Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC_Minutes_1991_09_03MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON SEPTEMBER 3, 1991, AT 7: 00 P .M. IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS Meeting called to order at 7:07 P.M. by Vice-chrnn. Marks. Pledge of Allegiance led by Commissioner stifano. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Comms. Di Monda, Peirce, stifano and Vice-chmn. Marks chmn. Ketz Also Present: Michael Schubach; Planning Director, Roger Springer; Acting Assistant city Attorney, Sylvia Root, Recording secretary CONSENT CALENDAR With Comms. Di Monda and Peirce abstaining, the following consent calendar items were approved. No objections, so ordered. Minutes of the August 20, 1991 Planning commission meeting. Resolution P.C. 91-52, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO EXTEND OPERATING HOURS AT A RESTAURANT TO INCLUDE BREAKFAST HOURS FROM 6 : 0 0 A.M. TO 11: 00 A.M. AND TO CONTINUE TO AUTHORIZE ON-SITE BEER AND WINE IN CONJUNCTION WITH A RESTAURANT, AND A TAKE-OUT WINDOW .ON THE STRAND FOR 4 PIER AVENUE. Resolution P.C. 91-53, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION qF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW AUTO SALES AT 125 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, THE PARKING PLACE. Policy statement P.C. 91-2,A POLICY STATEMENT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA INTERPRETING THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR A "HALF-LOT" AT 215 4TH STREET IN THE R-3 ZONE, AND TO APPLY INTERPRETATION TO ALL SIMILAR LOTS WHICH ARE LOCATED AT THE CORNER OF AN ALLEY AND A STREET WITH THE NARROW PORTION OF THE LOT FRONTING ON THE ALLEY AND THE LONGER SIDE FRONTING ON THE STREET. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC No one wished to address the commission regarding a matter not related to a public hearing on the agenda. PUBLIC BEARING CON 91-4/PDP 91-6 --CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #22916 FOR A 2-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 228 ARDMORE AVENUE (continued from August 6, 1991 meeting), Recommended Action: meeting. To continue to October 1, 1991 Planning Commission Mr. Schubach stated Staff is recommending the commission continue this CUP to October 1, 1991 as revisions are required for zoning and previously noted - 1 - P.C. Minutes 9-3-91 concerns compliance. staff suggested an alternate recommendation: approval of the request by adopting the resolution which includes conditions requiring (1) revised plans which provide additional guest space be re-submitted for review and approval, and (2) separate rear access to the second unit be eliminated. The plans had not complied with Zoning Ordnance Section 1151 and "bootleg" concerns resulted in previous continuance by the commission. currently, the applicant has not submitted revised plans and contends the curb-cut existed. Therefore, he believes the plans need not be modified. Mr. Schubach displayed aerial photographs, stating staff did not locate a driveway on this property and a thorough search did not show a previous curb-cut in existence. If no driveway previously existed, street space lost as a result of driveway installation must be replaced. If no effort to comply is made by the applicant, the project should be denied since the state's permit streamlining act restricts project approval/denial time amount. comm. stifano asked the manner of previous curb-cut investigation by staff, to which Mr. Schubach responded two neighbors' letters stating belief that a curb-cut existed previously had been received by staff. Hearing opened by Vice-Chmn. Marks at 7:16 P.M. Mr. Chris Coale, 217 5th street, owner of 228 Ardmore Ave., presented photographs of the curb-cut to the commission, stating it is obvious a previous curb-cut existed. Comms. Peirce and Vice-chmn. Marks reviewed the aerial photograph provided by Mr. Schubach and discussed the possibility of a previous curb cut with Mr. Coale. Mr. Coale commented upon his intention to 'resubmit plans, stating the-listed problems can be solved, but the parking problem should be exempted due to a previous existing curb-cut. Comm. Di Monda suggested Mr. Coale obtain the information requested by staff, with staff continuing to investigate, with the commission continuing the application. Hearing closed by Vice-chmn. Marks at 7:25 P.M. comm. Peirce discussed the apparent curb roll-over and questioned the existence of a driveway on this property, instructing staff to investigate and determine the existence of a previous driveway or the use of a bootleg driveway, with comm. Di Monda stating agreement, discussing property-owner's good faith actions due to nonawareness and apparent lack of enforcement by the City of Hermosa Beach. Comm. stifano referenced residents' letters stating the existence of a previous driveway. MOTION by comm. Di Monda, seconded by Comm. stifano, to continue CON 91-4/PDP 91-6 to October 1, 1991 in order to give the applicant the opportunity to resubmit plans, providing a cross-section and removal of unit bootleg potential, and allow staff the time in which to continue their investigation into the existence of a previous curb-cut. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Di Monda, Marks, Stifano Comm. Peirce None Chmn. Ketz CUP 91-16 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN EXISTING AUTO BODY REPAIR AND PAINT SHOP AT 1231 PROSPECT AVENUE, BUCK'S BODY SHOP. Recommended Action: To approve said conditional Use Permit. -2 -P.C. Minutes 9-3-91 Mr. Schubach stated staff recommends CUP approval, subject to conditions: (1) additional landscaping, ( 2) public ·right-of-way shall not be used for parking of storing of vehicles, and (3) parking shall be prohibited in any portion of the front yard setback. Business hours of operation are Monday through Friday 8:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. and 8:00 A.M. to 1:00 P.M. Saturdays. A.Q.M.D. and Fire Department requirements have been met with the recent installation of a spot-area paint booth. Mr. Schubach stated complaints have been received relating to adjacent property and residents' confusion seems to exist regarding to the adjacent property, another Buck's Auto Body vs. this particular business location. comm. stifano compared previous CUP's with the current application, requesting an explanation of differences, with Mr. Schubach responding CUP'S relate to a particular site's requirements and, therefore, differences have been allowed by the Commission in its CUP approval. comrns. Peirce and stifano and Vice-chmn. Marks discussed angle and tandem parking with Mr. Schubach. Public Hearing opened by vice-chmn. Marks at 7:43 P.M. Mr. Ray Martin, 1255 corona street, discussed noise limitation vs. increased business hours, stating his opposition to increased hours of local businesses. He requested an addition to the CUP requiring the ventilation system be less obtrusive and that cars be delivered and picked up only during business hours. Mr. Richard Sullivan, 3rd street, agreed the ventilation system is an "eye-sore", comparing previous body shop CUPs' requirements with this application, and requested that Buck's Auto shop not be allowed to operate on Sundays. Ms. Edie Weber, 11th Street, discussed previous residents' efforts relating to fumes and noise from auto shops and requested restriction of noise and vapor emissions. she discussed both Buck's Auto shops interrelationship and the lack of a paint booth at either establishment. she stated this shop is being blamed for emissions from other body shops and suggested demanded compliance from other body shops, as well. Dr. Bernard Winikur, 1232 corona street, questioned how the establishment of this auto shop was allowed with no notification to him, objected to the fumes and noise emitted by this location, and stated cars are being parked on the street. He requested rejection of this CUP. Mr. Schubach stated for clarification the commission cannot change existing CUPS by denying them; only regulate a CUP to enhance its neighbor-friendliness. Comm. Stifano questioned the legality of denial of CUP'S by the Commission with Mr. Schubach. Mr. Springer stated the commission can legally deny a CUP, but the purpose of a CUP is to restrict the manner of business operation. Mr. springer cautioned against denial of the CUP since this action would result in nonrestriction of the business operation. Ms. Tawny Beaudet, 11th street, stated both Buck's Auto Shops were not adhering to state laws. She invited the commission to visit the location on Saturday in order to smell the emitted odors, stating the ventilation equipment is not effective and that none of the body shops have state required equipment. Mr. Schubach rebutted that the business had received A.Q.M.D. and Fire Department approval. - 3 - P.C. Minutes 9-3-91 Mr. Maurice Beaudet, 11th street, said he spent two hours watching the methods of operation by Buck's Auto Shop and questioned the manner of compliance assurance by the commission. He discussed Fire code requirements and workers' safety relating to this shop. Mr. Beaudet stated he stood across the street from the shop and smelled emitted fumes. Mr. Schubach said CUP condition #14 is requiring odor equipment, which is not currently installed. Mr. Beaudet also stated he has had discussed with the A.Q.M.D. the mechanics of registering a complaint. comms. Peirce and Di Monda and Mr. Schubach discussed the Fire Department and A.Q.M.D. requirements for business operation, establishing the commission can ask for stricter requirements. Mr. Seibra Aslanian, Buck's Auto Body, stated an approved spray booth and air duct is on site, permits and approvals have been obtained, business is conducted within the business hours stated with no work being conducted on Sundays. comm. Di Monda asked the applicant's understanding the of the requirements, to which Mr. Aslanian stated the shop has always complied with all requirements. Vice-Chmn. Marks, Comm. Peirce and Mr. Aslanian discussed the spot-area paint booth operations and filtration. Mr. Papken Aslanian, owner Buck's Auto Body, stated for 10 years he had no problems with local residents, but his problems began two years ago when Mr. Beaudet moved into the area. Mr. Aslanian said he has always been in compliance with all requirements, but Mr. Beaudet continually complains. Mr. Aslanian has lost business over the last two years. He stated he has cooperated with the residents and the city of Hermosa Beach by changing his building plans. comm. Di Monda questioned Mr. Aslanian' s ability to comply with the CUP requirements, to which he responded spray painting takes only 3-4 minutes to spray a panel and he does not understand the current complaints. Public Hearing closed by Vice-Chmn. Marks at 8:35 P.M. Comm. Peirce and Mr. Schubach discussed the lack of a City ordnance requiring screening of ventilation systems. Comm. Peirce stated the problems appear to be lack of a proper vapor filtration system for a business next to a resi- dential area and hours of operation. comm. Di Monda discussed previous CUP requirements for similar businesses and agreed with Comm. Peirce that operation hours should be decreased to limit those hours on Saturdays and none on Sundays. He stated current A.Q.M,D. and Fire Department regulations are probably not restrictive enough, perhaps further toxic chemical elimination information can be obtained. comm. stifano agreed. comm. Peirce recommended the CUP be approved with a high-priority request to staff for investigation and resubmittal of determination of odor reduction requirement, which would result in an enacted ordnance implementing and enforcing odor reduction, coordinated with the A.Q.M.D.'s and Fire Department's requirements. comm. stifano recommended P.c. Resolution 91-54, Item 14 be eliminated and continuation of the CUP to allow problem solving. Mr. Schubach stated odor elimination systems are in existence currently. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by comm. Di Monda, to approve CUP 91-16, P.C. Resolution 91-54, #23 changing the hours of operation, eliminating all business hours on Sunday and allowing Saturday operation from 9:00 A.M. until 1:00 P.M., adding "the ductwork on top of the building shall be screened from the public - 4 - P.C. Minutes 9-3-91 view". P.C. Resolution 91-54, Item 14 shall be changed to read, "Odor elimination equipment shall be provided for the building including for the paint booth and it shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director" and any future city ordnances regarding odors must be in compliance. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Conuns. Di Monda, Marks, and Peirce CoDDn. stifano None Chmn. Ketz TEXT 90-11 TEXT AMENDMENT TO REQUIRE RELOCATION IMPACT REPORTS (RIR) FOR MOBILE HOME PARK CONVERSIONS OR CLOSURES TO MITIGATE THE IMPACT OF DISPLACING EXISTING RESIDENTS, AND ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION (continued from July 16, 1991). Recommended Action: To recommend approval of said text amendment and adoption of the Negative Declaration. Mr. Schubach stated staff had received some last-minute material from the mobilehome park owners, an attorney and western Mobilehome Association which has not been yet carefully examined by staff. He also stated the application had previously been Noticed of the Text Amendment. Staff currently has a recommendation, as well as alternatives. staff recommends this amendment be presented to City council amending the zoning Ordnance to add provisions regarding state-mandated relocation impact as regards mobilehome conversion by adopting the resolution. Mr. Schubach discussed recommendation modifications to Proposed ordnance Planning commission Findings and Decisions section 1445, and methods for appraisal, stating the city of Carson has used appraisals based upon the depreciated replacement cost approach, which includes no value for underlying land or location, with limitations. Mr. Schubach emphasized the decision as to the amount of compensation, including the choice of appraisal method, would be made in response to a specific closure request, at which time the City of Carson's pending litigation final decision may set a precedent. Mr. Schubach presented two alternatives: (l) Receive and file, qetermining RIR provisions, based upon state law, when a mobilehome park is closed, and ( 2) exclude trailers and recreational vehicles from compensation. Comm. Peirce discussed state Law #78-, #1-12 text impact on the cities of Carson and Hermosa Beach, mobilehome owners and mobilehome park owners with Mr. Schubach. Comms. Di Monda and stifano discussed the status of the City of Carson's current litigated cases pertaining to mobilehomes. comm. Di Monda established Text 90-11 was initiated by the city Manager, referred to the city council which approved the city Manager's request for study. comm. Di Monda asked about the similarities between the city of Hermosa Beach's text and the city of Carson's. Mr. Springer doubted the City of Hermosa Beach would be drawn into Carson's litigation because, presently, the ordnance has not been enforce with no person's rights violated. comm. stifano noted section 1447 wording seems to require a double dip purchase requirement by the landowner when closing a mobilehome park. The commissioners were in agreement this section should be changed to eliminate any double dip. Public Hearing opened by vice-chmn. Marks at 9:10 P.M. Mr. Steve Anderson, 1334 Parkview Avenue, suite 100, Manhattan Beach, representing Marineland Mobilehome Park owners, wanted a copy of the staff - 5 - P.C. Minutes 9-3-91 Report. Mr. Anderson stated his purpose was not to threaten with a law suit, but to make the commission understand economic reality. He then proceeded to define land value vs. mobilehome value, discussing in-place value, buy-out and current ability to relocate mobilehomes to other locations. He stated relocation radius needs further definition and discussed current litigation status relating to mobilehomes/parks within California. Mr. Anderson objected to section 1445, the attempt to strike the words, "on-site value" and stated "depreciated cost" is the best of the stated methods of evaluation, although he takes exception to this method and discussed current specifics of litigation involving Monrovia and Carson. Mr. Anderson requested the commission eliminate any provision that contains any part or all of "in-place value" by staying with the state guidelines, File and Receive, allowing options at the time a mobilehome park is closed, alleviating the possibility of challenge by the land owner and city liability. Vice-chmn. Marks and Mr. Anderson discussed the definition of a "non-movable home". comm. Di Monda and Mr. Anderson discussed Mr. Anderson's previous involvement with park closures and relocation ~of tenants . comm. Di Monda established with Mr . Anderson his objections to section 1445, the inclusion to the listing of anything that could be in-place value, further discussing the particulars of this section. comm. Peirce discussed in-place value with Mr. Anderson, who gave examples of similar situations other than mobilehome parks. Ms. Barbara Watson, space 56, stated she purchased her coach in Hermosa Beach after deciding against the city of Carson, although purchase in Carson would have been much cheaper. My coach purchase price, and subsequent mortgage, is based upon the coach and its location. Public Hearing closed by Vice-chmn. Marks at 9:48 P.M . comm. Di Monda asked staff if relocation of these affected people must be within the coastal zone. Mr. Schubach stated the people do not have to be relocated within the coastal zone, but the park must be replaced within the coast ZOD:e. Comm. Di Monda noted continued objection to the "double dip" requirement and felt the mobilehome definition should remain as the State defines it, excluding recreational vehicles and trailers. comms. Peirce and Di Monda discussed P.C. Resolution 91-41 1441 and 1442.9.b with Mr. Schubach. comm. stifano discussed the parameters of park closure with Mr. Schubach. Comm. Peirce disagreed with the "double dip", section 1445. 7, suggesting removal of, "any mortgage obligations of the resident on the mobile home, and the costs of purchasing a mobile home on-site in a comparable park or acquiring other comparable replacement housing." Comm. Peirce felt that nonallowance of in-place value would a d versely impact the res idents, but felt the coach owner does not have the right to the land. comm. stifano commented the property owner is taking a chance when he sells the land and questioned if mobilehome "fair market value" includes mortgage obligations. Comm. Peirce suggested "replacement value" should replace "fair market value", while comm. Di Monda suggested the state wording be used. comm. Peirce requested staff send Notices to persons affected and the Coast Zone Commission by the Commissions' decision. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by comm. Di Monda, to approve Text 90-11, P.c. Resolution 91-41 with Item 1445. 7 changed to read, "A requirement that a resident whose mobilehome cannot be relocated within a reasonable distance to a comparable park be compensated by a lump sum payment not to exceed the reasonable cost of physical relocation." and direct staff to change Definitions, section 1440, paragraph 3, to use the state definition of a mobilehome. - 6 - P.C. Minutes 9-3-91 AYES: NOES: Colllllls. Di Monda, and Peirce, stifano and vice-Cbmn. Marks None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Cbmn. Ketz A break was taken by the commission from 10:15 to 10:22 P.M. BEARING N.R 91-4 AN EXCEPTION FROM SECTION 13-7 (B) TO ALLOW REMODEL AND SECOND STORY ADDITION RESULTING IN GREATER THAN 50% EXPANSION TO AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE AT 248 27TB STREET 9 (continued from August 6, 1991 meeting). Recommended Action: To continue this matter for applicant to submit revised plans. Mr. Schubach reviewed the staff Report, stating staff recommends further continuance to allow the applicant time to submit revised plans to bring an existing one-foot side yard adjacent to the existing garage up to code. The applicant's submitted plans show existing structures with a garage interior clearance of 17 '11". The applicant states moving the garage to accommodate a 3, setback is too costly and requests the commission reconsider its position. Mr. Schubach noted the nonconformity of the existing garage. Comm. Di Monda requested clarified of the deck renovation. Mr. Schubach said a mistake at the time of renovation resulted in a substantial departure from the Code requirements, resulting in 75% lot coverage. Public Hearing opened by vice-chmn. Marks at 10:26 P.M. Mr. Charles Simmons, project architect, 218 Longfellow, previously discussed preliminary project plans with the Planning Dept. and received verbal approval for the plans and existing nonconformity. subsequent submittal of plans to the Building Dept. resulted in notification of problems and the requirement of submittal to the Planning Dept. Mr. Simmons gave a detailed history of this project's lack of progress, discussing the details of the existing site and structures. He quoted Article 13.7(b) relating to nonconforrnance, stating his interpretation is the Code's intent is to avoid altering a current nonconform- ing building without bringing it into conformance. Mr. Simmons stated the nonconforming structure is not being altered; a second-floor addition on the front building is the only change. He contested the requirement of access to all four corners of the property, stating there is currently access at two corners. Mr. Simmons requested the commission vote for project approval rather than a continuance. Comm. Di Monda discussed the 1979 variance and dimensions of the existing structures and property with Mr. Simmons. comm. Marks asked if Mr. Simmons presents preliminary plans to the Building Dept. to obtain clearance. Mr. Simmons said, "Always to the Planning Dept.". Ms. Patricia Gleason, 248 27th Street, reiterated that the nonconformity exists in the back structure, a double-car garage with a second story, on which no - 7 - P.c. Minutes 9-3-91 construction will be done. Previously, the Planning Dept. had granted an exception for the construction of that structure. To move the required two feet entails the entire building being moved, which is extremely costly. Moving the garage will probably result in damage to wood floors and tiles. The proposed remodel is a result of needing more room. Ms. Gleason stated she has spent a lot of money to this point and requested this application not be continued. Ms. Gleason maintained the deck is not higher than 3 0", while Mr. Schubach stated the deck is over 3'. comm. Di Monda and Ms. Gleason discussed the current side-yard encroachment, deck and landscaping, with Comm. Di Monda explaining the current requirements for consistency. Public Hearing closed by Vice-chmn. Marks at 10:49 P.M. comms. Peirce and Di Monda discussed an appeal to the city council to receive direction relating to future nonconforming remodels. Comm. stifano felt the requirement to remodel the back building was not appropriate. Vice-chmn. Marks stated the reason for side yards is to allow access to both building sides by the Fire Dept. Comm. Marks discussed consistency in previous considerations as well as this particular one. Mr. Simmons explained existing access and landscaping to the commissioners, stating access is blocked on one side of the property. MOTION by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by Comm. Marks, to deny NR 91-4. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: STAFF ITEMS Co11m1s. Di Monda, Peirce, and Vice-cbmn. Marks Comm. stifano None cbmn. Ketz A. MEMORANDUM REGARDING ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF A DELIVERY CONJUNCTION WITH A TAKE-OUT PIZZA RESTAURANT INSIDE VONS CORRESPONDENCE FROM "ROUND TABLE PIZZA" and SERVICE IN MARKET AND B. PETIT.ION FROM "BROOKLYN bRICK OVEN PIZZA" REGARDING "ROUND TABLE PIZZA". Mr. Schubach stated the item is being presented to the commission as a result of staff's becoming aware that Round Table Pizza was operating a delivery service from Vons Groceries. Although staff was approached and approved the use as a location within Vons, deli very service opens the question as to whether it is appropriate additional use or a more intense use which will require an approved parking plan. Previous approval for take-out purposes only was based upon the similarity of existing uses within the market. staff believes delivery changes the business to a "restaurant", finding for approval of a parking request can be made as long as the number of delivery vehicles is minimal and an area is defined for delivery vehicle use. staff recommends the Planning Commission direct staff to interpret the addition of delivery service as a restaurant use and require a parking plan submittal for commission con- sideration. An alternative is to allow the delivery service to continue as a secondary use of the market. Public hearing opened by Vice-chmn. Marks at 11:02 P.M. Mr. Robert Udovich, 1559 Pacific coast Highway, is concerned at the alternative suggested by staff, stating allowing two separate, large businesses to use each others' privileges is wrong, while challenging the statement that both are the - 8 - P.c. Minutes 9-3-91 the commission. Mr. Udovich requested that this issue be reviewed by the com- mission, complaining that currently the parking lot is not adequate for all the vehicles parking in it. Mr. Kenneth Hass stated his support to the Brooklyn Brick oven Pizza business owners and testified to the parking problem. He stated Von's and A.M.C. Theater customers park in the lot, taking parking from the east-end businesses. Delivery trucks and Round Table Pizza customers increase the parking lot overcrowding. Ms. June Williams, Manhattan Avenue, discussed the difficulties of parking at Von's and Brooklyn Brick over Pizza, asking if Von's will continue to incorporate other businesses within its facility. she stated she objects to delivery trucks parked in the parking lot using the trucks for advertising purposes and believes delivery trucks should have a designated area in which to park. Ms. Diana Mario asked if "Round Table Pizza" is a restaurant, and, if so, how many parking spaces are required. Public Hearing closed by Vice-Chmn. Marks at 11:21 P.M. Mr. Schubach offered the suggestion the businesses change the parking lot arrangement to assure compact stalls, meeting the Code and assuring additional parking. Comm. Peirce referenced previous discussions regarding Von's parking lot, established this public parking is used by the A.M.C. Theater attendees as well, and offered the solution that enforcement be increased while parking time allowance be decreased. It was noted that private security is present within the parking lot, with multiple time limits within the same parking lot. comm. Peirce suggested the original parking plan be reviewed by the commission, to which comm. Di Monda and Vice-chmn. Marks agreed. MOTION by Comm. Peirce to adopt staff's recommendation. so ordered. C. CORRESPONDENCE FROM AND RESPONSE TO MR. AND MRS. GOODWIN. Receive and File. D. PLANNING DEPARTMENT ACTIVITY REPORT OF JULY, 1991. Receive and File. E. TENTATIVE FUTURE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA. Mr. Jim Listener, 2715 El oeste street, referenced a letter he wrote to the City council regarding restaurants. His specific concern is the Pioneer Chicken, Artesia and Pacific coast Highway, is to convert to a broiling type of operation and will emit natural gas, combustible byproducts and chicken grease. He is concerned about the amount of natural gas released into the area. He stated he contacted the A.Q.M.D. with no satisfaction and requested the commission consider CUP'S for this type of operation. - 9 -P.C. Minutes 9-3-91 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF AUGUST 13, 1991. comm. Peirce directed staff to vigorously pursue investigation towards control and monitoring of vapors and odors being released from businesses. Comm. Di Monda recalled a previous CUP issued ordering that two telephones be removed from LaMasters Grocery store which have not been moved to date because the responsibility for removal has not been defined. comm. Di Monda stated city Council should direct the Public Works or General services Departments to initiate action with General Telephone, commenting that a "not my job" mentality appears to be dominant. Comm. Di Monda suggested the commission send a memorandum to the City Manager requesting appropriate action. MOTION by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by Vice-chmn. Marks, to adjourn at 11:39 P.M. Ho objections; so ordered. CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and complete record of the action taken by the Planning commission . of Hermosa Beach at the regularly scheduled meeting of September 3, 1991. Robert B. Marks, Vic e -chairman Mi c h a · Date -10 -