HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC_Minutes_1991_06_04J
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA
BEACH HELD ON JUNE 4, 1991, AT 7:00 P.M. IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL
CHAMBERS
Meeting called to order at 7:02 P.M. by Vice-chairman Peirce.
Pledge of Allegiance led by Comm. Rue.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Absent:
comms. Di Monda, Marks, Rue, Vice-chmn. Peirce
chmn. Ketz
Also Present:
CONSENT CALENDAR
Michael Schubach; Planning Director,
Edward Lee, Assistant City Attorney;
Sylvia Root, Recording Secretary
MOTION BY comm. Rue, seconded by comm. Peirce to approve the minutes of May 21,
1991 with one correction, page 1. No objections; so ordered.
APPROVAL OF RESOLUTIONS
MOTION by comm. Rue, seconded by comm. Di Monda to approve the following
consent calendar items:
Resolution P.C. 91-26, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, VESTING
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #22305, AND PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR A 2-UNIT
CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 918 15TH STREET.
Resolution P.C. 91-27, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, VESTING
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #22304, AND PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR A 2-UNIT
CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 930 15TH STREET.
Resolution P.C. 91-34, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, TO AUTHORIZE AN
AUTO REPAIR ESTABLISHMENT AT 1402 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY.
Policy Statement P.C. 91-1, A POLICY STATEMENT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, REGARDING THE LAND USE CATEGORY FOR
"COFFEE HOUSES".
No objections: so ordered.
MOTION by comm. Rue, seconded by comm. Di Monda, a resolution to approve as
amended Resolution P.C. 91-36, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE ENTIRE "BILTMORE SITE"
BE DESIGNATED FOR A COMBINATION OF COMMERCIAL USES AND OPEN SPACE; THAT THE
COASTAL COMMISSION DECISION NOT BE ACCEPTED; AND THAT THE PROPERTY BE
CONSIDERED FOR LAND-LEASE RATHER THAN FOR SALE TO GENERATE REVENUE FOR PURCHASE
OF OPEN SPACE AND THE LAND BE KEPT IN THE POSSESSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA
BEACH FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS.
No objections; so ordered.
1 P.C. Minutes 6-4-91
7
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC
Mr. Richard Sullivan, (213) 374-7410, 3rd street, announced July 9, 1991 city
Council will be hearing a appeal for the Lighthouse Cafe. He voiced his
personal complaints pertaining to the Lighthouse Cafe and invited residents to
join him at the July 9th Hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING
CUP 91-4 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AUTO BODY REPAIR & PAINTING, AUTO
SALES, AND GENERAL AUTO REPAIR, AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE
DECLARATION AT 210 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, FELDER'S BODY SHOP AND SALES
(continued from May 21, 1991 meeting).
Mr. Schubach gave staff report. staff recommended approval of this request
subject to Resolution conditions and standard Condition modifications as
follows:
Condition #4 satisfy the Building Dept's. requirements by modifying the
enclosed covered patio.
condition #5 Allow removable poles at the front of the driveway as long
as site access are not affected during operating hours.
condition #7 Allow night-use of the building if all doors are closed
until 10:00 P.M., allow the car-sales business portion to
remain open until 10:00 P.M.
Condition #11 Add other types of paints considered safe by the Air Quality
commission.
condition #14 Allow work within the outside walled-in area for incidental
activities, subject to approval by the Director. All doors
are to be closed with the exception of the southern-exposure
door (with consideration be given to allow the North door to
remain open) .
Condition #17 Allow long-term storage of covered, registered vehicles
awaiting sale. The term "loud and obnoxious noise"
eliminated.
Condition #21 Allow in-door repair of auto alarms previously ipstalled.
Condition #22 Allow installation of burglar alarm with bells, buzzers.
Mr. Schubach commented on the landscaping, fencing and parking spaces shown in
the revised plans. staff recommends that current parking spaces should be
standard size, with additional spaces provided.
Hearing opened by Vice-chmn. Peirce at 7:21 P.M.
Mr. Jack Wood, 200 Pier Ave., Ste. 38, representing Mr. Felder, stated a
misunderstanding regarding the CUP. Mr. Felder's past and present business
remains the same. His current request is to meet his legal obligations in
order to continue conducting this same business, and he is willing to comply
with condition requirements.
2 P.C. Minutes 6-4-91
comm. Rue questioned doors remaining open during business hours, to which Mr.
wood responded that doors would be opened and closed as necessary to move cars,
with the south-door being open most of the time.
Mr. Richard Sullivan, (213) 374-7410, distributed "handouts" to Commissioners
and related his discussions/problems with Mr. Felder during the past years,
stating Mr. Felder is very accommodating to the local residents. He stated
this CUP would determine future handling of similar applications, and that he
was disturbed with the differences between the original and modified CUP,
regarding the doors, patio, parking and air pollution and "hanky-panky."
vice-chmn. Peirce advised Mr. Sullivan of his right to contact the city council
or city Attorney, rather than the Planning commission.
Mr. Ray Martin, 1255 Corona st., would like to see a CUP condition that no
outside auto-body sanding and the "loud noise and obnoxious" statement be
reinstated. comm. Marks asked Mr. Martin's involvement, to which Mr. Martin
responded he was interested in the European Bodyshop and the work of all body
shops within Hermosa Beach.
Mr. Schubach pointed out that Felder's was an established, existing business,
not a new one, and is being considered as such.
Mr. Mark Moreno, corona st., understood the amortization process of the
existing CUP' s purpose is to upgrade the business and property values, and
wondered if such a plan existed. Vice-Chmn. Peirce stated, yes, and requested
Mr. Moreno's suggestions. Mr. Moreno requested the intent on this issue and
continuity of requirements, to which vice-Chmn. Peirce responded all auto-body
shops would be brought through this process during the next two years to make
them good neighbors, not contributing to noise or pollution.
Mr. Jack Wood rebutted Messrs. Sullivan's and Moreno's comments regarding loud
noise, lack in understanding of Mr. Felder's business operation and hours of
operation.
Public hearing closed by Vice-chmn. Peirce at 7:58 P.M.
Vice-chmn. Peirce stated the loud and obnoxious noise is controlled through
other legal requirements and requested further information pertaining to the
covered patio. Mr. Schubach responded the City Building Dept. approved the
original covered patio, which later become enclosed, sanding was being
performed within the patio.
comm. Di Monda commented upon the need of a permit for the enclosed patio and
allowance of hand-sanding, hand-painting in open areas by body shops, hazard
material storage handling and regulations, and fire code violations, to which
Mr. Schubach responded a code provision exists allowing some outdoor auxiliary
work, which is visually checked by the staff. Additionally, fire codes and the
Fire Dept. monitor hazardous material storage. Vice-chmn. Peirce stated the
Commission's function is to ensure that business nuisances are eliminated by
the CUP.
Mr. Lee stated the CUP process does not waive or release a business from
compliance with other applicable laws, regulations or provisions which apply.
Businesses must comply with all these requirements. The CUP is to address
specific impacts created by the land-use.
comm. Di Monda disagreed with body shops being open on Sunday to do sanding.
Mr. Schubach responded that each business has a style in conducting business
3 P.C. Minutes 6-4-91
and the commission needs to be attuned to business needs in order to retain and
obtain businesses. This particular application has 28 conditions. Mr.
Schubach has received 12 letters from immediate neighbors stating "let Mr.
Felder continue."
MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Vice-chmni Peirce to approve CUP 91-4, with
the following corrections: Item #4 to read, "Shall be inspected to the
satisfaction of the Building Dept," Item #7, change to "personal" rather than
"personnel".
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Conan. Rue, Vice-chmn. Peirce
Conan. Di Monda, Marks
None
Chmn. Ketz
Vice-chmn. Peirce asked for alternatives.
MOTION by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by Comm. Marks, to approve CUP 91-4, with
the following corrections: Item #4 to read, "Shall be inspected to the
satisfaction of the Building Dept," Item #7, change to "personal" rather than
"personnel", Sunday hours must be indoors, and Item #14 eliminate all outdoor
hand-sanding.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comm. Rue, Di Monda, Marks, Vice-chmn. Peirce
None
None
chmn. Katz
Vice-Chmn. Peirce announced Thursday, June 6, 1991, at 7:00 P.M., the Planning
Commission and city council will hold a meeting.
T-4 BALLOT MEASURES REGARDING HEIGHT AND HOUSING STANDARDS.
Recommended Action: To direct staff as deemed appropriate.
Mr. Schubach gave the staff report pertaining to the examination of lowering
allowable height in C-2, c-3, R-2, R-2B, R-3 and R-P zones, the grandfather
clause, and determine if proposed ballot measures regarding house standards
should actually be on the ballot. Staff's recommendation to city council is to
lower height as noted in attached resolutions. Also recommended are two
methods applying to the grandfather clause: recommend a moratorium and/or
request/recommendation that at the time the ballot measure passes in November
1991 that a grandfather clause be included.
Mr. Schubach stated a history of actions taken pertaining to these subjects
during the past 10 years, listing beneficial and detrimental architectural
effects within the particular zones. The staff reviewed Redondo Beach and
Manhattan Beach height requirements with height restrictions in both
residential and commercial zones lower than what the City of Hermosa Beach
allows. Both cities use a different measurement method than Hermosa Beach,
explained by Mr. Schubach. Approximately 60% of commercial properties would be
effected by the ballot measure, an additional 36. 8% will be effected if the
specific plan area along Pacific coast Highway is included. Height would be
restricted to 35 feet with a few exceptions. A maximum of 40 ft. is allowed in
a few special cases to be reviewed by the Planning commission.
Mr. Schubach stated the Planning Staff agrees with the wording noted in the
4 P.c. Minutes 6-4-91
city Manager's Report as far as the advisory measures are concerned and if the
measures are to be placed on the ballot, and agrees that housing measures need
review. If the mandated ballot measure are placed on the ballot and passed,
the measures are effective immediately, and already approved plans are not
grandfathered. A moratorium with a grandfather clause may be prudent at this
time. View blockage potential was discussed by Mr. Schubach.
Public Hearing opened by Vice-chmn. Peirce at 8:37 P.M.
Vice-chmn. Peirce stated the subjects for discussion should be ( 1) the city
council's process, and (2) comments on the height changes and standards, with
the purpose of guiding the commission in its decision.
comm. Rue asked if the ordinances as drafted by the city Attorney will go to
the city council as recommended, and if so, will the Council change them to
which Mr. Schubach responded the council will receive the ordinances which are
open to consideration. Comm. Rue stated these are not advisory, but rather an
amendment to the zoning code. Mr. Schubach said there are a total of six
ballot measures; four mandated, two advisory only, which have gone to the city
council and referred back for study, public hearings and input prior to making
final judgment. Management-level staff felt this issue should be brought
before the Planning commission for input. comm. Rue commented on the lack of
backup information to enable a decision by the Planning Commission.
comm. Marks asked what stimulated and who created the ballot measure, to which
Mr. Schubach responded the council felt the constituents were interested and
was voted on by the council. comm. Rue commented the Planning Commission has
scheduled to conduct a study on an ongoing basis as the city changes.
comm. Di Monda noted the new language in the revision on the housing standards
revisory measures is more restrictive to bulk and parking and asked if approval
is granted would the Planning Commission's hands be tied or can exceptions be
made. Mr. Schubach responded if language was added to indicate an exception
rule, but any exception measures must be added at this time.
Mr. Jack Brantley, 74 18th street, bought his 1908 home with the plan to build
a home utilizing the existing height limitations. If the height limitations
are decreased, this will defeat his original purpose in buying his property.
smaller, older, high density homes will be perpetualized with adoption of the
new limitations.
Mr. Raymond Quigley, 442 strand, stated his neighbors have built larger houses
than his own. He and others with smaller homes will not have the option to
increase living space as has been done in the past, therefore decreasing the
value of his property.
Vice-chmn. stated the Planning commission has been requested to make a
recommendation to city council, who has put the measures on the ballot.
Public Hearing was closed by Vice-chmn. Peirce at 8:59 P.M.
comm. Di Monda read that the density problem appeared to have been resolved by
past council action; the issue of height was the most significant zoning
concern and asked if this statement was in the view of the council. Mr.
Schubach responded that previously the council wished more density reduction.
After staff study, density was determined to be low. council then determined
height, bulk problems should be addressed.
5 P.C. Minutes 6-4-91
vice-chmn. stated height-determination past practice was to assure
architectural diversity. current building practices do not address this
diversity goal. In order to modify the zoning code, the process must be
followed. However, the verbiage on the ballot is difficult to understand due
to the brevity. Therefore, an advisory ballot must be crisp and concise in
order to not create additional implementation misunderstandings. vice-chmn.
Peirce recommended that rather than fine-tune the particular measures, a
summary letter be sent to the city council, to which comm. Rue agreed, stating
a letter, Planning commission Meeting Minutes or a resolution be sent to the
city stating the Planning Commission does not support the advisory or
ordinances because they are simplifications not using the correct process.
Comm. Di Monda also agreed, stating that if the city council is looking to
reduce the effect of building and obtain more light/air, bulk should be focused
upon.
Vice-chmn. Peirce stated not enough information had been supplied to the
Planning Commission to enable the Commission to make an informed decision at
this time and suggested a 10-item questionnaire be placed on the ballot or a
sample survey be performed to obtain the information the City council is
seeking, to which comm. Di Monda agreed if either option were worded in such a '
way as to obtain pertinent information.
comm. Marks stated he was adamantly opposed to reducing height requirements
without very serious reasons and consideration.
MOTION by comm. Rue, seconded by Vice-chmn. Peirce, to approve the resolution
the Planning commission strongly disagrees with ballot measures, planning is
too intricate to place on a ballot, advisory measures are not specific enough
and should be single-issue items, the planning process should be utilized.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Di Monday, Rue, Vice-chmn. Peirce
Comm. Marks
None
Chmn. Katz
Recess taken from 9:20 P.M. to 9:29 P.M.
P-1O --VEHICLE PARKING ON PEDESTRIAN WALK STREETS
Recommended Action: To continue to July 2, 1991 meeting.
Mr. Schubach stated the Public works Dept. has not had enough time to
completely prepare and submit its report and are asking for a continuance until
July 2, 1991.
vice-chmn. Peirce asked when the city of Hermosa Beach was going to act upon
the current law in effect, to which Mr. Schubach responded a measure from the
city Manager discussing the current law was scheduled, but will now not be
presented at the next city council meeting for comment. The city Manager will
respond to the Planning commission.
comm. Di Monda discussed the number of parking spaces in the original report
vs. the number which could be obtained and requested the actual number and
location of garages which have been allowed to open passed the 20-30 feet point
and determination of impact upon businesses dependent upon that parking be
supplied to the Commission.
6 P.c. Minutes 6-4-91
. .
MOTION by Vice-chmn. Peirce, seconded by comm. Di Monda, to approve a
continuance until July 2, 1991.
No objections; so ordered.
CUP 90-18 --REVIEW OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO 2 HERMOSA AVENUE, MARINA
LIQUORS.
Recommended Action: To direct staff to continue to enforce the provisions of
the CUP.
Mr. Schubach gave staff report. staff has examined site and assured progress
was being made on a CUP issued several months ago.
Public Hearing opened by vice-chmn. Peirce at 9:35 P.M.
Ms. Pamela Ricketts, owner of Marina Liquors, questioned the operating hours
stated in the CUP, stating she has business exceptions which should be
considered. Mr. Lee stated the operating hours stated on the CUP define the
use hours of operation of the building; if the Commission wished to consider a
CUP amendment, the owner is required to submit an application amendment to CUP
conditions allowing for changed operating hours.
Ms. Pamela Ricketts stated the city of Hermosa Beach has not fixed her sidewalk
to enable completion of trash container enclosure and requested current status.
Mr. Schubach stated Public works Dept. is being contacted.
Ms. Pamela Ricketts stated her pole sign was covered under a grandfather clause
at her original purchased. Th~s pole has been in place at least 20 years. Mr.
Schubach stated that when originally discussed, the approximate 45' pole was
established as a problem and was to be reduced in height. Mr. Schubach stated
this problem should be discussed through the amendment process. Vice-chmn.
Peirce explained the "grandfather" eligibility vs. the conditional Use Permit
to Ms. Ricketts, and the intent of the Commission in originally ruling· on the
sign height, recommending Ms. Ricketts proceed with the amendment process.
Public Hearing closed at 9:44 P.M. by Vice-Chmn. Peirce.
CUP 90-2 --RECONSIDERATION OF THE CONDITIONS IN THE CUP FOR OFF-SALE GENERAL
ALCOHOL AT AN EXISTING ESTABLISHMENT ALREADY LICENSED BY A.B.C. AT 3232
MANHATTAN AVENUE, DAN'S LIQUOR.
Recommended Action: To recommend approval subject to conditions.
Mr. Schubach gave staff report. This matter was presented to council and
referred back to commission for comment. staff feels the conditions were
revised appropriately, adhering to the intent of the CUP or amortization
process. staff recommends the commission agree the rewritten conditions are
acceptable to enable resubmittal to City council for approval or denial.
Mr. Schubach distributed to Commission a new parking lot design, landscaping
and trash dumpster location plan.
Vice-chmn. Peirce established that the commission was not to vote on this CUP,
but was only to make recommendation as to acceptability of the original or the
amended document.
7 P.C. Minutes 6-4-91
==
Mr. Schubach defined the eliminations from the original document as word
changes for clarity purposes, deleted items already part of the Code. comm.
Rue offered the basic change listing as follows:
(1) Front portion of business which faces west onto Manhattan Avenue is
boarded with wood. owner shall paint/restain this -area to make it
acceptable.
(2) Language regarding the signs has been reworded but the intent is
basically the same.
(3) Employee signature of receipt of CUP changed to CUP posting only.
(4) No sale of sexually-explicit X-Rated videos unless CUP is obtained has
been deleted.
(5) Measures shall be taken to control loitering on the public sidewalk at
all times has been deleted.
(6) Participation in the EZ Program has been deleted (at the city
Attorney's request).
(7) The floor area design has been changed.
(8) The Planning Commission may review the CUP and may amend the subject
conditions has been deleted (which is already part of the Code).
Vice-chmn. Peirce asked about the appearance of the front portion of the
building to which Mr. Schubach responded it is an aged, rustic ap~earance.
comm. Di Monda requested the a definition of differences between business hours
and operations between this and the Marina Liquor stores to which Mr. Schubach
responded that different operating hours at originally been requested by these
businesses. In the future, the staff will assure that requested hours are
adequate.
Comm. Di Monda discussed the need for continuity between same or similar
businesses, to which Mr. Schubach explained that due to differences at each
location (i.e. mixed-use vs. single-use buildings), each must be reviewed based
upon that particular location's requirements and requests.
Public Hearing was opened by Vice-chmn. Peirce at 9:53 P.M.
Mr. Phil Freeland, Freeland Development consultants, 315 south Beverly Drive,
Beverly Hills, representing Mr. Duffaut, property owner asked two procedural
questions: (1) at the 14th city council Meeting, an issue was raised regarding
and _the legality of two Commissioners' presence and length of service on the
Commission was questioned, and (2) at the 14th city council Meeting, the Mayor
and Council both directed that further response by Mr. Duffaut or his
representative was acceptable. Mr. Freeland asked for a definition as to the
feasibility of his continued presentation of the Commission Meeting.
Mr. Schubach responded that the commission has the ability to make changes,
although the Staff is not recommending it at this time.
Vice-chmn. Peirce stated the commission would not vote on the CUP during this
meeting, but would recommend to city Council regarding the correctness or
8 P.C. Minutes 6-4-91
modification of changes made by staff. The first procedural question asked by
Mr. Freeland was ruled out of order by Vice-chrnn. Peirce.
Mr. Freeland requested the following:
(1) Deletion of condition #2 regarding adequate property management due to
the staff recommendation wording using the term "adequate management
and supervisory techniques" being ambiguous and provides no
enforcement measure and an inappropriate requirement in North Hermosa
Beach.
Comm. Rue asked for alternate suggestions, to which Mr. Freeland
responded with a request that this requirement simply be deleted.
comm. Marks asked if the store owner was generally on the premises, to
which Mr. Freeland responded, "No, a lessee's employee is on site".
Comm. Marks commented that an employee only was a weak link.
(2) The sign plurals be removed to exclude any ambiguity. There is no
current problem with "sign" but is with "signs".
(3) Modification of condition #4 by removing the statement relative to a
problem with the signs and include the requirement for sign
maintenance or repair, since he and Mr. Duffaut do not feel that
anything is currently wrong with the signs.
comm. Di Monda requested substantiation by pictures to be furnished by
the applicant at City Council meeting to which Mr. Freeland stated
that was possible.
(4) Modification of Condition #5 since the lessee's tenant is not
controlled by the property owner. A copy of the CUP may be placed on
the premises so that it may be read and understood.
Vice-Chrnn. Peirce asked how it would be determined and monitored that
the store operator would understand the conditions, and what the
objections to Condition #5 were, to which Mr. Freeland responded the
CUP would be posted for the employee(s) to read, but the owner has no
control over the lessee's employee(s).
(5) Deletion of Condition #5 since landscaping which would impact the
property appearance is not appropriate on this site.
comm. Marks discussed the adjusted plan by the Staff with Mr.
Freeland, stating the landscape requirements are minimal and can be
achieved by pots. Mr. Freeland stated the owner could place potted
trees on the sidewalk. Mr. Schubach stated the landscape shown on the
plans are exactly as originally proposed, based upon the on-file
plans. Mr. Freeland disagreed.
(6) Deletion of condition #7 since it is covered by condition #3.
(7) Requested current parking be maintained, since the suggested parking
would result in lose of parking spaces and create a visibility
problems. Mr. Schubach explained the differences between the plan and
the actual site to the commission which included parking and
landscaping, stating that he, the city Attorney, Mr. Duffaut and his
9 P.c. Minutes 6-4-91
attorney previously reviewed the tandem parking plan, which is not
acceptable.
(8) Deletion of Condition #12, which puts undue restrictions on the
property owner as a result of the CUP, which should not be the purpose
of the Planning Commission.
(9) Condition #14, which requires the CUP be recorded and proof submitted
to Planning Department, be modified or deleted.
Mr. Freeland stated Mr. Duffaut has owned his property for almost 20 years and
continues to be intent upon operating a well-run business.
Vice-Chmn. asked Mr. Freeland if Conditions 8, 9 and 10 were intentionally
deleted from discussion, of which Mr. Freeland stated there was no problem with
9 and 10, but continue to have problems with #8, asking that the requirement
for single, clear-wrapped packages be removed. Mr. Freeland stated that no
city has the right to determine the packaging of products and cited
inconsistency.
comm. Di Monda asked in Mr. Freeland suggests combining Items 3 and 7, which
Mr. Freeland affirmed. Comm. Di Monda questioned the parking plans and offered
suggestions for on-site landscaping, while also explaining the building permit
requirements and procedures. Comm. Di Monda and Messrs. Schubach and Freeland
discussed options and procedural requirements to change the building use.
Mr. Ronald Duffaut, property owner, stated he and Mr. Schubach previously
discussed the parking problems/requirements with Mr. Schubach to provide him
with a suggested parking plan, of which he has not seen to date. Mr. Schubach
responded that previous discussions had been conducted pertaining to this
subject. Mr. Duffaut stated he has had previous meetings with his attorney and
Mr. Freeland, but the parking situation had not yet been addressed.
Public Hearing closed by Vice-Chmn. Peirce at 10:21 P.M.
Mr. Lee suggested Condition #12 read, "The floor plan shall be shown on
submitted plans, any changes to the interior which substantially alter the
primary use permitted under this CUP shall be subject to review and approval by
the Planning Director".
Comm. Rue noted that if the A.B.C. license or CUP is abandoned, the property
owner can make permitted changes without commission approval, which was
confirmed by Mr. Lee, with stipulations.
Vice-chman. felt that nothing should be changed on the recommended CUP or than
Mr. Lee's suggestion regarding Condition #12.
Comrns. Rue, Marks and Mr. Schubach discussed the merits of the parking plan
submitted by the staff and condition #14 recording requirements.
MOTION by Vice-chmn. Peirce, seconded by comm. Rue, to recommend to the city
council that except for the modification to condition #12 and combining of
Conditions #3 and 7, removal of the statement from Condition #4 after
substantiation of current good sign condition, this version of the CUP be
accepted as written.
10 P.C. Minutes 6-4-91
-.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
CUP 91-1
Comms. Di Monda, Marks, Rue, Vice-Cbmn. Peirce
None ·
None
Chmn. Ketz
RECONSIDERATION OF THE CONDITIONS IN THE CUP FOR OFF-SALE GENERAL
ALCOHOL IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE EXISTING MARKET ALREADY LICENSED BY A.B.C. AT
3127 MANHATTAN AVE., BOCCATO'S GROCERIES.
Recommended Action: To recommend approval subject to conditions.
Mr. Schubach gave staff report, noted the similarities with CUP 90-2 and stated
he has received a letter from Mr. Boccato contesting several of the conditions.
Mr. Boccato has paved parking lot, constructed trash container area and
requests these conditions be removed. Additional changes/additions in the
trash container area are required. staff believes modification and condition
language should remain as is; this has been discussed with Mr. Boccato.
Responding to Mr. Boccato' s letter, staff notes regarding ( 1) Condition #7
which has been changed to condition #6 and is less restrictive but still
maintains some control over potential changes to more intensive uses, ( 2)
condition #9, changed to condition #8, requires packaging in see-through bags
of individual containers, a requirement of similar business located near the
beach, and (3) Condition # 12, changed to Condition # 11, recordation is not
difficult nor costly. The city Attorney has suggested the language in
condition #6 be slightly changed regarding modifying the store interior without
approval.
comm. Di Monda asked what Code states height in trash enclosures, to which Mr.
Schubach responded it is found in the Municipal code, enforced through the
Building Dept. The staff prefers trash enclosures be gated.
Public Hearing opened by Vice-chmn. Peirce at 10:33 P.M.
Mr. Phil Freeland, Freeland Development Consultants, representing Mr. Boccato,
continues to object to the CUP process for an existing business with a legal
A.B.c. license. Mr. Boccato has owned the business for 22 years with no
problems and feels this action is illegal.
The May 14, 1991 city council Meeting requested Messrs. Freeland and Boccato
negotiate with the Planning commission and staff. A trash enclosure gate has
been installed. Mr. Freeland requested that condition be removed from the CUP,
Condition #3 be deleted as being ambiguous, Condition #5 be modified to posting
of CUP only, condition #6 be deleted, Condition #9 should be included as part
of Condition #4, no objection to Condition #10 as long as an overall agreement
is reached. Mr. Freeland requested the CUP wording be changed to allow CUP
recording only.
Mr. Lee responded the purpose of the language change to condition #6, Planning
Dept. approval would not be required if all permitted use allowed within c-1
Zone requirements were met.
Mr. Robert Benz, 2901 Manhattan Ave., stated the original CUP should be
followed and questioned the CUP process for the different business, stating the
exhibited controls are unnecessary.
Public Hearing closed by Vice-chmn. Peirce at 10:44 P.M.
11 P.c. Minutes 6-4-91
Vice-chmn. Peirce stated no modifications are required.
Comm. Di Monda commented that uniform, standard conditions addressing City of
Hermosa Beach concerns and regulation of problems would be beneficial to all.
Mr. Lee responded CUPs are on a case-by-case basis, the type of conditions
should be different due to the unique situations which require appropriate
conditions to mitigate the specific-use impact.
Comm. Di Monda requested an explanation of the clear, plastic bag requirement.
Vice-chmn. Peirce responded markets using clear, plastic bags for liquor sales
enable better enforcement of the liquor laws by making the product visible.
comm. Rue stated he felt the trash enclosure and gate was handled in a very
innovative manner.
MOTION by Vice-chmn. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Rue, to recommend approval as
submitted, changing condition #6 to correspond with CUP 90-2 condition #12 as
amended and collapse Conditions #4 and 9 together.
AYES:
NOES:
Conans. Di Monda, Marks, Rue, Vice-Chmn. Peirce
None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Chmn. Ketz
Mr. Schubach stated the CUP would be presented to city council Tuesday, June
11, 1991.
Vice-chmn. Peirce announced a meeting between City council and Planning
Commission Thursday, June 6, 1991, 7:00 P.M. to discuss various issues to
include Ruedat, Greenbelt parking, downtown business parking, Pacific coast
Highway parking, nonconforming ordinance, livability ordinance and planning
issues vs. policy issues.
STAFF ITEMS
A) A RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO REVOKE/MODIFY THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AT
1160 AVIATION BOULEVARD, JACK-IN-THE-BOX.
Mr. Schubach stated this issued was discussed at previous meeting, brought back
in resolution form. Adjacent Jack-In-The-Box neighbors are concerned and have
requested the Commission review the stated problems. staff recommends the
Resolution of Intent to examine the matter in terms of possibly revoking the
CUP be adopted.
MOTION by Vice-chmn. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Rue. No objections; so ordered.
B) PLANNING DEPARTMENT ACTIVITY REPORT OF APRIL, 1991.
Received and file.
C) MEMORANDUM REGARDING PLANNING COMMISSION LIAI SON FOR JUNE 11, 1991 CI TY
COUNCIL MEETING.
No action taken.
D) TENTATIVE FUTURE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA.
No action taken.
12 P.C. Minutes 6-4-91
. ..
• " E) CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF MAY 14, 1991.
Vice-chmn. Peirce noted the city council Minutes have improved by furnishing
much more information.
No action taken.
COMMISSIONER ITEMS
Vice-chmn Peirce and Mr. Schubach commented on the meeting to be held Thursday,
June 6, 1991 with the City Council and Planning Commission in attendance.
MOTION by Vice-Chmn. Peirce, seconded by comm. Rue to adjourn at 10:55 P.M. No
objections; so ordered.
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and complete record
of the action taken by the Planning commission of Hermosa Beach at the
regularly scheduled meeting of May 21, 1991.
Jti-8 Peirce,0 Vice chairman
//~u~~
Micliael sc~ubach, secretary
Date
13 P.c. Minutes 6-4-91