HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes - 06.20.1989' . -,
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
HELD ON JUNE 20, 1989, AT 7:00 P.M. IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Meeting called to order at 7:00 P.M. by Chmn. Rue.
Pledge of Allegiance led by Comm. Edwards.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Absent:
Comms. Edwards, Ingell, Ketz, Peirce, Chmn. Rue
None
Also Present: Michael Schubach, Planning Director; Casey Vose, Interim City Attorney;
Sally White, Recording Secretary
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Comm. Ingell noted a correction to the minutes of June 6, 1989, Page 9, Paragraph 4:
" ... police informed the owner that they could no longer allow patrons to bring their own
beer and wine to the restaurant."
MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve as amended the minutes
of June 6, 1989. No objections; so ordered.
APPROVAL OF RESOLUTIONS
MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Edwards, to approve Resolution P.C. 89-
42, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA
BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND TENTATIVE
PARCEL MAP #20820 FOR A TWO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 632 6TH
STREET, DESCRIBED AT LOT 26, DR. DOUGHERTY'S HERMOSA BAY VIEW TRACT.
No objections; so ordered.
MOTION by Comm. Ketz, seconded by Comm. Edwards, to approve Resolution P .C. 89-
44, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA
BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND
ENVIRONMENT AL NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO ALLOW THE SALE OF BEER AND
WINE IN CONJUNCTION WITH A RESTAURANT KNOWN AS LA PENIT A II AT 200
LONGFELLOW AVENUE. No objections; so ordered.
MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Chmn. Rue, to approve Resolution P.C. 89-45, A
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH,
CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A SIGN WAIVER FOR THE COMMUNITY CENTER, 710
PIER A VENUE, SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS. Noting the abstention of Comm. Ingell, no
objections; so ordered.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC
No one appeared to address the Commission.
l P.C. Minutes 6/20/89
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP /120620 FOR A THREE
UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 1344 MANHA TT AN AVENUE (CONTINUED FROM MEETING
OF JUNE 61 1989)
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated May 30, 1989. Staff recommended that the
Planning Commission again continue this item because the modifications proposed by the
applicant are not satisfactory to address the problem with the parking layout.
This project is located in the R-3 zone, with a general plan designation of high density
residential. The lot is 4000 square feet, or 40 by l 00 feet. The environmental
determination is categorically exempt.
The Planning Commission continued this item because the plans propose tandem parking
garages which face Manhattan Avenue, a conflict with the zoning ordinance, which does
not allow tandem spaces to directly access the street in any zone other than R-1.
The applicant has submitted a letter and a schematic in which a slight modification is
proposed to address the tandem parking problem. Scheme 1 shows the applicant's
proposal to make the parking area behind the tandem garages a no-parking zone which
would allow shuffling of vehicles in and out of the tandem garages without necessarily
entering the street. Obviously, this does not resolve the conflict with the ordinance.
Therefore, as part of the modification, a text amendment is proposed to Section 1159 of
the zoning ordinance to give the Planning Commission the authority to allow tandem
garages to face the street in other than R-1 zones in certain instances.
At staff's request, the applicant also provided two other schematics which show available
design options which would meet the terms of Section 1159 for 40 by 100 foot lots which
slope up from the street. Scheme 2 shows that the required parking..cowld be provided by
having three garage spaces facing both the street and the alley, while Scheme 3 shows a
reverse of the original plan with two tandem garages facing the alley. Both these design
options have drawbacks, as pointed out by the applicant; however, it is clear that design
options are available which meet the code.
After reviewing these options, staff has concluded that the design in Scheme l does not
possess any significant advantage to the other options in terms of traffic safety and
convenience and the provision of parking and, therefore, certainly does not justify a text
amendment which would likely set a precedent for the use of this design. The basic
problem with the design is inconvenience associated with shuffling cars in and out of a
tandem garage and the added hazard of this occurring on a busy street. Creating a no
parking area in the 17-foot setback, in staff's opinion, does not solve the problem due to
the difficulty of enforcing such a restriction and because drivers will likely back out into
the street rather than use the area to shuffle vehicles. The Department of General
Services has indicated that they could enforce such a no-parking restriction but would
only do so in response to complaints by the owners. Therefore, the owners could easily
use the area for parking at their own pleasure, thus defeating the purpose of the no
parking restriction.
Scheme 2 satisfies the need for required parking without the use of a tandem garage and
has the ancillary benefit of making available six guest spaces. However, as a result of
the driveway width, this layout does not create an ideal streetscape, and one of the unit's
parking spaces will be split between the alley and the street. Nonetheless, staff believes
this option to be at least equal to or better than Scheme 1.
2 P.C. Minutes 6/20/89
Scheme 3 satisfies the need for required parking and does not negatively impact the
streetscape. Staff believes that a tandem garage facing an alley is clearly preferable to
it facing a street, and in addition the 17-foot area behind the tandem garage would not
have to be marked as a no-parking area and could be used as a bonus space, although not
countable as a guest space. The applicant has indicated this design would reduce the
amount of buildable square footage. In response to that concern, maximum buildable
square footage is always a function of lot size and the applicable zoning standards.
There is certainly no inherent right to reach a certain amount. Besides, it is the
designer's responsibility to come up with a design that meets the zoning standards.
Staff has researched other three-unit condominium approvals and found no instances
where the Planning Commission has approved a situation where a tandem parking garage
faces the street. Among the three-unit condos, staff found three other instances where
they were approved on 40 by 100 foot lots. A diagram prepared by staff shows the
various approaches to providing parking on these lots.
In summary, the Planning Commission must ask whether the problems associated with
Scheme 2 or Scheme 3 are worse than those associated with Scheme 1, and, if so, are
they significant enough to warrant a text amendment? In staff's judgment, the answer is
clearly no and therefore it is recommended that the applicant revise the plans to meet
Section 1159.
If the Commission desires the proposed text amendment allowing Commission discretion
over the issue of tandem garages facing the street, such an amendment could be
sponsored. The proposed condominium project would then have to be indefinitely
continued pending action on the text amendment proposal which would require City
Council approval.
Chmn. Rue asked when Section 1159 was last revised.
Mr. Schubach stated that the Section was last revised in 1986.
Chmn. Rue noted that there is less density in R-1 zones; therefore, cars parked in
tandem would not be backing out onto busy collector streets.
Hearing opened at 7:12 P.M. by Chmn. Rue.
Terry Wetkowski, 307 Hopkins A venue, Hermosa Beach, applicant, addressed the
.Commission. He stated that he had written a letter dated 12 June 1989 to the
Commission, but he did not mail it out in time. Therefore, he passed out copies and he
read the letter aloud:
"Dear Commissioners: The last meeting of the Planning Commission discussed my
request for a Conditional Use Permit to build a three unit condominium at 1344
Manhattan Avenue. The staff report indicated that my plans for putting a tandem
parking garage facing a non-alley street was in conflict with the building ordinance.
"At the meeting I told the Commission that my architect, Mr. Gerry Compton, was
informed of the conflict only just prior to the meeting. After further study, it seems
that this ordinance should only be applied when conditions favor it. In our case, it can be
proven that the existing conditions do not favor this ordinance.
"The primary objective of the ordinance is to ease traffic congestion on the main streets
in the city. I have been a resident of this beach community for twenty-two years and
3 P.C. Minutes 6/20/89
have seen the traffic problems and agree that this is a worthy objective. However, in
some cases the enforcement of this ordinance actually causes the opposite effect.
Therefore a modification of this ordinance should be considered in order to allow the
commission to waive its enforcement in cases where it is proven that it will actually
hinder traffic instead of easing it.
"Also, in my particular case, enforcing the ordinance will not only hinder the traffic
flow, but cause the city to lose a metered parking place in front of the property. These
parking places are valuable to the city as income and to the residents and visitors alike
as the parking congestion gets worse every day.
"Since my project is at a standstill until this issue is addressed, I would appreciate it if
you could consider modifying the ordinance at your next meeting. I am sure that Mr.
Gerry Compton can provide satisfactory proof by then for you to consider. Thank you in
advance. Terry L. Wetkowski."
Mr. Wetkowski noted that Mr. Compton had sent a letter to the Commission outlining the
options.
Gerry Compton, 200 Pier Avenue, Hermosa Beach, project architect, addressed the
Commission. He stated that he has attempted to lay out the different concerns he had.
He disagreed with staff's analysis of the safety concerns about the two available
schemes. If there is guest tandem parking in front of a garage, and one needs to move
the car out of the garage, there is no other place to move the garage unless it is moved
out into the street. He disagreed that the no parking turnaround area would be a
problem, any more than a tandem guest space would be a problem.
Mr. Compton felt that by allowing a 35-foot area from the gairage-door to the edge of the
parking lane for a car to maneuver itself out of the way so that the person in the tandem
space can go out and back into the street, which any parking garage in town must do,
would actually create less of a safety problem than having a situation where both the
guest and other car must back out into the street.
Mr. Compton stated that the tandem specifications he is showing for this project allows
for someone to pull out of the garage into the 35-foot no-parking area, maneuver himself
into the adjacent lane, and back the other car out while the second car in tandem is
leaving. He felt that would be less of a safety hazard than other methods.
Mr. Compton noted that there is a function of livability in condos. He stated that it is
possible to split garage parking spaces, whereby the parking for one of the units would be
located away from the unit. There would, however, then be a situation where there is no
access from either garage into the unit. If there is no tandem garage at one end of the
unit or the other, then the problem of not having access from the garage into the unit
occurs.
Mr. Compton discussed Scheme 3, explaining the design elements used in such a plan
involving a slope and noting that it would not be feasible because it essentially cuts the
unit in half.
Mr. Compton noted concern over the fact that this project had been reviewed by staff
several times and nothing was ever mentioned about a problem with the proposed tandem
parking. He noted that the project was even approved before he heard that there was a
problem.
4 P.C. Minutes 6/20/89
/-, Mr. Compton stated that the code is not clear on the issue of tandem parking. He
explained that he was not even aware that tandem parking was not allowed off of a
street.
Mr. Compton stated that the plan being proposed makes the most sense in this particular
case. He said that the plan would give the Planning Commission the discretion to either
allow or not allow the tandem parking. He stated that this would affect approximately
75 lots in town, and the question is whether the Commission will have the discretion to
allow such a tandem parking configuration off of a street. He felt that this parking
makes the most sense for condominium development on these lots.
Mr. Compton felt it would be inappropriate to amend the ordinance since only 75 lots in
the City would be affected. He felt that it would be appropriate for the Commission to
address these projects on a case-by-case basis and either approve or deny the tandem
proposals.
Mr. Compton noted that the alley at this project has a slope of approximately 12 feet.
Comm. Edwards asked for clarification on the different parking schemes proposed.
Mr. Compton stated that a concern was raised over the number of guest parking spaces.
He noted that an additional guest parking space has been added to this project at the rear
off of the alley, so there would be more parking as a mitigating circumstance for the
allowance of the proposed tandem parking. There would be three rather than the
required two guest parking spaces per unit.
Mr. Compton, in response to a question from Comm. Edwards, stated that this parking
configuration (Scheme 2) has been used at a project he did orL.klermosa Avenue; however,
he does not favor it at all, explaining that it is ludicrous to have single-car garages at
either end of the building.
Mr. Compton did not feel that tandem parking would be appropriate on Hermosa Avenue,
though, because of the heavy traffic. However, on the side streets, he did not feel there
is any difference between regular two-car garages and tandem parking. He noted that
one would have to back out either way. In this proposal, at least there would be a no
parking designation so that people could back out safely.
Mr. Compton, in response to a question from Chmn. Rue, stated that Manhattan Beach
allows tandem parking off of any street or alley; further, they do not require a 17-foot
setback. They do not have guest parking behind garages in tandem.
Chmn. Rue noted that during the summer, traffic can be heavy on Manhattan Avenue
because of its close location to the beach. He felt that unless there is enforcement of
the no-parking rule in the 17-foot setback, though, this proposal could not work. He felt
that in reality people will park in the setback. He felt that having to change the plan and
have cars from end to end would not be attractive. He noted that on one hand there is a
safety issue; on the other hand, there is an issue of architecture.
Mr. Compton noted that both issues are involved in either case. If there are six cars,
three in tandem across the front, it would be the same as having nine cars, two across
the front that have to back into the street.
Mr. Compton addressed safety concerns, stating that this situation would be no different
from cars backing out of a garage into the street.
5 P.C. Minutes 6/20/89
Mr. Compton, in response to a question from Comm. Edwards, stated that it would not be
feasible to dig down in the rear to provide for additional parking because it would be
necessary to slope into the garage. He noted that there is quite a slope in the rear.
Mr. Compton said that the scheme as presented to the Commission is a very basic
depiction. He explained that this is a very difficult lot to work with because of the
slope.
Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Chmn. Rue, stated that staff recommends
this item be continued so that the applicant can redesign this project.
Public Hearing left open at 7:31 P.M.
Comm. Ingell felt that Mr. Compton made a good point in that there is the 35 feet, the
17-foot setback, and the additional 18 feet, an area in which the cars can back out and
swap places. However, he noted that additional time would be necessary if the
Commission recommends a text amendment.
Comm. Edwards noted that it would be difficult to close off the parking in the setback
apron as proposed. He questioned if a curb-like island projection into the street would be
feasible.
Chmn. Rue did not feel that people would park in the apron, stating he feels there is
enough room for a car to park within the 17-foot setback. He noted that there is an
additional ten feet of apron to the curb and then eight feet for the parking lane.
Comm. Ketz asked whether this issue could be addressed by a variance request, rather
than a text amendment.
Chmn. Rue stated that it would then be necessary for the applicant to apply for a
variance. He noted that this request cannot be approved at this time without a text
amendment.
Mr. Schubach noted that if a variance were requested, it would be necessary to make the
four findings, and staff is unable to make those findings. He noted that the other scheme
shown does meet the code requirements.
Chmn. Rue felt that if the Commission desires to address this issue and feels that it may
apply to other areas, and it is determined there is a deficiency in the code, a text
amendment would be appropriate.
Comm. Ketz noted concern over cars backing out into a busy street. In this particular
case, there might be adequate room for the cars to back up and maneuver out onto the
street; however, in other situations, that might not be the case.
Chmn. Rue stated that the applicant has stated that the text amendment as proposed by
the applicant would make provision to require a conditional use permit, therefore
requiring such projects to come before the Commission for review. Permission would not
automatically be given.
Comm. Peirce felt that there are several deficiencies in this project. He noted that he
had earlier said he could not support this project so long as there are plumbing fixtures in
the bonus room because of the high bootleg potential; if that is not removed, he will not
support this project. He also felt that the code is very clear on not allowing tandem
6 P.C. Minutes 6/20/89
parking in this zone. He felt that this particular project is having problems with the
parking because they are attempting to max out on the lot coverage. He could therefore
not support this project, even with a text amendment.
Mr. Compton noted that he had discussed with the owner the issue of the bathroom
downstairs. He stated that they would like to retain this feature. He said that access to
the bathroom is not unlike others which have been approved. He said there is not
exterior access; therefore, there is not bootleg potential. He stated, however, that he
would be willing to work with staff if there is still a problem.
Mr. Compton, in response to a question from Chmn. Rue, addressed the issue of bulk,
stating that this project is not much larger than many other three-unit projects on lots of
this size. He did note, however, that there is not a great deal of space left over. He said
that the units themselves are not huge; they are actually smaller than many others being
built today. He did not feel this project is unusual. He stated that if the Commission
desires to limit the number of units, they should do so by changing the zoning or
modifying the requirements. He stated that this project meets the ordinance, and it is
not within the purview of the Commission to deny a project that meets the code, with
the exception of the parking.
Comm. Peirce stated that the parking as proposed is necessary because of the bonus
room on the first floor. He stated that there are parking problems because of the bulk
and size of the proposed units. If that room is eliminated, there would be no problem
with the parking. He felt that the applicant is trying to get the largest possible project
on this lot.
Chmn. Rue discussed the 17-foot setback requirement, stating that he had problems with
it because it essentially pushes all living space off of the gruuHd--.floor level in order to
accommodate parking on the ground level; he did not think that is a solution.
Chmn. Rue had no opposition to the bonus room, stating that hopefully that room will tie
in with the open space and serve as recreation space.
Comm. Peirce felt that the bottom line is that one cannot put three large units on a 40
by 100 foot lot, without having to push to try to get a variance on the standards.
Chmn. Rue stated that it might then be necessary to change the requirements if they are
deemed inappropriate.
Mr. Compton pointed out that if this lot was from Monterey to the alley, he could do
exactly what is being proposed with no problem at all.
Comm. Edwards felt that there should be some criteria, other than just zoning, by which
to determine whether or not this tandem situation should be allowed.
Comm. Peirce noted that it is not within the purview of the Planning Commission to
approve this request under the current code.
Mr. Compton noted that tandem parking would be allowed on Pacific Coast Highway if
the property were zoned R-1. He questioned whether the tandem section in the code is
written properly at this time.
Mr. Schubach noted, however, that staff knows of no R-1 property on Pacific Coast
Highway. He did state that there might be some R-1 on Prospect Avenue.
7 P.C. Minutes 6/20/89
MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Edwards, to study the code section on
tandem parking in order to ascertain whether a text amendment is necessary. Also, to
continue this project until a decision is reached.
Comm. Ingell noted that he could not support the project at this time, stating that he
does not have a complete package including the plans and zoning analysis. The
Commission has been provided only with detailed information on the parking at this time.
Chmn. Rue, on the advise of Mr. Vose, asked Mr. Wetkowski if he would be willing to
wait for a decision on his project pending the final decision of the Planning Commission
on the issue of a text amendment. He noted that the other option would be for the
Planning Commission to deny the project as it is currently proposed since it does not
comply with the code.
Mr. Vose stated that there are several options: (1) vote to deny this project ; (2) continue
it so the applicant can apply for a variance; (3) continue it until a decision is reached on
the issue of the text amendment; or (4) continue it and ask that the applicant redesign
the project so that it complies with the code requirements.
Mr. Vose noted, however, that a continuance for the purpose of studying a text
amendment could take quite a while due to the hearing requirements at both the Planning
Commission and City Council levels. State law requires that a decision be made within a
certain period of time.
Mr. Schubach was unable to determine how long a text amendment might take; however,
he noted that the City Council will be discussing priority items at their next meeting.
Mr. Wetkowski stated that he feels the project as it is nQW-is. designed in the best
interest for both the parking situation and the overall design. He would therefore favor a
continuance and would wait to see what the outcome of the text amendment is. He
noted that if the process becomes too lengthy, he could proceed by returning to the
Planning Commission with one of the other schemes which would be within the code
requirements. He stated that, if necessary, the bonus room could be removed to add
parking in that location; however, he does not favor such a design.
Mr. Vose suggested, then, that this hearing be continued to a date certain so that the
applicant, if he so chooses, could return with an alternate plan. If the text amendment
appears to be moving along, then another continuance could be approved at that time, if
the applicant still desires to wait.
MOTION WITHDRAWN by Comm. Inge 11.
Mr. Schubach stated that it would be impossible to do the text amendment within three
months; he stated that the minimum time would be six months due to the studies
involved, noticing, hearings, etc.
MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to continue this item to a meeting
four months from this date.
Mr. Wetkowski favored leaving the date open, rather than setting it for four months.
Mr. Vose explained that if the matter is not continued to a date specific, it would be
necessary for the applicant to renotice the hearing.
8 P.C. Minutes 6/20/89
,,~ Mr. Wetkowski had no objection to renoticing the hearing at the appropriate time.
AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION by Comm. Ingell as maker to postpone this hearing to an
indefinite date, subject to the applicant's request to have it brought back before the
Commission. Amendment accepted by Comm. Peirce as second.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Edwards, Ingell, Ketz, Peirce, Chmn. Rue
None
None
None
MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Edwards, to study a text amendment to
Section 1159 regarding tandem parking, and to direct staff to return with a resolution of
intent to amend this code section.
Comm. Edwards suggested that alternative criteria be studied in regard to where tandem
parking can be used, such as traffic density on particular streets.
Chmn. Rue noted that staff is currently in the process of doing a traffic study, and this
might tie in with the study.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Edwards, Ingell, Ketz, Chmn. Rue
Comm. Peirce
None
None
Comm. Edwards stated that he agreed with Comm. Peirce on the issue of bonus rooms on
the ground floor level.
Chmn. Rue noted that half baths in bonus rooms have been approved in the past. He
noted, however, that these plans show a fixture in that room presumably for a washer and
dryer. He noted that it could easily be turned into a kitchenette, though.
Mr. Compton stated that he would be willing to make that a wet bar.
Chmn. Rue stated that this decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed by
writing to the City Council within ten days.
TEXT AMENDMENT REGARDING NONCONFORMING USES AND STRUCTURES AND
ADOPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION (CONTINUED
FROM MEETING OF JUNE 6.! 1989}
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated June 13, 1989. Staff recommended several actions:
1. Contemplate all the issues noted and compare them with the Planning
Commission recommended ordinance.
2. Consider allowing flexibility in expanding the amount of floor area up to 100%
of a small nonconforming structure if it does not violate the intent and
purpose of the ordinance.
3. Consider allowing residential nonconforming uses, i.e., more units than
permitted by zone, to expand if all required parking is available.
9 P .C. Minutes 6/20/89
4. Open public hearing to receive comments.
5. Directe staff as deemed appropriate, i.e., to request needed information.
6. Continue public hearing to a date certain.
At their meeting of April 25, 1989, the City Council discussed the proposed ordinance
and referred the matter back to the Planning Commission for consideration of several
issues and to have nonconforming uses and structures addressed separately.
1. Should development with less than the 17-foot setback be considered
nonconforming.
2. Should the area of both rooms be considered toward maximum square footage
of remodeling when the wall between the rooms is removed.
3. Are there any incentives for property owners to conserve ground-level open
space rather than maxing the size of development; maybe flexible standards.
4. Ordinance needs clarification as to whether garage area is counted toward
floor area.
5. City's goals should be included in ordinance.
6. Should flexibility be included in return for property owners giving something
in return.
7. If an entire neighborhood has only a 12-foot setback ins.tead of 17 feet, should
the entire block be allowed to maintain only a 12-foot setback.
8. More detailed explanation should be given for calculating the valuation of any
addition.
9. If a 250 square foot addition is allowed without the required parking, then
additional bedrooms should be prohibited.
10. Nonconforming structures and nonconforming uses should be separated into
two ordinances.
11. Should a task force be formed to study this matter.
12. The proposed ordinance should include a statement that all remodeling and
expansion must meet current code requirements.
13. Should criteria be included regarding historical structures for consistency
sake, or should historical buildings be judged on a case-by-case basis.
14. Are property owners remodeling to avoid the 17-foot setback so that they can
save ground-level open space.
15. Will property owners with small rental units move away and rent both units
because they cannot expand as much as they want.
16. Are there "protected" property rights deprived by this ordinance.
10 P.C. Minutes 6/20/89
!' 17. If a use is made less dense, therefore, less nonconforming, should it still not
be allowed to expand.
18. Does Section 13.4 clearly indicate that uses made less intensive still cannot be
expanded.
19. Will more square box-type dwellings be constructed because of this ordinance.
The proposed ordinance has obviously opened a "can of worms" requiring a great deal
more of staff's time than was originally perceived.
Since the Planning Commission has continued the Biltmore site issue and requested more
information and because the new planning staff is still in training, this matter will
require a continuance for at least one month.
Although the staff is confident that the proposed ordinance will not need a great deal of
revision, an explanation regarding each issue will be necessary.
At this time staff believes the Planning Commission should carefully examine the issues
raised and comment.
Staff will then take the Planning Commission comments into consideration and prepare
the appropriate analysis and recommend revisions to the proposed ordinance.
Comm. Peirce commented on adding a valuation limit on remodeling. He asked why this
is being suggested.
Mr. Schubach stated that it is to preclude people from expanding_into enormous buildings.
The Commissioners agreed that having the minutes of the City Council meeting was very
helpful on this matter. Comm. Peirce requested that other items returned from the
Council also include minutes.
Public Hearing opened at 8:05 P .M. by Chmn. Rue.
Gerry Compton, 200 Pier Avenue, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and
discussed the proposed ordinance, stating that many areas in town are nonconforming,
and possibly 90 percent of the buildings in the City would be affected by the ordinance.
Mr. Compton stated that the City needs to determine what it actually wants in terms of
development. He discussed the various types of development currently occurring.
Mr. Compton felt that staff's recommendation makes sense on an interim basis; however,
the ordinance carefully needs to be addressed. He felt that the main issue is related to
duplex situations wherein people have rental units which they want to retain and at the
same time remodel the unit they live in. It now makes no sense for someone to tear
down their units to rebuild. He stated that if condos are built in place of the old units, it
is too difficult to rent one because they are so expensive.
Mr. Compton stated that owners should be given an incentive to remain in town if they
are at least near the minimum parking requirements, rather than force those people to
move away because they cannot do anything with their property.
11 P.C. Minutes 6/20/89
Mr. Compton stated that the current parking requirements preclude many people from
remodeling or expanding because most of the older units were built with only one parking
space per unit; the current code requires at least two per unit, with guest parking spaces.
Mr. Compton questioned whether it would be desirable to tear down everything in the
City so that all buildings would conform.
Mr. Compton stated that there needs to be flexibility in the code; however, he agreed
that the City needs to be strict on the issue of parking. He suggested that there be
flexibility in regard to setbacks or other requirements. He stated that people could
attempt to reduce their existing nonconformities. He said it could possibly encompass
the conditional use permit procedure.
Mr. Compton stressed that this is not a simple issue. He noted that many changes have
been made in the requirements over the past several years.
Greg Grinnell, 349 29th Street, Hermosa Beach, discussed the letter he wrote dated June
14, 1989, to the Planning Commission. He discussed in particular his home and rental
unit. He stated that he was surprised there was not more public notice on this issue.
Mr. Grinnell stated that it is difficult for long-time homeowners to sell their property
with all of these restrictions.
Mr. Grinnell discussed the City Council minutes of April 25, 1989. He agreed that the
homes which are substantially nonconforming should be targeted rather than those which
are not egregiously nonconforming.
Mr. Grinnell stated that he was ready to remodel when, .. be. fuund out about the
moratorium. He stated he was disappointed when he discovered he couldn't proceed. He
continued by explaining what he wants to do with his property.
Mr. Grinnell discussed the demolition of interior walls, stating that the area would then
be counted as square footage. He stated that rooms are now getting larger in homes and
rooms are now being combined. He stated that large rooms would be added to second
story additions, and small rooms on the first floor with large rooms on the second floor
would not flow smoothly throughout the house. He felt that redesign of existing floor
plans should be allowed.
Mr. Grinnell urged that the moratorium be ended and this matter be settled. He noted
concern that new, inexperienced staff members would be working on this very
complicated issue.
Mr. Grinnell stated that he would be willing to give up his rental unit if he were allowed
to build a house the size he wanted.
Tim Meenan, 1616 Manhattan Avenue, Hermosa Beach, recommended that there be
flexibility in regard to nonconformities. He continued by discussing his units in detail,
stating that he would like to remodel, but with the moratorium in place, nothing can be
done with the property. He stated that he has no plans to move out of the area. He
explained what he would like to do with his property; however, if it cannot be remodeled,
it would be necessary to sell it and move away, which he doesn't want to do.
Mr. Meenan agreed that there should be flexibility in the ordinance. He suggested a
committee be formed to address that issue. He did not feel it would be desirable to
12 P.C. Minutes 6/20/89
force people to move away because they cannot upgrade their property.
Jim Sullivan, 1051 8th Street, Hermosa Beach, discussed his small, single-family home in
an R-1 zone, and he explained that he discovered he cannot expand because of the
moratorium. He continued by discussing his nonconformities and what he wants to do
with the property. He stated that he would like to go beyond the 50 percent addition,
explaining that his house is only 900 square feet.
Peter Stabler, 66 18th Street, Hermosa Beach, has lived in the City for 31 years. His
duplex has now been rezoned to R-1, making it nonconforming. He explained that he
wants to upgrade; however, with the moratorium in place, that is not possible. He stated
that he and his sister live in one unit and rent the other. But they would like to each live
in one of the units, thereby reducing the number of people and cars at the property.
Mr. Stabler discussed the parking at his property, stating there is parking for four cars,
even though they do not have a 17-foot setback. He questioned the requirement for the
17-foot setback if there is adequate parking without it.
Mr. Stabler stated that he would probably sell his property and move if he cannot
remodel and expand. He suggested that careful thought be given to the ordinance, and
that flexibility be built into it.
Mr. Compton suggested that it would be helpful if the Commission sent out
questionnaires with the list of 19 items. He felt that thought-provoking, informative
suggestions could be obtained from the public. He continued by discussing several of the
items. He stated that one of the most complicated issues is that of use, noting that
almost all of the multi-unit dwellings in the City are nonconforming.
Mr. Compton questioned whether a committee should be formed to study this issue. He
felt that sending out the list could be quite beneficial.
Mr. Grinnell discussed the parking, stating that he did a parking survey in his area, and
between 30 and 35 percent of the existing garages are not used for parking cars. He
suggested that the parking in garage rule be enforced.
Comm. Ingell noted that he was not present at the original hearing of this matter. He
stated that he has read all of the materials, and he asked whether he must abstain from
discussion on the issue.
Mr. Vose stated that Comm. Ingell can participate, noting that this is a recommendation
to the City Council, not a final decision by the Planning Commission.
Mr. Schubach recommended that this item be continued to the first meeting in August.
He explained that the first meeting in July will be very full, and staff is recommending
that the second meeting take place over two nights in order to discuss the oil production
EIR.
Chmn. Rue discussed the suggestion of distributing comment cards or questionnaires to
the public on this issue.
Mr. Schubach stated that a mailing would be very time consuming and expensive. He also
noted that it would take a great deal of staff time to go through the responses. He
stated that it would necessary to obtain City Council approval to obtain the necessary
funds to send out a mailing.
13 P.C. Minutes 6/20/89
Chmn. Rue suggested that questionnaires be handed out at the Building Department
counter to people who will be directly impacted by the ordinance.
Mr. Schubach stated that that could be done; however, he would not want to consider the
responses as statistical data.
Chmn. Rue suggested that the 19 item list be copied and handed out, stating that it
would give a consensus of what the people in town are doing.
Mr. Schubach stated that the list could be given out.
Comm. Ingell suggested that copies also be placed in the library.
Comm. Edwards noted that Item No. 11 asked whether a task force should be formed to
study this matter. He noted that the planning staff is currently quite busy, and he felt a
task force would be helpful.
Comm. Ketz agreed that a task force would be beneficial, noting that this ordinance will
be wide-reaching.
Chmn. Rue felt that a task force would take additional staff time; therefore, he did not
favor a committee being formed. He felt that the Commission itself is a task force. He
did not feel that delaying this issue to form a task force would be beneficial. He felt it
would be better to pass out the comment sheets as discussed.
Comm. Peirce stated that the proper forum for this matter is the Planning Commission;
therefore, he did not favor a task force. He also did not favor delaying this matter for
several months so that a task force could be formed.
Comm. Ingell felt that the City Council would have appointed a task force if they had
felt it was necessary.
Comm. Edwards stated that a task force could run in parallel with the City hearings. He
felt that recommendations could be made by the task force.
Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Comm. Ingell, stated that he had no opinion
one way or the other as to whether a task force should be formed. He was not able to
ascertain how much staff time would be necessary. He did note, though, that a task
force would represent a delay of at least two or three months.
Comm. Edwards noted that the changes being proposed are quite significant; therefore, a
delay of several months might be beneficial.
Comm. Ketz agreed, stating that the full impact may not yet be known. She did not feel
that all the nonconforming homes should be torn down. She felt many of them could be
expanded, noting that a feature of this City is the wide variety of the types of homes.
She felt that this mixture adds to the character of the City, and she did not feel that
people should be encouraged to tear them down.
Chmn. Rue felt that the City should act on this matter in a timely matter in order to
resolve this issue as quickly as possible. He agreed that a task force could obtain
additional information; however, he felt that information could be obtained during the
public hearing process.
14 P.C. Minutes 6/20/89
Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Comm. Peirce, stated that people with
nonconforming uses can still do interior remodels, such as upgrading kitchens or
bathrooms; however, with the moratorium in place, they cannot do structural changes to
the interior of the structure or add additional floor area to the house.
Mr. Schubach stated that this point can be clarified so that people will know what they
are actually allowed to do.
MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Edwards, to continue this matter to the
meeting of August 1, 1989. No objections; so ordered.
Comm. Edwards discussed Item No. 6: "Should flexibility be included in return for
property owners giving something in return." He felt that there should be flexibility, for
instance, when people can provide additional parking or open space with less density on
the site. He suggested that possibilities be explored to allow certain things which will
give the City something advantageous.
Comm. Ketz felt that the issue of the 17-foot setback should be studied, stating that
that issue seems to be at the root of many of the nonconformities.
Comm. Ketz felt that Item No. 2 should be studied further: "Should the area of both
rooms be considered toward maximum square footage of remodeling when the wall
between the rooms is removed."
Mr. Schubach explained that people avoid the code requirements by retaining only the
minimum of the old structure.
Comm. Peirce felt that "flexibility" is merely a euphemism f01; a loophole. He suggested
that rules be clearly stated so that people understand the guidelines. He stated that
flexibility can cause problems in the future, and it should be studied very carefully
before there is any provision made for flexibility in the ordinance.
Comm. Edwards felt that the City goals should be clearly defined and stated in the
ordinance. He felt that a task force should be formed to address these issues.
MOTION by Comm. Edwards, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to recommend the formation of
a public task force to address these issues as well as to outline the goals of the City.
Comm. Peirce opposed the formation of a task force, stating that the people who would
volunteer to be on such a committee would be those with vested interests. He felt that
the purpose of the City Council and Planning Commission is to determine the goals of the
City. He felt that a task force would be biased in their recommendation; therefore, he
would oppose the motion.
Comm. Edwards agreed that the task force members would have a vested interest; on the
other hand, however, he the felt that the task force would attempt to mesh their ideas
with the goals of the City. He stated that it is important to determine the goals of the
City so that they can be included in the ordinance.
Chmn. Rue felt that the Commission should address the issue of the goals. He stated he
would oppose a task force because the same type of input could be heard at the public
hearings. He did not agree that a task force should formulate goals for the City.
Comm. Ingell agreed that the Commission should discuss the goals for the City.
15 P .C. Minutes 6/20/89
Jim Sullivan stated that a task force would add several months to this matter. He noted
that many people in the City have plans and cannot proceed with the moratorium in
affect. He opposed delaying this matter even further by recommending a task force.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Edwards, Ketz
Comms. Ingell, Peirce, Chmn. Rue
None
None
(MOTION FAILS.)
Comm. Edwards discussed goals, stating that he feels the goals should be addressed once
the ordinance has been completed.
Chmn. Rue felt it would be appropriate to encourage diversity in the City. He favored
additional resident ownership. He noted the importance of maintaining neighborhoods,
stating that the City should not encourage condos on every street. He felt that there
should be some type of flexibility, for instance, in cases where people want to retain
large front yard setbacks but cannot provide the required 17-foot-setback in the rear.
He did agree that loopholes should be avoided. He felt that there should be mechanism
for give-and-take situations which would benefit both the property owners and the City.
Comm. Peirce stated that the staff report of March 7, 1989, discusses City goals. He
opposed flagrant violation of the rules. He suggested that staff return with additional
input on the goals of the ordinance.
Comm. Ingell felt that the Commission should address each item on the list individually.
He questioned the feasibility of requiring conditional use pe1<m~:ts.. for remodels, stating
that that might allow for flexibility plus control. He suggested that that idea be added
as No. 20 to the list. He felt that remodels can be advantageous to the City if they are
handled properly.
Chmn. Rue suggested that the 20-item list be copied and handed out at the Building
Department Counter. The other Commissioners agreed, stating that the more input that
can be obtained, the better.
Chmn. Rue directed staff to place copies at the counter.
Comm. Ingell suggested that this item be noticed one more time before the August 1
meeting so that additional information could be obtained from the public hearing.
Mr. Schubach stated that the agendas for the next two meetings are already quite full.
He suggested that there could be more input at the August 1 meeting, and then that
meeting could be continued to the next day, if necessary.
Chmn. Rue stated that the item would be continued to the meeting of August 1, 1989.
Recess taken from 9:15 P.M. until 9:25 P.M.
16 P.C. Minutes 6/20/89
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP /120876 FOR A TWO
UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 612 TENTH STREET
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated June 14, 1989. Staff recommends that the Planning
Commission approve a conditional use permit and tentative parcel map for a two-unit
condominium project, subject to the conditions specified in the resolution.
This project is located in the R-2 zone, with a general plan designation of medium
density residential. The lot size is 4104 square feet, or 38 by 108 feet. The current use
is as a single-family house. The environmental determination is categorically exempt.
The applicant is proposing to construct a two-unit attached condominium. The two
proposed units contain 2379 and 2671 square feet and include three bedrooms, two and a
half baths, a ground-floor utility room, and a mezzanine level. The proposed structure
has two stories and a mezzanine above a partially subterranean garage.
Proposed architectural features include a combination of masonite horizontal siding and
stucco exterior, a combination of pitched and flat roofs, pipe railings, sloped skylights,
and "standing seam" metal roofing. This mix of features gives the building a
contemporary appearance.
The project provides a front yard setback of ten feet at grade, and eight feet for the
first floor level and above, which exceeds the required five feet. This setback also
exceeds the approved front setbacks of five feet for the two-unit project located
adjacent to the subject property to the east (620 10th Street) and seven feet for the
project across the street to the north (625 10th Street). Both these projects were
approved by the Planning Commission is 1988 and are currently under construction. The
setback for the remaining older houses along the block a:v.erages 14 feet. Staff has
included a condition that the setback be a minimum of eight feet.
The plans show a 25-foot turn-around area behind the garages, which is not adequate for
the width of the parking stalls proposed. The plans will have to be revised to either
increase the width of the garage stalls and/or to increase the turning radius. Staff has
included a condition to this effect in the proposed resolution.
The plans conform to or exceed all other planning and zoning requirements. Private open
space is provided on second floor balconies and on roof decks. Unit No. 1 has a total of
469 square feet of countable private open space. Unit No. 2, according to staff's
calculations, has a total of 322 square feet of countable open space (only 60 square feet
of 187 square feet on the second story balcony is countable because the remainder of the
deck is enclosed on more than two sides).
The location of the required 200 cubic feet of lockable storage space and the location for
trash receptacles has not been identified. Staff has included a condition that these
required features be shown on revised plans prior to the issuance of building permits.
The proposed development meets the minimum parking requirements. Four parking
spaces will be provided in enclosed garages and one guest parking space is provided at the
end of the driveway. No existing on-street parking will be lost due to curb cuts.
An existing specimen tree is located on the rear of the lot, about nine feet from the rear
property line. The proposed five-foot rear setback would result in the elimination of this
tree. Although the project could be designed to save this tree, staff believes that in this
instance it would be adequate to replace it with a comparable tree. Therefore, staff has
17 P.C. Minutes 6/20/89
.r, included a condition that the final landscaping plan include the replacement of a
comparable tree at the rear of the property.
The surrounding area consists primarily of older, single-family houses with two new two
unit condominium projects which are currently under construction. It appears that the
neighborhood is in the early stages of transition to these newer and much larger two-unit
projects. Staff believes that the proposed project will be compatible with the existing
and potential future character of this neighborhood.
Public Hearing opened at 9:29 P.M. by Chmn. Rue.
Cheryl Vargo, 5147 Rosecrans Avenue, Hawthorne, representing the applicant, stated
that she has spoken to the architect on the matter of the turning radius and the storage
area. She stated that those areas can be easily accommodated within the design. She
stated that they have read the conditions and have no problem with them.
Chmn. Rue stated that the floor plan is very nice and is quite attractive.
Ms. Vargo, in response to a question from Comm. Edwards, stated that there is a slope at
the property of approximately ten percent. She stated that it is a Building Department
requirement that if any damage is done to surrounding properties during construction, the
applicant must make repairs.
Ms. Vargo stated that this project actually will appear to be much less than the allowed
30 feet.
Comm. Ingell was pleased that this project shows a lot coverage of only 60 percent, not
the allowed 65 percent.
John Hales, 624 8th Place, Hermosa Beach, stated that this project is approximately 150
feet from his house. He noted concern over the number of condominiums being built in
his neighborhood. He noted that this neighborhood, even though zoned R-2, was built of
almost all single-family homes. He feels this neighborhood should have been zoned R-1
because that is how it was developed originally. He noted concern over the massive
developments creeping into the single-family home neighborhoods.
Mr. Hales noted concern over the new development standards, especially the five-foot
setbacks. He stated that the older homes are set back an average of 14 feet, and the
new large developments are much closer to the property line. He felt that new
developments should blend in with the existing residences so they are not totally out of
scale. He felt that such a practice is neither fair to the current residents, nor is it in the
best interests of good planning.
Mr. Hales noted concern over the massive development, stating that the sewer system
can accommodate only so much. He felt there should be a limit on the number of new
units which can be built every year.
Mr. Hales noted concern over the increase in traffic in the area. He felt that more
condos will only add to the problem and will ruin the future of the City.
Public Hearing closed at 9:42 P.M. by Chmn. Rue.
Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Chmn. Rue, stated that 50 news units have
been constructed in the City each year for the past five years.
18 P.C. Minutes 6/20/89
Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Comm. Edwards, stated that the sewers are
not adequate in the City. He noted that this issue is currently being studied in the
housing element. Also to be studied is the issue of water flow.
MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve Resolution P.C. 89-46,
as written by staff.
Chmn. Rue noted that this project meets all code requirements and is within the intent
of the condominium ordinance.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Edwards, Ingell, Ketz, Peirce, Chmn. Rue
None
None
None
Comm. Ingell noted that neighbor(s) can petition the City to have their neighborhoods
rezoned if they want to limit the density in their areas.
Chmn. Rue stated that this decision of the Planning Commission can be appealed by
writing to the City Council within ten days.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT IN REGARD TO THE HOURS OF
OPERATION AT 837 HERMOSA A VENUE1 F AT FACE FENNER 'S F ALLOON
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated June 14, 1989. This request is to extend the hours
of operation of a restaurant to include breakfast, to extend the hours for the outdoor
patio, and to eliminate other related conditions regarding the lilse:,of,the patio.
Staff recommended that the Planning Commission amend the conditional use permit to
allow the restaurant to be open for breakfast at 7:00 A.M. and recommends denial of the
other requested amendments.
This project is located in the C-2 zone, with a general plan designation of general
commercial. The present use is as a restaurant, with the owner's residence upstairs.
The Board of Zoning Adjustments, at their meeting of August 16, 1982, adopted
Resolution No. 154-481, approving a conditional use permit amendment to allow outdoor
dining. The original conditional use permit for beer and wine was approved by the
Planning Commission in 1975, with hours of 11:00-2:00 A.M. on Fridays and Saturdays
only, and 11:00-12:00 A.M. daily, and was subsequently amended on November 22, 1976,
to allow the restaurant to be open until 2:00 A.M. daily.
The applicant is requesting to:
l. Change the hours of operation from the currently restricted hours of 11 :00
A.M. to 2:00 A.M., to 7:00 A.M. to 2:00 A.M. daily;
2. Extend the hours for dining on the patio from 6:00 P .M. to 9:00 P .M.;
3. Eliminate Conditions 3, 4, and 13 of the current conditional use permit.
A review of the minutes of the Board of Zoning Adjustments clearly indicates that the
11 :00 A.M. opening time was established at the request of the applicant. In staff's
19 P .C. Minutes 6/20/89
judgment, opening the restaurant for breakfast at 7:00 A.M. would not cause any
problems with the neighborhood and would not substantially change the existing
situation. Also, staff is not concerned about a slight increase in parking demand during
morning hours, as the overall demand is normally less for that period of the day.
In regard to the second part of the request to extend the patio hours to 9:00 P .M., it is
clear in the minutes that the condition to limit the hours to 6:00 P.M. was imposed by the
Board of Zoning Adjustments because they were concerned about the intrusion of noise
into the walk street in the evenings. In staff's opinion, this concern is still valid, and the
applicant has not shown any justification for extending the hours of the patio.
In regard to the third part of the request to eliminate Conditions 3, 4, and 13, requiring a
solid fence and trees to separate the patio from the adjacent residence, requiring lattice
work around the patio to allow visibility for the police, and prohibiting amplified sound in
the patio, it is also clear that these conditions were imposed by the Board because of
concerns with noise and the intrusion into the residential neighborhood. Again, in staff's
opinion these concerns are still valid, and the applicant has not shown any reason for
eliminating these conditions.
Note that the proposed resolution to amend the conditional use permit assembles all
applicable conditions of the previous resolutions and updates the list of conditions to be
consistent with the current standard list of conditions. As a result, all relevant
conditions can be viewed in one document.
Public Hearing opened at 9:50 P.M. by Chmn. Rue.
John Bowler, 837 Hermosa Avenue, applicant, addressed the Commission. He stated that
he lives at 833 Hermosa Avenue, immediately above the business.. He stated he would
like to serve breakfast, explaining that the neighbors seem to be in favor of breakfast
service.
Mr. Bowler discussed the patio, stating that he was among the first to apply for an
easement of City-owned property for outdoor dining. At that time, there was concern
over potential problems, such as noise and taking drinks to the beach; however, there
have been no problems related to the patio for the past seven years. He felt that his
ability to handle and supervise the patio area has been proven. To close off the patio in
broad daylight, especially during the summer months, would be ludicrous. He noted that
many of his customers have indicated they would like to enjoy the patio area. He said
that this restaurant is family-oriented.
Mr. Bowler, noting that he lives above the restaurant, assured the Commission that he
has no desire to cause any problems in the neighborhood. He said that he has discussed
these plans with the neighbors, and they have supported him 100 percent; he passed out
copies of a letter signed by the neighbors attesting to this fact.
Mr. Bowler discussed the proposed change in fencing, stating that he would like to keep
the fence in tact. He was concerned with latticework, stating that he would possibly like
to change the fence to plexiglass so that there is more visibility; however, he is limited
to latticework, based on the existing CUP. He was not exactly sure what type of fence
he would like to have.
Mr. Bowler stated that the patrons at this restaurant will not cause problems. He noted
that other restaurants of this type have not been a problem in the City. He stated that
he runs this establishment in a responsible manner, noting that he lives upstairs, and as a
20 P.C. Minutes 6/20/89
neighbor, he doesn't want any problems in the area.
Mr. Bowler stated that other restaurants similar to his have no restrictions on the hours
of patio dining.
Mr. Bowler stating that he does not want to totally eliminate the six-foot fence along the
residential property; he merely wants to delete the reference to "latticework."
Mr. Bowler stated that he has read staff's recommendation, and he has no problem with
it.
Mr. Bowler stated that plexiglass would be more visible and attractive than latticework.
He stated that he would like the area to be as visible as possible.
Mr. Bowler stated, in response to a question from Comm. Ketz, that he has no plans at
the current time for outdoor music; however, he would like the condition prohibiting
outdoor music removed from the CUP to allow him more flexibility in the future. He
noted that he always consults with the neighbors on any change at the restaurant. He
said that he is not sure whether or not there will be recorded music on the patio; he is
merely attempting to clean up the conditions in the CUP.
Gerry Compton, 200 Pier Avenue, Hermosa Beach, stated that this restaurant is one of
the better establishments in town, and they never have any problems. He favored the
outdoor dining area, stating that 9:00 seems to be quite reasonable. He noted that this
restaurant has been there for seven years, and the owner lives upstairs.
Public Hearing closed at 10:00 P.M. by Chmn. Rue.
Comm. Ingell suggested modifications to the resolution: Condition No. 3: "The outside
patio area shall not be used after 9:00 P .M. "; Condition No. 6: "The lattice work or
plexiglass wall shall be at least 50 percent open .... The pu r po se o f thi s wall is to pr e vent
alc oholic bever age s from bein g passed outside ." Condition No. 13, regarding no recorded
music or amplified music to be allowed on the patio, to be deleted because Condition No.
14 covers the issue of noise regulation.
Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Comm. Edwards, stated that no complaints
have been received in regard to this establishment.
MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Edwards, to approve Resolution P.C. 89-
47 with the above-mentioned modifications.
Comm. Peirce noted concern over the hours of operation, stating that he feels 8:00 P.M.
would be more appropriate. He noted that this establishment is adjacent to a residential
area. He felt that if the owner is considerate of the neighbors, he will heed their
complaints, if any. He noted that the operator may leave, and someone else could run
the restaurant and not be as considerate.
Comm. Peirce felt that the reference to "lattice work" is archaic. He felt it would be
adequate to require that there be some type of separation between the property and the
walk street and the sidewalk, whether it be a railing or a wall.
Comm. Peirce discussed Condition No. 13, stating that there has been no end to the
troubles involved with outdoor music; therefore, he strongly favored leaving that
condition in the CUP. He noted that this is a residential area.
21 P.C. Minutes 6/20/89
Comm. lngell noted, however, that with the noise meter the Police Department will be
enforcing the noise ordinance. He also noted that this matter can be brought back for
review if there are problems.
Comm. Peirce noted that the applicant has no plans for music at this time.
Chmn. Rue agreed with the comments made by Comm. Peirce. He noted that the outside
dining area is very close to residential, and he felt that 8:00 P .M. would be an
appropriate closing time. He noted that the CUP runs with the property, and Mr. Bowler
could sell the property. He suggested that the patio hours be different for weekdays than
on weekends.
Chmn. Rue discussed Condition No. 6, agreeing that there should be a separation between
the property and the walk street and the sidewalk. He stated that other businesses
similar to this one have used pipe railings with no problems.
Chmn. Rue stated that he could not support recorded or amplified music on the patio
under any circumstances. He did not feel music is necessary on the patio. He noted that
it is very difficult to enforce the noise ordinance. He noted that the owner is not even
planning on music at this time.
Comm. IngelJ noted that this owner lives in the City and has done a good job; if he has
music and complaints, he will create problems for himself that would not be in his best
interests. He felt that the owner should be given an opportunity to have music. He did
not feel it would be fair to make the applicant appear before the Commission again in
the future if he does decide to have recorded music.
Comm. Edwards noted that many people in town have not .. operated their businesses
properly. When an owner does do a good job, he should be given recognition for that. He
stated that if problems do occur, the Commission can review the CUP.
Comm. Ketz did not favor the music on the patio, stating that music can carry far and
cause problems to the surrounding neighborhoods which are very close together in this
area.
Comm. Edwards noted that Mr. Bowler is not adamant about having music on the patio at
this time.
Comm. Ingell asked about allowing music, but requiring that it be turned off at a certain
time, such as 5:00 or 6:00 P .M. Comm. Edwards stated that that would be fine with him.
Comm. Peirce stated that music is music no matter what time it is played, and he could
not support music on the patio which is close to a residential area. He continued by
commenting on the hours of operation on the patio, stating that he would favor 8:00 P.M.
on weeknights and 9:00 P .M. on weekends.
AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION by Comm. lngelJ as maker to withdraw the suggestion
that Condition No. 13 regarding recorded or amplified music be deleted from the CUP.
Comm. Ingell restated his motion: To approve staff's recommendation, with the
following amendments: (1) Condition No. 3 "The outside patio area shall not be used
after 9:00 P.M.; (2) Condition No. 6 shall be modified to ensure that there be a
separation of a minimum of three feet between the property and the walk street or
sidewalk.
22 P.C. Minutes 6/20/89
Comm. Edwards supported 9:00 P.M., stating that that is not an unreasonable hour, and
there have not been any problems at this establishment.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Edwards, Ingell, Ketz, Peirce
Chmn. Rue
None
None
Chmn. Rue explained that he voted against the motion because he favored having
different hours for the weekends and the weekdays.
Chmn. Rue stated that this decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed by
writing to the City Council within ten days.
RECONSIDERATION OF BILTMORE SITE TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION
CHANGING THE GENERAL PLAN AND THE ZONING OF THE PUBLICLY OWNED
PORTION OF THE BILTMORE SITE FROM SPECIFIC PLAN AREA TO OPEN SPACE
FOR THAT PORTION WEST OF BEACH DRIVE AND TO GENERAL COMMERCIAL AND
C-2 FOR THAT PORTION EAST OF BEACH DRIVE BETWEEN 14TH STREET AND 15TH
STREET (CONTINUED FROM MEETING OF JUNE 61 1989)
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated June 14, 1989. At the June 6, 1989, meeting, the
Planning Commission requested additional data on several issues:
1. Cost of underground parking
2. Traffic impact of commercial uses
3. Reorientation of proposed uses so that the open space is on the north and
commercial is on the south
4. Contingency plan in the event the bidder fails half way through the project
5. On-site parking rather than remote
6. Cost of police patrol for park
Cost of Underground Parking
The cost of two levels of underground parking is approximately $34 to $40 per square
foot. Beyond two levels, the cost will increase considerably. Based on the square foot
cost of $40 per square foot, the price per space including turning area would be $13,600.
Therefore, the cost for underground parking for a 7000 square foot family chain
restaurant would be $952,000. Note that this estimate is based on the highest cost for
underground parking and the minimum size restaurant. The cost would be less if, for
instance, only one level of parking were underground, one level was at grade, and the
restaurant was on the second level.
Traffic lm.Q_act for Commercial Uses
To determine what the impact would be for all of the potential commercial uses is not
possible at this time. However, since a restaurant is a possible use and is one of the
higher traffic generators, staff has computed the traffic impact based on a 7000 square
23 P .C. Minutes 6/20/89
foot restaurant. The average daily trip generation would be 669 trips per day. This
figure should be tempered with the consideration of beach-goers, bicycle, and foot
traffic which a restaurant in the subject location would attract.
A conservative rule of thumb estimate would be about 25% of the clientele will be either
foot/bike traffic and/or beach-goers.
Reorientation of Pro2_osed Uses
By reorienting the proposed uses in a north/south rather than an east/west relationship,
there are some benefits and some negatives. The openness and view of the urban plaza
from the Strand is lots; the plaza becomes long and narrow.
The commercial area would have the utilities under Beach Drive, running approximately
through the middle of it. A most recent estimate of relocating the utilities was
$2,000,000.
The benefit of such a reorientation would be to limit the impact to the residential views
along 15th Street and the possible traffic impact of commercial development. The plaza
would act as a buffer to the residential along 15th Street interfacing with commercial.
The view from the commercial area may be enhanced in some respect since development
could abut the Strand rather than be set back 100 feet. Windows on three sides, a
broader visual angle of the beach, and a closer view of the pedestrians along the Strand
would result.
Contingency Plan
There is no absolute way to guarantee that a developer will l'TQ,t_ go "belly up." However,
contractual agreements developed by the City Manager and City Attorney can certainly
provide some guarantee that the City will not be left ''holding the bag." What the
guarantee will be cannot be determined at this time, but since the City owns the
property it has a great deal of control and options in negotiating a sale or lease.
On-Site Parking
The commercial area is approximately 16,000 square feet. Approximately 23,800 square
feet would be needed to provide 70 parking spaces for a 7000 square foot restaurant.
16,000 square feet is adequate for two levels of parking, totaling 23,800 square feet. A
combination of at-grade, above-grade, and/or below-grade could be utilized. Two levels
above-grade cost slightly less than the below-grade, $30 to $34 per square foot, or
approximately $809,200 for 70 spaces.
Police Patrol
Depending on the situation, the cost of police patrol could be zero to $300,000. If the
urban plaza does not become an attraction to the homeless, drug peddlers, and
panhandlers, then the cost would be absorbed; it would just become a part of the current
police patrol. However, if it does become an attraction, then the current district would
be split, a patrol service would result, and the cost (one man, 24-hour service) could be
$300,000.
Comm. Ingell asked for clarification on the 669 trips per day as mentioned by staff.
24 P .C. Minutes 6/20/89
Mr. Schubach stated that the figure represents vehicles, not passengers. He stated that
studies indicate an average of 2.3 persons per vehicle. He explained that the figure of
669 was derived from the engineering handbook section on trip generation for a quality
restaurant.
Comm. Ingell stated that the figures seems to be approximately 25 percent less than the
number of vehicle trips which would actually be made. He did a survey on his own and
the number of cars seems very low.
Mr. Schubach explained that staff's figure is a very conservative estimate.
Mr. Schubach noted that many people walk, ride their bikes, or arrive via various other
methods, especially during the summer months. Customers, therefore, would not be
driving to the area exclusively to go to the restaurant; rather, they would be coming to
the area for other purposes, parking in the public parking lot, and then walking to the
restaurant.
Comm. Ingell asked about the potential cost of maintaining an urban plaza.
Mr. Schubach had no exact figures on park maintenance; however, he stated that he could
ask the Public Works Director for that information.
Comm. Edwards passed out copies of graphs he prepared showing the past election results
on the Biltmore site. He discussed at length his opinion of the community consensus on
this issue. He noted that most voters in Precinct 4 favored residential development on
the Biltmore site. City-wide, however, residential usage was voted down. He continued
by explaining what various precincts favored according to the election results.
Comm. Peirce stated that it is not possible to interpret the vo.t.ing record accurately in
regard to who favored commercial versus residential development if one takes into
account only the last election. He felt Comm. Edwards should have obtained results
from previous elections on this matter. He did not feel it would be fair to discard
previous election results when making such a presentation.
Comm. Edwards continued by stating it is his opinion that residents in Precinct 4
appeared to favor residential development. He felt that commercial development would
be less desirable in that particular area, based on the traffic factors; therefore, he
tended to favor residential development.
Comm. Edwards noted that open space costs money due to policing and maintenance.
Commercial development would require building parking, and unless the property is sold
outright for commercial development, there would not be any immediate income. He
stated that many concessions would need to be made by the City for someone to come in
and develop the site commercially. He felt that residential could be sold fairly easily,
and the property is currently very valuable based on real estate trends. He felt that
residential would be the most favorable use of the site.
Comm. Edwards stated that the Biltmore site as open space would be of marginal value
since it is right at the beach.
Comm. Edwards stated that if the property is sold for residential usage, the income could
be used to pay for improving open space. He noted that it has not been mentioned before
that residential funding could be used for the open space.
25 P .C. Minutes 6/20/89
Comm. Edwards said that part of the funds could be used to provide additional parking
for the beach area.
Comm. Edwards felt that several million dollars could be made if the lots were sold for
residential. He stated that a commercial development would provide approximately
$30,000 per year in revenue, far less than what could be obtained from a residential sale.
Hearing opened at 10:37 P.M. by Chmn. Rue.
Patricia Hill, 841 Manhattan Avenue, Hermosa Beach, task force member, stated that
staff's recommendation is very different from the recommendations given by the task
force, and the staff recommendation is an absolute distortion. She expressed concern
over staff recommendation No. 6: "A major restaurant should be the priority use of the
commercial lots, and the City should do whatever possible to attract such a use." She
said that the task force did not make such a recommendation; on the contrary, they
added particular conditions to prevent that type of aggregation of property for a "major
restaurant" on the Biltmore site. She stressed that the task force was discussing a
"major urban plaza," not a "major restaurant."
Ms. Hill stated that, instead of planning for the most beneficial use of open space, staff's
recommendations would introduce an enormous traffic impact, outscale development,
and all of the things open space was chosen to ameliorate. This was to be a public use of
public land for open space. The task force recommended nothing which would enable or
encourage a commercial use such as a major restaurant.
Ms. Hill voiced strong concern over staff recommendation No. 4: "Money from the sale
or lease of the commercial portion or from a lease arrangement should be set aside for
the parking structure." She stated that the task force reCi::Qlillmended a commercial
designation for a smaller portion of the overall site to demonstrate a financial
responsibility and as a way of supporting the design and installation of the urban plaza
itself. For this money not even to be used for the site itself would eviscerate the very
recommendation for that open site. She stated that such an action would orphan the
entire project upon which a consensus was reached on the Biltmore site.
Ms. Hill stated that staff's recommendations are very disturbing, and they do not reflect
what was recommended by the Biltmore Site Task Force Committee.
Mr. Schubach clarified that staff's recommendations were not based on the task force
recommendations. He stated that staff was requested to look into what would be the
most economically feasible use of the site; the task force recommendations were not the
most economically feasible. He said that the Coastal Commission would most likely take
issue with removing public parking and not replacing it; therefore, a recommendation was
made in regard to the parking. He noted that staff's recommendations were never
intended to reflect those made by the task force.
Catherine Bergstrom, 32 21st Street, Hermosa Beach, task force member, discussed the
past history of the Biltmore site and past election results in regard to the matter. She
continued by discussing the passage of Proposition J, which stated that the City would
find means to purchase the right-of-way. She discussed the utility tax, noting that the
right-of-way has not yet been paid for.
Ms. Bergstrom stated that staff attended the task force meetings, and staff made their
viewpoints known; staff's recommendations, however, were rejected by the task force.
26 P.C. Minutes 6/20/89
Ms. Bergstrom stated that it was clear that four issues needed to be addressed at the
time of formulating the recommendation: (l) the environmental impact; (2) the
economic impact; (3) the political impact; and (4) the social impact.
Ms. Bergstrom felt that single-family residential use would be the highest and best use of
the land. She stated that no studies have been done in the past in regard to the impacts
of residential usage.
Ms. Bergstrom continued by discussing the possibility of having a school or additional
parking at the site.
Ms. Bergstrom asked for clarification on the timing of this issue and placing it on the
ballot. She asked whether another public hearing would be held on this matter.
Mr. Schubach stated that the City Council would hold a public hearing.
Ms. Bergstrom stated that the idea of a buffer zone has worked in the City. She noted
that people want to live in the City so badly that they are willing to put up with many
annoyances such as traffic, litter, parking problems, and noise. She stated that a mix of
commercial and residential has worked in the past.
Ms. Bergstrom made two recommendations for the Commissioners' consideration: (l)
that the Commission recommend twelve single-family homes; or (2) recommend that the
task force recommendation be placed on the ballot.
Gerry Compton, 200 Pier Avenue, Hermosa Beach, felt that the site should be zoned at
its highest economical value, which is probably residential, and then sold with that
zoning. If the City is going to retain the property, then commeFcial use should be done
with a long-term land lease, therefore, providing the City with income on the property.
He stated that this land is probably the City's most valuable possession at this time. If
the land is sold to a developer, the City would then have no future income. He suggested
that the City hold on to the land because he feels the value will go even higher. Unless
the City is going to sell it as residential, he urged that it be leased as commercial.
Mr. Compton discussed using the site as open space as recommended by the task force.
He noted deep concern over an open space plaza, stating that it could become home to
bums and other undesirables. He noted that the Redondo Pier attracts many outsiders
and after a big weekend, there is a terrible mess which the city has to clean up. He felt
that the cost of maintaining an urban plaza could be prohibitive. He felt that social and
economical issues have not been adequately addressed for an urban plaza.
Mr. Compton noted that if there is commercial development adjacent to an urban plaza,
there would at least be a business constantly on watch for any problems. He stressed
that any plaza must have constant patrol or there could be real problems.
Richard Sullivan, 3rd Street, Hermosa Beach, was surprised that residential did not win
when this item was placed on the last ballot. He felt that the City tried to confuse
people by placing three measures on the ballot. At this time, he would favor any use
except open space, noting that this site is adjacent to the beach. He stated that
proceeds from the sale of this property could help pay for the greenbelt. He cautioned
that property values will be down in the future. The City should now concentrate on
obtaining the best return on this site. He noted concern over providing adequate
protection if the site is open space.
27 P .C. Minutes 6/20/89
Hearing closed at 10:59 P.M. by Chmn. Rue.
Comm. Ingell made several observations: (1) this is one of the choicest residential
potential or general co mmercial sites in the City, an asset valued between seven and ten
million dollars, with a potential property tax revenue of $70,000 to $100,000 a year if it
was sold; (2) everyone wants less traffic and more open space; (3) there is an initiative on
the ballot that, if passed, would turn this asset into a liability of over one half million
dollars to construct in addition to over $330,000 per year to maintain; (4) the City
Council fears this initiative may pass; (5) the task force has compromised the open space
initiative into a slightly lesser liability that will probably appease the masses, but the
question is whether this proposal would be good planning, not just a good compromise (he
did not believe so); (6) if the City wants open space, this is definitely not optimum
planning; (7) if the City sold the Biltmore site, it could use the money to purchase several
parcels in "our" neighborhoods to be converted into open space, which would be more
desirable than adding to "everyone's" open space at the beach; (8) inter-neighborhood
parks would be much easier to control than a park at the beach where there are already
transient problems, drinking problems, and dru g problems; (9) everyone ends up paying for
enforcement problems; (10) he wanted open s pace too, but if he is going to pay for it, he
does not want to provide open space for eve ryone in Southern California; (11) this view
might not be a great compromise to an open space ballot measure, but if presented well
to the citizens he felt they too will see it as better planning for Hermosa Beach; (12)
remember, half of the voters wanted development.
Comm. Ingell stated that he strongly favors either residential development or a
commercial lease on the Biltmore site. He appreciated the input from the task force;
however, he could not support their recommendation for open space.
Comm. Ingell recommended that two issues placed on the baUat:.d.l) the highest and best
use, which would be 12 residential lots; and (2) a commerc ial lea se situation. He favored
eliminating the open space alternative altogether.
Comm. Peirce felt that the highest and best use from a City standpoint and for the best
return on the investment of the property as well as from a future impact on the City
standpoint would be a hotel; however, he noted that most people feel the City cannot
support that. Therefore, he favored the option of open space adjacent to a restaurant as
being the best and highest use for the property.
Comm. Peirce felt that, if the City can add restrictions to the restaurant adjacent to the
urban plaza area, it would add value to the downtown area as well as the restaurant and
the park itself.
Comm. Peirce recommended vacating 15th Street; asked that the City Council put on the
ballot a proposition that has some restrictions on the commercial development of the
property; that setbacks be initiated on the ground floor (IO feet), first floor (15 feet), and
second floor (twenty feet); that there be a maximum height limit of 30 feet; that the
building be only three stories high; that the building be stepped back to reduce the bulk.
Whether it is one or two restaurants can be left to the discretion of the City. Putting
parking on the site is not the best thing to do; however, if the developer wants to, he can
add parking on-site. He recommended that the restaurant not be allowed to join the
Vehicle Parking District because it would overburden the City's already overcrowded
lots. The developer could erect a parking structure on Lot C if so desired, or the
developer could place parking on the site.
28 P .C. Minutes 6/20/89
Comm. Ketz agreed with Comm. Peirce, stating that the task force explored many
possibilities; however, she felt a commercial use (restaurant) would be the best and
highest use since the site is in the downtown area and is near the City parking lots. She
felt that some open space adjacent to the restaurant would be desirable. She favored
vacating 15th Street. She felt the revenue from leasing the commercial site should be
used for the park plaza. She felt that there should be restrictions on the commercial
development so that it is not too bulky, therefore creating negative impacts on the area.
Chmn. Rue expressed his opinions: (l) he originally favored a hotel; however, that option
has been eliminated; (2) residential use would provide a source of revenue from the
property taxes; (3) residential can be sold for a great amount of money, which can be
used to purchase open space along the right-of-way and possibly to provide parking in
other areas of the City. He recommended putting two measures on the ballot: (l)
residential use, and (2) the task force recommendation.
Chmn. Rue stated that he tends to favor R-1 residential use for this site.
Comm. Edwards voiced his ideas: (l) the task force recommendation appears to be
financially shaky; (2) from a planning point of view, it is a toss up between commercial
and residential use; (3) from a traffic view point, he would favor residential; (4) from a
planning view, even residential appears to be the best use. He agreed that a commercial
development adjacent to a park would tend to monitor the park area; however, he felt
residents would do the same thing. As a compromise situation, he tended to agree with
the task force recommendation to have open space adjacent to the beach and commercial
on the other portion. He felt that a commercial usage is a shaky grounds. He did not
feel that the income from a commercial lease would be as high as projected by staff. He
recommended putting two measures on the ballot: (l) residential; and (2) open space, as
recommended by the task force.
Comm. Edwards favored residential development at the Biltmore site.
Comm. Peirce stated that issues such as traffic, noise, and smoke are environmental
impacts, not planning matters. He stated that planning is the vision of what is desired
for the future of the City. The first consideration should be for the land use, not how
much money can be made. He felt that the decision should be based on what will be in
the best interests of the City twenty or thirty years from now. He therefore felt that
the approach being taken in regard to this matter is backwards.
MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Edwards, to recommend that two
measures be placed on the ballot:
(l) That the 12 residential R-1 lots be sold for the highest bid, proceeds of which
should be earmarked for: (a) acquisition of the greenbelt, (b) acquisition and
maintenance of residential parks in the City, (c) a parking structure in the
downtown area, and (d) environmental improvements in the City;
(2) The Biltmore Site Task Force recommendation.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Edwards, Ingell, Chmn. Rue
Comm. Ketz, Peirce
None
None
(MOTION PASSES)
29 P .C. Minutes 6/20/89
Mr. Vose explained, in response to a question from Chmn. Rue, that the ballot measure
with the highest number of votes will prevail; if they all have a prevailing negative vote,
none would prevail. He stated that there must be a fifty-percent margin for one measure
to win.
Comm. Edwards asked whether there could be a "winner-take-all" situation.
Mr. Vose explained that if there is less than fifty percent, there can be no "winner-take
all" situation.
Mr. Compton suggested that it be recommended, in the event of a run-off, that the two
prevailing measures be placed on the next ballot for determination so that a final
decision can finally be reached.
MOTION by Chmn. Rue to recommend that, in the event of a run-off election, the two
prevailing measures be placed on the ballot.
Comm. Peirce suggested that this issue now be sent to the City Council for their
determination.
(MOTION DIES FOR LACK OF A SECOND.)
Catherine Bergstrom stated that this will be the first time that the measures being
placed on the ballot in regard to the Biltmore site are clear-cut options which have been
studied and which do not involve a hotel.
Chmn. Rue stated that this matter will now be sent forward to the City Council for their
final determination. •
REVIEW OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AT 211 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY -
HERMOSA SALOON
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated June 14, 1989. He recommended that the Planning
Commission direct the staff to inform the Hermosa Saloon regarding the issues raised in
this staff report while the establishment is continuing its operation.
On November 15, 1988, the Planning Commission certified Resolution BZA 154-441. At
that time the Commission directed the staff to conduct an investigation into the
operation of Hermosa Saloon to determine whether there were any violations with the
conditions of the CUP. The staff investigated the operation of the Hermosa Saloon and
the results were presented in the public hearing on January 17, 1989. At that hearing,
the Planning Commission amended a superceding 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. Staff was then directed to investigate compliance with the
conditions after five months.
The staff conducted an investigation as to whether the Hermosa Saloon is consistent with
the conditions of Resolution P.C. 89-11. On June 13, 1989, the staff inspected the site
and found no evidence of violations, except a maximum permissible occupancy sign
(Condition No. 5) was not posted anywhere.
The Police Department has made ten weekend inspections and found no violations, but on
two occasions the music could be heard from across the street. The Building and Safety
30 P.C. Minutes 6/20/89
Department has only had one complaint regarding noise, and that complaint proved to be
inaccurate because the noise was not from the Hermosa Saloon. The Police Department
observed no evidence of dancing in the past five months.
The Police Department also conducted an alcoholic beverage enforcement program on
Friday, December 16 and Saturday, December 17, by sending minors into various
establishments, including the Hermosa Saloon, throughout the City. The minors were
requested to present proof of age and were subsequently ref used service.
The Fire Department was contacted and informed the staff that no violations were
identified regarding the Hermosa Saloon in the past five months.
Mr. Schubach stated staff had received a letter dated June 12, 1989, from Mr. Cobb to
which staff responded; copies of the letters were attached to the staff report.
Mr. Schubach stated that the neighboring property owner has expressed concern over
Hermosa Saloon's use of the rear door, and thereby having to go over the neighbor's
property. The neighbor feels this to be an unsafe situation, especially since his wall has
been damaged. Mr. Cobb would like to see the Planning Commission impose a condition
restricting the use of the rear door at Hermosa Saloon.
Mr. Schubach noted that there used to be parking at the rear of the Saloon; however, Mr.
Polak erected a fence. people must now therefore enter and exit over the adjoining
property.
Chmn. Rue asked whether the rear door is necessary for fire or safety reasons.
Mr. Schubach stated that that door is a fire exit. At the CiJJl"Lent. time,. however, it is
used for both ingress and egress. He stated that it is possible to add panic hardware and
use the door only as an emergency exit.
Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Comm. Edwards, stated that the previous
City Attorney felt there were no additional nonconforming uses at this property over
what there has been in the past. He stated that the parking was never required under any
of the CUPs. The parking happened to be there because the several property owners
allowed it to be used as parking. When Mr. Polak erected the wall, the parking situation
disintegrated.
Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Comm. Edwards, stated that the present
CUP contains no condition requiring the rear door to be closed.
Hearing opened at 11 :30 P .M. by Chmn. Rue.
John Slawson, 2522 Artesia Boulevard, Redondo Beach, attorney representing Mr. Cobb
and Mr. Berry, addressed the Commission. He stated that he has appeared before the
Commission three times. He felt that the Commission as a body is ineffective because
the rules have not been enforced.
Mr. Slawson stated that the City has received ample notice regarding the problems at
hand, in the form of letters and appearances before the Commission. He stated that the
City will eventually be sued and will lose its case. He referred specifically to the fact
that the municipal code ordinance indicates that for parking requirements for any type of
development, there must be a recorded easement from all the property owners whose
property must be traveled over to get to the property in question. He stated that it must
31 P .C. Minutes 6/20/89
be recorded, and a copy must be on file with the Building Director. He said that no such
document exists.
Mr. Slawson stated that the previous City Attorney felt that the City was being
prohibited from taking any action on this non-conforming use; Mr. Slawson said that
position is absurd and cannot be legally substantiated.
Mr. Slawson stated the City should take action against the Hermosa Saloon because they
do not have a signed easement and they are therefore in violation of the City code.
Mr. Vose stated that this is not his understanding. He stated that he has briefly discussed
this issue with the previous City Attorney. He stated that he has reviewed the conditions
of approval which were granted in connection with the approval of this CUP. He stated
that the issue of the easement is not in connection with this CUP. He stated he was
unsure of the point being made by Mr. Slawson as it relates to the issue before the
Commission at this time.
Mr. Vose stated that if Mr. Slawson feels it is necessary, he has the privilege to bring an
administrative writ of mandate to the City requiring the City to enforce those laws. He
noted, however, that he is unaware of such a requirement. He noted, however, that he
does not have all the historical material on this case, but if the Commission desires, he
could look into the matter further. He said that the CUP contains a provision that the
City can review the conditional use permit to ensure that the business is in compliance
with the conditions. As staff noted, this establishment appears to be in compliance with
everything, with the exception of not posting the required sign stating the maximum
occupancy.
Comm. Peirce noted that this conditional use permit makes 1;10;me11¢ion whatsoever of an
easement; therefore, the Commission can take no action on the easement.
Mr. Slawson stated that this particular land use should be subject to public hearings
and/or revocation hearings. He stated that conditional use permits are not stagnant
documents; circumstances can change, and the City has continuing jurisdiction over them
for review. In this case, Mr. Polak constructed a wall, forcing people to go over his
client's property to get to the Hermosa Saloon. He said there has been damage done to
his client's property because people have driven into their building and have thrown
things against the building, causing the insurance companies to increase their premiums.
Mr. Slawson stressed that the Commission has taken no action on these matters, even
after receiving letters documenting these occurrences.
Comm. Peirce stated that none of these issues are contained in the conditional use
permit; therefore, they cannot be addressed at a CUP review hearing.
Chmn. Rue stated that the Commission has received no damage reports or police reports
to document these occurrences. He stated that it is necessary to have such
documentation before action can be taken.
Mr. Slawson stated that there should be letters on file from Mr. Cobb related to the
damages. Photographs have also been sent to the Planning Department.
Mr. Slawson stated that it is wrong for the Commission to assume that they can take no
action on something because it is not in the conditional use permit. He stated that if one
reads the regulations contained in the C.E.B., it will be noted that the City does in fact
32 P .C. Minutes 6/20/89
have the authority to make modifications which are deemed appropriate.
Chmn. Rue stated that the Commission can modify a conditional use permit; however,
there must be documented evidence to justify such amendments to a CUP. He noted that
the Commission has received input from only two people about this establishment. He
also noted that the Commission has received no police reports concerning property
damage. If there is in fact a case against the Hermosa Saloon, the police should be
called out to write a damage report.
Mr. Slawson stated that both he and his client have written several letters; however, the
Commission seems to be concerned only with problems relating to residential property.
Mr. Slawson stated that a comment was made about using the rear door only as an
emergency exit. If that were done, his client's problems would be solved because people
would have no reason to be going to the rear of the property, other than during an
emergency situation.
Mr. Slawson stated that from now on, he will correspond in writing so that there will be
written evidence. He urged the Commission to consider requiring that the rear door be
used only as an emergency exit.
Chmn. Rue asked whether the Hermosa Saloon would continue to receive their deliveries
through the rear door.
Mr. Slawson stated that the door should be used only for egress; therefore, deliveries
could not be made at the rear door. If there is an exception, they could continue
receiving delivers; however, he urged that there be no exception. He noted that prior to
the construction of the wall, deliveries were made at the side~ot. the building. Also, the
Building Department granted his client a permit to construct a permanent fence across
the rear of their property. The deliveries were made, then, at a different location from
the street.
Mr. Vose explained that the issue before the Commission relates to a review of
compliance with the conditions of the conditional use permit. If the Commission desires
to consider additional conditions or a revocation based on information presented to the
Commission, the Commission would be required to set a public hearing and follow the
procedures for either amending the CUP or revoking the CUP.
Chmn. Rue noted that in a previous hearing, someone had complained about noise
emanating from the rear door; the Commission then imposed a restriction regarding the
back door.
Mr. Schubach noted that the requirement was to keep the rear door closed during times
that live music was being played. He stated that condition is in the CUP.
Comm. Edwards recalled a previous discussion about having the rear door for use only as
an emergency door. The applicant then stated that since he was in litigation, such a
restriction could hamper his lawsuit. The Commission then reduced the scope of the
restriction.
Comm. Edwards felt that the applicant is in compliance with the current conditions. If it
appears that the applicant is in violation of City codes, he suggested that the City
Attorney be directed to study the matter further and report back to the Commission so
that appropriate action can be taken.
33 P.C. Minutes 6/20/89
Chmn. Rue stated that if there is property damage, then that issue must be addressed
and resolved. He stated that mitigation measures must be taken to stop damage.
Richard Sullivan, 3rd Street, Hermosa Beach, noted concern over several issues: (1) the
applicant is not adhering to the requirements of the conditional use permit; (2) windows
and doors are not being kept closed after 7:00 P.M. as required in the CUP; (3) music can
still be heard at his house; (4) police have heard music across the street, but nothing was
done; (5) no security guard is on duty to monitor noise; (6) air conditioning has not been
installed; (7) no notice was sent to the neighbors regarding this hearing; and (8) there is
no record of his complaints to the police.
Chmn. Rue noted concern that police reports were not included in the packets.
Mr. Schubach stated that the police had no record of any complaints being made;
therefore, no reports were submitted.
Mr. Sullivan noted that there are no double doors at the Hermosa Saloon to reduce the
noise. When the band starts playing, the doors are opened, and the music can be heard
outside.
Mr. Sullivan suggested that this item be continued for several months to see whether the
applicant will comply with the conditions during the summer months. He also suggested
that when the hearing is set, that the neighbors be notified so that they can attend the
hearing. He stressed that the police are not enforcing the conditions. He noted that
there is still dancing at the Hermosa Saloon. He also questioned when the air
conditioning would be installed.
Hearing closed at 11 :56 P .M. by Chmn. Rue.
Comm. Edwards noted concern that Mr. Sullivan has called the police, yet there is no
record of the complaints. He suggested that staff check with the police department to
determine if there is a way of tracking complaints.
Chmn. Rue suggested that this matter be set for public hearing.
Comm. Peirce noted that the police heard noise across the street; however, the noise was
not measured. He felt that some of the problems have been mitigated by the applicant.
He noted that it is not clear whether or not there is dancing at the Hermosa Saloon.
Comm. Peirce discussed the issue of the easement at the rear of the property, stating
that that issue has no merit at this body. He felt that the complainant is attempting to
avoid taking this issue to a court by forcing the City to do something about this
problem. He felt that the issue the Commission should determine is whether the back
door is creating a public nuisance in the rear parking lot. He felt that the only evidence
appears to be the one complaint received from a neighbor regarding a vehicle being
operated in reverse and damaging his building.
Comm. Peirce stated that maybe the applicant is in minor violation of the CUP and
should therefore be brought back for a public hearing. He noted, however, that other
establishments in town are in much greater violation than this one.
Comm. Peirce felt that the doors should be kept closed.
34 P.C. Minutes 6/20/89
Chmn. Rue noted concern over the fact that there are no police reports documenting the
complaints made by Mr. Sullivan. He also noted concern that others were not notified
and therefore did not appear at this hearing. He felt more information could be obtained
if a public hearing were held.
Comm. Edwards suggested that further information be obtained as to how police reports
are made. He noted that the issue of the rear door needs to be addressed. He felt that
the attorney should check into whether there is actually a violation involving the
easement. Other than leaving the rear door open, the applicant appears to be in
compliance with the conditional use permit. He noted that the reason dancing was
supposed to be controlled was to eliminate noise problems occurring when doors are
opened when the establishment becomes too hot.
Chmn. Rue directed staff to research this issue further. He asked staff to contact the
police department to find out how complaints are handled, how reports are maintained,
and how long the records are kept.
Comm. Edwards asked that the attorney study this matter to ascertain whether the
Hermosa Saloon is in violation of the ordinance in terms of the parking in the rear and
the access.
Chmn. Rue noted that it is not within the purview of the Planning Commission to rule on
easement rights; however, if there is a violation or property damage problems, it could
be reported to the appropriate body.
Mr. Vose asked for clarification on what he should study.
Comm. Edwards stated that Mr. Slawson has asserted that a~g to City rules, the
Hermosa Saloon should have a copy of a signed easement agreement from the property
owner whose land he is going across. He wanted information as to whether or not the
City is enforcing the rules in this regard.
Mr. Vose stated he will study that issue further.
Mr. Schubach stated, in response to the Commissioner's concerns, that the CUP
enforcement officer can be directed to go to the Hermosa Saloon on Friday or Saturday
night to see whether they are in compliance with the CUP. The police can also be
instructed to ensure that the doors are closed at 7:00 P.M. He also stated that he would
check into the use of the patio area.
Comm. Ingell felt that the intent of a conditional use permit is to ensure that a business
is acting as a good neighbor. He noted that in many other CUPs wording to such effect is
included in the CUP; he would therefore favor such wording in this CUP, to ensure that
this business operates as a good neighbor.
Chmn. Rue stated that this CUP could be modified and clarified to ensure that the
business is a good neighbor. He noted that staff has been directed to return with further
information at the next meeting, at which time it can be determined whether or not to
set this matter for a public hearing.
MOTION by Comm. lngell, seconded by Comm. Edwards, to continue this hearing to the
next meeting; at which time it will be determined whether or not to conduct a public
hearing. No objections; so ordered.
35 P.C. Minutes 6/20/89
_,,----..._ Mr. Slawson stated that at the next meeting he will present further information,
including a videotape.
Chmn. Rue clarified that Mr. Slawson will be able to present his testimony at the next
hearing.
STAFF ITEMS
a. Interpretation of the Nonconforming Use Section 1303
Mr. Schubach stated that the applicant wrote a letter to staff. It was allowed on the
agenda; however, staff did not have enough time to prepare a staff report. The
establishment at 325 South Ardmore A venue is currently used as an auto repair shop
which will be moving away. The owner would now like to lease it to a graphic designer
who paints murals. When he is working on large murals, he will need to go to the site
itself, since the murals are painted on walls. Small murals will be done inside. There
will not be a problem with odors, as the painting is done with a small air brush.
Mr. Schubach stated that the old ordinance required a non-conforming use to be removed
after a certain period of time; that section, however, has been removed from the code.
There is now an existing use of an auto repair surrounded almost entirely by residential.
The issue to be determined is whether the proposed use will be less intense than the
current use. He noted, however, that there is no criteria upon which to base such a
decision, even though both uses are C-3. The zoning is currently R-1.
Mr. Schubach noted that if the proposed use is not allowed, the alternative is that the
owner would be allowed to have another auto repair shop gp-,.i&~, So long as the auto
repair business is not closed for more than 90 days at once, the use can continue as an
auto repair shop.
Comm. Peirce stated that this appears to be a matter of common sense. The business
type is being changed, but not the use of the property. He could therefore see no
problem with this proposal.
Comm. Ingell stated that he would like to hear from the neighbors on this matter.
Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Chmn. Rue, was not certain what use could
be permitted at this location if the proposal is denied. He noted that the code does not
specifically address this issue.
Comm. Edwards asked whether a conditional use permit would be required for the
painting business. He noted concern over fumes from the paints, especially oil based
paints and solvents.
Mr. Schubach stated that a CUP would not be required. He noted that the code does not
mention in detail the issue of fumes.
Comm. Peirce noted, however, that the applicant would have to comply with health and
safety requirements.
MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Chmn. Rue, to allow the requested use to occur.
36 P .C. Minutes 6/20/89
Comm. Ingell tended to oppose the motion, explaining that he felt the issue should be
studied further. He noted that there could be problems with toxic thinners or other
materials. He also noted that this is in an R-1 zone. He expressed concern that work
could be taking place at midnight.
Comm. Peirce stated, though, that the applicant must meet all the requirements of the
health code.
Chmn. Rue stated that in the future conditional use permits could be required to address
these concerns.
Mr. Schubach agreed, stating that staff could return with additional information for use
when future requests of a nonconforming nature are received.
Comm. Peirce noted that another auto body shop could go in, and he felt that a graphics
shop would be a less intense use.
Comms. Edwards and Ketz both agreed that a graphics shop would be less intense than an
auto body shop.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Edwards, Ingell, Ketz, Peirce, Chmn. Rue
None
None
None
Chmn. Rue directed staff to study the issue of nonconforming commercial uses,
especially those in residential areas, and the possible requirement of a conditional use
permit. . ... ,,; ..
b. Memorandum Regarding Planning Commission Liaison for June 27, 1989, City
Council Meeting
No one will attend as Planning Commission liaison.
c. Tentative Future Planning Commission Agenda
Mr. Vose noted that he will be absent from the next meeting, Wednesday, July 5, because
of a conflict in schedules. He stated that another attorney from his office will attend.
Mr. Schubach stated that the environmental impact report for oil production will be
presented at an upcoming public hearing. Because of the amount of time that will be
needed for that matter, he suggested that a meeting be held on Monday, July 17, and
continued to Tuesday, July 18, if necessary. The other public hearing items may then be
heard on the 18th after the EIR public hearing.
Mr. Schubach explained the methods by which the EIR can be certified by the Planning
Commission.
MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to hold a special meeting of the
Planning Commission on Monday, July 17, 1989, at 7:30 P.M. No objections; so ordered.
(The regular meeting of Tuesday, July 18, 1989, will begin at 7:00 P.M.)
37 P.C. Minutes 6/20/89
I'
d. City Council Minutes of May 22, 23, and June 1, 1989
No action taken.
COMMISSIONER ITEMS
Comm. Peirce asked about the traffic study. Mr. Schubach stated that it will be ready
on July 23. He will distribute copies when it is available.
Comm. Peirce noted concern over the window signage at Fox Photo. He said it appears
they are in violation of the sign ordinance, and he asked staff to look into this matter.
He was under the impression that no window signs at all are allowed in the City.
Mr. Schubach stated that he will consult the sign ordinance to determine whether Fox
Photo is in compliance.
Mr. Vose stated that a business cannot obscure more than 20 percent of its total window
area; also, the sign footage must be within the overall area allowed.
Comm. Ingell stated that he would like to have a demonstration of the noise meter by the
Public Works Director.
Mr. Schubach stated that he will extend that invitation.
Comm. Edwards stated that his travel schedule necessitates his being out of town for the
next two meetings. Noting the number of absences he has already had, he stated that it
would be necessary for him to resign from the Planning Com~n.
Chmn. Rue thanked Comm. Edwards for his contributions and urged him to participate as
a citizen.
MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Edwards, to adjourn at 12:27 A.M. No
objections; so ordered.
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and complete record of the
action taken by the Planning Commission of Hermosa Beach at the regularly scheduled
meeting of June 20, 1989.
P~~L
Michael Schubach, Secretary
1llill1
Da r e I
38 P.C. Minutes 6/20/89