HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC_Minutes_1991_04_16MI NU 11:.!:> Ut-I HI:. PL ANN I Nli L:UMM I!:>!:> I UN Ml:.1:.1 I Nli Ut-I HI:. L: 11 Y Ut-Hl:.~MU!:>A
BEACH HELD ON APRIL 16, 1991, AT 7:00 P.M. IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL
CHAMBERS
Meeting called to order at 7:00 P.M .. by Chmn. Ketz
Pledge of Allegiance led by Comm. Rue.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Absent:
Al so Present:
Comms. Di Monda, Marks_. Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ketz
None
Michael Sct1ubach_. Planning Director;
Edv·rnrd Lee_. Assistant City Attorney_:
Naoma Val des_. Recording Secretary
CONSENT CALENDAR
MOTION by Cornm. Rue_. seconded by Comm. Di Monda, to approve the minutes as amende,j
and the ba I a nee of the f o 11 owi n!J consent ca I endar i terns as presented.
Planning Commission minutes of April 02_. 1991 as amended by Comm. Di Monda on page
11, paragraph four to read_, " .... J1r. Cleland replied that at U-1e time the project was
started, three years ago,. ...... and on page 12, paragraph five to read, " ... Mr. Cleland replied
that Pat Ki ll an was the original architect.. .. ".
Resolution P.C. 91-17. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITV OF
HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DENYING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, PRECISE
DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND PARKING PLAN FOR AN AUTO BODV REPAIR AND PAINTING
ESTABLISHMENT AT l 081 -1087 AVIATION BOULEVARD .. LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS 49
AND 50, AND THE SOUTHERLV 58 FEET OF LOTS 47 AND 48. HERMOSA HEIGHTS TRACT.
Resolution P.C. 91-19. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITV OF
HERt10SA BEACH, CALIFORNIA_, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW OFF-
SALE GENERAL ALCOHOL AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION
FOR 3127 MANHA TT AN AVENUE, BOCCATO'S GROCER I ES, AND LEGALL V DES CR I BED AS THE
EASTERL V 20. 15 FEET OF LOT 12 AND LOT 14, BLOCK 104, SHAKESPEARE TRACT.
Resolution P.C. 91-21. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DENVING A REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, AND
P.C. Minutes 4/ 16/91
TENTATIVE PARCEL f'1AP '20822, FOR A 3-UNIT CONDOMINIU~-1 CONVERSION PROJECT AT
23 BARNE\' COURT, LEGALL\' DESCRIBED AS LOT 24, TRAFTON HEIGHTS TRACT.
Resolution P. C. 91-23. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITV OF
HERl'"10SA BEACH, CALIFORNIA_. APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT_. VESTING
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #22892 AND PRECISE DEVELOPl1ENT PLAN FOR A 2-UNIT
CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 1639 PROSPECT AVENUE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 11 , J. 11.
FLORES SUBDl\i'ISION.
Resolution P. C. 91-24. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING C0~1MISSION OF THE CITV OF
HERMOSA BEACH_. CALIFORNIA_. TO AMEND THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN EXISTING
RESTAURANT 'w'ITH BEER AND WINE SERVICE TO ALLOW A SPECIAL EVENT FOR BENEFIT
PURPOSES (ANNIVERSARY PARTY) ON APRIL 14, 1991, AND CONTINUING ON AN ANNUAL
BASIS, SUBJECT TO PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL , IN THE OUTDOOR COURTVARD AT
934 HERMOSA AVENUE.. CAL I FORNI A BEACH REST AURA NT, AND LEGALL V DES CR I BED AS
LOTS 27, 28, 29_. AND 30, TRACT 1564.
Resolution P. C. 91-25. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COt1MISSION OF THE CITV OF
HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A RH)UEST FOR AN EXCEPTION FROl"l SECTION
13-7(6) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO ALLOVv' AN ADDITION TO AN EXIST ING
NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE TO EXCEED 50% OF REPLACEMENT VALUE AT 239 29TH
STREET, AND LEGALL I/ DESCRIBED AS LOT 37, BLOCK 115, SHAKESPEARE TRACT.
AVES: Comms. Di Monda, t1arks, Pierce, Rue, Chmn. Ketz
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUHL IC
Jim Rosenberger, 1121 Bay vi evt Ori ve, addressed the Cammi ssi on and urged the Planning
Cammi ssi on members to attend the City Council meeting of Tuesday, April 23, 1991 _.
because the Council is scheduled to discuss four or more ballot propositions dealing V·titt1
height and land use issues. He stresse,j that this ''1-lc!S not a public hearing; the Council
was ready to act and put these. measures on the ballot.
Director Schubach responded to Commission questions by statir11~ that he did not kno1,-v if
the Council ·vvouM vote to put these items on the ballot at the next rneetin!J, but staff had
been instructed to prepare the language and the Ordinance form for discussion . The
issues were hvo mandatory height limits for R-2, R-3, and Commercial zones, and
P .C. t1i nut.es 4/ 16/91
advisory measures for housing standards and iand use, such as stringiine averaging
setbac~~s.
The Housing Improvement Program had been put on hold by the Counci1 until they had a
vote of the people _. explained Director Schubach. Information on these issues would be
avai1able Thursday evening when the Council packets were distributed and at that time
copies 'vvould be made available for the Planning Commission.
CUP 91-7 --CONDITIO NAL USE PERM IT FOR AN EX I ST I N6 DR I VE-THRU
RESTAURANT AT 1107 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, WIENERSCHNITZEl
RESTAURANT_
Director Schubach e~<plained that Wienerschnitzel submitted an application for a C.U.P. in
response to a letter sent by tt·1e city as part of the amortization program for uses that
require C.U.P.'s that preexisted before the requirement. C.U .P.'s are required for drive-
through or take-out restaurants and no record of a C.U.P. 'ft'as found at u-1e time the
letters were sent.
It was recently discovered, however, that the sub_iect restaurant already has an active
C.U .P., granted in 1973. As such , a new C.U.P. is not necessary. The entire submittal fee
wil 1 be refunded to Wi enerschnitze I.
MOTION to receive and file vv·as so ordered by Chrnn. Ketz vv·ith the consensus of the
Cammi ssi on .
CON 90-22 --CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP
#22560 FOR A 2-UNIT CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION AT 544 & 546 25th STREET
(CONTINUED FROM 2/ 19, 3/ 19. AND 4/02 MEETINGS)
Director Schubach presented the staff report dated April 11, 1991, and recommended
approval of the requested conditional use permit and tentative map subject to the
conditions in the proposed resolution of approval.
At the meeting of April 2, 1991, the Planning Cornm1ssion again continued this request to
enable staff to confer •with the Attorney to determine if an acceptable method of
guaranteeing the improvements of the front unit, in lieu of actua1ly completing the
improvements prior to the final map approval _. could be accomplished .
A meeting vv·as held \·Vith staff, the applicant, an official from a performance bond
company, and the City Attorney to discuss the matter. Although it \•11as never verified
that this method has been used in other locations to guarantee on-site improvements, the
3 P.C. Minutes 4/ 16/91
City Attorney was satisfied that the City v1oul d be adequately protected vv•ith a
performance bond.
The perf orrnance bond would only be acceptable, however, if a temporary construction
easement is granted to the City in the chance the applicant would det"ault on the
guarantee, and as such the City, or its designee, could enter upon the property to
complete the improvements.
As such, a condition is being included to require either the completion of the remodeling,
as shown on the plans, and to address the deficiencies noted in the building inspection
report prior to approval of a final map, or, that the applicant guarantee seiid
improvements with a completion bond in an amount of $75,000 dollars and the
recordation of a temporary construction easement, both of which to be in a form
satisfactory to the City Attorney.
In response to a question from Chmn. Ketz, Asst. City Attorney Lee stated that his office
vv·as satisfied that the performance bond, at one and one half times the estimated value
of the improvements, together ·•,'\1 ith the temporary construction easement, that would
a1'o'.¥ the City to go onto the property and complete the improvements in case. of default
by the appellant, were acceptable and would be sufficient to secure the City·s position to
insure completion even tr,ough the Final Parcel Map had been approved. The conditions
within the proposed Resolution were acceptable to the City Attorney's office as
reviewed.
Comm. Di Monda as~~ed if there \,.las a ti me limit to the project?
Asst. City Attorney Lee answered that there \¥as no negotiated time limit, but one could
be provided in the construction easement if the Commission desired. And, he pointed out
that the bond was at the developer's risk.
Director Schubach added there V\"as a two year time limit on the Conditional Use Permit.
Comm. Di t·1onda questioned if there were a more accurate method of estimating Urn
construction cost, such as seeing the actual contract.
Chmn. Ketz wished to allow the appellant to respond.
Pub He Hearing opened at 7: 15 P.ft by Chmn. Ketz.
Ron Hobbs, 544 25th Street, Hermosa Beach, a partner in the project, addressed tt-1e
Corn mission and stated that at the meeting with Di rector-~;chubach, Asst. City At tornew
Lee .. and the representative from Urn bonding company, the City's main concern was \•Vith
the Condominium Code, new tt,inqs and chanqes that ha,j been acMed. since u·,e house was
~ -.
4 P.C. Minutes 4/ 16/91
buiit, and \.I/hat improvements couid be done so that the house would comply with the
Code now . The major problem was ttrn bids that he was getting encompassed everything:
kitchen cabinets, bathtubs, toilets, and other items that ,,vere of no concern to the City .
Therefor tt1e bids would not be accurate for the City's needs. for this reason , it was
decided that the Building Department make the estimate and add a 50% contingency
factor.
Comm . Marks asked how the figure of $50_,000 had been determined if there were no
specifics on what had to be done, and questioned if there 'vvere plans.
Mr. Hobbs responded that the items had been specified in the actual physical inspection
and that he had plans which had been approved by the Building Department. He continued
that bids on the actual improvements would have been abstract bids and not accurate for
the City.
Di rector Schubact1 explained that the City felt more comfortable with the estimates
from tt1e Building Department as that department had the construction knovv·l edge, cost
figures and expertise; and was not as likely to make a low bid, therefor the estimate
\Atould tre more accurate.
Comm. Marks asked if inflation hao been considered .
Asst. City Attorney Lee stated that there ·vvas a line itemization of the improvements_: it
was part of the housing inspection report; it was Y.lithin the documents provided to the
Building Director and used as a basis for his estimate. He continued that the 50% factor
was to guard against inflation or contingencies .
Mr. Hobbs finalized by saying that he felt the City was protected ·with the performance
bond and urged the Commi ss1 on to approve the pro J ect.
Public Hearing ·was closed at 7:22 P.M . by Chrnn. Ket.z.
In response to Comm. t1arks question of 'flt1ether this type of contract had been done
before in Hermosa Beach, Asst. City Attorney Lee answered that he had prepared
temporary construction easements before that allovfed City forces to go on private
property, but it was unusual for the City to bond for on-site improvements; however, in
this case the City was requiring certain 1mprovements to be performed as a condition for
the conversion of the duplex to a condominium, and he v·rns comfortable that this was an
acceptable arrangement.
MOTION by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by Comm. Peirce to approve the staff
recommendation and approve P. C. Resolution 91-22.
5 P.C. Minutes 4/ 16/91
AVES:
NOES:
Comms. 01 t1onda, Pierce, Rue, Chmn . Ketz
Comm. Marks
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
Chmn. Ketz stated that this decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed by
writing to the City Counci 1 \•Vi thin ten days.
CUP 90-29 --CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ON -SALE GENERAL ALCOHOL,
ENTERTAINME NT AND DANCING, AN D ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONME NT AL
NEGATIVE DECLARAT I ON AT 30 PIER AVENUE, LIGHTHOUSE CAFE (CONTI NUED
FROM JANUARY 15, 1991 MEETING).
Director Schubach presented the staff report dated April 11, 1991, and recommended
approval of the Conditional Use Permit, subject to the conditions contained in the
proposed Resolution.
Si nee the 1 ast meeting of January 15, 1 991 , the app 11 cant has olJtai ned the adv1 ce of an
audio expert .. David Covelli, headmaster of audio for the Ahmanson Theatre in regard to
sound levels and conttiinment. t1r. Covelli has made the following recommen,jations .
To contain mid and high frequencies:
1) "Dutch" door 'v'v'est of the main entrance must be sealed inside and out with
weather stripping;
2) replace e~:isting front window with double pane tempered glass_:
3) main P.A . cabinets should be focused from the north and south ends of the
room, tilted do·-rm toward t11e seating areas.
To contain the l ov•rnr frequencies:
l) completel~J eliminate the lov•ter freQuencies from the main cabinets;
2) repair, block-in, and seal the sk!Jlights_:
3) replace crncked panes of glass;
4) r-ecaulk existing panes of glass;
5) ltne u·,e towers below t~,e sl(yli1~hts with velour curtains;
6) l eave the e;<haust fan on at all times; and,
7) instan a sound absorbant deflector bm1rd directly below H1e
exhaust fan on south end of the room.
In response to staff's inquiry regarding the applicant's plans to implement tt1e proposed
corrections, the applicant hes state,j that the4 plan to irnplement all recomrnen,jations , ·-.
have completed some and v1i1l complete tt1e remainder within 30 days.
A letter from Ms. Carol Rober-ts, regional manager for Hennessey·s Tavern, Inc., indicates
that the business is more closely monitoring the volume levels of the performing bands,
6 P .C. Minutes 4/ 16/91
and has improved the voiurne monitoring equipment. ~ne aiso stated that they have even
banned t\-vo live bands that were reluctant to keep the volumes down.
The Police Department indicates that no complaints have been received so far this year
regarding noise, and that the Dusi ness has been managed properly and kept under contro 1.
However, it was noted that the past 3-4 months is the slow part of the season, and the
real test as to vvhether or not noise and other issues will be a problem \-Vill be in the
upcorni n!1 summer months.
In regard to the conditions of approval, Director Schubach continued, staff t1as modified
the recommended conditions to specifically require that these proposed improvements be
made to address noise concerns and completed within 60 da~s. The remaininQ
~ ~
recommended conditions essent i a 11 y remain except:
The previous recommendation to require air-conditioning has been removed in
recognition of the acoustical w·ork being done and the app Ii cants i ndi cation that
air flo·vv is not a problem . However, staff still believes that the use of air
conditioning would be advantageous as there will always be temptat1on to open
doors and \"lindows ·tthen large crowds are present on hot days or evenings.
Further, the hours of operation were an issue brought up by the applicant at the
last meeting. Although the applicant has requested unrestricted hours, staff is
no\•V recornmendi ng restrictions si mi 1 ar to those imposed by the City Counci 1 on
Hennessey's: weekdays from 7:00 P.t1. to 1 :30 A.M._; weetends and holidays from
2:00 P.M. to 1 :30 A.M.
Also, staff has modified condition No. 14 to read that an orderly waiting line and
doorman be required only for the front door, and that the rear door shall not be
used as an entrance, at the applicant's request.
In regard to previous condition No. 19_. \,'y"hich was recommending requiring food
service from 11:00 A.M. to 10:00 PJ1._. the applicant noted Urnt the business is open
for breakfast on weekends and that food service is ahva~s available in the
summer. Staff has eliminated the condition as food service does not have to be
required since this is a bar. As far as the operation of the bar is concerned_. the
hours are unrestricted and only subject to State Low.
Staff is satisfied that the proposed irnprovernents, if accomplished in accordance wHh
the directions given by Mr. Cove 11 i .. vvi 11 serve to reduce the noise i rnpact. Whether or not
the noise Vv"ill be re1juced to levels that wouM meet tt1e noise ordinance will be subject
to testing in the future.
Public Hearing opened at 7:26 P.M. by ctrnm. f<etz.
7 P.C. Minutes 4/ 16/91
Paul Hennessey, owner of the Lighthouse, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and
stated that everything \,•vas proceeding on schedule_. he felt that the improvements could
be completed within 30 days, but he v-1as grateful the staff had recommended 60 day
completion in case of somethinq unexpected.
Mr. Hennessey requested unrestricted hours of entertainment. He stated that there ,,vas a
40 year history of jazz entertainment at the Lighthouse, throughout U-1ose 40 years there
had never been restrictions on the hours of entertainment _. and it Yv·oul d be very difficult
if restrictions vvere imposed on breakfast music, morning auditions or fundraisers
starting in the morning hours .
Comm. Rue questioned if there could be a compromise that would limit the number of
musicians or the volume of noise during certain hours.
Mr. Hennessey replied U-1at v•10ul ct be f1 ne vvith hi rn as they norma 11 y only had a trio in for
lunch entertainment, but sornetirnes the group would have a friend sit in with them or
have someone audition wiU-1 them_. therefor it '•Nas very difficult to limit the size
abso 1 ute l y.
In response to a question from Comm. ~~ue _. Director Schubach agreed that the primary
concern of staff was with the noise issues_. and the type of attraction had a great deal to
do w·ith the amount of noise. For example a piano player did not create the same noise
l eve 1 that a 1 ar-ge band created.
Comm. Marks Questioned the e>~pertise of Davi1j Covelli, if he \•Vas an acoustic en!Jineer,
what studies he had done to determine his recommendations'? \
t'lr. Hennessey said that he could not ansvv·er any technical questions; onl!d that Mr. Covelli
had done sound checks for l\'vo days; had played the music and taken readings within the
building, the results of ··Nhich t·1ad been submitted to the Planning Department.
Director Sctmbach responded that r,e was satisfied \•Vith the recommendations submitted
by Mr. Covelli as tt1ey \Nere almost identical to the recommendations submitted by
another acoustic engineer for a business nearb!J that had been successful. But, the Cit~d
st i 11 t·,ad its noise Ordinance for contro 1 and if the design didn't work to reduce the noise
levels, the o·vvner coul1j be cited and required to make additional improvements .
In response to Comm. Marks question of hm•v Mr. Cove 1l i would work, if he \•voul ct corne
back and ta~:e readings to ensure that the noise vvas contained; Mr. Hennessey replied U-,at
he had not considered that far in advance, tiut he assumed that reacti ngs woul 1j be ta~(en
after everynii ng was completed, and if the improvements were not enough to contain the
B P.C. Minutes 4/ 16/91
sound to an accept ab i e i eve i, then more recommendations vv·ou id be rnade. t1r. Hennessey
stated that he ··..vas \Alilling to do whatever it takes to compl!d-
Comm. Marks questioned the time frame for completion and v•rns told by t-1r. Hennessey
that work was approximately half done, with the more expensive double paned glass and
skylight repair still to be done, but he was confident that it v·tould be completed within
30 days.
Comm. Rue asked if the dllapidated roof sign could tie restored, since it had been there
for a long time.
Mr. Hennessey replied that he hoped to restore the sign, already had one bid and had
someone working on it.
Public Hearing closed at 7:38 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz .
Comm. Rue commented on the unrestricted hours tr,at had been requested by Mr-.
Hennessey, to say that he felt 1f the music is contained, it didn't make any ,jifference
\•vhen the entertainment starts because the hours of ooerntion for the bar \·Vere not
within the Commission's jurisdiction. He continued by saying that exceptions had been
made before for o 1 der es tab Ii shments such as the rylerrnai d_. and tie, personal 1 y, did not
have a prob 1 em with unrestricted t·1otJrs. He then questioned Di rector Schubach regarding
condition 4D to ask how· much time \•Vas given to correct the sound if measurements
taken confirmed that the sound vv·as not contained to allowable levels?
Director Schubach said that they gave an initial warning letter, then a second ·warning,
then the!J i ssuect a citation. The entire process of two 1 etters and a citation coul ct take
between one to three months depending on the work load of staff.
Comm. Rue questioned staff regarding condition I OA, the roof sign, saying that is was
very small, had historical significance, and he ·vvould like to see it restored.
Director Sctrntrnch replied tt1at he would have to read tt"1e siw1 Ordinance, as si!Jns 'Nere
administered through tt1e Building Department, to determine 1f it were possible to keep
the sign, since there now were provisions regarding roof signs and most roof signs \•Vere
no J anger permitted.
In response to Comm. Rue·s question of the finding of historical value to the roof sign as
an overriding factor, Director Schubach stated that it ·vvould not make a difference at
tt1is time. ScJ,ubach continued that a text amendment 'NOuld t·,ave to t,e prepared that
dealt with historical values, and although signs had not been considered , such an
amendment vvas being considered as part of tt1e land use element in regard to structures.
9 P.C. Minutes 4/ 16/91
Director sct1uoach also mentioned that tr1e cay has something in the recently passed
non-conforming Ordinance concerning historical buildings, but it didn't say anything
i:1bout signs.
Comm. Rue commented that ttl1s may be the only sign in tov•m that has been up this long.
Comm. Peirce expressed his opinion regarding the hours of operation, the amtdent noise
level outside is less in the morning and early afternoon hours than in the evening, due to
traffic and more business in the eveninqs, therefor he felt it would be appropriate to
a1lov,1 operation in the mornings with restricted use .. such as unamplified music \•Vith no
more than three members to a band.
Chmn. Ketz stated that she was more concerned with noise than the hours of operation_:
st·1e f e 1t if the sound were contained 'vVithi n the building and met the noise Ordinance,
then there should be no restrictions.
A brief discussion ensued in order to clarify the \•vording for the changes to tt1e proposed
Resolution
MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Chrnn. Ketz to approve P.C. Resolution 91-8, changing
condition No. 1 to read, 'The hours for live entertainment shall be unrestricted. A)
exceptions to the above are: 1) starting hours for live entertainment shall be 8:00 A.M.,
throughout the week.; 2) closing hours for live entertainment shall be 1:30 AJ-l ,
throughout the "vveek; and, 3) a maxi rnum a three entertainers sha 11 be a 11 ov•ted behveen
the hours of 8:00 A.t1. and 11:00 A.M., tt1roughout the vvee~(.", an1j amending condition No.
1 OA to read_. "The roof sign shall be removed, or restored if still in compliance V·tith the
City sign Ordinance.".
AVES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Di Monda, Marks, Rue, Chmn. Ketz
Peirce
None
None
Mr. Hennessey stepped forward to thank the Commission and say that he intended to
complete the \•York \'\1 ithin 30 da~dS, with the exception of the roof sign which could take
longer. Director Schubach replied that would be no problem.
Ctunn . Ketz stated that this decision of the Planning Commission may t,e appealed by
writing to U1e City Council within ten days.
The meeting recessed at 7:53 PJ1., in order to allow the Public Vlorks Departrnent to set
up equipment for its presentation.
10 P.C. Minutes 4/ 16/9 t
The meeting reconvened at 8:05 P.M.
P-10 --VEHICLE PARKING ON PEDESTRIAN WALK STREETS .
Chmn . Ketz declared a potential conflict of interest due to living in the stud~d area_. and
asked Asst. City Attorney Lee to express an opinion .
Asst. Citw Attornew Lee stated that Chmn. Ketz had advised him that she owns propertw
~ ~ -·
that is directly affected by this decision; under the Political Reform Act and the
regulations of the Fair Political Practices Committee there is a presumption of a
material affect upon the financial interests of Ct1mn. Ketz unless the decision that is
reached would be the same for the public generally_: given the fact that the number of
parcels represent less than 10% of the City area, our opinion is there is a materifJl affect
and Chmn. Ketz should not participate.
At this time_. Chmn. Ketz turned the meeting over to Vice Chairman Peirce; left Urn ,jais_:
and 1 ef t tt1e room.
V. Chmn . Peirce requested a staff report.
Director Schubach said that the major presentation would be !Jiven by Lynn Terry, Deputy
City Engineer, for the Public Works Department, stwwing the problem the City had with
encroactur,ent parking on City owned easements along the east and west side of Beach
Drive . He continued by suggesting two possible recommendations from staff:
1) use a conditional vacation method to return the unused City land to the public;
or,
2) an encroachment permit process as currently used .
The biggest concern for the City, affecting many areas other than the walk streets_. ''1°'18S
the question of liability. Since it was City property that was being used, the City would
be ultimately liable if someone were injured. •
Vlt1en an encroachrnent permit is issued, tt1e City requires insurance. If this method is
used ior all the parcels oi City o'fmed land no 1N being used by adjacent homeowners,
there could be over 1 _.000 encroachment permits_. each 'l'lith an insurance policy , to
administer and maintain.
Director Schubach suggested that tonight tt1e Comrnission might wish to nsrrow the
issue to U1e parking problern on the east and \•Vest sides of Beach Drive _, and if time
permitted, discuss how to implement the vacation or encroachment permit question. He
felt that if tt1e Commission v·tished to look at some of the other areas of the City, the
best decision would be to continue the matter and as~( for a more thorougt1 analysis .
1 1 P.C. Minutes 4/ 16/91
V. Chmn. Peirce as~rnd U-1e commlssion if there \·vas concurrence to decide on ttrn land use
on Beach Drive tonigt1t, then focus on the implementation ff time pet-mitted.
Lynn Terry, of the Hermosa Beach Public Works Department, began the presentation with
the use of a slide projector and st.ate,j the information was being given to assist the
Planning Commission to review and determine ho·vv best to stwjy the issue.
Mr. Terry gave background by saying the City Manager's office has received a nurnber of
complaints about pat-king along the walk streets. The City Manager has also received
complaints about vet1icles parking in "vvhat appears to be "front yards" but is really public
right-of-w·ay. On August 14, 1990, the City Council authorized staff and the Planning
Cornmi ssi on to review the City's Ordinances and enforcement of parking v-tithi n the
setback area, with the intent to prohibit such parking.
Pedestrian -...va 1 k streets -...vi tt-li n the City of Hermosa Beach, 1Nhere vehi c 1 e parking is
possible in U-1e public right-of-·Y"v·ay, for tt1e most part are those east-west streets
located v•test of Hermosa Avenue and east of the Strand.
The majority of these public streets are sixty feet in 'Nidth. Hov•,iever, only the center
sixteen feet of tlie street right-of-v-1a~J is paved witli concrete. The remaining right-of-
way width is equally divided \¥ith twenty tv...-o feet of public right-of-wa~d t:i"long each
side of the walk street. Thls is the area where it is currently possible to park up to 200
vehicles and that the Commission will be reviewing.
In response to a question from Comm Marks, Mr. Terry said that no cars had City
permission to park on t~1e public right-of-way.
Starting with the General Plan, Mr. Terry continued v·tith his analysis by exple1ining the
Open Space Element. The underlying philosoph~d of the Open Space an,j Conservation
Element is to preserve and enhance the existin~ green areas, and to increase the total
~ ~
open space areas ·within possible financial ability. •
Streets comprise nearl!J one third of u-ie City's area, and considering the small size of
private lots and minimal yards, these streets provide much of the "elbow room" \AfHhin
the community. For this reason, these streets should not only be preserved but developed
for maximum impact as green areas of liln,jscaped ribbons throughout the City.
The stated qoals and policies of the Open Space Element are:
1) To obtain and preserve open spaces 'ftithin the City 1 imits of Hermosa Beach_.
sufficient to provide for anticipated needs of both present and future residents.
2) To obtain, preserve, and entrnnce green areas, such as strnet landscape strips,
mini-parks and par~=:ways as being necessary to the health and well being of the
cornrnuni tl-J.
12 P.C . Minutes 4/ 16/91
3} To provide room for, and adequate protection of, bikev·mys, pedestrian routes
and trai Is.
4) To provide for the retention and further beautification of streets as open
spaces, and to encournge further use of same as pedestrian walkways, malls and
plazas_ Streets_. 'v'v'hen closed for vv·hatever reason_. should be retained where.
practical and used for shopping ma1ls_. where zoning is appropriate or part of the
bicycling and '-l-ialkway system.
5) An!-! street not currentl!-1 needed for vehicular access rna!-1 be landscaped and
~ .. ~
used as t1i eye le and/ or pedestrian v·.iays.
The Circulation Element approved by the Cit!d Council on August 14_. 1990_. includes a City
Policy that states, "The Cit!J shall maintain its system of walk streets which
contributes to neighborhood identity an,j cohesiveness and near the beach provides a safe
and attractive access s4stem for pedestrians, which is part i cul iWI 4 important for
~ ~
children, handicapped and seniors. These 1nalk street areas shall be landscaped and
lfgMed and also designated as open space"_
t1r. Terry read City Code Section 19-6 l(b), which states, "No operntor of any ·-1e~1icle
shall stop_, stand, park or leave standing such vehicle ... \•Vithin any park'.-vay". A Parkv,,ay is
defined as, 'That portion of a street other than a roadway or a sidewalk"_ Section 29-
38(2)(d) states, "Parking of driving on wa 1 k streets is strict 1 y prot1i bited".
Mr. Terry explained that there is a total of t\-venty five \•Valk streets in the City. Of this
number, there are si::< vvalk streets that can only be used by pedestrians and those \·Valk
streets \•Vi ll not be 1ji scussed further.
There is a total of 568 private properties tr,at face or have frontage on the v·rnlk streets
within the study area. t1r. Terry said the majority of those private properties t1ave
fenced off the public right-of-v•11:1y and use that hmd as a pert of their front !Jaros.
However_, onl~J a fev,, of these property o•,,vners have a City permit to use the public Jani::!.
Most of the property O'•Nners do not have permission from the City or' insurance that
protects the City from claims that could occur from within the enclosed public right-of
way. Of the 568 properties along the waif( streets and on the Strand, U1e total number
that do not park on the public right-of-vvay are 517 (or 91 %), leaving 51 properties (or
9%) that use the public right-of-way for parking. Of the 51 properties, 19 are on the
eflst side of Bettch Drive and have vehicles parked in what would be consiijered the front
yard _. and 32 are on the west (or Strand) side of Beach Drive and park in vv·hat would be
considered their side yard.
Mr. T err!J detailed u-,e nurntier of 1 ocat ions v1here parking is possi b 1 e or occurring by
saying there is a total of 69 locations vv·here the parking of vehicles on the public \·VaH(
street rig~1t-of-··Nay is possible. Of that number_. 1 B property ov·mers have fenced or
bloci(ed off the public right-of-v·niy so ttrnt vehicles can not be parke,j at u-,at location_
13 P .C. t1i nutes 4/ 16/91
At the remaining 51 locations, vet1ic1es are parked on tt1e v,·aJk street public right-of-
v·tay, resulting in appro>{imately 200 parking spaces. All of these properties have
garages on a public assess at the rear of the property. That is the only area '.·Yhere
vehicles should be allowed access to the propertq_
t1r. Terry showed slides of the proper-ties using public street right-of-way for their
private additional parking area.
Tt1e concerns of the City were Ii sted as:
1) Liability is a concern because at locations ·where parl<ing is occurring them is
no private insurance that protects the City. If someone \•Vl'IS hurt \•Vi thin the 22
feet of public right-of-way, the City could be sued as the owner of the property.
\•\''ith encroachment permits, a $500,000 policy, naming the City as additional
insured is required.
2) Some of tt,e adjacent private property owners have installed gates or chains on
Beach Drive along ttrn edge of the street pavement, at the access to the public
property, and do not allovv· the publlc to use the public right-of-'Nay.
3) Some of the ad_tacent private property owners have placed signs on n,e public .
rigM-of-\•vay stating u,at all oU,ers v·tho park u,ere 'Nill be tovted fl'Nay. Ho'Never.,
the land is public ri!~ht-of-way and only the City can have a vehicle tov•1ed a·we~J
from public right-of-way.
4) The staff has been told that some of the adiacent private propertw owners rent . ~
out parking spaces ·vvithin the public right-of-\•vay during the summer and even
year round. This activity is not approved or ackno··Nledged by tt1e City. n-ie
adjacent property O\•vner also keeps the parking income for their private use 1f this
action is ta}zing place.
5) The use of the public ri ght-of-'vvay., along the vvt=1H: streets, for pEJrking is
presently unclear. Because of the impact due to summer time parking, u-1e Ctty has
not enforced the parking code alon!J the walk streets.
6) The removal of all parking from the existing locations will cause a serious
adverse effect on the parking in the beach area . •
7) Carn and trailers stored in tt1e public rig~1t-of-way adversely affect the
aesthetics of tt1e area.
B) Commercial usage by businesses is significant in some areas, especiall~d the
Sea Sprite Motel.
f1r. Terry explained that Manhattan Beach ha,j a similar problem and forme,j a \-'v'alk Strnet
Study Committee in 1969, Vv'ho recommended .. after a ~Jear long study, that the Cit~d
vacate the v~1 a 1 k street ri ght-of-v•,•·ay and thereby a 11 ov•l the use of the vacated proper-ty to
revert to u-,e abutting property ov•n,ers. Because of concerns about t-iigt-,er property ta>::es
to the adJacent property O\·vners, as a result of the vacated land .. the issue of vacating
Uie land '•Nas dropped. Instead, the City of Man~1attan Beach established an encroachment
policq.
14 P.C. Minutes 4/ 16/91
The Hermosa Beach Director of Public Works spol<e 1Nith the tax assessor and was
advised that a reassessment of the vacated land ¥mulct occur shouJd Hermosa Beach
pursue vacating the land.
Mr. Terry then listed possible alternatives, giving pro and con arguments for each:
1) Strict enforcement of no parking and not Edlow any parking on tt1e public walk
street ri gr1t-of-vv·ays.
Pro: The majority of property owners that live along ttie walk streets do
not have the use of public right-of-way for their private parking use. Not allm·ving
an~d parking on the public right-of-way would treat all of the private property
owners equally.
Con: To not allow any parking on the public right-of-way would increase the
number of vehicles that need to be parked on the streets. This action 1,,vould in
crease t~,e parking demand on ttrn streets in the beach area by apprm<imately 200
vehi c 1 e spaces.
2) Change the City Ordinance and al10 1N private parking on the west side of Beach
Drive only, with a City permit an,j parking fee of $0.50 per square foot per month
'v'-tith no conditions. (i.e. no landscaping_, no limit on number of spaces, etc.)
Pro: The City does allow the private use of public street property at four
locations in to~vn and tlie present rate charged for that use is $0.50 per square
foot per month. Tt-,e estimated revenue to the City ·vvould be $6.,400 per month. The
monthly fee vtould ensure tt-iat only needed parking spaces v•,:ould be used_. as
owners would be urn•villing to pay for spaces that \-Vere not used.
Con: V·lith only a par~dng permit and no other requirements, this alternative
1Nould allov·1 preferential treatment to those private owners \"i1 ho 0 1Nn u-ie 32
corner lots on the west side of Beach Drive. In addition to the par~~ing permit_. an
encroachment permit should be reQuired 1/'l'hich would then require landscaping_.
insurance and City control over the total public area. The properties on the east
side of Beach Drive should not be allovv·ed to park in the public street right-of-vv"ay
because they 'l·vould be parking in \•vtrnt is their front yard.
3) Change the City Ordinance and allo 1..v only public parking with meters 'Nest of
Beach Dti ve only.
Pro: This alternative i·vould increase the City's financial picture by
providing additional parking spaces next to the beach that would be in use most of
the time. The City ·would receive additional parking meter income frorn these
spaces year round, estirnated at $12,800 annual incorne. The City would then
control the parking which at this time is not enforced .
Con: Of all ttrn alternatives, this choice would most likely reduce the
quality of life and the aesthetics of the adjacent beach area residences.
15 P.C. l'"linutes 4/ 16/91
4) Not allm•v any parking and use the 22 feet of public t-ight-of-wa!J for-
landscaping and to beautif~d the beach area.
Pro: This alternative provides the highest quality of l1f e by installing large
landscaped areas for the benefit of all the public that lives at or uses the beach
area. Also, this would improve the image of the community and "vvould have the
largest beneficial effect on the aesthetics of the area.
Con: This alternative increases the demand for on the street parking and
"vvould impact an area that already has a serious pari(ing problem. It appears that
this alternative could add approximatel!--1 200 additional vehicles to the on-street
parking situation. Thais vrnuld have a serious negative parking impact to the Sea
Sprite Motel and t1ickey·s Liquor Store.
5) Vacate the excess public right-of-v•ray to the private property owners on each
side of the street.
Pro: Tt"lis alternative releases the City from the responsibility for those
areas. The Cit!J v11 ould also receive additional taxes from this nevv· private
property added to the communi t!J.
Con: There \~lould be an added City e~<penditure to accomplish a vacation (i.e.
tit I e search, deed recorrjat ion, easement reservation, etcJ A vacflt ion has the
potential of increasing the density of the Cit!J and may not be the best choice.
'w'ithout changes to the zoning code, the City could lose control over the
development of these 22 foot wide areas. The open space standards and aesthetics
of u-1e area ·vvould not be regulated and the image of the community may degenerate
and be degraded in tl'rn tieach area. Someday the cay may \•Vant or need to use the
areas presently in use by the adjacent private property ov·mers. The use of public
ri gr,t-of-v·.iay should instead be contra 11 ed and regulated by revocatil e
encroachment permits .
6) Change the Cit!d Ordinance to allow private parking on the pedestrian walk
streets '•Nest of Beach Drive onl!-j, vv•ith the requirement that the · private use be
regulated by a revocable encroachrnent permit and that parking fees be paid. In
addition, parking should be allowed only in u-1e easterly one-third of the r-igt"it-of-
\•vay v-tith no parking a 11 owed near the Strand v·ta l l.
Pro: This alternative v•wuld provide additional revenue_. reduced liability and
improved aesthetics. Present requirements on encroachrnent permits include, ( 1)
insurance of $500,00_: (2) that the City also be additionally insured; (3) tnat one-
thinj of the public ri!Jht-of-··Nay be landscaped; and, (4) City control.
Con: This will result in a loss of parking spaces for the Sea Sprite Motel
and Micke~J's Liquor Starn.
In summary, Mr Terry said:
16 P .C. t1i nut es 4/ 16/91
a) The opinions among the various department staffs differ on tr1is issue. A single
alternative solution is difficult and a compromise alternative appears to be the
best so 1 ut ion.
b) A zoning Ordinance prohibition or encroachment permit condition for the area
west of Beach Drive should not allow parking in the westerly one-third of the
pub 1 i c street ri ght-of-v•tay areas.
c) Some encroachments are long standing and V·lill create a hardship if removed.
All current encroachments st10uld receive active restrictions to ,jiscouraqe
massive par~(ing areas, stornge of vehicles, driving on \•Yalk streets; and encourage
landscaping, insurance protection and reduced City liability. A 11 new
encroachments should fallow current permit processes.
d) The vacation option needs to be evaluated, although it appears to not be the
best so 1 ut ion.
Mr. Terry concluded his presentation by saying tt1at tv•rn memos were included:
The first from City Manager Kevin Northcraft suggests vacation of the prnperty,
including similar public street right-of-wa1J encroacnrnents on rvlonterey and Prospect
Avenue, and states, " ... Our attorneys advise that the concept of vacating the land is
reasonable to re1juce liability. It 1:!lso recognizes the historical private uses of u,ese
properties. The concern about potential future public uses an,j increased density can be
remedied by the nature of the vacation, and/or zonin!J ct1an!Jes. For example, the vacation
can include covenants that avoid increased bulk and density, preserve utility eat;ements,
and require twededication if a future Council chooses. Current zoning then should be
clarifie,j to prohibit use of front yewds for parking .... ".
The second from Public 'w'orks Director Anthon~J Antich and Planning Director Michael
Schubach recommends_. "Select alternative #6 to change the City Ordinance allm·ving
private parking on the pedesttwian vvalk streets vvest of Beach Drive only, with the
requirement that tt"1e private use be regulated by a revocable encroachment perrnH and
that pari(ing fees be paid. In addition, pari(ing sr1ould be al10 1Ned in only the easterly one-
third of the right-of-way \Nith no parking allo-wed near the Strand wall".
In response to questions_. r1r. Terry rnsponded that there would be apprmdmately 150
parking spaces remaining if alternative #6 where chosen _; the length of tt·,e Strand lots
·vvas an average of 80 feet_: and that no tandem parking had been recornrnended.
Comm. Di Monda questioned the figure of one-third of the lot length for parking and said
he would prefer a uniform amount, such as tt1e easterly t B to 20 feet instead.
17 F'.C. Minutes 4/ 16/91
The Hear1ng 'flas opened at B:47 P.f1. by v. Chmn. Pe1rce.
David Schumaker_. 1612 Strand, Hermosa Beach _. addressed the Commission to state that
he has owned five beachfront properties in Hermosa Beach, one of \•Vhich was 1:1t 302
Strand, for the past 25 years and that at no time has he ever been told that the property
could not be used for parking. He said that he was a real estate appraiser by proiession
and felt if the parking v-1ere taken a·-.vay the property would lose 20% of its rnarket value.
He urqed the Cornrni ssi on to 1 eave thi nqs as thew were.
~ ~ -
Pat Con-vin, 31 EiQhth Street, Hennosa Beach, addressed tt1e Commission to
complimented the City on the report; stated he ¥ms a nev\" resident_: that he and his v•.'He
had researched the area before they purchased and were pleflsed by the Cit!d Goo ls thE!t
clearly stated the desire for beautification and open space _: and _. were told that the City
did not allow parking on the publlc wallk street right-of-way. He expressed concern that
the City did not enforce its parking la\•Vs; felt concern for the safety of the children in
the nei qhborhood due to tr1e "For Rent" si qn for parki nQ on tt·1e south east corner of Beach ·-·-....
Drive, 'Ntiich had four spaces rente,j out; and felt tt1at any type of vehicle could be parked
there if somen1ing wasn't done. He asked the City to enforce its m·vn parking la-·NS.
Paul Shank, 1838 Strand, Hermosa Beach, ad,jressed the Commission to Sfl!~, as a 13 year
resident, he felt this was a ver-y complex issue because each street was different. He
questioned the number oj complaints that had been received by the City, and questioned
if tr1ere had actually been a problem of liability rather than a perceived potential, 'v'-lhlch
is a 1 wa4s present. He continued to sa4 he felt it "vvas un f ust to ct·1arqe parki nq fees and ·-·--._ -
that tt"1e cay st"1ould recognize the historical uses of the property , vvhich included
par~j ng . He 1Nas strongly opposed to the idea of pub 1 i c parking because of the increase in
traffic and congestion_. and felt that 01,imers could settle problems, such as the parking of
rec re at i ona l vehicles, among thernse 1 ves.
Steve Meadows, former owner of 542 Strand, Herroosa Beach .. currently the 1.:1rciiitect of
the project being built on the property, addressed the Commission \•vitJ1 regard to new·
construction, sa~~in!~ he coul,j not speak fot-1,,vt·1at has happene,j in the past, but U-1e
plannin!~ process should be considered from here on out. He felt alternative #6 \'Vas the
best solution e~~cept that there st10u1 d not be a charge for parl(i ng; he f e 1 t peop 1 e paid a
premium for corner lots and higher propert!J ta~-~ .. so therefor it \•vas unfair to charge for
parkinq. He did agree that parking should be limited to the eastern one-third of the lot.
In response to questions, r·-·1r. Meadows stated when he first ha1j his plans for the property
approved one year ago, t1e had been told tr1e City land should be strnwn as open area and he
could park four cars triere_: but he did not go at-1ead with the project then, so t-iis permit
ran out; \•vt1en he \•vent the second time he v...-as told he had to enclof;e the area and no
parking ··,·vas allo··Ned. He also responded that the title search t·1ad clearly st1ov11 n ttrnt it
1B P.C. Minutes 4/ 16/91
was City propert~J, not part or the propert!J that he \·vas seiiing, and there ·Nas no
stipulation that parl(ing was allo\ved.
John McFarland, 25 Eighth Street, Her-mosa Beach, a,jdressed the Commission to sa,J that
he was a 50 year resident of Hermosa_. and had lived on Eighth Street for 21 years . For
many of the early years, the property on the southeast corner of Beach Drive and Eighth
Street vv·as owTIer occupied and vv·e 11 rnai ntai ned , then it 'rlas so 1 d to an out of state
investor wtrn tore out the curbs and parked cars on the property, bringing in an extra
rental of $2 _.ooo for the parking on City ov·med property. He expressed the opinion of
Realtors_. that his own property values are substantially 10\•ver than comparable property
in rylemhattan Beach, clue to the la>~ity of parking enforcement in Hermosa. He said U1at
ovvner occupied property ·was not a problem, but usually rental property Vv'as, as it caused
noise _. congestion and unsightly conditions. He \·Vas concerned with the safety problem
1NHh rental parking, and felt that the City had been vepJ lucky not to t1ave had a serious
accident. He concluded by saying that much of the problem was the lack af garage space
due to the storage of boats an,j househoM goods in gan:l!Jes.
Jim Gierlich, 1900 Strand , Hermosa Beach_. addressed the Commission to explain tt1at he
v·rns a 50 year resident of Hermosa _. and a 20 year property owner at that address. \~/hen
he purchased the property it v1as advertise,j as having off-street parking and he had
photos of the house taken in 1933 showing autos parked in the same areas as toda~J Some
years ago _. he continued_. he needed a pennit to rr,ove a fire hydrant in order to have better
access to the parking area·_: '-l-tith the assistance of the w·ater company_. he was granted
the permit approval by u-,e cay, which shows implied permission, or kno·wle,jge_. by tt-,e
City to use the land fot-parking. The mason ~,e chose that location 1,vas the saret~J or the
\•vaH( street for his young child, and he e>,pressed gratitude for the barricades on Beach
Drive that helps provide that safety. He felt that a beneficial solution, for both the City
and the affected residents, could be found since there are so few properties involved.
Tom Allen, 1602 Strand , Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission to comrnend Mr . Terry
for the amount of data in the report_. and say that he _. too _. moved a fire hydrant for
parking access_. at a cost of over $10,000. At tr,at tirne, he felt that he had the City's
blessing and involvement in the project as ttie City sho'f/ed t1irn how it coul,j be done. He
felt the primary issues no·w, are t,eautification an,j parking, and that there \•Vas no
correlation bet\Neen beauty and the lack of parking on a property. He mentioned e;-~amples
in the sli,jes that had been shov·n-1, that pictured an unsightly property \htithout parking,
and a we 11 maintained property 'flith parking . He disagreed vv·ith the idea that the City
hljs 1 i ability due to owning the property, ljnd c 1 aimed that the resident owners vvt10
maintain and exercise control of the proper-ty are prirnarny Hable, but H the City \·Vere to
take control of the right-of-W8!JS , then the Cit(d would be prirnaril(J liable. He questione,j
the ability of tt1e City to spend thousands of dollars on landscaping the proper-ty if they
can not afford to fix potholes on Beach Drive . He urged the Commission not to Dase ttieir
decision on isolated instances of par~dng abuses an,j stated that he kne\•V of no garages
19 P .C. Mi nut es 4/ 16/91
tr1at were not used for pan(ing as it \.Yas a precious commodity. In response to quest1ons,
he stated that he had done extensive landscaping and paving and t-1ad four parking spaces.
Susan McFarland, 25 Eighth Street, Hermosa Beach, ad,jressed the Commission to thank
the Public Works Department for the report_. stating that she had become invo1ved 'vVith
this issue in 1978 when the third curb cut was made in her area for parking; in 1986 she
vvent to the City to supply them ··Nith the information on the study and results in
Manhattan Beach; tonight v,·as tt·1e first ti me tt-iat a public forum had been r1e 1 d, and she
\•Vi st1ed n1e cay to know that this issue V\"as a concern to ttrn residents and users of tt1e
walk streets, which vvere the gateways to tt-ie beact-1. Strn said that hvo \•vee~(s ago she
had watched a 25 year old tree removed to provide a better par~~ing area for a renter
paying $60 per month for the space. And_, in her neighborhood tt"lere is one Strand
property that parks 12 cars on the sides of the lot. Vv'ithin a 100 foot radius there are
fl ve !~arages not used_. t \hto on the Strand and one that is used as a practice room for a
band. She felt that the Comrnission vvould choose alternative #6, and hoped that there
was sorr1e rneans to ~1ave owners and renters refrain from par-kinq extni cars in their-
area. She asked the Commission to set criteria for the space allov1•·ed for parfcing, to set
a definite size limit, such as IO by 20 feet per car-; as one-third of the lot \.Yas too vague
a term and could all0\A/ tandem parking on some lots. She also suggested that the areas
be used for automobiles on1y, and not allow storage of RVs, boats, or long term auto
storage, and that good 1 andscapi ng be re qui red, if possi b 1 e with hedges that shi e 1 d the
areas frorn view.
Ed Nash, 600 Strand, Herrnosa Beacr,_. addressed the Cornmi ssi on to agree t11at the
problem of noise and an unsigt1tly car lot is not pleasant and vv·oul1j precipitate
complaints, but he v'lished t~1e Commission to consider the in-compliance, non-
problematic properties, such as ~1is, 'Nhere pEirking is seldom used, lendscaping is in_. and
$1,000,000 in liability insurance is in force. He asked that something be done about the
problems, but he v1ould object to paying for parking that was seldom used_. and did not
agree with the one-thit-d lot limit, he felt that one half \•vouM be better. He aske,j the
Commission to discriminate betvveen the problem cases and those 1Nho ·were in
cornpliance.
Thelma Greenvvald, 900 Strand, Hermosa Beach, an,j co-o-..-vner of the Sea Sprite Motel,
addressed the Commission to sfly that six and one half ~Jears ago she purchased a 2B unit
f acfl it!~ at Ni nth Street and the Strand wi U1 17 parking spaces, later she purchased
another property sirnply for parking . She uses four spaces on the right-of-way for
parking when her children and grandchildren come to visit and taking that parking now
\•vould be a lrnrdst•iip for her.
Gail Convin, 31 Eighth Street, Herrnosa Beach , addressed the Commission and remarked
that there had been a lot of talk about money and property values, but wt1en they had
purct1ased their home they had paid a premium to live on a 1Nalk street. If they didn't
20 P.C. Minutes 4/16/91
care about noise, iack of safety for their chiidren, and unsightiy cars parl<ei:1 rn front
yards_. U-1ey coul ct have bought a trnme for a lot less money_: they 'Nere not getting '•Nhat
they pai ct for. If nothing is done about these conditions when the process is comp 1 eted._. a
lot more people might start parbng in their front yard_. because parking truly is at a
premium, and man!J of her neighbors needed more parking.
Jerry Compton_. G.'w'.C._. Inc ... ad,jressed the Commission and stated that he ·vvas an
architect in town and had ,jone a lot of projects that adjoin the 1ight-of-wa~ ar-eas .. and
it needed to be brought out that the waH( streets were not U1e only places in Hermosa
Beach with public right-of-ways used for the sole benefit of private property m-vner-s. It
was his opinion that these areas should not be subsidized by the public_. but belong to the
people who use them, \¥ith property taxes paid on them. Originally the right-of-v.,1 ays
were to be streets, but the!d were never used for that purpose_. so nO\·V they have become
wide easements .. unused by the Cit!d to the point where many owners think the land
belongs to them. All of MontereId Boulevard has a 20 foot right-of-way on both sides of
the street, in some case::; tt·1e City owns the land up to the t,uilding. v./t1ett·1er parking is
allo 1Ned, lar!Je setbacl<s are required, or one-third of the land is to be planted could be
restricted by the zoning code. The prot,lem v1ith parl(ing on the right-of-way is that it is
not private property, it is not a front yard; if it \¥ere a front yard there could be lav·ts
against parking in a front yard. All ares in town should be turned back to the adjacent
property owners.
Anthony Dre·•Nery, 1540 Strand. Hermosa Beach _. addressed the Commission and stated
that most of the concerns he vvas gotng to address had already been said. But one issue
t,rought up by Jerry Compton nee,jed to be considered by the Planning Commission and tr,e
City Council: ''l'lhy single out the area west of Hermosa Avenue 'Nhen there were so many
other areas 'Nith pub 1 i c ri ght-of-\Nay parking? He l isled: r1onterey Boulevard; Pal rn
Drive; Bayviev,, Drive_: Circle Drive; Loma Drive; 31st Pl-ace; Valle!J Park; Mant1attan
Avenue_: Ocean Drive and probably others .. as streets with right-of-way parking. He also
had two questions. First, had the City Attorney reviewed the legality of each
recommendation, in particular regarding the vacation of the property_. trie City Attorney
should render an opinion. Second, the Cit!J should obtain a title report and a litigation
guarantee •with regard to every piece of property it intends to aHect by any action.
V. Cr1mn. Peirce responded that the Planning Commission intended to look at all the areas
in the City and make their recommendations to the City Council.
Eric Castleman_. 336 Strand, Herrno~;a Beach, addressed the Comrnission to sa~d that the
CittJ needed beautification, and cars parked anywhere e~,:cept in a garn,~e \-Vhere ugl'::L
There should not be parkin!~ allowe,j on tlie ri!~ht-of-vva!J, it shouM be kept an1j
landscaped and turned into true open space. Beautify the city and raise everwone·s
property va 1 ues.
21 P .C. t1i nutes 4/ 16/91
Howard Longacre, 1221 seventh Place, Hermosa Beach, addressed tt1e commission to say
tr1at he did not have a particular position on this question at this time but he \Nould like
to list some observations: 1) liability insurance for an encroachment is em amendment to
a policy an,j usually can be obtained for little or no cost; 2) regarding the barricades on
Beach Drive, there should be barrica,jes on all the streets in tO\·Vn; 3) Manhattan Beach
property, without ptu-king, is selling at close to three quarters of a million dollars more
than cornparable property in Hermosa_; 4) the City needs to look into the old deeds to the
property because he thought that there might be rights granted with the property to the
use of tt"1e easements; 5) as a civil engineer-, t1e kne\·V that highvvays, created to fill a
need, will be used and create more need _: he thought the same \•Vas true of par~dng. Mr.
Longacre then asked for a point of order to say that in his view there v•n:1s a potential
conflict of interest on the part of V. Cl1mn. Peirce, v•,iho , he believed, was a business
partner of Mayor Sheldon in the ownership of property_. and since Mayor Sheldon owned
property in the subject area and would have to dec1are a conflict when it came before Urn
City Council_, Mr. Peirce should declare his business relationship with l"tayor Sheldon and
step ,jov·m also.
George Lanz, 17 Si>~teenth Street, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission to comment
that he lived on the east side of Beach Drive, and if alternative #6 were the choice of the
Commission, he saw no rationale frnm the report given for the exclusion of the east side,
and encouraged the Commission to make no such restrictions. Parking encroachment on
public right-of-way appeared to be a CHy-wi,je problem_. therefor it seerned logical to
exarnine t11e the problem in total and not fraqment it as it ·.,.-...-as possible that a different
recomrnendation would be found for some ottrnr part of U1e cit~.
Adriana Kusion, 192B Stran,j, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission to present the
concerns of a renter at that address for rive years b!d stating that \•vhen the barricades
were down on Beach Drive, it became a highway, During the surnmer rnonths the
teenagers would park in the alleys at 2:00 in the morning, drinking and playing their
radios full blast, if public parking were allowed this would happen all ~Jear long . She felt
taking the barricades do\•Vn for public parking V•r'Ould increase tt·1e chance of an accident
and tt1e City's liability.
The Hearing ·...vas closed at t 0:00 P.M. by V. Ct1rnn. Peirce, \•Vho wisherj to point out to Uie
audience that this was a hearing, but not a pub 1 i c hearing .
Responding to a question of the ultimate "1jeep pockets" from Comm. Rue, Asst. City
Attorney Lee sai ,j that the City t1a,j the pri rnar!J responsibility and l i abi1 i ty for an!J injury
on the prnperty. AltJ1ougr1 tt·,e adjacent propert!d owner would be named in a negligence
suit, the Cil!J ·vvoul,j also be named. There vvas a !Jreater r-isk to the City by allowin!J
private use of the property V·littwut appropriate covera!J8, because it di,j not relieve the
City of its 1i ability H the owner tlas made i rnprovernents.
22 P.C. Minutes 4/ 16/91
V. Chmn. Peirce asked if the City Councii vvanted the entire thing or 'Nouid they accept a
piece at a time?
Lynn Terry sai,j that he was not sure; because the entire number of properties ¥rns so
large, staff was trying to break 1t down into portions that could be handled .
V.Chmn. Peirce said that tonight they vvould just consider the land use for Beach Drive
and have the implernentation researct·1ed in rnore detail.
Asst. City Attorney Lee agreed ttrnt 1Nould be rnost appropriate; ,jepending upon the
decision regarding the land use .. the Cittl Attorney·s Office \•vould review the
irnplernentation; i.e. if the ,jecision was to allov·t parkin!l, the options of encroachment or
vacation could be brought back in more detail. with the various restrictions possible .
In response to Cornm. Di Manda's question regarding title search .. Asst. City Attorney Lee
ans\•vered that would depend on ttrn land use decision and tt1e implementation chosen. If
you -.,,vant to vacate the property then the question turns on \•vho ov·ms the underlying fee
on the area once it is vacated. If in fact it lrns been conveyed over by the City, and the
City has u,e underlying fee title to the property .. then the decision to vacate would leave
the ne:t.t step to sell the property. If the underl~Jing fee belongs to the adjacent property
owner .. then vacation would provide automatic reversion back to the propert~J ov•mer.
Director Schubach ansvv·ered the question of the possible tax assessment increase to
adjacent proper-ty owners in the event of vacation b~J sayin!~ that the arnount '•Nas not
knov·m at this tirne, but a meeting \·Vas in the process with the tax assessor for this area
to determine that question.
Asst. City Attorney Lee stated ttrnt under current law the property in question is public
right-of-way, and even though the City had not enforce1j its rights in the past it had the
right to begin enf orcernent now of the rules "vvithin the r-1unicipal Ordinances. In t•,is
opinion, there w·as no estoppel to prevent the City from beginning enforcement actions to
re qui re parking be removed or-the pub 1 i c right-of-way be kept open as re qui red under the
present cay Code. He contlnued _. that in regard to \·Vt"1ether or not there vvas some sort of
prescriptive easement or prescriptive right that has accrued to each of these property
ov·mers t,ecause of the 1 ength of ti me that has passed_. that is an issue that our office
1Nould have to research. t1r . Lee st;:ite,j thi'Jt his prelimini'Jr~J response would be that it
v·tould be against public policy to allovv some sort of a,jverse possession to accrue to a
pri Vl:ite person over public property.
In response to a question from Comm. Marks, Asst. City Attorney Lee responded that the
City Attorney·s Office represented the public in general and the City's interest is in ttrn
benefit of the public in general. His office would not provide representation to each
i ndi vi dual property O'·Nner wt10 may t,e l i eve he had a private property ri grit in putil i c
23 P.C. t1i nutes 4/ 16/91
walkways. If there ·vvas an issue mat tt,e City wanted to ~:no 1N vmat its pos1t1on ,,vas in
regard to that issue, tt·,en the direction 1Nould come from the Planning commission or the
City Councn to loot into that issue, but it could not come from an individual or a group of
= individuals. Mr. Lee continued, that he would issue an opinion in confidentialit!-l to the
Planning Commission and/ or the City Council, advising of the CH!/S 1 ega 1 rights \·vith
respect to enforcement on these walkways and only in that context.
Comm. Rue comrnented that he fell that the General Plan vv·as the overridinQ document for
the City. Both Open Space and Parking \•Vere very large factors in that plan, a compromise
\•vas needed ~,ere and alternative #6 seemed a decent compromise_. as trying to maintain
open space 'NOUld be onerous on all the people 'Nho had the use of the property for many
years. Therefor he v·rnuld support: a tv10 car maximum, side by side, with landscape
maintained along the walk street _. autos only, no RVs or boats, and maximum height for
fences end landscaping .
Cornrn. Di Monda pref erred a 1irnit of 1 S to 20 feet on par~(ing, landscape rngulation
stipulating no contiguous hardscape, a delineation to prevent autos from moving forward
beyond a certain point_. space bet -..-veen street and property, and a request that staff al so
pursue vacation proceedings.
,Jerry Compton suggested that parking radius be considered.
MOTION by Comn·1. Rue_. seconded by Comm. Di Monda to continue this item to the meeting
of May 21, 1991, at 1..vhich time staff vvould provide more detailed inforrnation_, •y•v•ith the
understandin!~ that the focus \·Vas on Alternative #6 and U-1e irnplementation of vacation
versus encroactm·,ent. It \•Vas f w-ther understood that staff would pro vi de more details
on the follo\hting criteric1: tv-to car ma>-~imum_; side by side parking; no tandem parking
allowed; access directly from Beach Drive; separation betvveen landscaping and parking
area_: landscaping along the w·alk street separating the walk street from par~Jng _: no
allowance for Recreational Vehicles such as RVs, boats or others; the purpose of parking
is for automobiles only; height of fences and landscaping to be addressed_: and, depth
appropriate with turnin!] radius of the alley. In addition, staff was directed to return
1.-vith information pertaining to the legal conseQuence of the possible actions and 1f there
would be major tax consequences to tt1e ov·mers in the event of vacation .
AVES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN :
ABSENT :
Comms. Rue, Di t1onda, V. D·,mn. Peirce
Comm. Marks
Chrnn. Ketz
None
The rneetinQ recessed at 10:22 PJ'l.
The Meeting reconvened at 10:25 P.M.
24 P.C. Minutes 4/ 16/91
\ Chmn. Ketz returned to the dais.
RESOLUTION OF lt4TEt4T TO STUDY ADULT USES_
Director Schubach presented the staff report saying that this 1Nas originall~J a part of the
land use element but the Comrnission had placed it on tr1e list of special studies _. and now
would be a !]Ood tlrne to start as the housing element \·Vas on hold. The staff
recommendation ·vvas to direct staff as deemed appropr1 ate .
Tt1e Hearing vtas opened at 10:28 PJl. by Chmn. Ketz.
Howard Longacre_. 1221 Seventh Place _. Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission to ask
exactly what staff was going to study .
Di rector Sct1ubach responded that tt1i s studw had been suqqested bW the Citw A ttornew due .,_ .,_ .._ ·-.,_ ....
to new case lavv· that made the current City law outdated. The study pertained to
locatton in relation to residential areas_. schools and ct1urct1es and any potential impact
it might have.
MOTION by .Comm Rue, seconded by Comm. Di Monda to approve P. C. Resolution 91-28.
AVES :
NOES:
Comms . Rue, Di r·-·1onda_. Marks_. Peirce, Chmn. Ketz
None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
STAFF ITEMS
!tl. City Council / Phmnl no Commission workshop
Di rector Schubach and the Cornrni ssi one rs discussed possi b 1 e dates and topics the
consensus ··,·vas:
The dates offered would all be on a Thursda!d and include: rylfl!d 16 , 1991 _: .June
~ 1 QQ 1 · -d I ·Xi 1 QQ 1 •J, ~~ , on, wUne -~, ~~ .
The topics offered would be: Rudat/Downtown Revitalization; Downtown
Business Parking _; Greenbelt Par~~i ng; and Pacific Coast Hi 1~hVvfl!d Parking .
hl. P1annlng Department Activity Report of Februory, 199 L
-../ No action taken
25 P.C . Minutes 4/ 16/91
.cl Memonmdum Regardlng P1annlng Commission Ual sons for
1991 City Council Meeting_
Aprll 23.
Director Schubach and the Comrmssioners discussed the proposed ballot measures to be
before the City Counci 1 and expressed general di sai:ireement with the 1 ack of public
hearings for complex rnatters such as these.
MOTION by Ctmm. Ketz, seconded by Comm . Peirce to approve a Resolution asking tr1e City
Councn to fo110\¥ the process that is in place in most communities throughout the
country to: hold public hearings at the Planning Commission level _: allO\•\' the Planning
Cornmiss1on to make recommendotions_: then go to the City Council for a final decision.
A'r'ES:
NOES:
Chmn. Ketz, Comrns. Peirce_. Di Monda, Rue
None
ABSTAIN: Cornrn. Marks
None ABSENT :
!tl
Chmn. Ketz wi 11 try to attend as 1 i ai son .
Inf ormationol MoteriaL
No action taken .
.tl Tentatlve Future Plannlng Commission Agenda.
!l
No action taken .
City CouncH Minutes of March 11. 12 and 26. 1991.
No action Taken.
COMMISSIONER ITEMS
Comm. Di Monda questioned the process for landscaping on pro _i ects that carne tief ore the
Cornrni ssi on _. and requested U,at more detail e·d information be given to include: rnore
e~<tensive landscape; at least one specimen tree larger than a 15 gallon can_: to avoid
contiguous han1scape bet\•1/een driveways folded up side of common \•I/alls betv•.ieen
26 P.C. Minutes 4/ 16/91
properties; and, to inform the deveioper that the package ··,•vouid be rejected if it 1Nere
not comp 1 ete.
Comm. Rue asked that renderings be included in the package as he felt a better quality
development would ensue if the time and care ·vvere taken to sut,mit renderings _: not as
likely to get a common set of plans .
Comm. Di Monda asked if some black and vvhite photos of the surrounding area could be
included.
Chmn. Ketz said the Commission could set the policy of \•vhat it \•vould like to see
included in the package.
Director Schubach explained that it would be difficult to require renderings_. but it could
be suggested that the Com mission would 1 i ke to see a rendering, tt·1e other items vv·oul d
not be a prob 1 em.
Comm. Di Monda ,Questioned the parking on the Greenbelt and asl<ed if there \1\1 ere any way
that the parldng of commercial vehicles or RVs could be banned, he also questioned the
enforcement of the existing parking.
Director Schubach responded that he would research the issue with General Services and
return with more information.
A general discussion of the pa ricing enforcement on Beach Drive ensued . Asst. Cit !~
Attorney Lee stated that a meeting 1Nas sct1eduled V·tith tt1e City ~1ana~Jer to vvork on
details of enforcement, and there was no problem with enforcing the illegal rental
parking.
MOTION b!-1 Comm. Di Monda, seconded by Comm. Rue-to adjourn 'at 1 i:05 PJ-l No
objection_: So ordered .
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certlf!d that the foregoing minutes are a true and complete record or the action
taken by the Pl anni n!J Comrni ssi on of Hermosa Beacr1 at the regularly scheduled rneet i ng
of April 16, 1991.
Christine Ketz, Chairman
• ~ ~::J > f 9 ~ I
Date 27
/'
) //7;#:{#P i--_
t1ichael ScJ1ubacr1_. Secretary
P.C. Minutes 4il6/91