HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC_Minutes_1990_AllMINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
HELD ON JANUARY 3, 1990, AT 7:00 P.M. IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Meeting called to order at 7:04 p.m. by Comm. Peirce.
Pledge of Allegiance led by Comm. Pierce.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Absent:
Also Present:
Comms. Ketz, Moore, Pierce, Chmn. Rue
Ingell
Michael Schubach, Planning Director; Edward Lee,
Assistant City Attorney; Kevin Northcraft, City
Manager; William Grove, Building Director; Jody Hatch,
Recording Secretary
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES
The minutes of the December 5, 1989 meeting were not available for
review and approval at this meeting date.
APPROVAL OF RESOLUTIONS
MOTION by Comm. Moore, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve Resolution
P. C. 8 9-7 6, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A MASTER CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
FOR AUTOMOBILE AGENCIES, INCLUDING STORAGE AND SALES OF PARTS, AND
NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 2775, 2851, 2901, AND 3001 PACIFIC COAST
HIGHWAY. No objections; so ordered.
MOTION by Comm. Ketz, seconded by Comm. Moore, to approve Resolution
P. C. 8 9-8 4 , A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO ALLOW SERVING OF GENERAL ALCOHOLIC
BEVERAGES AT 2515 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, HOTEL HERMOSA. No Objections;
so ordered.
MOTION by Comm. Ketz, second~d by Comm Moore, to approve Resolution P.C.
89-88, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA
BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND ENVIRONMENTAL
NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO ALLOW A TANNING SALON AT 1559 PACIFIC COAST
HIGHWAY, TOUCAN TAN. No objections; so ordered.
MOTION by Comm. Moore, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve Resolution
P. C. 89-89, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT
AND REPEALING PARKING PLAN TO ALLOW THE MODIFICATION OF AN EXISTING USED
AUTO DEALERSHIP AND MODIFY THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS AT 840 PACIFIC COAST
HIGHWAY. No objections; so ordered.
1 PC 01/03/90
MOTION by Comm. Moore, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve Resolution
P.C. 89-90, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING A TEXT AMENDMENT TO ADD A
GYMNASIUM/HEALTH & FITNESS CENTER TO C-2 ZONE PERMITTED USE LIST AND
ADOPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. No objections: so
ordered.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC
Jerry Compton, 200 Pier Avenue, #9, Hermosa Beach, questioned the
Building Department ruling on front yard setbacks on The Strand. He
understood that it was to apply to new developments only, however, the
Building Department has been requiring it for remodels also. He
requested that the Planning Comm i ssion address this issue at the next
regularly scheduled meeting and supply an interpretation of Code.
Mr. Schubach stated that staff will look back at the minutes taken for
the original determination, and will report back to the Commission.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #21580 FOR A 2-
UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 833 LOMA DRIVE
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated December 21, 1989. This project is
located in the R-3 zone, with the General Plan designation of High
Density Residential. The present use is as a single family residence.
The applicant is proposing to construct a two-unit detached condominium
on a rectangular lot located at 833 Loma Drive. Each of the units will
contain about 1,873 square feet, two bedrooms, a mezzanine, and 3 baths
distributed in two levels over a semi-subterranean garage.
The proposed structures will have a contemporary appearance with stucco
exterior, glass block, an exposed chimney, and aluminum windows.
Each unit will be provided with two enclosed parking spaces, and one
open and unenclosed guest space.
Staff has requested that the architect redesign the open space and
include an additional 49 square feet lacking from the required open
space.
Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve the proposed
Conditional Use Permit and Parcel Map.
Public hearing opened by Chmn. Rue at 7:13 p.m.
Jerry Compton, 200 Pier Avenue, #9, Hermosa Beach, project architect,
stated that the additional 49 square feet of open space could be added
to the courtyard area. He explained that because of the setback and
2 PC 01/03/90
parking requirements in this area, this particular floorplan comes up
often with some minor variations.
Chmn. Rue asked if there were some additional architectural features
that could be added to avoid a row-house effect, and keep all the units
different.
Mr. Compton replied that this design is new for this area, and he is
trying to design unique buildings with every project.
Public hearing closed by Chmn. Rue at 7:20 p.m.
Chmn. Rue noted that the architect did agree to supply the additional
open space, and felt it was a good idea to do so.
Public hearing reopened by Chmn. Rue at 7:22 p.m.
Mr. Compton stated that he has provided an additional 100 square feet
of open space over and above any other project on this street, and he
has modified the deck arrangement so both decks face the ocean.
Public hearing closed by Chmn. Rue at 7:24 p.m.
MOTION by Comm. Ketz, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to approve the
Conditional Use Permit and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map.
Chmn. Rue stated that this project meets all zoning requirements and
condominium standards, and will create no adverse impact on the
neighborhood.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Ketz, Moore, Pierce, Chmn. Rue
None
None
Comm. Ingell
Chmn. Rue stated that this decision may be appealed by writing to the
City Council within ten days.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #21824 FOR A 3-
UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 425 ELEVENTH STREET
Comm. Moore announced that he would be abstaining from any discussion
of this item.
Mr. Schubach gave the staff report dated December 21, 1989. This project
is located in the R-3 zone, with the General Plan designation of high
density residential. The present use is as two residences.
The applicant is proposing to construct a three unit attached
condominium on a rectangular lot located at 425 11th Street. Each unit
3 PC 01/03/90
will contain about 2,100 square feet, 3 bedrooms, a loft, and 2 1/2
baths distributed in two levels over a semi-subterranean garage.
These units will have a contemporary Mediterranean appearance with clay
mission tile roofing, an exterior plaster-smooth finish, aluminum
windows, canvas awnings, and french doors. Each unit will be provided
with two enclosed parking spaces and one open and unenclosed guest
space.
Because these units front in the westerly side yard, a 6-foot side yard
setback is required according to Section 1217 of the Zoning Ordinance.
The Commission, however, has the authority to make this determination.
staff is requesting that the Planning Commission supply direction on
this section of Code for future reference.
Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve the proposed
condominium development and parcel map.
comm. Peirce suggested having a wider sideyard for the first unit and
a regular sideyard for the last unit.
Mr. Schubach noted that there are many interpretations of this section
of Code, and it is up to the Commission to make a determination.
Public hearing opened by Chmn. Rue at 7:26 p.m.
Bill Cameron, 21454 Hawthorne Boulevard, Torrance, project architect,
agreed that the entries on the side should be wider, however, he tried
to keep the structure away from the east side adjacent neighbor. As
designed the west sideyard is 4 1 8 11 , with additional steps back at the
entries for planters. He added that a new mature tree will be planted
in the front yard area to replace an existing tree that will be removed.
Public hearing closed by Chmn. Rue at 7:30 p.m.
Chmn. Rue felt the project was designed nicely, but the entries would
be nicer if the sideyard was wider. Also, he was disappointed that the
east neighbors didn't come to the meeting and provide input.
Comm. Peirce felt that moving the building one foot to provide a 6 foot
west sideyard wouldn't make much difference other than pushing the
building more to the east. He didn't see any reason to require a 6 foot
setback.
Comm. Ketz asked whether this issue was a zoning requirement that would
require a variance, or if the Commission were making an interpretation.
Mr. Schubach explained that the interpretation was in the location of
the front of the structure. Just because the doors are on the side
doesn't mean that the front of the building couldn't be facing the
4 PC 01/03/90
street. Many questions could arise from this issue, and staff needs
input from the Commission on how to impose this.
The city Attorney stated that he couldn't make a clear interpretation
of this section of Code either.
Chmn. Rue stated that he would prefer to take up this issue at a later
date, The Commission was in concurrence.
When questioned on how staff felt about having only a 4 1 8 11 walkway to
the entries, Mr. Schubach replied that staff would prefer a wider
walkway.
The public hearing was reopened by Chmn. Rue at 7:37 p.m.
Mr. Cameron noted that this is not a two story building for its entire
length, and stated that he could adjust the building for a wider entry.
The public hearing was closed by Chmn. Rue at 7:39 p.m.
Comm. Ketz felt that the Commission couldn't make an interpretation on
the sideyard issue at this meeting date.
Chmn. Rue felt it was a good time to do it because they had a project
before them that represented that very issue. He said he would like to
see a 6 foot entry walkway.
Comm. Ketz concurred.
MOTION by Comm. Ketz, seconded by Chmn. Rue, to approve the Conditional
Use Permit and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Ketz, Pierce, Chmn. Rue
None
Comm. Moore
Comm. Ingell
Chmn. Rue stated that this item may be appealed by writing to the City
Council within ten days.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A RETAIL SNACK SHOP, GAS PUMPS AND CAR WASH,
AND ADOPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 931 PACIFIC
COAST HIGHWAY, MOBIL OIL STATION
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated December 21, 1989. This project is
located in a C-3 zone, with the General Plan designation of General
Commercial. The present use is as a service station and snack shop.
In addition, Mr. Schubach stated that the attached noise study is
deficient in that no nighttime noise levels were taken, and confirms
that the car wash will violate the city's Noise Ordinance. The highest
5 PC 01/03/90
noise level at 60 feet will be 76.2 DbA, which is loud enough to cause
a disturbance to adjacent neighbors. The automatic roll-up doors do
close when a vehicle enters the car wash, and cut the noise level
somewhat, however, it still may not be sufficient. The applicant has
stated that he would provide an ambient night-time noise level study at
this meeting date.
The Staff Environmental Review Committee, at their meeting of June 8,
1989, recommended a negative declaration for the project, with a
mitigation that a traffic analysis be prepared to address impacts of
ingress and egress on Pacific Coast Highway. To date, the applicant has
not submitted an adequate traffic analysis, however, the Planning
Department is satisfied that the traffic impact, as a result of an
additional access via 9th Street, will not be significantly different
than what is currently experienced at this location. The Planning
Department consulted with Public Works, and it was agreed that a full
traffic analysis is not warranted in this case.
The applicant is requesting to replace an existing service station/snack
shop with a more modern facility containing additional gas pumps, a
retail snack shop, and a self-service car wash. This proposal does not
include auto repair service. Because the property use will be changed
to a retail/commercial use by this new proposal, the parking requirement
will now call for 6 parking spaces. Staff, however, feels that the
parking is more than adequate, with parking provided at the pumps and
four additional spaces located along the rear of the site.
The plans provide landscaping along the rear property line, and a six
foot high block wall, which provides an adequate buffer from the
residential property to the west. Staff is also recommending that a tree
be provided at 20 foot intervals to provide a more effective buffer.
Staff has included a condition ensuring that a complete sign plan be
submitted, to include dimensions and copy, for approval, in accordance
with the Sign Ordinance, and that the existing 45 foot pole sign be
removed and the proposed ground sign be limited to a maximum height of
ten feet.
Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve the proposed
Conditional Use Permit and Negative Declaration.
When questioned if there were any restrictions on fuel deliveries, Mr.
Schubach stated that staff hadn't considered it an issue, but the
Commission could impose a condition on delivery hours if necessary.
When questioned about the nighttime light levels and the amount of noise
generated by the air and water compressor, Mr. Schubach explained that
the applicant has suggested putting an 8 foot wall at the rear property
line, instead of a 6 foot wall, and the air and water facilities could
be relocated.
6 PC 01/03/90
Mr. Schubach further explained that the allowable noise level in
residential areas is 55 DbA from 8 a.m. to 10 p.m. and 50 DbA from 10
p.m. to 8 a.m. In commercial areas the allowable noise level increases
by 5 DbA.
Public hearing opened by Chmn. Rue at 7:52 p.m.
Brian Recksteiner, 9891 Vixburg Drive, Huntington Beach, representative
of Mobil Oil, addressed the Commission. He stated that fuel delivery is
a fairly quiet procedure because the trucks are shut off and the fuel
tanks are gravity fed. Fuel deliveries need to be on a 24 hour basis,
and the neighbors haven't complained so far.
Mr. Recksteiner explained that all lighting is indirect, or direct down-
lighting, and will not spill over to the neighbors.
Additionally, he asked that the conditions relating to the car wash be
modified, conditions #5, #9, and #12. Condition #5 limits the hours of
operation to between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m.; Mobil is asking for a 6 a.m. to
9 p.m. operating schedule. Condition #9 requires a 6 foot wall at the
rear property line; Mobil wants to put up an 8 foot wall instead, and
have it stepped down as it reaches the street. Condition #12 relates to
the maximum noise levels permitted at the property line on 10th Street,
60 DbA daytime and 55 DbA at night; Mobil has no doubt it will meet the
ordinance limits.
Mr. Recksteiner noted that a reading done at 9:30 p.m. the previous
evening equalled 56 DbA, straight into the front door of the car wash.
Comm. Peirce was concerned that the noise would radiate down the street
where there was no wall to block the sound.
Mr. Recksteiner agreed that it would be noisy in the street, but the
residences would be protected.
Chmn. Rue voiced his concern about any future development on the
adjacent lot to the west, and asked how far away from the edge of the
car wash a new residence would be.
Mr. Recksteiner replied approximately 74 feet.
Comm. Peirce noted a memo from Mr. Schubach, together with the
supporting figures on page 5 of the staff report, indicate that the
noise level at the entrance of the car wash is 67 DbA. This would
indicate that the noise level if measured from the top of the wall would
be at least 65 DbA, which exceeds allowable limits.
Roger Otte, 521 Kings Road, Newport Beach, representative for the
manufacturing company of the car wash equipment, stated that the noise
to be received by a new residence on the adjacent lot to the west would
have to be measured by a sound engineer. The studies conducted by Mobil
7 PC 01/03/90
were performed using a meter only, positioned approximately 5.5 feet
above the ground.
Mr. Recksteiner interjected that Mobil would be agreeable to Commission
approval with the condition that a noise and acoustical study be
performed to ensure that the car wash meets the noise ordinance
requirements.
He further added that the pole sign has been in place a long time and
Mobil would like to maintain it, changing only the price board. Mobil
would agree to lower the pole sign from the present 45 foot height to
the maximum allowed height of 35 feet. The trees along Pacific Coast
Highway inhibit the view of the logo sign, but the pole sign remains
visible.
Comm. Moore questioned the degree of investigation that went into
choosing the trees to be used along the rear wall. He asked that a
condition be imposed that would require a thorough analysis of various
types of trees to determine which would make the best buffer for the
residential area while requiring little or no maintenance from those
adjacent residents.
Mrs. Shu Miho, 731 9th Street, Hermosa Beach, a resident, stated that
she had received notice about the proposed car wash during the holidays,
and she has sent letters of protest to the Mayor and Mr. Schubach. She
was concerned about the waste of water generated by the car wash, and
the possible impact on the environment. She asked that the hours of
operation be limited to between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. only. She also agreed
that the tankers delivering the gasoline weren't noisy, but the blaring
radios from the trucks were.
Sybill Hess, 647 9th Street, Hermosa Beach, a resident, stated that she
was concerned about the extra traffic that will be generated by the
addition of a car wash. The streets in the area are narrow and there are
lots of parking problems, and problems with cut-through traffic from the
station.
Mr. Recksteiner addressed the Commission in rebuttal to the comments and
concerns of the residents. He explained that the car wash is far enough
away from the residences that it shouldn't wake anyone in the morning.
He agreed that the radios playing in the delivery trucks could be a
noise problem, but gas delivery itself is a relatively quite procedure.
The tanks could be relocated to the front of the site, between the
driveways, if the Commission deems it necessary.
Mr. Otte explained that the equipment used in these types of car washes
is very water conservative, using only 17 gallons per car as opposed to
approximately 40 gallons per car used during a home hand washing. As for
the water drainage and overflow, this type of car wash uses a blower
system which dries the cars to approximately 85%, which prevents it from
being carried out into the street.
8 PC 01/03/90
When questioned about the type of detergent used and the proposed waste
water drainage system to be installed, Mr. Otte explained that only
biodegradable detergents and waxes are used with nothing else added to
the water. A water reclamation system, approved by the County of Los
Angeles, is installed in areas where water conservation is a major
issue. It is a more expensive system to use and maintain, mainly because
contamination builds up in the tanks and the sewer connections which
have to be cleaned on a regular basis, however, it is very effective and
the water is safe enough to use over again. This system is not required
by the county for all areas.
Public hearing closed by Chmn. Rue at 8:31 p.m.
Comm. Peirce summarized the three major areas of concern as: 1) the 45
foot pole sign, which he felt was too much signage and agreed with
staff's recommendation to eliminate it; 2) the hours of operation for
the car wash, which he felt should be determined by the traffic flow on
Pacific Coast Highway; and, 3) the noise generated by the car wash,
which he felt needed further study in order to set adequate restrictions
on allowable noise levels.
Comm. Ketz concurred with Comm. Peirce about the need for special
attention on the noise levels generated and what restrictions to impose.
She asked if staff would be able to measure the noise levels first hand
to ensure that everything was within range. She also felt that the pole
sign should be lower.
Mr. Schubach replied the City was in the process of training staff
members on meter reading, but an actual study needs to be performed to
determine the ambient noise level.
Comm. Peirce said that he would prefer a continuance of this item until
a noise study could performed.
Mr. Schubach informed the Commission that a noise study should only take
one to two weeks to conduct, and this item could be back before them for
the first meeting in February.
MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Moore, to continue this item
to the first regularly scheduled meeting in February, February 6, 1990.
This continuance will allow the applicant time to receive a completed
noise study from a licensed acoustical engineer. No objections; so
ordered.
Chmn. Rue asked that staff also supply any information that could be
obtained from a similar project located at Manhattan Beach Boulevard and
Aviation in the city of Redondo Beach.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR OFF-SALE GENERAL ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AND
ADOPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 74 PIER AVENUE,
ROBERT'S LIQUOR.
9 PC 01/03/90
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated December 19, 1989. This project is
located in the C-2 zone, with a general plan designation of general
commercial. The present use is as general alcohol (off-sale).
Robert's Liquor is an existing store which has been in business for at
least 20 years, and is one of eight Packaged Liquor Stores which are
being operated as an off-sale alcohol beverage establishment without a
Conditional Use Permit. In following the amortization ordinance, Roberts
Liquor was notified to apply for a permit for its business activities.
In the past five years only minor security infractions or disturbances
have been reported, along with one report of selling sexually explicit
material to a minor. It is illegal in Hermosa Beach to sell sexually
explicit material without a Conditional Use Permit to regulate the
operation, however, under the current moratorium, Robert's Liquor cannot
apply for this permit at this time.
The police have requested a condition to prohibit the sale of single
beers to help mitigate public drinking.
Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve the proposed
Conditional Use Permit and Negative Declaration.
Chmn. Rue asked if staff had fully explained the conditions of this
Conditional Use Permit to the applicant.
Mr Schubert replied that it should have been explained at the city
counter, but that he personally had not spoken with the applicant.
Public Hearing opened by Chmn. Rue at 8:51 p.m.
Mr. Sei Kim, 74 Pier Avenue, owner of Robert's Liquor, stated that he
had no problem making any of the changes required to continue to operate
under this Conditional Use Permit.
Chmn. Rue asked if Mr. Kim understood the conditions imposed, and he
replied in the positive.
Comm. Peirce asked if there were presently any window signs at the
store, and noted that an excess of these signs was illegal.
Mr. Kim stated that he had two signs, and staff inspected the store and
said that they were within the limits of Code.
Mr. Schubach validated that statement, and noted that it was included
in condition #13. He said that the signage would be checked on a regular
basis.
Chmn. Rue reminded Mr. Kim of the moratorium on the sale of X-rated
material and the inability to obtain a Conditional Use Permit to do so
at this time.
10 PC 01/03/90
Public hearing closed by Chmn. Rue at 8:56 p.m.
MOTION by Comm. Moore, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve the
Conditional Use Permit and Negative Declaration.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Ketz, Moore, Pierce, Chmn. Rue
None
None
Comm. Ingell
Chmn. Rue stated that this decision may be appealed by writing to the
City Council within 10 days.
Chmn. Rue called a brief recess at 8:57 p.m.
The Commission reconvened at 9: 07 p.m. with all attending members
present and seated.
PUBLIC HEARING WORKSHOP FOR DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE PARKS AND RECREATION
MASTER PLAN REVIEW
Mr. Shubach gave staff report dated December 27, 1989.
The City Council at their June 13, 1989 meeting requested that the
Community Resources Department prepare a Master Plan regarding the
future development of existing and future parks and recreat i onal
programs. This was to be an objective study to supply facts and numbers
to aide the City in the development of specific programs and facilities.
It appears, from the overview of the report, that the consultant relied
heavily upon a survey distributed city wide to determine current needs.
Unfortunately, none of the statistical data obtained was used and no
projections were made for the future.
Mr. Schubach briefly addressed some basic issues from the report for
emphasis to the Commission, and then turned the floor over to the
consultant for more detailed information.
The public hearing was opened by Chmn. Rue at 9:16 p.m.
Meredith Kaplan, 219 No. Harbor Boulevard, Fullerton, recreation
consultant, stated that the report supplied to staff was merely a master
plan for the parks and recreation element of the General Plan. This
report reflects professional judgement and residential input. Guidelines
and projections for the future have been included for the development
of an implementation plan.
Comm. Moore noted several major problems with the report. The
demographic survey had a very low response rate, and almost all
responses were received from the 45 year old home owner category.
11 PC 01/03/90
Hermosa Beach has a high concentration of young singles which haven't
been adequately represented, and there are almost no safe places for
small children to play. There needs to be more input from the 21 to 39
year old residents.
Also, the bike path/strand wasn't mentioned at all, and that is a major
area of recreation for this city. There are too many conflicts between
the pedestrians and bikers and skaters. This area needs attention.
In response, Ms. Kaplan explained that not all the conclusions were
drawn from the survey. As for the Strand, it is strongly recommended in
the report that an intensive study be performed of the beach area and
its activities, and solutions could be generated from that study.
Norman Landerman Moore, Naples Island, Long Beach, consultant,
interjected that he had asked if the Strand and pier were to be included
in this study and the response received from the Community Resources
Department was negative. The City should scope this area on an separate
and individual basis because of the intense usage. He added that the
report submitted also listed resources and guidelines for seeking
necessary funding to implement new recreational projects.
Mary Rooney, acting director of Community Resources, concurred that
staff had decided it would be better to conduct a separate 'study on the
beach area, and not include it as part of this master plan.
Chmn. Rue stated that the Strand area is a large part of the recreation
in Hermosa Beach and it needs to be addressed. Also, he was hopeful that
the consultant could give the city ideas on how to raise the necessary
funds to implement new projects.
Mrs. Kaplan replied that the city needs to hire someone to specifically
work on funding. There are goals to meet, and you have to develop a way
to reach those goals.
Mr. Moore, the consultant, explained that funding is based on user fees,
outside financing, and financing mechanisms. Tapping into the different
types of cash flow requires a study. There are 5 or 6 basic funding
structures that work via an interrelationship with each other, and the
city needs to work with a funding council to put a funding plan into
effect.
Comm. Peirce then referred to Mr. Northcraft' s memorandum to the
Community Resources Department, and agreed that it is difficult to
determine from the plan submitted by the consultants what needs to be
added or deleted from the current Parks and Recreation program of
Hermosa Beach. He asked how it is determined if there is too much or too
little of one type of recreation, such as tennis or racquetball, and who
decides when and how to change it.
12 PC 01/03/90
Ms. Kaplan replied that this information is based on the demographics
of the area, and if specific types of information is requested, a study
is done and the data supplied.
Mr. Moore added that, beyond determining the funding and general needs
of an area, definite plans for implementation become very site-specific.
This plan allows the city to evolve to the point of specifically telling
the people what is needed where.
Ms. Rooney noted the section on "action items" that was included with
the report submitted by the consultants. This section addresses a more
specific implementation plan, and supplied the information requested to
the satisfaction of the Community Resources Commission.
When asked if it was the job of the Community Resources Commission to
come up with the types of items deemed necessary to meet the needs of
the residents, Ms. Rooney explained that it is the consultant's job to
develop a broad plan, or Policy Statement, as a guideline for the
Community Resources Commission. From this Policy Statement, the
Commission implements more specific and focused items. Staff has
suggested a few minor changes to the report, and the Commission concurs
with these changes, however, all areas of open space should be included.
George Shelnik, 515 24th Place, Hermosa Beach, said that he has read the
document and found it to be too general to be adopted into the General
Plan. Future developments need to be redefined. The city needs to look
ahead to what will be needed in the 1990's, as opposed to what is needed
at the present time. The survey performed was very inadequate and very
predictable, and the report submitted does not serve as a basis for a
General Plan element.
The public hearing was closed by Chmn. Rue at 9:47 p.m.
Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Comm Peirce, explained
that this report was developed for presentation to the Planning
Commission, and once approved, it is sent on to the city Council. When
the first quarterly adoption period for the General Plan comes up, the
report will be included with the open space element. The report will be
adopted as a Master Plan for recreational facilities, but it hasn't yet
been determined how to adopt it into the General Plan.
Chmn. Rue asked if it could be adopted into the General Plan as a more
comprehensive policy statement containing more specificity.
Mr. Schubach replied that it could be adopted as an appendix to the open
space element of the General Plan with the recommendation that more
specific data be added.
Ms. Rooney suggested adopting the report as a "policy statement".
MOTION by Comm. Moore, second by Comm. Ketz to adopt the report prepared
and presented by the consultant as a "policy statement", and require
13 PC 01/03/90
that the Department of Parks and Recreation consider the comments of the
Commission for analysis to develop a more specific plan.
Comm. Ketz stated that a top priority should be to acquire all available
school property.
HEARING
APPEAL OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL'S DECISION REGARDING APPLICATION OF
SECTION 1200 OF THE ZONING CODE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3129 THE STRAND
Mr. Grove gave staff report dated December 19, 1989. This property is
located in the R-1 zone, with General Plan designation as low density
residential.
The applicant was issued a building permit for a new single family
residence on November 16, 1989. The building department determined that
this is a through lot, and therefore, is required to maintain a front
yard setback on the Strand and on Hermosa Avenue. Section 1200 of the
Zoning Code states that on through lots of 150 feet or less in depth,
the height of a building on that lot may be measured from the sidewalk
level of the street on which the building fronts, provided that this lot
has a deviation in grade of at least 7 feet. A third story may be
permitted on such a lot, provided that the structure does not exceed two
stories from the upper street grade.
Mr. Grove admitted that this section of the Zoning Code is poorly worded
and ambiguous, however, the Commission has the discretion to decide
whether section 1200 applies to this project, and how it should be
interpreted in the future. The issue appears to be which street is to
be considered the front of the property, although historically, homes
in this area front on The Strand.
Staff concurs with the Building Official's determination that Section
1200 of the Zoning Code does not allow increased building height for the
referenced project, and recommends that the City Council delete this
section of the Code to avoid future confusion.
The public hearing was opened by Chmn. Rue at 10:05 p.m.
Steve Downing, 3129 Hermosa Avenue, Hermosa Beach, property owner,
stated that his intent is not to seek a variance of any existing laws,
but to follow all the rules as written. Every aspect of this project has
been done in accordance with Code and in good faith. The building
department has been very strict, and hasn't allowed even a door on the
side for an outdoor shower access. Plans have been resubmitted several
times for changes and corrections, and it has become very time consuming
and costly. The Code itself even changed between plan changes, and the
plans had to be changed again because of it.
14 PC 01/03/90
Mr. Downing stated that PC 88-1 allowed that the front yard setback on
the strand side could be counted as open space, but the front yard
setback on Hermosa Avenue could not. The building official defined this
lot as a through lot, and required two front yard setbacks.
He explained that this is a 90 foot lot with a 10 foot grade
differential, and Section 1200 is fair for lots like this one that
require an exception to the rule.
Guy Bartoli, project architect, referred to a slope diagram for visual
aide to the Commission, and said that this property fronts on Hermosa
Avenue, has a greater than 7 foot grade differential, and is less than
150 feet in depth. It fits right into the intent of Section 1200, and
therefore, is allowed to maintain a third story on the Strand side. The
upper street grade does not exceed two stories.
Comm. Peirce interjected that three stories may be allowed, but it does
not say that the structure can exceed 25 feet.
Mr. Bartoli replied that the building does not exceed 25 feet on the
upper street side, and there is no way to get three stories into 25
feet. This project is an exception. The first level is 1 1/2 feet below
grade, and there are other three story buildings in the area.
Mr. Downing stated that he has followed all the rules, and the Code has
to be interpreted as a reasonable person would. A 35 foot front on the
Strand will not block any views and will be a nice addition to the
Strand.
Chris Coppersmith, 3133 The Strand, a resident, said that he would
eventually like to build onto his house, and would like clarification
of this section of the Code. There is a statement of Section 1200 that
addressed structures of "a greater height", which he interpreted to mean
greater than 25 feet. Having three stories fronting the Strand would not
be a detriment to the City.
Comm. Moore asked if Mr. Coppersmith felt that large, looming structures
along the Strand felt oppressive to people walking by.
Mr. Coppersmith replied that these larger structures are not oppressive
because the other side is all beach open space. Older houses are within
only a few feet of the Strand, and the newer homes are required to
provide a setback.
Public hearing closed by Chmn. Rue at 10:34 p.m.
Chmn. Rue stated that the Code should be read and interpreted as
written, and if it is found to be wrong, then it should be corrected by
the Planning Commission. The architect has tried to follow the Code, and
problems with the Code should not be imposed on the applicant. As far
as determining the front of the structure, it could go either way.
15 PC 01/03/90
Comm. Peirce reiterated that is doesn't say anywhere that you could
exceed the 25 foot height limit. The location of the front of the
structure is not important. It only matters what the Code says now.
Comm. Ketz said that this project was similar to the earlier project
with the entries in the 'side yard.
Comm. Moore stated that the intent of Section 1200 was to supply a
solution to the problem of developing on through lots, with relatively
short depth, and a moderately steep slope. The downhill side was to be
the back of the structure, and the issue would be the 25 feet on the
street side. This is a highly visible Strand house, and with the slope
of the lot, the house will be even taller on that side.
Mr. Grove, in response to a question by Comm. Moore, stated that the
Strand has always been treated as the front, but when the Code was
changed to require a setback on Hermosa Avenue, it confused the issue.
Through the chair, Mr. Downing noted that PC 88-1 established Hermosa
Avenue as the front, and his trust deed shows two addresses for the
property, one on Hermosa Avenue and one on The Strand. This resolution
also allowed the owner to count the Strand yard as open space.
MOTION by Chmn. Rue to grant the appeal based on the interpretation of
Section 1200. Motion dies for lack of second.
MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm Ketz to deny the appeal.
Comm. Moore stated that he could not agree with the denial, although he
does agree that the house fronts on the strand. The height from Hermosa
Avenue will only be 25 feet, and that height will extent straight back
to the Strand, but because of the lot slope, the Strand height will be
35 feet.
Comm. Peirce restated his motion to delete Section 1200, and to uphold
the 25 foot height limit in the R-1 zone. To uphold the interpretation
made by the Building Department. Motion seconded by Comm Ketz.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Ketz, Moore, Peirce
Chmn. Rue
None
Comm. Ingell
Chmn. Rue announced that no appeal to the City Council could be filed
for this item. This decision is final.
MOTION by Chmn Rue, second by Comm. Peirce to study Section 1200 and
bring it back before the Commission. No objections; so ordered.
STAFF ITEMS
16 PC 01/03/90
a) Complaint Policy Memorandum
Mr. Schubach stated that the residents are complaining that the response
time for answering questions and complaints is too long, and they are
asking for quicker and more thorough feedback. Staff is working on the
reorganization of the system, and would appreciate any input from the
Commission.
Mr. Northcraft noted that staff is not getting the positive feed back
that they are capable of, and the memorandum presented merely recognizes
the problem and affords a response that it is being worked on.
Comm. Peirce added that many people complain about the City Hall being
closed of Fridays, but the answering service helps buffer that somewhat.
b) Letter Regarding Zoning Violations
Mr. Schubach explained that this is part of an effort to keep the
Commission tuned into what's going on with follow-up items.
C) Planning Department Activity Report for November 1989
Mr. Schubach said that this report is to inform the Commission of what
the Planning Department is working on.
d) Memorandum Regarding Planning Commission Liaison for the January
9 1 1990 City Council Meeting
Comm. Moore said that he would try to make it to that meeting,
e) Tentative Future Planning Commission Agenda
Mr. Schubach, in response to a question by Comm. Peirce, stated that the
oil issue would be back before the Commission at the March 6, 1990
meeting during the General Plan Review.
f) city Council Minutes of November 28, 1989
No comments. No action.
COMMISSIONER ITEMS
Comm. Ketz noted that the City of Los Angeles is billing sign owners
for posting signs on public property as a way of curbing this activity.
Chmn. Rue stated that Hermosa Beach needs to develop an official policy
for recycling, and it should be placed as a priority issue.
MOTION by Comm. Ketz, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to adjourn at 11:20
p.m. No objections; so ordered.
17 PC 01/03/90
}
l
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 Meeting of January 3, 1990.
Date / 1
18
-;? z:_;-_y, //2! I //'/0c#~ /_
Michael Schubach,, Secretary~ ~
PC 01/03/90
·--·.::
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
HELD ON JANUARY 16, 1990, AT 7:00 P.M. IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Meeting called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chmn. Rue.
Pledge of Allegiance led by Chmn. Rue.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Absent:
Also Present:
Comms. Ingell, Ketz, Moore, Pierce, Chmn. Rue
None
Michael Schubach, Planning Director; Edward Lee,
Assistant City Attorney; Ken Robertson, Associate
Planner; William Grove, Building Director; Jody Hatch,
Recording Secretary
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 21, 1989
MOTION by Comm. Ketz, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to approve the minutes
of November 21, 1989 as written. No objections; so ordered.
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF JANUARY 3, 1990
MOTION by Comm. Ketz, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to approve the minutes
of January 3, 1990 as written. Noting the abstention of Comm. Ingell,
no objections; so ordered.
APPROVAL OF RESOLUTIONS
MOTION by Comm. Ketz, seconded by Comm. Moore, to approve Resolution
P. C. 90-2, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR OFF-
SALE GENERAL ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AND ADOPTION OF THE NEGATIVE
DECLARATION AT 74 PIER AVENUE, ROBERT'S LIQUOR. Noting the abstention
of Comm. Ingell, no objections; so ordered.
MOTION by Comm. Ketz, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve Resolution P.C.
90-3, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA
BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #21824 FOR A 3-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 425 11TH STREET.
Noting the abstention of Comm. Ingell, no objections; so ordered.
MOTION by Comm. Ketz, seconded by Comm Moore, to approve Resolution P.C.
90-4, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA
BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #21580 FOR A 2-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 833 LOMA DRIVE.
Noting the abstention of Comm. Ingell, no objections; so ordered.
1 PC Minutes 01/16/90
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC
No one appeared to address the Commission.
Comm. Moore brought up an issue he felt needed to be settled as soon as
possible, and that was the length of Council and Commission meetings.
He felt that the meeting run too late in the evening to expect clear and
rational thinking on the part of the City officials and Council members.
He noted that the last Council meeting lasted until 2: 30 a.m., and
suggested possibly shortening the agenda so everyone could get home at
least by midnight.
Chmn. Rue suggested that this issue be brought up at the end of the
meeting with the Commission items.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #21331 FOR A 3-
UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 1502 LOMA DRIVE (continued from 12/5/89 meeting)
This project, for 1502 Loma Drive, and the following project, for 1508
Loma Drive, will be combined for discussion at this meeting date.
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated January 10, 1990. This project is
located in the R-3 zone, with the General Plan designation of High
Density Residential. The present use is as a 10 unit apartment.
The Planning Commission continued this request to allow the applicant
time to revise the plans to meet the requirements of the Condominium
Ordinance for common open space for projects of more than 5 units. The
plans have been revised to provide a common recreation area by widening
the originally proposed courtyard to 20 feet. The change was
accomplished by taking one foot off the side of each building along the
courtyard area, which also reduces lot coverage and total square footage
of the units.
The applicant is proposing to demolish an existing 10 unit apartment
building and construct two identical three-unit attached condominiums
on two adjacent lots located at 1502 and 1508 Loma Drive. Each of the
units will contain about 1,800 square feet, two bedrooms, a loft, and
2 1/2 baths distributed in two levels and a loft level over a semi-
subterranean garage.
The proposed structures will have a contemporary appearance with cement
plaster/sand finish exterior, glass block, architectural reglets, and
pipe balcony railings. The layout includes a shared, landscaped, walkway
which leads to the entrances of all six units.
Each unit will be provided with two enclosed private parking spaces. Two
open and unenclosed guest spaces are also available. No on-street
parking will be lost as a result of the curb cuts along Loma Drive.
2 PC Minutes 01/16/90
Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve the proposed
Conditional Use Permit and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map.
Public hearing opened by Chmn. Rue at 7:09 p.m.
Larry Peha, 67 14th street, Hermosa Beach, project architect, stated
that he has met the concerns and requirements of staff and the
Commission. The common open space provided will total 736 square feet,
and at one point the buildings are separated by 20 feet. A landscaping
plan has been provided as per request, and the front deck has been
extended by 1 1/2 feet to provide more building relief.
Mr. Peha showed the Commission a color rendering of the proposed
project.
Comm. Moore congratulated Mr. Peha on responding to the concerns of the
Commission so promptly and effectively.
Comm. Ingell stated that he appreciated the color rendering being
provided. It is a very effective visual aide.
Public hearing closed by Chmn. Rue at 7:13 p.m.
MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve the
Conditional Use Permit and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map.
Mr. Schubach stated that staff is suggesting the addition of a new
condition requiring the finalization of all tract maps prior to the
issuance of any building permits. This is a City imposed requirement to
become a new standard condition.
Jerry Compton, addressed the Commission with a point of interest,
stating that this condition creates a timing problem, because of the
time frame involved with the county approval of tract maps. The idea
behind this condition is not to delay a project, but to ensure that the
survey is correct. It takes 3 to 4 months to get county approval on
tract maps, and after speaking with the City Manager, a modification of
the wording may be helpful to avoid any delay of projects.
Mr. Schubach stated that staff wouldn't be opposed to a modification,
if the city Manager didn't see any problem with it. Approval can be made
subject to the approval of the Director of Building and Planning.
Chmn. Rue asked when an error made by a surveyor would be caught, and
Mr. Schubach replied that a surveyor's map is compared with existing
assessors maps or any previous maps that may be on file to check for any
discrepancies.
Mr. Compton added that there is a good possibility that a surveyor will
make a mistake, but nothing that the county would pick up on, unless
it's an error in street size or something comparable to that. The County
doesn't check the actual surveyor's points. A city inspector would catch
3 PC Minutes 01/16/90
any errors made before the County would. The condition is a good idea
because it lets the surveyor know that he's going to be checked for
accuracy.
When questioned as to whether any cities actually require two surveys
to check the accuracy, Mr. Schubach replied that he had never heard of
any that do.
Comm. Moore noted that it is conceivable that only one of these two
projects will be built at this time, possibly due to financial
difficulties, and the other would be built at some time in the future.
He stated that he would vote in favor of this application.
Mr. Schubach, at the request of Comm. Ingell, clarified the additional
verbiage for the new condition requiring tract map approval as,
" ... unless the Director of Building and Planning gives prior approval."
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Ingell, Ketz, Moore, Pierce, Chmn. Rue
None
None
None
Chmn. Rue stated that this decision may be appealed by writing to the
City Council within ten days.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #21330 FOR A 3-
UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 1508 LOMA DRIVE (continued from 12/5/89 meeting)
This project was included with the discussion of the project for 1502
Loma Drive. See above for project details, and Commission input.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #21620 FOR A 3-UNIT
CONDOMINIUM AT 1344 MANHATTAN AVENUE
Mr. Schubach gave the staff report dated January 8, 1990. This project
is located in the R-3 zone, with the General Plan designation of high
density residential. The present use is as a single family residence.
This matter was continued by the Planning Commission at the meeting of
June 6, 1989 to give the applicant time to revise the parking plan to
comply with current zoning standards.
The applicant is proposing to construct a three unit attached
condominium located at 1344 Manhattan Avenue. The units contain 1,744,
1,675, and 1,882 square feet which includes 2 bedrooms, 2 1/2 bathrooms,
a mezzanine, and two decks, over a subterranean garage. Unit B also
contains a bonus room on the subterranean level.
4 PC Minutes 01/16/90
These units will have a contemporary appearance with stucco exterior,
anodized aluminum windows, glass block, and metal guard rails. Each unit
will be provided with two enclosed parking spaces and two open and
unenclosed guest spaces, for a total of 12 parking spaces for the
project. These guest spaces are provided within the garage setback area.
Al though staff believes this is an inappropriate way to accommodate
parking, it is not inconsistent with any city policy.
Mr. Schubach added that the applicant would prefer to provide a 5 foot
sideyard setback for the entries rather than the full 6 feet. This,
however, is subject to the interpretation by Commission of Section 1217
of the Zoning Ordinance.
Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve the proposed
Condominium Development and Tentative Parcel Map.
Public hearing opened by Chmn. Rue at 7:30 p.m.
Terry Wetkowski, 307 Hopkins Avenue, Hermosa Beach, applicant, said that
this project was continued to redesign the garage and parking layout.
Two bonus rooms were removed and all concerns brought forth at the
previous meeting have been corrected.
Comm. Peirce questioned the completeness of the west elevation. He felt
there should have been 4 levels shown on that elevation, and it only
showed two levels.
Jerry Compton, 200 Pier Avenue #9, Hermosa Beach, explained that the
west elevation is a straight on front view, and it represents two levels
over the garage. There is a mezzanine level on the inside which would
not be shown from an outside view. This view is of the front unit only,
and doesn't represent the perspective of any units to the rear. The rear
unit is the only one that approaches the height limit because of the
slope of the lot.
He stated that he had originally wanted tandem parking, but there was
no way to access the garage from the alley because there would be a 15
foot drop down to the garage. The two bonus rooms were removed to modify
the parking, and the only feasible solution is the one presented with
the most recent set of plans.
Mr. Compton continued with an explanation of the applicant's request for
a 5 foot sideyard setback, as opposed to a 6 foot setback as required
by Section 1217 of the Zoning Code. He stated that the dimensions of the
lot really don't allow for a one foot southerly shift of the building.
There is only a 4 foot 2 inch sideyard to work with and removing an
additional one foot, wouldn't allow for a 3 foot stair on that side and
still provide any sideyard. Also, on the adjacent property to the South
is a commercial building that sits on the property line, and the
applicant was trying to keep as far away from that property as possible.
The applicant was not informed of this 6 foot setback requirement until
5 PC Minutes 01/16/90
just recently, and no one felt it was important enough to focus on it
before now. This rule is very old and hasn't been applied for a long
time. It really should be reviewed by Council before it is imposed on
anyone else to clarify the intent, and to provide future direction for
staff and the Commission. This Code section wasn't required when this
project was originally before the Commission, and it isn't fair to
require it now.
Mr. Lee interjected that this is a requirement set forth by the
Municipal Code and is applicable to this project no matter when it was
originally brought before the Commission.
Chmn. Rue asked if the Commission could rule on whether the Code
actually applies to a project, or just make an interpretation on a
section of Code.
Mr. Lee explained that the conditions imposed in the Resolution
determine what restrictions will apply to a project. The Commission
would have to make the necessary findings to draft a Variance to a
section of Code.
Mr. Compton said that he felt a fair mitigation measure to allow a minor
egress to the building and maintain a 5 foot sideyard for the entries
instead of 6 feet, is the 2 additional parking spaces provided for guest
parking and the many cut-ins provided along the side of the building for
relief. These cut-ins provide an appearance of a sideyard greater than
5 feet, and if an averaging method were used to figure the width of this
sideyard including these cut-ins, it would total more than 6 feet in
that area.
Mr. Compton, in response to a question raised by Chmn. Rue about tandem
access, explained that you can't have tandem access off of the Street,
but you can off of the alley. The 40 foot by 100 foot lots are a problem
because parking is very difficult, especially with single access only
situations. To obtain "straight-in" tandem parking off of the alley for
this lot would put the garages into the middle of each unit. The slope
down to the garage would be too steep for lower level tandem parking.
Mr. Lee interjected that in order to grant a variance to allow a setback
of less than 6 feet, this issue needs to be re-noticed for a separate
public hearing dealing with the variance request only. He suggested that
the Commission grant conditional approval subject to the applicant
coming back before the Commission with a variance request. This could
cause some delay, but legally a conditional approval requiring a
variance request is a fair and reasonable route to take.
Chmn. Rue asked how the interpretation of Section 1217, and the
allowances made in the past, would apply to this situation.
Comm. Peirce asked that the discussion get back to the public hearing
and the Commission could get back to this issue later.
6 PC Minutes 01/16/90
Larry Peha said that he sympathized with Mr. Compton's situation about
the sideyard setback issue, and agreed that there needs to be more
guidance regarding Code interpretation.
Public hearing closed by Chmn. Rue at 8:02 p.m.
Comm. Peirce noted that part of Section 1217 wasn't mentioned yet, and
that reads " ... upon which dwellings front ... ". The decision now is to
determine what part of the building is to be considered the front; is
the front of the building the part which faces the street, or it is
wherever the doors are located? Just because the door is on the side
doesn't mean that is the front of the building. The Commission never
really upheld the Building Directors ruling on this issue with a
previously approved project, the architect just moved the building to
obtain the 6 foot setback to get the project moving.
Mr. Compton interjected that the Code defines the front yard as the
narrowest side of the lot facing the street.
Mr. Lee suggested adopting an interpretation of where the front of
multiple, or row, housing is and stop trying to interpret this issue
with each project that comes up.
Mr. Schubach stated that this matter should be studied further before
an interpretation is made.
Mr. Compton added that with the cut-ins on the north side of the
building, the sideyard appears much larger than a flat wall with a 6
foot sideyard. If you use an averaging method to determine the size, it
works out to be 6 feet or more, including the cut-ins.
Mr. Lee stated that Code Section 1217 requires an increase of the
sideyard where multiple dwellings front on that sideyard. There is no
mention of applying an average width.
Chmn. Rue noted that an earlier project with the same tandem parking
requirements was much nicer than this one, and would like to look closer
at this Code Section. The Planning Commission has the ability to change
or to allow this at their discretion. This project will look like an
apartment building and it could be a lot nicer.
Comm. Peirce agreed that the tandem parking would need a variance, but
the 6 foot setback issue needs further investigation.
Comm. Moore state that he could vote in favor of this project with a one
foot shift of the building. If averaging were an option it would be a
good idea.
MOTION by Comm. Moore, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to approve the
Conditional Use Permit and Tentative Parcel Map with the condition that
the building be shifted one foot south to obtain a 5 foot sideyard for
the entryway.
7 PC Minutes 01/16/90
Chmn. Rue stated that he agrees that averaging can and should be used
to give designers some flexibility. The overall intent in requiring the
6 foot sideyard is to add more light and air in the corridor. The
applicant is already adding extra parking, and the additional one foot
isn't that significant.
Comm. Ketz said that the architect should be notified much earlier about
these requirements to avoid these problems at the hearing. Also, using
an averaging method could get carried away, so caution should be
exercised there also.
Chmn. Rue stated that part of the duty of the Planning Commission is to
apply these issues to say 'yes' or 'no' , or provide some sort of
flexibility. It's hard to catch all the problems in the Code and the
staff reports, but the applicant needs to get a copy of these reports
early enough to review them and get any questions answered.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Ingell, Ketz, Moore, Pierce, Chmn. Rue
None
None
None
Comm. Peirce noted that he voted 'yes' because the Code section in
question is poorly written. The City needs to change the standards to
decrease lot coverage to eliminate all these interpretation problems.
Mr. Schubach reminded the Commission that the tract map requirement
needed to be modified for this project also.
Comm. Moore stated that it was his intention to include that
modification in his motion.
Chmn. Rue stated that this decision may be appealed by writing to the
City Council within ten days.
Chmn. Rue called a recess at 8:20 p.m.
The Commission reconvened at 8:25 p.m. with all members seated.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #21574 FOR A 3-
UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 631 SIXTH STREET.
Mr. Schubach gave the staff report dated January 4, 1990. This project
is located in the R-2 zone, with the General Plan designation of Medium
Density Residential. The present use is as two single family residences.
The applicant is proposing to construct a three unit attached
condominium located at 631 Sixth Street. Each unit will contain 2,389
square feet which includes 3 bedrooms, 2 1/2 bathrooms, a patio, and
two decks, over a subterranean garage.
8 PC Minutes 01/16/90
Except for exterior appearance, these units will be identical to the
three unit project approved and constructed on the adjacent one and one
half lots to the east. Both of these properties is owned by the same
company, and this p r oject is the second half of a project totalling 6
units.
These units will have a contemporary Mediterranean-style appearance with
stucco exterior, clay tile roo f ing, mutin bar doors and windows, and
stucco and clay tile cap fire places. Each unit wi ll be provided with
two enclosed parking spaces, with two additional exterior guest spaces
also available.
Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve the proposed
Condominium Development and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map.
Comm. Ingell stated that this was the worse set of plans, as far as
duplication quality, that he has ever received for review. He felt that
he did not have the opportunity to review these plans adequately, and
therefore will not be able to vote on this item at this time.
Comm. Peirce said that it appears that rooms are missing, and everything
inside is not represented and visible on the plans. The Commission
shouldn't have to guess what the plans have on them, because it could
cause misinterpretation.
Mr. Schubach noted that the Commission approved this same set of plans
for the previous project located immediately east of this proposed site.
Public hearing opened by Chmn. Rue at 8:35 p.m.
Ed Johnson, 2459 Oakleaf Canyon Road, Walnut, applicant, apologized for
the poor quality of the plans. He stated that he planned to build two
identical buildings, side by side, and only change the exterior color.
He decided to change the elevation of the second building to compliment
the first, and because it was a last minute change, the plans were
rushed. These two buildings are identical on the inside, but will appear
different on the outside.
Elizabeth Srour, 820 Manhattan Avenue, stated that the intent of the
applicant was to provide the Commission with all the information
necessary to decide on the project. There is already sufficient
information on file with the plans of record. The open space is the only
difference between these projects. The new proposal is for 3 similar
units, similar in size and amenities, as a companion project to the 3
unit structure to the east. As revise, the building has less bulk, and
is not an exact copy of the other project for something more unique.
With regard to the Resolution, it is the intention of the applicant to
retain as many trees as possible, but he would also like the flexibility
to replace any trees lost during construction. She also asked that the
parcel map condition be modified as it was for the previously approved
project at 1502 Loma Drive.
9 PC Minutes 01/16/90
Chmn. Rue asked Ms. Srour to run through the layout of the project.
Comm. Ingell felt that this time should not be spent going over plans
in detail, and this item should be continued to the next meeting date
to allow for time to review these plans more carefully.
Ms. Srour stated that these are only the preliminary plans, and are not
of construction usage quality. All the standards and requirements are
met and there is enough information available to approve this project
at this time. There is no question about the overall parameters of the
project, and although these plans are of poor quality, the Commission
should still be able reach a decision.
Mr. Johnson reiterated that the interior of both projects is identical,
which means the units are the same as those approved in November. He
added that the exterior was changed slightly to avoid building a copy
of the adjacent building.
Public hearing closed by Chmn. Rue at 8:50 p.m.
MOTION by Comm. Ing el 1, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to continue this
project to the next meeting for review of the plans. Approval shouldn't
be based on a previously approved project, even though it is similar.
Chmn. Rue suggested discussing this further and making a conditional
approval based on a requirement that these items are actually identical.
Otherwise the project will have to come before the Commission again.
Comm. Peirce said that he could vote for conditional approval to ensure
that these plans are identical to those approved previously.
Comm. Ingell argued that this is a major part of the process, and plans
like these shouldn't be allowed to make it through the system. The
Commission shouldn't just set conditions to work around situations. What
about trying to determine if there are any bootleg units in these plans,
it is too hard to tell.
Comm. Peirce said that he would also like to see a complete set of
plans.
Chmn. Rue noted that there is already an identical set of approved plans
on file, and although plans are important, there is enough information
on file to make a decision.
Comm. Moore stated that he could vote in favor of this project as is
because the plans submitted are clear on the points of importance.
Bootleg units aren't a big issue in condos because of the other owners.
Could vote a conditional approval as suggested earlier, but this project
shouldn't be delayed because of poor duplicate plans.
Comm. Ketz concurred.
10 PC Minutes 01/16/90
Vote for continuance; motion fails, as follows:
Ayes:
Noes:
Abstain:
Absent:
Comms. Ingell, Peirce
Comms. Ketz, Moore, Chmn. Rue
None
None
MOTION by Comm. Moore, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve the
Conditional Use Permit and Tentative Parcel Map as submitted, with the
condition that the floorplan be substantially the same as the previously
approved project to the east. The Resolution will reflect the
modification to the condition requiring approval of the parcel map, and
the addition of the verbiage allowing for the replacement of trees lost
during construction.
The Commission asked Mr. Johnson to provide low maintenance trees and
landscaping as the replacement for any trees lost, and that he try and
preserve as many existing trees as possible.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Ketz, Moore, Chmn. Rue
Comms. Ingell, Peirce
None
None
Comm. Ingell stated that he voted •no' because he hasn't fully reviewed
the plans.
Comm. Peirce stated that he voted 'no' because the plans don't appear
to be complete.
Chmn. Rue reiterated that this project has been approved provided that
the new plans are the same as the plans for the previous project.
Chmn. Rue stated that this item may be appealed by writing to the City
Council within ten days.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AUTOMOBILE SALES AGENCY AND ADOPTION OF THE
NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 638-640 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, PACIFIC MOTOR
SPORTS.
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated January 9, 1990. This project is
located in the C-1, commercial corridor zone, with the General Plan
designation of General Commercial. The present use is as two retail
shops.
On August 22, 1989, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 89-1004
extending the moratorium on the issuance of permits within the
Commercial Corridor. At that time the Council modified the original
language of the moratorium to allow an exception for commercial projects
11 PC Minutes 01/16/90
which meet the standards of the C-1 zone, when approved by the Planning
commission, and are consistent with the provisions of the Commercial
Corridor.
The applicant is requesting an exception from the moratorium to remodel
the interior of an existing commercial building containing two units.
He proposes to remove the existing interior walls and create one large
unit, change the front elevation to improve its appearance, and provide
six parking spaces at the rear of the building. The intended use of the
building is for an auto brokerage specializing in exotic, specialty, or
other types of vehicles for customers. The storage and display of
vehicles will be within the building only.
All interior walls will be removed, and a new wall will be installed to
separate the display area from the "storage" area. This storage area may
not be used for service, body work, or repair of vehicles.
The proposed building design includes ceramic tile, stucco band,
aluminum frame windows, canvas awning, and concrete tile roofing.
Because the property is adjacent to residential property to the east,
it must provide an 8 foot setback from the property line. The existing
building is well over the 8 foot setback requirement, and the applicant
will provide a 3 foot 9 inch landscaped area as the required buffer.
Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve the proposed
Conditional Use Permit and Negative Declaration.
Public hearing opened by Chmn. Rue at 9:05 p.m.
Alex Del Pozo, 714 Redwood Avenue, El Segundo, applicant, stated that
he was happy with the report presented by staff, and he was available
to answer any questions.
Nellie Schroll, 824 7th Street, was concerned about the shift in the
direction of traffic leaving the car wash because of cars parked at the
rear of the subject site, and asked if the applicant would be allowed
to wash cars on his lot. She added that applicants who get approval
always seem to add just a bit more than asked for, and was concerned
about the cars being unloaded onto 7th Street.
Chmn. Rue replied that the applicant cannot do any work on the cars on
the site.
Mr. Schubach confirmed this by citing condition #10 which prohibits any
type of maintenance on site.
Jim Housing, 934 7th Street, Hermosa Beach, stated that there are
already a number of car dealers on Pacific Coast Highway, and they race
up and down the street to test drive the cars. This new proposal would
look nicer than what is there now, but another car dealer isn't needed
in this area.
12 PC Minutes 01/16/90
Jackie Tegiaferro, 934 7th Street, Hermosa Beach, concurred that there
are enough car dealers around now, and added that they are very noisy
and very busy.
Jerry Compton, 200 Pier Avenue #9, Hermosa Beach, said that he also
lives on 7th Street, and agreed that there are alot of car dealerships
in the area, but these dealerships generate a substantial amount of
income for the city. An auto brokerage deals mainly off-site, and the
cars are generally not sold from the showroom floor. He added, however,
that the Planning Commission should do whatever it can to protect the
neighboring residents.
Mr. Schubach stated that many dealerships aren't governed by a
Conditional Use Permit, but with amortization they will be caught up
with soon.
Mr. Del Pozo added that this project will substantially improve the
area, and his cars will be washed at the car wash next door. There will
be an 8 foot wall between the parking at the rear and the adjacent
residential area.
When questioned about deliveries of cars, Mr. Del Pozo replied that the
cars will usually be brought in one at a time, and the driveway will be
large enough to unload from Pacific Coast Highway directly onto the lot.
Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Comm. Moore, stated that
the driveway extends out to Pacific Coast Highway, and because the
street is considered public property, it is up to the police to site
any violators who use 7th Street to unload.
Jerry Compton asked that a condition be added prohibiting the use of
7th Street for unloading vehicles.
Public hearing closed by Chmn. Rue at 9:23 p.m.
MOTION by Chmn. Rue, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to approve the
Conditional Use Permit, subject to addition of a condition prohibiting
the use of public property for u~loading cars.
Ayes:
Noes:
Abstain:
Absent:
Comms. Ingell, Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Chmn. Rue
None
None
None
Chmn. Rue stated that this item may be appealed by writing to the City
Council within ten days.
13 PC Minutes 01/16/90
ZONE CHANGES FROM C-3, R-1 1 R-2 1 AND R-P TO COMMERCIAL SPECIFIC PLAN
AREA OR TO SUCH OTHER ZONE AS DEEMED APPROPRIATE BY THE PLANN I NG
COMMISSION AND ADOPTION OF THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE SOUTHERN
PORTIONS OF THE COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR ALONG EAST AND WEST SIDES OF PACIFIC
COAST HIGHWAY BETWEEN SOUTH CITY BOUNDARY TO EIGHTH STREET.
Mr. Robertson gave staff report dated January 10, 1990. Staff is
recommend i ng that the areas designated Commercial Corridor in the
General Plan, located south of eighth street, be rezoned from their
current zoning classifications of C-3, R-1, R-2, R-3, and R-P (the
majority being C-3) to Commercial Specific Plan Area.
The City Council, at their meeting of May 9, 1989, amended the Land Use
Element of the General Plan by eliminating the Multi-Use Corridor and
creating the Commercial Corridor and several residential designations.
Previous efforts of the Planning Commission and City Council focused on
defining the boundaries of commercial development along Pacific Coast
Highway, and now the efforts will be focused on the establishment of
development standards for these areas to ensure a level of quality for
future development of this corridor with minimum impact to neighboring
residential areas. Staff's approach was to develop more restrictive
standards for the C-3 zone in areas such as height and view blockage,
landscaping and buffering, and use of current residential properties
fronting on side streets.
The subject area is currently completely built out, containing a mix of
commercial uses, with a focus on automot i ve related uses. Parking is
inadequate, and the structures are old and unattractive. Landscaping is
sparse and infrequent, and there is an abundance of signage. This strip,
however, is very well traveled and quite vibrant. The majority of the
lots are rather small, and the trend is leaning toward combining lots
to create larger commercial developments.
Staff recommended one Specific Plan Area which contains a different
height requirement for the east and west side of Pacific Coast Highway
to recognize the different impact on views to the west. All other
requirements are the same for both sides and use the existing C-3
permitted use list and existing parking requirements as currently
contained in the zoning ordinance for the C-3 zone.
Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve the proposed Zone
Change and Negative Declaration.
Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Chmn. Rue, replied that the
goals have already been set in the General Plan Amendment. This policy
will help to reduce the commercial/residential conflict, and will
encourage commercial growth.
Public hearing opened by Chmn. Rue at 9:38 p.m.
14 PC Minutes 01/16/90
Jerry Compton, 200 Pier Avenue #9, Hermosa Beach, stated that the part
of this policy affecting him is the development standards. He said that
he hopes there will be more than one public hearing on this issue,
because he just received the information about it and needs time to
study it. This policy is proposing some major changes, and all
development along Pacific Coast Highway needs to be looked at carefully.
Hopefully this Commission will develop some solid standards to follow
to let the developer know what is expected from the very beginning.
Betty Ryan, 588 20th street, Hermosa Beach, questioned the fate of the
'commercial potential' zone. Will any action tonight change commercial
potential to strictly commercial? Also, how does the Planning Commission
feel about commercial abutting residential without any form of
transition?
Greg Tucker, 850 8th Place, Hermosa Beach, felt it was nice that Hermosa
Beach wasn't becoming a major commercial oriented city, but maintains
a high level of residential areas. It is nice to keep the heights down
to avoid blocking any views.
Jim Housing, 934 7th Street, Hermosa Beach, said that he applauds the
efforts of staff to keep the heights down, but felt it would be better
if the heights were even lower.
Public hearing closed by Chmn. Rue at 9:49 p.m.
Chmn. Rue commented on the lack of community response to this issue, and
asked staff if it were noticed for public hearing.
Mr. Schubach replied that most residents were satisfied with the changes
proposed at the General Plan Review, and this step is merely an
implementation phase.
Comm. Peirce stated that this particular plan may not encourage more
development, but it may encourage a piece-meal aggregation of side
street lots. If access is required off of Pacific Coast Highway only,
could the business owner acquire the adjacent residential lot at the
rear and use it as a parking lot with side street access?
Mr. Schubach replied in the positive.
Comm. Peirce felt that 40 feet was too high for this area, and proposed
a 35 foot maximum. The area would appear out of scale because of the
depth of the area. The City should encourage aggregation of lots to
encourage new development in the commercial area.
Comm. Ketz said that she would rather see the same height on both sides
of the street, and 35 feet would be more appropriate than 40 feet. She
suggested adding some form of sign standards and requirements to add
consistency to the commercial area, and a section for street trees in
the landscaping plan.
15 PC Minutes 01/16/90
Comm. Ingell felt that this item is too large to decide on in only one
meeting, and suggested breaking the project into smaller issues rather
than having a blanket Specific Plan Area. Some of the lots involved are
larger and the requirements would be different.
Chmn. Rue concurred, but felt that it may not be necessary to break the
plan up into smaller issues. It would be nice to get more community
input, however, before ma k ing a dec i s i on. The city should set the limits
and then live by them.
Comm. Peirce stated that an incentive is needed to keep the contractors
developing under the maximum height limit, such as, allowing automatic
Board approval if the proposal comes in under the maximum. This issue
should be continued in order to weigh it out more thoroughly. We need
to make sure that it doesn't get too complicated.
Comm. Ingell stated that the whole issue goes deeper than just the
height of the building; the type of business is also important. A design
review is needed to check all new businesses coming into Hermosa Beach.
The public hearing was reopened by Chmn. Rue at 10:04 p.m.
Robert Heard, 418 Oceanview Avenue, Hermosa Beach, asked the Commission
to explain what the 'commercial potential' zone was and what it means
to future development.
Mr. Robertson explained that the city is planning to eliminate the
commercial potential zone and convert it to residential only with a
rezoning hearing in the future. Only if the property in question is in
the commercial corridor and adjacent to commercial property which fronts
on the highway, could it be converted to commercial use.
Mr. Schubach noted that there is nothing keeping the zoning from
changing in a particular area at sometime in the future. Any property
owner has the right to request a zone change.
Jerry Compton, 200 pier Avenue #9, Hermosa Beach, agreed that the height
limit should be the same for both sides of the street, and some
buildings should be allowed a variance if parts of that building will
not impact any views. If you're going to require a Precise Development
Plan you need to allow more options. Maybe certain sections of the
Zoning Code could be referenced in the Specific Plan Area policy that
state specific requirements to follow. It is too easy to miss sections
that are important. This is a big step for the city.
Jeff Wellbaum, 222 No. Sepulveda Boulevard, El Segundo, representative
of Jeep/Eagle Dealership, stated that the dealership has a lot totalling
almost one acre, and with a 45 foot height limitation there is an
economical restriction. Retail offices, hotels, etc., can't be built in
this area because of the height limit, and these developments make money
by renting space by the square foot. No one is interested in the Jeep
site because they can't develop a working plan within the existing
16 PC Minutes 01/16/90
guidelines to be economical . There is
development, but maybe a terraced hotel
needs more clear cut Code requirements,
redesigned and more concrete.
no market here for office
would be feasible. The city
and the sections need to be
The public hearing was closed by Chmn. Rue at 10:21 p.m.
MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to continue the zone
change and Negative Declaration to the next meeting date in February.
Comm. Peirce stated that the Commission needs additional information
from staff regarding a bulk limiting paragraph for this recommendation.
The city could possibly allow a higher building if it is less bulky in
appearance. Furthermore, the Commission needs some economical
information, and more feedback from those who might build in the
effected area.
Comm. Ketz concurred stating that it would offer more flexibility.
Comm. Ingell suggested contacting the Chamber of Commerce for
information about what businesses would use this property. We need to
know what would be a viable business for this area.
Chmn. Rue noted that the property owners on Pacific Coast Highway keep
track of business coming in and going out, and staff could contact them
for input. We need to establish development standards and parameters.
Mr. Compton added that the Building Industry Assoc iation would be of
some help with this research. They could supply information on typical
businesses for this area.
Comm. Peirce commented that this may be too much work for two weeks, and
asked staff if they needed more time.
Mr. Schubach explained that staff could supply more information and
adjust the standards, but this is the implementation stage, and future
development is only a prediction. The standards need to be set for
today's business development. The text can always be changed in the
future to adjust to the area and usage. The intensive study has already
been done.
MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to continue this
discussion to the second meeting in February, February 20, 1990. No
objections; so ordered.
17 PC Minutes 01/16/90
HEARING
EXTENSION OF THE TENTATIVE TRACT MAP #30986 FOR AN 8-LOT SUBDIVISION
AT 532, 534-540 20TH STREET COMMONLY KNOWN AS POWER STREET SUBDIVISION.
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated January 9, 1990.
At the City Counc il meeting of June 13, 1989, a one year extension was
granted for the finalization of a tract map for an eight lot
subdivision. On July 20, 1989, the Staff Environmental Review Board
continued the Environmental Assessment until the county completed its
study regarding flooding in the area of the subject property.
Staff feels there is no need for an additional extension at this time
since it is anticipated that the county flood study will be completed
prior to the expiration of the current extension period, and the
applicant will then be able to proceed with the finalization of the
tract map. The Planning commission may, however, grant an additional one
year extension pursuant to Section 66452.6 (e) of the Government Code.
Mr. Schubach noted that the applicant is not present at this hearing,
which may be an indication that he agrees with staff.
MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Ketz to accept staff's
recommendation for no additional extension at this time.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Ingell, Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Chmn. Rue
None
None
None
Chmn. Rue announced that no appeal to the City Council could be filed
for this item. This decision is final.
STAFF ITEMS
a) Election of the New Planning Commission Chairman and Vice
Chairman
Mr. Schubach reminded the Commission that the positions of Chairman and
Vice Chairman are determined on a rotating basis. The current Vice
Chairman, Scott Ingel l, will become the Chairman as of the next meeting
date, February 6, 1990. The next Vice Chairman is Comm. Ketz.
b) Tentative Future Planning commission Agenda
No comments. No action.
18 PC Minutes 01/16/90
c) City council Minutes of December 12, 1989
No comments. No action.
COMMISSIONER ITEMS
Comm. Peirce suggested that all Commission and Council meetings should
be wrapped up by 12 midnight at the latest. Maybe by 11 p.m. the
Commission could assess the situation, as far as items still to be
addressed, and reschedule anything that is not crucial or in need of
immediate attention. It is just too difficult to make rational decisions
about important issues in the middle of the night.
Mr. Lee stated that it could be brought up for a vote, and perhaps take
a poll of the audience to see who's present for which item, and then
decide what could be carried over to the next meeting.
Comm. Moore added that another element in determining the length of
meetings are the speakers who address the Board. city Council uses a
timer to limit each speaker, which helps keep the meeting time down
somewhat.
Comm. Ingell said that he would be in favor of a time limit for speakers
addressing the Board.
Chmn. Rue felt that the chairman should be in charge of keeping track
of the time.
Comm. Ingell felt that this would be too much of a burden for the
chairman to have to watch the clock and absorb what is being presented.
Mr. Lee stated that if a time limit were to be established, it should
be noted on the agenda to notify the public of the Commission's
intention to keep comments brief.
Comm. Moore stated that he is not in favor of a time limit because some
cases involve a lot of technical data that needs to be heard and is very
relevant.
Comm. Peirce, speaking on a different issue, asked staff to look into
how other beach cities that are similar to Hermosa Beach have retained
their small town atmosphere. All large developments are kept away from
the beach.
Comm. Ketz suggested looking at the Zoning Codes of these areas, and
getting an overall picture of lot sizes, lot coverage, size of yards,
etc.
19 PC Minutes 01/16/90
Mr. Schubach noted that this can be interjected into the housing
element, and added that staff is anticipating having something available
for Commission review by March.
Comm. Ingell asked that staff draft a letter to Paul to thank him for
his service to the Planning Department. He also thanked Jeff Rue for his
service to the Planning Commission as Chairman.
Chmn. Rue turned the chair over to Comm. Ingell, the new Chairman.
MOTION by Comm. Moore, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to adjourn at 10:52 p.m.
No objections; so ordered.
20 PC Minutes 01/16/90
,. 'i
)
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 Meeting of January 16, 1990.
~~
Michael Schubach, Secretary --
Oat if
21 PC Minutes 01/16/90
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
HELD ON FEBRUARY 6, 1990, AT 7:00 P.M. IN THE CI'IY HALL COUNCil, CHAMBERS
Meeting called to order at 7:03 P.M. by Cbmn. Ingell.
Pledge of Allegiance led by Comm. Rue.
ROLLCAIL
Present:
Absent:
Cormns. Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ingell
None
Also Present: Michael Schubach, Planning Director; Edward Lee, Assistant City
Attorney; Sally White, Recording Secretary
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
M0110N by Comm. Ketz, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve the minutes of December 5, 1989,
as submitted. No objections; so ordered.
MOTION by Comm. Ketz, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to approve the minutes of January 16,
1990, as submitted. No objections; so ordered.
APPROVAL OF RESOLUTIONS
Comm. Rue commented on Resolution P.C. 89-91, and stated that to his recollection Condition
No. 10 ("The exterior shall be painted a different color than the adjacent building at 1508 Loma
Drive.") should have been deleted from the resolution. He recalled that it was not the intent of
the Commission to impose that requirement, stating that the intent was to have the projects be
cohesive. The other Commissioners concurred.
MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Moore, to approve as amended (deletion of
Condition No. 10) Resolution P.C. 89-91, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA. APPROVING A CONDITION.AL USE PERMIT
AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #21331 FOR A THREE-UNIT CONDOMINIUM
PROJECT AT 1502 LOMA DRIVE, DESCRIBED AS LOT 14, HISS' ADDITION TO HERMOSA
BEACH. No objections; so ordered.
MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve as amended (with the deletion of
Condition No. 10, for the reason stated above) Resolution P.C. 89-92, A RESOLUTION OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A
CONDITION.AL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #21330 FOR A THREE-
UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 1508 LOMA DRIVE, DESCRIBED AS LOT 13, HISS'
ADDITION TO HERMOSA BEACH. No objections; so ordered.
MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve Resolution P.C. 90-5, A
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH,
CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE
PARCEL MAP #21574 FOR A THREE-UNIT ATIACHED CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 631 6TH
S1REET, DESCRIBED AS LOT 20 AND PORTION OF LOT 19, DR. DOUGHERTY'S HERMOSA
BAY VIEW 'IRACT, HERMOSA BEACH. No objections; so ordered.
1 P.C. Minutes 2/6/90
MOTION by Comm. Ketz, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve Resolution P.C. 90-6, A
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH,
CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP
#20620 FOR A THREE-UNIT ATTACHED CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 1344 MANHATTAN
AVENUE, DESCRIBED AS LOT 4, BLOCK 49, FIRST ADDITION TO HERMOSA BEACH. No
objections; so ordered.
Comm. Rue noted a typographical correction to Resolution P.C. 90-7, Condition 2(b): "No
vehicles for sale shall be .... "
MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Cormn. Ketz, to approve as amended Resolution P.C. 90-7,
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH,
CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN AUTOMOBILE AGENCY
(AUTO BROKERAGE) AND AN EXCEPTION FROM THE MORATORilJM ON THE ISSUANCE OF
BUILDING PERMIT IN COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR AT 638-640 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY,
DESCRIBED AS LOT 18 AND PORTION OF LOT 19, WILSON AND LIND'S 1RACT. No objections;
so ordered.
MOTION by Comm. Ketz, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to approve Resolution 90-10, A
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH,
CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDED APPROVING THE COMPREHENSIVE PARKS AND
RECREATION MASTER PLAN AS A GENERAL POLICY PLAN. Noting the abstention of Chmn.
Ingell, no objections; so ordered.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC
Howard Longacre, 1221 7th Place, Hermosa Beach, asked whether the public hearing for the
Mobil Oil Station and Car Wash would be opened this evening.
Chmn. Ingell replied in the affirmative.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A RETAil, SNACK SHOP. GAS PUMPS. AND CAR WASH.
AND ADOPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 931 PACIFIC
COAST mGHWAY. MOBll, on, STATION (CON11NUED FROM MEETING OF JANUARY 3. 1990)
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated February 1, 1990. Staffs recommendation was to
continue this matter to the meeting of February 20, 1990, per the applicant's request. The
applicant was unable to obtain the required noise study in time for the staff to review it prior to
the meeting this evening.
Public Hearing opened at 7 :08 P .M. by Chmn. Ingell.
Howard Longacre, 1221 7th Place, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission. He noted
concern for the commercial corridor and the uses going in along the highway, stating that
there should be better planning which would be more conducive to attracting quality
businesses. He questioned the feasibility of allowing another car wash so close to one already
existing there. He said that the highway appears to be all auto-related uses. He strongly
opposed a car wash at the proposed site.
Mr. Longacre continued by asking what action would be necessary to change the uses allowed
by the permitted use list. He urged the Planning Commission to take steps to encourage more
high-quality projects along the highway. He suggested hotels, offices, shops, and restaurants.
Public Hearing continued at 7: 18 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
2 P.C. Minutes 2/ 6/90
MOTION by Comm. Moore, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve staff's recommendation to
continue this public hearing to the meeting of February 20, 1990.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ingell
None
None
None
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #21728 FOR A 'IWO-
UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 914 7m STREET
Comm. Rue, explaining that he has an on-going business relationship with this applicant,
stated that he would abstain from discussion on this item.
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated January 29, 1990. Staff recommended that the Planning
Commission approve the conditional use permit for a two-unit condominium and vesting
tentative parcel map, subject to the conditions specified in the proposed resolution.
This project is located in the R-2B zone, with a general plan designation of medium density
residential. The lot size is 4800 square feet. Five parking spaces are provided. The open space
provided is 1040 square feet. The current use is as a single-family dwelling. The
environmental determination is categorically exempt.
The subject property is rectangular in shape and slopes side to side toward Pacific Coast
Highway to the west. It is the sixth residential lot up the slope from P.C.H. and therefore has a
view of the ocean to the west.
The proposed units contain 2637 and 2551 square feet and include three bedrooms, a game
room, and two and a half bathrooms. The proposed structure consists of two stories above a
semi-subterranean garage.
The proposed building elevations propose a stucco exterior, mission clay tile roofing, and a
decorative window to enhance the front facade, skylights, and decorative wrought iron
railings. These features give the building somewhat of a Mediterranean appearance. Each unit
is provided with a private entry porch, and several first-and second-level decks. giving visual
relief to the otherwise simple structure. This project is similar in size and style to the recently
completed project located adjacent and to the east at 918 7th Street, except for the 25-foot
height as compared to the 30-foot height of the existing project. One effect of the lower height is
that the roof is flat rather than a pitched Spanish-tile roof.
The plans indicate a front yard setback of ten feet, which is adequate considering existing
setbacks along the street, and is consistent with what was required for the project on the
adjacent lot at 918 10th Street.
Required parking is provided in two two-car garages oriented toward the middle of the lot, and
one guest space is provided. The garages are accessed via a nine-foot wide driveway replacing
the existing driveway; therefore, no existing on-street parking is lost as a result of this project.
The project complies with all planning and zoning requirements, although it is not clearly
indicated where the trash receptacles will be stored. Adequate private open space is provided
on first-and second-level decks for Unit A, and on a roof deck for Unit B, and adequate storage
areas are identified in the garages. Staff is including a condition that the location for trash
receptacles be identified on revised plans.
The project also complies with Interim Ordinance No. 89-995 which established a height limit
for this area at 25 feet because of its proximity to R-1 zoned view lots.
3 P.C. Minutes 2/6/90
The surrounding area consists of primarily single-and two-fanrily uses of both one and two
stories. Although this project contains two stories and semi-subterranean garage, it
maintains a two-story character on the street because the driveway accessing the garage is
located on the lower side of the lot, and the project has been designed within the 25-foot height
limit.
Mr. Schubach commented on the game room in the garage area, stating that staff was not
concerned over its bootleg potential because there is no bathroom at that level. He noted,
however, that there is a closet space available in the game room. and there is access, but it is
only through the garage. He stated that it may be the desire of the Commission to eliminate the
closet space or to impose limitations on the access into the game room; however, staff felt that
such conditions were not necessary.
Public Hearing opened at 7:20 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
Elizabeth Srour, 820 Manhattan Avenue, Manhattan Beach, representing the applicant,
addressed the Commission. She stated that the staff report is complete, and this project meets
all of the development standards in effect at this time.
Ms. Srour stated that an attractive element of this project is the two detached units. Lot
coverage is only 52.5 percent, well under the allowed 65 percent. She stated that all of the
proposed conditions are acceptable to the applicant. She stated that she is aware of the
concerns regarding potential bootleg units: however, she pointed out that the game room is an
integral part of this project, and it would be very difficult to access that area directly from the
outside. She felt, therefore, that there is no cause for concern over future bootleg use.
Ms. Srour, in response to concerns voiced by Comm. Moore related to the final appearance of
this project, stated that this applicant is known for completing projects which conform to the
plans which come before the Commission. She further noted that the exterior design is
integral to the success of the project.
Public Hearing closed at 7 :24 P .M. by Chmn. Ingell.
Comm. Moore, noting that the issue of possible bootleg conversion was raised, did not feel that
there is such a potential because the owner of the other unit will be the best enforcement
against such a use occurring.
MOTION by Comm. Moore, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to approve staff's recommendation,
Resolution P.C. 90-11, as written, approving a conditional use permit and tentative parcel map
#21728 for a two-unit condominium project at 914 7th Street.
Chmn. Ingell stated that it is nice to see a project which is well below the maximum allowed lot
coverage.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Chmn. Ingell
None
Comm..Rue
None
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #21787 FOR A 'IWO-
UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 952 8TH S'IREET
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated January 29, 1990. Staff recommended that this request be
continued to allow the applicant time to revise the plans to meet the 25-foot height limit as
required by Interim Ordinance No. 89-995.
4 P.C. Minutes 2/6/90
The subject application was submitted and accepted by the Planning Department on January
10, 1990. Staff informed the applicant on January 18, 1990, about the interim ordinance and
that the plans would have to be revised to meet the 25-foot height limit. The applicant chose to
proceed with the public hearing.
This project is located in the R-2B zone. with a general plan designation of medium density
residential. The lot size is 6882 square feet, or 57 by 120 feet. Eight parking spaces are
provided. There is open space of 1300 square feet. The current use is as a triplex. The
environmental determination is categorically exempt.
The subject property is a through lot with access from both 7th Street and 8th Street. It is
rectangular in shape and slopes toward the southwest, enjoying views to both the ocean and the
Palos Verdes hills.
The proposed units contain 3090 and 3571 square feet and consist of two stories above a garage
and are designed like two single-family homes, as each home has access to a different street.
The units contain three bedrooms and two and a half baths and are designed in the
Mediterranean style.
This type of project is consistent with other through lots on this block. many of which have
been split into two lots. However, across 8th Street to the north, the lots are zoned R-1, and
redevelopment of these through lots into larger structures obviously impacts the views to the
south. This was the reason the interim ordinance was enacted by the City Council limiting
structures in the R-2B zone to 25 feet.
Interim Ordinance No. 89-995 is scheduled to expire on June 27, 1990. The applicant has the
option of waiting until the ordinance expires to see what is adopted in its place, or he can
design the building within the 25-foot height limit. Staff needs to consult with the City
Attorney to determine if a variance or exception can be requested from an interim ordinance,
although staff does not believe there is any justification for such a variance.
Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Comm. Rue, explained that applicants are
advised of ordinances and changes via postings on the bulletin board in the Building
Department as well as the Planning Department. Staff also hands out applicable infonnation
sheets at the counter. Also, every attempt is made to notify applicants of moratoriums. In this
case, the applicant has indicated that he was not informed of the moratorium by staff.
Mr. Lee explained that a variance would not solve the problem in this case. He said that the
moratorium would preclude any variances from being granted. He stated that the purpose of
the interim ordinance was to provide the City an opportunity to s tudy the appropriate height
limitations. At this time only projects which meet a 25-foot height limitation are allowed.
The only alternative for the applicant is to lower this project to 25 feet, pending the
termination of the moratorium period.
Mr. Schubach noted that this issue is scheduled to be heard by the City Council at their second
meeting in February. At that time, the moratorium will probably be expired, unless the matter
is continued. He noted, however, that it was never staffs recommendation to lower the height
limit to 25 feet in the R-2B zone; it was merely a matter to be studied along with the new method
for measuring height.
Comm. Moore, commenting on the plans for this project, noted that it appears that this project
would meet the 25-foot height requirement ifit had a flat roof.
Mr. Schubach concurred that the project would probably meet the height requirement if the
project were redesigned with a flat roof. He noted that the project as submitted appears almost
to meet the height requirement of 25 feet.
5 P.C. Minutes 2/6/90
Mr. Schubach, in response to Comm. Rue's observation that one unit appears to be under the
25-foot limit, agreed; however, he noted that final height approval is done by the Building
Department during the plan check.
Comm. Rue wondered whether it would be possible for the applicant to build one unit now (the
unit which meets the height limit) and build the other unit once the moratorium has expired.
Comm. Moore speculated that attempting to build the units separately would be too expensive,
and it would be very difficult to obtain financing for a two-stage project.
Public Hearing opened at 7:33 P.M. byChmn. Ingell.
Larry Jamison, applicant, addressed the Commission and stated that when the plans were
submitted, he was told by the Planning Department that the height limitation was 30 feet. He
stated that he spent several months going over these plans with staff and was never told
anything about the moratorium. He stated that the documents given to him regarding the
moratorium did not include his specific lot. He was not aware of any problems until after he
submitted his plans.
Mr. Jamison asked how the public is to be protected if the Planning Department does not give
out the proper information regarding what can be built. He stated that the height is the
difference between a view lot and a non-view lot. If he cannot build with a view, his property
investment is greatly decreased.
Mr. Jamison stressed that there must be a fail-safe method of informing the public what can be
built.
Mr. Schubach stated that staff makes every attempt to inform people of the laws and what can
be built. He stated that this case could have been an oversight.
Mr. Jamison stated that his architect made every attempt to comply with what he was
informed was allowed. He stated that he would like to be able to make a compromise in this
case. He noted that three units will be replaced with only two units, which is of benefit to the
area. He said that this is a sloping lot, and it would be beneficial to everyone concerned if the
units could be 27 l /2 feet, thereby allowing for some view via a roof deck.
Mr. Jamison stressed that he does not want a flat roof, noting that he wants to build a project
with a Mediterranean appearance.
Mr. Schubach noted that this matter will be heard by the City Council very soon and a final
decision will be made. In the meantime staff can work with the applicant on the height. He
noted that the project currently appears to be very close to the 25-foot height limit.
Mr. Lee, in response to a comment from Chmn. Ingell, stated that even if the variance is denied
and appe aled to the Council, the Council in order to allow the project would have to amend its
interim ordinance. He noted that such a procedure would be quite time consuming.
Mr. Jamison noted that he wouldn't even be before the Commission had he originally been
given the correct information. He just wants to proceed with his project; however, he noted
that it would not be possible to proceed with the projects separately as was earlier suggested as a
possibility.
Jim Sullivan, 1051 8th Street, Hermosa Beach, sympathized with the applicant; however, he
hoped that the project would be within the 25-foot height limit. He noted concern over views
being lost in the R-1 zone by allowing the higher limit in the R-2B zones. He noted that in
certain areas there is R-1 on one side of the street and R-2B on the other side, thereby creating
problems with the different heights.
6 P.C. Minutes 2/6/90
Dianne Olson. 814 Ocean Drive. is in the R-1 zone. Allowing this project to go over 25 feet will
partially block her view. If the project is lowered, the views can be protected. She noted
concern over the "canyon effect" on 8th Street.
Cindy Vancer, 1017 7th Street, stated that if this project is built at all, her ocean view will be
completely lost. She stated she paid a premdum for her view property, and this project will
impact the view. She stated that the density should constantly be reviewed in the City. and
moratoriums should be strictly enforced.
Joan Bebb, 1018 8th Street, said that she has a great view to the south. She stated that if the
project on the 7th Street side is lowered, the project on 8th could also have a great view. She
noted that 8th Street is one of the narrowest in the City and it has very little parking. This
project would remove one on-street parking space and create more canyon walls along the
street. She therefore felt that it would be appropriate that the applicant be required to redesign
this entire project. She suggested that one large house, slightly lower and which would preserve
the on-street parking, would be just as economically viable as two units.
Valerie Trumbell, 801 Ocean, stated that her view would be blocked by construction of this
project, no matter what its height. She noted concern that 8th Street will become a "bowling
alley." She expressed concern over congestion and loss of sunlight.
Roy Olson. 814 Ocean Drive , stated that the applicant for Agenda Item No. 7 knew about the
moratorium: he therefore questioned why this person apparently didn't know anything about
it.
Public Hearing closed at 7:51 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
Cormn. Moore could see no way to overrule the moratorium, nor could he see why it should be
overruled. He noted that the applicant merely requested that people be informed of what is
allowed so that projects can be designed accordingly.
Comm. Moore stated that concerns have been expressed about the canyon effect being created
by projects which, even though they meet the code standards, are not in the best interest of the
City. He urged those people to attend the Council meeting on this issue to make their
viewpoints known.
Comm. Rue favored a continuance as suggested by staff. He felt it would be counterproductive to
deny the project at this time, noting that the matter will soon be heard before the City Council.
MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Peirce to continue this matter to a future meeting
of the Planning Commission, and that the matter be renoticed.
Comm. Moore stated that many times, not just in this particular case, applicants say they have
not been informed of City requirements. He stressed the importance of people being given
complete information sheets.
Mr. Schubach noted that staff has been making great strides in tackling this problem to ensure
that people are well informed of the City requirements.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ingell
None
None
None
7 P.C. Minutes 2/6/90
VARIANCE FROM THE GUEST PARKING REQUIREMENT AND ro ENCROACH INTO THE
REQUIRED 17-FOOT SETBACK AT 1419 MONTEREY BOULEVARD AND ADOPTION OF THE
ENVIRONMENTAL NEGA11VE DECLARATION
Mr. Schubach gave .staff report dated January 4, 1990. Staff recommended denial of the
proposed variance and of the proposed project. This project is located in the R-3 zone, with a
general plan designation of high density residential. The lot size is 4000 square feet, or 40 by
100 feet. The existing use is as a single-family residence. The existing building area is 1540
square feet. The proposed use is as a single-family plus a garage apartment. The proposed area
of addition is 1463 square feet. The existing lot coverage is 58 percent; proposed lot coverage is
64.9 percent.
At their meeting of November 8, 1989, the staff environmental review committee
recommended a negative declaration for this request. Also, the applicant has modified his
original request in response to recommendations from the committee to reduce the number of
variances required to one. The initial plans would have required a variance from the
maximum 100 percent allowed addition in replacement value of nonconforming structures,
sideyard portions of the structures, and a variance from the 17 -foot parking setback
requirement. The variances for the existing nonconfonnities, the sideyard setbacks, and the
17-foot parking setback are not required since the project has been reduced to less than a 100
percent expansion.
The applicant is requesting to construct a second-story addition to an existing nonconforming
single-family structure and to add a second unit above a two-car garage. The addition to the
existing house will result in a three-bedroom, three-bathroom house with about 2300 square
feet, while the proposed apartment unit would be a one-bedroom unit with only 679 square feet.
The proposal involves adding an additional story to both existing structures and does not
require the demolition of any existing walls or remodeling of the interior of the structures.
Also , the proposal includes the addition of two parking spaces located in tandem under the
garage apartment and the wooden deck. Total lot coverage would increase by 284 square feet
for a total of 64.9 percent, and about 200 square feet of existing open space is lost.
The subject lot is rectangular in shape and contains 4000 square feet, with a slope of about 10
percent being downward from Monterey to the alley. It is rather typical of lots within this
block which are roughly split between 40-foot wide 4000 square-foot lots and 30-foot wide 3000
square-foot lots. This lot is the southerly most residential lot on the west side of Monterey in
this block and is located adjacent to commercial uses to the south. Since the area is wned R-3,
the subject lot could legally be developed as a three-unit condominium.
In order to construct the project as proposed, the applicant needs a variance from Section
115 l(B) which requires a total of five parking spaces for two-family dwellings (two per unit
plus one guest space). The applicant is proposing the addition of two spaces which results in
only four parking spaces.
The reason for the variance request, according to the applicant, is that the only available
location to provide the required parking would be to use the yard in the rear of the existing
garage which currently contains a large pine tree and a fish pond.
Obviously, there are alternatives to the proposed plan where required parking could be
provided. the most obvious being the use of the yard behind the garage for another tandem
parking stall. However. as noted this would inevitably result in the loss of the pine tree and the
yard area and also would require significant excavation. Other alternatives available to the
applicant, in staffs judgment, would require the use of the Monterey Boulevard frontage.
resulting in a significant amount of demolition and remodeling, most likely necessitating a
complete redevelopment of the lot. It would also result in a curb cut on Monterey which would
take away a street parking space, and the entire block from Pier Avenue to 16th Street along
the west side does not currently have any curb cuts or garages facing the street.
8 P.C. Minutes 2/ 6/90
Nonetheless, making the appropriate findings for approval of the variance is extremely
difficult in this case. The slope and the existing tree are significant physical features, but do
they justify waiving the parking requirements? Clearly, the Planning Commission must
consider the seriousness of the parking problems in the City and the fact the applicant is
proposing to intensify the use of this property from one to two units. However. the Planning
Commission may also consider that the proposed additions result in a three-bedroom house
and a small one-bedroom garage apartment, hardly the large multi-unit structure which could
be built.
Staff recommended denial of the variance because of concerns about parking and because it is
their belief that the unique physical features of the property, the ten percent slope, and the
existence of a mature pine tree, although sign:i:ficant, do not justify a variance. More generally.
this lot's major physical characteristics are the same as surrounding properties. and the
parking deficiency would have a potential detrimental impact on adjacent residential
properties.
Also, the applicant needs Planning Commission approval, pursuant to Section 13-7(B) of the
nonconforming provisions, to allow an addition to a nonconforming structure which is
greater than 50 percent of existing replacement value. The existing structure is nonconforming
because of its existing two-foot and three-foot sideyards and because of the six-foot garage
setback off the alley. The plans propose a 95 percent addition.
Pursuant to Section 134-7(B), in order to approve this request, the Planning Commission must
make a finding that goals, intent. and purpose of this article are being met.
In staffs judgment, the "General Goals" as stated in Section 13-0 would be met because the
structure and the grounds of the lot in question are in sound condition and are consistent with
the character of the neighborhood. The deficient setbacks of two feet and three feet are not
proposed to be maintained for the second-story additions. The two-foot setback is adjacent to
the commercial property to the south, and the three-foot setback on the residential side
appears to be consistent with existing sideyard setbacks for the remainder of the block.
Also, the applicant is expanding the amount of parking from two to four spaces. However. the
parking is still short of the parking requirement of five spaces. Therefore. except for the
parking deficiency. staff believes that the findings for approval of a 95 percent addition could
be made in this case.
In sum, although staff could support the request for the 95 percent addition, it cannot justify
the overall request because of the parking deficiency. Therefore, staff recommended denial of
the request.
If the Planning Commission is comfortable in making a finding for the variance from the
parking requirements, staff included an alternative resolution of approval. This resolution
also includes conditions of approval to ensure that required private open space for Unit B is
provided. that the stairway for Unit B is set back <1 rnjnimum of four feet from the side yard,
and that a termite and dry rot inspection be conducted prior to the issuance of building
pennits.
Comm. Moore asked whether the area to the left of the garage in the alley was considered when
staff made its analysis of the parking loss. He noted that that particular area is being used for
parking at this time.
Mr. Schubach stated that that area would be lost, as it would become the driveway for the
tandem parking proposed. Even though there may be adequate room for a parking space, staff
would find it difficult to classify it as a legal parking space, based on the requirements in the
code.
9 P.C. Minutes 2/6/90
Comm. Moore noted that, even though a car can squeeze in that space now, it will probably not
be possible after the new garage is built.
Public Hearing opened at 8:08 P .M. by Chmn. Ing ell.
George Nedleman, 1419 Monterey, applicant. addressed the Commission. He stated that he
does not know whether a car could park in that area after the garage is built. He continued by
discussing the width of Bayview Drive.
Mr. Nedleman stated that this project is in the R-3 zone; however. he is building only to the R-2
standards. He noted that the parking problems in the area are terrible. He explained other
buildings in the surrounding area as related to the parking, but he noted that this project will
have a very low impact on the neighborhood.
Comm. Moore commented that the current garage appears to have a large single door; the new
garage appears to have a double door. He asked whether the applicant is proposing some
changes in the construction of the garage.
Mr. Nedleman stated that no changes whatsoever are being proposed, and the single door will
remain. He stated that there must have been an error on the plans.
Mr. Nedleman, in response to questions from Comm. Moore, stated that he is currently using
the two-car garage for the parking of cars and the space outside the garage is also being used.
since he has three cars.
Mr. Nedleman, in response to a question from Comm. Moore, stated that the second unit is very
small and is meant for only one or two people.
Comm. Moore was very surprised by the inclusion of the family room in the rear, which would
make it very conducive to a conversion to a second bedroom, thereby creating the potential for
additional occupants. He asked whether the applicant had considered an alternate design in
which the kitchen is moved to where the family room is, and a continuous L-shaped area would
wrap around to the front, which is where the view is located.
Mr. Nedleman stated that such a plan was not considered, explaining that the plans were
altered from two bedrooms to one bedroom, based on the concerns expressed by staff. He noted
that he was informed by staff that there was insufficient square footage to have two bedrooms
in this unit.
Comm. Moore noted even stronger concern over the project now, explaining that the original
intent was indeed to have two bedrooms. He noted that the present plans could very easily be
converted back into a two-bedroom unit.
Comm. Moore stated that an alternate design would be more appropriate, one which would
utilize the view to the west.
Mr. Nedleman stated that there is no such option due to the configuration.
Mr. Nedleman, in response to a question from Comm. Rue, stated that he would be willing to
change the design of the project; however, he would like to maintain the small den area. He
stated that he would even be willing to have a certain size imposed on it.
Comm. Rue stated that it is desirable to have the area kept more open. He noted concern over
the very small living area, and said that the Commission does not want to encourage a
conversion into a bedroom which would mean more people living in the unit. He noted that
since the applicant is trying to limit the parking, the Commission wants to limit the
occupancy.
P.C. Minutes 2/6/90
Mr. Nedleman stated that he would prefer to have the second room. He stated that he would be
willing to follow a size limitation imposed on the project if he can maintain the second room.
Gene Parish, 1431 Monterey Boulevard, said that the second-story of this project will encroach
into his view of Palos Verdes. He stated that the property in question is situated several steps
above the street level. He asked how the height is measured, to which Mr. Schubach
responded by showing him an explanatory diagram.
Public Hearing closed at 8: 19 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
Chmn. Ingell stated that the applicant is attempting to create a two-bedroom unit, but does not
have the required square footage for two bedrooms. It appears a one-bedroom unit has been
designed with the intent of increasing it to two bedrooms in the future. That issue combined
with the parking deficiency would preclude his making the appropriate findings for approval
of this variance request. He therefore favored staff's recommendation to deny the request.
Comm. Peirce felt that this project has merit because it is not built to the maximum, and the
project is below the height limit. Although the lot coverage is large, the bulk of the building is
small compared to what could be built there. Also, there are only two units there. He therefore
favored approval of the variance.
Comm. Ketz stated that she would prefer this project rather than three, 2500 square-foot units,
which is what could be built at this site. The proposed project would be more in character with
the area; however, she did see a problem with the back unit. She felt that if there could be some
type of design control to ensure that there is only one unit, that would be acceptable.
Comm. Moore stated that support must be based on the specifics of the project, stating that this
is quite different from other new projects being approved in the area. He noted concern,
however, over the layout of the project. He commented that the proposed use is less intense
than that allowed in the area, the height is much lower than allowed, and the rear unit is quite
small. He said that this project is actually going from two indoor and one outdoor parking
spaces to four indoor parking spaces: however. he does not feel that tandem parking is
effectively used. He felt that in many ways the City is overdoing the parking restrictions, and
many projects are being designed, however ugly, with only the parking standards in mind. He
felt that if the citizens don't mind living with the parking problems, maybe the parking
requirements should be addressed to allow for fewer requirements, which would allow for
more design options. He favored better designs over excessive parking.
Comm. Moore stated that he could support approval of the variance if there are restrictions put
on the layout of the back unit.
Chmn. Ingell stated that it is very difficult to design a project around parking. He agreed that
maybe it is time to reduce some of the parking standards; however, in this case, he felt that
there is not enough parking. If the request is approved, there will be in effect a two-bedroom
unit in an area which already has a severe parking problem. He agreed that tandem parking
does not work very well. He also noted concern over the area which could be shut off and turned
into another room thereby eliminating another parking space. He agreed that he would hate to
see a maxed-out three-unit project on this site. He stated that parking is a severe problem in
the City, and to allow a new unit to be built that close to the beach without adequate parking
would not be appropriate.
Comm. Rue, noting that he did not feel it appropriate for the Commission to redesign the
project, stated, however, that he would like to see the kitchen moved to the east wall.
Comm. Rue suggested several findings: this project is a less intense and less dense use than
what could exist there if the project were maxed out under what is allowed by the zoning code;
the parking problem is mitigated by the fact that there is increased open space provided; and
11 P.C. Minutes 2/6/90
there is a grade problem, and extensive work would be necessary to provide an additional
parking space.
MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to approve staffs recommendation,
Resolution P.C. 90-9, approving the variance from the guest parking requirement and to
encroach into the required 17-foot garage setback at 1419 Monterey Boulevard and adoption of
an environmental negative declaration with the following amendments: (1) a condition shall
be added requiring that there shall be a deed restriction with the City a party thereto to restrict
the use to two stories and a maximum of two units; (2) a condition shall be added stating that
the family room of the unit over the garage shall be redesigned to eliminate the potential of the
family room being converted into a bedroom; (3) a condition shall be added stating that the
applicant will be allowed to build to the standards of the day so long as code requirements are
met.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms.Ketz,Peirce,Rue
Comm. Moore, Chmn. Ingell
None
None
Chmn. Ingell stated that the decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed by writing
to the City Council within ten days.
LOT LINE ADJl.JSJMENT AT 737 AND 739 LONGFELLOW AVENUE
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated January 31, 1990. Staff recommended that the Planning
Commission approve the proposed lot line adjustment.
The project is located in the R-1 zone, with a general plan designation of general commercial.
The lot sizes are 5000 square feet and 3750 squru:-e feet. The current use is as a single-family
home on each lot. The environmental determination is categorically exempt.
The applicant is proposing to adjust the property line separating a 50-foot and a 37 .5-foot wide
parcel, thereby creating two new equal-sized parcels of 43. 76 feet in width. The two existing
parcels are each made up of two smaller lots which were recently merged by the City.
The applicant will also submit and record a lot merger to correctly merge the smaller lots to be
consistent with the new configuration of parcels.
Staff believes that the proposed adjustment will improve the configuration of the two parcels.
The parcels will be equal in size, allowing construction of two dwellings equivalent to adjacent
dwellings.
In regard to the general plan and zoning inconsistency, this will be addressed in the near
future, and given the existing depth of commercial development on the street, staff believes
that the property in question would remain R-1 and the general commercial depth would be
moved closer to the highway. Besides, if it were to be included in a commercial corridor or
similar designation, the policy has been to allow the continuing use and improvement of
existing residential uses.
Hearing opened at 8:33 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
Jeff Brooks, 101 North Dianthus, Manhattan Beach, general contractor and developer,
explained that two structures will be demolished, and two new custom homes will be built in
their place, each home having an ocean view.
Hearing closed at 8:34 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
12 P.C. Minutes 2/6/90
MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve staffs recommendation,
Resolution P.C. 90-12, as written.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ingell
None
None
None
FIRST QUARTER GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated February 1, 1990. The recommendation was to direct staff
to schedule a public hearing for the proposed amendments and to conduct an environmental
assessment for the southeast comer of Artesia and Prospect.
State law allows cities to amend the general plan four times per year. The Planning
Commission or City Council may request general plan amendments.
The proposed amendments are: (1) Recreation Element; (2) text amendment to allow oil
drilling; and, (3) inconsistent area at the southeast comer of Artesia and Prospect.
Hearing opened and closed at 8:36 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell, who noted that no one appeared to
speak on this issue.
MOTION by Comm. Moore, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve staffs recommendation to
schedule a public hearing for the above noted amendments.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
STAFF ITEMS
Comms. Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ingell
None
None
None
a) Memorandum From City Manager Regarding Complaint Handling
No action taken.
b) Planning Department Activity Report for December 1989
No action taken.
c) Memorandum Regarding Planning Commission I-iaison for February 13. 1990. City
Council Meeting
Mr. Schubach stated that the issue is an appeal of the Planning Commission decision to grant a
CUP to allow serving of general alcoholic beverages at 2125 P.C.H., Hermosa Hotel. The
appellants are Robert Essetier and Albert Wiemans. The basis for the appeal is that several
residents voiced concern over increased parking problems and the approval of another
establishment selling alcoholic beverages.
Comm. Moore stated that he had attended a previous Council meeting on behalf of the
Commission; however, no input was requested on the subject item.
13 P.C. Minutes 2/6/90
/ .......
d) Tentative Future Planning Commission Agenda
No action taken.
COMMISSIONERS' ITEMS
Mr. Schubach and the Commission discussed a letter written by Mr. Antich.
Comm. Rue suggested that methods be studied to more effectively display plans to the public.
Comm. Peirce noted concern that public information be kept as up-to-date as possible, so that
people are getting the most accurate information available and people receive adequate
noticing.
Comm. Peirce noted concern over the northeast corner of 2nd Street and The Strand, stating
that three parking spaces are painted on the public right-of-way in front of the garages. He
asked who painted the spaces, whether they are legal, and whether an encroachment permit is
necessary.
Comm. Ketz commented that it appears that homeowners are under more restrictive
requirements than the City itself. She discussed in particular the issue of turning radius,
stating that the City doesn't provide the same radius which property owners are required to
have.
Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Comm. Rue, explained that revisions are being
proposed to the construction site provisions. Issues covered are parking, work hours, noise,
littering, and sign posting.
The Commissioners discussed the issue of posting requirements at construction sites, such as
hours of work. Also addressed was the issue of workers consuming alcoholic beverages on the
job site.
Mr. Schubach stated that the issue of conswning alcoholic beverages on job sites is currently
being studied.
Mr. Lee explained that enforcement of rules against drinking on job sites would be difficult,
since job sites are actually private property. He noted that the contractor would be the person
who should be concerned because of the liability issue. He noted that it is difficult to regulate
such an action, other than if a public nuisance is being created. He stated that this issue could
be further discussed with the Building Department.
Comm. Peirce asked for clarification on Page 3, Item 5(d) of the letter written by Mr. Northcraft
on January 23, 1990.
Mr. Schubach and the Commissioners discussed upcoming meetings.
Comm. Moore asked if materials can be delivered to Commissioners' homes by a method other
than uniformed police officers.
Comm. Rue suggested that the Commission discuss methods by which to encourage better
development along the highway.
MOTION by Comm. Moore, seconded by Comm. Rue, to adjourn at 9:03 P.M. No objections; so
ordered.
14 P.C. Minutes 2/6/90
)
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 February 6, 1990.
na fe
15 P.C. Minutes 2/6/90
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
HELD ON FEBRUARY 20, 1990, AT 7:00 P.M. IN 'IBE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Meeting called to order at 7:03 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
Pledge of Allegiance led by Comm. Rue.
ROLLCALL
Present:
Absent:
Also Present:
Comms. Ketz. Moore, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ingell
None
Michael Schubach, Planning Director; Edward Lee, Assistant City
Attorney; Sally White. Recording Secretary
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MOTION by Comm. Rue. seconded by Comm. Moore, to approve the minutes of February 6,
1990, as written.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Comms. Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ingell
None
None
None
APPROVAL OF RESOLUTIONS
MOTION by Comm. Moore, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve Resolution P.C. 90-9, A
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH,
CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A VARIANCE FROM THE GUEST PARKING REQUIREMENT AND A
REQUEST, PURSUANT TO SECTION 13-7(B) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, TO CONS1RUCT
AN ADDITION TO A NONCONFORMING S1RUCTURE WHICH EXCEEDS 50% OF THE
REPLACEMENT VALUE OF THE EXISTING S1RUCTURE AND ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION AT 1419 MONTEREY BOULEVARD, AND LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 31 ,
BLOCK 49, SECOND ADDITION TO HERMOSA BEACH 1RACT. No objections; so ordered.
MOTION by Comm. Moore, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve Resolution P.C. 90-11, A
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF TIIE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH,
CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND A VESTING TENTATIVE
PARCEL MAP #21728 FOR A 1WO-UNIT DETACHED CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 914 7TH
S1REET, DESCRIBED AS LOT 25, WILSON AND LIND'S 1RACT. No objections; so ordered.
MOTION by Comm. Moore, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve Resolution P.C 90-12, A
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH,
CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE FOR A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT
BE1WEEN 737 AND 739 LONGFEILOW AVENUE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS 4, 5, AND 6
AND THE EAST HALF OF LOT 7, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA CONVENTION HALL AND MARINE
VIEW PARK 1RACT. No objections; so ordered.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC
Ron Reiman addressed the Commission and stated that he owns two pieces of property in a
manufacturing zone, and he asked what the current buildings can be used for. He said that the
1 P.C. Minutes 2/20/90
people next door to his property would like to use his second story for storage. He asked if a
business can expand into an adjoining building.
Cbmn. Ingell suggested that Mr. Reiman consult with the planning staff.
Mr. Schubach suggested that Mr. Reiman prepare a written request asking that the
Commission make an interpretation in regard to his specific property.
Comm. Rue suggested that this issue be put on a future agenda for Commission consideration.
Mr. Schubach stated that staff needs a written letter from the applicant explaining exactly
what is being requested.
Gerry Compton, 200 Pier Avenue, addressed the Commission and described a project he is
currently working on, one which is a nonconforming unit in a nonconforming zone. He stated
the property is on The Strand, and he questioned the requirements for front yard setbacks on
both The Strand and Hermosa Avenue. He said that the current code reads that both streets are
considered front yard setbacks; therefore, he needs an interpretation in order to meet the
parking requirements. He felt that The Strand would be the front yard, and Hermosa Avenue
would be the rear yard. He questioned whether parking could be utilized from Hermosa
Avenue.
Mr. Compton requested that the Commission address this issue when the nonconfonning
section of the code is discussed. He asked that the matter be heard at the March 6 meeting.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A RETAIL SNACK SHOP. GAS PUMPS. AND CAR WASH,
AND ADOPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 931 PACIFIC
COAST IDGHWAY. MOBIL OIL STATION {CONTINUED FROM MEETINGS OF JANUARY 3 AND
FEBRUARY 6. 1990)
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated February 15, 1990. Staff recommended a continuance of
this matter unless the applicant can satisfactorily explain how this project is in compliance
with the noise ordinance, which the project does not appear to be. If this project is approved,
staff recommended that approval be subject to the conditions specified in the proposed
resolution.
At their meeting of January 3, 1990, the Planning Commission continued this request because
of the inadequate noise study and the need to address concerns regarding the potential noise
impact of the car wash.
The applicant has submitted the revised noise study and has also provided revised plans which
show four new gas pump islands instead of three and which relocate the northerly entrance ten
feet to the west, resulting in the relocation of the car wash ten feet closer to Pacific Coast
Highway.
The noise study indicates that the project can comply with the City's noise ordinance as the
rather high decibel levels at a 20-foot structure (81 dbs) are shown to be significantly reduced by
the additional distance to the residential area and from the attenuation of a sound wall.
Furthermore, ambient noise measurements were taken at the northwest corner of the site and
are shown to be less than the projected levels. However, the study assumes a 104-foot distance
to the residential area when the actual distance to the property line is 80 feet. The study
measures to the house, while the noise ordinance requires sound levels to be measured from the
property line. The measurement which shows that the sound levels meet the noise ordinance
are based on attenuation due to distance and the sound wall. Also, other residential locations
across 9th and 10th Streets are not considered. Further, there seems to be a lack of compliance
with at least two other sections of the noise ordinance.
2 P.C. Minutes 2/20/90
Staff is still concerned about the noise impact of the automatic car wash. Staff investigated the
Mobil car wash site at the corner of Aviation and Manhattan Beach Boulevard which is
identical to this proposed car wash, and it was noted that the higher pitched noise during the
automatic drying with the doors open is not a very pleasant sound. Although the sound wall
utilized at this location significantly mitigates this noise, it is clear that there is still impact.
Therefore, in the absence of any certainty that sound levels will not cause a nuisance, staff is
recommending conditions requiring that an automatic door be installed on the west end of the
car wash to be closed during the drying operations. According to the applicant's study, keeping
the doors closed can reduce the noise level at 20 feet from the car wash at 8 decibels. This
becomes important when the noise impact down the street and across the street is considered
where sound wall attenuation is not provided. The applicant has indicated that he would be
willing to install one door at the entrance to the car wash but that he does not think requiring a
door on the side of the car wash facing P.C.H. is necessary. Unfortunately, the sound study
provides information regarding the impact of having two doors closed; however, staff has
discussed this with a noise consultant who indicated that closing the one facing the residences
should have a similar effect.
Other concerns are the height of the sound wall and the noise frequency. The zoning ordinance
allows walls of only a maximum height of six feet, but the applicant's consultant has
recommended an 8-foot high sound wall. There are some numbers in the study correlating
noise frequency and effectiveness of the wall, but the sound frequency of the car wash dryer is
not clearly noted.
To further address the noise impact, staff is recommending that the hours of operation of the
car wash be limited to 7:00 AM. to 9:00 P.M. and 8:00 AM. to 8:00 P.M. on weekends. The
applicant is opposed to this and would like to the hours to be 6:00 AM. to 10:00 P.M.; however,
the noise study only identifies ambient noise levels to 9:00 P.M.
Staff has attempted to address the apparent inadequacy of the noise study by recommending
some additional conditions. If clearer explanations are not provided at the meeting to show
that the car wash can comply with the noise ordinance, the Planning Commission should
again consider continuing this request.
Another concern was the location of the air and water compressor equipment. The applicant
has agreed to move these facilities, and new plans submitted today show that they have been
relocated to the southwest corner of the car wash.
Staff has contacted the City of Manhattan Beach regarding the conditions imposed on the
Mobil Car Wash at the corner of Aviation and Manhattan Beach Boulevard and found that
there are conditions to keep the doors closed during dryer operations and there are limitations
on hours from 7:00 AM. to 9:00 P.M. on weekdays and 8:00 AM. to 8:00 P.M. on weekends.
Also, Manhattan Beach requires an alarm system to signal a door malfunction, requiring that
the car wash be turned off until the doors are repaired and that there be a back flow prevention
device to prevent spilling of the wash water. Staff is recommending similar conditions in the
proposed resolution.
Staff continued to recommend conditions prohibiting vacuum cleaners, outdoor sales of
merchandise, and the removal of the 45-foot-high pole sign. Also, conditions have been added
regarding the water reclamation system, the use of biodegradable materials, and drainage.
Mr. Schubach, in response to a comment from Comm. Peirce regarding clarification of the
City's noise ordinance, stated that the ordinance is quite technical. He continued by giving a
brief description of the ordinance; however, he noted that staff could provide more detailed
information for the next meeting.
3 P.C. Minutes 2/20/90
Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Chmn. Ingell regarding the Mobil Car Wash in
Manhattan Beach, stated that he is aware of no complaints about that operation.
Public Hearing opened at 7:21 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
Brian Rechsteiner. 9891 Vicksburg, Huntington Beach, applicant, addressed the Commission
and explained that since the last meeting, a noise consultant was hired to perform the required
noise study of the car wash.
Mr. Rechsteiner discussed Condition No. 5 and the proposed hours of operation of the car wash,
stating that they are requesting hours of 6:00 AM. to 10:00 P.M. seven days a week, including
holidays. He noted that the ordinance does allow those hours: therefore, they are not
requesting anything above and beyond the noise ordinance.
Mr. Rechsteiner discussed Condition No. 9 regarding the six-foot wall. He stated that they have
proposed an eight-foot wall along the westerly property line as a further mitigation measure to
reduce the noise emanating from the car wash. He continued by stating that the car wash meets
current City noise requirements with or without the doors closed.
Mr. Rechsteiner said that. since the last meeting, the car wash has been moved ten feet toward
Pacific Coast Highway, not because of the noise factor, but because the pumps needed to be
relocated closer to the driveway so that deliveries can be made easily.
Mr. Rechsteiner discussed Condition No. 13, which requires that a water reclamation system
shall be utilized. He stated that such a requirement was not originally mentioned. and they
would prefer not to have that requirement unless there is a drought situation. He said that such
a system would cost approximately $15,000 to install. He requested that the condition be
modified to require the reclamation system only in the event of a drought.
Mr. Rechsteiner discussed Condition No. 16, wherein the City is requiring that the automatic
doors shall be closed during the operation of the automatic dryer. He noted that they have
agreed to comply with this condition; however. the noise study shows that the noise ordinance
can be met whether the doors are open or closed.
Mr. Rechsteiner discussed Condition No. 18, which requires that an alarm system shall be
installed to signal to an employee on site any malfunction of the automatic doors. He said that
the purpose of the signal is actually to alert someone if both doors become stuck. An attendant
could then come and open the door.
Mr. Rechsteiner discussed Condition No. 19(a). which states that "complaints from residents
shall constitute a nuisance." He asked that the condition be clarified by the addition of
wording stating that "legitimate complaints" shall constitute a nuisance.
Mr. Rechsteiner explained that Mobil is attempting to upgrade this property in order to bring it
into the 21st century, and he asked for approval of the project.
Bruce Davie, 865 Manhattan Beach Boulevard, Manhattan Beach, noise consultant, addressed
the Commission. He explained that he was asked by Mobil Oil to prepare a noise study
document to determine the potential noise impacts at the car wash. He said that a report was
submitted which consists of calculations of noise levels at the nearest residences as well as a
measurement of ambient noise levels. He said that the Planning Department had requested
information regarding the noise level at the closest property line, which is 80 feet, including
the ten-foot movement of the car wash. Mr. Davie explained that he also included
measurements including an eight-foot wall; however, he was informed by staff that the City
allows walls of no more than six feet.
Mr. Davie explained that his report included information with both doors open and both doors
closed, as well as calculations for a six-foot wall and an eight-foot wall.
4 P.C. Minutes 2/20/90
Mr. Davie discussed his calculation of the noise level at 80 feet from the property line, based on
the assumption of a six-foot wall with the west door being closed. This basis indicates a noise
level of 52 dba The City's noise ordinance adopted in 1989 contains two types of standards.
One is the LEQ standard, which is the average noise allowed during the measurement period.
The other aspect is known as a stair step ordinance, which allows a certain noise level at a
particular location for so many minutes out of an hour. He said that this City's ordinance is
unique in that it is based on half hours. allowing so many minutes of noise per half hour.
Mr. Davie stated that the Mobil car wash has a maximwn noise level only at times when the air
blower is in operation. He said that the air blower will be on for approximately one minute out
of every four minutes, assuming that cars are waiting in line. This would be 25 percent of the
time during a measurement hour. The noise ordinance refers to this as the L25 noise level, the
level that would be allowed for seven and a half minutes out of every thirty minutes.
Mr. Davie continued by discussing the computer printout which was generated on the ambient
noise monitoring at the west property line. The chart indicates times of measurement from
6:00 A,M. to 10:00 P.M. on January 24, 1990. He directed the Commissions' attention to the
column pertaining to the L25 level, stating that shows the ambient noise level existing at this
location 25 percent of the time. He noted that the ambient noise level in the morning is in the
low 60s; in the afternoon the noise level falls off to the high 50s. At no time during the day does
the ambient noise level fall below 58.0 dba.
Mr. Davie discussed the ambient noise levels in regard to the City's ordinance, explaining that
in R-1 and R-2 zones adjacent to commercial the L25 allows for 50 dba during the evening hours
(10:00 P.M. to 8:00 AM) and 55 dba during the day (8:00 AM. to 10:00 P.M). The ordinance
states that if the ambient noise level goes above those amounts, it can be increased by 5 dba
increments in order to accommodate the noise level So long as the ambient is not exceeded,
one would not be in violation of the noise ordinance. Taking into account the allowable
ambient noise level of 65 dba during the day and 60 dba during the evening, this project with its
projected dba of 52 is clearly below the requirements of the ordinance.
Mr. Davie continued by explaining that the City's noise ordinance is written in terms of A-
weighted sound levels, and the calculations projected A-weighted levels. Also, considered in
the calculations were the frequency characteristics of the air dryer. He explained the octave
band noise measurements which were made at the existing facility. He also explained how A-
weighting is done. He said that the analysis was done by taking the frequencies into
consideration.
Mr. Davie, in response to a comment from Comm. Peirce, explained that the measurements
were taken when the air dryer was in operation.
Mr. Davie stated that this project, with the doors closed and a six-foot wall in place, would
comply with the City's noise ordinance.
Mr. Davie, in response to a question from Comm. Rue, explained that the noise measurements
were taken at the northern end of the westerly property line. as opposed to being taken from the
existing residences. He explained that there are problems in going onto private property to
take noise measurements. He noted that the automatic collection device measures virtually
everything, and the device was secured to a post on 10th Street in order to record the
measurements.
Mr. Davie, in response to questions from Comm. Moore regarding the estimates of decibel
attenuation of various-height walls as a function of frequency, explained that the noise level
behind a six-foot wall would be 52 db; whereas the level just above the wall would be 62 db.
Mr. Davie responded to questions from the Commission regarding the computer printout
related to how the measurements were made, taking into account the fact that the noise
5 P.C. Minutes 2/20/90
emanating from the car wash would be directional. He explained that the calculations were
based on corrections to measured levels, with both doors open and closed He stated that
measurements were not taken with one door open and one door closed; however, very little
change is anticipated if the door toward P.C.H. is open.
Mr. Davie, in response to technical questions from Comm. Peirce, explained how the point of
noise radiation is determined. He further stated that the ground surface will provide some
noise attenuation, which will of a positive benefit.
Comm. Moore asked whether data is available related to future two-story structures in this
area and possible noise levels at a height of fifteen feet where a wall would do no good. He
questioned whether there are unpredictable effects of noise radiating upward.
Mr. Davie stated that the only difference would be the attenuation of the wall, explaining that a
wall would provide an approximate 10 db noise shielding. He did not feel that the noise is
particularly directional, stating that most of the noise would go out toward Pacific Coast
Highway.
Comm. Peirce asked questions about the noise ordinance, particularly regarding the LEQ 25
and the L25. He asked for clarification on the LEQ 25, to which Mr. Davie responded by
explaining it in further detail and explaining how noise ordinances are typically drafted.
Comm. Moore, noting that building design itself has a great effect on how much sound radiates
out, asked whether Mr. Davie is aware of any variations in building construction and
materials used which would provide sound attenuation. He mentioned acoustical seals on the
doors and various other materials such as padding.
Mr. Davie stated that he is not aware of any locations where this standard manufactured
product has been modified in an attempt to reduce noise. He said that this building is metal. He
went on to say that most of the noise transmits out from the door and the doors seals.
Comm. Rue commented on the length of the cycle during which the air dryer would be on,
stating that it was previously asserted that the cycle would be 1 1 /2 minutes; however, the
report states that the worst-case scenario indicates one minute on for every four minutes. He
asked for clarification on the length of the cycle.
Mr. Davie said that the numbers were based on their observations during the study. He noted,
however, that the manufacturer states that the air blower is on for less than 1.5 minutes per
cycle. Noting that he did the measurements himself at the site, he explained that the entire
time is approximately four minutes per car; 2.5 minutes for the car wash, and approximately 1
minute for the air dryer, depending on the length of the car.
Mr. Rechsteiner clarified that the building is not metal; it is a concrete fiberglass material.
'This is the same material used for their other buildings. He stressed that this building will not
be a "tin shed," but rather will be a very substantial building.
Mr. Rechsteiner, in response to questions from Comm. Moore regarding design alternatives for
noise attenuation, stated that of all the buildings they have completed and are proposing in the
future, they have never been in a situation where a city required a building modification to
mitigate noise. When the doors are down and operation is during the appropriate hours, noise
has not been a problem.
Comm. Moore was quite interested in whether there is an alternative which is relatively low-
cost that Mobil could use to further reduce the sound. He questioned the feasibility of a short,
sound-proof entry tunnel or the use of extra insulation on the interior or exterior of the doors.
Mr. Davie did not feel that such modifications would be necessary, noting that the project will
meet the noise ordinance requirements. He stressed that it is not the intention to create noise
6 P.C. Minutes 2/20/90
problems with the neighbors. He explained the configuration of the drive-t:hru area and stated
that, if necessary, other materials could be used to reduce the noise in the event problems arise.
Roger Otte, 521 Kings Road, Newport Beach, representing the car wash equipment
manufacturer, addressed the Commission on the issue of the reclamation system. He said that
the equipment used in the car washes is actually very miserly in terms of the amount of water
used per car wash. He said that the equipment in use at the Manhattan Beach site does not have
a reclamation system. His company makes approximately 85 percent of the systems of this
type in use in Southern California, and only about one out of ten have a built-in reclamation
system. If necessary, reclamation systems can be built into the equipment later.
Mr. Otte said that each wash cycle uses 17 gallons of water. People washing at home by using a
hose use approximately 34 gallons of water to wash one car.
Comm. Moore, noting that an alarm system to be used in the event of a breakdown of the doors
is being proposed, asked what assurances the manufacturer can provide to ensure that the
system will be shut down in the event the doors do malfunction.
Mr. Otte stated that the standard equipment used by Mobile has been a Code-a-Wash 3 computer
inside the cashier's area which generates a code for the customers' use. There is a shut-off at the
cashier stand in the event of a malfunction; although, the shut-off is not related to the doors.
There is a buzzer inside, though, in case of emergency.
Mr. Rechsteiner stated that the new station will have automatic sprinklers, timers, and low-
flow toilets, all in an effort to save water. He also noted that there will be no mechanical
repairs; therefore, the area will not need to be washed down, so water will not be used for that
purpose.
Mr. Rechsteiner continued by discussing Condition No. 10, requiring that the existing 45-foot
pole sign, located at the southeast corner of the site, shall be removed. He said that they would
like to apply for a variance to maintain the sign.
Mr. Lee explained that the 45-foot sign is a grandfathered use at that site. If the applicant
desires to add to the pole sign, a variance would be necessary. Only one sign is allowed;
therefore, if the applicant adds another sign, it would force the property into violation of the
sign ordinance.
Mr. Rechsteiner explained that there are currently two signs at the site, the 45-foot pole sign
and the sign at the other end of the property. The pole sign will remain as is, and the other sign
will be modernized. In addition to the freestanding signs, there will also be building signage.
Chmn. Ingell pointed out that if the signage is changed on a piece of property, the sign
ordinance is triggered, thereby requiring that all signs be in conformance with the current
standards unless a variance is obtained. He noted that no action can be taken on a variance at
this time.
Mr. Rechsteiner passed out photographs depicting the site and the current signage. He said that
it is necessary to upgrade the signage so that the business will be visible from southbound
traffic on P.C.H. He noted that trees currently block the large pole sign completely from view
on P.C.H. The only place the sign is visible is from traffic on Aviation. This is why he wants to
maintain the other sign. He stated that nothing can be done about the trees since they are on
private property.
Mr. Rechsteiner stated that the success of this business is dependent almost entirely upon
visibility by passersby and by gasoline pricing. If people don't know the Mobil station there,
they will not stop in.
7 P.C. Minutes 2/20/90
Mr. Rechsteiner noted that Condition No. 10 also requires that the other sign be limited to ten
feet. He discussed the other proposed signage, stating that the ID sign is five and a half feet
high, the price portion of the sign is four feet, ten inches, and the car wash portion of the sign is
three feet, eight inches, which totals 14 feet. Adding five feet so that the sign will be visible over
the height of a car brings the total sign request height to 19 feet. He noted that this is still well
below the maximum 35-foot height allowed by the code. He stated that, if necessary, he will
return with a variance request.
Comm. Rue asked whether it is possible to obtain a street elevation of this project, stating that
it is difficult to tell from the plans what is where on the site. He stated that it would be easier to
discuss the signage if it were clearly detailed on the plans.
Mr. Rechsteiner directed the Commissions' attention to Page 4 of the plans which depicts the
locations of the proposed signage.
Comm. Rue stated that he would like to have project elevations from the west, north, and east,
noting that it would make it easier to visualize the project in its entirety.
Comm. Rue asked whether the use of landscaping is a viable solution to sound mitigation.
Mr. Rechsteiner said that there will be 20-foot trees spaced along the area, and the landscaping
could be further enhanced in an attempt to reduce the noise.
Mr. Lee returned to the issue of the signage and explained that the code allows for either one
ground sign or one pole sign in the C-3 zone. A pole sign is defined as a permitted use only in
the C-3 zone and may be a maximum of 35 feet. Therefore, the existing 45-foot pole sign which
was grandfathered in probably existed before the current ordinance was adopted. He felt,
therefore, that the sign is not in compliance at the current time.
Margaret Rathbun, owner of the Bob's Big Boy Restaurant property and the trailer park to the
west of the property in question, addressed the Commission. She stated that she had not
received notice of this hearing; therefore. she did not attend the first meeting at which this
matter was discussed.
Mrs. Rathbun noted concern over the noise. She said that the tenants at the trailer park live
110 feet back from the front property line on P.C.H. She noted concern over the location of the
car wash on the site in relation to the location of the trailers to the southeast. She noted
further concern over: (1) high frequency noise; (2) the operation of two large doors which can be
disturbing to people who are resting; (3) other attendant noise from this project; (4) loss of
parking on 10th Street; (5) tankers which will be entering the site from 10th Street and using
the northerly driveway, which could mean additional loss of parking spaces; (6) impacts on the
property because there are no left-hand turns from 9th Street; and (7) problems with cars using
private property to egress the gas station.
Mrs. Rathbun discussed the trees, stating that the Bob's property is up for redevelopment, and
plans may be made as early as spring of 1991; therefore, the trees may be removed in the future.
Mrs. Rathbun felt that Mobil is in a position to modify their plans, stating that car washes
should be adjacent to commercial uses rather than residential. She felt that the car wash
should be on the southerly portion of the property, since that area is completely commercial
and people are not there after work hours.
Mrs. Rathbun stated that it is more feasible to have cars exiting on 9th Street rather than on
10th Street. She disagreed with Condition No. 2 which states that this project will not
adversely affect the welfare of residents. She also felt that the proposed hours of operation are
excessive and should be reduced as recommended by staff.
8 P.C. Minutes 2/20/90
Mrs. Rathbun questioned the feasibility of a six-foot sound wall along some portion of the
northerly boundary of the property to protect the people in the trailer park.
Shu Miho, 731 9th Street, noted concern that Mobil seems to have changed their comments
regarding this project. She felt that it is not appropriate to compare this car wash, which is
next to residential property, to the car wash in Manhattan Beach, which is next to a preschool
and a market. She noted concern over the proposed hours of operation, stating that the
proposed hours are excessive. She noted concern over traffic congestion on 9th Street as well
as safety of the children in the area.
Gerry Compton, 200 Pier Avenue, stated that this Mobile site is very under-utilized for its size.
He felt that the site is large enough to accommodate the four pumps; however, he noted concern
over a car wash at this location, stating that it could be a potential problem. He urged the
Commission to use extreme care in studying the noise study results and in making their
determination. He noted that the owner wants to extend a currently existing use; however,
stringent conditions should be imposed on the project.
Gloria Kolesar, 714 and 726 10th Street, noted that she sent a letter dated February 19, 1990, to
the Commission regarding this matter. She stated that her property is actually the closest to
the proposed site. She noted that the people in the trailer park are elderly and rest during the
daytime hours.
Mrs. Kolesar stated that she went to the car wash site in Manhattan Beach, and she gave her
observations of the operation at that time: (1) autos exiting the car wash are wet, and people
stop to dry off their cars; (2) both doors were open at all times during all car washes; (3) water
was being emitted during the washes; (4) when air dryers are on, the noise is excessive; (5) noise
was clearly audible on the other side of the wall at Trader Joe's.
Mrs. Kolesar noted concern that the doors are not closed at the Manhattan Beach site, other
than during times when the system is not in operation. She continued by explaining the four
various types of washes which are available at the station, each of a varying duration of time.
Mrs. Kolesar noted concern over the noise which can be very disturbing to residents. She was
pleased that the Commission expressed concern over possible two-story development to the
west.
Mrs. Kolesar urged each of the Commissioners to go to the Manhattan Beach site to listen to the
noise emanating from that car wash. She noted that noise does not seem to emanate laterally
from the car wash, but rather from the ends of the building.
Mrs. Kolesar noted that there will be only 68 feet from the car wash to the trailers, and the
noise will radiate to that area and will be quite disturbing, especially for prolonged hours all
day long. She felt that this project will adversely impact the property values.
Mrs. Kolesar discussed the landscaping, stating that trees planted 20 feet apart will not do
much to mitigate the noise, other than at the first-story level. She suggested alternate types of
trees in her letter to the Commission.
Mrs. Kolesar noted concern that the doors at the Manhattan Beach site are not closed; however,
she said that she would not like to be inside a car wash when the doors are closed.
Mrs. Kolesar, in response to questions from Comm. Rue, discussed plantings which would be
appropriate to reduce the noise.
Wilma Burt, 1152 7th Street, addressed the Commission and noted concern over large delivery
trucks entering the site to fill the gas pumps, and she reminded the Commission that this site is
adjacent to residential property. She noted that because of the depth and narrowness of 10th
9 P.C. Minutes 2/20/90
Street, there have always been problems on that street. She agreed with previous testimony
that people do use the private property at Bob's, and she noted concern over safety and suggested
that that route be blocked to protect the residents.
Mrs. Burt noted concern not only over noise, but also over loading of the gas tanks. She
commented on the snack shop and noted that several other food establishments are being
proposed near this site; therefore, she noted concern over congestion.
Mrs. Burt felt that Mobil is discriminating to older people and women because they provide no
service to customers.
Mrs. Burt felt there is potential danger in regard to the delivery and loading of the tanks, the
possible underground contamination caused by buried tanks, and unsafe entry into the station
because of the narrowness of the street. She felt that the proposed hours are excessive and there
will be too much noise. She noted that two-story condos as well as the trailer court are
adjacent to this site; therefore, the hours should be restricted.
Mrs. Rathbun clarified that, contrary to rumor, there is not going to be a McDonald's
restaurant at the Bob's site in the future.
Howard Longacre, 1221 7th Place, addressed the Commission and stated that he opposes a car
wash at this location. He favored only three gas pumps at the station, with no more than three
cars allowed per pump. He questioned whether Mobil has indicated a desire to sell alcoholic
beverages at the snack shop; however, he opposed the sale of any liquor at this site since it is
within 100 feet of the residential zone.
Mr. Longacre noted concern over possible accidents related to the gas tankers and deliveries,
especially since there is so much traffic in that area. He noted that it is not appropriate to have
tankers unloading in the middle of the night so near to a residential area.
Mr. Longacre felt that this project will totally max out the property. Since it will be a
completely new project, he did not feel it would be appropriate to allow any grandfathered signs
to remain. He felt that everything should be brought up to current code requirements. If the 45-
foot sign is not in compliance, he felt it should be removed.
Mr. Longacre reminded the Commission that there are very expensive homes to the west of the
proposed car wash. He speculated that the new business will generate a great deal of traffic
which will spill onto 9th Street and Ardmore.
Mr. Longacre felt that Mobil wants to build another car wash merely as a gimmick to pump gas,
stating that they are not providing a service. He almost felt defeated in his battle against such a
huge conglomerate. He felt that Mobil does not care about the City; they are only interested in
their profits.
Mr. Longacre felt that the proposed hours of operation are excessive, and he recommend hours
of 8:00 AM. to 7:00 P.M.
Mr. Longacre felt that residents have more rights than a giant corporation which puts in a
computer-operated gas station which is totally impersonal.
Mr. Longacre felt that the issue of the 9th Street entrance should be addressed. He continued by
expressing concern over the noticing of this issue and questioned whether everyone was
properly noticed. He noted that the agenda contains wording that staff recommends this
matter to be continued. He said that some people might see that statement and decide that no
action will take place; therefore, they do not attend the meeting. He felt that such wording
should be omitted in the future so that as many people as possible attend these important
meetings. When matters are continued, he suggested that people be sent another notice so they
P.C. Minutes 2/20/90
know when to attend. He also noted concern that the site itself was not noticed prior to this
meeting.
Mr. Longacre questioned whether an environmental impact report was done for this project.
Mr. Schubach stated that the Planning Commission is the lead agency in deciding whether or
not to require an EIR. He explained that the staff environmental review committee
recommended that this project receive a negative declaration with mitigation measures. He
stated that the planning staff studied this issue and recommended that more infonnation be
provided in regard to the noise.
Sybil Hess, 64 7 9th Street, noted concern over traffic and noise. She lives on the downside of
9th Street and said that the noise will be very loud for the residents. She gave staff several self-
addressed stamped envelopes and asked that she be notified of any future hearings on this
matter.
Mrs. Hess stated that this project will generate heavy traffic on 9th Street. She said that the
street is already so crowded with multiple dwelling units that it is difficult to back out of one's
own driveway, especially since the street is so narrow. Since the City is requiring that the cars
from the car wash exit on 9th Street, she felt that the neighbors would bear the burden of the
increased traffic.
Mrs. Kolesar again addressed the Commission and asked whether a new sound study will be
considered due to the fact that there are residents only 40 feet from the car wash. She also
noted concern that four to ten parking spaces might be lost, and she asked whether the
Commission has considered this. She asked whether it has been considered to install a signal
at 10th Street.
Mr. Rechsteiner offered rebuttal to the comments made during the hearing. He stated that the
9th Street driveway will be left open by request of the City. He could not see how the Mobil
station would affect traffic going behind the Bob's Big Boy. as mentioned by several people. He
said that the original plans showed the 9th Street driveway closed, but the plans were changed
at the City's request.
Mr. Rechsteiner stated that cars exiting the car wash will exit on Pacific Coast Highway,
explaining that the cars will stack to the rear before exiting; however, the logical flow will be
onto P .C.H. He noted that most of the business will be from southbound traffic on the highway.
and people will then exit on P.C.H. to continue driving south.
Mr. Rechsteiner discussed the proposed hours of operation and stated that they are requesting
hours of 6:00 AM. to 10:00 P.M.
Mr. Rechsteiner agreed with comments that this site is under-utilized; that is why Mobil is
attempting to upgrade the property in order to keep up with the times and use the property to its
full potential.
Mr. Rechsteiner discussed the trailer park and stated that he does not have the actual figures,
but he remembered that it was 72 feet from the car wash opening to the trailers. He said that he
could verify the exact distances.
Mr. Rechsteiner commented on people stopping to dry off their cars, and he stated that the car
wash is designed to dry the cars off by 80 percent. He was not sure how people could be
prevented from stopping to dry their cars.
Mr. Rechsteiner discussed testimony regarding the doors being opened at the Manhattan Beach
car wash. He stressed that he will look into the matter in order to ascertain why the doors are
not being kept closed.
11 P.C. Minutes 2/20/90
Mr. Rechsteiner discussed the tanks being next to the residential area. He stated that gasoline
deliveries are safe operations, and they have had no accidents in the past. He said that delivery
people have been contacted and told that they are not to make noise, such as radio noise, when
they are making their deliveries.
Mr. Rechsteiner stated that trucks will enter the site from 10th Street; however, he noted that
there will still be a parking space there. But he noted that the curb is currently painted red on
either side of the driveway; therefore, it will be easy for people to get in and out of the driveway.
Mr. Rechsteiner addressed the issue of personal property rights and stated that as property
owners, Mobil has rights too. They are in a commercial zone; however, the people in the
abutting residential zone were aware they were next to commercial when they purchased their
homes. He stated that they are trying to be good neighbors. and he took umbrage to the
comments made regarding the business being operated by a computer, explaining that the
business is leased to an independent operator.
Mr. Rechsteiner addressed the issue of cars racing down 9th Street and stated that Mobil left
the 9th Street driveway open per the City's request. He again noted that the majority of traffic
will enter and exit on Pacific Coast Highway.
Comm. Moore noted concern over the doors being left open at the other site. He noted that some
operators do not comply with requirements, and he asked where citizens could go to make a
complaint.
Mr. Rechsteiner stated that citizens can contact Mobil directly. He suggested that they call the
marketing office in Burbank if problems arise.
Comm. Peirce asked if they would be willing to install an interlock on the doors so that the
dryer fan cannot be activated unless the doors are closed.
Mr. Rechsteiner replied in the affinnative, noting that this has not been done in the past;
however, he is sure that that technology is available. He said that he would accept such a
condition.
Comm. Rue discussed the issue of walls and asked what materials would be used for the wall.
He also asked how any property disruptions to surrounding properties would be handled.
Mr. Rechsteiner stated that the wall would be built on Mobil property; therefore, there should
be no disruption to surrounding private property. He stated that if any plants were damaged,
they would be replaced. He continued by stating that the wall would probably be some type of
concrete block construction.
Comm. Rue asked about the trade-offs between water reclamation and energy consumption.
Mr. Otte stated that water is run through a motor-driven cyclone separator and then pumped
out; therefore, some energy must be used. He noted, however, that he has not done any studies
on the exact numbers. He stated that in reclamation 12 gallons out of 17 are saved, explaining
that five gallons are lost in evaporation.
Mr. Davie explained that the noise study was based on ambient noise measurements taken at
the west property line. He discussed the location of the homes in relation to the location of the
car wash and stated that the difference in noise at 72 feet as opposed to 80 feet is negligible. He
said that the ambient noise levels on P.C.H. are quite high; however, he said that the proposed
retaining wall will mitigate noise. He stated that a wind-wall along the north property line can
be constructed in order to attenuate noise. He said that the wall would possibly the same height
as the building.
12 P.C. Minutes 2/20/90
Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Comm. Rue regarding the allowable height of
walls, explained that the current code allows walls to be no more than six feet in height. If it is
desired to allow a higher wall, it would be necessary to amend the code. He stated that staff is
currently studying this issue.
Mr. Davie stated that an attempt will be made to provide the same noise attenuation to the
northwesterly property line as is being provided to the westerly property line.
Mr. Davie stated that a material which can be used in noise attenuation is Tecktum which is
manufactured by National Gypsum. He explained that this is an absorbant material made of
compressed wood fibers, and if required to do so, they could apply this material to the face of
the walls. Mention of this product was not made in the report due to the fact that they were so
far below the ambient noise level, he did not think the issue would arise.
Mrs. Rathbun again addressed the Commission and stated that she cannot agree with Mr.
Rechsteiner. She said that the program is to install a snack shop; therefore, traffic will
increase. She said that parking spaces will be impacted because the driveway has been moved
to the rear of the property to accommodate delivery tankers. She said that people who want to
travel north will exit on the 10th Street side of the property. She discussed the possibility of a
sound wall being constructed on the 10th Street side; however, she questioned whether a six-
foot wall would be effective.
Mrs. Rathbun felt that Mobil should utilize their properties abutting residential differently
than they use properties abutting commercial zones. She noted that airborne pollutants will
be emitted and there will be underground containers holding volatile fuels. These factors,
along with the noise, make such a use inappropriate and dangerous so close to a residential
area.
Mr. Rechsteiner stated that there is 17 feet from the driveway to the end of the property. There
is another 10 to 12 feet to where the street stops. He continued by discussing the dimensions for
the driveway. He said that more traffic will not be drawn to a gas station, because gasoline is
an impulse purchase. He stated that they hope to bring in more business from the street, not
attract more business from another area.
Public Hearing closed at 9:34 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
Comm. Peirce stated that there are three issues before the Commission in making its decision:
hours, signs, and noise. He felt that if this project is approved, a condition requiring that there
be an interlocking door should be included. He also said that he could not favor this project
unless the hours are restricted to nothing beyond 7:00 AM. to 9:00 P.M. on weekdays and 8:00
A.M. to 8:00 P.M. on weekends. He disagreed with the applicant's assertion that it is necessary
to have a 45-foot sign and a 14-foot sign at the entrance of this gas station, and he felt that the
project should be in compliance with the sign ordinance.
Comm. Peirce continued by discussing the noise issue and stated that a critical question is
whether the noise is 55 db or 60 db on the LEQ measurements. He stated that a reading below 60
db on the LEQ would make the project in compliance with the noise ordinance.
Mr. Schubach read from the noise ordinance and explained that certain circumstances allow
adding 5 db to the total; whereas, in other circumstances, 5 db is decreased from the total. He
stated, therefore, that these two actions can cancel one another out; therefore, staff felt that the
reading is 55 db on the LEQ.
Comm. Peirce discussed the handwritten chart submitted by the applicant regarding the
figures, and he stated that the total would appear to be 61 db. He stated that the sound wall
cannot take credit for noise attenuation because there is every possibility that surrounding
new construction will be built to two stories. Unless a sound wall is built to 20 feet, there can be
no sound attenuation from the wall above the wall.
13 P.C. Minutes 2/20/90
Comm. Peirce stated that the project appears to be 5 db above the allowable maximum. He felt
that the appropriate location for the car wash would be parallel to the highway so that the
noise perpendicular to the car wash would be quite small. He stated that the noise figures
would need to be verified by staff.
Comm. Peirce did not feel that the water reclamation system is necessary because of the small
amount of water which will be used.
Comm. Peirce stated that the main issue is noise, noting that this project will be very noisy,
especially to the people in the trailer park and those down the street. He questioned whether
this is an appropriate use at this location which is so close to a residential area.
Comm. Ketz was not certain that this is an appropriate use at this location, stating that she is
not totally satisfied that the project will not create an adverse impact. She was not convinced
that the proposed measures will mitigate the noise, stating that the residences will be able to
hear the noise, especially anything at two levels. She, therefore, could not support the project
at this time.
Comm. Rue noted that there appears to be a discrepancy between staff's opinion and that of the
noise consultant in regard to the numbers. He felt that the matter needs to be clarified before a
decision can be made.
Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Comm. Rue, stated that staff felt this project
would not create sufficient additional traffic to warrant a traffic study. He continued by
explaining that staff felt the relocation of the driveway would improve the situation.
Comm. Rue, noting that concerns had been raised about the traffic to the rear of the Big Boy,
questioned whether something could be built to stop traffic flow to the north.
Comm. Rue asked whether there would be any positive aspects to closing off 9th Street, to
which Mr. Schubach replied that he would need to discuss that issue with the public works
director; however, he did not feel there would be a significant problem with closing it off.
Comm. Peirce felt that the noise could be mitigated by putting walls around the property;
however, sometimes the cure can be worse than the illness and the site could look like a prison.
Mr. Schubach stated that he has seen very high walls covered with vines and they looked
somewhat attractive; however, high walls have an impact on light, air, and ventilation.
Comm. Moore did not feel that high walls are the answer. He was convinced that the
appropriate measure is the proper selection of door materials, insulation, and gasketing to
reduce the noise. He stressed. however. that the key to success is to be sure that everyone
understands the required standards before the project is built so that there are no surprises.
Comm. Moore stated that he can support the car wash once there is a clear statement of the
noise standard and assurances that the noise ordinance will be enforced. He wanted to make it
clear to Mobil that the standards will be enforced. He further questioned the feasibility of
closing off 9th Street before a study is done. He agreed that the sign ordinance must be met at
this project.
Comm. Moore agreed with Condition No. 10, which requires that signage shall be in
compliance with the sign ordinance.
Comm. Moore agreed that water reclamation is an important public issue; however, he did not
feel this project is the appropriate place to begin. He therefore favored deleting Condition No.
13.
14 P.C. Minutes 2/20/90
Comm. Moore discussed Condition No. 19(a): "Complaints from residents shall constitute a
nuisance." He felt that such a condition would be worthless as worded; therefore, he favored
amended wording delineating specific noise standards upon which complaints must be based.
Comm. Moore discussed Condition No. 20(b): "The air and water facilities shall be located a
minimum of 50 feet from the rear property line." He wanted to ensure that such a requirement
is carried out.
Comm. Moore concluded that he could support approval, with the inclusion of his above-
suggested modifications.
Comm. Rue felt that additional noise information is necessary before a final decision can be
made.
Comm. Moore felt that the noise information is very close; however, a final determination
cannot be absolute until the project is built.
Comm. Peirce agreed that it is probably possible to mitigate the noise and meet the standard;
however, to allow the project to be built before obtaining additional information could cause
confusion. He felt that it is important for everyone to agree on the noise standards before the
project begins.
Comm Peirce wanted to ensure that the project can meet the standards before it is built.
Chmn. Ingell agreed and stated that he would prefer to see the mitigation measures on paper
before final approval is given. He felt that the proposed hours are too long, and he felt that the
hours should be limited to 8:00 AM. to 7:00 P.M. Noting that this project abuts residential, he
felt that the proposed delivery hours are also excessive.
MOTION by Comm. Rue to continue this matter to a date agreeable to both staff and the
applicant.
Mr. Schubach reminded the Commission that staff had included a condition requiring a water
reclamation be used.
Chmn. Ingell also favored requiring a water reclamation system, and he noted that it is never
too soon to prepare for a drought.
Chmn. Ingell discussed the number of gas islands and the snack shop, and he questioned
whether the traffic will indeed be increased.
Mr. Schubach stated that staff did not feel there would be an increase; however, additional
information regarding the traffic can be provided if this matter is continued.
MOTION WITHDRAWN by Comm. Rue.
MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Rue, to continue this matter to the meeting of
March 20, 1990, for the purpose of ol:Jtaining additional information, specifically: (1) to reach
an agreement between the City and Mobil in regard to the actual noise measurement, the value
it will be held to, and how it is measured; and (2) to request a design of the car wash, which by
analysis or test, will show that they can meet the numbers Mobil agrees to before this project is
actually built.
Comm. Moore noted concern over this matter again being continued when there are only two
areas of concern.
Comm. Peirce suggested that a straw vote be taken on all items, with the exception of the two
issues contained in his motion.
15 P.C. Minutes 2/20/90
With the exception of Chmn. Ingell, all the Commissioners agreed that Condition No. 10
regarding hours of operation is adequate. Chmn. Ingell felt that the hours are excessive and
should be limited. Comm. Peirce suggested hours of 7:00 A.M. to 8:00 P.M. on weekdays, and
8:00 AM. to 8:00 P.M. on weekends. Chmn. Ingell opposed the proposed weekend hours, stating
they are excessive.
Comm. Moore favored the proposed hours of operation, and continued by stating that if the
applicant can prove superior noise reduction, they could in the future request the additional
hour to be open.
Comm. Peirce favored wording in Condition No. 10 requiring that all signage shall be in
confonnance with the Hermosa Beach Sign Ordinance. All Commissioners agreed.
Comm. Peirce favored deletion of Condition No. 13 requiring a water reclamation system.
Chmn. Ingell favored retaining that condition.
Comm. Peirce discussed Condition No. 16 and favored additional wording requiring that an
interlock shall be installed to prevent the operation of the air blowers when the doors are open.
All Commissioners agreed.
Comm. Peirce suggested the deletion of Condition No. 18.
Comm. Peirce discussed Condition No. 19, stating that the wording should be deleted and
replaced with wording specifying how and where the measurements shall be taken. He also
suggested inclusion of the actual wording from the code so that there are no discrepancies.
Comm. Moore stated that he is ready to vote on the entire matter, with the exception of the two
above-mentioned issues related to noise. He noted concern that if the matter is continued, all
of the issues will again be discussed at the next meeting. He felt that with the exception of the
noise, this matter has been adequately discussed and studied.
Mr. Lee stated that the matter could be continued, at which time the public hearing could be re-
opened solely for the purpose of taking additional testimony on the issue of noise. He
suggested, however, that it would be appropriate to leave the entire matter open in the event
other relevant testimony is given.
Comm. Rue reminded the Commission that he had requested additional information from
staff regarding the closure of the 9th Street exit.
Comm. Peirce did not feel closure of 9th Street would be appropriate, stating that that exit is
necessary for ease of leaving the property.
Mr. Lee reminded the Commission that Mr. Schubach had been requested to provide additional
information on the issue of increased traffic caused by this use.
Chmn. Ingell stated that the matter would be continued, and that public testimony would be
taken in the future on the issue noise; however, if deemed necessary, other additional
comments will also be taken.
(Vote on motion to continue. See Page 15.)
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ingell
None
None
None
16 P.C. Minutes 2/20/90
Recess taken from 10:13 P.M. until 10:23 P.M.
Chmn. Ingell and the Commissioners discussed the remainder of the agenda. It was noted that
a great deal of time will be necessary to cover the remaining items; therefore, it was decided
that it may be necessary to continue some of the items if it becomes too late this evening.
ZONE CHANGES FROM C-3. R-1. R-2. AND R-P '.IQ COMMERCIAL SPECIFIC PLAN AREA OR TO
SUCH OTHER ZONE AS DEEMED APPROPRIATE BY mE PLANNING COMMISSION AND
ADOPl10N OF mE NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF THE
COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR ALONG EAST AND WEST SIDES OF PACIFIC COAST filGHWAY
BETWEEN SOUTH CITY BOUNDARY TO EIGHm STREET (CONTINUED FROM MEETING OF
JANUARY 16. 1990)
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated February 7, 1990. Staff recommended that the areas
designated commercial corridor on the general plan, located south of 8th Street, be rezoned
from their current zoning classifications of C-3, R-1, R-2, R-3, and R-P (the majority being C-3)
to commercial specific plan area.
Mr. Schubach displayed an overhead slide depicting the area in question as he gave the staff
report.
The P]aooiog Commission, at their meeting of January 16, 1990, continued this item and
directed staff to consider alternatives to address comments at the meeting and to return with a
modified proposal. This has not been a simple task, given that a variety of different and
conflicting concerns were noted. Consequently, staff proposed a modified recommendation
with the emphasis on refining the procedure, requirements, and criteria for review of precise
development plans. Also, staff included three other alternatives to staffs recommendation for
the PJanning Commission to consider.
Staff emphasized that it is extremely important that a final decision be made on this matter
because of the pending expiration of the moratorium in August of 1990 and the need to also
complete zone changes and a specific plan area for the northern portion of the commercial
corridor.
Staffs previous approach was to develop standards and limitations which are more restrictive
than those in the C-3 zone relating to height, landscaping, and buffering of residential zones.
Also, the proposal included a requirement for precise development plans for all commercial
projects to give the Planning Commission the authority to impose conditions recognizing the
unique features of each particular project and to lessen the adverse environmental impacts of a
project.
Staff felt that it is still a generally appropriate method for dealing with the problem; however,
the Planning Commission expressed concern about the requirement for precise development
plans in all cases. as it would often require the Commission to make tough decisions to impose
more restrictive standards on proposed projects and possibly lead to inconsistency in
decisions and perhaps create uncertainty for developers as to what can be built
As such, staff modified the precise development plan procedure in a manner which would keep
the positive attribute of flexibility to consider the unique features of particular projects but
would provide a level of certainty for developers willing to meet some basic standards. The
concept is to provide a first tier of development standards that, if complied with, would not
require any discretionary approvals. making a project exempt from environmental review and
requiring only a building permit from the City, although the Planning Department would be
involved in plan check regarding the approval of site plans and landscape plans. Projects that
contain any elements that go beyond these standards, however, would trigger the requirement
of a precise development plan, requiring public hearings, Planning Commission approval, and
17 P.C. Minutes 2/20/90
environmental review. Traffic impacts would be considered as part of the environmental
review.
Staff believes that this would provide somewhat of an incentive for developers to build projects
of an appropriate scale and height. Also, there would be flexibility to go beyond the standards,
and the Planning Commission would be in a position to allow more bulk, higher structures, or
extremely large projects only if certain guidelines are followed to their satisfaction.
This concept requires two tiers of development standards: (1) standards that, if exceeded,
would trigger the precise development plan requirement and which the Planning Commission
would have authority to waive if certain guidelines are followed; and (2) maximum or
minimum standards which could not be exceeded except though a variance.
Staff recommended the following standards for the first tier which would trigger the precise
development plan: Height east of P.C.H. would be 30 feet; height west of P.C.H. of 35 feet; bulk of
1.0 FAR; size of 15,000 square feet; and landscape coverage of 5 percent of the lot area. The
second tier maximum/minimum standards would be: height east of P.C.H. of 40 feet: height
west of P.C.H. of 45 feet; no bulk or size requirement; and landscaping coverage of two percent
of the lot area.
Mr. Schubach, in response to questions from Comm. Ketz regarding the landscaping, stated
that the Commission may want to clarify that section of the ordinance.
Comm. Rue, noting that most of the lots in the City are quite small, asked how many projects
in the City could potentially trigger the 15,000 square foot requirement.
Mr. Schubach stated that the motel project as well as other projects which involve assemblage
of lots or recycled properties would trigger the requirement. He clarified that any project
which exceeds the first tier requirements would trigger the ordinance.
Comm. Rue asked about requirements used in other cities.
Chmn. Ingell recalled that the Commissioners had previously desired to make the ordinance
as simple as possible in order to attract good development. He questioned the feasibility of
automatic review for all projects in the area in question, such as is done in other cities.
Mr. Schubach stated that developers have expressed their desire to have concise standards in
writing so that they do not have to appear before the PJanoiog Commission to clarify what can
and cannot be built in the City.
Public Hearing opened at 10:28 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
Mike Xenos, 705 Pacific Coast Highway, explained that his father had owned the property in
question for a number of years with a partner. He continued by giving background
information about the property, and stated that he has been in the process of deciding what to
do with this property. He said there is not much frontage on the property; therefore, he feels the
best use would be as a motel, which it has been for quite some time. He therefore asked if the
use could be grandfathered in in order to avoid having to go through the precise plan process.
He said that the spirit and intent of the plan is acceptable; however, he felt that imposition of
these requirements would diminish the marketability of the property. He said that they could
work with the Planning Department to meet the standards and thus avoid the necessity of
having to go through the entire hearing process.
Gerry Compton, 200 Pier Avenue, addressed the Commission and stated that he was very
pleased to see the staff work which was done on this project. Even though he does not agree
with everything in the document, he felt that it will help developers know what is allowed.
18 P.C. Minutes 2/20/90
Mr. Compton favored the concept of setting reasonable restrictions for developers. If they want
to build upwards, they can then make a request to the City to deviate from the requirements.
Mr. Compton discussed the fact that many cities require conditional use permits for all
projects, and he felt that that is an attempt to limit development. He continued by discussing
development along the highway and the fact that many developers were not aware of what
kinds of development could take place.
Mr. Compton discussed the specific requirements and felt that the 15,000 square foot trigger
might be excessive, and he suggested that 10,000 square feet might be a more reasonable
number to trigger the additional new requirements.
Mr. Compton stated that he had been grappling with the issue of allowing a different height on
each side of the highway, noting that this might be a reasonable requirement, especially taking
into account the various slopes along that area.
Mr. Compton discussed the fact that developers must be given an incentive to create attractive-
looking buildings. He stated that large, boxy buildings are not desirable, and the wording in
the ordinance seems to address this issue.
Mr. Compton discussed the way the height is measured in Manhattan Beach as opposed to
Hermosa Beach and how buildings will be different because of the different methods of
measurement.
Mr. Compton stated that, on the whole, he agrees with the staff work on this document.
Mr. Compton stated that he would prefer to see a mix of buildings along the highway. He
stressed the importance of developers knowing what can be built in order to encourage good
development. He stated that the guidelines must be very clear.
Comm. Peirce asked for Mr. Compton's opinion on the issue of strip commercial development
and whether it should be allowed.
Mr. Compton did not feel that the City needs any more strip development along the highway.
However, if the economics dictate that strip development is the only feasible alternative, a
person has property rights and should be allowed to put in such a development. He felt that
people should be encouraged to do better projects than strip developments.
Jim Wellbaum, 222 North Sepulveda, El Segundo, stated that he has read the report and wanted
to commend staff on their fine work. He felt that the document is very thorough, and he highly
recommended approval at this time. He said that the moratorium has taken the wind out of the
sails of many developers. He felt that the document will give developers a clear idea of what
direction they can take in regard to their projects. Although he does not agree with everything
in the report, he agrees with approximately 95 percent of the suggestions.
Public Hearing closed at 10:58 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
Comm. Peirce agreed that the document is good; his only concern is over the square footage
which will trigger the requirements. He felt that 10,000 square feet would be a more
appropriate figure to trigger the tier.
Comm. Moore favored approval as written by staff, with the 15,000 square foot figure.
MOTION by Comm. Moore, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve staffs recommendation as
written.
Comm. Moore felt that it is important to use a technique which will set up fairly restrictive
standards which are clear. So long as a developer stays within the standards, it will not be
19 P.C. Minutes 2/20/90
necessary for him to deal with the bureaucracy. In this way, people will not be robbed of their
property rights in that if they want to develop further, they have the right to come to the City
and ask to do so.
Chmn. Ingell agreed that staff did an excellent job; however, he felt that the 15,000 square-foot
trigger is excessive, and it should be reduced.
Comm. Ketz agreed that the triggering square footage should be smaller, especially because of
the small lots in town and the fact that not many would accommodate a project of more than
15,000 square feet. She continued by discussing mini mail and strip development. noting that
such projects have been outlawed in many cities. She questioned the feasibility of a ban on
such development along the highway.
Comm. Peirce felt that the issue of mini malls and strip development should be addressed in
the future. He personally felt that such development is very ugly.
Mr. Schubach suggested that the issue be addressed along with the land use element.
Comm. Moore argued in support of the motion to approve, stating that the standards are
reasonable, and he felt that the first and second tier triggers are appropriate.
Comm. Rue discussed strip centers, stating that the intensity of use appears to be the main issue
regarding such centers. He felt that if strip centers are going to be allowed, the quality must be
better. He questioned how better quality projects can be encouraged.
Comm. Rue suggested amendments to the motion: (1) that the floor area be reduced to 10,000
square feet of gross floor area to trigger the first tier requirement; (2) in regard to Condition No.
3, wordage shall be added to encourage low maintenance landscaping and to provide for its
upkeep; (3) wording shall be added stating that the required landscaping shall be in excess of
the required landscaping buffer.
Mr. Schubach, in response to concerns raised by Comm. Rue, suggested the addition of a
condition requiring that the development, grounds and landscaping, shall be maintained in a
neat and clean manner.
Comm. Rue discussed Section 9.67-6, Section B, Item le, and questioned whether the wording is
redundant; i.e., " ... This is not a prescription for architectural similar architectural styles .... "
He felt that the wording is not clear. He also felt that Item la appears to cover the same issue as
that in Item ld.
ComnL Rue discussed Section 9.67-6, Section B, Item ld and questioned whether it would be
appropriate to include wording stating that three-dimensional models may be required as
deemed appropriate by the Planning Director, or at the discretion of the Planning
Commission. He felt that models could be quite helpful in certain projects.
A discussion ensued regarding the feasibility of requiring models. Comm. Moore stated that he
does not feel it would be appropriate to require models in some cases and not in others, stating
that if the code says a model "may be required" the standards would not be clear.
Public Hearing reopened at 11: 11 P .M. by Chmn. Ing ell.
Gerry Compton, 200 Pier Avenue, addressed the Commission and explained that three-
dimensional models can be quite expensive and time consuming to make. He said that
computers can now generate detailed 3-D images which serve to depict projects in greater
detail.
Howard Longacre stated that models many times prove to be worth their weight in gold. He felt
that it is ridiculous for an architect to assert that models are too expensive to make.
20 P.C. Minutes 2/20/90
Public Hearing closed at 11: 15 P.M. by Chmn Ingell.
Comm. Peirce felt that only 3-D renderings should be required, not models. He felt that models
are very expensive, and the 3-D renderings from several angles are adequate to give a feel for a
project.
Comm. Peirce stated that the standards should be quite clear; he therefore did not favor
conditions stating that certain things "may be required."
Comm. Rue suggested a change to Section 9.67 -6, Item 4, Landscaping, from: "The objective of
the landscaping requirement is to enhance the streetscape .... " to: "The objective of the
landscaping requirement is to enhance the project in total .... "
(Vote on Comm. Moore's MOTION TO APPROVE, with 15,000 square feet as the trigger, but
including the following amendments as suggested by Comm. Rue and agreed to by Comm.
Moore: (1) addition of wording in Section 9.67-6, Commercial Development Standards, Item
C3, Landscaping Buffer from the Residential Zone, to state: "The landscape buffer between the
project and residential zones is not included in the calculations of the landscape area"; (2)
addition of a condition to Section 9.67-6, Item 1, (to be Condition No. 6) stating that "The
development shall be maintained in a neat and clean manner"; (3) Section 9.67-6, Precise
Development Plan, Item B4, Landscaping, shall be modified to state: "The objective of the
landscaping requirement is to enhance the prQj ect in total .... "
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
(MOTION FAILS.)
Comm. Moore
Comms. Ketz, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ingell
None
None
MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve staffs recommendation,
Resolution P.C. 90-8, with the modification that the trigger be 10,000 square feet, and with the
inclusion of the three above-mentioned amendments.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Comms. Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ingell
None
None
None
TEXT AMENDMENT REGARDING SEVENTEEN-FOOT PARKING SETBACK AND
CONSIDERATION OF THE ELIMINATION OF SETBACK REQUIREMENT FROM ALLEYS AND
ADOPI10N OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Chmn. Ingell, noting the lateness of the hour, suggested that this hearing be continued.
Comm Ketz agreed and stated that this very important issue will need to be discussed at length.
Comm. Peirce concurred.
MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to continue this hearing to the meeting of
March 6, 1990.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Com.ms. Ketz, Moore. Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ingell
None
None
None
21 P.C. Minutes 2/20/90
REVIEW OF THE PLAN FOR VASEK POLAK AUTO DEALERSHIP AT 2775. 2981. 2901. AND
3001 PACIFIC COAST mGHWAY FOR COMPLIANCE wrm THE CONDmONAL USE PERMIT
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated February 13, 1990. Staff recommended that the Planning
Commission approve the subject site plan.
At the December 5, 1990, m eeting , the Planning Commission a p proved Vasek Polak's r equest,
with m odifications , for a conditional use p ermit t o a u thorize the oper a tion of a u to d ealer ships
on the subject contiguous properties. The conditions included a requirement that complete site
plans be submitted to the Planning Commission for the February 20, 1990, meeting.
The site plan incorporates the BMW dealerships, the Subaru dealership, and the Volkswagen
dealership.
The plans show that adequate parking is available and that each dealership can stand on its
own in r egard to p arking. The plans also show the location of the p roposed car s tackers along
the westerly property line and indicate that the stack ers will not en croach int o the required
eight-foot set b a ck from r e siden tial zones or int o the 20-foot fir e lane; alt hough, the stacked
cars will overhang closer than ei ght feet from the p r operty line. The cars, however, are not
considered structures and are not subject to the eight-foo t setback.
Staffs only concern is that within the Subaru dealership parking lot the identified customer
parking is situated in tandem. Staff believes that these tandem spaces would be more
appropriate for employee parking. Otherwise, the submitted plans are consistent with the
conditions of the conditional use permit.
Mr. Schubach stated that this matter has again come before the Commission to ensure that the
plans meet all the requirements as specified by the attached resolution and approved by the
City Council.
Comm. Peirce was under the impression that the Commission was to receive a set of
dimensioned plans so that when a dispute arises, the plans can be consulted.
Mr. Schubach clarified that dimensioned plans were received by staff.
Hearing opened by Chmn. Ingell at 11:25 P.M.
Gerry Compton, 200 Pier Avenue, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission. He
said that he did submit large-scale plans to the City. He said that he went through the
conditions to ensure that they are being met. He continued by discussing the parking in terms
of legal spaces versus additional spaces. He said that there are 86 legal spaces and 32 spaces in
tandem. He continued by explaining the parking as depicted on the plans.
Larry Bryant, 2960 La Carlita Place, commended the Commission on the fine work they have
done in regard to this project. He asked that the conditions be enforced as soon as possible. He
noted concern over the placement of the car stackers for the reasons of noise and appearance.
He also noted concern over the number of parking spaces, stating that even though the project
meets the required number of spaces, he doubted whether there are actually enough spaces to
accommodate the employees.
Mr. Bryant hoped that the City's noise ordinance will be enforced; however, after studying the
ordinance, he feels that the ordinance is somewhat vague.
Mr. Bryant noted further concern over the erosion created by cars and trucks parking on the
slope. He questioned whether there will be any landscaping in that area, and he felt that this
issue is being overlooked.
22 P .C. Minutes 2/20/90
Jim Deutch, 707 30th Street, stated that the Concerned Citizens' Group has reviewed the staff
recommendation, and they still have several concerns regarding the location of the car
stackers in relation to whether there is an adequate turning radius. He noted concern over the
ingress and egress of emergency vehicles. He questioned how many employees will be parking
in the car stackers.
Mr. Schubach stated that there is an adequate turning radius. He further noted that employee
parking is correctly depicted on the submitted plans.
Mr. Deutch noted that one of the conditions is that the business clearly post a driving location
map diverting traffic away from the residential area. He stated that no such map has yet been
posted.
Mr. Schubach stated that the applicant has until March 6, 1990, in which to comply with the
required conditions.
Mr. Deutch, noting that another condition stipulates that Mr. Polak must sign the CUP, asked
whether he has yet signed.
Mr. Schubach was not certain whether the CUP had yet been signed; however, he again noted
that the applicant has until March 6, 1990, to comply.
Mr. Bryant said that the police have informed residents that they may call 911 to report
complaints occurring at this business.
Comm. Moore expressed alarm that people would call the emergency 911 number to report a
violation. He said that this is a number to be used in cases of life-threatening emergencies, and
the number is burdened enough as it is.
Chris Howell, 2966 La Carlita Place, commented on the issue of calling 911, and he said that
the police commander directed people to use that number so that there would be a record of
complaints maintained in the log.
Comm. Moore directed staff to obtain more information in regard to the use of 911. He noted
concern over this matter and stated that he would like additional facts.
Mr. Schubach stated that staff is currently studying a method to use to log messages and
complaints.
Mr. Howell thanked the City and staff for its fine work regarding this business and the
document. He hoped that the conditions would be enforced, and he noted that some minor
violations are still occurring. He noted concern that these isolated incidences of violations
could become the norm in the future.
Gerry Compton discussed the stacker locations and stated that an opening has been left in the
rear to ensure that there will be an adequate fire lane. He continued by discussing the actual
measurements of the stackers, and he felt that all issues related to the stackers have
adequately been addressed.
Mr. Compton stated that he hopes to have a meeting with the manager and all employees for
the purpose of ensuring that everyone is aware of the conditions in the CUP and the importance
of complying with those conditions.
Mr. Compton continued by discussing the required route map, and he stated that an acceptable
route will need to be studied.
Hearing closed by Chmn. Ingell at 11:53 P.M.
23 P.C. Minutes 2/20/90
. -
MOTION by Comm Ketz, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve staffs recommendation to approve
the subject site plan.
AYES:
NOES:
Comms. Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ingell
None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
STAFF ITEMS
a) Memorandum Regarding Planning Commission Liaison for February 27. 1990. City
Council Meeting
No one will attend as liaison.
b) Tentative Future Planning Commission Agenda
No action taken.
C) City Council Minutes of Januaxy 9. 11, and 23. 1990
No action taken.
COMMISSIONER ITEMS
None.
MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Rue, to adjourn at 11:56 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 February 20, 1990.
~ Michael Schubach.Secretary
Date
24 P.C. Minutes 2/20/90
MINUTES OF TIIE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF TIIE CI1Y OF HERMOSA BEACH
HELD ON MARCH 6, 1990, AT 7:00 P.M. IN 11IE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Meeting called to order at 7:08 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
Pledge of Allegiance led by Chmn. Ingell.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Absent:
Comms. Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ingell
None
Also Present: Michael Schubach, Planning Director; Edward Lee, Assistant City
Attorney; Sally White, Recording Secretary
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MOTION by Comm. Ketz, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve the minutes of February 20, 1990,
as written. No objections; so ordered.
APPROVAL OF RESOLUTIONS
MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve as amended (incorporating staffs
corrected page of the resolution), Resolution P.C. 90-8, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
AMENDING THE ZONING MAP AND THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO CREATE SPECIFIC PLAN
AREA NO. 7, FOR THE AREAS AS DESCRIBED BELOW AND SHOWN ON THE ATTACHED MAP
AND ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION. No objections; so ordered.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC
Larry Peha, 67 14th Street, applicant for Agenda Item No. 11, noted the length of the agenda
and asked that this matter be continued to the next meeting. He also requested that the matter
be moved up on the next agenda. He explained that a continuance would allow also him
additional time to discuss the project with staff.
Howard Longacre, 1221 7th Place, addressed the Commission and asked questions about the
Greenwood hotel project. He noted concern that there was not Planning Commission review
and approval prior to this project's commencement. He continued by describing City Council
actions in regard to this project, and he questioned the appropriateness of a "ministerial
review" of the hotel with no public hearing held. He went on by describing the proposed project
and its very large size and attendant impacts. He questioned whether the Planning
Commission took part in the review of this project. He felt that the City should put the
interests of the residents first.
MOTION by Comm. Moore, seconded by Comm. Rue, to move Agenda Items 11 and 12 up to this
point for discussion by the Commission. No objections; so ordered.
AN EXCEPTION FROM SECTION 13-7fB) TO ALLOW A REMODEL AND EXPANSION TO AN
EXISTING NONCONFORMING SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING OF GREATER THAN 50%
INCREASE IN VALUATION AT 1570 PROSPECT AVENUE (AGENDA ITEM NO. lll
MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to continue this item, at the applicant's
request, to the next regularly scheduled meeting, March 20, 1990. No objections; so ordered.
1 P.C. Minutes 3/6/90
AN EXCEPTION FROM SECTION 13-7(Bl TO ALLOW A REMODEL AND EXPANSION 1Q AN
EXISTING NONCONFORMING SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING GREATER THAN A 50% INCREASE
INV ALUATION AT 2624 mE STRAND (AGENDA ITEM NO. 12)
Cbmn. Ingell asked whether anyone in the audience was present to speak on this item. to which
one citizen responded and stated that he would be able to return to the next meeting to speak on
this matter.
MOTION by Comm. Moore, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to continue this item to the next regularly
scheduled meeting, March 20, 1990. No objections; so ordered.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO ELIMINATE THE CONDITION PROHIBITING
THE SALE OF SINGLE CONTAINERS OF BEER AT 74 PIER AVENUE, ROBERTS LIQUOR
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated March 1, 1990. This condition was recommended by the
Police Department, which now recommends approval of this request, provided Condition No. 5
is amended. Staff recommended adoption of the proposed resolution incorporating said
amenchnent.
Robert's Liquor was one of eight packaged liquor stores which was being operated as an off-sale
alcohol beverage establishment without a conditional use permit. The Planning Commission,
at their meeting of January 3, 1990, granted a CUP, subject to the conditions recommended by
staff. The applicant clearly stated at the meeting that he was aware of the conditions being
imposed.
Upon further review of the conditions, however, the applicant became concerned about
Condition No. 4(a) which reads: "Sale of single containers of beer. in a can or bottle, shall be
prohibited." This condition was recommended by the Police Department, and it was the first
time that the Planning Commission had imposed such a condition.
The applicant is justly concerned about a significant loss of business because of this condition.
No other liquor establishment has such a requirement, and he feels this puts him at a great
disadvantage to his competition.
Nonetheless. this condition could be justified in this instance because of the location of this
store near the beach and downtown areas. However, staff doubts that the application of the
condition will significantly reduce the problems of litter and public drinking. as customers
obviously can still purchase beer in four-packs or six-packs. individual containers of wine,
and individual containers of liquor or mixed cocktails. The question the Planning
Commission should ask is whether or not the harm to this business in terms of loss potential
sales is really worth the moderate or perhaps non-existent impact it will have on alleviating
the problems.
The Commission was provided with a copy of a letter dated March 1, 1990, from Commander
Altfeld to the Planning Director, the subject of which is a response to conditional use permit
amenchnent by Robert's Liquor. Staff noted that the new language has been incorporated into
the amended resolution.
Public Hearing opened at 7:28 P.M. byChmn. Ingell.
Sei Chan Kim, 74 Pier Avenue, applicant, addressed the Commission. He stated that he did not
understand the conditions at the time of approval; therefore, he is now requesting to amend the
condition prohibiting single-container sales of beer.
Comm. Rue noted concern that Mr. Kim had specifically stated at the public hearing at which
this matter was first heard that he had read and understood the conditions being imposed on
his business.
2 P.C. Minutes 3/6/90
Mr. Kim stated that he was unaware of the imposition of a condition prohibiting single-
container sales of beer until after he had received a letter from staff informing him of this
condition. He then went to the Planning Department and requested an amendment to the CUP.
He said that he did not receive a copy of the conditions prior to the public hearing.
Mr. Schubach explained that copies of the conditions are sent to applicants prior to hearings;
however, it is possible that the letter was not received by the applicant.
Comm. Peirce noted that single containers are ready invitations to be taken outside and
consumed. He asked what assurances the applicant can provide to ensure that people will not
purchase single containers of beer and drink them in a public place.
Jerry Dowling, Dana Point, the applicant's landlord, addressed the Commission. He said that
he and the applicant have discussed this matter and concern has been raised. Regarding the
issue of posting a sign as recommended by the Police Department, he said that there should be
uniform signage required at all such businesses within a certain radius of the beach advising
that fines will be imposed if beer is consumed in a public area.
Mr. Dowling continued by stating that it is not feasible to expect the applicant to provide a
guarantee that beer sold at his store will not be consumed in a public place. He felt that the
posting of signs, coupled with adequate police enforcement. should provide a deterrent. He
stated that it is the responsibility of the police, not the applicant. to ensure that people are not
drinking on the beach. He noted, however, that the applicant will cooperate and provide the
proper signage as requested. He said that there can be no one hundred percent guarantee that
people will not drink on the beach, regardless of where the beer is purchased.
Mr. Dowling said that Robert's Liquor store has been in existence for approximately fifty years.
He said that the applicant is willing to cooperate, and he also wants to prevent drinking on the
beach.
Mr. Dowling further noted that downtown businesses are not doing very well at this time;
therefore, such a condition would not be fair, especially since this business has been there for
so long.
Mr. Dowling, in response to a question from Chmn. Ingell regarding whether the imposition of
this condition has hurt his business, explained that the applicant is still selling single
containers of beer. He said that the beer sales comprise a very small percentage of total sales;
however, many people do come in to purchase two or three cans of beer, rather than an entire
six-pack. They then take the beer home to drink it. He said that many import beers are sold
only in single containers. He noted that the applicant has a language difficulty, and it would be
hard for him to try to explain to people why they cannot purchase single containers.
Wilma Burt, 1152 7th Street, opposed all single-container sales of all alcoholic beverages
anywhere in the City. She noted that there are 85 liquor establishments in the City, which is a
tremendous number. She felt that single containers are invitations to be consumed in public
places. She felt that the Planning Commission should consider amending the ordinance to
prohibit single-container sales of all alcoholic beverages in the City, stating that it would be a
good first step in eliminating drunk driving and trash. She did not feel it would be appropriate
to allow single sales just because the applicant has a language problem. She stressed that
single-container sales cause too many problems.
Mr. Dowling stated that it would be more fair to require that all liquor stores have the same
conditions imposed on them; however, he did not agree that there should be such a condition
because it is the responsibility of the police to enforce the requirements that there shall be no
drinking in public places.
Public Hearing closed at 7:39 P.M. byChmn. Ingell.
3 P.C. Minutes 3/6/90
Mr. Schubach, in response to questions from Comm. Ketz, stated that this is the first liquor
store to have a condition imposed prohibiting single-container sales of beer. He said that other
older liquor stores which have been operating without CUP's will be coming in for conditional
use permit approval in the future.
Comm. Peirce felt that businesses should be able to sell what they want and make a profit;
however, this business is adjacent to the beach, and there are three large parking lots near the
store. He noted that Robert's had been operating without a CUP in the past. He felt that the
recommendation by the Police Department is an alternative correction method rather than
police agreement.
Comm. Peirce stated that the Commission has an obligation to look at a business and its
surroundings in relation to the rest of the City to represent the citizens. He noted that there is
definitely a problem with people consuming single containers of beer and its attendant trash
problems. He sympathized that foreign beer is sold only in single containers; however, the best
interests of the City must be considered. For these reasons, he stated that he would vote against
the requested amendment.
Comm. Moore stated that no one would argue that alcohol is a major problem in society;
however, he did not feel that the problem would be solved by prohibiting single-container sales
of beer. He felt that single cans of beer sold in brown paper bags will probably be consumed on
the street, in a car, or on the beach in the hopes that the police will not see it. He felt that
prohibiting this store from selling single cans will not solve anything because there are too
many other places where a single can could be purchased. He therefore stated that he would
support the requested amendment.
Chmn. Ingell, noting that the police had proposed an alternative, stated that he tended to
support the amendment. He felt that it would be a burden on the applicant to prohibit single-
container sales, especially since many imported brands are only sold individually. He felt that
if there is a problem with single-container sales, the problem should be addressed by amending
the code, not by penalizing one owner. He felt that such a condition would be a burden on the
applicant's competitiveness in the market. He felt that requiring a sign to be posted would be a
proper step in the right direction.
Chmn. Ingell noted that Robert's Liquor has been operating for 50 years without a conditional
use permit. Because the applicant complied with the City and requested a CUP, he did not think
it would be appropriate to penalize him for his compliance. He stated, therefore, that he would
support the amendment.
Comm. Rue agreed with Comm. Moore's and Chmn. Ingell's comments, stating that it might be
appropriate to study the ordinance since single-container sales are a problem. He pointed out,
however. that beer is not the only problem, noting that mixed cocktails are also sold
individually, as well as other types of alcoholic beverages. He stated that he supports the CUP
amendment; however, he feels that the ordinance should be addressed since this is a City-wide
problem.
Comm. Ketz agreed that it would be unfair to penalize this one business. She felt that if there is
to be a single-container sale prohibition, it should be City-wide.
Comm. Moore stated that the proposed wording for the sign is so bureaucratic that no one will
bother to read it. He therefore suggested that the wording be very clear, very short, and very
concise so that people know exactly what the intent is.
Comm. Peirce stated that everyone has agreed that single-container liquor sales is a problem.
He felt that if such sales are allowed to continue, it sends a message that people can continue to
drink on the beach, so long as they are not caught. To vote against this request would send a
clear message that such activities will not be tolerated in the City.
4 P.C. Minutes 3/6/90
Comm. Rue noted, however, that this request relates only to beer. He noted that many other
alcoholic beverages are available in individual containers.
Comm. Peirce stated that this involves not only an alcohol abuse issue, but also an atmosphere
problem involving the types of people drinking in public. To let a known problem continue
would not be appropriate.
Comm. Moore suggested that a condition be added requiring that single cans be sold in a clear
plastic bag with the name of the store printed on it.
Comm. Rue noted that a letter had been received from a citizen asserting that the police are not
enforcing the rules related to drinking in public. He questioned whether staff has discussed
this matter with the police.
Mr. Schubach stated that the City intends to enforce all its conditional use permits. He also
stated that the police make every effort to cite people drinking in public.
Chmn. Ingell, noting that he lives and works close to the beach area. stated that he has seen a
tremendous improvement in the downtown area over the past five years. He said that the
police have done a great job in curtailing problems in the area He further stated that problems
are not emanating from Robert's Liquor Store. but from other stores.
MOTION by Comm. Moore, seconded by Chmn. Ingell, to approve staff's recommendation,
Resolution P.C. 90-20, eliminating the condition prohibiting the sale of single containers of
beer at 74 Pier Avenue, Robert's Liquor, with the inclusion of two additional conditions: (1) to
require that the sign shall be prominently placed in the store. and the precise wording of the
sign, which shall be clear and concise, shall be drafted by staff. Such language shall contain
large type and be in plain language advising that Hermosa Beach vigorously enforces it liquor
laws; and (2) to require that single-container sales of beer shall be placed in clear packaging.
allowing clear visibility of the product even though it is in a container.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Comms. Ketz, Moore, Rue. Chmn. Ingell
Comm. Peirce
None
None
Mr. Dowling stated that the applicant feels all liquor stores should be required to adhere to the
same condition.
MOTION by Comm. Rue. seconded by Chmn. Ingell, to direct staff to study the issue of what
other cities are doing in regard to single-conta:iner sales of alcoholic beverages No objections;
so ordered.
Chmn. Ingell suggested that the issue of packaging of alcoholic beverages also be studied.
TEXT AMENDMENT REGARDING SEVENTEEN-FOOT PARKING SETBACK AND
CONSIDERATION OF THE ELIMINATION OF SE1BACK REgUIREMENT FROM ALLEYS AND
ADOPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION (CONTINUED FROM
MEE'lING OF FEBRUARY 20. 1990J
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated February 20, 1990. Staff recommended that the Planning
Commission adopt the proposed resolution recommending adoption of the subject text
amendment.
At the meeting of December 12, 1989, the City Council directed staff to prepare an interim
ordinance which would waive the 17 -foot setback requirement for garages if four parking
5 P.C. Minutes 3/6/90
spaces are provided on site. This came about as a result of the discussion of a variance request
at 3133 Toe Strand.
At their meeting of January 9, 1990, the City Council, instead of adopting a proposed interim
ordinance, directed staff to prepare text amendments for consideration that would eliminate
the 17 -foot parking setback requirement on alleys.
The 17-foot setback requirement for garages was established in 1986 for the purpose of
providing enough room behind garages in all zones to park a standard vehicle which would not
block sidewalks and to provide additional off-street parking. The City Council when
establishing this requirement modified the Planning Commission recommendation to allow
setbacks on alleys to be either 17 feet, 8 feet, or 3 feet.
Application of the 1 7 -foot setback has indeed accomplished the objectives of the Council.
Many residential buildings have been constructed in conformance with the 17-foot setback
requirement, and in most cases it has resulted in the provision of more than the required
parking. Therefore, when considering the elimination of the 1 7 -foot setback requirement on
alleys, it must be realized that it will likely result in less off-street parking in the future.
Complaints and objections regarding the 1 7 -foot setback requirement have come primarily
from owners of shallow single-family lots who are concerned about dedicating such a large
portion of their ground-floor area to parking area. For example, lots with a 70-foot depth after
providing for the setback, the required garage depth, the front and rear setbacks, and the open
space requirements are left with a maximum ground floor dimension of only 20 to 27 feet,
limiting the potential uses of the ground floor. the situation is not much better for 80-foot deep
lots. It can also be argued that this concern applies to all residential lots where the options for
the ground floor plan, perhaps unnecessarily, are being limited by the 17 -foot requirement on
alleys. For many of the average-sized lots in the City, three or four parking spaces can easily be
provided without the use of the 17-foot setback.
To address these concerns regarding the 1 7 -foot setback, staff has resurrected the original
recommendation of the Planning Commission regarding this issue. Toe recommendation was
to require one of the following setbacks for garages facing an alley: 1 7 feet, 8 feet. or 3 feet; and
for projects on alleys of 15 feet or less the turning radius requirements of Section 1161 would
apply. Sta.ff is including a modification to this recommendation that the garage setback be
either 3 feet. 9 feet, or 17 feet. Staff believes that the 9-foot setback is necessary to provide the
minimum dimension for a car parked parallel behind a garage. This space would qualify as a
required guest space. Staff is also recommending dimensional standards for parallel parking
of a minimum. length of 22 feet to provide the necessary maneuvering space.
To lessen the impact on parking, staff also included a provision that single-family houses
containing four or more bedrooms, or more than 3000 square feet, be required to provide two
guest spaces. In all other cases, however, projects will only have to meet the minimum parking
requirements as established in the zoning ordinance.
Staff felt that the proposed amendments address the immediate concerns noted in a manner
that does not sacrifice the integrity of existing parking and zoning requirements. Staff also
felt that these amendments may have an ancillary benefit of providing a greater incentive for
developers trying to maximize floor space to use the alley for access rather than the street.
Comm. Ketz asked for clarification on the amount of area required for the turning radius off of
an alley.
Mr. Schubach explained that when a parking space is extended in width. there is greater
maneuverability for vehicles backing out and turning around; therefore, the space behind it
can be reduced. If there is a minimum size parking space, there would need to be a minimum of
23 feet behind the space in order for cars to back out.
6 P.C. Minutes 3/6/90
Comm. Ketz noted that if three parking spaces are required on a lot of 30 by 70 feet with a ten-
foot alley, a great portion of the lot would therefore be unbuildable.
Mr. Schubach disagreed, stating that if the 17 -foot setback requirement is removed, 23 feet of
area would be required rather that the current requirements of even more area for the setback
(17 feet), the garage (18 feet), and the additional 8 feet, for a current total of 43 feet.
Mr. Schubach and Comm. Ketz discussed the required parking spaces and turnaround areas on
various sized lots.
Mr. Schubach noted that for quite some time staff has been aware of the problems with the 17-
foot setback and the fact that there should be exceptions, particularly for lots on alleys of 10
feet and 15 feet.
Mr. Schubach, in response to questions from Comm. Rue, explained the required lengths and
widths for parking spaces.
Mr. Schubach, in response to questions from Comm. Rue, stated that staff hopes the proposed
provisions will encourage parking in the rear.
Comm. Peirce asked how staff arrived at the figure of 3000 feet for the cutoff between requiring
three parking spaces versus four parking spaces.
Mr. Schubach explained that staff was directed to bring this matter back immediately. At this
time, staff used a cutoff point of 3000 square feet since houses of that size are quite large. He
noted, however, that staff intends to study this matter further when the housing element is
addressed.
Comm. Ketz asked whether staff studied the parking requirements for other beach cities in
terms of whether three or four spaces are required based on the size of the home.
Mr. Schubach replied in the negative. He noted, however, that most other cities require more
parking than Hermosa Beach. He continued by explaining that most other (non-beach) cities
have fifty-foot lots and very wide streets which can accommodate more on-street parking.
Unfortunately, this City does not have the luxury of lower density and wider streets thereby
allowing for more parking spaces.
Comm. Moore asked whether staff is aware of any data which correlates the number of cars at a
house based on the size of the house. He felt that larger houses probably will have more
interior storage area; therefore, the parking spaces will be used as parking spaces. Smaller
houses without the storage space might utilize the garage for storage, thereby using the parking
space for something other than parking.
Mr. Schubach stated that large houses usually do not provide much storage space beyond what
is required by the code.
Comm. Moore was not convinced that large houses necessarily have more cars, noting that no
data has been provided verifying this fact.
Mr. Schubach stated that staff will continue to study this issue and will return with additional
data in the next few months.
Chmn. Ingell noted concern that action on this issue is taking place before all available data
has been provided. He felt that this matter could wait and be studied along with the housing
element.
Public Hearing opened at 8:12 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
7 P.C. Minutes 3/6/90
Dean Nata, 2467 Myrtle Avenue, architect, addressed the Commission and: (1) discussed
projects he has worked on in the R-1 zone; (2) stated that he designs custom homes for people
who intend to live in them themselves; (3) reported that there is a good trend afoot where people
want to build homes to live in rather than for speculation; (4) said that quality construction is
good for cities; (5) stated that most people are concerned with three issues when they are
designing a home: size, view, and livability; (6) stated that the 1 7-foot setback is one of three
elements which must be taken into account when building a home, the other two being
measurement of height and the open space element; (7) said that people are being turned away
from the community because the requirements are too restrictive, especially the 17-foot
setback requirement; (8) explained that there are too many variables in the requirements, and
the issue of aesthetics is not adequately addressed; (9) felt that the issue of parking off the street
should be addressed; (10) stated that he supports the staff recommendation, however, he would
like the option of being able to handle the three parking spaces in his own manner rather than
having inflexible requirements.
Mr. Nata continued and: ( 1) stated that the 17 -foot setback is a significant issue, especially in
light of the other setback requirements; (2) agreed that building bulk is a significant problem,
but with the 17 -foot setback requirement, a building tends to become an elevated mass in order
to accommodate the ground-level setbacks; (3) felt that flexibility should be provided and that
the 17 -foot setback should be eliminated.
Mr. Nata went on: (1) discussed on-street parking on public rights-of-way, stating that
requiring someone to provide a 17-foot setback in addition to the very wide area of the right-of-
way is unreasonable; (2) felt that staff should address this issue further, stating that the
measurement should be taken from the back of the sidewalk; (3) continued by discussing the
lots on his street, Myrtle Avenue, in regard to the width of the street; (4) noted that property is
very expensive and people tend to want to park off of the street and use the rear yard setback for
open space, which he felt goes against the spirit of the requirement to provide additional
parking; (5) disagreed with staff's suggestion that homes over 3000 square feet will require four
parking spaces, explaining that no other cities he has ever worked in have such a requirement,
and most do not require more than two parking spaces; (6) did not agree with three spaces
either, but said he could work with such a requirement: (7) said that real estate is actually more
expensive in Hermosa Beach because so much of the building area is taken away; (8) urged that
there be flexibility in the requirements so that good designs can be provided.
Wihna Burt, 1152 7th Street, addressed the Commission and: (1) opposed piecemeal legislation;
(2) said that most of the lots in the R-1 areas and some R-2 areas east of the highway do not have
alleys; (3) said that 90 percent of the lots are not more than 25 feet apart, other than those
which have been combined; (4) discussed properties on narrow lots on her street, stating that
some people do not park in the garages but on the street; (5) discussed the various setback
requirements, stating that many of the lots east of the highway are only 25 feet, and the 17 -foot
setback requirement eliminates too much of the buildable area; (6) said that there must be a
variety of rules to accommodate different situations; (7) stated that this decision is being done
piecemeal, and she did not feel it is imperative that a decision be made on this issue
immediately; (8) felt that the maneuvering area in alleys does not have to be as large as that
being suggested, stating that she has a large car and can get in and out of her garage easily; (9)
stated that she does not want to see more paving at new buildings.
Steve Breed, 429 31st Street, addressed the Commission and: (1) said that he will soon be
moving because his current home is too small to do anything with based on all the current
restrictions, and he will be renting it out; (2) said that there are problems on building on 30-by
70-foot lots because the 17 -foot setback requirement renders the lot practically unbuildable; (3)
suggested that the 17 -foot setback requirement be waived on lots of 25 and 30 feet in width: (4)
also felt that the 23-foot turning radius should be waived, especially since that is not a State
requirement; (5) agreed with the requirement of three parking spaces for houses under 3000
square feet; (6) discussed the north end of the City, stating that no houses there have the 17-foot
setback; (7) said that the houses in the north end have aprons of between three feet and eleven
feet, and there does not appear to be any problem; (8) urged the Commission to address this
8 P.C. Minutes 3/6/90
issue immediately, especially in light of the fact that many people are moving away and
renting out their homes because they can't do anything with them; (9) suggested that this issue
be studied further before action is taken; {10) discussed open space and stated that people with
small lots should be given greater flexibility and creativity.
Howard Longacre, addressed the Commission and: (1) supported the 17-foot setback
requirement, stating that it has done wonders for the City and has contributed to older units
being able to have more residents since additional parking spaces are provided; (2) said that
new homes are providing more parking; (3) noted that older homes in the City were designed as
cottages, and now much larger homes are being built; (4) said that the 17-foot setback
requirement is not applicable to many of the lots in the City; (5) felt that the requirement for
three parking spaces should be maintained, but did not think that the nine-foot setback should
be used as a guest space; (6) felt that all houses, especially those over 2000 square feet, need at
least three spaces, and houses over 3000 square feet should have four parking spaces; (7) did not
favor this piecemeal approach; (8) favored flexibility so that architects can design attractive
projects; (9) said that he will continue to support the 17 -foot setback requirement until a better
solution is found.
Gerry Compton, 832 7th Street, addressed the Commission and: (1) noted that neither staff nor
the Commission has ever suggested that there be a 1 7 -foot setback off alleys; (2) gave
background history on the issue of the 1 7 -foot setback; (3) said that setbacks off of alleys
remove potential ground space; (4) noted that the original purpose of the 17 -foot setback was to
prevent people from parking over the sidewalk; (5) felt that the 1 7 -foot setback should be
measured from the inside edge of the sidewalk; (6) noted that many streets are public rights-of-
way and are very wide, therefore, it is not feasible to require the 17 -foot setback in addition to
the width of the street; (7) did not feel that a sea of concrete should be created in order to meet
the 1 7 -foot setback; (8) opposed the requirement of four parking spaces for homes over 3000
square feet; (9) felt that the issue which needs to be addressed is the loss of on-street parking;
(10) said that no other cities require so many parking spaces; (11) said that new people coming
into town should not be penalized for trying to build a new project in the R-1 wne; (12) said
that R-1 builders are going to other cities, because so much property is being taken away to meet
the requirements; (13) stated that bulk is being pushed up into the air in order to meet the
requirements.
Mr. Compton continued: (1) said that the issue of through lots is very important; (2) said that
people want to park in front rather than in the rear, thereby losing their rear yards; (3) felt that
people should be allowed to use the front yard as open space; (4) favored the text amendment
except for the portion requiring four parking spaces; (5) discussed with Comm. Rue various
ways to provide green open space rather than a sea of concrete in front yards.
Public Hearing closed at 8:49 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
Comm. Rue stated that he is not particularly a proponent of the 17 -foot setback, explaining
that he feels architects should have the flexibility to provide an attractive, livable building. He
felt that the proposed amendment appears to be a viable solution. He felt that three parking
spaces is acceptable; however, he did not support requiring four spaces for projects over 3000
square feet. He does not feel it is appropriate to encourage people on through lots to park on the
street and thereby use on-street parking.
Comm. Peirce noted that everyone's major concern is with loss of parking, and he noted that
parking is the biggest problem in the City. He felt that it is important for new projects to
provide the proper amount of parking. He said that people tend to want to max out their
projects and therefore don't want to provide an additional parking space. He stated that he
supports staffs recommendation one hundred percent.
Comm. Ketz stated that she hears more complaints about the 17 -foot setback requirement than
anything else in the City. She felt that the proposed text amendment is a good first step in
remedying the problem because the 1 7 -foot setback puts a burden on small lots trying to
9 P.C. Minutes 3/6/90
develop homes and meeting all of the requirements. She did not support the four parking
spaces, however, stating that this is a beach town and such a requirement would be too much of
a burden on single-family homes. She did not feel that single-family residences create as
many problems as condominiums. She stated that condos put more of a demand on street
parking than single homes. She further noted that other cities do not require as much parking
as is being proposed now. She concluded by stating that she supports the text amendment with
the exception of the required four parking spaces for homes of over 3000 square feet, noting
that no data has been provided proving that four spaces are necessary.
Comm. Moore stated that he feels three parking spaces are sufficient, and he did not feel that
the City should be legislating requirements of more than three spaces. He felt that the designer
should be allowed flexibility to detennine where the spaces will be. He discussed the problem of
people parking over the sidewalk and the implementation of the 17 -foot setback requirement
as an attempt to curtail that problem. He felt that the 17 -foot setback is rather a draconian
measure to cure the problem, and he felt it would be appropriate to enforce the current
requirements that people not block sidewalks. He stated that he could support the issue as
related to alleys; however, he favored removing the 17 -foot setback requirement so long as the
adequate parking can be provided.
Comm. Moore felt that the measurements should be taken from the sidewalk rather than from
the property line.
Chmn. Ingell agreed with staff's proposal; however, he noted the importance of the issue and
the fac t that it is being further studied by s taff and will come back b efor e the Commission with
the housing element. He did not feel that all the applicable data has been studied at this time;
therefore, he tended to be more conservative in his opinion since not all the material has been
examined related to parking. He felt that if action is to be taken on this one small piece of the
issue, the action should be very conservative.
Chmn. Ingell suggested that the staffs recommendation be approved, with the requirement for
four parking spaces for houses of more than 3000 square feet.
MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Moore, to approve staffs recommendation, with
the following amendments: (1) that wording be added to Section 4 specifying that the
measurement for the 17-foot setback (front and back) shall be taken from the inside portion of
the existing sidewalk, or future sidewalk if none is currently existing. He clarified that his
motion also includes measuring setbacks other than those on alleys; and (2) that the provision
requiring four parking spaces for buildings over 3000 square feet be deleted.
Chmn. Ingell asked whether this matter was noticed to include areas other than alleys.
Mr. Schubach stated that, since this item was continued from a previous meeting, it would be
necessary for him to obtain a copy of the original notice.
Comm. Peirce asked about the legality of measuring from a point in the public right-of-way.
Mr. Lee explained that there could be a problem of potential liability on the part of the City if
the measurement is taken from the public right-of-way. He continued by explaining that
private use of a public right-of-way could cause problems. He suggested, instead, that a
recommendation could be sent to the Council that the measurements be studied in regard to
public rights-of-way. He continued by discussing the issue of encroachments into the public
rights-of-way and stated that it is currently being studied in regard to the liability issue.
Chmn. Ingell stated that it would be more appropriate to vote on staff's recommendation and
suggest that staff study the issue of measuring from the inside of the sidewalk and return with
additional information when the housing element is addressed in several months.
P.C. Minutes 3/6/90
Comm. Rue stated that rights-of-way have not been studied in the past for inclusion because
they have provided additional open space in the City.
Chmn. Ingell noted that Mr. Schubach had left Council Chambers to get a copy of the original
noticing for this matter.
Recess taken from 9:04 P.M. until 9: 14 P.M.
Mr. Schubach informed the Commission that the Council had specially requested that action
be taken in regard to setbacks off of alleys.
Comm. Rue stated that the Commission is making ::t. recommendation to the Council; therefore,
he felt his motion is appropriate. He clarified that his intent is that if there is a 17 -foot setback
and the easement exceeds that, then the structure would be placed at the regular front yard
setback.
Comm. Ketz stated that she would feel uncomfortable voting on the front yard setback at this
time. especially since the attorney has advised that there could be a potential liability
problem. She felt that the entire 17 -foot setback issue should be studied, noting that this
action is focused on alleys.
Comm. Rue stated that recycling of older properties will not be encouraged with the
requirements to provide huge front yard setbacks for parking. He stated that it is currently
being encouraged to maintain multiple-unit dwellings without adequate parking. He said that
many people will not build in this City because of all the restrictions , and he felt that more
should be done to encourage high-quality projects. He felt that his motion would offer that
encouragement.
Mr. Lee stated that the motion as proposed is in keeping with the noticing of the issue.
(Vote on Comm. Rue's motion, Page 10)
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
(MOTION FAILS.)
Comms. Moore, Rue
Comms. Ketz, Peirce, Chmn. Ingell
None
None
MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Chmn. Ingell, to approve staffs recommendation,
Resolution P.C. 9013, as written.
Comm. Moore stated that he would vote against the motion solely on the basis that he does not
favor requiring four parking spaces for homes of 3000 square feet and more. Comms. Ketz and
Rue concurred.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
(MOTION FAILS.)
Comm. Peirce, Chmn. Ingell
Comms. Ketz, Moore, Rue
None
None
MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve staffs recommendation,
Resolution P.C. 90-13 with the following amendment: to delete the requirement of four
parking spaces for single-family residences over 3000 square feet.
11 P.C. Minutes 3/6/90
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
(MOTION PASSES.)
Comms. Ketz, Moore, Rue
Comm. Peirce, Chmn. Ingell
None
None
Comm. Rue urged those in the audience who spoke on this matter to return when the issue is
again addressed during the housing element.
FIRST QUARTER GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENI'S
ADOPTION OF THE ''PA.QKS AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN" AS AN AMENDMENT TO THE
OPEN SPACE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN
Mr. Schubach explained that the study for this item was not yet completed. He therefore
suggested that it be continued to the second quarter general plan amendments.
MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve staffs recommendation to
continue this item to the second quarter general plan amendments. No objections; so ordered.
GENERAL PLAN REDESIGNATION FROM GENERAL COMMERCIAL TO LOW-DENSITY
RESIDENI'IAL AND ZONE CHANGE FROM R-P TO R -1 FOR THE RESIDENTIAL PORTION, AND
ZONE CHANGE FROM R-P TO C-2 FOR THE COMMERCIAL PORTION, OR TO SUCH OTHER
DESIGNATIONS / ZONES AS DEEMED APPROPRIATE BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR
THE PROPER1Y BOUNDED ON PROSPECT AVENUE ON THE WEST. ARTESIA BOULEVARD ON
THE NORTH, AND 24TH STREET ON THE soum, AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated February 28, 1990. Staff recommended that the Planning
Commission recommend adoption of the proposed general plan amendment and zone changes
by adopting the proposed resolutions.
The subject area is one of the remaining inconsistent areas throughout the City. This
amendment and zone change was initiated by the Planning Commission in response to a
request to open a child care center in an existing office building located on Artesia Boulevard.
The residential area consists of eight lots with four fronting on Prospect Avenue and four
fronting on 24th Street. All four of the lots on Prospect Avenue are developed with duplexes,
while two of the four lots on 24th Street are developed with duplexes, and two contain single-
family dwellings. The six duplexes were developed in 1973, and the single-family dwellings
before 1950.
The subject area has a general plan designation of general commercial, and a zoning
designation of R-P, with a C-2 potential. The total area is 26,030 square feet. Lot sizes range
from 2900 to 3750 square feet. Of the eight lots, six have duplexes and two have single-family
homes. There are 14 units, with a density of23 dwelling units per acre.
The subject properties are bounded to the north by office and commercial uses fronting on
Artesia Boulevard.
The surrounding residential areas to the south and southwest are designated low density and
zoned R-1. A multiple-unit condominium is located to the west across Prospect Avenue with a
designation of high density and is zoned R-3. The residential area to the east is within the city
of Redondo Beach and is zoned R-lA
12 P.C. Minutes 3/6/90
Staff recommended the change to low density and R-1 primarily because the surrounding
residential neighborhoods are designated low density and R-1, and this neighborhood has a
similar character. This is a significant change as it would essentially downzone the properties
from R-3 to R-1. Staff believes that it would be justified because the standards of the R-1 zone in
respect to height, density, and open space will protect the single-family character of the
neighborhood and surrounding neighborhoods. Although most of the existing development
consists of duplexes, they are generally of a size and scale consistent with single-family
structures.
The existing density of the area would be more consistent with medium density and R-2
designations. Because lot sizes are less than 3500 square feet even with an R-2 zoning
classification, most of the lots would be limited to one unit, and the existing duplexes would
become nonconforming.
Mr. Schubach recommended two alternatives: (1) redesignate the subject area to medium
density residential and rezone to R-2. This would allow the two single-family lots of 3750
square feet to be developed as two units each. The duplex lots would become nonconforming
because of the small lot sizes; however, the height and open space standards would not be as
restrictive as R-1; (2) redesignate the subject area to high density residential and rezone to R-3.
This would keep the duplex lots conforming but would allow rebuilding to a 35-foot height
which would have a significant impact. The impact on overall density, however, would likely
not be too severe as to construct any more than two units per lot unless the lots were combined.
The commercial portion consists of three parcels fronting on Artesia Boulevard with uneven
depths, currently developed as a flower shop, a vacant office building, and a new office building
under construction.
The general plan designation of the subject area is general commercial, with a zoning
designation of R-P, with a C-2 potential. There are 14 lots and 3 parcels. Total area is 25,277
square feet. The parcels sizes are 7010, 6057, and 12,317 square feet.
Although the zoning along Artesia Boulevard to the west across Prospect Avenue is C-3, staff is
recommending C-2 restricted commercial zoning for the subject area because of the proximity
to residential uses. Also across Artesia Boulevard in Manhattan Beach is a church and a
nursery school. Certain C-3 general commercial uses would obviously not be appropriate for
this location.
Under current zoning, these lots could potentially be developed as high density residential.
Changing the zoning to C-3 will ensure that this highway frontage is utilized for commercial
purposes in the future.
It should be noted that nurseries, preschools, and day-care centers are permitted in the C-2
zone with a conditional use permit.
Public Hearing opened at 9:30 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
Henry Eisler, 2404 Prospect Avenue, addressed the Commission and: (1) discussed the proposed
R-P to R-1 zoning, which relates to his property, and described what is currently at this
location; (2) stated that the currently existing duplexes serve as a buffer between the street and
the residential; (3) stated that it would be inappropriate to rezone this area to R-1, especially
because of the traffic, a three-story condo across the street, and the wrapping around of the
currently existing commercial buildings on Prospect; (4) stated that the three-story condo will
overshadow other projects; (5) said that the comer parcels should not be rezoned to R-1, but
rather he would favor an R-2 designation since there are duplexes which act as a buffer.
Harvey Tempkin, 2035 Westwood Boulevard, Los Angeles. addressed the Commission and: (1)
stated that he owns the flower shop on the corner of Artesia; (2) asked for clarification on the
13 P.C. Minutes 3/6/90
height limit which would be allowed and questioned whether properties could be grandfathered
in to retain the 35-foot height; (3) stated that he is contemplating erecting a professional
building at this site, stating that R-P zoning would require a five-foot setback: whereas a
commercial designation would require eight feet. plus an additional two feet for each story,
which would total 12 feet for his proposed project; (4) asked whether he could be grandfathered
in to retain the five-foot setback as opposed to the additional setback which would be required
in commercial; (5) felt that he should not be penalized if the property is redesignated to
commercial.
Karen and Don Goldberg, 1207 24th Street, Hermosa Beach: (1) have owned their duplex for two
years, and they felt a downzoning would adversely impact their property value; (2) stated they
would rather see this rezoned to a legal duplex lot; (3) noted that their lot has ample parking,
stating that there are six spaces on-site.
William Woodson, 230 South Catalina, Redondo Beach: (1) stated that he owns a duplex in the
subject area; (2) stated that the duplexes are well-maintained and are an asset to the
neighborhood; (3) took umbrage at staffs assertion that duplexes are not appropriate in that
area; (4) felt that duplexes should act as a buffer, which these are; (5) asked that the
Commission to rezone so that if there is a catastrophe, the duplexes can be rebuilt without
having to request a variance; (6) was informed by Comm. Peirce that most of the lots are not
large enough to allow the duplexes to be rebuilt under the current zoning; (7) stated that he is
not well-informed enough with the zoning code to request the appropriate zoning, but he noted
that he would like to be able to rebuild in the event of a disaster; (8) was informed by Comm.
Peirce that his lot is large enough to rebuild only one unit unless a variance is granted; (9) felt
that a hardship would be inflicted on the owners if the zoning is changed; (10) asked whether
his property is nonconforming at the present time; (11) was advised by Mr. Schubach that even
if the property were rezoned to R-2, the lot is not large enough to rebuild two units; (12) was
advised by Mr. Schubach that R-3 zoning would allow two units to be built, but there would be
additional density and spot zoning; (13) asked why the property can't just remain R-P, noting
that it is well-maintained.
Mr. Schubach, in response to questions from Chmn. Ingell regarding the feasibility of
designating this area as a specific plan area, stated that staff could address the issue of
redesignating this area as an SPA; however, he would want to further study this suggestion
before making a recommendation to the Commission.
Henry Eisler again addressed the Commission and: (1) asked for clarification on the issue of
legal R-2 lots based on lot sizes versus legal R-3 lots; (2) asked what could be allowed on R-3 lots;
(3) asked about specific lots and what would be allowed; (4) stated that he would favor a
redesignation to R-3 in order that the duplexes could be rebuilt if necessary; (4) again pointed
out that the current duplexes serve as a buffer.
Karen Goldberg again addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that she would favor a
redesignation to R-3 so that the duplexes could be rebuilt if necessary; (2) stated that a
redesignation to R-1 would be detrimental to the buff er effect.
Gerry Compton, 200 Pier Avenue, owner of the property on the corner currently under
construction: (1) felt that the buffer between commercial and residential is necessary; (2) stated
that, except for the three R-1 split lots, this area could be redesignated to R-3; (3) agreed that
duplexes on these properties are reasonable, and he therefore did not favor R-1; (4) discussed
the issue of split lots and what could be built on them; (5) favored an R-3 designation for the
subject area; (6) stated that if the area is rezoned to R-1, there will be problems in the future
with having single-family residences abutting a commercial zone.
Public Hearing closed at 9:53 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
Comm. Peirce did not favor additional commercial creeping down Prospect. He felt that there
should be a way for people to rebuild to two units in the case of a catastrophe. He also favored
14 P.C. Minutes 3/6/90
the lots on 24th Street being able to rebuild to two units, since those properties act as a buffer
between the commercial and the R-1 property to the south. He asked how this could be
accomplished.
Mr. Schubach explained that the R-2 standards could be retained, but the allowable density
could be R-3. He suggested that the Commission, if desired, consider a specific plan area for
this entire area, including the commercial zone.
MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Rue, to adopt a specific plan area for the
residential lots, with R-2 standards and R-3 density; and to rezone the area along Artesia
Boulevard (the area which is cross-hatched on the chart) to C-2 standards; further, to specify
that building will be limited to two units per lot with R-2 standards; therefore, no combining of
lots shall be allowed.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Comms. Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ingell
None
None
None
TO RECOMMEND CERTIFICATION OF TIIE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR
THE PROPOSED OIL EXPLORATION AND PRODUCTION FACILITY AT THE CITY YARD. 555
61H STREET. AND AT THE SOUTH SCHOOL SITE. 425 VALLEY DRIVE
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated March 1, 1990. He stated that the purpose of this action is:
(1) to recommend certifying the Effi; (2) to amend the general plan open space element of the
general plan to allow for oil drilling at the City yard and South School site; (3) to amend the
zoning ordinance to permit oil drilling with a conditional use permit and a vote of the people
in the manufacturing zone and the open space zone.
Staff recommended that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council the
following: (1) certification of the Effi as being adequate and accurate with the staffs
recommended list of mitigation measures included; (2) adoption of the alternative project
utilizing the City yard as the sole location for the drilling and storage facility of oil production;
and (3) adoption of the proposed general plan and text amendments resolution necessary for oil
production at the City yard only.
Mr. Schubach noted that staff is no longer recommending that the South School site be utilized
for oil drilling.
In 1984 two oil drilling exceptions were approved by the voters. Ordinance No. 84-758 excepted
the City maintenance yard from a drilling prohibition and allows the City to drill into the
tidelands and other onshore areas within the City. To the extent that monies can be diverted
from the tidelands trust. such monies will be used for open space and parkland purposes.
Under Ordinance No. 84-759 the school district has the right to drill from the South School site
to oil and gas deposits onshore.
Once the ballot measure was approved, the City began drafting an oil code to regulate oil and
gas development by new developers.
After several drafts which were reviewed by the Oil Recovery Committee, the Planning
Commission, and the City Council, a comprehensive oil code was adopted regulating the new
oil and gas development. Any driller must obtain a conditional use permit from the City, and
drilling must take place from one or both of the voter-approved sites.
15 P.C. Minutes 3/ 6/90
After the oil code was completed, the City filed an application with the State Lands
Commission to allow for oil and gas drilling. The Commission required an Effi prior to
application approval.
The City Environmental Review Committee prepared an assessment of the impacts of drilling
for oil. A request for proposal (RFP) was then proposed for the purpose of obtaining hids for the
preparation of the Effi. The school district also had Ultrasystems prepare an Effi for chilling at
the South School site.
After preparation and review by the City staff and school staff of the two EIR's. both the City
and School District determined that a joint EIR would be appropriate and consequently had
the two documents merged into one. The joint development was found environmentally
superior to two separate operations.
Once the draft document was complete, it was distributed to State and County agencies and to
City departments for review and comment.
On July 17, 1989, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider certification of
the EIR. The matter was continued to provide for response to the public comments. At the
September 1989 meeting, additional comments were accepted and the matter was again
continued. At the November 8, 1989, meeting this matter was again continued, since the City
Council had requested that the consultants consider other alternatives to the relocation of the
City yard.
On February 5, 1990, the draft Volume m was made available to the public for 30 days. At this
time there are three volumes to the Draft EIR.: Volume 1 --the original EIR is provided in this
volume; Volume II --all the original comments and responses to comments regarding Volume
1; and Volume III --contains additional comments/responses, expanded environmental
assessment for City Maintenance Yard and consolidated project alternative, relocation of
existing City maintenance yard, expanded analysis of pipeline impacts, and proposed project
trucking plan.
Opportunity for public input has been extended beyond the minimum State requirements.
Ultimately, three opportunities totaling approximately 105 days will be provided prior to the
Planning Commissions' recommendation to certify the EIR. Further, additional public input
opportunity will be provided at the City Council public hearing.
Based on the data found with the EIR Volume m, dated February 1990, staff believes that the
alternative of placing the entire oil production facility on the City yard will significantly
reduce some of the negative impacts which could occur. Under this alternative, the South
School site will not be utilized whatsoever.
Another potential location of the drill site is at the current oil production facility in Redondo
Beach. Staff felt that these are both economic and legal factors which make this site
unfeasible. A legal opinion which the staff, including the City Attorney, concurs with, was
attached as Exhibit A
In regard to the impacts and mitigation measures for the production facility. there will be
certain temporary unavoidable adverse effects which will occur during the initial site
preparation and construction phase of the project. Short term impacts include: (1) Noise. An
increase in ambient noise levels during site preparation and exploratory phase may be
perceived; (2) Air Quality. Air emissions will result from construction equipment, truck, and
personal vehicle traffic; (3) Visual. The 135-foot derrick will be visible over a substantial
distance and from residences for several years; (4) Llght and glare. Llght from the site security
and from drilling derrick in addition to the aircraft safety lights atop the derrick will be
visible to the surrounding area; (5) Shade/ shadow. Shade from the derrick will extend from
about 177 feet from the site at the summer solstice to about 920 feet during the winter. Shadows
will be narrow and effects confined to about one hour per day for nearby properties; (6)
16 P.C. Minutes 3/6/90
J Transportation/ circulation. A potential for traffic disruption to accommodate the hauling of
material and equipment to and from the site and during pipeline construction will occur.
Long-term impacts include: (1) Air Quality. Some hydrocarbon odor may be detected
periodically; (2) Mineral resources. The project will result in an incremental contribution to
the depletion of the underlying reservoir of oil and natural gas; (3) Visual. The upper portions
of the 16-foot oil storage tanks will be visible from some locations at the City yard for the
duration of the project; (4) Utilities. The pipeline will consume space in the underground
utility corridor.
Mr. Schubach stated that staff feels that subsidence could be a potential impact; therefore,
material has been included regarding that issue. He said that mitigation measures have been
provided for this.
Mr. Schubach noted that staff has proposed an alternative to the recommendation of certifying
the EIR. with mitigation measures included. He stated that an alternative resolution which
would allow the Commission the opportunity to place conditions on the project once the
project has been approved has been provided. At that time, conditions could be imposed on the
CUP. He therefore suggested that the EIR., Volumes I-III, be certified at this time, with the
mitigation measures as shown in the document. Once the general plan and text amendments
are approved, additional stringent conditions can be imposed.
Mr. Schubach continued by explaining that the pipeline development mitigation measures are
very good. Also, it is no longer necessary to relocate the City yard; however, once the precise
location is determined, additional mitigation measures can be included.
Mr. Schubach stated that in order to implement initiatives P and Q passed by the voters, it is
necessary to amend the general plan and zoning ordinance. Although the proposed ordinance
includes discussion of allowing drilling in the open space zone, this portion of the ordinance
will not be necessary if the staffs recommendation is adopted to allow drilling only at the City
yard on industrial designated, manufacturing zoned property. In any case, the ordinance
allows oil drilling by a vote of the people and with a conditional use permit.
CEQA requires the decision-maker to balance the benefits of a proposed project against its
unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve the project. If the
benefits of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the
adverse environmental effects may be considered "acceptable."
Where the decision of the City allows the occurrence of significant effects which are identified
in the final Em but are not at least substantially mitigated, the City needs to state in writing
the specific reasons to support its action based on the final Em and/ or other information in
the record.
If the City makes a statement of overriding considerations, the statement should be included in
the record of the project approval and should be mentioned in the Notice of Determination.
The general funds of the City which will be ultimately available if the project is successful are
earmarked to buy open space. Staff believes this clearly is an overriding consideration.
Further, restricted funds which also will be available to the City may be used to maintain the
beach.
The City needs to provide findings which indicate that for each negative impact, a change or
alteration has been required which avoids or substantially lessens the effect.
The staff-recommended alternative and recommended mitigation measures clearly avoid or
reduce the effects noted within the Em except for the elimination of a natural resource; oil and
gas. Mr. Schubach stated that one overriding consideration is in regard to the tower which will
be visible for three years. He noted that there is just no way to mitigate this impact.
17 P.C. Minutes 3/6/90
Additional data regarding subsidence and alternative drill sites has been provided by
Macpherson Oil Company.
Subsidence has become a particularly important factor because of the recent revelations
regarding subsidence at Redondo Beach King Harbor. The staff has attempted to develop
conditions which are more along the lines of being preventative.
Mr. Schubach, in response to questions from Comm. Peirce, noted that staff had just today
received a letter from the State Lands Commission, dated March 6, 1990. He continued by
explaining the function of the State Lands Commission.
Mr. Lee explained that the State Lands Commission undertook a review of this EIR and
provided comments during the review period. At the last moment they faxed to the City
additional comments on the EIR. He stated that it would be appropriate to ask the
environmental consultant whether the current three volumes of the EIR adequately address
the issues raised by the State Lands Commission. He continued by more fully explaining the
purpose of the State Lands Commission.
Comm. Peirce noted that only today the City had received a letter asking that the EIR not be
certified. He asked whether the State Lands Commission actually has any jurisdiction over
this matter.
Mr. Lee responded that this particular project does not fall within the direct jurisdiction of
that agency.
Comm. Peirce stated that the individual who wrote the letter was commenting under the
letterhead of the State Lands Commission; however, that agency does not have purview, even
though the individual raised several points.
Mr. Lee, in response to questions from Comm. Rue, explained that the State Lands Commission
has purview over projects which drill into the tidelands, which this project does not propose to
do. This project proposes only onshore drilling; therefore, the State Lands Commission does
not have purview, although they do have a right to submit comments in regard to the EIR which
must receive a response.
Tom Morley addressed the Commission and discussed the issue of the State Lands Commission
and applicable California law.
Peter Cohen, 16865 Von Karmen Avenue, Irvine, representing mtrasystems Environmental
Services, addressed the Commission. He stated that the staff report was adequate. He stated
that he received the letter from the State Lands Commission only this evening, and he noted
that he feels they have adequately responded to the concerns raised by that Commission in the
current document. He said that the issues raised in the letter are not new and are redundant
and the Commission is not clear in stating its reasons for not accepting the previous responses.
For this reason, he suggested that certification be delayed so that they can further address in
detail the concerns of the State Lands Commission. A response can be prepared and reviewed
by staff and the attorney and presented to the Planning Commission at the next meeting.
Don Macpherson, representing Macpherson Oil Company, addressed the Commission and
stated that the EIR addresses both onshore and tidelands development. He therefore felt that
the State Lands Commissions' concerns should be considered. He said that he would not oppose
continuing this matter to the next meeting so that the concerns can be addressed.
Public Hearing opened at 10:27 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
Harry Kahn, 523 3rd Street, addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that he had asked that
the issue of turning radius be addressed and studied, and he does not feel that the document
18 P.C. Minutes 3/6/90
adequately covers that issue; (2) stated that he specifically had asked about the effects of a
dozen or so trucks weighing approximately 65,000 pounds and the dynamic effects of these
trucks on Valley Drive; (3) stated that he did not see this concern addressed in the document: (4)
stated that the original EIR said that trucks would come to this project between 8:00 AM. and
7:00 P.M., and there would be no truck traffic on the weekends; (5) commented that the current
EIR now asserts that truck traffic will occur on the weekends with one to three trucks daily, (6)
said that weekend truck traffic will be used for removal purposes from the site; (7) asked why
the facts on the trucks has now changed; (8) challenged IBtrasystem's position on what will be
happening at this project; (9) stated that his comment is listed in the document as Number 31;
(10) stated that the only reason for weekend truck traffic would be in case of an emergency.
Comm. Peirce noted that Mr. Kahn's comment had been addressed and is noted as response No.
207 on Page 104 of the document (Volume III) under the heading of "dynamic moving weight."
Mr. Kahn noted, however, that the issue of truck traffic has now changed from the assertions
contained in the initial document. He felt that ~ the facts should be presented.
George Sacks, 225 Valley Drive, addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that the letter from
the State Lands Commission should be addressed before a decision is made; (2) discussed the
three criteria on which that Commission bases its decisions: (3) stated that if there is not
proper drainage at the project, the project can be turned down; (4) noted that Redondo Beach is
draining Hermosa's fields, and he questioned whether the proposed project will have proper
drainage; (5) said that the State Lands Commission raised several points which have not been
fully answered; (6) commented that there is no plan for verifying and enforcing compliance
with environmental regulations, complaints, and operations; (7) noted that staff has proposed
many mitigations, however, he felt that a method of follow-up and verification on a day-to-day
basis is necessary; (8) felt that there should be a continuing program for the continual
monitoring of pollutants; (9) felt that overall the EIR is still an adversarial document for the
oil project rather than an unbiased analysis; (10) commented on an article in the L.A Times,
dated January 14, which addressed the issue that there maybe major gaps in the underground
layer of silt and clay from the aquifers, from which most of the South Bay's drinking water is
derived; (11) noted that the aquifers may not be adequate, and he continued by reading from the
actual article; (12) was not convinced that the project is safe and will not have many adverse
impacts.
Tom Morley, 516 Loma Drive, addressed the Commission and: (1) noted that he has done much
study on this issue and has submitted a great deal of information to the City; (2) stated that
additional issues will need to be addressed by the City Council; (3) stated that his comment No.
308 has not been adequately addressed; (4) discussed the CEQA criteria related to his comment
No. 308: (5) read from CEQA Section 15204; (6) stressed that alternative sites must be
adequately and thoroughly addressed: (7) felt that the project should actually be in Redondo
Beach, and he continued by discussing the revenue aspects of the project; (8) discussed Response
No. 39, stating that it is not adequate; (9) discussed the potential revenue from Redondo Beach,
and he felt that more analysis needs to be done on that issue; (10) discussed the issue of
alternatives to the proposed action, and he read from CEQA Section 15126(d); (11) stated that
the report does not address the comparative alternatives to the project; (12) stated that an
objective analysis has not been performed.
Mr. Morley went on: (1) stated that the specifics of the document are not adequate to certify; (2)
again discussed his comment No. 308 and the fact that he does not feel the response is adequate;
(3) noted that there are many different ways to obtain oil, some of which might be more
expensive, and they have not been addressed adequately, (4) continued by reading additional
sections from the CEQA guidelines in regard to mitigation measures; (5) felt that alternative
locations for the tank farm have not been addressed; (6) discussed short-term use of the project
in relation to the long-term outcome; (7) asked whether he can submit his comments in
writing.
19 P.C. Minutes 3/6/90
Mr. Lee, in response to comments by Comm Peirce, recalled that at the last Commission
meeting on this issue, the public hearing was closed off to new public input. The purpose of this
hearing is to obtain only new comments to the responses to comments previously given.
Mr. Morley stated that review of the EIR should focus on the sufficiency of the document, and
he is not giving new testimony.
Comm. Peirce stated that just because someone doesn't like the response given to his comment,
certification cannot be denied on that basis.
Mr. Schubach stated that it is now the decision of the Commission to determine whether or not
the EIR is certifiable. He noted that the review period has already been extended several times;
therefore, new information should not be taken. He stated that additional new data on the
adequacy of the EIR is not appropriate at this time since the time period has elapsed.
Mr. Morley stated that he thought certification of the EIR was being addressed at this time; he
merely wanted to share his information on why the document is not certifiable. He requested
that the State Lands Commission letter (dated March 6, 1990) be included in the record. He also
requested that he be allowed to submit written comments as to why the EIR is not certifiable.
Mr. Lee stated that there is nothing to prevent Mr. Morley from submitting his written
comments to the City Council, should the Commission recommend certification of the EIR.
Public Hearing closed at 10:55 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
Comm. Peirce felt that the only outstanding issue appears to be the letter received today from
the State Lands Commission; however, he felt that the consultants have adequately answered
all of the questions that have been raised. He therefore did not feel it would be appropriate to
delay certification for another two weeks because of the letter. He noted that the State Lands
Commission had ample time in which to submit a response; however, they waited until the
very last moment.
Comm. Rue questioned whether sufficient information has been given related to the specific
facts and figures requested by CEQA He said that he was not certain that he feels comfortable
recommending certification at this time. He was not certain that this is a true, complete, and
independent EIR.
Chmn. Ingell agreed with Comm. Rue and noted that the applicant has suggested that the
matter be continued to allow time to respond to the comments raised by the State Lands
Commission.
Comm. Moore asked what additional, specific data is desired. He stated that there are bound to
be potential negative impacts; however, he feels that the document has adequately specified
those impacts. He noted that the study should propose mitigation measures for the impacts,
and he felt that the document proposes adequate mitigation measures. He did not feel that the
Commission could be enlightened much more on this issue, noting that this matter has been
studied for many months. He stated that the City owes a responsibility to the applicant to
render a timely decision. He felt that the study and the Commission have performed their duty.
He anticipated in-depth study on additional issues at the City Council level. He stated that he is
ready to support recommending approval of this EIR.
Comm. Rue noted that Mr. Macpherson has agreed to a continuation in order to address the
concerns raised by the State Lands Commission, which appear to be quite specific. He stated
that the concerns raised are related to safety, and he felt that additional information is
necessary.
Mr. Schubach noted that the proposed resolution states that this project will be subject to
additional conditions being placed on it if determined necessary.
20 P.C. Minutes 3/6/90
Comm. Peirce maintained that the six items contained in the State Lands Commission letter
are adequately addressed in the document.
Comm. Ketz stated that she could not support delaying this action unless very specific requests
are made. She noted that there are three very comprehensive documents related to the issue,
and she felt that the issues have been adequately addressed. She further noted that during the
conditional use pennit process additional conditions and mitigation measures can be placed
on this project if they are deemed necessary.
Mr. Lee clarified for the benefit of the Commission the CEQA requirements for EIR approval.
He advised that projects are not to be studied ad infinitum, but rather that the issues should be
adequately addressed and mitigation measures be recommended. He further noted that the
project will be studied by many other agencies as the project goes through the normal
processes. He suggested that a condition be included requiring that the operator consent to
additional review if there are changed circumstances or conditions which would warrant
further environmental review.
Tom Morley again addressed the Commission and read from Section 15146 of the CEQA
guidelines regarding the degree of specificity for projects.
Comm. Rue noted that other agencies, as well as the City Council, will study this project in
more detail. Therefore, he could support approval at this time.
MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Moore, to recommend approval of the
alternative Resolution P.C. 90-18, with the amendment that Item B be modified to state:
" ... thus reducing substantially the potential adverse impacts as noted above."
Comm. Peirce noted that the alternate resolution provides for the imposition of additional
conditions and constraints in the future if deemed necessary after further study.
Mr. Schubach clarified that many of the conditions are required by the oil ordinance; however,
additional conditions may also be imposed. He noted that the motion on the floor would
include all conditions included in Volumes I through III of the report as well as future proposed
conditions.
Mr. Lee advised that approval of this motion does not preclude the Commission from further
discussion on environmental issues at the time the conditional use permit is addressed.
Chmn. Ingell stated that he would vote against the motion, based on the fact that both
Ultrasystems and the oil company representative had requested that the matter be continued
so that the concerns raised in the letter from the State Lands Commission could be addressed.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Rue
Chmn. Ingell
None
None
Mr. Lee, in response to comments from Chmn. Ingell, stated that, even though not legally
required, it would be appropriate to include in the text of the resolution the dates of all public
hearings held on this matter.
TEXT AMENDMENT TO GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING ORDINANCE TO PERMIT OIL AND GAS
DRILLING AND PRODUC110N WHEN ALLOWED BY A VOIE OF nm PEOPLE
Mr. Schubach gave staff report. He stated that the general plan is being amended to allow for
oil and gas drilling and production when allowed by a vote of the people.
21 P.C. Minutes 3/6/90
Public Hearing opened at 11:24 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
Tom Morley, 516 Loma Drive, addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that this action will
change allowable uses on a particular piece of land; (2) discussed environmental law, which
states that the matters are not supposed to be separated; (3) read from the California Primer on
Environmental Law provided by the State of California in regard to chopping up projects; (4)
said that the example given in the law primer specifically addresses this particular project.
Public Hearing closed at 11:28 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve staff's recommendation,
Resolution P.C. 90-19, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE
AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING TO IMPLEMENT INITIATIVES P AND Q
THEREFORE ALLOWING OIL DRILLING AT THE CITY YARD.
Chmn. Ingell explained that he would vote against the motion, based on the fact that the
consultant and applicant both favored a continuance of this matter.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Rue
Chmn. Ingell
None
None
Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Comm. Peirce, explained what will occur next in
regard to this matter.
STAFF ITEMS
a) Planning Department Activity Report of January 1990
No action taken.
b) Tentative Future Planning Commission Agenda
No action taken.
c) City Council Minutes of Februmy 5 and 13. 1990
No action taken.
COMMISSIONER ITEMS
Comm. Moore pointed out that the first City Council meeting in April falls on the first night of
Passover. He asked staff to advise the City Manager of this fact to determine whether there is
any City policy on meetings falling on significant religious holidays.
Comm. Peirce suggested the formation of an ad hoc committee composed of local architects and
developers who could make recommendations to the City in regard to issues such as height,
bulk, design, and development standards. He felt that architecturally creative ideas, which
would also mitigate negative impacts, would be quite beneficial for the future of the City. He
suggested that staff send a letter to the Chamber of Commerce advising of the fonnation of such
a committee. He suggested that areas of discussion be limited to the R-1, R-2, and R-3 zones. He
22 P.C. Minutes 3/6/90
I
further suggested that a workshop meeting be held between the committee and the Commission
to discuss these matters; the public could also be invited to provide input.
MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Rue, to direct staff to initiate the formation of
the above-mentioned ad hoc committee. No objections; so ordered.
Chmn. Ingell noted that one of the applicants who appeared this evening stated that he had
previously read and understand the conditions of his CUP; however, upon further questioning,
it was clear that he was not aware of the conditions. He asked whether there is a way staff can
ensure that applicants actually read and understand the proposed ,conditions. He suggested
that the applicants sign each condition as it is read.
Mr. Schubach stated that staff can thoroughly review the conditions with each applicant to
ensure that the applicants are aware of the conditions.
Comm. Peirce suggested that a copy of Commander Altfeld's letter regarding calling 911 be sent
to the Easy Reader for informational purposes.
MOTION by Chmn. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Rue, to adjourn at 11:43 P.M. No objections; so
ordered.
CER11FICATION
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 March
6, 1990.
Date
23 P.C. Minutes 3/6/90
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CI'IY OF HERMOSA BEACH
HELD ON MARCH 20, 1990, AT 7:00 P.M. IN THE CI'IY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Meeting called to order at 7 :02 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
Pledge of Allegiance led by Comm. Ketz.
ROILCAIL
Present:
Absent:
Comms. Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Chmn. Ingell
Comm.Rue
Also Present: Michael Schubach, Planning Director; Edward Lee, Assistant City
Attorney; Sally White, Recording Secretary
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MOTION by Comm. Moore, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve the minutes of March 6, 1990,
as written. No objections; so ordered.
APPROVAL OF RESOLUTIONS
MOTION by Comm. Moore, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to approve Resolution P.C. 90-13, A
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH,
CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO
ELIMINATE THE 17-FOOT PARKING REQUIREMENT ON ALLEYS AND ADOPTION OF A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION. No objections; so ordered.
MOTION by Comm. Moore, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve Resolution P.C. 90-16, A
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH,
CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING AMENDING THE LAND USE MAP OF THE GENERAL PLAN
FOR AREAS AS DESCRIBED BELOW AND SHOWN ON THE ATTACHED MAP AND
RECOMMENDING AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. No objections; so
ordered.
MOTION by Comm. Moore, secon d ed by Comm. Ketz, to approve Resolution P.C. 90-17, A
RESOLUTION OF THE PL ANNIN G COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH,
CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING AMENDING THE ZONING MAP BY CHANGING TIIE ZONE
FOR THE AREAS AS DESCRIBED BELOW AND SHOWN ON THE ATTACHED MAP AND
RECOMMENDING AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. No objections; so
ordered.
MOTION by Comm. Ketz, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to approve Resolution P.C. 90-18, A
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH,
CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING CERTIFICATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT FOR A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND TEXT AMENDMENT FOR OIL
PRODUCTION AND PIPELINE CONSTRUCTION; AND ALSO RELOCATION OF TIIE CI1Y YARD.
No objections; so ordered.
MOTION by Comm. Ketz. seconded by Comm. Peirce. to approve Resolution P.C. 90-19, A
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH,
CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE GENERAL
PLAN AND ZONING TO IMPLEMENT INITIATIVES P AND Q THEREFORE ALLOWING OIL
DRILLING AT THE CI1Y YARD. No objections; so ordered.
1 P.C. Minutes 3/20/90
MOTION by Comm. Ketz, seconded by Chmn. Ingell, to approve Resolution P.C. 90-20, A
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH,
CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, AS AMENDED, AND
ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO ALLOW OFF-SALE GENERAL ALCOHOLIC
BEVERAGES AT 74 PIER AVENUE, "ROBERT'S LIQUOR," AND LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT
14, BLOCK 12, 1RACT4340, HERMOSA BEACH. No objections; so ordered.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC
Howard Longacre, 1221 7th Place, addressed the Commission and: (1) asked questions
regarcling Resolution P .C. 90-13 and the tandem parking; (2) asked whether Commission
meetings fall under the Brown Act: (3) noted that Comm. Peirce has served on the Planning
Commission for many years and suggested that he now step down to allow others to serve· (4)
passed out a drawing he prepared of the "Bathhouse Blocks" hotel; (5) stated that the hotel
renderings being distributed show palm trees towering 30 to 40 percent taller than the building
itself, and he questioned whether any orclinances address the issue of view blockage caused by
trees; (6) discussed Comm. Peirce's comment at a previous meeting suggesting the fonnation of
an ad hoc committee to address issues such as building bulk, and he strongly felt that such a
study should include the commercial areas as well as residential.
AN EXCEPTION FROM SECTION 13-7(B) TO ALLOW A REMODEL AND EXPANSION TO AN
EXISTING NONCONFORMING SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING OF GREA'IER THAN 50 PERCENT
INCREASE IN VALUATION AT 1570 PROSPECT AVENUE (CONTINUED FROM MEETING OF
MARCH 6. 1990)
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated February 28, 1990. Staff recommended denial of this
request.
The project is located in the R-1 zone and has a general plan designation of low density
residential. The lot size is 2910 square feet and exists as a single-family dwelling. The existing
building area is 1061 square feet, and the proposed addition is 1043 square feet.
The applicant is requesting to remodel and expand an existing nonconforming single-family
dwelling. The addition to the existing structure would result in a three-bedroom and three-
bath house with 214 7 square feet.
The subject property is triangular in shape, tapering from a width of 39 feet along Prospect
Avenue to a width of 18 feet at its rear. It slopes up from Prospect Avenue on a grade of about
nine percent. The lot is adjacent to a portion of the water company property which currently
serves as an access road between Prospect Avenue and Golden Avenue.
The house is currently nonconforming because the garage is set back from the front property
line only two • feet rather than the required 1 7 feet for garages and the required ten feet
applicable to all structures. Also, one of the sideyard setbacks is only 2. 7 feet.
Staff recognizes that the garage is set back approximately 15 feet from the edge of the sidewalk
because of the wide right-of-way of Prospect. This currently allows enough room for the
parking of a compact car. However, this is the type of situation that should not be encouraged
as it makes possible the overhanging of cars onto the sidewalk.
The applicant is requesting Planning Commission approval, pursuant to Section 13-7(b), to
allow an addition to this nonconforming structure which is greater than 50 percent of existing
replacement value. Staff previously calculated that the proposal involves an
addition/ remodel equal to 102. 7% of replacement value; as such, the applicant has revised the
plan and it now calculates as 99.75% of replacement value. Section 13-7(b) allows up to a 100%
increase.
2 P.C. Minutes 3/20/90
The proposal includes remodeling the entire first-level living area and a portion of the garage
and the addition of 1043 square feet of floor area on the second level. No additional parking is
provided.
Pursuant to Section 13-7(b). in order to approve this request, the Planning Commission must
make a finding that the goals, intent, and purpose of this article are being met. It is clear from
the plans and the elevations that the proposal essentially involves a complete gutting of the
existing first floor, the addition of an entire second floor, and a complete change in the exterior
appearance. As such, staff does not believe this project meets the intent or the goals of the
nonconforming ordinance. For example, Section 13-0(d) under "General Goals" states: "To
prohibit the remodeling and e:J1."J)ansion of such buildings which by current standards are
considered either exceptionally undersized, dilapidated, significantly over-dense, or do not
meet the minimal standards of parking and setback."
Since the applicant seems willing to conduct almost a complete overhaul of the existing
substandard structure, it seems that the project should be designed to bring it up to the current
standards.
Hearing opened at 7:15 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
Larry Peha, 67 14th Street, applicant, addressed the Commission and commented on the staff
report. He said that this project is not a complete overhaul; rather, it is an addition of more
than 50 percent and a remodel of the existing area.
Mr. Peha said that the major issue is that of the setbacks on Prospect Avenue. He said there is
currently a grandfathered two-foot setback; however, he noted that other setbacks along
Prospect are similarly quite small or nonexistent in some cases. He stated that this lot is not a
normal lot for the street, explaining that it tapers off to 18 feet at the rear. To require a 17-foot
setback would therefore impose a great hardship on this property owner. not only in terms of
the shoring, but also in regard to what could be done design-wise.
Mr. Peha discussed the currently existing very small two-car garage and stated that it will be
upgraded to make it usable for two cars.
Mr. Peha said that they are proposing the addition of a second story, which is only natural
since the property is being upgraded. He said that the second floor will be approximately 1000
square feet. The existing first floor will be upgraded to new construction standards. This will
not be a large house. but rather will be only 2000 square feet. He noted that many condos are
much larger than what is being proposed for this project.
Mr. Peha commented that this ordinance does allow an increase of up to 100 percent. with
Planning Commission review. He explained that the project could be reduced somewhat in
size, if so desired by the Commission.
Mr. Peha, in response to questions from Comm. Peirce, explained that after the remodel and
expansion, what will remain is the existing floor, an existing garage, the existing retaining
walls, and almost all of the perimeter walls. Interior, non-bearing partition walls will be
removed to reconfigure the rooms. The bulk of the exterior perimeter walls will remain as they
currently exist.
Mr. Peha, in response to a question from Chmn. Ingell, explained that consideration was given
to tearing down the house and starting over; however, it would then become necessary to
provide a 17-foot setback. Problems would then be encountered, especially since this lot has a
fairly steep slope. Also, the house would then become the only one on the street with a 17 -foot
setback.
3 P.C. Minutes 3/20/90
Mr. Peha passed out photographs depicting the setbacks of various properties along Prospect
Avenue.
Gerry Compton, 200 Pier Avenue. addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that he thought
this ordinance provided for expansions of up to 100 percent, with Planning Commission
approval; (2) stated that the Commission is empowered by the nonconforming section of the
ordinance to approve this request, whether or not the setbacks are in conformance: (3)
e~-plained that the reasoning behind the nonconforming section of the ordinance is to make
exceptions for such projects such as this; (4) noted that this project has not exceeded the 100
percent allowed by the code; (5) commented that the fact that this property has no 17-foot
setback is not relevant to the decision to be made here; (6) asserted that the decision should be
based on the fact that this is a triangular-shaped piece of property and one which is difficult to
do anything with; (7) stated that the applicant's request is reasonable; (8) stated that this is the
ordinance approved by the City Council, not the one desired by the Planning Commission and
staff; (9) said that if this project were bulldozed, the City would be faced with a project of 3000
square feet, not one of 2000 square feet, which is being requested by this applicant; (10) noted
that exceptions must be approved, or else people will be building much larger projects than the
one being proposed.
Hearing closed at 7:25 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
Mr. Schubach, in response to questions from Comm. Ketz, explained that if someone wants to
extend a nonconforming sideyard, staff would examine the rest of the block to determine if the
sideyard is typical of the street and would then consider allowing the nonconformity. He noted
that this project, however, is not extending a nonconforming sideyard; the current sideyard is
merely being retained, as understood by staff.
Mr. Peha discussed the sideyard and explained that the nonconfonning sideyard is only at one
point of the lot, at the corner of the house, and is not being extended.
Comm.. Peirce felt that the intent of this ordinance is to allow up to a 50 percent addition. He
noted that people in the past have almost totally razed existing structures, left one wa,11
standing, and asserted that the project was a "remodel." He said that the ordinance was an
attempt to prevent such occurrences from happening in the City. He felt that this is a case
where someone is attempting to do that, where a great deal is removed and there is a
substantial remodel of the property. He noted that property in the City is quite valuable, and
people want to build more than is allowed by the zoning ordinance, so they look for loopholes
in the code. He said there are cases where property is sold to people with a promise that things
can be done to the property which are not allowed in the code. He stated that be would therefore
vote against approval of this request.
Comm. Peirce stated that many people want new houses but do not want to provide the required
17 -foot setback. The fact that others on the street do not have a 17 -foot setback carries no
weight in his decision making on this issue. He felt that each project should be judged solely as
an individual project on the street. He said that the idea for the setback off of this street was to
provide parking and to have new projects conform.
Comm.. Moore felt that this project is making an attempt to conform. He noted that the lot is
triangular-shaped and there is a steep slope. He noted that this configuration can present
problems related to the garage and driveway. He therefore felt a compromise would be in order
for this project. He said that to move the retaining walls two feet to comply with the setback
requirements would be quite a hardship and would be very costly. He did not feel that this is an
attempt to avoid the requirements; therefore, he could support approval of the request. He also
noted that the project will remain within the current building lines. He felt that the issue of the
nonconforming sideyard is trivial in this case, since it occurs at only a single point along the
structure. He felt that there could be special construction difficulties with this lot in the area of
the parking. In this case, he did not feel that the lack of the 1 7 -foot setback is a crisis for the
City.
4 P.C. Minutes 3/20/90
Chmn. Ingell concurred with the comments made by Comm. Moore. He felt that this lot has
special circumstances due to the 18-foot rear portion and the nine percent grade. These factors
would make it difficult to construct a new two-car garage. The only alternative he could see
would be to provide tandem parking; although, he does not feel that tandem parking is
effective. He did note concern that the project will provide only two parking spaces, and he
recollected that at the previous Commission meeting, the Commission recommended that the
17-foot setback requirement be eliminated but that three spaces be required for all single-
family homes. Compliance would therefore not be possible for this project. He did feel that the
request should be approved.
Comm. Ketz stated that she could support approval of this request, based on the fact that the
new home will be only 2000 square feet and the fact that this is an unusually-shaped lot with
only 18 feet in the rear.
Comm. Peirce noted that if this were a new project, the 17-foot setback would be required
unless a variance were approved. He urged the Commissioners to analyze whether this is a
remodel or new construction.
Comm. Moore noted, however, that if this were a new house. he could make the fmdings to
waive the 17-foot setback requirement, based on the fact of the unusual lot size and the 18-foot
rear of the lot.
MOTION by Comm. Moore, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve the exception from Section 13-
7(B) to allow a remodel and expansion to an existing nonconforming single-family dwelling of
greater than 50% increase in valuation at 1570 Prospect Avenue.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Ketz, Moore, Chmn. Ingell
Comm. Peirce
None
Comm.Rue
AN EXCEPTION FROM SECTION 13-7(B) TO ALLOW A REMODEL AND EXPANSION TO AN
EXISTING NONCONFORMING SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING OF GREA'IER THAN 50 PERCENT
INCREASE INV ALUATION AT 2624 THE STRAND [CONTINUED FROM MEETING OF MARCH
6,1990)
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated February 28, 1990. Staff recommended denial of the
request because the proposed addition will continue an existing nonconforming setback for an
additional floor.
This proje~t is in the R-1 zone. with a general plan designation of low density residential. The
lot size is 2850 square feet. The existing use is as a single-family residence. The existing
building area is 2320 square feet, and the proposed addition is 965 square feet.
The applicant is requesting to remodel and expand an existing nonconforming single-family
dwelling. The addition to the existing structure will result in a five-bedroom and four and a
half bath house with 3280 square feet.
The house is currently nonconforming for three reasons. The front setback on The Strand is
2.5 feet, rather than the required 9.5 feet. The setback on Hermosa Avenue is also considered a
front setback, pursuant to Policy Statement P.C. 88-1, and it is currently three feet, rather than
9.5 feet. Also, the garage setback is three feet, rather than the required 17 feet.
The applicant needs Planning Commission approval, pursuant to Section 13-7(b) of the
nonconforming provisions, to allow an addition to a nonconforming structure which is
greater than 50% of the existing replacement value. Staff has calculated that the proposal
5 P.C. Minutes 3/20/90
involves an addition/remodel equal to 57% of replacement value. The proposal includes
remodeling the entire second level and a portion of the ground level, the addition of 965 square
feet of floor area and 655 square feet of deck area on a third level, the addition of a roof deck,
and the expansion of the garage for three cars.
Pursuant to Section 13-7(c), any new portions of a nonconfonning structure must comply with
the setback requirements. The proposed second-story addition, however, is set back only three
feet from Hermosa Avenue. The applicant was advised of these problems prior to submitting
the application, but he insisted that the policy statement was intended to allow Strand
frontage to count as open space. not to restrict the setbacks on the Hermosa Avenue side. It is
staffs position that the Planning Commission does not have the authority to waive these
requirements unless an application for a variance is submitted. Even if it were determined
that the Planning Commission has the authority to make exceptions to policy statements.
staff does not believe that this would be an appropriate case for it.
Additionally, the third-level deck railing encroaches into the front setback on The Strand. It
is located 2.5 feet from the property line, rather than 9.5 feet.
Pursuant to Section 13-7(b), in order to approve this request, the Planning Commission must
make a finding that the goals, intent, and purpose of this article are being met. Since the
provisions of the code are not being met, staff is recommending denial. If the project was
modified to comply with the Hermosa Avenue front setback requirement, a finding for
approval probably could be made.
Hearing opened at 7:39 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
Steve Collett, 2624 The Strand, applicant, addressed the Commission. He explained that he
wants to remodel and create a single-family dwelling with a three-car garage, and that the
project will be under the 25-foot height limit.
Mr. Collett stated that the structures on either side of his house are 35 to 40 feet high. The
structures to the north of his property are multi-unit dwellings. He said that his property has
an open railing at the second level on The Strand side. New construction will start 27 feet back
from this railing; therefore, there will be very little view blockage since the houses on either
side of his are much higher.
Mr. Collett discussed the setback issue and stated that the setback would block no views
because the people on the hill behind his property would be in compliance with height
restrictions. Surrounding houses are larger and higher than the one being proposed. He also
stated that the adjacent house is built right to the property line.
Gerry Compton, 200 Pier Avenue, project architect, addressed the Commission and: (1) said
that he has concern over the policy statement at issue, explaining that as chairman of the
Planning Commission, he signed the statement; (2) explained that he thought the policy
statement related to new projects which use the front yard as open space, but allowing a
tradeoff for Strand properties to use Hermosa Avenue for the required front setback, which
this project does; (3) continued by discussing the effect of this policy statement on existing
single-family residences which provide open space in the middle of the property; (4) stated that
in this case open space must be provided in the center of the property, on the ground, and be
open to the sky; (5) discussed the site plans for the proposed project.
Mr. Compton went on and: (1) discussed the project and stated that the policy statement should
not be applied to remodels, but only to new construction;(2) said that the statement is very
difficult to work with in remodels where existing square footage is being added; (3) explained
the project, stating that two bedrooms will be removed in the existing house, and it is being
requested to add three new bedrooms upstairs; (4) stated that this house is not unusually large
for this area; (5) said that even though this house does not have a 17-foot setback, it has three
6 P.C. Minutes 3/20/90
parking spaces which he felt is preferable; (6) said that they are conforming t o the intent of the
code; (7) passed out photographs depicting the properties on either side of this project.
Mr. Compton continued and: (1) stated that this house is actually in a canyon, because the
neighbors on each side have much higher houses; (2) said that the policy statement is not being
correctly interpreted, and he hoped that the Commission would modify the statement to refer
only to new construction or else set the statement aside so that it can be studied; (3) stated that
he was not informed by anyone in either the planning or building departments that there
would be a problem with the open space; (4) said that no one in the planning department ever
mentioned this policy statement; (5) said that the requirements should be clearly stated in the
zoning code so that problems do not arise; (6) continued by discussing the proposed open space
and the roof deck and railing; (7) said that the house next door has an encroachment pennit
ihto the public right-of-way; (8) said that he is looking for a reasonable way to allow for a
reasonable request; (9) asked what the Commission's purview is related to a policy statement
versus an ordinance, to which Mr . Lee responded that the language in the policy statement
appears to be clear; (10) discussed the fact of whether or not The Strand side of the property can
be included in the open space calculations.
Mr. Schubach clarified the intent of the statement, and he explained that good zoning practice
dictates which side of the property should be used for the open space calculations so that there
is uniformity and to protect adjacent properties; this policy statement was an outcome of those
concerns. He continued by explaining that The Strand has always been counted as the front
yard; however, if open space cannot be in the front yard, an exception would need to be made for
Strand properties so that people would not turn their houses around the other way in order to
obtain the required open space area on another side. He stated that there is a section in the
zoning ordinance that does make reference to the various policy statements.
Mr. Schubach continued by explaining the required setbacks and stated that any new
construction is required to meet the code. The building department, however, is now requiring
front yard setbacks on any project, whether old or new. He noted that in this particular
instance, the Commission may want to make an exception to this Strand property. If an
exception is desired, it would be necessary for staff to study the issue further.
Mr. Compton continued and: ( 1) stated that if staff is going to determine which is the front yard
and which is the rear yard, staff should designate each of the lots individually, since there are
not very many which would fall under this policy, so that people do not have to give up ten
percent on both ends of the lots on through lots; (2) commented that he does not like the policy
statement, explaining that he thought it pertained only to new projects; (3) discussed the
proposed roof line of the garage, stating that it is within the intent; (4) discussed open space and
said that the open space which will be used is that towards The Strand; (5) said that 600 square
feet of open space is being provided at the upper level; (6) said that the real problem is with the
required 300 square feet of open space on the ground level and open to the sky; (7) stated that
there are conflicting requirements which drastically limit what can be done with the property;
(8) stated that the request is reasonable and within the intent of the law.
Norm Quient, 2630 The Strand, neighbor to the north of this project, addressed the
Commission and: (1) opposed this project because it will block out his light and air; (2) noted
that there is quite a mix of houses along The Strand with various setbacks; (3) said that the
subject property is a square with no offsets, and it appears that they are attempting to add a
third story; (4) said that the requirements should be followed to protect light and air; (5) passed
out photos depicting the properties in question; (6) said that his property is a nonconfonning
four-unit structure; (7) noted that he has not had an opportunity to view the proposed plans; (8)
stated that his open space is not on The Strand, but rather 25 feet back; (9) said that his
property was built in 1928.
Howard Longacre, 1221 7th Place, addressed the Commission and: (1) favored approval of the
request, since the proposed addition is not extreme, there are very large buildings on each side
7 P.C. Minutes 3/20/90
of this property, and additional garage space will be added; and (2) stated that the project will be
an improvement to the area.
Pearl Hoyt, Hermosa Beach, opposed the project because it will block her white water view.
Pauline Quient, 2630 The Strand, addressed the Commission and: (1) strongly opposed the
project because it will block her light and air; (2) objected to the deck because it will be right
n ext to her b edroom window; (3) s tated that this is not the applicant's full-time residence and it
appears to be a "party house"; and, (4) opposed parties on the deck where people could fall off
onto The Strand and create liability problems for the City.
Mr. Collett clarified that this house is indeed his full-time residence. He emphasized that he is
adding only a three-foot open railing, back quite a distance from the houses on either side. The
garage will only be going up 18 inches. His house will still be drarwfed by the houses on either
side of this project.
Hearing closed at 8:09 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Comm. Ketz, stated that even if this project were
proposing an addition of less than 50 percent, it would still need approval because of the
setback issue as delineated in the policy statement. Any new or old construction, according to
the statement, needs the required setback on the second floor.
Comm. Peirce noted difficulty with this project since there are no setbacks on either side of the
property. He felt that the issue of which side is the front or rear is not relevant since there are
no proper setbacks. He noted that the project has three parking spaces and is below the 25-foot
height limit. He stated that he could support this project if the plans were slightly modified.
Since there is no construction in the front, he felt that they have met the intent of the new law;
however, the intent is not being met in the rear. He felt that there are plusses and minuses to
this project; however, he felt that this is another case where someone is attempting to
maximize the structure on the property.
Comm. Moore did not feel there are any special circumstances related to this property;
therefore, he intended to be fairly strict in his interpretation of the policy statement. He felt
that all areas of the City need to be protected equally, and this project does not meet the intent
of the code; therefore, he stated that he could not support approval of this request.
Chmn. Ingell noted that the project provides three parking spaces, which is a plus; however, it
does not meet the setback requirements. He agreed that there are no unusual circumstances
related to this lot, and findings can therefore not be made for approval.
Mr. Lee, in response to a question from Comm. Ketz, explained that the Commission is now
addressing an exception to a policy statement regarding the nonconfonning provisions. He
clarified that this is not a variance request. He continued by explaining the Commission's
purview over the policy statement and its ability to interpret the statement.
Mr. Compton stated that it is possible to modify the plans, if so desired by the Commission. He
said that alterations could be made in regard to the roof line in order to reach a compromise.
Also, the setback off of Hermosa Avenue could be removed. He again noted that there are
problems because of the open space in the center of the property.
Mr. Schubach stated that if the plans are revised, staff would prefer to review the plans;
therefore, he suggested that the matter be continued.
Chmn. Ingell favored a continuance so that the applicant can revise the plans, stating that he
cannot support the project as it is currently presented.
8 P.C. Minutes 3/20/90
MOTION by Chmn. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to continue this matter to the meeting of
April 3, 1990, in order to allow the applicant time to prepare alternative designs.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Chmn. Ingell
None
None
Comm.Rue
Recess taken from 8: 18 P.M. until 8:25 P.M.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A RETAIL SNACK SHOP, GAS POMP, AND CAR WASH, AND
ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 931 PACIFIC COAST filGHWAY. MOBIL OIL
STATION <CONIINUED FROM MEETINGS OF 1 /3/90, 2/6/90. AND 2 /20/90)
Mr. Schubach stated that staff recommends this matter be continued, noting that additional
materials had been received only today and there bas not been time to fully review the new
information. A continuance will also provide the applicant time to submit the noise study as
requested by the Planning Commission at their previous meeting.
Chmn. Ingell agreed that a continuance would be appropriate in order to allow the
Commissioners time to study the new material.
Mr. Lee suggested that the public hearing be opened so that people who cannot attend the next
meeting may have an opportunity to speak on the matter at this time; the hearing can then be
continued.
Mr. Schubach stated that he would not be giving a staff report at this time, noting that the
matter will be continued to a future meeting.
Chmn. Ingell requested that only those who cannot attend the next public hearing to speak on
this issue approach the podium this evening.
Brian Rechsteiner, 9891 Vicksburg Drive, Huntington Beach, r e pre s enting the applicant,
addressed the Commission and concurred with staffs recommendation that this matter b e
continued so that the sound study can be completed. He stated that a continuance to April 3,
1990, would be acceptable to him.
Mr. Schubach advised that the agenda for April 3 is already quite full; he therefore suggested
that this item be continued to April 17, 1990.
Public Hearing opened at 8:27 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
Lou Bourgeois, 910 1st Street, Manhattan Beach, addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that
he and his wife operate the Magic Rainbow Preschool which is adjacent to the Mobil Car Wash
in Manhattan Beach; (2) advised that hearings were held in Manhattan Beach regarding that
car wash, at which time conditions were imposed on the CUP requiring that the car wash was
not to operate unless the doors were closed; (3) stated that at no time since the end of last
October have the doors of the car wash worked; (4) stressed that there is a falsehood in regard to
Mobil's concerns over the proper operation of the doors; (5) noted that the City of Manhattan
Beach bad advised Mobil in writing that they would be closed down unless they complied with
the CUP requirements, and as of March 19 the car wash was closed down by the City; (6) urged
the Commission to use caution in approving this request.
Howard Longacre, 1221 7th Place, addressed the Commission and: (1) noted concern that this
hearing has been continued several times , and he felt that matters should be renoticed after
two continuances so that people are aware of what is occurring; (2) noted concern that the car
9 P.C. Minutes 3/20/90
wash in Manhattan Beach was not in compliance and Mobil had no interest in correcting the
problems; (3) stated that he totally objects to the proposed car wash because the noise is
intolerable; (4) said that there should be no more than three gas pumps because of the hazard
potential; and, (5) stated that the proposed use will be too intense.
Gloria Kolesar, 714 and 726 10th Street, addressed the Commission and: (1) explained that she
retained a sound consultant to prepare a noise study for the proposed Mobil Car Wash, copies of
which had been given to the Commissioners; (2) stated that she went to a great deal of trouble to
have this report prepared; (3) said that the noise emanating from the project will be too intense;
(4) explained how she went to a Mobil Car Wash in the City of Corona and the fact that the doors
did not operate properly at that location either; (5) said that she made a 15-minute videotape at
the car wash in Corona, which she wanted to show to the Commission; (6) directed that the
videotape be started, at which time the tape began playing over the cable channel.
Chmn. Ingell directed that the playing of the videotape be halted immediately. He explained to
Mrs. Kolesar that no one was aware that a tape was to be played at the meeting; he questioned
how this tape was being aired; and he informed Mrs. Kolesar that the meetings follow
prescribed procedures.
Mr. Lee suggested that this tape not be accepted as evidence at this time; and that the public
hearing be continued to a future meeting.
Comm. Moore stated that he would prefer to study the new materials before taking new
evidence, such as Mrs. Kolesar was attempting to present.
Mrs. Kolesar countered that the videotape will supplement the new written materials presented
to the Commission. She said that she may not be able to attend the next meeting; therefore, she
wanted the Commissioners to view the tape at this time.
Comm. Peirce did not think it was necessary for the Commission to view a 15-minute tape of
the car wash, since all of the Commissioners had gone to the Manhattan Beach site.
MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Chmn. Ingell, to deny Mrs. Kolesar pennission to show
the 15-minute video.
Comm. Moore stated that he would support the motion, explaining that all of the
Commissioners have gone to a Mobil Car Wash to view the operation, and a visit is much more
accurate than a tape. He also felt that the showing of a 15-minute video would be excessive at a
Planning Commission meeting.
Mr. Lee suggested that Mrs. Kolesar submit the tape to the Planning Commission as evidence. If
the Commissioners so choose, they can either view the tape at the continued public hearing or
they can view it at City Hall at their convenience.
AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION by Comm Peirce as maker and agreed to by Chmn. Ingell as
second, to deny pennission to show the videotape at this time; but to direct that the video be
made available so that people can view it at City Hall if so desired.
Chmn. Ingell asked Mrs. Kolesar what information is in the video which cannot be obtained by
actually going to the site.
Mrs. Kolesar stated that the video shows the car wash from various locations on the streets; it
is possible to actually hear the noise from the car wash on the video; the video gives an
opportunity for other people in the City to see the car wash in operation; and the video gives a
good indication of what can be expected at the proposed location.
P.C. Minutes 3/20/90
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Chmn. Ingell
None
None
Comm.Rue
Mrs. Kolesar stated that she went to a great deal of trouble to prepare this video, and she was
disappointed that she was not allowed to show it.
MOTION by Chmn. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Moore, to continue this public hearing to the
meeting of April 3, 1990.
Shu Miho, 731 9th Street, addressed the Commission and: (1) opposed the planned 9th Street
approach to the proposed car wash which is directly next to her driveway; (2) felt that the
approach is hazardous and will create fumes; (3) stated that the proposal will be dangerous; (4)
asked that Mobil be required to extend the proposed planter buffer at 9th Street adjacent to her
property by at least 20 feet; (5) stated that a planted area next to her property will provide a
better buffer to her property.
Howard Longacre noted that if this matter is continued, it will be the fourth continuance. He
asked that the packets in the library contain all new information. He also felt that it would be
appropriate to renotice this matter since it has been continued so many times.
Mr. Schubach suggested that this matter be continued to the meeting of April 17, 1990. He also
suggested that this be the final continuance of this item. He clarified that there are no
provisions to require an applicant to renotice continued public hearings.
Mr. Lee concurred that no law requires that this matter be renoticed. He stated that it can be
continued at the discretion of the Commission. He suggested that a deadline be set for
submission of all materials. He noted that those who are parties to this action are on notice
and are present at this time.
Sam Lennox, 845 10th Street, addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that his property is
directly behind the proposed car wash; (2) strongly opposed any more car washes in the area; (3)
noted that the parking is already a terrible problem in the area; (4) said that the other car wash
across the street is causing problems.
AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION by Chmn. Ingell as maker and agreed to by Comm. Moore as
second, to continue this public hearing to the meeting of April 17, 1990.
Gerry Compton addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that, even though it is not required
by law, in the past applicants have been requested to renotice continued public hearings; (2)
suggested that the videotape be made available so that interested citizens can view it; (3)
commented that Mrs. Kolesar went to a lot of trouble to prepare the videotape.
Comm. Peirce stated that the comments made by Mr. Longacre are correct, in that this matter
has been continued a number of times; and it would be appropriate to ask that it be renoticed.
He further noted that the applicant has been derelict, since the materials have not been
provided on time.
AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION by Chmn. Ingell as maker and agreed to by Comm. Moore as
second, to: (1) require that this matter be renoticed; (2) direct that the videotape be made
available for the public to view; and (3) direct staff to obtain any information which
Manhattan Beach has available in regard to the Mobil Car Wash in Manhattan Beach.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Chmn. Ingell
None
None
Comm.Rue
11 P.C. Minutes 3/20/90
Recess taken from 8: 18 P.M. until 8:25 P.M.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO REVISE THE EXTERIOR BUILDING
ELEVATIONS FOR A THREE-UNIT ATTACHED CONDOMINilJM PROJECT AT 1 460 LOMA
DRIVE
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated March 15, 1990. Staff recommended that the Planning
Commission approve the conditional use pennit amendment to allow the requested change in
the exterior building elevations.
On November 21, 1990, the Planning Commission approved a conditional use pennit for a
three-unit attached condominium on the subject property. On November 27, 1989, the
neighbors at 1452 Loma Drive filed an appeal to the Planning Commission approval,
expressing concern with the use of an identical design to their project. The neighbors have
subsequently withdrawn the appeal since the applicant has submitted plans to change the
exterior elevations. This amendment is categorically exempt from environmental review.
The applicant has submitted revised plans which essentially change only the exterior
elevations. The floor plans remain the same.
The p r opose d building el evations propose a stucco exterior, glass block, aluminum windows,
and galvanized pipe r ailings. These are basically the same materials previously proposed and
which are currently used on the a dj acent b uilding a t 1452 Loma Drive. These features give the
building a rather simplified c ontemp orary appearance. The new elevations do not
significantly change the building appearance, but they do clearly distinguish the facade of the
building from the adjacent building. For example, the chimney has been removed as a front
focal feature and replaced with bay windows. Also, the roof line stresses horizontal and
vertical elements, while the previous plan included some angled elements.
Staff initially recommended that this project be approved subject to the condition that its
architectural appearance be modified to distinguish it from the adjacent identical building.
The Planning Commission, however, agreed with the architect and determined that an
identical project would be preferable. Given that the occupants of the adjacent building
obviously do not want an identical building next door, staff believes that this proposal is an
appropriate solution.
Public Hearing opened at 9:00 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
Gerry Compton, 200 Pier Avenue, project architect, addressed the Commission and: (1)
discussed the original concept and the desire to make the two projects look like one project; (2)
noted that the neighbors did not like the proposed concept and they requested that building
modifications be provided to give some relief to the project; (3) explained that after reviewing
the plans, superior modifications have been made to make this a very interesting project; and
(4) commented briefly on the proposed changes and stated that a reasonable compromise has
been reached.
Public Hearing closed at 9:04 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
MOTION by Comm. Moore, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve staffs recommendation,
Resolution P.C. 90-23, as written.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Chmn. Ingell
None
None
Comm.Rue
12 P.C. Minutes 3/20/90
VARIANCE TO ALLOW A 1WO-FOOT SIDEYARD SETBACK RATHER THAN FOUR FEET.
ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WITH
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #21160 FOR A 1.'WO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 333 10TH STREET
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated March 14, 1990. Staff recommended that the Planning
Commission approve the conditional use permit for a two-unit condominium and tentative
parcel map and to approve the variance request, subject to the conditions in the proposed
resolution.
This project is located in the R-3 zone, with a general plan designation of high density
residential. The lot size is 2873 square feet, or 40 by 69.6 feet. Eight parking spaces are
provided. 852 square feet of open space is provided. The current use is as a single-family
dwelling.
The subject property is rectangular in shape and is almost perfectly flat. It is a reversed corner
lot with the front facing 10th Street and the side facing Loma Drive.
The two proposed condominium units have different floor plans. Unit A contains 2407 square
feet and includes four bedrooms and three and a half bathrooms. Unit B contains 1595 square
feet and includes two bedrooms and two bathrooms. The proposed structure consists of two
stories and a roof deck above a semi-subterranean garage. The subterranean garage level also
includes the proposed fourth bedroom for Unit A
The proposed building elevations propose a stucco exterior, mission clay tile roofing, and deco-
style railings. These features give the building somewhat of a contemporary Mediterranean
appearance. Each unit is provided with a private entry porch and a roof deck.
The plans indicate a front yard setback of six feet, which appears to be appropriate for 10th
Street because the 60-foot right-of-way leaves a substantial distance between the front property
line and the edge of pavement. Also, because of the orientation of most lots along 10th Street,
most of the other structures' sideyards face 10th Street.
Although the plans indicate 336 and 420 cubic feet of storage accessible to the roof deck, the
condominium ordinance requires a minimum 100 feet of the required 200 cubic feet to be
accessible to the ground floor. Staff has included a condition to this effect in the proposed
resolution.
Staff is also concerned about the proposed fourth bedroom at the ground floor which may have
the potential to be a bootleg unit. As such, staff has included conditions prohibiting the closet
and the bathroom at the ground floor of Unit A
Required parking is provided in two, two-car garages, and guest parking is provided in the
required 17 -foot setback.
The project complies with all other planning and zoning requirements, except for the side yard
setbacks for which the variance has been requested.
The applicant's initial response to this project being continued because of the problem with
tandem parking facing the street was to apply for a variance to allow tandem parking to access
a street. After discussions with staff and the staff environmental review committee, the
applicant, under the advice of staff. has revised the plans to provide two separate two-car
garages with access from 10th Street and Loma Drive. Because of the width of the lot (40 feet),
however, a standard 20-foot garage with the 17 -foot setback cannot be provided from Loma
Drive without encroaching into the four-foot sideyard setback. Therefore, the applicant has
revised the variance request to allow a two-foot encroachment into the sideyard. This two-foot
setback encroachment is 19-feet wide and six feet above finished grade.
13 P.C. Minutes 3/20/90
Given the rather small and shallow lot size, and the fact that no alley access is available, the
alternatives for providing required parking for two units are limited. The only other
alternative to tandem parking and the proposal would perhaps be to provide the parking in a
complete subterranean garage. Therefore, staff believes that the alternative of providing two
separate two-car garages is preferable to the situation of creating a tandem garage facing 10th
Street or forcing a complete subterranean design. The proposed configuration also has the
added advantage of providing two guest spaces per unit. As such, staff believes that because of
the unusual size of a lot zoned for two units, this variance is acceptable.
Alternatively, to lessen the impact on the sideyard, the Planning Commission may wish to
consider granting a variance or variances from the garage depth or the 17 -foot parking setback
or any combination thereof.
Public Hearing opened at 9 :08 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
Sally Ladd, 600 9th Street, owner of the subject property, addressed the Commission and: (1)
commented on the staff report, and stated that she wants the additional bedroom so that each
of her children can have their own bedroom; (2) stated that she has no intention of creating a
bootleg unit; (3) noted that it is more convenient to have the bathroom near the proposed fourth
bedroom; (4) said she has been waiting over a year to begin work on this project; (5) said that the
plans were revised in order to comply with all requirements; and (6) stated that she would have
no objection to an inspector coming out to ensure that the bedroom is not turned into a bootleg
unit.
Dean Andrews, 118 South Catalina, Redondo Beach, project architect, addressed the
Commission and: (1) responded to a question by Comm. Moore in regard to the two-foot
sideyard section and the possibility of a variance for the garage depth; (2) discussed the two-
foot punch-out at the back of the project, which therefore makes a two-foot sideyard,
explaining that it was designed that way to accommodate the parking; (3) stated that a foot
could be removed from the garage and a foot could be removed from the required space up to the
garage d oor in order to make the sideyard a lit tle bigger; (4) explained that by doing so,
h owe v er , the garage space would be s h ortened somewhat.
Comm. Moore questioned whether two feet could be taken off the garage door setback.
Mr. Andrews continued: (1) stated that he can consider the options and design something that
will work; (2) stated, in response to a question from Comm. Moore, that the interior garage
depth, as designed, is right at City standards; (3) discussed the bedroom on the ground floor and
stated that the only access into that bedroom is within Unit A, and it would be very difficult to
make an access into that room; (4) stated that he could do something to the exterior walls
which would hinder any possibility of creating an outside access into the bedroom; (5) said that
the applicant deserves a chance to explore the options before the bedroom is denied.
Bill Howell, 935 Loma Drive, addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that the proposed
project will be used to obtain the maximum profit, that it will not be used just for a family; (2)
requested that the applicant n ot b e given appr oval for the two feet, since n o c on sider a tion was
given to the s urrounding n eighbors when this projec t was des igned ; (3) stated tha t this proj ect
will cause view blockage to other houses on the s treet; (4 ) s tated that Loma Drive was not
designed to handle large projects of this type, and there is bound to be a major accident at the
corner when construction starts because it will be difficult to see; (5) said that the City will have
civil liability when this accident does occur; (6) stated that four feet will be bad enough, but a
two-foot variance will be even worse, to which Comm. Moore responded that the two-foot area
is nowhere near the street, but rather is in the back of the property: (7) again stressed that there
will be a major accident at the intersection, because people speed and this is a blind
intersection with no way to see north and south traffic.
Jeff Post, 1004 Loma Drive, addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that the surrounding
residents were notified only two weeks ago of this project; (2) noted concern over the
14 P.C . Minutes 3/20/90
intersection of 10th and Loma which is already dangerous, and this project will make it even
more dangerous; (3) stated that the information placed in the library was inadequate in
helping people understand the plans; (4) discussed the proposed resolution, and disagreed with
the statement that this project will not create any serious public or safety hazards; (5) felt that
a variance should not be approved because of the lot shape, especially since the lot is being
overbuilt; (6) said that the project will remove three parking spaces on the street but will add
five bedrooms; (7) questioned what the true use will be for this property; (8) did not feel that the
.findings can be made to approve this variance; (9) noted concern over the height of this project
and the method of height calculation used; (10) said that his view will be blocked by
construction of this project.
John Esposito, 1020 Loma Drive, addressed the Commission and: (1) objected to the aesthetics
of the proposed large project; (2) felt that the project will create a cavernous situation; (3) stated
that his view will be affected by the project; (4) noted concern over the visibility at the
intersection; (5) noted that the streets are already dangerous; (6) stated that if such density is
going to be encouraged in the City, consideration should be given to the road-carrying
capabilities; (7) felt that the project is an attempt to max out the project on the lot; (8) said that
people should be required to comply with standards in the City so that the quality of life can be
maintained; (9) fell that the project will adversely impact the safety of children; (10) noted
concern over safety issues related to approval of a variance allowing improper garage depth.
Dean Andrews addressed the Commission and: (1) commented on the concerns voiced
regarding the intersection and stated that parking spaces will be removed close to the
intersection in order to utilize the driveway; (2) parking spaces which are removed will be
replaced onsite at this project, which he felt will be safer because the visibility will be
improved at the comer; (3) stated that this project will encroach no more than the existing
structure; (4) stated that the difficulties of cars backing out of garages are not exclusive to this
site, that problem exists all over the City; (5) noted that there are safety concerns all over the
City, not just on this street.
Ann Baker, 966 Loma Drive, addressed the Commission and noted concern over safety and
parking issues and questioned why the applicant doesn't just build a single-family home.
Public Hearing closed at 9:29 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
Comm. Peirce felt that the project is quite large; however, he noted that the property is zoned
high density R-3, and the project meets all of the standards. He felt that if people object to the
density and height in certain areas, they should request a zone change to R-2. He noted,
however, that he heard no one express a desire to have a downzone to allow only single-family
dwellings. He felt that the parking has been adequately revised in a way which iS acceptable to
both the City and the surrounding area. He felt that a minor variance is a small price to pay for
the improved parking; therefore, he stated that he could support approval of this variance
request.
Comm. Moore did not want to give false hope to people on the matter of downzoning in this
area. He noted that every time the City proposes a downzoning, people appear en masse and
strongly oppose the downzoning based on the fact that their property values will be reduced. He
stated that, in any event, if the neighbors were to request a downzoning for this area, it would
be very time consuming, and a moratorium would be necessary.
Mr. Lee explained the procedure which would need to be undertaken if citizens desired to
request a downzoning for their neighborhood.
Comm. Moore stated that he also feels an impact by the tremendous growth which has taken
place along Loma over the past few years. He felt that the only course of action available for
concerned citizens is to appeal to the City Council and to begin writing letters to the papers;
however, he has observed that most people want to maximize their property investments, and
they are not willing to be downzoned.
15 P.C. Minutes 3/20/90
Comm. Moore stated that the blueprints he received depict a very minor variance for an
interior wall of this project. He felt that none of the concerns voiced during the hearing relate
directly to the actual variance itself. He felt, in fact, that approval of the variance will bring
the parking setbacks up to code. He therefore did not feel that approval would open the City to
any potential liability. He said that all parame t ers are b eing met by this d e sign. He agree d that
people do speed along Loma and the r e are problems; however, h e did n ot feel that this proj ect
will either hurt or help the traffic situation. He s tated that the only view impacts will a t the
ground level. He did not feel there is a way to correct the parking situation at this time,
especially since people do speed along the area. He stated that he could support a height
restriction; however, that issue is not before the Commission since this project is within the
height limitations. He did not feel it is necessary to restrict the bedroom, based on the fact that
he feels the best control over bootleg units is the owner of the other condo unit who will
monitor such a use.
Comm. Moore concluded by stating that he can support the variance request as submitted.
Chmn. Ingell agreed with the comments expressed by Comm. Moore. He noted that it is very
rare for staff to recommend approval of a variance as they have done in this case; therefore, the
staff recommendation is a good indicator of this being a very minor request. He agreed that
this is a very built-out block; however, he felt that the upcoming housing element study will
address many of the concerns which have been raised. He stated that he could support approval
of this request.
Comm. Ketz stated that she will support approval of the variance request. She felt that the R-3
standards allow too much leeway in regard to building height and other requirements;
however, she felt that this project makes the best use of the situation.
MOTION by Chmn. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve staffs recommendation,
Resolution P.C. 90-24, with the following amendments: (1) deletion of Condition 1 l(b)
requiring that the bathroom at the ground level of Unit A shall be eliminated and that there
shall be no closets allowed; (2) Finding G shall be modified to read: "The variance is justified
because of 'exceptional circumstances' in the unusually small lot size .... "; (3) Finding H shall be
modified to include wording at the end of the sentence stating: " ... which preserves a substantial
property right possessed by other properties of similar size and shape in the vicinity and zone
of the property."
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Chmn. Ingell
None
None
Comm.Rue
Chmn. Ingell advised that this decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed by
writing to the City Council within ten days.
Recess taken from 9:42 P.M. until 9 :52 P.M.
ZONES CHANGES FOR THE NORT HERN PORTION OF THE COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION AS FOLLOWS OR TO SUCH OTHER ZONES AS DEEMED
APPROPRIATE BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND ADOPTION OF THE NEGATIVE
DECLARATION:
(A) FROM C-3. R-1 AND R-3 TO COMMERCIAL SPECIFIC PLAN AREA FOR THE AREA ALONG
EAST AND WEST OF PACIFIC COAST IDGHWAY BE'IWEEN PIER AVENUE TO 24TH STREET
16 P.C. Minutes 3/20/90
(B) FROM R-3 TO R-2 FOR TIIE AREA ON EAST OF PACIFIC COAST mGHWAY BE'IWEEN 2011I
S1REET 'IO 21ST STREET
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated March 12, 1990. Staff recommended that the areas
designated commercial corridor on the general plan located north of Pier Avenue be rezoned
from their current zoning classifications of C-3, R-1, and R-3 (the majority of which are R-3) to
commercial specific plan area No. 8, which only slightly differs from commercial specific plan
area No. 7. Staff also recommended that the block between 20th Street and 21st Street be
rezoned to R-2 for consistency, but that 20th Street and 21st Street be rezoned to R-2 for
consistency, but that the Planning Commission recommend that this block be considered for a
general plan amendment to commercial corridor and rezoned to specific plan area as part of
the 2nd quarter general plan amendments.
The City Council at their meeting of May 9, 1989, amended the land use element of the general
plan by eliminating the multi-use corridor designation and creating the commercial corridor
designation. The commercial corridor designation was applied to the frontage lots between
14th Street and 20th Street and north of 21st Street on the east side of P.C.H. and to the
currently developed commercial areas on the west side of P.C.H. between Pier Avenue and 24th
Place. The remaining MUC designated areas were general plan amended to residential
designations, including the frontage lots between 20th and 21st Streets which were designated
medium density residential.
The decision to change the residentially developed frontage lots located between 17th and 21st
Streets on the east side was made on a 3-2 vote due to the controversy of the issue and the vocal
opposition to commercial development on this section of the highway. The decision to
redesignate the block between 20th and 21st Streets to medium density residential was a 4-1
vote. These were the blocks for which the Planning Commission did not make a
recommendation to the City Council because there was not a majority that agreed on what the
designation should be.
On February 20, 1990, the Planning Commission recommended zone changes to commercial
corridor specific plan for the southern portion of the commercial corridor.
Rezoning the northern portion of the commercial corridor is the final step in the
implementation of the general plan amendments. The rezoning needs to be completed prior to
August of 1990 when the moratorium on these remaining areas expires.
By amending the general plan, the City Council established the boundaries for commercial
development along the corridor and established policies for the implementation of the
amendments. The effort now is to establish standards and limits to apply to future
development along the corridor which will both allow for reasonable development of the area
and protect neighboring residential uses.
Staff and the Planning Commission have already worked out a set of standards and
limitations for the southern portion of the commercial corridor. The situation for the
northern portion of the corridor is fairly similar, however, the topography is generally steeper
further up the slope, the surrounding residential areas are primarily single family, and the
ownership is split amongst more parcels of smaller sizes, except for the large parcels at Plaza
Hermosa and the Hermosa Pavilion. Also, this portion of the highway provides a break from
the otherwise exclusively strip commercial pattern as multi-family condos and apartments
are located on the west side and single-and two-family projects on the east side. Additionally,
the commercial uses are not dominated by automotive related businesses.
The area at issue is 15.6 acres, and there are 40 separately-owned parcels. There are 15 parcels
ofless than 5000 square feet; 14 parcels between 5000 and 10,000 square feet; and 11 parcels
greater than 10,000 square feet. The median size is 6840 square feet.
17 P.C. Minutes 3/20/90
Staff felt that the difference in topography justifies a lower height limit for the east side of the
highway. Otherwise. staff felt that the provisions established for the southern portion are
appropriate for this portion.
As such, staff again proposed first tier development standards that with compliance would not
require any discretionary approvals. Projects that contain any elements that go beyond these
standards. however. would trigger the requirement of a precise development plan. requiring
public hearings. Planning Commission approval, and environmental review. Traffic impacts
would be considered as part of the environmental review.
This concept requires two tiers of development standards: (1) standards that if exceeded would
trigger the precise development plan requirement and which the Planning Commission would
have authority to waive if certain guidelines are followed. and; (2) maximum or minimum
standards which could not be exceeded through a variance.
First tier triggers for the precise development plan are: a maximum height of 25 feet east of
P.C.H.; 35 feet west of P.C.H. Maximum bulk would be 1.0 floor area ratio. Maximum floor area
would be 10,000 square feet. Landscaping coverage would be 5 percent of the lot area, but a
required buffer from R-zones is not included.
Second tier minimum/maximum standards are: Maximum height of 35 feet east of P.C.H.; 45
feet west of P.C.H. There is no maximum bulk or floor area. Landscaping coverage would be 2
percent of the lot area.
The following standards would apply in all circumstances as maximum/roioimvm standards:
(1) landscaping specifications: minimum three-foot wide planter strips with raised six-inch
curbing, or an area equivalent in size, along street frontage, five-gallon shrub for each 20
square feet; (2) setback from R-zone: eight feet plus two feet for each additional story; and (3)
buffering from R-zone: minimum five-foot wide planter strip with 24-inch/ 15-gallon tree
every ten feet.
The only difference in these standards from those recommended for the southern portion of
the commercial corridor is the height limit for the east side of P.C.H. which has been lowered
five feet in recognition of the steeper slope from the highway and to lessen potential view
blockage to nearby single-family residential development which is limited to a 25-foot height
limit.
In regard to the block between 20th Street and 21st Street, which is designated medium density
on the general plan rather than commercial corridor. staff felt that there is no basis for
differentiating this block from the other P.C.H. frontage parcels. Although staff recommended
that this area be rezoned to R-2 for consistency, staff felt that the Planning Commission
should also recommend that this area be included as part of the 2nd quarter general plan
amendments for redesignation to commercial corridor and rezoning to commercial specific
plan area.
Comm. Moore commented that the existing development on the east side of the highway
between 17th and 21st Streets is strictly residential, and he asked what options are available
for that area, stating that he is not at all persuaded that it should be developed as commercial.
He understood the requirements to bring zoning and the general plan into conformance, as
required by State law; however, he noted that the general plan can be changed to conform with
the zoning.
Mr. Schubach stated that that area was previously designated as multi-use corridor with C-
potential. He stated that, if so desired by the Commission. a general plan amendment could be
recommended to redesignate that particular area as residential. If this recommendation is
made, the Commission would then not go forward with the proposed zone changes.
Public Hearing opened at 10:08 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
18 P.C. Minutes 3/20/90
, Jim Caines, 819 18th Street. addressed the Commission and: (1) strongly favored a residential
redesignation for the east side of the highway between 17th and 21st Street, noting that this
has long been a residential area and would be inappropriate for commercial development; (2)
favored a residential classification so that if there is a disaster, people could rebuild their
homes.
Vic Cravello, 1632 Havemeyer Lane. Redondo Beach, addressed the Commission and: (1) said
that his mother-in-law owns the property at 2024 P.C.H.; (2) said that the property was zoned R-
3 when she purchased it; (3) stated that he favors a residential designation for that area by way
of a general plan amendment.
Mr. Schubach clarified that there is a policy stating that "existing structures used for
residential purposes on a lot or parcel which is exclusively used for residential purposes are
permitted to remain indefinitely and shall be considered conforming uses, allowing said
structures to be improved, rebuilt, or expanded as long as existing residential density is not
increased."
Jack Ander, 521 Gentry Street, addressed the Commission and: (1) passed out a copy of a
petition with 80 signatures from people who desire the area to be residential; (2) read aloud the
petition, which asserts that the people protest the commercial intrusion into the residential
area; (3) urged that the area retain R-3 zoning; (4) discussed the lots in the northeast area
between 18th and 21st Streets and stated that because of the steep slope and the residential
uses, commercial use is not appropriate; (5) said that R-3 is appropriate because there is
commercial on the other side of the highway; (6) said that some of the people who signed the
petition favor R-3, however, they would prefer a 30-foot height limit, as opposed to the 35 feet
allowed in R-3; (7) noted that there are many vacancies in the existing commercial buildings
along P.C.H.; (8) stated that there are many existing commercial structures in other locations
of the City which badly need revitalization; therefore, this residential area should not be
sacrificed for more commercial usage; (9) discussed past City Council actions on this particular
area; ( 10) stated that with the new City Council members, there could be an entirely new view
on this issue.
George Dvorsky, speaking on behalf of his parents who own a lot at 2015 P.C.H., addressed the
Commission and: ( 1) favored retaining the R-3 zoning. explaining that it would be consistent
with what is currently there; (2) stated that single-family, R-2, is not appropriate on the
highway, especially since single-family homes many times have children, and the highway is
not a safe environment for children; (3) asked for clarification on the staff report in regard to
staffs recommendation for this particular area, to which Mr. Schubach explained the
recommendation; (4) asked that the area remain R-3.
Scott Sergeant, 2008 Rhodes Street, addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that he supports
the petition which he signed, explaining that residential would be more appropriate than
commercial in this particular area; (2) asked for clarification on what a commercial specific
area is; (3) stated that he would rather have R-3, with a 35-foot height limit than commercial,
with a 45-foot height limit; (4) stated, however, that he might support commercial at 30 feet,
rather than residential at 35 feet; (5) said that there is not enough information available for
residents to make an informed decision; (6) said that he supports R-3, with a height limitation
of35 feet.
Patty Egerer, 925 15th Place, addressed the Commission and: (1) said she owns a lot at the
northeastern corner of 17th Street and P.C.H.; (2) said that the lot was purchased specifically
for commercial development as was the adjacent lot; (3) favored retaining P.C.H. as a
commercial corridor; (4) did not feel that the incline has any bearing on whether or not the
area is suitable for commercial use.
Dorothy Zammit, 1918 Pacific Coast Highway, addressed the Commission and: (1) said she has
lived there since 1976; (2) stated that she is very happy living there; (3) stated that the issue at
19 P.C. Minutes 3/20/90
hand is actually that of "the almighty buck"; (4) felt that some people favor commercial zoning
so that they can make more money on their property; (5) stated she is not interested in making
more money from her property, she is interested only in living there; (6) stated that her
neighbors are also happy living there and they do not want commercial; (7) strongly favored
the retention of residential zoning.
Juanita Swing, 1206 Green Lane, Redondo Beach, addressed the Commission and: (1) stated
that she owns property at 2006 P.C.H.; (2) stated that she favors R-3 rather than R-2; and; (3)
objected to commercial.
Jim Fucile, 1226 6th Street, Manhattan Beach, addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that
he owns property at the corner of 21st Street and P.C.H.; (2) asked a number of questions of staff
related to why the Lucky Market property was left out of this zone change request; (3) noted
concern over a specific plan area, and he discussed potential problems which can arise; (4)
asked questions of staff on why a specific plan area is being recommended; (5) noted concern
that many people are not aware of what the requirements are; (6) asked whether there are other
available alternatives; (7) asked whether what is being proposed is proportional to current
property values; (8) questioned whether a specific plan area is in effect a downzoniii.g of
property; (9) stated that he would prefer to have a straightforward designation; (10) asked
questions of the city attorney related to staffs recommendation; (11) stated that the zoning
code should clearly state what is permitted.
Marianne Caines, 817 18th Street, addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that many
residents on the highway have made their feelings known for years that they prefer to have it
remain residential; (2) felt that the east side of the highway between 17th Street and 21st Street
is not appropriate for commercial development; (3) said that the quality of life for residents is
more important than additional commercial development; (4) noted that the property in
question is view property; (5) stated that the property at 17th Street which was purchased
specifically for commercial development could have some special consideration.
Mary Hanson, 841 19th Street, addressed the Commission and: (1) asked questions about the
parking requirements for the proposed specific plan area; (2) favored the controls which are
being proposed; (3) discussed specific properties as depicted on the map; (4) noted that the area
has a very dense population, and new developments will very heavily impact the area; (5) noted
concern over height and density; (6) noted concern over views and preservation of the
community; (7) stated that the issue of slopes must be addressed; (8) stated that just one
commer cial development with inadequate parking can very heavily imp act the r esidential
areas; (9 ) stated that each individual piece of property and each d evelopme n t should be
addressed, and strong controls must be imposed in order to reduce the impacts; (10) strongly
favored controlling what can be developed within the specific plan area requirements.
Public Hearing closed at 10:44 P.M. by Chmn Ingell.
Comm. Peirce noted that, if so desired by the Commission, the general plan could be changed
rather than the zoning.
Mr. Lee explained that it would then be appropriate to not take any action at all, and make an
alternative recommendation to the City Council.
Comm. Moore asked whether it would be appropriate to go forward with all of the proposed
zone changes, with the exception of the certain limited area on the east side of the highway
between 18th and 21st Street.
Mr. Lee replied in the affinnative.
Comm. Peirce felt that the staff work was very good on the proposed phased standards,
especially on the south side. His only concern related to whether it should be commercial or
residential from 18th Street to 21st Street.
20 P.C. Minutes 3/20/90
Comm. Ketz questioned the block between 17th and 18th Streets, noting that it is already zoned
C-3, and there is already some commercial development there. She noted that the blocks from
18th Street to 21st Street are zoned R-3. She therefore favored residential zoning on the east
side of the highway between 18th and 21st Streets.
Chmn. Ingell noted that he initially opposed any residential along the highway; however, after
much research he has determined that residential uses along the highway can be appropriate.
He noted that many people have testified that they like living along the highway. He favored
staffs recommendation and the two-tiered approach, and he stated that he could support
residential along the east side of the highway from 18th to 21st Street.
MOTION by Comm. Moore, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve the staff-recommended zone
changes, Resolution P.C. 90-21, with the exception of that portion on the east side of Pacific
Coast Highway between 18th Street and 21st Street.
Comm. Moore stated that this action will not solve the existing inconsistences between the
general plan and wning, and that issue must be addressed in the future.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Chmn. Ingell
None
None
Comm.Rue
AN EXCEPTION FROM SECTION 13-7fB) 'IO ALLOW A REMODEL AND EXPANSION TO AN
EXISTING NONCONFORMING SINGLE--FAMIL Y DWELLING OF GREATER THAN 50 PERCENT
INCREASE IN VALUATION AT 576 21ST S'IREET
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated March 15, 1990. Staff recommended approval of this
request.
This project is located in the R-1 zone, with a general plan designation of low density
residential. The lot size is 5500 square feet. The existing use is as a single-family dwelling.
Existing building area is 1354 square feet, and the proposed addition is 1333 square feet.
The proposed project is essentially the same project for which a variance was requested in
August of 1988. This variance was denied by the Planning Commission and by the City Council
on appeal.
The project involves only a small remodel to the first floor and the addition of a second story
of about the same size as the first floor.
The house is currently nonconforming because the west sideyard is three feet, eight inches,
rather than the minimum five feet, and the garage is set back from the front property line 16
feet, rather than the required 1 7 feet.
The applicant is requesting Planning Commission approval, pursuant to Section 13-7(b), to
allow an addition to this nonconforming structure which is greater than 50% of existing
replacement value. Staff has calculated that the proposal involves an addition/ remodel equal
to 96% of the replacement value.
Also, the applicant is requesting an exception, pursuant to Section-7(C)3. to expand the
existing wall with the nonconforming sideyard for the addition because 75% of the structures
on the block do have a nonconforming sideyard.
Pursuant to Section 13-7(b), in order to approve this request, the Planning Commission must
make a finding that the goals, intent, and purpose of this article are being met. In this case,
21 P.C. Minutes 3/20/90
staff believes this finding can be made because this would allow a sound structure to be
maintained, and the current nonconformities that would be perpetuated are not significant or
exceptional, especially given that the majority of structures on the block have similar
nonconformities.
Comm. Moore noted that this is the type of request that in the past would have been routinely
approved by the now-defunct Board of Zoning Adjustments. He asked for clarification on why
these issues are now coming before the Commission.
Mr. Schubach explained that in the past, the appropriate findings could not be made to approve
variances of this type; therefore, an exception section was added to the ordinance.
Hearing opened at 10:55 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
Richard Gallagher, 576 21st Street, applicant, addressed the Commission and: (1) stated this
project has been ongoing for several years; (2) stated that in 1985 he requested, and obtained
approval for, a variance to extend a nonconforming wall in the master bedroom; (3) noted that
he requested that same approval again later to add another bedroom to accommodate his
growing family, but was denied approval; (4) said he has gone through an appeal process and
has now submitted revised plans~ (5) noted that all of his neighbors support the proposed plan;
(6) said that he has worked closely with staff on the project, and staff now recommends
approval of the request.
Mr. Gallagher, in response to a question from Comm. Peirce, stated that this set of plans is
essentially the same as the plan submitted two years ago, with the exception of the stairwell,
which was slightly modified.
Hearing closed at 10:57 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
Comm. Ketz stated that the voted to approve the variance the last time this project was before
the Commission; therefore, she would support approval of this request.
Comm. Peirce stated that he voted against the variance, and he will vote against this request,
explaining that he feels the project could be designed in a different fashion. He also noted that
he did not support the text amendment.
Comm. Moore stated that this is a minor request, and in the past such requests were routinely
approved. He felt that this is a legitimate attempt to expand a home.
Comm. Peirce stated that there must be consistencies; however, he did not feel there are any
special circumstances in this particular project.
Mr. Gallagher noted that no one appeared to oppose this project; in fact, his neighbors have
expressed support for the project. He felt that the new exceptions to the ordinance are very
applicable to this type of project.
Comm. Ketz stated that no request is being made for a variance. She felt that this request falls
within the exceptions of the ordinance.
MOTION by Comm. Ketz, seconded by Comm. Moore, to approve staffs recommendation,
Resolution P.C. 90-25, as written.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Ketz, Moore, Cbmn. Ingell
Comm. Peirce
None
Comm.Rue
22 P.C. Minutes 3/20/90
SIGN WAIVER TO ALLOW A CHURCH DIRECTORY SIGN IN THE OPEN SPACE ZONE AT
GREENWOOD PARK
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated March 15, 1990. Staff recommended approval of the
proposed sign request.
The applicant is proposing a monument sign constructed of redwood panels on wooden poles.
It would consist of approximately seven 8" by 48" panels. The total height would be
approximately eight feet. It is proposed to be located in Greenwood Park, set back
approximately seven feet from the edge of the Pacific Coast Highway right-of-way.
The open space zone allows ground or monument signs, subject to approval by the Planning
Commission. If approved by the Planning Commission, the City Council would also have to
approve the sign, as it is located on City property.
Staff believes that this type of community directory would be appropriate for the proposed
location.
Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Chmn. Ingell, stated that sign will contain only
the names of the churches in the City. There will be no addresses or phone numbers on the
sign. He said that it will be a monument-type sign and will have the listing on each side. The
sign will be approximately eight feet.
Comm. Peirce felt that the sign is too large; that it will be of little use since there will be no
addresses or phone numbers; that the proposed location is inappropriate and might cause a
distraction to passersby; and that the open space should be open space, with no signs; and a
park should be maintained as a park.
Comm. Ketz agreed that the sign would not be appropriate in the park.
Comm. Moore noted that there is very little open space in the City, and that what there is
should be maintained.
MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Moore, to deny allowing the church directory in
the open space at Greenwood Park.
Chmn. Ingell felt that the proposed sign is rather large; however, there is currently a sign at the
park which was a boon to the City when it was installed. He felt that a smaller sign would be
unobtrusive in the park.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Ketz, Moore, Peirce
Chmn. Ingell
None
Comm.Rue
Comm. Peirce discussed an appropriate location for the sign, stating that the directory will
actually be used by out-of-towners; therefore, he felt it would be appropriate to place the sign at
the entrance to the City. He felt that unless the addresses are listed, the sign will not be very
useful.
PRIORITIZING PLANNJNG DEPARTMENT SCHEDULED AND UNSCHEDULED STUDIES
Mr. Schubach noted that the Commissioners had been provided with a list of priorities, dated
March 13, 1990. He asked that the Commissioners list their priorities, according to the
method explained in the report, and return their packages to him at the next meeting.
23 P.C. Minutes 3/20/90
I
•
STAFF ITEMS
a) Memorandum Regarding Planning Commission Liaison for March 27. 1990. Cit;y
Council Meeting
No one will attend as liaison.
b) List of Completed Projects for Inspection
Clunn. Ingell asked if plans for completed projects could be provided to the Commissioners so
that they can go out to inspect those which had been approved by the Commission.
Comm. Moore suggested that the Commissioners retain the plans in their own files, to which
Comm. Peirce replied that that would be a tremendous amount of paperwork. Comm. Ketz
suggested that the plans be borrowed from the Planning Department.
c) Tentative Future Planning Commission Agenda
No action taken.
d) City Council Minutes of Februaiy 15 and 27. 1990
No action taken.
COMMISSIONER ITEMS
Comm. Moore noted concern over the Communications section of the agenda, stating that
some people seem to use the time inappropriately.
Mr. Lee explained that, according to the Brown Act, a portion of the agenda must be given over
to comments from the public. He noted, however, that it is at the discretion of the Commission
where on the agenda that section should be placed.
Chmn. Ingell noted concern over the incident which occurred earlier in the meeting, wherein a
citizen began showing a videotape with no prior approval. He noted that it appears that the
citizen took the tape to the cable company, and the videotape was activated from the cable
company premises. He asked that staff study the issue of video transmission from City Hall.
He further noted that a policy on this issue is necessary.
Comm. Ketz requested a copy of the nonconforming ordinance, explaining that she had not
received one.
MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Moore, to adjourn at 11:31 P.M. No objections;
so ordered.
24 P.C. Minutes 3/20/90
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 March 20, 1990.
1-/--3-C/{)
Date
25 P.C. Minutes 3/20/90
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
HELD ON APRIL 3, 1990, AT 7:00 P.M. IN THE CI'IY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Meeting called to order at 7:00 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
Pledge of Allegiance led by Comm. Peirce.
ROILCAIL
Present:
Absent:
Comms. Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ingell
None
Also Present: Michael Schubach, Planning Director; Edward Lee, Assistant City
Attorney; Sally White, Recording Secretary
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MOTION by Comm. Ketz, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to approve the minutes of March 20, 1990,
as written. Noting the abstention of Comm. Rue, no objections; so ordered.
APPROVAL OF RESOLUTIONS
MOTION by Comm. Ketz, seconded by Comm. Moore, to approve Resolution P.C. 90-14, A
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH,
CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A REQUEST FOR AN EXCEPTION FROM SECTION 13-7{B) OF THE
ZONING ORDINANCE TO ALLOW AN ADDITION AND REMODEL TO AN EXISTING
NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE TO EXCEED 50% OF REPLACEMENT VALUE AT 1570
PROSPECT AVENUE AND LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 1, TRACT 1562. Noting the
abstention of Comm. Rue, no objections; so ordered.
MOTION by Comm. Moore, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve Resolution P.C. 90-21, A
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH,
CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING AMENDING THE ZONING MAP AND THE ZONING
ORDINANCE TO CREATE SPECIFIC PLAN AREA NO , 8 FOR THE AREAS AS DESCRIBED
BELOW AND SHOWN ON THE ATTACHED MAPS' AND ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION. Noting the abstention of Comm. Rue, no objections; so ordered.
MOTION by Comm. Ketz, seconded by Comm. Moore, to approve Resolution P.C. 90-23, A
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH,
CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW A
MODIFICATION TO EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS FOR A 1WO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT
1460 LOMA DRIVE, DESCRIBED AS LOT 15, HISS ADDITION TO HERMOSA BEACH. Noting
the abstention of Comm. Rue, no objections; so ordered.
MOTION by Comm. Moore, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve Resolution P.C. 90-24, A
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH,
CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND A TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP
#21160 FOR A '!WO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AND APPROVING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A 1WO-
FOOT SIDEYARD SETBACK RATHE;R THAN THE REQUIRED FOUR FEET AND TIIE ADOPTION
OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR 333 10TH STREET, LEGALLY
DESCRIBED AS THE EASTERLY 45 FEET OF LOTS 25 AND 26, TR.ACT 1516. Noting the
abstention of Comm. Rue, no objections; so ordered.
MOTION by Comm. Ketz, seconded by Comm. Moore, to approve Resolution P.C. 90-25, A
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH,
1 P.C. Minutes 4/ 3/90
u
CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A REQUEST FOR AN EXCEPTION FROM SECTION 13-7(B) OF THE
ZONING ORDINANCE TO ALLOW AN ADDITION AND REMODEL TO AN EXISTING
NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE TO EXCEED 50% OF REPLACEMENT VALUE, AND
APPROVAL, PURSUANT TO SECTION 13-7(B) 3. TO ALLOW THE CONTINUATION OF AN
EXISTING WALL WITII A NONCONFORMING SIDEYARD AT 576 21ST STREET AND LEGALLY
DESCRIBED AS TIIE WESTERLY 30 FEET OF LOT 44 AND TIIE EASTERLY 25 FEET OF LOT 43,
1RACT 1868. Noting the abstention of Comm. Rue. no objections; so ordered.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC
No one appeared to address the Commission.
CON ~2 -CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #22059 FOR A 'IWO-
UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 711 11 ffl TREET
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated March 28, 1990. Staff recommended that the Planning
Commission approve the conditional use permit for a two-unit condominium and 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 2582 square feet. Five parking spaces are provided. 685 square feet
of open space is provided. The current use is as a single-family dwelling. The environmental
determination is categorically exempt.
The subject property is rectangular in shape and essentially flat. It is the last residentially-
developed lot going east up 11th Street and it is adjacent to the church parking lot. The church
parking lot is also zoned R-2.
The proposed units contain 2491 and 2445 square feet and include four bedrooms, a ground-
floor bonus and laundry room, a roof deck and three bathrooms. The proposed structure
consists of two stories above a semi-subterranean garage.
The proposed building elevations indicate a plaster exterior with plaster trim, wrought iron
railings, clay tile roofing, and decorative wood-frame windows towards the front. Each unit
has an entry patio; the front unit entrance is from the street, and the rear unit is from the side.
The deck, the front entry patio feature, the railings, and the wood windows give the front of the
building an attractive appearance, while the windows, railings, and varying building step-
backs provide visual relief to the otherwise large and bulky structure as viewed from the side.
The ground-floor laundry rooms/workshops are designed with garage and exterior access, and
no interior access is provided from the ground floor to the main living area. Besides being an
inconvenience for the owner (to access the garage and the laundry facilities requires going
outside), this is a potential bootleg unit. Staff therefore recommended a condition that the
plans be revised to prohibit exterior access to these ground-floor bonus rooms and to require
that interior stairway access be made available to the main floor.
The plans indicate a front-yard setback of six feet, which is less than the average of about ten
feet on the street. However, staff believes that it is adequate, considering that the three newer
projects on the street (approved in 1984 and 1988) have front setbacks of five feet and that this
lot is the last residential lot going east up the hill. The structures with the setbacks of ten to
thirteen feet are the older single-family homes located to the west and below the subject
property.
Required parking is provided in two, two-car garages oriented toward the middle of the lot and
one open guest space. No on-street parking spaces will be lost.
2 P.C. Minutes 4/3/90
Required open space is provided on roof decks, and on a second-floor open deck provided in the
rear unit.
The project complies with all other planning and zoning requirements. However, neither the
amount of cubic feet of storage is clearly indicated nor is the location for trash receptacles.
Staff included conditions that these requirements be identified on the revised plans.
The surrounding area consists of primarily older single-and two-family projects like the one
being demolished for this project, except for the three newer projects indicated which are large
two-unit condominiums.
Public Hearing opened at 7:08 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
Carl Buhlert, 25318 Belle Porte, Harbor City, applicant. addressed the Commission and: (1)
stated that a stairway on this narrow lot would totally ruin the floor plan of this project; (2)
said that he would be willing to remove the wall separating the garage and the storage area, and
have the storage area located on the service porch; (3) explained that the trash area would then
be in the garage in the storage area; (4) stated that he does not want to remove the door because
it is necessary to get outside. rather than having to go through the garage each time; (5) said that
he would be willing to modify the plan so that there is a garage with a service area and storage
area inside the garage; (6) said that the laundry area would remain in the service area of the
garage, and he discussed with Comm. Rue various options for the laundry area.
Mr. Buhlert continued in response to a request from Comm. Rue by describing the proposed
materials to be used for this project.
Public Hearing closed at 7: 13 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
Comm. Moore reiterated his opinion on deed restrictions, stating that he feels the best
enforcement against bootleg units is the owner(s) of the other condo unit(s). In this case,
however, he feels that there is strong potential for a bootleg, and he would therefore prefer
inclusion of a condition guarding against such a use. He discussed the wall between the garage
and the work area, stating that he does not feel it would be necessary to totally eliminate the
wall; however, he favored a revision to the plans to show a small laundry room enclosed and
the rest of the area open. He agreed that he would not want to have to open the garage door each
time he wanted to go in and out. He felt that an exterior exit is a reasonable request.
Comm. Moore commented on the issue of deed restrictions and stated that in the past the City
had the authority to inspect premises from time to time to ensure that they were not being used
as bootleg units.
Mr. Schubach responded by explaining that the previous city attorney advised that arbitrary
inspections were not legal; that it was necessary to show cause before property could be
inspected, and it was necessary to first obtain a search warrant.
Comm. Moore stated that he could support the request if the plans were modified. He noted,
however, that this particular project appears to be quite heavy and ponderous.
Comm. Ketz asked for clarification on the dimensions of the parking spaces and guest parking.
MOTION by Comm. Moore, seconded by Comm. Peirce. to approve Resolution P.C. 90-27, with
the following amendments: (1) that the floor plan of the garage areas in both units be modified
to produce a small walled-off laundry room, and the rest of the area shall be left open, with one
large garage work area; and. (2) that the outside door into the laundry area. opening into the
garage area, be allowed to remain.
Comm. Moore stated that the intent of the motion is to ensure that the laundry room should be
a feasible laundry area, not a larger room which could be used for many other purposes.
3 P.C. Minutes4/3/90
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Ketz, Moore , Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ingell
None
None
None
Chmn. Ingell advised that this decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed by
writing to the City Council within ten days.
CON-90-3 --CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #21814
FOR A 1WO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 1512 MANHAITAN AVENUE
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated March 26, 1990. Staff recommended that the Planning
Commission approve the conditional use permit for a two-unit condominium and vesting
tentative parcel map, subject to the conditions specified in the proposed resolution.
This project is located in the R-3 zone, with a general plan designatio n of high density
residential. The lot size is 3502 square feet. Eight parking spaces are p rovided . 652 square feet
of open space is provided. The current use is as a single-family dwelling. The environmental
determination is categorically exempt. The subject project is rectangular in shape with a
significant slope upward from front to back of about 11 percent.
The proposed units contain 2580 and 2540 square feet and include three bedrooms, a study, a
mezzanine level, and two and a half bathrooms. The proposed structure consists of two stories
and a mezzanine level above a semi-subterranean garage.
The proposed building elevations propose a stucco exterior, composition shingle roof, glass
block, and metal frame windows. These features give the building somewhat of a
Mediterranean appearance. Each unit is entered from the side of the building. The use of
varying building step-backs and shapes and the decks give visual relief to the otherwise large
and bulky structures.
The plans indicate a front yard setback of six feet, which is adequate considering existing
setbacks along the street which average approximately five feet, and in consideration of the 60-
foot right-of-way along Manhattan Avenue.
Required parking is provided in two, two-car garages, one oriented toward the street and the
other toward the alley; and four guest spaces are provided in the 17 -foot setbacks behind the
garages whic h c ompensate for the loss of one parking space on the street. Staff included a
c ondition t o ensure that only one space will be lost on the street.
The front unit is slightly deficient in providing countable private open space, as only 192
square feet are provided. The rear patio's 161 square feet cannot be counted because it is
enclosed on three sides.
The two studies located at the ground level have exterior access through a sliding glass door. To
reduce the potential of this being used as a bootleg unit, staff recommended a condition to
prohibit exterior access.
The project c omplies with all other planning and zoning requirements. However, the amount
of cubic fee t of s t orage is not clearly indicated, nor is the location for trash receptacles. Staff
included conditions that these requirements be identified on revised plans.
The surrounding area consists of primarily multi-family development of various ages and
styles and includes some older single-family structures like the one being demolished for this
project.
4 P.C. Minutes4/3/90
Comm. Moore expressed concern over bootleg conversions and asked whether the City has any
evidence regarding problems related to this particular type of development.
Mr. Schubach stated that there are many condos being built, and more than half of them are
rental units; however, bootlegs are less apt to happen in condos. He stated that many times the
occupant of the other unit is most likely to report a bootleg situation. He continued by
explaining the process undertaken by the City to enforce the prohibition against bootleg units.
Comm. Ketz commented on the statement that the 161 square feet cannot be used because the
area is enclosed on three sides.
Mr. Schubach stated that the ultimate decision on whether the area can be counted is based
upon whether the wall is too solid, as opposed to being partially open. In this case, he noted
that the proposed patio area is open to the sky.
Public Hearing opened at 7:27 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
Robert Corry, 1452 Loma Drive, applicant, addressed the Commission and: (1) discussed the
concerns related to potential bootlegs, stating that the front unit has a window, not a door, as
suggested by staff; and the rear unit opens onto a deck so that the area is used to its fullest
potential: (2) discussed the space in between the two buildings. stating that the only access to
the deck area is through the study, not from the outside area; (3) stated that there are no toilet
facilities on the first level, and it would be very difficult to turn the area into a bootleg; (4)
stated that he feels the door in the study is very important in order to avoid a claustrophobic
feeling; (5) asked that he be allowed to retain the door in the rear unit from the study onto the
deck, and he noted that he would not oppose a condition requiring that there be no exterior
access from the deck to the outdoor area.
Mr. Corry continued and: (1) stated that attempts were made to keep the building from being
bulky; (2) explained that he originally thought there was adequate open space because of the
deck in the back, but now staff asserts that the project is lacking eight feet because there is only
192 square feet; (3) discussed the issue of the deck being enclosed on three sides and therefore
not being countable in the open space calculations; (4) explained that the south deck is
approximately a foot and a half lower than the north deck: (5) said that there is a fence between
the two decks for privacy, but the fence could be lowered if that would be a way to legally count
the additional space.
Mr. Corry, in response to questions from the Commission regarding the fence stated: (1) the
fence at the south deck is approximately five to six feet, and the northerly deck has a fence
several feet higher; (2) an attempt was made to keep the two decks separate to provide privacy;
(3) that the perspective drawings that he provided to the City were prepared by his architect
because they felt that the 3-D drawings enable people to better visualize a project, and the
drawings cost approximately $250.
Garth Heitman, 1516 Bayview Drive, addressed the Commission and: (1) noted concern over the
crowding and congestion along Bayview Drive, stating that it is a very small area; (2) noted
concern over potential problems during construction, especially related to vehicles occupying
the fire zone; (3) was advised by Comm. Peirce that he can contact the traffic enforcement
department if problems arise related to construction vehicles; (4) noted concern over the height
of the proposed project.
Public Hearing closed at 7:38 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
Comm. Rue did not see a great bootleg potential at this project because there is no bathroom on
the ground-floor level. Also, the second unit deck will have no exterior access.
Comm. Rue commented on the patio in the rear and stated that the exterior wall is probably
necessary as a retaining wall. He also felt that if the privacy fence between the two decks is
5 P.C. Minutes 4/ 3/90
required to be lowered, the owners would probably put it back up later; therefore, he did not see
a problem. He felt that this is a good project, and he could support its approval.
MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve Resolution P.C. 90-26, with the
following amendments: (1) to modify Condition 12(d) to state that no sliding glass door access
shall be allowed on the front ground-floor bonus room; (2) that the rear study be allowed to
have the sliding glass door to the deck, but there shall be no access from the deck to the outside
area; (3) related to Condition 12(a), that the 161 square-foot rear deck shall be countable
towards the open space.
Comm. Peirce stated that 161 square feet of open space in the rear is acceptable because that is
the area where there is a grade change.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Comms. Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ingell
None
None
None
Chmn. Ingell advised that this decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed by
writing to the City Council within ten days.
Recess taken from 7:44 P.M. until 7:49 P.M.
PARK 90-2 --PARKING PLAN TO ALLOW THE ADDITION OF 800 SQUARE FEET TO AN
EXISTING NONCONFORMING BUil,DING WITH NO EXISTING PARKING: ADDITIONAL
PAR.KING REQUIRED TO BE COMPENSATED FOR BY PAYING THE IN-LIEU FEE AT 1238
HERMOSA AVENUE. COLVILLE PUBLISHING COMPANY
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated March 27, 1990. Staff recommended that the Planning
Commission deny the requested parking plan unless the applicant pays the in-lieu fee for all
required parking spaces.
This project is in the C-2 zone, with a general plan designation of general commercial. The
present and proposed use is as an office for an art warehouse and distribution facility, with 73
percent being used for the office, and 27 percent being used for storage and distribution_ The lot
size is 4000 square feet, and the building size is 3128 square feet The-proposed addition is 800
square feet. The environmental detennination is categorically exempt.
The plans do not correctly show that the size of the lot is 40 feet by 100 feet, for a total of 4000
square feet.
The applicant has indicated that the business has ten employees who work during daytime
business hours.
Toe business is licensed as an office use, although it is a warehousing/distribution business.
Warehousing/distribution is not permitted in the C-2 zone. Staff has visited the site, however,
and believes t hat even though the primary function of the business is
warehousing/ distribution, the primary use of the building is office, as the product involved in
not excessively bulky.
The subject lot is in the coastal zone and therefore the building addition would be subject to
Coastal Commission approval.
The applicant is requesting to construct a two-story expansion of an existing building. The
applicant indicates that the additional 800 square feet proposed is for needed additional
storage. Currently there is space on the site for parking two vehicles, although access to these
6 P.C. Minutes 4/ 3/90
spaces is through the Rea's Hardware parking lot. The proposed addition would eliminate these
two spaces.
The proposal to add square footage to a nonconforming commercial building is subject to the
following requirements of the zoning ordinance: (1) Section 1162(d): For every building in a
"C" or "M" zone hereafter erected, or reconstructed. or expanded, the parking requirements and
the turning area for the entire building shall be as set forth in this ordinance. In no case shall
new construction reduce the parking serving an existing use below the requirements of this
ordinance; and, (2) Section 13-7: Expansion of existing nonconforming manufacturing or
commercial structures shall be prohibited.
Because of these requirements. the only way to legally expand the building is to bring the
parking up to code. Therefore. the applicant has applied for a parking plan to provide required
parking by contribution of an in-lieu fee.
Since the property is located within the vehicle parking district, the code allows for
contributions to an improvement fund in-lieu of required parking. subject to approval of a
parking plan. This lot qualifies for use of the in-lieu fee to compensate for all required parking
as the lot is less than 4001 square feet, with less than a 1: 1 floor area to lot area ratio.
The in-lieu fee per parking space is $7564, based on the base 1985 fee of $6000 adjusted in line
with the Consumer Price Index.
The applicant has requested to pay the fee only for the additional parking that would be
required by the proposed addition. Based on one space per 250 square feet, there would be three
parking spaces, or a contribution of $22.692.
However, to bring the entire building up to current parking requirements would require 16
parking spaces or a contribution of $121,024. Unless the applicant modifies the request to pay
this amount, staff would recommend denial.
The Planning Commission may wish, however, to continue this item to allow the applicant
time to explore other alternatives.
Section 1169 of the zoning ordinance pertaining to parking plans allows for the Planning
Commission to approve a reduction in required parking, taking in the following
considerations: van pools. bicycle and foot traffic , common parking facilities, varied work
shifts, valet parking, and unique features of the proposed use.
The only applicable consideration for this business might be the last option. This business
basically creates a demand for parking for its employees only. According to the applicant,
practically no walk-in customers or clients visit this location. In this regard, if parking
requirements were based on need, the uniqueness of the business could perhaps justify a
parking requirement of 10 or 11 spaces. The in-lieu fee would thus be reduced significantly. A
covenant with the City a party thereto recorded with the property limiting the type of use and
total occupancy would be recommended.
Another option would be to provide only one story of additional storage and then use the roof,
which would be accessible from the alley, to provide some parking. A combination of several
alternatives would also be possible.
Public Hearing opened at 7 :55 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
Lee Oates, 1316 3rd Street. Santa Monica, representing the applicant, addressed the
Commission and: ( 1) stated that they want to add storage space: (2) explained that the function
of this business is to warehouse and distribute art prints: (3) said that the prints are stored in
the rear portion of the building and the business is now in dire need of additional storage space
for stacking of the prints; (4) explained that there is a 20 by 20 area at the rear of the building
7 P.C. Minutes 4/3/90
which they are now requesting to use as print storage stacking space; (5) commented that the
staff report mentioned several alternatives of which he was not aware and he therefore favored
a continuance of this matter so that the alternatives could be explored with the staff.
GenyCompton, 200 Pier Avenue, addressed the Commission and: (1) commented that the issue
of parking in the downtown area is very difficult; {2) felt that this is a good project in the
downtown area which should be studied; (3) discussed the past history of parking in the
downtown area; (4) said that there are not parking problems in the downtown area during the
daytime hours; (5) suggested that the applicant contact the Chamber of Commerce, since they
will soon be discussing this issue; (6) favored a continuance of this item; (7) felt that the
applicant's request is reasonable.
Public Hearing closed at 8:00 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
Comm. Peirce stated that there are several categories which determine the parking
requirements in the downtown area. Noting that the Commission does not have a specific
policy on downtown parking. he did not feel it would be appropriate to require this applicant to
have to provide so much parking. He felt it would be appropriate to continue this matter so that
the applicant can discuss the alternatives with staff. He felt that this issue should be placed
high on the list of studies.
MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Chmn. Ingell, to continue this public hearing to the
meeting of May 1, 1990.
Chmn. Ingell stated that this appears to be a successful business downtown which does not use
a great deal of parking or adversely impact the area.
Mr. Lee discussed the mitigation of parking requirements as specified in the municipal code,
and he cautioned that any compromise between this applicant and the City must be within the
guidelines as set forth in the code. He continued by suggesting that the Commission may wish
to direct staff to study the possibility of amending the ordinance to provide for potential
mitigation measures.
Comm. Moore commented that there is an economic strangle-hold in the downtown area
because of the parking requirements, and something must be done to remedy this problem. He
further noted that he strongly opposes car stackers. because of liability. maintenance, and
appearance issues.
Comm. Ketz agreed that she opposes car stackers in the downtown area.
Comm. Rue hoped that the Chamber of Commerce can accomplish what they have set out to do
in regard to parking in the downtown area.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ingell
None
None
None
SUB-86-2 --SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE REVISED GRADING
PLAN FOR AN EIGHT-LOT SUBDIVISION AT 532. 534. AND 540 20TH STREET. COMMONLY
KNOWN AS ''THE POWER S1REET SUBDIVISION''
Mr. Lee discussed a letter dated April 3, 1990, from Warner Lombardi. asserting that Comm.
Peirce has a potential conflict of interest in this matter because he lives in close proximity to
the subject project. He explained that Comm. Peirce is outside of the 300-foot range; therefore.
he would not be precluded from participating in discussion of this matter.
8 P.C. Minutes 4/3/90
Mr. Lee, referring to new rulings on this matter, asked Comm. Peirce whether he feels the
proposed project would have an economic impact (decrease or increase) on property that he
personally owns, due to its distance from the proposed project.
Comm. Peirce did n~t feel that the proposed project would economically impact his property.
Mr. Lee stated that Mr. Schubach has advised that it is very difficult to ascertain whether the
proposed project would financially impact Comm. Peirce's property. Mr. Lee stated that, in his
opinion, he did not feel Comm. Peirce has a conflict of interest related to this matter, and
Comm. Peirce can therefore take part in this hearing.
Mr. Lee, noting that staff may recommend that this matter be continued, stated that a
continuance would provide an opportunity for him to contact the Fair Political Practices
Commission to ensure that there is no conflict of interest for Comm. Peirce in this matter.
Comm. Peirce felt that there is no reason to delay this hearing, based on the fact that both he
and staff have ascertained there would be no conflict of interest.
Comm. Rue concurred, stating that action should be taken on this matter as soon as possible.
Comm. Moore agreed, stating that this City is very small and any large project could have a
potential impact on virtually every property in the City. He therefore favored going ahead with
the hearing.
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated March 27, 1990. The staff environmental review
committee recommends that a focused EIR. be prepared to address possible impacts as noted in
the initial study of the supplemental assessment, at the applicant's expense.
Mr. Schubach specified three alternatives: ( 1) recommend a negative declaration if a finding
can be made that the revised grading plan does not result in a significant impact, and the
incremental impact of the storm water runoff into the deficient storm system is not
cumulatively considerable because the watershed is built out and the potential for future land
coverage is, therefore, extremely limited; (2) recommend a mitigated negative declaration.
This would only be possible if a modification is made to the subdivision and grading plan
which reduces environmental impacts to an insignificant level. Consider the mitigation
measure as recommended by the Public Works Department; or, (3) to continue the matter
pending the receipt of additional information from the developer and/ or the Public Works
Department.
On January 17, 1989, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve
the revised grading plan. The attached L.A County hydrology study was not available, nor was
the preliminary information from L.A County, which resulted in the City Council's requesting
the study.
The City Council at their meeting of June 13, 1989, directed staff to conduct a subsequent
environmental assessment of the revised grading plan because of the change in grade, a
hydrology study error made by the developer, and new information from the County about the
hydrology of the watershed.
On September 20, 1989, the staff environmental review committee conducted the initial study
and completed the checklist to identify possible impacts. Findings and recommendations,
however, were continued until completion of the watershed study by L.A County.
On March 8, 1990, the staff environmental review committee made a finding that the project
would have a significant environmental impact and recommended the preparation of a focused
EIR. to address the items checked for possible impact. The committee relied on the CEQA
definition of "cumulatively considerable" impacts in making the finding that the project's
impact would be significant.
9 P.C. Minutes 4/3/90
Staffs finding that the project has a significant environmental impact was primarily based on
Section 15065 of the Public Resources Code, "Mandatory Findings of Significance," which
states: The project has possible environmental effects which are individually limited but
cumulatively considerable. As used in the subsection, "cumulatively considerable" means that
the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable
future projects.
The staff review committee believed that this section applied to this project and therefore was
completed to make a finding of significance.
Also, given the information from the County about potential flooding of the area, staff noted
concern about the possibility of allowing homes to be built where they might be subject to flood
damage. The County's study generally indicates that the flood control system within the
watershed area is not capable of handling a one-year frequency of rainfall at this time, and it
should be designed for a 50-year storm. None of the information received has clearly indicated
what the level of water would be in the case of a 50-year storm and whether or not this is a valid
concern.
Therefore, the main benefit of preparing a focused EIR would be to obtain specific data
regarding the amount of runoff contribution from this project as compared with the overall
contribution of the watershed, and data regarding the flood elevations and ponding locations
that would result from a 50-year storm and the risks, if any, to private property.
The Public Works Department has been working on this project in conjunction with the
Planning Department and is expected to provided additional analysis. This analysis will be
provided to the Planning Commission as soon as it is available.
Len Terry, Deputy City Engineer, representing the Public Works Department, addressed the
Commission. He responded to a question posed by Comm. Peirce regarding the County report
and the issue of additional runoff by stating that the report did not address that topic. He
stated that the City does feel that is an issue which should be addressed.
Mr. Terry read into the record a comment stating that the Public Works Department is of the
opinion that insufficient information has been provided from the developer in regard to the
drainage concerns involving the subject property and surrounding area. He noted that some
information has been submitted; however, the information does not solve the problem. He felt
that it would therefore be appropriate to require additional information and that a focused EIR
be provided related to the drainage.
Mr. Terry commented on staffs suggestion that this item be continued and stated that a
continuance would allow the developer's engineer time to submit the appropriate data to
resolve the problems that have not yet been fully answered.
Mr. Terry stated that the County study was received only one month ago; therefore, the
developer's engineer has not had an opportunity to address the concerns.
Mr. Terry, in response to a question from Comm. Peirce, explained a one-year storm versus a
fifty-year storm. He stated that the volume of water which would occur in a one-year period
would give the one-year storm figure. He stated that the County report relates primarily to
flows and volumes of water which would pass a property in a particular time frequency and
with the existing storm drain system.
Comm. Peirce noted that specific back-up data has not been provided by the County engineer
(Mr. Hildebrand) to support the County figures contained in the report.
10 P.C. Minutes4/3/90
Mr. Terry stated that the information would be in the County's rough data. He continued by
explaining the type of data which would have been used in preparation of the document.
Comm. Peirce noted that the report appears to address only the issue of pipes.
Mr. Terry suggested that the developer's engineer be given an opportunity to provide
information related to expansion of the County's data and to provide information on drainage
and flooding problems which have not yet been addressed. He felt that there can be a
reasonable and timely solution to this problem.
Mr. Terry stated that his department would like the developer to ensure that no flooding will
occur as a result of this project, with the existing County flood control system in place at the
current ti.Ine.
Mr. Terry, in response to technical questions from Comm. Rue, explained that he would be
unable to provide specific answers until additional information is provided to the City by the
engineer. He again noted that if this item is continued, it would allow the engineer time to
provide information for the staff to review so that questions can be answered.
Comm. Moore questioned whether there are problems with the currently existing drainage
system in the area of this proposed project. He questioned whether the system would even be
able to handle the one-year storm.
Mr. Terry replied that there could be a problem; however, Comm. Peirce countered by stating
that the report asserts that the problem arises with a fifty-year storm.
Comm. Peirce stressed that he has lived in that area for 21 years, and there has never been any
ponding at 20th Street and Power Street due to water back-up.
Comm. Moore perceived that the system is inadequate even for a one-year storm. He asked
whether staff feels there are problems with the system.
Mr. Terry attempted to clarify the issue and explained that the County study is based upon the
capacity of the underground storm drain pipe, which is the County facility. Neighbors in the
area have testified that there has been no flooding; however, that does not mean that there has
not been ponding in small amounts. He said that there are two different points of view;
whether one looks at it from the County's standpoint, or whether one looks at it from the
neighbors' standpoint. He stated that the two answers do not appear to be similar.
Comm. Moore noting that there has been a four-year drought. stated that a key issue is how
much water can be absorbed by the land, noting that the more the land is paved over. the less
absorption there is. He questioned whether there are technologically-advanced techniques
which can be used.
Mr. Terry stated that there are a number of technological alternatives; however, the answer
depends upon the method proposed by the engineer. He stated that it is incumbent upon the
developer's engineer to propose an adequate solution to resolve the problems, and the City's
purpose is to review the proposal to ensure that it is viable.
Chmn. Ingell commented on the CEQA guidelines which state that "cumulatively considerable
means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects
of probable future projects." Noting that most single-family homes do not need CEQA
approval, he asked Mr. Lee how he would feel using that specific definition.
Mr. Terry felt that the applicant should address any run-off problems before the project is
approved. In this particular case, he felt that the applicant has not had adequate time to
address the concerns, since the County report was received only a short time ago.
11 P.C. Minutes 4/3/90
Chmn. Ingell stated that the CEQA definition appears to target every type of project.
Mr. Schubach expanded on the issue of cumulative impacts as related to new projects. He stated
that there will continue to be newer and bigger homes being built in the City.
Chmn. Ingell noted, then, that any new project which will affect drainage would trigger the
CEQA guidelines.
Mr. Schubach agreed, and stated that these issues will be addressed in the housing element.
Mr. Lee clarified the issue of cumulative impacts. He stated that any projects deemed to cause a
significant problem can be addressed. He continued by explaining the assessment of
cumulative impacts as well as the issue of categorical exemptions allowed by CEQA
Mr. Lee. in response to comments from the Commission, explained when EIRs would be
necessary for specific projects.
Comm. Peirce noted that other large projects have not triggered the flooding requirements; he
therefore said that this appears to be selective enforcement.
Mr. Lee responded by explaining the triggers which require extensive reports and EIRs.
Mr. Terry continued by discussing another project two blocks away from this proposed project
as it relates to the issue of water drainage. He stated that the project engineer was required to
provide mitigation measures in regard to the water which would be generated. and measures
were proposed. He stated that the engineer for this developer should be given an opportunity to
provide mitigation measures. In response to a question from Chmn. lngell, he continued by
explaining what requirements were placed on that other project, and he noted that 100-year
storm figures were used.
Comm. Moore, noting that a letter had been set to the Commission asking about the density,
asked about this particular.
Mr. Schubach explained the size of the lots in question, stating that the average lot size is 6000
square feet. He said that the density will be approximately seven units per acre, and up to 13
units per acre is allowed.
Chmn. Ingell reminded everyone that the only topics at issue at this time are the grading plan
and the hydrology report.
Public Hearing opened at 8:50 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
Jim Marquez, representing the property owners, addressed the Commission. He stated that
they are attempting to follow the rules and comply with the conditions of the original tentative
tract map. He noted that the environmental issue is not subject to the appeal process. He said
that he objects to the process, noting that they originally complied with the requirements. He
continued by discussing all of the various studies which they have been required to do and
which in fact they have done. He handed out copies of a letter dated May 16, 1989, from the
County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works to Mr. Antich, Director of Public Works,
which states that the county has known since 1973 that the storm drain system is inadequate.
Mr. Marquez stated that the applicant would like to have a continuance so that he can meet
with the Public Works Department people to discuss these issues. He noted, however, that it has
been years since approval was given to the tentative tract map. He continued by discussing the
conditions imposed in the tentative tract map and what actions the applicant has taken. He
stated that all County requirements have been met; however, when the issue was presented to
the City Council, a request was made to do a further study on the system. He noted that an
12 P.C. Minutes 4/ 3/90
entire year has gone by since that time. He requested that this matter b e c on tinue d for 30 days
so that the applicant can work out solutions for the drainage problem. H e stre ssed tha t the
County has already accepted the drainage calculations as being a dequate; ther efor e, the
applicant does not feel it is necessary to provide an EIR..
Mr. Marquez stated that, pursuant to a request from the Public Works Department, the grade
line of the street has been changed so that drainage is in contour with the land.
Mr. Marquez stated that in the past a sump system has been suggested, and they are willing to
do that; however, he felt it would be more appropriate to require this as a condition of the
mitigated negative declaration, rather than requiring an EIR. He stated that this is not an
issue of re-evaluating the entire storm drain system. He stated that there have not been severe
storm situations in this area. He noted that this is a sand terrain, and the soil is very porous.
He asked that the project not be delayed any further and that the Commission approve a
mitigated negative declaration with conditions so that they can go forward with their grading
plan at the City Council level. Al ternatively, he requested a 30-da y c ontinu a nce to discuss
these issues with staff.
Gerry Compton, 200 Pier Avenue, addressed the Commission and asked for clarification on
whether single-family homes in that area will be required to do hydrology studies, to which
staff replied that that is correct.
Comm. Peirce asked who is responsible for imposing the r equirement that single-family
projects provide h ydrology reports. He felt that further .information is necessary on this issue.
Mr. Compton continued and: (1) stated that the City Council should be the body to decide
whether this requirement is to be enforced; (2) discussed the area from Pier Avenue to Gould
Avenue and stated that the entire area drains into this system; (3) said that half of the single-
family homes would be impacted by this new drainage requirement, and a public hearing
should be held on it.
Bill Bryson, 2017 Power Street, addressed the Commission and: (1) commented on the fifty-
year flood, noting that even though this is a drought -pot ential area. whe n it rains many times
there is flooding, as evidenced by the Los Ang ele s River almost overflowing: (2) note d that the
County report asserts that this project will cause a potential problem; (3) stressed that it is
important to think about what impacts this project will have; (4) stressed that it is important
to address all the issues.
Comm. Peirce commented on the County report, and stated that any engineer who provides
assumptions without also providing back-up data is inadequate in his preparation of the
report. He stressed the importance of being able to check the data and calculations as related to
the assumptions. He felt that unless additional information is provided, the report should not
be used as a basis for making the decision.
Warner Lombardi, 1849 Valley Park Drive, addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that a
year ago the residents discovered serious errors in the hydrology report prepared by the
developer, which fact was brought to the attention of the City Council; (2) noted that Harris and
Associates has withdrawn some of their calculations, based on the fact that they were provided
with inaccurate data; (3) stated that the residents applaud the recommendation of the
environmental review committee to require a focused EIR with the corrected information; (4)
thanked the City for notifying him well in advance of this public hearing; (5) thanked the
attorney for responding to his letter; (6) asked whether this decision of the Commission can be
appealed, to which Mr. Lee responded in the affinnative; (7) addressed the issue of ponding,
stating that it has occurred in the project area numerous times; (8) asked about the status of the
tentative tract map, to which Chmn. Ingell pointed out that that is not at issue at this time.
Mark Ca vanaugh, 912 Torrance Boulevard, Redondo Beach, project developer, addressed the
Commission and: ( 1) stated that the hydrology calculations provided by his engineer were
13 P.C. Minutes 4/ 3/90
accepted by the county as were the storm drain system reports; (2) submitted copies of the
letters from the County related to that fact [letters dated March 29, 1990. and March 15. 1988];
(3) said that they have provided everything which was required, and the County is ready to
approve the project; (4) noted that the report was revised because originally there were no
calculations for the drainage coming from the neighboring property; (5) said that the storm
drain plan is ready to be stamped off by the County.
Mr. Cavanaugh continued and: (1) said that their storm drain can be hooked up to the existing
storm drain system; (2) in response to a question from Comm. Peirce regarding the fifty-year
storm drain system, he replied that his engineer was not present to answer technical
questions; (3) stated that information from the Public Works Department was not available
until only today; (4) noted that he had asked that department to provide additional
information related to what more the City wants; (5) noted that the City's consultant. BSI, has
approved the plan; (6) said that the sewer plan has been approved; (7) commented that the only
thing holding up this project is approval by the City Council of the grading plan; (8) explained
that the only reason the grading plan was sent back was to require that the retaining walls
along the hillside are kept under a certain height; (9) said that he has now been thrown a
wrench by the City asserting that the storm drains are not adequate, but the storm drain plan
is ready to be approved by the County; (10) questioned whether there is another possibility
which he could discuss with staff; (11) stated that he should not be responsible for a
substandard system which is substandard all over the area.
Mr. Cavanaugh continued and: (1) stated that he has already been through an environmental
review process; (2) responded to questions from Comm. Rue related to the revised hydrology
report and explained that the original report did not include the property up the hill on Loma
Drive which would drain down onto this project; (3) said the engineer revised the calculations
to take into account that other property; (4) stressed that he has gone through the proper
channels, has fulfilled all the County requirements, and has submitted all requested
materials; (5) stated that the revised calculations involved only an insignificant amount of
water, and the County has no opposition to their tying into the County storm drain system; (6)
said, in response to a question from Comm. Rue, that later concerns surfaced related to
whether the County's storm drain system was adequate for this project to tie into; (7) noted that
the City Council does not feel the system is inadequate enough to impose a moratorium,
however, they feel that this developer should be held up; (8) said that he should not be
penalized, noting that all projects are tying into an overall substandard storm drain system;
(9) noted that he has been attempting to have this project approved for the past four years, and
he is willing to work with staff to mitigate the amount of water going into the storm drain
system; (10) in response to a question from Comm. Rue, explained the revision made to the
originally approved tentative tract map because of an error in calculating the height of the
culvert, stating that the grading changed 18 inches.
Guillermo Garcia, 1835 Valley Park, addressed the Commission and: (1) discussed the 18
inches needed to drain the water, but he noted that it is almost four feet to the street; (2) stated
that the plan is not only insufficient, but it will also destroy several large trees; (3) proposed
alternative drainage solutions; (4) stated that three lots will now be eight lots and he noted
concern over the water which will drain to Valley Park; (5) said that a sump pump was proposed
in the past; (6) said that the grade has been changed substantially, from 18 inches to four feet;
(7) questioned who is going to make the final determination; i.e., the City, the County, BSI, the
engineer, etc.
Public Hearing closed at 9:28 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
Comm. Rue questioned who is liable in the event of a flood, and he asked about the risks being
taken.
Mr. Lee explained that this is a difficult issue to address; however, he continued by discussing
other instances which resulted in mudslides and earth movement. He said that the litigation is
only now being settled and it has been a very complex case. He stated that he is not aware of all
14 P.C. Minutes 4/ 3/90
the facts; therefore, he cannot assess liability in this case. He stated that the risks must be
detennined before liability can be ascertained.
Comm. Rue noted that the County asserts the proposal is adequate; therefore, he questioned
whether it should not just go forward.
Comm. Peirce stated that the County did not recommend that this project hook into the storm
drain system, noting that the report is actually silent on this issue.
Chmn. Ingell pointed out that the county report did not specifically address this particular
project; it merely discussed what is currently existing there.
Comm. Peirce stated that the key issue is whether or not the Commission has enough
information to determine whether the excess capacity from this property, when this property
is built up, into the storm drain will be a significant impact. He questioned whether there is
adequate information at this time to make such a determination. He stated that without the
back-up data, the County report is not useful. He questioned how this material can be obtained.
Comm. Ketz agreed that there is not enough back-up data to make a decision.
Comm. Peirce suggested that staff work with the applicant and County engineer on this project.
He noted the importance of this decision. explaining that it will set a precedent as related to
future projects. He said that the Commission needs more facts.
Comm. Moore stated that key information relates to the current flow off the property versus
the flow after the property is developed. If there is a large increase, mitigation measures should
be addressed.
Mr. Marquez addressed the Commission and stated that they can work with staff to address
these issues.
Chmn. Ingell pointed out, however, that a focused EIR would address these issues.
Mr. Marquez disagreed, stating that the issues can be addressed and solved without having to go
through the process of a focused EIR, which entails much preparation and a great deal of time.
He felt that the problem can be solved by working with staff.
Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Chmn. Ingell, explained that a focused EIR would
address only the issues of the grading and water run-off and would not be terribly time
consuming, and would take approximately three months. He continued by further explaining
the procedure followed for a focused EIR. He noted that another option would be to recommend
a negative declaration with mitigation measures.
Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Comm. Peirce, stated that it is his understanding
that the County has given their approval for this project to tie into the County storm drain
system.
Comm. Peirce asked what body is ultimately responsible for determining the risk on the flood
control system.
Mr. Schubach stated that it is up to both the City and the County to determine, after review,
that the system is adequate.
Mr. Lee explained that the County is the responsible agency, under the environmental review
process, to address the adequacy of taking the run-off into their system. The City, in tenns of
being the lead agency in this discretionary review process, must review the information
provided and verify that the information is true and accurate. Such determination must be
based upon the professional opinion given by staff. He noted that testimony has been given by
15 P.C. Minutes 4/ 3/90
a representative of the Public Works Department that there is not adequate information to
make the final determination.
Comm. Moore stated that the issue here is the believability of the engineering study. He did not
feel that an environmental impact report, focused or not, is necessary. He felt that a
satisfactory engineering study is necessary which specifies: the current drainage from the site,
the calculated drainage with the improvements and alternates, and a match-up of that
information with the existing sewer system to determine the probability of floods.
MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Rue, to continue this item to the meeting of May
1, 1990, for the purpose of obtaining the following additional information on the engineering
report: the current drainage from the site, the calculated drainage with the improvements
(including alternate improvements), and a match-up of that information with the existing
sewer system to determine the probability of floods. Also, at the next hearing to ask the County
engineer, or other suitable representative, how the calculations were derived and what the
numbers mean.
Mr. Lee, in response to a question from Comm. Peirce, stated that it would be appropriate to
reopen the public hearing at the next meeting so that people can give additional testimony on
the new information.
Warner Lombardi addressed the Commission and stated that there is a letter which asserts that
the County did not approve the tie-in to their storm system.
Comm. Peirce, after discussion with Chmn. Ingell, did not feel it is appropriate for the
Planning Commission to request mitigation measures at this time.
Chmn. Ingell noted, however, that staff had recommended a negative declaration with
mitigation measures. He therefore favored requiring mitigation measures at this time so that
the cumulative impacts of the excess run-off can be addressed. The item can then be sent to the
City Council for approval.
Comm. Peirce disagreed, asking why the developer should be required to provide mitigation
measures for a potentially minor impact. He stated that there are agencies within whose
purview it is to ensure that the system is adequate.
Chmn. Ingell stated that he would vote against the motion, based upon staffs recommendation
to recommend a negative declaration with mitigation measures.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comm. Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Rue
Chmn. Ingell
None
None
NR-90-2 -AN EXCEPTION FROM SECTION 13-7(B) "IO ALLOW A REMODEL AND EXPANSION
TO AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING GREATER THAN A 50%
INCREASE IN VALUATION AT 2624 THE STRAND (CONTINUED FROM MEETINGS OF MARCH
6 AND MARCH 20. 1990)
Mr. Schubach explained that this item was continued from the meeting of March 20, 1990, to
allow the applicant time to return with alternative plans. No alternative plans had been
submitted until this evening; therefore, staff recommended that the request be continued so
that staff can study the plans.
Hearing opened at 9:57 P.M. byChmn. Ingell.
16 P.C. Minutes 4/ 3/90
Gerry Compton, 200 Pier Avenue, project architect, addressed the Commission and: (1)
apologized for not having the plans in on time; and, (2) continued by discussing the revised
plans for the project.
Hearing closed at 10:03 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
Comm. Peirce stated that he would prefer not to discuss the project until staff and the
Commissioners had a chance to review the revised plans.
MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Chmn. Ingell, to continue this item to the meeting of
April 17, 1990, and to direct that this item be placed at the beginning of the agenda. No
objections; so ordered.
STAFF ITEMS
a) Memorandum Regardin,g Planning Commission Liaison for April 10. 1990. City
Council Meeting
No action taken.
b) Planning Department Activity Report for Februai::y 1990
No comments; no action taken.
c) Tentative Futw:e Planning Commission Agenda
Mr. Schubach advised that the Commission, at their next meeting, would be viewing a home
video depicting a Mobil Car Wash. He stated that arrangements are currently being made as to
the method to be used to show the video.
d) City Council Minutes of March 13 and 15. 1900
No comments; no action taken.
COMMISSIONER ITEMS
Comm. Moore felt that there is no sensitivity on the part of the City regarding the scheduling of
meetings as related to the observance of religious holidays, noting that a City Council meeting
is scheduled on Passover.
Comm. Peirce made several comments: (1) noted concern about three parking spaces at the
north side of 2nd Street adjacent to The Strand, to which Mr. Schubach responded that he
would check into this matter; (2) noted concern that buses on 8th Street going north are too
large for the street and he asked about the turning radius for busses, to which Mr. Schubach
responded that he would check into the matter; and (3) stated that he favors buses, however,
many streets in the City are too small to accommodate them.
Comm. Moore suggested that resolutions be approved as a group rather than individually. Mr.
Schubach also suggested that the minutes be included with the resolutions for approval.
Mr. Lee advised that all resolutions and minutes can be approved as consent items, unless a
specific item is pulled for discussion.
All five Commissioners favored approving the resolutions and the minutes as a group, rather
than individually.
17 P.C. Minutes 4/ 3/90
•
Comm. Rue commented on a memo from the City of Hesperia regarding criteria for new
development, and he discussed topics which could be addressed in the future by the City.
Comm. Ketz commented on an article in the "California Planner" regarding the flexible
standards used in Pasadena. She suggested that staff obtain a copy of the Pasadena ordinance
so that their specifications can be studied.
Chmn. Ingell noted that he attended a meeting of the League of California Cities held in San
Diego. One interesting topic which was raised at the meeting concerned the Brown Act and
whether commissioners should or should not visit project sites, to which Mr. Lee responded
that commissioners are allowed to visit sites.
Chmn. Ingell stated that another item discussed at the meeting was the issue of videos depicting
project sites, to which Mr. Lee responded by stating that he will provide information on that
issue.
Mr. Lee stated that he will provide to the Commissioners an information sheet outlining
Brown Act requirements.
MOTION by Comm. Moore, seconded by Comm. Rue, to adjourn at 10:23 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
mee~fApril3,u ...-,.,:,__,_.-~~~;___
Date
18 P.C. Minutes 4/ 3/90
MINUTES OF nm PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF nm CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
HELD ON APRil., 17, 1990, AT 7:00 P.M. IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Meeting called to order at 7:01 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
Pledge of Allegiance led by Comm. Ketz.
ROIL CAIL
Present:
Absent:
Also Present:
Comms. Ingell. Ketz. Peirce. Moore, Chmn. Ingell
None
Michael Schubach, Planning Director; Edward Lee, Assistant City
Attorney; Sally White. Recording Secretary
Edward Lee, Assistant City Attorney, advised the Commission that it had come to his attention
that this meeting of the Planning Commission is in violation of the Brown Act, in that there
was a failure to meet the 72-hour posting requirement. He explained that because of the
potential criminal and civil sanctions which could be imposed for violations. the Planning
Commission should neither conduct business this evening, nor should it hear any of the
matters on this evening's agenda.
Mr. Lee stated that the only action he would suggest at this time would be to continue the
matters to a date certain.
Mr. Lee gave background information on the Brown Act, explaining that there are provisions
requiring that public hearing agendas be posted in a conspicuous public location 72 hours prior
to the date of the meeting. The requirement is to provide public notice not only to property
owners who may be directly affected, but also to the general public, who may wish to come and
give testimony to the Planning Commission.
Mr. Lee continued by explaining that there is a possibility of sanctions available against the
Planning Commission should it decide to take action on any of these matters. There could be
criminal penalties as well as civil penalties. Any decisions made at this time could be
overturned and held to be null and void by a court oflaw. since there has not been a due process
given in accordance with the requirements of the Brown Act.
Mr. Lee stated that, in order to accommodate members of the public who have come tonight to
give public testimony. there is a possibility that the public hearing could be opened and
testimony could be taken; however, no final decision could take place by the Commission, and
the hearing would need to be continued to a date certain. The Commission was advised against
such a course of action, however, in that there would still be a potential for civil liability, in
that a citizen could claim he was denied his due process in terms of having an opportunity to
listen to the testimony and provide rebuttal.
Mr. Lee offered several options: to continue the entire meeting to a date certain by way of
holding a special meeting; or to continue the items to the next regularly scheduled meeting of
the Planning Commission. In any event, h e advised that the agenda be posted 72 hours prior to
the date of the meeting.
Mr. Le e . in response to a question from Chmn. Ingell r egarding opening the public hearing,
taking testimony. and continuing the public hearing to a date certain, explained that he would
advise against such an action since any deliberations which could be construed as an action
taken would still be subject to criminal sanctions and could be overturned in a civil lawsuit.
Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Comm. Rue, stated that the agenda was posted in
the newspaper and in the public library, as well as within the required 300-foot radius.
However, the required 72-hour posting was not done at City Hall.
1 P.C. Minutes 4/ 17 /90
Comm. Rue felt that in the interest of holding a fair public hearing. these matters should be
continued as suggested by the City Attorney.
Comm. Ketz agreed, stating that it would not be appropriate to jeopardize any of the actions
taken by the Commission.
Mr. Lee, in response to questions from Comm. Moore regarding background history of the
Brown Act, stated that he is not aware of many instances where there has been a failure to
comply with the 72-hour requirement. He continued by giving background information on the
Brown Act, stating that when the requirements were amended, the attorneys present were very
clear in their issuance of directives regarding the posting requirements. He again explained
that any action taken could be subject to criminal as well as civil liability.
Comm. Moore, after hearing the attorney's explanation, agreed that the meeting should be
continued.
Mr. Lee, in response to a comment from the audience, explained also that no action should be
taken on matters which are not public hearings and which have been continued from previous
meetings. All matters which are to be considered by the Commission must be posted on the
agenda under the terms of the requirements.
Mr. Lee, in response to comments as to what course of action to take, stated that there could
even be a possible risk in moving to continue this agenda to a date certain; however, he felt that
it would be an acceptable risk in that the public would be given notice as to when the matters
would be heard and when testimony would be taken. He recommended that the agenda be
noticed and posted in the nonnal locations 72 hours prior to the date of the meeting.
Comm. Moore noted that there is an opportunity to hold three meetings in May. if necessary.
He therefore favored continuing this entire agenda to the next regularly scheduled meeting of
the Planning Commission. In this way, all hearings could just be moved up. This agenda could
either be combined with the agenda for the next meeting; or. if necessary, an additional
meeting could be held.
It was agreed to continue this entire agenda to the next regularly scheduled meeting of the
Planning Commission, May 1, 1990.
The meeting was adjourned at 7:20 P.M.
CERTIFICATION
Date
2 P.C. Minutes 4/ l 7 /90
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH r ) HELD ON MAY 1, 1990, AT 7:00 P.M. IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Meeting called to order at 7:00 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
Pledge of Allegiance led by Comm. Peirce.
ROLLCALL
Present:
Absent:
Comms. Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ingell
None
Also Present: Michael Schubach, Planning Director; Edward Lee, Assistant City
Attorney; Sally White, Recording Secretary
CONSENT CALENDAR
MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve as written:
The minutes of April 3, 1990, and April 17, 1990;
Resolution P.C. 90-26, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CI1Y OF
HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND A
VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #21814 FOR A 1WO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM FOR 1512
MANHATTAN AVENUE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS THE NORfHERLY 35 FEET OF LOT 14,
BWCK 49, FIRST ADDIDON TO HERMOSA BEACH TRACT;
Resolution P.C. 90-27, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CI1Y OF
HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND A
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #22059 FOR A 1WO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM FOR 711 11 TH STREET,
LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS Lor 7, BLOCK 1, TRACT 6851.
No objections; so ordered.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC
No one appeared to address the Commission.
NR-90-2 --AN EXCEPTION FROM SECTION 13-7{B) TO ALLOW A REMODEL AND EXPANSION
TO AN EXJSTING NONCONFORMING SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING GREATER THAN 50
PERCENT INCREASE IN VALUATION AT 2624 THE STRAND {CONTINUED FROM MEETINGS
OF 3/6/90, 3/20/90, 4/3/90, AND 4/17 /901
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated April 12, 1990. Staff recommended approval of the
request as modified.
At the March 20, 1990, meeting, the Planning Commission continued this request because the
proposed second-story a ddition above the garage on Hermosa Avenue was not set back to meet
minimum front yard requirements. He rmosa Avenue is considered a front yard pursuant to
Planning Commission policy statement 88-1 . The Commission requested the applicant to
return with alternatives to addr ess the problem.
The request was continued again at the meeting of April 3, 1990, because the alternative plans
were not submitted until the night of the meeting.
1 P.C. Minutes 5/ 1/90
l The revised plans propose somewhat of a compromise by tapering the second stoxy addition
back from the point which corresponds to the roof of the existing garage. This has the effect of
reducing the visual impact of continuing the nonconforming setback.
This proposal allows the applicant to accomplish the objective of providing two bedrooms over
the garage while maintaining the required open space in the courtyard.
The slanted portion of the building still encroaches into the required front yard setback,
requiring the Planning Commission to approve this as an exception to the policy statement
which identifies Hermosa Avenue and the Strand as front yards.
Hearing opened at 7:04 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
Geny Compton, 200 Pier Avenue, Hermosa Beach, project architect, addressed the Commission
and: (1) handed out photographs of the project site: (2) explained that the project will be
approximately a 57 percent remodel; (3) commented on the setbacks, explaining that that issue
was addressed at a previous meeting; (4) summarized his conversations with the building
director related to this project and the fact that a variance is not necessary; (5) responded to
questions from Comm. Rue related to the blueprints and the proposed building facade: (6)
requested that the Commission address the Issue of interpreting the setbacks along The
Strand, particularly in relationship to remodels.
Norm Quient, 2630 The Strand, addressed the Commission and: (1) asked about the noticing
requirements for this project, explaining that he did not receive a notice for this hearing, to
which Mr. Schubach responded that this is a hearing, not a public hearing, therefore, noticing
was not required: (2) noted that neither the applicant nor the architect were at the meeting of
April 17; (3) felt that the proposed project will violate the height limit and will definitely
impact his light and air; ( 4) noted that the Commission has previously expressed its
disapproval of tandem parking, and have allowed less than the 17-foot setback for other
projects; (5) explained that this project will have tandem parking and will not have a 17-foot
required setback; (6) noted that the bike path runs along Hermosa Avenue in this area. and the
new garage will be set back only three feet from the sidewalk, to which the bike path is
immediately adjacent; (7) asked that approval of this project be denied.
Hearing closed at 7:08 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
Comm. Moore felt that this remodel falls within the intent of the City's goals; therefore, he
favored approval of the request.
Comm. Ketz agreed, stating that she felt this project is within the intent of the nonconforming
ordinance, noting that an attempt is being made to bring an older structure into conformance.
as much as is possible.
Comm. Rue noted that there appears to be some confusion because the interpretation is not
precise related to setbacks along The Strand properties.
Mr. Schubach replied that more refinement might be necessary in regard to this particular
interpretation. He continued by clarifying the City's intent of the interpretation, explaining
that the policy statement is flexible, not a hard and fast rule.
Comm. Rue felt that this designer's approach in setting the third stoxy back from The Strand
will make a difference related to the neighbors' light and air, stating that the building will not
be a massive, bulky project. He stated that he could therefore support approval of the project.
MOTION by Comm. Moore, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve staff's recommendation,
Resolution P.C. 90-15, as written.
2 P.C. Minutes 5/ 1/90
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Ketz, Moore, Petree, Rue, Chmn. Ingell.
None
None
None
CUP 89-5 -CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A RETAIL SNACK SHOP. GAS PUMPS. AND CAR
WASH, AND ADOPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 931
PACIFIC COAST filGHWAY. MOBIL OIL STATION (CONTINUED FROM MEETINGS OF 1/3/90.
2/6/90. 2/?!)/90. 3/'Jn/90. AND 4/17 /90)
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated April 12, 1990. Staff recommended approval of the
request, as modified, subject to the conditions specified in the proposed resolution.
At their meeting of January 3, 1990, the Planning Commission continued this request because
of the inadequate noise study and the need to address concerns regarding the potential noise
impact of the car wash.
At the meeting of February 20, 1990, the Planning Commission again continued this request to
obtain additional information and clarification on the noise measurements and the City's
noise requirements.
At the meeting of March 20, 1990, the request was again continued as the applicant had not
submitted a revised noise study as requested.
In response to concerns over noise, the applicant has modified the request to eliminate the
blow dryers from the car wash and to replace them with a pure water rinse system. Also, a
noise study of the noise impacts without a blow dryer has been submitted.
The applicant's noise consultant measured noise levels at a comparable facility in San Diego
equipped with the pure water system rather than a blow dryer. Noise measurements were taken
at a distance of 61 feet (the distance at the Hermosa location to the trailer park) and were
estimated for an 80-foot distance. These measurements were compared with the ambient levels
at corresponding locations at the Hermosa location. The report shows that the measured noise
levels as generated from the car wash are in all cases well below the ambient levels measured at
the corresponding Hermosa locations, which meets the requirements of Hermosa Beach's noise
ordinance.
The use of the pure water system also eliminates the need for the use of opening and closing
doors, which appears to be a problem at the location in Manhattan Beach. A noise study was
prepared by Davy and Associates addressing further details related to the anticipated noise
impact.
Staff has also taken noise measurements at the Mobil site at the comer of Aviation and
Manhattan Beach Boulevard. Measured at a distance of 27 feet, with the doors closed, the blow
dryer registered a noise level of approximately 75-80 decibels. During the wash phase, the car
wash was barely audible above the traffic noise, and the reading was approximately 60-65
decibels. Although these are rough measurements and general observations, it seems to be
consistent with the finding in the applicant's noise study that without the blow dryer, the noise
problem is minimal.
It was noted that the door system was in operation at the Manhattan Beach facility; although,
one of the window panes in the door was missing. Interestingly, the loudest noise generated
from the entire operation appeared to come from the mechanism which set the doors in
motion.
Staff was concerned that without the dryer in the car wash system, customers may wish to dry
their cars on the site. The recommended condition for two additional parking spaces will
3 P.C. Minutes 5/ 1/90
satisfy some of this need. Also, in order to avoid congestion at the exit of the car wash, staff
recommended a condition that the area be signed for no stopping.
Staff also noted while at the Manhattan Beach site that several cars were stacked behind the
car wash. This brings up additional concerns. First, staff felt that the proposed layout would
encourage a rather disorderly stacking of vehicles. As such, staff recommended a condition
that a stacking lane be clearly marked on the pavement for a capacity of eight cars. The
stacking lane should be oriented for cars entering from the south and shall not interfere with
the turnaround area for the parking stalls. Second, residents have raised a concern regarding
the telling vehicles and the potential additional emission of carbon monoxide. Given the
existing volume of traffic on P.C.H. and that currently the site is used for a gas station and auto
repair facility that already emits pollutants. staff does not believe that the idling vehicles
would significantly increase the impact.
Another concern has been raised regarding the location of the driveway on 9th Street. The
adjacent resident's driveway backs onto 9th Street at the property line and the proposed
driveway is offset from the property line only 6.5 feet. This may present a visibility problem
and a safety problem for the residential vehicle.
The applicant has been informed of this concern and is willing to offset the driveway an
additional 3.5 feet to be ten feet, but claims that any more of a shift would affect turning radius
needs for entering and exiting vehicles. It is also important to maintain a sufficient offset
from P.C.H. However, staff felt that the driveway can be offset an additional ten feet from the
east property line by reducing the width of the driveway to 25 feet, thereby keeping the offset
from P.C.H. the same. As such, staff recommended a condition that the driveway be offset, as
measured along the property line, a minimum of 16.5 feet. Staff further recommended that
that area have some landscaping.
Staff noted further concern about the location of the trash dumpster and storage building at the
rear of the property and recommended a condition that it be relocated away from the property
line at a location to be approved by the Planning Director.
Mr. Schubach, in response to comments from Comm. Moore related to the customer service air
and water units, stated that a condition has been included requiring that those units be
relocated.
Comm. Rue asked about the constraints of the Planning Commission requiring an eight-foot
wall at this project site.
Mr. Schubach explained that the ordinance prohibits any wall higher than six feet in the City;
however, in this case, an eight-foot wall would be a mitigation measure and would serve as a
buffer between the business and the residential neighborhood. Therefore. it might be possible
to allow an eight-foot wall.
Comm. Rue noted concern over possible carbon monoxide emissions from cars waiting in the
stacking lane. He questioned the possibility of requiring that a sign be posted requiring that
people turn off their engines while waiting in the stacking lane.
Public Hearing opened at 7:22 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
Brian Recksteiner, 9891 Vicksburg Drive, Huntington Beach, applicant, addressed the
Commission. He displayed to the Commission a color rendering of the proposed project.
Mr. Recksteiner stated that they have made many compromises related to this project in order
to be a good neighbor. He noted that he had sent to the Commission a letter addressing the issue
of the doors not operating properly at the Manhattan Beach site. He explained that those
problems have all been solved, and air-operated doors are now being used as opposed to
4 P.C. Minutes 5/ 1/90
electrically-operated doors. He also noted that noise will be eliminated since the blowers are
being eliminated.
Mr. Recksteiner stated that the noise study has been redone, and the noise consultant would
explain his findings.
Bruce Davy, 865 Manhattan Beach Boulevard, Manhattan Beach, noise consultant, addressed
the Commission. He noted that Mobil has decided to el1minate the air dxyers and use instead a
pure water rinse facility. He explained that there is an existing facility in San Diego very
similar to the one being proposed here. He visited that site on April 4 and took extensive noise
measurements using the same type of noise measurement device used by the City.
Mr. Davy noted that the results were included in the packets: however, he desired to go through
the report With the Commission. He continued by showing slides as he explained the
measurements. Slides shown were titled: 'Typical Community Noise Characteristics": "North
Side of 10th Street at Southeast Corner of Trailer Park, 61 Feet From Car Wash"; "Comparison
of Measured Noise Levels With Ambient Noise Levels at the West Property Line, Eight Feet from
Car Wash"; and "North Side of Car Wash at Five Feet From Car Wash Wall." He concluded by
stating that the car wash noise levels will be within the guidelines set by the City.
Mr. Recksteiner again addressed the Commission. He discussed Condition No. 6 related to the
hours of operation. He stated that they would like to have hours of operation of 6:00 AM. to
10:00 P.M. seven days a week. He pointed out that during the noise study at no time did the
noise exceed the allowed ambient noise level; therefore, he did not see any problem with
allowing the longer hours of operation.
Mr. Recksteiner commented on Condition No. 14 which requires a water reclamation system to
be used. He stated that they would prefer not to use a reclamation system, explaining that they
can give a better wash without that system.
Mr. Recksteiner commented on Condition No. 11 which relates to the signage at the site. He
passed out photos depicting the current signage and explained that the sign is blocked from
view of southbound traffic since there is a large tree there. He therefore requested that they be
allowed to have a 45-foot sign so that there is visibility for the business. He further asked that
the ID price sign be allowed to be 19 feet, 9 and a half Jnches so that it can be seen. He passed out
renderings depicting the ID price sign. He noted that the City ordinance allows signs of 35 feet.
He also said that he would be willing to lower the 45-foot sign to 35 feet.
Mr. Recksteiner commented on Condition No.19(e) related to the southerly entrance driveway
along 9th Street. He pointed out on a drawing the route the tanker trucks will use to enter and
leave the site. He explained the route which will be used, and he stated that the trucks need 35
feet in order to safely exit the location; not 25 feet as proposed by staff. He continued by
discussing traffic on 9th Street; however, he said that not all of those people are coming from
the Mobil station.
Mr. Recksteiner continued by discussing Condition No. 19(f) related to the stacking lane for
eight cars as required by staff. Noting that the car wash Will now eliminate the blowers and the
cycle will be shortened by a minute and a half, he did not think the eight-car stacking lane is
necessary. He said that people are cautious and look before backing out. He said that the cycle
will now be two and a half minutes.
Mr. Recksteiner discussed Condition 19(g) related to the location of the trash dumpster and
stated that the dumpster can be moved. He discussed the current location of the trash
dumpsters.
Mr. Recksteiner asked for clarification of Condition No. 24 which states that ''The Planning
Commission may review the conditional use permit and may amend the subject conditions or
impose any new conditions if deemed necessary to mitigate detrimental effects on the
5 P.C. Minutes 5/ 1/90
neighborhood resulting from the subject use." He asked whether additional public hearings
would be held for such a review.
Chmn. Ingell explained that a public hearing would be held, and it is within the purview of the
Plannmg Commission to review the CUP and add new conditions if deemed necessary.
Mr. Recksteiner, in response to questions from Comm. Rue regarding the stgnage, explained
that he would like to have two signs at this site: the 45-foot sign, which he would be willing to
lower to 35 feet: and a 19 foot, nine and a half inch ID price sign. He said that such signage is
necessary so that there is visibility. He said that he has never had a clear understanding of the
sign requirements and whether or not the Planning Commission could approve two signs or
whether he needs to apply for a sign variance in order to allow him to have two signs.
Mr. Schubach clarified that only one sign is allowed at this site. Staff felt that a 45-foot pole
sign is not appropriate for Pacific Coast Highway.
Mr. Lee read from the Municipal Code, Section 28(a)-13 related to signs in the C-3 zone and
confirmed that only one ground sign or one pole sign is allowed: however, there appears to be
no specific wording related to the height of the sign.
Mr. Schubach stated that staff does not feel it is necessary to have a sign of more than ten feet
in height at this location.
Comm. Moore commented on the issue of truck turning radius and noted that this is one of the
larger service station lots in the area. He said that driveways in San Francisco can be very
small: yet trucks can ingress and egress safely. He questioned why this applicant insists that
the south driveway must be 35 feet wide.
Mr. Recksteiner stated that there would be difficulty with the truck turning radius if there is a
narrower driveway. He noted that full-sized tanker trucks will be used. not the smaller bob-
tail types. He continued by referring to the drawing to clarify his point.
Parker Herriott, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and: (1) noted concern over Mobil
Oil's proposed project, stating that it is a disgrace and will destroy more of the City; (2) stated
that insensitive corporate powers do not care about cities; (3) noted concern over what is
happening to the earth: (4) said that the oil companies are not as safe as they assert to be: (5)
stressed that the noise will be very annoying; (6) said that this project will not be compatible
with the neighborhood, noting that there is no need to have more car washes in that area: (7)
commented that the applicant is now trying to get out of the staff-proposed conditions: (8) said
that staff has done a good job; however, he felt that this project should be denied since it is not
compatible to the area: (9) felt that traffic-generating businesses should not be encouraged; ( 10)
stated that the car wash is merely a gimmick to get more people into the station: ( 11) stated that
hours of 6:00 AM. to 10:00 P.M. are not appropriate, noting that others are not allowed to begin
working before 8:00 AM.: (12) noted concern over the health, safety, and welfare of the
residents; (13) suggested that there be a six-month review of the CUP to ensure that this
business is not causing problems: (14) felt that the entire project is hazardous and could be
harmful to people: (15) asked whether this project falls under the precise development plan. to
which Mr. Schubach replied in the negative.
Gloria Kolesar, 714 and 726 10th Street, addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that the car
wash time will actually be four minutes, not two and a half minutes as suggested by the
applicant; (2) stated that on many occasions she has observed eight or more cars stacked up
waiting at the other site: (3) commented on a news story she saw regarding a possible new
requirement by the AQMD which may prohibit any further new drive-throughs with stacking;
(4) stated that such a use does build up accumulated carbon monoxide fumes. and she noted that
the stacking area will be very close to the residences: (5) commented on the letter dated May 1,
1990, which she submitted to the staff; (6) said that the wall will actually be only five feet on the
residents' side due to the slope; (7) noted that since cars would be stacking so close to the
6 P.C. Minutes 5/ 1/90
residents, the noise would be very annoying: (8) commented further that the AQMD advises that
turning the engine off and on emits more fumes than just leaving the engine on; (9) noted
concern over the number of cars which will be lining up for a car wash, and the attendant noise
and emissions: (10) commented on the problems experienced by the preschool which abuts the
Manhattan Beach site; (11) noted concern over the tanks. storage, stacking, emissions, and
venting system which will be so close to the residents, especially since the wall iS actually only
five feet; (12) urged the Commission to give due consideration to allowing higher walls in order
to prevent crime as well as to prevent possible emissions.
Mr. Lee commented on the issue of height and stated that there are two apparently conflicting
statements in the code related to this issue. He said that Chapter 15 of the code states that
unnecessary walls, hedges, or fences of over six feet in height are not allowed: however, Code
Section 1215 provides that a wall, fence, or hedge not more than six feet in height may be
located anywhere on the lot to the rear of the rear line of the required front yard. He
interpreted that to mean that there can be a wall of no more than six feet in height at this
location. However, he pointed out that it has been suggested that the Commission address the
issue of amending the zoning code to provide for these types of conditions when such a use
would be a mitigation measure.
Comm. Ketz asked whether a variance could be approved to allow a fence of more than siX fe et,
to which Mr. Lee responded in the affirmative: however, he noted that there would be difficulty
in making the appropriate findings. He felt that a zoning ordinance amendment would be
more appropriate.
Comm. Rue asked whether the CUP could be approved with the requirement for an eight-foot
wall: the Commission could then take up the issue of amending the code requirements.
Mr. Lee stated that there could be such a requirement, based on Chapter 15 of the code; however,
he felt that the best approach is to amend the code and clarify the wording in Chapter 15.
Mr. Lee continued by discussing the height of pole signs, stating that there is a height limit of
35 feet: in this case, the 45-foot sign was grandfathered in. Any change or alteration would
require that the sign be brought into conformance with the current City standards.
Shu Miho, 731 9th Street, addressed the Commission and read into the record her letter dated
April 16, 1990, addressed to Mr. Schubach and the Planning Commission, regarding her strong
opposition to the proposed remodeling of the Mobil Gas Station.
June Williams, Manhattan Avenue, questioned whether the applicant intends to sell liquor at
the retail snack shop, to which Mr. Schubach responded in the negative.
Comm. Peirce noted t hat the hours of the snack shop and gas pumps are not mentioned in the
application. to which Mr. Schubach responded that since no alcohol will be sold. staff had no
opposition to 24-hour service. Only hours restricting the car wash itself have been included.
Howard Longacre, 1221 7th Place, addressed the Commission and (1) asked who actually owns
this gas station; (2) noted that he has had trouble contacting the owner so he can ask some
questions: (3) stated that the ownership appears to be very mysterious: (4) did not feel that
Mobil wants to be a good neighbor, they merely want to maximize their business and get as
many cars in as they can to pump as much gas as possible; (5) felt that the car wash and snack
shop are merely gimmicks to get more people into the station; (6) said that most other Mobil
snack shops sell liquor: (7) felt that a 35-foot sign would be ludicrous: (8) felt that a minimum-
sized stgn would be appropriate; (9) said there is no reason for the snack shop to operate 24
hours because it would create a nuisance: (10) stressed that safety is the main issue at hand: (11)
stated that this gas station is at a very busy intersection and cars make no effort to slow down
because they want to get through the traffic signal; (12) noted that southbound traffic on P.C.H.
merges from three lanes into two very near to this site: (13) noted concern over the tankers
7 P.C. Minutes 5/ 1/90
which will be entering this station: (14) said that if a building permit ts not taken out by
November 24, this application may fall within the precise development plan.
Mr. Longacre continued and: (1) stated that he favors only three pump islands at this site,
rather than the four proposed; (2) strongly opposed the car wash, stating that it will be a
nuisance and ts merely a gmunick: (3) noted that there are already three other car washes in
the area; (4) suggested that the snack shop be required to close at midnight at the latest; (5)
suggested that the 9th Street exit be carefully scrutinized; (6) urged that the CUP be carefully
studied so that things don't slip through.
Sam Lennox, 845 10th Street, addressed the Commission and: (1) noted concern over
supertankers coming into this gas station, especially since it is located so close to a residential
area, and it could be quite hazardous if there is an accident; (2) stated that the proposed car
wash will only add more problems to the area; (3) opposed the tankers entering the site from
the side streets.
Gloria Kolesar again addressed the Commission and: (1) questioned whether there will be a
speaker system, what the projection level would be, and what the hours would be; (2) asked
whether soil testing would be done regularly, and noted concern over soil contamination; (3)
asked about the disposal sump; (4) asked whether the site will be monitored for soil
contamination; (5) questioned whether the lighting will have conditions so that it does not
interfere With the residential area: (6) asked whether conditions will be imposed requiring that
the landscaping be properly maintained, so that a nuisance is not created by trees, sap, and
intrusion.
Mr. Recksteiner addressed the Commission and responded to the issues raised: (1) stated that
the car wash will last one minute with the new system; (2) stated that he wants 24-hour service
for the snack shop and gas station, explaining that those are the hours used at their other
locations; (3) discussed the high-rise ID sign, and stated that if they can only have one sign,
that is the one they would prefer, at 19 feet, nine and a half inches; (4) stated that Mobil has an
outstanding safety record; (5) explained the vent system and stated that such a system is a
construction requirement; (6) stated that the current operator of the site has been there for
approximately 15 years; (7) explained that the zone office in Burbank can be contacted if there
are problems; (8) explained that Mobil actually owns the land, not the station operator, and
Mobil is applying for the CUP; therefore. the operator should not be responding to questions
related to the CUP; (9) could not predict the sales increase. explaining that a gas station does
not generate traffic because gas purchases are impulse buys; (10) stated that each of the
dispensers does have a small speaker system so that if there are problems, the customer can
contact someone; (11) stated that soil testing is required and will be done.
Public Hearing closed at 8:29 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
Comm. Rue commented on the hours of operation, stating that the Commission had previously
reached a consensus that the operating hours for the car wash shall be limited to 7:00 AM.
unW 9:00 P.M. Monday through Friday and from 8:00 AM. until 8:00 P.M. on weekends and
holidays.
Comm. Moore could see no reason to change the hours of operation as worded in the resolution.
He noted that the condition can be modified in the future, depending upon the operating
experience.
Comm. Ketz agreed that the hours as worded are appropriate, and she felt that 6:00 AM. to
10:00 P.M. would be excessive.
Comm. Rue felt that an eight-foot wall would be appropriate.
Chmn. Ingell asked about the possibility of there being a grading differential to the property to
the west.
8 P.C. Minutes 5/ 1/90
Mr. Schubach stated that the wall should be the same height on both sides of the property line,
especially in cases where there is a slope.
Comm. Peirce commented that a water reclamation system sounds like a great idea; however,
in reality he did not feel it would make that much of a difference at this site.
Chmn. Ingell favored the water reclamation system, noting that it would save five gallons of
water for every car wash cycle, using 12 gallons instead of 17.
Comm. Ketz agreed that the reclamation system would be beneficial, especially in light of the
current drought.
Chmn. Ingell was not convinced, however. that a car wash is an appropriate use at this site. He
did not feel that the use has been mitigated adequately, and he did not think that a car wash
would be good for the neighborhood.
Comm. Peirce commented on the signage, stating that he would not vote for approval of any
sign over 10 or 12 feet in height, and he would oppose more than one sign at the site.
Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Comm. Peirce regarding noticing of this issue,
stated that the matter was properly noticed; however, he pointed out that the matter has been
continued a number of times to a date certain and no new posting was required.
Comm. Peirce stated that he would not speak in favor of the car wash; however, he noted that it
is a permitted use which appears to be compatible so long as the blow dryers are not used. He
stated that cars stacking up do not make as much ambient noise as cars traveling along the
highway; therefore, there will not be a great noise impact to the surrounding neighbors. He
stated that the main issue is whether or not a car wash is desired at that location. He did not
feel such a use would create a nuisance. He said that people should be able to buy gas and have
their cars washed, and that the car wash is a part of competition. With the removal of the noise
from the car wash operation, this just becomes another service station.
Chmn. Ingell discussed the signage and stated that a 45-foot sign is excessive and he would
oppose it. He felt that the sign ordinance is far too liberal along the highway. He felt that a
small monument-type sign would be more appropriate.
Comm. Ketz felt that staff's recommendation for one ten-foot sign is appropriate.
MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve staffs recommendation,
Resolution P.C. 90-1, with the following amendments: (1) Condition No. 10 shall be modified to
require an eight-foot wall along the westerly property line adjacent to the residential property
to the west. exact wording to be provided by staff, to ensure that there is not a nuisance to the
neighbors to the west; (2) Condition No. 19(f) shall be modified to require a stacking lane for
five cars, continent upon design approval by the Planning Director; (3) Condition No. 19(e)
shall be modified to read: 'The southerly entrance driveway shall be located a minimum of !.Q
~ from the westerly property line, as measured along the southerly property line and reduced
to a width of 35 feet."; (4) Condition No. 19 (c) shall be modified to require that low
maintenance trees shall be planted, and that there will be no nuisance created by such trees.
Comm. Peirce stated that noise no longer appears to be a problem since the blowers have been
removed.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Rue
Chmn. Ingell
None
None
9 P.C. Minutes 5/ 1/90
AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Rue, to amend the
previous motion to include a condition requiring that lights shall be directed away from the
residential area and that the lighting will not create a nuisance. No objections: so ordered.
Chmn. Ingell advised that this decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed by
writing to the City Council within ten days.
CON 90-4 --CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #21950 FOR A
THREE-UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 1105 CYPRESS AVENUE {CONTINUED FROM
MEETING OF APRD., 17, 19901
Comm. Moore stated that he would abstain from discussion on this matter, explaining that he
lives within 300 feet of the project site.
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated April 11, 1990. Staff recommended that the Planning
Commission approve the conditional use permit for a three-unit condominium and the
tentative parcel map, subject to the conditions specified in the proposed resolution.
This project is located in the R-3 zone, with a general plan designation of high density
residential. The lot size is 4096 square feet. Eight parking spaces are provided. Open space
provided is 900 square feet. The current use is as a duplex. The environmental determination
is categorically exempt.
The subject property is rectangular in shape, with a significant slope upward from front to
back of approximately 14 percent.
The proposed units contain 1 756 square feet and have three bedrooms, including a loft
bedroom, and three and a half bathrooms. The proposed structure consists of two stories and a
mezzanine level above a semi-subterranean garage.
The proposed building elevations exhibit an exterior plaster finish with the use of plastered
band trim, aluminum frame windows. painted pipe railings, and glass block. Also indicated to
enhance the building is a raised planter. an arched. opening, overhead deck structures, painted
chimney stacks. angled walls, painted rootlets, and an aluminum greenhouse structure. These
features enhance both the street appearance and the sides of the building and give the building
an attractive contemporary appearance. Each unit is entered from the side of the building up a
stairway to the first level. The decks, glass block, and other enhancements give visual relief to
the otherwise large and bulky structure.
The plans indicate a front yard setback of five feet, which is adequate, considering the existing
setbacks along the street which average less than five feet. The raised planter in the front yard
is proposed to be 48 inches high, and this must be reduced to 36 inches to meet the requirements
of the zoning ordinance.
Required parking is provided in three tandem two-car garages, and two side-by-side guest
spaces oriented toward the middle of the lot. The proposed curb cut will not result in the loss of
any street parking.
Pursuant to Section 1217 of the zoning ordinance, the side yard setback for multiple units
fronting on a side yard should be one and one-half times the required setback. The project
proposes only the minimum four-foot setback. This setback varies somewhat. as at the
entrance to the stairways at the ground floor there is an eight-foot clearance. Also, the
stairways are open to the side for part of the ascent. Overall, for about half the length of the
building, an eight-foot wide clearance is provided on the ground floor. For the second and third
floors the minimum four feet varies only to six feet, and the variations are less frequent.
P.C. Minutes 5/ 1/90
Staff felt that the building could be redesigned to meet the requirement of Section 1217, but the
proposed variations in setback are somewhat consistent to what the Planning Commission
approved for a similar three-unit project at 1344 Manhattan Avenue. As such, the proposed
design is consistent with the Planning Commission interpretation of this section.
The actual average width of the lot is 40.55 feet, meaning that the sideyard setback must be a
m1nimum of 4.055 feet. Staff recommended a condition to this effect.
The project complies with all other planning and zoning requirements. However, the amount
of cubic feet of storage space is not clearly indicated, although there appears to be plenty
available. Staff included conditions that the amount of storage be clearly identified on revised
plans.
The surrounding area consists primarily of multi-family projects of various ages and styles,
including some newer projects of a similar size to this project. Given the existing high density
character of this area, this project would not be inconsistent with the neighborhood.
Public Hearing opened at 8:47 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
Cheryl Vargo, 5147 Rosecrans Boulevard, Hawthorne, representing the applicant addressed the
Commission and stated that the applicant has read all of the conditions and concurs with the
recommended changes proposed by staff.
Howard Longacre, 1221 7th Place, addressed the Commission and: (1) noted concern that this
project will have a common garage area, which he does not favor for condos. explaining that
each unit should have its own garage: (2) noted conce.m that Ms. Vargo gave a Hawthorne
address when she is a resident of Manhattan Beach and is chairman of the Manhattan Beach
Planning CommiSSton; (3) felt that Ms. Vargo has a conflict of interest since Manhattan Beach
ts the neighboring city to Hermosa Beach; (4) implied that Ms. Vargo does business with local
developers which creates a conflict of interest, particularly since she is a planning
commissioner in a neighboring town; (5) felt that Ms. Vargo should step down from the
Planning Commission if she continues to represent developers.
Ms. Vargo countered and: (1) explained that she gave her business address; (2) confirmed that
she is chairman of the Manhattan Beach Planning Commission, however; (3) she does not
represent developers in the City of Manhattan Beach; (4) commented that people in business
are bound to know many other people in the area.
Public Hearing closed at 8:52 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
MOTION by Comm. Ketz, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve staffs recommendation,
Resolution P.C. 90-29, as written.
Comm. Rue commented that the plans for this project are somewhat scant, and he asked staff
to take note of that fact to ensure that more substantial plans are submitted in the future.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Ketz, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ingell
None
Comm. Moore
None
Recess taken from 8:53 P.M. until 9:00 P.M.
11 P.C. Minutes 5/ 1/90
CON-5 --CONDfflONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #21868 FOR A
THREE-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 350 MANHATTAN AVENUE, AKA 212 4TH STREET
(CQNTINUED FROM MEETING OF APRIL 17. 1990)
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated April 26, 1990. Staff recommended that the Com.mission
request revised plans to be submitted, consistent with the newly adopted ordinance, and to
continue the public hearing to June 5. 1990.
As noted in the staff report prepared for the previous meeting, approval of this project was
contingent upon the City Council taking action to eliminate the 17-foot parking setback on
alleys. On April 24, 1990, the City Council adopted the recommendation of the Planning
Commission to amend the zoning ordinance text to eliminate this requirement. As such, the
Planning Commission may now set this matter for a date certain.
Given that the amendment requires alley setbacks of three feet. nine feet, or 1 7 feet, staff has
included a condition that the parking shall be set back from the alley three feet rather than the
proposed five feet.
Public Hearing opened at 9:03 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
Elizabeth Srour, 820 Manhattan Avenue, Manhattan Beach, representing the applicant, stated
that they agree with staffs recommendation to continue this hearing to the first meeting in
June.
Public Hearing continued at 9:04 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
Comm. Moore commented on the elevations which were submitted for this project, stating that
they make it difficult to visualize the actual impact of the project. He noted that some
applicants have recently been submitting oblique views or other aids to help the Commission
visualize impacts. He felt that such aids are particularly important in this case due to its
location on a prominent corner. He noted that the southern elevation appears to be
particularly uninspired. He commented on the northern elevation, stating that this project
appears to be very unappealing as currently presented. He asked whether additional materials
could be provided to help him visualize the project more easily.
MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve staff's recommendation to
continue this public hearing to June 5, 1990. No objections; so ordered.
CON-90-6 -CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #21754
FOR A 1WQ-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 1010 17TH STREET (CONTINUED FROM MEETING OF
APRIL 17. 1990)
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated April 10, 1990. Staff recommended that the Planning
Commission approve the two-unit condominium and vesting tentative parcel map, subject to
the conditions specified in the proposed resolution.
This project is located in the R-2B zone, with a general plan designation of medium density
residential. The lot size is 5587 square feet. Five parking spaces are provided. Open space of
840 square feet is provided. The current use is an abandoned single-family dwelling. The
environmental determination is categorically exempt.
The subject property is rectangular in shape, with a slight slope downward from front to back.
The proposed units contain 3417 and 3518 square feet and include four bedrooms, three and a
half baths, and a roof deck. The proposed structure consists of two stories and a roof deck
above a semi-subterranean garage.
12 P.C. Minutes 5/ 1/90
The proposed building elevations exhibit a stucco exterior, "S" tile roofing, glass block, bay
windows, entrance porches, and variations in the building facade. These features give the
buildings somewhat of a "Mediterranean" appearance. The use of varying building step-backs
and shapes provide some visual relief to the otherwise large and bulky structures.
The second-story floor plan and the north elevation for Unit A are not consistent. The former
shows a deck which overhangs into the front yard, while the latter shows a window. Th.is
discrepancy needs to be clarified on revised plans. Also. more detailed information needs to be
provided identifying window types and other unspecified architectural elements.
The plans indicate a front yard setback of eleven feet, which is adequate considering existing
setbacks along the street which average about 12.5 feet and range from 5 to 25 feet.
Required parking is provided in two two-car garages, ortented toward the middle of the lot, and
one guest space is provided. No on-street parking is lost as the existing driveway location will
be used, and parking is prohibited on this side of the street.
An existing large mature palm tree located in the back yard of the existing house will be
eliminated as a result of this project, as well as some smaller trees and shrubs. The landscape
plan does not compensate for the loss of the tree. Also, the landscape plan emphasizes the use
of pavtng and lawn and proposes very few plants, especially for a lot of this size.
Given the inadequacy of the landscape plan, staff recommended conditions requiring a revised
landscape plan which compensates for the loss of the mature tree with the use of a specimen
tree, the landscaping of portions of the proposed concrete areas located in front of the two
building entrances, and the provision of shrubs and trees in the sideyard grass area.
The proposed rear yard deck which encroaches into the five-foot rear yard is not a permitted
encroachment and must be eliminated. Staff has included this as a condition of approval.
The project complies with all other planning and zoning requirements. Adequate open space is
provided on the roof decks. and additional space is provided in the excess front yard area. It
appears that adequate storage space is available; although the amount is not clearly indicated.
Staff included a condition that final plans identify the amount of space in the storage areas.
The surrounding area consists of primarily older single-family and two-family structures of
various ages and styles on similarly sized lots.
Public Hearing opened at 9:08 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
Elizabeth Srour, 820 Manhattan Avenue, Manhattan Beach, representing the applicant,
addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that the applicant accepts all of the staff-
recommended conditions and that he is aware of the discrepancies; (2) stated that the deck at
the rear will be eliminated since it is a projection not permitted by code, and that area has been
redesigned so that the projection is eliminated: (3) discussed the front yard and stated that they
intend to have a deck there, however that is not currently shown on the front elevation: (4)
stated that they are aware of staff's concerns related to setbacks and landscaping, and the
owner is prepared to provide and enhance the landscaping plan to compensate for the tree
which will be lost as well as to enhance the facade of the project: (5) asked for approval of the
project, which meets all of the development standards imposed by the City.
Ms. Srour responded to questions by Comm. Rue related to Page 5 of the plans. which depict the
north elevation of Unit A, explaining that the arch shown on the plans will be redesigned;
however, there will be a deck in that area.
Public Hearing closed at 9: 10 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
13 P.C. Minutes 5/ 1/90
MOTION by Comm. Moore, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve staff's recommendation,
Resolution P.C. 90-28, as written.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ingell
None
None
None
SUB 86·2 -SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE REVISED GRADING
PLAN FOR AN EIGHT-LOT SUBDMSION AT 532, 534, AND 540 20TH STREET, COMMONLY
KNOWN AS THE POWER STREET SUBDIVISION (CONTINUED FROM MEETING OF APRIL 3,
1990)
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated April 26, 1990. Staff recommended that this item be
continued to a date certain, pursuant to the applicant's request. As indicated in the presented
report, the project engineer has been unable to complete his study of the drainage, and
therefore the applicant has requested a continuance.
Comm. Peirce asked whether the County Department of Public Works provided further
information on the drainage and flood control report, particularly related to the one-year
flood.
Mr. Schubach responded in the negative, stating that staff has not yet received any
information from that department.
Public Hearing opened at 9: 13 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
Warner Lombardi, 1849 Valley Park Avenue, addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that he
has submitted several letters regarding the issue of whether or not the County has approved the
connection of this project into the county drainage system; (2) asserted that the county has
never approved it; (3) stated that this is not the first time this letter has been submitted [letter
from the County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works to Tony Antich, dated March 15,
1988); (4) stated that he has talked to someone at the county department, and this connection
has not been approved; (5) stated that Harris and Associates has rescinded its approval; (6)
wanted clarification of the facts related to this issue; (7) stated that the county has not reviewed
any of the documentation or drainage for this proposed development.
Public Hearing continued at 9:13 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve staffs recommendation to
continue this matter to the first meeting in June. No objections; so ordered.
PARK 90·2 --PARKING PLAN TO ALLOW THE ADDITION OF 800 SQUARE FEET TO AN
EXISTING NONCONFORMING BUILDING WITH NO EXISTING PARKING: ADDITIONAL
PARKING REQUIRED TO BE COMPENSATED FOR BY PAYING THE IN-LIEU FEE AT 1238
HERMOSA AVENUE, COLVILLE PUBLISHING COMPANY (CONTINUED FROM MEETING OF
APRIL 3, 1990)
Mr. Schubach stated that the applicant has withdrawn this project request. Staff recognized
the withdrawal and did not present a staff report.
Mr. Lee explained that, since the request had been withdrawn, there is no need to open the
public hearing.
14 P.C. Minutes 5/ 1/90
Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Comm. Moore regarding the reason for the
withdrawal, stated that it does not appear that the project was withdrawn because of the in-lieu
fees; rather, after further examination, the applicant decided not to pursue the expansion.
CUP 90-3 --CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR OFF-SALE BEER AND WINE AND ADOPI'ION OF
AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 302 PIER AVENUE. SIMPSON'S
MARKET
Mr. Schubach explained that the applicant, Sang Chang, was called out of the countzy due to
family illness, and he requested that the matter be continued to the end of June.
MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve staff's recommendation to
continue this matter to the meeting of June 19, 1990. No objections; so ordered.
VAR 90-1 •• VARIANCE TO ALLOW A GARAGE SETBACK OF FIVE FEET RATHER THAN THE
REQUIRED 17 FEET AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENT.AL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT
2U50 CIRCLE DRIVE
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated April 25, 1990. Staff recommended that the Planning
Commission deny the request.
This project is located in the R-1 zone, with a general plan designation of low density. The lot
size is 4385 square feet. The proposed addition is 1056 square feet for garage and storage.
On March 8, 1990, the staff environmental review committee recommended an environmental
negative declaration for the request and also recommended that the Planning Commission
deny the request.
Policy Statement 88-1, regarding front yards on through lots, does not specifically identify
which street is the front yard for this block. However, it does state that the front shall be on the
same street frontage that the majority of the existing dwelling units on the block are located.
The main dwellings on all the through lots on this block front on Circle Drive.
The applicant is requesting to construct a three-car detached garage in the rear portion of the
lot ten feet from the existing house. The driveway access is from Monterey Boulevard. The
proposed garage structure also includes an additional ten feet of depth for a storage area. This
placement of a 31-foot deep detached building results in only a five-foot setback from the
Monterey Boulevard right-of-way line.
In staff's judgment. several other alternatives are available to the applicant to construct the
garage in conformance with the 1 7-foot setback. These can easily be accomplished without
creating problems with the open space requirement, contrazy to the applicant's statement
regarding the need for the variance to allow for adequate open space. The most obvious
alternative would be the use of a detached two-car garage rather than a three-car garage, located
eight feet from the house or attached to the house , meaning that ample side yard and rear yard
areas would be available for open space.
Because of the 80-foot right-of-way of Monterey Boulevard, an excess 13 feet exists between the
rear property line of the lot and the edge of the sidewalk. As the applicant notes, this means the
proposed garage setback of five feet will actually result in an 18-foot setback from the
sidewalk. Although staff agrees this would allow for parking without iD.frtnging upon the
sidewalk, it would force cars to be parked in the excess right-of-way.
Historically, these excess rights-of-way have been considered part of the open space of the
community. For example, the open space element of the general plan specifically identifies
streets and parkways as open space which should be preserved.
15 P.C. Minutes 5/ 1/90
Public Hearing opened at 9:23 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
Kip Kolodziejski, 660 Ocean Park Boulevard, Santa Monica, project architect, addressed the
Commission and: (1) stated that approval of this variance request will allow for a 30-foot
driveway suitable for the parking of four to six automobiles; (2) said that denial of the variance
would not help the neighborhood visually or improve the open space; (3) said that this project
has merit and provides three covered parking spaces where only two are required and where
none currently exist; (4) explained that the project satisfies the 17-foot setback requirement by
using the 13-foot right-of-way along Monterey plus the five-foot rear yard setback, for a total of
18 feet; (5) said that the driveway will be used fo r safe parking.
Mr. Kolodziejski continued and: (1) said that this project provides the required open space on
the lot while continuing to retain the space as open space for the community; (2) said that this
project does not affect the 50 percent rule, since the size of the garage will be less than 50
percent; (3) explained that this project is consistent with existing garages and setbacks on
Monterey; (4) said that the neighboring properties have setbacks ranging from zero to seven
feet; (5) said that the average setback for the neighbors is 3.2 feet; (6) commented that all the
neighbors are therefore encroaching into the front property line more than this project; (7)
continued by discussing the various setbacks.
Mr. Kolodziejski continued and: (1) explained that this project will provide needed storage and
parking spaces in order to remove their cars from the street: (2) noted that this project had an
existing one-car garage which was removed by the owners: (3) said that approval of this
variance will prevent a vast sea of concrete being used as the driveway and Will not interrupt
the character of the neighborhood; (4) felt that if the intent of the 17-foot setback rule was to
allow two additional parking spaces on the driveway, then the implementation of a 30-foot
driveway would be to park four to six cars, which he did not feel is the desire of the community;
(5) felt that this is another case of the 17-foot setback rule doing more harm than good; (6)
suggested that there be flexibility in the rule, and he noted that this project complies with the
spirit of the law, if not the letter; (7) asked for approval of this project.
Phyllis Carson, 2135 Circle Drive , applicant, addressed the Commission and: (1) gave
background information on when she purchased this property and how she was informed by
the City that certain improvements needed to be made, including the parking; (2) explained
that she was told that the garage needed to be demolished, and no one ever told her the garage
could be remodeled; (3) continued by explaining that she did what she thought she was supposed
to be doing in her attempt to comply with the code; (4) noted that she obtained 24 names on a
petition [which was handed to the Commission] from neighbors approving of the proposed
project, and definitely not wanting a 30-foot expanse of concrete; (5) stated that she needs the
parking space, especially since the parking situation is so bad in the area; (6) said that she
desperately needs the additional storage space; (7) in response to a question from Comm. Rue,
stated that she feels more concrete is not the answer, and it would be better to have landscaping
between the buildings and around the garages.
Mr. Kolodziejski explained that as the distance of the garages is increased, the character of the
street will change. Also, people would have to park further back on the 30-foot driveway than
they would on the 18-foot driveway.
Comm. Rue stated that variances are usually based on the uniqueness of a piece of property,
and the appropriate findings must be made. He therefore questioned whether it would be
possible to have a two-car garage and do something else with the property.
Ms. Carson stated that there would still be the issue of 30-foot concrete driveway.
Mr. Kolodziejski explained various design configurations which could be used, noting however
that an attempt is being made to reduce the amount of concrete.
16 P.C. Minutes 5/ 1/90
Ms. Carson noted that her other option was to add a second story for storage; however, the
neighbors are not especially 1n favor of such an option, since views could be lost.
Mr. Kolodziejski explained that if the old garage had not been demolished, it could now be
remodeled. Ms. Carson responded that the garage was tom down approximately three and a
half years ago.
Comm. Rue commented on the plans, stating that the proposed facade appears quite plain.
Mr. Kolodziejski stated that changes could be made; however, costs must be taken into
consideration, and there is not a lot that can be done architecturally with an accessory
building.
June Williams, 2065 Manhattan Avenue, addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that this is
a difficult issue because of the large easement on Monterey; (2) noted that she was unaware
until this evening that this property went through to Monterey: (3) stated that she could not
make the findings for this variance, noting that the topography or uniqueness of the property
is taken into account, and in this case it does not appear that the findings can be made in that
regard; (4) asked for an opinion on the policy of talcing easements int o consideration on
variance requests; (5) asked whether there are standards for such areas; (6) suggested that the
Planning Commission ask the City Council to study the possibility of returning that easement
to the property owners if there are no plans for the City to use it.
Public Hearing closed at 9:40 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
Comm. Peirce stated that the general plan is very clear about what constitutes open space and
what its use should be, and parking is not one of those uses. He stated that he would therefore
vote against this request. He felt that there are other options available to this applicant, other
than paving 30 feet of concrete.
Comm. Moore noted that he has had much difficulty with the 17-foot set back where it is
compounded by the street right-of-way. He did not feel the appropriate solution to that
problem is to grant a variance. because it would then apply to the entire City and would be
unmanagable. He felt that the City needs to confront this issue and maybe the suggestion that
Council consider returning the land to the residents might be appropriate. He did feel that the
issue needs to be clarified.
Comm. Rue did not feel that the appropriate findings can be made.
Comm. Ketz agreed that this problem should not be solved by granting a variance. She also
agreed that this issue needs to be clarified.
MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve staff's recommendation to deny
the variance request. Resolution P.C. 90-32.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ingell
None
None
None
Chmn. Ingell stated that this decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed by writing
to the City Council within fifteen days.
17 P.C. Minutes 5/ 1/90
TEXT 88-9 --SPECIAL STUDY AND TEXT AMENDMENT TO USE AVERAGING METHOD TO
MEASURE HEIGHT IN THE R-1 AND R-2B ZONES
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated April 25, 1990. Staff suggested that the Planning
Commission recommend that the existing height measurement method and existing
maximum heights be maintained.
Staff suggested several alternatives: (1) Use the averaging method of measuring maximum
height in the R-1 and R-2B zones as suggested by the City Council; (2) Reduce the maximum
height allowed in the R-2B zone: (3) Increase the maximum height In the R-1 zone . or only in R-
1 zones which abut R-2B and R-2 zones: or (4) Reconsider applying the averaging method of
measuring height city-wide.
The Planning Commission was directed to study view blockage and methods of height
measurement to resolve the view blockage issues described in a height moratorium adopted by
City Council on July 26, 1988. After special study and several public hearings beginning in
August of 1988, the Planning Commission at their meeting of October 17, 1989, recommended
that no changes be made to the current height measurement method and recommended
amendments only to Section 1201, "Height of Roof Structures."
At their meeting of February 27, 1990, the City Council concurred with the Planning
Commission by not changing the height measurement, and they also amended Section 1201,
"Height of Roof Structures," and Section 1200, "Height of Buildings on Through Lots." In
addition, the City Council referred the issue of height measurement and view blockage back to
the Planning Commission to consider using the averaging method for only the R-1 and R-2B
zones.
The view blockage problem for borderline areas located adjacent to higher density zones is not
only limited to the areas defined in the moratorium especially when northerly and southerly
views are considered. This problem arises because of the five-foot differential between height
limits between the different zones. Staff does not believe an urgency exists to address only the
areas previously identified in the moratorium, since the situation exists in several other
locations in the City.
Staff believes that imposing a different height measurement method based on zoning
classifications, although it may alleviate some view blockage problems, has too many negative
side effects to be seriously considered. For example, as noted by the Building Director, different
height measurement methods would complicate the zoning ordinance. placing a burden on
staff, developers, and homeowners. In addition , it could create undesirable and awkward
situations where zones with differing methods abut.
As another alternative, changing the height limits to eliminate or reduce the differences
between zones could possibly be considered. The height limits in Redondo Beach and
Manhattan Beach show that the diff erentlal between zones is not usually as severe as that in
Hermosa Beach. Height allowances in Manhattan Beach are: 26 feet in LD zone, 26 and 30 feet
in MD zone, and 30 feet in HD zone: in Redondo Beach: 30 feet in LD zone, 30 feet in MD zone,
and 38 feet in HD zone; and in Hermosa Beach: 25 feet in LD zone, 30 feet in MD zone, and 35
feet in HD zone.
Therefore, an alternative would be to reduce the limit in the R-2B zone to 25 feet for consistency
with the R-1 zone, or perhaps to a compromise figure of 27.5 feet. Another option would be to
increase the height limit in the neighboring R-1 zones.
Staff. however, does not believe it would be appropriate to change height limits at this time.
The existing height limits, in most cases, have established a character consistent with the
corresponding zone, and resulted in a certain character for neighborhoods and districts.
Therefore, a lower height limit would give an unfair advantage to those who built to higher
18 P.C. Minutes 5/ 1/90
limits to the detriment of those planning to build, or a higher limit would impact the views of
existing buildings constructed in conformance with existing height limits.
Building heights in each land use or zoning category could be studied as part of the Housing
Element. Then the possibility of relating hetght limits to neighborhoods or districts rather
than to particular zoning classifications could be explored . Also, the establishment of one
height limit for all residential zones could be explored.
No resolution was included with this study. A resolution will be prepared in response to the
Planning Commission's action for the next meeting.
Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Comm. Peirce, explained the averaging method.
He stated that during study on the housing element, the issue of neighborhood averaging could
also be addressed and considered.
Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Comm. Rue, stated that additional data will be
provided during the discussions on the housing element, including information on slopes,
sizes of lots, variations in neighborhoods, and what other cities have done.
Comm. Rue stated that making changes in one standard would affect an entire project. He
therefore felt it would be more appropriate to study this issue in conjunction with the housing
element so that an overall picture can be addressed. He noted concern over the lack of
available data at this time.
Mr. Schubach responded that a great deal of additional data will be presented during the
housing element study.
Public Hearing opened at 9:57 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
Dean Nota, 2467 Myrtle Avenue, Hermosa Beach, architect, addressed the Commission: (1)
discussed recent changes which have affected his neighborhood; (2) stated that the staff report
is not clear on why this particular issue is being addressed at this time: (3) discussed the pros
and cons of having different height measurement methods in various zones; (4) noted that
different areas have different needs, and the requirements can be tailored to meet those
varying needs; (5) said that the current height requirements are very ambiguous in their
definition, and there is no real way to define the actual requirements. especially since the code
says something different than the handouts passed out by the Building Department.
Mr. Nota went on and: (1) discussed problems which can occur because of the grading; (2) felt
that the formula used should be much clearer in order to avoid confusion: (3) discussed the
differences between flat and sloping areas in the R-1 zone: (4) discussed lots with a view access;
(5) commented on downsloping lots and attendant problems with the 1 7-foot setback
requirement and parking; (6) stated that, contrary to the staff report, there are already
differentials in various areas because of the downzonings which have taken place.
Mr. Nota continued and: (1) said that there should be a compromise in the requirements so that
buildings can be designed adequately in the R-1 zones: (2) discussed the Commissions' past
recommendation to the City Council related to the R-1 zone: (3) favored the averaging method
so that view blockage will be prevented.
Steve Taylor, 2468 Myrtle Avenue, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and: (1)
supported the averaging method as one of the better alternatives available, stating that it
eliminates the view blockage problem better than other methods; (2) noted the importance of
the requirements being clear and concise; (3) felt it would be appropriate to study this issue
further: (4) said the averaging method is one of the best ways to monitor what is being built and
the heights being built to; (5) was pleased that the tssue of view blockage ls being addressed, and
hoped that the method will work.
19 P.C. Minutes 5/ 1/90
Howard Longacre, 1221 7th Place, addressed the Commission and: (1) noted that this is the
fourth public hearing being held on this matter: (2) noted that projects of many types are being
built all over the City; (3) said that somebody somewhere will oppose any requirement. but
noted that the appeal process is available; (4) noted concern over the BBB [bigger, bulkier
buildings]: (5) stated that many options are available; (6) noted concern that many months ago
a motion was made to direct that concise, coherent handouts be prepared, however, such a
handout has not yet been prepared.
Steve Peterson, 2416 Myrtle Avenue, addressed the Commission and: (1) discussed the
importance of view preseivatlon; (2) said that inventive architectural procedures are available:
(3) supported the averaging meth od, since it is the most effective way to preseive views.
Comm. Rue noted that his biggest concern with the averaging method is that it creates bulk on
the downhill side of lots and creates a cavernous effect on the streets: however, he agreed that
the averaging method reduces view blockage. He stated, though, that he does not want to
promote bulky buildings.
Mr. Schubach responded that the averaging method may create taller buildings; however, he
did not feel that would necessarily create additional bulk, noting that buildings on one side of
the street would actually be lower.
Comm. Rue noted concern over very tall facades and the cavernous effect they create. He
questioned whether there are other ways to approach this issue.
Mr. Schubach suggested the possibility of a bulk ordinance, utilizing floor area ratio and lot
coverage. He stated that implementation measures will be necessary in the future. He noted,
however, that he supports the averaging method. He continued by discussing various options
which might be addressed.
Dean Nota again addressed the Commission and: (1) discussed buildings along Manhattan
Avenue, stating that they are not comparable to R-1 buildings: (2) noted confusion, explaining
that he thought the Council was requesting the Commission to again address the R-1 zone. not
R-2, R-2B. and R-3: (3) thought that the Council favored the sloping method for R-2 and R-3
zones; ( 4) suggested that the Commissioners study buildings in Manhattan Beach for further
ideas; (5) did not feel that the height limit is a viable means to reduce bulk. stating that he felt
the best way to reduce bulk is to use stepped elevations or floor area ratios: (6) noted that
another of his pet peeves is the 17-foot setback requirement, and he continued by describing
the problems encountered with this rule.
Public Hearing closed at 10:23 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
Comm. Rue stated that perhaps the averaging method would be the best method. He noted
concern, however, that this issue is being addressed apart from the h ousing element.
Comm. Ketz expressed concern with the averaging method, and she also noted concern that the
issue is being discussed in isolation. She felt it is important to look at the Issue as a whole with
the housing element to ascertain what the overall outcome will be and the attendant
ramifications.
Comm. Moore agreed that these issues should not be addressed in a piecemeal fashion. He felt
that t he averaging method might be appropriate for the entire city; however. he noted that
more clarification is necessary, such as a concise definition of "natural grade." He wanted to
ensure that no loopholes are available to allow developers to use different grading. He noted
the importance of homeowners knowing what they can do with their property. He stated that it
is necessary to have visual materials and diagrams so that the Commission can viSualize the
various areas of the City.
20 P.C. Minutes 5/ 1/90
Comm. Peirce felt that the height should be addressed as only one portion of the overall bulk
reducing and floor area issues. He did not feel it is appropriate to discuss this matter alone.
Chmn. Ingell concurred, and stated that it would be appropriate to have additional materials
for study.
MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Moore, to receive and file.
Comm. Rue noted that staffs recommendation is to not change the current height
measurement method.
MOTION WITHDRAWN by Comm. Peirce as maker.
MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve staff's recommendation to not
change the current height measurement method: but rather to study the issue in conjunction
with other building standards, including floor area, open space, 17-foot setback, and other
setbacks.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ingell
None
None
None
LLA 90-2 --LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT AT 1230 OWOSSO AVENUE AND 1063 CORONA STREET
{CONTINUED FROM MEETING OF APRIL 17. 1990)
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated April 10, 1990. Staff recommended that the Planning
Commission approve the proposed lot line adjustment.
The subject parcels were sold to the applicant by the Church of Christ. Lot 27 iS zoned R-1 and
contains a residential dwelling. while Lot 28 is zoned C-3 and contains a parking lot for the
church building which fronts on Corona Street. The 2' by 35' portion of Lot 27 is essentially an
unused excess two-foot wide paved area connected to the parking area.
The applicant is proposing to adjust the property line separating assessors parcel 4185-15-20
(Parcel 1) from assessors parcel 4185-15-1 (Parcel 2) back to the line which marks the
boundary of Lot 27 and 28. This will both simplify the situation and make the subject lots
rectangles of 50 feet by 100 feet. This will also give the existing house on Parcel 1 a greater side
yard setback.
Staff felt that this correction of lot lines is logical and will not have any negative impacts on
the subject properties or surrounding properties. The adjustment will also make the assessor
parcel boundaries consistent with the original subdivision lot lines, and it will make the
property line consistent with the zoning boundary line.
Chmn. Ingell noted that the applicant was not present at the hearing.
MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Moore, to approve staff's recommendation to
approve the proposed lot line adjustment. No objections; so ordered.
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM BUDGET REVIEW AND APPROVAL
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated April 10, 1990. It was recommended that the Planning
Commission adopt the resolution, thereby determining that the 1990-91 Fiscal Year Capital
Improvements Program is consistent with the current and effective general plan for the City of
Hermosa Beach.
21 P.C. Minutes 5/ 1/90
Provisions of the State of California Government Code require the Planning Commission, as
the City's "planning agency," to annually review the capital improvement program and public
works projects proposed for the ensuing fiscal year to determine if they are consistent with the
current and effective city general plan. Upon completion of this review. the code also requires
that the Commission forward a report of its "fmdings" to the City's "legislation body" (i.e., the
City Council).
According to the Governor's Office of Planning and Research, the accepted "rule of consistency"
is: "an action, program , or project that ls consistent with the general plan if it, considering all
its aspects, will further the objectives and policies (i.e .. goals) of the general plan; and not
obstruct their attainment."
All amounts of funds are for FY 90-91 are tentative, and are subject to Council approval.
Comm. Peirce referred to CIP 85-137, Item 3: "to provide preliminary engineering to evaluate
various design alternatives to improve the intersections at Pier Avenue , Valley Drive, and
Ardmore Avenue Intersections (formerly CIP 88-177)" He felt that this item is inconsiStent
with the general plan and should be deleted, explaining that that area was previously studied,
and it was determined that no changes were necessary.
Lynn Terry, Deputy City Engineer. Public Works Department. addressed the Commission and:
(1) explained that some of the projects are ongoing, not just one-time matters; (2) stated that the
purpose at this point iS not to approve the budget. but rather to approve the general projects as
being in conformance with the general plan.
Comm. Peirce discussed an action taken approximately 10 years ago to study signalization in
the City, and he commented that the item was buried, no public hearings were held, and signals
were suddenly installed. He noted deep concern that such an action does not happen again. He
stressed that this particular issue (CIP 85-137, Item 3) is not in the general plan and is in direct
opposition to the City's planning and policy goals.
Mr. Terry diseussed CIP 85-137. Item 3, stating that the City has $40,000 in cash, which has
been provided by the developer of the shopping center, which can be used to study this
particular intersection. The money ls to be used to study the intersection and improve it in
conformance with the desire and approval of the City Council.
Comm. Peirce noted confusion at Mr. Terry's comments, stating that this particular
intersection was recently studied and it was determined that no changes were necessary.
Mr. Terry clarified that the money does not have to be spent; it is merely to study the
intersection. The money is not for construction: it is for study.
Comm. Rue concurred with Comm. Peirce, stating that it was agreed that no changes should be
made at that intersection.
Comm. Peirce commented on CIP 89-150. Item 1: "New type of traffic signal on Pier Avenue
allowing egress and ingress for Fire Department emergency vehicles." He asked why this
particular item is necessary. cautioning that once the nose is in, the rest of the camel follows
quickly. He noted that there are virtually no fires in the City; furthermore, he has heard no
complaints regarding thiS particular signal.
Mr. Terry explained that most of the funds in CIP 89-150 refer to a concrete crosswalk to
provide access to the school; only a small portion of the money will be used to study the traffic
signal near the Fire Department.
22 P.C. Minutes 5/ 1/90
Comm. Peirce continued by commenting on CIP 89-151, Item 2: "Conduct a study and develop a
detailed residential neighborhood traffic control plan to reduce commuter traffic intrusion. 11
He asked for clarification on this item.
Mr. Terry responded by stating that funds were requested for this item; however, money was
not forthcoming. He again clarified that the purpose at this time is merely to approve the
budget as to its conformance with the general plan. He noted that final approval for budgeting
will be at the discretion of the City Council. He continued by explaining this particular item,
stating that it was precipitated by complaints from neighbors in the area.
Chmn. Ingell referred to CIP 90-301, noting that its general plan element/goal is listed as
"none." He asked for clarification.
Mr. Schubach explained that that particular item neither obstructs nor attains any goals;
therefore it is listed as "none. 11
Comm. Peirce asked about State law in regard to the Planning Commission's purview over
capit al improvement program budget review and approval. He thought that in addition t o
approving that the program is in concert with the general plan, it was the duty of the
Commission to screen the capital improvement projects.
Mr. Lee confirmed that Comm. Peirce's assumption was correct. He stated that the
Commission can determine whether each of the items contributes to or obstructs the intent of
the general plan.
Mr. Schubach stated that it is the intent of the City Council to ensure that the Commission has
reviewed the program for consistency with the general plan: however, it is not the intent of the
Council to have the Commission approve , deny, or recommend specific capital improvement
projects.
Comm. Peirce questioned who can add or delete specific items to the budget. He asked for
further information on what State law says in regard to this matter. He asked what body has
the right to input to the capital improvement plan.
Mr. Lee stated that it would be necessary for him to study the code section further on this
matter to ascertain the exact purview of the Planning Commission. He continued by
explaining how the plan is put together and its approval process. He stated that the consistency
finding which must be made by the Commission does not give the Commission authority to add
or direct funds in other directions; however, it does give the Commission authority to state that
a particular line item is not in conformance with the general plan.
Comm. Peirce noted the importance of the capital improvement budget and its study by the
Commission.
Comm. Moore felt that such a study smacks of micromanagement. He felt that the
Commission has neither the time nor the expertise to study the CIP in depth; rather, that
function is left to staff and the Council.
Comm. Peirce disagreed that it would be micromanagement. He felt that citizen input is
important as well as further Commission study.
Chmn. Ingell stated that he would like further information on what the State code says about
this issue.
Comm. Ketz did not feel the Commission has the in-depth knowledge to suggest additions to the
CIP.
23 P.C. Minutes 5/ 1/90
Conun. Rue agreed with Conun. Petree, stating that the Commission should be able to bring up
certain important items to the Council.
Comm. Peirce cautioned against a rubber-stamp approval of the CIP, stating that it would be
wrong to take that type of action before a thorough study is made of the issues.
Mr. Teny stated that it is very important to have Commission approval that the CIP is in
conformance with the general plan. He suggested that the Conunission address each of the
issues as to its conformity. He stated that the Commissioners could come into the Public
Works Department with suggestions if they have strong feelings on certain items which should
be added to the CIP.
MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Rue, to continue this matter for two weeks for
the purpose of directing the City Attorney to obtain additional information related to the
Planning Commission's purview, role, status, and mission over the capital improvement plan
approval process.
Mr. Lee advised that the issue before the Commission is to make a finding of consistency with
the general plan; not to prioritize how the funds will be spent.
Comm. Moore referred to CIP 90-144 and its recommendation to replace Strand wall and
walkway. He noted that this would be a large use of funds, and he did not feel it is particularly
consistent with the general plan. Rather, he felt that this is a simple, yet important,
maintenance issue. He noted the problems at the Strand, and he said that he would like to see
some creative ideas explored in an attempt to help the traffic on the Strand. He suggested the
possibility of a wooden boardwalk as a possible alternative. He noted that a boardwalk would
be far less costly than tearing up the Strand, and it might serve to mitigate the problems in that
area.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Ketz, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ingell
Comm. Moore
None
None
Howard Longacre noted concern that this hearing was not opened for public input.
Mr. Lee noted that it is the discretion of the chair to determine whether or not testimony will be
taken during a hearing.
SECOND QUARTER GENERAL PLAN .AMENDMENT
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated April 26, 1990. Staff recommended that the Commission
direct staff to schedule public hearings for several general plan amendments: (1) parks and
recreation master plan as part of the open space element; (2) revised circulation,
transportation, and parking element; and (3) redesignation of Biltmore Site to residential.
State law allows cities to amend the general plan four times per year. The Planning
Commission and/ or City Council may consider initiating general plan amendments.
MOTION by Comm. Moore, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve staffs recommendation to set
the above-mentioned items for public hearing.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ingell
None
None
None
24 P.C. Minutes 5/ 1/90
STAFF ITEMS
a.) Correspondence from the Marineland Mobilehome Park Homeowner's Association
(Continued from meetluf of April 17. 1990)
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated April 11, 1990. Since the City already has a Mobilehome
Park zone which restricts the use of Marineland Park to mobilehome use, the threat of the
park closing in the near future is not eminent. Staff recommended that the Planning
CommiSsion direct this matter to be studied with the housing element update.
Howard Longacre pointed out the someone has been waiting to speak on this issue this evening.
Parker Herriott stated that it was his understanding that people had an opportunity to speak
on any matter on the agenda. He noted concern over closed meetings. He asked that the City
Attorney give an opinion related to the taking of testimony at public meetings.
Mr. Lee stated that the Brown Act provides for the public to provide testimony on agenda items
as well as agendas not on the agenda, under the "Communications" portion of the agenda. He
noted, however, that it is at the discretion of the chair whether or not to take testimony on
certain issues, especially those items which are being continued to a future meeting. He stated
that it is within the purview of the Commission to take public testimony on staff items if
people have been waiting to speak on an issue.
Mr. Herriott noted that there seems to be confusion between "hearings" and "public hearings"
and whether or not testimony will be taken. He felt that a person should have an opportunity
to speak on any and all items on the agenda.
Comm. Moore felt that input should be encouraged, so long as time permits. He noted, however,
that it is not appropriate to use the time to argue with the Commission or demand responses to
comments.
Sandra Solis, 531 Pier Avenue, Marineland Mobilehome Park, addressed the Commission and
explained that a letter was sent to Mr. Northcraft on March 1, 1990. It was her understanding
that the letter would be forwarded to the City Council, and she expressed surprise that the letter
was sent to the Planning Commission.
Ms. Solis asked where this matter would be going from here. She said that the letter was sent
because of their concerns with protection of their park. She said that the owners and
management say that the park will be closed within five years, and correspondence from them
has become harsher and harsher. She stated that the ordinance would gtve added protection to
the homeowners. She stated that the residents are willing to follow the suggestions of the
planning director in this regard.
MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to direct that the relocation impact report
requirement for the closure of mobilehome parks be studied with the housing element. No
objections: so ordered.
b.) Memorandum Refardinf Planninf Commission Liaison for May 8. 1990, City Council
Meetlnf
No one will attend.
c.) Planninl Department Activity Report for March 1990
No action taken.
25 P.C. Minutes 5/ 1/90
•
d.) Tentative Future Plannini Commission Aaenda
No action taken.
e.) City Council Minutes of March 27 and April 10, 1990
No action taken.
f.) Memorandum Reiard.ln& Memorial Day Entertainment at The End zone
Howard Longacre asked why this matter did not go directly to the Council for approval.
Mr. Schubach stated that the City Attorney had no objection to the Planning Commission
approving the one-day exception to the CUP.
Mr. Longacre felt that this issue should have gone before the City Council, and stated that this
appears to be a rubber-stamped approval.
Mr. Lee stated that he had no objection to approval being granted by the Commission on this
matter. He noted that if there is a citizen objection, the matter can be appealed to the City
Council.
Geny Compton, 200 Pier Avenue, addressed the Commission and stated that it was impressed
upon the owner of The End Zone the importance of complying with his CUP conditions, and he
was pleased to see that the owner is making an attempt to comply.
MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Chmn. Ingell, to approve staffs recommendation to
approve the request to allow a one-day exception on Memorial Day to the conditional use
permit restriction prohibiting entertainment prior to 7:00 P.M.; to allow entertainment to
begin at 4:00 P.M.
Mr. Lee passed out to the Commissioners copies of a summaxy of the Brown Act requirements.
COMMISSIONER ITEMS
a.) RUDAT AIA City Planning Consultation
Comm. Rue asked that staff agendize this item for discussion at a future meeting. He noted that
some local architects would also like to make a presentation at the hearing.
Comm. Ketz asked for clarification on several of the items in the capital improvements staff
report.
MOTION by Chmn Ingell, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to adjourn at 11:33 P.M. No objections; so
ordered.
26 P.C. Minutes 5/ 1/90
•
)
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 May 1, 1990.
Date
27 P.C. Minutes 5/ 1/90
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
HELD ON MAY 15, 1990, AT 7:00 P.M. IN THE CITY HAIL COUNCll, CHAMBERS
Meeting called to order at 7:03 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
Pledge of Allegiance led by Comm. Ketz.
ROILC.ALL
Present:
Absent:
Comms. Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Rue*, Chmn. Ingell
None
Also Present: Michael Schubach, Planning Director; Casey Vose, City Attorney; Sally
White, Recording Secretary
(*Comm. Rue entered Council Chambers at 7:05 P .M.)
CONSENT CALENDAR
MOTION by Comm. Moore, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to approve as submitted the minutes of
May 1, 1990;
MOTION by Comm. Moore, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve the following resolutions as
submitted:
Resolution P.C. 90-1, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO ALLOW A SELF-SERVICE CAR WASH IN
CONJUNCTION WITH GAS SALES AND A RETAIL SNACK SHOP AT 931 PACIFIC COAST
HIGHWAY AND LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS 11 THROUGH 17, INCLUSIVE, 1RACT 223;
Resolution P.C. 90-15, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A REQUEST FOR AN EXCEPTION FROM
SECTION 13-7(B) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO ALLOW AN ADDITION AND REMODEL TO
AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE TO EXCEED 50% OF REPLACEMENT VALUE,
AND ALLOWING AN EXCEPTION TO THE POLICY STATEMENT OF P.C. RESOLUTION 88-1 AT
2624 THE STRAND AND LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 4 , BLOCK 27 , HERMOSA BEACH
TRACT;
Resolution P.C. 90-28, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CI1Y OF
HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #21754 FOR A 1WO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM FOR 1010 17TH
STREET, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 15, J.M. FLORES SUBDIVISION;
Resolution P .C. 90-29, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CI1Y OF
HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND A
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #21950 FOR A THREE -UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 1105 CYPRESS
AVENUE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 24, TRACT 780;
Resolution P.C. 90-31, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CI1Y OF
HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE FOR A LOT
LINE ADJUSTMENT BE1WEEN 1230 OWOSSO AVENUE AND THE REAR PORTION OF THE
PROPER1Y AT 1036 CORONA STREET, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 27, BYERLY TRACT,
AND LOT 28, BYERLY TRACT CONNECTED WITH LOTS 1 THROUGH 7, INCLUSIVE, HERMOSA
HEIGHTS TRACT;
1 P.C. Minutes 5/ 15/90
Resolution P.C. 90-32, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF TI-IE CI1Y OF
HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DENYING A VARIANCE REQUEST FOR A FIVE-FOOT
GARAGE SETBACK RATI-IER TI-IAN TI-IE REQUIRED 17 FEET AT 2150 CIRCLE DRIVE,
LEGAILY DESCRIBED AS LOT 7, BLOCK 63, FIRST ADDITION TO HERMOSA BEACH.
There being no objections to approval of above items; so ordered.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC
No one appeared to address the Commission.
CON 90-7 --CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #22156
FOR A 'IWO-UNIT CONOOMINIUM AT 829 15ffl S'IREET
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated May 7, 1990. Staff recommended that the Planning
Commission approve the conditional use pennit and vesting tentative parcel map, subject to
the conditions specified in the proposed resolution.
This project is located in the R-2B zone, with a general plan designation of medium density
residential. The lot size is 5670 square feet, or 42 by 135 feet. Seven parking spaces are
provided. Open space provided is 684 square feet. The current use is as a single-family dwelling
divided into at least three rental units. The environmental determination is categorically
exempt.
The subject property is rectangular in shape with a side to side slope and approximately a 10
percent slope upward from front to back.
The proposed units contain 2537 and 2522 square feet and include three bedrooms, two and a
half baths, and a roof deck on Unit A Unit A consists of two stories and a roof deck, and Unit B
consists of two stories above a semi-subterranean garage. The height of both structures is less
than 25 feet.
The proposed building elevations exhibit a stucco exterior, blue composition shingle roofing,
glass block, and metal railing. These features give the buildings a contemporary appearance.
The overall appearance is rather simple and could be enhanced with the use of some additional
architectural features. As such, staff included a condition that revised exterior elevation be
submitted.
The plans indicate a front yard setback of 17 feet for the second story and 20 feet for the garage.
Existing setbacks along the street have been calculated to average approximately 16.5 feet;
however, the two condominium projects located adjacent and to the east of this project were
required to provide 19-foot front yards to be consistent with existing projects on the same side
of the street. For consistency, staff recommended a condition that the minimum setback for
this project also be 19 feet.
Required parking is provided in two, two-car garages. Unit A has a garage oriented toward the
street, and the garage for Unit Bis oriented to the middle of the lot and is accessed by an 11-foot
wide driveway. Guest spaces are provided behind the garage for Unit A and in the side yard for
Unit B. One on-street parking space will be lost as a result of the widening of the existing
driveway.
An existing large and mature eucalyptus tree (36 inches in diameter), located in the rear of the
lot ten feet from the rear property line, is proposed to be removed as part of this project. Given
the location of the tree on the lot, staff felt that the tree could be saved with a slight re-design of
the project, and therefore recommended a condition to that effect. However, if the Planning
Commission did not concur, a condition could be included requiring that the landscape plan
2 P.C. Minutes 5/ 15/90
compensate for the loss of existing mature trees. If the eucalyptus is saved, this would apply
only to the pine tree to be removed; if not, it would apply to both trees.
The project complies with all other planning and zoning requirements. Lot coverage is only 53
percent, adequate open space is provided on the roof deck for Unit A and on the ground-level
patio and yard areas for Unit B, and the height of the structures is less than 25 feet. In
consideration of what could potentially be built within R-2B standards, this project has been
kept to a relatively moderate scale and size.
Although it appears that adequate storage space is available, the amount is not clearly
indicated, nor is a location for trash receptacles identified. Staff included a condition the final
plans identify the amount of space in the storage areas and the location for the trash
receptacles.
The surrounding area consists of a mix of older single-family and two-family structures, while
the immediate neighbors of this project include two new three-unit condos and one two-unit
condo in the beginning phase of construction.
Staffs recommended conditions require that the plans be revised to increase the front yard
setback and to save the large tree. As such, the Planning Commission may desire to continue
this request to have an opportunity to review revised plans.
Public Hearing opened at 7:08 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
Bruno Bemaur, 1561 Gates Avenue, Manhattan Beach, applicant, addressed the Commission
and: (1) stated he has no problems with the staff report, other than the condition relating to the
tree, Condition 1 l(a); (2) explained that the tree has a very large crown and hangs over the east
and west sides of the neighboring property; (3) stated that the tree is about 11 feet from the
north property line; (4) said that to save the tree would present a hardship, since saving the tree
would almost require that the rear unit be given up since the lot would then be suitable for only
one unit unless the units are built together with a common wall; (5) proposed an alternative to
saving the tree, stating that he would be happy to compromise with whatever is agreeable with
staff; (6) concluded by stating that saving the tree would be almost impossible and would put a
great burden on his project.
Karl Simon, 1311 8th Street, Manhattan Beach, applicant, addressed the Commission and: (1)
stated that the tree in question totally dominates the property and even if it were saved, it
would practically eliminate any possibility of a backyard; (2) noted that they would be happy to
provide several smaller trees to make the area pleasant.
Mr. Bernaur responded to questions from Comm. Rue and: (1) confirmed that trees would be
provided in the rear yard; (2) stated that it would be possible to have several 36-inch box trees
between the units; (3) explained the proposed facade treatment, stating that some portions will
have a different textured stucco for relief, and the varying stuccos will be separated by a metal
strip; (4) stated that, if so desired by the Commission, he would be happy to provide different
exterior elevations which are more enhanced.
Comm. Peirce referred to Sheet A4 of the plans, noting that the stairwell for the top deck
appears to be encased in a plain box. He questioned whether anything could be done to enhance
that area.
Mr. Bemaur explained that that area is like a penthouse; however, he said that it could be
slanted and treatment could be added.
Comm. Moore discussed the design of this project, stating that there is quite a melange of
architectural design incorporated in these plans. He noted that there appears to be no central
theme at all, and he questioned the appropriateness of adding even more to the design. He
3 P.C. Minutes 5/ 15/90
noted that the Commission is not an architectural review board; however, he felt it is
important that condos complement neighborhoods by their design.
Comm. Moore was happy to see that the project is under the lot coverage and height limits;
however, he noted concern over the overall design of the project. He felt that a consistent
design philosophy is necessary for this project, and he suggested that another designer be
consulted for new ideas.
Mr. Bernaur stated that the elevations could be changed to something which would be agreeable
to staff.
Comm. Moore stated that the City would like to have the best thought-out designs possible. He
noted that he would support approval of the project based on the fact that it does not max out to
lot coverage and height; however, he was disappointed in the design, and he urged the applicant
to explore other design options.
Mr. Bernaur, in response to a question from CoIIlIIL Ketz, stated that he has no problem with
maintaining the 19-foot setback. He stated that his only objection relates to the large tree.
Public Hearing closed at 7: 19 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve staffs recommendation,
Re solution P.C. 90-35, with the following changes: (1) delete Condition l l(a) requiring that
elimination of the existing tree shall be prevented: (2) modify Condition 4(a) to require that at
least two specimen size 36-inch box trees shall be provided to replace the existing trees (one tree
in each planter), and that there shall also be trees in the rear patio, subject to approval of the
Planning Director; (3) to require that the design shall be changed, and the plans will come back
before the Commission for review.
Mr. Vose pointed out that Condition No. 5 of the resolution states that "Architectural treatment
shall be as shown on building elevations, to be revised to the satisfaction of the Planning
Director, and any modifications shall require approval by the Planning Director."
Comm. Rue stated that the would prefer final Planning Commission approval of the plans;
however, he noted that the intent of his motion is to let the project continue at this time.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Cormns. Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ingell
None
None
None
CON 90-4 /PARK 90-3 --CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT AND PARKING PLAN ro
ALLOW PORTABLE CLASSROOM IN EXISTING PARKING LOT AND ELIMINATION OF EIGHT
PARKING SPACES AND ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 340 MASSEY
AVENUE. OUR LADY OF GUADALUPE SCHOOL
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated May 8, 1990. Staff recommended that the Planning
Commission approve the conditional use permit amendment and parking plan, subject to the
conditions specified in the proposed resolution.
This project is located in the R-1 zone, with a general plan designation of low density
residential. The present and proposed use is as a church, school, and rectory. The area of the
property is 90,000 square feet. The proposed size of the additional schoolroom is 1500 square
feet. There are 138 existing parking spaces; proposed parking spaces are 136, plus 20 to be
provided as attendant-supervised parking when needed.
4 P.C. Minutes 5/ 15/90
A conditional use permit for the church was granted in 1956, and it was amended to allow the
school use in 1960. The parking requirement at that time was one space per six fixed seats,
resulting in a requirement of 130 spaces. Currently, the ordinance requires one parking space
for each five fixed seats, or one per 50 square feet of the auditorium, whichever is greater.
The auditorium of the main church is approximately 6500 square feet, and contains 780 fixed
seats. Using the fixed seat ratio gives the greater number of required spaces, which calculates
to be 156 spaces. As such, the church and school are currently legally nonconforming.
The applicant is requesting to install a one-story portable classroom of approximately 1500
square feet, located in the existing parking area behind the existing school building. The
applicant indicates that the additional classroom space is necessary because of gradual
changes in student enrollment. No additional grades are proposed. Previously the existing
eight classrooms were adequate for the nine grades being taught here (kindergarten through
eighth grade) as two grades were combined into one classroom. The applicant indicates that
this will no longer be possible after this school year.
The portable classroom would take away eight existing parking spaces. The plan submitted by
the applicant shows an addition of six spaces in the secondary parking lot off 5th Street by
adding some spaces in the middle of the lot.
Because of the requirements of the zoning ordinance, the only way to legally expand the
facility is to bring the parking up to code. Therefore, the applicant has applied for a parking
plan to provide required parking by nUJiziog an attendant-supervised valet system when the
need arises. The location for a potential 20 additional parking spaces has been identified on
the plans.
Staff felt that an attendant-supervised system would work in this situation, given that patrons
generally come and leave at the same time, and that the services do no occur on a daily basis.
Also, the use of the system would only be necessary on those rare occasions when the church is
full.
Another option available to the applicant which has not been explored would be to restripe the
existing parking lot to provide up to 30 percent compact parking spaces. This could potentially
add several additional parking spaces thereby reducing or eliminating the need for attendant-
supervised parking. Staff included a condition that a revised parking layout be explored using
compact spaces, subject to review and approval by the Planning Director.
Given that the applicant has provided an alternative for providing required parking and that it
appears that the parking for this facility has historically been adequate given the number of
scheduled services, staff felt that the request is acceptable.
However, it would be preferable to see the church build a pennanent structure on the property
in conjunction with the school building rather than this apparent "quick-fix" and temporary
solution. As such, staff included a condition requiring a one-year review of the CUP
whereupon the applicant can report on the continued need of the extra classroom and on the
status of plans for a more permanent facility.
Public Hearing opened at 7:28 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
William Leahy, principal of the school, addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that stacked
parking will be used to have additional parking, and the new building will not require that
much more parking; (2) stated that there will be at least 156 parking spaces; (3) noted that it is a
possibility that the parking area will be restriped to provide even more spaces.
Greta Saylor, 1600 Spreckles, Redondo Beach, addressed the Commission and: (1) noted
concern over church users parking on her already dense street; (2) stated that there are very few
existing parking spaces on the street; (3) stated that her street is used as a thoroughfare by
5 P.C. Minutes 5/ 15/90
people picking up and dropping off their children as well as others using the church; (4)
commented that she would like to see a copy of the proposed design (to which staff handed her a
copy of the plans); (5) asked that something be done about the general appearance of the area.
noting that it is quite unkempt.
Steve and Phyllis Stewart. 1265 5th Street, addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that they
live right behind the church parking lot; (2) noted concern over the portable classroom's
appearance due to the fact that it will detract from the overall appearance of the area; (3)
commented that their property has been appraised at a lower rate because of the unsightly
appearance of the church, particularly the landscaping; (4) hoped that the church would spend
money and effort to upgrade the site; (5) hoped that the church would not expand any further; (6)
noted that there is currently a recycling center located at the church property which causes
problems, especially with newspapers blowing around the neighborhood; (7) noted concern
that people use the recycling center as a dump.
Mr. Stewart continued and: (1) suggested that the church be painted and landscaped; (2)
suggested that the holes in the fence be repaired and that the wall be painted; (3) noted that
traffic and parking during peak how-s is very detrimental to the neighborhood; (4) stated that
someone drove into his brick planter wall and did a great deal of damage; (5) did not feel that
the portable classroom would add to the appearance, and he hoped that something would be
done to improve the site; (6) handed out to staff copies of a letter he prepared regarding this
issue; (7) noted concern over trash spilling out of the recycling bins.
Mr. Leahy responded to concerns about the recycling area, stating that they have attempted to
improve the area. He noted, however, that the lot next to the church does not belong to the
church; therefore, the church cannot be responsible for its appearance.
Chmn. Ingell noted that the recycling area does not appear to be on the plans. He asked for
clarification.
Mr. Leahy discussed the recycling bins, stating that they have been considering removing the
large bin. He did not feel that the bins would affect the proposed parking. He stated that there
is a possibility of erecting a fence with slats around the bins to block off the neighbors' view of
the bins.
Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Chmn. Ingell, stated that the Public Works
Department has an anti-graffiti program in the City.
Chmn. Ingell advised that citizens can call that department with complaints about graffiti.
Comm. Peirce asked about the specifications for screening trash containers, noting that the
trash containers appear to be right on the street, which is not allowed. He suggested that staff
investigate this issue.
Mr. Leahy explained that this request relates only to the portable classroom, not the recycling
center. to which Chmn. Ing ell explained that an amendment to a CUP allows the Commission
to address all conditions.
Comm. Moore suggested that a church representative meet with the neighbors to discuss their
concerns related to the church and its appearance.
Mr. Leahy noted that church children sometimes go out to clean up the surrounding area, to
which Comm. Moore responded that more needs to be done.
Father Alex, priest at the church, addressed the Commission and: (1) agreed with what the
neighbors have said; (2) gave background history on the church, and noted that the parish is
now solvent and money will be spent to upgrade the appearance of the property; (3) agreed that
the recycling center issue needs to be addressed; (4) agreed that the church needs to be repainted.
6 P.C. Minutes 5/ 15/90
Father Alex continued and: (1) stated that parishioners know where to place items, and he
noted that others are now using the area which might be causing some of the problems; (2)
stressed that something will be done to bring the center into conformance with City
requirements; (3) noted the importance of the school being successful and the fact that
additional space is necessary; (4) stated that the portable classroom will not be an obstruction
of anything in the neighborhood.
Father Alex went on and: (1) explained that the church would very much like to acquire the
property next door, however, the church cannot afford to purchase it; (2) agreed that that lot is
messy, but he noted that surrounding neighbors party and cause problems, not the church
people; (3) stated that the church has attempted to clean out that land, even though it does not
now belong to the church; (4) agreed that the church, as well as the entire neighborhood, needs
to look better; (5) explained that the only time when there can be parking problems is during
the church fiesta; (6) continued by explaining the various times of services and noted that
parking is not usually a problem: (7) felt that the main issue appears to be one of maintenance
of the site; (8) commented that money is a problem; (9) said that the fencing surrounding the
school will be upgraded; (10) noted that there are problems with street people harassing the
children. so a new fence with slats will be put up and the fence will be locked.
Father Alex continued and: (1) stated that this is the only Catholic church in the City, and it is
very important to have this school thrive; (2) noted that if they cannot expand it will be very
difficult for the school to survive; (3) felt that it would be to the City's advantage to approve this
request; (4) stated that if there are problems with the church, neighbors can contact either
parish pastor Paul Fazio or himself.
Public Hearing closed at 7:53 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
Comm. Rue asked about requirements for recycling centers.
Mr. Schubach stated that there should be no recycling centers in a residential area. He noted
surprise that the field inspection did not note such a use occurring at that location.
Comm. Rue noted that the City has no formal recycling program, and such programs should be
wholeheartedly encouraged. He suggested that the area be fenced in for aesthetic purposes.
Mr. Schubach, noting that staff was unaware of the recycling center, suggested that this matter
be continued so that staff can have an opportunity to study this issue.
Mr. Vose stated that the code allows small collection facilities in C-3 and M-1 zones only with a
CUP; therefore, this recycling center is not allowed in this residential zone. There is no way to
allow this use to continue at this site unless the code is amended or the zoning is changed.
Mr. Vose, in response to questions from Chmn. Ingell, explained the difference between one-
time recycling events such as paper drives and on-going uses of a recycling center.
Comm. Moore noted that times have changed and recycling must be encouraged, whether or not
it involves amending the code. He urged that methods be :implemented to encourage recycling.
Public Hearing reopened at 7:57 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
Father Alex addressed the Commission and: (1) noted the importance of recycling; (2) urged
that methods be considered to address the issue; (3) stated that a meeting could be set up with
the neighbors so that their concerns can be addressed.
Ms. Saylor agreed that recycling should be encouraged; however, she did not favor a recycling
center which is an eyesore to the community and which would downgrade her property.
7 P.C. Minutes 5/ 15/90
Public Hearing closed at 7:59 P.M. byChmn. Ingell.
Comm. Peirce noted that the portable classroom will be down in a hole and will therefore not
be obtrusive to the neighbors. He noted, however, that the trash and recycling area needs to be
addressed before this project can go forward. He said that the resolution could be approved,
which would require that they comply with all code requirements. He noted, though, that
recycling is not a pennitted use in this zone.
Comm. Moore, noting that this is a CUP amendment request and not a variance, stated that the
request could be approved; however, the recycling issue needs to be addressed as soon as
possible. He felt it is necessary that action be taken quickly to allow recycling centers, and he
stressed the importance of such collection centers being allowed.
Comm. Rue felt that, for the time being, there must be compliance with the code; however, he
also agreed that the recycling issue must be addressed as soon as possible so that they can be
allowed in a manner which is not obtrusive to the surrounding neighbors.
Mr. Vose advised that the Commission can do nothing at this time related to allowing the
recycling center, since it is not a pennitted use in the residential zone. Even if the use were
allowed to continue at this time, there are clear code requirements, such as fencing and
screening, related to such facilities.
Mr. Vose also noted that the CUP itself is quite clear in specifying that all code requirements
must be met. He noted another problem related to the fact that parking is shown on the plans
where the recycling center is currently located. He said that the Commission can address the
issue of the portable classroom, however, at this time.
Comm. Moore noted that the Commission can approve the request, as submitted, related to the
portable classroom. He noted that whether the request is approved or not, the recycling is not
allowed since it is not a permitted use.
MOTION by Comm. Moore, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve staffs recommendation,
Resolution P.C. 90-36, as written.
Chmn. Ingell urged that a church representative meet with staff, as well as the neighbors, to
discuss their concerns.
Comm. Rue discussed the issue of recycling and noted the importance of community service
provided by schools and churches. He felt that the code needs to be addressed soon so that
recycling can be allowed and encouraged.
Mr. Vose cautioned, however, that even if the code is amended, the recycling center would need
to be in confonnance with all City-imposed requirements.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ingell
None
None
None
VAR 90-3 --VARIANCE TO ALLOW 'IWO PARKING SPACES IN THE FRONT YARD SETBACK
AND ROOF ENCROACHMENT IN THE FRONT YARD SETBACK AND ADOPTION OF AN
ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 2634 lBE STRAND
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated May 7, 1990. Staff recommended that the Planning
Commission deny the request. This project is located in the R-1 zone, with a general plan
designation of low density. The lot size is 2784 square feet, and there are currently six units on
the lot. The existing density is 94 units to the acre. There are currently no parking spaces. The
8 P.C. Minutes 5/15/90
existing usable open space is 680 square feet. The proposed number of units is five, with a
proposed density of 79 units per acre. The proposed parking is two spaces, and proposed usable
open space is 500 square feet.
The existing six-unit apartment building was originally constructed in 1913.
The subject lot is a through lot with frontage on both Hermosa Avenue and The Strand.
Pursuant to Policy Statement 88-1, the Planning Commission has detennined that both The
Strand and the Hermosa Avenue sides of the lot are front yards.
On March 22, 1990, the staff environmental review committee recommended an
environmental negative declaration for this request.
The applicant is requesting permission to remodel an existing legally nonconforming six-unit
apartment with no parking spaces into a five-unit apartment. The proposal includes
converting the front yard area on Hermosa Avenue to a parking area for two spaces. The
remodel includes demolishing the sixth unit and reconfiguring several walls to change the
existing layout of the remaining units, including the addition of a bedroom on the ground
floor.
A variance is required for the proposed parking spaces because they would be located in the
front yard, and Section 1157(d) of the zoning ordinance allows parking in the front 20 feet only
when leading to a garage.
The applicant is also requesting a variance to permit the replacement of a balcony awning on
The Strand side with a balcony roof structure to extend to the property line rather than the
required setback for roof overhangs of 30 inches.
A variance is also necessary from the nonconforming provisions of the zoning ordinance
(Section 13-3[c]) because the currently nonconfonning amount of usable open space will be
decreased by the conversion of excess front yard area to parking area (a loss of approximately
180 square feet of usable open space), and because the applicant is requesting to remodel a
nonconfonning residential use greater than 45 units per acre.
Although it appears that the reduction of the number of units and addition of two parking
spaces would be an improvement to the site and to the neighborhood, staff noted several
arguments to the contrary: (a) The two parking spaces will cause the loss of one on-street space,
meaning that the net gain in parking would only be one space; (b) Although the fenced-in open
space area on Hermosa Avenue is not in the best condition, it contains trees and vegetation
which can be considered an amenity and open space which should be preserved. Although it
constitutes only 180 square feet of usable open space as defined by the zoning ordinance, it
actually consists of approximately 500 square feet; (c) The proposed remodel would still only
result in a density of 80 units per acre and constitutes a net gain of only one parking space. The
intent of the nonconforming section of the zoning ordinance as specifically stated under
Section 13-0(d) is "to prohibit the remodeling and expansion of such buildings which by
current standards are considered either exceptionally undersized, dilapidated, significantly
overdense, or do not meet even the minimal standards of parking and setback"; (d) The
proposed improvements will not significantly improve the existing situation. They will not
bring the property near to conformity with density requirements, yard requirements, open
space requirements, or even parking requirements; and it will only add permanence to and
perpetuate the life of an existing structure which does not appear to possess any historic or
aesthetic value.
Staff did not believe that the Planning Commission has grounds to grant the requested
variances. The unusual existing condition of this property (a legally nonconforming six-unit
apartment in an R-1 zone) is a problem that needs to be corrected over time, not used as a
justification for variances. Although staff would normally support providing off-street
parking to the maximum extent possible, this proposal does not go far enough, and there is
9 P.C. Minutes 5/ 15/90
nothing about the shape or size of the property which would preem pt the potential of providing
parking in conformance with the dimen sional standards of the zoning ordinance,
Staff commended the efforts of the applicant to improve the condition of his existing building;
however, given the stated policies and laws of the City as set forth in the zoning ordinance, this
particular proposal is clearly not consistent with the long-term objectives of the City. Staff
does not find anything particularly exceptional or extraordinary about this property owner's
situation which justifies the varying from these established laws.
Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Comm. Rue, stated that current records show six
units at this building.
Public Hearing opened at 8: 13 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
Gerry Compton, 200 Pier Avenue, project architect, addressed the Commission and: (1) stated
that he was dumbfounded by the staff report, noting that he had no prior indication that there
were any problems whatsoever; (2) noted that the staff report he received was a bombshell; (3)
gave his view on what he thought the non conforming s e ction of the code m eant: (4) stated that
this property is a real income generator, and if it is n ot allowed to be remodele d it will remain
in its present condition until hell freezes over; (5) said that the building will either be allowed
to be upgraded or it will remain in its present condition.
Mr. Compton went on and: (1) stated that this project is totally within the spirit of the
nonconforming section of the code, noting that it is less dense than what is currently existing;
(2) stressed that this building is currently a legal nonconforming six-unit building; (3) said that
most of the work being proposed can be done according to the building director; (4) noted that
most of the work being proposed is not structural, and most of the things being proposed are
allowed; (5) noted that according to the code 100 square feet can be added to a nonconforming
building.
Mr. Compton continued and: (1) explained that this is a double front yard, on The Strand and
on Hermosa Avenue; (2) addressed the parking, and stated that the front yard is The Strand,
and parking should be allowed on the Hermosa Avenue side; (3) stated that there is currently a
very dangerous parking space at this property, and this proposal would be a benefit in terms of
the traffic situation; (4) agreed that the open space would be impacted, stating that there should
be flexibility; (5) said that there are six units at this site, and noted that in an R-1 zone, 400
square feet of open space would be required for each unit, or a total of 2400 square feet, which is
unrealistic at this project; (6) said that the currently existing open space is bamboo and is
totally unusable.
Mr. Compton in conclusion: (1) stated that the upper units probably have adequate open space,
and the lower units have direct access to the beach, which is the largest area of open space in
the City; (2) discussed the front yard encroachment and stated that the proposal is to upgrade a
currently existing metal awning, not add anything new; (3) hoped that this request would be
approved; (4) again noted that this building is not just going to go away if it cannot be upgraded;
(5) asked that the applicant be allowed to upgrade the property, abate one unit, and provide two
parking spaces; (6) stated that the other option is to deny the request, thereby leaving six units
with no on-site parking; (7) stated that no structural alterations are necessary, other than
those involving the removal of the one unit; (8) stated that the unit being proposed to be abated
is a single unit of only a couple hundred square feet; (9) stated that a termite and pest control
inspection has been done, and everything is fine.
David Schumacher, 1612 The Strand, applicant, addressed the Commission and: (1) said that
he would like to convert the legal nonconforming six-unit structure into a five-unit building
that will be desirable, pleasing, accommodating, and safe for the residents; (2) stated that he
would like to have two on-site parking spaces where none now exist; (3) stated that the
currently existing on-street parking space is quite dangerous; (4) commented on the currently
existing tree, stating that he had it inspected, and it is in very bad condition and should be
P.C. Minutes 5/ 15/90
removed; (5) discussed the bamboo and stated that it is not good because it deteriorates the
pipes.
Mr. Schumacher commented on the metal awning, explaining that it was damaged in a storm
several years ago, and he would like to replace it now.
Public Hearing closed at 8:25 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
Comm. Rue could recall no improvements being mao.e to this building for at least the past
fifteen years. He was surprised that only now an attempt is being made to repair the damaged
awning. He did not feel this project is within the intent of the nonconforming section of the
code. He felt that if the density were being reduced by half, approval might be feasible; however,
he noted that only reducing the area by 200 square feet is not very effective in achieving what
the City had in mind for its long-term goal. He hoped that the present use would not continue
for many years; however, he could not support approval of this request.
Comm. Ketz stated that the intent of this ordinance is to allow only very minor changes;
therefore, she could see no reason to approve this variance. She felt that approval would
perpetuate the current use and its problems even longer, noting that even five units is not what
she would like to see there.
MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve staffs recommendation,
Resolution 90-38, denying the variance requests for property located at 2634 The Strand.
Comm. Rue did not object to the use; however. he felt that when the life of a building expires, it
should expire. He did not feel it would be appropriate to extend the life of this building any
longer than necessary. He felt that it would be to the property owner's benefit to upgrade the
property regardless of whether or not this variance is approved, noting that the units can
command higher rents if the property is improved.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ingell.
None
None
None
CON 90-7 --CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AUTO PARTS WAREHOUSE AND ADOPTION OF
A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 737 TlilRD STREET IN CONJUNCTION Wlffl VASEK POLAK
AUTO DEALERSHIPS
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated May 8, 1990. Staff recommended that the Planning
Commission approve the conditional use pennit, subject to the conditions specified in the
proposed resolution.
This project is located in S.P.A 7, and its general plan designation is commercial corridor.
The previous use was as the Assembly of God Tabernacle Church. The area of the property is
11,599 square feet. The building area is 5958 square feet.
The site is located only 80 feet from P.C.H. and is bounded by commercial uses on the east and a
public parking lot on the south. An eight-unit condominium is located to the west of the
property, and to the rear of the existing building to the north of the property are two residential
properties containing three units and two units.
A conditional use pennit for the church was granted in 1965, allowing an assembly of up to 160
people. The CUP was amended in 1984 to allow a portion of the second story, originally
proposed for classrooms, to be used as a parsonage.
11 P.C. Minutes 5/ 15/90
On April 10 , 1990 , the City Council amended the zoning map to create Specific Plan Area No. 7.
The Commer cial Specific Plan Area includes the entire subject property. Previously Lot 56 was
zoned R-3, and the remainder of the property C-3.
Section 9.67-5 of the Specific Plan Area requirements states that "Properties with existing
commercial uses or other than residential uses which do not front on Pacific Coast Highway
may be used commercially, expanded, and/ or remodeled, if the existing access is maintained."
On May 3, 1990, the staff environmental review committee recommended an environmental
negative declaration, recommending that the applicant provide information indicating the
anticipated number of vehicle trips that would occur to and from the site, and further
recommended that conditions be included to restrict work activities inside the building, and to
restrict delivery of goods to on the premises and not on the public right-of-way.
The applicant is requesting to utilize the existing building for a parts storage in conjunction
with his existing automobile dealerships located in varying locations along Pacific Coast
Highway. The proposal constitutes a change of use only, as it involves interior remodeling and
no expansion of the building.
Specific Plan Area No. 7 allows the same pennitted uses as those listed for the C-3 zone.
Automobile parts storage is in conjunction with the existing non-contiguous automobile
dealerships. Therefore , the request falls within the category of automobile agency, thereby
requiring a CUP.
It is staffs understanding that the applicant is planning to move the parts storage function
currently located at 2851 P.C.H. (the Subaru dealership site) to this location.
The requirement for automobile agencies is one space per 1000 square feet of site area,
m eaning that this s ite is required t o provide 12 spaces. According to the submitted plans, the
p arking lot would b e r estriped t o provide 1 7 p arking s p a c es.
Staffs primary concern with this request is the potential generation of truck traffic on a
residential street. The applicant indicated at the staff review meeting that large trucks would
rarely if ever be used, and that delivery and pick-up would occur in small trucks and vans. If
the traffic is directed to P.C.H. staff would not necessarily anticipate any problems. Therefore
staff recommended a condition that residential streets shall not be used by delivery vehicles
except for the segment of 3rd Street from P. C.H. to the driveway of this site.
The plan also provides for the required five-foot wide landscape strip along the west side of the
parking lot, with the required trees planted at ten-foot intervals.
Although this is an unusual request, staff believes that the location is appropriate as the
property is across the street from a public parking lot and is located within the commercial
corridor. Also, this type of use, as compared with a church, has a relatively low parking impact
and would have no impact on the weekends since it will be closed, and no sales will be
conducted whatsoever. The proposed use of the site should not create any automotive related
noise, odor, or other related impacts typically associated with repair shops and dealerships.
Also, since the interior of the building is fairly large and spacious, the necessary storage and
work activities can be easily conducted inside.
It should be noted that since the parts storage will not require numerous employees, there will
be excess parking for other employees of the dealerships.
Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Comm. Peirce regarding the commercial area
creeping down into the residential area, explained that the 3rd Street driveway is existing and
is allowed to remain. If the use changes, then the access would be required to be removed from
the highway.
12 P.C . Minutes 5/ 15/90
Public Hearing opened at 8:35 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
Gerry Compton, 200 Pier Avenue, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission and:
(1) discussed the driveway location; (2) handed out a memo he wrote dated May 11, 1990,
addressed to the Commission; (3) continued by discussing the contents of the letter; (4) stated
that the conditions are reasonable, and that this will be a good revenue generator for the City;
(5) explained the use proposed; (6) said that the office space upstairs will not structurally hold
storage, and the parts manager's office will be on the upper level; (7) noted that the upstairs
configuration depicted on the plans is existing, explaining that it used to be a parish.
Sherry Belanger, 720 3rd Street, noted concern over Vasek Polak adhering to the conditions of
their CUP, stating that they continue to test car alanns and use their speaker system. She
questioned whether they will comply with this CUP when they are not complying with other
conditions. She noted further concern over traffic and access on her street.
Mr. Schubach advised that citizens can complain to the City if there are noise violations, and
someone will go out with the noise meter for testing.
Public Hearing closed at 8:43 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
MOTION by Comm. Moore, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to approve staff recommendation,
Resolution P.C. 90-37, as written.
Comm. Peirce felt this is an innovative use of the property, and it will probably be less
intrusive if they follow all rules and regulations.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ingell
None
None
None
Recess taken from 8:45 P.M. until 8:50 P.M.
Chmn. Ingell, noting that a staff member had been waiting in the audience to speak on Agenda
Item 11, announced that Agenda Items 10 and 11 would be reversed.
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM BUDGET REVIEW AND APPROVAL (CONTINUED FROM
MEEnNGOFMAY 1. 1990)
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated May 10, 1990. At the previous hearing, the Planning
Commission requested specific infonnation regarding the Planning Commission's purview,
role, status, and mission over the Capital Improvement Program.
Provided to the Commissioners were copies of the State Law relevant to the Planning
Commission's concerns. Section 65103(c) and Section 65401 both indicate that the Planning
Commission should be examining the CIP for conformance with the general plan.
However, there is no restriction which preempts the Commission from making
recommendations as to what should be in the CIP beyond the sake of conformity.
Hearing opened at 8:52 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
Lynn Terry, Deputy City Engineer, Public Works Department, addressed the Commission and
stated that the comments made by Comm. Peirce at the previous meeting were totally correct,
and the document has been revised to reflect Comm. Peirce's comments.
Hearing closed at 8:56 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
13 P.C. Minutes 5/ 15/90
Comm. Moore stated that he has only one concern related to the consistency; id est. the matter
of The Strand wall and walkway project. He felt that there are a variety of possible solutions,
including a wooden walkway on the sand side. He felt that the issue of beach and Strand use is
a general plan issue; however, The Strand issue at hand is more of a maintenance issue.
Chmn. Ingell gave background information related to past studies done on separating
bicyclists from walkers on The Strand.
Comm. Moore noted concern over a lot of money being spent on maintenance of The Strand
wall. He felt that if the issue were studied in conjunction with the sand side, there might be a
better solution to the problem.
Mr. Terry stated that actual details have not yet been finalized for The Strand wall. He noted,
however, that Comm. Moore's concerns will be presented in the staff report which will be given
to the City Council.
MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Moore, to approve staffs recommendation,
Resolution P.C. 90-34, determining that the CIP is consistent with the City's general plan.
Comm. Rue commented on the finding in the circulation element regarding The Strand wall.
He commented that the wall serves as a barrier during storms and the issue is therefore one of
health and safety.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ingell
None
None
None
Comm. Moore wanted to direct the engineer to provide analysis and details on a separate
Strand walkway and wall when this issue is presented to the Council.
Comm. Rue noted that The Strand is subjected to heavy abuse during storms. In the interest of
safety. he wanted to ensure that good money is not being thrown away on bad.
MOTION by Comm. Moore, seconded by Chmn. Ingell. to direct that a study of The Strand
maintenance project (as discussed above) be recommended to the Public Works Department for
presentation to the City Council.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Ketz. Moore, Rue, Chmn. Ingell
Comm. Peirce
None
None
SS -10 --TEXT AMENDMENT REGARDING HEIGHT OF HEDGES AND FENCES AND
ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated May 10, 1990. Staff recommended approval of the
proposed resolution recommending amendments to the zoning ordinance.
At their meeting of September 13, 1988, the City Council referred this matter back to the
Planning Commission to address their stated concerns that a CUP process to allow higher
walls and fences would create problems, that such a process would have to specify conditions
for approving or denying such requests, that enforcement would be difficult, and that a
distinction should be made between residential and commercial requirements.
14 P.C. Minutes 5/ 15/90
On August 2, 1988, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution P.C. 88-68 recommending
amendments to more specifically define the types of materials for walls and fences which
would be allowed. The Commission did not agree with staff's recommendation to allow the
established height limits to be exceeded through a CUP.
The zoning ordinance currently allows walls, fences, or hedges to be constructed to a height of
three feet in the front yard and six feet along side yards behind the front yard and in the rear
yard. A variance would be required to exceed these limits. There is no requirement regarding
materials or any distinction between walls and fences on commercial versus residential
property. Building permits are only required for fences greater than six feet, or retaining walls
of greater than four feet.
Given the Planning Commission's previous action to avoid the use of CUPs as a method for
anyone to request additional fence height, staff felt it would be appropriate to allow higher
walls and fences by CUP only in limited situations. Those situations most appropriate would
be where commercial and manufacturing uses abut residential uses.
This issue was raised when the Planning Commission approved a rear wall for the Mobil site to
be eight feet in height.
Staff therefore recommended an amendment that would allow a wall, fence, or hedge to exceed
the height limits in situations where commercial uses abut residential uses.
The amendments include criteria for granting such an exception on the height limit. These
criteria would mean that the Planning Commission would have to find that the additional
height is necessary to mitigate a potential noise or visual impact, and that the additional
height would not interfere with the light, air, and scenic view of nearby properties.
Also included in the proposed resolution are amendments similar to those previously
recommended by the Planning Commission that would specifically define the types of
materials to be allowed in fences and walls when a CUP is required and for any fence or wall
above three feet located on other than residential property. Also, staff included language to
absolutely prohibit certain materials such as barbed wire, broken glass, razor wire, or other
similar materials in all cases.
The reason for not dictating materials on residential fences is that it would not be appropriate
to control fence and wall aesthetics when the City does not currently control appearances and
types of materials for the much more significant structure, the single-family dwelling itself.
Staff also recommended a condition requiring that building permits are required to construct
a fence or wall of above three feet in height. This would allow the City to check the structural
integrity of fences and walls and to verify that height requirements are being followed. The
Director of Building and Safety has no objection to the revised permit requirements.
Staff also recommended elimination of Chapter 15 of the Municipal Code titled "Hedges,
Fences, and Walls" as the requirements duplicate the requirements of the zoning ordinance.
Public Hearing opened and closed at 9:07 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell who noted that no one appeared
to speak on this issue.
Lynn Terry, Public Works De partment. addressed the Commission and r e s p on d e d t o a question
from Comm. Rue r egarding the issue of ob taining permit s for walls. He continue d b y
explaining when encroachment permits are nece ssary, s tating that those p e rmits are subject t o
revocation by the City. He said that there are certain standards under the purview of the
Building Department.
15 P.C. Minutes 5/ 15/90
Comm. Rue commented on fences in the northern portion of the City, stating that some of the
fences are at least six feet high. He questioned whether those property owners must be in
compliance with the encroachment regulations.
Mr. Terry stated that he is not familiar with that particular portion of the City, and it would be
necessary for him to do further research on that area.
Comm. Rue commented on the proposed resolution, Item 3, Paragraph 3: "No fence or wall
three feet or greater in height shall be constructed without first obtaining a building pennit."
He questioned whether this requirement will place an undue burden on staff.
Mr. Schubach stated that that requirement was recommended by the Building Department.
Mr. Vose replied that this is a standard condition in most cities.
Comm. Rue commented on Item 3, Paragraph 5: 'Walls or fences located on property used for
any use other than residential shall be constructed of an aesthetically pleasing material such
as earthtone split face rock, wrought iron or simulated wrought iron, brick, wood, stucco, or a
similar material approved by the Planning Director. Plain grey block is prohibited." He
questioned whether this requirement should be imposed in residential zones.
Mr. Schubach replied that those kinds of requirements are imposed on the single-family
homes themselves; therefore, it was felt unnecessary to impose the requirements on fences.
Comm. Peirce felt that it is preferable to give the homeowner flexibility in constructing fences.
Chmn. Ingell, noting that many times fences separate two pieces of property, felt that it would
be appropriate to include such restrictions.
Comm. Peirce noted, however, that things seem to be working fairly well at this time;
therefore, he did not feel it necessary to add more requirements in the residential zone.
Comm. Rue felt that Item 5 lays out reasonable guidelines, prohibiting only plain grey block
walls. He noted that walls are subject to a material approved by the Planning Director.
Comm. Ketz felt that a clear-cut guideline should be included for the residential zone.
MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to approve staffs recommendation,
Resolution P.C. 90-40, with one change: to amend Item 3, Paragraph 5, to state: 'Walls or
fences shall be constructed of an .... (strike out 'located on property used for any use other than
residential')."
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ingell
None
None
None
LLA 90-3 --LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT AT 120-122 25'IH STREET AND 2463:2467 MANHA'ITAN
AVENUE
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated May 9, 1990. Staff recommended that the Planning
Commission approve the proposed lot 1:¢e adjustment.
The subject parcels are both owned by Parker Kemp and Edward Kemp. Assessors Parcel 12
contains approximately 2313 square feet, while Assessors Parcel 13 contains approximately
2513 square feet. These two parcels show up as being separate on the assessor's map and
Hermosa Beach subdivision map by a da~hed line, meaning that they were subdivided by deed
'
16 P.C. Minutes 5/ 15/90
prtor to the subdivision map requirements. The Map Act requires the City to recognize these
private subdivisions that occurred before 1972 as separate lots.
The applicant is proposing to adjust the recognized property line approximately 1.24 feet to the
east to make the two parcels more equal in size and to place the property line halfway between
the two existing structures so that no existing structures will straddle the property line. The
resulting parcel sizes are approximately 2410 and 2416 square feet.
Staff felt that this adjustment of the property line is logical and will not have any negative
impacts on the subject properties or surrounding properties.
Hearing opened at 9: 17 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
Parker Kemp, 121 Belmont Avenue, Long Beach, applicant, addressed the Commission and: (1)
agreed with the staff recommendation; and (2) noted that the address mentioned in the title of
the resolution should be corrected to read "2463."
Hearing closed at 9: 19 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
MOTION by Comm. Ketz, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve staffs recommendation,
Resolution P.C. 90-39.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ingell
None
None
None
NR 90-4 --AN EXCEPTION FROM SECTION 13-71B} TO ALLOW A REMODEL AND EXPANSION
TO AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING DUPLEX GREATER THAN A 50 PERCENT INCREASE IN
VALUATION AT 834 BARD STREET
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated May 10, 1990. Staff recommended approval of the request
by adopting the proposed resolution.
The lot size is 34 76 square feet, with an existing building size of 2366 square feet. The proposed
addition is 1 794 square feet. and the area of the remodel is 364 square feet. There will be a 7 8
percent increase in valuation. There are four parking spaces.
The applicant is proposing to make a significant addition to the rear unit (Unit B) while
making no changes to the front unit (Unit A). Unit Bis currently 1278 square feet and would be
a total of 3072 square feet after the addition. Unit A contains 1222 square feet. The proposed
addition includes an addition of 985 square feet of decks.
The property is currently nonconforming to current zoning for several reasons: (1) the garage
is set back eight feet rather than the required 17 feet; (2) Unit A has no private open space, 200
square feet is required; (3) the existing parking is provided in tandem with direct access to the
street, which is permitted only in the R-1 zone; and (4) there are four parking spaces and no
guest spaces.
The proposed additions conform with minimum planning and zoning standards. The total lot
coverage is 64.5 percent, and 262 square feet of private usable open space is provided for Unit B.
A total of 454 square feet of usable open space is provided for the total project. Also, a 484
square-foot roof deck with access only from Unit B is provided over Unit A; this cannot be
counted as usable open space, as its access is from one unit and is located over another.
The only concern staff has in regard to this request is the fact that such a large unit will be
created and no guest spaces will be available. The eight feet behind the garage cannot be
17 P.C. Minutes 5/ 15/90
counted toward guest spaces because it is behind tandem parking. However, there is
approximately 16 to 17 feet between the face of the garage and the edge of the right-of-way
which is commonly used to park extra vehicles.
Staff felt that this proposal is consistent with previous Planning Commission decisions in
regard to the remodel of nonconforming structures and felt that it is consistent with the intent
of Article 13 of the zoning ordinance since the current use conforms to density requirements.
Although there are several nonconformities, they are not exceptionally unusual or significant.
Comm. Rue referred to Page A2.1 of the plans and asked for clarification on the building
height, to which Mr. Schubach replied that the height must be in conformance with City
requirements and will be addressed during the plan check. If the project is not in compliance.
the project will be halted.
Comm. Rue noted that this plan, as well as many others, does not indicate what is currently
existing; it depicts only what is being proposed. He noted that it makes it difficult to envision
the project.
Mr. Schubach stated that currently existing plans are usually not required.
Comm. Rue stated that it would be a great help if the Commission were provided with plans
showing what is existing as well as what is being proposed.
Comm. Peirce commented that this appears to be an unusual back unit. He asked whether had
staff addressed the issue of this being a potential bootleg unit.
Mr. Schubach stated that staff always considers the bootleg potential; however, this project
does not appear to be a problem.
Comm. Peirce, noting the unusual size of the project, stated that each of the three floors
appears to have its own access, and he noted concern over this configuration.
Comm. Rue stated that there is no outside access from the second floor.
Comm. Peirce noted concern over bootlegs and urged staff to look at the potential at this
project.
Hearing opened at 9:29 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
Neil Gretsky, 834 Bard Street, applicant, addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that the
plans were designed to preserve what was already existing on the lot and to add space to what
was there; (2) referred to Page 3 of the plans and described what was existing on the lot; (3) said
that there was a front unit above the garage and a back unit of two floors; (4) explained that the
area underneath the back unit was already framed but hollow, so they are going to add on; (5)
said that the area falls off quite steeply in the back; (6) explained that he has owned the
property since 1977, and he now needs additional space for his growing family; (7) discussed
the parking, stating that the edge of the pavement to the front of the garage is 1 7 feet and four
cars can easily be parked there, since there are no sidewalks on this street; (8) noted that four
cars can park inside the garage; (9) commented that the lot is quite large, 30 feet by 116 feet and
is zoned R-3; (10) stated that when this duplex was built in 1977 is was entirely conforming.
Mr. Gretsky continued and: (1) stated that most of the addition will be incorporated in the
existing structure; (2) said that the massing of the building will not be very much larger because
a good deal will be going under the existing structure; (3) noted that the height will change
because the lot falls off steeply at the rear.
Hearing closed at 9:33 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
18 P.C. Minutes 5/ 15/90
Mr. Schubach, in response to questions from Comm. Peirce, stated that the only issue at this
time is that of adding more than 50 percent increase in valuation.
MOTION by Comm. Ketz, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve staffs recommendation,
Resolution P.C. 90-41, as written.
Comm. Peirce noted concern over possible future bootleg conversion at this property. He
wanted to ensure that this project remains two units.
AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION by Comm. Peirce to add a condition requiring that there shall
be only two units at this site. Amendment accepted by Comms. Ketz and Rue as maker and
second.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
STAFF ITEMS
Comms. Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ingell
None
None
None
a) List of Completed Projects for Inspection
No action taken.
b) Tentative Future Planning Commission Agenda
No action taken.
c) City Council Minutes of April 24, 1990
Chmn. Ingell noted that the Commissioners had received only the odd-numbered pages of the
minutes. He asked that corrected copies be provided at the next meeting.
COMMISSIONER ITEMS
Comm. Peirce asked about the three parking spaces at the northeast comer of The Strand and
2nd Street, to which Mr. Schubach responded that the Public Works Department is currently
investigating that issue.
Comm. Rue asked when the AIA RUDAT meeting will be held, to which Mr. Schubach replied
that it may be held in July.
Comm. Rue wanted to discuss the issue of recycling and zoning, to which Comm. Peirce
suggested that the matter be placed on the agenda for City-wide consideration.
Comm. Rue commented on the issue of the parking of mobile homes on City streets,
particularly on the 500 block of 25th Street and near Valley and Gould, to which Mr. Schubach
responded by discussing the mobile home parking requirements in the City.
Comm. Rue asked whether there is any new information related to the Greenwood hotel
project, to which Mr. Schubach responded in the negative.
Comm. Ketz asked whether any workshop meetings will be held to discuss the housing element,
to which Mr. Schubach replied that several will be held; a joint meeting between the City
Council and Planning Commission, as well as a meeting with the general public.
19 P.C. Minutes 5/ 15/90
. .
MOTION by Comm. Ketz, seconded by Comm. Rue, to adjourn at 9 :45 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 May 15, 1990.
/
Date
20 P.C. Minutes 5/ 15/90
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CI'IY OF HERMOSA BEACH
HELD ON JUNE 5, 1990, AT 7:00 P.M. IN THE CI'IY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Meeting called to order at 7:00 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
Pledge of Allegiance led by Comm. Ketz.
ROLLCAI.L
Present:
Absent:
Comms. Ketz, Peirce. Rue, Chmn. Ingell
Comm. Moore
Also Present: Michael Schubach, Planning Director; Casey Vose, City Attorney:
Sally White. Recording Secretary
CONSENT CALENDAR
MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve as submitted the following
Consent Calendar items:
Planning Commission minutes of May 15, 1990;
Resolution P.C. 90-34, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF TI!E CITY OF
HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DETERMINING THAT THE PROPOSED 1990-91 FISCAL
YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM IS CONSISTENT WITI! THE GENERAL PLAN FOR
TI!E CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH;
Resolution P.C. 90-35, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF TI!E CITY OF
HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #22156 FOR A 1WO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM FOR 829 15TI! S1REET,
LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 5, HEFFNER, FIORINI, AILEN 'IRACT;
Resolution P.C. 90-36, A RESOLUTION OF TI!E PLANNING COMMISSION OF TI!E CITY OF
HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT
AND PARKING PLAN TO ALLOW TI!E INSTALLATION OF A PORTABLE CLASSROOM IN TI!E
PARKING LOT OF AN EXISTING CHURCH AND SCHOOL LOCATED AT 340 MASSEY AVENUE,
LEGAILY DESCRIBED AS LOTS 1-5 INCLUSIVE, LOTS 7 AND 8, AND LOTS 21-40 INCLUSIVE,
HERMOSA HEIGHTS 'IRACT, AND ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION;
Resolution 90-37, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF TI!E CITY OF
HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PARTS
STORAGE FACILITY TO BE OPERATED IN CONJUNCTION WITI! EXISTING VASEK POLAK
AUTOMOBILE DEALERSHIPS AT 737 TI!IRD S1REET, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 56 AND
57 AND TI!E WESTERLY 20 FEET OF LOTS 26, 27, AND 28, WALTER RANSOM CO'S VENABLE
'IRACT AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION;
Resolution P.C. 90-38, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF TI!E CITY OF
HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DENYING AV ARIANCE REQUEST TO ALLOW PARKING IN
TI!E FRONT 20 FEET OF A LOT, AN ENCROACHMENT INTO TI!E FRONT YARD ON THE
STRAND FOR THE ROOF OF AN EXISTING BALCONY, AND DENYING A VARIANCE FROM
SECTION 13-3(C) OF TI!E ZONING ORDINANCE FOR A REDUCTION IN A NONCONFORMING
AMOUNT OF OPEN SPACE FOR THE REMODEL OF A NONCONFORMING USE WHICH
EXCEEDS 45 UNITS PER ACRE AT 2634 TI!E S1RAND, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 26,
BLOCK 27, HERMOSA BEACH TRACT;
1 P.C. Minutes 6/ 5/90
Resolution P.C. 90-39, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF TiiE CITY OF
HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE FOR A LOT
LINE ADJUSTMENT BE1WEEN 120 25Tii S'IREET (ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 4182-011-012)
AND 2463 MANHATTAN AVENUE (PARCEL NO. 4182-011-013) LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS
LOTS 12 AND 13, BLOCK 29, FIRST ADDITION TO HERMOSA BEACH 1RACT;
Resolution P.C. 90-40, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF TiiE CITY OF
HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTION 1215 OF THE HERMOSA BEACH
ZONING ORDINANCE REGARDING REQUIREMENTS FOR FENCES AND HEDGES, AND
ELIMINATING CHAPTER 15 OF TiiE HERMOSA BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE, AND ADOPTION
OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION;
Resolution P.C. 90-41, A RESOLUTION OF TiiE PLANNING COMMISSION OF TiiE CITY OF
HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A REQUEST FOR AN EXCEPTION FROM
SECTION 13-7(B) OF TiiE ZONING ORDINANCE TO ALLOW AN ADDITION AND REMODEL TO
AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE TO EXCEED 50 PERCENT OF THE
PLACEMENT VALUE, AT 834 BARD S1REET AND LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 5, BLOCKS,
1RACT2002.
There being no objections to approval of the Consent Calendar, so ordered.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC
No one appeared to address the Commission.
SUB 86-2 --SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE REVISED GRADING
PLAN FOR AN EIGHT-LOT SUBDIVISION AT 532. 534 & 540 20TH STREET. COMMONLY
KNOWN AS ''THE POWER STREET SUBDIVISION'' (CONTINUED FROM 4/ 3/ 90 AND 5/ 1 /90
MEETINGS)
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated May 31, 1990. Staff recommended that this item be
continued to a date certain, pursuant to the applicant's request.
The Planning Commission continued this item from the meeting of April 3, 1990, because the
developer had provided inadequate information from which to base a decision. The developer
was requested to work with the Department of Public Works and to generate sufficient
information on drainage and storm sewer capacity so the Commission could make a
determination as to the level of environmental impact.
The Planning Commission, at their meeting of May 1, 1990, continued this item pursuant to
the applicant's request to allow more time to gather the needed information.
The applicant has again requested a continuance for 45 days , stating that a new project
engineer has been hired and again stating that more time is needed to obtain the appropriate
information upon which to decide a solution. The Planning Commission does not have to
accept this request for an exception and may alternatively require that the applicant prepare a
focused EIR.
The tentative map which was originally approved for two years on April 15, 1986, has been
extended twice by the City, giving it an expiration date of June 15, 1990. According to the State
Map Act, the tentative map may only be extended one more time. At this time the applicant has
not requested any further extensions. However, pursuant to Section 66452.6(b) of the State
Map Act, the length of time allowed prior to expiration shall not include any period of time
during which a development moratorium existed. Section 66452.6(£) defines development
moratoria to include any period of time which a condition imposed by the City could not be
satisfied because it necessitated action by the City and said action caused a delay.
2 P.C. Minutes 6/ 5/90
For this project. the supplemental environmental assessment required by the City Council was
delayed because it required the completion of a study from the county in regard to the adequacy
of the storm drain system. Staff believes that the delay caused by the City and county
comprised 8 months and 25 days. This was the period in between the date the City Council
requested staff to conduct a supplemental environmental assessment (June 13, 1989) and the
date the staff environmental review committee made its recommendation (March 8, 1990). The
primary reason for the delay was that staff was forced to wait for the county to complete its
study before making its detennination on the environmental impact.
Therefore, the effective expiration date for the tentative map is March 10, 1991. This should
provide ample time for the applicant to resolve the drainage problems. As such, staff felt that
the continuation request should be granted.
Mr. Schubach discussed the property itself. stating that it appears to be a nuisance at this time.
He said that the area contains barbecue remnants, blankets, graffiti, and weeds, and it appears
that the area is being used for partying and/ or playing. He noted that the area is now dangerous
and unsightly, and he therefore suggested imposing a condition to require that this area be
cleaned and fenced. He further noted that both the Fire and Building Departments have been
informed of this matter.
Public Hearing opened and closed at 7:07 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell, who noted that no one appeared
to speak on this issue.
MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to continue this item to August 21, 1990, and
to add a condition requiring that the property be cleaned and fenced as suggested by staff in
order to eliminate the dangerous and offensive conditions of the site.
Mr. Vose, in response to a question from Comm. Rue, explained that the imposition of a
condition to clean the property conveys a message to the developer that the Planning
Commission desires the property to be kept clean and safe.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Ketz, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ingell
None
None
Comm. Moore
CON 90-5 --CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #21868
FOR A THREE UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 350 MANHATIAN AVENUE. AKA 212 4ffl STREET
(CONTINUED FROM MEETINGS OF 4/ 17 / 90 AND 5 / 1 /90)
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated May 31, 1990. Staff recommended that the Planning
Commission approve the requested CUP and vesting tentative parcel map, subject to the
conditions specified in the proposed resolution.
The Planning Commission continued this application because it involved the use of parking
off the alley with a three-foot setback, and at the time of the last meeting the City Council had
not yet adopted the ordinance allowing less than 17 feet. The ordinance was adopted at the May
8 meeting of the City Council.
The applicant has revised the plans to reflect a three-foot parking stall setback from the alley
and also revised the plans to correct previous problems with open space. Staff reviewed the
plans and found that all planning and zoning requirements have been met.
It should also be noted that the project provides for three guest spaces which are necessary
because of the loss of one on-street parking space. The applicant has demonstrated, and staff
3 P.C. Minutes 6/5/90
has verified, that the driveway can be designed so that only one space would be lost. Staff
included a condition to ensure that only one on-street space will be eliminated.
The elevations have been slightly modified to indicate more details regarding the exterior
features.
Public Hearing opened at 7: 11 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
Huntley Houck, Redondo Beach, project architect, addressed the Commission and stated that
he would answer any questions that the Commission had; however, there were no questions.
Public Hearing closed at 7:12 P.M. byChmn. Ingell.
MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve staffs recommendation,
Resolution P.C. 90-30, as submitted.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Ketz, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ingell
None
None
Comm. Moore
CUP 90:5 -CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR OFF-SALE GENERAL ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES
AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 1031 HERMOSA AVENUE. GOLDEN LION LIQUOR
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated May 30, 1990. This project is located in the C-2 zone, with
a general plan designation of general commercial. The lot size is 7885 square feet, and the
building size is 1125 square feet. The current use is as a liquor store/ convenience market.
There are 11 parking spaces.
Simpson's Market is one of the remaining existing businesses selling alcoholic beverages.
subject to the alcohol amortization ordinance, which has not obtained a conditional use
permit.
At their 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, to provide and maintain landscaping in the landscape planters, to restripe
the parking lot, to properly install the bumper blocks , and to bring the signs into conformance
with the sign ordinance.
The requested CUP would authorize the continued sale of liquor, beer, and wine from the
premises.
The applicant has already responded to some of the concerns noted at the staff review meeting:
the trash dumpster has been screened behind a wooden structure, the parking stalls have been
repainted, and the bumper blocks bave been properly aligned. Also. the window signage has
been reduced and appears to be in conformance with the sign ordinance.
Staff is still concerned, however, about the landscape planter areas which currently contain
only dirt and weeds. Also, the perimeter curbing around these areas is either in disrepair or is
completely gone. As such. staff recommended a condition that these areas be landscaped,
surrounded with raised curbing, and maintained with an irrigation system.
In regard to controlling the sale of single containers of alcohol, it has been estimated that this
store will be in the area that the police department will target for this requirement. Therefore,
staff felt that this condition should be included.
4 P.C. Minutes 6/5/90
Since this is an existing establishment and is located in the commercial area of Pier Avenue,
and the business owner has shown good faith to resolve some of the concerns of staff, staff felt
that the sale of liquor should be allowed to continue. subject to the conditions in the proposed
resolution.
Mr. Schubach noted that since the staff report was prepared, two additional memos have been
received: a letter dated June 4, 1990, from Commander Anthony Altfeld of the Police
Department recommending modifications to the proposed conditions of approval; and a letter
dated May 31, 1990, from City Attorney Vose recommending a continuance of this hearing for
the purpose of awaiting a decision by the City of Los Angeles related to alcohol control.
Mr. Vose expanded on his memorandum and explained that the City of Los Angeles is currently
addressing the issue of reassessing their position as it relates to alcohol control. He continued
by explaining that a recent court action severely restricted what conditions may be imposed on
businesses selling alcohol. As it currently stands .. municipalities are preempted from applying
conditions upon the serving or sale of alcohol, since the area is within the purview by the ABC.
He concluded by recommending that this matter be continued until such time that the City of
Los Angeles makes a final decision on this matter.
Mr. Vose, in response to a question from Comm. Peirce regarding whether the CUP can dictate
the hours of operation, explained that hours of operation can be imposed only if they are the
same hours for all business within a certain area. Varying hours of operation, however,
cannot be imposed only for liquor stores according to the new ruling.
Comm. Peirce, noting that landscaping requirements are not within the purview of the ABC,
asked whether conditions can be imposed requiring landscaping.
Mr. Vose replied in the affirmative, explaining that zoning-related issues, such as parking and
landscaping can be regulated in the CUP. He stated that the case in question involves issues
such as the sale of single containers of alcohol. the age of people selling alcohol, and the hours
of operation. He stated that it is important to make a strict distinction between zoning
regulations which relate to all types of business and those which relate only to establishments
selling alcohol.
Mr. Vose, in response to a question from Comm. Rue, stated that if a city continues to impose
and enforce conditions on only liquor stores, there is a possibility of litigation because of the
conditions being in violation of the preemption doctrine.
Mr. Vose stated that he wants additional clarification on this matter so that there is no
question as to what can and cannot be done related to this issue. He therefore felt that a
continuance would be appropriate.
Public Hearing opened at 7:20 P.M. byChmn. Ingell.
Farid Bader, 1031 Hermosa Avenue, applicant, addressed the Commission and: (1) noted
concern over whether he can still sell single containers of alcohol, to which Chmn. Ingell
replied in the affirmative; (2) said that if people are required to purchase six-packs,
consumption will increase, not decrease; (3) stated that the landlord has informed him that the
landscaping will soon be improved; (4) said that he has read the conditions, and he
understands that he is ultimately responsible for compliance.
Mr. Vose stated that the only condition which appears to be in conflict with the recent court
decision is Condition No. 6, related to single-container sales of alcoholic beverages.
June Williams, 2065 Manhattan Avenue, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and: (1)
expressed amazement at the business owners' assertions as to how important single-container
sales are to their businesses; (2) felt that single-container sales of beer cause many problems on
the beach and it is impossible for the police to control the problems related to such sales; (3) felt
5 P.C. Minutes 6/ 5/90
that the City Attorney provided a very good memo and she agreed with his recommendation; (4)
noted that under the current zoning code, alcoholic beverages are permitted in certain zones
with a CUP and questioned what the impact will be if such establishments are to be
conditioned by the ABC; (5) questioned whether such uses will need to be eliminated from the
permitted use list and whether the wording will need to be changed in the code; (6) asked that
Condition No. 6 be included until this matter is resolved, stating that she feels it would help the
City's environmental problems as well.
Public Hearing continued at 7:28 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Chmn. Ingell. to accept the City Attorney's
recommendation to continue this matter to the meeting of September 4, 1990.
Comm. Peirce agreed with Ms. Williams' comments regarding the sale of single containers of
alcohol, stating that he too feels such sales cause problems and they are not vital to the
survival of liquor stores.
Comm. Peirce stated that unless landscaping is provided at this site by the next hearing of the
matter, he will vote against the request. He noted that the property has not been landscaped for
at least ten years, and it is very unsightly.
Mr. Vose interjected that a move is on to preclude municipalities from imposing any
conditions whatsoever on these types of businesses.
Chmn. Ingell commented on the memo from Commander Altfeld, stating that the
recommendations are excellent, and he asked that staff incorporate some of those
recommendations in the resolution.
AMENDMENT TO fflE MOTION by Chmn. Ingell as second, and agreed to by Comm. Peirce as
maker, to direct staff to incorporate the Commander Altfeld's recommendations in the
resolution.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comm. Ketz, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ingell
None
None
Comm. Moore
CON 90-9 --CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #22184 FOR A 'IWO-
UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 126 MANHATIAN AVENUE. AKA 160 MANHATIAN AVENUE
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated May 21, 1990. Staff recommended that the Planning
Commission approve the conditional use permit for a two-unit condominium and tentative
tract map, subject to the conditions specified in the proposed resolution. As an alternative, the
Commission may desire to continue this matter to require the project to provide access from
the alley only.
This project is in the R-3 zone, with a general plan designation of high density residential. The
lot size is 3000 square feet, or 30 by 100 feet. Six parking spaces are provided. Open space
provided is 760 square feet. The property is currently vacant.
The subject property is rectangular in shape with about a ten percent slope upward from front
to back.
This lot is one of the six lots that previously made up the Bayshore Sanitarium property
addressed as 160 Manhattan Avenue. Only one curb cut exists for the entire site. This is the
first lot to be proposed for development. The sanitarium structure, although abandoned, is
still standing and straddles lots 6 through 9.
6 P.C. Minutes 6/5/90
The proposed units contain approximately 2300 square feet and each includes three bedrooms,
three and a half bathrooms, and a roof deck. Each structure consists of three stories and a roof
deck.
The proposed building elevations exhibit an exterior composed of both rough stucco and
smooth stucco, clay-tile roofing, aluminum windows, and pipe railing. This combination of
features gives the building somewhat of a Mediterranean appearance.
Access to the garages is from both the alley and the street. Staff has previously advised the
applicant that it would be preferable to access all the parking from the alley so as not to require
a curb cut on Manhattan Avenue. This could be accomplished by providing a driveway along
the side of the alley unit to access a garage for the front unit. Staff believes this is a critical
concern since this is one of six lots to be eventually developed on this block, meaning that if
this design is approved for each lot, several new curb cuts will drastically change the parking
and appearance of this block.
The applicant, however, has chosen to provide access from both the street and the alley to give
the units more of an appearance of being separate and distinct and to avoid the use of tandem
garages or having a driveway along the side of a unit.
Section 7.2 of the zoning ordinance states that "the purpose of this division is to promote the
following standards for condominiums .... " and includes subsection (c) stating "a layout of
structures and other facilities to effect conservation in street, driveway, and curb cut and other
public or quasi-public improvements .... " Although this does not prohibit curb cuts where alley
access is available, staff believes that the Planning Commission has the authority to require
the use of the alley in appropriate situations.
Staff therefore requested direction from the Planning Commission in regard to this project
and any future similar projects which may result in unnecessary curb cuts on City streets.
Because of staff's concern, the driveway accessing the street has been designed in such a
manner that will cause the loss of only one on-street parking space, therefore making the
proposed two guest spaces adequate to meet the parking requirements.
It should be noted that this proposal uses a nine-foot garage setback from the alley which is
currently allowed by the zoning ordinance. This nine-foot wide area qualifies as a guest space,
and a guest space is also provided behind the garage facing Manhattan Avenue.
The project complies with all other planning and wning requirements. Lot coverage is 64.9
percent. Adequate open space is provided on the roof decks, and the height of the structure is at
or less than 35 feet.
Although it appears that adequate storage space is available, the amount is not clearly
indicated. Staff included a condition that final plans identify the amount of space in the
storage areas.
The surrounding residential area consists of primarily older multi-family structures.
Although the density of the proposed project will be consistent with the surrounding area, the
proposed scale and height of this project is larger than most of the surrounding projects.
Public Hearing opened at 7:33 P.M. byChnm. Ingell.
B. M. Barsoum, 4015 Pacific Coast Highway, Torrance, owner and architect. addressed the
Commission and: (1) displayed color renderings of the project; (2) stated that alley-only access
is not feasible because the lot is only 30 feet wide by 100 feet and after all setbacks are provided,
only a narrow portion (17 feet) ofbuildable space remains; (3) said that a large landscaped area
will remain with his proposed access; (4) said that the currently existing six lots are all
7 P.C. Minutes 6/5/90
designated as "no parking" and are used only for loading/ unloading purposes; (5) explained
that the parking provided at this project will be in excess of what is actually required.
Mr. Barsoum continued and: (1) stated that the design of the project is compatible with the
surrounding area; (2) said he is proud of his design; (3) noted that the required storage space will
be provided.
Comm. Rue commented on access from Bayview only. Noting that the plans now depict the
Manhattan Avenue side of the project as having a garage door and some landscaping, he
questioned what the effect would be of having access only from Bayview. He asked whether
there would then be additional usable open space on the ground floor level.
Mr. Barsoum explained that to provide all of the parking at the rear would require using
mostly tandem parking. He pointed out that guest parking would be at the front, and it would
be inconvenient for guests to then have to walk around to the rear unit. In other words, if all
resident parking is at the rear, there would be no room for guest parking in that location.
Comm. Rue pointed out that there are six lots at this location, all of which will probably be
developed. He noted that it would be preferable to have parking at the rear, rather than having
a bank of garage doors along Manhattan Avenue. He felt that it would be nice to have
something with some architectural value, rather than just garage doors.
Mr. Barsoum stated that if he had two or three lots, he would be happy to put in a subterranean
garage; however, this one lot is the only one at issue for this project. He noted that the use of the
lot would be defeated if all parking were at the rear, since the rear unit would then have less
space. He said that the other units in the area have parking in the front and there are curb cuts.
Mr. Barsoum, in response to a question from Comm. Rue, stated that the other five lots have
not yet been sold, and they are covered by the one existing building.
Ron Riggs, 1435 Manhattan Avenue, partner of Mr. Barsoum, addressed the Commission and:
(1) felt that this project will enhance the neighborhood; (2) discussed a project he wants to do at
143 Manhattan Avenue; (3) noted that this is the only neighborhood in the area with metered
street parking and discussed a neighborhood undertaking to have those meters removed; (4) did
not feel that this project's curb cut access would be a detriment to the neighborhood; (5) stated
that this project is compatible with other projects in the area, and parking in the rear would be
a hindrance to the project.
Sandra Aden, 158 Bayview Drive, addressed the Commission and: (1) spoke on her own behalf
as well as on the behalf of other concerned citizens in the neighborhood; (2) expressed
widespread concern over the development of this property; (3) stated that this project is only
the first phase of continued full-scale development on the property; (4) stated that whatever
happens on this property will set a precedent for the other five lots; (5) passed out a petition
with approximately 40 signatures of concerned neighbors who concur with her comments and
concerns; (6) said that more signatures could have been obtained if adequate notice had been
given.
Ms. Aden continued and: (1) stated that the three major concerns are the economic impact,
environmental impact, and the aesthetic consideration; (2) expressed concern over the
potential loss of ocean views, which would have a negative impact on property values; (3) said
that many of the older properties behind the nursing home site have recently been renovated
and are quite attractive; (4) noted concern that each of the six double lots could be developed as
two units, thus requiring a total of 36 parking spaces; (5) said that the alley is not large enough
to accommodate such an increase in vehicular traffic; (6) noted that the alley is very narrow
and there is no room to expand it; (7) commented that there are several very nice trees on this
property which should be preserved for environmental purposes.
8 P.C. Minutes 6/5/90
Ms. Aden went on and: (1) commented on the aesthetics and concurred that the nursing home
itself is not very attractive, however, the building does not block ocean views, nor were traffic
or parking problems caused by its use; (2} said that the nursing home courtyard provided some
green space; (3) asked that the residents be allowed to participate in the planning process for
the development of this property; (4) asked that ocean views be allowed to remain; (5} requested
that subterranean parking be included for the projects being developed to help mitigate the
parking and traffic problems; (6) asked that Bayview Drive and Manhattan Avenue be
resurfaced to accommodate the future increase in traffic; (7) requested that landscaping be
required which is responsible and professionally done; (8) asked that the entire design and
construction be done in a professional manner with consideration being given to the
neighborhood.
Jean Hadley, 220 Monterey, addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that the surrounding
homes are quite attractive: (2) noted concern over loss of ocean views; (3) questioned whether
the lot slope is actually ten percent: (4) noted concern over solid decking walls, which block
views and obstruct air flow: (5) requested that the rooftop decking not have solid walls; (6) said
that she lost her curb cut and questioned why someone else should be allowed to have one; (7)
stated that there is a desperate need for parking in this area and additional curb cuts will
exacerbate the problem, and stressed that the curb cuts should be removed; (8) noted that
construction noise will compound the already existing problems in the area; (9) said that she
would favor a view protection ordinance for the City.
June Williams, 2065 Manhattan Avenue, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and: (1)
noted that there have been noise complaints related to bars in the area; (2) said that there is a
noise crisis in the City; (3) stated that the problem will be impacted now that the City Council
has abolished the requirement for driveway approaches in alleys: (4) stressed that everyone
has visitors and repairman, and there will be nowhere for these people to park.
Mr. Barsoum rebutted and: (1) stated that he is very sensitive to the concerns of the surrounding
neighbors; (2) noted that he plans to live in one of the units himself, and his partner plans to
live in the other unit: (3) said that this will be a family•type development with no noise
problems; (4) commented on the parking and noted that he has provided one extra guest space
than is required; (5) said that construction will be professionally done and will conform to the
code requirements for hours of work; (6) said that this project is within the height limitation;
(7) stated that he will attempt to keep the construction height to a minimum, and he would be
willing to use pipe railing in order to minimize view obstruction.
Mr. Riggs again addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that Mr. Barsoum is very
professional; (2) noted that the parking was taken into consideration when this project was
designed; (3) asserted that the current site is very ugly; (4) said that the concerns of the
neighbors do not specifically refer to this particular project, noting that there are no trees on
this particular lot: (5) said that this project will benefit the neighborhood; (6} stated that the
nursing home generated a lot of traffic, and this project will not; (7) noted that this project
provides one additional parking space; (8} said that they are willing to work with the City to
reach a compromise; (9) stated that this project is within the code requirements; (10) felt that
this project will enhance the neighborhood, rather than detract from it.
Mr. Barsoum, in response to a question from Comm. Rue regarding the proposed landscaping,
explained that there will be full landscaping at the south side of the project. On the north side
between the two units there will be a small courtyard fully landscaped with mature trees. He
said that professionally done full landscaping will be provided. He noted, however, that the
landscaping details have not yet been discussed with staff. A sprinkler system will also be
provided.
Mr. Barsoum, in response to a question from Comm. Rue related to the height of the parapet
walls, explained that an attempt was made to keep the height to a minimum, and pipe railings
will be used on top. He explained that the code requires 42 inches, so he put it to 30 inches and
9 P.C. Minutes 6/ 5/90
provided railing on top of that. He noted that the front unit is approximately nine feet lower
than the rear unit because of the slope of the lot.
Mr. Barsoum, in response to Comm. Rue's comments, clarified what is depicted on the plans in
regard to the gabled roof and the small projection at the rear of the project. He explained that
the projection is to create a break in the elevation; however, if so desired by the Commission,
the design can be changed.
Mr. Riggs addressed the Commission and: (1) commented on the petition, stating that he has
received nothing but favorable comments in response to this project; (2) said that this project is
preferable to having a big-time investor come in and develop a large scale project on the site; (3)
said that he could produce signatures of people in favor of this project.
Mr. Barsoum stated that the decking is low and no matter what is built at this site, there will be
some view obstruction.
Public Hearing closed at 8:00 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
Comm. Rue noted that the City has no view ordinance, and there has not been a large public
response to adopting one.
Comm. Rue, after studying his parcel map, stated that the slope of this lot appears to be seven
feet, or less than ten percent. He felt that the applicant has taken time with these plans and it
should be a nice project. His only concern related to the east parapet wall and the projection
which protrudes approximately five feet. He did not think the projection will block any views;
however, if it does, he suggested that the issue be addressed. He felt that the projection adds a
nice line to the project, which is not often seen on projects. He therefore stated that he would
support approval of this project.
Comm. Peirce commented on staffs recommendation that alley-only access be considered. He
asked for clarification on what staff meant by that recommendation. He noted that the
Commission has an opportunity here to utilize the alley in a manner in which it was intended.
He asked what the Commission must do to implement alley-only access for a condominium
project.
Mr. Schubach stated that if that is the desire of the Commission, a condition of approval could
be imposed requiring that access be from the alley.
Mr. Vose, in response to a question from Comm. Peirce regarding whether alley-only access is a
defensible condition, replied in the affinnative. He explained that imposition of such a
condition is indeed enforceable.
Comm. Peirce noted that this is the first time the Commission has addressed a situation where
an area will be rapidly developed on lots which will soon be tom down. He said that the only
purpose of alleys is for access, to allow cars to enter and leave properties. He disagreed that it is
necessary to have both sides of this project for development. From a pJauuiog standpoint, he
felt that the best thing is to have access from the alley, thereby leaving parking on the street.
Furthermore, the vista from the street would be more attractive than if there were a lot of
garage doors. He therefore favored adding a condition requiring that the project be redesigned
to provide alley-only access. He felt that this would be the best planning standpoint to take.
one which would set a precedent for future projects to beautify the City and make the City more
habitable from a pedestrian standpoint, and a way to prevent developers from maxing out
projects on small lots. He concluded by stating that unless alley-only access is required, he
could not support the project.
Comm. Ketz agreed with Comm. Peirce's comments. Noting that the traffic circulation element
provides for alley-only access, she felt that it should be encouraged. She felt that such access
10 P.C. Minutes 6/5/90
will provide more street parking and better circulation on the street. She felt that alleys
should be used for access purposes.
Comm. Peirce commented on the bedroom on the ground floor on the rear unit, stating that it
appears to have a great bootleg potential since it has direct outdoor access, it is large, and it has
an attached bathroom. He therefore could not support approval of the project unless that
configuration is changed.
Comm. Ketz felt that the project is much too high for the neighborhood, even though it is
within the height limitations of the R-3 zone.
Chmn. Ingell asked whether there is an extra 30 feet on Manhattan Avenue because of the street
vacation, to which Mr. Schubach stated that the street is 60 feet wide.
Chmn. Ingell commented on the parking. stating that most projects with parking coming in
from two sides are usually more attractive than those with parking coming in from one side.
He also noted that tandem parking just does not seem to work very well. He stated that he
would rather see the proposed parking than tandem spaces in the rear.
Comm. Peirce stated that the object is not to redesign this project. Rather, there is a fairly
strong requirement from the City's standpoint that the area would be much more attractive for
pedestrians if the parking and driveways are located in the rear, rather than at the front of the
structure. Tilis project has an opportunity to enter from the rear. and he felt that opportunity
should be used order to make a better project and a more attractive neighborhood. He agreed
that the project is too high; however, the height is allowed under the R-3 zoning standards.
Comm. Rue agreed with Comm. Peirce's sentiments that this would be a nicer project from a
planning standpoint if access was from the rear; however. in this case only one lot is at issue
and it is not known at this time what will happen on the other five lots. He also questioned
whether this project will actually be any more attractive if access is .from Bayview only. He
noted that there is not a great deal of buildable space on this lot. He continued by asking staff
questions related to tandem parking configurations.
Mr. Schubach stated that he would not want to speculate on design configurations for parking
without first studying the options.
Comm. Peirce stated that the issue is to determine whether it is desirable for the City to have
access from the alley or the street.
Public Hearing reopened at 8: 10 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
Gerry Compton, 200 Pier Avenue, local architect, addressed the Commission and: (1) discussed
the lot configuration and the related tandem and guest parking; (2) cautioned that 30-foot lots
have a tendency to create concrete seas to provide for parking; (3) stated that he favors a City
goal of requiring alley access; however, such a requirement makes no sense at all on 30-foot
lots.
Greg Aden addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that even though only one lot is at issue
here, there is concern that this decision will set a precedent for the development of the other
five lots; (2) urged the Commission to address the overall project, rather than just this one
project; (3) stated that alley-only access for all the lots is a situation of half dozen of one. half
dozen of the other.
Mr. Barsoum stated that 30-foot lots cannot have parking without backing up for a long
distance. He noted that it is difficult to turn around. and it would be very difficult to provide six
parking spaces where there would be two, three-space parking configurations.
11 P.C. Minutes 6/5/90
Comm. Rue proposed a parking configuration to Mr. Barsoum, to which Mr. Barsoum replied
that no additional parking would be obtained. Comm. Rue noted, however, that there are other
ways to provide parking, to which Mr. Barsoum replied that it is not fair for him to be
penalized merely because he is the first one to develop one of these lots. Comm. Rue stated that
no one is being penalized, noting that this will be a precedent-setting decision.
Mr. Barsoum stated that if alley-only access is required, the rear unit would be impacted and he
might as well just build one house on this lot.
Mr. Riggs addressed the Commission and: (1) stated they are not here to rewrite the ordinance;
(2) said that the only way they want to change this neighborhood is to beautify it; (3) felt that it
would be nonfunctional to have people entering from the rear, and it would adversely impact
the value of the project.
Ms. Aden addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that she has no objection to alley-access
for all six spaces for this project; (2) noted, however, that she would not want access for the
other five lots to be alley-access only, especially due to the small size of the alley; (3) suggested
that a mix of accesses might be appropriate.
Gerry Compton stated that guest parking and tandem parking can be accomplished entirely at
the rear; however, he cautioned that the two units would then be attached, thereby creating
other problems. He commented that all projects in town have the right to have a curb cut, and
it would not be fair to penalize this applicant.
Public Hearing closed at 8:20 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
Comm. Rue stated that if the other five lots are assembled, design options could be addressed.
For this project, however, he felt that the rear unit would be penalized if all the parking must be
under it. He felt that this is one of the better projects he has seen, and he did not feel that rear
access would benefit the project. He noted that this is only one project on one small lot.
Chmn. Ingell agreed with Comm. Rue, stating that there is a small possibility of aesthetic value
on Manhattan Avenue if alley-only access is required; however, he questioned whether the
project would be very much improved by such a requirement. He stressed that he did not want
to encourage a sea of concrete at this project. He felt that the proposed landscaping is quite
nice.
Comm. Peirce noted that the longest journey starts with the smallest step; therefore, he urged
the other Commissioners to vote for alley-only access. He disagreed that people have a right to
a driveway, especially in cases where condos are maxed out on small lots.
MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve staffs recommendation,
Resolution P.C. 90-42, with the modification that Condition No. 10 be amended to require that
access shall be from the alley only.
Chmn. Ingell stated that he would vote against the motion, explaining that there will be no real
benefit obtained.
Comm. Rue did not feel that alley-only access will create a better project. He stated that he
would like to see the parking coming in off of the street on these kinds of projects on these types
of lots.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Ketz, Peirce
Comm. Rue, Chmn. Ingell
None
Comm. Moore
(TIE VO'IE; MOTION FAn.s.)
12 P.C. Minutes 6/5/90
Comm. Rue noted that the Commission is at an impasse. He favored continuing the matter so
that the applicant can come back and present alternative plans.
Mr. Vose suggested that the hearing be continued to a date certain.
Mr. Barsoum asked for clarification.stating that alley-only access is not feasible. He said that
he has considered other options; however, there does not appear to be any other way to provide
parking which will make the project any better.
Comm. Rue suggested that Mr. Barsoum prepare materials to demonstrate that other options
are not feasible.
Chmn. Ingell noted that there is a possibility that the project might be approved when the fifth
commissioner is present to vote.
Mr. Vose, in response to a question from Comm. Peirce as to what would happen if no further
action is taken, explained that a 2-2 vote constitutes no action. He stated staff would then
probably reschedule this matter before the Commission at a future date. Alternatively, the
applicant could appeal the "no decision" to the City Council. He suggested, however, that the
matter be continued to a future meeting when all Commissioners are present.
MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Chmn. Ingell, to continue this hearing to the meeting of
June 19, 1990, with a recommendation that the applicant submit alternative plans for
vehicular access off of Bayview.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Ketz, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ingell
None
None
Comm. Moore
CUP 90-10 --CONDI11ONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW LIVE ENTERTAINMENT
FROM 4:00 P.M. TO 1:30 A.M. ON WEEKENDS AND HOLIDAYS AT 22 PIER AVENUE. THE END
ZONE
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated May 29, 1990. Staff recommended that the Planning
Commission approve the requested amendment which would extend the hours for live
entertainment, which is currently allowed from 7:00 P.M. to 1:30 A.M. on Thursdays through
Sundays and holidays, to include afternoon hours from 4:00 P.M. to 7:00 P.M. on Saturdays,
Sundays, and holidays.
On January 6, 1987, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution P.C. 87-4 amending the
conditional use pennit to allow live entertainment and dancing in addition to the sale of
general alcoholic beverages. This CUP amended the original CUP and resulted in the addition
of several conditions regarding such issues as noise attenuation, hours of operation, the
serving of hot meals, and the hours of live entertainment.
The hours of live entertainment were restricted to between 7:00 P.M. and 1:30 AM. by the
Planning Commission as requested by the applicant.
The interior of the establishment has been recently remodeled by moving the music stage
towards the rear and reorienting the bar. This remodel, along with the provision of an alcove
entrance, double glazed windows, the installation of air conditioning, and other features
required by the CUP has eliminated any serious noise problems.
At this date, the business is operating in compliance with its conditional use permit. Staff has
checked with both the Police Department and Building Department to determine whether any
13 P.C. Minutes 6/5/90
problems exist. The Police Department, through their routine inspection reports of the CUPs
in the downtown area, have noted in all cases that the End Zone is in compliance. Also, the
Building Department has not received any complaints and has verified that the applicant has
completed construction of required interior improvements.
The applicant, however, still has not complied with the conditions requiring the owner to sign
an acceptance of conditions form and requiring that the CUP be recorded with the deed.
The project is located in the C-2 zone, with a general plan designation of general commercial.
The present and proposed use is as a bar with live music. The building size is 1506 square feet.
The applicant is requesting to extend live entertainment hours to include the hours from 4:00
P.M. to 7:00 P.M. on weekends and holidays. The applicant desires to have performances at
these hours to compete with nearby establishments which provide entertainment during these
afternoon hours.
The Planning Commission established that the starting time for entertainment was at 7 :00
P.M. in response to the applicant's original request for those hours.
Starting at an earlier time of 4:00 P.M. on weekends would not appear to present any problems
so long as compliance with all the conditions for keeping sound levels controlled are
maintained throughout the period. This could become a problem during these hours in regard
to the condition that doors and windows be closed, as the manager on site may be tempted to
open doors or windows on a hot day. Therefore, it would be important that the same conditions
be enforced.
Otherwise, the noise ordinance permits a greater amount of noise during the hours between
8:00 AM. and 10:00 P .M. Therefore, staff felt that this request is acceptable.
Mr. Schubach noted that a letter had been received from Police Commander Altfeld dated June
4, 1990. The Commander recommended that this CUP amendment be denied for several
reasons: noise impact, increased police services which would be required, and the desire not to
increase and/ or compound problems or calls for police services associated with citizen
complaints concerning noise.
Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Comm. Peirce, stated that other similar
establishments with these hours of operation include Pier 52, the Lighthouse, and Hennessey's.
Comm. Peirce pointed out, however, that those three establishments do not currently have
CUPs, and they will probably soon be coming before the Commission for conditional use
permit approval, at which time the hours can be modified.
Mr. Schubach concurred and stated that staff hopes the Commission will be consistent in their
imposition of hours of operation, especially since all of the businesses are close to each other.
Public Hearing opened at 8:33 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
Jim Furbee, 24 11th Street Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and: (1) strongly
opposed any extension in hours of operation for live entertainment in this area since it is
already so loud it keeps him awake at night; (2) stated that he has complained to the police
about the noise on numerous occasions; (3) stated that he has twice written to the police chief
about the noise pollution and handed out copies of the letters; (4) stated that other bars are also
responsible for the noise; (5) said that live entertainment contributes to the general character
of the neighborhood and causes problems for the area; (6) noted concern that the peace and
quiet of the neighborhood is being destroyed and additional extensions will only make the
problem worse; (7) said that he wrote to the City Council in January about the noise problems;
(8) noted concern that the noise ordinance is not being enforced; (9) felt that the hours of live
14 P.C. Minutes 6/5/90
entertainment should be restricted and that the CUP should be enforced; (10) stated that his
apartment faces 11th Court.
June Wi11iams, 2065 Manhattan Avenue, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and: (1)
noted there have been a high number of complaints received in the past related to noise in the
downtown area; (2) felt it is fair to ask the businesses to confine noise to their own premises; (3)
stated that bars purposely want to open their doors and windows to lure customers into the
party atmosphere; (4) noted that these establishments are very close to residential areas and
they should confine noise to their own premises; (5) noted concern that the noise ordinance
and conditional use permit requirements do not appear to be enforced in the downtown area;
(6) commented that she has seen bars with their doors and windows open when there is live
entertainment.
Dale Jones, 46 11th Street, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and: (1) said that many
people are at the beach at 4:00 and she would rather see them at the beach than in the bars; (2)
said there is no reason to encourage more noise at 4:00 in the afternoon; (3) felt that allowing
live entertainment to begin at 4:00 would create additional traffic, parking, and noise
problems as well as parking lot confrontations; (4) felt that if this action will set a precedent
for the other three bars, 7:00 P.M. is more than reasonable to begin live entertainment.
Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Chmn. Ingell, stated that the applicant was
notified of this hearing; however, he was not present.
Public Hearing closed at 8:42 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
Comm. Rue noted that there is a proliferation of establishments with liquor in the downtown
area. He felt that enough is going on in that area at 4:00 P.M. and it would not be appropriate to
allow live entertainment to begin at that hour. He felt that 7:00 P.M. is a more appropriate
time to begin entertainment.
Comm. Peirce noted that the End Zone has been very cooperative in complying with the City's
requirements, stating that this is the only one of the four businesses mentioned which has put
money into the business in an attempt to reduce noise. He stated that the main issue at this
time is when the party should begin in the downtown area. He stated that he is adamantly
opposed to allowing live entertainment to begin at 4:00 P.M. He cautioned that other
businesses would also then want to begin at 4:00 P.M. He therefore opposed the extension of
hours for live entertainment at this location.
Comm. Ketz agreed that 4:00 P.M. is too early to begin live entertainment and she did not want
to set a precedent for the other businesses in this area to begin at 4:00 P.M. She therefore
opposed the extension of hours.
Chmn. Ingell noted that the applicant previously came before the Commission to request
additional hours for live entertainment on a holiday. He felt that the applicant acted in good
faith since the applicant could have just gone ahead with earlier live entertainment on a
holiday when he knew City officials would not be working.
Chmn. Ingell had no problem with allowing this business to begin live entertainment earlier
on holidays. He felt that it would be appropriate to allow the applicant the same rights on a
holiday weekend as on regular weekends.
Mr. Vose pointed out that Condition No. l(a) could be modified to accomplish the intent: "Live
musical entertainment shall be permitted from 7:00 P.M. until 1:30 AM. on Thursday through
Sunday and on Federal and State holidays, Cinco de Mayo, and St. Patrick's Day."
MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Chmn. Ingell, to approve Resolution P.C. 90-45, with
the modification that Condition No. l(a) shall be modified to read: "Live musical
15 P.C. Minutes 6/5/90
entertainment shall be pennitted from 7:00 P.M. until 1:30 AM. on Thursday through Sunday
and on Federal and State holidays, Cinco de Mayo, and St. Patrick's Day."
Comm. Rue pointed out, however, that the applicant's existing CUP has the exact same
condition which is now being proposed.
MOTION WITHDRAWN by Comm. Peirce, who concurred with Comm. Rue's observation.
MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Rue, to deny the conditional use pennit
amendment request to extend the hours of live entertainment from 4:00 P.M. to 1:30 AM. on
weekends and holidays at the End Zone, 22 Pier Avenue.
Comm. Rue commended the applicant for his efforts to correct the noise problems at the End
Zone.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Ketz, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ingell
None
None
Comm. Moore
Recess taken from 8:49 P.M. until 8:55 P.M.
SS 89-13 •• ADOPTION OF THE ''PARKS AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN" AS AN
AMENDMENT TO THE OPEN SPACE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN AND ADOPTION OF
A NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated May 31, 1990. Staff recommended that the Planning
Commission recommend to the City to amend the open space element of the general plan t<:> add
the "Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan" with the corrected page ES-16 and to
recommend adoption of an environmental negative declaration by adopting the proposed
resolution.
On January 3, 1990, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the document as a
general policy statement subject to several modifications noted by the staff. On February 22,
1990, the City Council also adopted the document.
The document provided to the Commission is the final document prepared by the consultant in
response to the comments of staff.
On May 3, 1990, the staff environmental review committee recommended an environmental
negative declaration, based on the finding that this document is a statement of policy for
recreation programs and for potential future improvements and acquisition of park sites and
consequently does not have indirect or direct significant environmental impacts.
Staff reviewed the final document and found that the requested modifications have been
incorporated into the document. However, an omission on page ES-16 needs to be replaced by
adding a sentence at the end of the last paragraph.
Staff also noted that a table of contents for the text of the document needs to be provided.
In regard to including this as part of the open space element, staff felt it is appropriate because
the policies included in the document are consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of
the open space element in regard to upgrading and improving existing park sites and pursuing
the acquisition of additional sites. Also, the sites identified are in most cases already
designated for open space on the general plan and zoning maps.
16 P.C. Minutes 6/ 5/90
Public Hearing opened at 8:58 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
Wihna Burt, 1152 7th Street, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and: (1) noted no
specific objections to approval; (2) discussed what is taking place in the school district and
noted that a large portion of Valley Park belongs to the school district and should not be used
for City maintenance and storage purposes unless the district deeds that land to the City; (3)
noted concern that the City's school district might be combined with that of Manhattan Beach;
(4) felt that it would be a questionable expenditure of money to use the school site, which might
go to another city; (5) suggested that the issue of North School be further addressed before a
final decision is made.
Public Hearing closed at 9:02 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
Comm. Peirce commented on several items in the report: Page 2 lists him as chairman, which
is not; and his name is spelled incorrectly. He further noted that Page 2 refers to the
Department of Community Resources, which no longer exists. He therefore suggested that Page
2 of the document be updated.
Chmn. Ingell stated that he has no objection to approval of the document.
Comm. Rue addressed the comments made during the public hearing and explained that this
document is a master plan and will not be implemented directly; rather, it is more of a long-
term plan. He felt that the City will study the long-term impacts before action is taken. He
stated that he has no objection to approval.
MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Chmn. Ingell, to approve adoption of said amendment and
negative declaration and to forward the document to the City Council.
Chmn. Ingell commended staff and the advisory committee for their fine work on this
document.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Ketz, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ingell
None
None
Coilllll. Moore
SS 86-9 --ADOPTION OF THE GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION, TRANSPORTATION, AND
PARKING ELEMENT, AND AOOPl1ON OF THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated May 31, 1990. Staff recommended that the Planning
Commission recommend that the City Council adopt the Circulation, Transportation, and
Parking Element as part of the City's General Plan, with the corrected pages 45, 46, 48, 50, and
51; and to recommend adoption of the environmental negative declaration by adopting the
proposed resolution.
On March 27, 1990, the City Council approved the final Circulation, Transportation, and
Parking Element document. The final approval included five minor changes which are noted
in the City Council minutes of January 23. 1990. The revised pages which reflect those changes
are included as an attachment and are incorporated _into the final document.
On January 23, 1990, the City Council adopted several modifications to the document as
recommended by the Planning Commission. Resolution 90-5339 adopted by the Council
specifies the items which were changed or eliminated.
Final adoption of the element into the general plan requires an environmental assessment.
The staff environmental review committee, at their meeting of May 1, 1990, recommended
adoption of an environmental negative declaration because the final document as approved by
17 P.C. Minutes 6/ 5/90
the City Council essentially recommended no significant changes to the existing circulation
system.
The final document as approved by the City Council eliminated the recommendations that
possibly would have an environmental impact. For example, the recommendation to
eliminate a parking lane and add a southbound lane on P.C.H. was eliminated. Also, the
Planning Commission recommendations to add "no left turn" signs on P.C.H., to study
widening Ardmore Avenue , and to reclassify several streets from local to collector were
eliminated.
As a result of the elimination of some of these key recommendations for changes, the
document essentially serves as an informational and general policy document with no
recommendations for significant change. As such, staff felt that the finding that no
significant direct or indirect environmental impacts will be caused by adopting this as part of
the general plan can easily be made.
In regard to comments made by D.R. Suess in his letter to the City, the City Traffic Engineer
feels that Mr. Suess is correct and that his concerns need to be addressed. Implementation of
Policy 2.1 of the element, although not specific to the problems on Prospect Avenue, does allow
the City Council to address the issue of reducing through vehicle traffic on Prospect if and when
it is desired.
Therefore, adoption of the element in no way precludes the City from addressing this
important issue in the future.
Public Hearing opened at 9 :55 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
Wilma Burt, 1152 7th Street, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and: (1) discussed the
third lane going south on P.C.H. and noted concerns over safety; (2) stated that traffic is very
heavy in that area and the third lane next to the curb is hazardous; (3) felt that a very bad
accident will occur in the third lane, and she therefore objected to that lane since it is being
designated in a piecemeal fashion; (4) requested that the turn arrow onto Pier Avenue be
replaced.
Public Hearing closed at 9:07 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
Comm. Peirce acknowledged the letters written by Mr. Suess.
Comm. Rue noted that several of the Commission's recommendations were not incorporated
into this document: removal of parking along southbound P.C.H. during peak rush hour traffic;
elimination of turning restrictions onto P.C.H. from residential streets during peak commuter
hours; and elimination of widening of Valley/ Ardmore from Pier Avenue to 1st Street. He
noted concern over said widening for safety purposes.
MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve staffs recommendation,
Resolution P.C. 90·48, to recommend adoption of said element and negative declaration.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Ketz. Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ingell
None
None
Comm. Moore
18 P.C. Minutes 6/ 5/90
GP 90-2/ZON 90-2 --TO CONSIDER GENERAL PLAN REDESIGNATION AND REZONING OF
THE Bil,TMORE SITE PUBLICLY OWNED PORTION FROM A SPECIFIC PLAN AREA FOR A
HOTEL TO RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL DESIGNATIONS OR TO SUCH OTHER
DESIGNATIONS/ZONES AS DEEMED APPROPRIATE BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND
ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE PUBLICLY OWNED PORTION OF THE
BIL1MORE SITE
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated May 29, 1990. Staff made the following
recommendations: (1) to redesignate the Biltmore Site to medium density residential and
rezone the site to residential specific plan area allowing a maximum of 14 units with a 30-foot
height limit and include the vacated portion of Beach Drive and 15th Court; (2) to
redesignate/rezone the public parking lot back to general commercial, C-2; (3) to use the
proceeds from the sale of the Biltmore Site to buy the most excess school property and/ or
railroad right-of-way for open space purposes.
The previous election involving the Biltmore Site resulted in two failing initiatives. The
initiative for a combination of urban public plaza, commercial, and residential failed by a 72
percent vote and the initiative for open space only on the Biltmore Site failed by a 53 percent
vote.
The City Council has now requested staff and the Planning Commission to study the option of
designating the property for residential purposes.
On April 19, 1990, the staff environmental review committee recommended an environmental
negative declaration for the general plan amendment and rezoning because the change in
designation would be to a lower intensity use than what is allowed under the current general
plan and zoning designation of SPA for a hotel. When and if a specific residential project is
considered for this site, it will require a precise development plan, and at that time the project
would be subject to environmental review.
Given the direction of the Council to study the Biltmore Site for residential purposes, staff is
focussing only on the alternative of residential in this analysis. Residential is considered to be
a preferable alternative because of the current high value of residential property and because of
its limited environmental impact.
In tenns of the design and layout of a residential project, two distinct approaches are available.
One approach is to use the existing lot configuration of 12 substandard lots of 2400 to 3263
square feet and under an existing zoning category allow the development of these separate lots.
This would also mean using the previously vacated alleys. This approach was suggested by a
minority report of the task force. Their suggestion was to use R-2 zoning, meaning that each lot
could be developed with one unit to a height of 30 feet. The advantage of this approach from a
developer's perspective is that individual single-family lots could be sold rather than requiring
a condominium form of ownership.
The other option would be to merge all the lots and the vacated public rights-of-way into one
large parcel. establish the density limits, and permit the buyer of the property several options
for the layout of the units on the site. This could be accomplished either through a specific plan
area designation or through one of the City's zoning categories.
There are several advantages to the concept of merging the lots; for example, it would provide
the developer the flexibility to design the units to maximize views for all units, including those
that would not have Strand frontage; it would allow for a more efficient use of the property
towards providing open space; and space would be available for a usable common recreation
area. In general, the rather uniform appearance of row houses on 30-foot wide lots would
likely be avoided.
In staff's judgment, the eHmioation of the substandard lots would be a benefit to the City as it
would encourage a better, more innovative design of the site, and would also make the site more
19 P.C. Minutes 6/5/90
valuable. However, as noted, there are benefits to both approaches and staff felt the zoning for
the site could allow either situation to occur, but provide an incentive to a developer wishing to
develop an integrated project.
The next issue is the determination of the number of units to be allowed on the site. In staffs
judgment, a density within the range of the medium density classification would be
appropriate. This would not be significantly inconsistent with the multi-family character of
the immediately adjacent areas, and it would be directly consistent with the density of
surrounding residential areas to the north and east just beyond the limits of the high density
designated area.
The medium density range is 14 to 25 units per acre. The surrounding residential areas are
zoned either R-2B or R-3.
Although it is difficult to justify any specific density appropriate for the Biltmore Site, staff
felt that an amount consistent with the medium density character of the blocks north of 16th
Court would make the most sense, approximately 16 units per acre. This is both for the purpose
of retaining the character and scale of the majority of surrounding residential areas and to
minimize the environmental impacts which could be generated from a high density residential
development.
According to density figures, a density of 16 units per acre would be 12 units if the right-of-way
is excluded, or 14 units if the right-of-way is included.
In conclusion, staff recommended an SPA with a maximum of 14 units and a 30-foot height
limit because of the advantage that would be gained by merging the lots.
This proposal would also allow the City to sell or a buyer to develop 12 separate single-family
units on the existing parcels if it is desired, based on design and market considerations.
However, the SPA allows up to 14 units if the parcels are merged, which may be an adequate
incentive for a developer to develop the site as one project and to pay a price higher than could
be obtained selling 12 individual lots. However, it should be noted that utility lines exist under
Beach Drive and either an easement or relocation would be necessary.
The recommended SPA also includes provisions to require three parking spaces per unit and a
limit on the lot coverage to 50 percent of the entire site.
Also provided to the Commission was an opinion from the City Attorney regarding the
potential for this action to be considered "spot zoning." The attorney concludes that the City
has wide discretion to rezone the site and withstand an attack based upon a claim of spot
zoning. One limitation, however, would be a consideration to rezone the property to single-
family residential.
The use of this site for residential purposes constitutes a significant change in the Coastal
Commission adopted land use plan. This has historically been identified for visitor-oriented
commercial. It has been argued, however, that the City may be able to justify this change
because the proceeds gained from the sale of the property would be used to purchase the
greenbelt property and perhaps some additional open space property within the coastal zone.
Staff proposed other alternatives: (1) to redesignate/rezone the site to medium density/R-2B,
which would keep the current lot configuration and allow a total of 12 units; and, (2) to
redesignate / rezone the site to medium density/ R-2, which would allow up to 21 units on the site
if the lots were merged and the vacated portion of Beach Drive and 15th Court are included.
Parking Lot C was rezoned to specific plan area for a hotel project along with the Biltmore Site
proper, and the privately owned property between 13th and 14th Streets. Since that time, the
privately owned portion has been redesignated and rezoned back to its original GC/C-2
designation. Staff felt it would also be appropriate at this time to redesignate this public
20 P.C. Minutes 6/5/90
parking lot to GC/C-2. which was its previous designation. This is an appropriate designation
for a parking lot which serves a commercial area.
Comm. Peirce noted that staff has made no suggestion to recommend the Biltmore Site to be
zoned as open space, and he asked whether that would be an alternative.
Mr. Schubach explained that. according to the Resolution of Intent adopted by the City Council,
open space is not an option at this time. The City Council has specifically requested that the
Planning Commission address the issue of redesignating the site to residential. He noted.
however, that the Commission, if it so chooses, can reject the option of redesignating the site to
residential and in turn recommend a designation to open space.
Mr. Schubach. in response to questions from Comm. Rue related to the height, explained that a
30-foot height limit is desirable since that height lends itself to loft areas, which in turn
increases floor area.
Public Hearing opened at 9:27 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
Wihna Burt, 1152 7th Street, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and: (1) discussed the
issue of lot mergers and the City's requirements to now have 40-foot lots; (2) noted that many
people who had their lots merged were not given the 30-foot height limit; (3) felt that it is unfair
to allow certain things on the Biltmore Site which are not being allowed for other property
owners in the City; (4) cautioned the Commission to address the issue of legal lot sizes; (5)
stressed that the City has no right to propose single-family dwellings on 25-foot lots on The
Strand, even if it is to pay for additional open space; (6) felt that R-2 zoning is illogical on those
25-foot lots; (7) stated that only four houses would be allowed if the lots were reconfigured to
currently-required lot sizes; (8) stated that there is already a tax in place to pay for the
greenbelt.
Public Hearing closed at 9:33 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
Mr. Schubach, in response to questions from Comm. Peirce, stated that the 12 lots could be sold
and could either be developed individually, or one large project could be developed.
Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Comm. Ketz who asked how these lots were
exempted from the 4000 square foot requirement, explained that the lots in question are
existing lots and are therefore not subject to the 4000 square foot requirement; related to the
lot mergers, he explained that the lots which were required to be merged had structures
straddling the property line.
Mr. Vose stated that the issue at hand is the zoning of property, rather than subdivisions. He
eJi..-plained that the number of lots is not integral to the zoning; ra:ther, it must be determined
what zoning is appropriate for the area.
Comm. Peirce stressed that this property should be open space and he would therefore vote
against any other zoning designation. He stated that there is very little open space existing in
the City. From a planning .standpoint. he did not feel the area should be anything but open
space.
Comm. Ketz did not feel the site should be residential. noting that it is downtown and is located
on the busiest section of The Strand. She further noted that a large hotel will be built nearby,
and residential would not be appropriate. She did not feel that the City should be exempted
from requirements which are being imposed upon private developers. She noted concern that
these lots are not 4000 square feet.
Comm. Peirce explained that the lots are preexisting and therefore are legal nonconforming
and constitute valid size lots.
21 P.C. Minutes 6/5/90
Mr. Vose concurred that the lots are currently legal sized.
Comm. Ketz was not certain that open space is the best use; however, she definitely felt that
residential would not be appropriate.
Cbmn. Ingell noted that this issue has been voted upon several times, and the voters have
rejected open space. He felt that the area should be utilized to generate funds to pay off the
greenbelt. He noted that a tax has been imposed to pay for the greenbelt, and he favored getting
rid of that debt, which is an extreme burden on the City. He felt it would be nice to look at this
piece of property strictly from a planning standpoint; however, the voters of the City have
made their feelings known, and they do not want open space. He felt that if residential had
been an option on the last ballot, it would have been approved.
Chmn. Ingell favored residential zoning at this site. Noting concern over splitting of lots that
small, he felt that a specific plan area would address that issue.
Comm. Rue felt that the Commission should be addressing the issue of residential zoning at
this site, regardless of personal feelings.
Comm. Rue agreed with Chmn. Ingell's comments regarding the site, stating that he favors a
specific plan area. He felt that staffs recommendations are appropriate related to parking and
lot coverage. He noted concern over the proposed height of 30 feet and potential loss of views.
He urged that caution be used in malting a decision.
Comm. Rue stated that his main concern is with the height. Even though no view ordinance is
in place, he felt that the issue should be addressed.
Comm. Ketz felt that regardless of the height limit imposed at the site, residential would not be
an appropriate use from a planning standpoint.
Comm. Rue was not certain that residential is the best use; however, he felt that a good
residential use can be created, and some of the City's long-term goals can be accomplished by
such a designation and the income it would generate. He cautioned that he did not want to see
the area left open space and become a haven for transients.
Comm. Rue felt that it is important to study the ramifications of residential zoning, as
requested by the City Council.
Chmn. Ingell commented on the proposed resolution, P.C. 90-43, Item D, and suggested that
wording be added at the end of the paragraph " ... such as a hotel or retail commercial uses, and
o,pen space."
Comm. Peirce noted that he has never voted to designate this site as residential.
Chmn. Ingell had no opposition to a height of either 25 or 30 feet, noting that a specific plan
area would address that issue. He further noted that the property to the north is 35 feet, and the
new hotel will be 30 feet. He therefore favored approving staffs recommendation.
MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Chmn. Ingell, to approve staffs recommendation,
Resolution P.C. 90-44, with the following changes: (1) Item D shall include additional wording
at the end of the paragraph stating "and open space"; (2) Item E shall be added stating that
"Proceeds to buy open space, railroad right-of-way, and excess school property in the coastal
zone"; and (3) the development standards shall include a 25 -foot height limit.
Comm. Rue felt that inclusion of a 25-foot height limit in the development standards would be
advantageous in that it would set a good example and would possibly retain some of the white
water views which would otherwise be lost.
22 P.C. Minutes 6/5/90
-,.,J
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comm. Rue, Cbmn. Ingell
Comms. Ketz, Peirce
None
Comm. Moore
(TIE VO'IE; MOTION FAILS.)
MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to continue this item to the next meeting,
when the fifth Commissioner is present.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Ketz, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ingell
None
None
Comm. Moore
Mr. Vose suggested that if a consensus cannot be reached at the next meeting, the resolution be
revised to reflect the fact that a consensus could not reached; however, if the area is to be
rezoned residential, the Commission's recommendations should be included for conditions.
Don Falkenstien, 30th Street, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and complained
that the past ballot measures have been too complicated. He suggested that the site be used for
sorely needed parking.
Cbmn. Ingell suggested that Mr. Falkenstien return to the next meeting when the public
hearing will be reopened on this matter.
Parker Herriott, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that he is currently
preparing his open space petition; (2) noted that he is trying to include a drawing with the
November ballot; (3) said that he will soon be circulating bis petition throughout the City; (4)
hoped that a park would ultimately be at this site.
LM 89-1 -EXIBNSION OF A LOT MERGER AT 1712 'IHE S'IRAND
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated May 29, 1990. Staff recommended that the Planning
Commission grant an additional extension of the proposed lot merger to October 31, 1990.
On April 4, 1989, the Planning Commission placed the merging of lots at 1712 The Strand on
continuance for one year in order to give property owners an opportunity to remove the nine
dwelling units existing on the property. In addition, the property owners wanted to obtain a lot
line adjustment to create two larger lots rather than having the lots merged.
The parcel is comprised of two lots and 20 feet of an adjacent lot; total parcel size is 6400
square feet. Aerials indicate that the existing structures straddle the contiguous lot lines.
Building records show the existing structures to have nine units.
The general plan designation is medium density, with a zoning of R-2B. There are seven lots
within one block. Three. or 43 percent, of the lots are individually developed.
At the time of the initial lot merger hearing, it was found that the contiguously two and
approximately one-half lots of R-2B zoned property totaling over 3500 square feet could
encompass two dwelling units on merged or unmerged lots. However , it was determined by staff
that this matter should be placed on continuance for one year in order to give the applicant an
opportunity to remove the nonconforming units and to obtain a lot line adjustment. As a
result. two larger lots could be created as opposed to merging them.
To date, the applicant has not removed the nonconfonning units, but he has intentions of
starting construction of two new homes in the fall. Furthermore, the applicant is currently
23 P.C. Minutes 6/5/90
working on proposed elevations and floor plans for the City as well as the Coastal
Commission. Staff felt that an extension to the end of October should be a sufficient a.mount of
time to allow the property owners to prepare the necessary documents for submittal.
Hearing opened at 9:59 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
Wilma Burt, 1152 7th Street, addressed the Commission and: (1) said that the applicant's house
straddles the lot and the lot is only 6400 square feet; (2) said that the applicant has had a year,
during which time nothing has been done; (3) questioned whether everyone living on the
property was legal; (4) said that two condos can be built in an R-2 zone; (5) felt that just because
the applicant is wealthy. he should not be allowed to split his lots when others are not allowed
to do so; (6) resented the fact that this applicant seems to be getting special consideration; (7)
opposed approval of the lot split.
Steve Legare, 1712 The Strand, applicant, addressed the Commission and: ( 1) said that when he
bought the property, it had nine units, not a single-family dwelling; (2) said he wants to tear
down what is currently existing and build two single-family homes; (3) said that with the
market the way it is, he has not yet finished the project; (4) said that if he cannot build two
units, he will leave the nine units and sell them as is; (5) stressed that he does not want a lot
split, he is requesting a lot line adjustment.
Hearing closed at 10:05 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
Comm. Peirce discussed areas where lot mergers occurred and the criteria used for those
mergers. He asked staff questions regarding the percentages used in determining whether lots
could be merged and whether the appropriate findings could be made for merger in this case, to
which Mr. Schubach replied that more lots are together than are split in this area.
Mr. Schubach continued by explaimng, in response to questions posed by Comm. Peirce,
criteria for lot mergers. He stated that it would be necessary for him to do further research
related to what is existing on other lots in this area.
Chmn. Ingell questioned how it is possible that action on this property has been delayed.
Mr. Schubach stated that it would be necessary for him to go back and research this matter. He
noted, however, that this issue was carefully addressed and it was determined that it could
legally be continued. He said that the applicant can legally build two units; however, the
question is whether the existing nine units will be demolished and what will ultimately be
built.
MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve staffs recommendation to
continue this matter for six months.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
STAFF ITEMS
Comms. Ketz, Peirce, Rue, Cbmn. Ingell
None
None
Comm. Moore
a) City Council/ Pl;:mnlng Commission Workshop
Staff and the Commissioners agreed upon the date of August 8. 1990, for the workshop.
b) Memorandum Regarding 1061 Raymond Avenue
No action taken.
24 P.C. Minutes 6/5/90
c) Memorandum Regarding Planning Commission Liaison for June 12. 1990. City Council
Meeting
Comm. Peirce asked for clarification on Item No. 1, "Text amendment to use averaging method
to measure height in the R-1 and R-2B zones," to which Mr. Schubach clarified that this matter
was referred back to the Planning Commission for determination. The Commission's
recommendation is now going back to the Council.
d) RUDAT AIA City Planning Consultation
Mr. Schubach stated that this item refers to the Regional Urban Design Assistance Team.
Dean Nata, 2467 Myrtle Avenue, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and: (1) stated
that he is speaking on behalf of himself, Mr. Compton, and Mr. Killen, all local architects; (2)
noted that they all share a common interest in the downtown area; (3) said that RUDAT has
helped many other cities; (4) explained what RUDAT is and its primary goals; (5) explained
when the RUDAT process begins, after planning problems have been designated; (6) said that
intensive workshops are held to address the issues; (7) stated that many professionals
participate in the RUDAT process.
Mr. Nata continued and: (1) stated that it is up to each community to identify their problems;
(2) commented that citizen participation is integral to the RUDAT process; (3) said that the
application for this process must demonstrate community-wide support; (4) noted that
resolutions have been initiated by the Chamber of Commerce to begin a strategy process for the
revitalization of the downtown area; (5) said that they have received a letter of intent from the
Council, and now it is hoped that the community will become involved in the process; (6)
requested support from the Planning Commission as a prelude to the introduction of the
program at the City Council level.
Mr. Nata went on and: (1) stated that it is necessary that a steering committee be formed so that
direction can be given to the RUDAT process; (2) hoped that the Commission would designate a
P1aooing Commissioner to serve on the steering committee; (3) stated that a Pismo Beach study
is available for the Plaooiog Commission's perusal; (4) said that materials were provided
demonstrating why this process is preferable to that of hiring consultants: (5) stated that the
professional advice donated to this project is free, and funding is necessary only for expenses,
which oftentimes is donated by the business community.
Comm. Peirce requested a copy of the Pismo Beach study, to which Mr. Schubach replied that
staff would prepare copies of the report and provide them to the Commissioners.
Mr. Nata stated that he would be happy to discuss the program individually with the
Commissioners.
MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to direct staff to bring back information
on this subject at the next meeting, June 19, 1990. No objections; so ordered.
Comms. Ketz and Peirce felt that this would be an advantageous opportunity for the City to
pursue.
Pat Killen addressed the Commission and: ( 1) stated that a wide variety of professionals
participate in the program. not just local people; (2) stated that out-of-town professionals can
provide a fresh approach to looking at old problems.
Chmn. Ingell thanked Mr. Nata and Mr. Killen for their input on this subject.
25 P.C. Minutes 6/5/90
e) Planning Department Activity Report for April 1990
Comm. Peirce asked whether any numbers are available related to how many people are using
MAX, to which Mr. Schubach replied in the negative; however, figures will be provided when
they are available.
f) Tentative Future Planning Commission Agenda
Mr. Schubach, in response to questions from Comm. Ketz, stated that some liquor store CUPs
will have to be deferred until after the City of Los Angeles decision is made.
g) City Council Minutes of April 24. May 3. and May 8. 1990
No action taken.
COMMISSIONER ITEMS
Chmn. Ingell discussed Redondo Beach's implementation of the "boom box" ordinance. which
he favors as an attempt to reduce noise. He asked whether Hermosa Beach is taking such steps,
to which Mr. Schubach stated that he would .have to check on that matter.
Comm. Ketz expressed an interest in the method used for determining floor area ratio as used
in Manhattan Beach.
MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to adjourn at 10:37 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 June 5, 1990.
~~£
Michael Schubach, Secretary
Date
26 P.C. Minutes 6/ 5/90
! I
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
HELD ON JUNE 19, 1990, AT 7:00 P.M. IN THE CITY HALL COUNCil, CHAMBERS
Meeting called to order at 7:00 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
Pledge of Allegiance led by Comm. Peirce.
ROIL CAIL
Present:
Absent:
Comms. Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Chmn. Ingell
Comm. Rue*
Also Present: Michael Schubach, Planning Director; Edward Lee, Assistant City
Attorney; Sally White, Recording Secretary
*Comm. Rue arrived at 7:05 P.M.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mr. Schubach pulled for discussion the minutes of June 6, 1990.
MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve the following consent calendar
items (Resolutions):
Resolution P.C. 90-30, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CI1Y OF
HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND A
VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #21868 FOR A THREE-UNIT CONDOMINIUM FOR 350
MANHATTAN AVENUE (AKA 212 4TH S'IREET), LEGAILY DESCRIBED AS LOT 12, BLOCK 44,
FIRST ADDITION TO HERMOSA 1RACT;
Resolution P.C. 90-45, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CI1Y OF
HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DENYING A REQUEST TO AMEND A CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT FOR ON-SALE GENERAL ALCOHOL AND LIVE ENTERTAINMENT AND DANCING TO
EXTEND THE HOURS ALLOWED FOR LIVE ENTERTAINMENT AT 22 PIER AVENUE, THE END
ZONE;
Resolution P.C. 90-47, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING AMENDING THE OPEN SPACE ELEMENT
OF THE GENERAL PLAN BY ADDING "THE COMPREHENSIVE PARKS AND RECREATION
MASTER PLAN" AS A GENERAL POLICY STATEMENT AND ADOPTION OF AN
ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION;
Resolution P.C. 90-48, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CI1Y OF
HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THE ADOPTION OF THE FINAL
CIRCULATION, TRANSPORTATION, AND PARKING ELEMENT AS AN AMENDMENT TO THE
GENERAL PLAN AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION.
Noting the abstention of Comm. Moore, there were no objections to approval of the above
consent calendar items.
Mr. Schubach, discussing the minutes of June 6, 1990, stated that the motion on Page 6 should
have been to continue the matter to the meeting of September~. 1990.
MOTION by Comm. Ketz, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to approve as amended the minutes of
June 6 , 1990. Noting the abstention of Comm. Moore, no objections; so ordered.
1 P.C. Minutes 6/ 19/90
I •
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC
No one appeared to address the Commission.
CUP 90-3 --CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR OFF-SALE BEER AND WINE AND ADOPTION OF
THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 302 PIER A VENUE. SIMPSON'S MARKET (CONTINUED
FROM MEETING OF MAY 1. 1990)
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated June 14, 1990. Staff recommended that this request be
continued to the Planning Commission meeting of September 18, 1990.
The City Attorney has advised that all pending requests regarding conditional use permits for
existing alcohol establishments should be postponed. The request by Golden Lion Liquor was
postponed to the first meeting in September.
The subject request was noticed for public hearing prior to the City Attorney's opinion. The
remaining pending requests will also be postponed and will not be publicly noticed until the
appropriate dates.
This request may involve issues relating to either the control of sale of single containers of
alcohol and/ or the hours of operation. Therefore. staff recommended that it be continued to
the second meeting in September.
Public Hearing opened at 7:03 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
June Williams, Manhattan Avenue. Hermosa Beach, stated that she would like to reserve the
chance to speak on this matter at the continued public hearing.
Public Hearing continued at 7:04 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
MOTION by Comm. Moore, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve staffs recommendation to
continue this public hearing to the meeting of September 18, 1990.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Chmn. Ingell
None
None
Comm.Rue
CUP 90-6 --CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ON-SALE GENERAL ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES IN
CONJUNCTION Wlffl A RESTAURANT AND ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT
11 PIER A VENUE, MERMAID RESTAURANT
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated June 14, 1990. Staff recommended that this request be
continued to the Planning Commission meeting of September 18, 1990.
The City Attorney has advised that all pending requests regarding conditional use permits for
existing alcohol establishments should be postponed.
The subject request was noticed for public hearing prior to the City Attorney's opinion. The
remaining pending requests will also be postponed and will not be publicly noticed until the
appropriate dates.
This request may involve issues relating to either the control of sale of single containers of
alcohol and/ or the hours of operation. Therefore, staff recollllllended that it be continued to
the second meeting in September.
2 P.C. Minutes 6/ 19/90
I •
Public Hearing opened and continued at 7:06 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
MOTION by Comm. Moore, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve staffs recommendation to
continue this public hearing to the meeting of September 18, 1990.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ingell
None
None
None
CON 90-9 --CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND 'IENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #22184 FOR A 'IWO-
UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 126 MANHATTAN AVENUE, AKA 160 MANHATTAN AVENUE
{CONTINUED FROM MEETING OF JUNE 6. 1990}
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated June 14, 1990. Staff recommended that the Planning
Commission approve the conditional use permit for the two-unit condominium and tentative
parcel map, subject to the conditions specified in the proposed resolution. An alternative
would be to continue this application to require the project to provide access from the alley
only by means of a driveway along the side of the lot.
The Planning Commission continued this request because of concern about additional curb
cuts along Manhattan Avenue. The applicant was directed to present alternative plans which
utilize an alley-only access.
Staff discussed alternatives with the applicant which included using driveway access from the
alley along the side of the lot to access two 2-car garages oriented towards the middle of the lot,
or by using tandem parking. Sketch plans depicting these alternatives as well as the original
alternative of using the street access have been reviewed by staff.
Upon review of the sketch plans, staff felt that the initial alternative of providing access from
Manhattan Avenue with a driveway designed to cause the loss of only one on-street space is the
best alternative. The reason is because of the constraints of building two units on a 30-foot
wide lot which slopes down from the alley.
The other alternatives can work; however, the results appear to be less desirable than using the
street access.
The use of a driveway along the side of the alley results in a very tight turning situation and is
not possible at all if a retaining wall is necessary. Measuring along the width of the lot, the
code requires a 17-foot clear garage, a three-foot sideyard, and a nine-foot driveway, leaving
only one foot for garage walls and any side yard wall along the driveway. This means that it is
not possible if a semi-subterranean garage is used. As such, the parking level would have to
follow a fairly even grade from the alley to the front of the lot. In this case, since the alley is at
a higher grade, a significant amount of square footage would be lost, and it would force a design
to reach the height limit. Examples of this type of parking design on 30-foot wide lots with no
alley access all appear to either be on flat lots or lots for which the access is provided from the
lower side of the lot.
The use of tandem parking directly accessing the alley, in staffs judgment, is clearly less
desirable than using the street access.
Staffs position on this issue would be completely different if this were a wider lot or if this
project were being developed in conjunction with the adjacent property.
Another alternative which is certainly available to the applicant which would resolve some of
these concerns would be to scale the project down to a single-family dwelling.
3 P.C. Minutes 6/ 19/90
Public Hearing opened at 7:08 P.M. byCbmn. Ingell.
B. M. Barsoum, 4015 Pacific Coast Highway, applicant and project architect, addressed the
Commission and: (1) passed out copies of a report he prepared related to this project; (2) made a
presentation showing view graphs on the overhead projector; (3) explained that in the past,
alley-access only was feasible, but in this case the lot is lower than the alley and this
configuration presents design problems; (4) said that there has been a change in the building
code which now dictates that if there is a third floor, there must also be a third stairway access.
one for each unit and one common stairway in the middle for exit purposes; (5) displayed on
Sheet No. 2 the configuration he proposed.
Mr. Barsown continued and: (1) discussed his Scheme B as it relates to parking and the
retaining wall; (2) noted that retaining walls are necessary in several locations, thereby
creating problems with the parking; (3) commented on the rear dimension and explained that
alley-only access would not be able to accommodate the required turning radius; (4) noted that
he had included in bis report copies of the City's turning radius requirements; (5) demonstrated
with a toy car the difficulties which would be experienced in accessing the parking if alley-only
access is used.
Mr. Barsoum continued and: (1) stated that the lot in question is very small, only 30 feet wide;
(2) said that a single-family home would not have parking problems, but he noted that this R-
2B lot is allowed to have two units; (3) stated that street access as depicted on Plan A is not as
bad as the existing accesses; (4) said that Manhattan Avenue is not continuous at this certain
location, noting that it ends at 1st Street, which is one house from where his property is
located; (5) said that this is not a main street, but rather it is the end of the alley, which is a
collector.
Mr. Barsown went on and: (1) discussed the front of his proposed project, explaining that it
will be half parking and half landscaping; (2) said that most cities allow a curb cut and ramp
for parking, not to exceed 50 percent, in an effort to maintain sidewalks, frontage, and
landscaping; (3) said that if the next unit to be developed is flip-flopped, landscaping can be
consolidated to lessen the impact of the garage; (4) said that the garage doors could be treated in
an architecturally pleasing manner; (5) did not feel that this project is defeating the purpose of
the code or the aesthetics of the area.
Mr. Barsown continued and: (1) stated that parking can go straight in; (2) noted that tandem
parking is never a good choice; (3) stated that he is faced with two problems, the requirement to
provide the third stairway, which would block the parking maneuvering area, and the fact that
the area is not level and it would be very costly to level it; (4) stated that he can see no other
alternatives in this case.
Comm. Moore commented on the design of the front driveway, which narrows down at the
curb. He stated that such a configuration could prove to be useful on other projects, and he
questioned whether this particular design has been used by the applicant on other projects and
what the disadvantages are. He noted that the advantages of this configuration allow for
additional planting area and it also reduces the size of the curb cut.
Mr. Barsoum stated that he has used this S-design in the past. Noting that it is sometimes
difficult at first, people do get accustomed to the configuration. In this case, he noted that he
intends to live in one of the units, and his partner intends to live in the other; therefore, there
is not a problem with the driveway.
Comm. Moore stated that this driveway configuration appears to have a good advantage and
could be used elsewhere in town if there are not too many disadvantages.
Ron Biggs, partner of the applicant, stated that they met with the City staff prior to .finalizing
the plans, and they have attempted to reduce the impacts of the driveway on this project and
therefore chose this design.
4 P.C. Minutes 6/ 19/90
' .
Mr. Barsoum went on and: (1) in response to Comm. Peirce's question related to Scheme D with
its tandem parking. explained that each unit would have a two-car garage and the guest parking
would be parallel, thereby creating a three-car tandem situation which is not allowed in the
City; (2) stated that such a configuration is not appropriate because of the existing sloping grade
and the requirement that a retaining wall be erected.
Glen Tanner, 170 Manhattan Avenue, president of the Coral Terrace Homeowners Association,
addressed the Commission and: (1) opposed any plan which would allow more than one unit
parking on Bayview; (2) noted that Bayview is called an avenue, however, it is a very narrow
alley, only 16 to 18 feet wide; (3) felt that traffic on Bayview is already too heavy; (4) hoped that
as much parking as possible would be encouraged on Manhattan Avenue; (6) did not want to see
the other lots all using Bayview for access; (7) suggested that the currently existing curb cut on
Manhattan Avenue be used as the only access into the other lots once they are developed; (8)
stated that he spoke on behalf of the other homeowners in his association.
Chris Carbone!, 24254 Hawthorne Boulevard. Torrance, addressed the Commission and: (1)
stated that he is a local developer; (2) concurred with the applicant's assertion that it would be
very difficult to provide alley-only access. noting that because of the narrowness of the lot, the
only viable alternative is two cars coming in from the front, and two cars coming in froµi the
rear; (3) stated that the proposed driveway configuration, with its smaller curb cut, will allow
for additional landscaping; (4) stated that he favors the proposal as presented by the applicant.
Sandra Aden, 158 Bayview Drive, addressed the Commission and: ( 1) asked questions related
to environmental and aesthetic issues; (2) commended the applicant's proposed landscaping
plan and overall design; (3) wanted to ensure that quality plants and shrubbery will be used; (4)
noted that Bayview is very narrow and is unable to handle all the traffic which would be
generated by full-scale development of the nursing home property; (5) discussed full-scale
development and suggested that the developers be required to pay for the cost of resurfacing
Bayview Drive and Manhattan Avenue between 1st and 2nd Streets since their projects will
generate not only additional traffic but also heavy construction traffic; (6) suggested that a
fund be started for this purpose; (7) stated that Bayview is referred to as an "alley," but she noted
that her house does front on Bayview.
Public Hearing closed at 7:29 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
MOTION by Comm. Moore, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve the originally-submitted plan,
Resolution P.C. 90-42.
Comm. Moore felt that the applicant did a good job helping the Commissioners understand the
problems associated with this project. He continued by stating that the Building Department
will ensure that what is being done on the site is in conformance with the plans which are
approved.
Comm. Rue stated that he appreciated the trouble the applicant went to in preparing his report,
and he noted that it will be quite useful as other similar projects are addressed. He felt that the
applicant's proposal is the most viable alternative, and he stated that he favors any design
which increases landscaping and decreases concrete. He further noted that this project will
utilize stamped concrete which will enhance the project.
Comm. Ketz felt that this lot is too small to accommodate a multi-unit development; however,
the zoning does allow the condos. She felt that alley-only access should be utilized whenever
possible, but in this case the lot is too narrow for alley-only access. She could therefore favor
approval of this project.
5 P.C. Minutes 6/ 19/90
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ingell
None
None
None
Comm. Moore noted that the Commission had received a petition signed by a number of
residents opposed to this project based on the fact that their views will be blocked. He stated
that this project meets the City's height standards. He noted that small areas of people oppose
projects which affect them directly; however, there has not been a consensus in the City to
implement a view ordinance.
CON 90-8 --CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #22100
FOR A 'IWO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 626 SEVENTH STREET
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated June 7, 1990. Staff recommended that the Planning
Commission approve the conditional use pennit and vesting tentative parcel map, subject to
the conditions specified in the proposed resolution.
This project is located in the R-2 zone, with a general plan designation of medium density
residential. The lot size is 4325 square feet. Five parking spaces are provided. Open space
provided is 798 square feet. The current use is as a single-family dwelling. The environmental
detennination is categorically exempt. The subject property is rectangular in shape with a
slight side-to-side slope.
The proposed units are slightly different in size and layout. Unit A contains 2520 square feet
and includes three bedrooms, two and a half bathrooms, and a roof deck. Unit B contains 3000
square feet and includes four bedrooms and three and a half baths. The fourth bedroom is
labeled as a "game room" and is located on the ground floor. The units consist of two stories
and a roof deck above a semi-subterranean garage.
The proposed building elevations exhibit a stucco exterior, "S" tile roofing, and wrought iron
railings. These features give the buildings a contemporary Mediterranean appearance.
The plans indicate a front yard setback of ten feet. Existing setbacks along the street range
from eight to fifteen feet and calculate to average about eleven feet. The four-unit
condominium projects located across the street from this project are set back eight feet.
Therefore, staff felt that the ten-foot setback is adequate for this street.
Required parking is provided in two 2-car garages oriented to the middle of the lot accessed by a
9.5 foot wide driveway. One open guest space is provided at the end of the driveway. No on-
street parking will be lost as the proposed driveway will replace an existing driveway.
The ground floor room in Unit B includes a wet bar, bathroom, and separate patio access. Staff
felt that this would be too easily converted into a bootleg unit. Therefore, staff recommended a
condition that the wet bar be eliminated and that either the separate exterior access or the
bathroom be eliminated.
The project complies with all other planning and zoning requirements. Lot coverage is 64
percent; adequate open space is provided on the roof decks; and the height of the structures is
less than 30 feet. The plans do not, however, indicate a location for trash receptacles. Staff
included a condition that final plans identify the location for the trash receptacles.
The surrounding area consists of a mix of older single-family and two-family structures, and a
new four-unit condo is across the street.
Public Hearing opened at 7:35 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
6 P.C. Minutes 6/ 19/90
Elizabeth Srour, 820 Manhattan Avenue, Manhattan Beach, representing the applicant,
addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that the applicants presently live at the site; (2) said
that this project meets all of the City's requirements; (3) noted that this project involves two
completely separate units; (4) discussed the game room and concurred that staffs concerns are
valid; (5) explained that the applicants intended that this room be used as a game room and
they desire to have a powder room at this level; (6) stated that the bathtub/ shower could be
eliminated in the powder room; (7) said that the applicants would like to retain the wet bar as
well as the door which leads to the utility area; (8) explained that the utility area contains the
hot water heater as well as the forced air unit, and it is convenient for the owners to have inside
access to that area; (9) asked that the Commission consider removal of the tub/shower as an
alternative.
Ms. Srour went on and: (1) discussed whether the entry stairway can be opened up, and she
stated that the architect says that area can be opened up; (2) explained that opening up the area
would cause the loss of a small portion of the storage area, however, there would still be the
required amount of storage area remaining; (3) stated that approval of these two alternatives
would eliminate the bootleg concerns but would still allow the applicants to have a game room;
(4) requested that the plans be approved with the modifications that the lower bathroom be
modified and that the stairway be opened up to some extent.
Comm. Moore asked whether it is the intention, if the tub/ shower is removed, to have the
powder room floor plan remain the same. He noted that the wall could be relocated to actually
shrink down the size of the bathroom. He stated that mere removal of the shower at this time
would be a weak step in preventing a future bootleg use, noting that it could easily be added
later. He noted that making the room smaller would preclude such an addition at a later date.
Ms. Srour responded by explaining that reducing the size of the bathroom would create
additional storage area on the other side of the wall; therefore, reducing the size of that
bathroom would be an acceptable condition. She stated that the owners are interested in
having a powder room at that level.
Comm. Peirce discussed the patio as depicted on the plans, noting that it appears to be covered
60 percent on the west side, and it is very small. He asked what purpose would be served by that
area, other than being an entrance to the game room.
Ms. Srour stated that that area provides access to the water heater and forced air unit, and it is
more convenient and desirable to have access from inside the unit, rather than having to go
outside.
Comm. Peirce questioned how often the water heater and forced air unit need to be serviced. He
felt that that is a weak argument, because if the door remains, it would be perfect for a bootleg
unit.
Ms. Srour stated that if the game room is opened up to the area above and the bathroom size is
reduced, the bootleg potential is removed. She stated that such modifications will make the
game room an integral part of the house. She concluded by stating that, if so desired, the
applicants would also be willing to change the french doors.
Public Hearing closed at 7:44 P.M. byChmn. Ingell.
Comm. Rue questioned the bootleg potential of a small powder room with only a toilet and
sink. He stated that he has no opposition to the proposed french doors, noting that they are
attractive and bring a more open feel to the house.
Comm. Peirce stated that he objects to the separate access provided by the french doors, noting
that the proposed game room is fairly large and could be easily turned into a bootleg unit. He
stated that it is very difficult for the City to gain access to a unit to see whether additional
7 P.C. Minutes 6/ 19/90
plwnbing has been installed; however, it is easy to see whether outside access is being used. He
stated that even though this owner may have no interest in creating a bootleg unit, future
owners may do so. He felt that the proposed configuration is an invitation to create a bootleg.
He also could see no purpose to the alcove I patio area, other than its providing some additional
light into the room. He questioned why the wall is not extended out over that area, stating that
a window could then be installed, thereby making the room even larger. He stressed that
outside access is not appropriate in this case.
Comm. Moore stated that he feels the best enforcement against bootleg use is the owner of the
other condo unit. He felt that if people are determined to have a bootleg, they will find ways to
do so. He stated that he could therefore support approval of this project as is, or with minor
modifications, if so desired by the other Commissioners.
Comm. Rue noted that if a window were required, it would be easy to later tear it out and create
a door. He therefore felt that removal of the tub/ shower would prevent a bootleg conversion.
Chmn. Ingell did not feel that the patio serves a useful purpose. He felt that access to the water
heater and air unit is not that necessary. He noted, however, that he agrees that the owner of
the other unit is the best enforcer against bootleg use.
Comm. Rue discussed the patio area and pointed out that the patio has a ramp up to the
backyard. He stated that the french doors will be opened, thereby creating a feeling of
ambience and malting the game room an integral part of the house which will be useful.
Comm. Ketz stated that the patio area is quite closed off and doesn't provide a great deal of
light. She also noted that the area is only about five feet, and the wall will be almost right
outside the french doors.
Cornm. Rue pointed out, however, that children can play in such an area, even if it is quite
small.
Cornm. Ketz felt that outside access from the patio area should be closed off, stating that the
area appears to serve no useful purpose.
MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Chmn. Ingell, to approve staffs recommendation,
Resolution P.C. 90-49, with the modification that Condition 1 l(c) be modified to state: "The
ground floor "game room" in Unit B shall not contain a wet bar, and the shower/bathtub in the
bathroom shall be eliminated, and the size of the bathroom shall be reduced."
Comm. Rue clarified that his motion does not include elimination of the separate patio access.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
CollllilS. Moore, Rue, Chmn. Ingell
Comms. Ketz, Peirce
None
None
TEXT 88-7 ° TEXT AMENDMENT REGARDING AMORTIZATION PERIOD FOR BUSINESSES
CURRENTI,Y OPERATING WITHOUT CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS AND ADOPTION OF A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated June 11, 1990. Staff recornmended that the Planning
Commission adopt the proposed resolution recommending that the City Council amend the
zoning ordinance.
At their meeting of 9 / 20 / 88, the Planning Commission directed staff to proceed with the study
of this issue, recognizing that implementation of the program would be delayed.
8 P.C. Minutes 6/ 19/90
On 3 / 8 / 88, the City Council adopted a Resolution of Intent directing the Planning Commission
and staff to study the possibility of amending the zoning ordinance to create an amortization
period.
On 11 / 25 / 86, the City Council adopted an ordinance to require an amortization period for
existing on-and off-sale alcohol establishments operating without a conditional use permit.
The City Attorney has examined this issue and determined that the City has the authority to
require nonconforming uses to come into compliance with the conditional use permit process
and has the discretion to establish a uniform time period for bringing these uses into
conformance.
Although the Planning Department supports the concept of amortizing with a uniform time
period, staff is concerned about the logistics of amortizing all these nonconforming uses. Staff
estimates that the number of such nonconforming businesses is approximately 40 to 60. The
process of inventorying all the businesses in the City to detennine who is to be notified and the
actual notification, in addition to explaining this rarely understood process and
requirements, is very cumbersome and time consuming. It could seriously hinder other efforts
of staff.
Staff is especially concerned with amortizing these businesses at the same time. Processing
the CUP applications and researching each individual business for the appropriate conditions
will involve a great deal of staff time. Therefore, staff is recommending that the ordinance
require a two-year time period beginning from the date the business is notified by the City of
the need for a CUP. In this way, the review of the subject businesses could be staggered over
time, with the priority businesses being amortized/reviewed first.
As such, staff would recommend that the types of businesses be prioritized and the timing of
the administration of the program will depend upon when the initial notification letter is sent
to the affected businesses. The following priority list is suggested: (1) entertainment; (2) game
arcades; (3) adult book stores/theaters; (4) motor vehicle repair/sales/body shops; (5) service
stations/car washes; and (6) remaining uses, such as snack bars, ticket brokers, musical
instrument stores, fortune tellers, et cetera.
Another issue which concerns staff is the inequities that could be created by imposition of
conditions on existing establishments. While the text amendment would bring uses permitted
by CUPs into compliance, it does not address nonconforming uses which are not permitted at
all in the zones where they are located, and thus a nonconforming use establishment which
may have much greater impacts would not be subject to amortization or to equivalent
conditions. An example would be the automotive repair establishments located in the M-1
zones on Ardmore Avenue and Cypress Avenue. These uses can only be amortized out of
existence, and currently the zoning ordinance has no amortization period for abatement of
nonconforming uses.
Also, those uses with currently active CUPs which were granted in the past often have very
different and less restrictive conditions than the new CUPs. Thus, the imposition of
conditions on the oldest businesses may create inequities as compared to some newer
businesses which are essentially the same.
Staff and the Planning Commission have been experiencing an amortization process for
alcohol establishments with mixed results. The benefits of the process have been that some
businesses have upgraded and cleaned up their exterior appearance, and standard conditions
will eventually apply to all businesses equally. Otherwise, the legal limitations on applying
innovative and more restrictive conditions has, for the moment, limited the City's efforts,
meaning that the accomplishments of the program may fall well short of expectations.
9 P.C. Minutes 6/ 19/90
In considering this proposed amendment, the Planning Commission should consider if these
limited gains have been worth the efforts of the City and the inconvenience to the business
owners.
Comm. Rue, noting that conditions cruinot be imposed on nonconfonning uses, stated that
those are usually the uses that most need to be conditioned. He asked for clarification on this
issue.
Mr. Schubach explained that staff is currently studying that issue. He noted that such a
problem has arisen with alcohol-related uses, and staff wants to ensure that these problems do
not arise in regard to other uses.
Mr. Lee stated that his office is also currently looking into the issue of whether or not a
conditional use permit can be imposed on a nonconfonning use. He continued by explaining
that preexisting uses are currently being studied in relation to what conditions can be placed
on those uses and whether or not regulations can be imposed.
Comm. Rue continued by asking questions related to what uses can be conditioned, to which
Mr. Lee clarified the laws pertaining to this issue.
Public Hearing opened at 8:08 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
June Williams, Manhattan Avenue, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and: (1)
discussed the amortization of nonconforming uses process which was implemented in Big Bear
and stated that it was quite effective; (2) stated that, ideally, zoning restrictions would
eliminate the need for conditional use permits; (3) said that it is impossible to foresee every
potential problem, therefore, CUPs should be tailored for specific uses: (4) stated that this tiny
City is unique in that different uses are so close together, such as residential and commercial;
(5) noted that in many areas there is an overabundance of certain types of businesses.
Ms. Williams went on and: (1) stated that this amortization process will provide a tool to bring
certain businesses into the process so that there is better control and the City can be upgraded;
(2) felt that new construction may not need CUPs. since there are now precise development
plans in effect; (3) felt that the Council erred when they did not include provisions to provide
relief from the cost of the amortization process, noting that it can be quite expensive,
especially for smaller businesses; (4) suggested that a recommendation be sent to the Council
recommending that the City share some of the expense, or that the cost could be recovered when
there is a new owner so that existing businesses are not penalized.
Richard Sullivan, 3rd Street, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and: (1) read into the
record a letter related to the issue of installation of boom boxes and other noise-related uses as
they pertain to the amortization process; (2) continued by reading about uses in the M-1 zone;
(3) suggested that stereo and car alarm shops be allowed only in the M-1 zone; (4) stated that he
is grateful that the City now has a noise meter. however. he did not feel that the noise meter
helps in cases of boom box and stereo installation because the workers will merely stop
working when a police officer approaches; (5) felt that it would be appropriate to require such
businesses to work indoors.
Public Hearing closed at 8:21 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
Chmn. Ingell stated that he favors the idea of CUPs being amortized: however, he does not feel
that the businessman should bear the cost of the process. He felt that businesses should be
given reduced business license rates if they are required to amortize. He further suggested that
the City should bear the costs.
Comm. Peirce disagreed, stated that that would be giving an unfair advantage to businesses
already existing in the City, who should have been in compliance anyway. He noted that
10 P.C. Minutes 6/ 19/90
newcomers must obtain the proper permits; therefore, why shouldn't the older businesses also
be required to comply.
Chmn. Ingell disagreed, stating that that older business have been buying business licenses as
well as paying the Utility Users' Tax; therefore, he did not feel they are getting an advantage
over new businesses.
Comm. Rue felt that one of the best incentives for a business to comply with City requirements
is their neighbors, noting that it is persuasive for businesses to be good neighbors. He suggested
that the costs be reduced or deferred to the next owner.
Comm. Rue also suggested that, if businesses are allowed to be amortized over a two-year
period, it would be appropriate to give those businesses guidelines at the time of notification
related to what will be expected of them in their CUPs. He stated that a notice could then be sent
after one year reminding them of what they should be doing related to their CUP requirements.
He felt that this would be an easier way for businesses to budget in their improvements.
Chmn. Ingell discussed the prioritization list and referred to the first item, entertainment. He
asked how many such establishments need to be amortized, noting that he himself could think
of none.
Mr. Schubach stated that there are not too many. He explained that "entertainment" also
includes game arcades.
Chmn. Ingell discussed the priority list and questioned whether it is appropriate.
Comm. Peirce noted that the resolution itself does not specify the priority list. He stated that
prioritization is best left to staff.
Mr. Schubach concurred and stated that staff would prefer that the Commission, by minute
resolution, direct staff to prioritize the list.
MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve staffs recommendation,
Resolution 90-50.
Comm. Rue questioned whether the issue of cost would be included in this resolution.
Mr. Schubach stated that he would prefer not to have specific costs in the ordinance, noting
that a separate City Council resolution would relate to the specific fees. He said that that is a
normal procedure; and if the items are separate, it is easier to modify or amend the actual fees
at a later date.
Comm. Rue questioned whether it is desirable that the Commission express an intent of
concern related to which businesses should be amortized first.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ingell
None
None
None
Chmn. Ingell discussed the priority of businesses to be dealt with first, and he stated that he
favors inclusion of the fees. He said that if a business must pay for this, it should be done with
some type of business license fee or adjustment so they will not be hit all at once with a large
bill. He noted particular concern for small businesses. He felt that if the payment is delayed
until the business is sold, it would be taking money out of the businessman's pocket.
Comm. Peirce asked where the figure of $1000 came from and whether that is the standard fee.
11 P.C. Minutes 6/ 19/90
Mr. Schubach explained that the $ 1000 figure is an approximate total of all the fees that would
be necessary. He continued by explaining the procedure which would be taken for noticing,
fees, and appeals.
Comm. Peirce felt that the CUP could be tailored to each individual business.
Comm. Moore noted that the Commission can express concern related to substantial fees and
financial matters; however, he questioned whether it is appropriate for the Commission to
ilnpose specific conditions on finance matters.
June Williams addressed the Commission and stated that the charge is based strictly upon the
cost to the City to produce that, and anything above that cost would be a tax and must be voted
upon by the people.
Comm. Moore stated that if the Commission is not empowered to set the actual fee, they can
relate their concern over the matter to the City Council and suggest that it be considered what
portion would be fair for the City to absorb.
MOTION by Comm. Moore, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to relate to the City Council the
Commissions' concern related to the impact upon small businesses of having to pay this fee;
and to suggest that the City Council study methods of reduced fees, shared fees, or elimination
of fees in these cases.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Ketz, Ingell, Moore, Peirce, Chmn. Ingell
None
None
None
Richard Sullivan addressed the Commission and: (1) asked that the first priority be stereo and
car alarm shops; and (2) noted that there are many violations related to those types of
businesses, especially in regard to noise and safety.
Comm. Rue asked how long it will take staff to address the priority items on the list.
Mr. Schubach stated that they can be addressed ip. several months.
Chmn. Ingell discussed the priority list and stated that he feels Items 4 and 5 can be combined
into one item (motor vehicle repair/sales/body shops and service stations/car washes).
Comm. Moore discussed Items 1 through 3, stating that No. 1, entertainment establishments, is
tied to liquor sales; No.2, game arcades, of which there is only one in town; and No. 3, Adult
bookstores/theaters, of which there are only two. He therefore noted that only three
businesses in the City are at issue at this point in those three items. The other types of
businesses can then be addressed. He felt that it is appropriate to allow staff the freedom to
respond to businesses as they feel necessary in regard to priority.
Comm. Moore stated that he is happy with the sequence of priorities as noted in the staff
report, and he did not feel it would be appropriate to mandate a specific sequence.
Mr. Schubach discussed priority items and the issue of car stereo and alarm installation
businesses. He noted that those types of businesses cannot be amortized, since they are not at
this tilne on the permitted use list at all. He said that it will be necessary to first add that use to
the code and require CUPs.
12 P.C. Minutes 6/ 19/90
GP 90-2/ZON 90-2 --TO CONSIDER GENERAL PLAN REDESIGNATION AND REZONING OF
THE BILTMORE SITE PUBLICLY OWNED PORTION FROM A SPECIFIC PLAN AREA FOR A
HOTEL TO RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL DESIGNATIONS OR TO SUCH OTHER
DESIGNATIONS/ZONES AS DEEMED APPROPRIATE BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND
ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE PUBLICLY OWNED PORTION OF THE
BILTMORE S11E
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated May 29, 1990. Staff made the following
recommendations: (1) to redesignate the Biltmore Site to medium density residential and
rezone the site to residential specific plan area allowing a maximum of 14 units with a 30-foot
height limit and include the vacated portion of Beach Drive and 15th Court; (2) to
redesignate/rezone the public parking lot back to general commercial, C-2; (3) to use the
proceeds from the sale of the Biltmore Site to buy the most excess school property and/ or
railroad right-of-way for open space purposes.
The previous election involving the Biltmore Site resulted in two failing initiatives. The
initiative for a combination of urban public plaza, commercial, and residential failed by a 72
percent vote and the initiative for open space only on the Biltmore Site failed by a 53 percent
vote.
The City Council has now requested staff and the Planning Commission to study the option of
designating the property for residential purposes.
On April 19, 1990, the staff environmental review committee recommended an environmental
negative declaration for the general plan amendment and rezoning because the change in
designation would be to a lower intensity use than what is allowed under the current general
plan and zoning designation of SPA for a hotel. When and if a specific residential project is
considered for this site, it will require a precise development plan, and at that time the project
would be subject to environmental review.
Hearing opened at 8:4 7 P .M. by Chmn. Ing ell.
Betty Ryan, 588 20th Street, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and: (1) asked
questions related to what size the lots would be if they are rezoned to R-2 and noted that if the
sizes remain as is, they will be substandard sized lots; (2) discussed with staff and the
Commission the required lots sizes for development; (3) asked about the proposed lot
configurations and questioned what could be done with the properties if they are offered for
sale; (4) asked about what will become of Beach Drive and the lots facing 14th Street; (5)
questioned how the lots would be accessed; (6) stated that if the zone is changed, there must be a
practical use for that particular zoning; (7) stated that if the land is going to be sold, the City
must know what it is selling; (8) asked about the sequence of events related to this property.
June Williams, Manhattan Avenue, addressed the Commission and: (1) asked why anyone
would want to sell open space in this City; (2) couldn't believe that anyone feels more condos
should be built; (3) stated that the only reason this is being considered is because of money; (4)
felt that the Commission should be concerned with good planning and the quality of life; (5)
stated that the budget and financial issues should be handled by the City Council, not the
Commission; (6) stressed that open space needs to be preserved; (7) said that many people want
a place to sit and enjoy the ocean without having to go on the sand; (8) questioned whether it
would be appropriate to develop this property and add to the problems of congestion, traffic,
sewage, water, and contamination.
Hearing closed at 8:58 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
Comm. Peirce asked whether the parking lot and the Biltmore site itself must be voted upon
together, to which Mr. Lee responded that the matters can be voted upon separately.
13 P.C. Minutes 6/ 19/90
MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Chmn. Ingell, to approve staffs recommendation to
rezone the public parking lot "C" bounded by 14th Court and 13th Street between Beach Drive
and Hermosa Avenue to C-2, general commercial.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ingell
None
None
None
MOTION by Comm. Peirce to zone the Biltmore site, publicly owned portion between 14th and
15th Street along the Strand, as open space. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND.
Comm. Rue asked for clarification on the specific role of Planning Commissioners. He
questioned whether it is the responsibility of commissioners to consider financial matters. He
questioned whether their purpose is to look at issues solely from a planning standpoint or
whether fiscal issues should also be considered.
Mr. Schubach stated that issues should be addressed economically, environmentally, socially,
and politically. He stated that these are all real concerns in planning matters.
Comm. Moore, noting that he has read the minutes from the last meeting, stated that the
motivations are clearly money and frustration as to what to do with the piece of property. He
noted that there is the potential to get a fair amount of money for the property; however, the
money will be gone in several years. Therefore, he felt it is important to focus on what will
become of the site in the long run. He stated that Hermosa Beach is quite unique insofar as
beach cities are concerned. He said that most other successful beach towns have some type of
barrier between the sand and the businesses and/ or residences, stating that that is the striking
key difference between Hermosa and other beach cities. He noted that Manhattan Beach has a
hill, and Redondo Beach has a palisades or a very heavily developed commercial strip
separating the town from the beach. Laguna has grassy areas for separation as well as a road
separating the areas. He stated that the only other similar beach city is Venice. He commented
that Hermosa Beach has a concrete sewer for a strand, and it should be an embarrassment that
the City cannot do something creative with that area.
Comm. Moore understood the special legal problems related to the sand portion and what can
and cannot be done, but he felt that the situation is embarassing compared to the situations in
the other beach towns along the coast.
Comm. Moore stated that if a hotel is built to the south of this site, the northern area would fit
a residential use, since it is generally residential in the north and easterly surrounding sides,
and he felt that would be very wrong. He felt that there is a duty upon the City to provide public
access to the beach and to provide usages at the beach, noting that the only areas where such
conditions exist are a small pocket at 22nd Street, an area at 2nd Street, and at the pier head.
Comm. Moore stated that "cookie cutter" condos next to a "cookie cutter" hotel will create a
visual mess for the area.
Comm. Moore explained that he did not second Comm. Peirce's motion for open space because
he did not feel it is appropriate to look at the site as open space, stating that he feels that makes
no sense because of its proximity to the beach.
Comm. Moore stated that if he had his druthers, the City would buy up every house on the
Strand, demo them, and move the Strand wall back eighty feet, and develop that area with
multiple paths and parkways. However, he noted that that is merely his pipe dream. He felt
that a park at that site would not be particularly useful. He could not support residential
either. He could envision a mixture of uses such as open space coming back from the Strand
and to balance that with additional open space going east from the Strand for 20 or 30 feet. l:Ie
felt there should be public uses, such as a combination of commercial uses and parking at the
14 P.C. Minutes 6/ 19/90
rear to continue the economic growth of downtown. He stressed that he could not support
residential or entirely open space.
Chmn. Ingell did not feel that commercial would be economically viable because there is not
adequate square footage to provide the required parking. He said there is no economic value
for another empty store on that site.
Comm. Moore hoped that parking could be addressed within the VPD because the City is
strangling itself with unrealistic parking requirements. He said that the only time there are
parking problems is on summer weekends. He felt that rather dramatic loosening of the
downtown parking requirements is necessary, noting that there are plenty of people in the area
who would go to the stores if the stores could only be built.
Chmn. Ingell felt it would be nice to have some green area in front of any proposed development
at the site. He therefore favored the site to be zoned specific plan area. He felt that the only
feasible development would be residential, and with the SPA, very specific conditions could be
imposed for development. He opposed a mere rezoning to R-2 or R-2B, however, because there
would then be no specific tailored conditions.
Comm. Moore stated that he could support a specific plan area, but not for residential
development. He felt that the SPA would be appropriate for commercial development or a
combination of commercial and open space.
Comm. Ketz noted that the task force recommended a mixed use of commercial and open space;
however, that option did not reach the voters.
Chmn. Ingell felt that commercial use would not be viable unless the City were willing to
subsidize the purchase.
Chmn. Ingell, noting that the Commission appears to be at an impasse, suggested that a partial
recommendation be sent to the City Council outlining each Commissioners' opinion on this
matter.
Chmn. Ingell favored voting to approve the site as a specific plan area.
Comms. Moore and Ketz both strongly opposed residential development, Comm. Ketz stating
that she favors a combination of commercial and open space.
Comm. Rue, discussing commercial uses. stated that there are severe parking restraints as well
as economic restraints. He noted deep concern that a commercial building could sit empty or
have many tenants, one after the other.
Comm. Ketz stated that she has never seen any economic study related to whether commercial
development would or would not be feasible in the downtown area. She continued by stating
that residential is inappropriate because this is the busiest part of the Strand, it will be right
next to the new hotel, and it is in the downtown area. She did not want to see more condos at
that site.
Comm. Rue, noting that Comm. Moore feared "cookie cutter" development on the site, stated
that it would be nice to have upscale R-1 development. He said that the Strand lots could be
carved out as open space, tand he five residential lots could be made larger, with possibly a
specific plan.
Comm. Rue felt it is important to have more than just a park at this site. He felt that a specific
plan and open space combination might be appropriate.
Chmn. Ingell felt that a park would not be appropriate. He stated that there are other areas
where benches and landscaping could be placed for people wanting to enjoy the beach. He
15 P.C. Minutes 6/ 19/90
favored extra large setbacks if the area is designated SPA. He noted frustration over deciding
what to do with the property. He stated that this is a political issue, and it is a shame it is no
longer merely a planning matter.
Chmn. Ingell noted that it appears the Commission cannot reach an agreement on its
recommendation.
Mr. Schubach explained that if a decision cannot be reached, staff would prepare a decision
report for Council, rather than a resolution.
Chmn. Ingell favored the site as a residential specific plan area. He felt that if such a
designation were approved, specific standards could be addressed at a future time.
MOTION by Chmn. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Rue, to recommend that the site be designated
residential specific plan area.
AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION by Comm. Rue as second, to recommend that a portion be set
aside for open space along the Strand; to recommend that less dense and less intense
development be considered within the constraints of medium density; to recommend a
maximum height limit of 25 feet so that the view impact is kept to a minimum; and to
recommend that the proceeds from the sale of the property go toward buying additional open
space in the coastal zone. Amendment accepted by Chmn. Ingell as maker.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
(MOTION FAILS.)
Comm. Rue, Chmn. Ingell
Comms. Ketz, Moore, Peirce
None
None
Comms. Rue and Moore felt that it would be most appropriate to send a report to the City
Council, rather than a resolution.
Comm. Peirce favored open space at the site, stating that there is very little open space in the
City. He felt that there is no compromising on this matter.
Comm. Rue felt that the Commission has a fiscal responsibility, and his amendment to the
motion was a compromise to the problem.
Comm. Ketz favored a specific plan area with low-intensity commercial uses and open space as
recommended by the task force last year. Comm. Moore concurred.
Comm. Moore discussed parking, stating that something must be done to address the parking
problem in the downtown area.
Recess taken from 9:23 P.M. until 9:30 P.M.
CON 90-7 --REVIEW OF THE ELEVATION PLAN FOR A 1'WO-UNIT CONDO AT 829 15TH
STREET
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated June 14, 1990. Staff recommended that the Planning
Commission approve the elevations as revised.
At the 6/5/90 meeting, the Planning Commission approved a two-unit condominium, subject
to the condition that the applicant return with revised elevations to be approved by the
Commission.
16 P.C. Minutes 6/ 19/90
The applicant has submitted revised elevations which depict a contemporary design using
rounded corners on the buildings to soften the impact. This is an improvement over the
previous elevations which had no theme or consistency.
Although the design is simple, staff believes it is appropriate, given the lower scale of the
building and the large setback. Also, the landscaping proposed should serve to complement the
building.
The design could be enhanced with the addition of a limited amount of glass block or other
features on the facade. The Planning Commission may wish to direct staff to work with the
applicant to provide such enhancements where appropriate.
Hearing opened at 9:33 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
Armando Pablo, 4 7 4 7 W. El Segundo Boulevard, Hawthorne, representing the applicant,
addressed the Commission and: (1) explained that the elevations show that the corners have
been rounded; (2) noted that trees have been added at three locations; (3) stated, in response to
comments by Comm. Moore, that it is possible that the curb cut could be narrowed to provide
additional space for landscaping.
Hearing closed at 9:35 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
Chmn. Ingell noted that the curb cut does not allow two parking spaces anyway. He questioned,
however, the ramifications of requiring narrowing curb cuts to provide additional landscaping
on all projects.
Comm. Ketz felt that additional landscaping would make the project more attractive from the
street.
Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Comm. Rue, noted that staff recommended
additional glass block to enhance the project's appearance.
Comm. Rue favored allowing the applicant to have an option over the design, noting that the
plans have been improved since the last time they were seen by the Commission.
MOTION by Comm. Moore, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve the submitted elevations with
one condition: that the front flower bed be enhanced, and that approval shall be subject to
Planning Director approval.
Comm. Moore was happy with the design, and he did not feel glass block would be appropriate,
noting that this is a very pure, simple design.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ingell
None
None
None
CON 88-16 --EXTENSION OF THE TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #19594 FOR A fflREE-UNIT
CONDO AT 52111 m STREET
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated June 14, 1990. Staff recommended that the tentative
parcel map be extended one year to July 19, 1991.
On July 19, 1988, the Planning Commission approved a three-unit condo project and a
tentative map for the subject property. The map expired on July 19, 1990. The three-unit
building is currently under construction.
17 P.C. Minutes 6/ 19/90
J •
Section 66463.5 of the Subdivision Map Act allows the Planning Commission to extend the
expiration date for tentative maps for a period not exceeding three years.
The applicant indicates that the reason for the delay was due to some financial problems
which have recently been resolved.
Since the zoning has not changed in respect to the subject property, and since the building is
nearing completion, staff felt that it would be appropriate to extend the map.
Hearing opened and closed at 9:41 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell, who noted that no one appeared to
speak on this issue.
MOTION by Comm. Ketz, seconded by Chmn. Ingell, to approve staffs recommendation, to
extend the tentative map one year to July 19, 1991.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ingell
None
None
None
SS 90-5 --TEXT AMENDMENT TO ADD INSTALLATION OF CAR STEREO AND CAR ALARMS
WITII CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO C-3 PERMITIED USE LIST
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated June 12, 1990. Staff recommended that the Planning
Commission direct staff to set this matter for public hearing to add car stereo/ alarm
installation to the C-3 or appropriate permitted use list, subject to a conditional use permit as
soon as possible.
Currently, there are car stereo/ alarm installers operating in the City with business licenses.
These businesses were granted approval under the general title of "automotive accessories."
Staff feels that this type of use can be a nuisance and should only be permitted with a CUP.
Staff noted that several letters have been received from Mr. Sullivan regarding noise problems
associated with this use. Mr. Sullivan also feels that this use would be more appropriate in the
M-zone.
Comm. Peirce noted that this is an excellent example of the code becoming outmoded due to
technological advances which were overlooked when the code was written. He noted the
importance of being alert to such situations because many times certain uses become quite a
nuisance.
MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Chmn. Ingell, to direct staff to set this matter for public
hearing as soon as possible.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ingell
None
None
None
18 P.C. Minutes 6/ 19/90
STAFF ITEMS
a) RUDAT AIA City Planning Consultation (Continued from June 5. 1990. Meeting)
Mr. Schubach noted that at the last meeting, the Commission had requested copies of the
Pismo Beach study for review before action was taken. He noted that the Commissioners had
received copies.
Dean Nota, 2467 Myrtle Avenue, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and: (1) hoped
that the Commissioners had time to review the Pismo Beach report; (2) stated that two general
items are being requested from the Commission --some form of resolution of intent stating
that the Commission is in favor of this kind of process being pursued by the local chapter of
AIA, and that a Commissioner be selected to serve on the steering committee; (3) explained how
requests are responded to, noting that it needs to made clear that there is a real need in the City
for this action and that there is potential for something effective to be done; (4) stated that the
AIA must be convinced that there is a cross section of interested people in the community, and
letters are very important; (5) explained that the steering committee will be responsible for
project leadership; (6) stated that a resolution would be most effective at this point.
Comm. Moore felt that the City has such incredible potential; there are funds available; people
in the community are interested; this is a politically active city; and this is a very unique city
in its mix of residents.
Mr. Nota stated that all of those points could be expanded upon in the letter of request.
MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to direct that the Planning Commission
prepare a letter of their intent to participate in the RUDAT program.
Comm. Rue stated that the City Council should be encouraged to lend its support to the
program; that the RUDAT program could serve as a central guiding force for the downtown
area; and that action must be taken as quickly as possible.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ingell
None
None
None
Chmn. Ingell suggested that two Planning Commissioners serve on the steering committee, and
he volunteered as did Comm. Ketz. Comm. Rue stated that if an alternate is needed, he would be
happy to serve also.
b) Memorandum Regarding Planning Commission Liaison for June 26. 1990. City Council
Meeting
No one will attend as liaison.
c) Tentative Future Planning Commission Agenda
Comm. Ketz stated that she would be absent from the next meeting, July 3, 1990. Comm. Peirce
also noted that he would be on vacation and would be absent from the meeting of July 3, 1990.
d) City Council Minutes of May 22 and May 24. 1990
No action taken.
19 P.C. Minutes 6/19/90
,.
COMMISSIONER I'l'EMS
Comm. Peirce discussed the new left-tum arrow at northbound Hermosa Avenue and 11th
Street. He felt that this was a very big waste of money, and he questioned what funds were used
for that signal installation. He suggested that other alternative improvements could have been
done.
Comm. Peirce discussed the mysteriously-installed signal at Hermosa Avenue and 2nd Street.
He felt that the signal is a safety hazard because a signal, rather than a stop sign, increases the
speed of traffic through that area thus causing a big safety problem He suggested that the issue
of the left-turn lanes be addressed as related to safety.
MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Rue, to direct that this issue be placed on the
agenda for the purpose of studying the traffic signal at the intersection of Hermosa Avenue and
2nd Street, whether it presents a safety hazard, and whether it should be removed. No
objections; so ordered.
Mr. Schubach stated that staff is currently doing a warrant check to determine whether or not
that traffic signal is a hazard which should be removed.
Comm. Rue commended the City Manager's efforts in removing signs from light poles
throughout the City.
Chmn. Ingell commended staff on their fine staff reports, stating that they are better than
those he has seen in other cities.
MOTION by Chmn. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to adjourn at 9:59 P.M. No objections; so
ordered.
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and complete record of the action
taken by the Planning Commission of Hermosa Beach at the regularly scheduled
;;?J ure 1~, ~pl --;y~~;[__
Michael S chub ach , Secretary
Date
20 P.C. Minutes 6/ 19/90
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
HELD ON JULY 3, 1990, AT 7:00 P.M. IN THE CITY HALL COUNC-a CHAMBERS
Meeting called to order at 7:00 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
Pledge of Allegiance led by Comm. Rue.
ROLLCALL
Present:
Absent:
Cornms. Moore, Rue, Chmn. Ingell
Cornms. Ketz, Peirce
Also Present: Michael Schubach, Planning Director; Edward Lee, Assistant City
Attorney; Sally White, Recording Secretary
CONSENT CALENDAR
Comm. Moore pulled for discussion the minutes of June 19, 1990.
Resolution P.C. 90-42, A RESOLUTION OF THE PIANNING COMMISSION OF THE CI1Y OF
HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #22184 FOR A '!WO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 126 MANHATTAN
AVENUE (AKA 160 MANHATTAN AVENUE) LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 4, TRACT 1123;
Resolution P.C. 90-43, A RESOLUTION OF THE PIANNING COMMISSION OF THE CI1Y OF
HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING AMENDING THE IAND USE MAP OF THE
GENERAL PLAN FOR PARKING LOT "C" FROM SPECIFIC PLAN AREA TO GENERAL
COMMERCIAL AND ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION;
Resolution P.C. 90-44, A RESOLUTION OF THE PIANNING COMMISSION OF THE CI1Y OF
HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING AMENDING THE ZONING MAP TO
REZONE PARKING LOT "C" FROM SPECIFIC PIAN AREA TO C-2 RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL
AND ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION;
PIANNING COMMISSION REPORT ON BILTMORE SITE;
Resolution P.C. 90-49, A RESOLUTION OF THE PIANNING COMMISSION OF THE CI1Y OF
HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #22100 FOR A '!WO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 626 7TH S1REET,
LEGAILY DESCRIBED AS LOf 10, DR DOUGHER'IYS HERMOSA BAY VIEW TRACT;
Resolution P.C. 90-50, A RESOLUTION OF THE PIANNING COMMISSION OF THE CI1Y OF
HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING AMENDING THE HERMOSA BEACH
ZONING ORDINANCE TO REQUIRE AMORTIZATION OF BUSINESSES THAT REQUIRE
CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS THAT CURRENTLY OPERATE WITHOUT A CONDIDONAL USE
PERMIT AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION;
Resolution P.C. 90-54, A RESOLUTION OF THE PIANNING COMMISSION OF THE CI1Y OF
HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, ENCOURAGING THE CI1Y COUNCIL TO ENDORSE THE
REGIONAL URBAN DESIGN ASSISTANCE TEAM (RUDAT) PROGRAM SPONSORED BY THE
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS.
Comm. Moore noted a correction to the minutes of June 19, 1990, stating that Page 14,
Paragraph 10, should read: "Comm. Moore explained that he did not second Comm. Peirce's
motion for open space because .... "
1 P.C. Minutes 7 /3/90
Comm. Rue noted a correction to the minutes of June 19, 1990: Page 16, Paragraph 5,
Amendment to the Motion, should contain a statement that the amendment also includes a
height limit of 25 feet so that the view impact is kept to a minimum.
MOTION by Comm. Moore, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve the consent calendar items with
the June 19, 1990, minutes as amended.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Moore, Rue, Chmn. Ingell
None
None
Comms. Ketz, Peirce
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC
No one appeared to address the Commission.
CON 90-10 -· CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #22062
FOR A FOUR-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 1634 PROSPECT AVENUE
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated June 25, 1990. Staff recommended that the Planning
Commission approve the conditional use permit for a four-unit condominium and vesting
tentative parcel map, subject to the conditions specified in the proposed resolution.
This project is located in the R-2B zone. with a general plan designation of medium density
residential. The lot size is 12,390 square feet and consists of two existing legal lots. Ten
parking spaces are provided. Total open space provided is 1864 square feet. The current use is
as a single-family dwelling.
The subject property consists of two existing lots which contain 5950 square feet and 6440
square feet. The property is an irregular rectangle with about a ten percent slope upward from
front to rear. The property abuts the Prospect Avenue right-of-way which is 80 feet wide. As
such, the front property line is 20 feet from the edge of the street.
The four proposed units are detached and are arranged with two on each side of a common
driveway which straddles the existing common property line.
Three different floor plans are proposed for the four units. Unit A contains 3377 square feet
and includes five bedrooms, three and a half baths, and a family room. Unit B contains 2856
square feet and also includes four bedrooms, three and a half bathrooms, and a family room.
The third and fourth Units have floor plan "C" with one being the reverse of the other. These
units contain 2614 square feet and include three bedrooms, two and a half baths, and a roof
deck.
The proposed building elevations exhibit an exterior plaster sand finish, clay mission tile
roofmg. raised plaster trim around all windows and doors, metal railings and shutters. The
overall style can be characterized as "Mediterranean."
The plans indicate a front yard setback which ranges from 6.5 feet to 15 feet. Given that the
property line is an additional 20 feet from the edge of the street, the setbacks certainly seem
adequate.
Several mature trees are located on the property, with the majority being eucalyptus trees
located along the southerly property line adjacent to the water company property. The
buildings are proposed to be set back eight feet from the southerly property. so the eucalyptus
trees can be retained. According to the landscape plan, most of all the existing trees will be
retained, including the eucalyptus along the south property line and. two mature pine trees in
2 P.C. Minutes 7 /3/90
J
front along the street. These trees will be complemented by additional trees on the north and
east property lines.
Required parking is provided in four, two-car garages oriented to the common driveway. Two
open guest spaces are also provided. No on-street parking will be lost. as the proposed driveway
will replace the existing driveway.
Private open space is provided in each unit 1n private decks. Unit A provides 446 square feet on
two second-story decks, and both units with floor plan "C" provide 408 square feet with roof
decks and second-story decks. Unit B, however, has only 107 square feet as designed on the
second floor, as one of the decks is enclosed on three sides and cannot be counted toward open
space. Staff has included a condition that this problem be corrected with revised plans.
The project complies with all other planning and zoning requirements. Lot coverage is a
relatively low 48 percent. The height of the structures is less than 30 feet, and it appears that
adequate storage space is provided, but plans will have to be revised to indicate the amount.
Although the plans indicate a location for the trash dumpster along the north property line, it
is adjacent to residential property. Staff, therefore, recommended a condition that the
dumpster be moved to the other side of the lot adjacent to the water company property.
The surrounding area consists of a mix of primarily single-family dwelJings with some
duplexes nearby. Since this project consists of four detached units. with two on each existing
lot, and has an effective density of 14 units per acre, it would not be inconsistent with the
character of the surrounding area.
Public Hearing opened at 7:08 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
Bill Cameron, 24254 Hawthorne Boulevard, Torrance. project designer, addressed the
CommiSsion and: (1) discussed the trash enclosure. stating that a mistake was made which
will be corrected; (2) said that he was unaware of the rule related to how much deck can be
covered and said that that problem will also be corrected so that there is required open space;
(3) stated that he has read all of the staff recommendations and conditions, and he agrees with
the report; (4) in response to questions from Comm. Rue, stated that he would like to retain all
of the eucalyptus trees, noting that the project was specifically designed with retention of the
trees in mind: (5) explained that the project was designed with one center driveway so that there
would be more space in the sideyards so that the trees could be retained; (6) described the
driveway, stating that it will be stamped, colored concrete.
Edie Weber, 1201 11th Street, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and: (1) read into the
record a letter of opposition based on the facts that: (a) there will be four units in a
predominantly R-1 area, however, if built, as many trees as possible should be retained; (b)
Prospect Avenue is a very busy street. and this project will add to the already J:mpacted area; (c)
the current historically-important farmhouse has been very pleasant for many years; (2)
hoped that care and concern will be given to this property.
Lowell Sterritt, 1619 Golden Avenue, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and: (1)
objected to the fact that the owner and builder propose to use the highest point on the property
as their starting point; (2) objected to the fact that two separate lots are being combined for this
project: (3) said that this project will obstruct his view; (4) said that this project will create
more congestion, especially since there has always been one home on thiS site, and now four
units are being proposed, which would be a 75 percent density increase: (5) felt that this project
will be incompatible with the area, since there are mostly single-family homes in this area; (6)
discussed the way which height was measured for this project and stated that if the lots were
not being combined, his view would not be blocked: (7) was informed by Mr. Schubach that it
makes no difference in the height whether or not these lots are combined.
3 P.C. Minutes 7 /3/90
Mr. Schubach, in response to questions from Mr. Sterrttt. explained how the height is
measured, noting that the averaging method is not used; the parallelogram method is used in
this city.
Mr. Sterrttt continued and discussed garages in the area, stating that most of the garages are at
street level; however. this project proposes to have the garages in the central portion of the
property, which would be inconsistent with other properties in the area.
Barbara Fritz-Kruzek, 1516 Prospect Avenue, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and:
(1) concurred with the previous public comments; (2) noted concern over the current congestion
on Prospect; (3) said that the voting populace of the City is very concerned with open space; (4)
stated that a park or single-family dwelling would be more appropriate for the area; (5) noted
concern over density, loss of trees, and traffic.
Dave Ling, 1130 17th Street, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and: ( 1) said that this
is probably the most beautiful single-family lot in the City: (2) noted that many trees circle this
lot: (3) said that this is the only green space on that hill; (4) felt that even if the home on the site
has had a very historic past. its time has come, however, he hoped that the beauty of the land
can be preseived; (5) hoped that the trees would be saved.
Raymond Kruzek, 1516 Prospect Avenue, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and: (1)
stated that the height measurement method is confusing: (2) noted concern over other towering
structures in the City; (3) noted concern over the statement that "most" of the trees will be
retained; (4) was informed by Comm. Moore that larger plans are available for review by
interested citizens.
Dennis Cleland, 434 28th Street, Hermosa Beach. project builder, addressed the Commission
and: (1) said that every intention was made to maintain the eucalyptus trees; (2) noted that this
project has only 48 percent lot coverage; (3) said that larger side yard setbacks have been
proposed in an attempt to maintain the trees: (4) explained that separate units are being
proposed, rather than attached, in an effort to retain open space and trees.
Marilyn Ling, 1130 17th Street, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and: (1) asked
about which trees will be retained, noting that the north side of the property abuts her
property; (2) to which Mr. Cleland pointed out on the plans where the trees will be.
Lowell Sterritt again addressed the Commission and: ( 1) addressed the historical importance
of this property, stating that now is the time to take action before it is too late; (2) said that this
is probably the oldest property in the entire South Bay; (3) felt that the City now has a chance to
do something in the name of preseivation.
Edie Weber again addressed the Commission and: ( 1) noted that she is a member of the
Historical Society and understands the historical significance of the property; however, she
noted that people do have property rights and can do with their property what they choose; (2)
asked for clarification on the issue of the Joining of these two parcels. to which Mr. Schubach
explained that the two parcels are being assembled, and once the map is filed with the County
Recorder's Office, they will become one lot; however, there are two separate lots at this time; (3)
asked whether the Commission could deny the combining of the lots, to which Mr. Lee
explained what findings would need to be made to deny a subdivision parcel map.
Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Ms. Weber, stated that even if the two parcels
were not merged, there could still be four units on the two parcels, noting that the zoning is R-
2B.
Harold Anschel, 615 Esplanade, Redondo Beach, partner in the project, addressed the
Commission and: (1) explained that this project was discussed with the Planning Department
before plans were drawn: (2) noted that the Planning Department favored the project as
proposed, as opposed to two separate projects, which then would have had two driveway
4 P.C. Minutes 7 /3/90
approaches; (3) said that one project -provides more landscaping and open space as well as
larger setbacks providing for the trees; (4) explained that the combining of the parcels makes
no difference as far as what could be built; (5) stated that a condo association makes for easier
maintenance of a project: (6) discussed traffic and stated that the one driveway with garages in
the interior will be better than garages fronting on the street with cars parking in front: (7) said
that the proposal also reduces the amount of concrete and increases the amount of
landscaping; (8) discussed the area and said that there are eight duplexes very close to this
project. even one right next door; (9) stated that people in this area had an opportunity several
years ago to downzone to R-1; however, they strongly favored an R-2B zoning for thiS street; (10)
in response to a question from Comm. Moore as to how this property was acquired, explained
that this property was advertised for probate sale by a real estate agent.
Public Hearing closed at 7:35 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
Comm. Rue discussed the issue of historical sites and asked if staff had done any research into
whether this property has any historic or architectural value.
Mr. Schubach replied in the negative, explaining that the City is currently in the process of
revising the general plan land use element, and one of the items to be studied will be
identification of historical sites in the City. At this time, however, there are no zoning
ordinance provisions related to historic sites.
Comm. Rue was under the impression that it is within the purview of the Planning
Commission to address hiStoric sites. He strongly felt that there are general plan provisions
related to this issue. He asked whether there is any mechanism by which this building could be
saved and/or moved if it 1S determined to have historic and/or architectural significance.
Mr. Schubach, noting that he is very familiar with the general plan, stated that there is a
possibility that staff has overlooked something related to historic sites. He suggested that, if so
desired by the Commission, this matter be continued so that staff could further research the
issue of historical buildings. He stated that if there are provisions, the question must be
addressed of whether in fact there is enough significance to save this building. He noted that it
is a long-term project to make such a determination, move the building, and find a site for the
building to be placed.
Comm. Rue felt that the proposed project is one of the least dense projects he bas seen. He felt
that the designers have taken great pains to save and provide landscaping. He noted concern,
however, over the issue of the possibly historic building currently there. He questioned
whether the proposed project can continue, while at the same time steps are taken to study the
historic/ architectural significance of the currently existing building on the site. If there is
value, the City Council could be approached for funding to move the building.
Comm. Moore doubted whether there is any actual historical value in this building. He felt
that the issue has been raised as an attempt to keep things exactly as they are, not to preserve
an important structure. He felt that there would not be much interest in taking this building
apart board by board and moved.
Comm. Rue felt that the question at least needs to be asked to determine whether there is in fact
any historic/architectural value in this building.
Comm. Moore felt that there may be mild curiosity in the structure: however, he noted that that
same curiosity could be aroused by almost every building in town. He noted that just because
someone raises the question of significance, it Is not necessary for the City, with its limited
resources. to expend funds to have structures studied by experts. His common sense told him
that this particular building is not worth saving.
Comm. Rue wanted this project to move forward: however, if there is a groundswell of interest,
people can appeal at the City Council level. He felt that this is a good project, and many
5 P.C. Minutes 7 /3/00
mitigation measures have been taken. He noted that since the property is zoned R-2B, four
units can be built.
Chmn. Ingell stated that this is one of the nicest projects he has seen in a long time, noting that
it is not very dense, landscaping will be provided. and trees will be saved. He further noted that
at the time of the downzoning hearings. people strongly objected to this area being downzoned
from R-2 to R-1, and the area ultimately became R-2B. He felt that if the current structure did
have historic value, the City probably would have received written communication from the
Historical Society. However, approval of this project can be appealed to the City Council if
there is a groundswell of support for preservation of the house. He noted that this project has
low lot coverage, plenty of parking, beautiful units, and many trees. He personally did not feel
that the current structure is worth saving.
Comm. Moore noted that the only time people oppose projects is when they themselves are
directly impacted. He stated that the majority of people in the City oppose downzoning.
MOTION by Comm. Moore, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve staffs recommendation,
Resolution P.C. 90-52, as submitted.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Moore, Rue, Chmn. Ingell
None
None
Comms. Ketz, Peirce
CON 90-11 --CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #22256
FOR A TWO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 610 11 TH STREET
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated June 25, 1990. Staff recommended that the Planning
Commission approve the conditional use permit for a two-unit condominium and vesting
tentative parcel map, subject to the conditions specified in the proposed resolution.
This project is located in the R-2 zone, with a general plan designation of medium density
residential. The lot size is 4266 square feet. Five parking spaces are provided. Total open
space provided is 960 square feet. The current use is as a single-family dwelling. The subject
property Is rectangular in shape with a slight side-to-side slope.
The two proposed units are similar in size and layout. Unit A contains 251 7 square feet and
includes three bedrooms, three and a half bathrooms, and a roof deck. Unit B contains 2541
square feet and also includes three bedrooms, three and a half bathrooms, and a roof deck.
The proposed building elevations exhibit a stucco exterior, glass block around the circular
stairWay feature, p ipe railing, and painted sheet metal for the roof deck stairway. The overall
style can be characterized as "contemporary."
The plans indicate a front yard setback of five feet, which would be the same as the adjacent
project to the west, approved in 1988. Existing setbacks along the street range from five feet to
thirteen feet: however. the majority are over ten feet and the average calculates t o be
approximately 10.5 feet. Four newer condo projects on the street, approved in the years from
1984-1990, have been approved for setbacks of five and six feet. It should be noted that the old
city zoning map identifies this street for a ten-foot setback. As such, the older units are set
back a minimum of ten feet.
It must be determined whether or not a five-foot setback is appropriate for this and potential
future condo projects on this street. Staff felt a greater setback is justified because of the
average on the street, even though this project is adjacent to a new structure with only a five-
foot setback. When the project at 600 11th Street was approved, a greater setback probably
should have been required at that time. Therefore, to be consistent with the majority of the
6 P.C. Minutes 7 /3/90
dwellings on the block. staff is recommending a condition that a ten-foot setback be required.
This would establish an appropriate precedent for future projects, whether condos or duplexes.
Required parking 1S provided in two. two-car garages oriented to the middle of the lot. One open
guest space 1S provided at the end of the nine-foot drtveway. No on-street parking will be lost as
the proposed driveway will replace the existing driveway.
A mature tree, not identified in the suivey or on the landscape plan, is located in the rear yard
behind the existing house. It appears that it could be saved as it is located near the side
property line. Therefore, staff Included a condition that the existing trees be identified on the
landscape plan and that it either be preserved, relocated , or compensated for With the planting
of a specimen-size tree, minimum 36-inch box.
The project complies With all other planning and zoning requirements. Lot coverage is 59
percent. Adequate open space is provided on second-floor and roof decks , and the height of the
structures iS less than 30 feet.
The surrounding area consists of a mix of older single-family and two-family structures. A
new two-unit condo is located on the adjacent property to the west.
Mr. Schubach, In response to a question from Comm. Moore, stated that the tree in the rear has
not been specifically identified: however, it is a mature specimen-sized tree.
Public Hearing opened at 7:50 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
Elizabeth Srour, 820 Manhattan Avenue, Manhattan Beach, representing the applicant and
owner, addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that this project meets all of the City's
development standards: (2) said that the parking will be contained within the project. and the
lot coverage is under that allowed, noting that these are two separate buildings; (3) noted that
the applicant concurs With all of the conditions, except the one pertaining to the front yard
setback: (4) discussed the plans and stated that the owner discussed the project with staff: (5)
stated that there is somewhat of a slope on this lot: (6) said that there was never any mention by
staff of a ten-foot front setback requirement: (7) stated that the zoning map shows no inclusion
of a ten-foot front setback requirement: (8) stated that the project can work with a ten-foot
setback: however, they feel that the project will be much better With a five-foot setback.
Ms. Srour continued and: (1) discussed the plans With the Commission: (2) discussed the front
of the building at the easternmost part as depicted on the plans; (3) discussed the set backs as
depicted on the plans, stating that the setback goes from five feet to seven and a half feet at the
ground level where the building jogs in to the south; (4) explained that the project is actually set
back eleven to t welve feet from the front of the project at the rounded section: (5) stated that
other new construction on this street is set back only five or six feet. and those projects go
straight up With no relief at the front facades: (6) said that this project provides a great deal of
architectural relief; (7) displayed the front renderings for the project and discussed the decks,
which she said provide a great deal of architectural relief.
Ms. Srour went on and: ( 1) said that the plans show a ten-foot separation between the two
buildings. however, the code allows only a six-foot separation at the second level; (2) felt that a
ten-foot separation 1S much nicer for this project; (3) discussed the project next door and stated
that the decks on that project will look into the interior portion of this lot; (4) felt that the ten-
foot separation between Units A and B will provide more privacy for the owners of the units; (5)
discussed the architectural features of the project: (6) said that other new construction on the
street has been allowed to have five-or six-foot front setbacks and their building faces go
straight up; (7) thiS project bas diminished the mass of the units and a great deal of care has
been taken to break up the facade of the building; (8) stated that they can accept the IO-foot
requirement: however, the project will be better with a five-foot setback.
7 P.C. Minutes 7 /3/90
Comm. Rue, commenting on the plans, noted that the northeast comer of the project, with its
tower, appears to go just straight up and down with no architectural relief. He continued by
discussing the bedroom windows on the interior, stating that if the units are moved together,
there iS more to be gained on the street setbacks than for the buildings.
Ms. Srour stated that it is more desirable that the bedroom windows be separated ten feet
rather than six feet. She agreed that the windows are more for light and air than they are for
viewing purposes. However, because of natural living occurrences, a larger separation is more
desirable.
Ms. Srour, in response to questions from Comm. Rue, explained that if the project is required
to have a setback larger then five feet, none of the architectural features would be lost. and the
project would be substantially the same as it Is before the Commission at this time. She stated
that they are willing to accept the setback condition so that it iS not necessacy to again appear
before the Commission.
Patrick Sanderson, 416 30th Street, Manhattan Beach, applicant. addressed the Commission
and: (1) said that the project iS being built for him and his sister, and they will each live in one
of the units: (2) said that this project has been designed so that it will be a nice place to live: (3)
stated that moving the buildings closer together iS not major, however. it is more convenient to
have the buildings ten feet apart: (4) noted that the garages are also in this interior portion, and
it will be easier to maneuver cars in and out if there ts ten feet: (5) said that the setbacks as
proposed meet City codes, and the facade of the building has been treated so that the project
does not look like a big box: (6) asked for approval of the project as submitted, with the smaller
setback.
Public Hearing closed at 8:04 P.m. by Chmn. Ingell.
Comm. Rue discussed past actions taken in regard to setbacks, noting that new projects
sometimes did not conform to older projects. He stated that the City is now making an attempt
to respect neighborhood continuity.
Comm. Moore favored a way to encourage the best designs possible. He stated that this project
is very large, and this iS a small lot. He liked the look of this project. however. and hoped that a
compromise could be reached. He noted that the northeast comer is a straight vertical wall.
and he could therefore favor a setback of seven and a half feet. He noted that the units are
already veiy close together.
Comm. Moore stated that he could support approval of the project with a seven and a half foot
front setback based on the unique stepped back architectural design at the front of the building.
Comm. Moore commented on the requirement that the existing tree will be replaced with a
mature specimen size tree. He noted that the applicant has proposed cocos plumosa (queen
palm). He stated that he knows, from personal experience. that that type of tree if watered and
fertilized properly grows veiy rapidly. He therefore felt it would be acce_ptable to require a 24-
inch box cocos plumosa, rather than a 36-inch variety.
Chmn. Ingell stated that he could support a compromise of a seven and a half foot front
setback. He noted that he has no objection to the smaller size tree.
MOTION by Comm. Moore, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve staffs recommendation,
Resolution P.C. 90-51, with the following modifications: Condition No. 2 shall be modified to
read: "A minimum front yard setback of seven and a half feet shall be provided, based upon the
stepped back architectural treatment.": Condition No. 5(a) shall be modified to require a
minimum 24-inch box cocos plumosa tree, as depicted on the proposed plans.
Comm. Rue wanted to encourage stepped back front facades.
8 P.C. Minutes 7 /3/90
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Moore, Rue, Chmn. Ingell
None
None
Cornms. Ketz, Peirce
VAR 90-4/NR 90-5 --VARIANCE TO ALLOW ADDITION TO EXISTING NONCONFORMING
STRUCTURE WITH SUBSTANDARD PARKING STALL SIZE AT 1781 VALLEY PARK AVENUE
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated June 27, 1990. Two requests were made in this
application: ( 1) variance to allow a second story addition to an existing nonconforming
dwelling With a substandard size parking stall, nine inches deficient in depth; and, (2) an
exception pursuant to Section 13-7(c)(3) to allow the continuation of an existing
nonconforming sideyard.
Staff recommended approval of the variance request by adopting the proposed resolution;
however, staff recommended denial of the request for continuation of the nonconforming side
yard.
This project's lot size is 9270 square feet, with an existing building size of 1916 square feet. The
proposed addition is 996 square feet, for a 49 percent Increase in valuation. There are two
parking spaces.
The applicant is proposing a second-story addition to the existing one-story, single-family
dwelling, which would increase the floor area of the house from 1916 square feet to a t otal of
2912 square feet.
The building is nonconforming to current zoning for several reasons: (1) the garage iS set back
7 .1 feet rather than the required 17 feet for garages, and rather than the minimum 10 feet for
any structure; (2) the side yard setback on the south side is 3.21 feet. rather than the required
4.5 feet; and (3) the existing garage contains one substandard parking stall which measures 17
feet, three Inches deep rather than the minimum 18 feet allowed for existing garages.
Article 13 of the zoning ordinance explicitly allows for additions to existing nonconforming
buildings which are nonconforming to yard requirements, subject to certain limitations.
Also, through approval of the Planning Commission, specific exceptions are allowed for
extending nonconforming sideyards.
However, in regard to a situation where only one adequately sized parking stall exists, the
zoning ordinance allows only a maximum 250 square-foot addition. Therefore, a variance is
necessary to resolve the third nonconformity.
Section 13-7(c)(3) allows for the continuation of nonconforming sideyards if 75 percent of the
same block, as defined by the zoning ordinance, has the same or a smaller nonconforming
sideyard. A block consists of all lots on the same side of the street between intersecting streets.
Staff has field checked and measured side yard setbacks on the subject block which consists of
15 lots on the west side of the street to determine if 75 percent of the block has such
nonconforming sideyards. Only seven of the 14 other lots, however, have a side yard of less
then four feet. To meet the criteria of Section 13-7(c)(3). at least 11 of the lots would have to
have sideyards of 3.21 feet or less. Therefore, staff is certain that this criteria cannot be met.
Staff agreed with the applicant that the nine-inch deficiency in stall depth is rather
insignificant and that most vehicles would still easily fit inside the garage. Although this does
not necessarily justify a variance, staff believed that appropriate findings could be made
because of the limitations of working within the existing structure.
9 P.C. Minutes 7 /3/90
Mr. Schubach explained that staff and the applicant have differing interpretations on the code
section relating to nonconf onn:tng sideyards. He stated that, if so desired by the Commission,
this hearing could be continued and brought back for an interpretation.
Comm. Moore asked to what degree the Commission is bound by the particular wording of the
requirement. He stated that the Commission can make specific findings for specific cases. He
noted that his initial reaction to this request was that it was a very reasonable request, one
which would not damage the City, and he asked how the Commission would be restricted in its
power to grant a variance in this case.
Mr. Lee stated that this is a request for an exception under the nonconforming provisions of
the municipal code. He continued by explaining that the Commission is limited in its ability
to grant further encroachments into the standards set up within a zone: however. the granting
of a variance differs from that of an exception.
Comm. Moore noted that this issue was not noticed as a variance request. He asked for
clarification on the difference between variances and exceptions.
Mr. Lee explained that even if there are existing encroachments, the Commission cannot allow
further encroachments into sideyard setbacks under the nonconforming section of the
municipal code. If the Commission desires to consider a variance to allow such an
encroachment, the four findings would need to made. Also, the matter would need to be
renoticed as a variance request for the sideyard.
Recess taken from 8:22 P.M. from 8:28 P.M. (Recess was requested by Comm. Rue so that he
could review the code.)
Public Hearing opened at 8:28 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
Bernard Kersulis, 1781 Valley Park Avenue, Hermosa Beach, applicant, addressed the
Commission and: (1) gave to each Commissioner a copy of a handout he prepared; (2) passed out
three photos depicting the garage and street, showing that tltis street does not have a parking
problem: (3) discussed the exception and stated that he took photos of most of the sideyards on
the street; (4) said that ten of the houses are on 50-foot lots, and five houses are on 45-foot lots:
(5) said he was originally told he needed only to obtain approval of the exception and that they
would be dealing only with the block from 18th Street to Valley School; (6) said he felt
comfortable with that requirement, because it would have been the required 80 percent
necessary for approval.
Mr. Kersulis continued and: (1) discussed the footprint of the existing property and passed out
photos of other properties which he feels are also nonconforming; (2) in response to a question
from Comm. Rue, stated that he measured the sideyard of Lot 35 to be two fee t , nine inches: (3)
said that the north sideyard of Lot 34 is two feet, five inches, however, it is now only about a
foot and a half because of new construction of a brick wall next door: (4) said that
measurements were taken from the sides of the houses to the existing fences; (5) stated that no
formal survey points were used: (6) said that when the entire neighborhood was built in 1948.
every house had a nonconforming sideyard, by today's standards of a ten foot setback
requirement.
Mr. Kersulis continued and: (1) said that Lot 32 on the north side has a three foot, six inch
sideyard: (2) said that it is impossible to tell what the setback is on Lot 30, however, it also
appears to be nonconforming; (3) said that every house on the block is consistently wrong with
regard to setbacks.
Comm. Moore asked why this request is not being heard as a variance request.
Miriam Mulder, project architect, addressed the Commission and: (1) explained that after
discussing this project with the planning department, she was told that it would be appropriate
P.C. Minutes 7 /3/90
to request an exception rather than a variance; (2) explained that she was informed that in
order to achieve a continuation of a wall that is nonconforming and yet iS over the three feet.
one asks for the exception rather than a variance: (3) said that she was also told that the
exception was the simpler method by which to proceed than the requesting of a variance
because the fees are lower and no public hearing would be necessary; (4) said that she was
encouraged by the planning staff to go for the exception. which was what they needed to achieve
to build straight up as opposed to setting the second story in for the 19-foot section of the
building.
Comm. Rue asked whether the applicant would be willing to have a survey done in order to
prove his point about the sizes of the five setbacks in question. He stated that. as he reads the
code, those five setbacks need to be less than what this applicant is proposing to maintain and
expand upon.
Mr. Lee said that the code section refers to "75 percent of the block as defined by the wning
ordinance." He said that the section which defines ''block" is very specific, and he read the code
section definition of "block." From his reading of the section, he felt that the block is from
street to street on the side of the street which the property faces.
Comm. Rue asked whether it would also take into account the back of the block, to which Mr.
Schubach replied that that would be the strict defmition if one read the dictionary definition
of the word.
Mr. Kersulis went on and: ( I) said that his interpretation of the section is that if at least 75
percent of the block as defined by the zoning ordinance has the same nonconforming
sideyards, or has the same or smaller of either/or, (2) said that 75 percent of the houses between
20th street and the school, from a visual examination, appear to have nonconforming
sideyards.
Comm. Rue asked whether the sideyards are nonconforming, or whether they are smaller than
what the applicant is proposing.
Mr. Kersulis felt that the sideyards fall within the same nonconforming sideyard which he
has.
Comm. Rue stated, then, that the sizes would need to be proven before the exception can be
approved, and he did not feel that such proof has been submitted.
Mr. Kersulis stated that some of the photos do specify the measurements, noting that they are
less than what ls required by the zoning code.
Chmn. Ingell pointed out, however, that the Commissions' interpretation differs in that the
question is whether the inches are smaller than the applicant's, not whether the percentage of
the block is nonconforming.
Mr. Kersulis pointed out that a survey would be very expensive.
Comm. Moore felt that a variance could be granted in this case. He could not understand why
the architect was advised to apply for the exception in this case.
Mr. Schubach explained that in the past many similar variance requests were denied because
the appropriate findings could not be made; therefore, the City Council recommended a code
provision allowing exceptions in such cases.
Comm. Moore stated that he could make the appropriate findings in this case, noting that there
is three feet which would allow emergency vehicle access.
11 P.C. Minutes 7 /3/90
Mr. Lee stated that the Commission needs to focus on the physical characteristics of the lot
which would allow for an encroachment at the second-story level , based upon the standard side
yard area. irrespective of the existing nonconforming status of the ground floor. He stated that
it is necessary to deten:nine whether the nonconformity should be allowed at the second story.
He said that if findings can be made for the second story to encroach into the sideyard setback.
it would be necessary to focus on whether the configuration of the lot warrants such a
nonconformity. He stated that it is necessary to focus on the physical characteristics of the
property in regard to variances. He cautioned the Commission against confusing a variance
with an exception.
Mr. Kersulis went on and: ( 1) said that the rules are meant to be taken in a certain spirit, and
the spirit that this falls within does not change the feel of the neighborhood or affect anyone:
(2) noted that he is asking for only 22 square feet, a very small portion of the property.
Ms. Mulder again addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that she was not given the
definition of "block" as read by Mr. Lee: (2) said. that they based their interpretation upon what
was on the rest of the block, noting that they are all different widths: (3) noted that it is not
clear whether the requirements refer to percentages or measurements.
Public Hearing closed at 8:45 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
Comm. Moore felt that the code interpretation is fairly straightforward. in that the issue has to
do with distance, not percentage of distance. He said that sideyard requirements are not for
parking: rather they are for air circulation and emergency access.
Comm. Rue stated that this building is on a large lot, with only about 22 percent lot coverage.
He felt that it ls preferable to maintain this building rather than to have something much
larger go in there and thereby reduce the large percentage of open space. He felt that so long as
public safety is upheld, approval should be granted. He suggested that action first be taken on
the garage issue.
MOTION by Comm. Moore, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve staffs recommendation
approving the variance request for the garage.
AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION by Comm. Rue as second, and accepted by Comm. Moore as
maker, to add wording to Resolution P.C. 90-53, Item B (second Item B). stating that there is an
existing 22 percent lot coverage with a great deal of open space, and it is desired by the
Commission to maintain the building size and the existing footprint.
Mr. Schubach suggested that that be an additional condition in the resolution.
Comm. Rue further pointed out that the resolution has two Item "B''s, and that should be
corrected by staff.
Comm. Moore felt that financial impact should be considered versus the City gain. He noted
that this is a functioning garage, and there is no sensible reason to force this applicant to jog
the entire wall in nine inches so that it conforms. He therefore stated that he could support the
sideyard variance also.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Moore, Rue, Chmn. Ingell
None
None
Comms. Ketz, Peirce
Comm. Rue felt that if there is a chance for the sideyard to be approved as a variance request, it
is necessary to rehear that matter as a variance.
12 P.C. Minutes 7 /3/90
/
Mr. Lee stated that the sideyard issue has been noticed as an exception. If the Commission
desires to hear it as a variance, he suggested that discussion be withheld at this time and that
the matter be renoticed as a variance hearing.
Comm. Rue asked whether it is appropriate to waive the variance application filing fee.
Mr. Schubach stated that he would need to check on whether the fee could be waived. He noted,
however, that the applicant would still need to pay the noticing fee.
Comm. Moore asked, if both items had been requested as a variances originally, whether it
would have been just one variance fee, to which Mr. Schubach stated that it probably would
have just been one fee.
Mr. Kersulis addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that his neighbors have no objection, so
noticing is probably not necessary, to which Chmn. Ing ell replied that noticing is a legal
requirement; (2) explained that he was encouraged to apply for an exception.
Mr. Lee suggested that the matter be continued so that both staff and the applicant can further
study the applicable code sections.
Mr. Schubach stated that if the matter is continued, staff can return with an interpretation on
this matter.
Mr. Kersulis said that he has no objection to continuing this matter for two weeks.
MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Moore, to continue the encroachment issue to the
meeting of July 17, 1990.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Moore, Rue, Chmn. Ingell
None
None
Comms. Ketz, Peirce
THIRD QUARTER GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
Mr. Schubach stated that the third quarter general plan amendments for 1990 will be coming
up in August . Staff has tentatively scheduled the housing element and the remaining
inconsistent areas east of Valley Drive for consideration.
If the Planning Commission has any further areas or issues that it desires to be considered for
amendment, staff should be directed as deemed appropriate.
Mr. Schubach stated that staff is currently working on the housing element as well as the land
use element.
Comm. Rue asked whether the Commissioners would receive any advance materials to study
before the hearing, to which Mr. Schubach stated that materials will be provided next week.
Hearing opened and closed by Chmn. Ingell, who noted that no one came forward to speak on
this issue.
MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Chmn. Ingell, to receive and file. No objections; so
ordered.
13 P.C. Minutes 7 /3/90
STAFF ITEMS
a) Request to PlannJnf CommJssioners' Inquiries
Comm. Rue discussed the parking at 2nd Street and The Strand. He asked whether the Public
Works Department will be doing a warrant check on the signal at 2nd Street, to which Mr.
Schubach stated that such a recommendation needs to be sent to the City Council.
MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Chmn. Ingell, to recommend that a warrant check be done
at 2nd Street so that slower traffic is encouraged in that area. No objections: so ordered.
b) Memorandum Repntluf City-Wide CUrb-Side RecycJlof
No action taken.
c) Correspondence from Sandra Aden Refardlnf Two-Unit Condominium at 126
Manhattan Avenue
No action taken.
d) Plannlof Department Activity Report for May 1990
No action taken.
e) City Council/Plannlnf Commission Workshop
Chmn. Ingell noted that the workshop will be August 8, 1990, at 7:00 P.M.
Comm. Moore asked whether attendance is mandatory at the workshop meeting, explaining
that he will be unable to attend, to which Mr. Schubach replied that the workshop is not the
same as a Planning Commission meeting, and attendance is therefore not counted toward the
yearly absence total. He noted, however that staff would need to confirm this fact.
f) Memorandum Regard.int Plannfna Commission Liaison for July 10, 1990. City Council
Meetinf
No action taken.
g) Tentative Future Plannin4 Commission Afenda
No action taken.
h) City Council Minutes of March 5. June 7, and June 12. 1990
No action taken.
COMMISSIONER ITEMS
Comm. Rue asked what the City has been doing to encourage water conseivatlon, to which Mr.
Schubach stated he would look into that issue.
Comm. Rue asked what has happened to the City's newsletter, to which Mr. Schubach explained
that another issue will be coming out soon. Comm. Rue stated that the newsletter would be a
good mechanism by which to promote water conservation and recycling programs throughout
the City. He suggested that staff mention that those items be placed in the newsletter. along
with the information that a State mandate will soon be in place regarding water conservation.
14 P.C. Minutes 7 /3/90
Comm. Moore noted concern over absences, explaining that he is aware of three future
meetings which he will be unable to attend because of business conflicts. With bis one absence
so far this year, the three additional absences which he can foresee could be enough to oust him
from the Commission, which he would hate to have happen. He noted that he will be absent on
August 7, September 18, and October 16.
Chmn. Ingell noted that the four absences per year rule was imposed because of an isolated case
of a commissioner frequently being absent. He noted that Comm. Moore has done an
outstanding job on the Commission, and he therefore suggested that a letter be sent to the City
Council asking that Connn. Moore's absences be excused.
MOTION by Comm. Moore, seconded by Comm. Rue, to adjourn at 9: 12 P.M. No objections; so
ordered.
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and complete record of the action
taken by the Planning Commission of Hermosa Beach at the regularly scheduled
meeting of July 3, 1990.
Date
15 P.C. Minutes 7 /3/90
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA
BEACH HELD ON JULY 17, 1990, AT 7:00 P.M. IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL
CHAMBERS
Meeting called to order at 7:00 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
Pledge of Allegiance led by Comm. Ketz.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Absent:
Comms. Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Chmn. Ingell
Comm. Rue
Also Present: Michael Schubach, Planning Director; Edward Lee, Assistant City Attorney; Sally White,
Recording Secretary
CONSENT CALENDAR
Comms. Ketz and Peirce stated that they would abstain from voting on the consent calendar because they were absent
from the meeting of July 3, 1990.
Mr. Lee suggested that the consent calendar be continued, noting that a quorum was not present for approval.
Chmn. Ingell, noting that one commissioner was absent, stated that approval of the consent calendar would be
continued to the next meeting.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC
No one appeared to address the Commission.
CON 90-1 --CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP
#21787 FOR A TWO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 952 8TH STREET CCONTINUED FROM
MEETING OF FEBRUARY 6. 1990}
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated July 9, 1990. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve the
conditional use permit for a two-unit condominium and vesting tentative parcel map, subject to the conditions
specified in the proposed resolution.
This project is located in the R-2B zone, with a general plan designation of medium density residential. The lot size
is 6882 square feeL EighL parking spaces are provided. Open space provided is 1300 square feet The current use is
as a triplex. The environmental determination is categorically exempt.
This project was continued from the meeting of February 6, 1990, because the subject property was included in the
moratorium limiting height to 25 feet in certain R-2 and R-2B zones adjacent to R-1 zones. The moratorium was
for the purpose of studying height limits and view obstruction issues in these situations. After much study and
consideration of proposals to modify height measurement methods, the Council chose not to take any action.
Consequently, the moratorium has expired as of June 27, 1990, and this project may proceed as originally submitted.
The subject property is a through lot with access from both 7th Street and 8th Street. It is rectangular in shape and
slopes toward the southwest, enjoying views to both the ocean and the Palos Verdes Hills.
The two proposed units contain 3090 and 3571 square feet and consist of two stories above a garage. They are
designed like two single-family homes, as each unit has access to a street. The units contain three bedrooms and two
and a half baths.
1 P.C. Minutes 7/17/90
The proposed building elevations exhibit a stucco exterior, mission tile roofing, and decorative balcony railings,
giving the buildings a "Mediterranean" style.
The plans indicate front yard setbacks of ten feet from both 7th Street and 8th Street, with second-story balconies
encroaching to within five feet. Staff believes these setbacks are adequate and consistent with these streets. Existing
setbacks alon g 7th Street range fr om ze ro to 20 fee t , and the average calc ulates to be a bout 10.5 feet 'Three newer
condo proj ects on the west s ide of th e street we re required to provide 10-foot setbacks. The average setback for 8th
Street calculates to be approximately 7.5 feet on the south side and nine feet on the north side.
Required parking is provided in two-car garages for each unit, oriented to each street. Two guest spaces are provided
for each unit in the 17-foot setback behind the garages. One on-street parking space will be lost on 8th Street, while
none will be lost on 7th street as the proposed driveway will replace the existing driveway.
The project complies with all other planning and zoning requirements. Lot coverage is 58 percent; adequate open
space is provided on decks, including roof decks; and adequate storage space is provided on the ground floors.
A bonus room and utility room is provided in the basement level of Unit B, with sliding glass door access to the
outside. No bathroom or shower is included. To minimize bootleg potential, staff recommended a condition that the
exterior access be eliminated.
This type of project is consistent with other through lots on this block, many of which have been split into two
lots, and it is consistent with the character of the surrounding R-2B area to the south, east, and west.
Public Hearing opened at 7:06 P .M. by Chmn. Ingell.
Larry Jamison, 608 South Lucia, applicant, addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that staff explained the project
quite well; (2) noted that he would be happy to answer any questions; (3) said that he has no objections to the staff-
recommended conditions.
Di ane Olson, 814 Ocean Drive, a ddress ed the Commiss ion and: (1) opposed the project based on the 30-foot height,
noting that she will lose her view and the reby her property value will be decreas ed ; (2) said that 8th Street is alrea dy
a "canyon" with a great deal of traffic; (3) noted that 8th Street is a very narrow, one-way street; (4) read aloud the
City's vision, which was adopted by the City Council on October 23, 1986, and she said that this project is in direct
opposition to that view; (5) felt that approval of this project would prove that the City no longer cares about
fulfilling its promises.
Terry Trumbell, 801 Ocean Drive, addressed the Commission and: (1) opposed the project based on the fact that the
30-foot height will eliminate his ocean view; (2) objected to the project for the same reasons as noted by Ms. Olson.
Public Hearing closed at 7: 10 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell .
Comm. Moore stated that this project does not even come close to reaching the allowed height limit of 30 feet. He
noted, however, that even with the project being lower than 30 feet, some views will undoubtedly be lost as a result
of these units being built He noted that views would be lost even if the height were kept to 25 feet. He reiterated
his sentiments concerning the fact that projects cause opposition from small groups of people who are directly
affected; however, there has been no widespread desire throughout the City to implement downzoning.
Comm. Moore stated that this is a fine project and one which is within the parameters of all rules and regulations of
the City.
MOTION by Comm. Moore, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to approve staffs recommendation, Resolution P.C . 90-
55, as submitted.
Chmn. Ingell agreed that this is a very nice project and one which does not come close to reaching the 30-foot height
limit.
2 P .C. Minutes 7 /17 /90
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Chmn. Ingell
None
None
Comm. Rue
Chmn. Ingell stated that this decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed by writing to the City Council
within ten days.
CON 90-12 --CONDITIONAL USE PERMlT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP
#22216 FOR A TWO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 830 CYPRESS AVENUE
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated July 10, 1990. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve the
conditional use permit for a two-unit condominium and vesting tentative parcel map, subject to the conditions in the
proposed resolution.
This project is located in the R-3 zone, with a general plan designation of high density residential. The lot size is
3150 square feet. Five parking spaces are provided. Open space provided is 802 square feet. The current use is as a
single-family dwelling. The environmental determination is categorically exempt.
The subject property is rectangular in shape, with a ten percent slope upward from front to back.
The two proposed units are similar in size and layout. Unit A contains 1832 square feet and includes three
bedrooms, three and a half bathrooms, and a roof deck. Unit Bis slightly larger and contains 2070 square feet, three
bedrooms, a mezzanine, and four bathrooms.
The proposed building elevations exhibit a stucco exterior, a slightly pitched roof with mission tiles, and dark
anodized aluminum windows with trim. The overall design is very similar to the project approved and constructed at
852 Cypress, slightly modified to add the accents of mission tile roofing and window trim. The overall style can be
characterized as contemporary with some Mediterranean accents.
The plans indicate a front yard setback of five feet, which would be the same as the project at 852 Cypress, approved
in 1988. Existing setbacks along the street average less than five feet; for example, the existing house on the
subject lot has a setback of less than one foot.
Required parking is provided in two, two-car garages oriented to the middle of the lot. One open guest space is
provided at the end of the nine-foot driveway. No on-street parking will be lost, as the proposed driveway will
replace the existing driveway.
Both units include extra bedrooms with a bathroom at the ground floor behind the garages. Since access is provided
only through the garage, the potential for conversion to bootleg units is minimal. To further minimize this
potential, staff is recommending a condition that the shower in the bathroom in Unit B be eliminated.
The project complies with all other planning and zoning requirements. Lot coverage is 64.3 percent; adequate open
space is provided on private decks; and enclosed storage is provided. However, a revised site plan needs to be
provided with corrected building and setback dimensions consistent with the floor plans. Also, revised plans need to
show that a minimum of 200 cubic feet of storage is provided.
The surrounding area consists of a mix of older single-family dwellings and multi-unit apartments and
condominiums. The proposed project is consistent with the character of the area.
Mr. Schubach added that it was difficult for staff to gain access to the rear yard. It has now been determined that
there are a great number of trees in the rear yard. Staff therefore recommended a condition that all existing trees in
the rear yard be shown on the landscape plan, and that any tree removal or replacements for those removed from that
area shall be subject to review and approval of the Planning Director.
Public Hearing opened at 7:16 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
3 P.C. Minutes 7/17/90
Gerry Compton, 200 Pier Avenue, project architect, addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that the trees in the
rear yard will be shown on the landscape plan, as well as those which need to be removed and replaced; (2) objected
to staffs recommendation that the shower be removed from the ground-floor level of Unit B; (3) in response to
questions from Comm. Moore, discussed I.he issue of privacy walls and I.heir effectiveness, and he stated that he has
heard no complaints from owners of other similar units; (4) explained that this 30-by 100-foot lot is a con.6guration
which is difficult to work with, especially in regard to obtaining open space on the ground; (5) noted that on lots of
this size, it is necessary to span across the units to provide adequate open space; (6) related to the staff-recommended
condition that the bathroom in Unit B be removed, explained that there is a bedroom very close to that balhroom,
and there is no logic in requiring its removal, thereby making it necessary for one to have to cross the entire unit to
get to a bathroom; (7) noted that Unit A does not have a bathroom on the ground floor simply because there was not
enough room.
Public Hearing closed at 7:21 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
Comm. Peirce, noting that he usually objects to bathrooms on the ground floor, stated that in this particular case he
has no objection because the area is very small and is not likely to become a bootleg unit.
MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve staffs recommendation, Resolution P.C. 90-
56 , with the following changes: That Condition 1 l(c) be deleted; and a condition shall be added specifying I.hat all
existing trees in the rear yard shall be shown on the landscape plan, and that any tree removal, or replacements for
those removed from that area, shall be subject to review and approval of the Planning Director.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Chmn. Ingell
None
None
Comm. Rue
CUP 90-19 --CONDITIONAi, USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW SALES OF
MOTORCYCLES, ACCESSORIES, AND MINOR REPAIR AT 638-640 PACIFIC COAST
HIGHWAY. SOUTH BAY CYCLES
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated July 11, 1990. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve a
conditional use permit amendment, subject to the conditions specified in the proposed resolution.
Mr. Schubach also suggested several alternatives: (1) to continue the request to require a subsequent environmental
assessment of the potential noise impacts associated with the testing and test driving of motorcycles; or (2) to deny
the request because of the unique and unusual noise characteristics of motorcycles and the proximity of residential
uses.
This project is located in SPA Area 7. The general plan designa tion is commercial corridor. The present use is
vacant The building size is 2400 square feet, and six parking spaces are provided. The environmental determination
is categorically exempt, as a negative declaration was approved for the existing conditional use permit.
On January 16, 1990, the Planning Commission approved a conditional use permit and negative declaration for the
remodel of the existing structure for an automobile agency with the operation to be conducted indoors.
The original owner of the property has since sold the property and the rights to the CUP to another owner.
The new owner of the property has completed the bulk of the proposed building plan that was approved as part of the
CUP. The structure has been rehabilitated and reduced in size. A much improved facade has been constructed and a
paved parking area has been provided in the rear to provide parking for a building which previously had none.
The applicant is proposing a business which involves the sale of used late model customized Harley Davidson
motorcycles and would include the sale of parts and accessories. The applicant is also requesting to conduct light
repair.
4 P.C. Minutes 7/17/90
The zoning ordinance does not specifically identify motorcycle sales on the permitted use list. although motorcycle
repair is identified, subject to a CUP. Automobile, boat and truck sales are identified and pennitted with a CUP. In
staffs judgment, motorcycle sales is sufficiently similar to auto, boat. or truck sales to enable the Planning
Commission to interpret motorcycle sales as a permitted use, subject to a CUP.
The sale and repair services would all be conducted indoors in the same areas previously approved for sale of
automobiles. Given that the approved CUP was also for motor vehicles, staff determined that this request would be
similar in impact and therefore processed it as an amendment to the existing CUP without any additional
environmental assessment.
After further examination of the request, staff believes that the motorcycle business actually may result in greater
noise impacts than the approved automobile business because of the nature of the vehicles. It should be noted that
noise limits for motor vehicles on the public right-of-way, as stated in the City's noise ordinance, are regulated by
the California Vehicle Code. Therefore, only the noise generated from the subject property is subject to the decibel
limits of the noise ordinance. Staff believes these impacts can be mitigated through the conditions of a CUP with
the cooperation of the business owner. Such conditions would prohibit the testing or the revving up of engines on
the premises.
The Planning Commission, however, may determine that the difference between motorcycles and automobiles is
significant enough to warrant further environmental assessment and perhaps a noise study prior to making a final
decision.
Otherwise, the business is properly located in the highest intensity commercial area in the City and is surrounded by
similar automotive-related uses. The building has been improved, and adequate landscaping has been provided in the
rear. If there is to be a motorcycle business in the City, this is the appropriate location. The proposed building and
the site are clearly adequate in size to support this business, with adequate indoor area to conduct minor repair work.
Staff included several conditions in the proposed recommended resolution to address potential problems associated
with this business. These include a limitation on the light repair to only consist of the removal and installation of
motorcycle accessories and parts not related to the moving parts of the vehicle such as the engine and wheels and
lubrication, and that such work may only be conducted inside with the doors closed. Also, standard conditions
normally associated with auto agencies have been included to prohibit engine revving on the premises. Additionally,
the rear parking area shall remain clear of all parts and merchandise, shall be for parking only, and loitering shall be
prohibited. Also, the requirement for a three-month review is included.
Attached to the staff report was a lelter from the adjacent property owner regarding a private easement for ingress and
egress on the southerly ten feet of the subject property. This is essentially a private matter between adjacent
property owners. However, in response to the concerns of Mr. McNeill, no part of the easement is proposed for
parking, and conditions are included which prohibit the use of the parking area for merchandise display. Whether or
not the rear end of this easement can be used for a trash enclosure is arguable and is a private matter. If it cannot be
used for a dumpster, an alternative location on the site will have to be found to satisfy the City's requirement for an
enclosed trash dumpster.
Mr. Schubach noted that staff has expressed concern over the discovery of some barstools in the building. He stated
that staff would not want to see any bar and barstools or tables and chairs inside this building. Staff has no
objection to coffee being served to waiting customers; however, staff recommended a condition prohibiting any bar
and barstools or tables and chairs for the purpose of serving customers.
Public Hearing opened at 7:29 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
William Campbell, 513 Dianlhus, Manhauan Beach, owner and applicant, addressed the Commission and: (I) in
response to a question from Comm . Moore related to his experience operating this type of business , stated lhat he
has worked in a similar business in the past; (2) stated that he is fully confident of his ability to control the clientele
in order to keep noise to a minimum; (3) noted that he will be at the business full time and will have full control
over the establishment; (4) stated that he would like to remove the parking from the rear of the business and have the
parking on Pacific Coast Highway; (5) noted that most of the noise is already on lhe highway, and that is the most
logical location for parking; (6) stressed that he will have control over the customers and noise because he will be at
the business.
5 P.C. Minutes 7/17/90
Nellie Schroll, 824 7th Street, addressed the Commission and objected to the project on the following grounds: (1)
her home is directly behind the proposed business and there is excessive noise generated by this business; (2)
motorcyclists congregate at this business and create problems; (3) riders race up 7th Street creating a dangerous
condition; (4) damage was done to her property by the applicants when they were working on their business, and it
has not been properly repaired.
Mike Dauteuil, 831 6th Street, president of his condominium homeowners association, addressed the Commission
and: (I) noted concern over excessive noise already at this project, including construction noise which has been
going on late in the evening; (2) stated that the sound of the motorcycles is amplified and bounces off the walls,
which makes it very noisy, even during the day; (3) noting that there is already noise, he expressed concern over the
potential increase; (4) noted concern over test driving up and down the streets of the area; (5) noted that, even though
the applicant has good intentions, stated that he is not now in control and the business is not yet even officially
opened; (6) presented a petition with signatures of people in the neighborhood opposed to the granting of the CUP
for this business; (7) stated that there is already too much traffic and noise on the highway; (8) noted concern over
the City's ability to monitor the noise limits; (9) favored staffs suggestion that a noise study be done before any
approval is considered; (10) questioned the enforcement ability of the City; (11) said that the residents will be
adversely affected by this business; (12) noted concern over the types of people who will be drawn to the business
and possible loitering.
Ann O'Dell, 831 6th Street, Unit 5, addressed the Commission and: (1) agreed with the comments expressed by Mr.
Dauteuil; (2) said that she has been awakened by construction and motorcycles late at night and early in the morning;
(3) noted concern that 6th and 7th Streets will be used for test drives; (4) felt that a repair shop will only add to an
already very noisy area; (5) objected to the barstools on the grounds that it will serve to create a breeding spot and
create more noise; (6) objected to approval of a CUP and requested that the shop not be allowed to open.
Jeannine Bringman, 831 6th Street, addressed the Commission and: (1) appreciated the work that has gone into the
conditions; however, she noted concern that the owner will not be able to enforce the conditions; (2) stated that
Harleys are beautiful machines and people will want to test drive them after work has been done on them; (3) said
that Hatleys are the loudest bikes there are; (4) stressed that enforcement will cost the City money to police every
single condition in the CUP; (5) asked the Commission to consider living directly behind this shop and having to
listen to the noise generated by the motorcycles.
Kenny Bornstein, owner of Auto Works at 501 1/2 Pacific Coast Highway, addressed the Commission and: (1)
welcomed this business in the area; (2) said that the noise limits set by the State of California are the same for all
types of vehicles; (3) in response to comments from Comm. Peirce related to why motorcycles are significantly
louder than cars, stated that he was unable to provide an explanation as to why motorcycles are louder; (4) stated that
there is enforcement related to noise of motorcycles, especially related to mufflers; however, he was unable to
explain precisely what the requirements are; (5) said that people appear to be more afraid of the types of people who
might be attracted to the business rather than noise generated by the business; (6) stressed that businesses have been
very slow, and it would be appropriate to give this owner and applicant a chance; (7) said that he has no objection to
the chairs in the business, noting that other businesses have chairs and there are no problems.
Suzy Compton, 7th Street, addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that there is excessive noise generated from
this business; (2) related to the Commission her confrontation with someone at the business, and his extreme
rudeness to her; (3) submitted for inclusion into the public record a written copy of the events surrounding the
confrontation; (4) noted that several years ago the City Council adopted a policy to make Hermosa Beach a less
dense, more family-oriented area; (5) did not see how in any way approval of this CUP would contribute to a more
family-oriented atmosphere; (6) stated that this business will generate excess noise and traffic, and that combined
with the obvious disregard shown by these applicants toward the neighbors will greatly diminish the quality of life
for the residents.
Sharmine Williams, partner in the business, addressed the Commission and: (1) apologized for the late-night noise,
explaining that they are under a construction deadline; (2) staled that they were unaware of the neighbors' complaints
related to the late-night noise, but she noted it will not continue; (3) felt that it would be a good solution to park the
motorcycles on P.C.H. rather than in the rear of the property in an effort to reduce the noise; (4) said they would be
willing to cooperate with the neighbors; (5) said that they could post signs showing the approved test-drive routes;
(6) discussed the stools in the shop, stating that many times people have to wait a long time and do not have other
6 P.C. Minutes 7/17/90
transportation; therefore, it is nice to have a place for them to sit and wait; (7) discussed noise created by the mufflers
and stated that in order to have a bike registered , it must comply with registration requirements; (8) stated that she
was unaware of the confrontation described by Mrs. Compton; (9) in response to a question from Comm. Peirce
related to why the majority of people feel that motorcycles are much louder than cars, stated that there are certain
legal noise regulations , and people can be cited for noncompliance; (10) said that they have no intention of making
motorcycles louder than they can be as mandate.d by the law; ( 11) said that she does not have the expertise to answer
questions related to noise requirements and regulations.
Maiko Saravia, mechanic, addressed the Commission and: (1) responded to questions from Comm. Peirce related to
DMV requirements for noise compliance regulations, stating that a noise detector is used to check the noise; (2)
explaine.d how muffler pipes are checked for noise emission; (3) said that the DMV checks bikes for registration, but
he was unsure whether any noise measurement devices are used; (4) clarified that if someone is cited for a noise
violation, they must go to the OMV for inspection; (5) said that someone will definitely get a ticket for having
straight pipes (which creates excessive noise); (6) said that the Highway Patrol checks bikes for noise infractions.
Ms. Williams again addressed the Commission and: (1) responded to questions from Comm. Moore related to noise
and what could be done to ensure that noise would be reduced; (2) said that bikes can come in from the front as well
as the rear, (3) said that bikes could be walked down the driveway to the rear parking area.
Mr. Campbell again addressed the Commission and: (1) explained that he is also a contractor and he built the
driveway; (2) noted that there is a slope into the driveway, and customers can start from the back and walk to the
front of the business; (3) stressed, however, that he can handle the noise problems and he suggested that there be a
three-month review to ensure that there is compliance; (4) was infonned by Comm. Moore, however, that the
Commissions' concerns lie with the fact that this CUP could be sold to another owner who may not have control;
(5) stated that people are complaining about noise which is not generated from this business, explaining that noise
comes from the car wash and from other people along the highway.
Mr. Campbell continued and: (1) stated that Hennosa Beach police are delighted about this business since they now
drive Harleys; (2) said that these bikes are expensive and undesirables will not be attracted to the business.
Mr. Saravia addressed the Commission and: (1) responded to Comm. Moore's questions related to the points raised
by Mrs. Compton and the confrontation; (2) stated that he only told her he was trying to open a business and earn a
legal living; (3) in response to a question from Comm. Peirce, stated that his molOrcycle is legal; however, Comm.
Peirce countered that his so-called legal bike prompted a neighbor to walk down the street to complain, and he asked
for an explanation.
Mr. Campbell stated it is not fair to accuse Mr. Saravia of not having a legal bike, noting that there is no way to
judge that issue. •
Comm. Peirce noted concern that a neighbor had to walk down the street to voice a complaint against the noise.
Mr. Campbell stated that people are just against Harley Davidsons in general. He continued by stating that he got a
petition signed by all the business owners along the highway from Aviation to 190th Street, and they are all in favor
of this business. He noted that the only objections are from the neighbors to the rear of the business. He stated that
he purchased this property as C-3, and he thought this was a commercial zone. He stated that he decided not to sell
autos since auto sales are down; therefore, he now wants to sell motorcycles. He continued by stating that the noise
is already present; it is not being created by this business.
Mr. Campbell stated that he is willing to stand behind his investment, and he can control the noise. He said that the
City can review the CUP in three months to ensure his compliance.
Mr. Campbell stated that he planted trees in the rear in an effort to mitigate the noise to the rear. He felt that the
City is trying to push him out of the city.
Mary Herbert, 825 7th Street, addressed the Commission and: (1) did not want to give anyone a hard time with his
business; however, she lives in this area and the noise is getting louder and louder; (2) noted concern that there will
be additional molOrcycles and attendant noise; (3) stated that the noise is disrupting her life; (4) said that people will
test drive up 7th Street and go around the block and will present safety problems for the children and animals in the
7 P.C. Minutes 7/17/90
area; (5) said that people on P.C.H. favor the project, but they do not live there; (6) stated that this business will
decrease her property value.
Richard Barks, 901 5th Street, addressed the Commission and: (1) discussed noise requirements for Harleys and said
that they are one of the noisiest bikes made; (2) said that people comply when new bikes are purchased, however,
accessory pipes can be purchased and added on later which exceed the noise limits; (3) said that if someone is pulled
over and cited, then they would have to go for an inspection; (4) strongly objected to any work being done on the
bikes at the shop; (5) had no objection to sales of clothing and accessories, but he said that actual work on the bikes
will create a tremendous amount of noise; (6) said that P.C.H. is already very noisy; (7) said that the engine design
of Harleys is very noisy; (8) felt that they should not be allowed to do any work or customizing on site; (9) in
response to a question from Comm. Peirce, stated that no special tests are required for motorcycles before they can be
sold; (10) explained how various motorcycles are made and the modifications which can be done later.
Jim Housley, 934 7th Street, addressed the Commission and: (1) said that the CUP for the previously applied-for
auto sales had many restrictions which he felt should still apply; (2) said that someone cannot come in through the
front because they would be blocking the sidewalk. which is illegal; (3) noted that bikes in the rear will create noise;
(4) commented from experience and stated that there are no special noise requirements for motorcycles; (5) objected to
the additional traffic which will be created by this business; (6) hoped that restrictions could be implemented to
mitigate the noise.
Mr. Campbell stated that they will not be test driving up 7th Street, noting that no work will be performed. He said
that the only thing to be done is installation of chrome parts. He also noted that people will not cruise 7th Street;
they want to show off and drive on the highway.
Mr. Campbell, in response to questions from Comm. Peirce, stated that they will sell clothing, mufflers, and
everything which is chrome. All chrome products will also be installed. He stated that he will not install mufflers
which are too loud because they would then be shut down.
Earl Herbert, 825 7th Street, addressed the Commission and asked how the customers will be controlled when the
owners' bikes themselves are too noisy.
Bob Bringman, 831 6th Street, addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that people will need to accelerate in order
to leave the shop due to the traffic pattern along the hlghway; (2) said that he does not want to hear all of the
motorcycle traffic in bis neighborhood; (3) opposed the additional traffic which will be generated by this business.
Jackie Tegiaferro, 934 7th Street, addressed the Commission and: (1) agreed with the comments made by the other
neighbors; (2) said that other businesses on P.C.H. who favor this business do not have to live there.
Mr. Bornstein addressed the Commission and stated that the vehicle code prohibits any alterations to the emission
system, and any vehicles sold must meet requirements.
Gerry Compton, 832 7th Street, addressed the Commission and: (1) said that the owner of this business is suffering
under the duress of the what the neighbors have been subjected to for the past several years in regard to other
motorcycles and noise; (2) said that 7th Street is one of the few streets which goes all the way through with no cross
streets; (3) felt that running bikes up 7th Street can be controlled; (4) was happy to see this business building at that
location, noting that the applicant has spent a fortune in improvements; (5) noted that he would favor just about any
business, except a motorcycle shop, based on the noise factor; (6) was surprised that there is no requirement for a
sound wall; (7) said he is not willing to accept a situation which will be worse, and if it does become worse, he will
move; (8) said that it will be difficult for him to rent out his apartments if the noise gets worse; (9) noted surprise
that the s taff has said the Commission must interpret whether or not this use is allowed; (10) said that there is no
question about it; this business is not allowed per the code.
Mr. Compton continued and: (1) was surprised there was no text amendment allowing for this use; (2) strongly urged
that a posted test-drive route map, to be approved by the Planning Director, be posted at the business; (3) urged that
no tuning up of motorcycles be allowed; ( 4) said that no information was presented as to how much additional traffic
would be generated by this business; (5) asked that no use of residential streets be allowed for test driving; (6) said
that the idea of walking bikes to the rear would be appropriate; (7) felt that rear access should not be allowed, but
rather a gale could be installed to provide for side entrance; (8) said that there are ways to make the CUP strict,
8 P.C. Minutes 7/17/90
however, he did not feel that there is any way to mitigate the noise at his property specifically; (9) said that there is
no way to cite noise violators, since people will tum off the bikes if they see the police approaching with their noise
meters; (10) suggested that there be no running of the vehicles outside the building and that if there is excessive
noise, they should be required to install sound walls or other specific mitigation measures.
Public Hearing closed at 8:37 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
Comm. Peirce referred to the code, Page 501, where is states that a pennitted use is a motorcycle repair business,
with a conditional use permit required, subject to Article 10. He noted, however, that the code makes no mention of
motorcycle "sales." He stated that Page 499 of the code permits automobile sales; however, no reference is made to
motorcycle sales. He therefore felt that motorcycle sales are not allowed in the City since that use is not specifically
mentioned in the permitted use list
Mr. Lee stated that his office addressed this issue, explaining that most codes are not exhaustive as to the types of
uses allowed. When his office. was consulted, the planning staff was informed that the it is within the purview of
the Planning Commission to make an interpretation Telated to whether or not motorcycle sales is a use which is
similar to other uses already permitted in the zone. He continued by citing specific sections of the code related to
this issue.
Mr. Lee clarified that, if the Commission deems motorcycle sales to be compatible with other similar uses in the
same zone, the interpretation would be adopted by resolution and then forwarded to the City Council for ratification.
Comm. Peirce, noting the numerous complaints presented by the neighbors related to noise, stated that this use
should not be permitted unless adequate controls can be enforced.
Comm. Peirce noted concern that this business could end up becoming a gathering spot for motorcyclists and
attendant noise problems which cannot be controlled. He stated that unless adequate controls can be implemented,
this use would be a detriment to the homeowners living behind the shop.
Comm. Ketz agreed with Comm. Peirce, stating that unless the noise can be mitigated, this would not be an
appropriate use. She noted that noise concerns have been raised again and again in the City. She recalled that just
within the past year, establishments on P.C.H. have been required to install air conditioning and close their
windows. Also, she noted that the proposed car wash was required to mitigate noise. She therefore questioned
whether the noise factor from the motorcycles can actually be mitigated enough so as not to present a nuisance to the
neighbors.
Comm. Moore stated that it is not the purpose of the Planning Commission to design the layout of a business;
however, he felt that the noise problem would be mitigated if the running of engines is prohibited at some point on
the driveway toward the rear of the property. He also suggested that the business be required to post such a rule and
that the owner must be responsible for enforcement of the "no running engines" rule down the driveway. If such
conditions were imposed, he stated that he could support approval of the request. He noted that many conditions
have been included. No doubt the business will create an impact; however, he felt that this is a reasonable business
for the City to maintain. He also noted that this is the correct zone for such a business.
Comm. Moore continued by expressing concern over the enforcement of the rule against running engines down the
driveway. He said that the major issue on this point is that of customer parking. He mentioned the idea of the
parking of multiple motorcycles on P.C.H, noting that other such businesses use angled parking in front of their
businesses. He asked whether such a parking configuration is possible in the City, and if not, whether the code could
be amended to allow more than one motorcycle per striped parking space.
Mr. Schubach ex.plained that the Public Works Department oversees that issue, stating that he understands the code
permits only one motorcycle per stall. He stated that this restriction was implemented several years ago.
Comm. Moore stated that he would like further information on whether such a parking configuration could be used
before a final decision is made, explaining that the parking is a central issue in this request.
Mr. Schubach stated that the code does specify motorcycle spaces; however, he noted that he could investigate the
issue further and return with a definite answer.
9 P.C. Minutes 7/17/90
MOTION by Comm. Moore to approve the request, Resolution 90-57, with the addition of a condition requiring
that motorcycle engines be shut off at the halfway point of the driveway from the front comer of the building to
where it opens out into the rear parking lot; and that such requirement be clearly posted on the property and be
strictly enforced. He further suggested that a notice be sent to the proper City agency to investigate the
configuration of parking along P.C.H. to allow the parking of more than one motorcycle per space.
MOTION DIES FOR LACK OF A SECOND.
Comm. Peirce, noting that he did not second the motion, stated that he did feel such a motion would be a step in the
right direction if there is strong enforcement by the personnel of this business. He noted concern, however, that this
business could be sold in the future and the enforcement would not be as strict. He said that motorcycles by their
design seem to be noisier than cars. He did not feel it would appropriate to have City personnel spend a great deal of
time enforcing the noise and parking at this business, because he felt that there are other, more important matters for
them to be investigating. He noted that he did not want to encourage a potential problem, stating that the running
of motorcycles behind the business is not appropriate.
Chmn. Ingell felt that angled parking is crucial for Comm. Moore's motion to work. He felt that staffs suggestion
for a noise assessment would be appropriate. He noted that the owner has demonstrated that he is attempting to
make this business work. He said that he would like to see such a business be a success, and he noted that Harley
Davidsons now have a much better image than in the past. He further felt that it is necessary to address whether
angled parking on the highway is a viable solution at this location before a final decision is made.
Comm. Moore asked what type of noise assessment Chmn. Ingell is proposing, stating that such a study would
seem merely to be a method to delay the project.
Comm. Peirce recalled that the applicants for the proposed Mobil car wash were requested by the Commission to
return with information proving that the use could meet the noise requirements. He felt that such a requirement
would be appropriate in this case also.
Comm. Moore pointed out that the applicant in this case has said he would be willing to operate the business with
no running of engines in the rear parking lot.
Comm. Peirce stated that he would be satisfied with a survey with proof that there would be no violation of the
noise ordinance when there is motorcycle acceleration away from the curb in front of the business at the rear property
line.
Chmn. Ingell referred to the Mobil study also, stating that they did surveys at other similar businesses. He noted
that he is not trying to delay the project; however, he wanted additional information before a decision is made.
Comm. Moore stated that there appears to be no noise enforcement of motorcyclists when they are on the highway.
He felt that the only viable solution in this case, therefore, is to control the noise at the rear of this business. He
felt that such a condition would be easier to enforce and would be clear when the condition is being violated. He
suggested that monetary penalties be imposed if violations occur. He felt that imposition of such penalties would be
sufficient to motivate the owner to comply with the condition.
Comm. Peirce disagreed, stating that the the greater aggregation of motorcycles is something which cannot be
mitigated; and if that greater aggregation of motorcycles has any chance of violation of the noise code, then the use
is clearly incompatible in the zone. He therefore stressed the importance of obtaining additional information related
to whether or not they can meet the noise ordinance. Until such proof is submitted, he could not suppon approval.
Comm. Moore asked whether a comparative study of the experience of the motorcycle shop on Artesia Boulevard
would be satisfactory to ease the Commissions' concerns.
Comm. Peirce stated that he would leave the decision of which location to study up to the applicant, noting that it is
the responsibility of the applicants to prove to the Commission that they can meet the noise ordinance requirements.
P.C. Minutes 7/17/90
./
MOTION by Chmn. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to approve staffs alternative recommendation to continue
the request to require a subsequent environmental assessment of the potential noise impacts associated with the
testing and test driving of motorcycles; further, to request that additional information be provided related to the issue
of angled parking along the highway in front of the business.
Comm. Moore stated that he would vote against the motion because he was convinced that the relevant noise study
has to do with the running of engines on the property; furthermore, he could not see how a practical noise study
could be done as to what his customers using parking spaces along Pacific Coast Highway might do.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comm. Peirce, Chmn. Ingell
Comms. Ketz, Moore
None
Comm. Rue
(TIE VOTE; MOTION FAILS.)
MOTION by Comm. Ketz, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to deny the request.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Ketz, Peirce
Comm. Moore, Chmn. Ingell
None
Comm. Rue
(TIE VOTE; MOTION FAILS.)
Mr. Lee pointed out that the hearing could be continued to a future meeting when all five Commissioners are present
to vote on the matter.
MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to continue this matter to the Planning Commission
meeting of August 21, 1990, for the purpose of obtaining additional information.
Mr. Schubach stated that further information could be presented related to the DMV, CHP, and decibel readings for
motorcycles.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Chmn. Ingell
None
None
Comm. Rue
Recess taken from 9:05 P.M. until 9:15 P.M
PARK 90-4 --PARKING PLAN AMENDMENT FOR SHARED PARKING TO ALLOW AN
AEROBIC STUDIO AT 1310 -1314 PACIFIC COAST HTGHWAY
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated July 12, 1990. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission continue
this item to the meeting of August 7, 1990.
This project is located in the C-3 zone, with a general plan designation of general commercial. The present use is as
an office upstairs of 3500 square feet, with the remaining 6000 square feet vacant.
The lot size is 13,565 square feet. There are 24 parking spaces provided. The total building floor area is 9310 square
feet, and the floor area of the studio is 1600 square feet. The environmental determination is categorically exempt
On October 17, 1989, the Planning Commission approved a parking plan request for this proper.ty for a martial arts
studio in the 2900 square-foot leased space located closest to Pacific Coast Highway. The approval was based on the
11 P.C. Minutes 7/17/90
applicant's proposal to conduct individual training in the daytime and to limit class sizes to 15 students at night past
7:00 P.M. on weekdays and on weekends.
The applicant originally was going to occupy the 2900 square-foot leased space. However, since the time of
submittal, I.he owner decided to lease this space for an art gallery/art shop. At I.his time, the applicant is negotiating
to utilize some of the other vacant space in the center.
Since the applicant has not completed negotiations with the owner, staff could not properly analyze this request for a
parking plan amendment, as it is not known what square footage will be utilized for the aerobics studio and where it
will be located.
Additionally, pursuant to the recent amendment to the zoning code, health and fitness centers require a CUP.
Previously, health and fitness facilities were allowed as a matter of right in the C-3 zone. Staff accepted this
application for an amended parking plan assuming this use would go into the same building approved for the martial
arts studio.
Although this request was properly noticed and advertised, a request for a CUP was not included in the noticing.
Therefore, the CUP portion of this request must be heard at a future meeting to allow for proper noticing. Since the
next meeting is in three weeks, proper noticing can be done on time, and in order to save the applicant from
spending additional money, staff will mail the 300-foot radius notices.
Mr. Lee explained that no action can be taken since the proper procedures have not been completed.
MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve staffs recommendation to continue this matter
to the meeting of August 7, 1990.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Chmn. lngell
None
None
Comm. Rue
CUP 90-14 --CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ON-SALE BEER AND WINE IN
CONIJJNCTION WITH A RESTAURANT AND ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION AT 1433 HERMOSA AVENUE, J.B. BURGERS
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated July 11, 1990. Staff recommended denial of the requested conditional use
permit
This project is located in the C-2 zone, with a general plan designation of general commercial.
The lot size is 11,542 square feet, and the building size is approximately 1520 square feet. The current use is as a
restaurant, and there are 20 parking spaces. J.B. Burgers shares the subject lot with J.B.'s Mello Cream Donut
Shop.
At their meeting of June 7, 1990, the staff environmental review committee determined, based on the saturation of
alcohol establishments in the downtown area, that the impact of this proposal, although individually limited, is
cumulatively significant and recommended denial of the proposal.
The applicant is requesting to serve beer and wine in conjunction with an existing restaurant The applicant has
stated that the menu of the restaurant will be changed to a Mexican-style menu. The applicant indicates that the
serving of alcohol would only be in conjunction with food, and that the service would cease at 10:00 P.M.
The subject site is nonconforming to parking requirements, as twenty legitimate parking spaces are available and the
sum of the two restaurants contains about 3400 square feet. Also, no buffering exists to separate the parking lot
from the adjacent residential uses.
12 P.C. Minutes 7/17/90
The site plan submitted by the applicant is a schematic only and is not accurate as to dimensions, and it exaggerates
the amount of parking.
As the Commission is aware , the downtown area is already saturated with establishments serving alcobo1. At the
staff review meeting, the police department indicated serious concern with opening an additional establishment. as it
would place an additional burden on the police services and contribute to the problems of noise, public drunkenness,
and loitering. Also, it should be noted that the parking lot for this establishment is located immediately adjacent to
a residential use.
Over the past two years, the Planning Commission has approved CUPs for beer and wine in conjunction with
existing restaurants at 322 P.C.H. and at 200 Longfellow. Significantly , these establishments are outside the
saturated downtown area. Also, the Commission approved alcohol use in conjunction with the Hennosa Hotel and
will be considering a request for beer and wine in conjunction with a restaurant in the Hermosa Pavilion. These are
also outside the downtown area.
The City currently has approximately 80 establishments with alcohol licenses, and 26 of these are located in the
downtown area.
Although this request is for service of beer and wine at an existing food service establishment, which perhaps lessens
the effect of the alcohol use, once the license is authorized, it becomes very difficult to control how the license is
used. To do so requires the additional efforts of the police department and code enforcement by a staff which is
already over extended.
Mr. Schubach stated that supplemental infonnation had been given to the Commission from the police department
advising that there have been problems in the past related to the parking lot in this area. The police feel that these
problems could surface again if beer and wine is allowed at this location.
Mr. Schubach continued by explaining that a current Los Angeles City court case has now limited the conditional
use permit process to land use oriented issues when related to alcohol. He continued by explaining, therefore, that
staff has an alternative recommendation for approval. He suggested several findings for approval: (1) Whereas the
Planning Commission believes that the proposed on-sale liquor use compounds problems resulting from such
similar uses as bars and fast food restaurants within the already impacted area ; (2) and Whereas the issuance of a
liquor license is solely within the discretion of the Alcoholic Beverage Commission, now Therefore approval of this
conditional use permit shall not be deemed approval of the on-sale liquor license to be considered by the ABC.
Mr. Schubach stated that the City could then proceed to deny approval based on the grounds already specified.
Mr. Lee, in response to questions from Comm. Peirce, explained that his office is continuing to track the Los
Angeles case. He continued by explaining that the state code provides for local jurisdictions to control such uses
when there are legitimate municipal affairs involved. He said that it is difficult at this time, however, for the
Commission to take action to prevent such a use, but he noted that the use can be conditioned when there are
legitimate land use concerns. He cautioned that there cannot be denial based upon the saturation in this area.
Comm. Moore asked questions on other possibilities related to denial of the request, to which Mr. Schubach
responded with clarification.
Public Hearing opened at 9:27 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
John Bokolas, 1433 Hermosa Avenue, applicant, addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that he wants to serve
beer and wine along with dinner ; (2) said that the hours will only be 5:00 to 9:30, and no liquor will be served to the
general public; (3) stated that there is no bar at the location : (4) said that beer and wine can be purchased at other
nearby locations; (5) stated that there is adequate parking at this location; (6) said that beer and wine will be served at
the table, not self-service; (7) explained, in response to comments from Comm. Moore, that he plans to change the
menu and serve wine with meals; (8) said he will not make capital improvements.
Public Hearing closed at 9:30 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
Comm. Peirce asked for clarification on the options available to the Commission at this time.
13 P .C. Minutes 7 /17 /90
Mr. Schubach specified several alternatives: (1) to app.rove the request as previously suggested; (2) to continue the
matter and direct staff to return with additional conditions related to the land use itself, in addition to the standard
conditions; (3) to continue to an unspecified date when this court case is finally settled. He noted that similar CUPs
have been continued and are coming back to the Commission in September.
Mr. Lee, in response to questions from the Commission, explained the appeal process, as well as other viable
options available at this time.
Comm. Moore stated that the entire purpose of planning is to have a social, economic, and environmental balance in
a City. He therefore felt that it is desirable for a City to have control over what can be allowed in regard to
concentration of businesses.
Mr. Lee stated that his office is currently struggling with that very issue, and they continue to monitor the recent
actions being taken in the court case and land use issues. He stated at this time only land-use type conditions can be
imposed, and mitigation measures can be imposed. He cautioned that the focus must be on land use impacts, not
specific liquor sales.
Chmn. Ingell stated that the Commission has no information at this time to enable any decision. He felt that it will
be difficult for the applicant to mitigate the use without a capital outlay. He noted that there must be a continual
monitoring of the dining room when liquor is served.
MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Chmn. lngell, to continue this hearing to the meeting of September 4,
1990, for the purpose of obtaining additional information from staff.
Comm. Peirce hoped that more information on the court case will be available, since this hearing is being
continued.
Chmn. Ingell noted that this is a rare instance, in that the staff environmental review committee has recommended
denial of the project based on the significant cumulative impacts to the area.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Chmn. Ingell
None
None
Comm. Rue
NR 90-5 AN EXCEPTION FROM SECTION 13-7{B} TO CONTINUE A
NONCONFORMING SIDEYARD AT 1781 VALLEY PARK AVENUE
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated July 12, 1990. Staff continued to recommend denial of this request.
At the July 3, 1990, meeting, the Planning Commission approved a requested variance to allow the expansion of the
dwelling with an existing substandard garage.
However, the request to continue the first-floor nonconfonning sideyard of 3.21 feet to the second floor was
continued for staff to respond to comments made by the applicant and to return with an interpretation of Section 13-
7(c)(3).
Section 13-7(c)(3) reads: "Where existing walls are a minimum of, or more than three feet from the side property
line, the wall may be expanded if at least 75 percent of the block as defined by the zoning ordinance, has the same or
smaller nonconforming sideyards (excluding commercial and manufacturing uses). Measurements of side yards shall
be approximated by use of aerial photos and field inspection."
It is clear by the zoning definition of "block" that the entire block to 20th Street must be considered.
Staff had previously calculated that only seven of the 14 other lots have a side yard of less than four feet. Previously
it was stated that to meet the criteria of Section 13-7(c)(3) at least 75 percent of the lots would need to have sideyards
14 P.C. Minutes 7/17/90
of 3.21 feet or less to meet the criteria for exception. The applicant has correctly pointed out, however, that 10 of
the 15 lots on the block have 50-foot widths rather than 45 feet. Therefore, staff believes that the correct
interpretation is to determine if at least 75 percent of the lots have the same or smaller nonconforming sideyards in
terms of the degree of the nonconformity. Therefore, percentage of lot width should be used rather than actual
distance.
Calculating it in terms of percentage, the subject lot's nonconforming sideyard is 7 .1 percent of the lot width. Using
the same calculation on the other 14 lots shows that only six have the same or smaller percentage. This is far short
of the needed 75 percent.
Even if a very liberal interpretation of the ordinance is considered (that any other nonconforming sideyards be counted
towards the 75 percent) staff measurements show that 10 of the 15 lots have nonconforming sideyards. This
calculates to be only 66 percent
To clarify statements made by the applicant, staff did encourage the applicant to apply for the exception rather than a
variance because staff does not believe that findings for a variance can be made in this instance. There is clearly
nothing extraordinary about the physical characteristics of the lot or even the characteristics of the existing structure
which limit the applicant's ability to complete the proposed addition in conformance with the ordinance.
IL should be noted that a precedent had been established in the past for side yard variances, and as a result., the zoning
ordinance was amended to allow some exceptions since it was determined that variance findings could not be made.
It should also be noted that three-foot sideyards are not considered adequate for two-story structures by the Fire
Department, since a ladder cannot be placed in three feet of space.
Comm. Peirce asked how this request could be approved if the numbers are correct.
Mr. Schubach explained that this request is only to allow the applicant to continue an existing nonconforming
sideyard setback. Staff feels, however, that the sideyard should be set in.
Mr. Lee clarified that the exception relates to the upper story and whether or not the applicant should be allowed to
encroach into the required sideyard setback.
Comm. Peirce asked about the findings, stating that he did not feel adequate findings can be made according to the
numbers which have been presented He did not feel that the Commission has authority to approve this exception.
Mr. Lee stated that according to staff, Comm. Peirce is correct in his assertion that this project does not meet the
criteria for approval. He also noted that appropriate findings could not be made for a variance request. He noted,
however, that the applicant does have the option of filing for a variance hearing.
Comm. Ketz asked whether the Fire Department considers three feet to be adequate for sideyards on 30-foot lots, to
which Mr. Schubach explained that the Fire Department prefers not to have three-foot sideyards, based on safety and
accessibility precautions.
Comm. Moore, noting that only 20 feet is in question, asked if the applicant pulled in the second story 14 inches
whether there be a problem, to which Mr. Schubach replied that the problem would then be solved.
Comm. Moore stated that there comes a point when the rules are of benefit to no one. He could see no benefit in
requiring this applicant to pull the second story in 14 inches . He felt that there should be provisions for reasonable
designs which continue minor nonconformities which are innocuous. He was therefore convinced that there are
grounds to approve this request.
Mr. Schubach explained that staff does study these issues, and he stated that if the rules are incorrect, then the code
should be changed to reflect those inadequacies.
Comm. Ketz agreed that she could see no reason to require this applicant to pull in the second story, concurring that
she could see no benefit to such a requirement.
15 P .C. Minutes 7 /17 /90
Mr. Lee explained the nonconforming provisions and the method by which the City allows or disallows the
continuance of nonconformities. He noted that it is difficult to establish what is or is not "innocuous." He said that
the way to change this situation is to recommend an amendment to the nonconforming section of the ordinance.
Comm. Peirce, noting that there is an ordinance in place, stated that the rules should be followed. He stated that the
limit must be somewhere.
Hearing opened at 9:54 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
Bernard Kersulis, 1781 Valley Park Avenue, applicant, addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that if one counts
the number of nonconforming sideyards on the tract map, 13 of 15 are nonconforming, or a total of 87 percent of the
block does not comply with the zoning ordinance; (2) continued by discussing staffs interpretation of the number of
nonconformities; (3) stated that this project would not change the character of the neighborhood.
Comm. Peirce stated that the code is very specific on this issue, and the numbers are clear on this matter. He did not
feel there is any question about the interpretation, stating that this is a matter of math.
Mr. Kersulis stated, in response to a question from Comm. Moore, if this request is denied, he will go ahead with
the project as is; although, he felt this requirement is silly.
Gerry Compton, 200 Pier Avenue, addressed the Commission and: (1) discussed overhanging roof impediments; (2)
stated that three-foot sideyards are not a major problem to the Fire Department because the ladder can be placed in the
neighbor's yard; (3) felt that this project will not be detrimental to anyone, stating that from a safety standpoint, this
proposal is better that not approving it; (4) stated that he disagrees with the criteria established for this ordinance.
Hearing closed at 10:01 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
Chmn. Ingell questioned whether the Planning Commission has an option in this matter.
Mr. Lee, in response to a question from Comm. Ketz regarding the outcome if this request is approved, explained
that the decision would be subject to appeal. He noted that staff has given its recommendation, and approval would
set an unfortunate precedent.
Comm. Peirce felt that if the law is inadequate, it should be changed, not ignored. He noted that the law has only
been in effect for several months now.
Mr. Schubach gave background information on the impetus for establishing this ordinance. He stated that if the
ordinance is not proper, it should be amended.
Chmn. Ingell noted concern over setting a precedent. He agreed that if the ordinance is incorrect, it should be
changed.
MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Chmn. Ingell, to approve staffs recommendation to deny this request for
an exception.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comm. Peirce, Chmn. Ingell
Comms. Ketz, Moore
None
Comm. Rue
(TIE VOTE; MOTION FAILS.)
Comm. Moore stated that he intended to be a strict interpreter of the code; however, this screams out for equity
adjustment He did not fe~l approval would create any jeopardy. He favored approval based on the special
circumstances of this project being very innocuous to the neighbors, the size of the extension , and the nature of the
zone.
16 P.C. Minutes 7/17/90
Comm. Peirce stressed that if Lhe code is incorrect, it should be changed. He asserted that this is a nation of laws,
not men; to which Comm. Moore countered that if this were a mechanical formula, the Planning Commission
would not be necessary.
Comm. Moore stated that the only option, given the regulations presented, would be to deny the project. He felt
that some equity should be built into the way the City is run; however, he noted that change takes time. He noted,
however, that he feels this is a silly situation.
MOTION by Comm. Moore, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to approve staffs recommendation to deny the request for
the exception.
Comm. Moore stated that it is clear that the issue revolves around equity issues, not legal interpretations. He stated
Lhat the City Council could appeal this decision and override the decision of the Planning Commission. He noted
that he would unhappily support the motion to deny. He felt that some flexibility and equity should be incorporated
into the ordinance.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Moore, Peirce, Chmn. lngell
Comm. Ketz
None
Comm. Rue
GP 89-3/ZON 89-8 --RECONSIDERATION OF AREA 10 FOR REDESIGNATION TO
RESIDENTIAL SPECIFIC PLAN AREA AND REZONE TO SPECIFIC PLAN AREA AND
ADOPTION OF THE NEGA TIYE DECLARATION
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated July 12, 1990. This area is located between Barney Court and Meyer Court,
from south city boundary to the rear of the lots fronting on 2nd Street, also known as "Area 10." This action was
initiated by the City Council and Planning Commission.
On July 10, 1990, the City Council was unable to reach a majority vote on this issue, as the Fair Political Practices
Commission confirmed that the mayor could not vote to break the previous two-two tie vote and also indicated that
councilmember Midstokke could not vote. Without a majority of the total City Council, no decision can be made
according to state Jaw. Therefore, as a compromise, the Council would like to consider a redesignation to a specific
plan area which would allow two units for the larger lots with 4000 square feet or more, but would restrict the
structures to 25 feet in height and 50 percent lot coverage and would require that the units be detached and front on a
street as do single-family homes (where double frontage exists).
On May 8, 1990, the City Council continued this item to July 10, 1990, to allow the City Attorney to seek a
written advisory letter from the FPPC on whether an elected official residing within 300 feet of the subject site can
vote to break a two-two tie. The tie vote occurred at the April 10, 1990, public hearing.
Hearing opened and closed at 10: 13 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell who noted that no one appeared to speak on this issue.
MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve staffs recommendation, Resolution P.C. 90-
60.
Comm. Moore commented that there was previously a great deal of public testimony related to this issue, and he
noted that no one appeared to address the issue at this time.
Comm. Peirce stated that the Planning Commission had no problem with this area; rather, the difficulty was at the
City Council level.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Chmn. Ingell
None
None
Comm. Rue
17 P.C. Minutes 7/17/90
STAFF ITEMS
a) Memorandum BeurdiPlr Absences on City Commissions
Mr. Schubach explained the memo, and stated that a letter would be sent to the Council asking for a waiver of the
rules related to absences in the case of Comm. Moore's projected absences due to business.
Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Comm. Peirce stated that no other Commissioners are in danger due
to absences.
b) List of Completed Projects for Inspection
No action taken.
c) Memorandum Be2ardin2" Plannim: Commjssjon Liaison for July 24, 1990, Cjty Council
Meetipif
No action taken; no one will attend.
Mr. Schubach explained, in response to comments from Comm. Moore, that a Planning Commissioner usually
attends a Council meeting only when the Commissions' decision differs from the staff recommendation. He noted,
however, that a Commissioner can attend if he/she so chooses.
d) Tentative Future flanoioi:: Commission A2enda
No action taken.
e) City Council Minutes of June 26, 1990
Comm. Ketz pointed out that only the odd-numbered pages of the minutes were included in the package, and she
asked for corrected copies.
COMMISSIONER ITEMS
Comm. Peirce commented on several issues: (1) asked for an update on the flood survey which was required for the
Power Stree t project; (2) asked to see a list of di scretionary action s by the Building Department and Public Works
Deparnnent, and he asked why those ac ti ons were discretionary; (3) noted that some issues should be publicly heard,
not approved by discretionary action; (4) noted strong concern that matters are being approved which should be seen
by the Planning Commission, especially those issues related to the general plan and housing element; (5) wanted
information related to how the Department of Public Works conducts business.
Mr. Lee, in response to Comm. Peirce's comments, explained the Uniform Building Code as it relates to
discretionary actions.
Comm. Peirce noted concern over staff members interpreting certain issues which should clearly be addressed by the
Commission.
Comm. Moore, in response to the concerns raised by Comm. Peirce, stated that more communication is necessary
between staff members and the Planning Commission.
Chmn. Ingell asked Mr. Schubach to discuss these concerns with the City Manager. It was suggested that a
workshop meeting be held soon with the Planning Commissioners and various department heads.
18 P.C. Minutes 7/17/90
Comm. Moore discussed the liquor control issue as related to saturation of certain businesses in certain areas and the
Alcoholic Beverage Control board.
MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to adjourn at 10:31 P.M. No objections; so ordered.
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and complete record of the action taken by the
Planning Commission of Hermosa Beach at the regularly scheduled meeting of July 17, 1990.
Date
19 P.C. Minutes 7/17/90
; .
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
HELD ON AUGUST 7, 1990, AT 7:00 P.M. IN THE CITY HALL COUNCll, CHAMBERS
Meeting called to order at 7:00 P.M. by Chrnn. Ingell.
Pledge of Allegiance led by Comm. Ketz.
RQLLCAIL
Present:
Absent:
Comms. Ketz, Rue, Chrnn. Ingell
Comms. Moore, Peirce
Also Present: Michael Schubach, Planning Director; Paul Yoshinaga, Substitute City
Attorney; Sally White, Recording Secretary
CONSENT CALENDAR
Chmn. Ingell noted that, because of absences, a quorum was not present for the purpose of
approving the resolutions and the minutes of July 3 and July 17, 1990. He stated that approval
of all consent calendar items would be continued to the next meeting.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC
No one appeared to address the Commission.
PARK 90-4 --PARKJNG PLAN AMENDMENT FOR SHARED PARKING TO ALLOW AN AEROBIC
STUDIO AT 1310 -1314 PACIFIC COAST ffiGHWAY (CONTINUED FROM MEETING OF JULY
17. 1990)
Mr. Schubach explained that the applicant submitted a letter dated July 23, 1990, withdrawing
this request; therefore, staff did not renotice this project for public hearing. He suggested that
the Commission receive and file this item.
MOTION by Comm. Ketz, seconded by Chmn. Ingell, to receive and file. No objections; so
ordered.
CUP 90-8/PARK 90-6 --CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT AND PARKJNG PLAN TO
EXPAND EXISTING CAFE FOR DINNER AND COCKTAIL SERVICE AND TO INCLUDE LIVE
ENTERTAINMENT AND DANCING AT 1018 HERMOSA AVENUE. COMEDY AND MAGIC CLUB
AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated July 26, 1990. Staff recommended that the Planning
Commission approve a conditional use permit amendment, parking plan, and a mitigated
negative declaration to allow the expansion of the cafe and to allow limited entertainment but
no dancing, subject to the conditions specified in the proposed resolution. Staff also
recommended that the Planning Commission approve the request for a novelty building.
This project is located in the C-2 zone, with a general plan designation of general commercial.
The building size is approximately 8000 square feet. The proposed addition is 418 square feet.
Existing parking is 35 spaces; 40 parking spaces are proposed.
On May 17, 1990, the staff environmental review committee recommended a mitigated
negative declaration for the project, with several recommended mitigation measures:
1 P.C. Minutes 8/7 /90
(1) provide sound attenuation to the satisfaction of the Building Department and the Public
Safety Department; (2) pedestrtan access shall be provided from the parking lot to the entrance
so that pedestrians will not have to use the alley: and (3) the proposed alterations. additions,
and the inclusion of the adjacent restaurant space shall not result in any increased occupancy
or seating capacity of the combination of the existing uses.
The Planning Commission, on March 15, 1988, approved an amendment to the existing CUP
for live entertainment and on-sale alcohol 1n conjunction with food sales to allow a box office
addition. The CUP granted at that time superseded all previous CUPs. The box office was never
constructed; therefore, the CUP was not executed.
The original conditional use permit for the Comedy and Magic Club was granted by the Board
of Zoning Adjustments 1n 1978. It has since been modified four times.
The applicant is requesting to expand the current cafe and bar portion of the business, which is
separate from the main room for live comedy and magic, and to expand the use to include
entertainment and dancing. The proposed expansion includes the entire adjacent vacant
restaurant space (previously the Panda King) and a proposed building expansion into the open
area partially occupied by a stairway. The proposed building expansion involves 418 square
feet, which includes an 80 square foot stage. The area of the adjacent restaurant space is
approximately 1300 square feet. The applicant is also proposing to restripe the parking area to
include compact spaces, resulting in an increase from 35 to 40 parking spaces.
The proposed building addition is in the form of a top hat, requiring Planning Commission
approval of a novelty building.
This proposal involves a change in use of the existing adjacent restaurant from strictly a
restaurant use to a live entertainment and dancing use, typically considered an assembly use,
plus the addition of 418 square feet to this assembly use.
The current CUP for this business permits on-sale general alcohol and live entertainment,
subject to several conditions. One of the conditions prohibits dancing. Also, live
entertainment is not expressly permitted within the caf e area.
The gross floor area of the club is approximately 8000 square feet, and 35 parking spaces are
available on the roof. Because of t he uniqueness of the mix of uses for this business, staff has
calculated parking requirements by summing up the different uses. When classified this way,
the parking requirement calculates to be approximately 90 spaces, or 55 spaces deficient.
Therefore, the existing parking is clearly deficient, meaning that the building is legally
nonconforming to parking.
The adjacent vacant restaurant space at 1014 Hermosa Avenue has a CUP for on-sale beer and
wine and also for outside dining. It is also nonconforming since it has no parking. At 1300
square feet it is deficient 13 parking spaces.
The overall deficiency of the combined buildings at 1018 and 1014 Hermosa Avenue is 68
spaces.
Section 1162 of the Zoning Ordinance states the following: "(d) For every building in a "C" or
"M" zone hereafter erected, or reconstructed or expanded, the parking requirements and
turning area for the entire bullding shall be as set forth in this ordinance (emphasis
added) ...... (e) When the use of an existing building or structure is changed to a more intense use
with a higher parking demand, the required parking as stated in this article for that particular
use shall be met prior to occupying of the building .... "
This means that to allow the proposed addition and the proposed change of use from restaurant
use to assembly use would require that the parking be brought up to code. Staff calculates the
2 P.C. Minutes 8/7 /90
total parking requirement with the proposed changes would be 127 parking spaces, creating a
deficiency 87 spaces.
Staff does not believe that this deficiency can be addressed through a parking plan, nor could
the findings for a variance be made. If the use remained a restaurant, the parking problem
would be much less severe.
Therefore, if the request for dancing is eliminated and entertainment is only offered in
conjunction with a restaurant use of the cafe area (no amplified music), the parking deficiency
is significantly decreased, and staff felt that the findings for a parking plan can be made.
The use of the cafe would be limited to primarily a restaurant, with full dinner service. with
entertainment for the dinner customers (stand-up comedy and acoustic music) only as an
incidental use. This is different from a primarily entertainment or assembly type use because
the customers arrive and leave at their convenience at varying times, and the entertainment
does not involve scheduled petformances, and no auditorium-style seating is provided .
Under this scenario, which has been previously suggested to the applicant. the request iS
reduced in scope to simply an addition of 418 square feet. No change in use iS involved except
for the ancillary use of limited entertainment. and the restaurant use would be continued.
Although a parking deficiency of 67 spaces still needs to be addressed, it is actually less than
the existing overall deficiency of both 1014 and 1018 Hermosa Avenue of 68 spaces. Staff
therefore believes that findings can be made for a parking plan under the following conditions:
( 1) the applicant enter into the validation program with the VPD and advertise this to patrons;
(2) utilize valet parking on the roof parking deck to maximize customer parking and advertise
that valet parking will be available; (3) restrict seating in the cafe to full-size restaurant tables
for the serving of dinner, and no auditorium-style seating would be allowed; (4) limit
entertainment in the cafe to stand-up comedy or non-amplified music, such as piano or
acoustic guitar: and (5) prohibit scheduled performances.
Under these conditions, staff felt the findings to allow a reduced number of parking spaces can
be made because the valet system would provide for a portion of the deficiency. and the use is
such that it does not increase parking demand over what ts currently allowed: i.e., a restaurant.
Staff has focused on the parking concerns because it was their opinion that other concerns
related to the expansion, such as noise, would not be a significant problem. The notse concern
will be addressed by a standard condition to conform to the noise ordinance and an additional
condition that the building's acoustics be satisfactorily designed, as well as existing conditions
relating to the closing of doors and windows during petformances of any type.
The above conditions, and all previous conditions, are included in the proposed resolution.
Staff believes the modifications and added conditions noted allow the business to be expanded
without a significant impact on the surroundings.
Section 209 of Section 7-1. 7 of the Municipal Code requires Planning Commission approval of
"a building or structure of an unusual or unorthodox architectural design." As depicted on the
proposed elevations, the applicant ts proposing a structure with the appearance of a top hat and
cane.
Staff believes that this building design needs to be considered by the Planning Commission in
conjunction with the surroundings. Existing signs and the current building theme would seem
to be adequate to capture the attention of passers-by.
Staff continued by stating that there is an alternative if the applicant wtshes to create a second
assembly-type use on the property with dancing and scheduled petfonnances, in that perhaps a
contribution of an in-Ueu fee to the VPD could be considered to compensate for the deficient
3 P.C. Minutes 8/7 /90
parking spaces. In staff's judgment, this would be the only way that additional assembly uses
could be justified.
Public Hearing opened at 7: 14 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
Mike Lacey, 94 Strawbeny Lane, Rolling Hills Estates, applicant, addressed the Comm1ss1on
and: (1) displayed a rendering of his proposed plan to create a top hat and cane building,
explaining that there will be a glass atrium roof with a magic wand projecting from it; (2)
discussed the parking situation and said that his building is in the Vehicle Parking District
and explained that no parking was required at all when he opened the club. but there were 35
spaces; (3) explained that there has been a restaurant on the comer from the very beginning; (4)
said that he proposes to enclose the outside dining area, which is already zoned for dining; (5)
stressed that he does not intend to increase the seating capacity of either the front bar/cafe as it
exists or the existing restaurant; (6) said that he is not adding even one more person to the
already existing occupancy load, but he will be adding five more parking spaces.
Mr. Lacey continued and: (1) discussed the staff-proposed parking recommendations, stating
that the cost of the validation program is prohibitive and would cost him $72,000 per year; (2)
said that his customers never complain about a parking problem; (3) said that it would be
difficult to have to hire someone to validate the parking, and it is also difficult to determine
when customers will leave and need to be validated; (4) discussed valet parking on the roof and
said that stacked parking is not feasible, and he continued by explaining that the very narrow
alley would need to be used; (5) said that the valet parking would create more problems than it
would help; (6) said that valet parking on the roof would cause the business as well as the
neighbors problems.
Mr. Lacey went on and: (1) said that he does not want an auditorium-style seating
arrangement: (2) said that he merely wants to enclose the outdoor dining area: (3) discussed the
customer flow within the establishment and said he wants to tie the two areas together: (4)
discussed the entertainment provided and said he does not want to disturb his current
clientele; (5) noted that he has worked very hard to build the reputation of the club: (6) stressed
the importance of his maintaining the good entertainment being provided; (7) stated that he
intends to bring back the art of vaudeville, along with tap dancing and music; (8) said that the
theme of the cafe would be that of the 20's and 30's: (9) described items he has on display in the
business and explained that he intends to provide even more memorabilia: (10) said that he
would like to have hand and footprints inside the club, in order to cany out the theme of the
20's and 30's.
Mr. Lacey continued and: (1) said he has hired Disney animators to help create the appropriate
atmosphere in the club: (2) discussed the dancing, stating that he would like to have small
musical groups playing so that people can dance after dinner; (3) discussed the condition
stating ·that no cover charge can be used in the cafe and said that it is important for him to
maintain as nice a crowd as possible. and in the event the clientele should change, he would
like the option to impose a cover charge to keep out undesirables; (4) discussed the condition
prohibiting scheduled performances and stated that it is important to schedule acts so that
plans can be made and schedules prepared. especially if he starts having dinner shows; (5)
again stressed that he does not intend to add any more seating.
Mr. Lacey continued and: (1) stated that he would like to serve lunch at the club: (2) stated that a
group has been formed in an effort to revitalize the downtown area: (3) stressed the importance
of putting money back into the downtown area and trying to obtain a good business mix; (4)
hoped that lunch service would bring business people into the area.
Mr. Lacey responded to questions from Chmn. Ingell related to the vehicle parking district and:
(1) said that the validation program was started to help the merchants; (2) felt that instead of
helping, the program would create chaos and take away a lot of funds he has been saving to
improve his business and to remodel: (3) said that be firmly believes in putting as much as
possible back into the business, and this expansion is very important to his business; (4) noted
4 P.C. Minutes 8/7 /00
that in addition to locals, he gets customers from all over the countcy; (5) stressed that quality
improvements need to made in an effort to make this a landmark, and he felt that the Disney
audioanimatronics are vital in achieving that goal; (6) again noted that he receives no
complaints from customers related to parking prices: (7) said that it is important to draw good
businesses to the downtown area; (8) said that over $400,000 a year is generated by parking, and
hopefully other businesses will contribute to build parking structures further up the street so
there will not be view problems; (9) said that if he helps pay for the parking validation, nothing
will be gained; (10) noted that if he ls required to pay for validations, that money will be taken
away from the funds generated by the lots. as well as being less money he would be able to spend
on the remodeling.
Edie Webber, 1201 11th Street, addressed the Commission and: (1) favored approval of the
request and stated that if all businessmen were like the applicant, the business community
would be quite healthy; (2) favored the spirit of what the applicant is attempting to do in his re-
creation of the 20's and 30's; (3) stated that the club has put the City on the international map:
(4) stated that the applicant has a proven track record and always does what he says he will do;
(5) noted that people do not object to paying for parking if they are coming to a nice, clean
establishment; (6) said that the top hat is not an assembly-type usage; (7) agreed that the valet
parking is not feasible; (8) hoped that the VPD can be rejuvenated in the future, and she
continued by discussing past histocy of the validation program stating that it does not seem to
work in this city; (9) stated that with the nature of this business, validation would be difficult;
(10) urged the Commission to allow the applicant to proceed with this request.
Jercy Newton, 2041 Circle Drive, addressed the Commission and: (1) favored support of this
request; (2) said that the City owes a debt of gratitude to the applicant for what he has
contributed to the downtown area; (3) said that he favors a revitalization of the downtown area,
and approval of this project would be a step toward achieving that goal; (4) urged the
Commission to exercise their ability to help this applicant succeed.
Dave Reimer, 802 Monterey Boulevard, addressed the Commission and: (l)said that he
frequents the club, and it is a great place; (2) said that the business has been a good neighbor; (3)
noted concern over the parking, stating that at any given time, there are 300 guests at the club;
(4) at two people per car. there are 150 cars per show, or 300 cars per night; (5) said that the
problem with the VPD is that the lots always have signs indicating that they are full; (6) said
that the lots fill up, the street parking fills up. and the parking spills over onto the residential
streets; (7) said that he has seen people parking at 8th and Monterey and walking to the club; (8)
noted, however, that customers of the Comedy and Magic Club are well dressed and well
mannered; (9) said that the parking situation must be addressed; (10) noted that his friends
cannot find parking when they come to visit; (11) favored approval of the project, however, he
felt that the parking problems in the residential area need to be addressed.
Leslie Newton, 2041 Circle Drive, addressed the Commission and: (1) supported approval of the
applicant's request: (2) said that she has worked with the applicant in efforts to revitalize the
downtown area; (3) stated that parking ls a City-wide problem, not one generated solely by this
business; (4) said that whether or not this business is there, there will still be a parking
problem; (5) said that the applicant ls a visionacy, and he should be encouraged to continue; (6)
said that the applicant ts a very good businessman who brings very desirable people into the
City; (7) urged the Commission to help this applicant succeed, noting that it will benefit the
entire City.
Pat Mitchell, 425 Longfellow. addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that he has done work
for the applicant, and Mr. Lacey always demands the highest quality of work available; (2)
noted that the side of the street where this business ls located has been steadily improving over
the past few months; (3) said that this business ls maintained in a very attractive manner; (4)
said that he is always able to find parking in the downtown area; (5) said that this club is clean
and a nice place to go; (6) noted that out-of-towners always want to go to the club when they are
in town; (7) asked that the Commission do everything possible to help this applicant with his
plans.
5 P.C. Minutes 8/7 /90
Karen McDonough, lOll Manhattan Avenue, addressed the Commission and: (1) noted
concern over the parking problems 1n the area, stating that it is already difficult for her to get
into her garage: (2) said that her garage ts directly behind the club; (3) said that she has talked to
the applicant, and he Is willing to help work out the problem.
Mike Lacey again addressed the Commission and: (1) agreed that there is a parking problem: (2)
stated that he cannot afford a parking structure: (3) noted the importance of attracting well-run
businesses to the downtown area that could hopefully be assessed to provide parking lots: (4)
stated that the next time around, the VPD funds must be protected; (5) noted that the key is to
attract good, strong businesses who attract good crowds who are willing to pay for the parking
so that the funds can go toward building parking structures.
Mr. Lacey went on and: (1) strongly favored assessments for parking structures 1n the future: (2)
stressed that he does not intend to increase the seating capacity at his business: (3) stated that
he does not want to create problems for the neighbors: (4) said that he does not want to let the
businesses die, and thereby allow undesirables in, allowing the tax base to die; (5) felt that staff
studied these issues veiy hard, however, he does not feel that roof-top valet parking ts viable.
Comm. Rue asked whether Mr. Lacey has explored the option of shared parking as a short-term
solution to the parking problem, to which Mr. Lacey replied that he is doing evetything he can
to solve the problem. He noted, however, that he has not explored the possibility of shared
parking. He stated that he would even favor a shuttle service to bring customers in. He noted
that parking is a severe problem: however, he does not want the issue to become solely one of
parking. He said he will add no additional seating, but he will add five more parking spaces.
Mr. Lacey discussed the staff-imposed conditions: (1) said that he favors deletion of Condition
No. 18, which would require this business to participate in the VPD validation program: (2)
said that he favors deletion of the Condition No. 19, which would require roof-level valet
parking; (3) said that he favors deletion of Condition No. 12, which would prohibit dancing: (4)
discussed entertainment and said that he would like to have musical performers, and in the
past such entertainment has never caused any problems; (5) stressed that his entertainment
must be unique, therefore, it is important that he be allowed to have music and tap dancing in
an effort to bring back vaudeville; (6) discussed Condition 2(b) and said that it is sometimes
necessaiy to impose a cover charge in certain circumstances: (7) discussed Condition 2(b),
related to the prohibition of regularly scheduled entertainment and said that it is sometimes
necessaiy to have schedules.
Mr. Lacey stated that he is willing to abide by all noise regulations in the City.
Mr. Schubach stated that staff was under the impression that the applicant wanted customer
dancing: however, he said that staff would have no objection to dancing by performers.
Mr. Lacey stated that he would like to have both entertainment and customer dancing. He said
that if both are approved, it could be reviewed in six months to see whether there are any
problems. He noted that the dance area would be veiy small. He said that even though he does
not intend to increase the seating, he would like to have dinner shows; therefore, it would be
necessaiy to have scheduled performances.
Public Hearing closed at 7:58 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
Comm. Rue asked why staff had concerns related to scheduled entertainment, to which Mr.
Schubach replied that people might come in just for the entertainment, thereby creating an
assembly-type use, not a restaurant-type use.
Comm. Rue noted, however, that dinner service could be required, thereby precluding an
assembly-type use. He understood the need to prohibit scheduled shows because of parking;
6 P.C. Minutes 8/7 /00
however, he felt that scheduled performances are necessary in certain instances, and he felt
that dinner seIVice could be required to preclude problems.
Comm. Rue referred to Condition No. 13: "Comedy/theatrical productions shall be maintained
at least 50 percent of the operating time in the main showroom." He asked why that was
included.
Mr. Schubach clarified that this is an overall CUP, and he noted that an additional condition
should be added specifying that this CUP supersedes all previous conditional use permits.
Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Comm. Rue, stated that staff has no objection to
the seIVice of lunches.
Comm. Rue discussed residential parking permits and asked whether they could be used in this
area, to which Mr. Schubach replied that neighborhoods can request to be included in the
parking permit program.
Chmn. Ingell agreed with the comments made about the applicant being a visionary. He felt
that Mr. Lacey has taken hold of this business in the downtown area and has f1nnly anchored
it. He felt that this business is a namesake to the City, and it has contributed a great deal to the
City. He felt that this business attracts the best type of people possible to the downtown area.
Chmn. Ingell felt that it would be appropriate to allow dancing for six months and then have
the use reviewed in six months. He felt that this applicant is an outstanding business operator
and should be given a chance to succeed. He agreed that valet roof-top parking would create
more problems than it would solve. He also agreed that the validation program would not be
appropriate in this case. noting that his customers do not object to paying for parking to attend
performances at this business. To make this applicant validate would reduce parking revenues
to the lots. He also felt that the applicant can provide quality dancing at this business, and
there can be a six-month review.
Chmn. Ingell noted, however, that the conditional use permit runs with the land, and caution
should be taken in the event this business is ever sold (which he felt is unlikely).
Comm. Ketz felt that this business should be allowed to expand, noting that it has been a
wonderful asset to the City. She also favored the proposed design.
Comm. Rue noted that there is excitement building among downtown businesses related to the
VPD. He felt that this project is an anchor in the City, and he strongly favored the top hat
design, especially since the sad demise of the Brown Derby.
MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Chmn. Ingell, to approve staffs recommendation,
Resolution P.C. 90-62, with the following changes: (1) Condition 2(a) shall be modified to read:
"Entertainment shall be permitted only as an ancillary use to the restaurant use with
performances limited to stand-up comedy, magic acts, acoustic music, or entertainment
dancing; (2) Condition 2(b) shall be deleted; (3) Conditions 12, 18, and 19 shall be deleted,
however, Condition No. 19(a) shall specify that five parking spaces will be added that do not
require the use of a valet parking system; (4) a condition shall be added stating that this
conditional use permit supersedes all previous CUPs: and (5) a condition shall be added
specifying there shall be a six-month review of this conditional use permit.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Ketz, Rue, Chmn. Ingell
None
None
Comms. Moore, Peirce
Recess taken from 8: 15 P.M. until 8:20 P.M.
7 P.C. Minutes 8/7 /90
CUP 90-20/PARK 90-5 --CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND PARKING PLAN FOR HEALTH AND
FITNESS FACILITY WITH RETAIL AT 1106 HERMOSA AVENUE AND ADOPTION OF AN
ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Mr. Schubach gave staff re_port dated July 26, 1990. Staff recommended that the Planning
Commission approve the requested conditional use permit and parking plan. subject to the
conditions specified in the proposed resolution and to adopt a mitigated envtronmental
negative declaration.
This project is located in the C-2 zone, with a general plan designation of general commercial.
The present use is vacant: it was previously a snack and gift shop. The lot size is 4000 square
feet. There are two unimproved parking spaces. The total building floor area is 3200 square
feet.
The City Council, on January 23, 1990, amended the zoning ordinance to add health and
fitness facilities as a permitted use in the C-2 zone, subject to a conditional use permit. Also,
parking requirements were added to require one parking space per 50 square feet of floor area
for exercise classes and/or one parking space per 100 square feet of floor area used for
gymnasium-type weight lifting and weight training facilities. This amendment was onginally
initiated by the applicant.
On July 5, 1990, the staff envtronmental review committee recommended a mitigated negative
declaration with the following mitigation measures to deal with the parking deficiency: (1)
limit hours of operation to avoid peak parking periods: (2) require employees to park off-site in
the VPD parking lot: (3) utilize the VPD validation system: (4) provide bike racks; and (5)
prohibit group classes.
The committee also found that certain f ea tu res of the proposed business and the location might
justify a parking deficiency. First, the nature of the proposed business as a health and fitness
facility oriented to local clientele will result in a high percentage of walkers and bicycle riders.
Secondly. the previous use , although it was last occupied two years ago, involved retail and
food seivice. And, finally, the proposal also involves using a portion of the space for retail
sales.
The applicant is requesting t o utilize 2400 square feet of the lease space for weight training and
the remaining 800 square feet for retail sales of weight training equipment.
The 3200 square-foot building, which could be used for retail or office purposes without any
special approval, is currently nonconforming to parking. Thirteen parking spaces are
required under current zoning, and although there is room for two cars to parallel park off the
alley, this area is not improved for parking. Therefore, since no paved parking is available,
the existing deficiency is the full 13 spaces. The parking requirement for the proposed use
would be 28 parking spaces.
For the Planning Commission to approve this request, a finding would have to be made
consistent with Section 1169 of the zoning ordinance. In this case, a finding would have to be
made that unique f ea tu res of the proposed business, as well as the hours of operation, and the
amount of bicycle and foot traffic justify allowing a greater parking deficiency. In addition,
the site must be improved to provide the maximum amount of off-street parking that is
possible.
The applicant submitted a letter indicating the limits on the hours of operation would be
acce_ptable to him. The business would be open from 5:30 AM. to 9:30 P.M. Monday through
Thursday: 5:30 AM. to 6:00 P.M. on Fridays: 7:00 AM. to 6:00 P.M. on weekends, with
allowance for private training only from 6:00 P .M . to 8:30 P.M. on Fridays.
8 P.C. Minutes 8/7 /90
These hours generally avoid the peak times for parking in the downtown area, and it would be
expected that the heaviest use of the facility would be in the morning hours and the late
afternoon. In staff's judgment. these times avoid the worst times for parking in the
surrounding street parking and in the public parking lot which is generally weekend nights
and midday on weekends during the summer. However, the proposed weekday hours would
extend too late and conflict with the busy nighttime use of the area for entertainment and
restaurants. Therefore. staff recommended that the hours of operation end at 7:30 P.M. on
Monday through Thursday, with allowance only for individually-superviSed training until
9:30.
With these restrictions, it clearly distinguishes this use from, for example, a restaurant use
which peaks at the same time as the existing peak uses which are restaurants, bars, and the
Comedy and Magic Club.
Additionally, the applicant has indicated that a bike rack will be provided inside the building
to encourage bike riders. Also, in statrs judgment. this type of use. which is oriented to local
users and attracts those interested in physical fitness. would have a high percentage of local
users who would walk or ride their bicycles.
In regard to off-street parking, the rear of the building facing the alley is setback over 20 feet
from the alley. However, a rear patio area is located behind the building at a significantly
lower grade than the alley. This leaves an area only about ten feet deep for the parking of two
cars in a parallel manner. The area is currently unimproved sandy soil.
The applicant has indicated that up to six spaces can be provided in the back. However, there is
only room, at the most. for five eight-foot wide spaces. In order to provide the parking in the
rear, the patio would either have to be filled in, or perhaps a platform provided to park cars
over the patio.
Since the applicant is asking for approval of a reduction in required parking, staff felt that it is
appropriate to require that the maximum amount of parking be provided on the site.
Therefore, staff is including a condition that the rear of the site be improved to provide a
minimum of 18 feet in depth for the full width of the lot to support five eight-foot wide parking
spaces for customer parking. These improvements would have to be made prior to occupancy of
the building.
Staff felt that the proposed use is unique in terms of its impact on parking and could therefore
be deemed to be similar to the impact a retail establishment would create. In that sense. the
existing nonconforming parking situation would not be made any worse.
Public Hearing opened at 8:27 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
Shane McColgan, 1155 17th Street. applicant. addressed the Commission and: (1) said that he
has been promoting health and fitness in the City for four years. and he hopes t o continue; (2)
said that everything in the staff report is fine; however, he discussed the hours of operation and
stated that it would be detrimental for him to close at 7:30 P.M. during the wee~ (3) said that he
would like to stay open until 9:30 P.M. Monday through Thursday and until 6:00 P.M. on
Friday through Saturday: (4) explained that most businesses of this type are open until 10:00 or
11:00 P.M.; (5) said that he would like to have private training after the 6:00 P.M. closing on the
weekend; (6) stressed that this project has been very time consuming and expensive, and it is
necessary for him to remain open longer to meet his expenses.
Mr. Mccolgan continued and: (1) stated that the longer hours would have no detrimental
impact on the parking because almost everyone walks or rides a bike to the business: (2) noted
that he will be providing bike racks at the business; (3) said that in the back of the building
there is a potential for five spaces, noting that he was initially mistaken that there were six
spaces: (4) said that he has an agreement with the building owner to provide that parking; (5)
9 P.C. Minutes 8/7 /90
asked if he could have extended time to build the parking deck, noting that it will be very
expensive; (6) stated that he has many supporters of this project.
Comm. Rue asked how many people will be training at the club, noting that his interest relates
to the parking issue and the hours of operation.
Mr. Mccolgan said that the staff environmental review committee recommended that there be
28 spaces; however, he did not feel that 28 spaces are necessary because he will not have 28
people using them at one time. He said that this use will be one of personal training. He said
that there will be no aerobics or group training.
Comm. Rue asked whether there is a completion date for the parking structure, to which Mr.
McColgan responded that he would like to open before the structure is finished. He hoped,
however, that it will be completed in six months to a year.
Mr. Mccolgan stated that he will encourage his trainers to park in the 12-hour parking area
between Valley and Ardmore; however, he will not validate for employees. He stated that he
will ensure they do park in that area, or encourage them to walk, bike, or run to work. He
stated that he would be willing to pay for employee VPD parking in the event employees are
found to be parking in the residential areas.
Wilma Burt, 1152 7th Street, addressed the Commission and: (1) voiced support for approval of
this project: (2) supported extended hours for this business: (3) said that people like to exercise
after work. and the extended hours are necessary in order to accommodate working people: (4)
said that this business does not serve alcohol and therefore should not have to close early in
order to provide parking for alcohol-related establishments; (5) said that this is a good
business and will provide exercise services for many people: (6) felt that this is a good healthy
business for the community; (7) urged the Commission to give the applicant a chance to operate
this business
Shelly Rocker, 1215 Monterey. addressed the Commission and: (1) spoke in favor of the
proposed business: (2) said that health and physical fitness is a positive influence in the City;
(3) said that there is a need for such a business in the City; (4) said that this business is busiest
at a time when there is the least parking demand; (5) said that many people will walk or bike to
the gym: (6) stated that the benefits of the business are far greater than the minute possibility of
adding to the parking problem.
Gene Chavez, 815 Havana. addressed the Commission and: (1) spoke in support of the proposed
business; (2) noted the strong determination of the applicant: (3) said that this business will be
of benefit to the City; (4) stated that all beach cities have a parking problem; (5) said that he
does not get away from his job until sometimes after 7:00 P.M.: (6) said that no one complains
about parking at this business. as most people walk or bike to the gym.
Fernando Amas, 1242 Hermosa Avenue, addressed the Commission and: (1) supported
approval of the project: (2) said that most people will walk or bike to the gym and will not
create a parking problem; (3) said that this business will be of benefit to the City; (4) noted that
the building has been empty for many years, and this business will be an asset; (5) asked that
the Commission give this applicant a chance.
John Warren, 1120 Hermosa Avenue, addressed the Commission and: (1) said that he is the
landlord of this property; (2) explained that he has parking spaces behind his business, which
the applicant could use after 7:00 or 7:30 P.M .: (3) noted that the dry cleaners could also let him
use two or three spaces after a certain time; (4) said that the applicant could use these spaces
until such time that he can build the parking structure: (5) further noted that he would be
willing to take out a loan on this building in order to help Mr. McColgan build the parking
structure.
P.C. Minutes 8/7 /90
Mr. Warren continued and: (1) urged that the applicant be allowed to remain open until at least
9:30 P.M.; (2) noted that many other gyms remain open until 11:30 or even midnight; (3)
suggested that he be allowed to stay open until 9:30 for six months, at which time the use could
be reviewed; ( 4) said that if problems are discovered, the hours of operation could then be
addressed at the review: (5) stressed that the City needs a gym and longer hours are necessary to
accommodate the people who will go to the business.
Mr. Warren went on and: (1) said that this building was kept vacant until a good business. could
be found; (2) stated that he no longer wants the building to be vacant; (3) said that this applicant
will def1nltely improve the area; ( 4) noted that the applicant has staying power by virtue of the
fact he has endured almost two years of City formalities: (5) urged the Commission t o give this
applicant a chance to stay open until at least 9:30 P.M.; (6) voiced confidence in the applicant's
ability to remain and be successful in this business; (7) stated that if there are no problems with
the business staying open until 9:30, the applicant should be allowed to remain open even
longer; (8) stated that this is an ideal location for a gym.
Mr. Nafissi, 1048 Hermosa Avenue, operator of the dry cleaners, addressed the Commission
and: (1) said that there is a parking space which he would be happy to let the applicant use after
7:00 P.M., which is when he closes: (2) said that the building needs to be improved, and he is
confident that the applicant will be an asset: (3) clarified that there are two spaces behind his
store, but one of the spaces belongs to the optical shop, which is closed on Wednesday; (4) stated
that the applicant can probably also use that space after 7:00 P.M.
Linda Kasner, 950 17th Street, addressed the Commission and: (1) said that it is important that
a building which has been an eyesore in the City be put to good use: (2) felt that a gym would be
an asset to the City: (3) stated that it would be convenient to walk or bike to the gym; (4) said
that the gym would be a great addition to the City and would be beneficial to the downtown
area.
Sue Lockridge, 37 9th Street, addressed the Commission and: (1) said that at no time are there
parking problems at this business: (2) said that most people walk or bike to the gym: (3) was
very much in favor of clearung up the downtown area: (4) favored cleanlng up a building which
has been an eyesore: (5) favored the addition of a health-oriente~ business in the downtown
area.
Larry Tavari, 86 16th Street, addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that some young blood
is necessary in the community; (2) stated that new people are necessary to drive the businesses
and provide some parking structures in the City.
Brian Yasui, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and: (1) favored extended hours for
the business; (2) said that extended hours are necessary for the applicant to make ends meet.
Greg Jones addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that the City should help businesses
which have a positive effect on the City; (2) stated that the applicant's expertise of this use is
vast: (3) said that the gym will be very professional and help people be more physically fit: (4)
wholeheartedly supported approval of this business: (5) felt that the business should be allowed
to stay open until at least 9:30.
Public Hearing closed at 8:54 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
Comm. Ketz felt it would be economically detrimental to require this applicant to close at 7:30
P.M. She did not feel there would be a great impact on the parking if the business were allowed
to stay open until 9:30 P.M. Monday through Thursday.
Chmn. Ingell commended Mr. Mccolgan for his endurance. He discussed the hours of
operation and stated that if the use can be justified and there are no parking problems created
by this use, there should not be limitations on the hours of operation. He stated that he has no
problem with allowing the business to stay open until 11 :00. He felt that this will be a good
11 P.C. Minutes 8/7 /90
..
business for the area. and the owner needs every opportunity available to succeed. He also
noted that working people need longer hours in order to go after work. He stated that if there iS
a problem with staying open until I 1:00 P.M .. seven days a week, the matter could be reviewed.
Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Comm. Rue, stated that the hours of operation
were based upon the parking need in the downtown area on weekend nights.
Chmn. Ingell felt that most people will walk or bike to this business. He felt that allowing this
business to have what the competition has will help it to be competitive and to succeed.
Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Comm. Ketz, explained that the hours in the
resolution were the hours proposed by the applicant: however, he assumed that the applicant
would be happy to have extended hours of operation.
Chmn. Ingell stated that most of the customers would probably walk or bike to the gym. In
regard to the number of spaces required for the parking plan, he suggested that the applicant
keep a record of how hiS customers arrive which could be presented at the six-month review. In
this way, if there is proof of how the customers arrived, there can be Justification as to why
these hours were allowed.
MOTION by Chmn. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve staffs recommendation,
Resolution P.C. 90-63, with the following change: (1) Condition No. I shall be modified to state
that the hours of operation shall be from 5:30 AM. until I 1:00 P.M.
Comm. Rue suggested adding a condition related to imposing a time limit on the completion of
the parking structure before a final building permit is issued.
Mr. Warren stated that they will make every effort to complete the parking structure in six
months; however, he requested that the time limit be one year. He stated that he can provide
two spaces after 7:00 P.M. and one space after 7:30 P.M., and the dry cleaner operator can let
him use two spaces after 7:30 P.M .. for a total of five spaces.
AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION by Chmn. Ingell as maker and agreed to by Comm. Ketz as
second, to require that the parking plan be completed by Memorial Day of 1991. Further. to
require proof that the applicant can use the five spaces as proposed by Mr. Warren, the
landlord, until such time that the parking structure is completed. Also, to add a condition
requiring a six-month review of the project. Further, if necessary at the six-month review, an
extension could be granted for completion of the parking structure so long as the five parking
spaces are being provided.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Ketz, Rue, Chmn. Ingell
None
None
Comms. Moore, Peirce
SS 90-5 -SPECIAL STUDY AND PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT TO ADD INSTALLATION OF
CAR STEREO AND CAR ALARMS WITH CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO C-3 PERMITTED USE
LIST AND ADOPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated August 1, 1990. Staff recommended adoption of the
proposed resolution recommending amending the permitted use list in the C-3 zone to include
"automobile audio equipment sales, installation, and/or repair" and "automobile alarm sales,
installation, and/ or repair" only with a conditional use permit.
At the June 19, 1990, meeting, the Planning Commission directed staff to set this matter for
public hearing as soon as possible.
12 P.C. Minutes 8/7 /90
This issue was initially brought to the attention of the City from concerns noted by Mr.
Sullivan in regard to the nuisances being created by a nearby alarm installation business.
Currently, car stereo/alarm installers are operating in the City with business licenses. These
businesses were granted approval under the general category of "automobile parts and
accessories --retail sales" when it was acceptable to allow uses which were generally similar.
Obviously, as noted by Mr. Sullivan, the installation of alarms and stereos can cause a severe
nuisance to neighboring residents and businesses. especially with the advent of new
technology and the popularity of alarms and stereos with high noise volumes, such as boom
boxes.
In staffs judgment, these types of installations should be regulated and should be limited to the
C-3 zone. Staff felt that a separate category ts appropriate for purposes of clarification and
also would include all such installation uses under one specific category whether or not they
are a primary or secondary use. Secondly, the CUP review process would mean that such
activities would be subject to the scrutiny of the Planning Commission in regard to such
important concerns as the proximity of residential uses, whether or not the installation and
testing would be conducted inside, and the hours of operation. Standard conditions of
approval, such as prohibiting the manufacturing of boom boxes outdoors, could also be
imposed.
It was noted that the existing businesses with auto stereo/alarm installation activities will be
subject to CUP review under the recently adopted amortization ordinance within two years of
notice if this text amendment is adopted by the City.
Public Hearing opened and closed at 9:08 P .M. by Chmn. Ingell, who noted that no one came
forward to speak on this issue.
Comm. Rue noted that the Commission has discussed this issue in the past. and it is something
which needs to be done.
MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve staffs recommendation,
Resolution P.C. 90-66, as written.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Ketz, Rue, Chmn. Ingell
None
None
Comms. Moore, Peirce
TEXT 90-5 -TEXT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW OUTDOOR DISPLAY IN COMMERCIAL ZONES
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated July 30, 1990. Staff recommended adoption of the
proposed resolution recommending approval of outdoor display.
At the June 2, 1987, meeting, the Planning Commission determined that outdoor display of
merchandise was prohibited by Section 8-5(2) of the zoning ordinance.
At the meeting of June 26, 1990, the City Council requested that the Planning Commission re-
examine allowing outdoor displays on private property.
Staff had previously brought this matter to the Planning Commission's attention because of
the increasing number of downtown merchants who were displaying merchandise outdoors.
The downtown area had taken on a swap meet appearance, and the City was receiving
complaints.
13 P.C. Minutes 8/7 /90
Several factors should be considered in relation to outdoor display. A distinction should be
drawn between "display" and "activity"; i.e., the selling of merchandise outdoors versus
displaying it. Also, the type, quantity, size, permanency, and location of outdoor display
should be examined. Large quantities of displayed items encroaching into the required
parking area would not be desirable. The display of "adult" or similar items would also be
undesirable; e.g., mannequins dressed in lingerie. Also, for example, a large inflated object left
continuously on display may constitute a prohibited type of sign.
Finally, the general appearance of the display should be considered. It should be attractively
organized and not be excessively large.
Staff has attempted to consider the above factors in preparing the proposed resolution.
Comm. Ketz asked several questions about whether downtown properties can go right to the
property line in their displays, to which Mr. Schubach replied that this issue relates to private
property.
Chmn. Ingell, noting the importance of this issue, stated that he would favor continuing this
item to a meeting when all Commissioners are present and can contribute to the discussion.
Public Hearing opened at 9: 13 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
Wilma Burt, 1152 7th Street, addressed the Commission and: ( 1) stated that this use has been
allowed in Berkeley and the area has become quite unsavory, making the area look like a
junkyard; (2) urged that the Commission proceed with caution on this matter, noting that such
a use can be very unattractive and conducive to stealing; (3) stated that outdoor displays look
very junky: (4) stated that such a use would be of benefit to no one in the City.
Public Hearing continued at 9: 15 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
Chmn. Ingell, noting the importance of this issue, ag&in suggested that this issue be continued
so that the full Commission can participate in the discussion.
Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Comm. Rue regarding what other cities allow
such a use, stated that such use is very limited. He stated that it is a use mostly allowed in
shopping centers: however, Hermosa Beach differs from most other cities.
MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Chmn. Ingell, to continue this hearing to the meeting of
September 4, 1990.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Ketz, Rue, Chmn. Ingell
None
None
Comms. Moore, Peirce
INTERPRETATION OF C·3 ZONE PERMITTED USE LIST "AUTO SALES AND PARTS" TO
INCLUDE "MOTORCYCLE SALES AND PARTS" AS ONE IN THE SAME
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated July 31, 1990. He suggested that the Commission direct
staff to consider motorcycle sales and parts the same as auto sales and parts sales.
Mr. Schubach suggested an alternative: to set this matter for public hearing as a text
amendment to add to the permitted use list or to eliminate motorcycle repair from the list.
At the July 17, 1990, meeting the Planning Commission continued the CUP for motorcycle
sales and repair to the meeting of August 21, 1990. The applicant desires to start parts sales
14 P.C. Minutes 8/7 /90
immediately, and therefore needs an interpretation: parts sales do not require a conditional
use pennit.
Since the zoning ordinance permits motorcycle repair with a CUP and also auto sales and auto
parts sales, staff, including the City Attorney, has questioned whether motorcycles are too
closely related to warrant a text amendment which generally is necessary to add a new
permitted use to the list.
The permitted use, "motorcycle repair," is likely to be the most intensive between "sales,"
"parts," and "repair," and therefore would seem to dictate that auto parts and auto sales have
little or no distinction to motorcycle sales and motorcycle parts sales. Further, motorcycle
parts must be sold in conjunction with motorcycle repair and is therefore an ancillary use.
The biggest distinction seems to be that motorcycle sales and parts sales may generate
indirectly, via customers, more noise. However. motorcycle repair would invariably generate
equal amounts of noise. If motorcycle sales and parts sales are not the same as auto sales and
parts sales, then possibly motorcycle repair via a text amendment should be eliminated from
the pennitted use list.
In any case, no use can violate the City's noise ordinance directly or indirectly by customers or
others.
However, to allow uses which will obviously result in noise violations and therefore public
disturbances resulting in police problems should be carefully examined and possibly not
permitted. The reason for a permitted use list is to allow only desirable types of businesses into
the community.
If the Planning Commission determines that auto sales and parts sales are not the same as
motorcycle sales and parts sales, a text amendment to consider adding these uses to the
permitted use list or removing motorcycle repair is warranted.
Chmn. Ingell noted that this matter was heard at the last meeting, and that hearing was
continued until August 21, 1990, because there was a question related to the very item being
considered this evening. He asked why that item was therefore placed on this agenda.
Mr. Schubach explained that motorcycle parts sales, if considered to be the same as automobile
parts sales, does not need a conditional use permit. He explained that the applicant would like
to begin selling motorcycle parts at this time, rather than waiting for the other issues to be
addressed at the next meeting. He clarified that motorcycle sales and repairs do need a CUP;
however, vehicle parts sales do not need to be included 1n the CUP. He noted, therefore, that it
is necessary to have an interpretation as to whether "vehicle parts" includes both automobile
and motorcycle parts. He did note that "parts" sales are included in the permitted use list.
Chmn. Ingell recollected that this was a question at the last meeting, and the purpose of
continuing that hearing was to address this issue and make a determination.
Mr. Schubach stated that since this particular item does not require a public hearing, staff felt
that the matter could be heard before the Commission at this time.
Hearing opened at 9:24 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
Jack Wood, 200 Pier Avenue. Hermosa Beach, representing the applicant, addressed the
CommiSsion and: (1) stated that the main issue is to determine whether automobile parts and
motorcycle parts are the same thing; (2) showed several parts, some of which were for autos and
some of which were for motorcycles, and explained that the average person cannot tell which ts
for which; (3) said that the concept relates to whether one can sell parts which make a ''vehicle "
run; (4) said that parts are parts, and the applicant should be able to sell the motorcycle parts:
(5) explained that the applicant would like to begin sales of motorcycle parts; (6) gave
15 P.C. Minutes 8/7 /90
background inf onnation on this particular business; (7) stated that the applicant is battling
the public's misconception of what the average motorcycle owner is like; (8) said that this
applicant is very serious about the business, and he would like an opportunity to do business:
(9) discussed his concept of the conditional use permit process: and (10) said that approval of
thiS request would be a way for the City to determine the type of customer who will come to the
business when the time comes for the Commission to address the conditional use permit
request.
Dave Reimer, 802 Monterey, addressed the Commission and: (1) said that he is a Harley-
Davidson rider, and it is difficult for him to obtain parts because all of the stores are quite a
distance away, (2) said that many Harley riders are in the neighborhood, and they are very good
citizens; (3) said that the business will be a real asset to the City, and the sale of parts would be
very beneficial; (4) supported approval of the request to begin parts sales.
Jim Housley, 934 7th Street, addressed the Commission and: (1) strongly opposed the shop
because of noise and traffic; (2) stated that more people would be present if they were aware of
this hearing; therefore, he suggested that this item be continued so that more people have an
opportunity to give testimony on this matter.
Hearing closed at 9:33 P.M. by Chmn Ingell.
Comm. Rue said that at the last meeting, noise seemed to be the main issue of concern; however,
he noted that no one appeared to speak on this item tonight. He stated that. from the materials
presented, he would be unable to make a decision on this matter at this time. He noted that he
would be absent from the next meeting and would be unable to participate at that time.
Comm. Ketz stated that this is a bigger issue than merely an interpretation. She felt that, at the
very least. it should be a text amendment With a full public hearing since it will affect many
people in the City. She noted that this interpretation was not even advertised; therefore, she
felt it would be appropriate to continue this item.
Chmn. Ingell, although he could emphasize With the applicant's desire to begin selling parts,
did not feel that this item should even be before the Commission at this time. He noted that the
matter was previously continued to a date certain; people were unaware that this would be on
the agenda tonight; and he felt it would be appropriate to continue it so that people have an
opportunity to speak on the matter.
Chmn. Ingell, acknowledging that Comm. Rue will be absent from the next meeting, stated that
the Commission needs to make a final decision at that time. He did not feel it would be in the
applicant's best interests to again continue this item. He stressed that all matters related to
this business should be heard at the same time.
MOTION by Chmn. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to continue this matter to the meeting of
August 21, 1990.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Ketz, Rue, Chmn. Ingell
None
None
Comms. Moore, Peirce
RESCISSION OF THE APPROVAL OF A NEW ELECTRONIC MARQUEE AT THE COMMUNITY
CENTER
Chmn. Ingell, noting that he abstained from discussion on this matter the last time it was
heard, stated that he would again abstain. He noted, however, that a quorum was not present
because of his abstention; and he stated that the matter should be continued to the next
meeting, August 21, 1990.
16 P.C. Minutes 8/7 /90
RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO STUDY A TEXT AMENDMENT REGARDING SIDEYARD
EXCEPTION,
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated August 2, 1990. He suggested that the Planning
Commission direct staff to s t udy and schedule public hearings for this amendment, and to
conduct environmental assessments by adoption of the proposed resolution of intent.
Hearing opened at 9:41 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
Wilma Burt, 1152 7th Street, addressed the Commission and: (1) asked questions related to
whether or not this item is in the housing element, to which Mr. Schubach explained that this
issue is generally directed toward new development; (2) commented on the dimensions of
sideyards, and noted concern that they are being made too narrow: (3) asked what the intention
is related to this proposed text amendment: (4) felt that this should be wrttten more clearly so
that people can understand it.
Hearing closed at 9:45 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve staffs recommendation,
Resolution P.C. 90-67, to direct staff to study and schedule public hearings for this amendment,
and to conduct environmental assessments by adoption of the proposed resolution of intent.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Ketz, Rue, Chmn. Ingell
None
None
Comms. Moore, Peirce
THIRD QUARTER GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS: (1) SELECTED GENERAL PLAN/ZONING
INCONSISTENT AREAS EAST OF PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY; (2) DRAFT REVISION OF THE
HOUSING ELEMENT: AND (3) PARKS AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN CHANGES
REFERRED BY THE CITY COUNCil.
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated August 2, 1990. He suggested that the Commission direct
staff to schedule public hearings for the amendments and to conduct environmental
assessments.
State law allows cities to amend the general plan four times per year. The Planning
Commission and/or City Council may consider initiating the general plan amendments.
The housing element amendment involves the adoption of the State-mandated 1989 revision
to the 1984 housing element, prepared by staff.
The staff environmental review committee has recommended an environmental negative
declaration for this project. The Planning Commission is scheduled to conduct a public
workshop on the draft housing element on August 8, 1990.
The selected inconsistent areas east of P.C.H. involve three small areas east of the highway
which have inconsistent general plan and zoning designations. This is another step in our
continuing effort to eliminate all inconsistencies between zoning and the general plan. If these
areas are resolved, only four small areas remain.
The selected areas to be considered are: (1) the Water Company property east of Prospect
between 15th and 17th Streets --designated as open space on the GP map and zoned R-1: (2)
eight lots on the west side of Prospect north of Aviation between 1225 and 1255 Prospect --
designated low density residential on the GP map and zoned C-3 with R-3 potential: and (3)
17 P.C. Minutes 8/7 /90
'.
twelve residential lots north of the Prospect Heights school site --designated open space on the
general plan and zoned R-1.
The Parks and Recreation Master Plan involves the formal adoption of the Parks and
Recreation policy document titled "Parks and Recreation Master Plan," prepared by Purkiss-
Rose Landscape Architects and Landerman Moore Planning and Economics, as an amendment
to the open space element of the general plan. The City Council has referred this back to the
Planning Commission with proposed changes.
Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Comm. Ketz, stated that this hearing would be
scheduled for the first meeting in October.
Hearing opened at 9:48 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
Wilma Burt, 1152 7th Street, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and: (1) asked
questions related to the location of the inconsistent areas east of the highway; (2) discussed the
proposed parks and recreation master plan changes, and objected to putting in more parking at
the North School park, stating that the City only owns part of the land, and the intention was
to use the site as a park.
Hearing closed at 9:53 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve staffs recommendation to
schedule the proposed general plan amendments for public hearing.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
STAFF ITEMS
Comms. Ketz, Rue, Chmn. Ingell
None
None
Comms. Moore, Peirce
a) Memorandum Regarding Workshop Meeting Between Planning Commission and
Department Heads
At the request of the Commission, Mr. Schubach stated that the meeting would be scheduled for
September 4, 1990, prior to the beginning of the Planning Commission meeting.
b) Planning Department Activity Report for June 1990
The Commissioners were pleased to see that a code enforcement officer has been hired.
c) Tentative Future Planning Commission ,A&enda
No action taken.
d) City Council Minutes of June 26 and July 10. 1990
No action taken.
COMMISSIONER ITEMS
None.
MOTION by Comm. Ketz, seconded by Comm. Rue, to adjourn at 9:57 P.M. No objections; so
ordered.
18 P.C. Minutes 8/7 /90
J •
. .
)
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and complete record of the action
taken by the Planning CommJssion of Hermosa Beach at the regularly scheduled
meeting of ugust 8, 1990.
~/
Date
19 P.C. Minutes 8/7 /90
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
HELD ON AUGUST 21, 1990, AT 7:00 P.M. IN 'l1IE Cl'IY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Meeting called to order at 7:00 P.M. by Comm. Ketz.
Pledge of Allegiance led by Comm. Peirce.
ROLLC.ALL
Present:
Absent:
Comms. Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Rue
Chmn. Ingell
Also Present: Michael Schubach, Planning Director; Casey Vose, City Attorney;
Sally White, Recording Secretary
Vice Chairman Ketz acted as chainnan of the meeting.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Chmn. Ketz pulled for discussion Item 4(g), Resolution P.C. 90-62, and stated that Condition
2(a) specifies only "entertainment dancing." She recollected that the Commission had also
approved dancing for customers. Comm Rue concurred that the Commission intended to allow
dancing by customers as well as entertainment dancing.
Chmn. Ketz directed staff to correct Resolution P.C. 90-62, Condition 4(g), to reflect that
dancing is allowed.
MOTION by Comm. Moore, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve the following consent calendar
items:
Planning Commission minutes of July 3, July 17, and August 7. 1990, as written;
Resolution P.C. 90-51, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND A
VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #22256 FOR A 1WO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 610 llTII
STREET, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS THE EASTERLY 38 FEET OF THE REMAINING PORTION
OF LOT 3, BLOCK 78 OF THE SECOND ADDffiON TO HERMOSA BEACH 'IRA.CT;
Resolution P.C. 90-52, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND A
VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #22062 FOR A FOUR-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 1634
PROSPECT AVENUE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS 1 AND 2. ANGELA HEIGHTS 'IRA.CT;
Resolution P.C. 90-53, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A VARIANCE REQUEST TO ALLOW A SECOND-
STORY ADDITION TO A NONCONFORMING SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING WITH A
SUBSTANDARD SIZE PARKING STALL (9 INCHES DEFICIENT) AT 1781 VALLEY PARK
AVENUE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 31, 'IRA.CT 15546;
Resolution P.C. 90-55, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #21787 FOR A 1WO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 952 EIGHTH
S1REET, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS 1 AND 2, WILSON AND LIND'S 'IRA.CT;
Resolution P.C. 90-56, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND A
1 P.C. Minutes 8/21 /90
VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #22216 FOR A 1WO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 830
CYPRESS AVENUE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 5, BLOCK C, 'IRACT 1677;
Resolution P.C. 90-59, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF 1HE CI1Y OF
HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DENYING A REQUEST FOR EXCEPTION, PURSUANT TO
SECTION 13-7(C)(3), TO CONTINUE A NONCONFORMING SIDEYARD UP TO 1HE SECOND
STORY AT 1781 VALLEY PARK AVENUE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 31, 1RACT 15546;
Resolution P.C. 90-62, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF 1HE CI1Y OF
HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ON-SALE
ALCOHOL AND LIVE ENTERTAINMENT, AND APPROVING A PARKING PLAN TO ALLOW THE
EXPANSION OF THE CAFE PORTION OF 1HE BUSINESS AND ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED
ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR 1018 HERMOSA AVENUE, "HERMOSA
BEACH COMEDY AND MAGIC CLUB," LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS 1, 2, AND 3, BLOCK 35,
FIRST ADDITION TO HERMOSA BEACH (As amended);
Resolution P.C. 90-63, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF 1HE CI1Y OF
HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND PARKING
PLAN TO ALLOW A HEALTII AND FITNESS FACILI1Y (WEIGHT 1RAINING), AND ADOPTION
OF A MITIGATED ENVIRONMENT.AL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 1106 HERMOSA
AVENUE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 7, BLOCK 35, FIRST ADDITION TO HERMOSA BEACH;
Resolution P.C. 90-66, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF 1HE CI1Y OF
HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A TEXT AMENDMENT TO
ADD INSTALLATION OF AUTOMOBILE AUDIO EQUIPMENT AND ALARMS AS A PERMITIED
USE IN THE C-3 ZONE WITH A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND ADOPTION OF AN
ENVIRONMENT.AL NEGATIVE DECLARATION;
Resolution P.C. 90-67, A RESOLUTION OF INTENTION OF 1HE PLANNING COMMISSION TO
STUDY A POSSIBLE TEXT AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE 13, NONCONFORMING BUILDINGS
AND USES, TO GIVE THE PLANNING COMMISSION GREATER DISCRETION IN .ALLOWING
THE CONTINUATION OF NONCONFORMING SIDEY.ARDS FOR ADDITIONS AND
EXPANSIONS.
With several abstentions (minutes of July 3, 1990: Ketz and Peirce; minutes of July 17, 1990:
Rue; minutes of August 7, 1990: Moore and Peirce; Resolution P.C. 90-51: Ketz and Peirce;
Resolution P.C. 90-52: Ketz and Peirce; Resolution P.C. 90-53: Ketz and Peirce; Resolution P.C.
90-55: Rue; Resolution P.C. 90-56: Rue; Resolution P.C. 90-59: Rue; Resolution P.C. 90-62:
Moore, Peirce; Resolution P.C. 90-63: Moore, Peirce; Resolution P.C. 90-66: Moore, Peirce;
Resolution P.C. 90-67: Moore, Peirce) no objections; so ordered.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC
No one appeared to address the Commission.
Jack Wood, on behalf of the applicant, asked if the next two agenda items could be heard
together as one item (interpretation of the C-3 pennitted use list and the conditional use permit
for South Bay Cycles).
Mr. Vose advised that it would be appropriate for the Commission to consider the two items
independently, noting that the decision made on the interpretation would have a direct bearing
on the action to be taken on the conditional use permit request.
Comm. Peirce stated that the interpretation issue differs from the CUP request. He therefore
favored discussing the items separately, as did Comm. Rue and Chmn. Ketz.
2 P.C. Minutes 8/21/90
INTERPRETATION OF C-3 ZONE PERMITI'ED USE LIST "AUTO SALES AND PARTS" TO
INCLUDE "MOTORCYCLE SALES AND PARTS" AS ONE IN THE SAME (CONTINUED FROM
MEETING OF AUGUST 7, 1990)
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated July 31. 1990. He suggested that the Commission direct
staff to consider motorcycle sales and parts the same as auto sales and parts sales.
Mr. Schubach suggested an alternative: to set this matter for public hearing as a text
amendment to add to the permitted use list or to eliminate motorcycle repair from the list.
At the July 17, 1990, meeting the Planning Commission continued the CUP for motorcycle
sales and repair to the meeting of August 21, 1990. The applicant desires to start parts sales
immediately, and therefore needs an interpretation; parts sales do not require a conditional
use permit.
Since the zoning ordinance permits motorcycle repair with a CUP and also auto sales and auto
parts sales, staff, including the City Attorney, has questioned whether motorcycles are too
closely related to warrant a text amendment which generally is necessary to add a new
permitted use to the list.
The permitted use, "motorcycle repair," is likely to be the most intensive of "sales," "parts," and
"repair," and therefore would seem to dictate that auto parts and auto sales have little or no
distinction to motorcycle sales and motorcycle parts sales. Further, motorcycle parts must be
sold in conjunction with motorcycle repair and is therefore an ancillary use.
The biggest distinction seems to be that motorcycle sales and parts sales may generate
indirectly, via customers, more noise. However, motorcycle repair would invariably generate
equal amounts of noise. If motorcycle sales and parts sales are not the same as auto sales and
parts sales, then possibly motorcycle repair via a text amendment should be eHminated from
the permitted use list.
In any case, no use can violate the City's noise ordinance directly or indirectly by customers or
others.
However, to allow uses which will obviously result in noise violations and therefore public
disturbances resulting in police problems should be carefully examined and possibly not
permitted. The reason for a permitted use list is to allow only desirable types of businesses into
the community.
If the Planning Commission detennines that auto sales and parts sales are not the same as
motorcycle sales and parts sales, a text amendment to consider adding these uses to the
permitted use list or removing motorcycle repair is warranted.
Mr. Vose explained that a decision on this interpretation does not mandate that a CUP be
approved for the South Bay Cycles. He stressed that these two items should be addressed
separately at this time. He said that the Commission, during its discussion, should decide
where such a use (motorcycle sales and parts) should be allowed in the city, or whether such a
use should be allowed at all in the city.
Hearing opened at 7: 10 P .M. by Chnm. Ketz.
Jack Wood, 200 Pier Avenue, Hermosa Beach, representing the applicant, addressed the
Commission and said that the only reference to motorcycles in the zoning code is related to
"motorcycle repair," which could lead to two conclusions: (a) when the code was written it was
desired to allow no motorcycle sales or parts sales in the city; or (b) it was felt that motorcycle
and auto parts are so closely related that no differentiation was made between the two.
3 P.C. Minutes 8/21/90
Mr. Wood continued and: (1) discussed sales, stating that auto sales establishments can sell
parts as an ancillary use, and auto parts stores sell parts in a retail sense; (2) said that many
establishments in the city sell customized autos, rather than the ordinary-type vehicles; (3)
displayed several parts, noting that many are merely "parts," and can be interchanged between
autos and motorcycles, depending on what piece fits what vehicle; (4) said that differentiating
between various parts and their uses is not the issue; (5) said that the issue is whether parts can
be sold by this applicant at his store, noting that the applicant already bas a CUP for auto
sales; (6) said that if motorcycles are included in "auto sales," the applicant then would also be
able to sell motorcycles; (7) said that yet another issue to be detennined is whether or not the
applicant should be granted a CUP to sell motorcycles.
Mr. Wood continued and: (1) stated that if motorcycles are determined to be different from
autos, the applicant would then be in limbo until a decision is made related to the verbiage in
the text; (2) said that if motorcycle parts are deemed to be the same as auto parts, the applicant
would then be able to sell motorcycle parts now.
Mr. Schubach clarified that auto sales do require a CUP; however, the applicant would need to
obtain a CUP to do repairs.
Comm. Rue, noting that the applicant is in possession of a CUP for auto sales, asked whether
that CUP needs to be revised since the use has changed, to which Mr. Schubach explained that
that CUP could be addressed if the layout of the building changes, which it bas not: only the use
bas changed. He further noted that the original use was to be that of an auto brokerage firm, as
opposed to auto sales.
Mr. Wood stressed the importance of clarifying the issues. He noted that the applicant is in
possession of CUP to sell autos. Therefore, if it is determined that autos and motorcycles are
closely related, the applicant could then sell motorcycles under this CUP without a text
amendment or a new CUP.
Mr. Vose disagreed with Mr. Wood's opinion, explaining that the applicant's current CUP
allows auto sales, not motorcycles. He explained that numerous activities are allowed in this
zone; however, possession of a CUP for one of those uses does not automatically allow other
uses as well
Mr. Wood asked, then, if the applicant would be able to sell motorcycle parts without having to
obtain a new CUP. He noted, however, that it is important to decide what constitutes "parts."
Mr. Wood did not feel that the discussion could continue until a decision is reached related to
what is being specifically addressed. He felt that "motorcycle parts" are the same as
"automobile parts." He hoped his demonstration proved that it is very difficult to differentiate
between the two. He noted that many other businesses openly sell parts without benefit of a
special permit. He further felt that "auto sales" is the same as "motorcycle sales." He said that
many motorcycles have also been sold in the city without a special permit. He continued by
stating that the question of "motorcycle repair" is moot in this interpretation because it
requires a CUP, and that is the next matter to be addressed.
Gerry Compton, 200 Pier Avenue, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and: (1) felt that
this use should be added with a text amendment, with benefit of a full public hearing; (2) noted
that all other permitted uses adopted in the past were discussed at a public hearing, and the
public should have an opportunity to speak to any proposed addition to the permitted use list.
Dave Reimer, 802 Monterey, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that
the main issue is that of an exact definition of "vehicle"; (2) asked if auto sales are permitted,
are truck sales also permitted, or are they different and therefore must have separate permits.
Alton Godson, 943 8th Street, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and: (1) felt that the
main issue at hand is that of repairs as related to the environmental impact to the
4 P.C. Minutes 8/21/90
neighborhoods, as well as surrounding property values; (2) discussed the issue of South Bay
Cycles, to which Chmn. Ketz informed him that the appropriate time to discuss that issue is
during the next public hearing on that specific matter.
Gary Ferguson, 819 North Harbor Drive, Redondo Beach, addressed the Commission and: (1)
felt that a text amendment would clarify the issue; (2) noted that he had written a letter to the
Commission in which the definitions for "automobile" from both Webster's Dictionary and the
Oxford Dictionary were included; (3) said that Webster's defines "automobile" as a self-
propelled vehicle, usually with four wheels; (4) stated that the Oxford definition does not
specify the number of wheels.
Hearing closed by Chmn. Ketz at 7:27 P.M.
Comm. Moore discussed the issue of the applicability of the existing CUP. He said that the
purpose of the CUP is to tailor the permit to each specific property. He noted, however, that it is
impossible to address every single detail of every situation in the code. He felt it is important
to clearly specify the intent, stating that if "motorcycle sales" is interpreted to be the same as
"auto sales," would the city then be able to impose additional conditions related to motorcycles
on the existing auto sales CUPs.
Mr. Vose explained that CUPs are issued for a precise use, whether it be auto sales or anything
else. Any intensification of the use would require an amendment, with a new public hearing, to
the original CUP. He further noted that even though several uses may be permitted from a
zoning standpoint, uses are not interchangeable, and a change in use would require a new
conditional use permit.
Mr. Vose explained, in response to comments from Comm. Moore, that motorcycle sales could
be determined by the Commission to be a use which is consistent with automobile sales, and
therefore should be allowed pursuant to a CUP as if it were a use listed on the permitted use list.
Comm. Moore stated that he would be comfortable with this method.
Comm. Peirce stated that if this use is to be added to the permitted use list, it should be a text
amendment with a full public hearing. He felt that the matter should be considered for public
hearing in the future; however. the next agenda item related to motorcycle repair could be
addressed at this time .
Comm. Rue felt that motorcycles are different from automobiles, as are trucks, and he agreed
that this matter should be considered as a text amendment with a public hearing. He stated
that these issues should be addressed along with the issue of heavy truck repair and other
repairs.
Comm. Moore disagreed, stating that the city should not get involved with every single new use
or service thereby necessitating new public hearings. He felt that the permitted use list may
almost be too specific as it is. He felt comfortable with the interpretation that "motorcycle
sales" is a use consistent with "automobile sales." He did not feel that a new public hearing is
necessary to address "motorcycle sales."
Comm. Peirce noted, however, that technological advances produce new uses which cannot be
foreseen and which could prove to be troublesome. He therefore felt it is appropriate to address
such new uses in order to preclude disturbances.
MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Rue, to adopt staffs alternative
recommendation, to set this matter for public hearing as a text amendment to add to the
permitted use list. or to eliminate motorcycle repair from the list.
Chmn. Ketz noted that the code is not static, and she felt it is appropriate to have a public
hearing on this matter.
5 P.C. Minutes 8/21/90
Comm. Rue noted that it is important for the Commission to address uses which would affect
the environment.
Comm. Moore, noting that the conditional use pennit itself provides protection, disagreed with
the need for new public hearings.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms.Rue,Peirce,Chinn.Ketz
Comm. Moore
None
Comm. Ingell
CUP 90-19 --CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW SALES OF
MOTORCYCLES. ACCESSORIES. AND MINOR REPAIR AT 638 -640 PACIFIC COAST
mGHWAY. SOUTH BAY CYCLES {CONTINUED FROM MEETING OF JULY 17. 19901
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated August 15, 1990. Staff recommended that the Planning
Commission approve a conditional use pennit amendment, subject to the conditions specified
in the proposed resolution. As an alternative, the Commission could deny the request because
of the unique and unusual noise characteristics of motorcycles and the proximity of
residential uses.
On July 17, 1990, the Planning Commission continued this request because of concerns related
to noise and to obtain additional information.
In response to concerns previously noted by the Planning Commission, the applicant has
indicated that he is willing to place the following restrictions on his business: (1) Customers
arriving on motorcycles would not be allowed to use the rear parking area. This would be
controlled by a chain across the driveway monitored by an attendant; (2) Baffles would be
temporarily installed on motorcycles using the driveway to get to the service area; and (3)
Hours of operation would be limited to Monday through Saturday from 10:00 AM. to 6:00 P.M.
and on Sunday from 10:00 AM. to 4:00 P.M.
The applicant has indicated that he contacted noise consultants to prepare a noise study for the
proposed business. However, none were willing to conduct a study for this type of business
because of the unpredictability of use and operation. Apparently, according to the applicant,
the consultants could conduct a study of this business only after it was opened for business.
Staff included several additional recommended conditions in accordance with the applicant's
suggestions.
In regard to the bar and stools which have been provided inside the business, staff does not
believe that a snack bar is an appropriate use in conjunction with a sales business of this type,
as it would constitute a snack bar. There is clearly not adequate parking to support the
assembly potential of this bar with stools. Therefore, staff is recommending a condition that
snacks cannot be sold, and there can be no seating around the bar. Only complimentary
beverages may be provided for customers of the business.
Even with these conditions, staff is concerned about the assembly potential of this business
because of the variety of items to be sold and services offered and the potential violations of the
City's noise ordinance that may be caused by customers.
Therefore, potential loitering and noise problems may occur which will require excessive
police support to control and monitor. As such, staff also recommended a condition that the
police chief will have the authority to require the presence of police-approved security
personnel, paid for by the applicant. As additional protection, the Planning Commission may
wish to require that the applicant provide the City with a security performance bond that the
6 P.C. Minutes 8/21/90
'l Police Department may draw upon should excessive police services be required to monitor and
control the premises. Such a condition is included in the proposed resolution.
Staff also recommended a condition to require a six-month review of the business, which shall
include an independent noise consultant's study of the business to be paid for by the applicant.
Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Comm. Peirce, explained that a "baffle" is a
device which can be added to a motorcycle's mufiler system to reduce noise.
Comm. Moore asked whether the City's noise ordinance includes provisions for a peak noise
period or just an average. He noted that the average could be much too loud.
Mr. Schubach explained that the noise ordinance has several standards which must be met,
one of which is that the noise level must include peak noise periods as well as average periods.
He stated that the noise must be within the standards during all periods. He said that the
maximum level is 85 decibels.
Comm. Peirce, noting that the Commission is now addressing a CUP for motorcycle repairs,
asked whether parts sales should be considered in conjunction with the repair activity, to
which Mr. Vose responded in the affirmative, but he explained that independent parts sales are
not included in the use.
Mr. Schubach stated that the parts in this case can be only an ancillary use, explaining that
someone cannot just come in off the street and purchase motorcycle parts.
Public Hearing opened at 7:43 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz.
Jack Wood, 200 Pier Avenue, Hermosa Beach, representing the applicant, addressed the
Commission and: (1) said that the applicant made a good faith application for motorcycle
sales, parts, and repairs, however, the applicant cannot proceed at this time due to a
technicality; (2) said that the applicant would have applied for the appropriate permits had he
known they were necessary.
Mr. Vose clarified that, as a result of the interpretation of the Commission, the application is
not permitted at this time since the sale of motorcycles is not on the permitted use list for this
zone, since it is not being considered the same as automobile sales. He stated that, if
motorcycle sales is added to the permitted use list at some future date, the applicant would then
be able to proceed. He noted, however, that because of the ambiguity of the code at the present
time, the applicant is precluded from engaging in motorcycle sales in this zone under any
condition.
Mr. Wood disagreed, stating that at the time the applicant applied for the permit, he was led to
believe by staff that motorcycle sales was considered to be the same as automobile sales, to
which Mr. Vose responded that the interpretation itself is a matter to be taken up by the
Planning Commission.
Mr. Wood stated that the applicant should be given an opportunity to conduct his entire
operation; i.e., sales, repair, and service. to which Mr. Vose stated. then, that this request could
be withdrawn until such time that the Commission makes a decision as to whether or not
motorcycle sales should be added to the permitted use list. The applicant could then apply for
the entire use as suggested.
Mr. Wood said that they will stipulate that they will drop the request for motorcycle sales at
this time and be heard only on the request for repairs. He said that the applicant will be broke
by the time a decision is made.
Mr. Wood stated that when he was consulted by the applicant on this proposed business, he told
the applicant that it was the appropriate zone for such a use; however, he warned the applicant
7 P.C. Minutes 8/21/90
that a conditional use permit was required, and it would be very difficult to obtain such a
permit. He advised that the city would find motorcyclists unsuitable for the area; therefore,
great obstacles would need to be surmounted. He noted that the applicant has spent a great deal
of money on this business, and he should be given an opportunity to start business. He
continued by stating that they had to suggest conditions to staff for this project.
Mr. Wood continued and stated that unless the applicant is given an opportunity to open, he
cannot prove that the business can be operated within the guidelines of the city. He noted that
Harley-Davidsons are legal in this state. He stated that the area is already very noisy, and the
operation of this business will not affect the noise factor one way or the other. He noted that
this is the appropriate zone in which to operate such a business. and mitigation measures
should be imposed where they can. He said that many of the residents cannot be appeased, and
he questioned whether the residents just want the building to remain vacant.
Mr. Wood stated that the applicant is willing to keep the noise down and to provide a sound
study; however, he must be given a chance to operate. He further noted that customers will not
be allowed to operate on the streets; bikes will not be allowed to park in the rear; repairs will be
done indoors and during normal business hours; and landscaping could also be added to
mitigate the noise.
Mr. Wood stated that the applicant has a right to operate under the constraints of a conditional
use permit. He said that a business cannot be prohibited just because the city doesn't want it
because it will create noise and density. He noted, however, that this business did not create the
noise and density problems in the city. He said that the concept of a permitted use list having
to specify every single permitted use is not appropriate because there are thousands of
exceptions.
Comm. Rue questioned, however, instances where a business is completely undesirable in a
city, to which Mr. Wood responded that all uses are permitted except those which are illegal.
Paul Hutchins, 1015 17th Street, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and: (1) supported
approval of the project, stating that Harley-Davidson riders are upstanding citizens; (2) did not
feel it is fair to persecute this applicant, especially when other businesses in the area are
creating problems; (3) stated that selling Harleys provides work for Americans; (4) said that
Harleys are works of art and are very expensive; (5) commented that this shop would bring
more business to the area; and (6) said that Harley riders are courteous.
Mr. Vose clarified that the only issue that should be addressed at this time is the repair of
motorcycles, not the sale.
Dave Reimer 802 Monterey, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that the
only real issue is whether or not this business should be allowed to operate; (2) noted that the
opposition is coming from neighbors who fear the image of motorcycle riders; (3) said that
Harleys are very upscale, and this business will. provide a service which is needed in the area;
(4) disagreed with staffs recommendation that this business should be patrolled by the police,
and noted that there should be more concern over the adult-type shops in the area; (5) discussed
the issue of motorcycle repairs and stated that this will be a low-volume type business; (6)
stressed that these are motorcycle artists. not grease monkeys; (7) stated that very expensive
parts will be used, and the utmost care will be used in doing the repairs: (8) felt that these
applicants should be given a chance to prove themselves to the surrounding neighbors.
Craig McBride, 420 Manhattan Avenue, Manhattan Beach, addressed the Commission and: (1)
said that many cars are sold along the highway in the area; (2) said that his comments relate to
all aspects of this business, not just repairs; (3) stated that what the city is doing with respect to
this issue is ridiculous; (4) stated that illegal cars are being sold all along the highway: (5) said
that this is a free country, and the applicants should be given a chance.
8 P.C. Minutes 8/21/90
-Roger Czuleger, 923 6th Street, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that
the main issue is noise, however, people are complaining that their property values will be
lowered; (2) stated that there is a difference between repairs and accessories; (3) disagreed with
staffs recommendation to require police patrol, and suggested that the adult stores be
monitored instead; (4) said that this business will not be a debiment to the neighborhood; (5)
did not feel that the business will lower property values; (6) stated that the city should address
more important issues.
Alton Godson, 943 8th Street, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that it
is a matter of opinion as to what type of business will be a benefit or debiment to the
neighborhood; (2) said that the main issue is noise; (3) stated that even though he feels Harleys
are great bikes. they create too much noise; (4) did not feel that the issue is what types of people
will frequent this business; (5) stated that the environmental issues must be addressed related
to this proposed use; (6) noted that the economic concerns of the applicants are valid. however.
the real issue is noise; (7) noted concern over reduced property values in relation to an increase
in noise created by motorcycles; (8) felt that there are other more appropriate locations on the
highway where motorcycle repairs could be done, noting that the noise from this particular
location travels directly up the hill; (9) said that motorcycle repairs will draw additional
motorcycles to the area, which will in turn create more noise.
Larry Horowitz, 802 The Strand. Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and: (1) stated
that a two-block area along the highway near this proposed business contains several boarded-
up businesses. which is quite undesirable for any area; (2) noted concern over the loss of taxes
generated from such businesses; (3) said that this business will cater to an upscale clientele,
who will in turn spend their money at other locations in the city; (4) said he would rather spend
his money in this town, as opposed to having to go to other cities for motorcycle repairs.
George Laterra, 1906 McKay. addressed the Commission and felt that the applicants should be
given a chance to operate their business.
Steve Constantine, 836 1st Street, addressed the Commission and: (1) said he lives in the hill
section, and the only noise he hears is from the ambulances and police cars; (2) favored
approval of this request, stating that it would bring him more income as well, since he owns an
auto detail business in the city; (3) felt that the applicants should be given a chance to operate.
Rah Jiu, Manhattan Beach, addressed the Commission and: (1) said that the applicant is very
hard-working and should be given a chance; (2) did not feel that motorcycles would decrease the
property value in this area; (3) felt that there is a need in the city for this type of business.
Gaylin King, 72 The Strand. addressed the Commission and: ( 1) described her childhood terror
of motorcyclists; (2) did not want today's children t o be afraid, as she was: (3) did not feel that
either motorcycle sales or repairs are conducive to a quiet family neighborhood.
Mark Mason, 420 15th Street, Manhattan Beach, addressed the Commission and: (1) stated
that there is a stigma attached to Harley riders; (2) stated that this business will not attract
undesirables.
Gary Ferguson, 819 North Harbor Drive, Redondo Beach, addressed the Commission and: (1)
supported approval of the repair shop; (2) felt that the applicants have not been treated fairly;
(3) said that he rides a Harley, and he would like to have a repair shop in the area; (4) said that
the applicants are very conscientious; (5) noted that the applicants have posted signs in an
attempt to mitigate noise; (6) hoped that the Commission would approve this request.
Jeannine Bringman, 831 6th Street, addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that
personalities, cultural backgrounds, and nationality or make of vehicle are not at issue here;
(2) noted that the real issue is that of noise which did not exist before this shop existed; (3)
stated that the noise will continue once this shop is operating; (4) noted that things have
already started happening, and if caution is not used now, there will be great difficulty in
9 P.C. Minutes 8/21/90
curbing problems in the future; (5) opposed approval of the CUP, based solely on the issue of
increased noise.
Lars Jacobsen, 600 and 700 Pacific Coast Highway, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission
and: (1) said his business is very close to the proposed business; (2) favored approval, stating
that this business will be of benefit to the area; (3) stated that if all the shops looked as
attractive as this one, property values in the area would increase.
Don Turk, 839 6th Street, addressed the Commission and: (1) favored approval of the shop; (2)
said it would be convenient to have a shop in the city; (3) noted that the noise is louder during
the summer when there is more traffic in general, and this business should therefore not be
held responsible for the noise.
Robert Roselle, 772 18th Street, addressed the Commission and: (1) described his terrifying
experience with motorcyclists many years ago; (2) noted, however, that along with his
prejudice against motorcyclists, he has strong prejudices in favor of free enterprise; (3) said
that the noise problem can be mitigated and can be checked for enforcement; (4) felt that if the
applicants are willing to cooperate, they should be given a chance to operate within the
guidelines of the city's noise ordinance.
Robert Chamberlain, 6th Street, addressed the Commission and: (1) said that his business is
very close to the proposed business; (2) noted that there are more problems associated with the
adult stores in the area than with anything else; (3) stated that the applicants are young and
energetic and should be given a chance to operate.
Jim Wagner, 25th Street, Manhattan Beach, addressed the Commission and: (1) said that he
owns a Harley; (2) said that Harleys are superior to the Japanese competition; (3) stated that
Harley riders are very courteous and do not cause disturbances; (4) said that many Harley
riders are professional people who enjoy the camaraderie; (5) said that the real issue at hand is
noise; (6) said that the noise was measured by the applicant at the shop, and the street noise,
especially from buses, was much noisier than the shop itself; (7) outlined the various readings
which were obtained during the noise test, stating that the Harleys were measured at 84
decibels, much lower than other noises in the area; (8) stated that the Harley noise level is
within the city's noise ordinance; (9) stated that there is a problem related to the public's
misconception of Harley riders.
Susan Grafton, 802 Monterey, addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that the noise will
remain whether or not this business is approved; (2) said that people who live near the
commercial areas must learn to live with the noise problems.
Leroy Barnum. Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and: (1) said that additional noise
in the area would just create more problems; (2) hoped that these applicants were not mislead
into thinking that they could operate here; (3) said that the business has already opened.
Don Karosevich, 840 15th Street, addressed the Commission and: (1) had no doubt that this is
an upscale shop; (2) noted concern over the noise and stated that the issue is an environmental
matter; (3) said that a mistake was already made with the Hermosa Beach Pavilion and he
hoped that a mistake would not be made here; (4) said that the police cannot adequately enforce
the noise ordinance; (5) said that the business will draw additional bikes to the area; (6) said
that the installation of baffles will only temporarily address the problem, explaining that the
noise will continue down the highway; (7) asked that the Commission consider the
surrounding neighbors in respect to the noise factor.
William Campbell, applicant, addressed the Commission and: (1) said that he has posted a sign
noting rules to be followed by customers; (2) explained that free baffles will be installed to those
coming into the shop; (3) stated that he intends to run an upscale store; (4) stated that his offer
to install free baffles would actually be a benefit to the city, rather than a detriment.
10 P.C. Minutes 8/21 /90
Scott Devereaux, 812 4th Street, addressed the Commission and: (1) favored approval of the
request; (2) said he will be one of the first customers of the business, especially so that he can
get the free bafiles installed; (3) said that this is a very attractive shop, and the property values
must be going up. rather than down; (4) said that the car wash next door creates more noise
than this business would.
Linda Matarazza addressed the Commission and: (1) said that her children are not afraid of
motorcycles; (2) said that the applicants are reputable businessmen; (3) said there are more
problems with the porno shops than with this type of business; (4) noted that no test driving
will be allowed; (5) felt that the applicants should be given a chance to operate.
Dave Reimer, 802 Monterey, addressed the Commission and asked if Harleys are so noisy, why
weren't they heard tonight when people drove up to City Hall.
Jim Sullivan, 1051 8th Street, addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that the issue has
nothing to do with the character or integrity of Harley riders; (2) said that the main issue is
noise; (3) noted that the applicants are willing to accept restrictive conditions; (4) noted
concern over people riding bikes up and down his street; (5) felt that if the applicants are
willing to accept the restrictive conditions, they should be given an opportunity to operate; (6)
note.d that the City can enforce the conditions; (7) suggested that the applicants be required to
post a bond or accept monetary penalties if they do not comply.
William Campbell, applicant, stated that he is willing to put something in writing, and he will
agree to a six-month review of the business. He stressed that he needs an opportunity to prove
the business, and regular business hours will be followed.
Bob Bringman, 831 6th Street, addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that he has called
other Harley shops and found out that Harleys register 85 decibels on the noise meter when
they are factory made with stock mufflers; (2) not ed. however, that after-market mufflers can
be added later which are much louder; (3) described various additions which can be made and
which can register up to 125 decibels; (4) said that he was informed by Commander Altfeld of
the Police Department that the noise should not exceed 65 decibels on the highway, but he was
informed by Comm. Moore that that is the average, not the peak; (5) said that it is a popular
practice to install after-factory pipes which are much louder; (6) noted concern over the noise
along the highway: (7) noted concern over motorcycles accelerating away from the business.
Mary Herbert, 825 7th Street, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and: (1) opposed the
additional noise: (2) agreed that the business is attractive, but it has generated additional noise
already. even though it is not officially opened.
Mike D'Auteuil, 831 8th Street, addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that the noise cannot
be controlled now; (2) said that this is not a question of who rides or buys Harleys; (3) said that
the applicant will have no control over the riders once they leave the shop; (4) stated that there
has been a noticeable impact on traffic generated by this business already; (5) noted concern
over bikes accelerating away from the front of this business, explaining that the noise travels
right up the hill and does not dissipate; (6) said that this shop will generate too many bikes to
the shop; (7) urged the Commissioners to allow only compat:t'ble uses in the community, of
which this is not; (8) asked that this request be denied.
Clayton Searing, Redondo Beach, addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that the applicants
have agreed to do everything possible to reduce noise; (2) felt that the applicants should be given
an opportunity to prove themselves.
Tony Vallejos, 809 Cypress, addressed the Commission and: (1) saw no reason why this
applicant should be denied; (2) noted that this is a very small congested city: (3) favored
approval, stating that this business will be good for the community.
11 P.C. Minutes 8/21/90
Allison D'Auteuil, 831 6th Street, addressed the Commission and: (1) opposed approval of the
permit; (2) said that the business has already opened, and the noise and traffic has increased
dramatically; (3) said that bikes are already gathering; (4) noted that many restrictions can be
added to a CUP, but she questioned the reality of actual enforcement of the conditions; (5)
displayed a photo depicting at least a dozen bikes parked in front of the shop; (6) noted concern
over the number of bikes, even before the official opening; (7) said that the bikes come and go as
a group, and the noise is unacceptable.
Michelle Campbell, wife of the applicant, addressed the Commission and: (1) explained that
they are already open because they have received approval to sell motorcycle apparel, however,
one cannot make a living on that alone; (2) stressed that they must be given a chance; (3) stated
that they were practically told by the Planning Department that there would be no problem
converting from an auto brokerage firm to a motorcycle sales shop; (4) stated that they are
attempting to make a living, and they are running out of funds; (5) said that there are already
motorcycles on the highway, and they are not there just because of this store; (6) said that other
business owners in the area have not noticed any increased noise.
Ann O'Dell, 831 6th Street, addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that much of the
testimony has been given by non-residents of the city; (2) said that this shop has already
created a great impact on the neighborhood; (3) noted that the motorcycle noise is already so
loud that conversation must be halted when the bikes are coming and going; (4) presented a
petition with 118 signatures of people opposed to the granting of the proposed repair shop; (5)
read aloud the wording on the petition and submitted it to the Plaooiog Director.
Maiko Saravia, applicant, addressed the Commission and: (1) stressed that this business will
remain, no matter what action they must take; (2) urged that everyone work together to find a
solution to the problem; (3) asked that they be allowed to open so that they can prove
themselves; (4) noted that the business can be reviewed, and if it is not in compliance, then it
can be shut down; (5) said that they are willing to sign any type of agreement so that they can
open; (6) stressed that they cannot survive economically unless they are allowed to operate; (7)
stated that they are attempting to control the noise at the business, noting that signs have been
posted; (8) said that he was under the impression that America is the land of opportunity, and
he asked for the chance to open the business: (9) stated that the city needs this type of business;
(10) said that they cannot survive by selling only motorcycle clothing; (11) said that they
cannot be expected to provide baffles to everyone on the highway; (12) said that this will be the
first motorcycle shop in Hermosa Beach, even if it takes them twenty years to obtain approval.
Lee Barrett, 991 6th Street, addressed the Commission and: (1) noted concern over possible
approval, stating that he does not feel it would be good for the city; (2) questioned how the noise
could be reduced up and down the streets, even if baffles are provided and installed; (3) stated
that the quality of life issue must be taken into account; (4) felt that approval of this use would
only be detrimental; (5) stated that if this business is approved it would only further erode the
quality of life in the city; (6) felt that Hermosa tends to be more lax on these issues, compared to
other surrounding cities.
Rick Green, 3200 Manhattan Avenue, addressed the Commission and favored approval of the
request, stating that he feels the noise problems can be mitigated.
Jim Housley, 934 7th Street, addressed the Commission and: (1) said that the applicants are
very convincing about their being able to control the noise; (2) noted concern, however, that
they cannot actually control the noise at all; (3) noted that if the CUP is granted, it would be
nearly impossible to shut this business down if problems do arise.
Ernie O'Dell, 931 6th Street, addressed the Commission and: (1) said that the intent is not to
close businesses down; (2) felt, however, that businesses should be compatible with the
surrounding neighborhoods; (3) felt that the noise issue would make this use incompatible with
the surrounding area; (4) felt that if auto sales exceed the approved noise levels, they too should
be denied; (5) noted that certain uses, suc_h as jet engine repairs, are legal, however, they are not
12 P.C. Minutes 8/21/90
compatible with neighborhoods; (6) felt that the conditional use pennit process is in place to
address the issue of compatibility.
Al Huber, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and: (1) felt that the noise created by this
shop would impact only a few surrounding neighbors; (2) said that he has noticed no difference
in the traffic and noise created by this shop; (3) stated that other existing uses are much more
incompatible this the proposed use; (4) favored approval of the request.
Sherry Colburn, 839 6th Street, addressed the Commission and: ( 1) noted concern over the
noise created by motorcycles; (2) said that if something could be done to guarantee that the
noise would not travel up the hill, she would not be opposed, however, she did not feel that there
is any such guarantee available.
Gerry Compton, 832 7th Street, addressed the Commission and: (1) said that most of the noise
generated by this business will occur on weekends and during the evenings, and he feels this
would present a major problem to the neighboring residents; (2) said that the noise level on the
highway is already above the acceptable limit, and adding to it would be inappropriate; (3)
stated that this business has disregarded the city's rules and regulations, noting that they
blatantly stocked their shop with motorcycles and accessories when they had received
approval only to sell clothing; (4) said that if the applicants are unwilling to comply with the
requirements of a simple business license, it seems likely that they would not comply with the
requirements of a complicated conditional use pennit.
Mr. Compton continued and: (1) noted concern over the possible test drive route; (2) noted
concern over the lack of control of riders on the side streets in the area; (3) doubted whether the
bikes could be confined only to the highway; (4) did not feel mitigating circumstances are
available related to the noise generated by this shop; (5) said that the owners are also violating
the city's parking requirements, because several bikes are being parked in each space and there
has been parking on the driveway.
Mr. Compton continued and: (1) doubted whether anyone would want to live so close to this
type of business; (2) noted concern over reduced property values as a result of this shop; (3)
stated that the applicants have proved that they cannot control their customers; (4) referred to
the previously submitted petition and explained that all 118 signatures were from people living
in the immediate vicinity; (5) noted that only apparel is being sold, and the noise is unbearable,
and he questioned how much it would increase if repairs and sales are approved.
Mr. Compton continued and: (1) described a tape he made depicting a biker social in
Hollywood; (2) noted concern over the location of the proposed shop in relation to the
surrounding businesses; (3) referred to the actual conditions of the CUP and noted the difficulty
in enforcing noise limits; (4) said that no testimony has been presented giving proof of the
actual loudness of the bikes themselves; (5) noted that no sound study has been provided; (6)
questioned what the noise limit is in the city, noting that the bikes must exceed that limit; (7)
questioned where the test route will be located; (8) expressed sympathy for the owners and their
monetary outlay, however, he felt it was a mistake for them to proceed before obtaining
approval; (9) noted, though, that he has more concern for the potential decrease in property
values in the area; (10) stated that threats against the neighbors are not appropriate under any
circumstances; (11) felt that the applicants have been misled in regard to their being able to
obtain approval for this business.
Mr. Compton concluded and: (1) noted that even if there is already traffic. more traffic will be
created by this business; (2) noted concern over bikes accelerating away from the front of this
business and the attendant noise; (3) referred to the city vision and stated that this use does not
add to the community vision.
Gene Rock, El Segundo, addressed the Commission and: ( 1) did not understand why the city is
so hard on applicants; (2) noted that the applicants are willing to comply with the
13 P.C. Minutes 8/21/90
requirements; (3) expressed anger that applicants are not able to operate, and he felt that they
should be given a chance.
Jackie Tagliaferro, 934 7th Street, addressed the Commission and: (1) noted that most of the
speakers who favored approval do not even live near the shop; (2) noted concern over the noise
in the area; (3) opposed approval, based solely on the issue of noise.
Patty Adams, 427 Manhattan Avenue, addressed the Commission and: (1) sympathized with
the surrounding neighbors, however, she felt that the city needs this business; (2) stated that
this business will bring in people who will spend additional money elsewhere in the city while
they are in town.
Jack Wood, on behalf of the applicant, addressed the Commission and: (1) noted that this is a
difficult issue; (2) stated that this country was built on the free enterprise system and
democracy; (3) asked that the rhetoric surrounding motorcycle riders be disregarded; (4)
suggested instead that the focus be on whether or not this business should be allowed to open;
(5) said that the neighbors moved to the area knowing full well that they were near a
commercial area; (6) stated that businesses, rather than homeowners, pay the bulk of taxes in
any city; (7) said that this has become a battle between the residents and the business; (8)
stressed that this is not residential neighborhood, but rather a commercial area with
residential near it; (9) said that the applicants should be given an opportunity to operate their
business within certain reasonable guidelines.
Public Hearing closed at 9:43 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz.
Comm. Peirce asked questions related to the noise limit for automotive uses, to which Mr.
Schubach replied that he was not certain of the State requirements; however, the city's
maximum limit is measured from the property line. He stated that the city's noise code relates
to private property, and the Motor Vehicle Code addresses vehicular noise. He explained that
both the local police and the highway patrol have purview over the enforcement of the noise
codes.
Comm. Rue noted that in every CUP hearing, standards must be addressed that relate to issues
such as noise.
Comm. Peirce felt that if the motorcycles are eliminated from the rear parking lot and the
garage doors are kept closed, noise in those areas could be reduced. He felt. however, that there
is no mitigation measure for the noise which is created as the motorcycles pull away from the
street in front of this shop to merge into traffic. He therefore pointed out that if the shop were
not there, these bikes would not be pulling away from the front of it. He felt that this issue is
indeed within the purview of the Planning Commission in this regard and should be addressed.
He continued by stating that if the noise problem cannot be mitigated, the use should not be
permitted and the conditional use permit should not be approved. He stated that things which
interfere with the neighbors cannot be allowed.
Chmn. Ketz felt that the noise will exceed the maximum levels allowed by the city, and she did
not feel that the noise can be mitigated. She felt that this business would pose a real problem
for the surrounding neighbors, and she did not feel that baffles would solve the problem.
Comm. Peirce commented that no solid proof has been presented related to the noise. He noted
that even if one Harley is right at the acceptable level of 85 decibels, several Harleys traveling
together with a reading of 85 decibels would be unacceptable. He stated that he would vote
against approval unless he can be convinced that there is a mitigation for noise as bikes pull
away from the front of the shop.
Comm. Moore stated that it is clear that many businesses can attract motorcycles which will
pull away and create noise. He had hoped that more information had been presented related to
14 P.C. Minutes 8/21/90
police problems and their experience to date in trying to enforce motorcycle standards on the
streets of this city. to which Mr. Schubach replied that he knows of no such data.
Comm. Moore stated that he did not feel the noise impact of this business can be completely
mitigated; however, he felt that it can be mitigated to some extent, particularly on the grounds
of the property itself. He felt that the suggested restrictions in the CUP are adequate and
enforceable for the grounds of the business itself. He stated, though, that the topic of noise
generated as a result of additional motorcycles coming to this business is still at issue, and he
could see no mitigation measure for this occurrence. He did not. however, find that to be
enough of a reason to deny this request.
Comm. Moore noted that Hermosa Beach is a very small city; however, when it became a city, a
choice was made to take on the responsibility of providing all types of businesses which are
appropriate in cities. He stated that this is a legitimate business, and it deserves a place in any
city, including Hermosa Beach. He could think of no other location in town that would be more
appropriate than that which is now being proposed.
Comm. Moore stated that he could support approval of the repair business, with the conditions
imposed by staff. He said that it is the responsibility of the Commission to review the suggested
conditions themselves to determine whether they are adequate to mitigate the problems, not to
completely reject the use altogether.
Jack Wood, on behalf of the applicant, addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that if the
business were allowed to open, a survey could be done to determine the number of motorcycles
coming to the business; (2) noted, however, that no such numbers can be obtained if the
business is not operating; (3) felt that pertinent data would be valuable in making a decision; (4)
noted that the applicants can tell their customers the importance of adhering to the rules; (5)
stated that the applicant should be given the chance to enforce the conditions; (6) said that the
business can be monitored to ensure compliance; (7) noted that if compliance is not possible,
the business could be reviewed and closed.
Chmn. Ketz noted that two public hearings have been held on this issue, and no specific data
has thus far been presented.
Mr. Wood countered by stating that the only way the data can be provided is to actually monitor
the business itself. He further noted that the number of bikes traveling up and down the side
streets can be measured.
Mr. Vose advised that the public hearing should be reopened if the Commission chooses to hear
more testimony.
Chmn. Ketz and Comm. Peirce both agreed that they had heard enough testimony upon which
to base their decisions.
Comm. Peirce explained that he reached his decision on the fact that, even though additional
data could be gathered, all of the information must be examined. His conclusion is that people
leaving the shop create noise to the effect that there can be no mitigation. He noted. however.
that he would be willing to continue the matter in order to receive additional information on
noise, but nothing else. He stressed that he does not feel there is a mitigation measure for noise
created by bikes leaving the front of the shop. He felt that enough testimony has been heard
already on the other issues.
Comm. Rue agreed that the main issue is noise, and no objective data has been presented. He
said that this business is open and selling apparel. Testimony has been given that the noise is
getting worse. He felt that this use is intrusive for the neighborhood, and based on the
testimony already received, he said he would vote against approval. He further felt that the
applicant would prefer that this matter not be continued again in order that the matter may be
appealed directly to the City Council for decision.
15 P.C. Minutes 8/21/90
Comm. Rue felt that there are other locations in other cities which are appropriate for intense
uses such as the one being proposed. He stated that if additional information related
specifically to the noise only could be provided, he would not object to another continuance.
Chnm. Ketz preferred to vote on the matter at this time, noting that it has been discussed at
several public hearings already.
MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Chmn. Ketz, to deny approval of the conditional use
permit, based on the fact that the noise generated from the motorcycles pulling away from the
front of the shop cannot be mitigated.
Comm. Moore asked whether Comm. Peirce was referring to noise coming from the business
itself, or noise created by customers coming to the business from the highway, to which Comm.
Peirce replied that he does not choose to make a differentiation in his motion because he felt
that they are part and parcel of the same thing.
Comm. Moore disagreed, stating that that fact is very important, noting that the conditions
presented very clearly show that the noise on the property itself can be managed and can be
enforced. He felt that Comm. Peirce's concerns relate to noise created by customers leaving the
property, not noise on the property itself.
Comm. Rue did not feel that the accumulation of the noise can be mitigated or controlled in any
event. He did not feel that the owners can control the noise generated by the business.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms.Peirce,Rue,Chnm.Ketz
Comm. Moore
None
Comm. Ingell
Chmn. Ketz announced that the decision of the Planning Commission can be appealed by
writing to the City Council within ten days.
Recess taken from 10:05 P.M. until 10:13 P.M.
Chnm. Ketz explained to the audience the Commission's policy of not meeting past midnight.
Noting the lateness of the hour, she asked whether anyone would be interested in having their
item continued to the next meeting, to which one person responded that he would favor a
continuance of Agenda Item 14(a).
SUB 86-2 --SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE REVISED GRADING
PLAN FOR AN EIGHT-LOT SUBDIVISION AT 532. 534. AND 540 20TH STREET. COMMONLY
KNOWN AS "'IHE POWER STREET SUBDIVISION" (CONTINUED FROM MEETINGS OF 4/ 3/90.
5/ 1/90. AND 6/5/90)
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated August 16, 1990, and recommended that this item be
continued to a date certain. It was also recommended that this be the last continuance on this
issue, and that if nothing is received, a focused E.I.R. should be required.
The Planning Commission continued this item from the April 3, 1990, meeting because the
developer had provided inadequate information upon which to base a decision. The developer
was requested to work with the Department of Public Works to generate sufficient information
on drainage and storm sewer capacity so the Commission could make a determination as to the
level of environmental impact.
16 P.C. Minutes 8/21/90
The Planning Commission, at their meeting of May 1, continued this item pursuant to the
applicant's request to allow more time to gather the needed information. At the June 5th
meeting, a second request for continuance was granted.
Staff called the applicant's office on August 16 to inquire about the status of the project and was
informed that the owner was on vacation and no new information was available. It was again
mentioned that the applicant is pursuing using the existing four lots rather than subdividing
the property.
Pursuant to Section 66452.6(b) of the State Map Act, the length of time allowed prior to
expiration shall not include any period of time during which a development moratorium
existed. Section 66452.6(f) defines development moratoria to include any period of time which
a condition imposed by the City would not be satisfied because it necessitated action by the City
and said action caused a delay.
For this project, the supplemental environmental assessment required by the City Council was
delayed because it required the completion of a study from the County in regard to the adequacy
of the storm drain system. Staff felt that the delay caused by the City and County comprised
between eight months and twenty•five days. This was the period in between the date the City
Council requested staff to conduct a supplemental environmental assessment and the date the
staff environmental review committee made its recommendation on March 8, 1990. The
primary reason for the delay was that staff was forced to wait for the County to complete its
study before maldng its determination on the environmental impact.
Therefore, the effective expiration date for the tentative map is March 10, 1991. This should
provide ample time for the applicant to resolve the drainage problems. As such, staff felt that
the continuance should be granted.
Public Hearing opened and continued at 10:17 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz, who noted that no one
appeared to address the Commission on this item.
MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Moore, to approve staff's recommendation to
continue this item for the final time, to the meeting of October 16, 1990.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Moore, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ketz.
None
None
Comm. Ingell
cUP 90: 11 .. coNDITIONAL usE PERMIT AMENDMENT ro ADD A RETAIL usE ro AN
EXISTING RESTAURANT AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE
DECLARATION AT 203 HERMOSA AVENUE, BEACH MODA
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated August 15, 1990. Staff recommended that the Planning
Commission approve a conditional use permit and negative declaration, subject to the
conditions in the proposed resolution.
This project is located in the C-1 zone, with a general plan designation of neighborhood
commercial. The present use is as a portion of a restaurant, and the proposed use is for retail
sale of clothing. The building size is approximately 1500 square feet, and approximately 130
square feet is being proposed for the retail area.
On June 28, 1990, the staff environmental review committee recommended a negative
declaration for the request.
The requested retail business is already in operation in a portion of the Uncle Stavros Cafe.
The store sells clothing and beach accessories.
17 P.C. Minutes 8/21/90
The subject portion of the building previously was part of the restaurant operation and served
as the pizza room. It consists of about 130 square feet and contains a counter for the store clerk
and a few small racks of new clothing.
Staff detennined that adding this use constitutes a change of use of an existing nonconfonning
structure to a more intense use since it would involve a second business. The building is
nonconforming to parking as only three parking spaces e:xist.
Staff is recommending approval, however, because the added use actually requires less parking
on a per square foot basis than the previous use. Therefore, although the proposed use
intensifies the use of property, it lessens the parking impact.
Currently, the operation and the use of the property is clean and well organized, and the City's
code enforcement officer recently inspected the site and found no problems. Therefore, staff
would not anticipate any problems with the addition of a second business.
The proposed resolution incorporates conditions from the original CUP for beer and wine and
the amendment to allow outside dining, into one document.
Public Hearing opened at 10:21 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz.
Steve Triantas, 1242 Bonnie Brae, applicant, addressed the Commission and stated that he has
read the conditions and has no objection.
Public Hearing closed at 10:22 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz.
MOTION by Comm. Moore, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve staffs recommendation,
Resolution P.C. 90-69, as written.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Moore, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ketz
None
None
Comm. Ingell
SUB 90-1 --REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF VESTING 'IENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #21943 FOR A
TBREE-LQf SUBDIVISION OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 588 20TH STREET
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated August 9, 1990. Staff recommended that the Planning
Commission approve the requested subdivision by adopting the proposed resolution.
This project is located in the R-1 zone, with a general plan designation of low density. The
present use is as a single dwelling. The lot size is 16,059 square feet, or 120 by 133 feet. The
environmental determination is categorically exempt. Pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act guidelines, Section 15303, up to three single-family residences in
urbanized areas qualify for a categorical exemption.
The applicant is requesting to subdivide an existing lot into three lots with 40.25 feet of
frontage each. The resulting lot sizes would be 5353 square feet each.
The proposed lots conform to current zoning and subdivision requirements, as they front on a
public street, exceed the minimum width of 40 feet, and exceed 4000 square feet.
Section 29.5-8 of the Subdivision ordinance requires that the Planning Commission make
findings that the proposed subdivision meets subdivision and zoning requirements, and
additionally it requires a finding that the "size of the proposed lots is not smaller than the
prevailing lot size in the area in which they are located."
18 P.C. Minutes 8/21/90
Staff has calculated the average lot size for the surrounding R-1 zoned area generally bounded
by Valley Drive on the east, Hermosa Valley School on the south, the sand hill on the west, and
25th Street on the north. By excluding other unsubdivided lots of over 10,000 square feet, the
average size is approximately 5860 square feet.
Within a much closer vicinity, between 18th Street and 21st Street, the average lot size is
approximately 6077 square feet.
Therefore, the proposed lots are slightly smaller than the average lot size of the surrounding
area. The ordinance, however, uses the term prevailing lot size which, staff believes, gives the
Planning Commission general discretion to determine if the proposed lots are reasonably
consistent with lots in the vicinity. Since several lots in the vicinity are equivalent to or even
smaller than the proposed lots, and since the lots are quite close to the average in the area, staff
believes that this finding can be met.
Otherwise, the proposed subdivision has appropriate public street access, available utilities,
and is consistent with both the R-1 zone and the density requirements of the general plan low
density residential category.
Comm. Peirce noted that he lives near this property; however, he does not feel it is within 500
feet of the proposed project.
Mr. Schubach, after questioning where Comm. Peirce lives and after consulting his map, stated
that he does not feel Comm. Peirce has a conflict of interest.
Public Hearing opened at 10:27 P .M. by Chmn. Ketz.
Elizabeth Srour, 820 Manhattan Avenue, Manhattan Beach, representing the applicant,
addressed the Commission and: ( 1) said that the applicants have owned this property for more
than eight years, and they currently live there; (2) explained that they are requesting approval
to create three lots, however, there are no building plans at this time; (3) said that any future
construction plans would need to be approved; (4) said that the applicants are in full
compliance in regard to this request and are asking for no exceptions or variances; (5) said that
this proposal meets all of the technical requirements for subdivision, such as having adequate
frontage, minimum lot size, and access to a public street; (6) said that the proposal is to create
three lots of 5353 square feet each; (7) noted that this proposal meets all of the development
standards within the general plan guidelines for this area. and the three lots will be very
satisfactory building sites; (8) explained that there are no inherent constraints or
topographical constraints which would render any of these lots unbuildable.
Ms. Srour continued and: (1) said that this is not a flat lot, but rather has a slope of
approximately eight feet from east to west at the front of the property; (2) commented on letters
sent to the Commission by the neighbors, and stated that the letters contain some very serious
inaccuracies; (3) stated that this is the first application for a lot division since the Ryans have
owned this property; (4) explained that there are currently two units on this property, as the
city records will prove; (5) continued by discussing Exhibit B, which had been provided to the
Commission, and she specified the lot sizes of all lots in the surrounding area; (6) stated that
there is no consistent lot size or configuration in this particular area.
Ms. Srour went on and: (1) stated that when this property was first purchased, it could have
been subdivided into five lots; (2) said that the prevailing average lot size in this particular area
is 5276 square feet; (3) stated that it is an unfair burden to judge this site only from the school
site all the way up to 25th Street, noting that there are very distinct neighborhoods in this area;
(4) stated that when this tract was originally laid out, the lot sizes were 40 feet by 100 feet; (5)
noted that people become very protective of their neighborhoods, however, the plan being
proposed is in keeping with the rest of the neighborhood; (6) continued by discussing the
various lot sizes and streets in this particular area, noting that the configuration of lots varies
19 P.C. Minutes 8/21/90
in this area; (7) stated that approval of this subdivision will in no way be detrimental to the
neighborhood, and she therefore requested that the request be approved.
Ms. Srour, in response to questions from Chmn. Ketz, explained that there are currently two
units on the lot. She stated that the units are owner occupied at the present. She noted that
Mrs. Ryan would be able to answer those types of questions in more detail.
Robert Roselle, 572 18th Street, addressed the Commission and: (1) noted that he received his
notice only three days ago and therefore did not have adequate time to prepare a presentation;
(2) wanted to ensure that the lots would not be smaller than those required in the R-1 zone; (3)
stated that he would return with building plans are submitted, but at this time he has no
objection.
Jack Miller, 575 20th Street, addressed the Commission and: (1) discussed the various lot sizes
in this neighborhood and stated that the frontage in most cases is 50 feet or more; (2) said that
the neighbors are concerned about having three 40-foot lots jammed together on their street; (3)
noted that this neighborhood is unique in terms of lot size and frontage; (4) said that the
character of the neighborhood would be destroyed if they are allowed to have three 40-foot lots;
(5) described the layout of the property owned by the Ryans; (6) said that the lot size is not the
main issue, but rather it is the length of the frontage; (7) discussed the letter dated August 1990
which was sent to the Commission; (8) stated that approval of this request is not conducive to
low density; (9) hoped that the Commission would reconsider staffs recommendation to
approve this request; (10) expressed shock and disappointment that the Ryans are moving and
subdividing the lot.
Lisa Miscione, 585 20th Street, addressed the Commission and: (1) said that 20th Street is a
nice street, and the subdivision would not be compatible with the character of the
neighborhood; (2) noted concern for increased traffic generated by three more lots, especially
in light of the potential development of Power Street; (3) discussed prevailing lot sizes in the
neighborhood and stated that 30 of the 56 lots in Exhibit B are larger than the proposal, and 26
of the lots are smaller.
Warner Lombardi, 1849 Valley Park, addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that the area in
question is very unique and he could not understand why the city is attempting to subdivide it;
(2) stated that most of the lots are quite large; (3) noted that parking is already quite bad in the
area, and adding more lots would make the situation worse; (4) noted that there are already
drainage and sewer problems in this area; (5) commented that no building plans have been
submitted, nor has there been any mention of such vital issues as sidewalks; (6) again noted
that many other lots in this area are larger than those being proposed; (7) felt that lots with a
40-foot frontage would be inappropriate in this neighborhood.
Wilma Burt, 1152 7th Street, addressed the Commission and: (1) objected to this project, in
light of the fact that the city has in the recent past combined many lots; (2) noted that many
people had asked to combine lots, but their requests were refused because there was a
requirement to have contiguous lots under the same ownership; (3) felt that just because this lot
is larger, it should not be allowed to subdivide without meeting the proper criteria.
Howard Longacre, 1221 7th Place, addressed the Commission and: (1) felt that this project is
putting the horse before the cart; (2) stated that this is the most beautiful part of the city, and he
expressed shock that the owner wants to subdivide into three lots; (3) discussed the past lot
mergers and stated that this proposal just doesn't make sense; (4) noted that there are people
who are willing to pay a premium for one large home on one large lot: (5) said that the
neighbors have voiced their opposition to this project; (6) discussed the CEQA guidelines
related to development of two or more units; (7) stated that Comm. Peirce may have a conflict
and it should be determined whether he does or does not.
John Barren, 1948 Valley Park, addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that he has lived at
this address his entire life, and he has noted increased traffic and speed of vehicles in the area;
20 P.C. Minutes 8/21/90
(2) noted safety concerns for this area, stating that there is a hazard for pedestrians and school
children; (3) said that it is sad to see the quality of life diminishing in this area; (4) stated that
there are drainage and sewage problems in the area, and he could see no reason to allow
additional units thereby increasing the burden on those systems; (5) discussed the issue of
frontage and noted that smaller frontages are conducive t o houses which cover a greater
percentage of the lot, thereby creating runoff problems since water cannot be absorbed into the
ground; (6) did not feel that a great deal of thought has been expended in regard to this project;
(7) voiced his opposition to approval of the subdivision; (8) responded to questions from Comm.
Peirce related to where the drainage problems occur.
Vickie Garcia, 1835 Valley Park Avenue, addressed the Commission and: (1) agreed with the
previous comments; (2) noted concern over traffic congestion and parking problems: (3) stated
that prevailing frontages should be addressed as well as prevailing lot sizes before a decision is
made; (4) could see no difference between lot splitting and subdivisions.
Ms. Srour addressed the Commission and: (1) stressed that the code allows certain
opportunities for development, and this proposal is within the guidelines; (2) emphasized that
the homes in the 20th Street tract are slightly ]larger than other lots in the area; (3) discussed
various frontages in the area, stating that they vary, and the precedent is well established for
40-foot lots; (4) stated that the Building Department will analyze drainage and sewage issues at
the appropriate time, however, there has been no indication that there are any problems with
either of those items; (5) said that it is unfair to relate this proposal to that of Power Street,
noting that the two projects are very different: (6) stated that low density does not mean no
growth at all, and this proposal is well within the established pattern in this area.
Betty Ryan, 588 20th Street, applicant, addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that there
will be adequate sized lots created by this subdivision; (2) stated that they have considerably
improved this property; (3) explained in detail the structures which currently exist on this lot;
(4) stated that the cottage is not rented out, however, it is frequently used as a guest house; (5)
explained that they are not moving out of the area; they merely want to move so that they can
have a home with an ocean view; (6) asked that her request be approved.
Public Hearing closed at 11: 15 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz.
Comm. Moore felt that this is an open and shut case. He stated that the main issue is the
prevailing lot size, and he felt that this project is well within the reasonable definition of
prevailing lot size, and this is a right which the property owners certainly enjoy. He therefore
favored approval of the project.
Comm. Moore addressed the concerns voiced by the neighbors, and stated that those concerns
relate mainly to building design itself, not the actual lot size.
Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Chmn. Ketz, explained the reasoning behind the
past lot mergers undertaken in the city.
MOTION by Comm. Moore, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to approve staffs recommendation,
Resolution P.C. 90-68, as written.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Moore, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ketz
None
None
Comm. Ingell
Chmn. Ketz advised that the decision of the Planning Commission can be appealed by writing
to the City Council within ten days.
21 P.C. Minutes 8/21/90
CUP 90-4 --CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO INCREASE THE HEIGHT OF A
FENCE AT 340 MASSEY AVENUE. OUR LADY OF GUADALUPE SCHOOL
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated August 14, 1990. Staff recommended that the Planning
Commission approve a conditional use pennit amendment, subject to the conditions specified
in the proposed resolution.
On May 15, 1990, the Planning Commission granted a conditional use permit and parking plan
to allow a portable classroom in the parking lot.
At this time , the applicant has decided not to proceed with the construction of a temporary
classroom, but would like to replace the existing six-foot high chain link fence along the south
and east property lines with a nine-foot high fence with aluminum slats.
Pursuant to the recently amended Section 1215 of the zoning ordinance, a fence higher than six
feet may be allowed by a conditional use permit in situations where non-residential uses abut
residential uses.
According to Section 1215, the criteria for granting such a CUP are: (a) the use of the higher
wall or fence is necessary to mitigate potential noise, visual, or other impact of a non-
residential use on a residential use; (b) the greater height will not be detrimental to neighboring
property or to the public welfare and will not interfere with the light, air, and scenic view of
any property; (c) the higher wall or fence shall be be constructed of materials as noted in
Section 1214(5); and (d) vehicle vision clearance shall not be hindered by a wall or fence
resulting in a safety hazard.
The applicant wants the higher fence primarily for safety and security reasons. It would also
serve as a visual buffer between nearby residences in both Hermosa Beach and Redondo Beach.
A portion of the fence on the east property line is located on top of an existing retaining wall
adjacent to Reynolds Drive in Redondo Beach, and the wall approximately coincides with the
Hermosa Beach/Redondo Beach city boundary.
The southern property line fence abuts the rear yards of three residences.
Staff believes that the proposed improvement and height increase for the fence will improve
the appearance of the property, and it meets the criteria in Section 1215 for granting a CUP for
excess height.
Although chain link is not the most desirable type of fence for this situation, it should be
recognized that it currently exists on the site, and the new fence with the added height will
include aluminum slats.
Through the CUP for the portable classroom, the applicant still retains the option to install a
portable/ temporary classroom. Staff recommended a condition that the approval for the
temporary classroom, if not implemented within two years, would expire.
Public Hearing opened at 11:22 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz.
Father Alex Lewis, applicant, addressed the Commission and stated that he would be happy to
answer any questions from the Commission.
Wilma Burt, 1152 7th Street, addressed the Commission and: (1) favored approval of the
request, noting the importance of the height of the fence being increased; (2) felt that children
should be protected with the higher fence: (3) stated that the higher fence would be detrimental
to no one; (4) urged approval, not only for the protection of the Children, but also to keep play
equipment inside the school yard.
22 P.C. Minutes 8/21/90
Father Alex addressed the Commission and described the improvements which have been
made to the property since last May. He also noted that he has met with the neighbors in an
attempt to solve various problems.
Public Hearing closed at 11:26 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz.
MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Moore, to approve staff's recommendation,
Resolution P.C. 90-67, as written.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Moore, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ketz
None
None
Comm. Ingell
RESCISSION OF THE APPROVAL OF A NEW ELECTRONIC MARgUEE AT 'IBE COMMUNITY
CEN'IER [CONTINUED FROM MEETING OF AUGUST 7. 1990)
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated July 31, 1990. Staff recommended rescission of the sign
waiver by adoption of the proposed resolution.
The Hermosa Beach Community Center Foundation requested a sign waiver to install a new
marquee at the northeast corner of the Community Center property, replacing the existing
sign.
The Planning Commission approved a sign waiver at their June 6, 1990, meeting.
The Foundation was unable to secure the corporate sponsorship necessary to fund construction
of the marquee and resolved to replace or repair the old sign with a non-electronic marquee.
At the June 26, 1990, meeting, the City Council referred this matter to the City Attorney for
appropriate action to repeal the waiver.
According to the City Attorney, it is a matter of rescinding the sign waiver; therefore, staff
prepared the necessary resolution.
Hearing opened at 11 :28 P .M. by Chmn. Ketz.
Howard Longacre addressed the Commission and said he is happy that the sign is finally being
rescinded, since it is actually nothing more than a large, moving billboard.
Hearing closed at 11:29 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz.
MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Moore, to approve staff's recommendation,
Resolution P .C. 90-65, as written.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Moore. Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ketz
None
None
Comm. Ingell
COP 89-5 --TO CONSIDER CI"IY COUNCIL SUGGESTED CHANGES TO TIIE CONDmONAL USE
PERMIT FOR 1HE IMPROVEMENTS TO THE MOBIL OIL SERVICE STATION AT 931 PACIFIC
COAST mGHWAY (REFERRED BACK FROM 6/ 12 /90 Cl]Y COUNCIL MEE1JNGJ
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated August 9, 1990. Staff recommended that the Planning
Commission concur with the proposed change to move the 9th Street driveway ten feet east and
23 P.C. Minutes 8/21/90
to add a requirement for a "no right turn" sign at the 9th Street driveway, but otherwise to
continue to recommend approval pursuant to the previous Planning Commission resolution.
Staff further recommended that the applicant more thoroughly respond to Council requests for
the supplemental traffic and noise studies.
At their meeting of June 12, 1990, the City Council considered an appeal of the Planning
Commission approval of the subject request. The Council referred the decision back to staff
and the Planning Commission to consider: ( 1) moving the driveway on 9th Street to the east,
away from the residence to 16 feet; (2) eliminating the fourth set of pumps; (3) including a
traffic study of the ingress and egress for both customers and tankers; (4) doing an additional
study to determine nighttime noise levels; (5) considering a "no right turn" and/or stop sign on
9th Street.
At the meeting of May 1, 1990, the Planning Commission granted the subject conditional use
permit, subject to several conditions as contained in the proposed resolution. This decision
was made after conducting public hearings and discussion at four separate Planning
Commission meetings.
The Planning Commission modified staff-recommended conditions by requiring an eight-foot
wall rather than six feet along the rear property line, requiring a stacking lane for five cars
rather than eight cars, and to offset the south entrance driveway ten feet from the westerly
property line rather than 16.5 feet.
The scope of the Planning Commission review of this referral is to determine whether or not
the changes suggested by the Council are acceptable.
A revised plan has been submitted which moves the 35-foot wide driveway ten feet to the east.
This satisfies the concerns noted by the Council relating to the location of the driveway on 9th
Street. Although it would be preferable to maintain the maximum possible offset from P.C.H.,
the Public Works Department indicates that this revision is acceptable.
Staff recommended that a "no right turn" sign be provided on the south driveway, as suggested
by the Council, to reduce traffic on the local street, and to discourage the use of this local street
for customers with further destinations. Unfortunately, this would force local residents on 9th
Street and vicinity that use this station to exit onto P.C.H. and then turn down 9th Street.
The revised plans indicate the originally proposed four pump islands as previously approved
by the Planning Commission. The islands have been shifted three feet to the north to provide
adequate clearance from the relocated driveway. The applicant has not provided any further
justification for keeping the four pumps in response to the Council's concerns. In staff's
judgment. the site is adequate in size for the four pump islands, and this feature should
facilitate moving customers through the station to prevent stacking.
The applicant has also provided additional information in regard to traffic impacts which
support previous information provided by the applicant, and further notes that gaps in the
flow of P.C.H. traffic are frequent enough to support the egress movements that would be
generated from this project.
This study, however, does not address ingress movements into the site, tanker truck traffic,
and the effect a "no right turn" sign on the 9th Street exit would have.
Additionally, the applicant has provided noise measurements for the hours from 12:00 AM. to
5:00 AM. These measurements are of the noise levels which currently exist due to the
operation of the 24-hour station and the background noise from P.C.H. The study does not
project noise levels that the expanded operation might cause, nor the potential reduction of
noise from the installation of an eight-foot high sound wall.
24 P.C. Minutes 8/21/90
Staff felt that the amount of additional noise should not be significant and that the eight-foot
wall should actually improve the current condition.
Hearing opened at 11:31 P.M. byChmn. Ketz.
Brian Recksteiner, 3800 West Alameda, Burbank, representing Mobil Oil, addressed the
Commission and: (1) said that the project has again been redesigned to mitigate certain
problems; (2) discussed the problem with the driveway on 9th Street, stating there is now a
distance of 16 feet, six inches, between the driveway and that of the neighbor's; (3) passed out a
letter to the Commissioners related to egress; (4) discussed the traffic study, stating that the
letter addresses this point; (5) said that the traffic signal phasing will handle the traffic; (6)
said that the "no right turn" sign on 9th Street was a mitigation measure to protect the
neighbor, but now that the driveway has been redesigned, he did not feel the "no right turn" sign
is necessary; (7) stated that he has read the staff report and has no objection other than that
related to the "no right turn" sign.
Mr. Recksteiner, in response to questions from Comm. Rue related to the letter, explained that
the traffic study was done based on four islands. He stated that 124 vehicles can enter and leave
the station during each one-hour period. He noted, however, that they are projecting only 36
vehicles per hour; therefore, they do not see any problem.
Mr. Schubach stated that based on the figures, staff does not consider this to be an overdense
project and therefore recommended four islands. He noted, though, that staff had thought
there were only going to be three islands; however, the fourth island has always been
designated on the plans.
Mr. Recksteiner addressed the confusion between the three versus four islands. He explained
that they had always planned on having four islands. He said most of the other service
stations in Los Angeles are 150 by 150 feet. or 22,500 square feet. Th.is particular location is
unique in that it measures 28,655 square feet. He stated that with the reconfiguration of the
driveway, there is now room for the fourth island, as was always planned.
Mr. Recksteiner handed out maps of the proposed site and continued to explain the placement
of the islands and canopy. He stated that Mobil standards include a four-island facility;
however, in substandard conditions, only three islands are installed.
Mr. Recksteiner, in response to questions from Comm. Rue regarding the landscaping, stated
that the landscaping plans have not changed, other than the enlargement of the planter
between the station and the neighbor.
Comm. Moore discussed the fact that the proposed car wash will not have blow drying. He
asked what drivers actually do when they exit and their cars are wet. He felt that this could
create confusion because people would assume that the blowers were broken.
Mr. Recksteiner stated that some people get out and dry off their windshields and drive away.
He noted, however, that since pure water is used in the wash cycle, it dries ahnost instantly.
Howard Longacre addressed the Commission and: (1) pointed out that the Council has made no
final decision on this matter at this point; (2) discussed the issue of drying and stated that
people will be confused when their car is not blown dry and noted concern that people will stop
to get out and dry their cars; (3) stated that this will be a massive gas pumping station with no
changes other than the alteration in the driveway and the suggestion that a "no right turn" sign
be installed; (4) stated that once people exit onto P.C.H., they will probably stay on the highway;
(5) said that the issue is not islands, it is the number of pumps, and he urged the Commission to
address the number of pumps; (6) said that Mr. Recksteiner is a paid lobbyist, and he felt that
citizens do not realize the impact this station will create; (7) displayed several photos depicting
another similar Mobil station in Long Beach, and he asked several questions related to the
photos.
25 P.C. Minutes 8/21/90
Mr. Longacre continued and: (1) noted concem that many cars will stack and leave their
engines nmniog while waiting to enter the car wash; (2) discussed the layouts depicted in the
photos at the other Mobil station; (3) noted concem over the number of pumps which will be
installed; (4) discussed the average car length and stated that they will be strung across the
service station property, noting that the proposed lot is not huge; (5) disagreed with the
applicant's statement that gas is an impulse purchase; (6) said that getting one's car washed is
sometimes addictive, and he noted that most people going into the car wash have clean cars.
Mr. Longacre went on and: (1) discussed the firm that conducted the traffic study, stating that
he felt they did not include enough information; (2) commented on several issues raised in the
traffic study; (3) strongly opposed the proposed 16 pumps on four islands; (4) stressed that this
service station and snack shop with 24-hour operation will create a huge impact in the city; (5)
stated that the peace and tranquility of the surrounding neighborhood will be destroyed.
Wilma Burt, 1152 7th Street, addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that the neighbors
strongly favor the "no right tum" sign from the station onto 9th Street; (2) asked when it was
ever approved that this station could operate 24 hours a day; (3) stated that 24-hour service
creates noise problems to the neighbors; (4) said that no other businesses in the area operate 24
hours a day; (5) opposed 24-hour operation.
Mr. Schubach, in response to questions from Comm. Peirce regarding the 24-hour operation,
explained that this station did not require a conditional use permit when it first opened. He
said that the applicant asserts this station has been operating 24 hours a day for quite some
time, with the exception of one short period.
Gloria Kolesar, 714/726 10th Street, addressed the Commission and: (1) supported the
lengthening of the driveway; (2) felt that a stop sign would help; (3) discussed the traffic study
and commented on several of the points in the report; (4) stated that the car wash impact
should have been included in the traffic study as well as the pumps; (5) noted concern over the
24-hour operation and the new sign on the highway advertising this fact; (6) noted concern over
four pump islands at the station, recalling that the initial proposal called for only three
islands; (7) noted concern over potential stacking while people wait to enter the car wash; (8)
discussed traffic circulation patterns at the station; (9) asking whether there are any criteria
for overdevelopment.
Jim Lissner, 2715 El Oeste, addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that preventing cars from
stacking will lessen the air pollution; (2) suggested that the area be modified so that cars do not
pile up with their engines running.
Parker Herriott, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and: (1) said that the City Council
informed the applicant that they could have only three islands; (2) noted concern over the 24-
hour operation, especially as related to safety issues; (3) stated that his queries to Mobil
regarding number of pump islands have not been answered; (4) opposed the car wash, stating
that it will create too much car stacking and congestion; (5) noted concern over the emission of
gas fumes while cars wait; (6) urged the Commission to protect the citizens; (7) noted concern
that the noise study makes no mention of late-night noise in the residential neighborhood; (8)
asked how much money will be generated from this service station; (9) stated that there have
been discrepancies between what he has been told by the applicant and what he has been told by
other Mobil representatives.
Howard Longacre addressed the Commission and noted concern over the gas pumps and snack
shop being open 24 hours per day.
Comm. Peirce discussed idling cars at the station and asked how Mobil reconciles that with
their stand on preventing air pollution.
26 P.C. Minutes 8/21/90
Brian Recksteiner stated that the car wash takes only one minute. He noted that testimony has
centered on other stations which use the blow dry cycle, which adds an additional minute and a
half to the cycle.
Comm. Moore noted that even if the wash cycle takes only one minute, there must be an
allowance made for cars pulling in and out of the area for the car wash.
Mr. Recksteiner did not have information related to the specific cycle time, taking into account
the entrance and exit of the cars. He stressed, however, that the wash cycle itself takes only one
minute.
Hearing closed at 12:25 AM. by Chmn. Ketz.
Comm. Moore felt that there will be unending problems with traffic at this location during
peak hours. He also felt that there will be customer relation problems, noting that no air dry
will be provided for the car wash.
Comm. Moore questioned the marketing effect of this proposal, stating that the car wash with
no drying cycle could create public relations problems.
Comm. Moore stated that 24-hour service is used throughout the service industry, noting that
there is actually less crime at 24-hour businesses because most crime occurs as a business is
opening or closing down. He felt that a 24-hour service station is a convenience that this city
should offer. He noted, however, that there is no doubt that there will be additional noise and
light to the surrounding area.
MOTION by Comm. Moore, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve the plan as submitted at this
time, with the inclusion of a condition that a "no right turn" sign be posted at 9th Street.
Comm. Moore noted, however, that he felt that such a sign would be ineffective and would turn
people into lawbreakers.
Comm. Rue noted that much public testimony has been heard on this matter. He said that he
has nothing further to add, noting that the project has been studied quite thoroughly.
Chmn. Ketz noted concern over noise and 24-hour service. She noted that no project noise level
information was presented related to the increased noise levels since this station is being
increased four-fold. She stated that she would favor three islands as opposed to the proposed
four. She also favored the condition requiring that a "no right turn" sign be installed on 9th
Street, as well as the condition that the driveway on 9th Street be moved away from the
residence 16 feet.
Comm. Rue questioned whether having only three pump islands would actually improve the
situation, to which Comm. Moore responded that having only three islands would produce
more traffic jams during heavy periods, and it would have no effect at all during the late-night
hours.
Comm. Rue did not feel that three islands would create a dramatic improvement at the site.
Chmn. Ketz questioned what impact the fourth island would have on the amount of business
coming into the station.
Comms. Peirce and Moore agreed that the fourth island would indeed create more traffic
coming into the station.
Comm. Rue felt that the fourth island would reduce the car stacking.
27 P.C. Minutes 8/21/90
Comm. Rue questioned how noise levels could be projected if the 24-hour station is not in
operation. He commented that information has been provided for a twelve-pump operation,
but noted that infonnation was not provided for a sixteen-pump operation.
Comm. Moore stated that there is no doubt a 24-hour operation will create noise at night;
however, he noted that the city has a noise ordinance.
Chmn. Ketz, discussing the hours of operation. noted that the hours have been restricted for the
car wash operation; however, no restrictions were placed on the gas station use.
Comm. Rue asked whether more infonnation could be obtained related to the effects of 24-hour
operation and the mitigation effects of the trees and the eight-foot wall, to which Mr. Schubach
replied that the consultant could be requested to provide such information.
Chmn. Ketz suggested that the request be made so that the information can be presented to the
City Council, rather than requiring this issue to come back before the Planning Commission.
Comm. Rue stated that he could support an amendment to the motion to require additional
infonnation related to the projected noise levels and the impact to the neighborhood created by
the 24-hour operation.
Comm. Moore noted that this issue must go forward to the City Council. He therefore felt it is
unnecessary to require a request for additional information in the body of the motion.
Comm. Rue suggested that a projected noise study for the 16 pumps and the 24-hour operation
be made prior to the City Council meeting. Chmn. Ketz agreed.
Comm. Moore could not support such an amendment to the motion, stating that the noise very
late at night will be minimal. He stated that late at night there will not be a great deal of traffic.
Comm. Rue noted, however, that the operation will have a convenience store. He noted that
people will be leaving entertainment establishments late at night, and they will go into the
convenience store.
Comm. Moore felt that further information is unnecessary, stating that the applicant knows
what the City Council wants.
Chmn. Ketz stated that she could support approval of the motion; however, she noted strong
concern over the four pump islands and the 24-hour operation of the business as related to the
attendant noise impacts.
(Vote on Comm. Moore's motion to approve the request as submitted with the requirement that
the "no right turn" sign be posted at 9th Street.)
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
STAFF ITEMS
Comms. Moore, Rue, Chmn. Ketz
Comm. Peirce
None
Comm. Ingell
a) Coillillnnication Regarding 160 Manhattan Avenue. Bayview Sanitarium
Tilis item was continued to the next meeting because of the lateness of the hour.
b) Tentative Future Planning Commission Agenda
No action taken.
28 P.C. Minutes 8/21/90
c) City Council Minutes of July 24. 1990
No action taken.
d) Memorandum Rega.rdipg Au t omatic Vacancies on the Phmning Commission
Comm. Rue noted that he has only been absent once, not twice as shown in the memo, to which
Mr. Schubach replied that that has been corrected.
Comm. Moore stated that when he was appointed to the Commission he was mistaken in that
he thought four absences per year were allowed. He noted, however, that three absences are
allowed. and four creates an automatic vacancy. He said he will miss serving on the
Commission, and he hoped that someone could be found who will do a good job.
Chmn. Ketz noted the difficulty in attending all meetings, especially during the summer
months. She hoped the Council would take this into account when they appoint a new
Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER ITEMS
None.
MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Rue, to adjourn at 12:44 AM. on Wednesday,
August 22. No objections; so ordered.
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and complete record of the action
taken by the Planning Commission of Hermosa Beach at the regularly scheduled
meeting of August 21, 1990.
~/4-
Christine Ketz, Vic ~
('
~---?-~elchubach.Secre
29 P.C. Minutes 8/21/90
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
HELD ON SEPTEMBER 4, 1990, AT 7:00 P.M. IN THE CITY HALL COUNCll. CHAMBERS
Meeting called to order at 7:00 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell .
Pledge of Allegiance led by Comm. Moore.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Absent:
Comms. Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ingell
None
Also Present: Michael Schubach, Planning Director; Edward Lee, Assistant City
Attorney; Sally White, Recording Secretary
Howard Longacre, 1221 7th Place, addressed the Commission and asked whether he could
comment on the minutes.
Chmn. Ingell explained that the consent calendar items are being approved as to form only.
Mr. Lee explained that review of the minutes is by the Planning Commission, and it is left to
the discretion of the Chairman whether or not to accept comments on the minutes.
Comm. Moore stated that it would not be appropriate to accept testimony from the public on
the minutes.
CONSENT CALENDAR
MOTION by Comm. Moore, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve the following consent calendar
items:
Minutes of August 21, 1990;
Policy Statement P.C. 90-1, A POLICY STATEMENT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CI1Y OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, INTERPRETING THAT MOTORCYCLE SALES AND
MOTORCYCLE PARrS RETAIL SALES ARE DISTINCT FROM AUTO SALES AND AUTO PARrS
SALES;
Resolution P.C. 90-57, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CllY OF
HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DENYING A REQUESTED AMENDMENT TO A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW MOTORCYCLE REPAIR AT 638-640 PACIFIC COAST
HIGHWAY, DESCRIBED AS LOT 18 AND PORTION OF 19, WILSON AND LIND 'S TRACT;
Resolution P.C. 90-65, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CI1Y OF
HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RESCINDING THE APPROVED SIGN WAIVER FOR THE
COMMUNI1Y CENTER ELECTRONIC MARQUEE;
Resolution P.C. 90-67, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CllY OF
HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA , AMENDING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND PARKING
PLAN FOR THE INSTALLATION OF A PORfABLE CLASSROOM (RESOLUTION P.C. 90-36) TO
ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NINE-FOOT HIGH FENCE TO REPI.ACE AN EXISTING SIX-
FOOT HIGH FENCE AT 340 MASSEY AVENUE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS 1-5
INCLUSIVE, 7, 8, AND 21-40 INCLUSIVE, HERMOSA HEIGIITS TRACT;
1 P.C. Minutes 9/ 4/90
Resolution P.C. 90-68, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CI'IY OF
HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO.
21943 FOR A THREE LOT SUBDIVISION AT 588 2CYm STREET, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS TIIE
NORrHWESTERLY 133 FEET BY 120. 75 PORTION OF LOT 9, BLOCK 71, SECOND ADDIDON TO
HERMOSA BEACH;
Resolution P.C. 90-69, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CI'IY OF
HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ON-SALE
BEER AND WINE AND OUTSIDE DINING IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN EXISTING
RESTAURANT, TO ALLOW A SEPARATE RETAIL BUSINESS WITHIN THE SAME BUILDING,
AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 203 HERMOSA
AVENUE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 14, BLOCK 3, HERMOSA BEACH TRACT.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Rue
None
Chmn. Ingell
None
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC
Howard Longacre, 1221 7th Place, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and asked for
clarification on the policy related to automatic vacancies on the Commission. He also noted
that Comm. Moore is still on the Commission, and he asked when that position would be filled.
Comm. Peirce stated that the Council has allowed Comm. Moore to continue serving on the
Commission until such time that someone is appointed to fill the position.
Mr. Lee explained the policy, concurring that a Commissioner can continue serving until the
vacancy is filled.
Comm. Moore stated that when he accepted the assignment, he was under the impression that
there could be four absences per year; however, only three absences are allowed, and the fourth
absence creates a vacancy.
CUP 90-5 -CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR OFF-SALE GENERAL ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES
AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 1031 HERMOSA AVENUE. GOLDEN LION LIQUOR
(CONTINUED FROM MEETING OF JUNE 5. 1990)
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated August 30, 1990. Staff recommended that this request be
continued to a specific date.
This request was continued by the Planning Commission based on the advice 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 City Attorney indicated that he has contacted the City of Los Angeles, the defendant in the
case, which does not plan to appeal the decision. As such, the court's decision may set a
precedent which will limit the ability to enforce controls on alcohol establishments.
Assistant City Attorney Lee advised that this item should be continued to give his office
adequate time to assess the latest information in regard to the Los Angeles case and to obtain
clear policy direction from the City Council in light of the potential legal problems associated
with regulating alcohol establishments.
Mr. Schubach suggested that this item be continued to the meeting of September 18, 1990.
2 P.C. Minutes 9/4/90
Public Hearing opened and continued at 7:08 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell, who noted that no one
appeared to speak on this issue.
MOTION by Comm. Ketz, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to approve staffs recommendation to
continue this item to the meeting of September 18, 1990.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ingell
None
None
None
CUP 90-14 -CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ON•SALE BEER AND WINE IN CONJUNCTION
WITH A RESTAURANT AND ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 1433 HERMOSA
AVENUE, J.B. BURGERS (CONTINUED FROM MEETING OF JULY 17. 1990)
Mr. Schubach stated that this item has the same report as that given for the previous hearing,
and he recommended that this item be continued to the meeting of September 18, 1990.
Public Hearing opened at 7: 10 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
Constantine Farmans, 3812 Sepulveda, Torrance, attorney representing the applicant, John
Bokolas, addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that the applicant objects to a further
continuance of this item; (2) asked that the Commission consider this application on its merits
at this time: (3) said that there is doubt that a municipal body has the right to regulate this type
of license: (4) was surprised that staff initially recommended denial of this request, based on
the fact that the applicant has operated this business for 15 years, he has the right to sell beer
and wine in connection with the operation of a restaurant, there is no bar or television, the
business closes at 10:00 P.M., and there is adequate parking; (5) said that there is no reason for
the City to fear granting this request.
Howard Longacre, 1221 7th Place, concurred with staffs recommendation to deny this request
until such time that the City does a thorough study on the ramifications of allowing additional
liquor outlets in the downtown area. He felt that it would be appropriate to study additional
methods of controlling such establishments.
Public Hearing continued at 7: 15 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve staffs recommendation to
continue this item to the meeting of September 18, 1990.
Comm. Rue stated that it is prudent for the Commission to follow the advise of the City
Attorney in this matter.
Mr. Lee, in response to a question from Comm Moore, explained that his office is awaiting
additional information related to the Los Angeles case and the issue of preemption which could
substantially limit the types of conditions imposed by municipalities in regard to alcohol
sales. He stated that additional information will be available by the next meeting.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ingell
None
None
None
3 P.C. Minutes 9/4/90
TEXT 90·5 -TEXT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW OUTDOOR DISPLAY IN COMMERCIAL ZONES
(CONTINUED FROM MEETING OF AUGUST 7. 1990)
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated July 30, 1990, and stated that staff recommended
approval of the proposed resolution recommending the approval of outdoor display.
At the June 2, 1987, Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Cormnission determined
that outdoor display of merchandise was prohibited by Section 8-5(2) of the zoning ordinance.
At the meeting of June 26, 1990, the City Council requested that the Planning Commission re-
examine allowing outdoor displays on private property.
Staff had previously brought this matter to the Planning Commission's attention because of
the increasing number of downtown merchants who were displaying merchandise outdoors.
The downtown area had taken on a swap meet appearance, and the City was receiving
complaints.
Several factors should be considered in relation to outdoor display. A distinction should be
drawn between "display" and "activity," that is, the selling of merchandise outdoors versus
displaying it. Also, the type, quantity, size, permanency, and location of outdoor display
should be examined. Large quantities of displayed items encroaching into the required
parking area would not be desirable. The display of "adult" or similar items would also be
undesirable, such as a mannequin dressed in lingerie. Also, for example, a large inflated object
left continuously on display may constitute a prohibited type of sign.
Finally, the general appearance of the display should be considered; it should be attractively
organized and not be excessively large. Staff attempted to take into consideration all of these
factors in their preparation of the proposed resolution.
Mr. Schubach continued by reiterating each of the conditions as specified in the resolution.
Cormn. Rue asked whether approval of this text amendment would preclude outdoor sidewalk
sales. He questioned whether the Chamber of Commerce would have any objection to this.
Mr. Schubach explained that adoption of the text amendment would not prohibit outdoor
sidewalk sales, stating that the zoning ordinance does not have a provision which allows
outdoor sales on public property. He stated that the public rights-of-way are under the purview
of the Community Resources Department and the Public Works municipal code sections. He
said that permits for outdoor sales are obtained from the Community Resources Department.
Mr. Schubach, in response to questions from Comm. Moore related to the policies of other
cities, explained that most cities do not allow outdoor displays. He noted, however, that he has
seen in the City such displays as T-shirts hanging outside, jewelry pinned to display boards,
and in one case a giant trash can on display.
Mr. Schubach, in response to questions about how this matter came about, explained that a
request was received from a downtown merchant to allow outdoor displays on his own
property.
Mr. Schubach explained that most cities allow outdoor displays only of outdoor-type items.
such as cars and Christmas trees.
Mr. Schubach, in response to questions from Comm. Rue, stated that he feels the City can
enforce the proposed regulations. He said that there is an interest among some businesses to
allow such displays because they feel it would improve business.
4 P.C. Minutes 9/4/90
Comm. Moore asked whether the City would have a chance to talce action tf this is approved
and unsJghtly displays begin occurring all over the City. He noted that staff has only spent
limited time thinking about the ramifications of allowing outdoor diSplays.
Mr. Schubach noted that the City is always able to amend the ordinance should unforeseen
problems arise in the future.
Comm. Moore favored helping businesses improve; however, he noted that problems could
occur with allowing outdoor displays. He wanted to feel confident that the displays could be
controlled and limited 1f things got out of hand.
Public Hearing opened at 7:28 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
Howard Longacre, 1221 7th Place, addressed the Commission and: (1) was concerned that the
Council even suggested that this iSsue be studied; (2) said that approval of this text amendment
will open a Pandora's box; (3) did not feel that outdoor displays are appropriate: (4) felt that the
wording is not clear enough, and questioned what constitutes an "attractive" display: (5) noted
concern that displays on private property will begin creeping out onto public property; (6) felt
that the City's manpower could be better utilized in other areas; (7) could see no reason to allow
such a practice in this City.
Public Hearing closed at 7:30 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
Comm. Peirce questioned why the City would want to allow this, noting that outdoor displays
will create a more cluttered, honky-tonk atmosphere in the downtown area. He was not
convinced that approval would be in the best interest of the City.
Comm. Ketz agreed that approval would not be in the best interest of the City. She noted that
the City is attempting to limit signs, and she questioned how outdoor displays could be
controlled and limited. She did not feel that such displays would in any way improve the
appearance of the downtown area.
Comm. Peirce could see no good coming out of approval, other than being of benefit to one or
two businesses in town. He could see no reason to approve this amendment.
Chmn. Ingell felt that a better way to attract business 1S to create more attractive shop fronts,
and he did not feel that outdoor displays would be of any benefit
MOTION by Comm. Ketz, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to reject the proposed text amendment,
Resolution P.C. 90-64, based on the following findings: (1) outdoor displays would detract from
the general attractiveness of the commercial area: (2) such a practice would be difficult to
enforce and would be costly to the City; (3) no cogent argument has been presented to convince
the Commission that approval of said text amendment would be beneficial to the City; and (4)
no input has been received from the business community related to this proposal.
Comm. Moore, noting that no argument has been presented showing that this practice is
necessary, stated that at this time he could see no reason to approve the amendment. He noted,
however, that the Commission does not appear to be adamantly opposed to approval; it is just
necessary that a better argument be presented det ailing why such a practice would be beneficial
to the City.
Chmn. Ingell stated that it would have been helpful to have had input from the Chamber of
Commerce.
Mr. Schubach suggested that additional restrictions be added to the resolution. He also
suggested that such use could be allowed by a conditional use permit.
5 P.C. Minutes 9/4/90
Chmn. Ingell noted, however, that the Commission had heard no great demand from the public
indicating that this text amendment is necessary.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN :
ABSENT:
Comms. Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ingell
None
None
None
TmRD QUARTER GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS
SS 89·13 •• PARKS AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN AS PART OF THE OPEN SPACE
ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE
DECLARATION (CONTINUED FROM SECOND QUARTER GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT)
Mary Rooney, Director of the Department of Community Resources presented the staff report
and recommended that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council adoption of
the proposed revisions to the Parks and Recreation Master Plan so that it may be included as
an amendment to the Open Space Element of the General Plan.
At the meeting of June 5, 1990, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Parks
and Recreation Master Plan as an amendment to the Open Space Element of the General Plan.
At their meeting of July 10, 1990, the City Council did not approve the recommendation.
Instead they requested that staff review and revise the recommended organizational structure,
lighting recommendations, and relationship with the Public Works Department.
Council direction with regard to the organizational structure was to use the Department's
current structure with only minor changes for the plan. Concerns about lighting
recommendations for parks centered around the need for neighborhood input prior to any
consideration of added lighting. Concerns about the recommended inclusion of maintenance
staff under the Community Resources Department are that due to staff limitations, current
crews could not be dedicated solely to recreation facilities, making the transition difficult to
coordinate with other City needs. The Community Resources Commission had further
concerns regarding the suggestion for expanded parking at Valley Park.
The Commissioners were provided with the recommended changes in the Master Plan text that
seek to address Council's and the Parks, Recreation, and Community Resources Commission's
direction and requests. As this Plan will serve as a guide for the orderly development of Parks
and Recreation facilities and programs for the next ten years, Council felt that it was
important to maintain a realistic focus in the recommendations so that objectives may be
fulfilled with the fiscal resources available.
Public Hearing opened and closed at 7:38 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell, who noted that no one appeared
to speak on this issue.
MOTION by Comm. Ketz, seconded by Comm. Moore, to approve staff's recommendation,
Resolution P.C. 90-74, as written.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ingell
None
None
None
6 P.C. Minutes 9/4/90
GP 90-4 --DRAFT REVISION OF THE HOUSING ELEMENT AND ADOPTION OF AN
ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated August 24, 1990, and recommended that the Planning
Commission adopt the revtsed housing element which covers the 1989-1994 planning period.
The revision being considered is the second revtsion to the 1979 Housing Element of the
General Plan of the City. Work was begun on this revtsion in early 1989 and the draft being
considered has assembled data and information, with the objectives of the community, to
produce a housing component to guide the City to 1995.
Two workshops were held with the Planning Commission and City Council. The first, on
February 15, 1990, was held to review objectives from the 1984 revision and to suggest adding
objectives to comply with newly adopted state requirements. The workshop also added specific
policies that related directly to actions desired at the local level. The second meeting, August 8,
1990, was for the purpose of review and public input of the completed draft revision.
Corrections and changes from the workshop have or will be included in the element. The draft
revision has also been revtewed by the City staff and by those interested in the general public.
Basically, the revtsion provides updated information from the 1984 revision and the current
situation for housing. New policies in the revtsion come mostly from the recognition of local
problems. Several new sections have been added to the revtsion as State requirements or
emphasis from the City.
The completion of the draft revision and the holding of two workshops began the formal
review process which will conclude wit h two public hearings. The hearings before the
Planning Commission on September 4, 1990, and the City Council on October 9. 1990, end the
revtew with the consideration to adopt the revisions as part of the general plan.
Mr. Schubach stated that new information had been received today from the State Housing and
Community Development Department. In light of this new information, he said that it would
be necessary for staff to revise its recommendation based on the new information. He stated
that several items in the critique need substantial modification, and he continued by
explaining the necessary revtsions.
Comm. Rue asked if this matter could be continued for two weeks so that the Commissioners
would have a chance to study the new material, to which Mr. Schubach stated that the matter
could be continued to September 18 with no problem.
Public Hearing opened and continued at 7:47 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell, who noted that no one
appeared to address the Commission on this matter.
Comm. Rue stated that he would prefer to continue this item for two weeks so that the
Commissioners could see the document in a completed form.
MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to continue this item to the meeting of
September 18, 1990.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ingell
None
None
None
Recess taken from 7:50 P.M. until 7:55 P.M.
7 P.C. Minutes 9/4/90
GP 90-3/ZON 90-3 --GENERAL PLAN REDESIGNATION/REZONING OF SELECTED
INCONSISTENT AREAS EAST OF PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY AND ADOPTION OF THE
ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
AREA I: CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE COMPANY PROPERTY LOCATED EAST OF PROSPECT
AVENUE BETWEEN 15TH AND 17TH STREET
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated August 22, 1990, and recommended that the entire
property be rezoned from R-1 to open space. The current general plan designation is open
space, with a current zoning of R-1. Total land area is 2.66 acres, with a current use as a water
utility. There are two lots. Its general plan designation in 1965 was for utilities; in 1975, open
space/water; in 1979, open space/water: and in 1984 open space.
In 1925 the site was zoned industrial, and in 1943 it was zoned M-1. It has been zoned R-1 since
1956.
The subject property is currently developed with water tanks and a support building and is
largely vacant with abundant grass and trees which historically has seived as neighborhood
open space.
The property is surrounded by R-1 zoned and single-family developed property to the north and
west. the City boundary to the east. and R-2B zoned property to the north.
Given the current and historic use of the property, staff felt that it can be assumed that the open
space designation was more a recognition of the public facility /utility related use of the
property rather than a prescription for future park or recreation use.
It is therefore more like the open space designation given to the City Hall complex and the
Community Center.
Nonetheless. these types of areas are scarce in the City and should be protected. Also , given the
historic character of this lot. it would not seem appropriate for the development of residences.
The Water Company property was not included in the group of open space designated properties
that were protected by the initiative vote in 1986 which prevents changes in the open space
designation unless by vote of the people.
Public Hearing opened at 7:58 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
Terry Tambel, Director of the California Water Service Company, stated that they have no
objection to the rezoning of this property to open space. He said that they have no intention of
ever selling this _property. since it is necessary for the storage and pumping facility.
Richard Halliburton, 1567 Golden Avenue, addressed the Commission and: (1) said that his is
the only property that fronts on the access road for 102 feet: (2) said he has a license to use his
driveway over this property: (3) noted that he has talked to the Water Company regarding his
possible purchase of his front lawn, and he asked for clarification from staff on the
ramifications of the proposed rezoning, to which Mr. Schubach explained that the rezoning
would have no impact. other than the area could be used only for open space.
Mr. Schubach explained the procedure which would be followed were Mr. Halliburton to
purchase the property from the Water Company.
Public Hearing closed at 8:03 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve staffs recommendation,
Resolution P.C. 90-73, as written.
8 P.C. Minutes 9/4/90
Mr. Schubach, in response to questions from Comm. Rue, explained that this property was not
included in the open space initiative and therefore does not need a vote of the people to be
changed.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ingell
None
None
None
AREA II! WEST SIDE OF PROSPECT AVENUE BE1WEEN 1225 AND 1255 PROSPECT AVENUE
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated August 22, 1990, and recommended that the general plan
be amended from low density residential to general commercial for 1235 Prospect and to
rezone 1245-1255 Prospect from C-3 to R-1.
Area II is currently general plan designated as low density residential and has a current zoning
of C-3, with an R-3 potential.
The total land area is 1.32 acres, and the current use is a residential and commercial mix.
There are six lots ranging in size from 2125 to 2980 square feet.
The area's general plan designation in 1965 was high density res idential. In 1975, 1979, and
1984, the designation was low density. Area II was zoned R -1 in 1925; R-2 in 1943; commercial
in 1956: C-3 in 1960: and C-3 with R-3 potential in 1978 and 1983.
Area II consists of six lots fronting on Prospect Avenue. Two lots are currently used
commercially and three lots are residentially developed. The final lot appears to contain a
garage and storage building used for storage only.
The area is surrounded by low density, R-1 zoned property to the north and west; general
commercial, C-3 zoned p roperty t o the south; and gener al commercial, C-3 zoned p roperty
across Prospect. The n ortherly limits of this area are a p p roximat ely equiva l ent to the
northerly limits of the shopping center across the street.
These parcels were zoned commercially at the time of the 1956 comprehensive rezoning
probably because of their proximity to the Aviation corridor and to match the depth from
Aviation across Prospect.
Staff r ecommended that this area be rezoned and general plan amended to a p p r oximately
reflect the exis ting land use pattern. The first lot (1235 Prospect) closest to Avi ation ls used
commercially and staff therefore recommended a general plan amendment to general
commercial.
Of the next five lots going northward (1245 to 1255 Prospect) the first one is developed
residentially with three units; the second contains a garage and rear storage building wh ich
appears to be used in conjunction with the three units, but which may be for c ommercial
storage purposes only. The next two lots are Joined together and contain four units, and the
n ortherly-most lot is developed with a small office building.
Staff recommended a zone change from C-3 to R-1 for these five lots, as the majority use is
residential. This will result in the small office building becoming nonconforming, but since it
is an isolated commercial use, zoning it R-1 is more appropriate than spot zoning it to a
commercial designation. Staff also recommended the elimination of the R-3 potential
designation.
The residential lots are developed at a higher density than some of the surrounding areas, with
seven units on four lots and may be considered inconsistent with a lot density /R-1 designation.
9 P.C. Minutes 9/4/90
In staff's judgment, however, because adjacent properties are wned R-1 and the lots are rather
small, R-1 is more appropriate than any other alternative.
Comm. Rue asked whether general commercial allows auto body shops, to which Mr. Schubach
replied in the affirmative. Next to a residential use, it is not the best use; however, with the
proper buffering it can be acceptable.
Comm. Peirce, noting the size of the lots, stated that even if they were wned R-2, no more than
two units could be built.
Public Hearing opened at 8:13 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
Richard Zil.ky, owner of four units at 1251 Prospect, addressed the Commission and: (1) said
that this has always been one lot. and since 1965 has always been wned residential; (2) said
that it is inconsistent to change from res.idential to low density; (3) said the building has a lot
of free space, plenty of parking, and area in the back; (4) said he would be willing to give up his
two lot designation if the zoning designation were made higherdensity residential; (5) said that
the plan is inconsistent with the current use; (6) said that the City's plan should be changed to
correspond with the uses; (7) in response to a request from Chmn. Ingell, gave his opinion on
the other surrounding uses.
Public Hearing closed at 8: 17 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell.
Comm. Peirce discussed the various lots depicted on the map and their sizes. He continued by
discussing Mr. Zilky's property in particular and what could be done with it were the zoning
changed.
Mr. Schubach stated that it would be necessary to look at the other properties on this block,
and he continued by discussing the other properties in relation to their zoning. He said that
under R-3 zoning, Mr. Zilky would be allowed three units if the lots can be merged. With R-1
wning, there can be one unit per lot.
Comm. Moore discussed the various lots as depicted on the map and asked for clarification as
to what the uses of the lots are. He noted that there appears to be a variety of uses. He
questioned why the recommendation is to take the commercial back through Lot 40. He felt
that it would be appropriate to clean up the lots by use, especially along Aviation. He favored
residential wning for all the lots on Prospect to Lot 44 and on Corona through Lot 45.
Comm. Moore noted the importance of compatibility.
Mr. Schubach stated that changes cannot be made at this time, other than those relating to the
inconsistencies. He stated that it would be necessary to bring this back if the Commission
desires to make other changes.
Comm. Peirce suggested that this area be addressed more closely, to which Mr. Schubach
replied that the Commission will soon be studying the land use element. at which time it can be
discussed whether it is more appropriate to have commercial or residential in this area.
Comm. Moore stated that he would hate to make one change tonight, only to have this area
come back in the future for another revision. It felt it would be most appropriate to wait so that
it can be thoroughly studied and changed properly.
Comm. Peirce asked whether the Commission could delay making a decision on this area until
such time that it has been more fully studied.
Mr. Schubach stated that it has been a priority to eliminate inconsistent general plan areas;
however, he said that this area could be continued.
10 P.C. Minutes 9/4/90
Comm. Peirce felt it would be appropriate to delay a decision at this time, so that a proper
revision could be made in the future.
Mr. Schubach therefore suggested that this matter be continued to a date uncertain and that
staff be directed to include this area in consideration with the revised general plan land use
element.
Comm. Moore stated that this particular block is critical, in that it is one of the major entry
points into the City. It is also a veritable hodgepodge in its uses. He stressed that this is a key
block and he therefore favored attractive development and further study.
MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Moore, to continue this item to a date uncertain
and to direct staff to include this area in conjunction with the revised general plan land use
element.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ingell
None
None
None
AREA m: BETWEEN GENTRY STREET AND HOLLOWELL AVENUE {435-453 HOLLOWELL
AVENUE AND 436-508 GENTRY STREET)
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated August 22, 1990, and recommended that the general plan
for this area be amended from open space to low density.
Area III is currently general plan designated as open space, with a current zoning of R-1. The
total land area is 30,000 square feet. The current use is single-family residential. and there are
12 lots of 2500 square feet.
In 1965 this area was general plan designated as institutional/school; in 1975 and 1979, open
space/school; and in 1984, open space.
Area III was zoned R-1 in 1925; R-2 in 1943, 1945, and 1960; and in 1978 and 1983 it was
unclassified.
The subject lots were developed with single-family homes in 1985 pursuant to the City's
ordinance that unclassified property be treated as R-1.
The surrounding area is zoned R-1 and developed with primarily single-family residential
dwellings. The adjacent property to the south is the remaining portion of the Prospect Heights
School property which is zoned open space.
Staffs recommendation to general plan amend the lots to low density would recognize the
existing development on the parcels and would be consistent with the surrounding zoning
designation. Given that these properties were developed fairly recently and are each owned
separately, the current open space general plan designation does not seem appropriate.
Public Hearing opened and closed at 8:32 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell, who noted that no one appeared
to speak on this issue.
MOTION by Comm. Ketz, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve staffs recommendation,
Resolution P.C. 90-70, as written.
11 P.C. Minutes 9/4/90
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
STAFF ITEMS
Comms. Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ingell
None
None
None
a) Communication Re2ardin2 160 Manhattan Avenue, Bayview Sanitarium (Continued
From MeetJni of A.u@st 21, 1990l
No action taken.
b) Appreciation of Commissioner Moore's Service
Chmn. Ingell thanked Comm. Moore for his service, noting that he contributed by presenting
different viewpoints on important issues.
Comm. Rue stated that Comm. Moore will be missed on the Commission.
c) Memorandum Regarding PlannJ.ni Commission Liaison for September 11. 1990, Meeting
Mr. Schubach, noting that the Planning Commission's decision to grant a CUP for gas pumps
and a car wash at 931 P.C.H. is being appealed to the City Council, stated that staffs
recommendation in regard to the number of pumps at the Mobil Station has now changed, in
light of the fact that the applicant has not submitted the requested additional information.
Staff is therefore now recommending only three pump islands, as opposed to four, at the
station.
No one will attend as liaison.
d) Plannlnt Department Activity Report for July 1990
Mr. Schubach and the Commissioners discussed various transportation issues as related to
buses and bus ridership, funding, and subsidies.
Comm. Peirce voiced concern over MAX problems. He said that he wants to see more
information related to point-to-point routes. He said that there must be development of a
ridership plan, and the demands must be determined.
Comm. Peirce favored action to get the ball rolling in regard to obtaining information on the
buses and the ridership demand.
Comm. Moore suggested that a survey be printed in the Easy Reader. He also noted that the
Commuter Computer has an extensive database.
Chmn. Ingell noted that several studies have already been completed, and he asked that staff
provide to the Commission information on what has already been done.
e) Tentative Future Planni»a Commission Atenda
No action taken.
f) City Council Minutes of Aµ&ust 14. 1990
No action taken.
12 P.C. Minutes 9/4/90
COMMISSIONER ITEMS
None.
MOTION by Comm. Moore, seconded by Comm. Rue, to adjourn at 8:53 P.M. No objections; so
ordered.
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that the foreg oing minutes are a true and complete record of the action
taken by the Planning Commis sion of Hermosa Beach at the regularly scheduled
meeting of September 4, 1990.
13 P.C. Minutes 9/4/90
, .
. ' . '
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
MINUTES 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
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
HELD ON NOVEMBER 6, 1990, AT 7:00 P.M. IN THE CITY HALL COUNCll. CHAMBERS
Meeting called to order at 7:02 P.M. by Comm. Ketz.
Pledge of Allegiance led by Comm. Petree.
RQLLCALL
Present:
Absent:
Comms. Aleks, Ketz, Petree, Rue
Chmn. Ingell
Also Present: Michael Schubach, Planning Director; Edward Lee, Assistant City
Attorney: Sally White, Recording Secretary
Vice Chainnan Ketz acted as Chainnan of the meeting.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Chmn. Ketz noted that the minutes from the meeting of September 18, 1990, would be available
for approval at the next meeting.
MOTION by Comm. Aleks, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to approve the minutes of October 16,
1990, as submitted.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Aleks, Peirce, Chmn. Ketz
None
Comm.Rue
Comm. Ingell
MOTION by Comm. Petree, seconded by Comm. Aleks, to approve the following resolutions as
submitted:
Resolution P.C. 90-85, A RESOLUTION OF TI-IE PIANNING COMMISSION OF TIIE CITY OF
HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO A CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT FOR OFF-SALE BEER AND WINE IN CONJUNCTION WITH A DRIVE-THRU DAIRY TO
AILOW A 250 SQUARE FOOT ADDIDON AND TO CHANGE 1HE HOURS OF OPERATION AND
ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENT.AL NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR 205 PIER AVENUE,
ALTA DENA DAIRY, AND LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 1, BLOCK 49, FIRST ADDIDON TO
HERMOSA BEACH;
Resolution P.C. 90-86. A RESOLUTION OF IBE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DENYING A VARIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO 'IRE REAR
YARD SETBACK AND TO AIJ.,()W LESS THAN IBE REQUIRED OPEN SPACE AT 40 SEVENTH
COURr, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS TIIE NORTii 32 FEET OF LOT 20, BLOCK 7, HERMOSA
BEACH TRACT;
Resolution P.C. 90-87, A RESOUITION OF IBE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CI1Y OF
HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A REQUEST FOR AN EXCEPTION FROM
SECTION 13-7(B) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO AI.ll)W AN ADDIDON TO AN EXISTING
NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE TO EXCEED 50% OF REPLACEMENT VALUE AT 1148
SECOND STREET AND LEGAILY DESCRIBED AS LOT 92, TRACT 733.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms.Aleks,Petree,Chlnn.Ketz
None
Comm. Rue
Comm. Ingell
1 P.C. Minutes 11/6/90
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC
No one appeared to address the Commission.
CON 90-1 -CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMRNQllilENT TO ELTMJNA'l:'E CONDITION WHICH
PROHIBITS EXTERIOR ACCESS TO THE BONUS ROOM IN UNIT B FOR A TWO·UNIT
CONDOMINIUM AT 952 8TH STREET
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated October 29, 1990, and recommended that the Planning
Commission deny the requested amendment. As an alternative, staff suggested that the
Planning Commission approve the requested amendment by adoption of the proposed
amended resolution which includes substitute conditions that a deed restriction be recorded
which prohibits the use of the basement bonus room as a separate dwelling unit and which
prohibits a bathroom 1n the basement of Unit B.
At their meeting of July 17, 1990, the Planning Commission approved a two-unit
condominium at 952 Eighth Place, subject to certain conditions. Condition 12(a) states that
"the sliding glass door access to the bonus room in Unit B shall be eliminated."
This condition was a recommendation noted by staff in the onginal staff report, and it was
included in the proposed resolution. The applicant did not object to this condition at the public
hearing and, according to the minutes, stated that he had no objection to the staff
recommended conditions.
Stafr s recommendation to prohibit access was to minimize the bootleg potential of the
isolated bonus room in Unit B, located at the basement level below the garage and master
bedroom level and containing a large area of approximately 313 square feet. Also at that level
is a laundry facility and a walk-in closet. No bathroom is proposed at that level
The onginal plans proposed a sliding glass door with direct access to the ten-foot-wide rear
yard area. This would provide a completely separate and isolated rear yard access point to the
bonus room, allowing for easy conversion into a second unit.
Although staff understands the applicant's desire to have convenient access to the yard area,
staff Is still concerned about the ease with which this area could be converted because of the
large sire and isolated nature of the bonus room. Perhaps with a substitute condition requiring
the recordatlon of a deed restriction, the potential would be reduced. However, this type of deed
restnction has questionable value since it offers no more than the standard provisions in the
CC&Rs.
Comm. Aleks asked about enforcement procedures related to bootleg use.
Mr. Schubach explained that the City currently has a full-tune bootleg inspector. He noted,
however, that enforcement is usually on a complaint basis.
Public Hearing opened at 7:07 P .M. by Chmn. Ketz.
Greg Schneider, 1902 Speyer Lane, Redondo Beach, project designer and representative of the
applicant, addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that they did not receive a copy of the staff
report until just before the meeting; (2) stated that there should be direct access to the yard from
the bonus room; (3) addressed the issue of a potential bootleg use and stated that there is not
sufficient reason to deny this owner access to his own yard; (4) noted that the City has a full-
time bootleg enforcement official, and if there are problems, the neighbors are certain to
complain to the City: (5) did not feel there is any justification to deny the owner this right.
Mr. Schnelder, in response to comments from Comm. Peirce, stated that the applicant, Mr.
Jamison, is out of town and was therefore unable to attend this hearing. He (Mr. Schneider)
2 P.C. Minutes 11/6/90
was not present at the previous hearing on this matter, and he knows only what he was told by
the applicant. Mr. Jamison informed him that he was not aware of any problems with this
project; and if he had been, he would have mentioned it at the previous hearing rather than pay
to appear again before the Commission for approval.
Mr. Schneider stated that conditions could be included, such as requiring a deed restriction, to
ease the City's concerns about the bootleg use. He felt that the imposition of fines would be a
better solution rather than denying someone the use of their own backyard.
Comm. Rue noted that there is plumbing in the lower level. He continued by asking questions
about the plans.
Public Hearing closed at 7: 13 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz.
Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Comm. Rue regarding access to the patio,
explained that there is a walkway with steps between the two units.
Comm. Rue, referring to the plans, stated that the concrete patio area appears to be useless.
Comm. Rue asked whether it would be possible during construction to install a sewer
connection for a kitchen or bathroom 1n the lower level, to which Mr. Schubach replied that
that would be doubtful; however, he noted that anything is possible. He did note that the plans
do show a sewer connection to the laundry area.
Public Hearing reopened at 7:15 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz.
Mr. Schneider addressed the concerns of additional plumbing being added during construction,
and he noted that inspectors do come out during the course of construction to check on the
plumbing.
Comm. Rue noted that his concern relates to the possibility of a bathroom being added during
the course of construction. He was ttying to rule out any possibility of a bootleg conversion,
noting that additional plumbing could be put in, which is of great concern to the Commission.
Public Hearing closed at 7: 17 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz.
Comm. Rue commented that it appears that the proposed open space will be mostly unusable.
He also wished that there could be a way to ensure that this area would not be converted into a
bootleg use; however, he did not know of any measure available that could be guaranteed.
MOTION by Comm. Peirce to approve staff's recommendation to deny the request, Resolution
P.C. 90-94. MOTION DIES FOR LACK OF A SECOND.
Comm. Aleks stated that he could not support the motion to deny because there has been no
indication that the applicant intends to create a bootleg. He stated that he could see staff's
concerns; however, he did not feel it would be appropriate to deny on the basis of what might
happen.
Comm. Peirce stated that the issue is not so much what this particular applicant will do;
rather. the concern is related to what future owners might do. In this case, he felt that the
bootleg potential created would be too great to approve the request. He felt that allowing the
sliding glass door would be conducive to creation of a bootleg. He also noted that cooking
facilities could easily be added. With the outdoor access, he said it would be very difficult to
verify whether or not the area is being used as a bootleg. He also cited the City's poor record of
bootleg enforcement.
Comm. Peirce was surprised that this issue has come back before the Commission, noting that
nothing has changed since this matter was previously heard.
3 P.C. Minutes 11/6/90
MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve staff's recommendation,
Resolution P.C. 90-94, denying the conditional use permit amendment.
Comm. Rue, after studying the plans, stated that it is possible that an owner would give up the
laundry room and tum the area into a bootleg unit.
CODllil. Rue stated that he feel people should be able to do what they want to with their property:
however, in thJs particular case, he felt that the bootleg potential is too great to allow the
sliding glass door.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms.Petrce,Rue,Chmn.Ketz
Comm. Aleks
None
Comm. Ingell
Chmn. Ketz stated that this decision of the Planning Commission can be appealed by writing to
the City Council within ten days.
CUP ~11 -CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR QFF-8ALE BEER AND WINE AND ADOPTION OF
A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 2US1 HERMOSA AVENUE, THE GREEN STORE
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated October 30, 1990, and recommended that the Planning
Commission approve the requested conditional use permit, subject to the conditions specified
in the proposed resolution.
This project is located in the C-1 zone and has a general plan designation of general
commercial. The lot size is 3600 square feet, and the building size is approximately 812 square
feet. The current use is as a convenience market and apartments.
The Green Store is located on the southwest comer of Hermosa Avenue and 22nd Street. It
shares the lot with adjacent bi-level apartments. The total square footage of the combined lot
is approximately 3600 square feet. Beer and wine are currently sold at this market.
The Green Store is one of the remaining existing businesses selling alcoholic beverages, subject
to the alcohol amortization ordinance, which has not obtained a conditional use permit.
At their meeting of May 17, 1990, the staff environmental review committee recommended an
environmental negative declaration and recommended that the Planning Commission require
the applicant/ owner to screen the dumpsters and require the owner to conduct appropriate
exterior building and sign maintenance.
The requested conditional use permit would authm1ze 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. Therefore, staff previously
recommended conditions that the dumpster be enclosed and that the exterior be painted and
signs maintained properly. Since the original review, the owners have painted the exterior
with a thin coat of green paint: however, the large "deli" stgns are rusting noticeably and must
still be repaired. Also, the dumpster on the west side must still be enclosed. The dumpster is
used for the store and the adjacent eight-unit apartment.
Current hours of operation are from 7:30 AM. to 10:00 P.M. Monday through Thursday, to
11:00 P.M. on Friday and Saturday, and 9:00 P.M. on Sunday. Staff recommended a condition
that hours be limited to between 7:00AM. and 10:00 P.M. Sunday through Thursday, and from
7:00 AM. to 11:00 P.M. on Friday and Saturday.
4 P.C. Minutes 11/6/90
One of the garages for the apartments is being used for storage by this business. Since this
takes away parking from the residents, staff recommended a condition that no storage occur in
residential parking.
Since this is an existing convenience store in conjunction with the sale of alcohol, staff felt
that the sale of beer and wine should be allowed to continue, subject to the proposed conditions,
which are 11m.1ted 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. Schubach, in response to questions from Chmn. Ketz, stated that there are four garages for
the eight apartment units.
Mr. Schubach clarified that the staff-proposed hours contain some flexibility, in that the
applicant would not have to appear again before the Commission for an extension. He noted
that sometimes applicants desire to stay open later; therefore, staff recommended allowing the
closing hour of 10:00 P.M. Sunday through Thursday, and 11:00 P.M. on Friday and Saturday.
Staff felt that these hours are reasonable, given the location of the store and its proximity to
residential uses.
Public Hearing opened at 7:26 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz.
Carter Cumiford, 6664 Edding Hill, Rancho Palos Verdes, owner of the property, addressed the
Commission and: (1) stated that he has owned the property since 1968, and he leases the store
to Mr. Ko; (2) said that corrective action has already begun in regard to the 24 conditions
specified in the CUP; (3) said that the only problem relates to Condition No. 15 and the storage
in the garage; (4) explained that the store is very small, and the garage has been leased to the
store for many years so that canned beverages can be stored; (5) stated that he has had no
requests from any of the tenants for use of that garage space; (6) noted that the store was built in
1908 when setback requirements were very different from today's standards; (7) said that, to
his knowledge, the garage has been used for storage by the store since 1948 when the apartment
units were built; (8) asked that the applicant be allowed to continue using the garage for storage,
since there is no other location for storage.
Mr. Cumiford continued and: (1) again noted that many of the requirements have already been
started: (2) discussed with Comm. Rue the location of the trash area and the storage area; (3)
stated that it is not feasible to use the trash area for storage, noting that there must be
emergency access.
Public Hearing closed at 7:30 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz.
Comm. Rue discussed the one garage space being used for storage, stating that he feels it is a
grandfathered use. He did not oppose the use continuing as such, especially since this is a very
old building. He favored a condition, however, specifying that if the use of the business
changes, the garage space must revert back to residential parking use.
MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to approve staff's recommendation,
Resolution P.C. 90-93, with the addition of a condition specifying that if the use of the business
changes, the garage space shall revert back to residential use.
Mr. Schubach clarified that staff recommended a closing time one hour later than the
applicant is currently using. He stated that staff has no concern over the additional hour,
which the applicant may desire to use in the future.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Aleks, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ketz
None
None
Comm. Ingell
5 P.C. Minutes 11/6/00
CON 90-15 -CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #22653 FOR A
FOUR-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 817-823 MONTEREY BOULEVARD
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated October 23. 1990, and recommended that the Plannmg
Commission approve the CUP and tentative parcel map, subject to the conditions specified in
the proposed resolution.
This project is located in the R-3 zone. with a general plan designation of high density
residential. The lot size is 7500 square feet. The existing use is three dwellings on three lots.
The proposed density is 23.2 units per acre. Ten parking spaces are provided. Open space
provided is 1554 square feet. The environmental determination is categorically exempt.
The subject property is rectangular in shape and slopes downward to the west.
The proposed structure consists of four units above a subterranean parking garage which
provides all the necessary parking. The units are designed such that two attached units in
front are separated from two attached units in the rear by a courtyard.
The two front units located along Monterey Boulevard contain 3570 square feet each and
consist of three bedrooms, an office, a family room, four and a half bathrooms, a mezzanine
and a roof deck. The floor plan for these units contains six split levels (approximately three
and a half stories), and both an interior stairway and elevator is provided. An additional
shared stanway exit is provided to meet existing requirements.
The two rear units along the alley contain 2543 square feet each and consist of three bedrooms,
three and a half bathrooms, and a roof deck in a standard three-level design.
The proposed building elevations exhibit a smooth cement plaster exterior, burnt clay tile
roofing, glass block. french doors, canvas awnings, concrete balusters, and ceramic tile. This
combination of features gives the building somewhat of a contemporary Mediterranean
appearance.
The size of the subject lot would allow the construction of up to five units. The applicant chose
to build only four units but has still essentially maxtmJzed the building square footage,
enabling him to propose two unusually large units. A very positive result of the design is that
the proposed garage is accessed exclusively from the alley, thereby saving all of the on-street
curb parking on Monterey Boulevard. In addition, this improves the building's impact on the
streetscape since no garage openings will face the street. The garage provides all the required
parking spaces, and two required guest spaces are provided in nine-foot wide parallel spaces
located along the alley.
Another positive feature of the proposal is the proposed common courtyard which separates
the two main portions of the structure. This courtyard is located above the basement level of
the project.
The Planning Commission must determine whether or not this courtyard portion should be
counted as lot coverage. The basement is almost entirely subterranean where the courtyard is
located and, at most, is only 30 inches above grade, and it does not appear to be coverage. Also,
the lot coverage definition, although it does not specifically mention how to address decks
above basements, states that lot coverage includes "decks higher than 30 inches above grade."
Therefore, staff recommended that the Planning Commission make an interpretation that it
not be counted as coverage. Otherwise, the lot coverage would calculate to appraximately 77
percent.
The project, with slight adjustments, will comply with all other planning and zoning
requirements. Lot coverage {if the courtyard is not included) ts slightly above 65 percent, but it
could easily be reduced with adjustments to the balconies. Open space is provided in decks,
including roof decks, and within the courtyard. A small amount of additional private open
6 P.C. Minutes 11/6/90
space is required for Units 1 and 2. This could also be accomplished by adjustments in deck
sizes to meet minimum dimensional requirements for open space.
Even though the building is quite large, staff felt that this project proposes an excellent and
unique design, especially since all access Is provided from the alley. Also, it is consistent with
the character of the surrounding R-3 area and other recent projects.
Comm. Rue asked for clarification of the location of the wtnows, to which Mr. Schubach
pointed out the location of the windows on the south side of Units 3 and 4.
Public Hearing opened at 7:40 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz.
Doug Leach, 119 West Torrance Boulevard, Redondo Beach, applicant, addressed the
Comm1ssion and: (1) displayed pictures of the project site: (2) displayed a color rendering of the
proposed project, and in response to questions from Comm. Rue, described the proposed
treatments for the facade: (3) stated that he has worked closely with staff on this project, and he
felt that staff fully supports the project: (4) commented that this is an attractive proposal
which will be an improvement to what is currently existing; (5) noted that, even though five
units could have been built, they have elected to construct only four; (6) said that the four-unit
project will be better for the site, and will not generate as much traffic as five units.
Mr. Leach continued and: (1) noted that all access is from the alley, which is a major asset to
the design: (2) stated that alley access provides more attractive options and also eliminates
having garage doors facing on Monterey: (3) stated that the back-up area behind the interior
garages 1s on-site. and no cars will be backing out onto the alley. thus creating a dangerous
condition: (4) stated, in response to questions posed by Comm. Rue, that large units are very
necessary in today's real estate market: (5) explained that five units would have created
parking problems and probably would have precluded the attractive parking arrangement
which 1s possible with only four units: (6) said that a five-unit project probably would have had
about the same amount of square footage as is being proposed for the four units.
Dean Kroll, owner of the property across the street from the proposed project, stated that, even
though he will lose his ocean view. he is in favor of this project because 1t will be an
Improvement to the neighborhood. He continued by commenting on the City's code
enforcement policy related to bootlegs. and he said he is not satisfied with the procedure
because It is hit and miss.
Public Hearing closed at 7:47 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz.
MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Aleks, to approve staff's recommendation,
Resolution P.C. 90-88, as written.
Chmn. Ketz stated that this is a very attractive project, and she particularly favors the
proposed parking arrangement.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms . .Aleks, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ketz
None
None
Comm. Ingell
CON 90-16 -CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #22684
FOR A TWO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 138-142 MANHA'ITAN AVENUE
CON 90-17 -CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #22635
FOR A TWO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 144-148 MANHA'l'TAN AVENUE
7 P.C. Minutes 11/6/90
CON 90-18 -CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #22636
FOR A TWO.UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 1~154 MANHA.Tr.AN AVENUE
CON 90-19 -CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #22637
FOR A TWO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT Uffl:160 MANHA'ITAN AVENUE
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated October 29. 1990. and recommended that the Planning
Commission continue this request to the meeting of December 4, 1990, so that the applicant
can consider revising the design to integrate the four proposed projects into one cohesive
design which would improve the project is several ways: provide alley-only access: provide
adequate common recreation space to meet the requirements for projects of five units or more;
and to attach the units in clusters of two or four units to maximize the usable open space.
Mr. Schubach suggested an alternative recommendation to approve the proposed design by
approving the CUPs and tentative parcel maps. subject to the conditions specified in the
proposed resolutions, which also include a condition spectfylng that the existing palm trees be
retained on site.
This project is located in the R-3 zone. with a general plan designation of high density
residential. The parcel size is 12.000 square feet, consisting of four 3000 square-foot lots. The
existing use is an abandoned sanitarium. The proposed density is 29 units per acre. Twenty-
eight parking spaces will be provided. Open space provided will be 320 square feet per unit.
The subject property currently consists of four lots of approximately 3000 square feet each.
Each is a separate legal lot: although, the entire parcel is under common ownership and is
covered by one building. The property has a moderate slope downward from the alley to the
street.
The proposed project consists of four two-unit detached condominiums using both the alley
and the street for access. Each project has a similar floor plan, similar bulk. and the same
height. The individual units differ in their proposed exterior architectural features because of
the slight variations in floor plans. Each unit contains approximately 2000 square feet and
consists of three bedrooms and three and a half bathrooms.
Although some of the exterior f ea tu res vary between units. all of the buildings exhibit a style
that can be characterized as contemporary or post modem.
Each project. viewed separately, conforms to minimum planning and zoning requirements.
Lot coverage is near 65 percent. approximately 320 square feet of private open space is provided
per unit. and the proposed garage and parking layout provides enough parking and guest
parking to exceed minimum requirements and to compensate for the loss of one on-street
parking space. The parking requirements are exceeded because of the applicant's choice to use
a 17-foot garage setback on the alley as well as on the street.
A positive feature of the development which serves to integrate the projects iS the use of a
shared driveway arrangement between adjacent lots which saves four of the existing on-street
parking spaces. There are currently five on-street metered spaces available.
Staff felt that the subject parcel represents a rare opportunity to improve the typical design for
housing units in the city. which are normally constructed on small lot sizes. As such. staff
suggested to the applicant that a more integrated and cohesive destgn be used to take advantage
of the large parcel. Such a design could provide addiUonal usable open space and other
amenities rather than the typical two-unit design with three-foot sideyard setbacks and a
succession of garage openings and curb cuts facing the street. Also, staff has advised the
applicant that he should provide access to the project from the alley only.
Mr. Schubach gave to each of the Commissioners a copy of a letter he received dated November
6, 1990, from the Director of Public Works, in which Mr. Antich advises that even if these
8 P.C. Minutes 11/6/90
projects are approved by the Planning Commission, he will not issue a permit of access from
Manhattan Avenue. The decision would then m:ed to be appealed to the City Council. The letter
goes on to state that he feel access should be from the alley in accordance with the City's
circulation element.
The applicant has chosen, however, to stay with the two-unit per lot design. He has indicated
that the primary reason is to be able to market detached, single-family-like units with private
access and parking rather than condos in a large project.
Staff felt, however, that the single-family concept, although usually desirable, 1s unrealistic
and inappropriate for this level of density. The benefits of single-family detached housing are
gained when adequate lot sfze is available for usable yard and for separation of homes to allow
for privacy. Staff felt that for the proposed density, amenities are improved by clustering the
units and by integrating the parking so that only one or two points of access are provided.
Also, the impacts of the project on the surroundings (street appearance, traffic, pedestrian
safety, and on-street parking) would definitely be reduced by an integrated design.
For example, instead of the units being separated by six feet, some units could be clustered
together, meaning that buildings could be separated by ten to fifteen feet or more. A common,
soundproofed wall on one side and a fifteen-foot separation on the other affords more privacy
and quiet than a six-foot separation from adjacent buildings on both sides.
Related to the issue of street access versus alley access, the proposed design results in six direct
ingress/egress points into the City's street and alley. This could easily be focused into one or
two points of ingress/egress if parking were shared, thereby reducing the traffic conflict points
and pedestrian/traffic conflict points.
Staff also felt that the proposed use of the street for access to the project is inconsistent with
the City's recently-adopted circulation element. Implement Policy 4.9 read: ''Require that
vehicle access to new residential developments which front both street and alley be provided in
the alley only. This will minimize on-street curb cuts and preserve available parking."
Additionally, the zoning ordinance condominium provisions under Section 7.2-3, Purpose,
includes the following: "The purpose of this subdivision is to promote the following
standards: .... (d) a layout of structures and other facilities to effect conservation In street,
driveway, curb cut, and other public or quasi-public Improvements."
Staff also felt that since these lots are being proposed to be developed together, that Section
7.6(e) requiring 100 square feet of recreation space per unit for projects of five or more units
applies. This requirement could be met if some units are clustered together and a common
landscaped courtyard or pool/ spa area is provided.
Also, In regard to the six-foot separation between buildings that results from the three-foot
sideyard setbacks used in this design, it should be noted that the R-3 zoning standards require a
minimum eight-foot separation between buildings when they are on the same property.
The developer Is proposing four separate two-unit projects which meet the standards of the
zoning ordinance if viewed as separate projects. However, the four lots which contain these
four projects are contiguous, are currently occupied by a building which covers all four lots.
and are under the same ownership. As such, staff felt that it is reasonable to view the
development of these four lots as essentially one project, even if these individual projects were
staggered over tune, and to apply design standards and review criteria as if it were one
development. As a result, staff felt that the proposed design falls well short of meeting
standards of good design in terms of maximizing usable open space or in terms of its Impact on
the streetscape. Further, it is not in conformance with either the condominium provisions
regarding common recreation space or with the general plan.
9 P.C. Minutes 11/6/90
Since the separate lots have not been merged and are legal lots. the Planning Commission has
the option of making a decision on the four separate proposals. If so. staff prepared resolutions
of approval for each of the projects, which include a recommended condition in addition to
standard conditions that the existing palm trees be retained on the site and that a revised
landscape plan be provided depicting the proposed locations for the trees.
Mr. Schubach, in response to comments by Comm. Aleks, stated that there are other designs
available for this project which would be more acceptable to staff; however, at this time, he was
not prepared to address alternative designs.
Comm. Rue asked for clarifl.cation from Mr. Lee related to whether these are four separate lots,
or whether it is one lot since it is under common ownership.
Mr. Lee explained that four separate projects on four separate legal lots are being proposed at
this time. He said that the Commission must address the issue of cumulative environmental
impacts which would be created by these projects. He continued by explaining that the
proposed access must be consistent with the general plan. He noted that staff feels an
opportunity exists at this time for the developer to meet both the letter and spirit of the law. He
concluded by stating that the applicant does have the right to develop each of these lots
separately.
Public Hearing opened at 8:07 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz.
Elizabeth Srour, 820 Manhattan Avenue, Manhattan Beach, representing the applicant,
addressed the Commission and: ( 1) stated that the proposed projects are unique; (2) said that
stall's philosophical concerns are being expressed somewhat late in the course of this project:
(3) said that four separate applications are being proposed at this time; (4) said that the four-lot
concept utllizing the original subdivision of this property is a very logical and appropriate use
of this property: (5) said that this proposal is a very reasonable residential proposal.
Ms. Srour continued and: (1) said that this project addresses the very real neighborhood
concerns related to parking; (2) noted that the developer has a great deal of experience in
building in this City, and the concerns of the city have all been addressed; (3) felt that the
project also addresses the marketplace reality, in that it provides an attractive location in
which to live in this area of the City; (4) stressed that from the beginning of this project, the
applicant has comnmnicated with both the City and the County Engineer. and at no time did
staff state their preference for looking at this project as a consolidated site.
Ms. Srour went on and: (1) noted that staff encouraged access from the rear, however, after
studying that possibility. the developer determined that such access would not be feasible: (2)
said that it was determined that it would be better to distribute the access between the front and
the rear: (3) commented that the circulation element has only recently been amended to require
access from the rear, and she noted that such access was not required for one of the other
projects at this location: (4) discussed the configuration of the streets in this area, noting that
Monterey is a fairly quiet street and is not a major arterial, but it is an access to the beach; (5)
said that condos in this area are looked at very differently from other parts of the City; (6) said
that five metered parking spaces have been installed at this location within the very recent
past; (7) said that the present sanitarium facility location has had a metered parking space put
in near the driveway: (8) noted that this project will prese1Ve four of the five public parking
spaces.
Ms. Srour continued and: ( 1) explained that one of the primary goals of this developer is to
provide the type of lifestyle people want; (2) stated that most people pref er single-family homes,
but the concept of two detached condos is becoming very appealing to people; (3) said that there
are very few problems associated with managing two-unit condos; (4) discussed the six-lot
parcel on which the sanitarium is located, stating that at no time did the City specify that the
parcels should be a consolidated development, noting that issue was not raised during the lot
P.C. Minutes 11/6/90
merger discussions; (5) felt that staff is now being unfair in their suggestion that this be a
consolidated project, noting that the project ts already well underway.
Ms. Srour went on and: ( 1) discussed staff's recommendation related to the open space, stating
that staff's concept is somewhat naive because the 14-foot separation between units will
primarily provide access, and to call that area private open space would be compromising the
access; (2) stated that the potential of this site allows for nine units, but this project is
proposing only eight; (3) said that a subterranean garage is not feasible without compromtsing
the parking as proposed; (4) said that the lot configuration and slope almost prohibit
subterranean parking altogether; (5) continued by discussing the retaining which would be
necessary, noting that it would mean a loss of parking and the possibility of building nine
units.
Ms. Srour continued and: (1) said that the units are reasonably designed, and 500 square feet
have been given up in order to provide parking; (2) said that the facades have been broken up in
this proposal; (3) noted that staff's proposal could result in a loss of parking and it could take
away from the attractive facades now being proposed; (4) mentioned that 16 spaces plus four
guest spaces are required with the eight units, and she continued by discussing proposed and
potential parking requirements; (5) said that the developer and architect have done an
exceptional job in providing visible, on-site parking which is easy to use.
Ms. Srour went on and: ( 1) discussed the parking at other projects in the vicinity of this
proposal: (2) said that underground parking is much less desirable for reasons of security,
access, and maintenance: (3) felt that on-grade parking is much more desirable, and should be a
goal of the City; (4) explained that if the City determines this project must be a consolidated
development, all of the work done so far on the project would have to be redone.
Comm. Peirce pointed out that, even if this project were to be approved by the Commission, the
Director of Public Works has indicated that all access must be from the rear; otherwise, he
would not issue the necessary permit of access.
Ms. Srour continued and: (1) stated that rear access is a guideline, not a requirement: (2) agreed
that guidelines are important, however, in this case, rear access ls not feasible: (3) in response
to comments from Comm. Peirce, she questioned what authority the Director of Publ1c Works
is acting upon in relation to his memo: (4) said that at this time, the applicant will not be
addressing the memo: rather, they would like Planning Commission approval of the project.
Comm. Petree noted that the issue of alley access has been discussed in the past by both staff
and the Commission.
Ms. Srour went on and: (1) stated that a strict interpretation of the requirement ts not
applicable in this case, stressing the it is merely a guideline and not a requirement: (2) in
response to questions from Comm. Aleks regarding maintenance of two-unit developments,
explained that in much larger projects there can be problems with large homeowner
associations; (3) said that each of the projects meets all of the development standards: (4) noted
that the open space, height, and setback requirements have been met: (5) said that parking
requirements have been met.
Ms. Srour continued and: ( 1) stated that they were nonplussed With staff's position on this
project: (2) displayed plans and pointed out the proposed parking layout; (3) pointed out the
proposed landscaping, stating that it will be substantial; (4) noted that the building facades are
stepped back; (5) stated that she strongly supports approval of this project, noting that it is a
very attractive development and is one which ls a reduced use of each of the lots: (6) stated that
the overall impact of separate projects would be less than if this were one consolidated project.
Ms. Srour concluded and: (1) discussed the setback requirements, stating that the buildings as
proposed break up the elevations and facades as well as reducing the potential density; (2)
highlighted positive aspects of this project, including its compatibility with the area, its
11 P.C. Minutes 11/6/90
preservation of on-street parking, its creation of an attractive streetscape, and its safety
features related to vehicles and pedestrians; (3) stated that the projects meet the City's goals and
code requirements: (4) felt that it would be reasonable and fair for the Commission to address
these as four separate projects.
Jerry Olguin, 2306 Pacific Coast Htghway, project developer, addressed the Commission and:
(1) noted that he has been a developer 1n the area for many years and he is very fam1Jfar with
the City's requirements and needs; (2) stated that he is attempting to provide a project which
will enhance the area: (3) explained that he is very familiar with the parking problems in the
area: (4) said that this proposal will provide open space: (5) stated that this proposal will give
the feeling of single-family living.
Mr. Olguin continued and: (1) stated that staffs proposal to have this be a consolidated
development will create an apartment-type effect, which is 1n direct opposition to the City's
goals: (2) felt that home ownership is of benefit to the City; (3) opposed a consolidated
development on this site; (4) stressed that these are four individual lots, and he was never
informed by staff that alley-only access would be required; (5) discussed the parking on the
other lots at this site.
Mr. Olguin went on and: (1) said that there was no metered parking at this location until only a
few months ago: (2) noted that the project mass is not as great as it would have been with
another proposal: (3) explained that he has put a great deal of effort into making this an
attractive project; (4) stated that the issue of alley-only access is a new issue to him; (5) noted
that he could build four maxed-out houses on these four lots with no approval at all; (6) stated,
however, that he feel the proposed project is better for the City and will be an asset.
Larry Korgan, 3600 Elm, Manhattan Beach, project architect, addressed the Commission and:
(1) pointed out on the rendering the parking configuration: (2) discussed subterranean parking,
stating that it would be very difficult because of the slope of the lot; (3) stated that if stafrs
proposal were implemented, there would only be five guest parking spaces, as opposed to the
proposed sixteen for this project.
Mr. Korgan, in response to comments from Comm. Rue regarding grouped projects and whether
or not more open space can be obtained, explained that more common open space can
sometimes be obtained: however. more private open space would not. He felt that most people
prefer private open space. He noted that even if the project were grouped, space is space, and the
units would merely be moved around.
Ron Riggs, 143 Manhattan Avenue, addressed the Commission and: (1) favored the proposed
project: (2) felt that single-family living is appropriate in this area, and he would actually
prefer single-family homes at the site; (3) stated that he will soon be doing a project at 143
Manhattan Avenue: (4) opposed alley-only access on Bayview, noting that the traffic would be
horrendous: (5) noted that most people want single-family homes with private open space and
parking.
Richard Macano, 113 Monterey Boulevard, addressed the Commission and: (1) favored
approval of the project as proposed; (2) favored saving the palm trees: (3) felt that the applicant
has made an excellent proposal and one which should be a precedent: (4) said that the applicant
has done everything possible to please the City.
Glenn Tanner, 170 Manhattan Avenue, addressed the Commission and: (1) spoke on behalf of
the Coral Terrace Homeowner's Association: (2) stated that the group strongly opposes alley-
only access for all units of this project; (3) discussed Bayview, noting that it is very narrow and
potentially dangerous: (4) displayed several photographs depicting the alley and cross streets
and the dangerous situations occurring there: (5) said that even though Bayview is called a
street, it is actually an alley.
12 P.C. Minutes 11/6/90
Mr. Tanner went on and: (1) stated that the increased traffic in the alley would be unacceptable:
(2) stated that Bayview ts too narrow to accommodate parked cars: (3) felt that it would be more
appropriate to flip the project so that access is all on Manhattan Avenue: (4) discussed the
removal of the curb cut at the sanitarium and the placement of a new curb cut with metered
parking; (5) stated that parking will actually be gained by this project: (6) stated that the group
supports the development proposal as submitted. rather than one large development: (7)
questioned whether it is in the purview of the City to require a consolidated development.
Mr. Tanner concluded and: (1) discussed the demolition of the sanitarium and noted concern
over the removal of asbestos: (2) felt that the asbestos is being removed in an unsafe manner,
and he urged the developer to ensure that removal is occurring within all regulations: (3) noted
concern over construction/ demolition activity taking place outside of the allowed hours: (4)
noted concern over apathy in the City related to new projects.
Jim Shirk, 446 Monterey Boulevard, addressed the Commission and: (1) said that his complex
has a subterranean garage, and he strongly urged the Commission not to allow any more of
them: (2) stated that large developments are more conducive to renters, and home ownership is
much more desirable: (3) said that many cars used the alley when the sanitarium was
operating.
Sandra Aden, 158 Bayview Drive, addressed the Commission and: (1) was impressed by the
proposed plans: (2) favored saving not only the palm trees. but also the other mature hardwood
trees on the east side of the property: (3) turned in a petition signed by homeowners and
residents who favor saving the trees and who oppose ingress/ egress on Bayview: (4) said that
the additional traffic on Bayview would be quite a burden: (5) noted that the traffic created by
the sanitarium was light, especially since there was no parking on Bayview.
Ms. Aden continued and: (1) favored the construction of individual homes, stating that it
would be beneficial to the area and would also promote home ownership; (2) said that the City
needs to Increase its percentage of homeowner residents: (3) continued by discussing the trees.
stating that they seIVe as homes to many birds, and the trees also help with the air pollution
problems: (4) was encouraged that the plans appear to depict much landscaping: (5) stated that
with a few minor adjustments, these plans would meet with her complete approval.
Ms. Aden went on and: ( 1) noted concern over damage done to streets by developers during
construction, and she suggested that developers be required to pay into a fund which could be
used for street bnprovements: (2) stated that she has corresponded with the City on this matter,
and she did not feel it 1s appropriate for the City to pay for damage caused by development.
Nathan Salter, 113 Monterey, addressed the Commission and noted concern over asbestos
clean up, to which Mr. Lee responded that the City has no pUIView over asbestos removal: and
that if there are problems. the County Health Department should be notified.
Mr. Salter favored saving the trees: however, he opposed the alley-only access as recommended
by staff.
Public Hearing closed at 9: 12 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz.
Comm. Peirce stated that condominium approval 1s a discretionary act and not a right. He
noted that this is an R-3, multiple-dwelling zone: however, In general, the R-3 zone was created
for high-density residential use, not duplexes. He discussed the enclosed parking, stating that
there is essentially parking for only two cars at each unit because people have a tendency to use
garages as workrooms and storage areas rather than for parking. He noted that this
conversion does not occur in common garages. He noted that even though these are four small
lots, the City would be better setved by a larger project.
Comm. Petree discussed the access and stated that the buildings are four narrow buildings on
four narrow lots. He noted that this project proposes a bank of double garage doors on both
13 P.C. Minutes 11/6/90
Manhattan Avenue and Bayview Drive: however, he would pref er that situation rather than the
elimination of the grade difference at the alley. He noted that there is already traffic in the
alley because of the parking available there.
Comm. Peirce discussed open space, stating that there is approximately 1700 square feet of
non-usable open space with the proposed project. He therefore felt that a better design could be
implemented by having a consolidated buildJng.
Comm. Petree felt that the proposed buildings are not ve:ry attractive. He said that one of the
goals of the City has been to consolidate lots, and he felt that one large project could provide
more amenities as well as additional prtvate open space. Based on these reasons. he stated that
he would favor one consolidated project.
Comm. Aleks questioned whether requiring a consolidated project would be appropriate,
noting that the lots could be sold off and developed indMdually. He stated that there must be
trade-offs, and he felt that single-family-type dwellings are preferable to larger, consolidated
condominiums. He felt that the project seems to have adequately addressed the parking
concerns. He therefore stated that he could support Uus prQject as submitted.
Comm. Aleks noted concern over the asbestos removal and asked whether a recommendation
could be made to require that removal is done within all guidelines. He also favored saving the
trees.
Comm. Rue asked for clarification on why these lots were not merged during the lot merger
hearings, to which Mr. Schubach explained that thiS is an R-3 area. Also, there was one large
sanitartum building covertng the lots; therefore. the lot merger requirements were not met 1Il
thiS case.
Mr. Schubach, in response to questions from Comm. Rue, explained that this property was not
designated as an SPA or precise plan because of Its R-3 zoning.
Comm. Rue stated that he does not like to have concrete where landscaping could be provided
Instead. He continued by commenting that he has never been a proponent of the 17-foot
setback requirement. He discussed other projects in the area which he felt have too much
asphalt leading to the garages. In looking at the available alternatives, he felt that this
proposal would provide more prtvate open space than other projects.
Comm. Rue felt that the mtent of the circulation element has been preserved in this case. He
felt that the access proposal is far better than having all access from Bayview. He noted the
great need for parking, and he felt that this project addresses the issue adequately. He felt that
the project meets the R-3 requtrements. and under the circumstances, the units are as
attractive as can be expected.
Comm. Rue commented that It ts a shame that the City does not take the Initiative to attempt to
group projects together; however, he questioned whether that would have been effective in this
case. He felt that approval of this project would uphold the general plan and circulation
element because the project is of lower density than could be built. He also noted that the
project proposes two guest spaces per unit. Based on these reasons, he favored approval of the
project as submitted.
Chmn. Ketz felt it fs important to address the memo from the Director of Publfc Works. She
reminded the Commission that she had voiced concerns over access when this site was
originally discussed. noting that she very much supports the circulation element's goal of
having alley-only access whenever possible. She also felt that a better design is available,
noting that she does not favor four drtveways backing out onto Manhattan Avenue and four
driveways backing out onto Monterey. She favored approval of staffs recommendation to
address other options available for thiS site.
14 P.C. Minutes 11/6/00
Comm. Alex did not feel that the memo from the Director of Public Works should be addressed
by the Commission. He noted that he has never before seen such a letter, and he felt that the
letter should be regarded as testimony. He questioned whether the City can legally require the
applicant to consolJdate these lots.
Mr. Lee clarified that the applicant has the legal right to develop each of the lots separately;
however, it does not mean that the applicant can build anything he wants. He noted that
conditional use permits are required for condominiums, and the City therefore has
discretionary puIView over such projects. He continued by explaining the extent of the City's
discretionary control over condominium development and the bases of denial. He stated that
it is well within the purview of the Commission to ref er this matter back to staff for the
purpose of determining potential environmental impacts based on the cumulative impact of
the four developments.
MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Aleks, to approve Resolutions 90-89 through 92,
with the inclusion of additional wording to condition 4B specifying that if palm trees are lost,
similar-sized specimen trees shall take their place; further, that other trees shall be
encouraged to be maintained at the discretion of the planning director.
Comm. Aleks suggested the inclusion of wording specifying that the asbestos demolition be
undertaken in accordance with the rules and regulations.
Comm. Peirce felt it would be more appropriate to send a memo to the building director related
to asbestos removal. Mr. Schubach concurred that the building director is the appropriate
person to notify of this concern.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
(MOTION FAILS.)
Comms. Aleks, Rue
Comm.Peirce,Chmn.Ketz
None
Comm. Ingell
Mr. Schubach noted that one Commissioner is absent: he therefore suggested that this item be
continued to the next meeting for decision. In the meantime. staff can continue to work with
the applicant on the project.
MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Rue, to continue this item to the meeting of
November 20, 1990.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Aleks, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ketz
None
None
Comm. Ingell
Recess taken from 9:32 P.M. until 9:38 P.M.
LI.A 90-4-LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT AT 1712 THE STRAND
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated October 31, 1990, and recommended that the Planning
Commission approve the proposed lot line adjustment.
The subject property is owned by Steven Legare. It contains approximately 6400 square feet, is
currently developed with a nine-unit apartment building, and is zoned R-2B.
15 P.C. Minutes 11/6/90
The subject lots were considered for a lot merger in April of 1989, but the merger was continued
to give the owner the opportunity to remove the nine units on the property and to create two
larger lots by a lot line adjustment.
The merger has been continued two additional times by the Planning Commission, and the
deadline is now December 31, 1990.
The lot line adjustment Is the first step in the process that would enable the owner to develop
two separate single-family homes on individual 40-foot wide lots.
The resulting parcel sizes would be approximately 3200 square feet each, which is substandard
in size to current standards, but which is larger than the existing lots and larger than most of
the lots in the vicinity.
Staff felt that this adjustment of the property line is an improvement over the existing
situation of two 30-foot wide lots and an additional 20-foot wide portion. The resulting lots
will be of a size that would allow only one unit per lot, and development for this purpose will
not have any negative impacts on surrounding properties and would be consistent with the
character of the area.
If the lots are merged, the result would be one parcel of 6400 square feet, and with the R-2B
zoning, two condominium structures could be built on the property. The only advantage of
allowing a lot line adjustment rather than the merger is that the result would be two separate
single-family lots rather than a two-unit condominium project.
Hearing opened at 9:40 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz.
Elizabeth Srour, 820 Manhattan Avenue, representing the applicant, ·addressed the
Commission and stated that they are in agreement with staff's recommendation. She said that
the potential is more attractive as two lots rather than as one consolidated site.
Hearing closed at 9:41 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz.
MOTION by Comm. Petree, seconded by Comm . .Aleks, to approve staffs recommendation,
Resolution P.C. 90-95, approving a lot line adjustment at 1712 The Strand.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
STAFF ITEMS
Comms . .Aleks,Peirce,Rue,Chmn.Ketz.
None
None
Comm. Ingell
a) Election of New Chalnnan and Vice Chairman
As agreed upon in the past, the Commission decided to rotate the responsibilities of Chairman
and Vice Chairman. Comm. Ketz will serve as Chairman, and Comm. Peirce will seIVe as Vice
Chairman.
b) Alternative P1Anntng Commlpton Dates in December 1990 and Janu8ly 1991
Following tradition, the Commission will have its one meeting in December on Tuesday,
December 4, 1990. Since the date for the first meeting in January falls on New Year's Day, it
was decided to hold the meeting on Wednesday, January 2, 1991.
16 P.C. Minutes 11/6/90
c) PlanulDf Oepartment Activity Report for September 1990
Comm. Peirce commented on the rapid transit ridership in the area, and he asked staff
questions related to the stops on the line.
Mr. Schubach noted that the City will be putting out a questionnaire related to rapid transit;
most likely, it will go out in the City newsletter.
Comm. Peirce suggested that the newsletter not look like an advertisement which people will
throw away.
ell Memorandum Reon,•ur PJpnnlnf Cfflpmlglnn Upl19n for November 13, 1990, Mef!tfDf
No one will attend.
e) Tentative Future Plpnntnf Comrntgton Agenda
No action taken.
f) City Connell Minutes of October 9. 1990
No action taken.
COMMISSIONER ITEMS
Mr. Schubach stated that he has been informed that Comm. Ingell intends to resign from the
Commission. He will, however, remain on the Commission until a replacement ts appointed.
Comm. Peirce noted that Comm. Ingell provided valuable input to the Commission from the
standpoint of his being a local retail businessman. He felt that his absence will be sorely
missed, and he suggested that this fact be pointed out to the City Council.
Comm. Rue asked for information on the Strand Hotel, to which Mr. Schubach responded by
giving a brief update.
MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to adjourn at 9:56 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 November 6, 1990.
-~-"-----/0-:-, __ -:1/d/?~
ChriStine Ketz, Vice Chairman Michael Schubach, Secretary "-........
Date
17 P.C. Minutes 11/6/90
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CI'IY OF HERMOSA BEACH
HELD ON OCTOBER 16, 1990, AT 7:00 P .M. IN 'IDE CITY HALL COUNCB, CHAMBERS
Meeting called to order at 7:03 P.M. by Comm. Ketz.
Pledge of Allegiance led by Comm. Peirce.
ROLLCALL
Present:
Absent:
Comms. Aleks, Ketz, Peirce
Comm. Rue, Chmn. Ingell
Also Present: Michael Schubach, Planning Director: Edward Lee, Assistant City
Attorney; Sally White, Recording Secretary
Vice Chairman Ketz acted as Chairman of the meeting.
CONSENT CALENDAR
MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Aleks, to approve as submitted the Planning
Commission minutes of October 2, 1990.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Aleks, Peirce, Chmn. Ketz
None
None
Comms. Ingell, Rue
MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Chmn. Ketz, to approve as submitted the following
resolutions:
Resolution P.C. 90-46, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF TIIE CI1Y OF
HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDffiONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW OFF-
SALE GENERAL LIQUOR AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE
DECLARATION FOR 1031 HERMOSA AVENUE, GOLDEN LION LIQUOR AND LEGALLY
DESCRIBED AS LOTS 16, 17, AND 18, BLOCK 11, HERMOSA BEACH 'IRACT;
Resolution P.C. 90-78, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF TIIE CI1Y OF
HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT
TO ALLOW LIVE ENTERTAINMENT IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN EXISTING BAR AND
ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR 8 PIER AVENUE,
HENNESSEY'S, AND LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS THE NORTHERLY 45 FEET OF LOT 5, BLOCK
12, HERMOSA BEACH 1RACT;
Resolution P.C. 90-81, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CI1Y OF
HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING
ORDINANCE TEXT TO ADD MOTORCYCLE SALES AND MOTORCYCLE PARTS SALES AS
PERMITIED USES IN THE C-3 ZONE WITH A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND ADOPTION OF
AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION;
Resolution P.C. 90-82, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF TIIE CI1Y OF
HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #22342 FOR A 1WO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 655 SIXTH STREET,
LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 17, DR. DOUGHER'IYS HERMOSA BAY VIEW 1RACT;
Resolution P.C. 90-83, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF TIIE CI1Y OF
HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING
1 P.C. Minutes 10/ 16/90
ORDINANCE TEXT, SECTION 13-7(C)(3) REGARDING EXTENSIONS OF WALLS WITH
NONCONFORMING SIDEYARDS TO GIVE TI-IE PLANNING COMMISSION MORE DISCRETION
TO APPROVE REQUES'IS FOR SUCH EXCEPTIONS AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENT.AL
NEGATIVE DECLARATION;
Resolution P.C. 90-84, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF TI-IE CITY OF
HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA. APPROVING A CONDITION.AL USE PERMIT TO AILOW ON-
SALE BEER AND WINE IN CONJUNCTION WITI-1 A RESTAURANT AND ADOPTION OF AN
ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR 1605 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, MRS.
GARCIA'S RESTAURANT, AND LEG.ALLY DESCRIBED AS A PORTION OF LOT 13 AND TI-IE
SOUTHERLY6.24' OF LOT 14, BLOCK 81, SECOND ADDITION TO HERMOSA BEACH 1RACT.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms.Aleks,Peirce,Chmn.Ketz
None
None
Comms. Ingell, Rue
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC
No one appeared to address the COIIlIIlission.
SUB 86:2 -SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE REVISED GRADING
PLAN FOR AN EIGHT-LOT SUBDIVISION AT 532, 534-540 20'11I smEET, COMMONLY KNOWN
AS ''111E POWER STREET SUBDIVISION'' CCONTlNUED FROM MEETINGS OF 413/90, 5 / l /90,
6/5/90. AND 8/21/90)
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated October 8, 1990, and stated that the new property owners
have decided not to pursue a final map for 532, 534-540 20th Street. Instead, they have
withdrawn the request and will submit a request in the future for development of the existing
four lots.
Chmn. Ketz stated that the item would be received and filed.
CUP 90-23 --CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO EXTEND PATIO DINING HOURS
UNTIL DARK AT 200 LONGFELLOW AVENUE, LA PENITA #2
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated October 11, 1990, and recommended that this project be
continued to the meeting of November 20, 1990, because the applicant was m and failed to mail
out the public notices. The applicant is aware of the recommended continuance.
Mr. Lee explained that no action at all should be taken on this matter at this time, including
the opening of the public hearing, since the matter has not been properly noticed.
Chmn. Ketz stated that this item would be continued to the meeting of November 20, 1990, as
recommended by staff.
VAR 88-14 -VARIANCES TO ALLOW A ]WO-FOOT REAR YARDSE'IBACK RATHER 1HAN THE
REQUIRED FIVE FEET. LESS THAN THE REguIRED OPEN SPACE IN AREA AND IN
M1N1MUM WIDTH. AND ADOPilON OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT
4071BCOURT
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated October 11, 1990, and recommended that the Planning
Commission deny the request.
2 P.C. Minutes 10/ 16/90
The lot size of this project is 960 square feet; builcling size is 1200 square feet; and the proposed
addition is 108 square feet of deck.
The staff environmental review committee, at the meeting of August 9, 1990, recommended an
environmental negative declaration.
This residence was constructed in 1973 as a three-story, one-bedroom dwelling unit. The first
floor consists of a garage and laundry facilities. The second floor consists of a living room,
kitchen, and half bath. The third floor contains one bedroom, bath, and deck. The deck
originally contained about 180 square feet, inclucling the open stairway. The structure was
allowed to be built with less than the required open space by virtue of a variance granted by the
Board of Zoning Appeals and was allowed only one means of exit to the third floor by virtue of
a modification to the builcling code granted by the Board of Builcling Appeals.
In early 1986, the Board of Builcling Appeals denied a request for a fourth-level deck because of
existing problems and recommended the enclosure of the third-level patio area, subject to
variance approval by the Planning Commission for the elimination of open space.
In June 1987, the Building Department discovered that the owners had enclosed the third-level
deck, added a satellite dish, and installed a ladder leacling to the roof, all without obtaining
any pennits.
At their meeting of February 16, 1988, the Planning Commission denied a variance request for
e1iroiuation of open space to rectify the deck enclosure without pennits.
In December of 1988, the applicant submitted another variance request to provide a fourth-
level deck, with access provided via a stairway encroaching to the rear property line. At the
January 5, 1989, meeting with the staff review committee, the applicant was asked to return
with a survey of the builclings on the adjacent property.
The applicant never returned with a survey, and since that time, the Builcling Department has
been pursuing litigation of the matter. The Commissioners were provided with a copy of a
letter dated July 19, 1990, from the city prosecutor which summarizes the agreement to
consider a "viable alternative" as discussed at the most recent office conference. Granting of
this variance request is necessary for approval of that alternative. If denied, a new pretrial
date would be set.
The proposal to resolve the illegal construction involves the construction of new second-level
and third-level balconies extended from the rear of the builcling to provide some open space in
lieu of what was originally required.
The proposed balconies would be three feet wide and would encroach to within two feet of the
southerly property line. A total of 108 square feet of deck would be provided. The three-foot
width would be well short of the required seven-foot dimension for usable open space; and
because of the three-foot width, it would not be very usable.
The circular stairway indicated on the plans leading to the roof has also already been installed
without a permit. It appears that the roof area is being used as a deck. The applicant indicates
that it is a "utility ladder for the satellite dish." As noted, the satellite dish was installed
without a permit, and it also may be in violation of the zoning ordinance height requirements.
Although the lot is very small, staff does not believe there is justification for a variance from
the rear setback and also is concerned that the encroachment may have a detrimental impact
on the property to the south. Additionally, the proposal does little to resolve the open space
deficiency, as the balconies are only three feet wide, are located above each other, and provide a
total amount of square footage significantly less than the original variance.
3 P.C. Minutes 10/ 16/90
Further, the open space requirements of the zoning ordinance also serve the purpose of
reducing the bulk of buildings. Approving this variance would have the opposite effect of
allowing a bulky building. This is also inconsistent with the policy of the housing element to
limit bulk.
Staff agrees with the applicant's statement that there are only two options: (1) remove the deck
enclosure to comply with the original variance, or; (2) approve this variance request. Seeing no
justification for the proposed "after-the-fact" variance, staff recommended denial of the
request and implementation of option 1.
Mr. Schubach explained, in response to a question from Comm. Aleks, that the violations
specified in the staff report are being pursued by the building department.
Public Hearing opened at 7:09 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz.
Richard Knickerbocker, 10940 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles, attorney representing the
applicant. addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that the applicants are being prosecuted
for a violation of the zoning code; (2) stated that the violations occurred approximately four
years ago; (3) stated that prosecution of the violations is not actually at issue in this hearing: (4)
explained that the applicants were advised to apply for a variance; (5) disagreed with several
statements contained in the staff report.
Mr. Knickerbocker continued and: (1) passed out diagrams depicting the project itself; (2)
explained that the current owners did not own this property at the time it was built; (3) said
that at the time the house was built, it was subject to a variance; (4) said that the main issue is
whether things will be improved by approval of the variance. or whether they will be worsened
by denial; (5) stated that the current owner purchased this property in 1985; however it was
built in 1973.
Mr. Knickerbocker went on and: (1) responded to questions posed by Comm. Peirce by
explaining that when this house was built. a variance was obtained in regard to the usable open
space requirement: (2) explained that this house could not have been built at all without the
variance approval; (3) questioned how it is possible for the applicant to comply with the spirit
and letter of the law: (4) passed out additional diagrams depicting the open space and what
would remain if everything which is in violation were torn down. noting that there would still
not be enough open space to comply with today's standards since the project does not have a
seven-foot dimension; (5) said that if everything which is in violation were tom down, 143.75
square feet of open space would remain; (6) again noted that even with the amount of open space
remaining, it would not comply due to the fact that there is not the required seven-foot
dimension.
Mr. Knickerbocker went on and: (1) passed out additional diagrams depicting what is currently
existing and what would be added if this variance were approved: (2) explained that there is
currently 36 square feet of open space. and the variance approval would allow for an additional
14 square-foot deck on the second floor and an additional 66 square-foot deck on the third
floor, resulting in more usable open space (144 square feet) than if the enclosure were torn
down; (3) said that approval of the variance would allow for more usable open space than if the
enclosure were torn down; (4) explained that the satellite dish enclosure was erected on the
recommendation of the Board of Building Appeals, who felt that it would be preferable to
enclose the area; (5) said that the enclosure serves a safety function and covers an unsightly
stairway: (6) said that the enclosure also helped correct a drainage problem of water going down
the stairway and into the house; (7) said that the satellite dish was then placed on top of the
enclosure.
Mr. Knickerbocker continued and: (1) explained that the placement of the satellite dish would
be perfectly legal if it were not on top of the usable open space and if the variance is approved;
(2) stated that he appeared before the Commission several years ago on this matter; (3) stated
that the applicants were told by staff that it appeared they were proceeding in good faith: (4)
4 P.C. Minutes 10/ 16/90
said that he was surprised when staff recommended denial of the request; (5) explained that the
applicant, in an attempt to ameliorate the concerns of staff, has come up with another way to
provide additional open space; (6) passed out another diagram depicting the applicant's new
proposal.
Mr. Knickerbocker went on and: (1) explained that the applicant proposes to widen further the
third-story deck by relocating the wall of the master bedroom in, in order to provide the
required seven feet of usable open space; (2) said that the applicant would also provide the
additional space on the second-and third-floor decks as proposed; (3) said that this alteration
would result in a total of 200 square feet of legal usable open space, which is in excess of what is
required; (4) said that before the enclosure was put in. there was only 142 square feet of usable
open space; (5) discussed the area on the roof, stating that a ladder was built by a previous
owner, but a safer ladder was installed by the current owner at the request of Mr.
Knickerbocker for safety purposes; (6) said that almost everyone else in the vicinity has roof
access exactly like the one at this property.
Mr. Knickerbocker continued and: (1) stated that the applicants are not requesting something
which is not also enjoyed by others in the same area; (2) clarified that there were actually two
ladders, the existing dilapidated ladder, and the newer spiral staircase which is much safer: (3)
said that the issue of the ladder needs to be addressed by the building department: (4) explained
that they would like to obtain variance approval from the Commission; (5) stated that this
proposal is not obtrusive, none of the neighbors object to the proposal, and the existing
condition has existed for quite some time with no complaints from anyone, and the applicants
now would like to make the situation legal.
Mr. Knickerbocker went on and: (1) responded to questions from Comm. Aleks related to the
past history of this matter and stated that the old variance required 143.5 square feet of usable
open space; (2) stated that he was not certain of staff's prior recommendation, noting that he
was not present at all of the discussions; (3) saJid that it is difficult to determine what would be
legal today: (4) stated that the best solution seems to be to relocate the wall of the master
bedroom, since it would provide usable legal open space; (5) said that there are practical
difficulties in this case because of the small size of the lot; (6) noted that this problem arose due
to the approval of the past variance; (7) said that the applicant is trying everything he can to
find a solution; (8) said that approval of the request would cause no harm to either the City or to
the surrounding neighbors.
Mr. Knickerbocker concluded and: (1) suggested that the Commission impose a condition
requiring that the wall of the master bedroom be relocated, noting that that appears to be the
best solution; (2) concUITed that a problem does exist, however, they are eager to find a solution.
Public Hearing closed at 7:29 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz.
Comm. Peirce stated that nothing has changed over the past several years in regard to this
project. He stated that, in good conscience, he could not waive the City's setback requirements.
He therefore intended to vote against approval of this requesL
Comm. Aleks concurred with the comments expressed by Comm. Peirce, stating that he could
see no reason to approve this requesL He felt that an obtrusive situation already exists, and he
noted that the applicant already appears to have proceeded without first obtaining the
necessary pennits.
Chmn. Ketz agreed that she could not support approval of this variance request, explaining
that the necessary findings cannot be made. She did not feel it would be appropriate to remedy
an already-illegal situation by approval. She noted that these changes were made without the
proper building pennits.
MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Aleks, to approve staffs recommendation to
deny the variance request, Resolution P.C. 90-86.
5 P.C. Minutes 10/ 16/90
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Aleks, Peirce, Chmn. Ketz
None
None
Comms. Ingell, Rue
Chmn. Ketz stated that this decision of the PJauuing Commission may be appealed by writing
to the City Council within ten days.
Recess taken from 7:30 P.M. until 7:36 P.M.
CUP 90-22 --CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO EXTEND THE OPERATION
HOURS FROM 7:00 A.M. TO 10:00 P.M. AND TO ALLOW A 250 SQUARE-FOOT ADDfflON. AND
ADOPDON OF A NF.GATIVE DF.cLARATION AT 205 PIER AVENUE. ALTA DENA DAIRY
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated October 10, 1990, and recommended that the Planning
Commission approve the conditional use permit and negative declaration, subject to the
conditions specified in the proposed resolution.
This project is located in the C-2 zone. The surrounding zoning is C-2 to the north and the east.
The general plan designation is general commercial. The present and proposed use is as a
drive-through dairy/market. The building size is 740 square feet, and the proposed addition is
250 square feet.
At the meeting of August 23, 1990, the staff environmental review committee recommended a
negative declaration for the request.
On July 12, 1983, the City Council granted a conditional use permit for the sale of beer and wine
in conjunction with a drive-through dairy at this location. The Council, on appeal, overturned
the Board of Zoning Appeals' denial of the requested pennit.
The 250 square-foot addition is for the purpose of providing additional refrigerated storage
space. In addition, the plans propose the addition of two more parking spaces to meet the
parking requirements for the total square footage of this retail use.
The plan elevations also indicate that the signs will be repainted, and the existing awniDg will
be provided with a new stucco coating.
The applicant is also requesting to extend the allowed operating hours, which are currently
limited to between 8:00 A.M. and 9:00 P.M. to 7:00 A.M. to 10:00 P.M. The reason for the
existing limitation on hours was apparently in response to the hours originally requested by
the business owner.
Since this project is located on a highly visible comer in the downtown area of the City, staff
felt that it is important to consider the appearance of the site. Currently. the building and the
landscaping are not being well maintained, and some dilapidation is occurring. Also, there are
often boxes and junk being left outside on the premises.
In addition, the existing signs are excessive. The pole sign, for example, is nonconforming to
the sign requirements for the C-2 zone in which pole signs are not permitted, and only ground
signs are allowed, to a maximum height of eight feet. Also. the amount of commodity
identification signs is excessive. Enforcement efforts by the City have yielded limited results
and have resulted in the construction of a dumpster enclosure, and in the reduction of the use of
illegal commodity identification signs.
Therefore, in addition to the standard conditions required for off-sale beer and wine
establishments and the conditions already applicable to this business, staff recommended
6 P.C. Minutes 10/ 16/90
/
further conditions to improve the appearance of the site: (1) to require that instead of the
proposed repainting, that a mansard roof be installed around the perimeter of the building and
the awning structures; (2) to require that the signs be brought up to code requirements for the C-
2 zones, meaning that the existing pole sign must be removed and replaced with a maximum
eight-foot high ground sign, and that a sign plan be submitted to bring overall sign.age into
conformance with sign area requirements. The ground sign would also be for identification of
the business, such as "Alta Dena Dairy and Market" and would not prominently display
products or product names. The recommended conditions would require conformance prior to
the issuance of any building permits for the addition; and (3) to require that existing
landscaping be replaced where appropriate, supplemented with trees. and requiring a revised
landscape plan to be submitted. Also, the border around the landscaped areas would be
required to be minimum six-inch high permanent. concrete curbing.
Other than the concerns with signage and appearance, staff did not anticipate any problems
with the request. This is an existing business which provides a service to nearby residents, and
adequate parking is available in the parking spaces in addition to the stacking spaces
available in the drive-through lane.
Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Comm. Aleks. explained that applicants are
requested to submit a basic landscape plan showing what will be planted where, and the plan is
subject to approval by the planning director.
Public Hearing opened at 7:40 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz.
Gerry Compton, 200 Pier Avenue, Hermosa Beach, project architect representing the applicant,
addressed the Commission. He discussed several of the proposed conditions, referring first to
Condition No. 3(a): "The use of a mansard roof around the perimeter of the building and
awning which face Manhattan Avenue and Pier Avenue or other architectural roof treatment
subject to approval of the Planning Director." He stated that he does not personally like
mansard roofs, since they tend to date buildings. He preferred to have the condition read "other
architectural treatment," rather than being limited to the use of a mansard roof. He stated that
he would be willing to work with staff to reach a suitable agreement on this point.
Mr. Compton addressed the repainting, stating that he discussed the issue with the applicant,
and they have decided to restucco the building and tie it in to the rest of the building. The
applicant has expressed concern. however. about the overhang because sometimes trucks are
too tall and bump into that portion of the building.
Mr. Compton next referred to Condition No. 6: "Alcoholic beverage shelf space must not exceed
a maximum of 25% of the total refrigerated shelf space and 25% of the non-refrigerated shelf
space." He stated that the applicant was not aware of this previously-imposed condition. He
noted that the applicant currently uses less than 25% of the space; however, the applicant
would like to have more space available for the display of imported beer and wine. This
business does not sell liquor; only beer and wine, and Mr. Compton therefore asked whether
the condition could be modified to allow 40% of the refrigerated shelf space to be used for beer
and wine.
Mr. Compton referred to Condition No. 10: "Exterior display/ storage of merchandise for sale.
including ice products, shall be strictly prohibited." He asked whether this condition applies to
the ice machine. to which Mr. Schubach replied in the affirmative.
Mr. Compton stated that the ice machine will be relocated to face out onto the drive-up area
once the remodel is done, to which Mr. Schubach replied that that would be acceptable to staff.
Mr. Schubach discussed the six-inch curb and sprinkler system, stating that the applicant has
agreed to comply with those conditions.
7 P.C. Minutes 10/ 16/90
Mr. Compton discussed the sign, stating that the applicant feels it is necessary to have a tall
sign. He asked questions related to the sign requirements, to which Mr. Schubach stated that
staff has no objection to cutting the poles down, adding a concrete skirt, and relocating the
sign. He continued by discussing the verbiage which can be allowed on the sign, to which Mr.
Schubach clarified that staff would have no objection to the words "Alta Dena" being larger,
and the word "milk" being somewhat smaller. He stated that staffs main concern was that the
word "milk" is currently so large.
Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Mr. Compton, explained that a conditional use
pennit gives the City more control over signage.
Mr. Compton said that the applicant is interested in upgrading his property, and he would like
to modernize.
Comm. Peirce pointed out that the plans denote two new parking spaces in the triangular-
shaped area of the property. He asked whether staff would have an objection to removal of the
parking space on the comer so that that area could be landscaped. He did not feel that parking
is a problem at this business, noting that most people just pull in to the stacking area.
Mr. Schubach stated that staff has recognized the stacking area as parking area. He therefore
had no objection to removal of the one space for landscaping purposes.
Mr. Compton stated that there would be no problem with landscaping that area. He noted that
the extra parking was provided so that staff would not object; however, he agreed that it is not
actually necessary for parking due to the configuration of the stacking.
Comm. Aleks asked what type of roof treatment is being proposed, to which Mr. Compton
replied that stucco would be an appropriate treatment. He stated that they would like to tie
together the entire project. He noted that it would be very difficult to have a mansard roof on
this building, since it could not go all the way around the building.
Public Hearing closed at 7:53 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz.
Comm. Peirce referred to the two new proposed parking spaces, stating that he definitely feels
the one on the comer would not be very useful. He also questioned the usefulness of the space
facing Manhattan Avenue. He felt it might be more appropriate to use that space for additional
landscaping as well. He felt that the existing parking is adequate, and he suggested that the
landscaping be allowed to extend all the way through to the comer.
Mr. Schubach stated that staff would have no objection to removal of the two spaces in order to
provide landscaping.
Comm. Peirce felt that this is an opportunity to beautify a highly-visible area, to which Chmn.
Ketz concurred, stating that the proposed parking would be difficult to get in to. She felt that
additional landscaping would be very attractive.
Comm. Peirce had no objection to allowing additional shelf space to display beer and wine. He
felt that 40 % is excessive; however, he felt that 33% would be an acceptable compromise.
MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Aleks, to approve staffs recommendation,
Resolution P.C. 90-85, with the following amendments: (1) Condition No. 3(a) shall be modified
to read: "The use of an architectural roof treatment subject to approval of the Planning
Director"; (2) Condition No. 6 shall be modified to read: "All alcoholic beverage shelf space
must not exceed a maximum of 33.% of the total refrigerated shelf space and 33% of the non-
refrigerated shelf space"; (3) a WHEREAS D. shall be added stating that addition of the two
parking spaces does not substantially add to the operation of the business, and removal of the
parking spaces to accommodate additional landscaping would greatly beautify the comer; (4)
addition of a condition requiring that landscaping be provided in the area where the two
8 P.C. Minutes 10/ 16/90
parking spaces have been removed; and (5) Condition No. 10 shall be modified to read:
"Exterior display/storage of merchandise for sale shall be strictly prohibited; however, ice
products shall be allowed under the canopy."
Comm. Peirce noted that he has no opposition to the proposed hours of operation.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Aleks, Peirce, Chmn. Ketz
None
None
Comms. Ingell, Rue
F-4 --ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR FARMER'S MARKET AT HERMOSA AVENUE
AND 13TH STREET ON THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY AND ADOPTION OF AN
ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated October 11, 1990, and recommended that this item be
continued to the meeting of November 20, 1990, in order to give the Public Works Department
adequate time to study the traffic impact on the public right-of-way.
Chmn. Ketz stated that this item would be continued to the meeting of November 20, 1990, as
recommended by staff; however, she did ask whether anyone was present to speak on this issue,
to which no one in the audience responded.
NR-90:6 --AN EXCEPTION FROM SECTION 13-7(13) TO ALLOW A REMODEL AND SECOND-
STORY ADDITION RESULTING IN GREATER THAN 50 PERCENT EXPANSION TO AN
EXISTING NONCONFORMING S'IRUCTIJRE AT 1148 SECOND S'IBEET
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated October 11, 1990, and recommended approval of this
request, subject to the conditions specified in the proposed resolution.
This project is located in the R-1 zone, with a general plan designation of low density. The lot
size is 2253 square feet. The existing building size is 1061 square feet, and the proposed
addition is 786 square feet.
The subject lot is a through lot with frontage on both Second Street and First Place.
The applicant is requesting to expand an existing nonconforming single-family dwelling. The
addition to the structure would expand an existing 1061 square-foot, two-bedroom, one-and a
half-bath house into a three-bedroom, two-and a half-bath house with 1847 square feet.
The dwelling is currently a nonconforming structure because of nonconfonnities to the garage
setback and to open space. The garage setback is only five feet, rather than the required 17 feet,
and although there is an existing 311 square-foot deck, no ground-level outside area qualifies
as usable open space. In addition, the existing garage width of 16.5 feet does not meet the
minimum required width for interior clearance of 17 feet for existing garages.
The applicant is requesting Planning Commission approval, pursuant to Section 13-7(b). to
allow an addition which is greater than 50 percent of the existing replacement value. Staff has
calculated that the proposal involves an addition equal to 64 percent of replacement value.
Section 13-7 of the zoning ordinance requires conformance with the parking requirements of
Section 11.5, which allows expansion of existing structures as long as two parking spaces are
available. However, the existing garage is not adequate in width to qualify for two parking
spaces. The minimum width for existing parking spaces is 8.5 feet per parking space, or 1 7 feet
for a two-car garage. As such, staff included a condition of approval that the garage must be
widened to provide a minimum of 1 7 feet interior clearance. The applicant was notified of this
9 P.C. Minutes 10/ 16/90
needed change and indicated that he would be willing to modify the plan by moving the west
wall of the garage an additional foot to the west.
The proposal is otherwise consistent with Article 13. 7, as the other nonconformities would not
be increased or worsened.
Pursuant to Section 13-7(b), in order to approve this request, the Planning Commission must
make a finding that the goals, intent, and purpose of this article are being met. In this case,
staff felt this finding can be made because this would allow a sound structure to be maintained,
and the cUITent nonconformities that would be perpetuated are not significant or unusual,
especially in consideration of the small size of this lot.
Hearing opened at 8:03 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz.
Steve Crecy, 1148 2nd Street, Hermosa Beach, applicant, addressed the Commission and: (1)
said he has lived in the home for 15 years, and he requested approval of the exception; (2)
explained that the project is 14 percent larger than is allowed to meet the current
requirements; (3) said that they will comply with the City's garage requirements; (4) passed out
a photo depicting this project in relation to the neighborhood.
Teny Slavin, 2506 Aviation Boulevard, project architect, addressed the Commission and
asked if there were any questions, to which no one responded.
Hearing closed at 8:07 P .M. by Chmn. Ketz.
Chmn. Ketz could see no problems with approving this request, stating that this will be a nice
addition; to which Comm.. Aleks concurred, stating that he feels this project will be an
enhancement.
MOTION by Comm. .Aleks, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to approve staffs recommendation,
Resolution P.C. 90-87, as written.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
CoIIUilS.Aleks,Peirce,Chmn.Ketz
None
None
CoIIUilS.Ingell,Rue
CON 88-30 --EXTENSION OF THE VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #20304 FOR A 1WO-
UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 1840 HERMOSA AVENUE
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated October 11, 1990, and recommended that the tentative
map be extended one year to November 1, 1991.
On November 1, 1988, the Planning Commission approved a two-unit condominium project
and a tentative map for the subject property. The map expires on November 1, 1990. The two-
unit building is currently under construction.
Section 66463.5 of the subdivision map act allows the Planning Commission to extend the
expiration date for tentative maps for a period not exceeding three years.
The applicant indicates that the reason for the delay was due to some financing difficulties.
The applicant anticipates completion of the project within three months.
Since the zoning has not changed in respect to the subject property, and since the building is
nearing completion, staff felt it would be appropriate to extend the map.
10 P.C. Minutes 10/ 16/90
-
Hearing opened and closed at 8:08 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz, who noted that no one came forward to
speak on this issue.
MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm . .Aleks, to approve staffs recommendation to
continue the tentative map for one year to November 1, 1991.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms . .Aleks, Peirce, Chmn. Ketz
None
None
Comms. Ingell, Rue
LM89-l REQUEST FOR EX'IENSION OF 'IBE LOT MERGER AT 1712 'IDE STRAND
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated October 11, 1990, and recommended that the Planning
Commission grant an additional extension of 60 days to the proposed lot merger.
At their meeting of June 5, 1990, the Planning Commission granted an additional six-month
extension to the original one-year extension on the subject lot merger. The extension expires
on October 31, 1990.
The property owner, Mr. Legare, has made some progress, albeit slow, towards removing the
existing nine units on the property for his stated purpose of replacing the nine units with two
single-family homes. It is staff's understanding that the tenants have been given eviction
notices, and staff has been in contact with the applicant who intends to apply for a lot line
adjustment early next week.
Once the lot line adjustment is submitted, the PJaooiog Commission will consider it at the
next available meeting. If approved, the applicant can proceed with demolition of the nine
units. Staff felt that this can be accomplished within 60 days. If not, staff felt that the
appropriate action would be to merge the lots.
Hearing opened and closed at 8:09 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz, who noted that no one came forward to
speak on this issue.
MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm . .Aleks, to approve staff's recommendation to
extend this lot merger for 60 days.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
STAFF ITEMS
Comms . .Aleks,Peirce,Chmn.Ketz
None
None
Comms. Ingell, Rue
a) Mnnicipal Pier Renovation
Mary Rooney, Director of Community Resources, presented the staff report dated October 9,
1990. She recommended that the Planning Commission review the preliminary designs for
the potential municipal pier renovation and provide input and suggestions for the project
which, along with feedback from the Parks, Recreation, and Community Resources
Commission and the Downtown Revitalization Committee, will be forwarded to the City
Council for conceptual approval.
Ms. Rooney continued by giving background of the project and explaining some of the
proposals. She noted that the Commission will have additional opportunities in the future to
discuss this issue.
11 P.C. Minutes 10/ 16/90
Comm. Peirce stated that if the pier renovation extended up Pier Avenue to Hermosa Avenue.
the renovation could be combined with the efforts of the downtown revitalization project. He
asked whether any consideration has been given to the idea of removing some of the parking
on Pier Avenue.
Ms. Rooney explained that these are preliminary plans, and an attempt is being made to
combine the pier renovation and the downtown revitalization so that the projects can be tied
together. She continued by explaining some of the suggestions which have been made thus far.
She noted that the installation of a police substation has been suggested.
Ms. Rooney, in response to questions from Chmn. Ketz, outlined some of the h:igh1ights of the
proposal, including seating on the pier. restaurant on the end of the pier, improvements in
trash and lighting facilities, and installation of kiosks along the pier. She noted that the basic
concept is to maintain the pier as a fishing pier; however, it is desired to draw other uses to the
area as well.
Ms. Rooney, in response to questions from Chmn. Ketz regarding the kiosks, explained that the
coastal conservancy typically has nature and wildlife depictions to serve as points of interest.
Chmn. Ketz felt that some low-scale commercial development at the end of the pier would be a
nice addition.
Ms. Rooney, in response to questions from Chmn. Ketz, explained the procedure that this
project will follow, including the funding aspects of the renovation. When more details are
available, plans will again be presented to the Commission.
Chmn. Ketz favored several of the suggestions: (1) the improved benches allowing for better
visibility; (2) the water fountain; (3) the open plaza at the entrance, as opposed to an
amphitheater; and (4) the low-scale restaurant use. She felt that it is important to proceed with
the pier renovation.
Comm. Peirce asked questions related to the location of the police substation, to which Ms.
Rooney replied that a definite location has not yet been decided upon. She did note, however.
that a new building may be built, or possibly the existing site may be used.
Comm. Aleks concurred with the importance of proceeding with the pier renovation, and he
will look forward to more information in the future.
Ms. Rooney stated that she is amenable to any suggestions from the Commission in the future
on this issue.
b) Altemat;ive Planning Cmnmlyion Meeting Dates for December 1990 and January 1991
Chmn. Ketz. noting that several Commissioners were not present, requested staff to bring this
matter back to a future meeting for discussion.
c) Mernonmctum Regarding flaonJng Commission U@Json for October 23. 1990. Meeting
No comm.ents; no action taken.
d) Tentative Future planning Com.mission Agenda
No comments; no action taken.
e) City Council Minutes of September 25. 1990
No comments; no action taken.
12 P.C. Minutes 10/ 16/90
COMMISSIONER ITEMS
Comm. Peirce discussed the issue of rapid transit and asked for an update on what staff has
done in regard to determining where people in the city are going.
Mr. Schubach replied that staff is still working on this issue. He stated that staff is considering
having a questionnaire printed in an upcoming issue of the City newsletter.
MOTION by Comm . .Aleks, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to adjourn at 8:25 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 16, 1990.
/~_L1_
Christine Ketz, Vice Chainnan Michael Schubach, Secretary
13 P.C. Minutes 10/ 16/90
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
HELD ON NOVEMBER 20, 1990, AT 7:00 P.M. IN 1BE CI'IY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Meeting called to order at 7:02 P.M. byChmn. Ketz.
Pledge of .Allegiance led by Comm. Aleks.
Chmn. Ketz introduced and welcomed the new commissioner, Robert Marks.
ROILCAIL
Present:
Absent:
Also Present:
Comms. Aleks, Marks, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ketz
None
Michael Schubach, Planning Director; Edward Lee, Assistant City
Attorney; Sally White, Recording Secretary
CONSENT CALENDAR
MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to approve as submitted the minutes of
September 18, 1990. Noting the abstentions of Comms. Aleks and Marks, no objections; so
ordered.
MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve as submitted the minutes of
November 6, 1990. Noting the abstention of Comm. Marks, no objections; so ordered.
MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Aleks, to approve the following resolutions:
Resolution P.C. 90-88, A RESOLUTION OF TIIE PLANNING COMMISSION OF TIIE Cl1Y OF
HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, TENTATIVE
TRACT MAP #22653, AND A PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR A FOUR-UNIT
CONDOMINIUM AT 817-823 MONTEREY BOULEVARD, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS 16, 16,
AND 17, BLOCK A, 1RACTNO. 860;
Resolution P.C. 90-94, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF TIIE CI'IY OF
HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DENYING A REQUESTED AMENDMENT TO A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #21787 FOR A 1WO-UNIT
CONDOMINIUM TO ELIMINATE CONDITION 12(A), AT 952 EIGHTII STREET, LEGALLY
DESCRIBED AS LOTS 1 AND 2, WILSON AND LIND'S mACT;
Resolution P.C. 90-95, A RESOLUTION OF TIIE PLANNING COMMISSION OF TIIE Cl'IY OF
HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE FOR A LOT
LINE ADJUSTMENT AT 1712 TIIE S1RAND BE1WEEN LOTS 1, 2, AND TIIE SOUTIIEAST 20
FEET OF LOT 3, BLOCK 18, HERMOSA BEACH 1RACT.
Noting the abstention of Comm. Marks, and there being no objection to approval of the above
resolutions, so ordered.
Chmn. Ketz pulled for discussiorl Resolution P.C. 90-93, Condition No. 17: "Individual
containers of alcohol shall be packaged in clear bags or containers to make the contents of the
container visible." She asked whether that condition should have been included.
Mr. Schubach stated that that condition is included as recommended by the Commission. He
continued by explaining that the item which was not allowed was a condition prohibiting
single-container sales of alcoholic beverages.
1 P.C. Minutes 11/20/90
Mr. Schubach, in response to Chmn. Ketz's questions related to Condition No. 19 ("The police
chief may determine that a continuing police problem exists and may require the presence of a
police approved doorman and/ or security personnel paid by the business."). explained that that
is a standard condition for any establishment selling alcoholic beverages, including grocery
stores.
Comm. Rue discussed Condition No. 15: "The use of the residential portion of the subject
property including the garage areas and storage rooms, and/ or closets in connection with the
business for storage, shall revert back to use for residential parking and storage when this
business changes." He questioned that particular wording and asked questions related to the
currently existing storage area. He then suggested wording to clarify the condition.
Discussion ensued related to when the storage space should revert back to parking.
Mr. Lee recommended that the wording in Condition No. 15 be replaced with the following:
"The existing use of the garage area within the residential portion of the subject property in
connection with the existing business shall revert back to use for residential parking and
storage when there is a substantial alteration, modification. or termination of the existing
use."
Mr. Lee, in response to questions from Comm. Aleks, explained what would constitute a
"substantial" change in use.
MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Aleks, to approve Resolution P.C. 90-93, with the
Mr. Lee's recommendation to replace the wording in Condition No. 15 as stated above. No
objections; so ordered.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM TIIE PUBLIC
No one appeared to address the Commission.
F-4 -ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR FARMER'S MARKET AT HERMOSA AVENUE
AND 13TB STREET ON PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Mr. Schubach recommended that this matter be continued to the meeting of December 4, 1990,
so that the Public Works Department will have additional time to complete the traffic study.
Chmn. Ketz stated that no one in the audience came forward to speak on this issue.
MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve staffs recommendation to
continue this item to the meeting of December 4, 1990.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Aleks. Marks, Peirce, Rue, Cbmn. Ketz
None
None
None
CUP 90-23 -CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO EXTEND PATIO DINING HOURS
TIT.I, DARK AT 200 LONGFEI,T.QW AVENUE, LA PENITA #2 (CONTINUED FROM MEETING OF
<>C10Jir.;K 16. 199Ql
Mr. Schubach recommended that this item be continued, explaining that proper noticing was
not accomplished because the notices were not mailed out in time.
Comm. Aleks asked whether this item would need to be renoticed.
2 P.C. Minutes 11/20/90
Mr. Lee explained that the item can be continued to a date certain without having to renotice;
however, it can be published in the newspaper so that people are aware of the new hearing date.
Mary Orozco, 200 Longfellow, Hermosa Beach, applicant, addressed the Commission and asked
questions related to whether or not this item needs to be renoticed. She said that a notice is not
posted on the property at this time, explaining that she received nothing from the City to post.
Mr. Lee suggested that this entire matter be renoticed in compliance with applicable
requirements. He recommended that a notice be mailed, the item be republished in the
newspaper, and a sign be posted at the property itself.
Mr. Schubach and the Commissioners discussed the date to which this item should be
continued.
Ms. Orozco stated that she has no objection to a continuance to the first meeting in January,
noting that the request relates to summertime hours.
Chmn. Ketz stated that this item would be continued to the meeting of Wednesday, January 2,
1991. She advised the applicant to call the Planning Department for instructions related to the
proper noticing.
CON 90-16 -CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #22634
FOR A 1WO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 138:142 MANHATIAN AVENUE
CON 90-17 -CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #22635
FOR A 1WO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 144-148 MANHATIAN AVENUE
CON 90-18 -CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #22636
FOR A 1WO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 150-154 MANHATIAN AVENUE
CON 90-19 -CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #22637
FOR A 'IWQ-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 158:160 MANHATTAN AVENUE
(FOUR ABOVE BEARINGS CQNTJNUED FROM MEE'IING OF NOVEMBER 6, 19901
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated October 29, 1990, and recommended that the Planning
Commission continue this request to the meeting of December 4, 1990, so that the applicant
can consider revising the design to integrate the four proposed projects into one cohesive
design which would improve the project is several ways: provide alley-only access; provide
adequate common recreation space to meet the requirements for projects of five units or more;
and to attach the units in clusters of two or four units to maximize the usable open space.
Mr. Schubach suggested an alternative recommendation to approve the proposed design by
approving the CUPs and tentative parcel maps, subject to the conditions specified in the
proposed resolutions, which also include a condition specifying that the existing palm trees be
retained on site.
Mr. Schubach, noting that there is a new Commissioner, stated that Commissioner Marks has
read all of the minutes related to this project and is therefore able to participate in the
discussion and voting of this item.
Public Hearing opened at 7:30 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz.
Jerry Olguin, 2306 Pacific Coast Highway, applicant, addressed the Commission and: (1) for
the benefit of the new commissioner, gave background on his experience in the area and other
projects he has designed; (2) said that he is aware of the parking problems in the area, and this
3 P.C. Minutes 11/20/90
was taken into account when this project was designed; (3) discussed the 17-foot setback
requirement; (4) said that this project will provide ample parking; (5) said that even though
City requirements allow a nine-foot setback on an alley, he decided against that so that more
parking could be provided.
Mr. Olguin continued and: (1) said that the parking has been integrated into the overall project:
(2) noted that. even though the units could have been built larger, he elected to keep them
smaller, in conformance with the surrounding area: (3) discussed the fact that parking meters
were installed in front of this property which resulted in additional problems for this project;
(4) explained that only one on-street parking space will be lost as a result of this project; (5) said
that the trees on site will be preserved.
Mr. Olguin went on and: (1) discussed access from Bayview: (2) commented on the suggestion of
using subterranean parking, explaining that such parking would not be feasible; (3) for the
benefit of the new commissioner, discussed the plans and parking layout of the proposed
project; {4) explained that each of the four building facades will be different in an effort to avoid
a "cookie-cutter" appearance: (5) explained that the parking and access will be fifty-fifty, half
from Manhattan Avenue and half from Bayview; (6) felt that the design elements of this project
will be an asset to the community.
Mr. Olguin went on and: (1) discussed the plot plan as related to the parking and driveways: (2)
explained the layout of the units; (3) commented that he is aware of the impacts in the area, and
these concerns were taken into account when the project was designed; (4) pointed out on the
plans the difficulties which would be encountered with subterranean parking because of the
seven-foot drop-off on the lot; (5) stated that a subterranean garage would require a gate, which
would create problems for guest parking; (6) noted that there are also security problems with
subterranean parking; (7) said that such parking would be very expensive to build and to
landscape.
Mr. Olguin continued and: (1) said that the proposed project will create more of a single-family
feeling; (2) stated that the bulk of a combined project as recommended by staff is not desirable:
(3) noted that during his meetings with staff on this project, no mention was ever made that he
would have to integrate these four separate lots into one project; (4) stated that another project
in this vicinity was approved as submitted, with no requirement that they be integrated; (5)
stressed that his concept is better suited for the area than one integrated project would be.
Mr. Olguin went on and: (1) said that the units will be owner-occupied; (2) felt that a
consolidated project would be conducive to renters, which is not desirable for the City; (3)
stated that people will use their garages for parking as intended; (4) commented on the letter he
sent to the Commission dated November 15, 1990; (5) in response to questions from Comm.
Marks. explained how they arrived at the cost of subterranean parking for this project
($400,000) and what would be involved: (6) reminded the Commissioners of the goals of the
City, stating that home ownership is something to be desired.
Glenn Tanner, 170 Manhattan Avenue, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and: (1)
spoke on behalf of the Coral Terrace Homeowners Association; (2) reiterated the points be
made at the last public hearing on this matter: (3) said that eight more units would greatly
impact Bayview Drive, therefore, the association objects to access from Bayview; {4) said that
they also opposed one integrated project, feeling that it would look like an apartment building
with subterranean parking; (5) said that a precedent has already been set at 128 Manhattan
Avenue by approval of that project which has half of its access off of Bayview: (6) said that this
project does not fit in with the City's vision: (7) displayed photos depicting the surrounding
area of the proposed project; (8) favored a project which will have the least impact on Bayview.
Mr. Schubach explained that staff never said a subterranean garage would be required; that
was merely one possibility which was suggested as an alternative. He continued by explaining
why the other project was approved with access from both Bayview and Manhattan Avenue,
noting that there were different circumstances related to that project.
4 P.C. Minutes 11/20/90
Ron Riggs, 143 Manhattan Avenue, addressed the Commission and: (1) said that he owns Lot
No. 4 which has been discussed, and he continued by explaining why the access was done as it
was; (2) noted that the proposed project consists of four separate lots; (3) said that he supports
the project as submitted; (4) felt that the project will benefit the neighborhood; (5) said that 28
households in the area support this project as proposed and they do not want all access on
Bayview; (6) felt that single-family residences are much more desirable in the City than an
apartment-like structure; (7) commented on the problems associated with subterranean
garages and the fact that people do not like them; (8) read a definition of "alleys"; (9) urged the
Commission to approve the project as submitted.
June WiJ1iams, Manhattan Avenue, addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that Bayview is
very congested now, especially because people park there illegally; (2) supported the project as
submitted: (3) said that the project could not be any better; (4) stressed that people do not like to
use subterranean parking garages.
Jim Shirk, 446 Monterey Boulevard, addressed the Commission and: (1) described the many
problems associated with subterranean parking; (2) commented on open space in condo
projects, stating that it is not useful and it creates many problems: (3) said that it is desirable to
have owner/ occupied units, not renters, which are undesirable; (4) said that an integrated
project as recommended by staff would not be good for the neighborhood.
Mr. Olguin, in response to questions from Comm. Rue, stated that the landscaping will be as
depicted on the plot plan. He said that additional landscaping will enhance the overall project.
He said that he would be able to provide an overall landscape plan, if so desired.
Public Hearing closed at 8:10 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz.
CoIIllll. Peirce stated that approval of condominium projects is a discretionary act. He stated
that there are few pieces of property in the City which can be tied together. Even though he felt
the applicant brought up good points regarding one large project, he felt that the proposed
project does not utilize the land to its best advantage. if one considers all four projects together.
In regard to subterranean parking, he stated that in order to avoid the downslope from the
alley to the parking lot, one driveway from the street would be more pleasant than driving
down the alley. He also noted concern over loss of on-street parking.
Comm. Rue discussed various parking configurations which could be utilized. He noted
concern over loss of open space and the creation of a concrete sea in order to accommodate
parking. He agreed that subterranean parking would be totally inappropriate, based on safety
concerns and economic realities.
Comm. Aleks stated that he favored this project the last time it was heard. He felt that single-
family type units are much more desirable than apartment-like structures. In this particular
area. he did not feel one large integrated project is appropriate. He noted that these are four
legal lots and they should not be required to be tied together. Even though he admired staff's
intentions, in this case he favored approval of the project as submitted.
Comm. Marks commented that a project of this size would impact the area.
Chmn. Ketz stated that she opposed the proposed project based on the fact that she feels there is
a better design than having four driveways on both Bayview and Manhattan Avenue. She also
noted concern over the possibility of having so many curb cuts along the streets. which results
in a loss of landscaping. She concluded by stating that she feels a better design is available for
this project.
Comm. Rue asked whether the applicant had an opinion related to whether this hearing should
be continued so that he could prepare and present a new design.
5 P.C. Minutes 11/20/90
Mr. Olguin stated that the would prefer to have the Commission vote on the project as
submitted at this time.
Comm. Rue commented that he felt the proposal as submitted is a good project; however, he
also felt that there could be other good designs as well.
Mr. Olguin explained that other parking and driveway configurations were considered;
however, it was determined that this proposal is the best design for the project.
MOTION by Comm. Aleks, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve Resolutions 90-89 through 92,
with the inclusion of additional wording to Condition No. 4B specifying that if palm trees are
lost, similar-sized specimen trees shall take their place; further, that other trees shall be
encouraged to be maintained at the discretion of the Planning Director.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Conuns. Aleks, Marks, Rue
Comm. Peirce, Chmn. Ketz
None
None
Chmn. Ketz stated that the decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed by writing to
the City Council within ten days.
Comm. Rue requested that the Commission receive copies of the final landscape plot plan.
CON 90-20/PDP 90-8 -CONDmQNAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING 1ENTATIVE PARCEL MAP
#22409 FOR A 1WO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 619 TENTH STREET
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated November 15, 1990, and recommended that the Planning
Commission approve the CUP and vesting tentative 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 4109 square feet, with an existing use as a single-family unit. The
proposed density is 21 units per acre. Five parking spaces will be provided, and 980 square feet
of open space will be included. The environmental determination is categorically exempt. The
subject property is rectangular in shape and slopes from side to side towards the west.
The proposed units contain approximately 3000 square feet each and consist of three
bedrooms, a loft, four bathrooms, and a roof deck. The project consists of two separate
detached structures with two floors and a meuanine level above a semi-subterranean garage.
The proposed building elevations exhibit a smooth cement plaster exterior, steel railings,
architectural regl.ets, an architectural trellis, glass block, and a waterfall on sheet glass. The
proposed waterfall would fall into a small pond in front of the building. This combination of
features gives the building somewhat of a contemporary appearance.
The landscape plan depicts several trees and bushes to provide visual relief from the otherwise
large and bulky structure. The design also features a rounded stairway protrusion, exterior
balconies, and glass block to provide further visual relief.
The proposed front yard setback is variable, ranging from 5.5 feet to 7 feet, which conforms
with the minimum requirement of 5 feet. A balcony encroaches to within 4 feet, which also
falls within the requirements for balcony encroachments into the front yard. The average
front yard setback along this portion of 10th Street is about 13 feet.
This particular street has recently been the subject of three other condominium projects for
which the front yard setback has been an issue. Most recently, the project across the street, 612
10th Street, was allowed a protrusion to no closer than 8 feet. while 620 10th Street was
6 P.C. Minutes 11/20/90
required to provide 10 feet. The adjacent project at 625 10th Street was allowed a setback of 7
feet (with a protrusion to 5.5 feet) in July of 1988.
The architect was advised to be sensitive to nearby front setbacks in the design of this project
to be consistent with the character of the block but has instead chosen this variable setback
with the inclusion of the waterfall feature.
Staff felt that the appropriate setback for this block is 10 feet, perhaps with an allowance for
minor protrusions. As such, staff recommended that the average setback of 10 feet be required
for this project, but allowing for protrusions to a minimum of 7 feet since the project
immediately to the east is at 7 feet.
Parking is provided in two. two-car garages oriented to the center of the lot and accessed by a
9'6" wide driveway. One guest space is provided, and no on-street spaces are lost as a result of
curb cuts.
One correction to the plans is necessary. The chimney encroachments into the required six-
foot building separation between buildings is not allowed; however, the balcony encroachment
into the rear yard is permitted in the R-2 zone. Staff therefore recommended the deletion of
Condition No. 12(a) related to that issue.
The project complies with all other planning ~d zoning requirements. Lot coverage calculates
to be 63 percent. Adequate open space is provided in the two roof decks, and adequate storage
space is provided.
Although the proposed project is larger than the typical single-family home in the area, it is
consistent with the standards of the R-2 zone and with three other newer projects located
nearby.
Public Rea.ring opened at 8:30 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz.
Fran Baker, 820 Manhattan Avenue, Manhattan Beach, representing the applicant. addressed
the Commission and: (1) stated that this project meets or exceeds all of the zoning
requirements, including parking; (2) said that the project exceeds the open space requirement;
(3) felt that this project would be an asset to the neighborhood and is one which meets the goals
of the City; (4) urged the Commission to approve the project as submitted.
Larry Peha. 67 14th Street. Hermosa Beach, project architect. addressed the Commission and:
(1) stated that the main issue appears to be that of the front yard setback; (2) said that in this
area of the City, the code allows a five-foot setback; (3) noted that the Planning Department
seems to have no clear-cut answer as to what the setback requirement is; (4) gave examples of
setbacks for neighboring projects which have recently been approved; (5) stated that there has
been no definite standard. related to front yard setbacks in the City.
Mr. Peha continued and: (1) said he was informed by staff that the setback is left to the
discretion of the Commission; (2) stated that the point of the project which has a five and a half
foot front setback is the location of the pools for the waterfalls; (3) said that the setbacks for
this project were based on those of the neighbors, which are five and a half feet and seven feet;
(4) said that the setbacks are therefore in conformance; (5) noted that the property is under the
allowable lot coverage.
Mr. Schubach explained that staff takes into consideration the various setbacks on a street
before making i.ts recommendation. He noted that blocks have varying setbacks, and older
homes are generally set back much further than newer developments. Staff therefore averages
the setbacks so that projects conform to the existing neighborhood.
7 P.C. Minutes 11/20/90
Mr. Peha continued by stating various setback measurements of other surrounding properties.
He went on, at the request of Comm. Rue, to describe the project setbacks as depicted on the
color rendering. He also described the curved waterfall enclosure.
Mr. Peha explained that the waterfall cascades into an inside pool at the stairwell landing, at
which point it then goes to the exterior.
Jeff Green, 922 10th Street, Manhattan Beach, project developer, addressed the Commission
and: (1) explained that existing neighborhoods are taken into account when he designs
projects; (2) discussed the setbacks, stating that other developers he has talked to assert that
the City has no clear-cut requirement for the front yard setback; (3) discussed the five-foot
requirement, stating that additional square footage can be utilized in the structure because of
the smaller setback; (4) said that a larger setback would not be feasible because an additional
bedroom could not be built; (5) said that this is a high-quality project; (6) commented that he
would like approval of the project as submitted.
Mr. Green continued and: (1) stated that there is an unusual situation at this property, in that
from the property line to the sidewalk there is an extra two feet which is an encroachment area
and is basically dead space; (2) stated that he could find no reference in the code related to
whether or not chimneys can protrude into the required building separation; (3) stated that the
chimneys could be staggered to give more space between them; (4) said that staggering would
create a more open area.
Mr. Schubach stated that the matter of the chimneys is a zoning code issue which is not within
the purview of the Planning Commission.
Public Hearing closed at 8:47 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz.
Comm. Peirce stated that this is a very attractive project with unique features. He noted that
over the past several years, the City has been making ~ attempt to have new projects blend in
with the older units, especially in the older neighborhoods which are in transition. He felt that
the five-foot setback requirement was not well thought-out when it was implemented a number
of years ago. He felt that the averaging method has been working out well in the City; however,
he noted concern over the front setback of this project, stating that he could not support a five-
foot front setback. He felt that a setback between eight to ten feet would be appropriate,
considering that the neighboring property has a setback of seven feet.
Comm. Aleks noted that the applicant was aware of the setback requirement; therefore, he
favored staff's recommendation of a ten-foot front setback.
Comm. Rue discussed the reason why the City began the averaging method for setbacks. He
discussed the project and stated that it is very attractive with some unique features. He could
not support a five-foot front setback, stating that he would prefer to see it be a little larger.
Chmn. Ketz stated that this is a beautiful project; however, it is important to adhere to the front
setback requirements. She felt that the larger setback also helps reduce the bui1ding bulk.
Mr. Green approached the Commission and stated that the homes with the larger front
setbacks are very small and very old, and will be tom down soon and replaced with newer
projects. He therefore felt that it is not appropriate to say the average setback is 13 feet,
especially when almost all of the newer projects have five feet. He stated that if a larger front
setback is required, he will have to redesign the entire project.
MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Aleks, to approve staff's recommendation,
Resolution P.C. 90-97, including the deletion of Condition No. 12(a).
Comm. Peirce asked whether the Commission will see these plans again if they are redesigned
for the ten-foot front setback.
8 P.C. Minutes 11/20/90
Mr. Schubach explained that minor revisions are approved at the discretion of the Planning
Director. Substantial changes, however, are sent back to the Commission for their review and
approval.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms.Aleks, Marks,Peirce,Cbinn.Ketz
Comm.Rue
None
None
Comm. Rue explained that he voted against the motion based on the fact that he feels Condition
No. 2 requiring a ten-foot front yard setback is excessive; he favored a compromise of seven
feet, noting that the building next door is at five and a half feet. He also noted that a mitigation
measure is the two-foot encroachment between the property line and the sidewalk. He felt that
the larger setback would have a detrimental effect on both the front facade and on the square
footage of the unit.
Cbinn. Ketz stated that this decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed by writing
to the City Council within ten days.
Recess taken from 9:00 P.M. until 9:08 P.M.
CUP 90-12 -CONDl11ONAL USE PERMIT FOR OFF-SALE GENERAL ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES
AT AN EXISTING ESTABLISHMENT ALREADY LICENSED BY ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE
CONTROL AND ADOP'.llON OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 2510
PACIFIC COAST WGHWAY. LUCKY STORE
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated November 15, 1990, and recommended approval of the
requested conditional use permit, subject to the conditions specified in the proposed
resolution.
'Ibis project is located in the C-3 zone, with a general plan designation of general commercial.
The lot size is approximately 46,000 square feet. and the building size is 32,656 square feet.
The current use is as a grocery store with off-sale liquor. There are 166 parking spaces.
The Lucky Market is located on the southeast corner of Pacific Coast Highway at Artesia
Boulevard. It shares the east lot with adjacent small businesses that also have additional
parking space. The combined lot is approximately 100,000 square feet. The store is a 24-hour
operated combination market and off-sale liquor store.
The Lucky Store is one of the rP.maining existing businesses selling alcoholic beverages which
has not obtained a CUP subject to the alcohol amortization ordinance.
At their meeting of October 18, 1990, the staff environmental review committee recommended
an environmental negative declaration and recommended that the Planning Commission
require the applicant/ owner to maintain parking lot landscaping.
The requested CUP would authorize the continued off-sale alcohol from the premises.
Staffs concerns are minor in nature. On the east parking lot. repairs obviously had been
completed previously; however, minor blemishes and medium-sized cracks still exist in the
middle driveways of the east parking lot. It also appears that when those repairs were
completed this summer, no slurring occurred at that time.
It is otherwise obvious that Lucky Stores has accepted the spirit of cooperation regarding the
landscaping. Automatic watering has been provided at all islands, and plants and bushes have
recently been rejuvenated.
9 P.C. Minutes 11/20/90
Tilis store has been in operation since 1982 and has been a 24-hour operation for over three
years. They have a "no delivery" policy prior to 8:00 A.M. or after 6:00 P.M. to accommodate
the neighbors. They are open seven days a week including most holidays. The adjoining
residential area that abuts the east parking lot is 300 feet from the market.
Since this is an existing grocery market/ off-sale liquor location, staff felt that the sale of
general alcohol should be allowed to continue. subject to the proposed conditions of the zoning
ordinance, and those conditions related to the site and the exterior premises. Also, the market
is a considerable distance from residential development and is located at the intersection of
two major arterials. The 24-hour operation is therefore not deemed to be detrimental.
Public Hearing opened at 9: 12 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz.
Jim Vivonia. 21966 Annette Avenue, El Toro, district supervisor for Lucky Markets, addressed
the Commission and: (1) clarified that the hours they have been using for deliveries are
between 8:00 A.M. and 8:00 P.M., and he asked that they be allowed to continue with those
hours; (2) discussed Condition No. 5 related to the posting of signs regarding purchases of
alcoholic beverages; (3) noted that the larger signs will be posted at the exits, and he therefore
requested that the signs at the check-out stands be smaller in size than 12" x 14" as required in
the condition; (4) discussed Condition No. 17 and stated that Lucky Markets do not use clear
packaging, and he therefore questioned whether that requirement could be deleted; (5) noted
that a translucent. recyclable bag is used at the store.
Ann Grassie, 6565 Knott Avenue, Buena Park, administrative assistant for Lucky Market,
asked whether any protests from the public were received related to this request, to which Mr.
Schubach replied in the negative.
Public Hearing closed at 9: 16 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz.
MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve staffs recommendation,
Resolution P.C. 90-96, with the following changes: Condition No. 3 to be corrected to allow
loading and unloading between the hours of 8:00 A.M. and 8:00 P.M.; Condition No. 5 to be
amended to allow signs of 5" x 7" to be placed at the check-out stands; and Condition No. 17 to
be deleted.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Aleks, Marks, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ketz
None
None
None
Chmn. Ketz stated that this decision of the Planning Commission can be appealed by writing to
the City Council within ten days.
PDP 90-1 -PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR A TWO-STORY. 13.675 SQUARE-FOOT
RETAIL BUILDING AND ADOPI'ION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT
1414 PACIFIC COAST MGHWAY
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated November 13, 1990, and recommended that the Planning
Commission approve the proposed precise development plan and environmental negative
declaration, 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
lot size is 16, 980 square feet; building size is 13,675 square feet. The floor area/lot area ratio is
0.80. Required parking is 55 spaces, and 55 (with 30 percent compact spaces) are provided. The
building height will be 35 feet. Landscaping coverage is 1450 square feet, or 8.5 percent. The
current use is as an abandoned service station.
P.C. Minutes 11/20/90
The applicant is proposing to construct a new building on a lot which was previously a
gasoline/service station. The project contains 13,625 square feet of retail space and a two-level
parking area with 55 parking spaces. The parking is provided behind the building and would
not be visible from Pacific Coast Highway.
The initial proposal submitted by the applicant provided a driveway access from P.C. H. and
from 15th Street. Upon review of this proposal, the City's traffic engineer noted several safety
concerns. Staff suggested the installation of a "No Right Turn" sign so that people do not travel
up into the neighborhood on 15th Street; instead, cars will be directed onto Pacific Coast
Highway. The change to 15th Street only access also benefits the street appearance of the
building and maximizes store frontage viSibility.
The project's height of 35 feet and the total square footage exceed the first-tier limits of 25 feet
high and 10,000 square feet established by the specific plan area zone. Therefore. the project is
subject to the requirements for a precise development plan and to the guidelines of the
ordinance.
Staff reviewed the project for consistency with the guidelines for review of precise development
plans in Specific Plan Area No. 8 and made several findings.
The project is designed in scale with the surrounding commercial buildings and nearby
residential uses. The overall square footage does not appear to be excessive for a lot of this size,
and the intensity of the use would be compatible with the surroundings.
The Mediterranean style architectural features are in character with the surrounding
commercial buildings, and stepping architectural features are utilized to give the building a
three-dimensional quality.
Although the proposed project exceeds the first-tier height limit of 25 feet and extends to the
maximum height at the P.C.H. frontage, the building is only 35 feet high where the two sloping
roof features peak. The rest of the building ranges from 20 feet high from grade at the rear to 30
feet. As such, it clearly meets the criteria that the portion which exceeds the first-tier limits is
compensated for by a proportional area which is at or less than 25 feet.
The design incorporates features to avoid a flat roof appearance, and relief is provided to the
building to avoid the appearance of flat vertical walls.
Although the building's upper levels are not tiered back or set back more than the first floor,
the use of balconies and slightly depressed window fronts provides visual relief.
In regard to the proposed height and its impact on ocean views, staff felt that the impact will be
minima]. First, the building is placed all the way to the front and lowest part of the lot to
minimize impact. Second, although this building will definitely obstruct views to the west for
the nearest residential units, these views are primarily of buildings across P.C.H. and of the
bill to the west, not the ocean. Further up the steep slope where ocean views become visible,
this building will only obstruct views of P.C.H. and not the ocean.
The proposed landscaping in front of the building meets the requirements for a three-foot
landscape strip by providing a three-to four-foot wide strip with proposed trees and shrubs
which serve to enhance the streetscape. The overall landscape coverage calculates to about 8.5
percent, which meets the first-tier standards of S.P.A. 8.
An eight-foot landscape strip is proposed along the rear property line consisting of low-level
shrubs. Staff recommended a condition to enhance this landscaping for the purposes of
buffering the residential uses to the east.
11 P.C. Minutes 11/20/90
Section 1207 of the zoning ordinance regarding vision clearance for corner lots requires that a
triangular area at the comer of the property remain clear for safety vision purposes. This
triangular clear area with 10-foot legs is only required up to eight feet high. Staff included a
condition that the revised plans provide this clearance.
The plans show an eight-foot wide landscaped area along the rear of the upper floor parking
area adjacent to the property line. The landscaping shown consists of smaller shrubs. Staff
felt that a decorative fence or wall should also be provided. complemented with trees or larger
shrubs in the planting area, since the upper floor parking level is almost at an equal elevation
to the adjacent property to the east.
Staff recommended a condition that a decorative block wall, a maximum of six feet high, be
provided along the rear property line in conjunction with dense landscaping on the project side
of the wall. with specific wall and landscaping types and materials to be reviewed and approved
by the planning director.
The site plan shows the locations for eight-foot high light poles along the east side of the
property. These light fixtures are within five feet of the residential property to the east. Staff
felt that in order to effectively PJiroinate glare from the adjacent residential property, light
fixtures should be located below the level of the top of the property line wall. Staff also
recommended a condition requiring a revised lighting scheme for the upper-level parking area
such that fixtures are located below the top level of the property line wall or other hidden
location, subject to the approval of the planning director.
The applicant has provided a typical plan for an internally illnrninated sign and indicates that
channel letters will be used at a maximum 24 inches high. Staff recommended a condition that
approved signs must be consistent with this typical plan. Additionally. staff recommended a
condition that any signs facing the rear of the property shall not be illuminated.
Staff also recommended conditions consistent with the recommendations of the staff
environmental review committee that the parking lots be closed to access after closing hours
and that signage be provided indicating that parking is available off of 15th Street.
Staff felt that the project is appropriate for the location, compatible with surroundings,
reasonable scale, and is designed in a manner consistent with the guidelines of S.P .A. 8. It will
clearly be an improvement over the current and previous use of the site and will enhance the
Paci.fie Coast Highway corridor.
Public Hearing opened at 9:26 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz.
Alan Glaser, 241 Via Buenaventura, Redondo Beach, applicant. ~ddressed the Commission and:
(1) said he has read the staff recommendations, which he feels can be worked out with staff; (2)
stated that he would like to reserve the right to speak on comments given at the public hearing;
(3) stated that his architect is present, in the event there are questions from the Commission.
JimLissner. 2715 El Oeste, addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that this project should
have been subject to the entire Em process; (2) stated that the mitigations achieved through the
staff review process are minimal: (3) felt that the building is boxy and will be right on the
highway: (4) felt that the project should be set back from P.C.H; (5) said that the project will
have minimal parking; (6) said that no traffic mitigation measures were proposed. and this
project will have an impact on the traffic; (7) discussed the fact that other cities require
mitigation measures, and he outlined some of the requirements in effect in other cities.
Mr. Glaser approached the Commission and: (1) said that they have attempted to create a nice
neighborhood shopping center; (2) said that all of the requirements have been met; (3) said
there is adequate parking; (4) explained that this will be an upscale shopping center; (5) said
that a traffic study was done and it was found that there will be no adverse impact on the
12 P.C. Minutes 11/20/90
surrounding area; (6) said that the previous use as a gas station generated more traffic than the
proposed project.
Mr. Glaser went on and: (1) explained that his business, Trader Al's, will locate in the new
project; (2) said that he wants tenants who will be complementary to his business, such as those
in the home fashion and furnishing areas; (3) stated that he does not intend to have
convenience stores or doughnut shops.
Public Hearing closed at 9:31 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz.
Comm. .Aleks noted that he resides within 300 feet of the proposed project; therefore, he stated
that he would abstain from discussion and voting on this matter.
MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve staffs recommendation,
Resolution P.C. 90-102, with the addition of a condition requiring that a "No Right Turn" sign
be placed at the exit on 15th Street, so that people do not travel up the hill into the residential
neighborhood.
Comm. Peirce stated that this is an attractive project. He felt that the developer has taken into
account the City and the neighbors in the design. He stated that this shopping center will be an
asset to the City.
Chmn. Ketz concurred that this is an attractive project. She also felt it is beneficial for the
neighbors that this project is closer to the highway than to the residential neighborhood.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Marks, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ketz
None
Comm. .Aleks
None
Chmn. Ketz stated that this decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed by writing
to the City Council within ten days.
VEWCLE PARKING ON PEDES'llUAN WALK S'.J'REJIT
Mr. Schubach explained that staff has altered its recommendation on this item; therefore, he
suggested that it be continued to a future meeting.
Mr. Schubach stated that staff will be preparing a revised report which will be much more
elaborate and which will contain additional recommendations.
Jim Lissner, approached the Commission with a point of order. stating that since this item
will affect the general plan and over 100 parking spaces in the City. it should be noticed and set
for a public hearing.
Mr. Antich, Director of Public Works, explained that the Planning Commission will be making
a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may, if so desired, address this matter
at a public hearing, depending upon the recommendation from the Commission.
Mr. Lee suggested that Mr. Lissner be advised of the meeting date when this item will be heard.
MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm . .Aleks, to continue this item to an unspecified
meeting date.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms . .Aleks, Marks, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ketz
None
None
None
13 P.C. Minutes 11/20/90
Comm. Peirce asked whether action on this matter will resolve the problem of the illegal use of
encroachments in the Shakespeare tract, to which Mr. Schubach replied in the affirmative.
STAFF ITEMS
a) Res»onse to '.lraffic Engineer -Policy Regarding Curb Cuts on ''Dual-Unit" Projects
Attem,pt;iIJ,g to Save On-Street fwking
Mr. Schubach gave staff report and recommended that staff be directed to continue to pursue
alternative driveway arrangements toward the goal of preserving on-street parking and to
require the project at 834-840 Monterey to correct curb cuts to be consistent with the approved
plans.
In a memorandum from the City's traffic engineer, problems were noted with the use of curb
cuts which attempt to maximize on-street parking because of the potential impact on sight
distance and thus traffic safety. The traffic engineer requested a formal Planning Commission
policy on this issue.
On February 7, 1990, the Planning Commission approved a four-unit condo project at 834-840
Monterey, subject to a condition that "the applicant shall work with the Planning and Public
Works Departments to attempt to minimize the loss of on-street parking on Monterey
Boulevard."
Prior to obtaining building permits, the applicant worked with staff and came up with a
revised plan which arranged the two driveways so that the gap separating the driveways was
wide enough to park a car. The proposed dimensions for the driveway width and the gap were
verified to be adequate with the Public Works Department and were correctly depicted on the
final working drawings.
Unfortunately, however, the Public Works Department issued a driveway permit to allow the
driveway to be constructed in the originally proposed manner (straight back from the garages)
which eliminated all on-street parking.
The traffic engineer feels that the decision of saving on-street parking with this type of
driveway arrangement is a choice between safety concerns and the need for additional parking
spaces.
Although staff would agree that sight distance and vision is not ideal with the proposed
driveway design, the sight distance problems already noted exist throughout the City where
parking is allowed on the street. Further. in the subject case where on1y a straight entrance
drive is used to the parking garages. the sight distance and safety problem would still exist,
especially for the southern-most driveway and only improves marginally for the northern
driveway.
Also, these driveways are each access for one two-car garage; therefore, the newly generated
traffic ingressing and egressing from the driveways is negligible.
Mr. Schubach continued by discussing various alternatives to the parking problem and the
preservation of on-street parking. He explained that staff will continue to work with the
Public Works Department on this issue.
Comm. Rue felt that if this goal can be safely accomplished, it would be very worthwhile.
Mr. Antich stated that the driveway at 840 Monterey is already installed. The contractor was
unaware of the condition, and the driveway was installed straight on. The problem was not
14 P.C. Minutes 11/20/90
discovered until the site was inspected by someone from the Planning Department. He stated
that the project is already completed.
Mr. Antich stated that this was the first project which had been approved requiring a change in
the driveway configuration. Unfortunately, this project slipped through the cracks, and the
driveway was built as originally proposed.
Comm. Aleks noted that accidents do occur; Comm. Rue concurred, stating that the applicant
was told by the Public Works Department that the driveway could be constructed as it was.
Chmn. Ketz noted, however, that the developer was aware of the conditions imposed at the
public hearing.
Comm. Rue agreed; however, he noted that circumstances can arise on a job site which dictate
that certain methods be used which are logical He also noted that the applicant was given the
go-ahead by the City. He stated that it would be inconvenient and costly to tear out the existing
driveway and replace it. He pointed out that this is the :first project which had the requirement;
therefore, he felt it would be appropriate to let this project stand.
MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Aleks, to approve staffs recommendation to direct
staff to continue to pursue alternative driveway arrangements toward the goal of preserving
on-street parking; further, to take no action against the project at 834-840 Monterey
Boulevard.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
CoIIllllS. Aleks, Marks, Peirce, Rue
Chmn. Ketz
None
None
b) Existing Auto Bocly and Repair Shop Investigation
Mr. Schubach stated that this report was prepared at the direction of the Planning
Commission. He explained that the main problems relate to odor, noting that there seems to be
no equipment available to completely remove the offensive odors. He said that certain types of
paints must be used: if they are not. a complaint check can result in a citation by the Fire
Department. He noted. however. that most of the shops are adhering to the requirements.
Chmn. Ketz asked how establishments can be encouraged to rectify their violations, to which
Mr. Schubach responded that the shops have been notified either to comply or to be cited by the
City. He noted that several laws are in place related to this use.
c) s1gn,1 Warrant Review-2nd Street and Hermosa Avenue
Comm. Peirce stated that this particular signal was surreptitiously installed. He maintained
that the traffic at that location is much higher than in other areas where there are stop signs in
the north end of town. He felt that the signal is a hazard.
Comm. Rue concurred, stating that the location is quite hazardous. He felt that a stop sign
would be more appropriate. He felt that the signal encourages faster traffic.
Mr. Antich clarified that that particular section of Hermosa Avenue is designated as an
arterial, based on the traffic volume.
Discussion ensued related to the traffic volumes at various times and on certain days.
Mr. Antich explained that the City Council is the body that determines where stop signs shall
be placed. He stated that the proper procedure would be for the Planning Commission to make
their recommendation to the Council related to this issue.
15 P.C. Minutes 11/20/90
Mr. Antich discussed a speed survey which was conducted in August 1988, explaining how,
when, and where the speed was measured.
Comm. Peirce and Mr. Antich discussed the speed as specified in the survey results. Comm.
PeiTce felt that the survey was conducted at the wrong time of day, stating that it should have
been conducted during rush hour. Mr. Antich explained that surveys of this nature normally
are not done during rush hour.
Comm. Peirce stressed the importance of obtaining the correct data, which he felt to be
measurements during rush hour. He felt that the data is necessary before proceeding further to
ascertain whether a stop sign or signal is appropriate at 2nd Street and Hermosa Avenue.
Mr. Antich stated that such a survey would require the expenditure of public funds. Mr.
Schubach explained that Council approval would be necessary to spend any funds on this issue.
Comm. Peirce's motivation for requesting additional data is the fact that traffic is too fast at
that location.
Mr. Antich stated that he could discuss the matter with the police department, in an attempt to
enforce the speed limit, to which Comm. Peirce countered that enforcement would not be a
pennanent solution. He felt that there would be better control with a stop sign.
MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Rue, to request the Director of Public Works to
conduct northbound speed measurements beg;:ooing ~t 3rd or 4th Street at busier times of day,
i.e., between 7:30 A.M. and 8:30 A.M., on a non-Govenunent holiday weekday when school is in
session.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms.Marks,Peirce,Rue
Chmn. Ketz
Comm. Aleks
None
d) Memorandum R.egarclmg Joint Meeting of Planning Commission and Staff
Comm. Peirce asked about the egress at the Pavilion, to which Mr. Schubach replied that
action is now being taken to redesign the egress for better use.
e) Memorandum Rf:gardlng f'laoning Commission Liaison for November 27. 1990. Meeting
No one will attend as liaison.
f) 'feptsative Future Planning Commi$Slon Agenda
No action taken.
gJ City Connell Minutes of October 23 and October 00. 1990
No action taken.
COMMISSIONER I'.IBMS
None
MOTION by Comm. Aleks, seconded by Chmn. Ketz. to adjourn at 10:21 P.M. No objections; so
ordered.
16 P.C. Minutes 11/20/90
CER11FICATION
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 November 20, 1990.
2 / 1 ,/ {lfd -d~~
Micha.el chubach, Secretary
17 P.C. Minutes 11/20/90
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
} HELD ON DECEMBER 4, 1990, AT 7:00 P.M. IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Meeting called to order at 7:03 P .M. by Chmn. Ketz.
Pledge of Allegiance led by Comm. Rue.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Absent:
Comms. Aleks, Marks, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ketz
None
Also Present: Michael Schubach, Planning Director: Edward Lee, Assistant City
Attorney: Sally White, Recording Secretary
CONSENT CALENDAR
MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Aleks, to approve as submitted the following
consent calendar items:
Planning Commission minutes of November 20, 1990:
Resolution P.C. 90-89, A RESOLUTION OF THE PI.ANNING COMMISSION OF THE CI1Y OF
HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, VESTING
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #22634, AND PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PI.AN FOR A 1WO-UNIT
CONDOMINIUM AT 138-142 MANHA'ITAN AVENUE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 6, TRACT
NO. 1123:
Resolution P.C. 90-90 A RESOLUTION OF THE PI.ANNING COMMISSION OF THE CI1Y OF
HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, VESTING
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #22635, AND PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PI.AN FOR A 1WO-UNIT
CONDOMINIUM AT 144-148 MANHA'ITAN AVENUE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 7, TRACT
NO. 1123:
Resolution P.C. 90-91, A RESOLUTION OF THE PI.ANNING COMMISSION OF THE CI1Y OF
HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, VESTING
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #22636, AND PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PI.AN FOR A 1WO-UNIT
CONDOMINIUM AT 150-154 MANHA'ITAN AVENUE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 8 TRACT
NO. 1123:
Resolution P.C. 90-92, A RESOLUTION OF THE PI.ANNING COMMISSION OF THE CI1Y OF
HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, VESTING
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #22637, AND PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR A 1WO-UNIT
CONDOMINIUM AT 158-160 MANHA'ITAN AVENUE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 9, TRACT
NO. 1123:
Resolution P.C. 90-96, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CI1Y OF
HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW OFF-
SALE GENERAL ALCOHOL IN CONJUNCTION WITH A GROCERY MARKET, AND ADOPTION OF
AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR 2510 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY,
LUCKY STORES, AND LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 2, BLOCK 83, SECOND ADDITION TO
HERMOSA BEACH:
Resolution P.C. 90-97, A RESOLUTION OF THE PI.ANNING COMMISSION OF THE CI1Y OF
HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, PRECISE
DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #22409 FOR A 1WO-UNIT
1 P.C. Minutes 12/ 4/90
CONDOMINIUM AT 619 101H STREET, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS A PORTION OF LOT 4, BWCK
78, SECOND ADDIDON TO HERMOSA BEACH;
Resolution P.C. 90-102, A RESOLlITION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CI1Y OF
HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A PRECISE DEVEWPMENT PLAN FOR A 1WO-
STORY, 13,675 SQUARE FOOT RETAIL BUILDING AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL
NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 1414 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY AND LEGALLY DESCRIBED
AS LOTS 28, 29, AND 30, HEFFNER, FIORINI, AND ALLEN TRACT.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Comms. Aleks, Marks, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ketz
None
None
None
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC
No one appeared to address the Commission.
CUP 90-16 -CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR OFF-SALE BEER AND WINE AT AN EXISTING
ESTABLISHMENT ALREADY LICENSED BY A.B,C, AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL
NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 828 HERMOSA AVENUE, JAY'S MARKET
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated November 27, 1990, and recommended approval of the
requested conditional use permit, subject to 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 6000 square feet. The building size is 3200 square feet, with 1800 square feet for
the market. The current use is as a grocery store with off-sale beer and wine. There are seven
parking spaces shared with Hermosa Pizza and Ansha's Hair Care.
Jay's Market is located on the east side of Hermosa Avenue between 8th and 9th Street. It
shares the building and the lot with two other businesses, occupying 56 percent of the building
space. The market is open from 9:00 AM. until 10:00 P.M. during the week and until 11:00 P.M.
on the weekends.
Jay's Market is one of the remaining businesses which has not obtained a conditional use
permit subject to the alcohol amortization ordinance.
At their meeting of October 18, 1990, the staff environmental review committee recommended
an environmental negative declaration and recommended that the Planning Commission
require the applicant/ owner to place the refuse cans inside an enclosure and to reduce window
signage to the maximum of 20 percent.
The requested CUP would authorize the continued off-sale beer and wine from the premises.
Staff's concerns are minor in nature. The area located behind the building is used for storage of
trash which is contained in standard residential-type containers without lids, and several
boxes and other larger trash items are simply piled up behind the store. Also, the window
stgnage appears to be excessive.
Since this is an existing grocery market/ off-sale beer and wine business, staff felt that the sale
of beer and wine should be allowed to continue, subject to the proposed conditions which are
limited to the standard conditions of the zoning ordinance and conditions related to the trash
and s:tgnage. The standard conditions include a provision to require single can purchases to be
packaged in clear bags. The Police Department has also requested that an additional standard
2 P.C. Minutes 12/ 4/90
condition be included to require alcohol sale establishments to participate in the EASY
(Eliminate Alcohol Sales to Youth) Program.
Comm. Rue asked for additional information on the EASY Program, to which Mr. Schubach
explained that owners are required to ensure that no alcoholic beverages are sold to minors.
Signs to that effect are required to be posted, and purchasers are required to show their ID. He
concluded by stating that he will provide more information about the EASY Program as
requested by Comm. Rue.
Public Hearing opened at 7:07 P .M. by Chmn. Ketz.
Sung Kil Park, 828 Hermosa Avenue, applicant. addressed the Commission and: ( 1) said that
he has not read the staff report: however, he agreed with what was said by Mr. Schubach; (2) in
response to questions from Comm. Rue, said that he has no problem with reducing the signage
as required in the CUP: (3) said that he will not sell or rent X-rated videos; (4) stated that he will
comply with the requirements of the EASY Program.
Public Hearing closed at 7:09 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz.
Comm. Rue favored approval of the request, noting that he agrees with the objectives of the
EASY Program.
MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to approve staffs recommendation,
Resolution P.C. 90-101, as written.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN :
Comms. Aleks, Marks, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ketz
None
None
None
CUP 90-18 -CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR OFF-sALE GENERAL ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES
AT AN EXISTING ESTABLISHMENT ALREADY LICENSED BY ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE
CONTROL AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 2
HERMOSA AVENUE, MARINA LIQUOR
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated November 27, 1990, and recommended approval of the
requested CUP, subject to the conditions specified in the proposed resolution.
The project is located in the C-1 zone, with a general plan designation of neighborhood
commercial. The lot size is 6000 square feet, with a building size of 2400 square feet on the
ground floor. The current use is as a liquor store/deli with three apartments above. There are
six parking spaces.
Marina Liquor is located on the northeast comer of Hermosa Avenue and Herondo Street. It
shares the building with three apartments located on the second floor. The apartments have
their own parking in garages accessed from the alley. The store is open from 10:00 AM. until
midnight during the week and until 2:00 AM. on weekends. The building exterior was
improved in 1977 as part of an interior and exterior remodel that resulted in the mansard roof
and stucco front.
Marina Liquor is one of the remaining existing businesses selling alcoholic beverages subject
to the alcohol amortization ordinance which has not obtained a conditional use permit.
At their meeting of October 18, 1990, the staff environmental review committee recommended
an environmental negative declaration and recommended that the Planning Commission
require the applicant/ owner to provide an enclosure for the trash dumpster: restrtpe the
3 P.C. Minutes 12/4/90
parking lot; recondition or replace all signs, provide a time limit parking sign; and require
) participation in the EASY Program.
The required CUP would authorize the continued off-sale of general alcohol from the premises.
Staffs concerns relate to the overall appearance of the site and to the parking lot. The business
is located at one of the major entrances to the City and is highly visible. As such, staff felt that
the appearance of this site is an important public concern.
Staff mentioned several concerns. The existing nonconforming pole sign (which is
nonconforming to height and square footage for the C-1 zone) is in disrepair and is showing
serious problems of rust and dilapidation. Also, the southward facing wall sign which says
simply "Liquor'' is rusted and in need of repair. There is also a painted wall sign in the rear
which specifies brand names, and this stgn is faded and seems out of date.
Staff recommended conditions that the pole sign and wall signs be removed and replaced with
conforming signs or that they be completely reconditioned. The Commission may feel it is
appropriate to require their removal and require complete conformance; however, staff
recommended reconditioning as an option since this is an existing use and no intensification
of the business is being requested.
Staff also recommended a condition that the east-facing painted wall sign be eliminated.
The trash dumpster is located on the south side of the building and is open to public view and is
often placed where it encroaches into the sidewalk. As such, staff recommended a condition to
properly enclose the dumpster on private property to hide it from view.
The parking lot striping is almost completely faded; therefore, staff recommended a condition
for restriping.
The Police Department recommended that a time limit sign be provided in the parking lot to
limit parking time to 15 minutes.
The newspaper racks are visible from the south and add to the clutter of the site. Staff
therefore recommended a condition that the newspaper racks be screened with appropriate
landscaping and/or a low-level wall of a material and color compatible with the building.
Alternatively, the newspaper racks may be removed or relocated and suitably screened at
another location on the site.
Since this is an existing liquor store, staff felt that the sale of general alcohol should be
allowed to continue, subject to the proposed conditions.
Public Hearing opened at 7:15 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz.
Pam Ricketts, 24405 Lackney Avenue, Wilmington, applicant, addressed the Commission and:
( 1) stated that they are in the process of completing the requirements; (2) discussed the large
sign, asking whether the top part of the sign can be cut off t o leave only the portion which says
"Liquor," and she questioned whether the sign would be in conformance.
Mr. Schubach explained that before answering specific questions related to the sign. it would
be necessazy for him to have more information on the sign, such as height and sign area. He
also stated that the sign itself is actually within the pwview of the Building Department. He
noted, however, that the Planning Commission addresses all planning and zoning issues when
looking at conditional use permits. He said that he would be happy to work with the applicant
on the issue of the sign.
Ms. Ricketts continued and: (1) discussed the dumpster, explaining that she has obtained a
smaller one which is placed on private property; (2) said that she would like to enclose the
4 P.C. Minutes 12/4/90
dumpster so that it is out of view: (3) explained that the trash pick-up company is concerned
with the trash removal because the sidewalk area has buckled and it is therefore difficult to
maneuver the dumpster: (4) said that the buckling appears to be caused by the roots of a large
tree which is on City property: (5) expressed concern that the raised sidewalk could also cause
problems for pedestrians and bicyclists.
Mr. Schubach stated that the Public Works Department can be notified that the sidewalk needs
to be repaired.
Ms. Ricketts went on and: ( 1) said that the parking area has been restriped: (2) said that the
back wall has almost been finished: (3) said that she is still looking for signs, which are
required: (4) 1n response to how long this project will take to complete, explained that she needs
to obtain estimates on the repair of the large sign: (5) said that the sign repair will be very
expensive; (6) noted that this is the slowest season of the year for her business, and a large
expenditure at this time would be a burden.
Ms. Ricketts, in response to questions from Comm. Rue, explained that they have obtained a
smaller trash can which is on private property. They are now awaiting a resolution of the
problem of the buckled sidewalk before the dumpster is screened.
Comm. Rue discussed the signage, stating that a large sign with only the word "Liquor" would
not be appropriate. He felt that the word "Marina" with the anchor logo adds to the appearance
of the sign, and he favored their retention.
Comm. Rue discussed the newspaper racks and asked what the applicant intends to do about
them.
Ms. Ricketts explained that she was not clear as to what the Commission wants done with the
newspaper racks. She felt that screening would be inappropriate since people want to see the
papers themselves.
Comm. Rue explained that the Commission is concerned about the street elevation from
Herondo and also going north on Hermosa Avenue. He suggested that the racks be turned
around so that they face the parking area.
Ms. Ricketts stated that the racks could be turned around to face the parking area, to which Mr.
Schubach stated that some landscaping would be desirable. He stated that he could work with
the applicant on this issue.
Comm. Rue agreed that landscaping would be nice along the south exposure of the property. He
stated that a simple boxwood hedge would be acceptable.
Public Hearing closed at 7:23 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz.
Comm. Rue agreed that business is very slow at this time of year. He therefore had no objection
to giving the applicant nine months to a year to comply with the requirements. He not ed that
this is an existing business, and the City is requiring a number of things to be done. He felt that
it would be appropriate to have a six-month review: all work could then be required to be
completed within one year. He did not feel that the landscaping would be a major project. He
felt that relocating the newspaper racks is appropriate. He felt that the major items in the CUP
relate to the parking lot, the landscaping, and the sign. He understood that the sign will be
quite expensive.
Comm. Peirce favored retaining the anchor logo on the sign.
Comm. Aleks questioned whether one year is necessary for completion of the requirements.
He felt that most of the items can be completed in a shorter period of time, and he noted that
improvements tend to improve business.
5 P.C. Minutes 12/4/90
Comm. Rue asked whether the current sign is in structural danger. He felt that 1f the sign must
be replaced, the grandfathering of the old sign would no longer apply. and a new sign would
have to conform to the current sign ordtnance. If the current sign is structurally sound, he felt
it should be cleaned up but rematn as is.
Chmn. Ketz felt that the sign should conform to the current ordinance.
MOTION by Chmn. Ketz, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to approve staff's recommendation,
Resolution P.C. 90-103, with the stipulation that all conditions must be met within six
months, with the exception of the condition related to the sign, which shall be completed
withtn one year and must be tn conformance with the current sign ordinance requirements.
Ms. Ricketts stated that business is very slow right now. and it would be very expensive to
replace the sign at this time.
Comm. Peirce stated that even a reduction tn the height of the sign would be very expensive
because it would be necessary to hire a crane. He felt, however. that the sign should be in
conformance with the current requirements, especially since this is a highly visible location
from the south. He noted that the current sign is quite old.
Comm. Rue noted that 1f the current sign were brought tnto conformance by reducing the height
of the poles, the sign itself would practically be on the ground.
Comm. Rue questioned whether the issue of the sign should be continued so that additional
information could be provided.
Comm. Aleks felt that the motion on the floor is appropriate, explaining that he feels six
months is an acceptable period tn which to meet reasonable conditions.
Comm. Rue cautioned that approval of the motion would require total replacement of the
existing sign, to which Comm. Aleks felt that such replacement would be appropriate.
Comm. Rue stated that he is aware of the importance of a bustness's sign and its ability to be
seen. He would rather mitigate the sign tnstead of replacing it all together. He said that sign
replacement will be very expensive for this bustness.
Comm. Peirce stated that the word "Liquor" is very visible to southbound traffic; however, it is
not that Visible from other directions. He stated that the sign is very old and has served its
purpose; however, he felt it would be appropriate to have a sign which meets the current
requirements.
AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION by Comm. Rue to change Condition No. 5 to read:
"Landscaping shall be provided along the southerly property line to screen the newspaper racks
or parking lot from public view from the south, subject to approval of the Planning Director.
The newspaper racks ~ be removed or relocated to another location on the site and properly
screened, subject to approval of the Planning Director." Amendment accepted by Chmn. Ketz
and Comm. Peirce, as maker and second.
Comm. Rue wanted to ensure that the landscaping is provided, regardless of whether or not the
newspaper racks are relocated or removed.
Comm. Rue wanted to see the ftnal outcome of the sign. He suggested that the sign issue be
continued so that the applicant could return with a sign plan.
Chmn. Ketz felt that requiring the applicant to return with a sign plan in several weeks would
be a hardship. She stated that in any event, she wants the sign to be in conformance with the
current sign requirements.
6 P.C. Mtnutes 12/ 4/90
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Comms. Aleks, Marks, Peirce, Chmn. Ketz
Comm.Rue
None
None
Chmn. Ketz stated that this decision of the Planning Commission can be appealed by writing to
the City Council within ten days.
CUP 90-25 -CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AUTO DETAll-ING AND ADOPTION OF AN
ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 825 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY. HABASH
AUTO DETAll-ING
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated November 28, 1990, and recommended denial of the
requested conditional use permit based on insufficient parking for the combination of the
proposed auto sales lot and detailing business.
As an alternative, staff suggested that the Planning Commission continue this hearing to the
meeting of January 2, 1991, and require a master CUP for the auto sales and auto detailing
business.
The project is located in the C-3 zone, with a general plan designation of general commercial.
The lot size is 9200 square feet, with 3534 square feet for the auto detailing use. The building
size is 800 square feet. The current use is as a combination of auto sales lot and proposed new
auto detailing shop. Three parking spaces are proposed (in the selVice bay). There are six
parking spaces for the existing auto sales lot.
The Habash Auto Detailing is located on the southwest comer of Pacific Coast Highway at 8th
Place. It is set back in the west third of the lot. which has a used car dealership in front. The
combined lot is approximately 9200 square feet. The hours of operation listed are 8:30 AM. to
6:00 P.M. Monday through Saturday, with the sole purpose of auto detailing.
The Habash Detailing business started operation without a business license or CUP. They were
warned on many occasions to cease and desist until the proper waiting period for a business
license and CUP, but they continued to operate. Especially noted was the fact that outside
vehicle washing is occurring daily, after repeated warnings by various City Hall personnel to
stop.
This property is presently an authorized business for used auto sales. A CUP dated January 7,
1986, was approved to allow the expansion of an auto sales business to add the garages in the
rear to replace a nonconforming residential use. Condition No. 6 of the CUP states: "The
proposed garages shall be used only in connection with the automobile sales business unless
adequate parking is provided for their use as a separate business. The determination of
parking requirements shall be made by the Planning Director." This condition precludes a
separate business on the property unless adequate parking is provided for all uses.
The parking requirement for the entire lot, when used as one business, is nine spaces (based on
one space per 1000 square feet of land area for an auto dealership). With the proposed
separation of uses, the parking requirement is six spaces for the auto sales business and three
for the proposed detail business (based on one space per 250 square feet of building area).
With the subject proposal, the applicant intends to use his garage ''bay" area to park three
vehicles. Although that is sufficient to hold three vehicles, it is not sufficient to "work" on
three vehicles at one time. Thus, the driveway is constantly clogged due to the lack of any
additional parking. An additional space ts proposed by using one of the six existing spaces
from the auto sales lot. The proposed parking in the driveway area behind the garage is not
acceptable since the area is inadequate for a turning area.
7 P.C. Minutes 12/4/90
At their meeting of October 18, 1990, the staff environmental review committee recommended
a mit1gated environmental negative declaration. Recommended were the following mitigation
measures: ( 1) The wash water and liquids are not to be drained off site or In the storm drains;
(2) No ptnstrtptng or body moldings; (3) No alarms or buzzers on site: (4) No auto repair or large
compressors: (5) Employee parking to be provided on site: (6) Hours of operation limited to 8:00
A.M. to 6:00 P .M. Monday through Saturday; (7) All signs must have prior approval before
installation: (8) Trash dumpster must be fully enclosed on private property.
The requested CUP would authorize the operation of an auto detailing business. The applicant
indicates that the operation consists of the pick up of autos and would not involve drive-up
customers. Whether or not parking ts determined to be adequate hinges on approval of the
garage bays as required parking.
Mr. Schubach continued by noting additional concerns. The owner indicates the business is
basically auto pick up with almost no walk-up trade. Because of the shortage of parking, auto
pick up should be the only manner of operation.
In the past, the washing of vehicles and occasional detailing has occurred outside in the
driveway area. This should be absolutely forbidden.
The drain/ grease trap on the south side of the property where all liquids flow must be
maintained and cleaned properly.
An appropriate location for the trash dumpster needs to be determined.
There is a small compressor used to blow lodged items from dash boards, etc. This should be
the only authorized use of that equipment.
On the proposed plot plan dated August 30, 1990, a stucco wall is either being proposed or
suggested. This would effectively cut up the property. Such a wall should not be allowed since it
sections the property into two separate parcels for all intents and purposes.
This business has been operating illegally for approximately sixty days. They continue to
wash cars in the driveways after repeated wanlings by City personnel. Several items were
recommended as condltions if a master CUP is recommended: (1) no auto repairs whatsoever;
(2) no alarm Installation, testing, or installations of any sort; (3) no outside phone buzzers,
bells, etc: (4) no ptnstrtping or body moldings shall be conducted; (5) hours shall be limited to
8:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. Monday through Saturday; and (6) no outside work activities
whatsoever.
Staff felt that if Mr. Habash is to have his business as designated, he must adhere to the
recommended conditions. The garages on the rear of the property were approved as an
expansion to a used car lot to be used in conjunction there as stated in CUP 86-5. It does not
seem appropriate to separate these garages out for use as a separate business.
Comm. Rue asked questions related to the plot plan and the proposed drainage. to which Mr.
Schubach explained that drainage is of great concern to the City and w1ll be investigated before
approval.
Comm. Rue referred to the staff review minutes and asked for clarification on a
recommendation by Commander Altfeld to require that conversations between employees
shall be monitored. Mr. Schubach stated that such a condition is not included in the CUP:
Comm. Aleks, however, felt that the recommendation was meant to preclude loud and/or
boisterous language.
8 P.C. Minutes 12/4/90
Public Hearing opened at 7:49 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz, who noted that the applicant was not
present, and no one else appeared to speak on this issue. Public Hearing closed at 7:50 P.M. by
Chmn. Ketz.
Mr. Schubach did not lmow why the applicant was not present at the public hearing.
MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Aleks, to approve staffs alternate
recommendation to continue this hearing to the meeting of January 2, 1991, and require a
master CUP for the auto sales and auto detailing.
Comm. Petree questioned whether the owner is subletting the service bays and is thus in
violation of the City's regulations. He felt that the master lessee of the property should be
present at the continued public hearing to address these issues.
Chmn. Ketz noted that there is already a master CUP in place, then, since there is already a
CUP in place for this property.
Comm. Marks asked how much noise will be generated by this business, to which Mr.
Schubach explained that staff did not feel noise would be a problem so long as no work is
performed outdoors. He continued by explaining that there are noise buffers. Also. the doors
open out to the east toward the highway, which is noisier than the business itself would be. He
also noted that the hours will be strictly controlled.
Comm. Marks noted concern that work will be done outdoors, to which Mr. Schubach
explained that outdoor work would constitute not only a violation of the CUP, but also a
violation of the noise ordinance.
Comm. Rue stressed the importance of the master CUP holder appearing at the continued
public hearing so that the issues can be addressed.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Comms. Aleks, Peirce; Rue, Chmn. Ketz
None
None
Comm. Marks
Public Hearing continued to the meeting of January 2, 1991.
VAR 90-7 -VARIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO THE 17-FOOT PARKING SETBACK AND
ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 1734 PROSPECT
AVENUE
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated November 27, 1990, and recommended approval of the
request by adoption of the proposed resolution.
This project is located in the R-2B zone, with a general plan designation of medium density.
The existing use is as a single-family with a permitted additional dwelling area for a
handicapped relative. The lot size is 7,110 square feet, and the existing building size is 2500
square feet. The proposed addition is for a garage remodel and expansion only.
The subject lot is irregularly shaped and slopes upward from the street.
On July 18, 1977, the Board of Zoning Adjustment granted a variance to allow the construction
of a second dwelling area with a kitchen facility below the existing dwelling without adding the
required parking. The variance was granted subject to the recording of a deed restriction
prohibiting the rental of the second unit and requiring the removal of the kitchen upon
transfer of ownership.
9 P.C. Minutes 12/ 4/90
At their meeting of October 4, 1990, the staff environmental review committee recommended
an environmental negative declaration.
The appUcant 1s requesting to remodel and expand an existing two-car garage into a four-car
garage to provide the necessaiy parking to make the second dwelling unit legal. The existing
two-car garage will be widened to allow for four cars and will be reduced in depth to maximize
the setback without doing any remodeling work to the main structure.
The garage is currently set back 11.35 feet from the property line with a depth of 24.5 feet. By
reducing the depth to the minimum inside depth of twenty feet. the setback would be increased
to about 16 feet.
According to the applicant, the variance is necessary because the alternative to move the rear
wall of the garage one foot back to accommodate the required setback would be costly and
difficult. This is due to the slope of the lot, and the fact that the garage is partially
subterranean. As such, the rear wall of the garage serves as a retaining wall and a bearing wall.
Also, as noted by the applicant, the width of the Prospect Avenue right-of-way 1s such that the
distance between the property line and the street curb is 20 feet.
Given the circumstances, staff felt that the findings for a variance can be made in this case,
based on the characteristics of the topography of the lot and its effect on the existing garage
location and expansion potential. Staff felt that the applicant's efforts to improve the property
should be supported, especially since the proposal would improve upon the existing
nonconforming setback of 11. 5 feet and it would add several parking spaces while not resulting
in any major changes or additions to the existing structure.
Also, the findings for a variance to allow the substandard guest parking stall of 16 feet in depth
can be made, given the circumstance of the extra wide light-of-way and given that it would be
only a minor deficiency compared with the code-required 17-foot depth.
Public Hearing opened at 8:00 P .M. by Chmn. Ketz.
Walter Lee, 1734 Prospect, applicant, addressed the Commission and stated that he agreed with
the staff report and had no additional comments.
Public Hearing closed at 8:01 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz.
Comm. Peirce asked whether the surrounding area is R-2B, to which Mr. Schubach replied in
the affirmative, noting that there is also some R-1 in this vicinity.
Comm. Peirce noted that approval of this variance will allow the second unit. He questioned
whether that second unit meets all of the City's requirements, to which Mr. Schubach replied
in the affirmative. He stated that the lot is large enough for two units, and there is very low lot
coverage with a great deal of open space.
Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Comm. Peirce, stated that the deed restriction
will be removed from this property.
MOTION by Chmn. Ketz, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve staffs recommendation,
Resolution P.C. 90-98, as Written.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Comms. Aleks, Marks, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ketz
None
None
None
10 P.C. Minutes 12/ 4/90
·,
F-4 -ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR FARMER'S MARKET AT HERMOSA AVENUE
AND 13TH STREET ON PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL
NEGATIVE DECLARATION (CONTINUED FROM MEETINGS OF 10/16/90 AND 11/20/90}
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated November 29, 1990, and recommended that the Planning
Commission recommend an environmental negative declaration to Council for Farmer's
Market.
At the April 24, 1990, meeting, the City Council approved a request from the Chamber of
Commerce to conduct a Farmer's Market downtown on Fridays between 10:00 A.M. and 2:00
P.M. This approval was for a six-month trial period and is scheduled to be reviewed by Council
at their meeting of January 8, 1991.
The concept behind a Farmer's Market is that items are grown by the farmers and are sold
directly to the consumer. The Hermosa Beach market has been in operation since July.
The staff review recommended a negative declaration with mitigation measures to include a
parking attendant; hours of operation from 12:30 P.M. to 3:30 P.M; and a maximum of 20
vendors.
Toe Farmer's Market hours have recently been extended to include an additional hour (12:30
P.M. -4:30 P.M. on Fridays). This was due to the success of the market and to the numerous
requests from members of the community to accommodate hours that would serve more of the
working population.
Chamber volunteers have been providing direction for parking during the market hours as
well as for the farmers' set-up and tear-down times.
Since staff had additional concerns related to traffic circulation during the activity, the City
traffic engineer was asked to provide a report, copies of which were provided to the
Commission. He indicated that no significant circulation problems had been observed during
the operation of the market. He further noted that there may be future concerns with the traffic
flow when the proposed hotel is completed.
From all observations, the Farmer's Market has proven to be a low impact, smooth-running
activity that is a popular event for Hermosa Beach residents and visitors alike. If approved ,
the recommendation for a negative declaration will be forwarded to the City Council at the six-
month review.
Mr. Schubach, in response to questions from Comm. Marks, explained that the market itself is
responsible for clean-up activities.
Comm. Rue suggested that the Farmer's Market again be reviewed if and when a hotel is built in
the area: Mr. Schubach agreed.
Public Hearing opened at 8:09 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz.
Mary Lou Weiss, 2506 Ardmore Avenue, manager of the Farmer's Market, addressed the
Commission and: ( 1) spoke on behalf of the Chamber of Commerce; (2) stated that the market
was started to stimulate business in the downtown area, and it has been successful in doing
that; (3) explained that volunteers clean up after the market: (4) stated that there iS validated
parking for the market, and there have been no traffic or parking problems associated with the
market: (5) said that the additional hour of operation is being requested to accommodate
working people.
Public Hearing closed at 8:11 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz.
11 P.C. Minutes 12/ 4/90
·,
Chmn. Ketz stated that the market is a wonderlul asset for the downtown area. Also, she has
experienced no traffic or parking problems when she has attended.
MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve staff's recommendation, with
the inclusion of the recommendation to allow the extra hour of operation to 4:30 P.M. on
Fridays. Also, that the market again be reviewed if and when a hotel is constructed.
Comm. Aleks felt that if there are problems, other businesses in the area would report them to
the City.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
STAFF ITEMS
Comms. Aleks, Marks, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ketz
None
None
None
a) Planning Department Activity Report for October 1990
Chmn. Ketz asked whether there has been an increase in the MAX ridership, to which Mr.
Schubach replied in the affirmative, and he continued by giving an update on MAX.
Comm. Peirce asked about the upcoming zoning workshops, to which Mr. Schubach gave an
update on what will be addressed in the zoning studies. He also explained that a task force will
be designated to study the :Issue.
b) Memorandum Regan;Ung PJanntnf CoJJ1rol§Slon Llalson for December 11, 1990 Meeting
No one will attend as liaison.
c) Tentative Future Plannfn& Commission Agenda
No action taken.
d) City Council Minutes of November 13, 1990
No action taken.
COMMISSIONER ITEMS
Comm. Peirce encouraged evecyone to attend the City's Christmas Party.
Comm. Aleks suggested the removal of the ledge underneath the dais, explaining that it is quite
uncomfortable.
MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Marks, to adjourn at 8:23 P.M. No objections; so
ordered.
12 P.C. Minutes 12/ 4/90
J
)
CERTD'ICATION
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 December 4. 1990
Christine~ Chafmrm. • ✓
13 P.C. Minutes 12/4/90