City requirements is their neighbors, noting that it is persuasive for businesses to be good neighbors. He suggested that the costs be reduced or deferred to the next owner. Comm. Rue also suggested that, if businesses are allowed to be amortized over a two-year period, it would be appropriate to give those businesses guidelines at the time of notification related to what will be expected of them in their CUPs. He stated that a notice could then be sent after one year reminding them of what they should be doing related to their CUP requirements. He felt that this would be an easier way for businesses to budget in their improvements. Chmn. Ingell discussed the prioritization list and referred to the first item, entertainment. He asked how many such establishments need to be amortized, noting that he himself could think of none. Mr. Schubach stated that there are not too many. He explained that "entertainment" also includes game arcades. Chmn. Ingell discussed the priority list and questioned whether it is appropriate. Comm. Peirce noted that the resolution itself does not specify the priority list. He stated that prioritization is best left to staff. Mr. Schubach concurred and stated that staff would prefer that the Commission, by minute resolution, direct staff to prioritize the list. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve staffs recommendation, Resolution 90-50. Comm. Rue questioned whether the issue of cost would be included in this resolution. Mr. Schubach stated that he would prefer not to have specific costs in the ordinance, noting that a separate City Council resolution would relate to the specific fees. He said that that is a normal procedure; and if the items are separate, it is easier to modify or amend the actual fees at a later date. Comm. Rue questioned whether it is desirable that the Commission express an intent of concern related to which businesses should be amortized first. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ingell None None None Chmn. Ingell discussed the priority of businesses to be dealt with first, and he stated that he favors inclusion of the fees. He said that if a business must pay for this, it should be done with some type of business license fee or adjustment so they will not be hit all at once with a large bill. He noted particular concern for small businesses. He felt that if the payment is delayed until the business is sold, it would be taking money out of the businessman's pocket. Comm. Peirce asked where the figure of $1000 came from and whether that is the standard fee. 11 P.C. Minutes 6/ 19/90 Mr. Schubach explained that the $ 1000 figure is an approximate total of all the fees that would be necessary. He continued by explaining the procedure which would be taken for noticing, fees, and appeals. Comm. Peirce felt that the CUP could be tailored to each individual business. Comm. Moore noted that the Commission can express concern related to substantial fees and financial matters; however, he questioned whether it is appropriate for the Commission to ilnpose specific conditions on finance matters. June Williams addressed the Commission and stated that the charge is based strictly upon the cost to the City to produce that, and anything above that cost would be a tax and must be voted upon by the people. Comm. Moore stated that if the Commission is not empowered to set the actual fee, they can relate their concern over the matter to the City Council and suggest that it be considered what portion would be fair for the City to absorb. MOTION by Comm. Moore, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to relate to the City Council the Commissions' concern related to the impact upon small businesses of having to pay this fee; and to suggest that the City Council study methods of reduced fees, shared fees, or elimination of fees in these cases. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ketz, Ingell, Moore, Peirce, Chmn. Ingell None None None Richard Sullivan addressed the Commission and: (1) asked that the first priority be stereo and car alarm shops; and (2) noted that there are many violations related to those types of businesses, especially in regard to noise and safety. Comm. Rue asked how long it will take staff to address the priority items on the list. Mr. Schubach stated that they can be addressed ip. several months. Chmn. Ingell discussed the priority list and stated that he feels Items 4 and 5 can be combined into one item (motor vehicle repair/sales/body shops and service stations/car washes). Comm. Moore discussed Items 1 through 3, stating that No. 1, entertainment establishments, is tied to liquor sales; No.2, game arcades, of which there is only one in town; and No. 3, Adult bookstores/theaters, of which there are only two. He therefore noted that only three businesses in the City are at issue at this point in those three items. The other types of businesses can then be addressed. He felt that it is appropriate to allow staff the freedom to respond to businesses as they feel necessary in regard to priority. Comm. Moore stated that he is happy with the sequence of priorities as noted in the staff report, and he did not feel it would be appropriate to mandate a specific sequence. Mr. Schubach discussed priority items and the issue of car stereo and alarm installation businesses. He noted that those types of businesses cannot be amortized, since they are not at this tilne on the permitted use list at all. He said that it will be necessary to first add that use to the code and require CUPs. 12 P.C. Minutes 6/ 19/90 GP 90-2/ZON 90-2 --TO CONSIDER GENERAL PLAN REDESIGNATION AND REZONING OF THE BILTMORE 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 BILTMORE S11E 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. Hearing opened at 8:4 7 P .M. by Chmn. Ing ell. Betty Ryan, 588 20th Street, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and: (1) asked questions related to what size the lots would be if they are rezoned to R-2 and noted that if the sizes remain as is, they will be substandard sized lots; (2) discussed with staff and the Commission the required lots sizes for development; (3) asked about the proposed lot configurations and questioned what could be done with the properties if they are offered for sale; (4) asked about what will become of Beach Drive and the lots facing 14th Street; (5) questioned how the lots would be accessed; (6) stated that if the zone is changed, there must be a practical use for that particular zoning; (7) stated that if the land is going to be sold, the City must know what it is selling; (8) asked about the sequence of events related to this property. June Williams, Manhattan Avenue, addressed the Commission and: (1) asked why anyone would want to sell open space in this City; (2) couldn't believe that anyone feels more condos should be built; (3) stated that the only reason this is being considered is because of money; (4) felt that the Commission should be concerned with good planning and the quality of life; (5) stated that the budget and financial issues should be handled by the City Council, not the Commission; (6) stressed that open space needs to be preserved; (7) said that many people want a place to sit and enjoy the ocean without having to go on the sand; (8) questioned whether it would be appropriate to develop this property and add to the problems of congestion, traffic, sewage, water, and contamination. Hearing closed at 8:58 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell. Comm. Peirce asked whether the parking lot and the Biltmore site itself must be voted upon together, to which Mr. Lee responded that the matters can be voted upon separately. 13 P.C. Minutes 6/ 19/90 MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Chmn. Ingell, to approve staffs recommendation to rezone the public parking lot "C" bounded by 14th Court and 13th Street between Beach Drive and Hermosa Avenue to C-2, general commercial. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ingell None None None MOTION by Comm. Peirce to zone the Biltmore site, publicly owned portion between 14th and 15th Street along the Strand, as open space. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. Comm. Rue asked for clarification on the specific role of Planning Commissioners. He questioned whether it is the responsibility of commissioners to consider financial matters. He questioned whether their purpose is to look at issues solely from a planning standpoint or whether fiscal issues should also be considered. Mr. Schubach stated that issues should be addressed economically, environmentally, socially, and politically. He stated that these are all real concerns in planning matters. Comm. Moore, noting that he has read the minutes from the last meeting, stated that the motivations are clearly money and frustration as to what to do with the piece of property. He noted that there is the potential to get a fair amount of money for the property; however, the money will be gone in several years. Therefore, he felt it is important to focus on what will become of the site in the long run. He stated that Hermosa Beach is quite unique insofar as beach cities are concerned. He said that most other successful beach towns have some type of barrier between the sand and the businesses and/ or residences, stating that that is the striking key difference between Hermosa and other beach cities. He noted that Manhattan Beach has a hill, and Redondo Beach has a palisades or a very heavily developed commercial strip separating the town from the beach. Laguna has grassy areas for separation as well as a road separating the areas. He stated that the only other similar beach city is Venice. He commented that Hermosa Beach has a concrete sewer for a strand, and it should be an embarrassment that the City cannot do something creative with that area. Comm. Moore understood the special legal problems related to the sand portion and what can and cannot be done, but he felt that the situation is embarassing compared to the situations in the other beach towns along the coast. Comm. Moore stated that if a hotel is built to the south of this site, the northern area would fit a residential use, since it is generally residential in the north and easterly surrounding sides, and he felt that would be very wrong. He felt that there is a duty upon the City to provide public access to the beach and to provide usages at the beach, noting that the only areas where such conditions exist are a small pocket at 22nd Street, an area at 2nd Street, and at the pier head. Comm. Moore stated that "cookie cutter" condos next to a "cookie cutter" hotel will create a visual mess for the area. Comm. Moore explained that he did not second Comm. Peirce's motion for open space because he did not feel it is appropriate to look at the site as open space, stating that he feels that makes no sense because of its proximity to the beach. Comm. Moore stated that if he had his druthers, the City would buy up every house on the Strand, demo them, and move the Strand wall back eighty feet, and develop that area with multiple paths and parkways. However, he noted that that is merely his pipe dream. He felt that a park at that site would not be particularly useful. He could not support residential either. He could envision a mixture of uses such as open space coming back from the Strand and to balance that with additional open space going east from the Strand for 20 or 30 feet. l:Ie felt there should be public uses, such as a combination of commercial uses and parking at the 14 P.C. Minutes 6/ 19/90 rear to continue the economic growth of downtown. He stressed that he could not support residential or entirely open space. Chmn. Ingell did not feel that commercial would be economically viable because there is not adequate square footage to provide the required parking. He said there is no economic value for another empty store on that site. Comm. Moore hoped that parking could be addressed within the VPD because the City is strangling itself with unrealistic parking requirements. He said that the only time there are parking problems is on summer weekends. He felt that rather dramatic loosening of the downtown parking requirements is necessary, noting that there are plenty of people in the area who would go to the stores if the stores could only be built. Chmn. Ingell felt it would be nice to have some green area in front of any proposed development at the site. He therefore favored the site to be zoned specific plan area. He felt that the only feasible development would be residential, and with the SPA, very specific conditions could be imposed for development. He opposed a mere rezoning to R-2 or R-2B, however, because there would then be no specific tailored conditions. Comm. Moore stated that he could support a specific plan area, but not for residential development. He felt that the SPA would be appropriate for commercial development or a combination of commercial and open space. Comm. Ketz noted that the task force recommended a mixed use of commercial and open space; however, that option did not reach the voters. Chmn. Ingell felt that commercial use would not be viable unless the City were willing to subsidize the purchase. Chmn. Ingell, noting that the Commission appears to be at an impasse, suggested that a partial recommendation be sent to the City Council outlining each Commissioners' opinion on this matter. Chmn. Ingell favored voting to approve the site as a specific plan area. Comms. Moore and Ketz both strongly opposed residential development, Comm. Ketz stating that she favors a combination of commercial and open space. Comm. Rue, discussing commercial uses. stated that there are severe parking restraints as well as economic restraints. He noted deep concern that a commercial building could sit empty or have many tenants, one after the other. Comm. Ketz stated that she has never seen any economic study related to whether commercial development would or would not be feasible in the downtown area. She continued by stating that residential is inappropriate because this is the busiest part of the Strand, it will be right next to the new hotel, and it is in the downtown area. She did not want to see more condos at that site. Comm. Rue, noting that Comm. Moore feared "cookie cutter" development on the site, stated that it would be nice to have upscale R-1 development. He said that the Strand lots could be carved out as open space, tand he five residential lots could be made larger, with possibly a specific plan. Comm. Rue felt it is important to have more than just a park at this site. He felt that a specific plan and open space combination might be appropriate. Chmn. Ingell felt that a park would not be appropriate. He stated that there are other areas where benches and landscaping could be placed for people wanting to enjoy the beach. He 15 P.C. Minutes 6/ 19/90 favored extra large setbacks if the area is designated SPA. He noted frustration over deciding what to do with the property. He stated that this is a political issue, and it is a shame it is no longer merely a planning matter. Chmn. Ingell noted that it appears the Commission cannot reach an agreement on its recommendation. Mr. Schubach explained that if a decision cannot be reached, staff would prepare a decision report for Council, rather than a resolution. Chmn. Ingell favored the site as a residential specific plan area. He felt that if such a designation were approved, specific standards could be addressed at a future time. MOTION by Chmn. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Rue, to recommend that the site be designated residential specific plan area. AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION by Comm. Rue as second, to recommend that a portion be set aside for open space along the Strand; to recommend that less dense and less intense development be considered within the constraints of medium density; to recommend a maximum height limit of 25 feet so that the view impact is kept to a minimum; and to recommend that the proceeds from the sale of the property go toward buying additional open space in the coastal zone. Amendment accepted by Chmn. Ingell as maker. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: (MOTION FAILS.) Comm. Rue, Chmn. Ingell Comms. Ketz, Moore, Peirce None None Comms. Rue and Moore felt that it would be most appropriate to send a report to the City Council, rather than a resolution. Comm. Peirce favored open space at the site, stating that there is very little open space in the City. He felt that there is no compromising on this matter. Comm. Rue felt that the Commission has a fiscal responsibility, and his amendment to the motion was a compromise to the problem. Comm. Ketz favored a specific plan area with low-intensity commercial uses and open space as recommended by the task force last year. Comm. Moore concurred. Comm. Moore discussed parking, stating that something must be done to address the parking problem in the downtown area. Recess taken from 9:23 P.M. until 9:30 P.M. CON 90-7 --REVIEW OF THE ELEVATION PLAN FOR A 1'WO-UNIT CONDO AT 829 15TH STREET Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated June 14, 1990. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve the elevations as revised. At the 6/5/90 meeting, the Planning Commission approved a two-unit condominium, subject to the condition that the applicant return with revised elevations to be approved by the Commission. 16 P.C. Minutes 6/ 19/90 The applicant has submitted revised elevations which depict a contemporary design using rounded corners on the buildings to soften the impact. This is an improvement over the previous elevations which had no theme or consistency. Although the design is simple, staff believes it is appropriate, given the lower scale of the building and the large setback. Also, the landscaping proposed should serve to complement the building. The design could be enhanced with the addition of a limited amount of glass block or other features on the facade. The Planning Commission may wish to direct staff to work with the applicant to provide such enhancements where appropriate. Hearing opened at 9:33 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell. Armando Pablo, 4 7 4 7 W. El Segundo Boulevard, Hawthorne, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission and: (1) explained that the elevations show that the corners have been rounded; (2) noted that trees have been added at three locations; (3) stated, in response to comments by Comm. Moore, that it is possible that the curb cut could be narrowed to provide additional space for landscaping. Hearing closed at 9:35 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell. Chmn. Ingell noted that the curb cut does not allow two parking spaces anyway. He questioned, however, the ramifications of requiring narrowing curb cuts to provide additional landscaping on all projects. Comm. Ketz felt that additional landscaping would make the project more attractive from the street. Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Comm. Rue, noted that staff recommended additional glass block to enhance the project's appearance. Comm. Rue favored allowing the applicant to have an option over the design, noting that the plans have been improved since the last time they were seen by the Commission. MOTION by Comm. Moore, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve the submitted elevations with one condition: that the front flower bed be enhanced, and that approval shall be subject to Planning Director approval. Comm. Moore was happy with the design, and he did not feel glass block would be appropriate, noting that this is a very pure, simple design. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ingell None None None CON 88-16 --EXTENSION OF THE TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #19594 FOR A fflREE-UNIT CONDO AT 52111 m STREET Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated June 14, 1990. Staff recommended that the tentative parcel map be extended one year to July 19, 1991. On July 19, 1988, the Planning Commission approved a three-unit condo project and a tentative map for the subject property. The map expired on July 19, 1990. The three-unit building is currently under construction. 17 P.C. Minutes 6/ 19/90 J • Section 66463.5 of the Subdivision Map Act allows the Planning Commission to extend the expiration date for tentative maps for a period not exceeding three years. The applicant indicates that the reason for the delay was due to some financial problems which have recently been resolved. Since the zoning has not changed in respect to the subject property, and since the building is nearing completion, staff felt that it would be appropriate to extend the map. Hearing opened and closed at 9:41 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell, who noted that no one appeared to speak on this issue. MOTION by Comm. Ketz, seconded by Chmn. Ingell, to approve staffs recommendation, to extend the tentative map one year to July 19, 1991. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ingell None None None SS 90-5 --TEXT AMENDMENT TO ADD INSTALLATION OF CAR STEREO AND CAR ALARMS WITII CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO C-3 PERMITIED USE LIST Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated June 12, 1990. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission direct staff to set this matter for public hearing to add car stereo/ alarm installation to the C-3 or appropriate permitted use list, subject to a conditional use permit as soon as possible. Currently, there are car stereo/ alarm installers operating in the City with business licenses. These businesses were granted approval under the general title of "automotive accessories." Staff feels that this type of use can be a nuisance and should only be permitted with a CUP. Staff noted that several letters have been received from Mr. Sullivan regarding noise problems associated with this use. Mr. Sullivan also feels that this use would be more appropriate in the M-zone. Comm. Peirce noted that this is an excellent example of the code becoming outmoded due to technological advances which were overlooked when the code was written. He noted the importance of being alert to such situations because many times certain uses become quite a nuisance. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Chmn. Ingell, to direct staff to set this matter for public hearing as soon as possible. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ingell None None None 18 P.C. Minutes 6/ 19/90 STAFF ITEMS a) RUDAT AIA City Planning Consultation (Continued from June 5. 1990. Meeting) Mr. Schubach noted that at the last meeting, the Commission had requested copies of the Pismo Beach study for review before action was taken. He noted that the Commissioners had received copies. Dean Nota, 2467 Myrtle Avenue, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and: (1) hoped that the Commissioners had time to review the Pismo Beach report; (2) stated that two general items are being requested from the Commission --some form of resolution of intent stating that the Commission is in favor of this kind of process being pursued by the local chapter of AIA, and that a Commissioner be selected to serve on the steering committee; (3) explained how requests are responded to, noting that it needs to made clear that there is a real need in the City for this action and that there is potential for something effective to be done; (4) stated that the AIA must be convinced that there is a cross section of interested people in the community, and letters are very important; (5) explained that the steering committee will be responsible for project leadership; (6) stated that a resolution would be most effective at this point. Comm. Moore felt that the City has such incredible potential; there are funds available; people in the community are interested; this is a politically active city; and this is a very unique city in its mix of residents. Mr. Nota stated that all of those points could be expanded upon in the letter of request. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to direct that the Planning Commission prepare a letter of their intent to participate in the RUDAT program. Comm. Rue stated that the City Council should be encouraged to lend its support to the program; that the RUDAT program could serve as a central guiding force for the downtown area; and that action must be taken as quickly as possible. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ingell None None None Chmn. Ingell suggested that two Planning Commissioners serve on the steering committee, and he volunteered as did Comm. Ketz. Comm. Rue stated that if an alternate is needed, he would be happy to serve also. b) Memorandum Regarding Planning Commission Liaison for June 26. 1990. City Council Meeting No one will attend as liaison. c) Tentative Future Planning Commission Agenda Comm. Ketz stated that she would be absent from the next meeting, July 3, 1990. Comm. Peirce also noted that he would be on vacation and would be absent from the meeting of July 3, 1990. d) City Council Minutes of May 22 and May 24. 1990 No action taken. 19 P.C. Minutes 6/19/90 ,. COMMISSIONER I'l'EMS Comm. Peirce discussed the new left-tum arrow at northbound Hermosa Avenue and 11th Street. He felt that this was a very big waste of money, and he questioned what funds were used for that signal installation. He suggested that other alternative improvements could have been done. Comm. Peirce discussed the mysteriously-installed signal at Hermosa Avenue and 2nd Street. He felt that the signal is a safety hazard because a signal, rather than a stop sign, increases the speed of traffic through that area thus causing a big safety problem He suggested that the issue of the left-turn lanes be addressed as related to safety. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Rue, to direct that this issue be placed on the agenda for the purpose of studying the traffic signal at the intersection of Hermosa Avenue and 2nd Street, whether it presents a safety hazard, and whether it should be removed. No objections; so ordered. Mr. Schubach stated that staff is currently doing a warrant check to determine whether or not that traffic signal is a hazard which should be removed. Comm. Rue commended the City Manager's efforts in removing signs from light poles throughout the City. Chmn. Ingell commended staff on their fine staff reports, stating that they are better than those he has seen in other cities. MOTION by Chmn. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to adjourn at 9:59 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 ;;?J ure 1~, ~pl --;y~~;[__ Michael S chub ach , Secretary Date 20 P.C. Minutes 6/ 19/90