HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC_Minutes_1992_02_04• SYL 1) I A RCIIJT TEL N0.310-832-7770 Feb 13,92
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA
BEACH HELD ON FEBRUARY 4, 1992, A'l' 7 :00 P.M. IN THE CITY BALL
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Meeting called to order at 7:01 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz.
Pledge of Allegiance led by Comm. Di Monda.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Absent:
Also Present:
Comms. Di Monda, Marks, Chmn. Ketz
Comm. Merl (arrived at 7:05 p.m.)
Comm. Suard (arrived at 7:10 p.m.)
None
Michael Schubach; Planning Director,
Edward Lee, Assistant City Attorney,
Sylvia Root, Recording Secretary
CONSENT CALENDAR
MOTION by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by Comm. Marks, to appro~.·e the
following Consent Calendar items, with a correction in Resolution
P.C. 92-3, Page 2, No. 4, to read, "Certificate of Occupancy".
Minutes of the January 7, 1992 Planning Commission meeting.
Resolution P .C. 92-3, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A PRECISE
DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO ALLOW THE ADDITION OF A SECOND UNIT, AND
APPROVING AN EXCEPTION FROM SECTION 13-7(b) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE
TO ALLOW THIS ADDITION OF REPLACEMENT VALUE AT 840 FIFTEENTH
STREET.
Resolution P.C. 92-1, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, REGARDING THE DESIGN OF
RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS SUBJECT TO A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND/OR
PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Di Monda, Marks, and Chmn. Ketz
None
None
Comms. Merl and Suard
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC
No one wished to address the Commission regarding a matter not
related to a public hearing on the agenda.
PUBLIC HEARING
PDP 91-10 PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PUN TO ALLOW A DUPLEX AT 122
FIRST STREET (CONTINUED FROM JANUARY 7 , 1992 MEETING).
Recommended Action: To continue to February 18, 1992 meeting for
applicant to submit revised plans.
1 P.C.Minutes 2/4/92
SYLVIA ROOT TEL N0.310-832-7770 Feb 13,92
Mr. Schubach stated the Staff recommended continuance to the
February 18, 1992, meeting, due to complications with the existing
side yard of 2.45 feet and the house width, the applicant needed
additional time to complete new plan revisions.
Public Hearing opened by Chmn. Ketz at 7:04 p.m.
No one wished to address the Commission regarding this matter.
Public Hearing closed by Chmn. Ketz at 7:04 p.m.
MOTION by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by Comm. Marks, to CONTINUE PDP
91-10 to the Planning Commission Meeting on February 18, 1992.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comm. Marks, Chmn. Ketz
Comm. Di. Monda
None
Comma. Merl, Suard
CON 92-1/PDP 92-1 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP
#20554, AND A PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR A TWO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM
AT 2902 HERMOSA AVENUE.
Recommended Action: To ap~rove said Conditional Use Permit,
Tentative Parcel Map and Precise Development Plan.
Mr. Schubach gave the Staff Report, describing the property,
location, existing structures and proposed project. He stated the
project is consistent with the area, complies with Planning and
Zoning requirements, was designed with various setbacks and
~rejections, and complied with applicable code requirements
including a recently adopted policy statement relating to open
space requirements. Mr. Schubach noted the applicant wished to
provide access from both the street and alley, necessitating an
additional curb cut on Hermosa Avenue. The loss of one space
street parking would be offset by additional driveway parking. He
coro.mented the March 1989 project approval included driveways at
both Hermosa Avenue and Palm Drive.
Public Hearing opened by Chmn. Ketz at 7:11 p.m.
Elizabeth Srour, 820 Manhattan Avenue, representing Mr. and Ms.
Douglas Clark, discussed the analysis submitted to the Commission,
described in detail the proposed project and aspects of the pro-
posed structures. She stated the two units would have a total of
seven controlled parking spaces. Comm. Marks determined with Ms.
Srour that an elevator room was shown on the plans.
Vivian Hoffman, 3002 Hermosa Avenue,
28 residents protesting the project.
miniums have a maximum height of
reviewed.
submitted a petition ·eigned by
Ms. Hoffman requested condo-
30 feet and that Zoning be
Wilma Burt, Hermosa Beach, felt no buildings should be allowed to
2 P.C.Minutes 2/4/92
:3·y·L 1,.}IA R:Cil]T TEL ND.310-832-7770 Feb 13,Sl2 9:19 F'.04
have a height of over 30 feet. She felt the area was being changed
into a rental area rather than a private residential area, also
suggesting the Zoning Ordinance be reviewed.
Elizabeth Srour rebutted by stating the project met all Codes
currently in existence, is very attractive and will be compatible
with adJacent properties. She commented upon the high purchase
price of property within Hermosa Beach, and stated the owners are a
family of five and wish to have a large home, as well as a rental
unit.
Public Hearing closed by Chmn. Ketz at 7:24 p.m.
Comm. Di Monda provided a map to the Commission, noting R-1
pro1rerties along The Strand and, then, immediately adjacent R-3
zoning, with R-2 and R-1 followin9. He discussed the misplacement
of the R-3 zoning, resulting in view and light blockage due to the
height limits. He suggested the plans be revised to drop the
building by five feet, to allow other views to be maintained. He
questioned allowing the project to be completed as long as the
question regarding the R-3 zoning area remained.
Comm. Suard seconded Comm. Di Monda' s views and discussed the
possibility of a moratorium. Mr. Schubach suggested the matter be
referred to the City Council or continued to consider a moratorium
or area rezoning. Mr. Lee explained the moratorium restrictions
and stated the Commission may request consideration by City Council
of a moratorium and noted the issues relating to continuance: i.e.
be the time limitations in which the City must act upon project
approval or disapproval. He offered to investigate the ability to
condition a moratorium and report back to the Commission. Mr. Lee
stated another available alternative to the Commission was to
consider the merits of the application and either approve or
disapprove the application. Comm. Suard asked for the applicant's
views toward reducing the building height.
Comm. Merl stated he felt the project conformed to all require-
ments; the Commission should base its decision upon the project
merits and separate th.e review of zoning from this project.
Public Hearing reopened by Chmn. Ketz at 7:32 p.m.
Elizabeth Srour stated reduction of the building by five feet would
be extremely complicated, result in loss of interior space and
require a total redesign. She determined that a single-family
dwelling would not require appearance before the Commission, noting
the unfairness and impact to the applicant, all requirements had
been met by the project and that the project was now ready to move
forward. She asked this project be treated as had others
previously before the Commission. ·
Public Hearing closed by Chmn. Ketz at 7:24 p.m.
Chmn. Ketz stated the Commission had the option to approve or deny
the request, continue the request with recommendation to City
3 P.C.Minutes 2/4/92
-.:,1 L \i lH ,"",UUi I t. L 1 ·i ;_, .. :, 1 U -O ,:, L -( f ( I..)
Council a moratorium on R-3 area development until concerns are
reviewed and decided upon. Mr. Schubach commented that if the
Commission continued the project to a date-certain, no additional
costs would be experienced by the applicant. He stated a C.U.P, is
valid for a two-year period.
Comm. Marks noted the applicant had completed a great amount of
work which met codes and had been accepted by Staff.
In response to a question from Chmn. Ketz, Mr. Lee explained the
general rule in California in respect to vested rights is that a
valid building permit and substantial amount of construction be
completed; a valid C.U.P. alone does not constitute vested rights.
Mr. Lee referenced and explained a recent case law which has
started to change that rule, recommending the Commission and City
Council review the status of each project in reference to a
moratorium implemented after project approval.
MOTION by Comm. Merl, seconded by Comm. Marks, to APPROVE CON
92-1/PDP 92-1 for a one-year valid period with all conditions
recommended by Staff.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Di Monda, Marks, Merl, Chmn. Retz
None
Comm. Suard
None
MOTION by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by Comm. Merl, to ask that the
City Council review zoning of R-3 areas, specifically this
project's R-3 zone, and any R-3 areas that are ''islands" within R-1
and/or R-2 zo ni ng areas and direc t the Commission, or that the City
Council issue a moratorium to allow Staff time to study and respond
to the Commission.
AYES:
NOES:
Comma. Di Monda, Marks, Merl, Suard, Chmn. Ketz
None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
The Commis sion directed Staff to describe the subject area in a way
that distinctively makes a differenc e from the other areas and
submit that description to the Commission prior to submission to
City Council.
CUP 91-18 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW AUTO
DETAILING IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN EXISTING CAR WASH, AND ADOPTION OF
AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 1000 PACIFIC COAST
HIGHWAY, HERMOSA CAR WASH.
Recommended Action: To approve said Conditional Use Permit
amendment and adopt the Environmental Negative Declaration.
Mr. Schubach discussed the history of this application, noting the
long term existance of the gasoline station and automatic car wash
4 P.C.Minutes 2/4/92
S;'y{_ I,.) I A F:DDT TEL ND.310-832-7770
that had been on the site, a valid C. U. P., the existence of a
non-complying canopy and detail work being conducted, with
subsequent Variance request denial. The site was purchased in
1990, with improvement being made thereafter, including a partially
automatic/handwash operation. Mr. Schubach said the -applicant
proposed to relocate the canopy and adequate parking remains a
problem. A landscape bumper strip and a revised parking plan
showing parking changes have been proposed by Staff. He discussed
resident complaints received by Staff and explained the impact of
the detailing, parking and exiting opera.tions and requirements.
Some suggested conditions included a revised parking plan to
include employee parking, prohibiting employee parking on the
street, provision of street trees and dense landscaping, full
enclosure of the car wash except entrance and exit, and limitation
of hours of operation. Mr. Schubach noted cars should be driven by
employees, therefore the circumstances are acceptable, with a
limited access to the car-waxing operation in the rear.
Comm. Merl noted that on week-ends, cars are being parked on an
adjacent lot and that exit from that lot by backing the cars out
was very dangerous. Mr. Schubach stated Staff had not been aware
of that situation, but felt use of the adjacent lot was an illegal
use, suggested Conditions be added addressing the use of that lot.
Comm. Di Monda and Mr. Schubach discussed the requirement for 17
parking space requirement for employees.
Public Hearing opened by Chmn. Ketz at 8:07 p.m.
Ken McDonald, project architect, 2306 Pacific Coast Highway, #307,
stated a noise test had been conducted and trees had been planted.
He stated additional landscaping could be accomplished to decrease
the noise factor. The majority of the employees use a bus rather
than cars, allowing more available parking. He suggested that
several parking configurations be submitted for review and approval
by the Commission. He stated the hours of operation -are 8: 00 a.m.
-6:00 p.m. in the summer and 8:00 a.m. -5:00 p.rn. in the winter.
Richard O'Bryan, applicant, stated he was not aware o -f the non-
conforming status when he purchased the property. He stated the
employee parking was well below ten. After discussion between
Comm. Di Monda and Mr. Schubach, it was suggested a revised parking
plan which perhaps included stacked employee parking would be
necessary. Mr. O 'Bryan stated he could accommodate 17 parking
stalls. He discussed exiting onto 10th Street and explained the
problems associated with closure of that exit, noting his willing-
ness to assur-e --signage stating "Exit Only".
s. J. Lennox, property owner 845 10th Street, felt the noise had
increased, not decreased. He stated that cars from the car wash
were parked on 10th Street and opposed approval of the application.
David Nakiwa, 10th Street, stated he hears the carwash every dar,
noise has not decreased, on-site parking is always full, traf fie
exiting is dangerous, and detailing is done every day. He opposed
5 P.C.Minutes 2/4/92
approval of the application. He approved blocking off 10th Street
and closure of the car ramp onto 10th Street.
Mr. Dunlap, 830 10th Street since 1956, felt the noise wasn't
excessive and the parking problems being experienced was due to the
number of rental properties on the street, not the car wash.
Mike Galeata, 902 10th Street, agreed with David Nakiwa's
statements, commenting upon the traf fie speed due to cars coming
from Aviation Blvd., stating the traffic is being unnecessarily
increased. He stated there are more property owners than renters
living on 10th Street.
Public Hearing closed by Chmn. Ketz at 8:30 p.m.
Mr. Schubach explained that equipment had been installed without
prior approval by the Building Department, but were purported to
have reduced the noise level. Staff has not received any
additional complaints and thought the problem to have been
resolved. Howeve:r:, upon site inspection, Staff had concluded
additional reduction by enclosing the canopy area was necessary.
Comm. Marks confirmed that Staff's suggestion to not allow
employees to park on 10th Street should be reinforced.
Comm. Di Monda discussed with Mr. Schubach the property history
dating back to 1971 and noted six parking spaces were required in
1989. He felt the 10th Street exit could probably be closed and
sympathized with residents regarding the noise levels, but stated
he had a problem with requiring 17 parking spaces for a non-chan9ed
property usage. Mr. Schubach again suggested a revised parking
plan with stacked parking spaces be submitted to the Commission.
Comm. Merl fe-lt the landscaping should have been completed
previously and expressed concern regarding the traffic problems,
including required safety and supervision, which should be
addressed. Chmn. Ketz stated her agreement and outlined the
options available to the Commission. Comm. Suard discussed
possible canopy closure with acoustically-saturated material.
Public Hearing reopened by Chmn. Ketz at 8:45 p.m.
Mr. O'Bryan, applicant, requested a two-month continuance to
conduct research in acoustical materials and allow the • architect
sufficient time to complete revisions.
Mr. McDonald, architect, also requested the two-month continuance,
stating he had other clients and needed the additional time. Comm.
Marks confirmed with Mr. McDonald that the issues were: noise,
closure of the canopy, restriping of the parking lot, parking in
the adjacent parking lot and possible closure of the 10th Street
exit.
MOtION by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by Comm. Marks, to CONTINUE
CUP 91-18 until this item until March 17, 1992, at which time a
revised parking plan, with at least 12 -parking spaces and closure
of 10th Street exiting, is to be submitted to the Commission.
6 P.C.Minutes 2/4/92
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Di Monda, Marks, Merl, Suard, Chmn. Ketz
None
None
None
A break was taken from 8:57 until 9:03 p.m.
CUP 91-21/ZON 91-1 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A DAY CARE
CENTER FOR 30 CHILDREN AND TO ALLOW AN OVER-HEIGHT SOUND WALL
PURSUANT TO SECTION 1215(6) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, AND TO
CONSIDER A ZONE CHANGE FROM R-1 TO C-3 OR TO SUCH OTHER ZONE AS
DEEMED APPROPRIATE BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION, AND ADOPTION OF A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 739 LONGFELLOW AVENUE, O.K.
CORRAL DAY CARE (continued from November 19, 1991 meeting).
Recommended Action: To approve said Conditional Use Permit with
adoption of the Environmental Negative Declaration, and deny the
zone change.
Mr. Schubach stated Staff recommended approval subject to
Conditions. He stated the retaining wall is on public property and
that a taller, private fence, planted with ficus vines, is
recommended to be built. He noted an alternative to approval would
be to Continue the issue until a traffic evaluation could be
completed. Mr. Schubach noted the zone change is unnecessary and,
therefore, denial is recommended. He noted a maximum allowance of
28 children, but stated a condition is that a license be obtained
which would determine the amount of children allowed at this
facility. Mr. Schubach further discussed parking requirements,
hours of operation, traffic impact, fencing and remodel of interior
structure, and noted the differences between the proposed business
and the previous day center at the same location. He also stated
the noise impact is of concern, to be decreased by fencing and
landscaping, and partially mitigated through the conditions of the
C.U.P.
Public Hearing opened by Chmn. Ketz at 9:13 p.m.
Bill Beck, 124 Harkness, stated he concurred with the C.U.P. except
for the playground hours. He requested an time earlier than 9:30
a.m. to allow children on the playground. Mr. Beck acknowledged a
parking problem exists whether he is there or not. He stated he
had a gas-meter vault on the corner and, therefore, could not
comply with fencing suggestions, but will be setting the fence back
and adding landscaping and will have a very nice "look" from the
street. He stated he was in favor or the C.U.P. Commission Marks
suggested he ~put a coping on top of a wall, to which Mr. Beck
agreed. Comm. Di Monda discussed the apparent lack of toilets in
the plans with Mr. Beck, who stated facility must be adequate to
qualify for a license. Comm. Suard determined the Center would
qualify for only 25 children. Chmn. Ketz discussed with Mr. Beck
his wish to open at 6: 30 a .m. Mr. Beck stated the parents must
bring the children into the building and sign them in·, parking
their car during that process.
7 P.C.Minutes 2/4/92
S'•/L I.) I A F:IJ[IT TEL N0.310-832-7770 Feb 13,9~ r:i:-;,3 F·.□7
care center. He stated a petition in opposition had been submitted
had been submitted to the City Council. He stated the Center was
in the center of traf fie bedla.m and that it had not planned
adequate parking spaces and requested a traffic study be completed
prior to any decision.
Wilma Burt, Hermosa Beach, opposed approval of the child care
center, feeling the door was being opened to other centers and
traffic problems would increase. She questioned the number of
proposed employees, parking spaces and facilities versus the number
of children that will be attending the Center.
Mel Takata, 738 Longfellow, discussed use of his driveway by
unauthorized vehicles, the fact that fewer children will attend
this Center than the previous one, lack of area parking spaces, and
urged the Commission to consider the traffic problems within the
area. He suggested that permanent resident-only parking be
considered as an alternative. Mr. Takata felt that Mr. Beck had
had strong indications that the application would be approved,
which bothered him. He stated he was glad a zone change was not
being recommended.
Public Hearing closed by Chmn. Ketz at 9:38 p.m.
Comm. Merl and Mr. Schubach discussed the possibility and method of
obtaining preferential parking for residents. Chmn. Ketz and Comm.
Merl agreed that a parking problems existed on the street. The
requirement for liability insurance was discussed by Comm. Merl
with Mr. Lee stating it was not a condition of the C.U.P. since the
operation was on private property. Mr. Lee explained the liabili-
ties for the use did not extend to the City and discussed ramifi-
cations with the Commission, offering to further investigate and
return with his findings to the Commission. Comm. Di Monda
expressed concern that implementation of liability insurance would
extend to condominiums and other issues, to which Chmn. Ketz
agreed. The Commission directed Mr. Lee to investigate and present
his findings at the next scheduled Commission meeting.
Comm. Di Monda stated this day care center meet al·l the
requirements and will be different than the previously submitted
plans; the Commission is not approving a I?lan with inadequate
equipment or facilities. He stated the residents can apply for
permitted parking, which would probably help alleviate parking
problems.
MOTION by Comm, Merl, seconded by Comm. Di Monda, to APPROVE the
C. U. P. to allow a day care center, with Conditions, landscaping
changes to include angled fence at the pro~erty corner as a safety
measure, with...-adjustments to Item #11; business hours of 6:30 a.m.
to 6:30 p.m. and allowing children to play outside on the
playground beginning at 8:30 a.m.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Di Monda, Marks, Merl, Suard and Chmn. Ketz
None
None
None
8 P.C.Minutes 2/4/92
. .
STAFF ITEMS
a. Memorandum regarding the status report at 126 Manhattan Avenue.
Chmn. Ketz noted the Building Department made no progress and
no further effort to obtain final approval. Mr. Schubach
stated Staff would follow this issue to assure it will be
progress in the proper manner. Comm. Di Monda asked if the
final map be approved prior to the property being placed in
escrow. Mr. Lee stated that is a function of disclosure to the
potential buyer.
b. Memorandum regarding staff recommendations.
Chmn. Ketz stated this referenced the Commission's request to
know in advance if Staff intends to change its recommendations
forwarded to City Council. Mr. Schubach stated he submitted
this memorandum for the Commission's information and would
notify the Commission if any Staff decisions were altered.
c. Memorandum regarding Hotel Hermosa sign approval.
Mr. Schubach believed notice will be forwarded to the ·city
Manager stating the permit should not have been granted and
should be rescended. If the property owner is dissatisfied, he
may appeal the decision. Mr. Lee stated his office and the
City Manager's is aware of the issue and the question as to
whether or not a reasonable interpretation had been made, with
no opinion to the City Manager issued to date. He felt it
appropriate the property owner be put on notice.
Chmn. Ketz asked if the Commission could appeal it to itself,
to which Mr. Lee stated the Planning Commission is the appeal
body, but the Commission does not expressly have the right to
be the a~grieved party. Mr. Lee had not issued an opinion as
to the right to appeal at this time, with discussions having
just started. Chmn. Ketz noted, in the sign ordinance, page
336.50, it states a banner must be approved by the Planning
Commission. Mr. Lee acknowledged the valid point, but needed
to return with an opinion, noting the Code ambiguity. Chmn.
Ketz noted, under the Design Section of the Code, Material
336.38, stated the materials from which a sign could be made;
metal, glass, approved plastic or wood. Mr. Lee stated the
Attorney's Office needs to further study the issue before an
opinion may be given, but that the Code is clear in that the
administrative interpretation and ~nforcement is with·the
building official, subject to appeal. He acknowledged and
explained the lack of clarity in the Code.
Comm. Di Monda noted that correspondence showed that a
suggestion was made to the hotel operator that a permanent
9 P.C.Minutes 2/4/92
sign, noting that Mr. Grove initially interpreted the Sign
Ordinance as a temporary sign, found himself with an
enforcement problem and offered his own solution to the hotel
operator, resulting in the involvement of a multitude of City
officials, to resolve the created problem. Mr. Lee suggested
the Commission may wish to close any policy loop holes by
suggesting Ordinance changes. Comm. Merl pointed out that the
sign could have been made of wood and would have then.been
acceptable. Mr. Lee noted that Staff interprets on a
day-to-day basis the Ordinances, giving practical meaning to
those 'ordinances. The Commission may increase clarity and
review procedures of the ordinances or make Code Amendements if
they so wish.
Comm. Di Monda and Mr. Lee discussed the Commission's wishes,
with Mr. Lee reiterating the Commission had asked the Planning
Director to raise the issue with the City Manager's Office,
that had been completed, the Sign Ordinance is within the
jurisdiction of the Building Official, the City Manager can
question the administrative i nterpretation with the Building
Official, and the Commission's position is well known relating
to this issue. He noted the Commission could suggest that
counsel review the Sign Ordinance, but under present
conditions, it is being handled under Administration, and
appropriately so.
Comm. Merl felt the Sign Ordinance should be revised, put into
the Zoning Ordinance, but stated it was clear the sign was
improper by definition. He felt the ordinance was clear and
that the decision regarding this sign was incorrect and needed
to be addressed, requesting to see copies of adjacent cities'
sign ordinances. Mr. Merl suggested the Commission request the
City Council initiate a Text Amendment to the Municipal Code to
make the Sign Ordinance a part of the Zoning Ordinance.
Comm. Suard noted the current sign will deteriorate quickly and
suggested prior to a replacement sign being installed, the
Commission should be able to approve or veto. Comm. Di Monda
suggested that once new text is in place, an amitorization
period on all signs of this type to have them removed. Mr. Lee
agreed this would be appropriate. He commented that if the
City Manager's Office determined the sign stands, the
Commission could ask council to review the issue and ask the
matter be brought up on appeal to the Commission. Comm. Merl
disagreed in that the article states, "ap~roval by the
Commission". Mr. Lee stated a determination as to "sign" or
"banner" needed to be made in relation to this particular
issue, again noting the ambiguitie~ of the Sign Ordinance.
MOTION by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by Comm. Merl to approve the
Memorandum.
10 P.C.Minutes .2/4/92
AYES:
NOES:
Comms. Di Monda, Marks, Merl, Suard and Chmn. Ketz
None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
d. Memorandum regarding the joint workshop meetings.
Mr. Schubach stated Staff had contacted the School Board
regarding meeting dates and presented the School Board's
preference of March 5 and 26, 1992 for the meetings. He stated
the preferred meeting date, as well as the meeting topics would
be presented to the City Council. He stated the Chamber of
Commerce had agreed to meet jointly with the Planning
Commission on May 7 or 14, 1992 and requested the Coill11)ission
select the meeting date and topics to be discussed.
The Commission decided to meet with the School board on
March 26, 1992 at 7:00 p.m.; topics to be the green-belt
relationship, traffic circulation and the school properties
which are supposed to be park areas.
The Commission decided it had no date preference in which to
meet with the Chamber of Commerce; topics to be according to
the Chamber of Commerce's preference, but to include bagging of
meters and subsequent impact on downtown business, and discuss
a completion of a study to install windows for cross ventila-
tion in the City Hall Council Chambers with a Public Works
Department representative included in the meeting. Mr.
Schubach stated the information would be immediately forwarded
to the Council, with responses brought back to the Commission.
e. Planning Department activity report of December 1991.
RECEIVE AND FILE.
f. Memorandum regarding Planning Commission liaison for February
11, 1992 City Council meeting.
Mr. Schubach stated Staff's recommendation is exactly the same
as the one presented to the Planning Commission.
g. Tentative future Planning Commission agenda.
RECEIVE AND FILE.
h. City Council minutes of January 14, 1992.
RECEIVE AND FILE.
11 P.C.Minutes 2/4/92
COMMISSIONER ITEMS
The Commission DIRECTED Staff to send a memorandum to the City
Manager expressing the Commission's displeasure at the delay in its
receipt of the green-belt parking lot plans, noting that previous
direction made during the joint meeting of City Council and
Planning Commission has not been followed. Comm. Marks stated Mr.
Glickman had promised to present the plan at the February 18, 1992
Planning commission meeting.
The Commission DIRECTED Staff to present a report giving current
status of The Strand improvements.
The Commission DIRECTED Staff to initiate a memorandum to the City
Council requesting the Commission be an informal part of the
planning phase for major capital improvements by receiving infor-
mation from the Building Department relative to its intentions and
allowing the Commission to respond with informal recommendations.
The Commission DIRECTED Staff to initiate a memorandum to City
Council requesting it issue a Public Policy that the Public Works
Department's Capital Improvement Projects should be reviewed by the
Planning Commission, upon the Commission's request. •
The Commission DIRECTED Staff to submit the Capital Improvement
Budget to the Commission to allow the Commission's determination as
to items wished to review.
The Commission DIRECTED Staff to investigate the condominiums
located on the former South School site, which appears to have a
maintenance problem.
ADJOURNMENT
MOTION by Comm. Di Monda, seconded by Comm. Suard, to adjourn at
10:44 p.m. No objections; so ordered.
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that the fore going minutes are a true and
complete record of the action taken by the Planning Commission of
Hermosa Beach at the regularly scheduled meeting of February 4,
1992.
~A-~ sr3tq2.. 1;~ Christine Ketz, Chairman
Date
12 P.C.Minutes 2/4/92