HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC_Minutes_1990_08_21MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
HELD ON AUGUST 21, 1990, AT 7:00 P.M. IN 'l1IE Cl'IY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Meeting called to order at 7:00 P.M. by Comm. Ketz.
Pledge of Allegiance led by Comm. Peirce.
ROLLC.ALL
Present:
Absent:
Comms. Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Rue
Chmn. Ingell
Also Present: Michael Schubach, Planning Director; Casey Vose, City Attorney;
Sally White, Recording Secretary
Vice Chairman Ketz acted as chainnan of the meeting.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Chmn. Ketz pulled for discussion Item 4(g), Resolution P.C. 90-62, and stated that Condition
2(a) specifies only "entertainment dancing." She recollected that the Commission had also
approved dancing for customers. Comm Rue concurred that the Commission intended to allow
dancing by customers as well as entertainment dancing.
Chmn. Ketz directed staff to correct Resolution P.C. 90-62, Condition 4(g), to reflect that
dancing is allowed.
MOTION by Comm. Moore, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve the following consent calendar
items:
Planning Commission minutes of July 3, July 17, and August 7. 1990, as written;
Resolution P.C. 90-51, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND A
VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #22256 FOR A 1WO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 610 llTII
STREET, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS THE EASTERLY 38 FEET OF THE REMAINING PORTION
OF LOT 3, BLOCK 78 OF THE SECOND ADDffiON TO HERMOSA BEACH 'IRA.CT;
Resolution P.C. 90-52, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND A
VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #22062 FOR A FOUR-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 1634
PROSPECT AVENUE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS 1 AND 2. ANGELA HEIGHTS 'IRA.CT;
Resolution P.C. 90-53, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A VARIANCE REQUEST TO ALLOW A SECOND-
STORY ADDITION TO A NONCONFORMING SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING WITH A
SUBSTANDARD SIZE PARKING STALL (9 INCHES DEFICIENT) AT 1781 VALLEY PARK
AVENUE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 31, 'IRA.CT 15546;
Resolution P.C. 90-55, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #21787 FOR A 1WO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 952 EIGHTH
S1REET, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS 1 AND 2, WILSON AND LIND'S 'IRA.CT;
Resolution P.C. 90-56, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND A
1 P.C. Minutes 8/21 /90
VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #22216 FOR A 1WO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 830
CYPRESS AVENUE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 5, BLOCK C, 'IRACT 1677;
Resolution P.C. 90-59, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF 1HE CI1Y OF
HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DENYING A REQUEST FOR EXCEPTION, PURSUANT TO
SECTION 13-7(C)(3), TO CONTINUE A NONCONFORMING SIDEYARD UP TO 1HE SECOND
STORY AT 1781 VALLEY PARK AVENUE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 31, 1RACT 15546;
Resolution P.C. 90-62, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF 1HE CI1Y OF
HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ON-SALE
ALCOHOL AND LIVE ENTERTAINMENT, AND APPROVING A PARKING PLAN TO ALLOW THE
EXPANSION OF THE CAFE PORTION OF 1HE BUSINESS AND ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED
ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR 1018 HERMOSA AVENUE, "HERMOSA
BEACH COMEDY AND MAGIC CLUB," LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS 1, 2, AND 3, BLOCK 35,
FIRST ADDITION TO HERMOSA BEACH (As amended);
Resolution P.C. 90-63, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF 1HE CI1Y OF
HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND PARKING
PLAN TO ALLOW A HEALTII AND FITNESS FACILI1Y (WEIGHT 1RAINING), AND ADOPTION
OF A MITIGATED ENVIRONMENT.AL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 1106 HERMOSA
AVENUE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 7, BLOCK 35, FIRST ADDITION TO HERMOSA BEACH;
Resolution P.C. 90-66, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF 1HE CI1Y OF
HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A TEXT AMENDMENT TO
ADD INSTALLATION OF AUTOMOBILE AUDIO EQUIPMENT AND ALARMS AS A PERMITIED
USE IN THE C-3 ZONE WITH A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND ADOPTION OF AN
ENVIRONMENT.AL NEGATIVE DECLARATION;
Resolution P.C. 90-67, A RESOLUTION OF INTENTION OF 1HE PLANNING COMMISSION TO
STUDY A POSSIBLE TEXT AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE 13, NONCONFORMING BUILDINGS
AND USES, TO GIVE THE PLANNING COMMISSION GREATER DISCRETION IN .ALLOWING
THE CONTINUATION OF NONCONFORMING SIDEY.ARDS FOR ADDITIONS AND
EXPANSIONS.
With several abstentions (minutes of July 3, 1990: Ketz and Peirce; minutes of July 17, 1990:
Rue; minutes of August 7, 1990: Moore and Peirce; Resolution P.C. 90-51: Ketz and Peirce;
Resolution P.C. 90-52: Ketz and Peirce; Resolution P.C. 90-53: Ketz and Peirce; Resolution P.C.
90-55: Rue; Resolution P.C. 90-56: Rue; Resolution P.C. 90-59: Rue; Resolution P.C. 90-62:
Moore, Peirce; Resolution P.C. 90-63: Moore, Peirce; Resolution P.C. 90-66: Moore, Peirce;
Resolution P.C. 90-67: Moore, Peirce) no objections; so ordered.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC
No one appeared to address the Commission.
Jack Wood, on behalf of the applicant, asked if the next two agenda items could be heard
together as one item (interpretation of the C-3 pennitted use list and the conditional use permit
for South Bay Cycles).
Mr. Vose advised that it would be appropriate for the Commission to consider the two items
independently, noting that the decision made on the interpretation would have a direct bearing
on the action to be taken on the conditional use permit request.
Comm. Peirce stated that the interpretation issue differs from the CUP request. He therefore
favored discussing the items separately, as did Comm. Rue and Chmn. Ketz.
2 P.C. Minutes 8/21/90
INTERPRETATION OF C-3 ZONE PERMITI'ED USE LIST "AUTO SALES AND PARTS" TO
INCLUDE "MOTORCYCLE SALES AND PARTS" AS ONE IN THE SAME (CONTINUED FROM
MEETING OF AUGUST 7, 1990)
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated July 31. 1990. He suggested that the Commission direct
staff to consider motorcycle sales and parts the same as auto sales and parts sales.
Mr. Schubach suggested an alternative: to set this matter for public hearing as a text
amendment to add to the permitted use list or to eliminate motorcycle repair from the list.
At the July 17, 1990, meeting the Planning Commission continued the CUP for motorcycle
sales and repair to the meeting of August 21, 1990. The applicant desires to start parts sales
immediately, and therefore needs an interpretation; parts sales do not require a conditional
use permit.
Since the zoning ordinance permits motorcycle repair with a CUP and also auto sales and auto
parts sales, staff, including the City Attorney, has questioned whether motorcycles are too
closely related to warrant a text amendment which generally is necessary to add a new
permitted use to the list.
The permitted use, "motorcycle repair," is likely to be the most intensive of "sales," "parts," and
"repair," and therefore would seem to dictate that auto parts and auto sales have little or no
distinction to motorcycle sales and motorcycle parts sales. Further, motorcycle parts must be
sold in conjunction with motorcycle repair and is therefore an ancillary use.
The biggest distinction seems to be that motorcycle sales and parts sales may generate
indirectly, via customers, more noise. However, motorcycle repair would invariably generate
equal amounts of noise. If motorcycle sales and parts sales are not the same as auto sales and
parts sales, then possibly motorcycle repair via a text amendment should be eHminated from
the permitted use list.
In any case, no use can violate the City's noise ordinance directly or indirectly by customers or
others.
However, to allow uses which will obviously result in noise violations and therefore public
disturbances resulting in police problems should be carefully examined and possibly not
permitted. The reason for a permitted use list is to allow only desirable types of businesses into
the community.
If the Planning Commission detennines that auto sales and parts sales are not the same as
motorcycle sales and parts sales, a text amendment to consider adding these uses to the
permitted use list or removing motorcycle repair is warranted.
Mr. Vose explained that a decision on this interpretation does not mandate that a CUP be
approved for the South Bay Cycles. He stressed that these two items should be addressed
separately at this time. He said that the Commission, during its discussion, should decide
where such a use (motorcycle sales and parts) should be allowed in the city, or whether such a
use should be allowed at all in the city.
Hearing opened at 7: 10 P .M. by Chnm. Ketz.
Jack Wood, 200 Pier Avenue, Hermosa Beach, representing the applicant, addressed the
Commission and said that the only reference to motorcycles in the zoning code is related to
"motorcycle repair," which could lead to two conclusions: (a) when the code was written it was
desired to allow no motorcycle sales or parts sales in the city; or (b) it was felt that motorcycle
and auto parts are so closely related that no differentiation was made between the two.
3 P.C. Minutes 8/21/90
Mr. Wood continued and: (1) discussed sales, stating that auto sales establishments can sell
parts as an ancillary use, and auto parts stores sell parts in a retail sense; (2) said that many
establishments in the city sell customized autos, rather than the ordinary-type vehicles; (3)
displayed several parts, noting that many are merely "parts," and can be interchanged between
autos and motorcycles, depending on what piece fits what vehicle; (4) said that differentiating
between various parts and their uses is not the issue; (5) said that the issue is whether parts can
be sold by this applicant at his store, noting that the applicant already bas a CUP for auto
sales; (6) said that if motorcycles are included in "auto sales," the applicant then would also be
able to sell motorcycles; (7) said that yet another issue to be detennined is whether or not the
applicant should be granted a CUP to sell motorcycles.
Mr. Wood continued and: (1) stated that if motorcycles are determined to be different from
autos, the applicant would then be in limbo until a decision is made related to the verbiage in
the text; (2) said that if motorcycle parts are deemed to be the same as auto parts, the applicant
would then be able to sell motorcycle parts now.
Mr. Schubach clarified that auto sales do require a CUP; however, the applicant would need to
obtain a CUP to do repairs.
Comm. Rue, noting that the applicant is in possession of a CUP for auto sales, asked whether
that CUP needs to be revised since the use has changed, to which Mr. Schubach explained that
that CUP could be addressed if the layout of the building changes, which it bas not: only the use
bas changed. He further noted that the original use was to be that of an auto brokerage firm, as
opposed to auto sales.
Mr. Wood stressed the importance of clarifying the issues. He noted that the applicant is in
possession of CUP to sell autos. Therefore, if it is determined that autos and motorcycles are
closely related, the applicant could then sell motorcycles under this CUP without a text
amendment or a new CUP.
Mr. Vose disagreed with Mr. Wood's opinion, explaining that the applicant's current CUP
allows auto sales, not motorcycles. He explained that numerous activities are allowed in this
zone; however, possession of a CUP for one of those uses does not automatically allow other
uses as well
Mr. Wood asked, then, if the applicant would be able to sell motorcycle parts without having to
obtain a new CUP. He noted, however, that it is important to decide what constitutes "parts."
Mr. Wood did not feel that the discussion could continue until a decision is reached related to
what is being specifically addressed. He felt that "motorcycle parts" are the same as
"automobile parts." He hoped his demonstration proved that it is very difficult to differentiate
between the two. He noted that many other businesses openly sell parts without benefit of a
special permit. He further felt that "auto sales" is the same as "motorcycle sales." He said that
many motorcycles have also been sold in the city without a special permit. He continued by
stating that the question of "motorcycle repair" is moot in this interpretation because it
requires a CUP, and that is the next matter to be addressed.
Gerry Compton, 200 Pier Avenue, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and: (1) felt that
this use should be added with a text amendment, with benefit of a full public hearing; (2) noted
that all other permitted uses adopted in the past were discussed at a public hearing, and the
public should have an opportunity to speak to any proposed addition to the permitted use list.
Dave Reimer, 802 Monterey, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that
the main issue is that of an exact definition of "vehicle"; (2) asked if auto sales are permitted,
are truck sales also permitted, or are they different and therefore must have separate permits.
Alton Godson, 943 8th Street, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and: (1) felt that the
main issue at hand is that of repairs as related to the environmental impact to the
4 P.C. Minutes 8/21/90
neighborhoods, as well as surrounding property values; (2) discussed the issue of South Bay
Cycles, to which Chmn. Ketz informed him that the appropriate time to discuss that issue is
during the next public hearing on that specific matter.
Gary Ferguson, 819 North Harbor Drive, Redondo Beach, addressed the Commission and: (1)
felt that a text amendment would clarify the issue; (2) noted that he had written a letter to the
Commission in which the definitions for "automobile" from both Webster's Dictionary and the
Oxford Dictionary were included; (3) said that Webster's defines "automobile" as a self-
propelled vehicle, usually with four wheels; (4) stated that the Oxford definition does not
specify the number of wheels.
Hearing closed by Chmn. Ketz at 7:27 P.M.
Comm. Moore discussed the issue of the applicability of the existing CUP. He said that the
purpose of the CUP is to tailor the permit to each specific property. He noted, however, that it is
impossible to address every single detail of every situation in the code. He felt it is important
to clearly specify the intent, stating that if "motorcycle sales" is interpreted to be the same as
"auto sales," would the city then be able to impose additional conditions related to motorcycles
on the existing auto sales CUPs.
Mr. Vose explained that CUPs are issued for a precise use, whether it be auto sales or anything
else. Any intensification of the use would require an amendment, with a new public hearing, to
the original CUP. He further noted that even though several uses may be permitted from a
zoning standpoint, uses are not interchangeable, and a change in use would require a new
conditional use permit.
Mr. Vose explained, in response to comments from Comm. Moore, that motorcycle sales could
be determined by the Commission to be a use which is consistent with automobile sales, and
therefore should be allowed pursuant to a CUP as if it were a use listed on the permitted use list.
Comm. Moore stated that he would be comfortable with this method.
Comm. Peirce stated that if this use is to be added to the permitted use list, it should be a text
amendment with a full public hearing. He felt that the matter should be considered for public
hearing in the future; however. the next agenda item related to motorcycle repair could be
addressed at this time .
Comm. Rue felt that motorcycles are different from automobiles, as are trucks, and he agreed
that this matter should be considered as a text amendment with a public hearing. He stated
that these issues should be addressed along with the issue of heavy truck repair and other
repairs.
Comm. Moore disagreed, stating that the city should not get involved with every single new use
or service thereby necessitating new public hearings. He felt that the permitted use list may
almost be too specific as it is. He felt comfortable with the interpretation that "motorcycle
sales" is a use consistent with "automobile sales." He did not feel that a new public hearing is
necessary to address "motorcycle sales."
Comm. Peirce noted, however, that technological advances produce new uses which cannot be
foreseen and which could prove to be troublesome. He therefore felt it is appropriate to address
such new uses in order to preclude disturbances.
MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Rue, to adopt staffs alternative
recommendation, to set this matter for public hearing as a text amendment to add to the
permitted use list. or to eliminate motorcycle repair from the list.
Chmn. Ketz noted that the code is not static, and she felt it is appropriate to have a public
hearing on this matter.
5 P.C. Minutes 8/21/90
Comm. Rue noted that it is important for the Commission to address uses which would affect
the environment.
Comm. Moore, noting that the conditional use pennit itself provides protection, disagreed with
the need for new public hearings.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms.Rue,Peirce,Chinn.Ketz
Comm. Moore
None
Comm. Ingell
CUP 90-19 --CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW SALES OF
MOTORCYCLES. ACCESSORIES. AND MINOR REPAIR AT 638 -640 PACIFIC COAST
mGHWAY. SOUTH BAY CYCLES {CONTINUED FROM MEETING OF JULY 17. 19901
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated August 15, 1990. Staff recommended that the Planning
Commission approve a conditional use pennit amendment, subject to the conditions specified
in the proposed resolution. As an alternative, the Commission could deny the request because
of the unique and unusual noise characteristics of motorcycles and the proximity of
residential uses.
On July 17, 1990, the Planning Commission continued this request because of concerns related
to noise and to obtain additional information.
In response to concerns previously noted by the Planning Commission, the applicant has
indicated that he is willing to place the following restrictions on his business: (1) Customers
arriving on motorcycles would not be allowed to use the rear parking area. This would be
controlled by a chain across the driveway monitored by an attendant; (2) Baffles would be
temporarily installed on motorcycles using the driveway to get to the service area; and (3)
Hours of operation would be limited to Monday through Saturday from 10:00 AM. to 6:00 P.M.
and on Sunday from 10:00 AM. to 4:00 P.M.
The applicant has indicated that he contacted noise consultants to prepare a noise study for the
proposed business. However, none were willing to conduct a study for this type of business
because of the unpredictability of use and operation. Apparently, according to the applicant,
the consultants could conduct a study of this business only after it was opened for business.
Staff included several additional recommended conditions in accordance with the applicant's
suggestions.
In regard to the bar and stools which have been provided inside the business, staff does not
believe that a snack bar is an appropriate use in conjunction with a sales business of this type,
as it would constitute a snack bar. There is clearly not adequate parking to support the
assembly potential of this bar with stools. Therefore, staff is recommending a condition that
snacks cannot be sold, and there can be no seating around the bar. Only complimentary
beverages may be provided for customers of the business.
Even with these conditions, staff is concerned about the assembly potential of this business
because of the variety of items to be sold and services offered and the potential violations of the
City's noise ordinance that may be caused by customers.
Therefore, potential loitering and noise problems may occur which will require excessive
police support to control and monitor. As such, staff also recommended a condition that the
police chief will have the authority to require the presence of police-approved security
personnel, paid for by the applicant. As additional protection, the Planning Commission may
wish to require that the applicant provide the City with a security performance bond that the
6 P.C. Minutes 8/21/90
'l Police Department may draw upon should excessive police services be required to monitor and
control the premises. Such a condition is included in the proposed resolution.
Staff also recommended a condition to require a six-month review of the business, which shall
include an independent noise consultant's study of the business to be paid for by the applicant.
Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Comm. Peirce, explained that a "baffle" is a
device which can be added to a motorcycle's mufiler system to reduce noise.
Comm. Moore asked whether the City's noise ordinance includes provisions for a peak noise
period or just an average. He noted that the average could be much too loud.
Mr. Schubach explained that the noise ordinance has several standards which must be met,
one of which is that the noise level must include peak noise periods as well as average periods.
He stated that the noise must be within the standards during all periods. He said that the
maximum level is 85 decibels.
Comm. Peirce, noting that the Commission is now addressing a CUP for motorcycle repairs,
asked whether parts sales should be considered in conjunction with the repair activity, to
which Mr. Vose responded in the affirmative, but he explained that independent parts sales are
not included in the use.
Mr. Schubach stated that the parts in this case can be only an ancillary use, explaining that
someone cannot just come in off the street and purchase motorcycle parts.
Public Hearing opened at 7:43 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz.
Jack Wood, 200 Pier Avenue, Hermosa Beach, representing the applicant, addressed the
Commission and: (1) said that the applicant made a good faith application for motorcycle
sales, parts, and repairs, however, the applicant cannot proceed at this time due to a
technicality; (2) said that the applicant would have applied for the appropriate permits had he
known they were necessary.
Mr. Vose clarified that, as a result of the interpretation of the Commission, the application is
not permitted at this time since the sale of motorcycles is not on the permitted use list for this
zone, since it is not being considered the same as automobile sales. He stated that, if
motorcycle sales is added to the permitted use list at some future date, the applicant would then
be able to proceed. He noted, however, that because of the ambiguity of the code at the present
time, the applicant is precluded from engaging in motorcycle sales in this zone under any
condition.
Mr. Wood disagreed, stating that at the time the applicant applied for the permit, he was led to
believe by staff that motorcycle sales was considered to be the same as automobile sales, to
which Mr. Vose responded that the interpretation itself is a matter to be taken up by the
Planning Commission.
Mr. Wood stated that the applicant should be given an opportunity to conduct his entire
operation; i.e., sales, repair, and service. to which Mr. Vose stated. then, that this request could
be withdrawn until such time that the Commission makes a decision as to whether or not
motorcycle sales should be added to the permitted use list. The applicant could then apply for
the entire use as suggested.
Mr. Wood said that they will stipulate that they will drop the request for motorcycle sales at
this time and be heard only on the request for repairs. He said that the applicant will be broke
by the time a decision is made.
Mr. Wood stated that when he was consulted by the applicant on this proposed business, he told
the applicant that it was the appropriate zone for such a use; however, he warned the applicant
7 P.C. Minutes 8/21/90
that a conditional use permit was required, and it would be very difficult to obtain such a
permit. He advised that the city would find motorcyclists unsuitable for the area; therefore,
great obstacles would need to be surmounted. He noted that the applicant has spent a great deal
of money on this business, and he should be given an opportunity to start business. He
continued by stating that they had to suggest conditions to staff for this project.
Mr. Wood continued and stated that unless the applicant is given an opportunity to open, he
cannot prove that the business can be operated within the guidelines of the city. He noted that
Harley-Davidsons are legal in this state. He stated that the area is already very noisy, and the
operation of this business will not affect the noise factor one way or the other. He noted that
this is the appropriate zone in which to operate such a business. and mitigation measures
should be imposed where they can. He said that many of the residents cannot be appeased, and
he questioned whether the residents just want the building to remain vacant.
Mr. Wood stated that the applicant is willing to keep the noise down and to provide a sound
study; however, he must be given a chance to operate. He further noted that customers will not
be allowed to operate on the streets; bikes will not be allowed to park in the rear; repairs will be
done indoors and during normal business hours; and landscaping could also be added to
mitigate the noise.
Mr. Wood stated that the applicant has a right to operate under the constraints of a conditional
use permit. He said that a business cannot be prohibited just because the city doesn't want it
because it will create noise and density. He noted, however, that this business did not create the
noise and density problems in the city. He said that the concept of a permitted use list having
to specify every single permitted use is not appropriate because there are thousands of
exceptions.
Comm. Rue questioned, however, instances where a business is completely undesirable in a
city, to which Mr. Wood responded that all uses are permitted except those which are illegal.
Paul Hutchins, 1015 17th Street, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and: (1) supported
approval of the project, stating that Harley-Davidson riders are upstanding citizens; (2) did not
feel it is fair to persecute this applicant, especially when other businesses in the area are
creating problems; (3) stated that selling Harleys provides work for Americans; (4) said that
Harleys are works of art and are very expensive; (5) commented that this shop would bring
more business to the area; and (6) said that Harley riders are courteous.
Mr. Vose clarified that the only issue that should be addressed at this time is the repair of
motorcycles, not the sale.
Dave Reimer 802 Monterey, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that the
only real issue is whether or not this business should be allowed to operate; (2) noted that the
opposition is coming from neighbors who fear the image of motorcycle riders; (3) said that
Harleys are very upscale, and this business will. provide a service which is needed in the area;
(4) disagreed with staffs recommendation that this business should be patrolled by the police,
and noted that there should be more concern over the adult-type shops in the area; (5) discussed
the issue of motorcycle repairs and stated that this will be a low-volume type business; (6)
stressed that these are motorcycle artists. not grease monkeys; (7) stated that very expensive
parts will be used, and the utmost care will be used in doing the repairs: (8) felt that these
applicants should be given a chance to prove themselves to the surrounding neighbors.
Craig McBride, 420 Manhattan Avenue, Manhattan Beach, addressed the Commission and: (1)
said that many cars are sold along the highway in the area; (2) said that his comments relate to
all aspects of this business, not just repairs; (3) stated that what the city is doing with respect to
this issue is ridiculous; (4) stated that illegal cars are being sold all along the highway: (5) said
that this is a free country, and the applicants should be given a chance.
8 P.C. Minutes 8/21/90
-Roger Czuleger, 923 6th Street, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that
the main issue is noise, however, people are complaining that their property values will be
lowered; (2) stated that there is a difference between repairs and accessories; (3) disagreed with
staffs recommendation to require police patrol, and suggested that the adult stores be
monitored instead; (4) said that this business will not be a debiment to the neighborhood; (5)
did not feel that the business will lower property values; (6) stated that the city should address
more important issues.
Alton Godson, 943 8th Street, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that it
is a matter of opinion as to what type of business will be a benefit or debiment to the
neighborhood; (2) said that the main issue is noise; (3) stated that even though he feels Harleys
are great bikes. they create too much noise; (4) did not feel that the issue is what types of people
will frequent this business; (5) stated that the environmental issues must be addressed related
to this proposed use; (6) noted that the economic concerns of the applicants are valid. however.
the real issue is noise; (7) noted concern over reduced property values in relation to an increase
in noise created by motorcycles; (8) felt that there are other more appropriate locations on the
highway where motorcycle repairs could be done, noting that the noise from this particular
location travels directly up the hill; (9) said that motorcycle repairs will draw additional
motorcycles to the area, which will in turn create more noise.
Larry Horowitz, 802 The Strand. Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and: (1) stated
that a two-block area along the highway near this proposed business contains several boarded-
up businesses. which is quite undesirable for any area; (2) noted concern over the loss of taxes
generated from such businesses; (3) said that this business will cater to an upscale clientele,
who will in turn spend their money at other locations in the city; (4) said he would rather spend
his money in this town, as opposed to having to go to other cities for motorcycle repairs.
George Laterra, 1906 McKay. addressed the Commission and felt that the applicants should be
given a chance to operate their business.
Steve Constantine, 836 1st Street, addressed the Commission and: (1) said he lives in the hill
section, and the only noise he hears is from the ambulances and police cars; (2) favored
approval of this request, stating that it would bring him more income as well, since he owns an
auto detail business in the city; (3) felt that the applicants should be given a chance to operate.
Rah Jiu, Manhattan Beach, addressed the Commission and: (1) said that the applicant is very
hard-working and should be given a chance; (2) did not feel that motorcycles would decrease the
property value in this area; (3) felt that there is a need in the city for this type of business.
Gaylin King, 72 The Strand. addressed the Commission and: ( 1) described her childhood terror
of motorcyclists; (2) did not want today's children t o be afraid, as she was: (3) did not feel that
either motorcycle sales or repairs are conducive to a quiet family neighborhood.
Mark Mason, 420 15th Street, Manhattan Beach, addressed the Commission and: (1) stated
that there is a stigma attached to Harley riders; (2) stated that this business will not attract
undesirables.
Gary Ferguson, 819 North Harbor Drive, Redondo Beach, addressed the Commission and: (1)
supported approval of the repair shop; (2) felt that the applicants have not been treated fairly;
(3) said that he rides a Harley, and he would like to have a repair shop in the area; (4) said that
the applicants are very conscientious; (5) noted that the applicants have posted signs in an
attempt to mitigate noise; (6) hoped that the Commission would approve this request.
Jeannine Bringman, 831 6th Street, addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that
personalities, cultural backgrounds, and nationality or make of vehicle are not at issue here;
(2) noted that the real issue is that of noise which did not exist before this shop existed; (3)
stated that the noise will continue once this shop is operating; (4) noted that things have
already started happening, and if caution is not used now, there will be great difficulty in
9 P.C. Minutes 8/21/90
curbing problems in the future; (5) opposed approval of the CUP, based solely on the issue of
increased noise.
Lars Jacobsen, 600 and 700 Pacific Coast Highway, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission
and: (1) said his business is very close to the proposed business; (2) favored approval, stating
that this business will be of benefit to the area; (3) stated that if all the shops looked as
attractive as this one, property values in the area would increase.
Don Turk, 839 6th Street, addressed the Commission and: (1) favored approval of the shop; (2)
said it would be convenient to have a shop in the city; (3) noted that the noise is louder during
the summer when there is more traffic in general, and this business should therefore not be
held responsible for the noise.
Robert Roselle, 772 18th Street, addressed the Commission and: (1) described his terrifying
experience with motorcyclists many years ago; (2) noted, however, that along with his
prejudice against motorcyclists, he has strong prejudices in favor of free enterprise; (3) said
that the noise problem can be mitigated and can be checked for enforcement; (4) felt that if the
applicants are willing to cooperate, they should be given a chance to operate within the
guidelines of the city's noise ordinance.
Robert Chamberlain, 6th Street, addressed the Commission and: (1) said that his business is
very close to the proposed business; (2) noted that there are more problems associated with the
adult stores in the area than with anything else; (3) stated that the applicants are young and
energetic and should be given a chance to operate.
Jim Wagner, 25th Street, Manhattan Beach, addressed the Commission and: (1) said that he
owns a Harley; (2) said that Harleys are superior to the Japanese competition; (3) stated that
Harley riders are very courteous and do not cause disturbances; (4) said that many Harley
riders are professional people who enjoy the camaraderie; (5) said that the real issue at hand is
noise; (6) said that the noise was measured by the applicant at the shop, and the street noise,
especially from buses, was much noisier than the shop itself; (7) outlined the various readings
which were obtained during the noise test, stating that the Harleys were measured at 84
decibels, much lower than other noises in the area; (8) stated that the Harley noise level is
within the city's noise ordinance; (9) stated that there is a problem related to the public's
misconception of Harley riders.
Susan Grafton, 802 Monterey, addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that the noise will
remain whether or not this business is approved; (2) said that people who live near the
commercial areas must learn to live with the noise problems.
Leroy Barnum. Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and: (1) said that additional noise
in the area would just create more problems; (2) hoped that these applicants were not mislead
into thinking that they could operate here; (3) said that the business has already opened.
Don Karosevich, 840 15th Street, addressed the Commission and: (1) had no doubt that this is
an upscale shop; (2) noted concern over the noise and stated that the issue is an environmental
matter; (3) said that a mistake was already made with the Hermosa Beach Pavilion and he
hoped that a mistake would not be made here; (4) said that the police cannot adequately enforce
the noise ordinance; (5) said that the business will draw additional bikes to the area; (6) said
that the installation of baffles will only temporarily address the problem, explaining that the
noise will continue down the highway; (7) asked that the Commission consider the
surrounding neighbors in respect to the noise factor.
William Campbell, applicant, addressed the Commission and: (1) said that he has posted a sign
noting rules to be followed by customers; (2) explained that free baffles will be installed to those
coming into the shop; (3) stated that he intends to run an upscale store; (4) stated that his offer
to install free baffles would actually be a benefit to the city, rather than a detriment.
10 P.C. Minutes 8/21 /90
Scott Devereaux, 812 4th Street, addressed the Commission and: (1) favored approval of the
request; (2) said he will be one of the first customers of the business, especially so that he can
get the free bafiles installed; (3) said that this is a very attractive shop, and the property values
must be going up. rather than down; (4) said that the car wash next door creates more noise
than this business would.
Linda Matarazza addressed the Commission and: (1) said that her children are not afraid of
motorcycles; (2) said that the applicants are reputable businessmen; (3) said there are more
problems with the porno shops than with this type of business; (4) noted that no test driving
will be allowed; (5) felt that the applicants should be given a chance to operate.
Dave Reimer, 802 Monterey, addressed the Commission and asked if Harleys are so noisy, why
weren't they heard tonight when people drove up to City Hall.
Jim Sullivan, 1051 8th Street, addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that the issue has
nothing to do with the character or integrity of Harley riders; (2) said that the main issue is
noise; (3) noted that the applicants are willing to accept restrictive conditions; (4) noted
concern over people riding bikes up and down his street; (5) felt that if the applicants are
willing to accept the restrictive conditions, they should be given an opportunity to operate; (6)
note.d that the City can enforce the conditions; (7) suggested that the applicants be required to
post a bond or accept monetary penalties if they do not comply.
William Campbell, applicant, stated that he is willing to put something in writing, and he will
agree to a six-month review of the business. He stressed that he needs an opportunity to prove
the business, and regular business hours will be followed.
Bob Bringman, 831 6th Street, addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that he has called
other Harley shops and found out that Harleys register 85 decibels on the noise meter when
they are factory made with stock mufflers; (2) not ed. however, that after-market mufflers can
be added later which are much louder; (3) described various additions which can be made and
which can register up to 125 decibels; (4) said that he was informed by Commander Altfeld of
the Police Department that the noise should not exceed 65 decibels on the highway, but he was
informed by Comm. Moore that that is the average, not the peak; (5) said that it is a popular
practice to install after-factory pipes which are much louder; (6) noted concern over the noise
along the highway: (7) noted concern over motorcycles accelerating away from the business.
Mary Herbert, 825 7th Street, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and: (1) opposed the
additional noise: (2) agreed that the business is attractive, but it has generated additional noise
already. even though it is not officially opened.
Mike D'Auteuil, 831 8th Street, addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that the noise cannot
be controlled now; (2) said that this is not a question of who rides or buys Harleys; (3) said that
the applicant will have no control over the riders once they leave the shop; (4) stated that there
has been a noticeable impact on traffic generated by this business already; (5) noted concern
over bikes accelerating away from the front of this business, explaining that the noise travels
right up the hill and does not dissipate; (6) said that this shop will generate too many bikes to
the shop; (7) urged the Commissioners to allow only compat:t'ble uses in the community, of
which this is not; (8) asked that this request be denied.
Clayton Searing, Redondo Beach, addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that the applicants
have agreed to do everything possible to reduce noise; (2) felt that the applicants should be given
an opportunity to prove themselves.
Tony Vallejos, 809 Cypress, addressed the Commission and: (1) saw no reason why this
applicant should be denied; (2) noted that this is a very small congested city: (3) favored
approval, stating that this business will be good for the community.
11 P.C. Minutes 8/21/90
Allison D'Auteuil, 831 6th Street, addressed the Commission and: (1) opposed approval of the
permit; (2) said that the business has already opened, and the noise and traffic has increased
dramatically; (3) said that bikes are already gathering; (4) noted that many restrictions can be
added to a CUP, but she questioned the reality of actual enforcement of the conditions; (5)
displayed a photo depicting at least a dozen bikes parked in front of the shop; (6) noted concern
over the number of bikes, even before the official opening; (7) said that the bikes come and go as
a group, and the noise is unacceptable.
Michelle Campbell, wife of the applicant, addressed the Commission and: (1) explained that
they are already open because they have received approval to sell motorcycle apparel, however,
one cannot make a living on that alone; (2) stressed that they must be given a chance; (3) stated
that they were practically told by the Planning Department that there would be no problem
converting from an auto brokerage firm to a motorcycle sales shop; (4) stated that they are
attempting to make a living, and they are running out of funds; (5) said that there are already
motorcycles on the highway, and they are not there just because of this store; (6) said that other
business owners in the area have not noticed any increased noise.
Ann O'Dell, 831 6th Street, addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that much of the
testimony has been given by non-residents of the city; (2) said that this shop has already
created a great impact on the neighborhood; (3) noted that the motorcycle noise is already so
loud that conversation must be halted when the bikes are coming and going; (4) presented a
petition with 118 signatures of people opposed to the granting of the proposed repair shop; (5)
read aloud the wording on the petition and submitted it to the Plaooiog Director.
Maiko Saravia, applicant, addressed the Commission and: (1) stressed that this business will
remain, no matter what action they must take; (2) urged that everyone work together to find a
solution to the problem; (3) asked that they be allowed to open so that they can prove
themselves; (4) noted that the business can be reviewed, and if it is not in compliance, then it
can be shut down; (5) said that they are willing to sign any type of agreement so that they can
open; (6) stressed that they cannot survive economically unless they are allowed to operate; (7)
stated that they are attempting to control the noise at the business, noting that signs have been
posted; (8) said that he was under the impression that America is the land of opportunity, and
he asked for the chance to open the business: (9) stated that the city needs this type of business;
(10) said that they cannot survive by selling only motorcycle clothing; (11) said that they
cannot be expected to provide baffles to everyone on the highway; (12) said that this will be the
first motorcycle shop in Hermosa Beach, even if it takes them twenty years to obtain approval.
Lee Barrett, 991 6th Street, addressed the Commission and: (1) noted concern over possible
approval, stating that he does not feel it would be good for the city; (2) questioned how the noise
could be reduced up and down the streets, even if baffles are provided and installed; (3) stated
that the quality of life issue must be taken into account; (4) felt that approval of this use would
only be detrimental; (5) stated that if this business is approved it would only further erode the
quality of life in the city; (6) felt that Hermosa tends to be more lax on these issues, compared to
other surrounding cities.
Rick Green, 3200 Manhattan Avenue, addressed the Commission and favored approval of the
request, stating that he feels the noise problems can be mitigated.
Jim Housley, 934 7th Street, addressed the Commission and: (1) said that the applicants are
very convincing about their being able to control the noise; (2) noted concern, however, that
they cannot actually control the noise at all; (3) noted that if the CUP is granted, it would be
nearly impossible to shut this business down if problems do arise.
Ernie O'Dell, 931 6th Street, addressed the Commission and: (1) said that the intent is not to
close businesses down; (2) felt, however, that businesses should be compatible with the
surrounding neighborhoods; (3) felt that the noise issue would make this use incompatible with
the surrounding area; (4) felt that if auto sales exceed the approved noise levels, they too should
be denied; (5) noted that certain uses, suc_h as jet engine repairs, are legal, however, they are not
12 P.C. Minutes 8/21/90
compatible with neighborhoods; (6) felt that the conditional use pennit process is in place to
address the issue of compatibility.
Al Huber, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and: (1) felt that the noise created by this
shop would impact only a few surrounding neighbors; (2) said that he has noticed no difference
in the traffic and noise created by this shop; (3) stated that other existing uses are much more
incompatible this the proposed use; (4) favored approval of the request.
Sherry Colburn, 839 6th Street, addressed the Commission and: ( 1) noted concern over the
noise created by motorcycles; (2) said that if something could be done to guarantee that the
noise would not travel up the hill, she would not be opposed, however, she did not feel that there
is any such guarantee available.
Gerry Compton, 832 7th Street, addressed the Commission and: (1) said that most of the noise
generated by this business will occur on weekends and during the evenings, and he feels this
would present a major problem to the neighboring residents; (2) said that the noise level on the
highway is already above the acceptable limit, and adding to it would be inappropriate; (3)
stated that this business has disregarded the city's rules and regulations, noting that they
blatantly stocked their shop with motorcycles and accessories when they had received
approval only to sell clothing; (4) said that if the applicants are unwilling to comply with the
requirements of a simple business license, it seems likely that they would not comply with the
requirements of a complicated conditional use pennit.
Mr. Compton continued and: (1) noted concern over the possible test drive route; (2) noted
concern over the lack of control of riders on the side streets in the area; (3) doubted whether the
bikes could be confined only to the highway; (4) did not feel mitigating circumstances are
available related to the noise generated by this shop; (5) said that the owners are also violating
the city's parking requirements, because several bikes are being parked in each space and there
has been parking on the driveway.
Mr. Compton continued and: (1) doubted whether anyone would want to live so close to this
type of business; (2) noted concern over reduced property values as a result of this shop; (3)
stated that the applicants have proved that they cannot control their customers; (4) referred to
the previously submitted petition and explained that all 118 signatures were from people living
in the immediate vicinity; (5) noted that only apparel is being sold, and the noise is unbearable,
and he questioned how much it would increase if repairs and sales are approved.
Mr. Compton continued and: (1) described a tape he made depicting a biker social in
Hollywood; (2) noted concern over the location of the proposed shop in relation to the
surrounding businesses; (3) referred to the actual conditions of the CUP and noted the difficulty
in enforcing noise limits; (4) said that no testimony has been presented giving proof of the
actual loudness of the bikes themselves; (5) noted that no sound study has been provided; (6)
questioned what the noise limit is in the city, noting that the bikes must exceed that limit; (7)
questioned where the test route will be located; (8) expressed sympathy for the owners and their
monetary outlay, however, he felt it was a mistake for them to proceed before obtaining
approval; (9) noted, though, that he has more concern for the potential decrease in property
values in the area; (10) stated that threats against the neighbors are not appropriate under any
circumstances; (11) felt that the applicants have been misled in regard to their being able to
obtain approval for this business.
Mr. Compton concluded and: (1) noted that even if there is already traffic. more traffic will be
created by this business; (2) noted concern over bikes accelerating away from the front of this
business and the attendant noise; (3) referred to the city vision and stated that this use does not
add to the community vision.
Gene Rock, El Segundo, addressed the Commission and: ( 1) did not understand why the city is
so hard on applicants; (2) noted that the applicants are willing to comply with the
13 P.C. Minutes 8/21/90
requirements; (3) expressed anger that applicants are not able to operate, and he felt that they
should be given a chance.
Jackie Tagliaferro, 934 7th Street, addressed the Commission and: (1) noted that most of the
speakers who favored approval do not even live near the shop; (2) noted concern over the noise
in the area; (3) opposed approval, based solely on the issue of noise.
Patty Adams, 427 Manhattan Avenue, addressed the Commission and: (1) sympathized with
the surrounding neighbors, however, she felt that the city needs this business; (2) stated that
this business will bring in people who will spend additional money elsewhere in the city while
they are in town.
Jack Wood, on behalf of the applicant, addressed the Commission and: (1) noted that this is a
difficult issue; (2) stated that this country was built on the free enterprise system and
democracy; (3) asked that the rhetoric surrounding motorcycle riders be disregarded; (4)
suggested instead that the focus be on whether or not this business should be allowed to open;
(5) said that the neighbors moved to the area knowing full well that they were near a
commercial area; (6) stated that businesses, rather than homeowners, pay the bulk of taxes in
any city; (7) said that this has become a battle between the residents and the business; (8)
stressed that this is not residential neighborhood, but rather a commercial area with
residential near it; (9) said that the applicants should be given an opportunity to operate their
business within certain reasonable guidelines.
Public Hearing closed at 9:43 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz.
Comm. Peirce asked questions related to the noise limit for automotive uses, to which Mr.
Schubach replied that he was not certain of the State requirements; however, the city's
maximum limit is measured from the property line. He stated that the city's noise code relates
to private property, and the Motor Vehicle Code addresses vehicular noise. He explained that
both the local police and the highway patrol have purview over the enforcement of the noise
codes.
Comm. Rue noted that in every CUP hearing, standards must be addressed that relate to issues
such as noise.
Comm. Peirce felt that if the motorcycles are eliminated from the rear parking lot and the
garage doors are kept closed, noise in those areas could be reduced. He felt. however, that there
is no mitigation measure for the noise which is created as the motorcycles pull away from the
street in front of this shop to merge into traffic. He therefore pointed out that if the shop were
not there, these bikes would not be pulling away from the front of it. He felt that this issue is
indeed within the purview of the Planning Commission in this regard and should be addressed.
He continued by stating that if the noise problem cannot be mitigated, the use should not be
permitted and the conditional use permit should not be approved. He stated that things which
interfere with the neighbors cannot be allowed.
Chmn. Ketz felt that the noise will exceed the maximum levels allowed by the city, and she did
not feel that the noise can be mitigated. She felt that this business would pose a real problem
for the surrounding neighbors, and she did not feel that baffles would solve the problem.
Comm. Peirce commented that no solid proof has been presented related to the noise. He noted
that even if one Harley is right at the acceptable level of 85 decibels, several Harleys traveling
together with a reading of 85 decibels would be unacceptable. He stated that he would vote
against approval unless he can be convinced that there is a mitigation for noise as bikes pull
away from the front of the shop.
Comm. Moore stated that it is clear that many businesses can attract motorcycles which will
pull away and create noise. He had hoped that more information had been presented related to
14 P.C. Minutes 8/21/90
police problems and their experience to date in trying to enforce motorcycle standards on the
streets of this city. to which Mr. Schubach replied that he knows of no such data.
Comm. Moore stated that he did not feel the noise impact of this business can be completely
mitigated; however, he felt that it can be mitigated to some extent, particularly on the grounds
of the property itself. He felt that the suggested restrictions in the CUP are adequate and
enforceable for the grounds of the business itself. He stated, though, that the topic of noise
generated as a result of additional motorcycles coming to this business is still at issue, and he
could see no mitigation measure for this occurrence. He did not. however, find that to be
enough of a reason to deny this request.
Comm. Moore noted that Hermosa Beach is a very small city; however, when it became a city, a
choice was made to take on the responsibility of providing all types of businesses which are
appropriate in cities. He stated that this is a legitimate business, and it deserves a place in any
city, including Hermosa Beach. He could think of no other location in town that would be more
appropriate than that which is now being proposed.
Comm. Moore stated that he could support approval of the repair business, with the conditions
imposed by staff. He said that it is the responsibility of the Commission to review the suggested
conditions themselves to determine whether they are adequate to mitigate the problems, not to
completely reject the use altogether.
Jack Wood, on behalf of the applicant, addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that if the
business were allowed to open, a survey could be done to determine the number of motorcycles
coming to the business; (2) noted, however, that no such numbers can be obtained if the
business is not operating; (3) felt that pertinent data would be valuable in making a decision; (4)
noted that the applicants can tell their customers the importance of adhering to the rules; (5)
stated that the applicant should be given the chance to enforce the conditions; (6) said that the
business can be monitored to ensure compliance; (7) noted that if compliance is not possible,
the business could be reviewed and closed.
Chmn. Ketz noted that two public hearings have been held on this issue, and no specific data
has thus far been presented.
Mr. Wood countered by stating that the only way the data can be provided is to actually monitor
the business itself. He further noted that the number of bikes traveling up and down the side
streets can be measured.
Mr. Vose advised that the public hearing should be reopened if the Commission chooses to hear
more testimony.
Chmn. Ketz and Comm. Peirce both agreed that they had heard enough testimony upon which
to base their decisions.
Comm. Peirce explained that he reached his decision on the fact that, even though additional
data could be gathered, all of the information must be examined. His conclusion is that people
leaving the shop create noise to the effect that there can be no mitigation. He noted. however.
that he would be willing to continue the matter in order to receive additional information on
noise, but nothing else. He stressed that he does not feel there is a mitigation measure for noise
created by bikes leaving the front of the shop. He felt that enough testimony has been heard
already on the other issues.
Comm. Rue agreed that the main issue is noise, and no objective data has been presented. He
said that this business is open and selling apparel. Testimony has been given that the noise is
getting worse. He felt that this use is intrusive for the neighborhood, and based on the
testimony already received, he said he would vote against approval. He further felt that the
applicant would prefer that this matter not be continued again in order that the matter may be
appealed directly to the City Council for decision.
15 P.C. Minutes 8/21/90
Comm. Rue felt that there are other locations in other cities which are appropriate for intense
uses such as the one being proposed. He stated that if additional information related
specifically to the noise only could be provided, he would not object to another continuance.
Chnm. Ketz preferred to vote on the matter at this time, noting that it has been discussed at
several public hearings already.
MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Chmn. Ketz, to deny approval of the conditional use
permit, based on the fact that the noise generated from the motorcycles pulling away from the
front of the shop cannot be mitigated.
Comm. Moore asked whether Comm. Peirce was referring to noise coming from the business
itself, or noise created by customers coming to the business from the highway, to which Comm.
Peirce replied that he does not choose to make a differentiation in his motion because he felt
that they are part and parcel of the same thing.
Comm. Moore disagreed, stating that that fact is very important, noting that the conditions
presented very clearly show that the noise on the property itself can be managed and can be
enforced. He felt that Comm. Peirce's concerns relate to noise created by customers leaving the
property, not noise on the property itself.
Comm. Rue did not feel that the accumulation of the noise can be mitigated or controlled in any
event. He did not feel that the owners can control the noise generated by the business.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms.Peirce,Rue,Chnm.Ketz
Comm. Moore
None
Comm. Ingell
Chmn. Ketz announced that the decision of the Planning Commission can be appealed by
writing to the City Council within ten days.
Recess taken from 10:05 P.M. until 10:13 P.M.
Chnm. Ketz explained to the audience the Commission's policy of not meeting past midnight.
Noting the lateness of the hour, she asked whether anyone would be interested in having their
item continued to the next meeting, to which one person responded that he would favor a
continuance of Agenda Item 14(a).
SUB 86-2 --SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE REVISED GRADING
PLAN FOR AN EIGHT-LOT SUBDIVISION AT 532. 534. AND 540 20TH STREET. COMMONLY
KNOWN AS "'IHE POWER STREET SUBDIVISION" (CONTINUED FROM MEETINGS OF 4/ 3/90.
5/ 1/90. AND 6/5/90)
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated August 16, 1990, and recommended that this item be
continued to a date certain. It was also recommended that this be the last continuance on this
issue, and that if nothing is received, a focused E.I.R. should be required.
The Planning Commission continued this item from the April 3, 1990, meeting because the
developer had provided inadequate information upon which to base a decision. The developer
was requested to work with the Department of Public Works to generate sufficient information
on drainage and storm sewer capacity so the Commission could make a determination as to the
level of environmental impact.
16 P.C. Minutes 8/21/90
The Planning Commission, at their meeting of May 1, continued this item pursuant to the
applicant's request to allow more time to gather the needed information. At the June 5th
meeting, a second request for continuance was granted.
Staff called the applicant's office on August 16 to inquire about the status of the project and was
informed that the owner was on vacation and no new information was available. It was again
mentioned that the applicant is pursuing using the existing four lots rather than subdividing
the property.
Pursuant to Section 66452.6(b) of the State Map Act, the length of time allowed prior to
expiration shall not include any period of time during which a development moratorium
existed. Section 66452.6(f) defines development moratoria to include any period of time which
a condition imposed by the City would not be satisfied because it necessitated action by the City
and said action caused a delay.
For this project, the supplemental environmental assessment required by the City Council was
delayed because it required the completion of a study from the County in regard to the adequacy
of the storm drain system. Staff felt that the delay caused by the City and County comprised
between eight months and twenty•five days. This was the period in between the date the City
Council requested staff to conduct a supplemental environmental assessment and the date the
staff environmental review committee made its recommendation on March 8, 1990. The
primary reason for the delay was that staff was forced to wait for the County to complete its
study before maldng its determination on the environmental impact.
Therefore, the effective expiration date for the tentative map is March 10, 1991. This should
provide ample time for the applicant to resolve the drainage problems. As such, staff felt that
the continuance should be granted.
Public Hearing opened and continued at 10:17 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz, who noted that no one
appeared to address the Commission on this item.
MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Moore, to approve staff's recommendation to
continue this item for the final time, to the meeting of October 16, 1990.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Moore, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ketz.
None
None
Comm. Ingell
cUP 90: 11 .. coNDITIONAL usE PERMIT AMENDMENT ro ADD A RETAIL usE ro AN
EXISTING RESTAURANT AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE
DECLARATION AT 203 HERMOSA AVENUE, BEACH MODA
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated August 15, 1990. Staff recommended that the Planning
Commission approve a conditional use permit and negative declaration, subject to the
conditions in the proposed resolution.
This project is located in the C-1 zone, with a general plan designation of neighborhood
commercial. The present use is as a portion of a restaurant, and the proposed use is for retail
sale of clothing. The building size is approximately 1500 square feet, and approximately 130
square feet is being proposed for the retail area.
On June 28, 1990, the staff environmental review committee recommended a negative
declaration for the request.
The requested retail business is already in operation in a portion of the Uncle Stavros Cafe.
The store sells clothing and beach accessories.
17 P.C. Minutes 8/21/90
The subject portion of the building previously was part of the restaurant operation and served
as the pizza room. It consists of about 130 square feet and contains a counter for the store clerk
and a few small racks of new clothing.
Staff detennined that adding this use constitutes a change of use of an existing nonconfonning
structure to a more intense use since it would involve a second business. The building is
nonconforming to parking as only three parking spaces e:xist.
Staff is recommending approval, however, because the added use actually requires less parking
on a per square foot basis than the previous use. Therefore, although the proposed use
intensifies the use of property, it lessens the parking impact.
Currently, the operation and the use of the property is clean and well organized, and the City's
code enforcement officer recently inspected the site and found no problems. Therefore, staff
would not anticipate any problems with the addition of a second business.
The proposed resolution incorporates conditions from the original CUP for beer and wine and
the amendment to allow outside dining, into one document.
Public Hearing opened at 10:21 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz.
Steve Triantas, 1242 Bonnie Brae, applicant, addressed the Commission and stated that he has
read the conditions and has no objection.
Public Hearing closed at 10:22 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz.
MOTION by Comm. Moore, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve staffs recommendation,
Resolution P.C. 90-69, as written.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Moore, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ketz
None
None
Comm. Ingell
SUB 90-1 --REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF VESTING 'IENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #21943 FOR A
TBREE-LQf SUBDIVISION OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 588 20TH STREET
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated August 9, 1990. Staff recommended that the Planning
Commission approve the requested subdivision by adopting the proposed resolution.
This project is located in the R-1 zone, with a general plan designation of low density. The
present use is as a single dwelling. The lot size is 16,059 square feet, or 120 by 133 feet. The
environmental determination is categorically exempt. Pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act guidelines, Section 15303, up to three single-family residences in
urbanized areas qualify for a categorical exemption.
The applicant is requesting to subdivide an existing lot into three lots with 40.25 feet of
frontage each. The resulting lot sizes would be 5353 square feet each.
The proposed lots conform to current zoning and subdivision requirements, as they front on a
public street, exceed the minimum width of 40 feet, and exceed 4000 square feet.
Section 29.5-8 of the Subdivision ordinance requires that the Planning Commission make
findings that the proposed subdivision meets subdivision and zoning requirements, and
additionally it requires a finding that the "size of the proposed lots is not smaller than the
prevailing lot size in the area in which they are located."
18 P.C. Minutes 8/21/90
Staff has calculated the average lot size for the surrounding R-1 zoned area generally bounded
by Valley Drive on the east, Hermosa Valley School on the south, the sand hill on the west, and
25th Street on the north. By excluding other unsubdivided lots of over 10,000 square feet, the
average size is approximately 5860 square feet.
Within a much closer vicinity, between 18th Street and 21st Street, the average lot size is
approximately 6077 square feet.
Therefore, the proposed lots are slightly smaller than the average lot size of the surrounding
area. The ordinance, however, uses the term prevailing lot size which, staff believes, gives the
Planning Commission general discretion to determine if the proposed lots are reasonably
consistent with lots in the vicinity. Since several lots in the vicinity are equivalent to or even
smaller than the proposed lots, and since the lots are quite close to the average in the area, staff
believes that this finding can be met.
Otherwise, the proposed subdivision has appropriate public street access, available utilities,
and is consistent with both the R-1 zone and the density requirements of the general plan low
density residential category.
Comm. Peirce noted that he lives near this property; however, he does not feel it is within 500
feet of the proposed project.
Mr. Schubach, after questioning where Comm. Peirce lives and after consulting his map, stated
that he does not feel Comm. Peirce has a conflict of interest.
Public Hearing opened at 10:27 P .M. by Chmn. Ketz.
Elizabeth Srour, 820 Manhattan Avenue, Manhattan Beach, representing the applicant,
addressed the Commission and: ( 1) said that the applicants have owned this property for more
than eight years, and they currently live there; (2) explained that they are requesting approval
to create three lots, however, there are no building plans at this time; (3) said that any future
construction plans would need to be approved; (4) said that the applicants are in full
compliance in regard to this request and are asking for no exceptions or variances; (5) said that
this proposal meets all of the technical requirements for subdivision, such as having adequate
frontage, minimum lot size, and access to a public street; (6) said that the proposal is to create
three lots of 5353 square feet each; (7) noted that this proposal meets all of the development
standards within the general plan guidelines for this area. and the three lots will be very
satisfactory building sites; (8) explained that there are no inherent constraints or
topographical constraints which would render any of these lots unbuildable.
Ms. Srour continued and: (1) said that this is not a flat lot, but rather has a slope of
approximately eight feet from east to west at the front of the property; (2) commented on letters
sent to the Commission by the neighbors, and stated that the letters contain some very serious
inaccuracies; (3) stated that this is the first application for a lot division since the Ryans have
owned this property; (4) explained that there are currently two units on this property, as the
city records will prove; (5) continued by discussing Exhibit B, which had been provided to the
Commission, and she specified the lot sizes of all lots in the surrounding area; (6) stated that
there is no consistent lot size or configuration in this particular area.
Ms. Srour went on and: (1) stated that when this property was first purchased, it could have
been subdivided into five lots; (2) said that the prevailing average lot size in this particular area
is 5276 square feet; (3) stated that it is an unfair burden to judge this site only from the school
site all the way up to 25th Street, noting that there are very distinct neighborhoods in this area;
(4) stated that when this tract was originally laid out, the lot sizes were 40 feet by 100 feet; (5)
noted that people become very protective of their neighborhoods, however, the plan being
proposed is in keeping with the rest of the neighborhood; (6) continued by discussing the
various lot sizes and streets in this particular area, noting that the configuration of lots varies
19 P.C. Minutes 8/21/90
in this area; (7) stated that approval of this subdivision will in no way be detrimental to the
neighborhood, and she therefore requested that the request be approved.
Ms. Srour, in response to questions from Chmn. Ketz, explained that there are currently two
units on the lot. She stated that the units are owner occupied at the present. She noted that
Mrs. Ryan would be able to answer those types of questions in more detail.
Robert Roselle, 572 18th Street, addressed the Commission and: (1) noted that he received his
notice only three days ago and therefore did not have adequate time to prepare a presentation;
(2) wanted to ensure that the lots would not be smaller than those required in the R-1 zone; (3)
stated that he would return with building plans are submitted, but at this time he has no
objection.
Jack Miller, 575 20th Street, addressed the Commission and: (1) discussed the various lot sizes
in this neighborhood and stated that the frontage in most cases is 50 feet or more; (2) said that
the neighbors are concerned about having three 40-foot lots jammed together on their street; (3)
noted that this neighborhood is unique in terms of lot size and frontage; (4) said that the
character of the neighborhood would be destroyed if they are allowed to have three 40-foot lots;
(5) described the layout of the property owned by the Ryans; (6) said that the lot size is not the
main issue, but rather it is the length of the frontage; (7) discussed the letter dated August 1990
which was sent to the Commission; (8) stated that approval of this request is not conducive to
low density; (9) hoped that the Commission would reconsider staffs recommendation to
approve this request; (10) expressed shock and disappointment that the Ryans are moving and
subdividing the lot.
Lisa Miscione, 585 20th Street, addressed the Commission and: (1) said that 20th Street is a
nice street, and the subdivision would not be compatible with the character of the
neighborhood; (2) noted concern for increased traffic generated by three more lots, especially
in light of the potential development of Power Street; (3) discussed prevailing lot sizes in the
neighborhood and stated that 30 of the 56 lots in Exhibit B are larger than the proposal, and 26
of the lots are smaller.
Warner Lombardi, 1849 Valley Park, addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that the area in
question is very unique and he could not understand why the city is attempting to subdivide it;
(2) stated that most of the lots are quite large; (3) noted that parking is already quite bad in the
area, and adding more lots would make the situation worse; (4) noted that there are already
drainage and sewer problems in this area; (5) commented that no building plans have been
submitted, nor has there been any mention of such vital issues as sidewalks; (6) again noted
that many other lots in this area are larger than those being proposed; (7) felt that lots with a
40-foot frontage would be inappropriate in this neighborhood.
Wilma Burt, 1152 7th Street, addressed the Commission and: (1) objected to this project, in
light of the fact that the city has in the recent past combined many lots; (2) noted that many
people had asked to combine lots, but their requests were refused because there was a
requirement to have contiguous lots under the same ownership; (3) felt that just because this lot
is larger, it should not be allowed to subdivide without meeting the proper criteria.
Howard Longacre, 1221 7th Place, addressed the Commission and: (1) felt that this project is
putting the horse before the cart; (2) stated that this is the most beautiful part of the city, and he
expressed shock that the owner wants to subdivide into three lots; (3) discussed the past lot
mergers and stated that this proposal just doesn't make sense; (4) noted that there are people
who are willing to pay a premium for one large home on one large lot: (5) said that the
neighbors have voiced their opposition to this project; (6) discussed the CEQA guidelines
related to development of two or more units; (7) stated that Comm. Peirce may have a conflict
and it should be determined whether he does or does not.
John Barren, 1948 Valley Park, addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that he has lived at
this address his entire life, and he has noted increased traffic and speed of vehicles in the area;
20 P.C. Minutes 8/21/90
(2) noted safety concerns for this area, stating that there is a hazard for pedestrians and school
children; (3) said that it is sad to see the quality of life diminishing in this area; (4) stated that
there are drainage and sewage problems in the area, and he could see no reason to allow
additional units thereby increasing the burden on those systems; (5) discussed the issue of
frontage and noted that smaller frontages are conducive t o houses which cover a greater
percentage of the lot, thereby creating runoff problems since water cannot be absorbed into the
ground; (6) did not feel that a great deal of thought has been expended in regard to this project;
(7) voiced his opposition to approval of the subdivision; (8) responded to questions from Comm.
Peirce related to where the drainage problems occur.
Vickie Garcia, 1835 Valley Park Avenue, addressed the Commission and: (1) agreed with the
previous comments; (2) noted concern over traffic congestion and parking problems: (3) stated
that prevailing frontages should be addressed as well as prevailing lot sizes before a decision is
made; (4) could see no difference between lot splitting and subdivisions.
Ms. Srour addressed the Commission and: (1) stressed that the code allows certain
opportunities for development, and this proposal is within the guidelines; (2) emphasized that
the homes in the 20th Street tract are slightly ]larger than other lots in the area; (3) discussed
various frontages in the area, stating that they vary, and the precedent is well established for
40-foot lots; (4) stated that the Building Department will analyze drainage and sewage issues at
the appropriate time, however, there has been no indication that there are any problems with
either of those items; (5) said that it is unfair to relate this proposal to that of Power Street,
noting that the two projects are very different: (6) stated that low density does not mean no
growth at all, and this proposal is well within the established pattern in this area.
Betty Ryan, 588 20th Street, applicant, addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that there
will be adequate sized lots created by this subdivision; (2) stated that they have considerably
improved this property; (3) explained in detail the structures which currently exist on this lot;
(4) stated that the cottage is not rented out, however, it is frequently used as a guest house; (5)
explained that they are not moving out of the area; they merely want to move so that they can
have a home with an ocean view; (6) asked that her request be approved.
Public Hearing closed at 11: 15 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz.
Comm. Moore felt that this is an open and shut case. He stated that the main issue is the
prevailing lot size, and he felt that this project is well within the reasonable definition of
prevailing lot size, and this is a right which the property owners certainly enjoy. He therefore
favored approval of the project.
Comm. Moore addressed the concerns voiced by the neighbors, and stated that those concerns
relate mainly to building design itself, not the actual lot size.
Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Chmn. Ketz, explained the reasoning behind the
past lot mergers undertaken in the city.
MOTION by Comm. Moore, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to approve staffs recommendation,
Resolution P.C. 90-68, as written.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Moore, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ketz
None
None
Comm. Ingell
Chmn. Ketz advised that the decision of the Planning Commission can be appealed by writing
to the City Council within ten days.
21 P.C. Minutes 8/21/90
CUP 90-4 --CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO INCREASE THE HEIGHT OF A
FENCE AT 340 MASSEY AVENUE. OUR LADY OF GUADALUPE SCHOOL
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated August 14, 1990. Staff recommended that the Planning
Commission approve a conditional use pennit amendment, subject to the conditions specified
in the proposed resolution.
On May 15, 1990, the Planning Commission granted a conditional use permit and parking plan
to allow a portable classroom in the parking lot.
At this time , the applicant has decided not to proceed with the construction of a temporary
classroom, but would like to replace the existing six-foot high chain link fence along the south
and east property lines with a nine-foot high fence with aluminum slats.
Pursuant to the recently amended Section 1215 of the zoning ordinance, a fence higher than six
feet may be allowed by a conditional use permit in situations where non-residential uses abut
residential uses.
According to Section 1215, the criteria for granting such a CUP are: (a) the use of the higher
wall or fence is necessary to mitigate potential noise, visual, or other impact of a non-
residential use on a residential use; (b) the greater height will not be detrimental to neighboring
property or to the public welfare and will not interfere with the light, air, and scenic view of
any property; (c) the higher wall or fence shall be be constructed of materials as noted in
Section 1214(5); and (d) vehicle vision clearance shall not be hindered by a wall or fence
resulting in a safety hazard.
The applicant wants the higher fence primarily for safety and security reasons. It would also
serve as a visual buffer between nearby residences in both Hermosa Beach and Redondo Beach.
A portion of the fence on the east property line is located on top of an existing retaining wall
adjacent to Reynolds Drive in Redondo Beach, and the wall approximately coincides with the
Hermosa Beach/Redondo Beach city boundary.
The southern property line fence abuts the rear yards of three residences.
Staff believes that the proposed improvement and height increase for the fence will improve
the appearance of the property, and it meets the criteria in Section 1215 for granting a CUP for
excess height.
Although chain link is not the most desirable type of fence for this situation, it should be
recognized that it currently exists on the site, and the new fence with the added height will
include aluminum slats.
Through the CUP for the portable classroom, the applicant still retains the option to install a
portable/ temporary classroom. Staff recommended a condition that the approval for the
temporary classroom, if not implemented within two years, would expire.
Public Hearing opened at 11:22 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz.
Father Alex Lewis, applicant, addressed the Commission and stated that he would be happy to
answer any questions from the Commission.
Wilma Burt, 1152 7th Street, addressed the Commission and: (1) favored approval of the
request, noting the importance of the height of the fence being increased; (2) felt that children
should be protected with the higher fence: (3) stated that the higher fence would be detrimental
to no one; (4) urged approval, not only for the protection of the Children, but also to keep play
equipment inside the school yard.
22 P.C. Minutes 8/21/90
Father Alex addressed the Commission and described the improvements which have been
made to the property since last May. He also noted that he has met with the neighbors in an
attempt to solve various problems.
Public Hearing closed at 11:26 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz.
MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Moore, to approve staff's recommendation,
Resolution P.C. 90-67, as written.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Moore, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ketz
None
None
Comm. Ingell
RESCISSION OF THE APPROVAL OF A NEW ELECTRONIC MARgUEE AT 'IBE COMMUNITY
CEN'IER [CONTINUED FROM MEETING OF AUGUST 7. 1990)
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated July 31, 1990. Staff recommended rescission of the sign
waiver by adoption of the proposed resolution.
The Hermosa Beach Community Center Foundation requested a sign waiver to install a new
marquee at the northeast corner of the Community Center property, replacing the existing
sign.
The Planning Commission approved a sign waiver at their June 6, 1990, meeting.
The Foundation was unable to secure the corporate sponsorship necessary to fund construction
of the marquee and resolved to replace or repair the old sign with a non-electronic marquee.
At the June 26, 1990, meeting, the City Council referred this matter to the City Attorney for
appropriate action to repeal the waiver.
According to the City Attorney, it is a matter of rescinding the sign waiver; therefore, staff
prepared the necessary resolution.
Hearing opened at 11 :28 P .M. by Chmn. Ketz.
Howard Longacre addressed the Commission and said he is happy that the sign is finally being
rescinded, since it is actually nothing more than a large, moving billboard.
Hearing closed at 11:29 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz.
MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Moore, to approve staff's recommendation,
Resolution P .C. 90-65, as written.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Moore. Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ketz
None
None
Comm. Ingell
COP 89-5 --TO CONSIDER CI"IY COUNCIL SUGGESTED CHANGES TO TIIE CONDmONAL USE
PERMIT FOR 1HE IMPROVEMENTS TO THE MOBIL OIL SERVICE STATION AT 931 PACIFIC
COAST mGHWAY (REFERRED BACK FROM 6/ 12 /90 Cl]Y COUNCIL MEE1JNGJ
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated August 9, 1990. Staff recommended that the Planning
Commission concur with the proposed change to move the 9th Street driveway ten feet east and
23 P.C. Minutes 8/21/90
to add a requirement for a "no right turn" sign at the 9th Street driveway, but otherwise to
continue to recommend approval pursuant to the previous Planning Commission resolution.
Staff further recommended that the applicant more thoroughly respond to Council requests for
the supplemental traffic and noise studies.
At their meeting of June 12, 1990, the City Council considered an appeal of the Planning
Commission approval of the subject request. The Council referred the decision back to staff
and the Planning Commission to consider: ( 1) moving the driveway on 9th Street to the east,
away from the residence to 16 feet; (2) eliminating the fourth set of pumps; (3) including a
traffic study of the ingress and egress for both customers and tankers; (4) doing an additional
study to determine nighttime noise levels; (5) considering a "no right turn" and/or stop sign on
9th Street.
At the meeting of May 1, 1990, the Planning Commission granted the subject conditional use
permit, subject to several conditions as contained in the proposed resolution. This decision
was made after conducting public hearings and discussion at four separate Planning
Commission meetings.
The Planning Commission modified staff-recommended conditions by requiring an eight-foot
wall rather than six feet along the rear property line, requiring a stacking lane for five cars
rather than eight cars, and to offset the south entrance driveway ten feet from the westerly
property line rather than 16.5 feet.
The scope of the Planning Commission review of this referral is to determine whether or not
the changes suggested by the Council are acceptable.
A revised plan has been submitted which moves the 35-foot wide driveway ten feet to the east.
This satisfies the concerns noted by the Council relating to the location of the driveway on 9th
Street. Although it would be preferable to maintain the maximum possible offset from P.C.H.,
the Public Works Department indicates that this revision is acceptable.
Staff recommended that a "no right turn" sign be provided on the south driveway, as suggested
by the Council, to reduce traffic on the local street, and to discourage the use of this local street
for customers with further destinations. Unfortunately, this would force local residents on 9th
Street and vicinity that use this station to exit onto P.C.H. and then turn down 9th Street.
The revised plans indicate the originally proposed four pump islands as previously approved
by the Planning Commission. The islands have been shifted three feet to the north to provide
adequate clearance from the relocated driveway. The applicant has not provided any further
justification for keeping the four pumps in response to the Council's concerns. In staff's
judgment. the site is adequate in size for the four pump islands, and this feature should
facilitate moving customers through the station to prevent stacking.
The applicant has also provided additional information in regard to traffic impacts which
support previous information provided by the applicant, and further notes that gaps in the
flow of P.C.H. traffic are frequent enough to support the egress movements that would be
generated from this project.
This study, however, does not address ingress movements into the site, tanker truck traffic,
and the effect a "no right turn" sign on the 9th Street exit would have.
Additionally, the applicant has provided noise measurements for the hours from 12:00 AM. to
5:00 AM. These measurements are of the noise levels which currently exist due to the
operation of the 24-hour station and the background noise from P.C.H. The study does not
project noise levels that the expanded operation might cause, nor the potential reduction of
noise from the installation of an eight-foot high sound wall.
24 P.C. Minutes 8/21/90
Staff felt that the amount of additional noise should not be significant and that the eight-foot
wall should actually improve the current condition.
Hearing opened at 11:31 P.M. byChmn. Ketz.
Brian Recksteiner, 3800 West Alameda, Burbank, representing Mobil Oil, addressed the
Commission and: (1) said that the project has again been redesigned to mitigate certain
problems; (2) discussed the problem with the driveway on 9th Street, stating there is now a
distance of 16 feet, six inches, between the driveway and that of the neighbor's; (3) passed out a
letter to the Commissioners related to egress; (4) discussed the traffic study, stating that the
letter addresses this point; (5) said that the traffic signal phasing will handle the traffic; (6)
said that the "no right turn" sign on 9th Street was a mitigation measure to protect the
neighbor, but now that the driveway has been redesigned, he did not feel the "no right turn" sign
is necessary; (7) stated that he has read the staff report and has no objection other than that
related to the "no right turn" sign.
Mr. Recksteiner, in response to questions from Comm. Rue related to the letter, explained that
the traffic study was done based on four islands. He stated that 124 vehicles can enter and leave
the station during each one-hour period. He noted, however, that they are projecting only 36
vehicles per hour; therefore, they do not see any problem.
Mr. Schubach stated that based on the figures, staff does not consider this to be an overdense
project and therefore recommended four islands. He noted, though, that staff had thought
there were only going to be three islands; however, the fourth island has always been
designated on the plans.
Mr. Recksteiner addressed the confusion between the three versus four islands. He explained
that they had always planned on having four islands. He said most of the other service
stations in Los Angeles are 150 by 150 feet. or 22,500 square feet. Th.is particular location is
unique in that it measures 28,655 square feet. He stated that with the reconfiguration of the
driveway, there is now room for the fourth island, as was always planned.
Mr. Recksteiner handed out maps of the proposed site and continued to explain the placement
of the islands and canopy. He stated that Mobil standards include a four-island facility;
however, in substandard conditions, only three islands are installed.
Mr. Recksteiner, in response to questions from Comm. Rue regarding the landscaping, stated
that the landscaping plans have not changed, other than the enlargement of the planter
between the station and the neighbor.
Comm. Moore discussed the fact that the proposed car wash will not have blow drying. He
asked what drivers actually do when they exit and their cars are wet. He felt that this could
create confusion because people would assume that the blowers were broken.
Mr. Recksteiner stated that some people get out and dry off their windshields and drive away.
He noted, however, that since pure water is used in the wash cycle, it dries ahnost instantly.
Howard Longacre addressed the Commission and: (1) pointed out that the Council has made no
final decision on this matter at this point; (2) discussed the issue of drying and stated that
people will be confused when their car is not blown dry and noted concern that people will stop
to get out and dry their cars; (3) stated that this will be a massive gas pumping station with no
changes other than the alteration in the driveway and the suggestion that a "no right turn" sign
be installed; (4) stated that once people exit onto P.C.H., they will probably stay on the highway;
(5) said that the issue is not islands, it is the number of pumps, and he urged the Commission to
address the number of pumps; (6) said that Mr. Recksteiner is a paid lobbyist, and he felt that
citizens do not realize the impact this station will create; (7) displayed several photos depicting
another similar Mobil station in Long Beach, and he asked several questions related to the
photos.
25 P.C. Minutes 8/21/90
Mr. Longacre continued and: (1) noted concem that many cars will stack and leave their
engines nmniog while waiting to enter the car wash; (2) discussed the layouts depicted in the
photos at the other Mobil station; (3) noted concem over the number of pumps which will be
installed; (4) discussed the average car length and stated that they will be strung across the
service station property, noting that the proposed lot is not huge; (5) disagreed with the
applicant's statement that gas is an impulse purchase; (6) said that getting one's car washed is
sometimes addictive, and he noted that most people going into the car wash have clean cars.
Mr. Longacre went on and: (1) discussed the firm that conducted the traffic study, stating that
he felt they did not include enough information; (2) commented on several issues raised in the
traffic study; (3) strongly opposed the proposed 16 pumps on four islands; (4) stressed that this
service station and snack shop with 24-hour operation will create a huge impact in the city; (5)
stated that the peace and tranquility of the surrounding neighborhood will be destroyed.
Wilma Burt, 1152 7th Street, addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that the neighbors
strongly favor the "no right tum" sign from the station onto 9th Street; (2) asked when it was
ever approved that this station could operate 24 hours a day; (3) stated that 24-hour service
creates noise problems to the neighbors; (4) said that no other businesses in the area operate 24
hours a day; (5) opposed 24-hour operation.
Mr. Schubach, in response to questions from Comm. Peirce regarding the 24-hour operation,
explained that this station did not require a conditional use permit when it first opened. He
said that the applicant asserts this station has been operating 24 hours a day for quite some
time, with the exception of one short period.
Gloria Kolesar, 714/726 10th Street, addressed the Commission and: (1) supported the
lengthening of the driveway; (2) felt that a stop sign would help; (3) discussed the traffic study
and commented on several of the points in the report; (4) stated that the car wash impact
should have been included in the traffic study as well as the pumps; (5) noted concern over the
24-hour operation and the new sign on the highway advertising this fact; (6) noted concern over
four pump islands at the station, recalling that the initial proposal called for only three
islands; (7) noted concern over potential stacking while people wait to enter the car wash; (8)
discussed traffic circulation patterns at the station; (9) asking whether there are any criteria
for overdevelopment.
Jim Lissner, 2715 El Oeste, addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that preventing cars from
stacking will lessen the air pollution; (2) suggested that the area be modified so that cars do not
pile up with their engines running.
Parker Herriott, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and: (1) said that the City Council
informed the applicant that they could have only three islands; (2) noted concern over the 24-
hour operation, especially as related to safety issues; (3) stated that his queries to Mobil
regarding number of pump islands have not been answered; (4) opposed the car wash, stating
that it will create too much car stacking and congestion; (5) noted concern over the emission of
gas fumes while cars wait; (6) urged the Commission to protect the citizens; (7) noted concern
that the noise study makes no mention of late-night noise in the residential neighborhood; (8)
asked how much money will be generated from this service station; (9) stated that there have
been discrepancies between what he has been told by the applicant and what he has been told by
other Mobil representatives.
Howard Longacre addressed the Commission and noted concern over the gas pumps and snack
shop being open 24 hours per day.
Comm. Peirce discussed idling cars at the station and asked how Mobil reconciles that with
their stand on preventing air pollution.
26 P.C. Minutes 8/21/90
Brian Recksteiner stated that the car wash takes only one minute. He noted that testimony has
centered on other stations which use the blow dry cycle, which adds an additional minute and a
half to the cycle.
Comm. Moore noted that even if the wash cycle takes only one minute, there must be an
allowance made for cars pulling in and out of the area for the car wash.
Mr. Recksteiner did not have information related to the specific cycle time, taking into account
the entrance and exit of the cars. He stressed, however, that the wash cycle itself takes only one
minute.
Hearing closed at 12:25 AM. by Chmn. Ketz.
Comm. Moore felt that there will be unending problems with traffic at this location during
peak hours. He also felt that there will be customer relation problems, noting that no air dry
will be provided for the car wash.
Comm. Moore questioned the marketing effect of this proposal, stating that the car wash with
no drying cycle could create public relations problems.
Comm. Moore stated that 24-hour service is used throughout the service industry, noting that
there is actually less crime at 24-hour businesses because most crime occurs as a business is
opening or closing down. He felt that a 24-hour service station is a convenience that this city
should offer. He noted, however, that there is no doubt that there will be additional noise and
light to the surrounding area.
MOTION by Comm. Moore, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve the plan as submitted at this
time, with the inclusion of a condition that a "no right turn" sign be posted at 9th Street.
Comm. Moore noted, however, that he felt that such a sign would be ineffective and would turn
people into lawbreakers.
Comm. Rue noted that much public testimony has been heard on this matter. He said that he
has nothing further to add, noting that the project has been studied quite thoroughly.
Chmn. Ketz noted concern over noise and 24-hour service. She noted that no project noise level
information was presented related to the increased noise levels since this station is being
increased four-fold. She stated that she would favor three islands as opposed to the proposed
four. She also favored the condition requiring that a "no right turn" sign be installed on 9th
Street, as well as the condition that the driveway on 9th Street be moved away from the
residence 16 feet.
Comm. Rue questioned whether having only three pump islands would actually improve the
situation, to which Comm. Moore responded that having only three islands would produce
more traffic jams during heavy periods, and it would have no effect at all during the late-night
hours.
Comm. Rue did not feel that three islands would create a dramatic improvement at the site.
Chmn. Ketz questioned what impact the fourth island would have on the amount of business
coming into the station.
Comms. Peirce and Moore agreed that the fourth island would indeed create more traffic
coming into the station.
Comm. Rue felt that the fourth island would reduce the car stacking.
27 P.C. Minutes 8/21/90
Comm. Rue questioned how noise levels could be projected if the 24-hour station is not in
operation. He commented that information has been provided for a twelve-pump operation,
but noted that infonnation was not provided for a sixteen-pump operation.
Comm. Moore stated that there is no doubt a 24-hour operation will create noise at night;
however, he noted that the city has a noise ordinance.
Chmn. Ketz, discussing the hours of operation. noted that the hours have been restricted for the
car wash operation; however, no restrictions were placed on the gas station use.
Comm. Rue asked whether more infonnation could be obtained related to the effects of 24-hour
operation and the mitigation effects of the trees and the eight-foot wall, to which Mr. Schubach
replied that the consultant could be requested to provide such information.
Chmn. Ketz suggested that the request be made so that the information can be presented to the
City Council, rather than requiring this issue to come back before the Planning Commission.
Comm. Rue stated that he could support an amendment to the motion to require additional
infonnation related to the projected noise levels and the impact to the neighborhood created by
the 24-hour operation.
Comm. Moore noted that this issue must go forward to the City Council. He therefore felt it is
unnecessary to require a request for additional information in the body of the motion.
Comm. Rue suggested that a projected noise study for the 16 pumps and the 24-hour operation
be made prior to the City Council meeting. Chmn. Ketz agreed.
Comm. Moore could not support such an amendment to the motion, stating that the noise very
late at night will be minimal. He stated that late at night there will not be a great deal of traffic.
Comm. Rue noted, however, that the operation will have a convenience store. He noted that
people will be leaving entertainment establishments late at night, and they will go into the
convenience store.
Comm. Moore felt that further information is unnecessary, stating that the applicant knows
what the City Council wants.
Chmn. Ketz stated that she could support approval of the motion; however, she noted strong
concern over the four pump islands and the 24-hour operation of the business as related to the
attendant noise impacts.
(Vote on Comm. Moore's motion to approve the request as submitted with the requirement that
the "no right turn" sign be posted at 9th Street.)
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
STAFF ITEMS
Comms. Moore, Rue, Chmn. Ketz
Comm. Peirce
None
Comm. Ingell
a) Coillillnnication Regarding 160 Manhattan Avenue. Bayview Sanitarium
Tilis item was continued to the next meeting because of the lateness of the hour.
b) Tentative Future Planning Commission Agenda
No action taken.
28 P.C. Minutes 8/21/90
c) City Council Minutes of July 24. 1990
No action taken.
d) Memorandum Rega.rdipg Au t omatic Vacancies on the Phmning Commission
Comm. Rue noted that he has only been absent once, not twice as shown in the memo, to which
Mr. Schubach replied that that has been corrected.
Comm. Moore stated that when he was appointed to the Commission he was mistaken in that
he thought four absences per year were allowed. He noted, however, that three absences are
allowed. and four creates an automatic vacancy. He said he will miss serving on the
Commission, and he hoped that someone could be found who will do a good job.
Chmn. Ketz noted the difficulty in attending all meetings, especially during the summer
months. She hoped the Council would take this into account when they appoint a new
Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER ITEMS
None.
MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Rue, to adjourn at 12:44 AM. on Wednesday,
August 22. 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 August 21, 1990.
~/4-
Christine Ketz, Vic ~
('
~---?-~elchubach.Secre
29 P.C. Minutes 8/21/90