Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC_Minutes_1990_07_17MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON JULY 17, 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. Ketz. ROLL CALL 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 CONSENT CALENDAR Comms. Ketz and Peirce stated that they would abstain from voting on the consent calendar because they were absent from the meeting of July 3, 1990. Mr. Lee suggested that the consent calendar be continued, noting that a quorum was not present for approval. Chmn. Ingell, noting that one commissioner was absent, stated that approval of the consent calendar would be continued to the next meeting. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC No one appeared to address the Commission. CON 90-1 --CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #21787 FOR A TWO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 952 8TH STREET CCONTINUED FROM MEETING OF FEBRUARY 6. 1990} Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated July 9, 1990. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve the conditional use permit for a two-unit condominium and vesting tentative parcel map, subject to the conditions specified in the proposed resolution. This project is located in the R-2B zone, with a general plan designation of medium density residential. The lot size is 6882 square feeL EighL parking spaces are provided. Open space provided is 1300 square feet The current use is as a triplex. The environmental determination is categorically exempt. This project was continued from the meeting of February 6, 1990, because the subject property was included in the moratorium limiting height to 25 feet in certain R-2 and R-2B zones adjacent to R-1 zones. The moratorium was for the purpose of studying height limits and view obstruction issues in these situations. After much study and consideration of proposals to modify height measurement methods, the Council chose not to take any action. Consequently, the moratorium has expired as of June 27, 1990, and this project may proceed as originally submitted. The subject property is a through lot with access from both 7th Street and 8th Street. It is rectangular in shape and slopes toward the southwest, enjoying views to both the ocean and the Palos Verdes Hills. The two proposed units contain 3090 and 3571 square feet and consist of two stories above a garage. They are designed like two single-family homes, as each unit has access to a street. The units contain three bedrooms and two and a half baths. 1 P.C. Minutes 7/17/90 The proposed building elevations exhibit a stucco exterior, mission tile roofing, and decorative balcony railings, giving the buildings a "Mediterranean" style. The plans indicate front yard setbacks of ten feet from both 7th Street and 8th Street, with second-story balconies encroaching to within five feet. Staff believes these setbacks are adequate and consistent with these streets. Existing setbacks alon g 7th Street range fr om ze ro to 20 fee t , and the average calc ulates to be a bout 10.5 feet 'Three newer condo proj ects on the west s ide of th e street we re required to provide 10-foot setbacks. The average setback for 8th Street calculates to be approximately 7.5 feet on the south side and nine feet on the north side. Required parking is provided in two-car garages for each unit, oriented to each street. Two guest spaces are provided for each unit in the 17-foot setback behind the garages. One on-street parking space will be lost on 8th Street, while none will be lost on 7th street as the proposed driveway will replace the existing driveway. The project complies with all other planning and zoning requirements. Lot coverage is 58 percent; adequate open space is provided on decks, including roof decks; and adequate storage space is provided on the ground floors. A bonus room and utility room is provided in the basement level of Unit B, with sliding glass door access to the outside. No bathroom or shower is included. To minimize bootleg potential, staff recommended a condition that the exterior access be eliminated. This type of project is consistent with other through lots on this block, many of which have been split into two lots, and it is consistent with the character of the surrounding R-2B area to the south, east, and west. Public Hearing opened at 7:06 P .M. by Chmn. Ingell. Larry Jamison, 608 South Lucia, applicant, addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that staff explained the project quite well; (2) noted that he would be happy to answer any questions; (3) said that he has no objections to the staff- recommended conditions. Di ane Olson, 814 Ocean Drive, a ddress ed the Commiss ion and: (1) opposed the project based on the 30-foot height, noting that she will lose her view and the reby her property value will be decreas ed ; (2) said that 8th Street is alrea dy a "canyon" with a great deal of traffic; (3) noted that 8th Street is a very narrow, one-way street; (4) read aloud the City's vision, which was adopted by the City Council on October 23, 1986, and she said that this project is in direct opposition to that view; (5) felt that approval of this project would prove that the City no longer cares about fulfilling its promises. Terry Trumbell, 801 Ocean Drive, addressed the Commission and: (1) opposed the project based on the fact that the 30-foot height will eliminate his ocean view; (2) objected to the project for the same reasons as noted by Ms. Olson. Public Hearing closed at 7: 10 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell . Comm. Moore stated that this project does not even come close to reaching the allowed height limit of 30 feet. He noted, however, that even with the project being lower than 30 feet, some views will undoubtedly be lost as a result of these units being built He noted that views would be lost even if the height were kept to 25 feet. He reiterated his sentiments concerning the fact that projects cause opposition from small groups of people who are directly affected; however, there has been no widespread desire throughout the City to implement downzoning. Comm. Moore stated that this is a fine project and one which is within the parameters of all rules and regulations of the City. MOTION by Comm. Moore, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to approve staffs recommendation, Resolution P.C . 90- 55, as submitted. Chmn. Ingell agreed that this is a very nice project and one which does not come close to reaching the 30-foot height limit. 2 P .C. Minutes 7 /17 /90 AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Chmn. Ingell None None Comm. Rue Chmn. Ingell stated that this decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed by writing to the City Council within ten days. CON 90-12 --CONDITIONAL USE PERMlT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #22216 FOR A TWO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 830 CYPRESS AVENUE Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated July 10, 1990. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve the conditional use permit for a two-unit condominium and vesting tentative parcel map, subject to the conditions in the proposed resolution. This project is located in the R-3 zone, with a general plan designation of high density residential. The lot size is 3150 square feet. Five parking spaces are provided. Open space provided is 802 square feet. The current use is as a single-family dwelling. The environmental determination is categorically exempt. The subject property is rectangular in shape, with a ten percent slope upward from front to back. The two proposed units are similar in size and layout. Unit A contains 1832 square feet and includes three bedrooms, three and a half bathrooms, and a roof deck. Unit Bis slightly larger and contains 2070 square feet, three bedrooms, a mezzanine, and four bathrooms. The proposed building elevations exhibit a stucco exterior, a slightly pitched roof with mission tiles, and dark anodized aluminum windows with trim. The overall design is very similar to the project approved and constructed at 852 Cypress, slightly modified to add the accents of mission tile roofing and window trim. The overall style can be characterized as contemporary with some Mediterranean accents. The plans indicate a front yard setback of five feet, which would be the same as the project at 852 Cypress, approved in 1988. Existing setbacks along the street average less than five feet; for example, the existing house on the subject lot has a setback of less than one foot. Required parking is provided in two, two-car garages oriented to the middle of the lot. One open guest space is provided at the end of the nine-foot driveway. No on-street parking will be lost, as the proposed driveway will replace the existing driveway. Both units include extra bedrooms with a bathroom at the ground floor behind the garages. Since access is provided only through the garage, the potential for conversion to bootleg units is minimal. To further minimize this potential, staff is recommending a condition that the shower in the bathroom in Unit B be eliminated. The project complies with all other planning and zoning requirements. Lot coverage is 64.3 percent; adequate open space is provided on private decks; and enclosed storage is provided. However, a revised site plan needs to be provided with corrected building and setback dimensions consistent with the floor plans. Also, revised plans need to show that a minimum of 200 cubic feet of storage is provided. The surrounding area consists of a mix of older single-family dwellings and multi-unit apartments and condominiums. The proposed project is consistent with the character of the area. Mr. Schubach added that it was difficult for staff to gain access to the rear yard. It has now been determined that there are a great number of trees in the rear yard. Staff therefore recommended a condition that all existing trees in the rear yard be shown on the landscape plan, and that any tree removal or replacements for those removed from that area shall be subject to review and approval of the Planning Director. Public Hearing opened at 7:16 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell. 3 P.C. Minutes 7/17/90 Gerry Compton, 200 Pier Avenue, project architect, addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that the trees in the rear yard will be shown on the landscape plan, as well as those which need to be removed and replaced; (2) objected to staffs recommendation that the shower be removed from the ground-floor level of Unit B; (3) in response to questions from Comm. Moore, discussed I.he issue of privacy walls and I.heir effectiveness, and he stated that he has heard no complaints from owners of other similar units; (4) explained that this 30-by 100-foot lot is a con.6guration which is difficult to work with, especially in regard to obtaining open space on the ground; (5) noted that on lots of this size, it is necessary to span across the units to provide adequate open space; (6) related to the staff-recommended condition that the bathroom in Unit B be removed, explained that there is a bedroom very close to that balhroom, and there is no logic in requiring its removal, thereby making it necessary for one to have to cross the entire unit to get to a bathroom; (7) noted that Unit A does not have a bathroom on the ground floor simply because there was not enough room. Public Hearing closed at 7:21 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell. Comm. Peirce, noting that he usually objects to bathrooms on the ground floor, stated that in this particular case he has no objection because the area is very small and is not likely to become a bootleg unit. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve staffs recommendation, Resolution P.C. 90- 56 , with the following changes: That Condition 1 l(c) be deleted; and a condition shall be added specifying I.hat all existing trees in the rear yard shall be shown on the landscape plan, and that any tree removal, or replacements for those removed from that area, shall be subject to review and approval of the Planning Director. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Chmn. Ingell None None Comm. Rue CUP 90-19 --CONDITIONAi, USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW SALES OF MOTORCYCLES, ACCESSORIES, AND MINOR REPAIR AT 638-640 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY. SOUTH BAY CYCLES Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated July 11, 1990. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve a conditional use permit amendment, subject to the conditions specified in the proposed resolution. Mr. Schubach also suggested several alternatives: (1) to continue the request to require a subsequent environmental assessment of the potential noise impacts associated with the testing and test driving of motorcycles; or (2) to deny the request because of the unique and unusual noise characteristics of motorcycles and the proximity of residential uses. This project is located in SPA Area 7. The general plan designa tion is commercial corridor. The present use is vacant The building size is 2400 square feet, and six parking spaces are provided. The environmental determination is categorically exempt, as a negative declaration was approved for the existing conditional use permit. On January 16, 1990, the Planning Commission approved a conditional use permit and negative declaration for the remodel of the existing structure for an automobile agency with the operation to be conducted indoors. The original owner of the property has since sold the property and the rights to the CUP to another owner. The new owner of the property has completed the bulk of the proposed building plan that was approved as part of the CUP. The structure has been rehabilitated and reduced in size. A much improved facade has been constructed and a paved parking area has been provided in the rear to provide parking for a building which previously had none. The applicant is proposing a business which involves the sale of used late model customized Harley Davidson motorcycles and would include the sale of parts and accessories. The applicant is also requesting to conduct light repair. 4 P.C. Minutes 7/17/90 The zoning ordinance does not specifically identify motorcycle sales on the permitted use list. although motorcycle repair is identified, subject to a CUP. Automobile, boat and truck sales are identified and pennitted with a CUP. In staffs judgment, motorcycle sales is sufficiently similar to auto, boat. or truck sales to enable the Planning Commission to interpret motorcycle sales as a permitted use, subject to a CUP. The sale and repair services would all be conducted indoors in the same areas previously approved for sale of automobiles. Given that the approved CUP was also for motor vehicles, staff determined that this request would be similar in impact and therefore processed it as an amendment to the existing CUP without any additional environmental assessment. After further examination of the request, staff believes that the motorcycle business actually may result in greater noise impacts than the approved automobile business because of the nature of the vehicles. It should be noted that noise limits for motor vehicles on the public right-of-way, as stated in the City's noise ordinance, are regulated by the California Vehicle Code. Therefore, only the noise generated from the subject property is subject to the decibel limits of the noise ordinance. Staff believes these impacts can be mitigated through the conditions of a CUP with the cooperation of the business owner. Such conditions would prohibit the testing or the revving up of engines on the premises. The Planning Commission, however, may determine that the difference between motorcycles and automobiles is significant enough to warrant further environmental assessment and perhaps a noise study prior to making a final decision. Otherwise, the business is properly located in the highest intensity commercial area in the City and is surrounded by similar automotive-related uses. The building has been improved, and adequate landscaping has been provided in the rear. If there is to be a motorcycle business in the City, this is the appropriate location. The proposed building and the site are clearly adequate in size to support this business, with adequate indoor area to conduct minor repair work. Staff included several conditions in the proposed recommended resolution to address potential problems associated with this business. These include a limitation on the light repair to only consist of the removal and installation of motorcycle accessories and parts not related to the moving parts of the vehicle such as the engine and wheels and lubrication, and that such work may only be conducted inside with the doors closed. Also, standard conditions normally associated with auto agencies have been included to prohibit engine revving on the premises. Additionally, the rear parking area shall remain clear of all parts and merchandise, shall be for parking only, and loitering shall be prohibited. Also, the requirement for a three-month review is included. Attached to the staff report was a lelter from the adjacent property owner regarding a private easement for ingress and egress on the southerly ten feet of the subject property. This is essentially a private matter between adjacent property owners. However, in response to the concerns of Mr. McNeill, no part of the easement is proposed for parking, and conditions are included which prohibit the use of the parking area for merchandise display. Whether or not the rear end of this easement can be used for a trash enclosure is arguable and is a private matter. If it cannot be used for a dumpster, an alternative location on the site will have to be found to satisfy the City's requirement for an enclosed trash dumpster. Mr. Schubach noted that staff has expressed concern over the discovery of some barstools in the building. He stated that staff would not want to see any bar and barstools or tables and chairs inside this building. Staff has no objection to coffee being served to waiting customers; however, staff recommended a condition prohibiting any bar and barstools or tables and chairs for the purpose of serving customers. Public Hearing opened at 7:29 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell. William Campbell, 513 Dianlhus, Manhauan Beach, owner and applicant, addressed the Commission and: (I) in response to a question from Comm . Moore related to his experience operating this type of business , stated lhat he has worked in a similar business in the past; (2) stated that he is fully confident of his ability to control the clientele in order to keep noise to a minimum; (3) noted that he will be at the business full time and will have full control over the establishment; (4) stated that he would like to remove the parking from the rear of the business and have the parking on Pacific Coast Highway; (5) noted that most of the noise is already on lhe highway, and that is the most logical location for parking; (6) stressed that he will have control over the customers and noise because he will be at the business. 5 P.C. Minutes 7/17/90 Nellie Schroll, 824 7th Street, addressed the Commission and objected to the project on the following grounds: (1) her home is directly behind the proposed business and there is excessive noise generated by this business; (2) motorcyclists congregate at this business and create problems; (3) riders race up 7th Street creating a dangerous condition; (4) damage was done to her property by the applicants when they were working on their business, and it has not been properly repaired. Mike Dauteuil, 831 6th Street, president of his condominium homeowners association, addressed the Commission and: (I) noted concern over excessive noise already at this project, including construction noise which has been going on late in the evening; (2) stated that the sound of the motorcycles is amplified and bounces off the walls, which makes it very noisy, even during the day; (3) noting that there is already noise, he expressed concern over the potential increase; (4) noted concern over test driving up and down the streets of the area; (5) noted that, even though the applicant has good intentions, stated that he is not now in control and the business is not yet even officially opened; (6) presented a petition with signatures of people in the neighborhood opposed to the granting of the CUP for this business; (7) stated that there is already too much traffic and noise on the highway; (8) noted concern over the City's ability to monitor the noise limits; (9) favored staffs suggestion that a noise study be done before any approval is considered; (10) questioned the enforcement ability of the City; (11) said that the residents will be adversely affected by this business; (12) noted concern over the types of people who will be drawn to the business and possible loitering. Ann O'Dell, 831 6th Street, Unit 5, addressed the Commission and: (1) agreed with the comments expressed by Mr. Dauteuil; (2) said that she has been awakened by construction and motorcycles late at night and early in the morning; (3) noted concern that 6th and 7th Streets will be used for test drives; (4) felt that a repair shop will only add to an already very noisy area; (5) objected to the barstools on the grounds that it will serve to create a breeding spot and create more noise; (6) objected to approval of a CUP and requested that the shop not be allowed to open. Jeannine Bringman, 831 6th Street, addressed the Commission and: (1) appreciated the work that has gone into the conditions; however, she noted concern that the owner will not be able to enforce the conditions; (2) stated that Harleys are beautiful machines and people will want to test drive them after work has been done on them; (3) said that Hatleys are the loudest bikes there are; (4) stressed that enforcement will cost the City money to police every single condition in the CUP; (5) asked the Commission to consider living directly behind this shop and having to listen to the noise generated by the motorcycles. Kenny Bornstein, owner of Auto Works at 501 1/2 Pacific Coast Highway, addressed the Commission and: (1) welcomed this business in the area; (2) said that the noise limits set by the State of California are the same for all types of vehicles; (3) in response to comments from Comm. Peirce related to why motorcycles are significantly louder than cars, stated that he was unable to provide an explanation as to why motorcycles are louder; (4) stated that there is enforcement related to noise of motorcycles, especially related to mufflers; however, he was unable to explain precisely what the requirements are; (5) said that people appear to be more afraid of the types of people who might be attracted to the business rather than noise generated by the business; (6) stressed that businesses have been very slow, and it would be appropriate to give this owner and applicant a chance; (7) said that he has no objection to the chairs in the business, noting that other businesses have chairs and there are no problems. Suzy Compton, 7th Street, addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that there is excessive noise generated from this business; (2) related to the Commission her confrontation with someone at the business, and his extreme rudeness to her; (3) submitted for inclusion into the public record a written copy of the events surrounding the confrontation; (4) noted that several years ago the City Council adopted a policy to make Hermosa Beach a less dense, more family-oriented area; (5) did not see how in any way approval of this CUP would contribute to a more family-oriented atmosphere; (6) stated that this business will generate excess noise and traffic, and that combined with the obvious disregard shown by these applicants toward the neighbors will greatly diminish the quality of life for the residents. Sharmine Williams, partner in the business, addressed the Commission and: (1) apologized for the late-night noise, explaining that they are under a construction deadline; (2) staled that they were unaware of the neighbors' complaints related to the late-night noise, but she noted it will not continue; (3) felt that it would be a good solution to park the motorcycles on P.C.H. rather than in the rear of the property in an effort to reduce the noise; (4) said they would be willing to cooperate with the neighbors; (5) said that they could post signs showing the approved test-drive routes; (6) discussed the stools in the shop, stating that many times people have to wait a long time and do not have other 6 P.C. Minutes 7/17/90 transportation; therefore, it is nice to have a place for them to sit and wait; (7) discussed noise created by the mufflers and stated that in order to have a bike registered , it must comply with registration requirements; (8) stated that she was unaware of the confrontation described by Mrs. Compton; (9) in response to a question from Comm. Peirce related to why the majority of people feel that motorcycles are much louder than cars, stated that there are certain legal noise regulations , and people can be cited for noncompliance; (10) said that they have no intention of making motorcycles louder than they can be as mandate.d by the law; ( 11) said that she does not have the expertise to answer questions related to noise requirements and regulations. Maiko Saravia, mechanic, addressed the Commission and: (1) responded to questions from Comm. Peirce related to DMV requirements for noise compliance regulations, stating that a noise detector is used to check the noise; (2) explaine.d how muffler pipes are checked for noise emission; (3) said that the DMV checks bikes for registration, but he was unsure whether any noise measurement devices are used; (4) clarified that if someone is cited for a noise violation, they must go to the OMV for inspection; (5) said that someone will definitely get a ticket for having straight pipes (which creates excessive noise); (6) said that the Highway Patrol checks bikes for noise infractions. Ms. Williams again addressed the Commission and: (1) responded to questions from Comm. Moore related to noise and what could be done to ensure that noise would be reduced; (2) said that bikes can come in from the front as well as the rear, (3) said that bikes could be walked down the driveway to the rear parking area. Mr. Campbell again addressed the Commission and: (1) explained that he is also a contractor and he built the driveway; (2) noted that there is a slope into the driveway, and customers can start from the back and walk to the front of the business; (3) stressed, however, that he can handle the noise problems and he suggested that there be a three-month review to ensure that there is compliance; (4) was infonned by Comm. Moore, however, that the Commissions' concerns lie with the fact that this CUP could be sold to another owner who may not have control; (5) stated that people are complaining about noise which is not generated from this business, explaining that noise comes from the car wash and from other people along the highway. Mr. Campbell continued and: (1) stated that Hennosa Beach police are delighted about this business since they now drive Harleys; (2) said that these bikes are expensive and undesirables will not be attracted to the business. Mr. Saravia addressed the Commission and: (1) responded to Comm. Moore's questions related to the points raised by Mrs. Compton and the confrontation; (2) stated that he only told her he was trying to open a business and earn a legal living; (3) in response to a question from Comm. Peirce, stated that his molOrcycle is legal; however, Comm. Peirce countered that his so-called legal bike prompted a neighbor to walk down the street to complain, and he asked for an explanation. Mr. Campbell stated it is not fair to accuse Mr. Saravia of not having a legal bike, noting that there is no way to judge that issue. • Comm. Peirce noted concern that a neighbor had to walk down the street to voice a complaint against the noise. Mr. Campbell stated that people are just against Harley Davidsons in general. He continued by stating that he got a petition signed by all the business owners along the highway from Aviation to 190th Street, and they are all in favor of this business. He noted that the only objections are from the neighbors to the rear of the business. He stated that he purchased this property as C-3, and he thought this was a commercial zone. He stated that he decided not to sell autos since auto sales are down; therefore, he now wants to sell motorcycles. He continued by stating that the noise is already present; it is not being created by this business. Mr. Campbell stated that he is willing to stand behind his investment, and he can control the noise. He said that the City can review the CUP in three months to ensure his compliance. Mr. Campbell stated that he planted trees in the rear in an effort to mitigate the noise to the rear. He felt that the City is trying to push him out of the city. Mary Herbert, 825 7th Street, addressed the Commission and: (1) did not want to give anyone a hard time with his business; however, she lives in this area and the noise is getting louder and louder; (2) noted concern that there will be additional molOrcycles and attendant noise; (3) stated that the noise is disrupting her life; (4) said that people will test drive up 7th Street and go around the block and will present safety problems for the children and animals in the 7 P.C. Minutes 7/17/90 area; (5) said that people on P.C.H. favor the project, but they do not live there; (6) stated that this business will decrease her property value. Richard Barks, 901 5th Street, addressed the Commission and: (1) discussed noise requirements for Harleys and said that they are one of the noisiest bikes made; (2) said that people comply when new bikes are purchased, however, accessory pipes can be purchased and added on later which exceed the noise limits; (3) said that if someone is pulled over and cited, then they would have to go for an inspection; (4) strongly objected to any work being done on the bikes at the shop; (5) had no objection to sales of clothing and accessories, but he said that actual work on the bikes will create a tremendous amount of noise; (6) said that P.C.H. is already very noisy; (7) said that the engine design of Harleys is very noisy; (8) felt that they should not be allowed to do any work or customizing on site; (9) in response to a question from Comm. Peirce, stated that no special tests are required for motorcycles before they can be sold; (10) explained how various motorcycles are made and the modifications which can be done later. Jim Housley, 934 7th Street, addressed the Commission and: (1) said that the CUP for the previously applied-for auto sales had many restrictions which he felt should still apply; (2) said that someone cannot come in through the front because they would be blocking the sidewalk. which is illegal; (3) noted that bikes in the rear will create noise; (4) commented from experience and stated that there are no special noise requirements for motorcycles; (5) objected to the additional traffic which will be created by this business; (6) hoped that restrictions could be implemented to mitigate the noise. Mr. Campbell stated that they will not be test driving up 7th Street, noting that no work will be performed. He said that the only thing to be done is installation of chrome parts. He also noted that people will not cruise 7th Street; they want to show off and drive on the highway. Mr. Campbell, in response to questions from Comm. Peirce, stated that they will sell clothing, mufflers, and everything which is chrome. All chrome products will also be installed. He stated that he will not install mufflers which are too loud because they would then be shut down. Earl Herbert, 825 7th Street, addressed the Commission and asked how the customers will be controlled when the owners' bikes themselves are too noisy. Bob Bringman, 831 6th Street, addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that people will need to accelerate in order to leave the shop due to the traffic pattern along the hlghway; (2) said that he does not want to hear all of the motorcycle traffic in bis neighborhood; (3) opposed the additional traffic which will be generated by this business. Jackie Tegiaferro, 934 7th Street, addressed the Commission and: (1) agreed with the comments made by the other neighbors; (2) said that other businesses on P.C.H. who favor this business do not have to live there. Mr. Bornstein addressed the Commission and stated that the vehicle code prohibits any alterations to the emission system, and any vehicles sold must meet requirements. Gerry Compton, 832 7th Street, addressed the Commission and: (1) said that the owner of this business is suffering under the duress of the what the neighbors have been subjected to for the past several years in regard to other motorcycles and noise; (2) said that 7th Street is one of the few streets which goes all the way through with no cross streets; (3) felt that running bikes up 7th Street can be controlled; (4) was happy to see this business building at that location, noting that the applicant has spent a fortune in improvements; (5) noted that he would favor just about any business, except a motorcycle shop, based on the noise factor; (6) was surprised that there is no requirement for a sound wall; (7) said he is not willing to accept a situation which will be worse, and if it does become worse, he will move; (8) said that it will be difficult for him to rent out his apartments if the noise gets worse; (9) noted surprise that the s taff has said the Commission must interpret whether or not this use is allowed; (10) said that there is no question about it; this business is not allowed per the code. Mr. Compton continued and: (1) was surprised there was no text amendment allowing for this use; (2) strongly urged that a posted test-drive route map, to be approved by the Planning Director, be posted at the business; (3) urged that no tuning up of motorcycles be allowed; ( 4) said that no information was presented as to how much additional traffic would be generated by this business; (5) asked that no use of residential streets be allowed for test driving; (6) said that the idea of walking bikes to the rear would be appropriate; (7) felt that rear access should not be allowed, but rather a gale could be installed to provide for side entrance; (8) said that there are ways to make the CUP strict, 8 P.C. Minutes 7/17/90 however, he did not feel that there is any way to mitigate the noise at his property specifically; (9) said that there is no way to cite noise violators, since people will tum off the bikes if they see the police approaching with their noise meters; (10) suggested that there be no running of the vehicles outside the building and that if there is excessive noise, they should be required to install sound walls or other specific mitigation measures. Public Hearing closed at 8:37 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell. Comm. Peirce referred to the code, Page 501, where is states that a pennitted use is a motorcycle repair business, with a conditional use permit required, subject to Article 10. He noted, however, that the code makes no mention of motorcycle "sales." He stated that Page 499 of the code permits automobile sales; however, no reference is made to motorcycle sales. He therefore felt that motorcycle sales are not allowed in the City since that use is not specifically mentioned in the permitted use list Mr. Lee stated that his office addressed this issue, explaining that most codes are not exhaustive as to the types of uses allowed. When his office. was consulted, the planning staff was informed that the it is within the purview of the Planning Commission to make an interpretation Telated to whether or not motorcycle sales is a use which is similar to other uses already permitted in the zone. He continued by citing specific sections of the code related to this issue. Mr. Lee clarified that, if the Commission deems motorcycle sales to be compatible with other similar uses in the same zone, the interpretation would be adopted by resolution and then forwarded to the City Council for ratification. Comm. Peirce, noting the numerous complaints presented by the neighbors related to noise, stated that this use should not be permitted unless adequate controls can be enforced. Comm. Peirce noted concern that this business could end up becoming a gathering spot for motorcyclists and attendant noise problems which cannot be controlled. He stated that unless adequate controls can be implemented, this use would be a detriment to the homeowners living behind the shop. Comm. Ketz agreed with Comm. Peirce, stating that unless the noise can be mitigated, this would not be an appropriate use. She noted that noise concerns have been raised again and again in the City. She recalled that just within the past year, establishments on P.C.H. have been required to install air conditioning and close their windows. Also, she noted that the proposed car wash was required to mitigate noise. She therefore questioned whether the noise factor from the motorcycles can actually be mitigated enough so as not to present a nuisance to the neighbors. Comm. Moore stated that it is not the purpose of the Planning Commission to design the layout of a business; however, he felt that the noise problem would be mitigated if the running of engines is prohibited at some point on the driveway toward the rear of the property. He also suggested that the business be required to post such a rule and that the owner must be responsible for enforcement of the "no running engines" rule down the driveway. If such conditions were imposed, he stated that he could support approval of the request. He noted that many conditions have been included. No doubt the business will create an impact; however, he felt that this is a reasonable business for the City to maintain. He also noted that this is the correct zone for such a business. Comm. Moore continued by expressing concern over the enforcement of the rule against running engines down the driveway. He said that the major issue on this point is that of customer parking. He mentioned the idea of the parking of multiple motorcycles on P.C.H, noting that other such businesses use angled parking in front of their businesses. He asked whether such a parking configuration is possible in the City, and if not, whether the code could be amended to allow more than one motorcycle per striped parking space. Mr. Schubach ex.plained that the Public Works Department oversees that issue, stating that he understands the code permits only one motorcycle per stall. He stated that this restriction was implemented several years ago. Comm. Moore stated that he would like further information on whether such a parking configuration could be used before a final decision is made, explaining that the parking is a central issue in this request. Mr. Schubach stated that the code does specify motorcycle spaces; however, he noted that he could investigate the issue further and return with a definite answer. 9 P.C. Minutes 7/17/90 MOTION by Comm. Moore to approve the request, Resolution 90-57, with the addition of a condition requiring that motorcycle engines be shut off at the halfway point of the driveway from the front comer of the building to where it opens out into the rear parking lot; and that such requirement be clearly posted on the property and be strictly enforced. He further suggested that a notice be sent to the proper City agency to investigate the configuration of parking along P.C.H. to allow the parking of more than one motorcycle per space. MOTION DIES FOR LACK OF A SECOND. Comm. Peirce, noting that he did not second the motion, stated that he did feel such a motion would be a step in the right direction if there is strong enforcement by the personnel of this business. He noted concern, however, that this business could be sold in the future and the enforcement would not be as strict. He said that motorcycles by their design seem to be noisier than cars. He did not feel it would appropriate to have City personnel spend a great deal of time enforcing the noise and parking at this business, because he felt that there are other, more important matters for them to be investigating. He noted that he did not want to encourage a potential problem, stating that the running of motorcycles behind the business is not appropriate. Chmn. Ingell felt that angled parking is crucial for Comm. Moore's motion to work. He felt that staffs suggestion for a noise assessment would be appropriate. He noted that the owner has demonstrated that he is attempting to make this business work. He said that he would like to see such a business be a success, and he noted that Harley Davidsons now have a much better image than in the past. He further felt that it is necessary to address whether angled parking on the highway is a viable solution at this location before a final decision is made. Comm. Moore asked what type of noise assessment Chmn. Ingell is proposing, stating that such a study would seem merely to be a method to delay the project. Comm. Peirce recalled that the applicants for the proposed Mobil car wash were requested by the Commission to return with information proving that the use could meet the noise requirements. He felt that such a requirement would be appropriate in this case also. Comm. Moore pointed out that the applicant in this case has said he would be willing to operate the business with no running of engines in the rear parking lot. Comm. Peirce stated that he would be satisfied with a survey with proof that there would be no violation of the noise ordinance when there is motorcycle acceleration away from the curb in front of the business at the rear property line. Chmn. Ingell referred to the Mobil study also, stating that they did surveys at other similar businesses. He noted that he is not trying to delay the project; however, he wanted additional information before a decision is made. Comm. Moore stated that there appears to be no noise enforcement of motorcyclists when they are on the highway. He felt that the only viable solution in this case, therefore, is to control the noise at the rear of this business. He felt that such a condition would be easier to enforce and would be clear when the condition is being violated. He suggested that monetary penalties be imposed if violations occur. He felt that imposition of such penalties would be sufficient to motivate the owner to comply with the condition. Comm. Peirce disagreed, stating that the the greater aggregation of motorcycles is something which cannot be mitigated; and if that greater aggregation of motorcycles has any chance of violation of the noise code, then the use is clearly incompatible in the zone. He therefore stressed the importance of obtaining additional information related to whether or not they can meet the noise ordinance. Until such proof is submitted, he could not suppon approval. Comm. Moore asked whether a comparative study of the experience of the motorcycle shop on Artesia Boulevard would be satisfactory to ease the Commissions' concerns. Comm. Peirce stated that he would leave the decision of which location to study up to the applicant, noting that it is the responsibility of the applicants to prove to the Commission that they can meet the noise ordinance requirements. P.C. Minutes 7/17/90 ./ MOTION by Chmn. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to approve staffs alternative recommendation to continue the request to require a subsequent environmental assessment of the potential noise impacts associated with the testing and test driving of motorcycles; further, to request that additional information be provided related to the issue of angled parking along the highway in front of the business. Comm. Moore stated that he would vote against the motion because he was convinced that the relevant noise study has to do with the running of engines on the property; furthermore, he could not see how a practical noise study could be done as to what his customers using parking spaces along Pacific Coast Highway might do. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comm. Peirce, Chmn. Ingell Comms. Ketz, Moore None Comm. Rue (TIE VOTE; MOTION FAILS.) MOTION by Comm. Ketz, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to deny the request. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ketz, Peirce Comm. Moore, Chmn. Ingell None Comm. Rue (TIE VOTE; MOTION FAILS.) Mr. Lee pointed out that the hearing could be continued to a future meeting when all five Commissioners are present to vote on the matter. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to continue this matter to the Planning Commission meeting of August 21, 1990, for the purpose of obtaining additional information. Mr. Schubach stated that further information could be presented related to the DMV, CHP, and decibel readings for motorcycles. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Chmn. Ingell None None Comm. Rue Recess taken from 9:05 P.M. until 9:15 P.M PARK 90-4 --PARKING PLAN AMENDMENT FOR SHARED PARKING TO ALLOW AN AEROBIC STUDIO AT 1310 -1314 PACIFIC COAST HTGHWAY Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated July 12, 1990. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission continue this item to the meeting of August 7, 1990. This project is located in the C-3 zone, with a general plan designation of general commercial. The present use is as an office upstairs of 3500 square feet, with the remaining 6000 square feet vacant. The lot size is 13,565 square feet. There are 24 parking spaces provided. The total building floor area is 9310 square feet, and the floor area of the studio is 1600 square feet. The environmental determination is categorically exempt On October 17, 1989, the Planning Commission approved a parking plan request for this proper.ty for a martial arts studio in the 2900 square-foot leased space located closest to Pacific Coast Highway. The approval was based on the 11 P.C. Minutes 7/17/90 applicant's proposal to conduct individual training in the daytime and to limit class sizes to 15 students at night past 7:00 P.M. on weekdays and on weekends. The applicant originally was going to occupy the 2900 square-foot leased space. However, since the time of submittal, I.he owner decided to lease this space for an art gallery/art shop. At I.his time, the applicant is negotiating to utilize some of the other vacant space in the center. Since the applicant has not completed negotiations with the owner, staff could not properly analyze this request for a parking plan amendment, as it is not known what square footage will be utilized for the aerobics studio and where it will be located. Additionally, pursuant to the recent amendment to the zoning code, health and fitness centers require a CUP. Previously, health and fitness facilities were allowed as a matter of right in the C-3 zone. Staff accepted this application for an amended parking plan assuming this use would go into the same building approved for the martial arts studio. Although this request was properly noticed and advertised, a request for a CUP was not included in the noticing. Therefore, the CUP portion of this request must be heard at a future meeting to allow for proper noticing. Since the next meeting is in three weeks, proper noticing can be done on time, and in order to save the applicant from spending additional money, staff will mail the 300-foot radius notices. Mr. Lee explained that no action can be taken since the proper procedures have not been completed. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve staffs recommendation to continue this matter to the meeting of August 7, 1990. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Chmn. lngell None None Comm. Rue CUP 90-14 --CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ON-SALE BEER AND WINE IN CONIJJNCTION WITH A RESTAURANT AND ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 1433 HERMOSA AVENUE, J.B. BURGERS Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated July 11, 1990. Staff recommended denial of the requested conditional use permit This project is located in the C-2 zone, with a general plan designation of general commercial. The lot size is 11,542 square feet, and the building size is approximately 1520 square feet. The current use is as a restaurant, and there are 20 parking spaces. J.B. Burgers shares the subject lot with J.B.'s Mello Cream Donut Shop. At their meeting of June 7, 1990, the staff environmental review committee determined, based on the saturation of alcohol establishments in the downtown area, that the impact of this proposal, although individually limited, is cumulatively significant and recommended denial of the proposal. The applicant is requesting to serve beer and wine in conjunction with an existing restaurant The applicant has stated that the menu of the restaurant will be changed to a Mexican-style menu. The applicant indicates that the serving of alcohol would only be in conjunction with food, and that the service would cease at 10:00 P.M. The subject site is nonconforming to parking requirements, as twenty legitimate parking spaces are available and the sum of the two restaurants contains about 3400 square feet. Also, no buffering exists to separate the parking lot from the adjacent residential uses. 12 P.C. Minutes 7/17/90 The site plan submitted by the applicant is a schematic only and is not accurate as to dimensions, and it exaggerates the amount of parking. As the Commission is aware , the downtown area is already saturated with establishments serving alcobo1. At the staff review meeting, the police department indicated serious concern with opening an additional establishment. as it would place an additional burden on the police services and contribute to the problems of noise, public drunkenness, and loitering. Also, it should be noted that the parking lot for this establishment is located immediately adjacent to a residential use. Over the past two years, the Planning Commission has approved CUPs for beer and wine in conjunction with existing restaurants at 322 P.C.H. and at 200 Longfellow. Significantly , these establishments are outside the saturated downtown area. Also, the Commission approved alcohol use in conjunction with the Hennosa Hotel and will be considering a request for beer and wine in conjunction with a restaurant in the Hermosa Pavilion. These are also outside the downtown area. The City currently has approximately 80 establishments with alcohol licenses, and 26 of these are located in the downtown area. Although this request is for service of beer and wine at an existing food service establishment, which perhaps lessens the effect of the alcohol use, once the license is authorized, it becomes very difficult to control how the license is used. To do so requires the additional efforts of the police department and code enforcement by a staff which is already over extended. Mr. Schubach stated that supplemental infonnation had been given to the Commission from the police department advising that there have been problems in the past related to the parking lot in this area. The police feel that these problems could surface again if beer and wine is allowed at this location. Mr. Schubach continued by explaining that a current Los Angeles City court case has now limited the conditional use permit process to land use oriented issues when related to alcohol. He continued by explaining, therefore, that staff has an alternative recommendation for approval. He suggested several findings for approval: (1) Whereas the Planning Commission believes that the proposed on-sale liquor use compounds problems resulting from such similar uses as bars and fast food restaurants within the already impacted area ; (2) and Whereas the issuance of a liquor license is solely within the discretion of the Alcoholic Beverage Commission, now Therefore approval of this conditional use permit shall not be deemed approval of the on-sale liquor license to be considered by the ABC. Mr. Schubach stated that the City could then proceed to deny approval based on the grounds already specified. Mr. Lee, in response to questions from Comm. Peirce, explained that his office is continuing to track the Los Angeles case. He continued by explaining that the state code provides for local jurisdictions to control such uses when there are legitimate municipal affairs involved. He said that it is difficult at this time, however, for the Commission to take action to prevent such a use, but he noted that the use can be conditioned when there are legitimate land use concerns. He cautioned that there cannot be denial based upon the saturation in this area. Comm. Moore asked questions on other possibilities related to denial of the request, to which Mr. Schubach responded with clarification. Public Hearing opened at 9:27 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell. John Bokolas, 1433 Hermosa Avenue, applicant, addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that he wants to serve beer and wine along with dinner ; (2) said that the hours will only be 5:00 to 9:30, and no liquor will be served to the general public; (3) stated that there is no bar at the location : (4) said that beer and wine can be purchased at other nearby locations; (5) stated that there is adequate parking at this location; (6) said that beer and wine will be served at the table, not self-service; (7) explained, in response to comments from Comm. Moore, that he plans to change the menu and serve wine with meals; (8) said he will not make capital improvements. Public Hearing closed at 9:30 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell. Comm. Peirce asked for clarification on the options available to the Commission at this time. 13 P .C. Minutes 7 /17 /90 Mr. Schubach specified several alternatives: (1) to app.rove the request as previously suggested; (2) to continue the matter and direct staff to return with additional conditions related to the land use itself, in addition to the standard conditions; (3) to continue to an unspecified date when this court case is finally settled. He noted that similar CUPs have been continued and are coming back to the Commission in September. Mr. Lee, in response to questions from the Commission, explained the appeal process, as well as other viable options available at this time. Comm. Moore stated that the entire purpose of planning is to have a social, economic, and environmental balance in a City. He therefore felt that it is desirable for a City to have control over what can be allowed in regard to concentration of businesses. Mr. Lee stated that his office is currently struggling with that very issue, and they continue to monitor the recent actions being taken in the court case and land use issues. He stated at this time only land-use type conditions can be imposed, and mitigation measures can be imposed. He cautioned that the focus must be on land use impacts, not specific liquor sales. Chmn. Ingell stated that the Commission has no information at this time to enable any decision. He felt that it will be difficult for the applicant to mitigate the use without a capital outlay. He noted that there must be a continual monitoring of the dining room when liquor is served. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Chmn. lngell, to continue this hearing to the meeting of September 4, 1990, for the purpose of obtaining additional information from staff. Comm. Peirce hoped that more information on the court case will be available, since this hearing is being continued. Chmn. Ingell noted that this is a rare instance, in that the staff environmental review committee has recommended denial of the project based on the significant cumulative impacts to the area. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Chmn. Ingell None None Comm. Rue NR 90-5 AN EXCEPTION FROM SECTION 13-7{B} TO CONTINUE A NONCONFORMING SIDEYARD AT 1781 VALLEY PARK AVENUE Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated July 12, 1990. Staff continued to recommend denial of this request. At the July 3, 1990, meeting, the Planning Commission approved a requested variance to allow the expansion of the dwelling with an existing substandard garage. However, the request to continue the first-floor nonconfonning sideyard of 3.21 feet to the second floor was continued for staff to respond to comments made by the applicant and to return with an interpretation of Section 13- 7(c)(3). Section 13-7(c)(3) reads: "Where existing walls are a minimum of, or more than three feet from the side property line, the wall may be expanded if at least 75 percent of the block as defined by the zoning ordinance, has the same or smaller nonconforming sideyards (excluding commercial and manufacturing uses). Measurements of side yards shall be approximated by use of aerial photos and field inspection." It is clear by the zoning definition of "block" that the entire block to 20th Street must be considered. Staff had previously calculated that only seven of the 14 other lots have a side yard of less than four feet. Previously it was stated that to meet the criteria of Section 13-7(c)(3) at least 75 percent of the lots would need to have sideyards 14 P.C. Minutes 7/17/90 of 3.21 feet or less to meet the criteria for exception. The applicant has correctly pointed out, however, that 10 of the 15 lots on the block have 50-foot widths rather than 45 feet. Therefore, staff believes that the correct interpretation is to determine if at least 75 percent of the lots have the same or smaller nonconforming sideyards in terms of the degree of the nonconformity. Therefore, percentage of lot width should be used rather than actual distance. Calculating it in terms of percentage, the subject lot's nonconforming sideyard is 7 .1 percent of the lot width. Using the same calculation on the other 14 lots shows that only six have the same or smaller percentage. This is far short of the needed 75 percent. Even if a very liberal interpretation of the ordinance is considered (that any other nonconforming sideyards be counted towards the 75 percent) staff measurements show that 10 of the 15 lots have nonconforming sideyards. This calculates to be only 66 percent To clarify statements made by the applicant, staff did encourage the applicant to apply for the exception rather than a variance because staff does not believe that findings for a variance can be made in this instance. There is clearly nothing extraordinary about the physical characteristics of the lot or even the characteristics of the existing structure which limit the applicant's ability to complete the proposed addition in conformance with the ordinance. IL should be noted that a precedent had been established in the past for side yard variances, and as a result., the zoning ordinance was amended to allow some exceptions since it was determined that variance findings could not be made. It should also be noted that three-foot sideyards are not considered adequate for two-story structures by the Fire Department, since a ladder cannot be placed in three feet of space. Comm. Peirce asked how this request could be approved if the numbers are correct. Mr. Schubach explained that this request is only to allow the applicant to continue an existing nonconforming sideyard setback. Staff feels, however, that the sideyard should be set in. Mr. Lee clarified that the exception relates to the upper story and whether or not the applicant should be allowed to encroach into the required sideyard setback. Comm. Peirce asked about the findings, stating that he did not feel adequate findings can be made according to the numbers which have been presented He did not feel that the Commission has authority to approve this exception. Mr. Lee stated that according to staff, Comm. Peirce is correct in his assertion that this project does not meet the criteria for approval. He also noted that appropriate findings could not be made for a variance request. He noted, however, that the applicant does have the option of filing for a variance hearing. Comm. Ketz asked whether the Fire Department considers three feet to be adequate for sideyards on 30-foot lots, to which Mr. Schubach explained that the Fire Department prefers not to have three-foot sideyards, based on safety and accessibility precautions. Comm. Moore, noting that only 20 feet is in question, asked if the applicant pulled in the second story 14 inches whether there be a problem, to which Mr. Schubach replied that the problem would then be solved. Comm. Moore stated that there comes a point when the rules are of benefit to no one. He could see no benefit in requiring this applicant to pull the second story in 14 inches . He felt that there should be provisions for reasonable designs which continue minor nonconformities which are innocuous. He was therefore convinced that there are grounds to approve this request. Mr. Schubach explained that staff does study these issues, and he stated that if the rules are incorrect, then the code should be changed to reflect those inadequacies. Comm. Ketz agreed that she could see no reason to require this applicant to pull in the second story, concurring that she could see no benefit to such a requirement. 15 P .C. Minutes 7 /17 /90 Mr. Lee explained the nonconforming provisions and the method by which the City allows or disallows the continuance of nonconformities. He noted that it is difficult to establish what is or is not "innocuous." He said that the way to change this situation is to recommend an amendment to the nonconforming section of the ordinance. Comm. Peirce, noting that there is an ordinance in place, stated that the rules should be followed. He stated that the limit must be somewhere. Hearing opened at 9:54 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell. Bernard Kersulis, 1781 Valley Park Avenue, applicant, addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that if one counts the number of nonconforming sideyards on the tract map, 13 of 15 are nonconforming, or a total of 87 percent of the block does not comply with the zoning ordinance; (2) continued by discussing staffs interpretation of the number of nonconformities; (3) stated that this project would not change the character of the neighborhood. Comm. Peirce stated that the code is very specific on this issue, and the numbers are clear on this matter. He did not feel there is any question about the interpretation, stating that this is a matter of math. Mr. Kersulis stated, in response to a question from Comm. Moore, if this request is denied, he will go ahead with the project as is; although, he felt this requirement is silly. Gerry Compton, 200 Pier Avenue, addressed the Commission and: (1) discussed overhanging roof impediments; (2) stated that three-foot sideyards are not a major problem to the Fire Department because the ladder can be placed in the neighbor's yard; (3) felt that this project will not be detrimental to anyone, stating that from a safety standpoint, this proposal is better that not approving it; (4) stated that he disagrees with the criteria established for this ordinance. Hearing closed at 10:01 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell. Chmn. Ingell questioned whether the Planning Commission has an option in this matter. Mr. Lee, in response to a question from Comm. Ketz regarding the outcome if this request is approved, explained that the decision would be subject to appeal. He noted that staff has given its recommendation, and approval would set an unfortunate precedent. Comm. Peirce felt that if the law is inadequate, it should be changed, not ignored. He noted that the law has only been in effect for several months now. Mr. Schubach gave background information on the impetus for establishing this ordinance. He stated that if the ordinance is not proper, it should be amended. Chmn. Ingell noted concern over setting a precedent. He agreed that if the ordinance is incorrect, it should be changed. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Chmn. Ingell, to approve staffs recommendation to deny this request for an exception. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comm. Peirce, Chmn. Ingell Comms. Ketz, Moore None Comm. Rue (TIE VOTE; MOTION FAILS.) Comm. Moore stated that he intended to be a strict interpreter of the code; however, this screams out for equity adjustment He did not fe~l approval would create any jeopardy. He favored approval based on the special circumstances of this project being very innocuous to the neighbors, the size of the extension , and the nature of the zone. 16 P.C. Minutes 7/17/90 Comm. Peirce stressed that if Lhe code is incorrect, it should be changed. He asserted that this is a nation of laws, not men; to which Comm. Moore countered that if this were a mechanical formula, the Planning Commission would not be necessary. Comm. Moore stated that the only option, given the regulations presented, would be to deny the project. He felt that some equity should be built into the way the City is run; however, he noted that change takes time. He noted, however, that he feels this is a silly situation. MOTION by Comm. Moore, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to approve staffs recommendation to deny the request for the exception. Comm. Moore stated that it is clear that the issue revolves around equity issues, not legal interpretations. He stated Lhat the City Council could appeal this decision and override the decision of the Planning Commission. He noted that he would unhappily support the motion to deny. He felt that some flexibility and equity should be incorporated into the ordinance. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Moore, Peirce, Chmn. lngell Comm. Ketz None Comm. Rue GP 89-3/ZON 89-8 --RECONSIDERATION OF AREA 10 FOR REDESIGNATION TO RESIDENTIAL SPECIFIC PLAN AREA AND REZONE TO SPECIFIC PLAN AREA AND ADOPTION OF THE NEGA TIYE DECLARATION Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated July 12, 1990. This area is located between Barney Court and Meyer Court, from south city boundary to the rear of the lots fronting on 2nd Street, also known as "Area 10." This action was initiated by the City Council and Planning Commission. On July 10, 1990, the City Council was unable to reach a majority vote on this issue, as the Fair Political Practices Commission confirmed that the mayor could not vote to break the previous two-two tie vote and also indicated that councilmember Midstokke could not vote. Without a majority of the total City Council, no decision can be made according to state Jaw. Therefore, as a compromise, the Council would like to consider a redesignation to a specific plan area which would allow two units for the larger lots with 4000 square feet or more, but would restrict the structures to 25 feet in height and 50 percent lot coverage and would require that the units be detached and front on a street as do single-family homes (where double frontage exists). On May 8, 1990, the City Council continued this item to July 10, 1990, to allow the City Attorney to seek a written advisory letter from the FPPC on whether an elected official residing within 300 feet of the subject site can vote to break a two-two tie. The tie vote occurred at the April 10, 1990, public hearing. Hearing opened and closed at 10: 13 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell who noted that no one appeared to speak on this issue. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve staffs recommendation, Resolution P.C. 90- 60. Comm. Moore commented that there was previously a great deal of public testimony related to this issue, and he noted that no one appeared to address the issue at this time. Comm. Peirce stated that the Planning Commission had no problem with this area; rather, the difficulty was at the City Council level. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Chmn. Ingell None None Comm. Rue 17 P.C. Minutes 7/17/90 STAFF ITEMS a) Memorandum BeurdiPlr Absences on City Commissions Mr. Schubach explained the memo, and stated that a letter would be sent to the Council asking for a waiver of the rules related to absences in the case of Comm. Moore's projected absences due to business. Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Comm. Peirce stated that no other Commissioners are in danger due to absences. b) List of Completed Projects for Inspection No action taken. c) Memorandum Be2ardin2" Plannim: Commjssjon Liaison for July 24, 1990, Cjty Council Meetipif No action taken; no one will attend. Mr. Schubach explained, in response to comments from Comm. Moore, that a Planning Commissioner usually attends a Council meeting only when the Commissions' decision differs from the staff recommendation. He noted, however, that a Commissioner can attend if he/she so chooses. d) Tentative Future flanoioi:: Commission A2enda No action taken. e) City Council Minutes of June 26, 1990 Comm. Ketz pointed out that only the odd-numbered pages of the minutes were included in the package, and she asked for corrected copies. COMMISSIONER ITEMS Comm. Peirce commented on several issues: (1) asked for an update on the flood survey which was required for the Power Stree t project; (2) asked to see a list of di scretionary action s by the Building Department and Public Works Deparnnent, and he asked why those ac ti ons were discretionary; (3) noted that some issues should be publicly heard, not approved by discretionary action; (4) noted strong concern that matters are being approved which should be seen by the Planning Commission, especially those issues related to the general plan and housing element; (5) wanted information related to how the Department of Public Works conducts business. Mr. Lee, in response to Comm. Peirce's comments, explained the Uniform Building Code as it relates to discretionary actions. Comm. Peirce noted concern over staff members interpreting certain issues which should clearly be addressed by the Commission. Comm. Moore, in response to the concerns raised by Comm. Peirce, stated that more communication is necessary between staff members and the Planning Commission. Chmn. Ingell asked Mr. Schubach to discuss these concerns with the City Manager. It was suggested that a workshop meeting be held soon with the Planning Commissioners and various department heads. 18 P.C. Minutes 7/17/90 Comm. Moore discussed the liquor control issue as related to saturation of certain businesses in certain areas and the Alcoholic Beverage Control board. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to adjourn at 10:31 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 July 17, 1990. Date 19 P.C. Minutes 7/17/90