HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC_Minutes_1991_04_02MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA
BEACH HELD ON APRIL 2, 1991, AT 7:00 P_M_ IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL
CHAMBERS
Meeting ca1led to order at 7:01 P.M.. by Chmn. Ketz
Pledge of Allegiance led by Comm. Rue .
ROLL CALL
Present:
Absent:
Comms. Di Monda, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ketz
Comm. Marks*
Also Present: Michael Schubach_. Planning Director_; Edward Lee, Assistant City
Attorney; Naoma Valdes, Recording Secretary
*Comm. Marks arrived at 7:05 P.M.
CONSENT CALENDAR
MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Di Monda, to approve the following consent
ca 1 endar items as submitted:
Planning Commission minutes of March 19, 1991;
Resolution P.C. 91-13. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITV OF
HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERt'llT TO ALLOW OFF-
SALE GENERAL LIQUOR, IN CONJUNCTION WITH A DELI AND MINl-11ARKET, AN.D ADOPTION OF
AN ENVIRONr·-1ENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR 3232 MANHATTAN AVENUE, "DAN'S
LIQUOR". LEGALLV DESCRIBED AS LOT TWO, AND LOT FOUR, SHAKESPEARE TRACT.
Resolution P.C. 91-20. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND PARKING PLAN
TO ALLOW A MARTIAL ARTS STUDIO WITH ONE-ON-ONE TRAINING, AND ADOPTION OF AN
ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION, AT 131 PIER AVENUE AND LEGALL V DESCRIBED
AS LOJ" 22, BLOCK 34, FIRST ADDITION TO HERMOSA BEACH TRACT .
AVES : Comms. Di Monda, Pierce, Rue, Chmn. Ketz
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Marks
P.C. Minutes 4/02/91
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC
No one eppeared to address the Commission
CON 91-2/PDP 91-2 --CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE
PARCEL MAP 6 22305 FOR A 2-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 91 B 15TH STREET
(CONTINUED FROM THE MEETING OF MARCH 19, 1991)
CON 91-2/PDP 91-2 --CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE
PARCEL MAP 6 22034 FOR A 2-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 930 15TH STREET
(CONTINUED FROM THE MEETING OF MARCH 19, 1991)
Chmn. Ketz noted that the two above projects wou1d be heard together.
Director Schubach gave the staff report, dated March 25, 1991, and recommended that
the Planning Commission again continue this request, to direct the applicant to consider
revisions in order to teke advantage of the fact that they have control of contiguous lots.
he noted that the Commission had continued this hearing at the request of the applicant
so that the design could be revised to take advantage of the applicable 30 foot height
limit.
Di rector Schubach continued that the revisions submitted essent i a 11 y maintain the
original design, the only change was that the upper (930 15th Street) project had been
raised to the 30 foot height limit, whiJe the lm•ver, front unit had been kept at 25 feet to
improve the views and give more of a staggered effect.
Director Schubach said that the use of the shared driveway was not as _critical, since
parking was not allowed on that side .of 15th Street .. but the shared driveway was still
considered to be more desirable, and, more efficient use of the land would allow more
open space, access, and parking.
Public Hearing opened at 7:08 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz
David Olin, 1233 Hermosa Avenue, Hermosa Beach, designer of the project, addressed the
Commission and passed a new rendering and view corridor study of the project to the
Commission to show changes that had been made. He stated that both he and the owner
of the project preferred two 2-una projects as opposed to a 4-unit construction as they
considered H more desirable from a rnar~(eting standpoint. He felt a comparison to units
cited on Prospect was not va 1 i ct as that was a 1 eve 1 1 ot and the crossf a 11 on this 1 ot was
too severe to allow a wider shared driveway to move well across Hie property.
2 P.C. Minutes 4/02/91
Mr. Olin continued that in order to maximize the view he had narrowed the front building
to create a new view corridor, that a line across at a 45 degree angle showed the clear
area, and, this created an open effect on both buildings and also with the house to the
east of the project. He said that the narrower front building created side yard setbacks
of eleven feet as opposed to the required five feet which a11owed more light to the
property to the east.
Comm. Di Monda questioned the designer on the use of identical plans for the t'vvo
separate projects and expressed his concern that more interest could be created on the
street if different designs, or at least a central court concept, were used .
Mr. 01 in responded that it was the deve 1 oper's desire to have a unified design, and that a
central court would span the garages and would be over concrete not over real dirt.
Comm. Peirce stated that one of the ideals, when the Condominium Ordinance was
written, was to have more lots assembled; by creating larger parcels with a greater
number of units more amenities could be included for the owners_: and, two side by side
2-unit projects did not take advantage of the amenities that a larger project could
provide.
Mr. Olin answered that it was the developer's desire to make smalJer projects as there
would be only one other owner in the complex to deal with, thus making it more desirable
to a potential buyer, but, in response to Comm. Peirce's request for factual data, stated
that he had none.
In response to Comm Rue·s request for more specific descriptions of the materials to be
used, Mr. Olin listed: tile for the roof decks; skylights in light shafts going a11 the way
down to the basement garages.: pipe railing on the balconies; solar tinted glass; stucco
elements with accent color wrapping over the top of the roof decks; af"!d, glass blocks
used on the stai n-ve 11, entry and other areas.
Donald McDougal, 940 15th Street, neighbor, addressed the Commission ancr stated that
the survey marker for the project centered on his water meter. He was concerned that
the footing for the wall would be on or beyond his property line and could cause damage
to his water pipes. He stated that the new project would completely block his view and
that the machinery used in c 1 earing the 1 ot had cracked the si dew a 1 k and damaged his
shrubbery. He asked for cooperation from the builders with the project.
Comm. Marks suggested that Mr. r-1cDouga 1 send a 1 et ter to the architect and the
contractor advising them of his concerns regarding the position of his water line.
3 P.C. Minutes 4/02/91
Responding to a question from Chmn . Ketz, Director Schubach suggested that Mr. McDougal
contact the Hermosa Beach Building Department regarding the damage to the sidewalk
and other areas, and stated that the footing
should be five feet from the property line.
Elizabeth Srour, 820 Manhattan Avenue, Manhattan Beach, addressed the Commission and
stated that single family homes are the most desirable residences, and if the homeowner
could not afford a single family residence the next choice would be a tvv·o unit
condominium as there would be only one other owner. She further stated that staff had
never told Mr. Olin of the Ctty·s desire to consolidate lots when he originally started his
plans, and that cross access easements in the legal documents of two Condominium
Associations could cause legal problems. She suggested that different colors be used on
the two projects.
The developer_. David Olin, stated that the five foot setback that was to be used applied
to only 30% of the property line, the additional 70% would be at eleven feet.
Public Hearing continued at 7:36 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz .
MOTION by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by Comm . Rue, to approve the staff
recommendation and continue the items to the meeting date of May 7, 1991.
Comm. Peirce spoke to the motion by saying that he felt that this was one last attempt
to have the developers modify their project to address the concerns raised b!J staff. He
then asked if the developers agreement ¥lould be needed to continue the items.
Asst. City Attorney Lee responded that it was within the Commission's discretion to
choose to continue as there was no legal requirement to decide the matter tonight since
the Commission was well within the time restra-ints .
Chmn. Ketz responded to Comm. Marks question of the 16 f oat front setback by explaining
that a 17 foot setback was only required for garages, the normal setback for front yards
was 5 foot, hov-tever the average for thl s street was 16 feet. •
AVES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN :
ABSENT:
Comms . Di Monda , Marks, Pierce, Rue, Chmn. Ketz
None
None
None
CON 90 -22 --CONDIT I ONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP
6 2 2560 FOR A 2 -UNIT CONDOMIN I UM CONVERSION AT 544 AND 546 25TH
STREET (CONTINUED FROM T HE FEBRUARY 19 AND MARCH 19, 1991 ME ET I NGS)
4 P.C . Minutes 4/02/91
Director Schubach gave the staff report dated March 28, 1991 and recommended
continuance to the meeting of May 7, 1991, to resolve the issue of the appropriate
mechanism for ensuring the completion of the proposed remodel of the front unit.
At the meeting of March 19, 1991, the Planning Commission continued this request due to
the need to remodel the front unit to meet the requirements of the conversion ordinance.
The app1icant indicated that the staff proposed condition, that the remodeling be
completed prior to approval of the final map, was not acceptable because financing could
not be obtained until the final map is approved because of the way the ownership is
recorded.
The Commission continued the item for staff and the applicant to research other options,
such as bonding the improvements to ensure their completion _, or perhaps returning to a
partnership form of ownership so that financinQ could be obtained .
The Commission also directed the applicant to provide more detailed plans depicting the
architectural features of the project.
Director Schubach indicated that the City was still researching acceptable methods of
ensuring completion and asked Asst. City Attorney Lee to give more details of the
methods under consideration .
Asst. City Attorney Lee explained that it is difficult to require a performance bond for
on-site improvements lf the City is not the beneficiary.
Tv·rn possible alternatives, he continued, were: first, evidence of a completion bond to a
lender which would require, in the event of foreclosure, the City would receive notice
and have the assurance that either the lender or any successor in interest or assign of
the developer would be obligated to fulfill the conditions in order to retain the
effectiveness of the final map; or, second, a covenant to be recorded against the
property, executed by the developer, that would run yVfth the land to provide that the
improvements were to be performed in order to receive the final building permit. He also
stated that it was unusual for a lender to require a final map.
Comm. Rue asked if the City could withdraw a final map. Mr. Lee assured· him that the
City has this right, as it has the opportunity of inserting a "condition subsequent" that
would have to be complied with, tt·1at as security for the City, the condition of the final
map ·would not be subordinate to the 1 ender's 1 oan .
5 P.C. Minutes 4/02/91
Comm. Rue inquired as to the iength of time that the project could continue without a
final building permit since it is a remodel and occupancy can be maintained during the
construction.
Director Schubach responded that the time is indefinite, and this is one of the problems
the City faces.
Comm. Marks asked about a Certificate of Occupancy as a condition of the completion of
the project.
Comm. Rue responded that a Certificate of Occupancy could only be issued for new
construction and this was a remodel.
Public Hearing was opened at 7:49 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz
Ron Hobbs, 544 25th Street, Hermosa Beach, applicant, addressed the Commission and
stated that he and his wife were partners in the project wah Richard Melograno, a friend
of over thirty years. He stated that three years ago he had entered into a contract as
joint tenants in common on the property, but only Mr. Melograno·s name appeared on the
title.
At the present time, he can not borrow money to finance the project, since his name is
not on the title. The suggestion that a new partnership be formed is unacceptable to him
due to the expense of securing a new loan witt·, his name on title, then refinancing again
as soon as the conversion is approved.
Mr. Hobbs further stated that he and Mr. Me 1 ograno were wi 11 i ng to pro vi de any documents
the City needed to assure that he was in fact an owner. He would also be willing to pull
his approved plans from The Building Department to show that he was willing to start
the remodel. And, he was prepared to bond and name the City as beneflcia.ry, having been
assured by bonding companies that a was a common practice, and could probably be done
within two weeks
Comm. Rue noted that in the photos of the project the roof pitch was dissimilar.
Mr. Hobbs stated that the new roof would be si mi 1 ar to the roof on the back unit when the
remode1 was completed.
Public Hearing continued at 7:54 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz
MOTION by Comm. Rue, second by Comm. Di Monda to continue this item to the meeting of
April 16, 1991, in order to a11ovv U1e City and the applicant to reach an acceptable
agreement.
6 P.C . Minutes 4/02/91
AVES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
comms. D1 Monda, Marks, Pierce, Rue, Chmn. Ketz
None
None
None
-
CON 91-3/PDP 91-3 --CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE
PARCEL MAP '22892 FOR A 2-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 1639 PROSPECT AVENUE_
Director Schubach presented the staff report dated March 25, 1991, and recommended
that the Phmning Commission approve the conditional use permit, precise development
plan, and Vesting Tentative Map *228892 subject to the conditions as contained in the
attached Resolution of Approva1.
The subject property is located at the southwest corner of 17th Street and Prospect
Avenue. It is an irregular shaped lot with a slight grade from east to west and currently
contains a single family house.
The proposed project consists of two detached dwelling units containing 2352 and 2352
square feet respectively. Each unit is two stories above a semi-subterranean garage and
contains 3 bedrooms, 3 1 /2 bathrooms, and a roof deck. The lot coverage is 55%, well
below the maximum of 65%, height is at the 30 foot limit, adequate setbacks are
provided, and the project complies with all other planning and zoning requirements. The
Public Works Department was consulted regarding the proposed curb cuts and is satisfied
·v·v•i th the design.
The only concern of staff is that the project \'\1 ould require the removal of two mature
trees of respective 33" and 12" trunk diameter. Staff recommends that comparable
mature trees (36" box) be provided elsewhere on the site, and to show this on the
landscape p 1 an.
Public Hearing opened at 8:00 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz .
Elizabeth Srour, 820 Manhattan Avenue, Manhattan Beach,representing the applicant,
addressed the Commission and stated that the developer, Jerry Olguin, was proposing
two detached homes on the lot in order to maximize the openness at the corner. The
project met all City requirements and that he agreed to provide the two mature trees as
requested.
Public Hearing closed at 8:04 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz.
7 P.C. Minutes 4/02/91
MOTION by Comm. Pierce, seconded by Comm. Rue to approve the staff recommendation,
and Reso1ution P.C . 91-23 with the condition that two mature, specimen trees in 36u box
be p1anted on the site.
AVES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Di Monda, Marks, Pierce, Rue, Chmn. Ketz
None
None
None
Chmn. Ketz stated that this decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed by
writing to the City Counci1 \'\1ithin ten days.
CUP 91-5 --CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT FOR AN OUTDOOR SPECIAL
EVENT ON APRIL 14, 1991, FROM 3:00 P.M. TO 7:00 P.M. AND CONTINUING ONCE
A VEAR THEREAFTER IN THE COURTYARD AT 934 HERMOSA AVENUE, CALIFORNIA
BEACH REST AURA NT.
Director Schubach presented the staff report dated March 25, 1991, and recommended
approval of the requested Conditional Use Permit amendment subject to the conditions
contained in the proposed resolution.
A C.U.P. was granted for a restaurant .,..vith beer and wine in 1978, amended to add square
footage in 1984, and amended again in 1985 to add conditions in response to neighbor's
concerns about noise and poorly maintained trash receptacles. The outdoor courtyard has
never been authorized for seating or service of beer and wine. The restaurant, and other
businesses sharing the shopping center, is nonconforming to current parking
requirements.
The requested C.U.P. would authorize a one-day event, on an annual basis, with the first
event scheduled for Sunday, April 14, 1991, from 3:00 P.M. to 7:00 P.f1. The applicant
indicates that this is a party to celebrate their 1 O year anniversary. Proceeds from the
party will be donated to a charitable cause in the City of Hermosa Beach. This year the
restaurant hoped to raise $10,000 to donate to the Police Department for the purchase of
body armor for the Police officers.
Although off-street parking is not available to support the number of people expected,
staff believes that given the time of day and year, (and the fact that the other
businesses in the center, with two exceptions_. will not be open) that the surrounding
public parking areas would not be severe1y impacted by this one-time event.
In regard to continuing this event on an annual basis, staff is including a condition that
the event be held during the same time of day and year (before 7:00 P.M. on a Sunday
8 P.C. Minutes 4/02/91
afternoon in April) , and tt1at prior to scheduling, that the Po 11 ce and Fi re Departments be
notified at least two weeks in advance and that the Planning Department be notified in
writing of the event and what charitable cause would be the beneficiary.
Comm . Rue queshoned if anyone had been to the restaurant to check on compliance and
ensure that there were no problems , and was assured that staff had reviewed the area
and would have noted any non-compliance or problems in the report.
Comm. Peirce commented on item #2 regarding maximum occupancy and noted that the
main seating inside the restaurant was listed at 76 and the patio at 32 and questioned if
this would a11ow enough extra seating. Director Schubach explained that the patio was
not the area they were requesting, but the courtyard area outside the front door.
Public Hearing opened at 8: 1 O by Chmn. Ketz .
Scott Rosenberg, 1734 Pacific Coast Hwy., Hermosa Beach, Marketing Director for
Miyama Corp., D.B.A. California Beach Restaurant, addressed the Commission and stated
that the staff report had overlooked another level of seating. He explained that the main
seating area seats 76, the patio/bar area 32, both on the upper level, and that there was
an additional e1rea on the lower level that seats approximately 30 people.
Director Schubach agreed the1t the lower area had been overlooked and would be included
in the final resolution so the1t it would be posted for maximum occupancy.
Public Hearing closed at B: 12 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz .
MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm Rue, to approve the staff recommendation,
Resolution P.C. 91-24, with the the fallowing additions: 1) the lower seating area was to
be noted and posted_. and 2) the approval was for this year only on a trial basis. If the
City considered it a nuisance it wi 11 be reconsidered; if there was .. no evidence of
compJaints or conditions that caused a public disruption, the event could be continued.
Asst. City Attorney Lee asked that disruption be clarified. Comm. Peirce responded that
he considered complaints of residents of excessive noise, too many people, or difficulty
in dispersing the crowd to be disruption.
AVES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Di Monda, Marks, Pierce_. Rue, Chmn. Ketz
None
None
None
Chmn. Ketz stated that this decision of the Planning Com mission may be appealed by
writing to the City Council within ten days.
9 P.C. Minutes 4/02/91
CON 89-6 --CONDiTIONAL USE PERMIT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP •2oa22
FOR A 3-UNIT CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION AT 23 BARNEY COURT, 18 AND 20
MEYER COURT (CONTINUED FROM MARCH 19, 1991 MEETING).
Di rector Schubach presented the staff report dated March 13, 1991, and recommended
denial of the proposed conversion by adoption of proposed resolution because the existing
three dwelling units are not consistent with the density lfmitations of the General Plan
designation for the subject site and do not comply with current zoning requirements in
regards to density, height, open space and front setbacks.
The project 1 ot size is 5281 square feel and contains two attached uni ts of 1794 and
1896 square feet respectively, both with access from Meyer Court, and a separate
detached unit of 2233 square feet with access from Barney Court. Six enclosed parking
spaces are provided in three two car garages (one is a tandem garage), and four guest
parking spaces are located in the setback behind the garages.
The three units were constructed as one development in 1987. This was prior to the
City's efforts to bring the area into consistency with the General Plan and zoning. At the
time of issuance of building permits the zoning was R-2 and the General Plan was Low
Density Resident i a J.
Subsequently_. after public hearings to resolve the zoning and General Plan
inconsistencies before both the Planning Commission and the City Council, the area
bounded by Barney Court and Meyer Court (known as Area 10) was ultimately rezoned and
the General Plan amended to Specific Plan Area No. 2. As a result the S.P.A. now serves
as both the zoning and General Plan designations and the allowed density under the S.P.A .
allows a maximum of two units on the subject property.
The zoning code require that condominium conversions conform to the current city codes,
for which the S.P.A. has a density limit of two detached units per lot, a 25 foot height
limit, and open space and setbacks consistent with R-1 zoning. This project of three
units, two of which are attached, are constructed to the then app1icable R-2 standards in
terms of height, open space, and setbacks. As such, the project is non-conforming in all
essential elements of the zoning requirements, which is adequate grounds for denial.
However, with a finding that the subject buildings are already in existence and, in terms
of the effect on the community, that the conversion of these units to owner occupied
housing would be a benefit, it is possible that the Planning Commission may find grounds
for approval, as owner occupancy is one of the state1j goals of the Housing Element of the
General Plan.
10 P.C. Minutes 4/02/91
In sum, tr,e existing structure proposed to be converted is severely deficient in meeting
current reQuirements of the zoning ordinance and is inconsistent with the General Plan.
Staff be 1i eves that the severity of the i nconsi stenci es \•varrant deni a 1, even though staff
genera 11 y supports the concept that conversions to home ownership can benefit a
neighborhood in that owner occupants are usually more concerned about long term care,
maintenance and stability of the property.
Public Hearing opened at 8:22 P.t-1. by Chmn. Ketz.
Dennis Cleland, 434 28th Street, Hermosa Beach, app11cant, addressed the Commission
and explained that this was an existing 3-unit apartment complex that was built to
condominium standards and it was his belief that it would be a benefit to the City and
the community if it \-Vere allowed to be converted to town house ownership. He also
mentioned that part of the code a11ows a contribution from the owner for the possible
approval of a conversion; that he had spoken to members of staff and had offered to
contribute equipment or cash to the Senior Citizens if this wou1 d be a consideration.
Comm. Di Monda questioned why he had not applied for condominiums from the start. Mr.
Cleland replied that at the time the project was started, thirteen years ago, the City was
starting to rezone and there was consideration of a moratorium on new construction, so
it was f e1t that it would be better to apply for apartments, build them, and then apply
for conversion, since it was felt that the area would be zoned R-2, medium density. And,
that the Planning Commission had recommended medium density for the area but had
been turned down by the City Counci 1.
Mr. Cleland agreed with Comm. Marks that in essence he had taken a gamble and had lost
on the ultimate zoning, but at the time, in R-2 zones, if the lot ¥tas large enough, three
units could be built. He further stated that the project was designed to blend in with the
neighborhood; the detached unit was nearest the single family homes and was only 25
feel in height and the two attached units were next to the R-3 apartment~.
Mike Meyers, 1104 First Street, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and disputed
some of the statements made by Mr. Cleland, he stated that at the time the owner was
turned down for condominiums, but the City had to allow apartments. He then asked for
clarification from Director Schubach v·tho said that tMs 'Nas basically correct. There
was case law that the City had to allow apartments as long as they conformed to
existing zoning and were ministerial (required only a building permit to go ahead), but
condominiums were discretionary and required a C.U.P. so therefore could be denied.
Mr. Me!Jers continued that he felt the con11ersion should be denied; the project did not
meet any of the existing standards and you don't reward someone who would have only
been allowed to build two units if he had originally gone for condominiums, but had built
as much as he could as apartments and now asks for a conversion.
1 1 P.C. Minutes 4/02/91
' In response to Comm. Rue·s question of whether home ownership promoted a better
neighborhood, Mr. Meyers replied that he would rather have apartments so that a
precedent would not be set.
Jerry Burdick, 1106 First Street, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and
expressed his concern that it appeared that Mr. Cleland was offering a bribe in order to
have his conversion approved. He stated that he was against conversion approval and fell
it would be a giant step backward for the community.
Jim Moss, 472 36th Place, Manhattan Beach, investor, addressed the Commission and
stated that he had invested in the project in order to own a condominium and become a
resident of Hermosa Beach . He fell conversion would enhance the neighborhood by
allowing home ownership rather than renters.
Steve Harris, 23 Barney Court, Hermosa Beach, investor, addressed the Commission and
said although he was not involved in the initial phase of the project, it was hls
understanding the original request was for condominiums, but that had been rejected. He
said that at the time of building the project the neighbors had stopped by and had
complimented them on how attractive the new buildings were, and expressed pleasure
that the old bullding was being replaced. He further stated that at the time of building,
the project was not out of conformHy with the zoning, he and hls partners had agreed to
the ne•yv' zoning that now made the project non-conforming.
Comm. Di Monda asked who the architect was. Mr. Cleland replied that Patcowen was the
original architect of record, but had moved out of town and Jerry Compton was local and
had taken over for him .
Ruth Brand, 1231 First Street, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and dee la red
her opposition to the conversion on Qrounds that it contravened the intent and purpose of
City Council Ordinance No. 90-1044_i-City Council Resolution No. 90-5398·; and with three
owners it could, at some time, open tt1e City for possible litigation. She further stated
that the structure ·v·v·as over the 30 foot height limit; that Barney was a one-vvay street;
and regarding the in-lieu fees, the monies could be better used to make the structure
more compatible with the neighborhood, zoning, and S.P.A.
Wilma Burt, 1152 Seventh Street, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and
stressed her opposition to condominiums in a residential area, she stated that in
apartments a disruptive tenant could be forced to move but a disruptive 01;vner ,.-...·as there
forever. She continued the she was incensed that a staff member or a City Attorney
would suggest that a contribution could be made in exchange for a conversion .
12 P .C. Minutes 4/02/91
Comm. Rue asked if Mrs. Elurt knew of in-lieu fees for parking and Senior Citizen
housing? She replied that she did but did not approve of them.
Asst. City Attorney Lee explained that the in-lieu fees were specifically provided within
the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code and not a suggestion on any City official's part that
would characterize this es a bribe. That it is e section within the City code that allows
for conditional approval and considers in-lieu as an off setting factor to approving a
project where the Commission, in its discretion, would find otherwise unique advantages
and benefits to the community and provides that such offsetting factors would include,
but not be 1i mited to, the addition to the City or the donation to the City, or other pub 1 i c
agency or non-profit, of funds for permanent use of Senior Citizen, handicapped, or low
and moderate income persons; something that would go into a fund or account of the City
to provide housing for people in a category that require it. The in-lieu is allowed as an
offsetting factor.
Robert Benz, 2901 Manhattan avenue, Hermosa Beach_. addressed the Commission to ask if
there was a schedule for the in-lieu fees .
Asst. City Attorney Lee responded that there was no schedule, the City code said that the
number of said donated units or the amount of in-lieu ·v-rnuld be established by Resolution
of City Council consistent with the policies of the Hermosa Beach General Plan.
Director Schubach explained that the State had laws requiring all cities to provide a
certain amount of low and moderate income housing and in-lieu is one of the means by
which the state allows this to be done. If a condominium conversion displaces lm·v and
moderate income uses, the City can require, as a condition of the conversion, that some
units be set aside for low and moderate sale and rental. This was done when the
Commodore was converted, the in-lieu was required at that time as a means to off set
the soci a 1 i rnpact of the conversion.
-Asst. City Attorney Lee stated that i n-1 i eu was a prov1 s1 on of the code that the
Commission may look at as a relevant factor, to be regarded or not, at the discretion of
the Commission and in this case it has been offered by the developer as · a potential
offsetting factor. However, the payment of in-lieu, in no way, entitles the developer to a
higher density than that allowed by law.
Mr. Cleland finalized by saying that he was the one who had read of the in-Jieu fees and
sugge_sted their app Ji cation to staff, in order to off er somethl ng to the City beside town
homes. The reality is that there are three apartments on the site at this time,
conversion will not increase density or parking, and the City will have the benefit of a
higher tax base and the new ovvners will have the benefit of home ovmershlp rather than
renting,
13 P.C. Minutes 4/02/91
Public Hearing closed at 9:09 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz.
Comm. Pierce questioned tandem parking in an R-2 zone and asked if Barney and Meyer
Courts wou1d be considered a11eys or streets. Director Schubach responded they were
streets but he believed the parking was adequate.
Comm. Rue fe1t the project had been built to condominium specifications, the project
was on the ·1ow end of R-2 zoning at 16 dwe1lings per acre whereas R-1 a1lowed 13
dwellings per acre, that it fell in the buffer area of commercial at the bottom on Pacific
coast Highway and R-1 at the top of the hi 11, and f i na 11 y it was a unique project that
would not set a precedent.
PROPOSED MOTION by Comm. Rue for approval of the C.U.P . and Tentative Parcel Map
#20822 for a 3-unit condominium conversion died for lack of a second.
MOTION by Comm. Peirce, second by Comm. Di Monda to deny a Conditional Use Permit
and Tentative Parcel Map #20822 for a 3-unit condominium conversion and approve
Resolution P.C. 91-21.
AVES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Di Monda, Marks, Pierce, Chmn. Ketz
Comm. Rue
None
None
Chmn. Ketz stated that this decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed by
writing to the City Council within ten days.
The meeting recessed at 9:20 P.M.
The meeting reconvened at 9:29 P.M.
CUP 91-1 --CON_OITIONAL USE PERMIT TO SELL ADULT VIDEOS AND FOR OFF-
SALE GENERAL ALCOHOL IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN EXISTING MARKET ALREADY
LICENSED BY A.H_c __ AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENT AL NEGATIVE
DECLARATION AT 3127 MANHATTAN AVENUE, BOCCATffS GROCERIES
(CONTINUED FROM MARCH 5, 1991 MEETING)_
Director Schubach presented the staff report dated February 26, 1991, and recommended
that the Planning Commission approve the Conditional Use Permit subject to the
conditions contained in the proposed Resolution.
At the meeting of March 5, 1991 .. the applicant requested continuance of this item to
have more time for his attorney to study the issue. He also as~(ed that the portion of tt1e
14 P.C. Minutes 4/02/91
request pertaining to the sale of adult videos De dropped as he does not.. intend to sell
them.
The Planning Commission granted the request for continuance and directed staff and the
applicant to take a closer look at at the proposed trash enclosure requirement to
determine if it would cause the loss of a parking space.
The parking stalls are all 7' 6'' by 1 s· and the trash dumpster extends about four feet
from the wall, leaving only 2-3"' between the dumpster and the closest stall. Therefor, it
appears that a concrete block wall would not be practical as it would cause the loss of a
parking space; the only possible type of fence would be a narrow fence such as a chain
link with wooden slats, with the gate opening facing the sidev·n~lk. Staff continues to
recommend that the dumpster be enclosed as required by the Municipal Code.
All references to adult videos have been removed in the proposed Resolution as the
applicant has indicated he does not plan to sell such items.
Further, due to concerns of the applicant, staff has altered the wording of many of the
recommended conditions and removed some unnecessary conditions.
Public Hearing was opened at 9:34 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz.
Phll Freeland, 315 South Beverly Drive, Beverly Hills_. representing the applicant,
addressed the commission and presented a petition containing 82 signatures, all in favor
of Boccato·s Market, and that they were filing for this C.U.P. under protest.. ..... .
Robert Benz, 2901 Manhattan Avenue, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and,
speaking as a resident of North Hermosa, expressed his appreciation for the services that
were offered by Boccato·s Market: convenience; neighborhood store; cleanliness; 22 years
of service; and a delivery service to shut-ins. He continued that Mr. Boccato should not
ha Ye to apply for a C.U.P. after 22 years as a conscientious businessman since there were
no complaints about his store.
Wilma Burt, 1152 Seventh Street, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission to spealc in
favor of Boccato·s Market and Mr. Boccato, and to speak against the requirement forcing
him to apply for a C.U.P. She also questioned why the reference to adult videos V'tas on
the agenda, and felt that it gave the wrong impression. Chmn. Ketz explaine,j that adult
videos had been removed from the Reso 1 ut ion_. but it had been used in the 1 ega 1 noticing,
and the agenda uses the wording from the legal noticing.
Dennis Cleland, 434 -28th Street, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission to speak
in favor of Boccato·s Market and asked that nothing be done by the Commission that
would force Mr. Boccato out of business.
15 P.C. Minutes 4/02/91
Mr. Freeiand made his summary and comments on the sixteen ( 16) conditions in the
proposed Resolution:
# 1) was now de 1 eted;
#2) the hours of operation from 6 to 2 \'\1 ere acceptable as those were the
hours on the existing A.B.C . license;
#3) the conditions on the trash enclosure were unacceptable as (a) it
physi ca 11 y would not work as there is on 1 y 5" bet ween the dumpster and the parking
stall, barely enough room to open a car door, any infringement on that space would
eliminate the parking stall, and, (b) it would be ugly and provide no improvement to the
existing situation; and, should it become necessary, they intend to apply for a variance in
order to maintain the existing parking;
#4) would be acceptable as long as the issue is resolved regarding the
parking space;
#5) is a problem in acceptance since there has never been a problem with
customers at tt1is grocery store_. this type of condition applies to a bar where the
customers are drinking on the premises;
#6) is not acceptable because the signage is not required by the A.B.C. or the
existing A.B.C. 1icense; it would be cumbersome, impact on limited display space, and
obtrusive in the conduct of business;
#7) is unreasonab 1 e considering the continued number, content, comp 1 exi ty,
and scope of the impact of the condition being recommended; and, it infringes on Mr.
Bocatto·s personnel practices and has no impact on the proper operation of the business;
#8) is unacceptable, as tt1e phrase, " ... any changes to the interior for the
purpose of alter-ing the primary use of the market...", is ambiguous; it does not define
what t1r. Boccato can or cannot do in regard to interior remodeling vdthout City approval;
does it mean that the building can not be used for anything other than a mari~et without
prior approval through the C.U.P. process?; there are a number of legal use for the
building other than a market allowed in the C-1 zone that do not require a C.U .P. or City
approva 1. We ask that it be removed because of ambiguity;
#9) is overly broad and arbitrary and gives the City unfettered discretion
and unconstitutional authority to cite or revoke the C.U.P.; violations of the zoning or
Muni ci pa 1 code have definite pen a 1t i es attached if the person or business is proven
guilty; revocation of the C.U.P. must be based on reasonable grounds, not just any
violation; the condition is totally arbitrary and by agreeing to it (which is what is
required by this C.U.P.), Mr. Boccato is giving up basic Constitutionfll rights;
# 10) is redundant and the ref or unnecessary;
# 11) there is no problem complying with this condition as Boccato's Market
has always prided itself on cleanliness;
# 12) is pre-empted by State law; is not a requirement of the A.B.C. license;
is discriminatory; how a business packages any item should be a choice of the business;
has not been a problem therefor there is no justification for its requirement;
16 P.C. Minutes 4/02i91
-# 13) ts unacceptatlle, unless there ts agreement tly Mr. Bocatto tt1at tt1e
conditions are acceptatlle prior to the action to approve the C.U .P., if the conditions are
not accepted the C.U.P. cannot be approved;
# 14) object to recording an approved C.U .P., should that occur with
conditions agreed to by the applicant as that clouds the title to the land and creates a
cumbersome problem should the law change or be modified in the future; it puts
unnecessary and unreasonab 1 e burdens on the property owner;
#' 15) it is arbitrary and unreasonable that the Planning Com mission may
amend the P .U.C. or add nevv" condi t 1 ons to it; would not agree to such actions wi tt10ut a
public hearing and without agreement to such conditions or amendments; agreement with
this condition implies acceptance without any input, and as such is unacceptable; and,
# 16) as this may be challenged in court, they would not egree to
severnbi 1 i ty.
Mr. Freeland continued that they v1ere not applying for the C.U.P., but were being forced to
apply and strongly opposed the Commission's approval.
In response to Comm . Rue·s question of the possibility of smaller trash containers, Mr.
Freeland replied that there were hvo bins there at the present time and were used to
capacity, a 1 so, that there was no way to open the binds from the ends, they open from the
top .
.: In response to Comm . Marks question regarding space from parking stall, Mr. Freeland
replied U1at there was 5 inch clearance from the parking stall and the bin was
approximately 5 feet wide.
Comm. Peirce asked Mr. Freeland if Mr. Boccato intended to fight the condition requiring
the trash dumpster to be enclosed.
Mr. Freeland responded that he would not say that; he could only say that ft is impossible
to enc 1 ose the dumpster due to space restrictions, but Mr. Boccato \-voul d work with the
City staff to try to find a solution as long as it did not require losing a parking space .
Public Hearing closed at 9:58 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz .
Comm. Rue rep 1 i ed to the concerns expressed by Mr. Free 1 and regarding the conditions to
be imposed, he felt that #3, trash enclosure, \'\1 as a question of parking versus enclosure
and tl)at a compromise could be reached. He did not want Mr. Bocatto to lose a par-king
space, but he felt that a was the City's right to improve appearances from the street.
Regarding #5, he said that there was a proliferation of alcol1ol related businesses in
town and that to be even-handed the City reQuired C.U.P.s, w hich run vvith the land and
reQuire a new ovvner to abide with the conditions and provide continuity.
17 P.C. Minutes 4/02/91
The signs relating to alcohol are needed to try to keep alcohol use off of the beach and
the streets, Comm. Rue continued. If the use of the bullding is changed then the C.U.P. is
brought up and must be changed, and that vv"as the rational for the condHions on change of
floor plans. The City sign laws must be complied with, he stated, and clear packaging on
single containers was a means to address the problem of the pro Hf emf.ion of alcohol use
and a larger concern than the store's right to package as it chose. And, finally, regarding
recording the C.U.P., it runs with the land and as such is applicable, that all amendments
and revocation procedures were public hearings, were legally noticed, and needed
substantial findings.
MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Peirce to approve C.U.P. 91-1, with the
following chtmges: condition No. 1 is deleted; and condition No. 5 should be agreed to by
staff and the applicant with the understanding that it is the Commission's intent to
remove the vi si bi 1 i ty of the trash container from the street.
AVES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Di Monda, Marks, Pierce, Rue, Chmn. Ketz
None
None
None
Chmn. Ketz stated that this decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed by
writing to the City Council within ten days.
CUP 90-37/PA RK 90-9/PDP 90-10 --CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, PARKING
PLAN AND PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR AUTO HODY SHOP AND ADOPTION OF
AN ENVIRONMENT AL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 1081-85-87 AVIATION
BOULEVARD, EUROPEAN BODY SHOP (CONTINUED FROM FEBRUARY 19, 1991
MEETING)_
Director Schubach presented tt1e staff report dated March 28, 1991, anq recommended
that the Planning Commission approve the proposed C.U.P., P.D.P., and Parking Plan,
subject to conditions, including limiting the number of service bays to four (4) by
adopting the proposed Resolution. •
Since the last public hearing, the applicant has met with staff to discuss what
information was needed. Staff advised the applicant to obtain detailed specifications on
the spray booth ventilation and filtration system to be used; the overall building
ventilation and filtration system; and, to contact the Air Quality l'"lanagement District
(AQMD) to ensure compliance with all current standards.
Letters have been received from a spray booth company and the applicant's engineer
which provide specifications and details to show a spray booth and building ventilation
system will be installed and state that these meet or exceed the requirements of the
18 P.C. Minutes 4/02/91
AQMD. Further tt is noted that the ]imitations, contained in ruJe 1151, limit the types of
paints to those Jow nonvolatiJe organic compounds (V0C) which is stated to have no odor
impact.
Staff has contacted the AQMD engineer who worked with the appJicant's engineer and
verified that the proposed specifications appear to be more than adequate to meet their
requirements. Final verification can be provided to the City when the AQMD issues a
permit. Staff is recommending a condition that such verification be provided prior to
issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Further, staff is incorporating all the
recommendations contained in the letter as conditions of approval.
While the information provided shows a sincere effort on the part of the applicant to
meet or exceed all the standards of the AQt1D in terms of ventilation and the spray booth,
the Commission may not be fully satisfied that these standards are necessarily
appropriate in this case given the proximity of residential areas since AQMD standards
are the same whether or not the surrounding land uses include residences. The complete
enclosure within a bu11ding, however, is not always a requirement.
Responding to questions from Chmn. Ketz concerning the number of parking spaces,
Director Schubach said that all of the service bays inside would be counted as parking
spaces; that this business was not like the normal retail business where a customer
drove in, parked, made a purchase, and drove off; in a body shop the car was normally
handled by an employee and could, therefor, be parked inside while w•aiting for repair.
Public Hearing opened at 10:17 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz
Jim Marquez, 1860 So. Elena, Redondo Beach, representing the applicant, addressed the
Commission and said that at the 1 ast meeting they had been requested to return with
specific statistical data regarding the adequacy of the ventilation and filtration of the
spray booths and of the shop interior. In the interim, the!-1 had engaged a registered
~ ,
mechanical engineer, who speciaJized in ventilating and emission control, and_, had met
with representatives of the AQt1D, who stated that the spray booths to be provided for
the body shop met or exceeded their mini mum requirements.
Paul Phillips, 702 Strand, Hermosa Beach, also representing the applicant, addressed the
Commission and stated that originaJly they had proposed a sm1:1ller building, but fitter
meeting with staff, had enlarged the concept to ensure that all work was done inside.
There would be two employees and the owner working in the shop.
Abi Nabipur, of Cal Engineering, 1109 Towne Avenue, Los Angeles, representing U-1e
applicant, addressed the commission and stated that the painting v1as to be confined
within an approved spray paint booth, ·1,1~1ich is a self-contained e~<haust system capable
19 P.C. Minutes 4/02/91
of removing all airborne paint through its filters. He explained that the odor was caused
by the paint and when the minute paint particles were caught, the odor was removed.
In addition, Mr. Nabipur continued, a ventilation system would be installed in the shop
with additional filtration to catch exhaust fumes and any solvent. fumes. There would
also be warning sensors to determine when the filters needed to be changed, and only
environmentally harmless, AQMD approved paint would be used.
Responding to questions from Comm. Peirce concerning odors, Mr. Nabipur said that the
spray booth and the additional carbon filters would remove all odors. If there was a
question as to the effectiveness of the filtration, he stated that the exhaust system
could be tested at the discharge point of the building.
Mr. Marquez added that the AQMD had an enforcement arm and a 24 hour hotline that
encouraged residents to call with complaints.
Comm. Rue questioned the solvents used to dry paint as to odor and volatility, as 'tlell as
the possibility of an auto owner bringing in a special paint that was not approved by the
AQMD.
Mr. Nabipur responded that all products used, including primers and solvents had to be
approved by the AQMD, and that the new paints could match anything that had been used
before.
Director Schubach stated the reason a general filtration system was required for the
general shop was that small jobs might not be done in paint booths.
Responding to Comm. Rue·s question of why there is odor from existing shops_. Mr. Nabipur
replied there probably was no regulation when they started and therefor they did not
have the advanced filtration systems used today, which have 95% effective filters and
are used in hospitals to screen viruses.
Edie ~vebber, 1201 El even th Street, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Comrni ssi on and
requested that the City regulate the number of auto body shops allowed_. and questioned:
1) 'Nhat are the numbers for existing erni ssi ons?
2) how many body shops meet the criteria set by the AQMD for paints and
emissions?
3) how many use high volume/low pressure appHcation systems?
4) how many use closed containers for clothe and paper disposal?
5) how are these Hems disposed?
Showing a photograph of the intersection of Aviation Blvd. and Prospect Ave., Mrs.
Viebber stated that this intersection \Alas the fourth most dangerous in Hermosa Beach.
20 P .C. Mi nut es 4/02/91
With a volume of 38,800 cars per 24 hour period, there had been eight accldents in the
eleven month period from January 1, 1990 to November 30, 1990. The proposed auto body
shop would be the fourth in this four block area ( there are three existing shops), and it
would be located only 150 feet from this intersection_. Mrs. Y./ebber continued, and asked
that the request be denied.
Jim Rizzino .. Sixth Street .. Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission to request denial,
and questioned what monitoring was used to ensure compliance as fumes and odor were
evident now.
Dr. Bernard Winnaker, 1232 Corona Street, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and
di sp 1 ayed a photo showing that the proposed body shop would be 100 feet from his home
and stated:
1) the quality of his life would be jeopardized by up-wind effluents that could leak
from the shop;
2) the 5% of the particles that were not trapped by the filters would cause
degradation to the air he had to breathe; and,
3) concerned for health hazards since there was no assurance there would be no
contaminants, and urged denial of the project.
David Ling, 1130 and 1130 1 /2 Seventeenth Street, Hermosa Beach, addressed the
Commission and stated that he could sme1l paint from Pacific Coast Hwy. He added that
another body shop would not support the long term objective stated by the Planning
Commission to encourage home ownership in Hermosa Beach, since the pro1if eration of
body shops would not bring nev-t residents to the City.
In response to Mr. Ling·s question concerning changes to this proposal from European Body
Shop as opposed to their previously denied project, Director Schubach responded that
there need not be a change; if a certain amount -of time had elapsed, they could reapply;
but, this was different in size, equipment, and the scope of operations.
Mr. Ling continued, that the City needed to control the proliferation of body shops due to
the negative public hea 1th and safety image they created. Wi tt1out compliance from
existing shops, it was hard to determine what the impact of another shop would be,
tt,eref or he urged a moratorium until compliance is met.
Director Schubach responded that there was an Ordinance in effect that vvou1d require a
C.U.P .. for the existing shops within two years. That the AQMD did not require the
stringent measures that were required by the City for new shops, suct·1 as indoor
containment of a1l paint and priming. Currently the AQMD allowed one gal1on of paint to
be sprayed outside of the paint booth and that was were most of the priming was done.
The Fire Department does check to determine that the paint used by the shops is
acceptable to the AQMD.
21 P.C. Minutes 4/02/91
Maurice Bouday, 1203 Eieventh Street, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission to
display photos of the area, question the information obtained and speak of the problems
with existing body shops in the area.
Tanya Bouday, 1203 El even th Street, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and
questioned:
1) if the properties in the chemical emissions caused cancer?
2) what happened if the sensor ma 1 functioned?
3) how the disposable filters would be disposed?
4) urged denial of the proposal.
Comm. Peirce stated theat the Commission could do nothing about the conditions of the
existing body shops and suggested that the residents take their complaints to the City
Council.
Ray Martin, Corona Street, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and expressed
concern in regard to:
1) original plan had parking at nineteen spaces, now it appeared to be only
fourteen;
2) the ten foot setback to the residences in the rear did not appear to be adequate;
3) the term "state of the art" was vague;
4) the staff report said the size of the building Vy'as too large for the lot size _:
5) the AQt1D required identification of schools within 1,000 feet of the proposal,
the bilingual school on Prospect ·vvas 1/4 mile away;
6) the chemicals in paint may affect the health of the children that live in Urn area
on Eleventh Street;
7) the amount of paint that the AQMD allowed to be sprayed outdoors equaled 52
cars painted outside per day from the 13 body shops in Hermosa Beach;
8) other Cities only allow this type of business in light industrial z_ones; and,
9) European Body Shop has been "red tagged" for painting at their current location
for a year.
Eric Ling, Seventeenth Street, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission to say that he
has worked in auto paf nt shops and knows that the paf nt contaminates can not be
contained totally, the primer is usually applied outdoors, and he opposes the application.
Martin Moreno, 1326 Corona Street, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission to agree
with the other residents in opposition to the proposal, because he feels the City is
saturated with auto shops and there should be limits. The property is too small, the
street too dangerous, and the site too close to the residential zone. Mr. Moreno added
that he favored a moratorium and felt this business should be a in light industrial zone.
22 P.C. Minutes 4/02/91
Dr. Bernt ce u ndow, 1232 Corona Street, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Com mt sst on to
say that the Commission should be concerned with the health, safety, and beauty of
Hermosa Beach and this project improved none of these areas .
Al Hodges, 1020 Prospect Avenue, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission to express
the concern that the area was too crowded for another body shop.
Paul Phillips spoke in rebuttal by saying that this was not a new shop but the relocation
of an existing shop; they had enlarged the building to comply with the staff request to
contain all of their work indoors; they were the only ones who were offering a solution
to the problem; they had been directed by the City Council to reapply; and they were being
judged by the standards of the poorest examples of the body shops.
Abi Nabipur repHed that the only 100% filter was a cement block wall; the 95% filter
that they were proposing was used in hospitals; cancer studies had not shown a link with
paint fumes; and asked to let this project be a model for the other non-compliance shops.
Jim Marquez stated that this was not a high volume business, perhaps one or two cars a
day; and that no ott1er auto shop has been asked to meet these conditions, which met or
exceeded the AQMD standards .
The PubHc Hearing was closed at 11 :25 P.M. by Chmn . Ketz .
Comm . Rue asked if, at their present location between 5th and 6th Streets on Pacific
Coast Hwy., another body shop could come in and use the facility?
Director Schubach explained that European Body Shop was currently under the master
C.U.P., and as such were in non-compliance as the site was too small and much of the
work had to be done outdoors, therefor, it was unlikely that another shop could use the
site.
Comm. Peirce stated tr1at the applicant had answered the questions raised by the
Commission regarding the technical means of suppressing odors from spray painting, and
had redesigned the building to be in compliance with the work to be done, for those
reasons he supported appro,,al of t~1e project.
PROPOSED MOTION by Comm. Peirce to approve Resolution P.C. 90-37 died for lack of a
second.
MOTION by Comm Rue, seconded by Comm. Di Monda to deny Resolution P.C. 90-37 due to
the prolif eratlon of body shops in the area, the potential for fumes, the pro~<imlty to
heavy traffic, and concerns regarding parking and the use of work bays for auto storage .
23 P.C. Minutes 4/02/91
AVES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN :
ABSENT:
. Comms. Rue, Di Monda, Marks, Chmn. Ketz
Comm. Peirce
None
None
Chmn. Ketz stated that this decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed by
writing to the City Council \>Vithin ten days.
Chmn. Ketz stated that due to the lateness of the hour, all items from No. 15 would be
suspended to the meeting of April 16, 1991, if there was no objection from the
Commission. Hearing no objections, so ordered.
When questioned by audience members about the placement of Item No. 15 on the next
agenda, Director Schubach answered that there were three public hearings_. so it would be
the fourth i tern on the agenda.
NR 90-7 --NONCONFORMING REMODEL TO ALLOW GREATER THAN 50% INCREASE
IN VALUATION AT 349 29TH STREET_
Director Schubach presented the staff report and recommended approval of the request,
subject to conditions, by adopting the proposed Resolution.
The applicant is proposing a remodel and addiUon to an existing nonconforming duplex
and conversion of the duplex to a conforming single dwelling unit. Altt1ough this will
make the use conforming in terms of density requirements, the structure would still be a
nonconforming structure because the existing garage does not include a third guest
parking space, the turning radius is slightly deficient, and the existing building is
slight 1 y nonconforming to the rear and front yard requirements.
With the parking stall width of 10.75 feet, the turning radius requirement would be 19
feet, however due to the setback of 2.7 feet and substandard alley width of 15 feet the
turning area is only 17.7 feet. The nonconforming yard requirements are: rear yard, 2.7
rather than 3 feet; front yard , 4.5 rather than 5 feet; and the side yard is allov-table by
being within 10% of the requirement at 2.8 rat~rer than 3 feet.
The lot size is 2416 square feet in an R-2 zone with a General Plan designation of
medium density. The existing building size is 1398 square feet in two units (900 and 498
sq. ft. respectively); the proposed addition is 1050 square feet (remodel area of 1093 sq.
ft.) resu1ting in a house of 2448 square feet, with a proposed increase in valuation of
98.5%.
24 P.C. Minutes 4/02/91
Although section 13-7(b) 11mHs the amount of expansion for a nonconforming structure
to 50%, it also allows the Planning Commission to determine that the goals, and the
intent and purpose, of this article are being met, thereby allowing greater than 50%
expansion.
The applicant has stated that the lot coverage would be reduced to meet the 65%
maximum requirement, included as a condition in the proposed Resolution.
Other wise, the proposed building conforms to all remaining zoning and planning
requirements in terms of garage dimensions for existing structures, open space, and the
setbacks for the portion of the building being added. The applicant is proposing to bring
the use of the property into conformity with density requirements, and the existing
nonconformities are not particularly unusual or severe.
In response to a question regarding possible bootleg rental by Comm. Peirce, Director
Schubach answered that staff always examines remodels for that potential.
Public Hearing opened at 11 :50 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz.
Greg Grinnell, 349 29th Street, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission to explain
that the property had been purchased in 1982. The duplex was appealing since the rental
income allowed them to move into Hermosa Beach, they were prepared to remodel several
years ago, but were prevented by the moratorium and subsequent loss of duplex rental
income. They supported the zoning and code changes by the City.
Responding to a question on the elevations by Comm. Di Monda, Mr. Grinnell stated that
the exteriors were stucco 'Nith 'Nood 'Nindows.
Public Hearing was closed at 11 :53 P.M. by Chmn.-Ketz
MOTION by Comm. Di Monda, second by Comm. Peirce., to approve Resolution P.C. 91-25.
AVES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Di Monda, Peirce, Marks, Rue, Chmn. Ketz
None
None
None
COMMISSIONER ITEMS
Comm. Peirce referred to the photo of the body shops in the Aviation/ Prospect area and
noted that the fence on tt1e souttn•vest corner did not obscure visibility of the wrecked
cars from the street. He requested that enforcement of the body shop compliance with
25 P.C. Minutes 4/02/91
the code be given a higher priority as that condition had not changed for at ieast eight
months .
Director Schubach explained that it was a lengthy process, including two noncompliance
letters, schedu1ing wHh the CHy Prosecutor's office, and enforcement of complaints by
the Building Department.
MOTION by Comm . Rue , seconded by Comm. Peirce, to adjourn at 11:58 P.M. No objection;
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 April 2, 199 t.
0vJ--AO ~ rc=-s 011 -L
Christine Ketz, Chairman Michael Schubach, Secretary
Date
26 P.C. Minutes 4/02/91