Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC_Minutes_1990_09_18, . . ' . ' f MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON SEPIEMBER 18, 1990, AT 7:00 P.M. IN 1HE CI'IY HALL COUNCll., CHAMBERS Meeting called to order at 7:00 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell. Pledge of Allegiance led by Comm. Rue. ROIL CALL Present: Absent: Comms. Ketz, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ingell Comm. Moore Also Present: Michael Schubach, Planning Director; Edward Lee, Assistant City Attorney; Genee Cadden for Sally White, Recording Secretary CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION by Chmn. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to approve the following consent calendar items as submitted: Planning Commission minutes of September 4, 1990; Resolution P.C. 90-64, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CI'IY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF A TEXT AMENDMENT TO AI.LOW OUIDOOR DISPLAY OF MERCHANDISE FOR SALE; Resolution P.C. 90-70, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CI'IY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING AMENDING THE LAND USE MAP OF THE GENERAL PLAN FROM OPEN SPACE TO LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL FOR THE AREA BE'IWEEN GEN1RY S1REET AND HOILOWELL AVENUE (435-453 HOILOWELL AND 436-508 GEN1RY) AS DESCRIBED AND SHOWN ON THE MAP AND ADOPTING AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION; Resolution P.C. 90-73, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CI'IY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING CHANGING THE ZONING MAP FROM R-1, SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, TO OS, OPEN SPACE, FOR THE CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE COMPANY PROPER1Y LOCATED EAST OF PROSPECT AVENUE BE'IWEEN 15TH AND 17TH S1REET AS DESCRIBED AND SHOWN ON THE MAPS AND ADOPTING AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION; Resolution P.C. 90-74, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CI'IY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING AMENDING THE OPEN SPACE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN BY ADDING "THE COMPREHENSIVE PARKS AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN," AS REVISED, AS A GENERAL POLICY STATEMENT AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. No objections; so ordered. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC No one appeared to address the Commission. 1 P.C. Minutes 9/ 18/90 CUP 90-3 -CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR OFF-SALE BEER AND WINE AND ADOPI1ON OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 302 PIER AVENUE. SIMPSON'S MARKET [CONTINUED FROM MEETINGS OF MAY 1. 1990. AND JUNE 19, 1990) Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated September 13, 1990, and recommended that the Planning Commission approve the requested conditional use permit, subject to the conditions specified in the proposed resolution. Tilis project is located in the C-2 zone, with a general plan designation of general commercial. The lot size is 4200 square feet. The building size is approximately 800 square feet, with a current use as a convenience market. One parking space is provided. Simpson's Market is located on the corner portion of a lot containing two other businesses, Farmer's Insurance and B.C. Broasted Chicken. Beer and wine are currently sold from the market. Simpson's Market is one of the remaining existing businesses selling alcoholic beverages which has not obtained a conditional use permit subject to the alcohol amortization ordinance. At the meeting of March 8, 1990, the staff environmental review committee recommended an environmental negative declaration and recommended that conditions be included to enclose the trash dumpster and to remove the exterior ice storage container. At the June 19, 1990, meeting the Planning Commission continued this matter on the advice of the City Attorney. The requested CUP would authorize the continued sale of beer and wine from the premises. No distilled spirits are sold from the store. Staffs concerns relate to the exterior appearance of the store. Staff therefore previously recommended conditions that the dumpster be enclosed and that the ice box be removed. Also, one parking space should be designated as parking for the store and marked with striping and provided with bumper blocks to keep parked cars from encroaching into the sidewalk. Since the original review, the applicant has removed the ice box. In regard to controlling the sale of single containers of alcohol and the hours of operation, staff has been directed not to include such conditions, as the Superior Court has set aside similar conditions in a recent case. Since this is an existing convenience store in conjunction with the sale of alcohol and it is located in the commercial area of Pier Avenue, staff believes the sale of beer and wine should be allowed to continue, subject to the proposed conditions, which are limited to standard conditions of the zoning ordinance and those conditions related to the site and the exterior premises. Also included are conditions related to the sale of sexually explicit material. Mr. Lee, in response to questions from Comm. Rue. gave background information relating to the Los Angeles court case. He explained the various conditions that were imposed on an off- sale liquor establishment which triggered the case. The court ultimately struck eight of the twenty conditions as being preempted by State law, asserting that those conditions were not within the purview of a City's jurisdiction in exercising police control over municipal affairs. Based upon the points and authorities raised in the Los Angeles case. the City Attorney (of Hermosa Beach) recommended that conditions similar to those stricken by the court be stricken from this City's conditional use permits. Staff followed that recommendation and has stricken conditions related to liquor. That deletion, however, does not preempt the City from acting upon land use issues. Such issues as health, safety, and public welfare can still be addressed in the CUP. Caution must be exercised, though, in matters relating to alcohol. He 2 P.C. Minutes 9/ 18/90 1' explained that it would not be in the City's best interest to attempt to regulate the sale of alcohol. Mr. Lee responded to questions from the Commission regarding the City's purview over alcohol-related issues, such as hours of operation and types of containers to be used for alcoholic beverages. Public Hearing opened by Chmn. Ingell. Sang Chang, 302 Pier Avenue, Hermosa Beach, applicant, addressed the Commission and stated that he has read and understands the conditions proposed for the requested CUP. Public Hearing closed by Chmn. Ingell. Comm. Rue asked several questions of the City Attorney related to alcohol violations. Mr. Lee stated that the Police Department can be requested to provide police reports related to such issues. Chmn. Ingell discussed the issue of CUP enforcement, pointing out that many CUPs contain conditions related to issues which are also governed by other City codes and requirements. The duplication of requirements in CUPs and in other codes serves to help enforcement officials when they go out to investigate various establishments, since they can refer to the conditional use permit while conducting their survey. Mr. Lee stated that it is acceptable to duplicate conditions, so long as the requirements are not overly restrictive. Comm. Rue stated that he would like to discuss the issue of requiring single-can sales of alcoholic beverages to be packaged in clear containers. He felt that the imposition of such a condition would be appropriate since activities which require police enforcement can be considered as issues of health, safety, and public welfare. Comm. Peirce concurred, stating that transparent packaging gives the police a better chance of citing people who are drinking from open containers, thus reducing the impact of alcohol sales in the immediate vicinity. He questioned whether such a condition can be imposed, however, in the sense of it being a land use issue. Mr. Lee stated that such a requirement could be imposed, explaining that it can be construed as a public welfare issue. He noted, however, that such a requirement is very closely related to the actual impact on alcohol sales, and he therefore would not recommend including a condition requiring transparent packaging of single-container sales. He stated that issues of loitering, consumption, and littering must be taken into account when deciding whether to impose mitigation measures related to land use. Comm. Peirce discussed hours of operation for off-sale liquor establishments, and he noted that they must be closed between the hours of 2:00 AM. and 6:00 AM. Mr. Lee, in response to comments from Comm. Peirce, discussed the issue of hours of operation, explaining that restrictions in the hours must be based upon the land use impacts created by this particular use, and he continued by giving examples which could be used to regulate the hours. Comm. Peirce stated that it would be necessary to make the appropriate findings if the Commission desires to limit the hours of operation at this business. He did not feel adequate information had been provided to make a determination that alcohol sales create a problem between 6:00 AM. and 8:00 AM. 3 P.C. Minutes 9/ 18/90 Comm. Rue assumed that problems would occur later in the evening, rather than in the early morning hours. Mr. Lee and the Commission discussed various hours of operation and what items are purchased during the varying hours. Comm. Rue pointed out that whatever is sold, whether it be alcohol or other items, must be addressed if problems are being created for the surrounding area. Mr. Lee noted that the sale of alcohol is the trigger for requiring the conditional use permit. He noted, however, that the hours of operatio:n can be conditioned if it is determined that problems are created by the sale of any item, whether it be alcohol or not. Comm. Ketz pointed out that the applicant is requesting hours of 8:00 AM. to 9:00 P.M. Comm. Rue suggested that this be addressed as a land use issue, and the impacts to the surrounding area should be taken into account. He noted that this business is in a light commercial area, and he therefore felt that operating hours of 7 :00 AM. to midnight would be appropriate. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to approve Resolution P.C. 90-33, with the following changes: (1) the hours of operation shall be 7:00 AM. until midnight, based upon the fact that this business is in a light commercial area bordering residential; (2) single-container sales of alcoholic beverages must be packaged in transparent material, based upon the fact that such packaging will aid the police in enforcing City codes related to the health, safety, and public welfare; (3) alcoholic beverages shall be sold only to persons over 21 years of age; and (4) a condition shall be added specifying that if any one of the conditions in the CUP is determined to be invalid, all other conditions shall remain valid and enforceable. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ketz, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ingell None None Comm. Moore CUP ~6 -CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ON-SALE GENERAL ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES IN CONJUNCTION Wlffl A RESTAURANT AND ADOPI'ION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 11 PIER AVENUE, MERMAID RESTAURANT (CONTINUED FROM MEETING OF JUNE 19, 1990) Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated September 13, 1990, and recommended approval of the requested conditional use permit, subject the conditions specified in the proposed resolution. This project is located in the C-2 zone, with a general plan designation of general commercial. The lot size is 9600 square feet, and the building ~ize is 2400 square feet. The current use is as a restaurant, and there are 23 parking spaces, 12 of which are in tandem. The Mermaid is located on the comer of Pier and the Strand. The restaurant currently has a type 4 7 liquor license, allowing the sale of beer, wine, and distilled spirits for consumption in a bona fide eating establishment. The Mermaid is one of the remaining existing businesses selling alcoholic beverages which has not obtained a conditional use permit subject to the alcohol amortization ordinance. At the meeting of March 8, 1990, the staff environmental review committee recommended an environmental negative declaration. 4 P.C. Minutes 9/ 18/90 .J At the June 5, 1990, meeting of the PJanning Commission, this request was continued under the advice of the City Attorney. The requested CUP would authorize the continued sale of alcohol from the premises, subject to the standard conditions of the zoning ordinance. Staff has no concerns related to the existing appearance or operation of the business that would necessitate any further conditions than those required for this type of CUP. Those conditions would include the restriction that at least 50 percent of the gross sales must be from prepared foods. The parking lot contains 11 standard parking stalls, 12 of which are stalls in tandem. Although staff normally would not support tandem parking, it is appropriate for this location. The parking has been arranged in this manner for many years, and the parking demand is very high near the beach. This layout allows the restaurant to provide adequate parking for its customers. Public Hearing opened at 7:40 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell. Quentin Thelan, 11 Pier Avenue, applicant, addressed the Commission and: (1) felt that it would be appropriate for this use to be grandfathered in; (2) explained that he has been in the area for more than 36 years; (3) said this is the first time he has ever appeared before the Commission to ask for approval to be open; (4) felt that the parking is not an issue, noting that there is not a parking problem; (5) stated that he has never before been required to have 50 percent of his sales be food, explaining that he feels such a condition is inappropriate; (6) said that he sells more alcohol than food and always has; (7) noted that his business has had a very good record throughout the years. Public Hearing closed at 7:48 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell Comm. Peirce discussed the issue of percentage of sales and asked whether there would be a problem if the alcohol sales approach, for example, 70 percent. He noted that the code requirements differ from the requirement in Condition No. 13. Mr. Schubach stated that this business has been in operation for many years, and there have been no problems. Chmn. Ingell pointed out that this restaurant was in existence prior to the adoption of the current code requirements, and he therefore felt an exception would be appropriate in this case, noting that there have been no problems in the past at this business. Comm. Rue stated that he knows of no problems ever occurring at this establishment. He asked whether any other similar businesses in the City predate the code. He continued by asking questions related to various conditions which can be imposed on this establishment. Mr. Lee explained that conditions can be imposed if problems occur related to public welfare concerns and land use. He noted, however, that the conditions cannot be so severe as to cause the business to cease operation. He continued by giving various examples of conditions which could be be imposed. Comm. Peirce favored the elimination of the possibility of this business being sold and someone coming in and serving only alcohol with no food at all. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve Resolution P.C. 90-80, with the deletion of Condition No. 13 and the addition of a condition specifying that the establishment shall maintain a full-service kitchen or service of food. 5 P.C. Minutes 9/ 18/90 AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ketz, Peirce. Rue, Chmn. Ingell None None Comm. Moore Chmn. Ingell stated that this decision of the Planning Commission can be appealed by writing to the City Council within ten days. CUP 90:5 -CONDmONAL USE PERMIT FOR OFF-SALE GENERAL ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 1031 HERMOSA AVENUE, GOLDEN LION LIQUOR (CONTINUED FROM MEETINGS OF JUNE 5 AND SEPIEMBER 4, 1990) Mr.Schubach gave staff report dated September 12. 1990, and recommended that this request be approved, subject to the conditions specified in the proposed resolution. This request was continued by the Planning Commission based upon the advice of the City Attorney. It was felt that there was a need to assess the impact of a recent court decision which appeared to significantly limit municipal authority to regulate alcohol establishments. The applicant has responded to previously noted staff concerns regarding the exterior appearance of the site and has enclosed the trash dumpster, provided bumper blocks, and re- striped the parking stalls. However. rather than using the planter areas for landscaping, it has been paved over, thus eliminating the weeds; however, the applicant has failed to take advantage of existing planter areas to improve the appearance. Also, the parking lot has been re-striped with double-side angled parking, resulting in an increase of parking spaces to 23. However, the parking stall sizes do not appear to meet the dimensional requirements of the zoning ordinance. As such, staff recommended conditions that landscaping be provided along Hermosa Avenue and that a landscape plan and parking layout be submitted to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director. Since this is an existing establishment which is located in the commercial area of Pier Avenue, and the business owner has shown good faith to resolve some of staff's concerns, staff felt that the sale of liquor should be allowed to continue, subject to the conditions specified in the proposed resolution. In regard to controlling the sale of single containers or the hours of operation, staff has eliminated those conditions to be consistent with the Superior Court decision to set aside such conditions for liquor stores in Los Angeles. Public Hearing opened by Chmn. Ingell, who stated that the applicant was unable to attend. Public Hearing continued by Chmn. Ingell, who noted that no one came forward to speak on this issue. Comm. Peirce stated that not only has the landscaping not been improved, it has been eliminated altogether. He commented that the visual appearance of this establishment is not good: therefore, he could not vote to approve the requested CUP until improvements are made. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to continue this item to the meeting of October 2, 1990. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ketz, Peirce, Rue. Chmn. Ingell None None Comm. Moore 6 P.C. Minutes 9/ 18/90 ,. CUP 90-14 -CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ON-SALE BEER AND WINE IN CONJUNCTION Wim A RESTAURANT AND ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 1433 HERMOSA A VENUE. J.B. BURGERS (CONTINUED FROM MEETINGS OF JULY 17 AND SEPI'EMBER 4. 1990) Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated August 30, 1990, and recommended that the PJaooiog Commission deny this request by adoption of the proposed resolution. Mr. Schubach then suggested an alternative to approve the request because of the recent Superior Court decision; but to officially protest to the ABC the issuance of another alcohol license in this highly-saturated area. This request was continued by the PJaooiog Commission based upon the advice of the City Attorney because of the need to assess the impact of a recent court decision which appeared to significantly limit municipal authority to regulate alcohol establishments. Staff recommended that the request be denied based upon the fact that this area of the City is saturated with alcohol establishments and also because of the fact that the rear parking area of this establishment is immediately adjacent to residential use. The serving of beer and wine would intensify the use. Also, the building is nonconforming to the parking, and the parking lot abuts residential property, leaving no room to properly buffer the parking lot from adjacent residences. Staff felt that the saturation of alcohol establishments in a specific geographic area is a land use issue with land use related impacts; therefore. denial would be based on this reason and would not necessarily preempt the State's authority to regulate alcohol establishments. Also, intensification of the use of the rear parking area would be a land use impact on adjacent residences. Mr. Schubach, in response to questions from Comm. Rue, stated that there have been no police problems at this business in the past several years. Public Hearing opened by Chmn. Ingell. Constantine Farmans, 3812 Sepulveda, Torrance, attorney representing the applicant, addressed the Commission and: (1) disagreed with several comments contained in the staff report; (2) discussed the 20 parking spaces, expJaioiog that the doughnut shop next door closes at 1:00 P.M. so there are no parking problems; (3) said that this applicant has been in business and has resided in Hermosa Beach for over 15 years; (4) stated that this applicant has an exemplary record in the City, and no facts have been presented that could lead the Commission to deny this request, other than the fact that the police say there "might" be a problem. Mr. Constantine continued and: (1) noted that this business closes at 10:00 P.M.; (2) said that a request is being made for on-sale alcohol, and therefore the parking lot will not be used for drinking purposes thus creating impacts to the neighbors; (3) suggested that if this is a land use issue, then the City Council should prohibit all alcohol sales in the area; (4) requested that permission be given, with reasonable conditions; (5) stressed that this operation is not a bar, and there is a kitchen. Comm. Rue stated that there is concern for commercial abutting residential. He continued by noting that in the past, conditions have been imposed requiring walls, in an effort to mitigate noise. He also said that conditions such as better lighting have been imposed. Mr. Constantine noted that this business closes at 10:00 P.M. so there would be no noise impacts to the surrounding neighbors. Comm. Rue noted concern over people loitering in the parking lot after the business closes. He also felt that problems could arise since this parking lot is so close to the beach. He felt it 7 P.C. Minutes 9/ 18/90 .. ... would be appropriate to install some type of divider at the end of the parking lot in order to keep people out once the business closes. Comm. Ketz questioned whether the signage will be changed. John Bokolas, 1433 Hermosa Avenue, applicant, stated that the signage will not be changed. He noted, however, that he might change over to Mexican restaurant. Mr. Schubach noted that the existing sign is not in compliance. Chmn. Ingell pointed out that if the signage is changed, it would then be nonconforming. Mr. Constantine explained that the menu will change, but the sign will not. He continued by noting that this establishment does not have a large take-out service. Mr. Bokolas explained that there will be no change in how the food is ordered; people will continue to order at the counter and pick up the food themselves. Public Hearing closed by Chmn. Ingell. Comm. Rue was under the impression that this would become a restaurant with waitress service. He did not favor a situation where people order at the counter and pick up their food, stating that he does not feel this type of service would be responsible. He also felt that there is a saturation of establishments selling alcohol in the area. Chmn. Ingell felt this use would not be appropriate, stating that the downtown area already is saturated with alcohol establishments. He also noted concern over the proposed method of service. He therefore felt that this use would not be of benefit to the City. Comm. Ketz agreed that this change would not be an improvement to the City, nor would it be appropriate. Mr. Lee stated that this issue could be addressed on a land use basis, explaining that if there is an excessive concentration of a particular type of business in an area, the Commission can deem that such a saturation is not appropriate or beneficial for the City. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve staffs recommendation, Resolution P.C. 90-58, denying the conditional use permit request for on-sale beer and wine in conjunction with an existing restaurant at 1433 Hermosa Avenue. Mr. Schubach suggested that a finding be included with the motion specifying that each of the above findings, voiced by the Commissioners, separately forms a basis for denial. AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION (Mr. Schubach's above recommendation) accepted by Comms. Rue and Peirce as maker and second. Comm. Rue explained that he does not want to discourage other businesses from applying. He noted, however, that he would like to encourage businesses which would be an improvement to the City. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ketz, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ingell None None Comm. Moore Chmn. Ingell stated that this decision of the Planning Commission can be appealed by writing to the City Council within ten days. 8 P.C. Minutes 9/ 18/90 Recess taken from 8:20 P .M. until 8:25 P.M. CON 90-13 -REMODEL AND ADDITION OF A ROOF DECK TO AN EXISTING CONDOMINIUM AT 44 7'IH S'IREET Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated September 11, 1990, and recommended that the Planning Commission approve the request, subject to the conditions specified in the proposed resolution. In 1977 the City Council approved a tentative map and planned unit development for a four- unit condominium project on the subject property. The project was constructed in 1980. The subject request is categorically exempt from environmental assessment. The subject condominium was approved before conditional use permits were required for condominiums. The remodel and addition, however, require a CUP and Planning Commission approval. The applicant is proposing to construct a roof deck on the fourth level. Since the balcony space proposed to be enclosed is not considered open space under current code requirements because it is covered, the proposal is in conformance with current zoning requirements. Additionally, this unit has a 145 square-foot third-floor deck and shares a 660 square-foot deck with the adjacent unit. In regard to the roof deck, two separate means of egress for the fourth level are required by the building code. It appears that this could be achieved if desired. Staff therefore included a condition that if the roof deck is approved, a revised plan must be submitted for approval by the building director. Since this proposal meets the zoning requirements, staff felt that the request is acceptable, unless one of the owners of the other condominium project objects. Mr. Schubach noted that the homeowner's association has signed a statement approving the proposed project; therefore, staff had no opposition to the proposal. Public Hearing opened at 8:30 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell. Robert Hunt, 44 7th Street, applicant, addressed the Commission and thanked them for their consideration. He was unaware of any opposition to this project. Public Hearing closed at 8:31 P.M. byChmn. Ingell. Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Comm. Rue, stated that this project has been designed to be in conformance with the existing building. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve staff's recommendation, Resolution P.C. 90-79, with the addition of a condition specifying that the addition shall conform to the rest of the building so that it does not appear to be an obvious "add-on." AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ketz, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ingell None None Comm. Moore Chmn. Ingell stated that this decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed by writing to the City Council within ten days. 9 P.C. Minutes 9/ 18/90 C UP 9 0 -15 -CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO EXTEND ALLOWED ENTERTAINMENT HOURS TO INCLUDE 9:00 P.M. ro 1 :1 5 A.M. ON WEEKDAYS AND 2:00 P.M. TO 1 :15 A.M . ON SATURDAYS AND SUNDAYS AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 8 PIER AVENUE. HENNESSEY'S TAVERN Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated September 11, 1990, and recommended approval of the requested conditional use permit amendment, subject to the conditions specified in the proposed resolution, and except that entertainment shall not b egin until 7:00 P.M. on weekends and holidays. The applicant has applied for this CUP amendment as agreed with staff to resolve a discrepancy in two older CUPs as related to the limitation of hours for live entertainment. Mr. Schubach continued by discussing the mitigation measures suggested by the staff environmental review committee. The Plaooiog Commission recently denied a request by the End Zone, located at 22 Pier Avenue, to extend its hours to include 4:00 to 7:00 P.M. on weekends. This decision was upheld by the City Council on appeal; therefore, the End Zone's allowed entertainment hours are restricted to between 7:00 P.M. and 1:30 AM. Thursday through Sunday and on holidays. The primary concern with extended hours of live entertainment is the expansion of noise problems. Problems relating to excessive noise and noncompliance with the CUP have been documented by the police for several years. On some occasions, the violations have been corrected. Often, however, the same problems arise again and require further police monitoring and enforcement. The police department indicates that because of the utilization of the special enforcement unit this summer, the establishment was kept under control and problems were minimal. It does not appear that the establishment has ever been in compliance with the restriction that entertainment be only on weekend nights. Also, the police department has historically had difficulty obtaining compliance with the condition that the doors and windows be closed during amplified entertainment. Given the history of the problems at this location, staff hesitated to recommend an extension in hours. However, a precedent was set with the End Zone for Thursdays and Fridays, and Hennessey's has been using these nights for entertainment for several years. Therefore, staff recommended approval of weekday night hours from 9:00 P.M. until 1:15 AM. In regard t o the hours for Sat urday and Sunday, staff felt that to be consistent with the hours granted for the End Zone, the en ter tainmen t should b e allowe d to begin no sooner than 7 :00 P.M. Additional conditions were also recommended to require that the building be soundproofed. Also, several conditions applicable to alcohol establishments not previously a part of the BZA resolutions were included. Public H earing opene d at 8:38 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell, wh o noted t hat the applicant was not present. Mr. Schubach stated, however, that the a pplicant was notified of the hearing. It was then suggested that this matter be continued to the meeting of Octob er 2, 1990. Public Hearing continued by Chmo. Iogell, who noted that no one appeared to speak on this issue. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Chmo. Ingell, to continue this matter to the meeting of October 2, 1990. 10 P.C. Minutes 9/ 18/90 l Comm. Rue asked that the applicant be notified of the continuance and advised of the date of the next hearing. He suggested that the applicant be called and reminded of the next meeting the day before the hearing. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ketz, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ingell None None Comm. Moore CUP 90-21 /PDP 90-2 --CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO ALLOW AN AUTO BODY SHOP AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 1081-1085:1087 AVIATION BOULEVARD. EUROPEAN BODY SHOP Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated September 6, 1990. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission deny the proposed conditional use permit and precise development plan by adopting the proposed resolution, based on the fact that the size of the building is not adequate for storage of wrecked vehicles, plus work areas and storage of parts. As such, the parking lot would inevitably become the area for storage of wrecked vehicles and would be an eyesore. Staff proposed an alternative; i.e., that the Planning Commission approve the revised plans which would eliminate two of the service bays and overhead doors and increase the indoor floor area which may require a parking plan review. This project is located in the C-3 zone, with a general plan designation of general commercial. The lot area is 7400 square feet. The present use is as a vacant lot with illegal storage of rental trucks. The proposed use is as a building and parking lot for an auto body repair and painting business. The proposed building size of 2698 square feet will require 12 parking spaces; the proposed parking is 13 spaces. Adjacent land use to the west is C-3, commercial; to the east, C- 3, commercial; and to the north, commercial, C-3, and residential. On September 21, 1989, the staff environmental review committee recommended a mitigated negative declaration, subject to several mitigation measures: ( 1) that the building be ventilated such that all work can be conducted indoors with the garage doors closed; and (2) that the parking of vehicles waiting to be serviced or waiting for customer pick-up on the street shall be prohibited. Auto body shops are potentially one of the most intensive and obtrusive types of commercial use, especially when in proximity to residential areas. These types of businesses are generally extremely land intensive, requiring large sites because of the need for parts storage and storage of wrecked vehicles in addition to employee and customer parking areas. Examples of poorly operated, noisy, and unsightly auto body shops are located near this proposed establishment. Staff felt that increasing the number of this type of establishment would have further negative impacts and would be a detriment to both the commercial and residential properties along and near the Aviation Boulevard corridor. However, an auto body shop and painting business can potentially be operated in a manner that would be compatible with the surroundings if it were conducted wholly within the confines of an attractive building, with the painting within properly ventilated and controlled painting booths, if the building and the site are adequate in size to handle the scale of the business activity. Also, the grounds and outdoor parking area of the site would have to be controlled to eliminate the parking of wrecked vehicles and storage of derelict parts. Therefore, in this case, the Planning Commission must determine whether or not this particular proposed business establishment, knowing the potential negative impacts, can somehow overcome the problems associated with auto body shops and be operated and controlled in a manner that is compatible with the surrounding properties. 11 P.C. Minutes 9/ 18/90 The applicant's proposal seems to address many of the concerns typically associated with body shops. The proposed building is fairly attractive and consists primarily of five service bays for working on vehicles behind garage doors. However, the size of the site is rather small, and it is questionable whether adequate indoor space is available to store wrecked vehicles, additional parts and equipment storage, office space, and work space. Without adequate space, the site would become cluttered with vehicles and become unsightly, and spillovers of employee and customer parking may end up in the street. The exterior of the building is proposed to be constructed of split-face concrete block and would be a maximum of approximately 27 feet high. Additional customer and employee parking is provided in an outdoor parking lot. The total parking requirement is met by adding these spaces with the service bays. The site plan also indicates a four-foot wide landscape strip along the front of the property which would serve to mitigate the visual impacts of the parking area. As noted, the rear of the property abuts property that is also zoned commercially. Half the property abuts another commercial use, while the other half abuts residential uses. Since the adjacent zoning is commercial, no building setbacks are required. Along the residentially- used property, the proposed building would abut the property line, while along the westerly half of the property, the parking lot abuts the property line. The applicant has indicated that along this portion, a block wall would be provided as required by the zoning ordinance. Although adjacent Lot 45 is zoned commercial, the current residential use of Lot 45 will be impacted by the proposal. Also, the area could be potentially rezoned to residential in the future, given its location behind Aviation-frontage lots and access via Corona Street. As such, if approved, staff would recommend that a minimum ten-foot building setback be provided from Lot 45, consistent with what would be required for a two-story building if Lot 45 were zoned residential, and that it be used as a landscaped buffer for trees. Although this ten-foot wide area behind the building may be a problem to maintain and would create dead space behind the building that might be used to store junk, this would mitigate the impact of a 21-foot-high building wall being right on the property line. Staff further recommended a condition that the ten-foot setback area be maintained clear of debris and/ or parts and equipment and planted with specimen-size trees. This change should not be a problem to the applicant, as his plans depict a 90-foot depth at this portion of the lot, while the lots, according to City maps, are a depth of 100 feet. The overall proposed building and parking layout meets or exceeds minimum planning and zoning requirements. Staff further recommended several additional conditions should the project be approved: to limit the number of service bays t o three (one with painting); to use the other two bays for storage only; require work to be conducted with the garage doors closed; to prohibit any outdoor use other than parking (except for estimates for drive-up customers); to ensure proper disposal and handling of hazardous and flammable materials; and to minimize the effects of noise and odor on surrounding properties. In addition, staff also recommended a condition to limit the proposed pole sign to a maximum of ten feet in height rather than the proposed 30 feet. Staff did not feel such a high sign is necessary, and it is inconsistent with the character of nearby signage on commercial businesses. Whether or not this size and type of building and the features of this particular project will suffice to mitigate noise, congestion, and aesthetic concerns depends on the scale of the operation. Staff felt it could work only if the business is kept small and if vehicles waiting for service do not start stacking up on the property. However, staff felt that controlling the frequency of customers and business activity is unrealistic for this type of business. The best 12 P.C. Minutes 9/ 18/90 that could be done, in staffs judgment, is to limit the service bays and enforce conditions regarding storage of vehicles for service and limiting it to indoors. Staff felt that the size of the property and the size of the building are not adequate to support this type of business and that it would inevitably lead to the storage of parts and wrecked vehicles outside. Public Hearing opened by Chmn. Ingell. Jim Marquez, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission and displayed several color renderings depicting the originally-proposed project. Mr. Marquez continued and: (1) gave background information on this business, stating that the shop has been in the City for several years; (2) explained that the owner would now like to improve the business; (3) stated that they are aware of staffs concerns related to auto body shops; (4) said that this project was designed with those concerns in mind; (5) noted that this business will be a class act. Mr. Marquez went on and: (1) said that this project meets or exceeds the code in all respects; (2) discussed vehicle storage, stating that the open parking area has no outside perimeter fencing, attesting to the fact that the owner has no intention of storing vehicles overnight; (3) explained that work is done by appointment only, and only those jobs which can be accomplished by the owner and his assistants are accepted at any given time; (4) said that cars are not stacked until such time that they can be worked on, rather, the owner is very selective is determining the number of cars at any one time; (5) said that the owner intends to maintain high standards at this site. Mr. Marquez continued and: (1) said that they surveyed the neighborhood and found that neighbors are concerned with another auto body shop (Buck's) in the general vicinity, (2) went on by explaining conditions at the other body shop; (3) said that the neighbors have expressed their desire that the rear area be landscaped; (4) noted that they intend to place five trees in the rear area; (5) discussed staffs desire to require that the building be enlarged to accommodate overnight storage of vehicles, stating that such an increase in size is not necessary for this business, and it would be a financial burden to the applicant to comply with such a requirement. Mr. Marquez went on and: (1) stated that the proposed architecture is hi-tech; (2) noted that the proposed landscaping will exceed code requirements; (3) explained that the trash enclosures, signage, and rear building setbacks have all been designed to complement the project as a whole; (4) again stressed that the applicant has no desire to store vehicles overnight; (5) said that the applicant has read the requirements specified in the alternate resolution and accepts the conditions related to the landscaping in the rear, landscaping maintenance, and the prohibition of overnight parking; (6) stated that they would accept the condition allowing only a ten-foot pole sign, however, they would prefer to have the sign be fifteen feet, so that it is not in competition with the trees on the street. Mr. Marquez continued and: (1) responded to a question from Comm. Ketz related to the how the ten-foot buffer would affect the rear of the building, stating that the landscaping would have no impact on the building plans; (2) showed a drawing depicting the proposed landscaping; (3) said that the upstairs area would be used only for parts storage, noting that a second-story storage area is more feasible from a security standpoint; (4) said that the second- story area will not be expanded. Mr. Marquez concluded by asking that the Planning Commission approve this project with the alternative resolution. He said that there would be no changes in the plans, other than those related to the landscaping in the rear and the permanent irrigation system. 13 P.C. Minutes 9/ 18/90 Edie Weber, 1201 11th Street, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and: (1) strongly opposed this business, noting that auto body shops are very unsightly; (2) said that there are already four auto body shops within a 1.3-mile radius; (3) commented on some of the problems created by Buck's Body Shop, noting that the business exacerbates parking and traffic problems in the area; (4) said that the site is too small for the proposed use, and there is not enough parking for the business; (5) said that the only available parking is on Corona, which is already heavily impacted; (6) noted concern over the traffic and serious accidents in this area; (7) noted concern that many people on Prospect Avenue have been diagnosed with cancer, and she questioned whether this is a result of paint fumes in the area; (8) felt that auto body shops near residential areas are totally inappropriate for health and safety reasons. Paul Phillips, 702 The Strand, Hermosa Beach, on behalf of the applicant, addressed the Commission and: (1) stressed that a new body shop will not be added to the community, rather, the applicant desires to relocate his currently existing body shop; (2) said that the business will be relocated to a quality structure; (3) discussed air quality and explained that retrofitting is not as effective as installing new equipment in a new shop; (4) noted the importance of having new, quality structures in the City which meet current state-of-the-art air quality requirements and standards; (5) stated that the applicant agrees with all of the conditions in the alternate resolution; (6) noted that it is within the purview of the Planning Commission to impose new conditions as it deems fit, and the Commission can also review the CUP to ensure compliance with the imposed conditions. Mr. Phillips went on and: (1) stated that the applicant is willing to adhere to all conditions; (2) said that the proposed business will set a standard for future businesses in the City; (3) noted that the applicant is willing to comply and be subject to review at any time so desired by the City; (4) stressed that they do not desire to violate the parking requirements, noting that this will be a quality establishment. Mr. Phillips responded to comments from the Commission and: (1) stated that, if necessary, cars will be towed away; (2) discussed the delivery of wrecked vehicles by tow trucks, explaining that the truck drivers are aware of the traffic hazards in the area, and they are required to have two operators in the tow truck, one driving, and one directing; (3) said that the present location of the body shop is not adequate, therefore, the applicant desires to relocate; (4) discussed, at the request of Comm. Rue, Air Quality Management District requirements, stating that that body has purview over the spray booths; (5) said that the business will have a water filter system, which is used to capture pollutants generated by the business; (6) continued by explaining how the water filter system works, and stated that the water is then disposed of according to AQMD standards. Maggie Serkoshian, 230 South Catalina, Redondo Beach, addressed the Commission, and: ( 1) pointed out that this property has been for sale for quite some time: (2) noted that any proposed use will impact traffic; (3) felt that retail uses would generate much more traffic than would an appointment-only type of business; (4) questioned how many cars are wrecked per hour, stating that the in-and-out traffic would be minimal. Maurice Bouday, 1203 11th Street, Hermosa Beach, opposed the project and: ( 1) said that he can smell paint fumes emanating from Buck's Body Shop, noting that painting is occurring outdoors; (2) noted concern that once the AQMD is notified of violations, nothing can be done because the officers are located quite a distance from Hermosa Beach, and by the time they arrive, the violation is history; (3) noted concern over the large number of auto body shops in and around Hermosa Beach; (4) gave to the Commission pages taken from an auto body equipment and parts catalog, noting that thousands of chemicals and paints are offered for sale; (5) continued by quoting excerpts from the code; (6) urged the Commission to consider the fact that there is already a heavy concentration of body shops in the area which have an adverse impact on the neighborhoods. 14 P.C. Minutes 9/ 18/90 Tanya Bouday, 1203 11th Street, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and: (1) opposed the project; (2) agreed with the comments made by Ms. Weber and Mr. Bouday; (3) said that there are many problems associated with auto body shops. Chmn. Ingell asked for members of the audience to indicate, by a show of bands, whether they agreed with the testimony given thus far regarding opposition to the proposed request. Ten people raised their bands in agreement. Chmn. Ingell then requested that only those people with new testimony to offer address the Commission. Sirad Hassanally, owner of 1224 Corona, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and: (1) noted that the proposed location of the business is an entry point into the City; (2) said that the commercially-zoned property is not very attractive and would not be conducive to the nearby residential neighborhood; (3) concurred with the other statements given in opposition to the project. Douglas King, 1075 Aviation Boulevard, addressed the Commission and: (1) opposed the proposed body shop; (2) agreed with the comments expressed by Ms. Weber; (3) explained that he further objects to the proposal based on noise, paint fume emissions, appearance of the project, and attendant parking and traffic problems; (4) felt that businesses which will be conducive to creating an attractive gateway into the City should be encouraged; (5) felt that there are other, more appropriate locations for industrial-type uses. Dick Rose, 1063 Aviation Boulevard, addressed the Commission and: (1) noted concern over potential hazards created by tow trucks attempting to enter the shop; (2) said that there are already severe traffic problems in the area; (3) opposed approval of this business at this location, stating that there are more appropriate uses for this site; (4) read into the record a letter of opposition (from an unidentified citizen). Ray Sutton, 1225 Corona, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and: (1) opposed the proposal; (2) stated that there are already parking and traffic problems on Corona, noting that it is a very narrow, busy street; (3) noted concern over the concentration of automotive shops already existing in the area; (4) stated that it would be impossible not to store vehicles overnight, noting that some repairs take several days; (5) said that he was never contacted by anyone from this business in regard to the proposal; (6) felt that there are other, more appropriate uses for this site, and he suggested a small park which would be of benefit to the residents and would serve as a more attractive gateway into the City. Ray Martin, 1255 Corona, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and: (1) opposed the body shop, since there are already so many other similar uses in the area; (2) noted concern over the safety of children; (3) stated that the area is currently in violation of AQMD standards. Mr. Marquez again addressed the Commission and: (1) thanked the audience for their comments and concern; (2) stated that it is not fair to judge this business by the problems created by other body shops; (3) noted that citizens' concerns have been addressed in the alternate resolution; (4) stressed that the applicant is willing to comply with all requirements, and he stressed that conditions have been imposed which address the concerns voiced by the residents; (5) explained that this business will do only body work; (6) noted that the City is adhering to strict enforcement policies at the present time, and they do not intend to violate any of the conditions. Mr. Marquez went on and: (1) discussed overnight parking and stated that cars will be stored only within the building itself; (2) stressed that vehicles will not be kept outside; (3) said that repairs are done by appointment so that the owner can order the necessary parts before the vehicle comes in to the shop; (4) stressed that only body work will be done, noting that there will be no alarm installation or repair of mechanical parts whatsoever. Mr. Phillips again addressed the Commission and: (1) said that the main issue at hand is one of community leadership; (2) suggested that the City start anew in regard to auto body shops, 15 P.C. Minutes 9/ 18/90 wherein timely and appropriate standards can be imposed on such uses; (3) said that this applicant should not be penalized for past infractions by other businesses; (4) noted that this will be a state-of-the-art establishment which can serve as an example to future businesses; (5) asked that this request be approved. Comm. Rue questioned whether data is available in regard to the current AQMD standards. He stated that he would like information related to whether or not this business is actually able to contain fumes within the premises. Mr. Schubach explained that the AQMD allows outdoor spraying of up to one gallon per day. Mr. Marquez stated that this establishment will meet or exceed all standards imposed by the AQMD. In addition, they intend to meet the requirements imposed by the fire department and building and safety agencies. He stated that, if so desired by the Commission, additional information can be provided related to this issue. He noted that the current spray booths have been much improved over the past several years. Mr. Phillips noted that auto body shops are specified on the permitted use list, subject to a conditional use permit. He noted that the conditions must be complied with; if they are not complied with, the City has the power to revoke the CUP. Mr. Marquez, in response to comments from Comm. Rue regarding staffs supplemental memorandum. discussed the issue of overnight parking of vehicles. He stated that staff's recommendation to enlarge the building to accommodate overnight parking is a point well taken; however, if the building is enlarged, more cars could be stored, which is not the applicant's intention. Therefore, the applicant desires to have the smaller building, so that there is more area for customer parking outside. Mr. Marquez stated that the applicant would prefer to adhere to the condition that there be no overnight parking of vehicles outside. He then suggested that the CUP be subject to a review in one year. If violations are discovered during 1the review process, action can be taken at that time. Mr. Schubach clarified staffs position on this matter, explaining that outdoor overnight storage of wrecked vehicles would be a violation not only of the conditional use permit, but also of the zoning ordinance. Staff therefore had recommended a larger building to create space for interior overnight storage of vehicles. Staff's intent was not, however, to increase the overall size of the operation. Billie Schmid, 1245 Corona, addressed the Commission and voiced her opposition to the project, based on the fact that her property would be devalued by this business. Unidentified resident, 1151 Corona, voiced his opposition, stating that most of the auto body shop owners do not even live in Hermosa Beach. He further noted concern over the emission of fumes creates by these types of businesses. Public Hearing closed by Chmn. Ingell. Comm. Rue stated that it is not within the power of the Planning Commission to correct all problems in the City. He questioned, however, what action can be taken related to those business establishments that are not in compliance. Mr. Schubach stated that the amortization ordinance was passed in order to address this problem. He explained that letters will be sent to business owners informing them that they are subject to conditional use permits, and application must be made within two years. Comm. Rue felt that the proposed business would be well-run and attractive. He noted, however, that there are problems with currently existing businesses in the area. He felt that 16 P.C. Minutes 9/ 18/90 these problems will accumulate unless action can be taken to mitigate the impacts. He stated that he does not favor adding to an already troubled area. Comm. Ketz felt that the proposed business would create a negative impact in the area. She further felt that the use would exacerbate the traffic problems. Comm. Peirce stated that it would be very difficult to ensure that this business remains small. He noted concern that conditional use permit enforcement has been traditionally weak in the City. He noted that there are already a number of automotive uses in the area, and he cautioned against a further saturation of auto body shops. He felt that a diversification of uses would be appropriate. Comm. Peirce stated that he would like staff to investigate this issue further in order to determine what violations are occurring at other auto body shops in the City. Chnm. Ingell had no doubt that this applicant intends to comply with the regulations; however, he noted that conditional use permits run with the land, and it is therefore impossible to determine what a future owner might do. He concurred with the fact that this area is already heavily impacted with automotive businesses. He noted that enforcement has been difficult in the past, and there is no proof indicating that the City can control the problem any better in the future. Chnm. Ingell, on a different issue, felt that the complaints voiced by the citizens at the public hearing should be brought to the attention of the appropriate agencies. Chmn. Ingell stated that he could not support approval of this project. Comm. Rue felt that this applicant is being penalized because of violations of other businesses in the area. He said that this applicant is agreeing to comply with more than 26 conditions imposed by the City, and he felt that there is merit in such an undertaking by a business owner. He stressed that there are two sides to this issue. He agreed that the other body shops are out of control; however, this applicant is proposing an attractive building which will be well-nm. He did not feel it is possible to mitigate everything; however, this applicant is attempting to mitigate almost everything. He stated, however, that he is not willing to vote for this project until something can be done about the other businesses in the area in an attempt to lessen the problems. Comm. Rue felt that the applicant has gone to a great deal of trouble in order to reach an agreement with the City. He also felt that the applicant made a fine presentation. He encouraged the applicant to spearhead a project in the area in an attempt to clear up some of the existing problems related to this use. Mr. Marquez stated that he would prefer that this item not be continued to a future meeting. He suggested approval, subject to a condition that this business not begin operation for some specified period of time. Comm. Rue stated that he tended to favor approval; however, he could not vote to approve until such time that he sees actual results. Chmn. Ingell felt that there is no way another body shop could be a good neighbor in such a dense city. He did not feel that there are enough mitigation measures available to approve another such use. MOTION by Comm. Ketz, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to approve staffs recommendation to deny the proposed conditional use permit and precise development plan, Resolution P.C. 90-77. 17 P.C. Minutes 9/ 18/90 Comm. Peirce stated that there are already too many automotive businesses in the City. He also noted concern over the business being sold to someone who will not adhere to the conditions in the future. Comm. Rue encouraged the applicant to try to rally support from the local businesses in the area. Chmn. Ingell favored denial, stating that he does not even feel this use should be on the permitted use list. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ketz, Peirce, Chmn. Ingell Collllll.Rue None Comm. Moore Chmn. Ingell stated that this decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed by writing to the City Council within ten days. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Chmn. Ingell, to request staff to report back to the Commission with information related to existing auto body shops and their operations. Specifically requested information relates to: (1) spray booths and the use of filter systems; (2) whether doors are closed when spraying is done; (3) whether spraying is done outdoors; (4) overnight storage of wrecked vehicles in open areas surrounding the shop; and (5) general appearance of such businesses. Comm. Peirce felt that it is important for all businesses to comply, stating that it is not fair to require some businesses to comply, while others do not. Comm. Ketz asked about enforcement of air quality standards in relation to spraying. She asked whether the City or the AQMD requires that spraying be done in enclosed areas. Comm. Peirce stated that the minimum standards as set forth by the AQMD must be met; however, he felt it is also appropriate for the City to impose stronger standards if necessary. especially since the City is very dense. Mr. Lee discussed the imposition of such requirements by a city itself, as opposed to the AQMD. He suggested that these types of uses be addressed on a case-by-case basis. Mr. Schubach stated that staff would report back on this issue in sixty days. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ketz, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ingell None None Comm. Moore THIRD QUARTER GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (CONTINUED FROM MEETING OF SEPl'EMBER 4, 1990} Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated September 13, 1990. After review of the response regarding the draft revision to the housing element from the State of California Housing and Community Development Department. several changes were recommended to be included in the revision. A copy of the letter was provided to the Commissioners. and if the changes are satisfactory, the letter will be sent to HCD. The draft letter was reviewed by the City Attorney, and comments from that office are being prepared for consideration at the hearing. 18 P.C. Minutes 9/ 18/90 ., Staff suggested that the Planning Commission recommend the changes and additions specified in the draft for City Council approval, as part of the revision to the housing element. Mr. Lee suggested an additional item to be included regarding the encouragement and development of low-income housing. He continued by explaining how this objective might be undertaken. He said that this objective is in compliance with State law. Mr. Schubach noted that Appendix G related to fair housing quotas has been added to the document. Other minor changes were made as a result of the joint City Council/Planning Commission workshops. He explained that no substantive changes have been made to the document. Mr. Schubach stated that this document meets all State requirements; therefore, staff recommended that it be approved and forwarded to the City Council. Comm. Rue questioned whether planning issues have been taken into account in the document, particularly areas which have been discussed by the Commission in the past. He continued by specifying topics which the Commission had considered, to which Mr. Schubach replied that all of the items mentioned by Comm. Rue had indeed been incorporated into the document. Comm. Rue wanted to encourage neighborhood cohesiveness, to which Mr. Schubach replied that that issue would be addressed in the land use element. Comm. Rue also favored the encouragement of landscaping. Public Hearing opened and closed at 10:25 P.M. by Cbmn. Ingell, who noted that no one came forward to speak on this issue. MOTION by Comm. Ketz, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve staffs recommendation, Housing Element GP 90-4, with the inclusion Mr. Lee's recommendation to include low-income housing as an objective. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ketz, Peirce, Rue, Cbmn. Ingell None None Comm. Moore CUP 89-7 -REVIEW OF THE MASTER CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AT 555 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated September 6, 1990, and recommended that the Planning Commission direct staff to strictly enforce the conditions of the subject conditional use permit. From August 15, 1989, until finalization on December 14, 1989, the Planning Commission considered this conditional use permit. One of the 29 conditions imposed was for a one-year review. On September 5, 1990, the code enforcement officer found that five of the conditions had been complied with; however, eight conditions had not been met. Although there has been some compliance, it is clear that the owner of the combined properties has missed the spirit of cooperation in bringing this property into compliance with the conditional use permit requirements. It was noted that this review does not afford the applicant the opportunity to request amendments to the conditions. 19 P.C. Minutes 9/ 18/90 Mr. Schubach continued by specifying each of the conditions which is in compliance and those which are not. Mr. Schubach, in response to questions from Comm. Peirce, stated that this item was not required to be publicly noticed because it was not set for public hearing; it is part of the review process. He stated that, if desired, the matter could be noticed in the newspaper. He explained, however, that staff would prefer not to do a 300-foot public noticing, due to time, staff. and economic constraints. Hearing opened by Chmn. Ingell. Jack Mardikian, 505-555 Pacific Coast Highway, applicant, addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that he has until the end of the year to comply with the all requirements: (2) complained that he is receiving letters from staff every two months stating that he must do more improvements, and he is trying his best to comply; (3) stated that he has improved the fence, however, staff is now saying it must be changed; (4) discussed the storage and parking of of cars at this location; (5) explained that he has been in the City since 1973; (6) noted that the driveway has been grandfathered in; (7) stated that there is confusion between what he is trying to do and what staff wants him to do. Chmn. Ingell pointed out that Mr. Mardikian has never signed the required terms and condition form; therefore, he suggested that it be signed at the meeting. Chmn. Ingell explained that if Mr. Mardikian had signed the document and had a copy, there would have been no question as to what was required, since all of the conditions are clearly specified. Mr. Mardikian apologized, stating that he thought it was not necessary to sign the papers since he was coming to this hearing. Mike Wilson, manager, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission and: (1) explained that the document was not signed and recorded because it is incorrect; (2) noted that he was informed by staff that it needed to be corrected by the Commission since it is not within the purview of staff to make changes to the document; (3) complained that staff notified them that corrections could not be made to the document at this time because this hearing was for a review only; (4) noted that they were given this information only a short time ago; (5) said that staff now asserts a public hearing is necessary to change the document: (6) wanted to point out the inaccuracies in the document. Comm. Rue stated that it would be necessary to hear these issues during a public hearing; therefore, he felt it would be appropriate to have all past minutes and documentation on this matter before testimony is taken. Mr. Schubach pointed out that the resolution has been signed and adopted. He stated that past minutes can be provided to the Commission. He continued by explaining that if this matter is set for public hearing, the applicant would have to pay the appropriate fees; therefore, he recommended against a public hearing. Comm. Rue asked whether the document can be changed at a revocation hearing. He recalled that these conditions were discussed at length when this matter was previously heard by the Commission. Mr. Schubach suggested that this hearing be continued. Staff could then provide the Commission with copies of past minutes related to this item. Tapes could also be provided, if so desired, for review by the Commission. Mr. Schubach suggested that the applicant point out those items which he feels are incorrect in the document. 20 P.C. Minutes 9/ 18/90 -- Mr. Wilson discussed Condition No. 7. stating that the requirement was to have signage implemented on the site by September 1990. He stressed that the requirement was for implementation at this time, not review and approval. He thought that they were supposed to present the signage plan, have it approved, and then obtain the proper permits to have the work done. He continued by discussing the pole sign. stating that he thought this issue was supposed to be discussed with the Commission at this time. He stated that the dates in the document are incorrect; that they were supposed to have until 1992 to complete the work. Mr. Wilson stated that they would be happy to sign a document, if it specifies what was agreed upon by the applicant and the Commission at the previous hearing of this matter. Comm. Peirce's recollection is that the document is correct and clear as to what the Commission wanted accomplished. Mr. Wilson continued by discussing the landscaping plan, Condition No. 4(a): " ... shall include provision for an automatic irrigation system, and shall provide for drought tolerant vegetation. to ensure the long-term maintenance of the landscaping." He stated that this requirement is unclear. and when he called the Planning Department, he was informed that the "and" in the condition should have read " ... Qr. shall provide for drought-tolerant vegetation .... " He then proceeded to prepare a plan using drought-tolerant vegetation; however, he was then informed by staff that an irrigation system was also required. Chmn. Ingell explained that the intent was to require the installation of a sprinkler system, and it was also intended that drought-tolerant plants would be used. Comm. Rue stated that a drip watering system could be used, which would not require a lot of water. Plants requiring little watering could then be used. He therefore stated that the wording in the resolution is indeed correct; that both an irrigation system and drought-resistent vegetation are required. Mr. Wilson questioned whether the condition applies to only bushes or whether it also includes trees. Chmn. Ingell stated that the Commission intended that all areas have irrigation. Mr. Wilson stated that the condition will be complied with, now that he understands it. Mr. Wilson discussed the signage, explaining that the tenants will be paying for upgrading the signage; therefore, it was agreed upon that the improvements could be phased in so that the economic impact would not be as great. Mr. Wilson continued by discussing Condition No. 14: "Storage of trucks, tractors, trailers, and RVs in the parking and car display areas or any other location on the premises shall be prohibited." He said that there is a storage trailer on the lot; however, if it is not allowed, it will be removed. Chmn. Ingell stated that the trailer is not allowed according to the zoning code. Chmn. Ingell felt that the only discrepancy appears to be related to Condition No. 7 and the date by which all signage requirements must be met. Comm. Ketz recollected that the applicant was given one year to put in the pole signs; and two years for the other signs. She could recall no mention of allowing three years for implementation. Comm. Rue favored a continuance so that the minutes could be provided for review. 21 P.C. Minutes 9/ 18/90 ·' Comm. Ketz felt that the resolution as submitted is correct. Chmn. Ingell concurred. Mr. Wilson discussed Condition No. 3 regarding the parking at the adjacent flower shop and explained that the operator of that shop feels the required parking will be more dangerous than what is currently being used. He said that he is not averse to the condition; however, the tenant does object. Chmn. Ingell explained that, by law, the Commission is not able to change a condition unless the public has been properly notified and the matter is discussed at a public hearing. Mr. Wilson stated that he is now clear as to what action must be taken to comply with the requirements. He continued by explaining what activities are underway to meet compliance. Comm. Peirce suggested that this matter be brought back for review in 90 days. Mr. Lee stated that the Commission has now addressed the ambiguities and concerns expressed by the applicant. He pointed out that the code enforcement officer will investigate, and if the business is not in compliance, it will be cited and brought back for review and possible revocation. He stated that the process is already in place. He therefore advised that the matter does not need to come back in 90 days for review. Chmn. Ingell stated that one of the conditions was for a one-year review. He noted, however, that it has only been ten months. He therefore favored bringing this item back in two months. Mr. Wilson discussed the requirement for a new fence, noting that no mention was ever made regarding the gate, to which Mr. Schubach explained that both the fence and gate are required to be upgraded. Comm. Rue stated that a gate is an integral part of a fence; therefore, both must be upgraded. Mr. Schubach, in response to concerns of Mr. Wilson, stated that staff would be happy to work with the applicant to advise which signs must be removed. Mr. Wilson also expressed confusion over Condition No. 12: "All parking and storage areas shall be maintained free of unregistered and derelict vehicles or parts." Mr. Schubach explained the process regarding derelict vehicles, stating that once a vehicle is cited, the owner is given a citation and a time limit within which to comply. Mr. Wilson discussed the lighted sign boxes which were to be installed around the building, stating that the money is not yet available for those signs. He was under the impression that these lighted signs were not required at this time, but they could be provided within one year. Mr. Wilson stated that there is no problem in now signing the document. Comm. Peirce suggested that the applicant sign the document, work with staff, and come back to the Commission in January. Mr. Tootooncher, owner of Pacific Auto Clinic, addressed the Commission and: (1) discussed the painted wall sign and expressed confusion over what is required; (2) was informed by Chmn. Ingell that signs are within the purview of the Building Department, and that department should be contacted for clarification of the requirements; (3) discussed storage, stating that he understood there could be indoor storage; (4) was advised by Chmn. Ingell that the storage trailer is illegal according to the provisions of the zoning code and therefore cannot remain under any circumstances. Mr. Lee explained that one of the conditions specifies that all signs must be compatible with the others on the site. In addition, the proper permits must be obtained. 22 P.C. Minutes 9/ 18/90 Shi Jin Lee, owner of the flower shop, addressed the Commission and: (1) expressed concern over the curb parking and the proposed conditions; (2) was advised by Chmn. Ingell that the Commission can take no action at this time related to changing any of the conditions; (3) asked that the City consider a waiver to the parking condition, to which Chmn. Ingell suggested that Mr. Lee discuss this matter with the P]anning Department. Hearing closed by Cbmn. Ingell. MOTION by CoIIDil. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ketz. to direct staff to bring this item back at the first meeting in January 1991, for the purpose of ensuring compliance with the conditions. Also, to add a condition requiring that the document be signed within the next ten days. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ketz, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ingell None None Comm. Moore CUP 90-5 -MINOR MODIFICATION TO APPROVED CONDOMINIUM PLAN AT 350 MANBATIAN AVENUE AKA 212 4TH STREET Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated September 11, 1990, and recommended that the PJanning Commission approve the minor revisions to the approved condominium at 350 Manhattan Avenue (also known as 212 4th Street). The changes involve modifications to the interior floor plan for some levels and results in a different exterior appearance, as the shapes of some of the exterior decks have been changed. Mditional open space has also been provided. Staff felt that these changes can be considered minor because the size, silhouette, and building envelope remain essentially the same. Since the revisions do not result in a different appearance for the building, staff felt that PJanning Commission approval is necessary to verify staffs assertion that the changes are "minor." Staff conducted a zoning analysis of the revised plans to verify compliance with the zoning ordinance and consistency with the previous plans, and has found the plans to be adequate and generally consistent with the previous approval. Staff also felt that the revisions have improved the appearance of the building and have resulted in a more sensible interior floor plan with more usable open space areas. Hearing opened by Cbmn. Ingell. William Campbell, 350 Manhattan Avenue, addressed the Commission and explained that the revisions have resulted in a better plan for this project. Hearing closed by Cbmn. Ingell. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve staffs recommendation, Resolution P.C. 90-30. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ketz, Peirce, Rue. Chmn. Ingell None None Comm. Moore 23 P.C. Minutes 9/ 18/90 ., STAFF I'IEMS a) Memorandum Regarding Municipal Area Emress (MAX) Ridership Improvement Program Comm. Peirce wanted additional information on several items: the times and locations for specific routes, where people are going, and where they are going beyond these routes. Mr. Schubach stated that he will provide more information to Comm. Peirce. b) Memorandum Regarding Planning Commission Liaison for Se_ptember 25. 1990. Meeting No one will attend as liaison. c) Tentative Future Pl;moing Commission Agenda No action taken. d) City Council Minutes of August 28. 1990 No action taken. COMMISSIONER ITEMS Comm. Rue discussed recycling and water conservation. Comm. Peirce requested staff to provide information on the quality of water off of Hermosa Beach, noting that he has seen a man taking water samples in vials. Mr. Schubach and the Commission discussed the water quality and sewage in the area. Chmn. Ingell hoped that the system can be improved so that documents do not go unsigned by applicants for many months. Mr. Schubach stated that corrective action has already been taken, explaining that if documents are not signed within 30 days, a notice is sent to the applicant. If compliance is not forthcoming, a citation is issued. MOTION by Comm. Ketz, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to adjourn at 11:35 P.M. No objections; so ordered. CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and complete record of the action taken by the Planning Commission of Hermosa Beach at the regularly scheduled meeting of September 18, 1990. Date 24 P.C. Minutes 9/ 18/90