Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes - 06.06.1989I I .. ,. MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON JUNE 6, 1989, AT 7:30 P.M. IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS Meeting called to order at 7:03 P.M. by Chmn. Rue. Pledge of Allegiance led by Comm. lngell. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Comms. lngell, Ketz, Chmn. Rue Comm. Edwards, Peirce* Also Present: Michael Schubach, Planning Director; Casey Voce, Interim City Attorney; Sally White, Recording Secretary (Comm. Peirce arrived at 7:05 P.M.; Comm. Edwards arrived at 7:23 P.M.) APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve the minutes of May 16, 1989, as submitted. No objections; so ordered. APPROVAL OF RESOLUTIONS MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve Resolution P.C. 89-26, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DENYING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND PARKING PLAN TO ALLOW OUTSIDE DINING AT NUMERO UNO PIZZERIA, 2205 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS 13, 14, AND 15, HERMOSA VIEW TRACT. No objections; so ordered. Comm. Ingell noted several corrections to Resolution P.C. 89-39: Item 1: " ... and a maximum of 35% beer or wine ... State Board of Equalization .... " MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Co mm. Ingell, to approve as amended Resolution P.C. 89-39, 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 ROSA'S AT 322 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY. No objections; so ordered. Comm. lngell noted a correction to Resolution P.C. 89-40, Item B: " ... and is physically suitable for the type and .... " MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve as amended Resolution P.C. 89-40, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP /120804 FOR A TWO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 235 MANHA TT AN A VENUE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 22, TRACT 1076. No objections; so ordered. l P.C. Minutes 6/6/89 , . MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve Resolution P.C. 89-41, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A SIGN WAIVER FOR HERMOSA VALLEY SCHOOL. No objections; so ordered. Comms. Peirce and Ketz noted that they had both observed the sign at Hermosa Valley School being lit after the approved time. Comm. Peirce suggested that staff check into the matter and call the school. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC No one appeared to address the Commission. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ANO TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 1120620 FOR A THREE­ UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 1344 MANHATTAN AVENUE Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated May 30, 1989. Staff recommended that this project be continued in order to allow the applicant time to revise plans to address a 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 size is 4000 square feet, or 40 by l 00 feet. The current use is as a single-family home. The environmental determination is categorically exempt. The applicant is proposing to construct a three-unit condominium. The three proposed units are similar in design, each containing approximately 1750 to 1880 square feet, two bedrooms, a subterranean bonus room, an upper floor mezzanine, and three and a half baths. The architecture of the building is contemporary with some typical local beach feature s. The propose d units are att a ch ed a nd contain two floors and a mezzanine over partially s ubt e rranean garage s. The three gara ges include two tandem garages with a c ces s off Manhatt a n A ven ue and a two-car stan dar d garage with access off Bayview. Architectural details include a stucco exterior finish, metal guardrails, dark anodized aluminum windows, and glass block. The proposed development meets the minimum parking requirements for the number of parking spaces. Six parking spaces are proposed in enclosed garages, and two guest parking spaces are proposed within the 17-foot setback behind the standard two-car garage facing the alley. Ho we ve r, the proposed tandem parking garages face the street, which conflicts with the prov isi on contained in Section 1159(B) of the zoning ordinance which permits tandem parking accessed directly from the street only in the R-1 zone. Therefore, a major revision is required which would either eliminate tandem parking or which would face the tandem parking toward the alley. Additionally, staff is concerned with the proposed layout of parking because both required guest spaces are provided behind one unit's garage. How could such guest spaces be shared with the owners of the other two units? The plans conform to all other minimum planning and zoning requirements; although it is not indicated where the 100 cubic feet of the lockable storage area required for the ground floor will be located. It appears that there is ample area for said storage adjacent to or in the garages. 2 P.C. Minutes 6/6/89 Private open space is provided in second-story balconies, which are less than fifty percent covered by the roof deck overhang and on roof decks. Units A and B provide a total of 304 square feet of private open space, while Unit C provides 330 square feet. The subject property is located at the southern edge of an R-3 zoned area adjacent to commercially zoned areas to the south and west. The property located immediately to the south, although zoned commercially, is developed with a multi-family dwelling, and beyond that is a drive-thru market. Across the street to the west is a parking lot and a duplex unit, also zoned commercially. The surrounding residential area to the north is developed primarily with the multi-family units which vary in age. The prevailing front yard setbacks are between zero and five feet. The subject project proposes the minimum five-foot front setback. A similar, newer three-unit condominium is located across the street and north at 1401 Manhattan Avenue, also on a 4000 square-foot lot, which has a seven-foot front setback. Lot sizes are similar in the area, and under current zoning could eventually be developed with two or three condominium units similar to this proposal. Given that the subject lot is only 4000 square feet, it exceeds the needed square footage to allow three units by only 40 square feet. As such, staff believes the project needs to be carefully considered for this density. Given the problem with the parking layout, major revisions are necessary, and said revisions should require the scrutiny of the Planning Commission. Consequently, staff recommended that this application be continued so that the applicant has an opportunity to revise the plans and staff and the Planning Commission have an opportunity to review the revisions. Chmn. Rue asked about the proposed tandem parking, questioning whether such parking would be allowed on an alley but not a street. Mr. Schubach replied in the affirmative, stating that that provision was adopted in the parking ordinance in 1986. He explained that tandem parking is not allowed on streets because cars must back out into the street to allow another car to park in the tandem space, and such a practice can be dangerous. Chmn. Rue noted that this issue has not arisen before. He questioned whether the issue of two tandem parking spaces in front of the one unit's garage could be addressed in the conditional use permit. He also questioned whether such a parking arrangement could take place in an apartment building. Mr. Schubach replied in the affirmative. He stated that staff is currently in the process of studying these types of situations to ensure that such a parking arrangement does not occur. Staff is studying ways to ensure that all developments over two units have discretionary review by the Planning Commission. Chmn. Rue felt that the section of the code relating to the location of guest parking spaces needs to be clarified in order to avoid confusion in the future. Chmn. Rue asked about those areas of the decks which are enclosed on three sides. He asked whether this issue is addressed specifically in the code, or whether this is merely someone's interpretation of that particular code section. Mr. Schubach explained that the code states that open space can be enclosed only on two sides. He stated, however, that this project meets the requirements for open space, not including the covered decks. He noted that for decks to be included in the calculations, they can be enclosed on no more than two sides. 3 P.C. Minutes 6/6/89 Public Hearing opened at 7:15 P.M. by Chmn. Rue. Terry Wetkowski, 307 Hopkins Avenue, applicant, addressed the Commission. He explained that the staff report was in error, noting that there is currently a duplex on this property, not a single-family home as suggested by staff. Mr. Wetkowski stated that he has owned this property for approximately 15 years, during which time it has always been zoned R-3. This area, however, was included in the commercially zoned general plan area, He then requested a zone change back to R-3 when he first purchased the property. Mr. Wetkowski stated that he hired Gerry Compton as the architect for this project. He purchased the property with the intention of building three units on it. Mr. Compton has spent a great deal of time developing the plans in regard to the parking, since parking ultimately determines the layout of a project. Mr. Compton was surprised when he heard that staff had a problem with the proposed parking, especially since they have been working with staff for months on this project, and nothing was ever said about the parking before this time. Mr. Wetkowski noted that a great deal of time and money have gone into this project thus far. He did not feel there would be problems with the proposed tandem parking on Manhattan Avenue. He explained that cars would still have to back out and turn around, whether it is tandem or single parking. He stated that because of the way the setbacks are arranged, there is plenty of room between the end of the garage and the street. He noted that there is the 17-foot setback plus the five-foot setback; therefore, there is adequate room. Mr. Wetkowski stated that if he is required to rearrange the parkm,g,. it is almost certain that an on-street, metered parking space would be lost. By using this proposal, no on­ street parking is lost. Mr. Wetkowski continued by stating that it would be virtually impossible to do the tandem parking in the alley because of the slope of the lot and the fact that shoring and excavation would be necessary. He said it would be very difficult to change the parking. He stated that the designer had done a great job, and it fits is very well with the rest of the area. Comm. Peirce asked about the toilet and sink proposed for the bonus room on the subterranean level. He noted that there are already two other toilets one floor up from this level. John Decker, representing the architect, addressed the Commission. He stated that the bonus room is envisioned as a room where entertaining will be done, and it is more convenient to have a toilet on that level than it is to have people going upstairs and through the master bedroom to use that toilet. Mr. Decker stated that he was informed of the parking problem only this afternoon, and there was no warning from anyone regarding staff's concerns, even though they have been working with staff on the project for five months. He noted concern that staff had not discussed the problem with him or the architect. Mr. Decker stated that it would be difficult to relocate the tandem parking because of the slope of the lot, which is approximately 14 feet. If such a relocation could be done, the guest spaces would then be down off of Manhattan, and such a location would not 4 P.C. Minutes 6/6/89 really be a solution. People using those guest parking spaces would still need to back out into traffic. He said that the only real solution would be to put one tandem guest parking space on each side of the lot, one on Bayview, and one on Manhattan thereby separating the parking for one of the units. There would then also be three parking spaces having to back out onto the street, rather than two. He felt that this proposal is therefore the best. He said that the street could be striped "no parking" so that the tandem spaces would always be able to back out. Mr. Decker asked that the Commission give some input before continuing this matter so that the designer has something to work with. Chmn. Rue asked whether it is within the purview of the Planning Commission to override what is written in the code. Mr. Schubach explained that unless a variance request has been submitted, the Planning Commission cannot override what is written in the code. Comm. Peirce noted strong concern over of the bathroom in the bonus room. He stated that he will not vote to approve any project which has a toilet and sink on the ground floor level, whether or not there is a shower. Therefore, unless the bathroom is removed from the lower level of this project, he will not vote to approve it. He stated that this configuration will be a prime candidate for a bootleg unit. He stressed that there are two other bathrooms within steps of the bathroom on the lower level. He noted that one of the other bathrooms is accessed from a hallway; therefore, there is no reason for the lower-level bathroom. Comm. Peirce felt that staff's interpretation of the code is correct. He noted that tandem parking has always been a problem, and it has alwc1¥5 been discouraged in the City whenever possible. He felt bad that the applicant did not find out about the problems until just recently; however, he noted that this has been a rule for a long time, and the City does not want to have people backing out onto busy streets in order to let people park in tandem. Mr. Wetkowski addressed the issue of the bathroom at the bonus room level, stating that it is very inconvenient to go from the bonus room upstairs just to use the toilet. He stated that these will be expensive up-scale units, and people should not be expected to go upstairs just to use the bathroom. He also noted that the upper-level bathroom is near the private area of the bedroom. He further noted that this is a vertical building, and it is desirable to have a bathroom on every floor if possible. Public Hearing continued at 7:27 P.M. by Chmn. Rue. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to continue this item to the meeting of June 20, 1989, so that the applicant can revise the plans. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Edwards, lngell, Ketz, Peirce, Chmn. Rue None None None 5 P.C. Minutes 6/6/89 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP /120&20 FOR A TW~ UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 632 SIXTH STREET Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated May 29, 1989. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve a conditional use permit and tentative parcel map for a two-unit condominium, 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 4324.8 square feet, or 40 by 108.1 feet. The current use is a single-family house. The environmental determination is categorically exempt. The applicant is proposing to construct a two-unit condominium. The two proposed detached units are similar in design, containing approximately 2590 square feet, three bedrooms, and two and a half baths. The units contain two stories above partially subterranean garages which are separated by a central 26-foot wide turning area at the subterranean level. The living areas are separated by seven feet. The project provides a front yard setback of 10 feet which exceeds the required five feet. This setback is consistent with two previously approved condominium projects located to the east the west of the subject site. The ten-foot setback was required by the Planning Commission for the two adjacent projects, and staff is including a condition to that effect for this project. The average setback for the street is about 15 feet. The plans conform to or exceed all planning and zoning requirements. Private open space is provided on first and second floor balconies and on roof decks. Each unit has a total of 274 square feet of private open space. In addition, common open space is provided by the excess five feet of front yard setback (66 square feet provided per unit). The required open space of 300 square feet per unit is exceeded by approximately 40 square feet. 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. The surrounding area consists of a mix of older single-family and two-family houses. The subject site is sandwiched between two condominium projects approved in 1988 which are currently under construction. Public Hearing opened at 7:30 P.M. by Chmn. Rue. Harold Anschel, 615 Esplanade, Redondo Beach, representing the applicants, addressed the Commission. He explained that the project consists of a two-unit condominium. There is new construction taking place on both sides of this project, and those projects are similar to the project being proposed. Chmn. Rue commented that the east elevation appears to be somewhat plain. He asked whether any treatment is being proposed for that side. Mr. Anschel agreed that the east side is rather plain; however, he said that side of the project will be facing another building and will not be seen. He said that some treatment could be added, though. But that side of the building will not actually be seen. Comm. Edwards asked if any shoring is necessary at the foundation to the east of this project. 6 P.C. Minutes 6/6/89 Mr. Anschel stated that a two-unit project is being built to the east. There is currently a driveway there, and the two owners intend to build a common wall at that location. Catherine Rowe, 633 5th Street, stated that her property is adjacent to the northeast corner of this project. She felt that this project should be similar in design to the project to the east of it. Ms. Rowe continued by stating there is a large tree at the property in question, and the tree is one of only two on the entire block. She stated that if the tree is destroyed, she would lose all privacy. She has a single-family home which will have large condos on all sides. These new condos tend to have many windows, and one has a glass staircase. She noted concern over the potential loss of her privacy. She passed out photos of the condos directly to the east of her home. She asked that the Commission give consideration to the issue of privacy rights of homeowners. Ms. Rowe stated that the tree in question is on the proposed lot in the backyard. She agreed that people have property rights; however, she felt that people should also be able to maintain their privacy. Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Chmn. Rue, stated that in certain instances conditions have been imposed in conditional use permits regarding trees; i.e., in instances where the tree is an endangered species. Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Comm. Peirce, stated that Ms. Rowe's property is R-2, medium density. Ms. Rowe did not know the age or species of the tree in question. She did state that the tree appears to be approximately 30 feet tall and 50 feet wide .. Mr. Anschel stated that he could understand Ms. Rowe's concern; however, her concern appears to be focused more on the condominium with all the windows currently under construction rather than the one being proposed at this time. Mr. Anschel noted that with all of the construction taking place in the City, it is quite common to have buildings very close together. In this particular case, Ms. Rowe's house is away from the property line; therefore, she does have a backyard. He did note, however, that there will be landscaping at this project and it would be possible to provide landscaping in the rear yard setback. He noted that mature landscaping would not be planted; however, fast-growing varieties could be used. Public Hearing closed at 7:41 P.M. by Chmn. Rue. Chmn. Rue suggested that fast-growing trees be planted which would block the view and would maintain a screen of privacy. He noted that the proposed plans conform to all code requirements. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Edwards, to approve staff's recommendation, Resolution 89-42. Comm. Edwards suggested an amendment to the motion to include a condition that some variety of fast-growing trees or vegetation be planted at the project in order to provide for privacy. 7 P.C. Minutes 6/6/89 Comm. Peirce did not accept the amendment, stating that he feels the owner and neighbor should reach an agreement between themselves on that issue. He noted that there is a landscape plan. He said he was sympathetic to the privacy issue; however, a tree might only grow to the first level of the project, which would not provide much privacy. He noted that there is only ten feet between the window of the project and the property line. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Edwards, Ingell, Ketz, Peirce, Chmn. Rue None None None Chmn. Rue stated that the decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed by writing to the City Council within ten days. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR SALE OF BEER AND WINE AT 200 LONGFELLOW A VENUE, LA PENIT A II, AND ADOPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT AL NEGATIVE DECLARATION Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated May 31, 1989. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve the proposed conditional use permit and environmental negative declaration, subject to the conditions specified in the resolution. The project is located in the C-1 zone, with a general plan designation of neighborhood commercial. The applicant is currently operating a Mexican restaurant. A residence is located upstairs. The staff environmental review committee, at their meeting of January 5, 1989, recommended the adoption of a negative declaration for the project. The Planning Commission approved a conditional use permit for outside dining for the "Shrimp Pot" at this address on April 26, 1976. The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit for the sale of beer and wine in conjunction with an existing restaurant, La Penita II, located at 200 Longfellow Avenue at the corner of Manhattan Avenue. Beer and wine would be served in conjunction with the existing indoor and outdoor food service. The applicant indicates that the seating capacity of the restaurant is 62 persons, 42 indoors and 20 outdoors. The restaurant currently has a limited amount of paved off­ street parking, three spaces, located adjacent to the restaurant off Longfellow Avenue. No additional parking is proposed. The patio area added in 1976 is enclosed by a five-foot high fence interspersed with brick planters containing mature plantings. The fence, however, has deteriorated and is in need of repair. Staff has included a condition that the patio fence be repaired at its current height and maintained in an attractive condition. The applicant has indicated that the patio area is open only for lunch, and staff has included a condition to that effect to ensure that disturbances to the residential neighborhood will be minimized at night. The residence located above the restaurant has a garage located adjacent to the restaurant. Recently the Building Department received a complaint that noxious fumes 8 P.C. Minutes 6/6/89 and dust were coming from the garage. When inspected it was discovered that the resident was using the garage to repair fiberglass surfboards. Since that time the resident has removed the operation from the garage, although a partition will remain. Obviously, the use of the garage for manufacturing-type uses is a concern, especially since it is immediately adjacent to the eating area of the restaurant. Therefore, staff has included a condition stating that the garage may be used for vehicle parking only and that the partition shall be removed. Although this condition involves the residential use, staff feels that it is appropriate so that the restaurant owner monitors the use of the garage and the possible serious health consequences. Given that this is an existing neighborhood restaurant business which has been in operation for several years, staff believes that the addition of beer and wine service would be appropriate for this location. The restaurant is located in the appropriate zone and is a part of the "pocket" of neighborhood commercial activity located along this segment of Manhattan Avenue. The addition of beer and wine served in conjunction with food, as conditioned, should not make the business any less compatible with surrounding residential uses. Public Hearing opened at 7:50 P.M. by Chmn. Rue. Phil Freeland, Freeland Development Consultants, 220 First Street, Manhattan Beach, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission. He stated that they are before the Commission in an attempt to comply with City requirements regarding the sale of beer and wine. He said that this establishment has been in operation for ten years. Last December, the Hermosa Beach police informed the owner that they could no longer allow patrons to bring their own beer and wine to the restaurant. At that time, people were stopped from bringing beer and wine in, and signs were posted to that effect. After several months elapsed, the owner noticed a drop in business because there was no beer and wine available. The owner then went to the City as well as to the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board who advised that the owner must first apply for a CUP from the City. Therefore, the owner is applying for this conditional use permit. Mr. Freeland handed in a copy of a petition containing approximately 700 signatures of people who favor the granting of this CUP. Mr. Freeland stated that they have read all the conditions in the CUP, and they are in full agreement with the staff recommendations and would be happy to comply. Mr. Freeland, in response to a question from Chmn. Rue, stated that business was down approximately 30 to 35 percent as a result of no beer and wine being allowed. Mr. Freeland, in response to a question from Chmn. Rue, explained the parking at this establishment, stating that there are only three parking spaces on site. Other parking is available along Longfellow, but most of the customers live in the neighborhood and walk to the restaurant. He stated that there is no other available space for additional parking on site. Mr. Freeland stated that the garage in question has absolutely nothing to do with La Penita. He said that La Penita is a tenant in the building, and they have nothing to do with the surfboard operation. He noted that La Penita has no control over the garage, and they could exercise no enforcement over the garage; however, they would be happy to report to the City if there appear to be any problems with operations occurring in the garage. 9 P.C. Minutes 6/6/89 Mr. Schubach explained that CUPs run with the land; therefore, the landowner is responsible for what occurs on his property. Even though such a condition impacts the landowner, the building owner is responsible. Therefore, the condition relating to the garage was included in the CUP. Chmn. Rue asked whether the landowner needs to be notified that this condition is being imposed. Mr. Voce discussed enforcement and noted that even though the CUP runs with the property, it is enforceable with respect to the use. Therefore, if the CUP is terminated, the use is also terminated. Comm. Edwards asked whether any additional complaints have been received about the restaurant. Mr. Schubach stated that only one complaint was received in regard to odors from the restaurant. Staff checked with the police, and they reported no other complaints. Carol Simmons, 218 Longfellow, Hermosa Beach, stated that she did not receive a notice of this hearing in time to submit written materials. She was informed of the hearing by a neighbor. She has lived at this address for nine years and has peacefully coexisted with La Penita during this time. She noted concern over the request for beer and wine, stating that it would increase traffic in the area. Ms. Simmons did not want to do anything which would put La Penita out of business; however, she had concerns over the traffic. She could not imagine encouraging the additional traffic generated by the sale of beer and wine only two blocks from the beach. Ms. Simmons was certain that there had been previous complaints in regard to this business, stating that she has even called. Generally, however, she prefers to work out problems directly with La Penita. Ms. Simmons noted concern over noise and trash in the area. She did not think allowing more beer and wine would benefit the City in any way. She noted particular concern over minors partying on the patio with alcoholic beverages. Ms. Simmons likes having the restaurant there, and she feels it has been a real plus to the neighborhood. She favored allowing La Penita to continue as it exists now, and she did not feel it is necessary to allow them to have beer and wine. Ms. Simmons stated that there is noise emanating from the patio at night. She said that the daytime customers are usually workers coming in for lunch who park on the street. They are generally quiet and very orderly. She noted that the noise problems are the worst at night and on the weekends. She stated that on peak weekends, the crowds swell on the patio. The employees are unsupervised and are not able to control the noise. She also stated that noise is created by the screeching of car wheels and U-turns in the middle of the street up until 11:00 or 12:00 at night. Ms. Simmons stated that if La Penita closed earlier on weekends these problems would be eliminated. Ms. Simmons stated that trash is also left from people who use the La Penita take-out service. She did note, however, that La Penita is working on these problems. 10 P.C. Minutes 6/6/89 Ms. Simmons felt that if La Penita does obtain the permit for beer and wine, their hours should be reduced so that the neighbors are not impacted. She stated that Mexican restaurants with beer and wine attract many customers. She did not want to see crowds of noisy people in this residential neighborhood. Ms. Simmons stated that she picks up half-full beer cans in the neighborhood. She felt that there are probably adequate trash facilities in the restaurant, but the problems appear to be from take-out beer and wine. Ms. Simmons favored the restaurant closing at 9:00 P .M. as a fair trade-off. She noted that there are many children in the neighborhood. Olivia Moreno, 235 Longfellow Avenue, noted concern over traffic, noise, and trash. She said that she concurred with the statements of Ms. Simmons. She noted there are many children and pets in the neighborhood, and she expressed concern for their safety. She felt that to encourage intoxication in this neighborhood would be very unfair. Sue Dellencamp, 259 30th Street, stated that she is a regular patron of La Penita. She felt that the restaurant is merely attempting to legalize a condition which has existed for ten years. She noted that people have been drinking beer and wine at the restaurant for many years. She felt that if the restaurant had a beer and wine license, they would have a more vested interest in controlling any problems. She felt that many of the trash and traffic problems are emanating from the liquor store in the area, not from La Penita. She stated that the restaurant is a nice neighborhood resource. Tony DeBellis, 1414 Monterey, Hermosa Beach, stated that he is uncomfortable with the idea of people going to the liquor store to purchase beer and wine to take to La Penita. He felt that this makes it difficult for the operator to control patrons. He also felt it is unfair to the other establishments who have made an effort to obtain the necessary permits. Mr. DeBellis urged the Commission to grant the CUP because it gives the City the power to urge the operator to run the establishment in a way acceptable to the City. He stated that hours of operation can be addressed in the CUP. Mr. Freeland stated that Ms. Leon does not know the exact terms of the lease; however, she does know that it runs for a substantial number of years. Mr. Freeland stated that nothing new and different is being proposed; they are merely attempting to legalize what has been occurring there for many years and to comply with the requirements of the City. He could foresee no great flood of new business at this establishment by approval of the CUP. He could also foresee no increased traffic problems. Mr. Freeland stated that the operator merely wishes to continue operation at this restaurant and to make a profit and will be a neighborhood asset. He stated that the applicant has agreed not to use the patio in the evenings. He felt that would solve any potential problems. He felt that condition would be sufficient to reduce problems. He stated that no beer and wine will be served on the patio. He said that if that condition is added by the City, the A.B.C. would also add that condition in their license. Mr. Freeland stated that use of the patio would be controlled by posting of signs and/or a barricade so that people could not use it. 11 P.C. Minutes 6/6/89 Mr. Freeland stated that the restaurant has remained open until 11:30 P.M., as originally approved. He stated that the applicant would like to maintain the same hours. Mr. Freeland stated that there are usually four employees at the restaurant at night, and three during the day. The employees do not park in any of the three on-site spaces. Comm. Edwards noted that concerns have been raised over the parking. He suggested that people could either park further away or take the bus to the restaurant. He also noted that concerns have been raised about trash. He suggested that the employees look around the area to ensure that trash is picked up. Comm. Edwards favored adding conditions regarding (1) the elimination of people parking in the immediate vicinity, and (2) and reduction of trash. Chmn. Rue asked whether a condition can be imposed to require the applicant to pick up trash generated by other businesses. Mr. Schubach stated that the applicant can monitor the area in front of the restaurant, and there is such a condition included. He did not know how someone could be required to monitor other businesses for trash. He noted that there is a condition requiring the applicant to maintain the area on the two streets surrounding this business. Chmn. Rue commented on the hours of operation, asking whether the restaurant is actually that busy at 10:00 or 11:00 at night. He asked if the applicant would be willing to reduce the hours of operation on weekdays in order to extend the hours on weekends. Mary Leon, 200 Longfellow, Hermosa Beach, applicant, stated that on weekdays the business is not as busy as on weekends. She stated that they aruld: close at 10:00 P.M. on weekdays; however, she wanted to remain open later on weekends, as they currently do. Chmn. Rue saw no problem with allowing the restaurant to remain open until 11:30 P.M. on the weekends, if the restaurant closes at 10:00 P.M. on weeknights. He felt that the shorter hours during the week would help mitigate some of the concerns raised by the neighbors. Ms. Leon stated that the hours suggested would be fine. Public Hearing closed at 8:18 P.M. by Chmn. Rue. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm Ketz, to approve staff's recommendation, Resolution P.C. 89-44, ~ith a condition that the restaurant close at 10:00 P.M. Sunday through Thursday, and that it may remain open until 11:30 P.M. on Friday and Saturday nights. Comm. Ketz felt it would be more appropriate for customers to buy beer and wine at the restaurant rather than buying it at a liquor store and bringing it in. She felt that the trash problem might be helped by people being able to purchase beer and wine at the restaurant rather than someplace else. She felt that keeping the patio closed in the evenings would help resolve the noise problems. Comm. Ingell stated that he would vote against the motion, explaining that even though a CUP would allow the City more control over this establishment, he did not feel beer and wine should be encouraged in a residential neighborhood. He urged the Commission, if they are going to approve the CUP, to restrict the hours of operation to 9:00 P.M. on 12 P.C. Minutes 6/6/89 weeknights and 10:00 P.M. on weekends. He noted that this restaurant abuts residential uses, and alcohol consumption should not be encouraged there. Comm. Edwards favored the motion as proposed. Comm. Peirce felt that the restaurant probably contributes no more than ten percent to the problem of noise and litter in the neighborhood; and the liquor store probably contributes to 90 percent of the problems. He did not, therefore, feel it would be appropriate to penalize the restaurant because of bad behavior emanating from the liquor store. Comm. Peirce discussed the issue of serving beer and wine in the C-1 zone, stating that many establishments in the C-1 zone are allowed to do so: Bottle Inn, Martha's, Brennen's, La Petite Cafe, and Uncle Stavros. These restaurants are also adjacent to residential uses. AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION by Chmn. Rue to change Condition No. 2: " ... No consumption of alcohol or serving of food shall be allowed on the patio area except between the hours of 9:30 A.M. and 4:00 P .M." AMENDMENT ACCEPTED by Com ms. Peirce and Ketz as maker and second. Comm. lngell questioned how such a condition could be enforced. He felt it would be a mistake to approve this. Chmn. Rue stated that the conditional use permit, the owner's A.B.C. license, and the CUP enforcement officer will all serve as motivation to the owner to operate within the guidelines of the CUP terms. He noted that a condition states that all employees shall read and sign the CUP; therefore, everyone should be aware aif . .:thec.onditions. Comm. Edwards noted that there is a condition requiring that this establishment must not present any public nuisance; if citizens have complaints, they can report them to the City who will then investigate the problems. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Edwards, Ketz, Peirce, Chmn. Rue Comm. Ingell None None Chmn. Rue stated that the decision of the Planning Commission can 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 Mr. Schubach suggested that this matter be continued to the meeting of June 20, 1989, in order to allow staff additional time to prepare the necessary materials. MOTION by Comm. Ketz, seconded by Comm. Edwards, to approve staff's recommendation to continue this matter to the meeting of June 20, 1989. No objections; so ordered. 13 P.C. Minutes 6/6/89 Chmn. Rue stated that Agenda Item No. 11 would be heard before Agenda Item No. 10, since item No. 10 will take much longer. SIGN WAIVER FOR HERMOSA BEACH COMMUNITY CENTER FOUNDATION Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated May 30, 1989. Staff recommended approval of the proposed sign, subject to the condition that the sponsor's name and logo be located generally in the lower one third of the overall sign and that the message board be placed generally in the center; also, the intensity of the light shall be limited. The request is for a double face, double pole, internally lighted electronic message board with City name and sponsor name and logo, to be 23 feet in height. Location of the sign shall be at the northeast corner of the Community Center. The applicant for the project is the Community Center Foundation. The Community Center Foundation has an opportunity to replace the existing reader board with a new "state of the art" electronic message board paid for and maintained by a sponsor. The total cost of the sign is $400,000. In addition, the foundation would also receive $100,000 over a five-year period. The open space zone allows only monument-style signs; however, there is a provision, Section 9.5-8, which allows for waiver of those standards. Staff believes that because of the risk of vandalism by children to a monument-level sign at this location and also because of the need for visibility, a sign, eight feet from the base to the bottom of the sign face, would be appropriate. The size of the sign is generally the same size as the existing reader board sign. The new sign is, therefore, essentially a replacement. Staff believes that the sponsor's name and logo should not be the center of attention; the message board should be in the center of the sign. The sponsor and logo area also seems somewhat large in comparison to the City's name located at the top of the sign. The sponsor and logo area should probably be only as large as the City's name, but not larger than the City's name. An alternative to the proposed signage for the sponsor would be to have the message board alternate between the message and the sponsor's name on an occasional basis and not have a separate part of the sign for the sponsor; the message board could change, for example, every five minutes to the sponsor's name and logo for 30 seconds. The impact may be improved for both the sponsor and the City if the sign alternated, since neither the message nor the sponsor's name would be so constant that it would become ignored. Comm. Ingell, noting that he has been a financial supporter of the applicant, stated that he would abstain from discussion on this matter due to a possible conflict of interest. Comm. Ketz asked who the actual owner of the sign will be. Mr. Schubach stated that the City will own the sign, but the sponsor will maintain the sign and pay for the insurance. Comm. Ketz asked what will happen at the end of the five-year sponsorship period. 14 P.C. Minutes 6/6/89 Mr. Schubach stated that the contract can be renewed at the end of the five-year period. He noted, however, that at the present time there is no specific sponsor in mind. Comm. Ketz asked what the fair market value of advertising at a prime location is. Mr. Schubach was unaware of the fair market value, explaining that he has not researched that subject in a great amount of detail. Comm. Edwards asked whether there are any limits as to who can be a sponsor, noting that the City would not want an unscrupulous or questionable sponsor. He also questioned whether there could be a problem with church/state issues. Mr. Schubach stated that the Community Resources Director will have the final decision as to who can be a sponsor, and discretion will be used. Hearing opened at 8:33 P .M. by Chmn. Rue. George Schmeltzer, 515 24th Place, member of the Community Center Foundation, addressed the Commission. He explained that the foundation is non-profit and was created by the City in an attempt to raise funds for the operation, capital funding, and improvements at the C ommunity Center. It has been in existence for six years, and it is currently operating with a budge t of $70,000 per year. Money is raised primarily from ticket sales to concerts and from sponsor contributions. There is no salary paid to board members. Mr. Schmeltzer explained that the City acquired this site from the school board in an effort to make the site a self-supporting proposition. It has not been self-supporting in the past; however, during the past two years it has come cl©Se d1:1e to the efforts of the director of the Community Center. He continued by explaining how money is made, such as by renting out rooms to non-profit organizations at the center. Mr. Schmeltzer stated that an attempt is being made to get more people to use the resources at the Community Center. He stated that the existing sign is inadequate to get messages out to the public; therefore, studies were made in regard to obtaining a new sign. He felt that an electronic sign would be the best choice. He stated that a monument sign would not be appropriate based on the vandalism aspects. Mr. Schmeltzer stated that the proposed new sign will be approximately the same size as the existing sign. Mr. Schmeltzer stated that no matter what action is taken by the Commission, this matter will still need to go to the City Council. He felt, however, that it would be more appropriate to discuss the matter with the Commission first. Mr. Schmeltzer discussed the use of outside sponsorship in the City, stating that it is not an unusual practice. He said that it is part of today's culture to have outside sponsors for many activities, especially when cities are investing less in community activities. Mr. Schmeltzer stated that he agreed with staff's recommendations in regard to the size and placement of the sponsor and logo. He noted that the ultimate disposition of the sign will rest with the City. He said that the income to the foundation will be substantial. Even if there were no income, they would still endorse the sign because the messages contained on the sign will reach a great number of people each day. 15 P.C. Minutes 6/6/89 r', Mr. Schmeltzer, in response to a question from Comm. Edwards, stated that this will not be a neon sign in the sense of traditional neon gas lights. He stated that the sign will be plexiglass with interior lighting, and a painted or raised letter section as well as the message section itself. Comm. Edwards noted concern over the issue of energy efficiency. Mr. Schmeltzer stated that the proposed sign will use very little energy. Comm. Ketz asked how the foundation plans to solicit a sponsor. Mr. Schmeltzer stated that they would avoid liquor and cigarette sponsors, even though they appear to be major sponsors. They would seek advice from the sign manufacture as to what types of companies are offering sponsorships. Hopefully, the company will be able to supply a list of sponsors, and the foundation could then choose the most appropriate company from the list. Mr. Schmeltzer stated that the sponsor will have a contract for five years, with a continuation for five years. Comm. Ketz asked how the foundation arrived at a figure of $100,000 for the five-year sponsorship. Mr. Schmeltzer stated that the amount appeared to be reasonable after discussions were held with several sign manufacturers; that amount seems to be fairly standard within the industry. Chmn. Rue noted that the staff suggested a rotating sponsOEshlp:; however, he thought that approach could prove to be risky. He felt it would be more appropriate to obtain a contract with one major sponsor. Mr. Schmeltzer stated that the goal is to have the least objectionable use of a private sponsorship for a public monument in the City. He said it is difficult at this time, since they are working without parameters, because this is a first in the City. Chmn. Rue was pleased with the proposed lighting of the board, stating that it will not be distracting, as are some other types of signs. Mr. Schmeltzer stated that the sign will be capable of doing animation; however, that is not being proposed at the present time. Mr. Schmeltzer stated that the sign will be galvanized. He noted that the existing sign is not in very good shape and is becoming an eyesore. Comm. Edwards liked the appearance of the proposed sign. Howard Longacre, 1221 7th Place, Hermosa Beach, stated that this issue had previously been before the Council, but it was returned to staff for further study. He noted it has not yet been returned to the Council with the recommendations. He only discovered recently that this application was being heard. He did not feel that the citizens have received notice so that they could appear to address this issue. Mr. Longacre stated that the sign is very upsetting to him. He stated that Mr. Schmeltzer has a vested interest in the sign, along with the Community Foundation. He 16 P.C. Minutes 6/6/89 felt that the only purpose of the sign should be for the advertisement of Community Center activities. He questioned why this matter is before the Planning Commission and why it is not a public hearing so the neighbors could be informed. Chmn. Rue explained that all matters involving signs on open space come to the Planning Commission before being heard at the City Council level. Mr. Schubach agreed, explaining that signs on open space are governed under the standards of the open space section of the zoning code. Mr. Longacre stated that he is a civil engineer. He examined the current sign and found that the bottom is rusted out, and part of the metal is torn open. He questioned why the sign has not been maintained. He felt that the sign should be condemned because it is in danger of falling over, and it looks very bad. He favored the current sign being removed and having open space with grass and trees at that location. He felt a marquis at the community center is the most appropriate place for advertising events at the center. Mr. Longacre stated that regular advertising channels are available for other uses, such as advertising various other events. Mr. Longacre noted the projected revenues and stated that a company must make a profit on the sign; therefore, he felt it would make more sense for the City to be the sponsor so they could retain the profit. He noted, however, that he does not support advertising on the sign. He felt that the sign would be distracting. Mr. Longacre stated that he opposes the sign, and he will challenge it when it is heard before the City Council. He did not feel that the community is aware of this proposal, and he felt that the citizens should be given an opportunity to,expr.ess their opinions on the matter, especially since the citizens own this property. If any money is generated from this publicly-owned land, he felt that the profits should belong to the City's general fund for purchase of the green belt, for example. Mr. Longacre stated that his main objection to the sign advertising community events is that the majority of people attending those events are not Hermosa Beach residents. Wilma Burt, 1152 7th Street, Hermosa Beach, disagreed with Mr. Schmeltzer on this issue. She stated that a sign whose projected lifespan is only ten years is questionable, noting that the present sign has been there far more than ten years. She agreed, however, that the present sign is in bad shape and should be replaced. Ms. Burt noted concern over the proposed reader board sign, stating that it will be very distracting to the 40,000 cars passing by it each day. Ms. Burt expressed concern that the sponsor area will cover nearly half of the board, so the sponsor will receive free advertising for five years. Ms. Burt stated that the foundation has not been self-sustaining, reminding the Commissi on that the City gave them $100,000 for air conditioning installation. She therefore felt it would be appropriate for the foundation to repay the City the $100,000 from the proceeds of the sponsorship. Ms. Burt noted that since businesses in the City are not allowed to advertise a great deal on their own buildings, it would not be appropriate to allow them to do so on the sign. 17 P.C. Minutes 6/6/89 Ms. Burt felt it would be more appropriate for the businesses to advertise on their own buildings, rather than on the City sign. If the advertising is going to be aimed at out-of­ towners, she felt that the cost should be much higher for the sponsor. Ms. Burt felt that a moving sign message would be very distracting to motorists. Ms. Burt felt that the staff report hinted that a sponsor has already been obtained. She noted that this is City property, and she felt it should be kept for the City. If the Foundation ever begins to make a profit, that money should go into the general fund. She did not feel that any profits should go into any private funds. Mr. Schmeltzer stated that no sponsor has yet been chosen, nor is there a major contender at this time. He stated that they will first obtain tentative approval of the sign from the City Council, then they will begin the search for a sponsor. He noted that some type of design must first be presented to any prospective sponsor. Mr. Schmeltzer stated that the foundation is self-supporting. He said that the funds generated by the sign should go into the Community Center capital improvement fund. He said funds are also being raised for other events. He said that approximately three fourths of the people using the Community Center are from Hermosa Beach. Mr. Schmeltzer agreed that as much money as possible should be obtained from the sponsor. Mr. Schmeltzer stated that it is true that the sign will be in the best interest of the Foundation; however, he noted that many entities will be using the sign for many different activities. Chmn. Rue liked the general design of the proposed sign; however, he felt that the sponsor area could be done in the lower area, possibly one fifth of the size of the sign. The display area could then be made larger. The "Hermosa Beach" lettering could remain the same size. He felt that the sponsor area seems large and bulky and could be made smaller to increase the message size. Chmn. Rue felt that the sign is necessary, noting that the current sign is in very bad condition. He noted that the messages on the sign will reach many people in the South Bay area. Comm. Edwards suggested that prevailing market costs for sponsorships should be further studied. Mr. Schmeltzer agreed that the costs should be investigated. Hearing closed at 9:19 P.M. by Chmn. Rue. Comm. Peirce supported the proposed sign. He agreed that the sponsor area seems to be large, and it should be downsized. He felt that the two feet at the top should be for the City portion, the message area should be seven feet high in the center, and the sponsor area should be three feet at the bottom, for a total height of 12 feet. He felt that these proportions would be more appropriate. He felt that there is flexibility for the sign, such as the bottom edge having arrows pointing to the beach, business area, and parking. Comm. Edwards agreed that the message should be under the City portion, and the sponsor area should be at the bottom. 18 P.C. Minutes 6/6/89 Comm. Peirce also felt that profits made from the sign should go into the center's capital improvements fund. Mr. Voce noted that it is within the purview of the Commission to address the actual sign itself. Other issues such as the sponsor and where the funds will go will be addressed by the City Council. Comm. Ketz stated that she could not support a commercial sign at the Community Center, explaining that she does not feel it is appropriate to have advertising at this location. She felt a smaller sign would be more appropriate to advertise local events. Comm. Edwards stated that a condition should be added stating that the sign will be energy efficient and should use less energy than the current sign. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Chmn. Rue, to recommend the sign to the City Council with the following suggestions: (1) that the sign be in the form proposed by the applicant, the Community Center Foundation; but that the sign areas be reallocated so that the top two feet is for the City name and logo, the next seven feet will be for the message board, and the bottom three feet is for the sponsor; the two-foot area at the very bottom now shown as the edge be used for information such as arrows pointing to the downtown area; (2) that the funds be put towards capital improvements for the Community Center; (3) that the energy usage of the sign shall be less than that of the currently existing sign; and (4) that the material used for the sign must be non-corrosive. Comm. Ketz stated that she could not support the sign because it is located on public property paid for by taxes, and she did not feel this is an appropriate use at that location. She felt that commercial signs should remain on commercial property. Comm. Peirce noted, however, that the idea is to obtain funds for the center other than from taxpayers. Mr. Voce, in response to a question from Comm. Edwards, stated that it is legal to have a commercial sign on public property. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Edwards, Peirce, Chmn. Rue Comm. Ketz Comm. Ingell None Chmn. Rue stated that the decision of the Planning Commission can be appealed by writing to the City Council within ten days. Recess taken from 9:27 P .M. until 9:34 P .M. RECONSIDERATION OF BILTMORE SITE TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION CHANGING THE GENERAL PLAN AND THE ZONING OF THE PUBLICL Y--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 Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated June 1, 1989. At the March 20, 1989, the Task Force adopted a recommendation; at the meeting of March 27, 1989, the language of the recommendation was approved. 19 P.C. Minutes 6/6/89 The Planning Commission, at their meeting of April 18, 1989, recommended adoption of the Task Force recommendation and further recommended implementing said recommendation with a specific plan area with the added provision that any commercial uses must be reviewed by the Planning Commission to ensure compatibility with surrounding uses. At the May 23, 1989, City Council meeting, the City Council referred this matter back to the Planning Commission to consider several issues of concern related to the Task Force recommendation. The issues are: l. Existing public parking on lots facing 15th Street. 2. Economic viability of the proposed commercial lots. 3. Potential of a restaurant on part, or all, of the proposed commercial portion. 4. High density, R-3, residential development along 15th Street in relation to the proposed commercial zoning for the two lots. 5. How the initiative process will impact commercial options. 6. What the impacts would be of (a) a 30-foot height limit; (b) maintaining 15th Court as publicly owned. 7. Use of public parking, Lot C, and/or parking structures to provide parking for commercial development. 8. What type of restaurant could possibly be constructed under the constraints of the Task Force recommendation. Existing Public Parking The loss of twenty public parking spaces could become an issue before the Coastal Commission. Even if the Herriott initiative passes, the issue of the public parking could be raised at the Coastal Commission public hearing to amend the Certified Land Use Element. The possibility of providing additional parking at another location, such as a parking structure on Lot C, or parking under the open space, urban plaza, should be considered. If the property is sold, some of the funds could be set aside for providing additional parking. If the property is held in public ownership and leased, then some of the rent and sales tax received over time should be set aside to ultimately develop a parking structure. Lot Facing 15th Street Two of the subject lots which face 15th Street abut residential development and also face residential development on the north side of 15th Street. If these lots were to be developed separately from the other subject lots, access would be from 15th Street. The traffic impact to this generally residential street could be significant. Also, the orientation of the commercial development would be interfacing with residential development. Therefore, it would be more desirable to have these lots developed in conjunction with the three subject lots facing 14th Street and requiring ingress and egress and orientation toward 14th Street. 20 P.C. Minutes 6/6/89 An alternative would be to rezone the subject lots on 15th Street to R-3, allowing residential rather than commercial development. Commercial Development and/or Restaurant Development The proposed commercial lots could be developed separately; however, the potential of development of the value of the lots is directly related to the size of the lots. Small lots have much less potential for commercial development and consequently less value. Staff has conducted some research into developing a family-oriented major chain restaurant on the subject property; e.g., Charlie Brown's, Rueben's, Red Onion. These types of restaurants generally want to be "over parked," that is, more than the City's zoning requirements. The floor area generally ranges from 7,000 to 10,000 square feet, and the total land area needed ranges from 40,000 to 70,000 square feet. Further, parking structures are generally not desirable because most business is conducted at night and structures have related night-time crime problems. Also, the profit margin does not warrant a parking structure. However, a variety of other factors are taken into consideration such as location and adjacent uses. These factors can overcome the general requirements as noted. In relation to the subject site, the potential of a hotel adjacent on the south, the open space urban plaza, the unique beach, The Strand, ocean view, the high density of population within walking distance, and the annual summer tourists, could all be priority factors which can overcome some of the general "rule of thumb" requirements for a major restaurant to locate on the commercial portion. Staff would believe, if the City desires to attract a major chain restaurant, the total area proposed for commercial zoning should be made available. Therefore, the small vacated portion of 15th Court which was recommended to remain publicly owned should be made available for purchase and utilization in conjunction with the proposed commercial lots. The total area would then equal 15,789 square feet. Based on the general need of 40,000 to 70,000 square feet of land area, some type of parking arrangement would be necessary. As noted, funds either through taxes and lease of the property or sale, could be set aside for some form of parking structure under the urban plaza or on Lot C, and in addition to replacing the public parking, additional spaces could be provided for the restaurant. A market study would be useful to determine how much walk-in and bicycle traffic could be expected and would thereby determine how much parking would be necessary. It would appear that a long-term lease of the property would also be more viable than selling, since the City could control the up-front cost, making it more desirable. For example, the City could request a certain amount needed for the parking structure and make an adjustment on the monthly rent. It should be noted that the property is not in the Vehicle Parking District; however, a property owner may request to belong, and district boundaries could be widened to include the property. If the property were to be used by itself, staff estimates that approximately 4300 square feet of floor area could be developed with 43 on-site parking spaces on the entire portion proposed for commercial use. If only the portion between 14th Street and 15th Court were used, a maximum of 2200 square feet with 22 parking spaces could be developed. 21 P.C. Minutes 6/6/89 Ballot Initiative If this matter were to be placed on the ballot and voted upon, the only recourse the City would have if, for instance, the commercially-zoned portion of the site were to be determined not viable for commercial use, would be to place the matter back on the ballot at a later date with an alternative proposal; or it may be possible to place an alternative on the ballot, such as maintaining the property as public parking, if determined to be economically unfeasible as commercial. 30-Foot Height Limitation The height limitation should not pose a serious impact to development of the subject property since three stories could be built within that height even though it is five feet less than the maximum permitted within the downtown, C-2 zoned, area. Recommendations Staff recommended the following items: 1. The proposed commercial portion of the subject property should be allowed to develop as one development. 2. The vacated portion of 15th Court should be included with the proposed commercial portion. 3. A parking structure on Lot C or underground parking should be provided for replacement of the existing public parking on the subject property and to supplement parking on the proposed commercial kits., 4. Money from the sale of the commercial portion or from a lease arrangement should be set aside for the parking structure. 5. Commercial development should be oriented away from 15th Street, and all ingress and egress to the commercial lots should be from 14th Street. 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. 7. A market study should be made to determine parking needs, as well as other market factors. Comm. Ingell noted that square footages for each parcel are not given in the staff report, nor are there any square footages given for the urban plaza. He noted that the Commission is to address this from a planning standpoint. Mr. Schubach discussed the various square footages of lots. He stated that the total of the five lots is approximately 16,000 square feet. He noted that there was a difference of approximately 1,000 between the staff's calculation and that prepared by GWC design; however, for this purpose staff did not feel it necessary to recalculate at this time. He noted that there is an irregularly-shaped lot included. Mr. Schubach continued by discussing the sizes of the various lots and the alley, which is 20 by 210 feet. He stated that each of the lots is 30 feet by 80 feet, for a seven-lot total of 16,800 square feet. 22 P.C. Minutes 6/6/89 Comm. lngell questioned how much the City feels it can generate by the sale or lease of Parcels 2 and 3 combined. Mr. Schubach stated that appraisals were made; however, the City Manager did not feel any definite answer could be given at this time. Comm. Ingell asked the approximate cost of constructing a park, excluding maintenance fees. Mr. Schubach stated that the cost of park construction has not been considered. Comm. Ingell asked the cost of a subterranean parking structure. Mr. Schubach explained that a parking structure above grade would cost approximately $13,000 per parking space. A subterranean parking structure is approximately $20,000 per parking space because water is pumped and shoring would be necessary. He said that underground parking would not be impossible, however. Comm. Ingell asked what restaurants are currently paying per square foot. Mr. Schubach stated that that cost was not addressed. He stated that questions such as this have variable answers, based on location and other issues. Comm. lngell felt that additional information is necessary before this matter can go forward. Comm. lngell felt that parking for restaurants is vital, and lack of parking could be quite a negative. Comm. Peirce felt that definite numbers at this point would obscure the issue. He felt that the issue is to hear testimony and base the discussion on what percentage should be used for a restaurant, how much parking is necessary, height, et cetera. He did not think the Planning Commission has the expertise to discuss the in depth numbers. Chmn. Rue stated that consideration must be given as to whether or not a restaurant is actually desirable or viable at that location. Comm. Peirce did not feel that staff or the Commission could determine whether a restaurant would be economically viable. Hearing opened at 10:03 P.M. by Chmn. Rue. Ann Gubser, 34 17th Street, Hermosa Beach, task force member, addressed the Commission. She felt that the staff recommendations were reasonable. She stated that an advantage of this proposal versus the open space proposal is that this proposal would provide funds to finish the improvement of the urban plaza; however, this was not mentioned in the staff report. She felt that Item 4 of the recommendation should reflect the need to provide for funding to development the plaza as it would be at its optimum, including landscaping. She would prefer to see Lot C enhanced rather than adding more activity to the Biltmore Site. She favored the idea of having access from 14th Street and away from 15th Street. Jerry Newton, 2041 Circle Drive, Hermosa Beach, task force member, stated that he favored the majority of the recommendations in the report. He stated that compromises 23 P.C. Minutes 6/6/89 were necessary in making the final task force recommendation. He stated that Beach Drive was chosen as the boundary because of the problem with the utilities which run under Beach Drive. He stated that past discussions indicated that the return to the City on the sale of commercial space would be between $100 and $125 per square foot, or approximately $1.6 million. He stated that this information was given at a task force meeting; however, the task force did not address the issue of economic viability. Mr. Newton discussed the height, stating that his only objection with the staff recommendation and the task force itself was the idea of reducing the height from 35 to 30 feet. He noted that since 22 parking spaces will be lost, a compensation might be to retain the 35-foot height limit, which would be consistent with the surrounding area. With the additional height, a commercial structure could provide additional parking on site. He did not feel there would be problems with parking in a structure at night. Mr. Newton stated that the sense of the task force was to raise funds for the City; therefore, a compromise was reached between open space and commercial. He favored approval of the proposed recommendations. He continued by discussing the approaches taken by the task force in reaching their decision. George Schmeltzer, 515 24th Place, Hermosa Beach, task force member, stated that the people on the task force were all professionals and were very knowledgable. He stated that residential usage was not seriously considered. He discussed the staff recommendation, stating that Item 3, regarding a parking structure, is an issue for the City Council and was not even addressed by the task force. Mr. Schmeltzer, in response to a question from Comm. Peirce, stated that he feels parking should be provided on site for commercially zoned uses. He stated that the issue of a VPD arose after the task force discussions and is something that could be discussed by the City Council. Mr. Schmeltzer discussed Recommendation No. 4, stating that he feels money from the sale of the commercial portion, or from a lease, should be used for the creation and maintenance of a public park, rather than for parking as proposed. He noted that the task force wanted to ensure that funds would be available to create a public urban plaza and maintain it. Mr. Schmeltzer discussed Recommendation No. 5, orienting commercial development away from 15th Street, and stated that the task force did not address that issue in detail because it is a zoning matter which would be better addressed by the City Council. Mr. Schmeltzer stated that the majority of task force members welcomed the idea of a major restaurant at the site. Mr. Schmeltzer stated that the recommendation that a marketing survey be performed is an issue that should be addressed by the City Council. Mr. Schmeltzer discussed Recommendation 2, stating that several people feared there would be a massive project built at 15th Court. He said some favored having open space at that location; however, a compromise was reached on that area. He himself did not feel it makes any difference whether 15th Court is vacated or not. Mr. Schmeltzer stated that the task force did not discuss the issue of existing public parking on lots facing 15th Street. 24 P.C. Minutes 6/6/89 Mr. Schmeltzer stated that the task force did not undertake a study to determine the economic viability of the proposed commercial lots; however, speakers did address the task force to address that issue, and those discussions were the basis upon which the task force made their recommendation. Mr. Schmeltzer stated that the task force felt it would be appropriate to leave to the City Council's judgment the issue of whether or not to put on the ballot an issue relating to the impacts of commercial options. However, no formal recommendation was made by the task force on this matter. Mr. Schmeltzer felt that the most the Planning Commission can do is support the task force recommendation, with changes, and pass it along to the City Council with a broad­ picture recommendation. He noted that there is not adequate time to do in-depth studies on each of the items. Patricia Hill, 841 Manhattan Avenue, Hermosa Beach, task force member, discussed the financial viability, and reminded the Commission that the task force recommendation to use the greatest proportion of that area as a public park was not a financial decision, it was a value decision. She felt that that is the overriding context of the materials to be considered by the Commission. Ms. Hill stated that the fact that certain areas were suggested for commercial development was to facilitate the design and construction of the park plaza itself. Ms. Hill expressed deep concern over the proposed abandonment of 15th Court. She noted that the task force recommended retaining 15th Court to prevent a large development from occupying all of the commercially-designated lots. She was concerned that the work of the City staff has adulterated the task force r:ec:ommendation, in that staff is recommending allowing a large restaurant. She stated that the retention of 15th Court was specifically to keep scale and density appropriate for the neighborhood. She stated that large-scale development would not be conducive to maintaining the character of the City. She noted concern over density, and said that the staff report recommending a large restaurant does not promote the concept of public land for public use. Ms. Hill discussed parking, stating that the task force listened to every imaginable potential use to decide which would be most favorable, and a parking lot was never even considered as a use. She stated that parking is a separate consideration which must be addressed by a different ·committee. She would consider parking on any portion of the Biltmore site only if there was a distinct Coastal Commission requirement for the 20 parking spaces. Tony DeBellis, 1421 Monterey Boulevard, Hermosa Beach, task force member, agreed with the speakers before him. He noted that several people have concerns over 15th Court; however, the task force tried to reach a compromise on that issue. He said there will always be problems if there is residential near commercial. He noted that economic viability was not an issue addressed by the task force. He noted that the height limit was also a compromise on the part of the task force. He said that the City has the ability to make the cost of the land affordable. Rosamond Fogg, 610 6th Street, Hermosa Beach, task force member, recalled the discussions held by the task force concerning 15th Court. She discussed the fact that it was proposed to divide Beach Drive; however, she opposed a vacation of 15th Court. She stated that some people felt that the area would be economically viable for a 25 P.C. Minutes 6/6/89 commercial enterprise to have 15th included. She felt that if that were the case, residential use should be considered. Ms. Fogg urged the Commissioners to listen to the tapes of the task force meetings, especially the testimony of Mr. LaPointe. She continued by discussing what he had to say in regard to economic viability. Ms. Fogg felt that individual considerations should now be set aside. She felt that there must be a reasonable balance between commercial development and residential integrity. Past trends show an atrophy in the downtown area, based partly on the parking situation. She felt that to pin all future hopes on a miracle project at the Biltmore site would be unrealistic, especially in light of the shifting consumer trends in the City. She noted that the downtown area has never been what one could consider a thriving commercial district. Ms. Fogg stated that basic questions need to be addressed, and the Commission should not be weighted down with precise numbers at this time. She urged the Commission to carefully consider the feasibility of all of the options before making a final recommendation. Ms. Fogg, in response to a question from Comm. Edwards, gave background information as to what Mr. LaPointe told the task force during their meetings. George Schmeltzer, 515 24th Place, Hermosa Beach, noted that since the City actually owns this land, it can be as valuable as the City deems it to be. He felt there should have been a recommendation that any proceeds derived from that land should go toward the purchase of the railroad right-of-way. He noted that many uses were discussed by the task force: single-family residential with R-2 standar-d-s; open space; and a combination of open space and commercial. Ann Gubser noted that nine of the task force members agreed that open space is very important for this site; eight agreed to open space with some other arrangement. She stated that this is actually a value decision. Parker Herriott, Hermosa Beach, felt it was too bad that this issue is even being discussed. He noted that 1400 people signed a petition to have this site open space; now there is an attempt being made to sabotage the petition. He felt that the Council members have already told the Commission how to vote on this matter. Mr. Herriott discussed the four percent utility tax in the City. He continued by discussing the purchase of the Biltmore site. Mr. Herriott felt that the Commission is wasting their time as well as everybody else's time, and he felt this is unfortunate. Mike Franzell, 15 15th Street, Hermosa Beach, discussed Recommendation No. 5, regarding the reorientation of commercial development away from 15th Street. He said that he would prefer to have the property either remain as it is, or have it be a park. He would then retain his ocean view. He felt a park would be a much better neighbor. Mr. Franzell questioned whether 15th Street could remain residential as it currently exists. He felt that the current proposal is appropriate; however, he would rotate the park 90 degrees so that it is perpendicular to The Strand, rather than parallel to it. He felt it is not appropriate to have 100 feet of open space right next to other open space. 26 P.C. Minutes 6/6/89 He felt that the recommendation is something that a majority of the citizens can agree upon, especially if it a combination of commercial and open space. Mr. Franzell asked what problems would be created by rotating that area 90 degrees as he is proposing. Comm. Ingell noted that it has been mentioned that the utilities and sewers are underneath Beach Drive. He stated that to rotate the commercial on top of Beach Drive would require moving the utilities or else having a permanent easement over the utilities. Mr. Franzell noted there is a great deal of concern throughout the City over the hodge­ podge planning throughout Hermosa Beach. He said it is important to retain both residential and commercial integrity, and he urged the Commission to make an attempt to do so. Mr. Schmeltzer felt that rotating the park is a great idea, noting that it would minimize the impact on 15th Street. There would be the same amount of open space, and the commercial would be on 14th Street. Hearing closed at 10:52 P.M. by Chmn. Rue. Comm. Peirce felt that this entire issue hinges on parking. The area east of the project is zoned commercial/recreation; therefore, the adjacent property to the east of these five lots is already possibly development oriented. The north side of 15th Street has R-3 residential, and it is not unusual to have R-3 very close to commercial zones. He felt that it would be a terrible waste of resources to put parking that close to The Strand. He favored a park on one portion of the site, and commercial on the other portion; however, to solve the parking problem, he felt that the parking should beJocated off-site; i.e., Lot C. He did not want an in-lieu fee, though. He felt that a parking structure will be the only solution. He stated that lack of parking in the downtown area has been a problem for many years. Comm. Peirce stated that commercial viability is not the crucial issue issue since the City owns the property, and the value of the property lies in what the City wants to put on it. He felt that a quality commercial structure, such as a restaurant, along with the open space would be the appropriate use of the site. He would also favor 15th Court not being part of the project, explaining that that would break up the scale. He noted one of the issues the hotel opponents centered on was that the hotel would be out of scale with the rest of the downtown area. Comm. Peirce favored making _a recommendation that the parking should be located further away from the beach, and the commercial property should be utilized as real commercial property near the beach. Comm. Ketz felt that 15th Street should be closed so that there is a unified development on that lot which is oriented towards 14th Street. She stated that landscaping would be appropriate on the 14th Street side to make it more compatible with the residential area. Comm. Ketz stated that if parking is required on site, the restaurant would need to be much smaller. She stated that money from the sale of the commercial property should go towards the urban park development and maintenance. She noted that a parking structure would be quite expensive, and she questioned whether a commercial development could pay for it. She had no preference as to which way the commercial development should be oriented; i.e., whether it is on The Strand or 15th Street. 27 P.C. Minutes 6/6/89 Comm. Peirce felt that the park should be adjacent to The Strand, and the commercial structure should be parallel to the Strand and in the back. He noted that from the streets on both sides from The Strand, there is a much larger visual appearance. A structure on the south side of the property would minimize the visual impact of the park, even though the park would be further away from the ocean. He felt it would be a disservice to put a building on 14th Street which would interrupt the flow of the site as , one approaches from the Strand. Comm. Edwards asked whether the greenbelt has been paid for yet. Mr. Schubach stated that the City Manager would be better able to address that question. He stated that he could obtain further information to present to the Commission at a future meeting. He noted, however, that the utility tax will pay for that area. Comm. Edwards felt that underground parking seems to be the only viable solution; however, he noted it would be quite expensive. He continued by asking about locations of other underground parking in the area. Mr. Schubach explained how subterranean parking could be achieved; however, he noted that it could not be underneath the open space area. Comm. Edwards felt that an issue which needs to be considered is the cost of underground parking. He also questioned whether the greenbelt would depend upon any income from this potential source of income. He also noted that it is important to determine what is desirable from a planning standpoint, stating that traffic impacts created by the various proposals need to be addressed. Mr. Schubach stated that traffic studies would need to be made after it has been determined what the use will be. However, he did not feel that traffic impacts would be substantial. Chmn. Rue commented on the alignment of the lots in question and stated that it would be desirable to create as minimal an impact as possible on utilities and various other uses. He felt that keeping Beach Drive as open space along with the rest of the parcel along the ocean would make sense. By developing commercial to the east, the commercial property would become more valuable and attractive since it would have an ocean view. He also felt this approach would create a lesser impact to the residential uses. He noted concern for the view. He stated that parking will be the main issue, noting that he feels underground parking would be the ideal solution; however, he did not think it would be economically feasible. Chmn. Rue felt that keeping parking at Lot C with a parking structure would lessen the traffic impacts. He questioned whether 14th Street could be used a pedestrian mall-type area. He strongly felt that the City Council needs to address the issue of subterranean parking. Chmn. Rue felt that the task force did a very good job in their studies and recommendations. He noted that the task force had covered almost all the issues being addressed, and the Commission is having the same problem the task force had with the constraints placed upon the project. Chmn. Rue felt it would be helpful in the future to have a viability study done on the site. 28 P.C. Minutes 6/6/89 Comm. Ingell thought the Commission was to do an economic viability study. He noted that he is at a loss as to how to proceed. He stated that the City needs to determine how much income they want from this property and go from there. Comm. Ingell felt that more precise information is necessary in order to determine the viability. Comm. Edwards agreed that additional information is necessary to determine the economic viability for the project. He felt it would be a mistake to proceed with a project where the City would have to pay out-of-pocket for a long period of time. He felt that a more concise economic study is necessary. He also felt it is important to have a traffic analysis of the various alternatives. He felt that the Coastal Commission needs to be consulted as to options, including residential. He was not convinced at this time what the best option would be from a planning viewpoint. He stated that he is not prepared at this time to choose any of the various options. Comm. Ingell questioned whether residential use and a small restaurant might be appropriate. He noted that he favored a hotel on the property in the past, explaining that he felt that would have been the most beneficial use for the downtown area. Comm. Ingell felt that the Planning Commission needs further direction from the Council in regard to what the Council would like to see on this property. Comm. Ketz noted that if a restaurant were to go in with no parking provision, and a parking structure is to be built elsewhere, the City would in essence be subsidizing the commercial restaurant. She did not feel this would be appropriate. Chmn. Rue stated that over the years he has had a preconcewed notion that residential property ends up costing the City money; he asked whether this is true. He also asked whether commercial uses are more conducive to giving money back to the City. Kevin Northcraft, City Manager, explained that Chmn. Rue's question is a complex one without first doing substantial analysis. He noted, however, that in most cities, residential use does not pay for itself. The goal of most cities is to have commercial and other uses to have a balance in the community and to bring in visitor revenue to the city. Mr. Northcraft noted that because of the high property values in this City, homeowners pay more property tax than the statewide average. Mr. Northcraft discussed the issue of what the City Council is requesting the Commission to do at this time in regard to economic viability. He interpreted the Council's request to be for the Commission to determine whether this site would actually be feasible for commercial uses, considering the restrictions placed on the site, and whether commercial bids would be made which will be economically viable. He noted that the idea is not to obtain the most amount of money possible, but rather to have a compromise as noted by the task force. He felt that if there is decent commercial competition for the site, the funds should be adequate to pay for a first-class urban plaza. Mr. Northcraft discussed parking and stated that the issue of paying for parking with proceeds from the commercial site arose only as an alternative in the event the Coastal Commission requires the City to replace the lost parking spaces. Mr. Northcraft, in response to a question from Comm. lngell regarding the cost of the park, stated that an outside, ballpark figure would be a half million dollars for a first- 29 P.C. Minutes 6/6/89 rate park. He stated that maintenance costs would also include lighting and cleaning; however, he was not aware of an exact maintenance cost at this time. He stated that if the park is well-designed, it would be planned with maintenance in mind. He noted, however, that a well-designed park would draw people to the area, which would result in increased sales tax revenues to the City. Comm. Ingell asked questions about the cost of the parking spaces in relation to the amount of revenue which would be obtained from a commercial restaurant use. Comm. Peirce felt that the park should be in the front, the commercial use should be in the rear, and that parking should be provided by the developer on Lot C. Instead of an in-lieu fee of $6,000 per space, the developer should be required to provide the required parking structure at Lot C; this would include, if necessary, the 22 parking spaces being lost on-site. Comm. Peirce did not feel the height limit is a major issue, stating he feels the height should be 35 feet, since that is the height limit of other surrounding buildings. He did not feel the five feet of difference in height is the major concern; parking is. Comm. Peirce stated that requiring parking on-site will result in either a very expensive subterranean parking structure with a building on top, or a very small commercial development with a lot of grade-level parking in the back, which he felt would look very bad for the area. He felt therefore that the developer must then agree to help provide a parking structure on Lot C. By making such a requirement, he merely wants to ensure that the City does not end up subsidizing the parking for a commercial development, because that would be unfair to the others in the downtown area. Comm. Peirce noted that this particular piece of property acir.ta.Uy has no value because the City owns it. The value derives from the vision of what the City wants for this area in the future. He noted, therefore, that it is important to look to the future, rather than becoming obsessed with actual figures at this point. Comms. lngell and Peirce debated the issue of the developer paying for the parking. Comm. Peirce asked whether a decision must be made on this matter tonight. Mr. Schubach stated that it could be continued one time only before it must go forward to the City Council. Comm. Peirce suggested that the matter be continued for two weeks so that the Commissions can fine tune their ideas to make a better recommendation. He suggested that some traffic information be provided; however, he did not think economic data which would be helpful could be provided in two weeks. Comm. Edwards wanted to ensure that this development, no matter what it finally is, creates no financial burden to the City. He felt that there are contingencies which need to be addressed so that the City does not have to bail a business out. He also felt that a traffic study is very important and should be addressed before making a recommendation. He also felt that additional information could be provided on the cost of subterranean parking in the area. Comm. Edwards felt that a continuance would allow time for the Commissioners to think these issues over, as well as allow staff time to provide the information requested. 30 P.C. Minutes 6/6/89 Comm. Edwards favored continuing this item to the next meeting of the Planning Commission for the purpose of requesting staff to provide information on the following: (1) traffic impacts of the main options being proposed; (2) the cost of alternative parking and where it might be located; (3) contingencies and back-ups to protect the City in the event a developer does not finish the project; (4) the reorientation of the park on the site; and (5) the feasibility of on-site parking for the development. George Schmeltzer, 515 24th Place, asked that the Commissioners recall the professions and expertise of the people who served on the task force. He reminded the Commission that the task force addressed the very questions now being discussed by the Commission. He urged the Commission to listen to the tapes of the task force meetings. He also noted that minutes are available for the meetings. He noted the importance of the Commission taking a broad view of the project, not focusing on the implementation details, which could encompass many, many meetings of discussion. Mr. Schmeltzer, in response to a question from Comm. Ketz, stated that the task force did not address the issue of parking. Mr. Schmeltzer, in response to questions from Comm. Edwards regarding whether the task force addressed the issue of residential and commercial uses on this property, outlined the discussions held by the task force on this subject. Mr. Schubach felt that the Council is looking for a conceptual recommendation from the Commission, rather than one with detailed implementation methods and costs. Chmn. Rue stated that he has enough information at this time to make a recommendation; however, he had no objection to continuing this matter for two weeks. He stated that the more detailed aspects of development_ f<:an be addressed after a project is proposed. MOTION by Comm. Edwards, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to continue this item to the next meeting, June 20, for the purpose of obtaining from staff the information previously discussed. Comm. Edwards stated that he would like to read over the minutes and staff reports available. Comm. Ingell wanted information on the potential costs of policing the park. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Edwards, Ingell, Ketz, Peirce, Chmn. Rue None None None STAFF ITEMS a) Memorandum Regarding Definition of "Private School" Mr. Schubach stated that an applicant is asking for an interpretation of "private school." The zoning ordinance implies that only schools consisting of kindergarten and up could qualify as private schools. This would therefore eliminate "pre-schools" from that category. 31 P.C. Minutes 6/6/89 ,, Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Comm. Ketz, stated that pre-schools are allowed in C-1, C-2, and C-3 zones. They are also allowed in the residential zones, if they are of a certain size and conform to certain standards. Such schools are not allowed in the RP zone because pre-schools are not on the permitted use list for the RP zone. Mr. Schubach stated that the proposed location of this pre-school, Prospect and Artesia, is not appropriate in staff's opinion. Mr. Schubach stated that conditional use permits are required for pre-schools in the zones in which they are allowed. Comm. Peirce stated that the issue is whether a pre-school should be allowed in the RP zone with a conditional use permit. Bill Beck, Manhattan Beach, applicant, addressed the Commission and stated that he went to the state for guidance as to the difference between private and public schools. He said that the state recognizes only those two types of schools, private and public. The state recognizes a private school as a school of profit; any other type of school is classified as a public school or non-profit organization. Mr. Beck discussed staff's concerns with noise emanating from a pre-school. He stated that within 100 feet are two other schools. The proposed site is adjacent to garages. He discussed the proposal with the neighbors, and they had no concerns with a pre-school. He wanted to provide quality day care for the beach area. Chmn. Rue questioned whether RP zoning is appropriate for that area. Mr. Beck stated that he has carefully studied locations for the pre-school, and this is the only appropriate site he has found based on size and play area. He stated that he has worked on this project for many months. If a conditional use permit is needed, he would like to pursue that avenue. Mr. Beck stated that the pre-school will be for ages two through five and will be a for­ profit private school. Comm. Peirce stated that there are two options: (1) to make "pre-school" a permitted use in the RP zone or (2) change the zoning. Comm. Ketz favored making pre-school a permitted use in the RP zone with a conditional use permit. She felt it is important to provide locations in the city for day care. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Edwards, to direct staff to return at the earliest possible time with a recommendation to resolve the dispute in zoning and land use bordered by 24th Street, Prospect, and Artesia. No objections; so ordered. Mr. Schubach and the Commissioners discussed ways the applicant could begin tc;> proceed with the obtaining of a conditional use permit. b) Letter From and Res~nse To Mr. Harold Cohen MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to receive and file. No objections; so ordered. 32 P.C. Minutes 6/6/89 , . . , c) Planning Commission Activity Report for April 1989 Comm. Edwards asked about Herman. Mr. Schubach stated that it is on schedule and should be operating in late 1989 with 21 buses. Comm. Peirce asked about the traffic study. Mr. Schubach stated that the report will be available on June 23. Comm. lngell asked about the CUP enforcement officer training. Mr. Schubach stated that the officer is attending training and will ~oon be sending out letters to violators. Comm. lngell asked the status of the noise meter. Mr. Schubach stated that training has been completed, but he is unaware of whether or not the equipment is being used. d) Memorandum Regarding Planning Commission Absence Record Mr. Schubach noted that Commissioners can have three excused and three unexcused absences per year. He noted that Comm. Edwards can have only two more absences or he will be off the Commission. Comm. Edwards stated that his travel schedule has been quite heavy; however, he will attempt to keep the travel down. e) City Council Minutes of May 3 and May 9, 1989 No comments. No action. COMMISSIONER ITEMS Comm. Edwards suggested that the Commission study environmentally dangerous situations and things which can be done in the City to mitigate those situations. Comm. Edwards suggested that water conservation practices be observed in the City. He suggested that a speaker from the water company talk to citizens to make them aware of the importance of water conservation. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to adjourn at 12:10 A.M. No objections; so ordered. 33 P.C. Minutes 6/6/89 .. ----- CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and complete record of the action taken by the Planning Commission of Hermosa Beach at the regularly scheduled meeting of June 6, 1989. ~ Dafft 34 //' ~ P.C. Minutes 6/6/89