Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes - 09.05.1989.i MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON SEPTEMBER 5, 1989, AT 7:00 P.M. IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS Meeting called to order at 7:03 P.M. by Chmn. Rue Pledge of Allegiance led by Comm. Peirce. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Comms. Ingell, Ketz, Peirce, Chmn. Rue None Also Present: Michael Schubach, Planning Director; Edward Lee, City Attorney; Ken Robertson, Associate Planner; Sally White, Recording Secretary Chmn. Rue introduced and welcomed the new Planning Commissioner, Carl Moore. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION by Comm. Ketz, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to approve the minutes of August 15, 1989, as submitted. Noting the abstentions of Comms. Moore and Peirce, so ordered. APPROVAL OF RESOLUTIONS MOTION by Comm. Ketz, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to approve Resolution P.C. 89-60, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE .PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #21198 FOR A THREE-UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 801 BARD STREET DESCRIBED AS THE EASTERLY 62.50 FEET OF LOTS 8 AND 9, BLOCK T, TRACT NO. 2002. Noting the abstentions of Comms. Moore and Peirce, so ordered. Comm. Ingell discussed Resolution P.C. 89-61, Finding D, and stated that the Commission did not include that particular finding relating to ocean views. Comm. Ketz agreed. MOTION by Comm. Ketz, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to approve as amended Resolution P.C. 89-61 (with the deletion of Finding D), A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A BALCONY TO ENCROACH INTO THE REQUIRED FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR BALCONIES AT 2214 MONTEREY BOULEVARD, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS THE SOUTHWEST PORTION OF LOT 1, MEASURING 1840 SQUARE FEET, BLOCK 64, FIRST ADDITION TO HERMOSA BEACH AND ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. Noting the abstentions of Comms. Moore and Peirce, so ordered. MOTION by Comm. Ketz, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to approve Resolution P.C. 89-62, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF A PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW PROCESS FOR ALL PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS OF TWO DWELLING UNITS OR GREATER, AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENT AL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. Noting the abstentions of Comms. Moore and Peirce, so ordered. l P.C. Minutes 9/5/89 ' COMM UNI CATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC George Sacks, 225 Valley Drive: (1) protested against the lack of time in which the public will have to review the oil drilling EIR; (2) complained that the City Attorney has not responded to the letter sent to him by the attorney for the Pacifica Villa Homeowners' Association; (3) read aloud portions of an opinion written by the former City Attorney, James Lough, regarding Ordinance 86-844 and the open space initiative; and (4) stated that the City cannot use the South School site open space for oil drilling without a vote of the people. Mr. Lee noted that the oil drilling issue is not on the agenda this evening. He stated that the issue of review time for the EIR should be addressed at the time this matter is heard. He further stated that he would respond to the letter received by the attorney at the appropriate time, when the matter is brought back before the Commission for public hearing. He stated that the opinion prepared by Mr. Lough is being factored into the decision being made on this matter. VARIANCE AND PARKING PLAN TO ALLOW A SECOND-STORY OFFICE ADDITION PROVIDING LESS THAN THE RE UIRED OFF-STREET PARKING AT 415 PIER AVENUE CONTINUED FROM MEETING OF JULY 51 1989 Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated August 30, 1989. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission deny this variance request and parking plan. This project is located in the C-2 zone, with a general plan designation of general commercial. The current use is as a one-story medical off ice. The floor area is 1600 square feet. There are four parking spaces. The proposed addition is 1145 square feet, and the required number of parking spaces is 14. The Planning Commission continued this item from the July 5, 1989, meeting to allow the applicant time to submit additional information for a parking plan to address the deficiency in parking. The staff environmental review committee, at their meeting of May 18, 1989, recommended denial of the variance and that approval should only be considered if an environmental impact report is prepared to address the cumulative impacts of similar additions without the provision of parking. The applicant is requesting a variance and parking plan to allow a second-story addition. The parking deficiency of ten spaces is proposed to be resolved partially with a variance from the standard-size parking stalls, allowing the use of up to ten spaces behind the building and partially through a parking plan which would set up an employee ride sharing program to reduce parking demand by up to seven cars. The applicant has submitted a letter proposing that carpooling, biking, or walking to work be required of employees to address the parking deficiency. Staff agrees that these suggestions may be innovative solutions to parking problems but would question whether or not they fit within the scope of the provisions in Section 1169 pertaining to parking plans. Staff does not believe substantial evidence has been provided in this case to support the feasibility of the ride-share program. For example, no information has been provided regarding where the employees live and whether or not any live close enough to walk or bike, whether or not they are clustered for possible ride sharing, or if a nearby satellite parking area is available. Also, staff questions the feasibility of any employee 2 P.C. Minutes 9/5/89 staff this small being able to arrange carpools now and in the future since there are limited possibilities of matching commuters with similar schedules and locations. Staff's greatest concern, however, is with the enforcement of such a program, even if proven possible. It would be extremely difficult for staff to accurately determine whether or not the ride-sharing is actually being carried out. The program would essentially depend on voluntary compliance, and as the years pass and employees and ownership changes, the awareness of the required program would likely diminish. Staff does not feel that a covenant which restricts the upstairs area to storage if the program is not being carried out would help the situation, precisely because it would be so difficult to determine if the program is working. As such, how could the City find evidence to stop the use of the upstairs office. Staff strongly believes that once the second story is constructed, it will be extremely difficult to stop its current use under any circumstance. Staff agrees that this business is a desirable business to support and encourage to stay in the community. However, there are several other businesses in similar situations that also deserve such support. As such, staff does not think this case warrants special consideration or that this particular business deserves a special privilege which amounts to circumvention of the zoning laws, possibly to the detriment of others. The planning department spends a great deal of time at the counter and on the phone discouraging this type of parking variance or parking reduction request. If a precedent is set that the City will grant special considerations for questionable, innovative solutions, the City will hear many more of these types of requests. Staff feels that a comprehensive solution to downtown parking problems which is fair to all businesses is needed. Staff intends to study this issue in the near future in conjunction with the revision to the general plan. Comm. Moore, noting that he was not present at the first hearing of this matter, stated that he has reviewed all materials and minutes prepared for this item. He asked whether he would be able to participate in the decision-making process. Mr. Lee stated that if Comm. Moore has reviewed all the materials and feels confident that he is informed, it would not be necessary for him to abstain from this item. Public Hearing opened at 7:19 P.M. by Chmn. Rue. Noting that the applicant was not yet present and that no one else appeared to speak on this issue, Chmn. Rue stated that this public hearing would be continued to later in the meeting. (See Page 32.) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 1121325 FOR A THREE-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 1301 CYPRESS AVENUE Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated August 30, 1989. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve a conditional use permit and vesting tentative parcel map #21325 for a three-unit condominium, subject to the conditions specified in the proposed resolution. The project is in the R-3 zone, with a general plan designation of high density residential. The lot size is 4000 square feet, or 40 by 100 feet. The current use is as a two-unit apartment with two parking spaces. The environmental determination is categorically exempt. 3 P.C. Minutes 9/5/89 The applicant is proposing to construct three attached condominium units. The three proposed units contain 1918 square feet each, with two bedrooms, a loft and three and a half baths. The proposed structure has two stories and a loft above a partially subterranean garage. Proposed architectural features that are noted include glass block, stucco exterior, and steel guard rails. These simple features give the building a contemporary appearance with the flavor of the international style. The project provides the minimum front yard setback of five feet required for condominium projects. The average setback along this block of Cypress Avenue is approximately three feet, with setbacks ranging from zero to twelve feet. Lot coverage calculates to be approximately 69 percent, which exceeds the maximum allowed of 65 percent. Staff has included a condition that the plans will have to be revised to correct this problem. Also, there is a discrepancy between the lot dimensions shown on the parcel map and the lot dimensions shown on the plans. Although the difference is only nine square feet, the discrepancy needs to be cleared up so that staff can verify that the minimum setbacks and maximum lot coverage requirements can be met. Staff has included a condition to this effect. The plans meet or exceed all remaining planning and zoning requirements. Private open space for each unit is provided on second-floor decks and on the loft-level decks, and it exceeds 300 square feet for each unit. The proposed development meets the minimum parking requirements. Six parking spaces will be provided in enclosed tandem garages, and two guest parking spaces are provided across from the garages. No garage spaces or parking spaces. are directly accessed from the street. As such, this project will result in the creation of one additional on-street space since none are currently available. The surrounding residential area along Cypress Street in this tract consists of a mix of lot sizes including several 40 by 100 foot lots such as the subject parcel. They are developed with a mix of single-family, two-family, and multi-family structures of various styles and ages. The 4000 square foot lots could also be redeveloped as three-unit condominiums or apartments, subject to Planning Commission approval. Mr. Schubach, in response to questions from Comm. Moore, explained that Cypress Avenue can have tandem parking because there is no direct access to the street. Public Hearing opened at 7:25 P.M. by Chmn. Rue. Elizabeth Srour, 820 Manhattan Avenue, Manhattan Beach, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission. She stated that it is the intent of the applicant to meet all development standards and condominiums ordinance rules required in the R-3 zone. Ms. Srour stated that the architect was informed of the problem with the lot coverage, and he has looked into the matter so that the project will meet the 65 percent lot coverage requirement; those changes can be met during the plan check. She noted that revised elevations had been submitted today, stating that they differ very little in the overall building configuration or floor plan from the plans received by the Commission. She displayed these plans. 4 P.C. Minutes 9/5/89 Ms. Srour discussed the parking and stated that all of the parking is internal to the site. She pointed out the parking arrangement on the plans. She stated that all of the parking spaces will have private access into each of the the units. The guest parking is also private, internal to the site, and meets all code requirements. Ms. Srour discussed the changes to the elevations and stated that the south elevation, which is the driveway side, now has a new roof line. She pointed out these changes on the revised elevations. There will be a brick veneer with seamed metal roof. The roof line has been pulled back. She continued by showing the east elevation. Ms. Srour stated that there have been no changes to the floor plans; only the exterior elevation has been modified. She stated that the architect can adjust the building in order to meet the 65 percent lot coverage. She noted that the project is similar to others in the area. Mr. Schubach displayed the revised elevations on the easel for benefit of the audience and Commission. Ms. Srour, in response to Chmn. Rue, stated that there will be no changes to the north elevation of the project. The facade will be broken up, and the mezzanine will remain the same. The area from the mezzanine to the dining area will remain open. She stated that the only change is exterior. She felt that the revision will dress up the appearance of the building. Comm. Moore discussed appearance of buildings and noted that the code addresses this issue. He noted concern, however, that there be assurances that this design will not change again before the project is completed. Ms. Srour stated that approval of this conditional use permit for these plans is implemented during the plan check by both the Building Department and Planning Department. Therefore, plans approved by the Commission must be the plans presented during plan check. If the planning director and his staff find significant digression from the plans approved, the matter can be returned to the Planning Commission for review. Comm. Moore noted concern that developers sometimes change the materials which are originally proposed. Ms. Srour stated that the intention is to build what the Commission has seen tonight. The developer intends to use a metal standing seamed roof; however, she did not know the color. She did note that sometimes it is necessary to change materials once a project is started. She noted that it is staff's responsibility to ensure that the decision of the Commission is carried through. Mr. Schubach concurred that there have been problems in the past with materials being changed from what was approved. Staff now requires that detailed plans be submitted, noting the materials to be used. He noted that the plans turned in today for this project did not contain those details; however, they must be submitted. Mr. Schubach noted that the CUP does have a condition requiring that the development must be substantially the same as originally proposed, and any modifications shall be submitted to the Planning Director for approval. There is another condition requiring that the architecture cannot change. The Building Department is aware that any changes must be reported immediately to the Planning Department, who will then investigate the changes and notify the developer that he must comply. If the Planning Director feels the 5 P.C. Minutes 9/5/&9 changes are too significant, the plans will be sent back to the Commission for review and approval. Ms. Srour, in response to Chmn. Rue, stated that the materials proposed are stucco for the sides of the building, brick veneer for the facade elements, and a standing seamed roof. She noted that there will be mixture of materials. Comm. Peirce asked about the floor plan and how additional open space will be obtained by changing the roof line. Ms. Srour stated that the architect will modify the driveway side of the project and bring in a portion of the building so that additional area is obtained. The deck is considered open space, so the building line is brought back approximately seven feet. She noted that the extra space will be obtained by making the master bedroom slightly smaller. Wilma Burt, 1152 7th Street, opposed the condominium project, stating that there are too many condos in the area. She said Cypress is a very narrow street, and it is time to halt condos on these very small lots. She also felt that the parking is inadequate for a project of this size. Public Hearing closed at 7:40 P.M. by Chmn. Rue. Chmn. Rue stated that this project meets all of the requirements and standards. He felt that the changes are an improvement, and the design has been cut up so that it no longer has such a heavy facade. He noted that the lot coverage requirement will be met; therefore, he could see no reason to deny approval of the project. MOTION by Chmn. Rue, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to approve staff's recommendation, Resolution P.C. 89-67, for a three-unit condominium project at 1301 Cypress Avenue, with the addition that the proposed materials be noted and that staff review the plans to ensure that the proposed materials are used. Comm. Ingell agreed with Ms. Burt's comments regarding lot coverage and stated that he feels the zoning standards in regard to lot coverage and parking need to be addressed in the future. He noted, however, that this project complies. Comm. Moore stated that he will support the motion; however, he feels that several issues should be addressed in the future: (1) the cumulative effect of so many condominium projects; and (2) the effectiveness of homeowner associations at the very small condo developments. Chmn. Rue noted that the parking requirements are now more stringent that ever before, and he anticipated that they will be even tougher in the future. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. lngell, Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Chmn. Rue None None None Chmn. Rue stated that this decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed by writing to the City Council within ten days. 6 P.C. Minutes 9/5/89 .~ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR OFF-SALE LIQUOR AND ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 240 PIER AVENUE, ABE'S LIQUOR Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated August 23, 1989. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve the conditional use permit and negative declaration, subject to the conditions specified in the resolution. The project is located in the C-2 zone, with a general plan designation of general commercial. The present use is for off-sale general alcohol. The floor area is 2100 square feet. On August 18, 1976, this establishment started business. On May 7, 1983, the applicant, Mrs. Cha, acquired the business. On June 28, 1989, the business applied for a conditional use permit as a result of the City's amortization ordinance. On June 22, 1989, the staff environmental review committee recommended minor improvements and a negative declaration for the request. Abe's Liquor is one of the eight package liquor stores which is being operated as an off­ sale alcohol beverage establishment without a conditional use permit. Section 10-8 of the zoning ordinance requires alcohol establishments to obtain CUPs to operate their businesses. In following the amortization ordinance directions, Abe's Liquor was notified that they needed to obtain a permit for its business activities. This liquor establishment is an existing store which has been in business for at least 13 years. The store sells beer, wine, hard liquor, dairy products, adult magazines, and an assortment of other miscellaneous products. The store is housed in an attractive and well-maintained building with extensive landscaping. However, to bring the site up to code, the staff review committee made several recommendations: ( 1) An enclosure should be added for the dumpster to keep the parking lot neat and clean; (2) There shall be storage space around the dumpster for storage of recycling boxes; (3) The block wall adjacent to the public right-of-way shall be repaired; (4) The parking lot needs restriping to show the parking spaces properly; (5) The signs on the windows which do not comply with the City's sign ordinance shall be removed. The property has been field checked by the staff, and all the above-recommended improvements have been accomplished. The police report covering the last two years shows three incidents of drunkenness in public and one sale to minors, in addition to a handful of other minor security or disturbance incidents. The Building Department has also been contacted and indicates there have been no building or zoning violations within the last year. Since this general alcohol establishment is an existing business located along Pier Avenue adjacent to a variety of commercial establishments and does not appear to be causing any major problems with the neighborhood, staff believes the business should be authorized by this conditional use permit to continue its operation, subject to the conditions specified in the resolution. Public Hearing opened at 7:47 P.M. by Chmn. Rue. Robert Kirste, attorney for the applicant, addressed the Commission. He said that the applicant would like to make a living at the business as well as contribute to the 7 P.C. Minutes 9/5/89 community in any way possible. He stated that the applicant has read the conditions in the CUP and understands and agrees with them. Gene Parrish, 1341 Monterey Boulevard, asked for clarification of the environmental negative declaration. Mr. Schubach explained that state law requires that all discretionary actions taken by cities require the project to be examined for environmental impacts. A negative declaration indicates that no negative impacts were noted. Mr. Parrish stated that he has seen notable improvements at this establishment. Public Hearing closed at 7:49 P.M. by Chmn. Rue. MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve staff's recommendation, Resolution P.C. 89-65. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ingell, Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Chmn. Rue None None None ZONE CHANGE FOR THE RESIDENTIAL PORTION OF THE MULTI-USE CORRIDOR AND ADOPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR {A) SOUTHWEST QUADRANT AND (B) SOUTHEAST QUADRANT Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated August 24, 1989. Staff recommended rezoning the subject areas in the southwest quadrant from R-3 to R-2 and the subject areas in the southeast quadrant from R-2 to R-2B. The Planning Commission and City Council originally studied these areas as part of the general plan amendments for the multi-use corridor. The subject areas in the southwest quadrant were general plan amended from multi-use corridor to medium density residential, and the subject areas in the southeast area were also general plan amended from MUC to medium density residential. This is the last of the residential rezonings to carry out the general plan amendments approved by the City Council on May 9, 1989. The rezoning of the commercial areas along Pacific Coast Highway will be considered after the residential rezonings. SOUTHWEST QUADRANT: From R-3 to R-2 for varying distances west of Pacific Coast Highway between 130 feet to 300 feet and between south city boundary and 5th Street The proposal is to rezone several lots located behind the commercial corridor to the west of P .C.H. These lots are the last lots in this area between P .C.H. and Ardmore to retain the R-3 zoning, which at one time extended from P.C.H. to Ardmore Avenue in this area. Rezoning the lots to R-2 will bring them into consistency with the recently amended general plan and will make the lots consistent with the zoning to the west. Several lots are currently built in excess of the current R-3 densities and are therefore currently nonconforming uses (five lots which contain 37 units). Only two three-unit lots currently conforming to R-3 densities will become nonconforming uses under the proposed R-2 zone change. The remaining 11 lots will conform to the R-2 density requirements. • 8 P.C. Minutes 9/5/89 Rezoning from R-3 to R-2 would result in a reduction of potential density of about 33 percent. Chmn. Rue asked what effect the proposed rezoning would have on nonconforming uses. Mr. Schubach stated that once the new nonconforming uses and structures ordinance is adopted, the new regulations must be complied with. Chmn. Rue noted that several residentially zoned areas fall within the commercial corridor areas. Mr. Schubach explained that those particular properties will be within the specific plan area and will be treated somewhat differently since they will be properties in transition and can be either maintained as residential or converted to commercial. Comm. Ingell, noting that he lives within 300 feet of the properties at 1st Place, 1st Street, and 2nd Street, asked whether he must abstain from discussion on this matter due to a potential conflict of interest. Mr. Lee, after discussing the matter with Comm. Ingell, stated that there would be no conflict of interest because Comm. Ingell rents the property and therefore would not be materially or financially impacted by this decision. He further noted that the decision is also based upon whether or not the Commission's decision would have the same impact on one individual as it would upon a significant number of the public at large. Public Hearing opened at 8:03 P.M. by Chmn. Rue. Mrs. Spangberg, 704-706 5th Street, opposed a rezone to R-~ stating that all other surrounding lots, except hers, have four units on them. Also, her property faces commercial. She stated that the current R-3 zoning is consistent with other properties in the area. Her property currently has only two units. Mr. Spangberg felt he would be penalized by being downzoned from R-3 to R-2. John McHugh, 718 1st Place, owner of 710,712,714,718,720 and 720 1/2, stated that he favors retaining the current R-3 zoning, stating that his property is at the top of the hill and a downzone would impact his property value. Robert Kaufman, 715 2nd Street, stated that he would agree if everything were downzoned to R-2; however, there are inconsistencies in the area. He favors retaining the R-3 since properties near his have multiple units, and there is also commercial property on the other side of the street. He felt a downzone would devalue his property. Richard Bowman, 70 l 4th Street, president of the condo association at 701-715 4th Street, opposed rezoning to R-2 because if the building were destroyed only six of the current eight units could be rebuilt. He stated that the residents are very concerned with their property values if the building becomes a nonconforming structure. He questioned why the City would downzone a property with eight relatively new units which are well maintained. He stated that if the downzone is approved, he will bring legal action against the City. He did not feel density would be reduced by changing the zoning of a property which currently has eight units on it. Mr. Schubach felt that this property would still be able to rebuild eight units under R-2 zoning. 9 P.C. Minutes 9/5/89 Jan McHugh, 718 1st Place, objected to a rezone from R-3 to R-2 because the property was purchased as R-3 with the intention of building on it some day in the future. She stated that they have older houses which will need to be replaced to improve the area. A rezone would limit their ability to build something nice. She stated that the bottom of the hill is very narrow and cannot accommodate so many units. She said that the cumulative impacts will be great. At the top of the hill near the commercial is where the higher density should be located. She favored retaining the R-3 zoning. Gerry Compton, 832 7th Street, stated that people will have difficulty in making loans on these properties if they are downzoned. He suggested that the Planning Commission leave this area as R-3 and stated that the City Council should make the decision on this area. Ian Felton, 703 4th Street, stated that a rezone would be a nonsensical downgrading of R-3 property to R-2 where there are eight townhouses on three lots, which could result in a real problem if the condos are destroyed. He favored retaining the R-3 zoning and if the zoning is changed, he will join in a lawsuit against the City. Mr. Schubach stated that the eight-unit complex can be rebuilt with eight units under R- 2 zoning. Further, only two three-unit lots will become nonconforming under this rezoning to R-2. He stated that the McHughs' property can still have seven units. He stated that staff very carefully studied this area before making its recommendation. He noted that it is the right of a city to downzone. Wilma Burt, 1152 7th Street, stressed that the city can change the general plan to bring it into conformity with the zoning, rather than changing the zoning to bring it into compliance with the general plan. She stated that these people are surrounded by multiple units, and the zoning should remain the same. Mrs. Spangberg stated that her property is the only one with two units, and all the others have four units. She therefore felt that if her property is rezoned, it would be discriminatory. She stated that it will be difficult to sell her property with this rezone, and it would create an adverse financial impact. Robert Kaufman 715 2nd Street, stated that if the object is to lower density, and the properties in this area already have high density with the exception of just a few properties, downzoning those few people will not really make much of an impact at all, other than just looking good on paper. Sid Colby, 719 1st Place, bought his property as R-3, and he doesn't want to sell it as R-2. He therefore opposed a rezone to R-2. He stated his property is high on the hill next to commercial and should remain R-3. Public Hearing closed at 8:25 P.M. Chmn. Rue stated that he felt some of these areas should not be changed because of the nonconformities which would be created. He once felt that higher density next to commercial would be good planning; however, opinions on this have now changed. Chmn. Rue discussed the eight-unit condo built in 1979 on 4th Street and another eight­ unit condo on 3rd Street built in 1985. He was surprised to learn that those could be rebuilt to eight units in the event they were destroyed. He stated that there is a general feeling in the city to reduce the density. He still felt, however, that the higher density belongs up along the highway as a buffer. He noted that there are some fairly new 10 P.C. Minutes 9/5/89 apartment buildings in that area, and he felt that rental units are good for a city. Comm. Ingell agreed and stated that the potential units under R-3 zoning assuming new construction would be 74 with individual lots or 79 units by combining lots. He felt that R-3 belongs between the commercial and R-2 areas as a buffer. Chmn. Rue stated that the zoning code has been amended and continues to be amended to address the question of bulk, parking, square footages, and dwelling units per acre. He felt that it would be appropriate to address these concerns in the zoning code rather than by downzoning. Comm. Peirce pointed out that if state law had allowed the zoning and general plan to be changed at the same time, this hearing would not have been necessary. This exact same matter was addressed six months ago, and the Commission decided that medium density was appropriate for this area; that decision was then affirmed by the City Council. He stated that nothing has changed in the past six months. He felt that the correct planning action is to reaffirm the position that the Commission took on this matter the first time it was heard and change the zoning from R-3 to R-2. Comm. Ketz stated that the direction from both the Council and residents has been to downzone. She constantly hears complaints from citizens that too many condos are being built. She questioned whether R-3 buffers R-2 from the commercial area. She stated that it is difficult to differentiate between R-2 and R-3 lots throughout the area. She agreed that the area should be rezoned from R-3 to R-2. Comm. Moore questioned R-3 buffering R-2 from commercial. He felt that putting more people next to the commercial does not seem to do R-2 any favors. With the City's small two-, three-, and four-unit developments, he questioned how high density next to commercial really helps. Chmn. Rue felt that the lots along the highway are usually less desirable. With R-3 zoning, they can be built five feet higher and oriented away from the commercial corridor. The view is to the west, and there is a trade-off. When a building is built adjacent to commercial, things can be done to make the structures pleasant. He felt that the height allowance would be just enough to make the area desirable and livable. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve staff's recommendation to rezone the southwest quadrant from R-3 to R-2. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ketz, Moore, Peirce Comm. Ingell, Chmn. Rue None None SOUTHEAST QUADRANT: F rom R-2 to R-2B for 120 feet to 240 feet east of Pacific Coast Highway between 6th Street and 8th Street and including the south side of 6th Street The proposal is to rezone several lots located behind the commercial corridor east of P.C.H. from R-2 to R-2B between 6th Street and 8th Street (including the south side of 6th Street) to make the zoning consistent with the lots to the east up the slope. The proposed rezoning will carry out the recommendation of the multi-use corridor study and will be consistent with the general plan designation of MD residential. 11 P.C. Minutes 9/5/89 The subject lots are all similar in size to those lots zoned R-2B located to their east. Three out of the eleven subject lots are currently nonconforming to the R-2 density. No additional lots will be made nonconforming by the proposed R-2B designation. The R-2B zoned areas located to the east are included in the moratorium which limits the height of any new construction to 25 feet. The subject area was not included in that moratorium. Given that the subject area is located further down the slope from the R-1 areas, staff believes it was correct to exclude these lots from the moratorium. Rezoning from R-2 to R-2B would result in a reduction of potential density of approximately 33 percent. Public Hearing opened at 8:37 P.M. by Chmn. Rue. Gerry Compton, owner of 832 and 840 7th Street, which is a single large property which has been combined and has five units, addressed the Commission. The property is R-2. He was surprised to see the Commission taking this action. He stated that this area is not inconsistent, noting that it is R-2 in a medium density zone. He resented the fact that this totally political action is occurring in the City. He stated that there is no question of inconsistency in this area at all. Public Hearing closed at 8:39 P.M. by Chmn. Rue. Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Comm. Ingell, stated that the area was brought back in order to make it consistent with the adjacent area. He continued by explaining what could be placed on these lots. He noted, however, that this area was never zoned R-3. He stated that it has been the consensus of both the Commission and the Council to make this area R-2B. Chmn. Rue, referring to the Planning Commission minutes of the previous time this area was addressed, noted that the Commission recommended a medium density general plan designation. Comm. Peirce noted that many citizens have expressed concern over so many large projects in their areas. The way to halt the large projects is to rezone the area to R-2B, which would be consistent with the desires of the residents who do not want large structures in the midst of a two-duplex area. Comm. Peirce, in response to a question from Chmn. Rue, stated that if the area is R-2, lots could be assembled, thus allowing large projects. With R-2B, such assembly would not be possible and the area would clearly be a two-family, residential area. Comm. Peirce noted that at one time a large project was built in this area which created an uproar with the neighbors and Council. Since that time, it appears that R-2B is the desired zoning. Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Chmn. Rue, stated that the only difference between R-2 and R-2B is that on an R-2B lot, there can be a maximum of only two units, regardless of the size of the lot. Chmn. Rue noted, however, that the bulk of the buildings could be same, regardless of whether the zoning is R-2 or R-2B. He noted, therefore, that the tool for limiting density should be the zoning code, not the R-2B designation. He said that the zoning code should address building bulk and intrusion of large buildings into smaller scale areas. 12 P.C. Minutes 9/5/89 Chmn. Rue stated that if bulk and intrusion are the issue, the zoning code should be amended to address these intrusions into smaller neighborhoods. He stressed that the zoning code should be the limiting document in these cases. In this particular area, he said that R-2B zoning would only slightly reduce the number of units. Comm. Peirce noted, however, that under R-2 zoning, lots could be assembled in order to have more units; the R-2B zoning would preclude this from happening. Chmn. Rue stated that on only three or four of these lots could there be one additional family there if the lots are assembled. He stated that the building bulk would be the same. Mr. Schubach stated that there is great concern over bulk and building appearance in the City; therefore, Council has directed that all standards in the R-1, R-2, and R-3 zones be studied. Also to be studied are height, density, and parking. Chmn. Rue stated that a designer can put together more attractive projects by assembling lots, rather than putting two units per lot all the way up the hill. He felt that there is more diversity with combined lots. If bulk is going to be addressed, it should be done via the zoning code, especially in this area. Comm. Moore asked what action has been taken in other areas where the areas are inconsistent. Mr. Schubach explained what has occurred in the past, explaining that some areas will remain the same, some will be specific plan area, and others will be addressed in the future. He continued by pointing out specific areas on the map. Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Comm. Moore, discussed the R-2B zoning. He gave background history on Proposition EE, stating that staff is now following the outcome of that proposition. He stated that some of the lots were quite large; therefore, the R-2B designation was used as a compromise so that people could build more than one unit on a very large lot, but there can be no more than two units. This was an alternative to rezoning the area to R-1. Mr. Schubach noted that R-2 can have more than two units, depending on the lot size. R- 2B allows only two, no matter what the size of the lot. Comm. Ketz stated that since the area immediately east of this area is R-2B, this area should also be R-2B in order to be consistent. If this entire area were R-2, she could see the point being made by Chmn. Rue. She noted that this area is only three lots deep and should therefore be consistent. Comm. Ingell felt that action is being taken too far in this area. He stated that there can only be a very small number of additional units, which he could not see adversely affecting the area. Comm. Peirce stated that there can be 30 new units if lots are combined; there are only 19 potential units under R-2B zoning. He noted that there could be a 40 percent increase. Chmn. Rue felt that better projects can be designed by combining lots. They can have more open space and less lot coverage with better amenities. He stated that even though he has recommended downzoning for some areas, he did not feel it is necessary in this particular area. 13 P.C. Minutes 9/5/89 Comm. Moore stated that he favors these particular lots remaining R-2. He noted that even though there is R-2B up the hill, this area should remain R-2. He stated that there is enough square footage on some of these lots to have more than two units per lot. MOTION by Comm. Moore, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to reject staff's recommendation, and to retain the current R-2 zoning in the southeast quadrant. Comm. Peirce suggested that the motion be withdrawn so that a positive motion could be made. MOTION WITHDRAWN BY COMM. MOORE. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve staff's recommendation to approve staff's recommendation to rezone the southeast quadrant from R-2 to R-2B. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ketz, Peirce Comms. Ingell, Moore, Chmn. Rue None None (MOTION FAILS.) Recess taken from 8:57 P .M. until 9:07 P .M. THIRD QUARTER GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS AND/OR ZONE CHANGES AS RECOMMENDED OR AS DEEMED APPROPRIATE BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND ADOPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT AL NEGATIVE DECLARATION Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated August 24, 1989. Staff recommended general plan amendments and zone changes for the subject areas. State law allows cities to amend the general plan four times per year. The areas of concern include Area 10, located between Barney Court and Meyer Court on both sides of 1st Street, for which the City Council directed staff to bring up as a third quarter general plan amendment or zone change, and the remaining inconsistent areas west of Valley Drive, Areas A through F. AREA 10: (Location enerall between Barne Court and Me er Court, from south cit boundary to the rear of lots fronting on 2nd Street to the north : To either remain R-2B zoning with general plan amended from low density to medium density or change to R-1 zoning to be consistent with the general plan Staff recommended that the area be general plan redesignated from low density residential to medium density residential to be made consistent with the R-2B zoning. On December 13, 1988, the City Council downzoned the subject area from R-2 to R-2B, consistent with the recommendation of staff and the Planning Commission. The subject area was considered for downzoning to R-1; however, the R-2B designation was chosen because of the large lots and because with R-2B zoning the density would not significantly exceed the maximum of 13 for the low density range. 14 P.C. Minutes 9/5/89 On May 3, 1989, the City Council considered a general plan redesignation from low density to medium density for consistency. After public testimony generally opposed to such a redesignation, the Council decided to postpone action to the third quarter general plan amendments to include an option for a zone change to R-1. The current R-2B zoning would permit the addition of only three additional units to this area. Staff does not believe this would be a significant impact if it were to occur. Currently, one lot is nonconforming to density; if changed to R-1, four additional lots would become nonconforming to density. The surrounding residential areas consist of an R-P zoned area directly to the west (allowing R-3 residential development) and an R-1 zoned area to the east and north. Because of the small lots, the density for the R-1 area to the east along 1st Place and 1st Street is currently about 17 .5 units per acre. The density along 2nd Street to the north is about 15.5 units per acre. Therefore, the 16.5 units per acre permitted by R-2B for the subject area is consistent with or less than surrounding areas. If zoned R-1, the 9.2 units per acre density would be significantly less. Area 10 has a general plan designation of low density, with a zoning of R-2B. There are ten lots with a total area of 47,290 square feet. There are 16 units, with a density of 14.7 dwelling units per acre. There is a potential maximum of three additional units under R-2B zoning; no additional units would be allowed under R-1 zoning. With all new construction, there is a potential of 18 units under R-2B, with a density of 16.6 dwelling units per acre. Under R-1, there is a potential of ten units, with a density of 9.2 units per acre. Under R-2B zoning, there is one lot and three units nonconforming; under R-1, five lots and eleven units would be nonconforming. Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Comm. Peirce, stated that the City Council was concerned with several matters: ( 1) that there was an assumption made that the area was going to be changed to low density, R-1, no matter what; and (2) there was no public notice made of the matter. Chmn. Rue noted that he had been handed a petition signed by a number of people on 1st Street opposed to the redesignation of Area 10 from low density to medium density because they believe such a redesignation will further deteriorate the family atmosphere in that area and will decrease property values. Public Hearing opened at 9:15 P.M. by Chmn. Rue. Sam Edgerton, 1118 2nd Street, stated that the petition was signed by 55 registered voters to fight this proposition. He noted that there is a huge objection to changing the general plan from low density to medium density. He noted concern that the area will become too crowded if the designation is changed. He noted that the lots in this area are larger than in other areas, and the area could be turned into all condos in the future. He noted concern over density and height. He noted that this area is on the plateau of a hill and is mostly single-family homes. He said that this area differs from the area across the highway. He noted concern over the intrusion of condos creeping up the hill. 15 P.C, Minutes 9/5/89 Mr. Edgerton stressed that the area should remain low density. He said that the zoning should be in conformance with the general plan, not the other way around. Mike Meyers, 1104 1st Street, stated that the original notice was misleading and people thought the area would be rezoned to R-1. He stated that Proposition EE should be upheld. He stressed that residents favor lower density. He stated that the area should be low density to prevent the increase in density in the area. He urged the Commission to recommend that this area remain low density. Carey Downs, 1036 2nd Street, favored the area being designated low density in an effort to reduce density. He stated that the high density proponents are interested only in profits. He urged the Commission to reduce density. Ruth Brandt, 1231 1st Street, favored low density. She stated that the area is becoming too dense with worse parking troubles. She stated that this area is mostly single-family usage, regardless of what the zoning is. She urged the Commission to follow Proposition EE and recommend low density R-1. Joanne Zambrana, 1118 2nd Street, favored low density, stating that if this area slides through, it will happen over and over again. Gerry Compton, 200 Pier Avenue, discussed this area, stating that staff's recommendation is reasonable and it will remove eight or nine units from this area. He continued by discussing: (1) what can be built on these properties; (2) the difference between low density and medium density; (3) the size of the lots; (4) the reasons why this area was rezoned R-2B instead of R-1, because of the large lot sizes; (5) the high density located down the hill from this area; (5) views which can be created with the medium density designation; (6) the problems encountered by developers when their property is redesignated or rezoned; (7) the City Council's original 5-0 decision to make this area R- 2B and their subsequent change in opinion; (8) possible condo development in this area; and (9) the topography of this area. Steve Harrison, 23 Barney Court, discussed a project he built at 1st Street and how much the neighbors liked the project. He stated that he attempts to design the projects so that they look like single-family residences. He stated that he has already been downzoned once, from R-2 to R-2B, which means that a unit would be lost if the project were destroyed. If the property is downzoned to R-1, there will be a further loss of two-thirds of his ability to rebuild what is already there. He did not feel he should downzoned again; therefore, he suggested that the property remain as it currently is, R-2B. Mike Cleland, 3520 Strand, developer and partner, stated that when he purchased the property it was R-2. There was then a moratorium placed on the property. He continued by discussing what could have been built at his property and what was actually built there. He discussed the lot sizes and what can be built in the area. He supported the R- 2B zoning, noting his financial stake in the property. Carey Downs, 1036 2nd Street, commented on: (1) the difference in the slope of the lots between Barney and Meyer; (2) the project built by the developers who testified; (3) his desire to stop further large development; (4) a split lot in the area and what might be built on it; (5) potential monstrosities being built which can impact him; (6) the buffer zone between low density and high density; (6) views and view blockage; and (7) neighbors' feelings on new developments. 16 P.C. Minutes 9/5/89 /'""'' Sam Edgerton, 1118 2nd Street, stated that this matter was fully briefed the last time it was heard, and he suggested that everyone read those materials to become fully informed. Gerry Compton, 200 Pier Avenue, stressed that three units cannot be built in an R-2B zone. He continued by discussing the potential size of projects. Public Hearing closed at 9:45 P.M. by Chmn. Rue. Comm. Peirce gave background information on Proposition EE and stated that it ultimately left the final decision up to the elected or appointed body. He stated that it is important to avoid injustices. He said this particular area has large lots. Even if the area were developed to R-2B standards, the density would be almost exactly the same as the surrounding area, except to the west where it would be much higher density. He therefore did not see this as a density issue, noting that only three additional units could be added in this area. He stated that he intends to reaffirm the previous action of the Commission to make this area R-2B. Comm. Moore asked for clarification on the previous action taken by the City Council and how this issue was returned to the Commission. Comm. Moore felt that the real issue which will affect this neighborhood will be the height of future developments. He asked whether there are any statistics on the current height to which the existing developments were built. Mr. Schubach stated that the heights are mixed. The newer developments are closer to the maximum height allowed. Chmn. Rue stated that he agrees with the comments made by Comm. Peirce, noting that these lots are larger than average. Therefore, the zoning went from R-2 to R-2B in an attempt to lessen density. He felt that R-2B is the appropriate zoning for this area. Comm. Ketz, noting the large size of the lots in this area, felt that R-2B is the appropriate zoning. She noted that if the zoning were R-1, there would be five nonconforming lots and 11 nonconforming units. MOTION by Chmn. Rue, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to reaffirm that Area 10 remain zoned R-2B, and that the general plan designation be changed from low density to medium density. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ingell, Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Chmn. Rue None None None AREA A-1 General Plan redesi nation from O en S ace to Industrial for the northwest corner of Valley Drive and 6th Street the "City Yard" Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated August 24, 1989. The city yard is zoned M-1, light manufacturing, with a general plan designation of open space. The available options to make this area consistent would be to general plan amend from open space to industrial, or zone change from M-1 to open space. The recommended 17 P.C. Minutes 9/5/89 general plan amendment from open space to industrial is based upon the existing use of the city yard. Mr. Schubach stated that there are several other available options, one being to zone it open space, even though that makes no sense. Another alternative would be to remove this area from consideration at this time. He said it could be returned at a later date. He noted that neither M-1 nor open space classifications would permit oil drilling at this site. The only way oil drilling can be permitted at this particular location, at this particular time until otherwise advised by counsel, is by a vote of the people allowing an exception. The city yard is currently used by the city for storage, vehicle service and maintenance, and other miscellaneous purposes. The uses are generally consistent with the current zoning designation of M-1 and would not be consistent with an open space zoning classification. Nothing on this property could be considered as open space or public use. It is not clear why this area was designated as open space on the 1979 general plan. On the 1966 general plan, the area was designated as industrial. Chmn. Rue clarified that even if this area is general plan designated as industrial, neither industrial nor open space designations permit oil drilling at this time. Comm. Moore noted that the Planning Commission must look ahead many years in its planning process. He asked whether it is in the best interests of the city to have a manufacturing area, as defined by the zoning code, and have the general plan follow; or whether it would be better planning to have this parcel of open space surrounded by the U-shaped industrial zone currently existing. He stated it is important to address what will happen at this site if the city yard is removed, and whether it would be desirable to have light manufacturing at this site. Mr. Schubach stated that the current general plan did not intend for this site to be anything other than what it is; i.e., the city yard. He noted that both the city yard and city hall are open space; however, it is not known why they were classified as open space. He did note that "public facilities" is a permitted use for the open space zone. Chmn. Rue stated that this proposal is not relevant to the oil drilling issue. He therefore asked that people address the issue at hand, and he noted that the oil drilling issue will be addressed in two weeks. Public Hearing opened at 10:03 P.M. by Chmn. Rue. Tom Morley, 516 Loma Drive: (1) stated that this issue is associated with the oil drilling issue; (2) noted that he has considered this issue in conjunction with the Coastal Commission Plan; (3) discussed implementation of the local Coastal Plan and its guidelines; (4) stated that this area should not be considered at this time prior to consideration of the entire coastal area in a more general manner; (5) discussed parking and primary uses; (6) discussed secondary uses of the coastal plan area; (7) stated that designation of this area now as industrial would preclude future possible use of the site as a recreat ional or parking areas; (8) stated that the zoning should be consistent with actual uses; (9) noted that a rezone to open space would conform with the general plan, still leaving the possible future option of using it for coastal access; (10) discussed needs and long-term planning for the City; (11) passed out a copy of the general plan, which he had marked showing open space areas zoned as open space; (12) stated that this area is zoned in the coastal plan as a scenic area; therefore, a rezone to industrial could affect the coastal plan permit to the City; and (13) stated that possibly no action would be the proper action at this time. 18 P.C. Minutes 9/5/89 Les Berry, 237 Valley Drive, noted concern over this piece of property, stating that it is a former city dump and landfill. If a major structure were to be erected there, it could be potentially dangerous. Before action is taken on this site, the proper measures should be taken. Wilma Burt, 1152 7th Street: (1) stated that the 6th Street yard has always been industrial, and it was then used as a dump, after which time it was used as the city maintenance yard; (2) stated that the land has almost certainly settled now after 30 years; (3) stated that the area used to be the outlet for the sewer system and would not be appropriate for a picnic area or pa rk; (4) as ked wh o has more ope n space than Hermosa Beach , noting that t he be ach is over a mile long ; (5) stat ed that pe ople should take into accou nt the existing open space and wh at can be built on it; and (6) stated that an oil well at the site will not hurt anyone. Larry Sartorius, 446 Monterey, read portions of a document he had obtained from the Environmental Conservation Open Space Element, 1980, regarding the open space philosophy and conservation element. He could not see redesignating anything from open space to industrial, stating that open space is very necessary in the City. J.R. Reviczky, 600 Ardmore: (1) stated that he feels it is necessary to look beyond near­ term events and more to the future; (2) stated that, as a member of the Parks and Recreation Commission, the City is wholly inadequate in open space, discounting the beach; (3) felt that for most of the year, the beach does not really belong to the citizens of the City; (4) stated that the parks and recreation fund is designated to purchase and improve open space; (5) felt it is counterproductive to rezone any open space to another designation; and (6) urged the Commission to retain the open space zoning at this site. Ken Conklin, 501 4th Street, reminded the Commission that an EIR is pending regarding this property, and he did not feel any redesignation should be considered until the EIR has been certified and accepted by the City. George Sacks, 225 Valley Drive, noted that the-oil drilling people were in the audience, even though the planning director stated that this matter has nothing to do with oil drilling. He felt that in order to avoid any appearance of favoring the oil issue, this issue should be postponed to a future date. Beth Harris, 416 Monterey, felt that a redesignation from open space to industrial would be inconsistent with the general downzoning being done in the City. She noted that Proposition EE favors lowering density. She felt that the site should remain open space. Don Little, 215 Valley Drive, felt that a decision should be postponed until the EIR is certified and until the lot is checked to ensure that it is not polluted. Public Hearing closed at 10:22 P.M. by Chmn. Rue. Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Comm. Rue, stated that the city yard is a consistent use with the open space designation. He continued by explaining that even though it makes no sense, it is a permitted use. He stated that more research is necessary to obtain all the information on why the area was zoned open space years ago. He clarified that public facilities are permitted in the open space zone. Comm. Peirce felt that a city should be run as if it were a business, and the city should have no special rights that an individual property owner does not possess. 19 P.C. Minutes 9/5/89 ~ Comm. Peirce, in response to a point raised during the public hearing, stated that the sewage has never gone to the city yard; it goes to White's Point. He further felt that the issue at hand and the oil drilling issue are not related. He felt that the correct zoning for this property is industrial, noting that it is amid other industrial. He stated that there are other open space areas which are available. He therefore favored a designation of industrial. Comm. Moore stated that he would support industrial, noting that the city yard is a long­ term use, the surrounding area is industrial, this is a logical area for long-term industrial development. He agreed that the City needs open space; however, the City also needs other uses, such as rental and commercial as well as industrial. Comm. Ketz favored industrial, noting that the city yard is an industrial use, and she could not envision the site being used as a park with an open space use in the near future. She stated that the City needs facilities of this type. Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Chmn. Rue, stated that future industrial uses would need to comply in every way, including parking. MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to approve staff's recommendation to change the general plan designation of the the city yard from open space to industrial. Chmn. Rue noted that the entire area is industrial, light manufacturing. However, he questioned whether the option of open space should be left open for the future. Comm. Peirce noted that a zone change can be done in the future if so desired. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ingell, Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Chmn. Rue None None None AREA A-2 General Plan redesignation from high densi ty residential to industrial for a portion of 725 Cypress Avenue, legally described as Lot 1, Block V, Tract 2002 Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated August 24, 1989. This area is zoned M-1, with a general plan designation of high density residential. Since this property is currently a part of Rubia's Coach Work's property which stretches to the south, staff recommended a general plan amendment from high density to industrial and to maintain the property's current zoning of M-1. Public Hearing opened and closed at 10:31 P.M. by Chmn. Rue, who noted that no one appeared to speak on this area. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ing ell, to approve staff's recommendation for 725 Cypress Avenue. 20 P.C. Minutes 9/5/89 AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. lngell, Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Chmn. Rue None None None AREA B: (General Plan redesi na tion from O en S ace to Industrial for the ro ert at 552 11th Str eet site of "Hermosa Mini Storage" an d from High Density Residential and General Co mmercial to General Com merc ial and zone chan e from M-1 to C-2 for t he west side of Bard Street including 13 09 and 1319 Bard Street , 9 1 to 218 fee t south of P ier Avenue Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated August 24, 1989. Staff recommended that the property which contains Hermosa Mini Storage be general plan amended from open space to industrial, and that the three lots on the south side of Bard Street be general plan amended to general commercial and rezoned to C-2. 552 11 TH STREET This property is zoned M-1, with a general plan designation of open space. Since the current use of the property for a self-storage business is consistent with the M-1 zoning, staff believes that it would be most appropriate to general plan amend the site from open space to industrial and to maintain the M-1 zoning. Self-storage businesses are a permitted use only in the M-1 zone. Public Hearing opened at 10:33 P.M. by Chmn. Rue. Tom Morley, 516 Loma Drive, stated: (1) that the Planning Commission has a responsibility to abide by the philosophy statement of the open space element of the general plan, and any opportunity which arises to preserve or enhance open space should be taken; (2) that removing this open space designation by changing the open space in the general plan, rather than changing the zoning to open space, might prejudice the ability to come up with a comprehensive coastal plan in the future; (3) that it is the responsibility of the Commission to realize that this site could be used as a city maintenance yard in the future; (4) asked about the lease conditions imposed on the current user; and (5) stated that this might be a desirable location for a parking structure in the City, noting that importance of coastal access. Public Hearing closed at 10:38 P.M. by Chmn. Rue. Chmn. Rue stated that the City should go towards open space; however, some areas in the City just are not conducive to open space, such as this parcel. In this case, the use is well-maintained. When the current lease runs out, the City could attempt to do a general plan amendment and zone change. Public Hearing reopened at 10:38 P.M. by Chmn. Rue. Tom Morley noted concern that it would be redundant and wasteful to take action now and then attempt to make a change in the future, especially when it has not yet been determined whether or not the current city yard will need to be relocated. He suggested that the issue be studied further and acted upon once the other issues have been decided. Public Hearing closed at 10:40 P.M. 21 P.C. Minutes 9/5/89 Comm. Ingell referred to the zoning map and commented on the zoning and open space. He compared the zoning map with the general plan map and asked for clarification. Mr. Schubach clarified that the assessor's map is not absolutely accurate. He continued by pointing out the area in question on the map. He stated that Bard Street has never been a dedicated street, since it is owned by the City. Mr. Schubach and the Commissioners discussed the maps and parcels in question. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve staff's recommendation for 552 11th Street, to change the general plan designation from open space to industrial. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ingell, Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Chmn. Rue None None None 1301-1319 BARD STREET This property is zoned M-1, with a general plan designation of general commercial and high density. The current use of the property consists of a storage and handling area in the rear of "Mrs. Gooch's" and two buildings currently used for storage. 1309 Bard is used for storage by "Body Glove," and the building on Lot 10 is used by the City for storage. In staff's judgment, neither the general plan designation nor the zoning are appropriate for these lots. High density residential uses would not seem appropriate for a location adjacent to the police and public parking area. Although the.eurrent M-1 zone permits the storage uses, which are not incompatible with adjacent public parking and residential uses, other manufacturing uses might be incompatible. Staff therefore recommended that the general plan be amended from high density to general commercial (for the portion not already general commercial) and the zoning changed from M-1 to C-2. This would make the zoning and general plan designations for the property which fronts on Pier Avenue consistent. Realistically, the lots will then be used for commercial purposes if in conjunction with a commercial use which fronts on Pier Avenue. Public Hearing opened and closed at 10:50 P.M. by Chmn. Rue, who noted that no one appeared to speak on this area. MOTION by Chmn. Rue, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to approve staff's recommendation for 1301-1319 Bard Street, to amend the general plan from high density to commercial, for the portion not already general commercial, and to change the zoning from M-1 to C- 2. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ingell, Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Chmn. Rue None None None 22 P.C. Minutes 9/5/89 AREA C-1: General Plan redesignation from General Commercial to Medium Density Residential for the eastern portion of 66 9th Street, 801 Hermosa Avenue, and 63 8th Street (Lots 16, 25, and 26, Block 9, Hermosa Beach Tract) Area C-1 is zoned R-2, with a general plan designation of general commercial. This area consists of two lots on 8th Street at the corner of Hermosa Avenue and a half lot on 9th Street located behind Fat Face Fenner's Falloon. Since the current use of the subject properties is residential, staff felt that the properties should be general plan amended from general commercial to medium density residential. Apparently these lots were designated commercially because of their proximity to Hermosa Avenue and the downtown district. All of these properties have been zoned residentially, however, since 1956. The lots on 8th Street appear as residentially zoned on the oldest city zoning maps. The lot at 63 8th Street and the half lot at 30 9th Street are currently developed with single dwelling units and conform to the R-2 zoning. The lot at 801 Hermosa Avenue is developed with a nonconforming three-unit structure. Public Hearing opened at 10:55 P.M. by Chmn. Rue. Lee Lyndon, 837 and 801 Hermosa, noted confusion over the placement of the lots being discussed. Mr. Schubach explained that the maps are accurate. He continued by clarifying that ownership is not being discussed; the issue is zoning and general plan designation. Mr. Lyndon continued by explaining what is in the surrounding.area, stating that the area is commercial, and he could not see why the City would want to change his property to residential. He stated that if his property is redesignated from commercial to residential, his property value would be adversely impacted. Mr. Lyndon, in response to a question from Comm. Rue stated that he has owned the property at 801 for approximately two years; he has owned the property at 837 for nearly twenty years. Mr. Schubach clarified that Lots 25 and 26 are not joint, noting that they have separate owners. He noted that staff was not aware that Lot 17 had any connection with Lot 26. Lot 26 is too small to have commercial development, because there is not enough room for parking. This is one of the reasons staff recommended that it not be allowed to remain commercial. However, if the owner wanted to use that parcel in conjunction with Fat Face Fenner's, such as using it for parking, that might be a possibility. Mr. Lyndon stated that he might very possibly use the parcel for parking in the future; however, such an option would not be possible if the commercial designation is removed. Mr. Schubach clarified that staff is not proposing that the property be rezoned to residential; the recommendation is to change the general plan designation to residential since it is already zoned R-2 and has been since 1979. Therefore, the parcel cannot be used commercially unless it is rezoned to commercial. Hilda Shupps, 70 8th Street, owner of the property directly across from Mr. Lyndon's property, stated that that property is too small for any commercial use. She noted that there is already too much traffic, and there are disturbances from people leaving the 23 P.C. Minutes 9/5/89 bars at 2:00 A.M. She hoped that commercial use would not be allowed at that site. John Bowler, 833 Hermosa Avenue, operator of Fat Face Fenner's Falloon, stated that it appears that the intention of the city is to have a distinction between commercial and residential zones. He felt it would be logical to allow the commercial to run up to 8th Street, as it does to the other side of the street. He stated that the current commercial uses create a very limited impact to the neighborhoods. Public Hearing closed at 11:04 P.M. by Chmn. Rue. Comm. Ingell stated that it appears that the owner desires Lot 26 to be commercial; therefore, he could see no reason why it should not be rezoned to commercial since it is in a commercial area at 8th Street. He suggested that the general plan remain as it is. Comm. Peirce stated that the downtown business people assert that the downtown area is already too big, and there currently are many vacancies. He agreed that it is arbitrary to cut off the commercial area at 9th Court versus 8th Street; however, the line must be drawn somewhere. Even though Fat Face Fenner's is in a commercial area, it is not a retail use, such as a store. He noted that there has been a duplex for quite some time on Lot 26. He could see no reason to expand the downtown area any further. He felt that the downtown area is already too big, and the economics will support that fact. Comm. Ingell noted, however, that the owner of Fat Face Fenner's has stated that he may at some time in the future desire to use that lot for parking. Comm. Peirce stated that the property owner can request a zone change in the future if so desired. He felt that the question is whether it is desirable to expand the downtown area down Hermosa A venue, and not to base the decision on what a property owner might want to do in the future. Comm. Ingell, in response to a question from Comm. Moore, stated that this property owner is not within the bounds of the downtown vehicle parking district. Chmn. Rue felt that if the owner thinks he can make a viable use out of the property, and there is commercial across the street, he felt that the best use of the property is residential; although, he could see no reason to not allow commercial if that is what the owner desires. He noted that the designation could be changed in the future. Comm. Ketz stated that this area must be consistent. She noted that it is not easy to change back in the future. Comm. Peirce asked whether it is desirable to have the commercial extend further down Hermosa Avenue. Even though the owner's proposal may be interesting, the decision should be based upon what is best for the City. Comm. lngell and Chmn. Rue both agreed that the expansion of commercial in this area would be logical. Comm. Ketz could see the commercial going to 8th Street; however, she could not support a height of 35 feet on the commercial lot. She noted that it is already residential and questioned whether that therefore might not be the best use of the property. She noted that this is a very small lot for a commercial usage. 24 P.C. Minutes 9/5/89 ~ Gerry Compton, 200 Pier Avenue, stated that he has designed projects on very small lots such as this one, and projects on those lots are both feasible and possible. Chmn. Rue felt that the extension would be logical. He noted that it is on a through­ street with a stop sign, it is a coastal access, and it goes right to the downtown area. Hilda Shupps stated that there is already a shortage of parking in this area. She stated that there is no room for additional commercial uses. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Moore, to approve staff's recommendation for Area C-1, to leave the zoning R-2 and to change the general plan designation from general commercial to medium density residential. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ketz, Moore, Peirce Comm. Ingell, Chmn. Rue None None AREA C-2: General Plan redesignation from General Commercial to High Density Residential for the north side of 10th Street between Beach Drive and Hermosa Avenue (Lots 19-27, inclusi ve, Block 11, Hermosa Beach Tr a ct) Area C-2 is zoned R-3, with a general plan designation of general commercial. This area consists of eight lots developed residentially and one lot that contains a portion of a motel. The residential uses include single-family and two-family dwellings and an apartment building with ten units. The density is 39 units per acre. As such, staff believes that the general plan should be amended from gemeral commercial to high density residential and the R-3 zoning maintained. The general commercial designation appears on both the 1979 and 1966 general plan maps. This reflected the thinking of the time that the downtown commercial area could be expanded into this area. The subject area was designated commercial on the 1943 and 1948 zoning maps. The 1956 zoning map, however, classifies it as R-3. Public Hearing opened and closed at 11:15 P.M. by Chmn. Rue, who noted that no one appeared to speak on this area. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to accept staff's recommendation for Area C-2, to amend the general plan from general commercial to high density residential and to maintain the R-3 zoning. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ingell, Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Chmn. Rue None None None 25 P.C. Minutes 9/5/89 AREA C-3: General Plan redesignation from General Commercial to High Density Residential for the west side of Manhattan Avenue and south of Pier Avenue between 1125 Manhattan Avenue and 10th Street (Lots 16-25, inclusive, Bloc½: 35, 1st Ad dition to Hermosa Beach Tract Area C-3 is zoned residential/professional, with a general plan designation of general commercial. The subject area consists of 13 residentially developed lots, containing 36 units, for a density of 40 dwelling units per acre. Given the established residential character, staff felt that the general plan should be amended from general commercial to high density residential and rezoned from R-P to R-3. This area is located adjacent to the alley which accesses the parking areas for the commercial uses which front on Hermosa A venue, but the front of the lots are on Manhattan Avenue which is essentially a residential street. Commercial development would be conflicting with the general nature of Manhattan Avenue. The subject area is a remaining part of the general commercial designation which extended all the way to l 0th Street between the Strand and Monterey Boulevard on the 1966 general plan map. Staff is uncertain why this area was not taken out of that designation on the 1979 general plan map along with similar areas to the east. Apparently it was seen as a possible area for commercial expansion because of its proximity to Hermosa A venue. However, to be an expansion to the commercial uses on Hermosa A venue would require tying the properties together. A specific plan area similar to that being developed along the Pacific Coast Highway commercial corridor may be useful. This possibly could be considered in the future revision to the general plan. Public Hearing opened and closed at 11:18 P.M. by Chmn. ~ who noted that no one appeared to speak on this area. MOTION by Chmn. Rue, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to approve staff's recommendation for Area C-3, to amend the general plan designation from general commercial to high density residential and to rezone the area from from R-P to R-3. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ingell, Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Chmn. Rue None None None Recess taken from 11: 19 P .M. until 11 :25 P .M. AREA D: Zone change from C-2 to R-2B for 97 16th Street and 1617 Hermosa Avenue and for 92 16th Street and 1515 Her mosa Avenue, and General Plan re designation from General Co m mercial to High Density Residential for 85 15th St r eet and fr om Commercial Recreation to High Density Residential for the south side of 15th Street between and including 36 15th Street and 60 15th Street Staff recommended: (1) general plan amendments from commercial-recreation to high density res idential for the south side of 15th Street between and including 36 and 60 15th Street and from general commercial to high density residential for 85 15th Street; and (2) zones changes from C-2 to R-2B for the northwest and southwest corners of 16th Street and Hermosa Avenue (91 and 92 16th Street, and 1515 and 1617 Hermosa Avenue). 26 P.C. Minutes 9/5/89 AREA D-1: Area D-1, 36 to 60 15th Street, is zoned R-3, with a general plan designation of commercial recreation. This area consists of five lots containing 28 units, with housing types ranging from single family to a 16-unit apartment. Total density calculates to be 56 units per acre. Given the high density residential character, which is consistent with the character across 15th Street, staff felt that the general plan should be amended from commercial-recreation to high density residential and the R-3 zoning maintained. AREA D-2: Area D-2, 85 15th Street, is zoned R-3, with a general plan designation of general commercial. This lot is developed with a single-family home in good condition, and property on both sides is developed residentially. C-2 zoned property is immediately adjacent to the east. This lot perhaps could serve as a commercial parking area for a business facing Hermosa Avenue; however, given its current residential usage and residences to the east and west and its small size, staff felt the general plan should be amended from general commercial to high density residential and the R-3 zoning maintained. AREA D-3: Area D-3, southwest and northwest corners of Hermosa Avenue and 16th Street, is zoned C-2, with a general plan designation of medium density residential. This area consists of four lots, two on each corner, which are developed residentially with one, one, two, and eight units. Given the current residential usage and the surrounding residential usage and residential zoning and demsity, staff did not feel commercial development would be appropriate. Additionally, the small lot sizes would not be conducive to quality commercial development that could meet the City's zoning codes. As such, staff felt this area should be zone changed from C-2 to R-2B with the medium density residential general plan designation maintained. Historically, the zoning on this property was residential until it appeared on the 1956 zoning map as commercial. It has remained that way since, and no commercial development has occurred. Public Hearing opened and closed at 11:29 P.M. by Chmn. Rue, who noted that no one appeared to speak on this area. MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve staff's recommendation for all of Area D. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ingell, Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Chmn. Rue None None None 27 P.C. Minutes 9/5/89 AREA E: Staff recommended amending the general plan from medium density residential to neighborhood commercial for current commercially developed properties on Greenwich Village, zone changes from C-1 to R-2 for residentially developed properties, and a zone change from R-3 to R-2 for the lots on the north side of Manhattan Avenue between 26th and 27th Streets. AREA E-1: General Plan redesi nate from Medium Densit to Nei hborhood Commercial for the east and west side of Greenwich Village legally described as portions of Lots 4-7, Block 109 Shakes eare Tract and ortions of Lots 2-5 1st add i tion to Hermosa Beach Tract zone chan e from C-1 to R-2 for 2615 and 2627 Manhattan Avenue the east side of Hermosa Avenue between 2640 Hermosa Avenue and 27th Street Lots 1 and 2, Block 109 Shakes eare Tract and Lot 1 Tract 31943) and the lot at the northeast corner of Hermosa Avenue and 26th Street Lot 1, Block 67, 1st addition to Hermosa Beach Tract This area is zoned C-1 and C-2, with a general plan designation of medium density residential. The area, which is bounded by Manhattan A venue on the east, 27th Street on the north, Hermosa Avenue on the west, and 26th Street on the south, consists of a mix of commercial and residential uses, with the focus on commercial activity located along Greenwich Village. Given that the extent of viable and compatible commercial development seems to have been established, staff felt that the zoning and general plan should be consistent with existing uses. This requires general plan amending the commercially developed properties from medium density residential to neighborhood commercial and rezoning the residential properties from C-1 to R-2. The commercial uses include a restaurant/bar, a beauty salon, a surf shop, a mini market, a restaurant, and a dry cleaners. Although staff is aware that these businesses are not perfectly compatible with surrounding residences, they all generally fall under the neighborhood commercial type of activities envisioned by the general plan. The surrounding residential uses currently zoned C-1 consist of eight small lots containing structures which range from single-family to a seven-unit condo. Although the commercial zoning of these properties could potentially allow commercial expansion and more parking, staff does not feel this to be desirable for a neighborhood commercial area which exists for the convenience of nearby residents and not as an attraction center. Also, the small lot sizes would not be conducive to making it a quality commercial area even if it were desirable. Mr. Schubach and Comm. Peirce discussed the map for this particular area and commented on a small triangular portion owned by the City. Mr. Schubach discussed one parcel in the neighborhood commercial area. He stated that the property at the corner of 26th and Hermosa was recently purchased by someone who intends to live upstairs and use the downstairs commercial use as a personal office. He continued by giving background information on why this building was designated as it is. Public Hearing opened at 11:36 P.M. by Chmn Rue. Gene Gregory, 2604 Hermosa Avenue, stated that he is a building contractor, and he would like to have his construction company office downstairs, and he will live upstairs. He noted that the commercial space is very small; therefore, there is no potential for expanding into anything more than an off ice. He noted that the structure has three outdoor spaces. He requested that the building be left as is, commercial. 28 P.C. Minutes 9/5/89 Chmn. Rue questioned whether this type of use is R-P. Mr. Schubach stated that the proper zoning is neighborhood commercial for this type of use. He noted that mixed use is allowed in the C-1 zone. He stated that staff had originally suggested that the property be zone changed from C-1 to R-2; however, staff is now recommending that the property be general plan amended neighborhood commercial and the zoning remain C-1. The entire area would then be consistent. Mr. Gregory noted that the commercial space is only 200 square feet; therefore, other commercial uses would not be feasible. Public Hearing closed at 11 :40 P .M. by Chmn. Rue. MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve staff's recommendation for Area E-1, to amend the general plan for commercially developed properties from medium density residential to neighborhood commercial and to change the zoning for the residential properties from C-1 to R-2, with the exception of Lot 9 which shall be neighborhood commercial and zoned C-1. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ingell, Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Chmn. Rue None None None AREA E-2: Either General Plan redesignate from Medium Densi ty to High Density Residential or zone change from R-3 to R-2 fo r the north side of Manha ttan Avenue between 26th Street and 27th Street This area is zoned R-3, with a general plan designation of R-3. The area consists of five 3000 square-foot lots, four of which contain two units and one which contains a single­ family house, for a total of nine units. The structures vary in age, but all seem to be in good condition. Surrounding zoning includes C-1 and R-2 to the south, R-3 to the northwest, and all other surrounding properties east of Manhattan Avenue are either R-1 or R-2. The subject area is the only R-3 zoned area east of Manhattan Avenue in this part of the City. Because of the R-3 zoning, the height of the subject properties is 35 feet, rather than 30 feet, for the areas inland. Given the lot sizes, only two units per lot are allowed under the current R-3 zoning. If all five lots were combined as one development, a total of eleven units could be built. Even with the R-3 zoning, a developer would have to combine at least four of the lots to gain an additional unit over two per lot. As such, the R-3 zoning does not encourage a significantly higher density than the two-family character that exists. If the property were rezoned to R-2, the two-unit sites would become nonconforming uses. If compatibility with surrounding areas were the primary concern, downzoning to R-2 would be the logical decision; however, if lot sizes and the existing uses are considered, maintaining the R-3 zone seems appropriate. As such, staff felt that this is a borderline situation, but feels that the overriding concern is the City's stated policy for inconsistent areas to be zoned or general planned to the lower density. This would mean a rezoning to R-2 with the general plan designation of medium density residential being maintained. 29 P.C. Minutes 9/5/89 Comm. Peirce discussed zoning this area to R-2 standards, but with the R-1 density. Chmn. Rue noted, then, that the existing properties would become nonconforming. Mr. Schubach and Comm. Peirce discussed the issue of nonconforming uses in the R-2 area. The Planning Director discussed the lot sizes versus the number of units. Comm. Peirce stated that the units would not be nonconforming, but the use would be nonconforming. Public Hearing opened and closed at 11:47 by Chmn. Rue, who noted that no one appeared to speak on this area. Comm. Peirce and the other Commissioners discussed this area as depicted on the map. Comm. Peirce felt that the proper zoning should be R-2, with a maximum height of 30 feet. He did not feel that the area would be conducive to R-1 development. Mr. Schubach stated that the development standards will be addressed in the future. MOTION by Comm. Ketz, seconded by Comm. Moore, to accept staff's recommendation for Area E-2, that it be zoned R-2. Chmn. Rue noted that the units would then become nonconforming. He continued by asking about the lot at the corner of 27th Street. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ingell, Ketz, Moore, Peirce Chmn. Rue None None AREA F: Zone chan . e from C-1 to R-3 for the northwest corner of Manhattan Avenue and 33rd Street Lots 13 and 15, Block 102, Shakes eare Tract and zone chan e from C-1 to R-2 for the northeast corner of Manhattan Avenue and 33rd Street Lots 1 and 3, Block 119, Shakespeare Tract) ~ Staff recommended that the northwest corner of Manhattan Avenue and 33rd Street be rezoned from C-1 to R-3 and that the northeast corner be rezoned from C-1 to R-2. NW CORNER --MANHA TT AN[33RD This area is zoned C-1, with a general plan designation of high density. The area consists of two lots currently developed with one single-family structure. The remainder of this block between 33rd Street and 34th Street is zoned R-3 and developed with a mix of housing types. Staff believes that the extent of commercial development for this primarily residential neighborhood has reached its saturation point. Therefore, staff recommended a zone change from C-1 to R-3, consistent with the zoning on the block and maintaining the high density residential designation. NE CORNER --MANHA TT AN[33RD This area is zoned C-1, with a general plan designation of medium density. The two lots contain a six-unit apartment and a single-family home. The remainder of this block between 33rd and 34th Streets east of Manhattan is zoned R-2. As noted for the NW 30 P.C. Minutes 9/5/89 -~ corner of Manhattan and 33rd, staff does not believe this corner is appropriate for commercial development and recommends a zone change from C-1 to R-2, consistent with the zoning on the block and maintaining the medium density residential general plan designation. Public Hearing opened and closed at 11:54 P.M. by Chmn. Rue, who noted that no one appeared to speak on this area. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to approve staff's recommendation for Area F. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ingell, Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Chmn. Rue None None None REVIEW OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR LIVE ENTERTAINMENT IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE OPERATION OF A BAR AT 211 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, HERMOSA SALOON Chmn. Rue noted that the agenda items would be rearranged at this time since someone was waiting in the audience for this matter. Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated June 30, 1989. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission direct staff to observe Hermosa Saloon while it is continuing its operation. On November 15, 1988, the Planning Commission certified Resolution BZA 154-441. At that time the Planning Commission directed staff to conduct an investigation into operation of Hermosa Saloon to determine whether there were any violations with the conditions of the CUP. On January 17, 1989, staff presented the results of the investigation regarding operation of the Hermosa Saloon to the Commission. At that hearing, the Commission amended superseding Resolution P.C. 89-11 for live entertainment in conjunction with the operation of a bar and required the applicant to meet the new conditions and directed staff to investigate compliance with the conditions after five months. On June 20, 1989, the Commission reviewed CUP No. 88-11. The Commission then directed staff to obtain more information regarding the patio and rear door. On July 5, 1989, the additional information from the Police Department was presented to the Commission. At that hearing, the Commission felt that the applicant should be given an opportunity to install air conditioning. The Commission also directed the city staff to observe the establishment on Friday and Saturday nights to ensure that the business was in compliance with its CUP and city ordinances. The staff conducted an investigation as to whether the Hermosa Saloon operation has been consistent with the conditions of Resolution P.C. 89-11 in the past two months. The police reports covering the last two months show no evidence of violations of the CUP, except three incidents of disturbing the peace and one sale of liquor to a minor. 31 P.C. Minutes 9/5/89 ,,.----On August 29, 1989, the staff inspected the site and found that the air conditioning system, which the applicant had been required to install, was installed. The Building and Safety Departments have had no complaints. The Police Department has made eight weekend inspections and found no violations of the CUP, but on one occasion there was a dispatched call in respect to dancing, but no dancing was observed. In measuring noise, the Police Department found no violation, and the establishment kept the doors and windows closed when entertainment was occurring. Hearing opened and closed at 11 :57 P .M. by Chmn. Rue, who noted that no one appeared to speak on this issue. Comm. lngell asked the applicant how the air conditioning is working out at this establishment. Mr. Brisson stated that the air conditioning is working quite well, and a suction fan has also been installed to pull in smoke. He noted that the City inspector seemed pleased with the system. He said that the system would never have been installed, because of the great expense involved, had there not been complaints from a local resident. MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to recommend that this business begin to go through the regular conditional use permit review process, unless complaints are received. No objections; so ordered. VARIANCE AND PARKING PLAN TO ALLOW A SECOND-STORY OFFICE ADDITION PROVIDING LESS THAN THE RE UIRED OFF-STREET PARKING AT 415 PIER AVENUE CONTINUED FROM EARLIER IN THE MEETING -SEEPAGE 3 Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Comm. lngell, stated that the applicant's representative was aware that this matter would be heard tonight. Comm. Ingell favored continuing this item, noting that the applicant's representative was not present in the audience. MOTION by Comm. lngell to continue this matter to the next meeting since the applicant was not present. MOTION DIES FOR LACK OF A SECOND. Comm. Moore opposed a continuance, stating that the matter has already been continued once, and the applicant was aware that it was going to be heard at this time. He suggested that a decision be made at this time. Public Hearing opened and closed at 12:03 A.M. by Chmn. Rue, who noted that no one appeared to address the Commission. Chmn. Rue stated that the van-pooling idea proposed was interesting. Comm. Peirce noted, however, that car pools are not enforceable. Chmn. Rue felt that van pooling is a good concept; however, it is something that the City must become involved in to make it feasible. He further suggested that a parking structure might be conducive to ride sharing. Mr. Schubach stated that the issue of ride sharing will be studied in the future. 32 P.C. Minutes 9/5/89 Comm. Ingell stated that he did not have enough information to make a decision at this time. He noted the trouble encountered by applicants having to go through the required procedures all over again. He did not feel that a continuance would be a burden on the Commission or the City. He felt that a notice could be sent to the applicant informing him that if he does not appear at the next meeting, the request will be denied. Comm. Peirce commented that the he felt this request was very close to being denied when it was first heard. The applicant was given an opportunity to respond with additional information. Had the applicant been present to answer questions may have been somewhat helpful, but he still felt that this is a very thin project and a long way from being a viable variance. He did not feel there are sufficient findings to grant this variance, whether or not the applicant is present. Comm. Ketz agreed with the comments made by Comm. Peirce, stating that the applicant should have submitted additional materials. Mr. Schubach noted that the applicant can appeal the decision of the Planning Commission to the City Council if the variance request is denied. Chmn. Rue stated that, had additional materials been submitted, he would have considered a continuance; however, no materials had been presented. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to deny Variance Request 89-5 and the parking plan. Comm. Moore stated that a small ride-sharing program would be completely unworkable in the City. He also felt such a program would not be enforceable. He could see no reason why this business should be granted a variance when there are many other businesses in the area in the same situation. He did not feel that the City is in a position to grant variances to all the other similar businesses. He felt there are strong reasons to deny this request, and he hoped the same logic would prevail at the City Council level. Comm. Ingell opposed the motion, explaining that he feels the applicant should be present to represent himself. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Chmn. Rue Comm. Ingell None None LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT AT 1137 10TH STREET Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated August 20, 1989, and recommended that the Planning Commission approve the proposed lot line adjustment. This project is located in the R-1 zone, with a general plan designation of low density residential. The lot sizes are 2500 square feet and 5000 square feet. The current use is as a single-family home on the 5000 square-foot lot. The environmental determination is categorically exempt. The applicant is proposing to adjust the lot line separating a 25 foot wide and a 50 foot wide lot, thereby creating two new lots of 35 and 40 feet in width. The 50 foot wide lot is made up of two smaller lots (Lots 12 and 13) which were recently merged by the City. 33 P.C. Minutes 9/5/89 The adjacent 25 foot wide lot (Lot 11) was not merged with Lots 12 and 13 because it is currently vacant and is a separate parcel on the assessor's map. Staff believes that the proposed adjustment will improve the configuration of the two lots. It will make the two lots more equal in size, allowing the construction of two houses more appropriate for the block. The reason the lots cannot be configured into two equal 37 .5 foot wide lots of 37 50 square feet is because the existing conforming lots (5000 square feet) cannot be reduced into a lot which is less than the City's minimum required 4000 square foot lot size. As such, one of the lots must be at least a minimum of 4000 square feet and of a 40-foot width. Hearing opened and closed by Chmn. Rue, who noted that no one appeared to speak on this issue. Comm. Peirce asked about the legal lot sizes and the difference between having one lot meeting the specs and one lot not meeting the requirements. He felt that two equally­ sized lots would be better for the City. Mr. Schubach stated that there are guidelines in the Subdivision Map Act governing this issue. Comm. Moore noted that there are many lots in this area which are only 25 feet wide. Mr. Schubach, in response to a comment by Comm. Ingell regarding having two lots of the same size, stated that it would then become necessary to have a text amendment. He noted, however, that the applicant is happy with staff's recommendation. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ketz,. to approve staff's recommendation. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: STAFF ITEMS Comms. Ingell, Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Chmn. Rue None None None a) Memorandum Regarding Conditional Use Permit and Tentative Parcel Map /121160 for a Two-Unit Condominium at 333 10th Street Mr. Schubach noted that the applicant had withdrawn the application; but will be returning at a future date with this project. b) Consideration of the Public Hearing Date for the Revocation of the Conditional Use Permit at Vasek Polak BMW Dealership Chmn. Rue stated that there is quite a bit of noise near this business. He questioned whether the topography could have something to do with the noise. 34 P.C. Minutes 9/5/89 c) Memorandum Regarding Renoticing and Reposting of Continued Planning Commission Items Mr. Schubach stated that the ir e is not sufficient time to renotice .items, noting that there would only be a five day advance notice. It also costs the City $99 to place another ad in the paper. Comm. lngell stated that renoticing would be a courtesy, as opposed to a requirement. Mr. Schubach continued by explaining the constraints for submitting the notices with adequate time. He stated, however, that he will further study this issue. d) An Ordinance Amending Municipal Code Regarding Adding Provisions Relating to Absences on City Commissions No action taken. e) Memorandum Regarding Planning Commission Liaison for September 12, 1989, City Council Meeting No one will attend as liaison. f) Planning Department Activity Report for July 1989 No action taken. g) City Council Minutes of August 9, 1989 No action taken. COMMISSIONER ITEMS Chmn. Rue: (1) asked about small signs and stickers being placed on poles throughout the City and how rules governing that activity can be enforced; (2) noted concern over noise at 725 3rd Street as well as welding tanks and tools at that address; (3) discussed the issue of continuing the hearing on the oil drilling EIR. Mr. Lee stated that it is necessary to wait until the meeting of September 19 to discuss the issue of continuing the hearing on the oil drilling environmental impact report. He stated that no action could be taken at this time, since it was not on this agenda. Comm. lngell: (1) welcomed the new Commissioner, Carl Moore; (2) requested that the Commission receive copies of completed project reports on projects approved by the Planning Commission. Comm. Ketz requested follow-up information when the City Council reverses on appeal actions taken by the Planning Commission. MOTION by Comm. lngell, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to adjourn at 12:29 A.M. No objections; so ordered. 35 P.C. Minutes 9/5/89 ( ( CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and complete record of the action taken by the Planning Commission of Hermosa Beach at the regularly scheduled meeting of September 5, 1989. ~ Michael Schubach, Secretary ~h~ Date \ \ 36 P.C. Minutes 9/5/89