Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC_Minutes_1990_10_02MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON OCTOBER 2, 1990, AT 7:00 P.M. IN THE CITY HALL COUNCD, CHAMBERS Meeting called to order at 7:02 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell. Pledge of Allegiance led by Comm. Ketz. Chrnn. Ingell introduced and welcomed the new Planning Commissioner. Edmund Aleks. ROLLCALL Present: Absent: Also Present: Comms. Aleks, Ket:z, Peirce. Rue, Chmn. Ingell None Michael Schubach, Planning Director: Edward Lee, .Assistant City Attorney; Sally White, Recording Secretary CONSENT CALENDAR Comm. Rue pulled for discussion Resolution P.C. 90-80, stating that Condition No. 5 should be modified to indicate that there is to be no take-out service of alcoholic beverages. Mr. Schubach stated that the words "check-out stands" can be deleted from the condition. Chmn. Ingell pulled for discussion the minutes of September 18, 1990. He stated that the minutes submitted by the substitute recording secretary contain numerous errors. Noting that the minutes were received late as well, he su~gesled that approval be continued to the first meeting in Novemf:)er. when an of the Commissioners will be present. Mr. Schubach noted, however, that the housing element will be going forward to the City Council. He therefore suggested that the Commission review and approve that portion of the minutes so that they can be sent to the Council. Chmn. Inge11 stated that any further discussion of the minutes would be deferred until later in the meeting. MOTION by Comm. Ketz, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve the following consent calendar Items (with Resolution P.C. 90-80 as amended): Resolution P.C. 90-33, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CI1Y OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW OFF- SALE BEER AND WINE IN CONJUNCTION WITH A CONVENIENCE MARKET, AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATfON FOR 302 PIER AVENUE, SIMPSON'S MARKET, AND LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS A PORTION OF LOT 8, BLOCK 55. FIRST ADDIDON TO HERMOSA TRACT; Resolution P.C. 90-58, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CI1Y OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DENYJNG A REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ON-SALE BEER AND WINE IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN EXISTING RESTAURANT AT 1433 HERMOSA AVENUE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS 15, 16, 17, AND 18, BLOCK 15. HERMOSA BEACH TRACT; Resolution P.C. 90-75, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CI1Y OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING AMENDING TI-IE HOUSING ELEMENf OF THE GENERAL PLAN BY ADDING "THE 1989-1994 REVISION TO THE HOUSING ELEMENT," l P.C. Minutes 10/2/90 AS REVISED, AS A GENERAL POLICY STATEMENT AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION; Resolution P.C. 90-77, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CI'IY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DENYING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN REQUEST FOR AN AUTO BODY REPAIR AND PAINTING ESTABLISHMENT AT 1081 TO 1087 AVIATION, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS 49 AND 50, AND THE SOurHERLY 58 FEET OF LOTS 47 AND 48, HERMOSA HEIGHTS TRACT; Resolution P.C. 90-79, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CI'IY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW THE REMODEL AND ADDITION TO A UNIT WITHIN A FOUR-UNIT CONDOMINIUM APPROVED AT 44 7TH STREET; Resolution P.C. 90-80, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CI'IY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW ON- SALE GENERAL ALCOHOL IN CONJUNCTION WITH A RESTAURANT, AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATNE DECLARATION FOR 11 PIER AVENUE, THE MERMAID RESTAURANT, AND LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS 1-4, INCLUSIVE, BLOCK 13, HERMOSA BEACH TRACT. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ketz, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ingell None Comm. Aleks None COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC No one appeared to address the Commission. CUP 90-15 --CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO EXTEND ALLOWED ENTERTAINMENT HOURS TO INCLUDE 9:00 P.M. TO 1: 15 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 {CONTINUED FROM MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 18. 1990) Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated September 11, 1990. Staff recommended approval of the requested CUP amendment, subject to the conditions specified in the proposed resolution, and except that entertainment shall not begin 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 the hours and limitations for live entertainment which were in two older conditional use permits. Staffs position is that Resolution BZA 154-391 (December 15, 1980) limiting the hours of entertainment to between 9:00 P.M. and 1: 15 AM. on Saturdays and Sundays only is the applicable requirement. The staff environmental review committee recommended a mitigated environmental negative declaration and recommended several mitigation measures: (1) that the building shall be sound reinforced to contain noise inside the building; (2) an acoustical study shall be prepared by an acoustical expert to identify the appropriate improvements necessary for containing the sound; (3) musical entertainment volume shall be the responsibility of the management, not the entertainer; and (4) noise readings shall be performed by the City to verify compliance once the mitigation measures are implemented. The Planning Commission recently denied a request by The End Zone. located at 22 Pier Avenue, to extend its hours to include 4:00 P.M. to 7:00 P.M. on weekends. This decision was 2 P.C. Minutes 10/2/90 upheld by the City Council on appeal, and therefore The End Zone's allowed entertainment hours are restricted to between 7:00 P.M. and 1:30 A.M. on Thursday through Sunday and holidays. The primary concern with extended hours of live entertainment is the expansion of noise problems. Problems relating to excessive noise and non-compliance 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 establishments were kept under control, and problems were minimal. It does not appear that the establishment has even been in compliance with the restriction that entertainment be only on weekend nights. Also. the police department has historically had difficulty obtaining cmnpliance with the condition that doors and windows be closed during amplified entertainment. Given the history of the problems at this location. staff is hesitant to recommend an extension in the hours. However, a precedent has been set with The End Zone for the weeknights of Thursday and Friday nights (The End Zone has never requested entertainment for Monday through Wednesday), and Hennessey's has been using these nights for entertainment for several years. Therefore, staff recommended approval of weekday evening hours from 9:00 P.M. until 1:15AM. In regard to the hours for Saturday and Sunday, staff felt that to be consistent with the hours granted for The End Zone, the entertainment should be allowed to start no sooner than 7:00 P.M. Additional conditions were recommended to require that the building be soundproofed. Also, several standard conditions applicable to alcohol establishments not previously a part of the BZA resolutions are included. Public Hearing opened at 7: 10 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell. Paul Hennessey, owner and applicant, addressed the Commission and: (1) said that he has worked with staff and he has applied for a clarification of Condition No. 1 of the CUP; (2) passed out copies of the past BZA resolutions and stated that it is apparent that a typographical error was made, in that BZA 154-365, Condition No. 1, contains additional wording not found in Condition No. 1 of BZA 154-391, related to the hours of entertainment; (3) noted that BZA 154-365, Condition No. 1, states: "Electronically amplified musical entertainment shall be limited to the hours of9:00 P.M. to 1:15AM. on weekdays and from 2:00 P.M. to 1:15 A.M. on Saturdays and Sundays: (4) said that Hennessey's has had live entertainment for the past 14 years, prior to The End zone ever even applying for an entertainment permit; (5) therefore did not feel that the decision made related to The End Zone ts applicable in relation to Hennessey's. Mr. Hennessey continued and: {1) in response to a question from Chmn. Ingell related to the changes made from BZA 154-365 to BZA 154-391. stated that at the time BZA 154-391 was approved, the Board made no corim1ents related to the hours for live entertainment; (2) discussed closure of the windows and said that the Board at that time said the doors and windows could remain open during live entertainment. so long as no complaints were received from the neighbors, and none have been received; (3) passed out copies ofletters he has received from the City {one dated 1988 and one dated summer of 1990) commending this establishment on its compliance with City regulations and requirements of the conditional use permit. Mr. Hennessey went on and: (1) passed out a copy of a document dated October 8, 1986, "Status Report Regarding Downtown Noise Enforcement." and he said the report makes no mention whatsoever of any noise problems emanating from Hennessey's; (2) said that Hennessey's has established a good track record for complying with City requirements: (3) stressed that there 3 P.C. Minutes 10/2/90 has been live entertainment at this establishment on Saturdays and Sundays for 14 years, and it is apparent to him that there was a typographical error on the second approval by the BZA. 154-391. Comm. Peirce noted that a standard condition has been to require that all windows be screened in order to prevent the passing through of alcoho1fc beverages, to which Mr. Hennessey replied that the front windows currently do have screens. He stated. also, that he has never seen drinks being passed out through the windows. Comm. Rue noted that the police department has historically had problems enforcing the condition that doors and windows must remain closed during live entertainment. He noted that there appears to be a discrepancy in the CUP related to this condition. Mr. Hennessey said that the current conditions do not specifically state that doors and windows must remain closed during live entertainment. The police have come to the establishment requesting that the windows and doors be closed during entertainment, and they have voluntarily complied. He felt, however, that the police department is having a problem in determining which CUP should be enforced. Comm. Peirce countered that BZA 154-391, Condition No. 2, states: "If the sound emanating from the business is sufficient to constitute a nuisance evidenced by complaints or sound measurements. the outer doors and exterior operable doors and windows shall be closed at all times when electronically amplified entertainment is occurring." He further noted that the same condition is included in BZA 154-365. He felt, however, that this point is academic, noting that he has been in the area many times, and music from this establishment is booming out Into the street. He stressed that the doors and windows must be closed during live entertainment. and he asked whether Mr. Hennessey intends to comply with the condition. Mr. Hennessey stated that the doors and windows are being closed now. Further, he has been told by the police that this establishment is in compliance. He said that he will continue to close the doors and windows, if so required by lhe Cily. He said that his main objection relates to Condition No. 1, regarding the hours of entertainment. Public Hearing closed at 7:20 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell. Comm. Aleks asked what differences there are between this establishment and The End Zone, to which Mr. Schubach explained that The End Zone is more of a sports-oriented bar. Essentially, however, they are both alcoholic establishments. They are located vexy near to each other, and they are on the same side of the street. He said that The End Zone's band area is slightly larger than Hennessey's; however. there are many similarities between the two businesses. Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Comm. Aleks, stated that approval of additional hours would set a precedent, which he did not feel would be desirable, noting that there have been problems in the past. He felt that the hours should be the same for the two establishments. Comm. Rue asked whether there is data from the police department related to the noise, to which Mr. Schubach explained that reports have been received, but it would be necessary for staff to locate them. Comm. Rue stated that the police department has historically had difficulty enforcing the condition that doors and windows shall be closed during live entertainment. Mr. Schubach stated that there has recently been more compliance with that condition, and the number of complaints has been reduced. 4 P.C. Minutes 10/2/90 Comm. Rue noted that there have been many problems throughout the City with noise; however, it is difficult to specificaUy address the problem without having additional information. such as police reports. He noted also that one of the conditions requires that an acoustical study be done to identify appropriate improvements for containing the sound, and he questioned when that study would be completed. Mr. Schubach stated that this is the same requirement imposed on The End Zone, and that the applicant wiU be required to provide staff with the appropriate data related to the noise level and what can be done to resolve the problem. He continued by explaining what The End Zone has done to mitigate the noise. He said that this applicant must provide the data within a reasonable time period. Chmn. Ingell felt it is inappropriate to compare Hennessey's with The End Zone. He noted that Mr. Hennessey himself asked for this clarification: whereas. The End Zone was being considered for a revocation hearing due to their noncompliance. Mr. Schubach stated that this applicant has an existing CUP in effect at this time. The applicant approached staff in regard to the hours of operation and asked for clarification on the hours. Comm. Peirce stated that it appears that the only operable differences between past CUPs and the current CUP being proposed is Condition No. 4(b) which requires an acoustical study to be prepared and the attendant mitigation measures, and the hours of operation. Chmn. Ingell stated that it appears that Hennessey's hours of operation have been grandfathered in. He noted that new businesses would not necessarily have the same conditions imposed as older businesses. Comm. Peirce stated that the condition related to the sound study in this CUP appears to be an extension of BZA 154-391, which also required sound measurements (Condition No. 2). He felt that such a condition is appropriate, no matter how long this business has been in existence. He felt that during the periodic reviews, the Commission should attempt to make recommendations for improvements based on what is best for the City. Comm. Peirce opposed an extension in the hours of operation, stating that the main question is when the party should begin in the downtown area. He therefore did not feel that longer hours are necessary, and he thought that 9:00 P.M. to 1: 15 AM. on weekdays and 7:00 P.M. to 1: 15 AM. on the weekends is adequate. Chmn. Ingell stated that this case differs from The End Zone. especially in light of the fact that the applicant was not aware that he would be losing his hours of operation in the new conditional use permit, and the applicant has been operating for years with the understanding that his hours of operation were in compliance. He further noted that he could find no mention of the hours in the minutes of the BZA meetings at which this business was discussed; therefore, he did not feel hours of operation was a major concern of that board. Comm. Peirce asked whether the Board of Zoning Adjustments kept detailed minutes in 1980, to which Mr. Schubach replied that the sparse minutes proved to be a problem, and more thorough, detailed minutes are now prepared in an attempt to avoid this very type of problem. Comm. Peirce noted concern that the resolution adopted by the Board of Zoning Adjustments (BZA 154-391) was not signed. Comm. Rue asked whether there would be any objection to allowing live entertainment to start at 5:00 or 6:00 P.M. on the weekends. nollng that such a starting time would not be in the middle of the afternoon, which was a previous concern of the Commission. He noted that many people like to relax after a day at the beach, and he felt such a starting time would be acceptable and would be a fair compromise. 5 P.C. Minutes 10/2/90 Comm. Peirce noted that The End Zone cannot start live entertainment until 7:00 P.M., and he questioned what the rationale would be to allow this business to start its entertainment earlier. Comm. Rue said that this is an o1der CUP which has not been signed, and the minutes do not detail the specifics of the conditions. He did not feel that the earlier starting time would be detrimental. Comm. Peirce stated that the Commission should be consistent, and he did not feel it would be appropriate to allow one business to begin entertainment ear1ier than another. Comm. Ketz agreed that the businesses shou1d be treated similarly; therefore, she favored the hours being the same for each. Comm. Rue and Chmn. Ingell agreed that the type of entertainment offered at the two businesses differs. Hennessey's entertainment is on a smaller scale; whereas, The End Zone has larger groups performing. It was a1so noted that Hennessey's has been in operation for many years at this location. Comm. Peirce cautioned that the CUP runs with the business, and another owner could come in and have much larger groups performing. Public Hearing reopened at 7:33 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell. Paul Hennessey, applicant, addressed the Commission and: ( 1) replied to a question from Chmn. Ingell regarding his opinion of the new staff-proposed conditions, to which he replied that several of the conditions have been met, such as that requiring a sound study; (2) explained that a sound study was done in 1981 and the study was given to the City, and there were no objections at that time; (3) said that the speakers and volume control methods were changed at that time; (4) said that there have been no complaints from the City since that time. Mr. Hennessey continued and: (1) stressed that he is not asking to expand the hours of entertainment; (2) rather, he is asking to continue with the hours he has had for the 14 years they have been in operation; (3) again noted that this problem arose because of a typographical error in the resolution; (4) said that this business is not physically large enough to accommodate any more than two or three performers at one time: therefore, he would have no objection to a condition limiting the number of performers. Chmn. Ingell referred to Condition No. 4(c): "All music/entertainment volume levels shall be controlled by the management, not by the entertainers." Mr. Hennessey replied that that condition is not feasible, explaining that the musicians themselves control the volume of their own instruments and amplifiers. He said that it is a matter of the musicians policing themselves. Comm. Rue stated that the Commission desires the management to monitor the sound. even if they do not actually control the volume levels of the instruments. to which Mr. Hennessey replied that management has no prob1em with monitoring the noise level. Mr. Hennessey stated that the business has built its reputation on its entertainment, and any changes now would be very detrimental to the business. He stated that by providing entertainment, higher prices can be charged, therefore ensuring a higher-quality clientele. He did not feel that afternoon entertainment is detrimental, and he did not feel it would disturb the neighborhood. Comm. Rue felt that there would be no objection to earlier hours for live entertainment, so long as there is a guarantee that the noise would be contained within the building. He said that the 6 P.C. Minutes 10/2/90 biggest problem is that noise can be heard on the streets. and it almost seems as though the bars are competing with each other for business. Mr. Hennessey again noted that his business was never cited for noncompliance. He stated that he is asking for nothing new: he merely wants to continue with the hours he has had for many years. He did not feel it is fair to be penalized for problems which have been created by other businesses. Howard Longacre, 1221 7th Place. Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and: (1) asked whether Chmn. Ingell might have a conOict of interest due to his interest in Scotty's Restaurant, to which Chmn. Ingell explained that he has had no involvement with Scotty's since last January; (2) stated that Hennessey's is a nice business. however, he did not feel there is a significant difference between it and The End Zone: (3) opposed the increased hours, based on the fact that increased hours would mean increased alcohol consumption, which he does not favor. Comm. Rue asked whether it is possible to have quieter entertainment in the afternoon hours, to which Mr. Hennessey replied that that would be possible, but it involves hiring the appropriate entertainment and having proper monitoring by management. He stated that it would be detrimental for his business to have entertainment that is very loud, since that tends to drive people away. Mr. Hennessey explained that last summer he instituted a new policy whereby the entertainers are required to sign a form stating that they are aware that if they are asked too many times to turn down the volume, they will not be hired to perform again. Dave Reimer, 802 Monterey, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and suggested that the applicant be required to purchase a sound monitoring device and maintain records of the noise levels. Mr. Hennessey stated that they have already purchased noise meters which they have been using to control the noise. Public Hearing closed at 7:44 P .M. by Chmn. Ingell. Comm. Rue felt that Hennessey's managers are making an effort to comply with the requirements, noting that noise meters have been purchased. He felt that if the noise can be controlled and kept inside, the Commissions' goal would be reached. So long as the noise is kept inside, he had no objection to the hours. Comm. Ketz stated that she could support approval of the request if the noise can be kept inside, and if there can be a limit on the number of entertainers. She felt that the main objective is to have businesses meet the noise requirements. and if this can be accomplished, she has no objection to the hours of operation. Chmn. Ingell felt that if the hours of operation had been a major concern. the minutes of the BZA would have reflected that fact; therefore, he felt that this problem arose due to a typographical error. He agreed that if the noise can be kept inside and the business can stay in compliance, he would have no objection to the hours. He felt that the Commissions' purpose at this point is to correct a clerical error. Comm. Aleks did not see this as a noise issue, but rather one of alcoholic consumption and hours of operation for this and other businesses. He felt that just because this business has been in operation for a long time Is not adequate reason to approve extended hours; therefore, he favored approval of staffs recommended hours for live entertainment. from 9:00 P.M. until 1:15AM. 7 P.C. Minutes 10/2/90 Comm. Rue stated that the Commission does not want to be arbitrary: however, this business has a track record and has not been cited for noncompliance. He noted that violations at The End Zone were well documented. and their hours were imposed based on that documentation. Comm. Peirce felt that to allow different hours for this business would constitute special treatment, which he did not favor. He felt that the decision should be based upon what is actually happening in the area at the present time. Chmn. Ingell did not feel that the standards would be dilTerent for the dilTerent businesses. He stated that this problem arose solely because of a derical error, and the applicant merely came in to request clarification on the issue of hours of operation. Comm. Peirce stressed that this decision should be based upon what is best for the City today, not what happened years ago. He could see no difference between this business and The End Zone. Comm. Rue questioned whether it would be feasible to include a condition related to the maximum decibel level which could be allowed inside the building. Mr. Schubach stated that Condition No. 4(c) could be modified to indicate that noise levels shall be controlled by the management. Comm. Peirce stated that noise inside is not the issue: rather, the issue is the level of noise emanating outside the business. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Chmn. Ingell, to approve Resolution 90-78 with the following modifications: (I) Condition No. 1 shall be modified to read: "The hours for live entertainment shall be limited to the hours from 9:00 P.M. to 1: 15 AM Monday through Friday. and from 2:00 P,M. to 1:15 A.M. on Saturdays. Sundays. and national holidays. as desfinated by the City of Hermosa Beach: (2) Condillon No. 4(c) shall be amended to specify that management shall be responsible for the music/entertainment volume levels: and (3) a condition shall be added specifying that there shall be a maximum of three entertainers at any one time. Comm. Rue stated that the intent is to have the expanded hours on holidays when people are off work. Comm. Rue commented on findings and stated that one of his reasons for allowing the additional hours is that this conditional use permit is affected by the physical layout of the building, and any changes In the layout require Planning CommiSsion approval. He included more findings: i.e., the past history of this establishment. and the fact that management has purchased noise meters which they are using in an attempt to keep the noise level down. Chmn. Ingell offered an additional finding: i.e., the applicant was requesting a clarification of the hours. Comm. Peirce questioned whether it is the intent to leave Condition 4(b) in the resolution (related to the sound study), to which the maker of the motion replied in the affirmative. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ketz, Rue, Chmn. Ingell Comms. Aleks, Peirce None None Chmn. Ingell announced that this decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed by writing to the City Council within ten days. 8 P.C. Minutes 10/2/90 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, SEPTEMBER 4, AND SEPTEMBER 18. 1990) Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated September 12, 1990. Staff recommended approval of this request, subject to the conditions specified in the proposed resolution. This request was continued by the Planning Commission based upon the advise of the City Attorney. This was because of the 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 concerns by staff regarding the exterior appearance of the site and has enclosed the trash dumpster, provided bumper blocks, and restriped the parking stalls. However, rather than using the planter areas for landscaping, they have been paved over, which has eliminated the weeds, but they have failed to take advantage of existing planter areas to improve the appearance. Also. the parking lot has been rest.riped with double-sided 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 is recommending conditions that landscaping be provided along Hermosa Avenue and that a landscape plan and parking layout be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Director. Since this is an existing establishment, is located in the commercial area of Pier Avenue, and the business owner has shown good faith to resolve some of staffs 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 controlling the hours of operation, staff has eliminated those conditions to be consistent with the superior court decision to set aside such conditions for a liquor store in Los Angeles. Mr. Schubach continued and stated that stafT recently discovered that Golden Lion does rent out its parking spaces to the Comedy and Magic Club during the evening hours. Also, staff is aware of plans to construct a 26-unit motel on this property. Plans have been prepared for such a project: however, they have not yet been submitted to the City. Comm. Peirce discussed the landscaping and questioned how this business could be encouraged to add planting materials, other than through the CUP process. Mr. Schubach stated that without a CUP, the City would not be able to require landscaping. He said that commercially-zoned areas require landscaping only when it is necessary as a buffer between commercial and residential uses. He noted. however, that the upcoming land use element will address this issue in more detail. Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Comm. Rue regarding the parking requirements, stated that one parking space is required for each 250 square feet of gross floor area. He commented on the parking depicted on the plans. stating that the required parking was based on the original plans. Comm. Peirce noted that the blueprint seems to depict only one building, and he asked for the total building size. He and Mr. Schubach continued by discussing the submitted plans. It was determined that the total size is approximately 1125 square feet. and five parking spaces would be necessary. Comm. Peirce discussed the five parking spaces and questioned whether the code prohibits the applicant from renting out the other spaces. to which Mr. Schubach explained that with a parking plan, spaces can be rented out. 9 P.C. Minutes 10/2/90 Chmn. Ingell was under the impression that the spaces could be rented out without a parking plan, to which Mr. Schubach replied that he could study the issue further and return with an answer. He did not, however, think that rental of parking spaces was something in the pennitted use list. Public Hearing opened at 8:08 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell. Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Chmn. Ingell, explained that the applicant was sent a notice indicating that this hearing would take place: however, he did not hear from the applicant, who was not present at the public hearing. Public Hearing closed at 8:29 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell. Comm. Peirce asked whether staff has had any discussions with the applicant regarding the landscape planter in the front of the business which was paved over, to which Mr. Schubach replied that the applicant was informed that that should not have happened; however, the applicant had no comment on the issue. Comm. Rue noted concern that the applicant did not appear at the hearing, to which Mr. Schubach replied that staff had received no word from the applicant regarding his absence. Chmn. Ingell noted that an applicant is not required to attend a public hearing. Comm. Peirce stated that he would not vote for approval of this project unless the applicant complies with the requirement related to the landscape planter (Condition No. 12). Chmn. Ingell agreed: however. he felt that it would be appropriate to approve the CUP and require that the planter be installed. Without approving the CUP, the Commission actually has "no teeth" for enforcement. Mr. Lee stated that this CUP cannot be denied unless there is a rational basis, such as a negative impact which cannot be mitigated. He suggested that the Commission approve the CUP and enforce the conditions imposed, such as that related to the landscape planer (Condition No. 12). Comm. Peirce noted that this issue arose last time this matter was heard, and yet nothing has been done by the applicant to comply, and the area has actually been paved over. He did not feel that good faith was shown on the part of the applicant. Mr. Schubach explained that the applicant was informed of the City's concerns related to the planter; however, the area was paved over with concrete. Comm. Aleks agreed that it would be appropriate to approve the CUP and require compliance with the conditions in the CUP (including the condition related to landscaping). Comm. Peirce referred to the Planning Commission minutes of June 5, 1990, wherein the applicant, Mr. Bader, stated that the landlord had informed him that the landscaping would soon be improved. He noted concern that the City's track record is not very good in enforcing these kinds of conditions. He felt that unless the landscaping ls required before the CUP is approved, the landscaping will never be installed. Mr. Lee cautioned, however, that there is no current violation of any City ordinance. He suggested that the CUP be approved with the landscape condition. The CUP could then be reviewed, and if the condition is not complied with, action could be taken at that time. He explained that this is an existing use. and arbitrary conditions cannot be imposed which would cause the business to cease operation. MOTION by Comm. Peirce. seconded by Chmn. Ingell, to approve Resolution 90-46, with the addition of a condition that this conditional use pennit be reviewed for compliance at the first meeting in January of 1991. P.C. Minutes 10/2/90 Comm. Rue noted that in the past the Commission had discussed the possibility of requiring businesses to use clear plastic bags for alcoholic beverage purchases. He stated that he would not want to see these bags create a trash problem in the area, and he suggested that the other Commissioners might want to discuss this issue; however, no discussion ensued on this topic. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comrns. Aleks, Ketz, Peirce, Rue. Chmn. Ingell None None None Chmn. Ingell announced that this decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed by writing to the City Council within ten days. CUP 90-9 --CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR BEER AND WINE IN CONJUNCTION WITH A RESTAURANT AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 1605 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY. MRS, GARCIA'S Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated September 2 7, 1990. Staff recommended approval of the requested conditional use permit, subject to the conditions specified in the proposed resolution. This project is located In S.P.A. 8, with a general plan designation of commercial corridor. The building size ls 1150 square feet. and its current use is as a restaurant. Mrs. Garcia's is located within the Hermosa Pavilion on the second level. the same level as the theaters. The parking requirements for the entire Pavilion are subject to a parking plan. This space was originally identified for restaurant purposes. At their meeting of August 9, 1990, the staff environmental review committee recommended an environmental negative declaration. The requested CUP would authorize the sale of beer and wine for consumption on the premises, subject to the standard conditions of the zoning ordinance. The applicant has also applied to the State Alcoholic Beverage Control Department for a Type 41 license. Staff had no concerns related to the existing appearance or operation of the business that would necessitate any further conditions other than the standard conditions required for thiS type of CUP. Those conditions would include the restriction that at least 65 percent of the gross sales must be from prepared foods. The business is contained inside the existing mall, and the applicant has indicated that the hours will be from 11:00 A.M. until the mall closes. The applicant's letter indicates the closing time for the mall to be about 9:00 P.M., but it 1s actually much later. The applicant's application to the A.B.C. requests hours from 10:30 A.M. to 11:00 P.M. The applicant's letter also indicates that the A.B.C. license would be conditioned to limit beer and wine sales to 10 percent total volume of sales. Staff has contacted the A.B.C. and that is not a true statement. The standard condition from the A.B.C. is a maximum 50 percent of sales volume, and the most restrictive condition they would apply would be a 30 percent limit. If the City applies its standard 35 percent limit, the A.B.C. would also consider the same restriction on their license. Staff recommended approval of the request because this area, unlike the downtown area. is not considered to be heavily impacted by a saturation of alcohol establishments. Also, the primary function of the business would be as a restaurant. Additionally, the mall maintains 11 P.C. Minutes 10/2/90 its own security patrol during its operating hours, meaning that additional police patrol should not be necessary. Staff noted that this business also has its own enclosed parking area, and that also differs from the heavily impacted downtown area. Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Chmn. Ingell, stated that a Type 41 license allows only beer and wine. Mr. Schubach, in response to another question from Chmn. Ingell, stated that the police have expressed no concerns over this request because this business is not located in the heavily impacted downtown area. Mr. Schubach, in response to questions from Comm. Rue related to A.B.C restrictions and the service of beer and/or wine only, stated that it is not legal to impose conditions requiring that food be purchased along with beer/wine. He continued by explaining, however, that the conditional use permit is actually more restrictive than the A.B.C license. Comm. Aleks asked which body would prevail in regard to restrictions on percentages of alcohol sales; i.e., if the A.B.C allowed 50 percent of the sales to be alcohol, and the City allowed only 35 percent, who would be the final authority. Mr. Schubach replied that the City's CUP restrictions would prevail. Chmn. Ingell discussed the small, attached patio and noted that the plans do not depict such an area. Mr. Schubach stated that there is such an area, and staff's only concern related to that area is that the business not exceed the allowed seating capacity. He said that the management is responsible for monitoring the outdoor seating capacity. Chnm. Ingell questioned how the Commission can determine whether or not the outdoor area is appropriate for service of beer and wine If no plans are provided for study. Mr. Schubach referred to the plans and indicated the location of the outdoor dining area. Public Hearing opened at 8:25 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell. David H. Lee, 1605 Pacific Coast Highway, Hermosa Beach (Hermosa Pavilion), applicant, addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that the premises will be patrolled by its own security force; (2) said that there is plenty of on-site parking; (3) explained that this particular building is located somewhat apart from the rest of the complex around it; (4) stated that they will comply with the requirements of the CUP; and (5) explained that this is a family-run business. Comm. Rue asked whether the applicant has a plan depicting the outdoor seating area, to which Mr. David Lee replied that Dee Harris, the property manager of the Pavilion, has the plan. Comm. Rue stated that it would be helpful for the Commission to see the layout before making its decision on this request. He noted that in the past when alcohol has been allowed outdoors, some type of enclosure has been required, such as a pipe railing, in order to prevent the passing through of alcoholic beverages. Mr. Schubach clarified that this outdoor dining area is on an upper level, and it is removed from the street area. Comm. Rue also noted that in the past when alcoholic beverages have been allowed outdoors, it has been required that there be waitress service. 12 P.C. Minutes 10/2/90 Mr. David Lee explained that people will order at the counter and take their food to the table. Once they are seated on the premises, a waitress will come to take drink orders. No one will ever be permitted to take beer or wine from the counter to the tables on their own. If service is approved for the outdoor area, they would also like to use the same method, whereby people take their food outdoors. and once seated, a waitress would take drink orders and serve the drinks at the table. Comm. Rue asked if the applicant would accept a condition at this time which would allow the service of beer and wine inside only, within the four walls of the restaurant, to which Mr. Lee replied that he would have no objection to such a condition. Mr. David Lee clarified that this upstairs area is designated for restaurant use. He was certain that in the future other requests will come in for service of food and drink on the outside patio area. Jay Hambourger, 1229 E. Wilson Avenue, Suite 202, consultant for the Alcoholic Beverage Control, addressed the Commission and: (1) said that a Type 41 license allows beer and wine only; (2) said that Mrs. Garcia's total sales ratio is only 10 percent for alcohol to 90 percent for food; (3) said that Mrs. Garcia's is a very secure, conscientious operation: (4) stated that there have been no problems with this operation. Comm. Rue stressed that he would like to see plans for the outside patio area. He suggested that the matter be continued until later in the meeting so that the manager could go to get the plans. Dee Harris, property manager of the Hermosa Pavilion, addressed the Commission and: (1) said that a certain amount of space has been designated for use as restaurants; {2) explained that some of the space has already been leased, however. construction of those restaurants has not yet commenced, and it will be several months before they are finished; (3) did not therefore feel that this applicant should have to wait several more months before proceeding. Comm. Rue had no intention of delaying this project; he merely wanted to see a plan of the outdoor dining area. Ms. Harris continued and: (1) stated that she was led to believe by the City that the outdoor patio area could be used for beer and wine service: (2) stated that there are adequate fire exits on the patio area. Comm. Rue said that the Planning Commission has the ultimate responsibility of determining whether or not the outdoor patio area is adequate for the service of beer and wine. Mr. Edward Lee asked what Comm. Rue's intentions are related to his request to view the outdoor patio area plans. He cautioned that the City cannot preempt State law in relation to service of alcoholic beverages. Comm. Rue stated that his concern relates to the issue of alcohol being passed out to the pubic right-of-way. Chmn. Ingell stated that he would not be able to support the request for alcohol on the patio until after he has seen plans for the outdoor patio area. He felt that if the applicant is interested only in indoor service at this time, the matter can proceed at this time. Mr. Hambourger addressed the Commission and stated that the applicant is requesting permission to allow service in the indoor area only at this time. Chmn. Ingell stated that indoor approval could be given at this time. If, at some future date the applicant desires to serve beer and wine on the outdoor patio area, it would then be necessary for him to return with a request for an amendment to the conditional use permit. 13 P.C. Minutes 10/2/90 Comm. Aleks asked who is responsible for monitoring the patio area, to which Mr. Hambourger replied that that is left to the securtty of the mall. Comm. Aleks asked whether the applicant himself would actually be able to regulate activity on the patio area, to which Mr. Hambourger replied that the applicant would be responsible. Comm. Aleks questioned how thiS applicant would be able to exercise such control. He felt that it might be more approprtate to issue an overall CUP to the management of the complex, so that they would hold the ultimate responsibility for controlling the patio area. Carl Moore, 1100 Loma Diive, addressed the Commission and: (1) said that several restaurants sending customers out onto a common patio area would lose control over their customers once they reach the patio; (2) said that the loss of control would then amount to off-sale of liquor; (3) questioned how the A.B.C would view this situation; (4) urged the Commission to study very carefully any approval of patio service of alcoholic beverages. Public Healing closed at 8:33 P .M. by Chmn. Ingell. Comm. Peirce suggested that the Commission rule only on the interior portion of the restaurant at this time. At a future date, the master lessee of the property could come before the Commission for approval of the beer and wine service on the patio. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve staffs recommendation, Resolution P.C. 90-84, with the following amendments: (1) that service of beer and wine shall be within the intertor of this business only (within the actual four walls of the business); and (2) if the applicant desires to sell beer and wine for consumption on the outdoor patio in the future, he must come before the Commission for approval. Chmn. Ingell favored inclusion of a condition specifying that beer and wine shall be waitress served only; that no beer and wine shall be sold over the counter. He noted concern that alcoholic beverages could be purchased and then passed to minors. Mr. Edward Lee cautioned that imposition of such a condition would be entering territory within the purview of the A.B. C. He therefore suggested that inclusion of such a condition would not be appropriate. He continued by clarifying the regulation of the sale of alcoholic beverages. Comm. Rue asked whether it is adequate for the minutes to reflect that the applicant intends to sell alcoholic beverages by waitress service only, to which Mr. Edward Lee replied that such a statement would not be part of the conditional use permit and therefore would not be enforceable. He again cautioned the Commission against imposing conditions related to issues which are regulated by the A.B.C. Chmn. Ingell noted concern over other establishments in the area that sell alcoholic beverages for consumption outside and then control is lost. Mr. Edward Lee asked whether Mrs. Garcia's is applying for an on-sale permit, to which Mr. Hambourger replied in the affirmative. Mr. Edward Lee explained, then, that if customers are removing beer and/or wine from the premises, complaints to the A.B.C could result in revocation of the liquor license for this business. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Aleks, Ketz. Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ingell None None None 14 P.C. Minutes 10/2/90 Chmn. Ingell announced that this decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed by writing to the City Council within ten days. CON 90-14 -CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #22342 FOR A TWO- UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 655 6TH STREET Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated September 25, 1990. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve the conditional use permit for a two-unit condominium and the tentative parcel map, subject to the conditions specified in the proposed resolution. This project is located in the R-2 zone, with a general plan designation of medium density residential. The lot size is 4325 square feet, and five parking spaces are provided. Open space provided is 842 square feet in decks. The current use is as a single-family residence. The environmental determination is categorically exempt. Toe subject property is rectangular in shape and slopes gently downward toward the southeast. The two proposed units contain 2251 and 2548 square feet and consist of two stories and roof decks above a semi-subterranean garage. Each unit contains three bedrooms and two and a half baths, and includes a garage-level utility room. The proposed building elevations exhibit a stucco exterior, composition shingle roofing with stucco trim and windows, and stucco "pop-outs" to give the building a contemporary appearance. The overall design is almost identical to the project designed by the same architect and approved for 612 10th Street. The plans indicate a front yard setback of ten feet from 6th Street. This setback is consistent with what was provided or required for five other recent projects on the street. Toe average setback for 6th Street calculates to be about 15 feet. Required parking is provided in two-car garages for each unit oriented toward the middle of the lot. One guest space is provided. No on-street parking will be lost, as the proposed driveway will replace the existing driveway. Landscaping is proposed in the front, behind the guest space, and in a portion of the side yard. Two 24-inch box palm trees are proposed for the front yard. The project complies with all other planning and zoning requirements. Lot coverage is 55 percent. Adequate open space is provided in decks, including roof decks. and adequate storage space is provided on the ground floor of each unit. This type of project is consistent with the other recent projects on this block, and it is consistent with the character of the surrounding R-2 area. Comm. Aleks asked how tall the project is, to which Mr. Schubach replied that it is under 30 feet, and the final height will be verified during the structural plan check phase by the building department. Public Hearing opened at 8:50 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell. Bob Vargo, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission and: (1) discussed the south elevation, explaining that the height varies throughout the project: (2) said that the project is not above 30 feet at any point; (3) ref erred to the resolution and noted the address in the first NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, needs to be corrected to reflect that the project is located at 655 6th Street. 15 P.C. Minutes 10/2/90 Comm. Rue discussed the landscaping and asked what is being proposed for the east side, to which Mr. Vargo stated that there will be sod. Public Hearing closed at 8:54 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve stafrs recommendation, Resolution P.C. 90-82, with the correction to the first NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, as indicated by the applicant (changing the address to 655 6th Street). AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Aleks, Ketz, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ingell None None None Chmn. Ingell announced that this decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed by writing to the City Council within ten days. TEXT 90-8 --TEXT AMENDMENT TO ADD "MOTORCYCLE SALES" AND "MOTORCYCLE PARTS SALES" OR TO ELIMINATE "MOTORCYCLE REPAIR" ON THE COMMERCIAL PERMIT1ED USE LIST AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated September 25, 1990. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission recommend that "motorcycle sales, new and used" and "motorcycle parts and accessories (new) retail sales" be added to the permitted use list for the C-3 zone, subject to a conditional use permit. by adoption of the proposed resolution. Mr. Schubach also suggested an alternative: to recommend that "motorcycle repair business; conditional use permit required subject to Article 10" be eliminated from the permitted use list. At the August 21, 1990, meeting, the Planning Commission voted not to interpret motorcycle sales and parts sales within the category of automobile sales and parts sales and instead recommended that motorcycle sales and sales of motorcycle parts be considered for addition to the permitted use list as a text amendment or to eliminate motorcycle repair from the list. In addition to automobile sales, boat and truck sales are permitted in the C-3 zone, subject to a CUP. Since these types of motor vehicles are permitted to be sold. staff felt it would be inconsistent to exclude motorcycle sales as a potential use in the C-3 zone. The only distinguishing feature of motorcycles in regard to their impact on surrounding land uses as compared to these other vehicles is, perhaps. the possible noise impact. Motorcycles, in some cases, are indeed noisy vehicles. but so are some sports cars and some trucks. Which ts noisier depends upon the Individual vehicle, how it is driven, and how it ts equipped. Although the City's noise ordinance addresses noise from private property by establishing decibel lJmits as heard from adjacent properties, the ordinance addresses vehicles in the public right-of-way in this manner: "Motor vehicle noise limits on a public right-of-way are regulated by the California Vehicle Code, Section 23130 and 23130.5 Equipment violations which create noiSe problems are regulated by Sections 27150 and 27151 of the same code." Estimation of noise levels generated from and caused by any proposed business, based on its characteristics, proximity to residential areas, and other similar uses would be carefully considered and addressed, when possible, on a case-by-case basis during the CUP review. At that time, the appropriate conditions could be placed on a proposed establishment to mitigate any noise or other concerns: or if they were found to be non-mlUgable, the project may be denied. Although limited commercial areas exist in the City that are appropriate for any time of vehicle sales, parts sales, and repair, some potential sites do exist if the proper controls are 16 P.C. Minutes 10/2/90 enforced. Also, several locations are currently being used for these purposes. As such, tt would not seem appropriate. or fair, to exclude this possible business activity from the City unless all motor vehicle sales and repair uses were excluded. Elimination of all motor vehicle businesses would seem unreasonable, given that there are already several businesses in the City involved in some kind of motor vehicle sales, vehicle parts sales, or vehicle repair. Mr. Schubach concluded by noting that staff had conducted a survey of adjacent cities in regard to the way they treat motorcycle businesses in their zoning ordinances, and he continued by outlining the results of the study. Public Hearing opened at 8:59 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell. Jack Wood, 200 Pier Avenue, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that this issue probably would not have arisen if the applicants had not requested a permit for a motorcycle repair shop on the highway: (2) said that parts are all very closely related, whether they are for motorcycles or other motor vehicles; (3) ref erred to the hearings held on the motorcycle shop, stating that emotions seemed to predominate, rather than concrete evidence: (4) said that the main issue seems to be that of noiSe; (5) disagreed that approval of such a use would create additional traffic: (6) stated that there is much hysteria when it comes to motorcycles: (7) said that the success of such a business rests on adequate enforcement by the City: (8) said that there is a constitutional right to operate such a business: (9) said that the location of such a business is the only item which can be limited by the City. Dave Reimer, 802 Monterey Boulevard, addressed the Commission and: (1) favored approval, stating that he would like to see his friends able to operate in the City: (2) noted that surrounding cities do not have separate categories for motorcycles and motor vehicles. Clayton Sehring, 1914 Havemeyer Lane, Redondo Beach, addressed the Commission and: (1) favored approval of the text amendment: (2) felt that motorcycle sales, parts sales, and repairs are all tied together: therefore, it makes sense to approve this amendment. William Campbell, 640 Pacific Coast Highway, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and: ( 1) discussed his intentions related to his business: (2) asked for approval of this amendment, so that he can do motorcycle repairs. Nellie Stroll, 824 7th Street, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and: (1) said that the issue of motorcycle sales and parts has now arisen: (2) felt that the citizens who opposed the motorcycle shop would also oppose this text amendment. Carl Moore, 1100 Loma Drive, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and: (1) said that this text amendment relates to whether motorcycle repairs and sales will be allowed in the C-3 zone, which he felt is reasonable: (2) favored approval of the proposed text amendment to allow motorcycle sales and repairs. Public Hearing closed at 9: 12 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell. Comm. Rue could see no reason not to allow motorcycle sales and parts sales, so long as a conditional use permit is required. He continued by asking questions related to Mr. Campbell's business and asked whether he would be required to appear again before the Commission and to pay additional fees. Mr. Schubach stated that it would be necessary for Mr. Campbell to apply for a CUP once this item is added to the permitted use llst. He said that it might be possible to waive additional fees for thiS applicant, but he would need to check into that matter. He continued by explaining the steps which the applicant will need to follow. Comm. Ketz could not favor approval of this text amendment, explaining that Hermosa Beach is a very small city with very small lots. She did not feel there are adequate mitigation 17 P.C. Minutes 10/2/90 measures for businesses of this type. She noted that the uses which elicit the most complaints in the city are auto dealers and bars. She did not feel that such a use would enhance the city, especially since this city does not have the appropriate acreage for this use. Comm. Rue felt that applicants should at least have an opportunity to propose such a use. If there are mitigation measures, the City has an obligation to allow the use; if there are not adequate mitigation measures, the conditional use permit can be denied. Comm. Aleks felt that there is a distinct difference between motorcycle sales and parts sales and repairs. He noted that the revving of engines during repairs can be quite noisy. He therefore could not support approval of such a use in a city where the commercial areas are so close to residential. Comm. Peirce said that he would support approval of the text amendment, based on the fact that he feels there are appropriate areas in the C-3 zone which would be appropriate for motorcycle repairs and parts sales. He clarified, however, that he is voting to approve only the text amendment, not any specific project. He said that approval of specific projects must be based on adequate mitigation measures. Chmn. Ingell stated that he would support approval of this text amendment, noting, however, that each individual use would need to be addressed on a case-by-case basis. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve staffs recommendation, Resolution P.C. 90-81, as written. Mr. Schubach explained, for the benefit of the new commissioner, the rationale behind this text amendment. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Peirce, Rue, Chmn .Ingell Comms. Aleks, Ketz None None Chmn. Ingell announced that this decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed by writing to the City Council within ten days. SS 90..fi -1EXT .AMENDMENT REGARDING NONCONFORMING SIDEYARD EXCEPTION AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated September 27, 1990. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission recommend amendment of Section 13-7(c)(3.) to give the Planning Commission authority to allow expansion of existing walls with nonconforming sideyards of at least three feet when deemed a minor extension and is consistent with the neighborhood. At the August 7, 1990, meeting, the Planning Commission initiated this study by adopting a resolution of intent (Resolution P.C. 90-76). This issue arose at the July 17, 1990, meeting, when the Planning Commission considered a request to grant an exception to continue an existing nonconforming sideyard (3.21 feet rather than 4.5 feet) for a second-story addition. Based on Section 13-7(c)(3), the Planning Commission was not able to grant this request because less than 75 percent of sideyards on the same block have similar nonconforming side yards. Although the Planning Commission denied the request, it was expressed that perhaps the ordinance was too restrictive, especially since the expansion involved a wall length along the sideyard of only 22 feet. Selected sections of 13-7(c) read as follows: P.C. Minutes 10/2/90 "(2) Existing structures which are nonconforming as to yards. lot coverage, open space or height may be expanded or enlarged provided the expansion or enlargement complies with the regulations of the zone in which the structure is located. Existing nonconforming sideyards may be maintained with an addition provided the sideyard is not more than ten percent smaller than the current stdeyard required. "(3) "Where existing walls are a minimum of, or more than three feet from the side property line, the wall may be expanded if at least 75 percent of the block as defined by the zoning ordinance has the same or smaller nonconforming stdeyards (excluding commercial and manufacturing uses). Measurement of sideyards shall be approximately by use of aerial photos and field inspections. Fees for such requests shall be set by the City Council." The exception of (B) was included in the revision to Article 13 to allow approval of the expansion or extension of a wall with a nonconforming sideyard, when such nonconformity is clearly a common situation on the same block. The 75 percent rule was chosen to establish a minimum criteria. The merits of the particular proposal, such as the scale of the expansion and other project characteristics, could also be considered by the Planning Commission to allow such an extension. In the case mentioned, it was calculated that only about 71 percent of the dwellings on the same block had similar or smaller nonconforming sideyards. Therefore, pursuant to the ordinance the only choice was denial of the request. even though it only involved the extension of a 22- foot wide portion of the house for a second-story addition. Staff is proposing the addition of a statement to Section 1307(c)(3) that allows the Planning Commission to also consider requests for extensions of walls with nonconforming sideyards, if it is generally consistent with a majority of existing sideyards in the neighborhood. Public Hearing opened at 9:25 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell. Bernard Kersulis, 1781 Valley Park Avenue, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and stated that his project was the one which gave rise to this issue. He felt that this amendment would allow the Commission to operate within the spirit that was intended. Public Hearing closed at 9:26 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell. Comm. Ketz felt that this is a necessary amendment, and she favored approval. Mr. Lee suggested several changes 1n the wording of the proposed amendment: Wording under "Amend Section 13-7(c)(3) by adding the following underlined text:" shall be changed as follows: " .... or the wall may be expanded if the Planning Commission determines that the expansion within the otherwise code required setback is minor and necessary for the logical extension of a wall and that the nonconforming sideyard is generally consistent with the majority of extstlnl side yards in the ''block" as defined by the code .... " MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve Resolution P .C. 90-83, with the amendments as suggested by the City Attorney. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Aleks, Ketz, Rue, Chmn. Ingell Comm. Peirce None None Comm. Peirce explained that he voted against the motion, stating that if the City is to be upgraded, existing sideyard nonconformities should not be allowed to continue. 19 P.C. Minutes 10/2/90 FOURTH QUAR1ER GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS Mr. Schubach explained that staff had no recommendations at this time for fourth quarter general plan amendments. He said that this would be the appropriate time to initiate any proposed amendments, if so desired by the Planning Commission. The Commissioners offered no recommendations for fourth quarter general plan amendments. STAFF ITEMS a) Conespondence from Mr. Jack Wood Mr. Lee advised that the appropriate time to discuss the issue cited in the letter would be during a public hearing. No action taken. b) Correspondence from Mr. Rod Merl Comm. Peirce asked for clarification on the area discussed by Mr. Merl in his letter, to which Mr. Schubach responded, and he continued by discussing the proposal. He explained that this letter is actually within the pmview of the public works department, and the Planning Commission received copies. No action taken. c) Pl.annlne Department Activity Report for Autust 1990 Comm. Rue asked about CUP enforcement, and noted that many thank-you letters have been received. Mr. Schubach stated that many CUPs are now in compliance. dJ Memorandum ReOrd,fnf Planninf Commission Liaison for October 9. 1990, Meettna No one will attend as liaison. e) Tentative Future Plannln, Commission A4enda Comm. Rue and Chmn. Ingell both stated that they would be absent from the next Planning Commission meeting. f) City Council Minutes of September 10 and 11, 1990 No action taken. COMMISSIONER I1EMS Comm. Peirce discussed the rapid transit issue and stated that he would like additional information related to where people in the area are going outside of the five-mile radius. He felt it is important to go ahead with the transportation plan; however, he requested that staff provide more input related to where people are traveling. He felt that many people are going to similar destinations outside the five-to ten-mile radius. He felt that arrangements could be worked out with either MAXX or RrD in regard to getting people where they want to go. 20 P.C. Minutes 10/2/90 Mr. Schubach stated that he could return with additional information on this matter. He stated that one possibility is to hire a consultant. Comm. Peirce suggested that students be used to gather data. Comm. Peirce and the other Commissioners discussed various methods by which more information could be obtained, such as man-in-the-street inteiviews, surveys taken at local grocery stores, and questionnaires in the local newspaper. Recess taken from 9:43 P.M. until 9:45 P.M. for the purpose of reviewing the Planning Commission minutes of September 18, 1990. Chmn. Ingell stated that there are many inaccuracies in the minutes prepared by the substitute secretary, and he did not favor approval at this time. Mr. Schubach suggested that the Commissioners review and approve only that portion of the minutes related to the housing element, explaining that that issue is to go before the City Council at their next meeting. Comm. Rue made several corrections to the minutes, which were noted by sta:II. He also stated that the Commissions' intent was to encourage cohesiveness in neighborhoods. MOTION by Comm. Ketz, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve only the housing element portion of the Planning Commission minutes of September 18, 1990, as amended. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ketz, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ingell None Comm. Aleks None Comm. Aleks stated that he was happy to be on the Planning Commission and said that he is looking forward to working with the other members. MOTION by Comm. Ketz, seconded by Comm. Rue, to adjourn at 9:47 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 October 2, 1990. Date 21 P.C. Minutes 10/2/90