Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC_Minutes_1992_10_20MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON OCTOBER 20, 1992, AT 7:01 P.M. IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS Meeting called to order at 7:05 p.m. by Chmn. Merl. Pledge of Allegiance led by Comm. Oakes. ROLL CALL Present: Comms. Di Monda, Marks, Oakes, Suard, Chinn. Merl Absent: None Also Present: Michael Schubach; Planning Directory, Edward Lee, Assistant City Attorney, Sylvia Root, Recording Secretary CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by Comm. Oakes, to APPROVE the following Consent Calenda+ items: Minutes of October 6, 1992, Resolution P.C. 92-54, A POLICY STATEMENT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, TO APPROVE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND PARKING PLAN AMEND- MENT TO ALLOW ON-SALE BEER AND WINE IN CONJUNCTION WITH A RESTAURANT AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 37 14TH STREET. Resolution P.C. 92-55, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COM- MISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, TO APPROVE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT FOR A RETAIL/AUTOMOTIVE BUILDING _AND. AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 1414 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY. Resolution P.C. 92-56, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COM- MISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, TO APPROVE A RESOLUTION OF INTENT TO INITIATE A TEST AMEND- MENT TO PROHIBIT OR ESTABLISH REQUIREMENTS FOR THE CREATION OF SECOND UNITS PURSUANT TO STATE GOVERNMENT CODE 5852.2. Resolution P.C. 92-57, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COM- MISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, TO APPROVE TEXT AMENDMENT OF SECTION 10 REGARDING STANDARD CONDITIONS FOR ON-SALE AND OFF-SALE ALCOHOL ESTABLISHMENTS AND REVISE THE STANDARD CONDITIONS OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS. 1 P.C. Minutes 10-20-92 AYBS1 NOBS1 ABSBN'fa ABS'fAIRa Comm. Di Monda, Mark ■, Oake•, Cbmn. Herl None None comm. Suar4 CQJOWHICATIQNS FROM THE PUBLIC Jim Ro•enberger, 1121 Bayview Drive, wrote a letter which he read into the Commission's records to ·avoid confusion. He strongly objected to the political commenta ·made by a _ Commissioner. He requested the Commission redeem itself with regard to "bootlegs", while noting the Major dur- rentlr owned a "bootleg" unit, by sending a letter to the Counc l requested support of the Commission'• action. PUBLIC HEARING YAB 92-3 --VARIANCE TO B1JeOH SECOND LBYEL SALLffAJ iQ CQYIR REQUIRS;P OPSN SPACB AND ADOPTION or AN EHYIRQHMENtAJ. HlliGM'IVB DECLARATION AT 2510 TRI STRAND. Mr. Schubach stated the applicant proposed a covered foot bridge connecting two sections • of the second story to provide direct access between sections. The building is non-conforming to open space requirements; with the proposed bridge further decreasing the open space. Staff agreed that impact to neighbors and open space was minimal, but noted the bridge would add structure bulk. Staff felt the requirements to make a finding could not be met, as the bridge would be for convenience rather than for unusual physical characteristics. Staff recommended denial. Public Hearing opened by Chmn. Merl at 7214 p.m. Michael Kent, project architect, stated the proposed additional would allow ciroulation of visitors without disrupting the residents. Many relatives and friends etay with them. When the owners brought the property, they did not know it was non-confirming. He stated the lot and house square footage, noting that 1315 square feet was open space, The owners wish to make the house floor plan usable and convenient for them. Comm, Oakes discussed the placement of a hallway door with Mr. Kent, who stated it was for the residents' privacy, with the study being used as an office. Comm. Marks determined the hallway would be used often by guests, in order to avoid the study. Comm. Di Monda felt the design could be better, noting other lay outs could be used to solve some of the problems. He explained the reason a a finding would or would not be made. 2 P.C. Minutes 10-20-92 Bd McDowell, 2510 The Strand, detailed his personal · history, noting he has retired in Hermosa Beach. He stated granting the Variance would help the house "work", noting he has many house guests. Joyce McDow•ll, 2510 The Strand, explained the functioq of the "study", and the convenience the bridge would represent. No one else wished to speak regarding this item, and Chmn. Merl closed the Public Hearing at 7129 p.m. Comm. Oakes noted the Commission must think about the entire community, ae well as individual needs. The pro- posed bridge boxed in the building, which was contrary to the open apace requirements. Comm. Suard discussed with Mr. Kent the legal requirements to which the Commission adhered when granting approvals. Comm. Di Monda felt the project did not qualify for a finding of unique or special circumstances. He felt if an open space decrease were allowed, then the surrounding area residents had that same right. Chmn. Merl noted thia application seemed minor, but the Commission has an obligation to make the findings~ without such findings, the grantin9 of a Variance had no basis. While aupportive of remodel~ng, he felt the finding• could not be made in this instance. MOTION by Comm. Suard, seconded by Comm. Di Monda, to APPROVE Staff's reoommendation to DENY a variance to allow a second-level hallway to cover required open space and adoption of an Environmental Negative Declaration at 2510 The Strand. AYBS1 NOBS1 AB8BNT1 ABSTAIN1 Comm. Di Monda, Mark ■, Oakes, Suard, ·c1uun. M•rl Non• None None Chmn. Merl stated this action was subject to appeal within 10 days to the City Council. CUP 92•16 & PP 92-6 --CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ANP PARK-ING PLAN AMBNDMENTS TO ALLOW A SNACK SHOP TO CONYJ!iRT TO A RESTAURAHT WITH INCREASED OU'l'DOOR SSATING, WITH NO N>PITiOHAL fMKING AND AN ADOPTION OF AN ENYIRQNMINTAL NEOA'l'IYI DECLARATION A'1' 517 PIER AYBNVI, HERMOSA CAll, Mr. Schubach stated Staff recommended approval based on previous decisions made by the PlannJ .. ngr Department. He 3 P.C. Minutes 10-20-92 discussed the project background! previous actions by the Commission, and noted the appl cant would not increase floor space, but was requesting additional tables in the private property located behind the sidewalk. He discus- sed the nonconformity of the parkipg, noting the proposed change to a restaurant would increase the parking require• ment. Mr. Schubach noted similar requests had been recently approved, noting the high percentage of walk-in and/or bicycle traffic. He commented upon the continued focus upon the bakery/snaok shop. Staff recommended Conditions to include construction of a barrier, provision of a bicycle raok and limited hours of operation. Comm. Di Monda questioned the fact that restaurant parking is based upon the gross square footage (including restrooms, kitchens, halls, etc.), not the number of seating. He felt parking should be based upon the number of seats and questioned the number of seating becoming an issue. Mr. Schubach noted the establishment was primarily a bakery; seating would create the possibility of a future restaurant. Comm. Di Monda felt that, at some point, seating should be reviewed. Comm. Marks determ.ined the distance from the building front to the ourb as approximately 10 feet, with possible encroachment into the sidewalk area. Comm. Oakes expressed concern regarding the trash area capacity, to which Mr. Schubach responded that area met current requirements, further discussing the possible requirements with Comm. Oakes. Public Hearing opened by Chmn. Merl at 7147 p.m. Jim Lienghot, 517 Pier Avenue, explained he was from Viet Nam, had bought the bakery two years ago, his customers were primarily walk-ins or road bicycles, noted that during the evening hours and that he would not be competing for parking spaces. He also stated his bakery was located near publio parking facilities. He asked that he r eceive a fair decision and hie application be approved in order to improve his business. comm. Oakes discussed current seating and the requested increase with Staff and Mr. Lienghot. Eight seats are currently in place; the area will be made level and additional seating provided. Sidney Leothor, adjacent property owner supported the application. He stated he would allow four of his parking spaces to be used by Mr. Lienghot. He approved the changes being made downtown, stating a ffsense of neighbor- hood" was returning. No one else wished to speak regarding this item, and Chinn. Merl closed the Public Hearing at 7156 p.m. 4 r.c. Minutes 10-20-92 Comm. Marks discussed with Mr. Schubach the sanitary conditions required and reviewed by the Health Department. Comm. Oakes felt adequate parking was available within the area, and was pleased to see additional "night-life" bus- inesses increasing. She expressed concern regarding the esthetics of the proposed barricade. Comm. Di Monda sug- gested acceptable materials be specified; i.e. s twisted aluminum, iron, etc. Comm. Oakes requested the proposed barricade be presented as a Review Item to the Commission prior to installation. Comm. Suard suggested imposing a limitation in the use of paper products within the outside seating area, equivalent to that imposed upon Java Man. ' KOTIOH by Comm. Suard, seconded by Comm. Marks, to APPROVE application CUP 92-16 and PP 92-6 with the oonditions recommended by Staff and the changes as discussed1 the railing will be resubmitted as a Review Item and paper products within the outside seating area will have the same limitations as imposed upon Java Man. AYBSs NOBSI ABSENT1 ABSTAIN• Comm. Di Monda, Marke, Oakes, Suard, CbJDn. Merl None None None Chmn. Merl stated this application had been approved, subject to appeal within 10 days to the City Council. Tanya Bode, Hermosa Beach resident, presented to the Commission correspondence and videos for its review prior to the next scheduled meeting. TA 92-t TEXT AMENDMENT TO PROHIBIT QR ESTABLISH REOUIREHENTS FOR TBS CRBATXON OF SBCONP UNITS PURSUAN+ TO S1'A'l'B OQYERNMBNT coos 65852,2. Mr. Schubach stated State Government Code Section 65852.2 set forth the requirements and defined "second units" with the apparent intent to address the housing supply and affordability problem by encouraging cities to allow second units in existing developed areas. If cities do not allow these units, the opportunity is created •for local residents to obtain looal government approval. Mr. Schubach noted two C.U.P. requests for second units in single-family dwelling areas had been received, which must be approved/denied pursuant to set criteria, or adopt an ordinance within 120 days. Mr. Schubach stated Staff had prepared two alternative ordinances, presented as Alternatives A and BJ_ of which he detailed, as ·well as the methods of applicat on for each, for the Commission. Comm. Di Monda commented upon the 5 P.C. Minutes 10-20-92 energy given by Staff to this proposed ordinance, which creates the ability to turn some sections into multi- family areas, rather than investigation findings to pre- clude the second units from occurring. He asked if the General Plan needed to be amended; noted the City's density, parking prob l ems and impact upon City services. He also asked if the City Council was aware of this item, why nine years had passed prior to this item being addressed, and commented the Commission should have had the opportunity to review a pam~hlet covering this subject and issued by the League of Cities. Comm. Di Monda stated this item was not initiated by the Planning Commission, but that it was being presented again. Comm. Di Monda expressed concern that the Commission would be reacting to an application which is arguable as to if it falls under the ordinance, already, feeling it might allow those people with "bootleg" units to legitimatize them. He felt the issue was being rushed, and perhaps in the wrong direction. Mr. Schubach stated the item was initiated by Planning Staff; the correction would be made prior to submittal to City Council. He stated little energy had been expended, since this was an amendment to the Code allowance, which required allowance be made for "granny units". He explained the hardship in assuring the occupant was over 62 years of age, noting if the person was 61, they did not qualify. Other cities had felt age limitation was not a good idea and had initiated appropriate ordinances. He stated Staff was simply eliminating the section was stated, 11 62 years of age," changed "640 square feet". to "700 square feet" to qualify one-bedroom units. He stated the current terminology in Section B could cause serious problems if taken to court. Mr. Schubach then explained the action time limits and the procedures necessary to process this amendment, noting the lack of time in which to make the necessary findings. He felt current actions would not exclude future opportunities to review the issues and take appropriate actions. Comm. Suard and Mr. Schubach discussed the provisions for bachelor-type units within the R-2 and R-3 Zones versus the proposed unit space of 700 square feet. Public Hearing opened by Chmn. Merl at 8:25 p.m. Betty Martin, 257 27th Street, requested the terminology be changed, to which Mr. Schubach responded that it had been and that she had an "old" copy. She commented the tenants were supposed to be related to the property owner, to which Mr. Lee responded single-family resident tenants did not have to be "blood" related. He noted the City 6 P.C. Minutes 10-20-92 could include provision that onlr owner-occupant could make application for the second unit, which would provide restriction. No one else wished to speak regarding this item, and Chmn. Merl closed the Public Hearing at 8:28 p.m. Comm. Oakes confirmed with Mr. Schubach the approximate location of the impacted lots and that parking require- ments must be met by the entire lot if a second unit was built. Comm. Suard determined the City had approximately 52% R-1 lots, other cities' "norm" was a lot higher, and suggested this would be a reason for exemption. Mr. Schubach noted the risk was in being challenged, defining the particular item requirements for prohibition of second units. Mr. Lee stated State Law required specific finding of adverse impacts be made, which included specific factual support. He stated the ordinances are sent to the Dept. of Housing and Community Development and closely reviewed by housing applicants. He explained the difficulty in developing those findings within the short time frame. Mr. Lee underscored the point that the opportunity to develo~ an ordinance is lost if not completed within the specific time limit, which had prompted Staff to take action on this item. He discussed the possibility of readopting another ordinance with the specific findings requirements, noting the review of the second units would probably be under the State provisions. He had found that the Appellant Court was usually very harsh on cities for taking actions which would lessen housing opportunities and/or prevent second units. Mr. Lee stated the purpose of the suggested terminology was to make it legally defensible. He recommended adoption of an ordinance with the "most teeth" at this time, stating the Commission must ask itself if the standards were reasonable and tough enough. Comm. Oakes felt adverse effects would be created if second units were allowed, which would perhaps justify exemption. She stated Hermosa Beach was a small city with small lots. She suggested higher numbers be used. Mr. Schubach stated findings would be necessary in order to implement Comm. Oakes suggestion, and that perhaps the courts would find it unreasonable. Chmn. Merl concurred, stating the findings would need to be extremely specific. Comm. Di Monda compared Beverly Hills to Hermosa Beach, commenting that city did not allow people sleeping and camping on the street, truck trailers parked on the street and had homes located on 6 to 20 acres. He expressed 7 P.C. Minutes 10-20-92 concern that the report was insubstantial, while the impact on the City's quality of life would be high. He strongly opposed adoption of the Text Amendment, request- ing a comparison of other cities defense against this same problem, as well as notation as to which were successful, not successful and why. He also discussed with Mr. Lee the City's options as to future actions if the amendment were approved. Mr. Lee stated he did not see prevention from adopting an initial ordinance under Subdivision A, and subsequently, after Staff has had adequate time to develop s~ecific adverse impacts that could be created by second units, amend the Municipal Code to preclude second units. Mr. Schubach stated most cities had adopted Sec- tion A and expressed concern that, with the short notice, findings would be legally defensible. • Comm. Marks clarified that the State would overrule the City's Master Plan and Zoning Plan, allowing over- population, to which Messrs. Schubach and Lee agreed, givin9 examples of previous requirements by State a9enc1es. Comms. Di Monda, Oakes and Mr. Schubach then discussed the impact upon reasonable, required o~en space. Comm. Di Monda requested that Staff investigate the actions taken by Manhattan Beach regarding open space requirements. Mr. Lee stated that if the Commission were to adopt Subdivision C, it instruct Staff on a priority basis, to investigate and present findings within the time limit. . Comm. Suard suggested obtaining an advisory opinion from the State regarding the excessive multi-unit problem, other cities be queried, and work on a Subsection B ~roposal. Mr. Lee felt the State's response would be that it was a legislative decision based upon individual facts related to the community, which the City must supply. Comm. Suard suggested the request be made. He felt the State's Section 5, limiting to 30% of living area, could be added to the "700 square foot" Section, resulting ~n a state-ment, "The second unit has a maximum floor area of 700 square feet and cannot exceed 30% of the existing living area." Comm. Marks suggested this item be used as a means of leverage to clean Hermosa Avenue, illegal second uni ts would be made to comply or close. Mr. Lee stated the question as to whether or not "bootlegs" (which are not a legal usage) are second units can be addressed through the local ordinance; a code enforcement issue. Comm. Marks noted that many "bootleg" units are separately metered and easily identified. 8 P.C. Minutes 10-20-92 MO~IOH by Comm. Oakes to ADOP~ TA 92-4, Text Amendment, Alternative A, with addition of from the State Code Section B.1, "the unit is not intended for sale and may be rented," Section 5, "any increase in the floor area of an attached second unit shall not exceed 30% of the existing living area" and change Subsection A first paragraih, third line to read, " ... unit to an existing single-fam ly dwelling". Motion failed due to lack of a second. Comm. Di Monda hoped that after passing Alternative A, Alternative B would be reviewed. He stated the Condominium Code established a limit of 900 square feet, rather than the 700 square feet being recommended for this action. Mr. Schubacn stated another 700 square feet provision was in the Condominium Code. Comm. Di Monda stated he wished the square footage to be 500. Mr. Schubach stated if 700 square feet was required! it would be chanaed prior to presentation to City Counc l. Comm. Di Monda referenced State Ordinance, Line Item tC.7, noting the architectural re,1riew was in the Condominium Code but not the R-1 Zone second units. Mr. Schubach agreed, stating it would be covered through the c.u.P. Mr. Lee suggested architectural review in the R-1 Zone be included as a provision, if the Commission so wished. Comm. Oakes agreed to an amendment to the motion. AMENDED MOTION by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by Comm. Merl, to ADOPT TA 92-4, Text Amendment, Alternative A, with addition of from the State Code Section B.1, "the uni~ is not intended for sale and may be rented," Section 5, "any increase in the floor area of an attached second unit shall not exceed 301 of the existing living area", change Subsection A first paragraph, third line to read, " ••• unit to an existing single-family dwelling" and include a provision to require architectural review relating to second units within the R-1 Zone. AYl!:81 HOES1 ABSBNTI ABSTAIH1 Comm. Di Monda, Mark•, Oakea, Suard, Chmn. Merl Hone Hone Hone MOTION by Comm. Di Monda that the Planning Commission send a letter to the City Council asking it to reconsider the open apace study forwarded to it by the Planning Comrnisaion1 specifically pointing out this Ordinance. Mr. Schubach stated that had been already included at the Council's next scheduled meeting, asking that the study be done. Comm. Di Monda requested a letter be sent stating that if a percentage of open space is required, that the 9 P.C. Minutes 10-20-92 single-family home character be preserved, because of thia ordinance. The Commission concurred with this request. AMSNDED MOTION by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by Comm. Suard, to direct Staff to present to the Commission ordinances cast by other cities (Carmel, Beverlr Hilla, Santa Barbara) that have attempted to deal w th this issue, include the Dept. of Housing and Community Development opinion and contact the League of California Cities. Ho objection•, so ordered. A break was taken from 9:20 to 9130 p.m. UIWUQS CON 90-16, 17, 18, 19 --EXTENSIONS FOR EXPIRED CQNPitIQHAle yss PBRHJ;s FOR FOUR TtfQ-UNIJ CONDOMINIUMS. Mr. Schubach stated Staff recommended a six-month extension by minute order, discussed previous Commission and Citr Council action relative to this item and stated the app icant had experienced difficulty obtaining finan- cing. He stated the plans had been plan checked and approved for building permit issuance, with the only remaining obligation being the building permit ·fee payment. He explained the findings the Commission could make by minute order. There were no questions of Staff, and at 9s37 p.m., Chmn. Merl invited members of the audience to speak. No one wished to speak relating to this item. Comm. Suard noted that all three proposed atruotures were designed to a JS-feet height. Comm. Di Monda referenced a previous presentation made which established it was _.cornpa- tible with the surrounding area, and the plans did .conform to the intention. Comm. Oakes felt this was important to reference. Comm. Mark• eetabliahed this would be the first extension. HOl'ION by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by Chmn. Marl, to APPROVE Staff'• reoommendati,on to extend the c.u.p. for six months, to January 22, 1993, by minute order. AYBS1 NOBSa ABSBNl'I ABBTAIHI comm. Di Monda, Hark ■, Oakes, Suard, Chmn. Herl None None None 10 P.C. Minutes 10-20-92 SS 92-7 SPECIAL STUDY AND TEXT AMENDMENT TO SECTION 116O(D) OF THE ZONING CODE REGARDING DRIVEWAY GRADES. Mr. Schubach stated Staff was asking the Commission to choose one of the recommended alternatives and direct Staff to schedule a text amendment for public hearing. He discussed previous actions by the Commission, as well as the concern regarding driveway grades. He discussed the exception allowed by Section 1160 (d), noted the intent would be achieved by providing blends or transitions to eliminate potential of vehicles scraping the ground. No specific guidelines are available, therefore, determining if ground scraping would occur is not an easy task. Inconsistency in application is possible as the Planning Commission is the decision maker in the cases of condom- iniums or precise development plans. He then detailed the proposed Alternatives A, B, C and D to deal with the problem, noting that Staff generally supported Al terna- tive D, but would like to conduct further research before making a specific ordinance recommendation. He then discussed Alternatives Band C, noting Alternative A did not seem appropriate, given the small lots and varying sloping lots. Comm. Marks felt the criteria should be the vision level from the vehicle; suggesting landscaping be maintained at a certain height and, based upon the setback from the beginning of the building, the corner should be a clipped at a minimum of 45 degree angle, for vision purposes. He felt Staff address that potential problem, noting the situation was dangerous, allowing no vision of pedestrians or oncoming vehicles. Mr. Schubach stated that criteria could be established if Alternative B were used. Comm. Di Monda felt the criteria could be established with the use of Alternative D. He stated that when the review is made, Staff present concise information to the Commission, as some County and City documentation is confusing. Comm. Oakes liked the idea of a graduated scale. She did not feel this was a Planning Commission issue, but rather the decision should be based on facts, suggesting an appropriate formula be decided upon. Comms. Oakes and Di Monda agreed that "25%" was excessive. Comm. Oakes stated railings and walls should be included in the review and supported Alternative D. Comm. Di Monda felt all the information should be returned to the Commission, noting that Culver City's written description dealt with Paragraph I and other cities probably addressed the same issues. Comm. Oakes felt the decision should be completed at the level of the Public Works or Planning Departments, not at the Planning Commission level. Chmn. Merl felt the issue of vision and slope had merit. The Commission agreed it currently did not have enough information. 11 P.C. Minutes 10-20-92 MOTION by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by Comm. Oakes, to study Alternative D and to incorporate the comments made by the Planning Commission. No objections, so ordered. STAFF ITEMS a. Tentative future Planning Commission agenda. Mr. Schubach noted the special study November 4, 1992 meeting hearing is still under study and will not be presented. Chmn. Merl stated the tradition of one meeting held in December would probably be followed, to which the Commission agreed. Comm. Di Monda suggested a note be sent to the Council reminding them the Joint Meeting should be held in December, and asking them to set a date. The Commission agreed it would be available the first Thursday in December. RECEIVE AND FILE b. Memorandum from Bill Grove, Building Director, regarding design limitation:s for professionals. c. City Council minutes of September 22, 1992. RECEIVE AND FILE d. Memorandum from Carol Williams, Senior Building Inspector regarding a permit issued for an addition and roof deck at 926 Monterey Blvd. RECEIVE AND FILE COMMISSIONER ITEMS a. Comm. Oakes requested the base of the trees along the greenbelt be trimmed up to a height that would afford visibility beneath the trees. This would help stop people from sleeping under those trees at night. The Commission requested a a letter be sent to the City Manager, which explained the situation and requested the trees be trimmed up to a reasonable height. b. Comm. Marks requested the status of the Ocean Drive parking situation. Mr. Schubach stated it had been postponed, was still under consideration and the subcommittee had not finished with its review. Comm. Marks noted the project had been ongoing for two years 12 P.C. Minutes 10-20-92 and expressed his concern since parking enforcement was not taking place; the problem was not being solved. Comm. Di Monda stated the subcommittee had met with the community, but needed four to six weeks before a report could be completed for the City Council. c. Comm.· Di Monda requested a memorandum be sent to the City Manager asking if a competition for the design of the pier could be put into motion. He noted the concept had been very well received with the design community and a lot of interest has been expressed. He wanted to get some motion going, and asked if the Planning Commission needed to become more involved. Comm. Suard thought the competition was a good idea and suggested the Beach Reporter be used, as it had cooperated in other competitions, previously. d. Comm. Di Monda noted Pacific Coast Highway at 9th Street (across from the Mobile Station) had barricades erected there to prevent left turns. He stated the area was an embarrassment; trash, falling signs, broken plastic items. He felt barriers should be placed correctly, with landscaping, ground cover, etc. He requested a letter be sent to the City Manager regarding clean up of this area, to which the Commission agreed and directed Staff to comply with this request. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by the Commission to adjourn at 10: 08 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 October 20, 1992. /2 /1 . --? ,A,,,-:-.P (._,,·· I -J /J ,:,r ,,,. 1 -~_j'/,~ -74Z?k/?f21.~- Rod Merl, Chai~man Michael Schubactt, Secretary (•• -rJ -5/7 ( ; . --- Date 13 P.C. Minutes 10-20-92