HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC_Minutes_1991_02_19MINUTES OF 11IE PLANNING COM.MISSION MEETING OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
HELD ON FEBRUARY 19, 1991, AT 7:00 P.M. IN nIE CITY HALL COUNCll, 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. Marks,Rue,Chmn.Ketz
Comm. Peirce•
Also Present: Michael Schubach, Planning Director; Edward Lee, Assistant City
Attorney; Sally White, Recording Secretary
(*Comm. Peirce entered Council Chambers at 8:08 P.M.)
CONSENT CALENDAR
(Tilis item was approved at the end of the meeting so that Comm. Peirce could vote; however, it
is included here for clarity.)
Several corrections were made to the minutes of February 5, 1991: All roll call votes referring
to Comm. Aleks shall be amended to delete his name, since he had previously resigned from the
Commission; Page 16, last paragraph, Resolution number should be changed from P.C. 91 • 16 to
P .C. 91-18, since there was a duplication in the numbers.
A correction was made to Resolution P.C. 91-11, Condition No. 14: "Four paper racks are
presently standing on the parkway in front of the business illegally. They filli\U be removed."
MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Chmn. Ketz, to approve as amended the following
consent calendar items:
Planning Commission minutes of February 15, 1991;
Resolution P.C. 91 ·11, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF TIIE CI1Y OF
HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDffiONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW OFF-
SALE GENERAL LIQUOR IN CONJUNCTION WITH A MARKET AND DELI, AND TIIE ADOPTION
OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR 101 HERMOSA AVENUE, MICKEYS
DELI, AND LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 13, HERMOSA BEACH TRACT;
Resolution P.C. 91 -12, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF TIIE CI1Y OF
HERMOSA BEACH. CALIFORNIA, TO DENY AV ARIANCE REQUEST FOR A 1WELVE (12) FOOT
GA.RAGE SETBACK RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED SEVENTEEN (17} FEET AND FOR A
PARALLEL SPACE BEHIND THE GARAGE TO COUNT AS A REQUIRED GUEST PARKING
SPACE AT 1010 OWOSSO AVENUE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 10, TRACT 5826;
Resolution P.C. 91-14, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CI1Y OF
HERMOSA BEACH. CALIFORNIA. APPROVING A MASTER CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO
ALLOW OUTSIDE DINING IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE RESTAURANTS .AND TO INCLUDE
THE SERVICE OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES APPROVED PURSUANT TO THE C.U.P.S FOR
EACH RESTAURANT WITHIN THE HERMOSA PAVILION AND ADOPTION OF AN
ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 1605 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY AND
LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS A PORTION OF LOT 13 AND SOUTHERLY 6.24 FEET OF A PORTION
OF LOT 14, BLOCK 81, SECOND ADDITION TO HERMOSA BEACH;
1 P.C. Minutes 2/ 19/91
Resolution P.C. 91 -15, A RESOLUTION OF 1HE PLANNING COMMISSION OF TIIE CITY OF
HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING AN EXISTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
OUTSIDE DINING AND ON -SALE GENERAL ALCOHOL IN CONJUNCTION WITH A
RESTAURANT TO ALLOW TIIE ENCLOSURE OF THE OUTSIDE DINING AREA LOCATED ON
THE AERIAL WALKWAY WITIIIN LORETO PLAZA AT 49 PIER AVENUE, AND LEGALLY
DESCRIBED AS LOTS 22, 23, AND 24, BLOCK 13, HERMOSA BEACH 1RACT;
Resolution P.C. 91-16, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A REQUEST FOR AN EXCEPTION PURSUANT
TO SECTION 13-7(C) (3) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO ALLOW AN EXPANSION OF AN
EXISTING WALL NONCONFORMING TO TI-IE REQUIRED SIDE YARD SETBACK AT 1781
VALLEY PARK AVENUE , AND LEGAILY DESCRIBED AS LOT 31, 1RACT 15546;
Resolution P.C. 91-18, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, TO INTERPRET THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR A
"HALF-LOT" IN TIIE R-3 ZONE, PURSUANT TO SECTION 1101 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE
PERTAINING TO AMBIGUITIES IN THE CODE, LOCATED AT 517 HERMOSA AVENUE, AND
LEGAILY DESCRIBED AS TIIE NORTHERLY 4 7.5 FEET OF LOT 22, BLOCK 6, HERMOSA BEACH
TRACT.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Marks,Peirce,Chmn.Ketz
None
Corrnn. Rue
None
COMMUNICATIONS FROM mE PUBLIC
No one appeared to address the Commission.
CON 90-22 --CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #22560
FOR A 1WO-UNIT CONOOMINIUM CONVERSION AT 544 AND 546 25TII STREET
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated February 12, 1991, and recommended that this item be
continued to the meeting of March 19, 1991, so that the applicant can revise the project to
provide adequately dimensioned parking spaces and to submit the physical report as required
by Section 7.2-21(b) of the zoning ordinance.
This project is located in the R -lA zone, with a lot size of 7466 square feet. The existing living
area of the front unit is 2460 square feet; existing living area of the rear u nit is 2084 square
feet. Three parking spaces currently exist, and five are being p roposed for the project.
The subject property contains two existing units attached at the garage level. Three enclosed
parking spaces are located between the units, accessed from the side.
The two units were constructed in 1964. The rear unit was remodeled and enlarged in 1990 by
the addition of a second story. The front two-story structure is proposed to be remodeled to add
a roof deck, entry area, interior upgrades and a new roof. The plans are currently in plan check
in the Building Department.
The applicants wish to convert the existing dwellings to condominium ownership. The zoning
ordinance requires a conditional use permit for condominium conversions and sets forth the
standards for review of such requests.
The zoning code includes a provision that " ... the Planning Commission shall require that
condominium conversions ... conform to the current requirements of the City codes .... " (Section
2 P.C. Minutes 2/ 19/91
7 .2~30). As such, the first step is to determine whether these existing dwellings meet cu1Tent
zoning requirements.
Staff. therefore, has reviewed this request for confonnance with the zoning code as it applies to
the R -lA zone and to condominiums. The dwellings, as depicted on the plans, generally
conform with zoning requirements except for parking dimensions. Two of the proposed
parking spaces are shown at 8 feet, 2 inches wide. rather than the required 8 feet, 6 inches. The
one along the driveway can easily be corrected, but the one adjacent to the rear dwelling is
bounded by the east wall of the house and the property line and thus would require a further
remodel. The two proposed parking spaces are not currently being used for parking.
Another deficiency is that the plans do not indicate any storage areas toward meeting the
storage requirements.
The plans otherwise conform to lot coverage, setbacks, height, open space, turning radius
requirements. and all other zoning standards.
A further requirement of the condominium conversion section is that a tenant assistance plan
be provided. Given that these two units are owner occupied, this section is not applicable.
However, staff felt that a proof of ownership and a signed affidavit should be provided to verify
that the occupants are indeed the owners.
Another requirement is that a physical report " ... detailing the structural condition of all
elementcs of the property including foundation, electrical, plumbing. laundries, utilities , walls,
ceilings, windows, recreational facilities, sound transmission of each building. mechanical
equipment, parking facilities, and appliances ... " is required as part of subuuttal (Section 7 .2~
21[b)). The applicant has been notified of this requirement and is requesting that this be
applied as a condition of approval. Staff does not feel this would be appropriate given that the
code specifically requires this physical report as part of the submittal, and, as such, the
infonnation in the report may bear upon the Planning Commission's decision.
In regard to the deficient parking stall width for the parking space in the rear, it should be
noted that when the remodeling vians were submitted in April of last year, the applicant was
advised that the required parking stall widtl1 is 8 feet, 6 inches. The plans were approved at
that time, however, because he was not applying for the conversion, and the additional space
was not necessary for obtaining building pennits.
As an alternative to another remodel to the rear unit to create adequate width for the parking
stall, the applicant may request a variance. Staff, however, does not see the justification for
such a variance since there is clearly room on the site, through building remodels, to provide
the required parking. . • · -•
Finally, on August 25, 1988, the Building Department notified the applicant of a violation due
to the fence located in the public right-of-way in front of the lot. To this day, although a pennit
to correct the violation has been obtained, the fence has not been removed.
Comm. Rue stated that he would like to see exterior elevations of the project before final
approval. He noted that the buildings currently look very dissimilar.
Public Hear:irlg opened at 7:09 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz.
Elizabeth Srour, 820 Manhattan Avenue, Manhattan Beach, representing the applicants,
addressed the Commission and: (l) stated the proof of ownership will be provided as requested
by staff; (2) described the two proposed units, explaining that the units meet all requirements of
condominium use: {3) stated that the applicants desire to upgrade the units by remodeling, and
both units will then be very similar; (4) discussed the required physical report, stating that it is
a very expensive document to provide, therefore, the applicants would like this requirement to
3 P.C. Minutes 2/ 19/91
be included as part of the conditions of approval; (5) stated that when the project is .finished, )
both units will be very similar as related to the age and the amenities.
Ms. Srour continued and: (1) discussed parking. stating that the applicants were aware of the
guest parking requirements from the very beginning; (2) gave background history of the rear
unit and its parking dimensions; (3) stated that the issue of the rear parking did not come to
light until after the plans were submitted; (4) explained that the wall was moved one foot as
requested by the City so that the parking would conform; (5) discussed the new plans, stating
that the new wall was tom down during construction and moved in, in order to comply with the
guest parking requirements of the condo ordinance.
Ms. Srour went on and: (1) stated that staff's recommendation to again alter the wall is
somewhat harsh; (2} said that the guest parking space is currently being used for parking: (3)
said that the proposed parking dimension is not unheard of; (4) said that the parking does meet
the intent of the code; (5) explained that the applicant made an attempt to comply with the laws
that ensted at the time.
Ms. Srour continued and: ( 1) discussed the front parking space, stating that it is easy to comply
with all requirements: (2) was informed by Mr. Schubach that the parking space in the rear is
also too short. to which he added that staff can study this issue further.
Cbmn. Ketz asked why the applicant did not obtain a CUP prior to commencement of the
remodel, to which Ms. Srour explained that she suspects there was a communication problem
which resulted in the current problem.
Ms . Srour stressed that there has been no intention to circumvent any code requirements.
Mr. Schubach suggested that this matter be continued so that staff can further study this
matter.
Ms. Srour asked for direction from the Commission on this project, in light of the fact that
staff is requesting a physical report.
Mr. Schubach, in response to questions from Comm. Rue, stated that a variance is required for
the parking: therefore, a decision cannot be made at this time.
Mr. Schubach explained, in response to questions from Comm. Rue, that the ph:ysical report is
necessary so that staff can set forth conditions of approval.
Ms. Srour stated that she could understand staffs concerns; however, she pointed out that these
units are not attached at the second level She stated that sound attenuation is very important,
but again, she noted that no li'Ving areas share common walls.
Mr. Lee explained that the physical report is a requirement of the condominium ordinance:
therefore, the requirement cannot be waived unless the code is amended.
Mr. Schubach. in response to comments from Comm. Marks, explained that the City does not
make pro'Vision for compact parking spaces in residential zones.
Ms. Srour st.a.ted that, had they known, the applicants would have applied for a variance at the
outset. At this time, however, she asked for input from the Commission as to whether this
proposal meets the intent of the condominium ordinance.
Mr. Schubach st.a.ted that if the wall problem is corrected, a variance would not be necessary.
Public Hearing continued at 7:27 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz.
4 P.C. Minutes 2 / 19/91
Comm. Rue stated that the application appears to be fine; however, he had several concerns
related to the appearance of the front unit, noting that it does not have the same architectural
design as the rear unit. He noted that condos should have cohesiveness of design, especially as
related to age and appearance of the buildings. He felt that the open space and heights are
acceptable, and he noted that the only problems appear to relate to the parking. He explained
that a variance would be necessary in this case for the parking. He then questioned whether
other cities have provisions for approving "minor variances."
Chmn. Ketz expressed concern over the size of the parking spaces, particularly since this
project was started before the applicant applied for the conditional use permit.
MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Marks, to approve staffs recommendation to
continue this item to the meeting of March 19, 1991.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Cornms. Marks, Rue, Chmn. Ketz
None
None
Comm. Peirce
CUP 90-23 --CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO EXTEND PATIO DINING HOURS
UNTIL DARK AT 200 LONGFELLOW A VENUE, LA PENITA #2 (CONTINUED FROM MEETINGS
OF 10/ 16/90, 11/20/90, AND 1/2/91)
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated October 9, 1990, and recommended that the Planning
Commission· approve the proposed CUP amendment with the following change: Outdoor
dining including service of beer and wine shall be limited to 9:30 AM to 8:00 PM during
daylight savings time, and 9:30 AM to 6:00 PM during Pacific Standard Time.
This project is located in the C-1 zone, with a general plan designation of neighborhood
commercial. The applicant is presently operating a Mexican restaurant with service of beer
and wine and outdoor dining. A residence is located upstairs.
On June 6, 1989, the Planning Commission approved a beer and wine conditional use permit.
The staff environmental review committee, at their meeting of January 5, 1989, recommended
the adoption of a negative declaration for the project.
The Planning Commission approved a conditional use permit for outside dining for the
"Shrimp Pot" at this address on April 6, 1976.
Currently, the restaurant is restricted to outdoor dining from 9:30 AM to 4:00 PM. Staff felt
that the hours could be expanded so long as the noise ordinance standards are not violated. An
amendment to the current conditions would prohibit noise exceeding the noise limits, and any
violation would result in an immediate limitation of the hours of operation. Further, the
applicant must agree that the City's monitoring of the noise is adequate evidence that excessive
noise is occurring and therefore the hours of operation would be reduced to the original hours
of 9:30 AM to 4:00 PM if a violation occurs.
Because there are currently two CUPs, one for outdoor dining and one for beer and wine, staff
has combined the two CUPs via this amendment into one comprehensive CUP which
supersedes the other two.
It should be noted that the parking area is in need of restriping; the stripes are almost
obliterated.
Comm. Rue discussed Condition No. 2(a): "At any time noise that violates the City's noise
ordinance is generated by the subject restaurant, it shall be cause to limit the hours of
5 P.C. Minutes 2/ 19/91
operation to 9:30 AM to 4:00 PM in the outdoor dining area." He noted that one incident would )
be sufficient to force the restaurant to go to the shorter hours.
Public Hearing opened at 7:33 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz.
Gilbert Orozco, 16826 Denker Avenue, Gardena, representing the applicant, Mary Orozco,
addressed the Commission and: ( 1) stated that with the exception of the striping, all conditions
have been met; (2) stated that the applicant has read and agrees with all of the proposed
conditions; (3) stated that he is aware that one noise violation shall be cause to limit the hours
of operation on the patio.
Public Hearing closed at 7:36 P .M. by Chmn. Ketz.
Mr. Schubach, in response to questions from Comm. Marks, stated that since no square
footage is being added to this business, no additional parking is being required .
Mr. Schubach, in response to questions from Comm. Rue, stated that noise is monitored boiji
on a complaint basis and on a regular enforcement basis.
Comm. Rue questioned whether Condition No . 2(a) is too onerous, noting that an isolated
instance of patrons becoming too noisy could be cause for reducing the hours of operation on
the patio.
Mr . Schubach stated that the City is interested in chronic noise problems, not one-time
incidences. He noted the importance of enforcement.
MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Marks, to approve staff's recommendation,
Resolution P.C. 90-99, as written.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Marks, Rue, Chmn. Ketz
None
None
Comm. Peirce
Chmn. Ketz stated that this decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed by writing
to the City Council within ten days.
CUP 90-2 --CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR OFF-SALE GENERAL ALCOHOL AT AN
EXISTING ESTABLISHMENT ALREADY LICENSED BY THE A,B,C. AND FOR ADULT VIDEOS
AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 3232 MANHA.TIAN
AVENUE. DAN'S UQUOR
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated January 21, 1991, and recommended approval of the
requested CUP. subject to the conditions specified in the proposed resolution.
This project is located in the C -1 zone, with a general plan designation of neighborhood
commercial. The lot size is 4320 square feet. with a building size of 2982 square feet. The
current use is as a preexisting liquor store, mini market, deli, and X-rated video sales. There
are seven parking spaces.
Dan's Liquor is located on the southeast corner of Manhattan Avenue at 33rd Street. It is a
single-story building with diagonal parking south of the building. The business is presently
operating from 7:00 AM until 2:00 AM daily.
Dan's Liquor is one of the remaining existing businesses selling alcoholic beverages subject to
the alcohol amortization ordinance which has not obtained a CUP. It should be noted that this
business began the CUP process in January of 1990, but the store was sold in the summer of
6 P.C. Minutes 2/ 19/91
J
1991 and the subsequent owner has stated he was unaware of the requirements to complete the
CUP process. There has thus been a lengthy delay.
At their meeting of February 8, 1990, the staff environmental review committee recommended
an environmental negative declaration and recommended that the Planning Commission
require the applicant/ owner to submit a sign plan that conforms with the present code along
with a new plan for the layout of parking and for a trash enclosure.
The Police Department requested that Dan's Liquor participate in the soon-to-be-implemented
EASY Program and to sell single containers of alcoholic beverages in clear plastic bags so that
the contents are easily visible.
The requested CUP would authorize the continued general alcohol sales at this location.
The proposed use of a liquor store/deli seems in tune with the neighborhood usage while
operating there for over 20 years. However, the request to sell X-rated videos does not seem
appropriate for a business located in a residential neighborhood.
Staff is also concerned with the existing diagonal parking layout which results in cars
regularly parking over the public right-of-way.
Further, the trash dumpster should be enclosed with an approved masonry enclosure with a
screened gate after approval by the Planning Director as to location on the property. It appears
the trash container could be located along the west wall just below the storage area in the
southernmost portion of the parking lot.
The boarded up front window area on the west side could use sanding and painting. Also, in the
parking lot, landscaping would be provided along the west wall of the southern portion of the
property.
Otherwise, since this is an existing business with no major history of police problems
according to the records, staff felt that the sale of alcohol and a deli should be allowed to
continue. subject to the proposed conditions, which include standard conditions of the zoning
ordinance and conditions relating to parking, the trash dumpster, signs, and landscaping.
Also. the recommended conditions include a provision to require that single containers be sold
in clear bags. The Police Department has also recommended a condition to require this
business to participate in the EASY Program.
Staff felt that X-rated videos might possibly be acceptable in such a business, but that X-rated is
out of the question in this case because of the business' proximity to homes and children.
However, because of case law, the City can only regulate such uses when they are a minor part of
the business.
Public Hearing opened at 7:47 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz.
Ronald Duffaut, property owner, addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that he has only
recently become aware of the CUP requirement; (2) explained that he received the staff report
only last week; (3) explained that he has been unable to contact the business owner to discuss
this proposal; (4) asked that this matter be continued in order that he might have an
opportunity to study the issues and meet with the business owner; (5) explained that the
ownership of this property has recently been changed.
Mr. Schubach stated that staff has no objection to a continuance as requested by the property
owner.
7 P.C. Minutes 2/ 19/91
Edie Weber, 1201 11th Street, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and: (1) asked at
what point a minor usage of adult videos becomes a major usage; (2) asked who monitors such
usage; (3) questioned the ramifications of such a usage.
Mr. Lee responded by explaining that case law does not specify an exact percentage as to what
constitutes an adult usage. In some instances, 50 percent has been used to categorize an adult
usage.
Mr. Schubach explained that a code enforcement officer monitors the usage of X-rated videos,
and the City can conduct an audit of the inventory if deemed necessary.
Mr. Duffaut stated that he will work with the business owner in an attempt to discontinue the
use of X-rated videos.
Public Hearing continued at 7:54 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz.
MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Marks, to continue this hearing to the meeting of
March 19, 1991, so that the owner can have time to study the matter.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Conuns. Marks, Rue, Chmn. Ketz
None
None
Comm. Peirce
Comm. Rue conunented on the parking and asked whether the parking could be done in a
parallel fashion as opposed to diagonal. He noted safety concerns over the current diagonal
configuration.
CUP 90-37 /PARK 90-9/PDP 90-10 --CONDITI ONAL USE PERMIT. PARKING PLAN. AND
PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR 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 February 13, 1991, and reconunended that the Planning
Commission approve the proposed CUP. PDP, and Parking Plan, subject to conditions,
including limiting the number of service bays to four by adoption of the proposed resolution.
Staff suggested an alternative recommendation that the request be denied, with the finding
that the site is inadequate in size for an auto body repair and painting business.
The City Council, at their meeting of October 23, 1991, sustained the decision of the Planning
Commission, on appeal, to deny a similar request because of concerns that the proposed size of
the building was not adequate for storage of wrecked vehicles, plus work areas and storage of
parts, and thereby the exterior parking lot would inevitably become the area for storage of
wrecked vehicles and be an eyesore. Although Council denied the request, it directed the
applicant to further discuss alternatives with staff to address their concerns.
The applicant has resubmitted the request with a modification in the plans to construct a
much larger building. The proposed interior service area is approximately 57 percent larger
than the previous proposal and contains nine service bays rather than the previously proposed
four. This appears to indicate that the intent is not to satisfy the issues of inadequate vehicle
and parts storage and outdoor work activities, but instead to build an oversized body and
fender shop.
The applicant has met with staff to discuss the alternative to enlarge the building. Although
staff believes that an even larger building would be possible and that a larger site would be
8 P.C. Minutes 2/ 19/91
more appropriate ibr this type of use, the proposal appears to be satisfactory if there is
compliance with the conditions of approval.
A parking plan is necessary because the strict applicatio11 of the code-required parking is based
on building square footage. At one space per 250 square feet, the requirement in this case
would be 18 spaces. Staff felt that a finding can be made to allow a sum total of 16 spaces rather
than the 18 in this case because a significant amount of the building will be dedicated for
parking purposes, not work areas. This is only possible, however, if some of the service bays
are eliminated and dedicated to parking and storage of vehicles only,
The submitted plans depict using all the interior area for service bays during operating hours.
Staff felt that to make the findings for a parking plan and to appropriately control the scale of
the business operation, a portion should be left for parking and vehicle storage only. As such,
staff recommended a condition that the service bays be limited to four, and that the remaining
interior space be used for vehicle storage/ parking, meaning that the other five spaces would be
for vehicle storage and parking only, not for work areas.
The new plan also includes a large area for parking and storage of vehicles overnight. This is
an added benefit of the larger building, but by itself does not address the need to provide
parking during the day which again indicates the applicant is not trying to address the
concerns stated above. The only way these concerns can be addressed is by limiting the number
of service bays.
The new plans have reduced the rear setback to five feet. The minimum required by the code is
ten feet for a two-story building adjacent to a residential zone. Although the zoning to tbe rear
is commercial, it is used re~identially; therefore, staff included a condition that the plans be
revised to show a ten-foot setback. This will allow for adequate room for substantial trees to
grow. In addition. staff recommended a condition that doorway access be provided to the rear
to allow for access to the landscaped area for maintenance purposes.
It should also be noted that the new plans provide for a six-foot block wall along the rear of the
property and for a six-foot-high fence along the front consisting of tubular railing and a
concrete block base. Staff included conditions that these walls be constructed with decorative
materials to the satisfaction of the Planning Director.
In regard to the concerns over noise, the work areas will be completely enclosed in a concrete
block building, and windows and doors shall be closed when work activities are being
conducted. For assurance, a condition is included that adequate ventilation be provided to
ensure comfort and safety while the doors are closed. Also, the hours of operation Will be
limited Monday through Friday to between 8:00 AM and 6:00 PM and Saturdays from 9:00 AM
to2:00PM. •
The release of fumes and odors will be subject to the most current requirements of the Fire
Department and the Air Quality Management District. However, with the close proximity to
dwelling units, state-of-the-art methods of eliminating odors are necessary and must be shown
in detail on revised plans.
Staff felt that the new design, in conjunction With the proposed conditions, should adequately
mitigate the many concerns associated with this type of business to a level to make the
business compatible with the surrounding area.
Staff is aware that a saturation of auto body repair shops already exists in the area. and that
many problems have yet to be resolved with the operation of these businesses. Although
adding another shop does not appear to be a step toward jm.proving the area, the construction
of a shop with the type of building and site improvements proposed by this applicant may show
that this type of use can be compatible with the area and set an example for the existing shops.
This would require diligence on the part of the City to ensure that conditions are being
followed, and the willingness of the busines.c; to comply with all of the conditions at all times.
9 P.C. Minutes 2/ 19/91
Mr. Schubach. in response to questions from Chmn. Ketz, stated that the proposal calls for
seven parking spaces outside and nine indoor service bays. Staff is requesting the removal of
five of the indoor service bays. In any event. there would be a parking deficiency of two spaces,
since 18 spaces are required.
Public Hearing opened at 8:05 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz.
Jim Marquez. representing the applicant, addressed the Conimission and: (1) stated that the
present location of the body shop is at 505 l / 4 Pacific Coast Highway, and the applicant is
requesting to relocate the business pursuant to the City's amortization requirement$; (2) stated
that it is desired to enlarge the size of the structure so that the outdoor area is not used for
storage of vehicles: (3) explained that the outdoor area will at no time be used for storage of
vehicles or parts: (4) said that four service bays will be adequate, and the applicant will retain
the other five bays for the storage of vehicles: (5) discussed the setback, stating that a ten-foot
setback at the rear will be retained for use as a buffer.
Paul Phillips, also representing the applicant, addressed the Commission and: ( 1) stressed that
all conditions will be met by this business; (2) noted that the Commission bas the power to
re\tiew this business to ensure that all conditions are being met; (3) noted that because the
building bas been enlarged, only 16 parking spaces are available; (4) noted that a ten-foot
setback at the rear will be provided; (5) felt that this business can be an asset to the City and can
serve as an example to other businesses; (6) in response to questions from Comm. Rue, stated
that he feels this business can meet all air emission requirements.
Edie Weber. 1201 11th Street, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and (1) discussed
requirements in other cities for businesses such as this: (2) asked for an emergency
moratorium until the City can decide in which zone businesses of this type should be located;
(3) fel t that this business does not meet the current requirements for air emission standards; (4)
n oted concern over the proliferation of businesses of this type in the area; {5) noted concern
over illegal spot painting. especially near residential areas.
Ms. Weber continued and: (1) noted concern over the appearance and safety of businesses of
this type; (2) noted concern over environmental and pollution control; (3) wanted current
emission figures for businesses such as this in the City; (4) noted concein over the nealtb and
safety of residents; (5) stressed that nothing has changed with any of the currently existing
body shops in the City, noting that problems have not been corrected.
Ms. Weber went on and: (1) discussed methods used by body s}lops and noted concern over their
safety; (2) stated that many regulations are in place and all should be adhered to by auto body
shops; (3) discussed penalties available for \Ti.olation of the air quality standards; (4) noted
concern over fumes, parking. traffic, safety, air, and noise so close to the residential areas.
Ray Martin, 1255 Corona Street. Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and: (1) opposed
approval of this auto body shop; (2) stated that the area is already too congested; (3) noted
concern over wrec k ed vehicles on the site: (4) urged the City to clean up that area of the City by
not allowing another auto body shop; (5) noted concern over noise and paint fumes.
Bernard Winnaker, 1232 Corona Street, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and: (1)
noted concern over the number of auto body/repair shops in the area: (2) noted concern over the
noise emanatiIIg from these establishments; (3) stated that the quality of life in the City would
be degraded by approval of this project.
Martin Moreno, 1326 Cororta, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and: ( 1) opposed the
proposed project, noting that there are already too many such businesses in the area; (2) noted
concern that the auto body shops are not adhenng to all requirements.
10 P.C. Minutes 2/ 19/91
Maurice Bouday, 1203 11th Street, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and: (1) opposed
approval of the request; (2) noted concern that the issue of this body shop keeps coming up, and
he asked for the City to make a decision on this matter; (3) discussed the water purification
system, and he noted that the State is currently in a severe drought; (4) discussed AQMD
standards and questioned what policies will be implemented; (5) noted concern over air quality
and odors emanating from the business; (6) expressed concern over the harmful effects of
breathing paint fumes; (7) agreed that a moratorium would be appropriate until such time that
the City arrives at a policy on these types of businesses.
Tanya Bouday, 1203 11th Street, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and: (1) n oted
concern that this issue keeps being continued, and she questioned whether citizens are really
informed on this matter; (2) opposed approval of this project, especially since there are already
12 other similar businesses in the City; (3) urged the City to take action against those other
businesses that are in violation of the requirements.
Danice Lendl, 1232 Corona, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and: (1) opposed
approval; (2) noted concern over the air quality in the area; (3) stated that she has had
respiratory problems recently, and she questioned whether it could be related to business es of
this type.
Ray Sutton, 1225 Corona, Hermosa Beach. addressed the Commission and: (1) discussed the
parking and noted concern over whether there will be adequate parking for both employees
and cars being serviced; (2) discussed the rear setback and asked whether it will affect the
number of parking spaces available.
Mr. Phillips, on behalf of the applicant, again addressed the Commission and: (1) noted that
this business is a member of the community, and it is the only business which is preparing a
strategy to deal with the problems; (2) asked what action is being taken against those other
businesses which are not in compliance; (3) noted that they are not asking to add another body
shop in the City, they are only attempting to relocate an existing business; (4) stressed that this
is the only business attempting to map out a plan to deal with the problems.
Mr. Marquez again addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that this is not a service garage;
(2) stated that all AQMD requirements are being met; (3) noted that a state-of-the-art system is
being used; (4) stated that this business is unfairly being compared to other businesses which
are not in compliance; (5) explained that it is the intention of this business to comply and be a
viable part of the community; (6) said that this business is an example of how other businesses
should be operating.
Public Hearing closed at 8:37 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz.
Comm. Peirce asked staff for an update on what is happening with other similar businesses in
the City, to which Mr. Schubach explained that these business are part of the amortization
process, and the businesses have two years in which to comply with the requirements. City
staff has investigated other similar business to ensure that they are in compliance; if they are
not complying, citations will be issued requiring that the owners appear in court.
Mr. Schubach, in response to questions from Comm. Peirce, stated that so far as he is aware,
businesses must conform to AQl\ID requirements as soon as they are adopted.
Mr . Schubach stated that staff is attempting to ensure that all paint fumes stay inside the
building so that fumes do not permeate the air.
Mr. Schubach, in response to questions from Comm. Peirce, stated tliat he is not aware of how
often the AQMD sends inspectors to the City. He noted that the AQMD does not have the
manpower to continually monitor the City; therefore, the City is attempting to implement its
own enforcement procedures.
11 P.C. Minutes 2/ 19/91
Comm. Peirce noted that this use is one which is pennitted in the zone for which it is proposed. l
He therefore did not feel a finding can be made to prohibit the use at the site. He did, however,
feel that the business can be conditioned so that it is more attractive and more compatible with
the neighbors, and he felt that the applicant has already taken steps in that regard. He felt that
a recommendation could be made to the City Council that a moratorium should be imposed
based on the currently existing number of similar businesses in the area.
Comm. Peirce stated that the issue of the size of the business needs to be addressed.
Comm. Rue discussed the issue of paint fumes. dangerous solvents. and air quality. He noted
that he is not well-versed in these topics, and he would feel more comfortable with more
information on those issues. He questioned how effective state-of•the-art technology actually
is as related to air quality.
Mr. Schubach stated that staff was planning to contact air pollution experts to ensure that the
proposed state-of-the-art technology is adequate. He stated that, if so desired, the information
could be presented to the Commission for study before any approval is recommended.
Comm. Rue agreed that this business is being penalized because of other similar businesses
which are not in compliance. He again noted that he would like additional information on air
quality before making a decision on this matter.
Chmn. Ketz noted concern over counting the indoor parking in the overall parking
calculations. She also felt that once indoor bays are constructed, there is no guarantee that
they will be used for parking. She noted concern over the overall parking layout and parking
enforcement.
MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to continue this matter to the meeting of
April 2, 1991, for the purpose of obtaining additional information on the air quality
standards, dangers from emissions, and the effectiveness of the proposed air filtration system.
The information may be presented either by staff or by a qualified expert.
Comm. Peirce stated that the main concern relates to the nearness of this business to the
surrounding neighbors, especially in light of the prevailing winds which can carry particles
and odors to the residential areas.
Comm. Rue felt that it is the responsibility of the Commission to be concerned with health and
safety issues, as well as issues of planning. He felt that the issue of where these types of
businesses can be located is quite relevant.
Comm. Peirce, for the benefit of the applicant. pointed out that the • Commission is
uncomfortable with the number of bays proposed for the inside of the building.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Marks. Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ketz
None
None
None
Comm. Rue also requested information related to the requirements imposed by other cities on
businesses of this type.
CON 89-9 --EXTENSION OF THE TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #20820 FOR A TWO-UNIT
CONDOMINIDM PROJECT AT 632 6TH S'.1RE--1IT
Mr. Schubach recommended that the request for a one-year extension be approved. The reason
for the request is based on the current economic situation. He suggested, however, that it be
continued for no more than one year, since requirements can change.
12 P.C. Minutes 2/ 19/91
Hearing opened at 8:58 P.M. byChmn. Ketz.
Rod Merle, 485 25th Street, Hermosa Beach, applicant, addressed the Commission and stated
that this is not an appropriate time to coilllilence work on this project, and he requested a one-
year extension as recommended by staff.
Hearing closed at 8:59 P.M. byChmn. Ketz.
MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve staff's recommendation to
approve the extension of Tentative Parcel Map #20820 for a two-unit condominium project at
632 6th Street, for one year, to June 6, 1992.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
STAFF ITEMS
Comms.Marks,Peirce,Rue,Chmn.Ketz
None
None
None
a) Memorandum Regarding Parking Along Beach Drive
Mr. Schubach stated that this item would be continued to March, explaining that the Director
of Public Works has been absent from the City.
b) City Council /Planning Commission Workshop
Mr. Schubach stated that this matter will be brought back for discussion at a future meeting.
c) Memorandum Regarding Planning Commission Liaison for February 26. 1991. City
Council Meeting
No one will attend as liaison.
d) Tentative Futw:e Planning Commission Agenda
Comm. Rue asked that the Commissioners be provided with the actual legal opinion related to
adult videos.
e) City Council Minutes of January 22. 1991
No action taken.
COMMISSIONER ITEMS
Comm. Rue suggested that the Commission again address the permitted use list for the
commercial zone.
Comm. Peirce requested an update on the HIP program, to which Mr. Schubach explained that
formation of the committee has been postponed by the City Council.
Comm. Rue requested that the Commissioners be provided with minutes from HIP meetings,
once they are underway.
Chmn. Ketz asked whether Manhattan Beach has a provision allowing for "minor variances,"
to which Mr. Schubach responded that he will look into the matter.
13 P.C. Minutes 2 / 19/91
Comm. Peirce asked whether the City has obtained a report from the census. to which Mr. )
Schubach replied in the aff'lrmative and stated that additional information will be available
in July.
Comm. Peirce discussed how many MAX riders are actually from Hermosa Beach. He wanted
additional information on how much money is being spent per rider in the City.
Comm. Peirce asked when Cal Trans will install red curbing along Pacific Coast Highway, to
which Mr. Schubach replied that there could be a delay of up to two years.
MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Marks, to adjourn at 9: 13 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 19, 1991.
14 P.C. Minutes 2 / 19/91