Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes - 04.04.1989MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON APRIL 4, 1989, AT 7:30 P.M. IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS Meeting called to order at 7:33 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. Pledge of Allegiance led by Chmn. Peirce. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Comms. Edwards, Ingell, Rue, Chmn. Peirce Comm. Ketz (Excused absence) Also Present: Michael Schubach, Planning Director; James P. Lough, City Attorney; Ken Robertson, Advanced Planner; Sally White, Recording Secretary APPROVAL OF MINUTES Comm. Rue noted an addition to the minutes of March 21, 1989: Page 21, last paragraph: "Comm. Rue said he would vote against this general plan amendment, explaining that he favored a hotel at this property, as did 50 percent of the voting ~ulation." MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve as amended the minutes of March 21, 1989. No objections; so ordered. APPROVAL OF RESOLUTIONS MOTION by Chmn. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Edwards, to approve Resolution P .C. 89- 15, 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 OFF-SALE BEER AND WINE AT 50 PIER AVENUE, KNOWN AS PIER MARKET. No objections; so ordered. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to approve Resolution P.C. 89-20, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 1120557 FOR A TWO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 1737 PROSPECT A VENUE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS 1 AND 2, BLOCK 2, JOHNSON AND NEWMAN'S CAMINO REAL TRACT. No objections; so ordered. MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve Resolution 89-23, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN BY CHANGING THE DESIGNATION FOR AREAS 6, 10, AND 12 (EXPANDED) AS DESCRIBED BELOW AND SHOWN ON THE A TT ACHED MAPS AND ADOPTING AN ENVIRONMENT AL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. No objections; so ordered. MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Edwards, to approve Resolution P.C. 89- 24, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN AND THE ZONING MAP BY CHANGING THE DESIGNATION TO GENERAL COMMERCIAL AND 1 P.C. Minutes 4/4/89 .. . THE ZONE C-3 FOR THE AREA AS DESCRIBED BELOW AND SHOWN ON THE A TT ACHED MAP AND RECOMMENDING AN ENVIRONMENT AL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. No objections; so ordered. MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve Resolution P .C. 89-25, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A PRECISE PLAN FOR THE PROPERTY AT 1107 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT AND ADOPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT AL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. No objections; so ordered MOTION by Chmn. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve Resolution P.C. 89-27, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN AND THE ZONING MAP BY CHANGING THE GENERAL PLAN TO GENERAL COMMERCIAL ON THE A TT ACHED MAP AND RECOMMENDING AN ENVIRONMENT AL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. No objections; so ordered. Wilma Burt, 1152 7th Street, Hermosa Beach, objected to the piecemeal zoning, stating that all areas should be addressed at once. MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Chmn. Peirce, to approve Resolution P .C. 89-31, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING AMENDING THE ZONING MAP BY CHANGING THE ZONE FROM M-1, OPEN SPACE, AND R-2 TO SPECIFIC PLAN FOR PROPER TY DESCRIBED BELOW AND SHOWN ON THE A TT ACHED MAPS AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. Noting the abstention of Comm. Edwards, so ordered. COMM UNI CATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC No one appeared to address the Commission. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND PARKING PLAN TO ALLOW OUTDOOR DINING AND ADOPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 2205 PACIFIC COAST HJGHWAY, NUMERO UNO PIZZA, (CONTINUED FROM MEETING OF 3/2Jl89) Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated March 29, 1989. This project is located in the C-3 zone, with a general plan designation of general commercial. The present use is as a restaurant on the lower level and general office use on the upper level. The Staff Environmental Review Committee, at their meeting of February 9, 1989, recommended a negative declaration for the project. On September 7, 1988, the Planning Staff, as part of their conditional use permit review inspections, noted that Numero Uno Pizza had converted its handicapped parking space to outside dining without obtaining any permits. The business owner was instructed to abate the outside dining area or request an amendment to their conditional use permit. Resolution P .C. 85-25 was approved on November 5, 1985, permitting the sale of beer and wine at their pizzeria. One of the conditions of this resolution required the applicant 2 P.C. Minutes 4/4/89 to provide a parking agreement to provide an additional 15 parking spaces to be acquired from neighboring businesses. No such agreement has ever been submitted for review and approval by the Planning Department. The applicant is requesting to convert a handicapped parking space to outside dining area. The existing commercial structure was constructed to old parking standards. The existing restaurant has approximately 2600 square feet, and an additional 2300 square feet of office area is located above the restaurant. The site has 17 approved parking spaces which includes the handicapped parking space. Based on present parking requirements, 35 parking spaces would now be required for the existing structure; one parking space for each l 00 square feet of restaurant area and one parking space for each 250 square feet of off ice use. The proposed outside dining area will expand the restaurant approximately 200 square feet and will require two additional parking spaces. The applicant has requested a parking plan approval to provide additional parking. The proposed parking plan is to only have the outside dining area during evening and weekend hours when the office use is closed. However, the site would still be nonconforming because of parking since the restaurant, including the outside dining area would require 28 parking spaces; only 16 parking spaces will be provided. The applicant has obtained a letter from 2306 Pacific Coast Highway, Loomis & Eick, granting Numero Uno Pizza permission to use 15 of their parking spaces during evening hours and weekends to accommodate the added parking need. 2306 Pacific Coast Highway and 2420 Pacific Coast Highway, Hope Chapel, already have an approved parking plan allowing 2306 Pacific Coast Highway use of 15 of Hope Chapel's parking spaces during the week. Staff conducted two weekend inspections of the parking lot at 2306 Pacific Coast Highway, and both inspections showed very limited available parking since the parking lot is used by Hope Chapel. Another concern about the use of parking at 2306 Pacific Coast Highway is that the site is located across the highway from the restaurant. It seems highly unlikely that any patron would ever park at 2306 P.C.H. and cross the highway to go to the restaurant. Therefore, a parking plan approval with 2306 P.C.H. is not a viable alternative to providing additional parking. Staff cannot justify approval of the conditional use permit and parking plan for outside dining. The site is already nonconforming because of parking. The handicapped parking space will have to be relocated to conform with building codes, thus eliminating one general parking space; elimination of parking will make the site more nonconforming. Section 1153 of the Zoning Ordinance, "Unlawful to Reduce Available Parking", states: " ... An owner or use of real property containing uses for which off-street parking facilities are required by this chapter shall be prohibited from ... reducing, diminishing, or eliminating existing required off-street parking facilities .... " Staff recommended that the Planning Commission deny the proposed conditional use permit, parking plan, and environmental negative declaration. Comm. Rue questioned whether the Commission could even approve such a plan, since required parking would be eliminated. Mr. Lough confirmed that approval of a project which takes away required parking is not possible; however, he said the Commission could address other methods by which parking might be provided elsewhere. 3 P.C. Minutes 4/4/89 Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Comm. Edwards regarding other options, stated that another possibility would be to provide underground parking. In-lieu fees would be another possibility in the future. He said he has heard various suggestions that a multi-level parking structure be constructed for future use by local businesses in the Vehicle Parking District. Comm. Edwards questioned whether the applicant could reduce the size of the interior seating area and expand the outside area, thereby reducing the required number of parking spaces. Mr. Schubach stated that that is an option; however, he noted that past experience has demonstrated that such an arrangement is difficult to enforce. He therefore cautioned the Commission to study such an arrangement. He noted, however, that in any event, a handicapped space must be provided. Chmn. Peirce noted that the staff report indicated that in November of 1985 a CUP was granted which required the applicant to provide a parking agreement to provide an additional 15 parking spaces from neighboring businesses. He asked whether the applicant is in violation of this condition. Mr. Schubach replied in the affirmative, stating that this condition has not been met. Chmn. Peirce asked why consideration is even being given to the applicant to covert one of the spaces, when the original requirements are not being met. Mr. Schubach explained that every applicant has the right to apply for a conditional use permit; it is up to the Commission to make a decision on whether or not it will be approved. Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Comm. Ingell, explained that this violation should have been addressed by the CUP enforcement officer; however, this particular case must have slipped through the cracks. Public Hearing opened at 7:51 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. Mehran Eram, 2205 Pacific Coast Highway, Hermosa Beach, applicant, addressed the Commission. He stated that the location of the existing handicapped parking space is not feasible because it is in a bad location, right in front of the entrance. He said several children have run into cars parked there; another handicapped person almost hit the front door of the restaurant. Mr. Eram stated it would be possible to relocate some of the dining tables and expand outside. Also, he said that there could be service outdoors only in the evenings and on weekends, if so desired by the Commission. Another option would be to have the service only during the summer months. Mr. Eram stated there is not a real parking problem in the area; and there never has been at this location. He stated that there are plenty of parking spaces on weekends and week nights. Mr. Eram said that he has a parking agreement with the business across the street, Loomis & Eick, and there never appears to be any problem. He stated that he does know he is in violation of the original conditional use permit, explaining that he did something he was not supposed to do. He explained, however, that the area in question is very 4 P.C. Minutes 4/4/89 small, only 140 square feet. At issue are only three tables. He said that the location of the handicapped parking space must be moved, and he suggested that it be moved across the driveway where there is more room. He also stated that an additional parking space can be put in where the compact spaces are now located, since there is extra room in that area. Mr. Eram stressed that parking has never been a problem, explaining that most of the business occurs through the take-out business. Mr. Eram asked that he be allowed to have the outdoor dining, even if only on the weekends or during the summer. He could then use another area for inside dining. He said approximately 65 to 70 percent of his business is take-out. Mr. Eram, in response to a question from Comm. Rue, stated that the only time he has ever seen the parking lot full is on Friday nights. He said that occasionally his customers use the parking at Loomis and Eick, but he said it is difficult to park there and then walk across the highway to the restaurant. Chmn. Peirce referred to the original CUP and asked Mr. Eram whether he ever obtained the required 15 parking spaces from a surrounding business. Mr. Eram stated that he did, and that is the agreement with Loomis & Eick. He stated that the agreement is in writing. He said that the parking lot at 2201 P.C.H. is almost always empty, and he has a good relationship with the owner of that lot, whereby they each use the parking. He stated that he can get a letter from someone at 220 l P .C.H. verifying this agreement. Mr. Eram stated that there are 21 parking spaces on the second level at 2201 Pacific Coast Highway. Public Hearing closed at 7:59 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. Comm. Ingell stated that he would favor a continuance of this matter in order to see whether the applicant can obtain a parking agreement in writing with the business next door at 2201 Pacific Coast Highway. MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Edwards, to continue this matter for one month in order to give the applicant time to obtain a parking agreement with the business at 2201 Pacific Coast Highway. No objections; so ordered. Public Hearing reopened by Chmn. Peirce and continued to the meeting of May 2, 1989. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP /120779 FOR A THREE­ UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 540 11 TH STREET Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated March 28, 1989. This project is located in the R-3 zone, with a general plan designation of high density residential. The lot size is 5000 square feet, or 40 by 125 feet. The environmental determination is categorically exempt. The applicant is proposing to construct a three-unit condominium. The units will be approximately 2100 square feet and will contain three bedrooms and two and a half baths. Unit 1 also has a studio/den located on the basement level. 5 P.C. Minutes 4/4/89 Staff has analyzed the studio/den for Unit 1 and has determined its potential for conversion into an illegal dwelling to be minimal. The studio/den will have no exterior access and will have no separate bathroom facilities. A condition of approval should prohibit exterior access or bathroom facilities in the studio/den. The architecture of the building is California ranch. The units will be attached by a common wall and will be two floors and a mezzanine over a partial subterranean garage. The overall design of the building is attractive. Architectural details include clay tile roofing, canvas awnings, glass block, decorative pipe railings, and a smooth plaster finish. The plans conform to all planning and zoning requirements. Open space is provided on decks located on the second floor and mezzanine level. Unit 3 has an additional 200 square feet of ground-level open space. The proposed development meets the minimum parking requirements. Six parking spaces will be provided in enclosed garages. Two guest parking spaces are provided for the three units, and one additional space for the loss of one on-street parking space. Staff is recommending that the proposed development provide a ten-foot front yard setback as required by the zoning map. Most of the existing structures have setbacks of approximately ten feet. The applicant has submitted a landscape plan which shows a raised planter. The planter is located within the required front yard setback; therefore, the planter shall be limited to a maximum height of thirty-six inches. The surrounding uses vary from several condominium developments to some older single­ family homes. The site is located between two recently constructed condominiums; therefore, the loss of views is minimal. The proposed developm ent. is similar to other developments on the block. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve a conditional use permit and tentative parcel map 1120779 for a three-unit condominium, subject to the conditions specified in the resolution. Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Chmn. Peirce, stated that this project meets all of the requirements of the condominium ordinance. The project also has the same setbacks as other properties on the street. Public Hearing opened at 8:05 P .M. by Chmn. Peirce. Harold Anschel, 615 Esplanade, Redondo Beach, applicant, passed out a copy of the rendering he prepared depicting the project. He said that the proposed project is consistent with the projects both to the east and to the west. He stated that additional open space was left at the rear unit, explaining that his partner in the project intends to live in the unit himself. Dave and Donna Sherwin, partners of Mr. Anschel on the project, confirmed that they plan to live in the rear unit of this project, and they look forward to living in Hermosa Beach. Public Hearing closed at 8:08 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. Mr. Schubach noted that a new standard condition has been added to this resolution, based on health and safety considerations: ''The address of each condominium shall be 6 P.C. Minutes 4/4/89 conspicuously displayed on the front street side of the building with externally or internally lit numbers." MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve staff's recommendation, Resolution P.C. 89-32. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Edwards, Ingell, Rue, Chmn. Peirce None None Comm. Ketz FIRST QUARTER GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO CONSIDER THE LOCATION AND POLICIES REGARDING MULTI-USE CORRIDOR AND TO CONSIDER A SPECIFIC PLAN AREA AND ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION (CONTINUED FROM MEETING OF 3/21[&9) Mr. Robertson, advanced planner, gave the staff report dated March 29, 1989. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission take several actions regarding the Multi-Use Corridor and to adopt the proposed resolution. Actions proposed: (1) Establish the boundary of the Pacific Coast Highway "Commercial Corridor" at the depths recommended in Exhibit A or at locations deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission; (2) Amend the General Plan Map to redesignate areas not within the Commercial Corridor from MUC to Low Density Residential, Medium Density Residential, or High Density Residential, depending on the adjacent designation; (3) Amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan by adopting the recommended definition for the Commercial Corridor and amend the General Plan Map to designate the area within the established boundary from MUC to Commercial Corridor; (4) Adopt an Environmental Negative Declaration for the proposed General Plan Amendments; (5) Implement the General Plan changes by initiating zone changes for the residential areas outside the Commercial Corridor to classifications consistent with the adjacent residential classifications, and by adopting policies for the Specific Plan Area classifications to be applied in the Commercial Corridor. Initiate discussion on development standards and development review procedures to be applied in the Commercial Corridor Specific Plan Areas; (6) Consider the inclusion of existing commercial areas designated General Commercial on the General Plan Map located along Pacific Coast Highway within the Commercial Corridor. The Planning Commission continued this item from the March 21, 1989, meeting to allow for further discussion of the subject on a block-by-block basis. In response to some of the concerns expressed at that meeting, staff prepared a supplemental analysis. Provided in the supplemental information prepared by staff is an explanation of the concept of allowing residential uses to continue and be improved in the Commercial Corridor Specific Plan Area and additional information and possible alternatives 7 P.C. Minutes 4/4/89 regarding the proposed boundary for the following areas which were discussed at the prev io us mee ting : 18th Street to 21st Street (east side of P.C.H.); 24th Street to 21st Street (west side of P.C.H.); and 1st Place t o 1st Street (w est s ide of P.C.H.). Staff has not changed its original recommendation for these areas. For the other areas discussed at the meeting, 15th Street to 16th Street (east side), north of 21st Street (east side), and 5th Street to 4th Street (west side), staff has no additional comments and maintains its original recommendation. Residential Use in the Commercial Corridor: The proposed policies for the Commercial Corridor include a prov1s1on for the continuation and limited improvement of existing residential uses in the Specific Plan Areas. This would allow structures currently used for residential purposes on lots which are exclusively used for residential purposes to maintain a conforming status and to be improved at their current density. Also, if the dwelling was destroyed, it could be reconstructed to the same density. It would not allow these residential uses to increase density which would currently be possible for areas which are zoned R-3. Also, the policies of the Commercial Corridor give exception to vacant properties not fronting on P .C.H. and with no ownership tie to property fronting on P .C.H. to develop new residential projects at a density consistent with adjacent residential densities. The Commission is reminded that under the provisions of the proposed SPA, any new residential project other than single-family or any new commercial project will be subject to Planning Commission review and approval. In order to clarify the policies for residential use in the Commercial Corridor Specific Plan Areas, staff recommends that the definition of "Commercial Corridor" be modified to note exceptions to the prohibition of new residential proJe cts and that the proposed Policies, Numbers 1 and 3 for the Commercial Corridor, be modified to read as follows: (1) Existing structures used for residential purposes on a lot or parcel which is exclusively used for residential purposes are permitted to remain indefinitely and shall be considered conforming uses, allowing said structures to be improved, rebuilt, or expanded, as long as the existing residential density is not increased. (3) New residential projects shall be prohibited, except in the following cases: (a) On currently vacant lots or parcels of land which do not front on Pacific Coast Highway and which are not currently connected by ownership to lots fronting on Pacific Coast Highway and which will be developed to a density consistent with surrounding residential densities allowed by the General Plan, subject to review and approval by the Planning Commission and; (b) The improvement, expansion, or reconstruction of current residential structures which does not increase the current residential density (number of dwelling units) of the lot or parcel of land. 18th Street to 21st Street (East Side): Several residents who live in this area near Pacific Coast Highway expressed their opposition to any commercial designation along P.C.H. frontage for various reasons, including view blockage, traffic, parking, and crime. Although many of their concerns 8 P.C. Minutes 4/4/89 are certainly legitimate, staff feels that the commercial designation to a depth of about 100 feet is the most appropriate designation for this area as it takes advantage of the value of P.C.H. frontage, while a residential designation would provide for a use that conflicts with the noise, pollution, and safety hazards associated with a major highway. Also, the current General Plan designation of MUC and zoning designation of R-3 (C) would allow the construction of multi-family structures to a height of 35 feet, the generation of additional residential traffic and parking, and would certainly increase the congestion for the area. Commercial development controlled under the provisions of a Specific Plan Area designation, however, would be subject to requirements addressing setbacks, buffering, landscaping, architectural treatment, and height. The following comparison chart shows what would be allowed under an R-3 designation versus a Commercial Corridor SPA designation: Project Review Setbacks Buffering View Impact Traffic Impacts Parking R-3 (C) ZONING None 5'rear 3' on alley not required 35' height limit no project review directed to alley, congestion at night, weekends night, weekend impact CORRIDOR SPA Review for design, traffic impact minimum 8' from res. property, plus 2' for each additional story landscaping required, screening set height limit consider in project review directed to P .C.H. daytime usage provided on site, daytime impact Staff continues to recommend locating the commercial boundary along the rear of the frontage lots as shown on the map on Page 44 of the original report. The alternative for the Commission, if it wishes to lock in residential uses on Pacific Coast Highway frontage lots, is to change the General Plan designation from MUC to High Density Residential for the frontage lots and recommend dropping the C-Potential portion of the existing R-3 zoning classification. 24th Street to 21st Street (West Side) Several residents who live on 24th Street expressed their concern with staff's recommendation to locate the Commercial Corridor boundary at a depth of 290 feet along 21st Street. They primarily expressed concern about the possible loss of views and privacy currently enjoyed because the existing commercial depth only goes to a depth of 115 feet. As previously noted, the current C-3 zoning goes to a depth of 220 feet (previously approved for a hotel, now expired), behind which is 70 more feet of vacant property. 9 P.C. Minutes 4/4/89 Staff would like to emphasize that under the prov1s1ons of a Specific Plan, any commercial development would be required to provide buffering from the residential uses and would be subject to the scrutiny of the Planning Commission for appropriateness for that location. The additional 70 feet of depth, should develop wish to purchase it, would provide additional space for this type of buffering to enhance the project. Also, an additional 70 feet of property could be developed with single-family residences under the provisions for residential use within the SPA, giving the owner of that property both options. Staff's recommendation has not changed. As an alternative, however, the Commission may want to consider excluding the additional 70 feet from the Commercial Corridor and recommend its redesignation to Low Density Residential. 1st Place to 1st Street (West Side) Residents living behind ex1stmg commercial uses along both sides of 1st Place have expressed concern with staff's recommendation to include the entire MUC in the Commercial Corridor SPA. The residents have expressed similar concerns to those noted regarding the proximity of commercial uses to their residences. Also noted was the concern of the value of their property being dependent of the plans of the owners of the commercial property which does front on P .C.H. Again, it should be emphasized that the existing residential properties in question, under the proposed provisions of the SPA, can be improved or rebuilt to their existing density and would be considered conforming uses. Staff believes this to be appropriate as current densities do not exceed what would be allowed under an R-2 zone. The designation of the property within the Commercial Corridor gives the owners a section option, to sell for commercial purposes. Also, any commercial expansion would be subject to the standards of the SPA requiring buffering and the review of the Planning Commission. The SPA designation would not allow the residential property owners to build new residential units to the R-3 density. Staff continues to recommend that the Commercial Corridor boundary extend to the existing depth of the MUC for these two blocks as shown on Pages 68 and 70 of the report. An alternative would be to locate the boundary at the existing C-3 depth and to recommend that the R-3 (C) properties be redesignated to MD Residential and to further recommend the rezoning of these properties to R-2, consistent with the residential properties to the west. Public Hearing opened at 8:31 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. Wilma Burt, 1152 7th Street, stated that neither Manhattan Beach nor Redondo Beach is widely using the SPA; and those are the areas with which Hermosa Beach will be competing. She said that several issues at hand are very vague, and she suggested the Commission address them. One area of concern is the east side of the highway which has a steeper grade than the west side of the highway; and the buildings will therefore overshadow the buildings to the east all the way to Prospect. She stated that the west side of P .C.H. has no upsloping lots. She stated that commercial should be limited on the east side to no more than 30 feet, including roof structures; so that structures to the east can still get sunlight. William Pheiffer, 720 24th Street, stated that he did not receive a notice; however, he has lived in his new house only about one year. He stated that 24th Street is half new houses. He opposed any commercial use next door to his home, stating that if a hotel were allowed, no matter how much buffering there is, his property value will be reduced because a hotel, with its attendant noise, traffic, and congestion would not be desirable 10 P.C. Minutes 4/4/89 in the residential area. His view would also be obstructed. He stated that when he purchased his property, it was R-1; now it is being proposed to rezone it to commercial. Chmn. Peirce noted that there can be a commercial use only if access is from the highway, not from 21st Street. Penny Smith, 724 24th Street, discussed the possibility of a hotel on her street. She continued by discussing a drawing she had prepared depicting the neighborhood and access to a hotel from the highway. She suggested that the same distance into commercial be used as is used for the other buildings on the highway. Ms. Smith continued by discussing the drawing. She suggested that the residential area be maintained as it currently exists. She asked what the logic is in bringing the commercial use further down 21st Street. She stated that commercial would then be invading an area which is residential on three sides. She said this would be encroachment. Mr. Schubach explained the C-Potential usage in the area being discussed by Ms. Smith. He clarified that current C-3 zoning allows a 45-foot height limit; under staff's proposal, the height would be reduced. He stated that staff is proposing no C-3 zoning at this time; they are proposing a Specific Plan Area. Mr. Schubach explained that the logic in extending commercial down 21st Street is based on the fact that those lots were also proposed to be C-Potential in the past. Logically, staff could see no problem since the lots would act as a buffer. Staff addressed issues such as slope in order to make its determination. Ms. Smith asked whether the C-Potential has expired. Mr. Schubach stated that the precise plan has expired; and it would be necessary for the applicant to apply for a new plan if he desires to proceed with a project. He said that the C-Potential zoning has no expiration date. He confirmed that the expired precise plan was for a hotel. Ms. Smith discussed the criteria proposed by staff, stating that three out of the nine criteria significantly impact her property. She said there would be commercial encroachment into residential on three sides, the fourth side being Pacific Coast Highway. Also, there is an impact on the scenic views. The street on Page 50 of the report depicts 21st Street as not a small street; she felt this statement is in error. Ms. Smith stated that things should be discussed in terms of how it is now, rather than how things will be in the future. Ms. Smith stated that there are currently many commercial buildings along the highway, many of which are vacant; she questioned whether it is desirable to have even more commercial uses, given the current situation. Sean Guthrie, 710 4th Street, Hermosa Beach, stated that he purchased an R-3 home with his sister and friend, and they each hope to build their own units on the lot in the future. He stated that he supports lower density in the City, both in residential and commercial areas, whenever it is fair to the majority of the the property owners. He noted that the more property can be developed, the more it is worth. Mr. Guthrie distributed copies of a diagram he prepared depicting the R-3 properties on 11 P.C. Minutes 4/4/89 the west side of Pacific Coast Highway from 3rd Street to the south side of 5th Street. He continued by discussing the diagram, and stressed that the Commission should be fair. He asked that his zoning be left alone. He suggested that the general plan be changed to conform with the zoning, rather than changing the zoning to conform to the general plan. He noted that most of the properties in this particular area are already developed to R-3 standards; also, it would create a more sensible transition from the medium density residential to the commercial corridor. Mr. Guthrie stated that there are ten parcels, with 46 dwelling units, in this particular three-block area. If the R-3 standards are changed, there could also be only 46 units; therefore, there would be no change in the number of units or in the density. He continued by discussing a chart he prepared addressing density. He said that 36 out of the 46 units are owner-occupied, the remainder are rentals. Mr. Guthrie stated that not only are a majority of the R-3 units developed to the R-3 standards, but also many of the R-2 units are developed to R-3 standards, noting that the R-2 units were downzoned from R-3. He discussed a chart ht: 1Jr~pared addressing the standards to which many of the units were built. He said that if the staff proposed change is recommended, he would be able to build only two units, as opposed to three; also, he would have a view loss. Howard Longacre, 1221 7th Place, Hermosa Beach, passed out copies to the Commissioners and read into the record a statement he prepared: "Any proposal to shift boundaries of any commercial area without computations of potential building volumes, potential traffic counts, total residences to lose views has the cart before the horse and is bad planning and contradicts the City vision adopted by the Council 23 October 1986. "Anything done regarding commercial zoning in this small city should be done only after careful study of what has been done and learned in our two larger adjoining neighboring cities of Manhattan Beach and Redondo Beach. "I note Manhattan Beach has rigid parking requirements in all commercial areas. They have a 26' height limit in the commercial area by the pier, we have a 35' height limit. Theirs is 4 feet lower than surrounding residential, ours is 5 to IO feet higher than surrounding residential in the downtown beach area. "Along P .C.H., Manhattan Beach and Redondo Beach have a maximum height of 30 feet. Ours is at 45 feet (much too high in my opinion). The South Bay Galleria is 50 feet high. "I also note the recent failure at the ballot box of the proposed downtown hotel was primarily in my view due to size. Had this hotel been fully silhouetted with poles, strings, and flags and had people recognized the true massiveness, it would have been hard pressed to get half the votes it received. "I propose that in any proposal or resolution sent to the Council, inclusion be made of the following four items: (1) that the commercial height limit of any commercial parcel, including SPA zone, be no higher than the zoning of any residential parcel within 500 feet of said commercial parcel in any direction; (2) that any commercial project higher than 25 feet from the lowest point of its parcel, including expanded remodels, be required to have full silhouetting for four weeks prior to a public hearing for this project. This is not expensive as a percentage of cost. Silhouetting is the actua l outlining of the building on the site with poles, strings, and ribbon banners; (3) that any commercial project requiring more than ten parking spaces be required to supply a professional traffic study prior to a public hearing; (4) that all hotel/motel type projects require SPA type zoning." 12 P.C. Minutes 4/4/89 Mr. Longacre stated that the proposal for the multi-use corridor presents no City objectives; therefore, he did not feel it would be possible to devise an appropriate plan. He suggested that this matter be returned to the City Council with a recommendation that the moratorium be lifted and a request that the Council clearly state their objectives. He noted that this study is now also including areas of the highway not in the multi-use corridor; therefore, he questioned why the entire City is not being addressed. He said there is no citizen mandate for what is being proposed; and he felt the proposal is ill-conceived. Mr. Longacre stated that this entire matter is far too important to be left to one planner who is new to the City. Janet King, 2006 Pacific Coast Highway, Hermosa Beach, was concerned over how her property could be developed if it is rezoned, whether it could be developed as R-3 or only as a single-family residence. Larry Rooney, 732 24th Street, Hermosa Beach, asked how far the commercial down 21st Street will go. He noted concern over the impacts which would be created by the staff recommendation, stating that the proposal is not reasonable and is not consistent with the entire area. Don Karosevich, 840 15th Street, Hermosa Beach, stated that Page 32 of the staff report is erroneous, noting that 830 15th Street is three units on the lot, not a single-family residence as indicated in the report. He continued by discussing other properties on the street, stating that there are two three-unit lots now. He stated zoning other than R-2B would be inappropriate and would create a hodge-podge in the neighborhood. He suggested that the most practical zoning should remain R-2B in order to have consistent land utilization throughout the 16 lots included in this area. Betty Thomas, 1934 Pacific Coast Highway, Hermosa Beach, stated that her family has owned the property since 1952. She stated that in 1974 a 54-page report was prepared by the City addressing the multi-use corridor. At that time it was decided that it was not viable to change the property from 19th Street to 21st Street to commercial property because of the topography, the traffic impacts, as well as other reasons. She asked what has changed since 1974 so that the City now wants to redesignate this area as commercial. Mr. Schubach noted that in 1974 the area was designated as multi-use corridor; however, since he was not in the City at that time, he was unable to explain the rationale behind the statements contained in the report. Ms. Thomas stated that in 1974 a 300-foot multi-use commercial zone was proposed; staff is now recommending only 100 feet. She stated that such narrow setbacks would make the property almost worthless as far as commercial property is concerned. Since homes would be left as single-family residences without potential development, they would become almost worthless. She felt that, unless the City is practicing an eminent domain policy, inverse condemnation proceedings might be in order in this case. Marianne Kanes, 817 18th Street, Hermosa Beach, asked for clarification on the recommendation in the staff report, questioning why the residential properties are being proposed for high density, rather than low or medium density. She stated that the people who live on the highway are used to the traffic and noise; therefore, she could not understand why it is being proposed to make it high density, rather than low or medium density R-1. 13 P.C. Minutes 4/4/89 Dahdi Rachnighar, 1860 Pacific Coast Highway, Hermosa Beach, stated that he would like to see the area remain residential, rather than commercial. He stated that changing the designation from residential to commercial will only exacerbate the traffic and noise problems in the area. He asked that the area be left as residential. Jack Andron, 521 Gentry Street, Hermosa Beach, stated that nothing in the City is constant for very long, noting that P.C.H. started out as R-1, went to R-2 and R-3, and then commercial in some areas. He stated that unfortunately, one cannot go from C-3 back to R-3. He suggested that the R-3 designation remain longer. He stated that most of the parcels in question are individually owned. He stated that residential lots going to commercial are not large enough to accommodate the required side setbacks to make commercial uses viable. Roberta Farrell, 732 24th Street, Hermosa Beach, stated that the traffic on P.C.H. after 3:00 in the afternoon is very heavy; if the area is redesignated commercial and a hotel is built at 21st street, there could possibly be an additional 100 cars per day from the commercial use, whereas residential only generates about ten cars per day. Don Karosevich, 840 15th Street, Hermosa Beach, noted concern over the staff report which recommends "implement the general plan changes by initiating zone changes for the residential areas outside the commercial corridor .... " He asked whether zoning will be voted upon at this time. Chmn. Peirce clarified that that is merely a staff recommendation; no zone changes will be voted upon tonight. Public Hearing closed at 9:18 P.M. by Chmn Peirce. Chmn. Peirce stated that he agreed with the staff recommendation for all of the areas from 1st Street to 8th Street on the east side of the highway in the south end of town. He felt that the boundary line is drawn correctly. Chmn. Peirce suggested that each area be discussed individually. South City Boundary to 1st Street (East Side) This area has a frontage of 170 feet. The depth of the MUC is 240 feet; the depth of the C-3 zoning is 240 feet. Staff recommended locating the commercial corridor/SPA boundary coterminous with the C-3 zoning boundary consistent with the existing MUC boundary at a depth of approximately 240 feet. The Commissioners all agreed with the staff recommendation for this area. The Commissioners also agreed with the staff recommendation of R-P density, which is high density. Comm. Edwards asked whether any buffers are proposed for this area. Mr. Robertson stated that no buffering is being suggested at this time. He continued by explaining that no zone changes are being proposed at this time. 14 P.C. Minutes 4/4/89 1st Street to 2nd Street (East Side) This area has a frontage of 255 feet. The depth of the MUC is between 245 and 260 feet. The depth of the C-3 zoning is 220 feet and 125 feet. Although the existing MUC boundary follows lot lines, it splits the GTE parking lot and it is not in a logical location. Except for two older houses, the uses within the MUC are commercial. Given this situation, staff feels there are two options for the location of the commercial corridor boundary: (1) Along the boundary of the GTE parking lot (500 feet deep on the north side of 1st Street and 285 feet deep on the south side of 2nd Street); or (2) Along the current C-3 zoning line (240 feet deep approximately at the rear of the GTE building along the north side of 1st Street and 125 feet along the south side of 2nd Street to exclude the existing residential uses). The benefits of the first option are two-fold: it would recognize the easterly boundary of existing commercially related land uses and would provide for potential commercial expansion along the south side of 2nd Street where the two older houses at 830 and 838 are located (these properties would potentially provide the parking area needed to convert or expand the existing commercial uses at 134 and 142 Pacific Coast Highway and if developed would be subject to standards of the Commercial Corridor SPA requiring buffering from the residential uses). However, it would be inconsistent with the commercial depths to both the south of 1st Street and to the north of 2nd Street. The second option would provide for greater consistency across streets, but it would not be conducive towards the turnover, improvement, or expansion of commercial uses on the south side of 2nd Street. Also, the SPA standards should mitigate, i.e., buffer, the problems of commercial interfacing with residential. Staff recommended locating that Commercial Corridor/SPA boundary in accordance with the first option noted along the easterfy boundary of the existing GTE parking lot at a depth of 500 feet along the north side of 1st Street and a depth of 285 feet on the south side of 2nd Street. Comm. Rue discussed an area on the map (Page 17 of the staff report) where there is a ''bump up" on the north side of 1st Street, going east into the R-P area. This parcel is a fairly old, single-family dwelling. He said that the area across 1st Street is not consistent. Chmn. Peirce stated that the area is consistent, explaining that it the parking area for the General Telephone Company. Comm. Rue stated that the area, even though it is a parking lot, is not consistent across the street. He questioned whether that area should be looked at in a long-term persepctive, as to whether or not it should be in the commercial corridor. Mr. Robertson stated that the Commission could address such a use; however, staff is reflecting the current use. He said those properties facing the side streets could not become commercial. Comm. Ingell asked whether it is desirable to create nonconforming commercial uses in the City. Chmn. Peirce stated that such a situation would not be desirable. Comms. Ingell and Edwards, and Chmn. Peirce agreed with the staff recommendation for this area; Comm. Rue disagreed, stating he felt that someone in the future may want to come in and propose a commercial use at that site. They could then apply for a zone change and general plan change, if so desired. 15 P.C. Minutes 4/4/89 Chmn. Peirce noted that staff is suggesting this area to be R-1, low density, which it currently is. The Commissioners all agreed there should be no change. 2nd Street to 3rd Street (East Side) This area has a frontage of 181 feet. The depth of the MUC is 250 feet. The depth of C- 3 zoning is 160 feet on the north side of 2nd Street and 50 feet on the south side of 3rd Street. Staff recommended locating the Commercial Corridor /SPA boundary coterminous with the existing C-3 zoning boundary at depths of 160 feet and 50 feet. Also, to amend the General Plan Map for the residential area east of the commercial corridor boundary from MUC to LD residential. The Commissioners all agreed with the staff recommendation, including the recommendation for low density residential. 3rd Street to 4th Street (East Side) The frontage of this area is 202 feet. The depth of the MUC is 250 feet. The depth of the C-3 zoning is 125 feet on the north side of 3rd Street and 100 feet on the south side of 4th Street. Staff recommended locating the Commercial Corridor/SPA boundary at a depth of 125 feet for the south half of the block, coterminous with the C-3 zoning boundary and at a depth of 112 feet for the north half of the block. Also, to amend the General Plan Map for the residential area beyond the corridor from MUC to LO residential. As an alternative, staff recommended extending the commercial corridor designation to the depth of Ocean Avenue and to develop a policy for buffers at the commercial and residential interface. The Commissioners all agreed with the staff recommendation, including the recommendation that the area remain R-1, low density. 4th Street to 5th Street (East Side) The frontage of this area is 342 feet. The depth of the MUC is 244 feet. The depth of the C-3 zoning is 116 feet. Staff recommended locating the Commercial Corridor/SPA boundary coterminous with the existing C-3 zoning boundary along the alley. Also, to amend the designation on the General Plan Map for the residential area behind the alley from MUC to LD residential. The Commissioners all agreed with the staff recommendation, including the recommendation that it remain low density residential. 5th Street to 6th Street (East Side) The frontage of this area is 260 feet. The depth of the MUC is 240-250 feet. The depth of the C-3 zoning is 160 feet and 120 feet. Staff recommended locating the Commercial Corridor/SPA boundary at a depth of 160 feet for the entire block. Also, to amend the General Plan Map for the residential area behind the boundary from MUC to HD residential and MD residential to be consistent with the designations to the east. 16 P.C. Minutes 4/4/89 The Commissioners all agreed with the staff recommendation, including the recommendation that the area be medium density. 6th Street to 7th Street (East Side) The frontage of this area is 270 feet. The depth of the MUC is 240 feet. The depth of the C-3 zoning is 120 feet. Staff recommended locating the Commercial Corridor /SPA boundary at the rear of the frontage lots, coterminous with the existing C-3 zoning boundary, at a depth of 120 feet. Also, to amend the General Plan Map to redesignate the residential area behind the frontage lots from MUC to MD residential. The Commissioners all agreed with the staff recommendation, including the recommendation that the area be medium density. 7th Street to 8th Street (East Side) The frontage of this area is 120 feet. The depth of the MUC is 240 feet. The depth of the C-3 zoning is 120 feet. Staff recommended locating the Commercial Corridor /SPA boundary at the rear of the frontage lots, coterminous with the C-3 zoning boundary, at a depth of 120 feet. Also, to amend the General Plan Map for the residential area behind the frontage lots from MUC to MD residential. The Commissioners all agreed with the staff recommendation for this area, including the recommendation that the area be medium residential. 14th Street to 15th Street (East Side) The frontage of this area is 210 feet. The depth of the MUC is 291 feet. The depth of the MUC zoning is 106 feet and 126 feet. Staff recommended locating the Commercial Corridor/SPA boundary at a depth of 141 feet along the north side of 14th Street to include 823 14th Street and at the existing C- 3/R-2 boundary at a depth of 126 feet along the south side of 15th Street. Also, to amend the LUP designation for the residential areas behind the boundary from MUC to MD residential. Chmn. Peirce noted concern over the property at 823 14th Street. He stated that he would favor the line remaining as it currently exists. Comm. Ingell agreed, as did Comms. Edwards and Rue. The Commissioners all agreed with the staff recommendation. The Commission felt that the residential property north of 14th Street should be low density. 15th Street to 16th Street (East Side of P.C.H.) The frontage of this area is 339 feet. Depth of the MUC is 300 feet. Depth of the C-3 zone is 42 feet, 84 feet, 100 feet, and 150 feet. For the north side of 15th Street to 135 feet north of the street, staff recommended locating the Commercial Corridor/SPA boundary at the 126-foot depth coterminous with 17 P.C. Minutes 4/4/89 the R-l(C)/R-2 zoning boundary. Also, to amend the LUP designation for the area east of the 126-foot depth from MUC to MD residential. For the south side of 16th Street to 204 feet south, staff reco mmend ed locating the Commercial Corridor/SPA bo undar y at the back of the vacant parcels (145 feet) and behind the Coast Pet Clinic parcel 150 feet. Also, to amend the LUP designation for the residential area located behind the boundary line from MUC to MD residential. Chmn. Peirc e aske d for c larific ation of the staff r ecom me ndation as to why it is be ing sugges ted to move the sou therly portion to the east (map on Page 35 of the staff repor t). Mr. Robertson stated that 815 15th Street is vacant, and 809 15th Street is an older two­ unit structure. He stated that the recommendation is consistent with the depth to the south. Comm. Edwards stated that the density recommendations are logical, based on what is currently existing and based on the size of the lots. Comm. Rue noted that there are some new three-unit condominiums backing up to 15th Street. These units back up to what Comms. Ingell and Edwards are proposing to be low density. He felt that "adjacent" would be to the south as well as to the east. The Commissioners all agreed with the staff recommendation. The Commissioners felt that the area north of 15th Street should be medium density; the area south of 15th Place should be low density. 16th Street to 17th Street (East Side of P .C.H.) The frontage in this area is 280 feet. Depth of the MUC is 300 feet. The depth of the C- 3 zoning is 100 feet. Staff recommended locating the Commercial Corridor/SPA boundary line along the rear of the frontage lots at a depth of 100 feet coterminous with the existing C-3/R-l zoning boundary. Also, to amend the LUP designation for the residential area behind the frontage lots from MUC to LD residential. The Commissioners all agreed with the staff recommendation for this area, including the recommendation for low density residential. 17th Street to 18th Street (East Side of P .C.H.) The frontage is 186 feet for this area. Depth of the MUC is 300-330 feet. Depth of the C-3 zone is 100 feet. Staff recommended locating the Commercial Corridor/SPA boundary along the rear of the frontage lots at a depth of 100 feet coterminous with the existing C-3/R-l zoning boundary. Also, to amend the LUP designation for the area behind the frontage lots from MUC to LD residential. Chmn. Peirce stated that this area could be included with the discussion of the other areas at issue (maps on Pages 39, 41, 44, and 47 of the staff report). Chmn. Peirce stated that the question is to determine whether it is desirable to have residential or commercial on the highway. 18 P.C. Minutes 4/4/89 Comm. Edwards noted that the other side of P.C.H. is multi-family residential. This area all the way to 21st Street is residential, other than the few commercial lots. He said there has been a great deal of input from people living in this area who desire that it remain residential. He said that if people like living there, there is no reason to change it; however, the areas which are commercial should remain commercial. In this area, where there is residential across the highway, the east side of the highway can remain residential. He noted that there is always the option in the future of changing it to commercial, if so desired, or if there is a sudden influx of people wanting to have commercial. He therefore favored high density residential for this area. Comm. Rue agreed that the area should be high density. Comm. Ingell felt that P.C.H. is definitely a commercial strip, and he could not see homes on the highway, especially with the volume of traffic in the area. He stressed that P.C.H. is a commercial strip. In looking to the future, he thought it should be commercial. Chmn. Peirce stated that he favored high density residential from 17th Street to 21st Street, except the areas which are already commercial, including the northeast corner of 17th Street and P .C.H. Comm. Edwards felt that people should be allowed to develop to the current density if the area remains residential. He noted that people in the area do not want to be rezoned. Comm. Ingell disagreed, stating that the Planning Commission is making a long-term decision, and P.C.H. is a commercial corridor, not residential. Mr. Schubach stated that it could be recommended to make this area an SPA, with the option of allowing people to build to the R-3 standards, if so desired. Comm. Edwards favored such an option. Comm. Ingell stated that the cities to the north and south also feel that P.C.H. is a commercial corridor. Comm. Rue agreed; however, he felt that if someone had wanted to assemble those properties and develop them along the highway, it would have been done a long time ago. He stated that the slope and the number of small lots would make it very difficult to assemble lots in this area. To do a decent project would be quite hard. Chmn. Peirce agreed, stating that the slope is too great. Comm. Ingell noted, however, that three of the four multi-unit dwellings between 17th Street and 21st Street on the east side of the highway want to be commercial. Chmn. Peirce noted that 17th Street to 21st Street is already low density, which is the staff recommendation. 18th Street to 19th Street The frontage of this area is 355 feet. The depth of the MUC is 280-300 feet. The depth of the R-3(C) zone is 100-130 feet. Staff recommended locating the Commercial Corridor/SPA boundary line at the rear of J the P.C.H. frontage lots at varying depths of 100 feet, 130 feet, and 105 feet. This is 19 P.C. Minutes 4/4/89 r-,_ coterminous with the existing R-3(C)/R-l zoning boundary. Also, to amend the LUP ' designation for the residential area behind the frontage lots from MUC to low density residential. The Commissioners all agreed with the staff recommendation; but they agreed that the area should be medium density residential. 19th Street to 21st Street The frontag e of this area is 357 feet. Depth of the MUC is 260 feet. Depth of the R- 3(C) zoning is 100 feet. Staff recommended locating the Commercial Corridor/SPA boundary at a depth of 100 feet along the alley and at a depth of 90 feet behind the apartment at 1906 P .C.H. coterminous with the existing R-l/R-3(C) zoning boundary. Also, to amend the LUP designation for the residential area behind the frontage lots from MUC to low density residential. North of 21st Street (East Side) The frontage of this area is 300 feet. The MUC depth is 165 feet. The depth of the C-3 zone is 165 feet. Staff recommended locating the Commercial Corridor/SPA boundary consistent with the existing C-3 zoning and the existing MUC boundary at a depth of 165 feet along Borden Avenue, or along Rhodes Street, at a depth of 280 feet with policies and standards ensuring commercial development in conjunction with existing, development along P .C.H. and maintaining the conforming status of the four houses. The commissioners all agreed that the boundary should be along Borden Avenue. Chmn. Peirce noted that this area is already low density. Comm. Rue felt that the boundary could be moved to Rhodes Street in the future if that were ever requested, stating that such a relocation could help alleviate the parking problems in the area. However, he felt that Borden Avenue is the appropriate boundary at this time. 24th Place to 24th Street (West Side) The frontage of this area is 216 feet. The depth of the MUC is 290 feet. The depth of the C-3 zone is 140 feet on the north half and 90 feet on the south half. Staff recommended locating the Commercial Corridor/SPA boundary to recognize the existing depth of commercial development coterminous with the existing zoning boundary at a depth of 140 feet along the northern half and 90 feet at the southern half. Also, to amend the general plan map designation for the residential area from MUC to low density residential. The Commissioners all agreed with the staff recommendation for this area, including the recommendation that the area be low density. 20 P.C. Minutes 4/4/89 24th Street to 21st Street (West Side) Depth of the MUC is 290 feet. The C-3 depth is 88 feet on the north portion and 220 feet on the south portion. Staff recommended locating the Commercial Corridor/SPA boundary at a depth of 88 feet along the northern portion and at a depth of 290 feet along the southern portion. Also, to amend the LUP designation from the residential area from MUC to low density residential. Chmn. Peirce stated that the two vacant lots should be R-1; Comm. Ingell agreed. Chmn. Peirce felt that the other three lots should be either R-2 or R-2B, and the commercial boundary line should be drawn behind the perpendicular lots to Pacific Coast Highway. Comm. lngell agreed that Lots 23 and 24 should be lopped off; he noted, however, that he had no opposition to the adjoining lots (20, 21, and 22) being R-2. Chmn. Peirce suggested that on 21st Street Lots 20, 21, and 22 be medium density and Lots 23 and 24 be low density, with the line drawn perpendicularly to the highway. Comms. Edwards, Ingell, and Rue agreed. Mr. Schubach suggested, then, that the C-Potential lots also be medium density, based on the large size of the lots and their usage in regard to the way they can be oriented if they were to be multi-family units. The Commissioners agreed with the this suggestion by staff. (Lots 20-24 medium density.) 21st Street to 16th Street (West Side) The frontage of this area is 1341 feet. The depth of the MUC is 290 feet. Staff recommended locating the Commercial Corridor/SPA boundary to include only the Hermosa Pavilion property. Also, to amend the general plan map to redesignate the remaining property from MUC to high density residential. The Commissioners all agreed with the staff recommendation for this area. Except for Comm. lngell, who opposed high density, the Commissioners agreed with staff's density recommendation. Comm. Rue asked about the possibility of having senior citizen's housing at what is now the old hospital property, stating that such housing would be a good use. Mr. Schubach stated that the issue of senior citizen's housing is still being discussed. 16th Street to Pier Avenue The frontage of this area is 631 feet. Depth of the MUC is 547 feet. Depth of the C-3 zoning is 547 feet. Staff recommended including the entire area of the block within the Commercial Corridor/SPA, thereby locating the boundary at Ardmore Avenue. 21 P.C. Minutes 4/4/89 The Commissioners all agreed with the staff recommendation for this area. Chmn. Peirce noted that this area contains no residential zoning at all. 8th Street to 6th Street (West Side) The frontage of this area is 443 feet. Depth of the MUC is 290 feet. Depth of the C-3 zoning is 122 feet, 290 feet, and 170 feet. Staff recommended locating the Commercial Corridor/SPA boundary at a depth of 122 feet along the south side of 8th Street, coterminous with the C-3 boundary; at a depth of 290 feet in the middle of the block, coterminous with the C-3 boundary; and at a depth of 290 feet along the north side of 6th Street at the current R-P/R-2 zoning boundary. Comm. Ingell felt that the line on 8th Street should include Lot 3, which is the C­ Potential lot behind Music Plus. Comm. Rue asked about the status of Lot 3. Chmn. Peirce stated that the house is being refurbished for use as a residential rental. He noted, however, that the zoning for that lot should be left to the City Council. Comm. Ingell felt that Lot 3 should be included. Therefore, he opposed the staff recommendation. With the exception of Comm. Ingell, the other Commissioners favored staff's recommendation. Chmn. Peirce noted that this area is already medium density. 6th Street to 5th Street (West Side) This area has frontage of 216 feet. Depth of the MUC is 290 feet. Depth of the C-3 zoning is 290 feet. Staff recommended locating the Commercial Corridor /SPA boundary coterminous with the existing MUC boundary and C-3 boundary at a depth of 290 feet. The Commissioners all agreed with the staff recommendation. Chmn. Peirce noted that density is not at issue for this area. 5th Street to 4th Street (West Side) The frontage of this area is 236 feet. Depth of the MUC is 290 feet. Depth of the C-3 zoning is 130 feet and 140 feet. Staff recommended locating the Commercial Corridor/SPA boundary at a depth of 130 feet on the north half of the block, coterminous with the C-3 zoning boundary and at a depth of 180 feet for the southern half of the block to include the residence at 731 4th Street. Also, to amend the General Plan Map for the residential area beyond the corridor from MUC to medium density residential to be consistent with the residential area to the west. Comm. lngell disagreed with the staff recommendation, stating that testimony at the previous hearing indicated that the owner did not want to include Lot 5 on 4th Street (731 4th Street) in the commercial area. He felt that it would make sense not to include it. 22 P.C. Minutes 4/4/89 Comm. Rue agreed that Lot 5 should not be included in the commercial. Chmn. Peirce agreed. He directed staff to eliminate Lot 5 on 4th Street from the commercial area, and to leave the commercial in back of the parking lot at Triangle Hardware. The Commissioners favored high density for this area, based on the adjacent uses. After discussion, the Commissioners agreed that the area should actually be medium density, based on the fact that the area has gone through a number of downzonings over the past several years. Comm. Rue asked why the area wasn't designated medium density at the time the downzoning occurred. Mr. Schubach explained that the designation was not changed at that time because the area was in the commercial corridor and there were consistency problems at that time. Chmn. Peirce stated, then, that 5th Street all the way to the south boundary of the City should be medium density. Comms. Edwards and Ingell agreed; Comm. Rue disagreed. Comm. Rue disagreed, stating that that area has been a relatively heavy area for high­ density rental units. He stated that the numbers of rental properties are continually being taken away from the City. He felt that rentals are somewhat akin to low-income housing, and pushing everything to owner/occupied is not desirable. Comm. Edwards noted concern over changing density from one block to the next, stating that it will affect what can be built as well as people's property values. He noted that decisions are being made on uses which are existing, and the question becomes whether the City wants to change various areas over a period of time. He felt that if most of the units are already existing, it should be determined whether it should be changed in the future. He noted that people have strongly expressed their desires to have low density in the City. He said that a guideline can be what exists next to certain properties when decisions are being made as to what they should be changed to. Therefore, he said he would support medium density in this area. Comm. Rue favored high density in this area. Chmn. Peirce stated that the Commission would recommend medium density south from 5th Street, with the exception of Comm. Rue, who favored high density. 4th Street to 3rd Street (West Side) The frontage of this area is 230 feet. Depth of the MUC is 270 feet. Depth of the C-3 zoning is 150 feet. Staff recommended locating the Commercial Corridor/SPA boundary 150 feet for the north half of the block, coterminous with the C-3 zoning boundary and at 190 feet for the south half to include the church property. Also, to amend the General Plan Map for the residential area from MUC to MD residential to be consistent with the development to the west. The Commissioners all agreed with the recommendation for this area, including the recommendation that it be medium density residential. 23 P.C. Minutes 4/4/89 ,,.--, 3rd Street to 2nd Street (West Side) The frontage of this area is 230 feet. Depth of the MUC is 270 feet. Depth of the C-3 zoning is 190 feet. Staff recommended locating the Commercial Corridor/SPA boundary at the edge of existing commercial development: 190 feet deep along the south side of 3rd Street coterminous with the C-3 zoning boundary and 200 feet deep along the north side of 2nd Street ten feet behind the C-3 zoning boundary. Also, to amend the General Plan Map for the residential areas from MUC to medium density residential to be consistent with the area to the west. The Commissioners all agreed with the staff recommendation for this area. With the exception of Comm. Rue, the Commissioners favored the medium density recommendation. 2nd Street to 1st Street (West Side) Frontage for this area is 230 feet. Depth of the MUC is 270 feet. Depth of the C-3 zoning is 270 feet and 190 feet. Staff recommended locating the Commercial Corridor/SPA boundary coterminous with the existing MUC boundary at a depth of 270 feet and to include policies and standards regarding buffering and requiring that commercial development be in conjunction with only the adjacent commercial uses to the east fronting on P.C.H. and further providing conforming status to existing residential uses. The Commissioners all agreed with the staff recommendationa 1st Place to 1st Street (West Side) The frontage for this area is 232 feet. Depth of the MUC is 230 to 270 feet. Depth of the C-3 zoning is 150 feet. Staff recommended locating the Commercial Corridor/SPA boundary at the existing MUC boundary at a depth ranging from 230-270 feet and as in other cases to apply policies and standards regarding commercial development, buffering, and conformity of existing residential uses. Comm. Rue noted that there was strong opposition from the owner of 710, 718, and 720 1st Place to changing it to commercial; therefore, he would not favor a change to commercial. Chmn. Peirce noted, however, that according to the staff recommendation, the owner could build to the adjacent density, if so desired. So the only question is from a long­ term perspective, and that owner's build-out capability would not be affected by whether it is in commercial or residential. Comm. Rue noted, however, that the adjacent properties will not remain R-3; they will be R-2. Chmn. Peirce noted that the zone would change regardless. With the exception of Comm. Rue, the other Commissioners favored staff's recommendation. 24 P.C. Minutes 4/4/89 1st Street to South City Boundary (West Side) The frontage of this area is 55 feet. Depth of the MUC is 250 feet. Depth of the C-3 zoning is 190 feet. Staff recommended locating the Commercial Corridor/SPA boundary at a depth of 190 feet. Also, to amend the General Plan Map for the residential area from MUC to medium density residential. The Commissioners all agreed with the staff recommendation for this area. Chmn. Peirce directed staff to prepare a matrix showing how each of the Commissioners voted on the various areas, so that the City Council could refer to the information when they make their decision. Comm. lngell discussed the proposed Resolution, P.C. 89-28. He noted a typo on Policy 3(a): "on currently vacant lots or parcels of land which do not front on Pacific Coast H . h II --1g way .... Comm. Ingell discussed Policy 3: "New residential projects shall be prohibited, except in the following cases (a) on currently vacant lots or parcels of land which do not front on Pacific Coast Highway and which are not currently connected by ownership to lots fronting on Pacific Coast Highway and which will be developed to a density consistent with surrounding residential densities allowed by the General Plan, subject to review and approval by the Planning Commission ... " He said that if someone did not want to develop commercially, and they owned contiguous lots, titles could just be transferred and the lots would not have to be developed commercially. Mr. Schubach stated that that is correct. He noted that this issue should be addressed at such time when standards and regulations are formulated. He stated that at this time, a general policy statement is being made, noting that one would not ref er to the general plan for hard and fast rules. Rules addressing this issue should be in the zoning ordinance. Comm. Ingell continued by g1vmg a hypothetical situation illustrating his point. Mr. Schubach agreed that the issue should be addressed in the future. Comm. Ingell discussed Policy 3 (b) and suggested additional wording: "the improvement, expansion, or reconstruction of current residential structures which does not increase the current residential density (number of dweUing units) of the lot or parcel of land; and said improvement, expansion , or reconstruction must conform to the zoning standards." Chmn. Peirce stated that, according to the zoning laws, it must conform; however, such wording could be added for clarification. Comm. Ingell discussed Policy 7: "All commercial projects shall require staff review to ensure compliance with the standards and policies of the Specific Plan Area, and significant projects shall require Planning Commission approval, subject to City Council approval." He suggested that it be reworded to state that there shall be Planning Commission approval for all new commercial. projects on Pacifi c Coa st High way to ensure complian c e with the standards and policies of the Specific Plan Area . He felt that all commercial projects on the highway should be reviewed. He wanted to encourage development which would be compatible with the surrounding residential uses. Chmn. Peirce agreed. 25 P.C. Minutes 4/4/89 r-· Comm. Rue stated that when the SPA is done, it should be clearly specified what the requirements are. He questioned whether it is appropriate to require every project to come before the Board. He said that if a project is well done and within the SPA requirements, there is no need for it to come before the Board. He stated that the Planning Department is qualified to review many of the projects to see whether they comply to the requirements. He stated that recycling will not be encouraged if developers must come before the Commission with every single project. Comm. Ingell felt that to have projects be heard before the Board would ensure compatibility between businesses and surrounding residential neighbors. Chmn. Peirce noted that the commercial property is adjacent to residential, and the residential concerns must be addressed; also, requiring projects to be heard before the Commission would ensure that they are within the specifications of the SPA. Comm. Edwards also had concerns; however, he felt that every project might not need to come before the Board, explaining that it is hard to predict in advance whether such approval is necessary. He stated that it is important that homeowners have an opportunity to make their concerns known when a new commercial development is being proposed. Chmn. Peirce felt it would be appropriate to require aJl new commercial projects on the highway to come before the Board. Comm. Edwards agreed that the proposed wording should be included. Mr. Lough explained that staff would incorporate all the changes made by the Commission tonight and then staff would return with a resolution for Commission approval. Comm. Rue asked whether the Commission will next go through a series of analyses for each area to determine what standards should be applied. Mr. Schubach replied in the affirmative. Comm. Edwards stated that no final decision had been reached on the area from 15th Street to 16th Street on the east side of the highway (map on Page 35 of the staff report). Chmn. Peirce felt that the area south of 15th Place should be medium density because it is already adjacent to R-2 and it is already developed with multiple units. It is also adjacent to a very intensive use on the west. Comm. Ingell noted that a matrix will be prepared by staff and presented to the Council showing how each of the Commissioners voted. He asked whether there would be a problem if some of the areas have a 2-2 tie in regard to whether an area should be low density or high density. Mr. Lough stated that general plan amendments must have three votes to be approved, no matter how many Commissioners are present. A 2-2 vote shows that a motion failed; therefore, there would be no recommendation whatsoever to the Council. Comm. Edwards felt the area should be low density. He noted there is R-2 to the south; however, there is R-1 to the north and east. He said that the density to the east has been addressed in other areas; using that rule of thumb, this area should also then be low 26 P.C. Minutes 4/4/89 density. In regard to lot size, he stated that the lots to the south are larger. He also felt that in Hermosa Beach people support low density; therefore, the Commission should make every effort to support low density. Comm. Ingell stated that as one travels down 15th Place, everything is low density. One must go to 15th Street to find medium density. Comm. Edwards said that the medium density to the south was acceptable; however, he felt that the areas to the north and east of 15th Place should be low density. Comm. Rue noted that the area has apartments which are over 30 years old. There is low density in the area. For the long term, he agreed that the area should be low density. Chmn. Peirce stated that he too could support low density in that area. The Commissioners discussed the area from 18th Street to 19th Street (map on Page 41 of the staff report.) Chmn. Peirce stated that the question is whether it should be low density or high density on the west side of P .C.H. Chmn. Peirce noted there are currently some two-family residential units in the area. He stated that it could either be low or medium density; however, for the long-term use on the highway, he felt it should be high density. Comm. Edwards stated that whenever possible, he would favor low density. In this case, he felt medium density would be a compromise with what is currently there. He therefore suggested medium density. Chmn. Peirce stated, then, that that 19th to 21st Street should be the same. He felt that since this area is on the highway, it should be high density. Comm. Ingell noted high density is across the highway. Chmn. Peirce could not support medium density in this area. Comm. Edwards noted, however, that medium density would reduce the traffic and would be compatible with what is already in the area. Comm. Rue stated that there are apartments on the west side of P .C.H. which are used extensively. He could not foresee the use on the east side. He felt that high density on the highway makes sense to him and it provides more affordable for renters. Comm. Ingell felt that if the area is zoned R-3, there will not be more apartments; there will only be more condominiums with higher density. He stated medium density would encourage two-unit homes on those lots. R-3 would encourage more, smaller units. He said he would support medium density. Chmn. Peirce stated that, even though he feels high density would be more appropriate, he would go along with the medium density recommendation for the area from 17th Street to 21st Street, except for the northeast corner of 17th Street and P.C.H., which should be medium density. Mr. Robertson noted that Comm. Ingell previously recommended commercial for that strip. Comm. lngell clarified that he prefers commercial, explaining that he was 27 P.C. Minutes 4/4/89 r '-- confused since they have gone through the document several times. Chmn. Peirce noted that if Comm. Ingell favors commercial, there is now a two-two split as to what this area should be. Comm. Rue noted that if only two units are allowed per lot, it doesn't really make any difference whether it is R-2 or R-3. Comm. Edwards stated that he could not support commercial, noting that the people living there opposed it. Comm Ingell stated that he favors commercial. Chmn. Peirce suggested that the area from 17th to 21st Street be sent to the City Council with no recommendation from the Planning Commission, noting that it is a two­ two tie. He noted, however, that the boundary line will remain as previously discussed. MOTION by Chmn. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to approve Resolution P.C. 89-28, with the above noted changes for Policy 3(a), 3(b), and 7, as well as the changes made to the staff recommendations. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Edwards, Ingell, Rue, Chmn. Peirce None None Comm. Ketz Recess taken from 10:45 P.M. until 10:53 P.M. During the recess, Comm. Ingell was excused by Chmn. Peirce, who explained that Comm. lngell had to leave for a business trip. TEXT AMENDMENT REGARDING HEIGHT OF HEDGES AND FENCES AND ADOPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION (CONTINUED FROM MEETING OF 3/7[89} Mr. Schubach recommended that this item be continued until such time that staff can complete the necessary report, explaining that there is currently a staff shortage in the Planning Department. He stated that staff will publicly notice this text amendment again in the future, once time is available to prepare the report. MOTION by Chmn. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Edwards, to approve staff's recommendation to continue this matter to an unspecified date. No objections; so ordered. HEARING OF DETERMINATION FOR LOT MERGER GROUP L.M. 89-1 (CONTINUED FROM MEETING OF 3/21/89) Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated March 14, 1989. Staff recommended merger of the subject lots. This group of lot mergers is the City's second attempt at notification of the intent to merge these subject lots. Certified mail was previously sent; however, these notices were returned because they were either unclaimed, had expired forwarding addresses, were refused, or for other various reasons. Therefore, staff has remailed the 28 P.C. Minutes 4/4/89 .. notices of intent to merge to merge these lots to provide the property owners a second 30-day opportunity to request a hearing. Forty notices were remailed; seven requests for a hearing, or 18 percent, were received. The Planning Department has determined that these lots are subject to merger pursuant to Hermosa Beach Municipal Code Section 29.5-19 through 29.5-28 and State Government Code Section 66451.11-66451.21. 2015 Monterey Boulevard Owners: Kathleen Conte and Paul Tordella (not present) This parcel is comprised of 16 feet of one lot and 14 feet of an adjacent lot; total parcel size is 2550 square feet. The separation of these lots for individual development would be very difficult because of their width of the portion of the lot. Aerials indicate that the main structure straddles the property line. Building records indicate this to be a single-family dwelling. The zoning is R-1, with a general plan designation of low density. There are 34 lots on the block, 19 of which have individually developed lots. Mr. Schubach noted that Ms. Conte had been in the audience earlier and had expressed to staff that she had no opposition to the lots being merged as proposed by staff. MOTION by Chmn. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Edwards, to approve staff's recommendation to merge the subject parcel at 2015 Monterey Boulevard. No objections; so ordered. 554 8th Street and 558 8th Street Owners: William Campbell --554 8th Street (not present) Gladys Campbell --558 8th Street (not present ) These two parcels are each comprised of four quarter lots; i.e., the four original lots were subdivided east to west. Subsequently, however, the four lots were resubdivided north to south. Staff has no intention of merging these two individually owned parcels; rather the City's intent is to merge these four contiguous portions of the lots. 554 8th Street is approximately 3443 square feet. 558 8th Street is approximately 3240 square feet. Aerials indicate that the main structure straddles the lot line of the front three quarters of the parcel. Building records indicate each of these parcels to have a duplex. A decision to not merge these parcels could allow for the creation of land-locked sites. The zoning is R-1, with a general plan designation of high density. There are ten lots within the ''block." There is one individually developed lot on the block. MOTION by Chmn. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Edwards, to approve staff's recommendation to merge the lots at 554 8th Street and to merge the lots at 558 8th Street. No objections; so ordered. 1712 The Strand Owners: Steven and Alice Legare (not present) This parcel is comprised of two lots and 20 feet of an adjacent lot, for a total parcel size of 6400 square feet. Aerials indicate that the existing structures straddle the contiguous lot lines. Building records show the existing structures to have nine units. The zoning is R-2B, with a general plan designation of medium density. There are seven lots on the block, with three of them individually developed. 29 P.C. Minutes 4/4/89 ,... Mr. Schubach stated that the owner has indicated that he would like to remove the nine nonconforming units. Mr. Schubach suggested that this item be continued for one year so that the applicant can remove the nonconforming units and obtain a line line adjustment to create · two larger lots rather than be merged. MOTION by Comm. Edwards, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve staff's recommendation to continue this item for one year. No objections; so ordered. 737 and 739 30th Streetz. 733 30th Street Owners: 737 and 739 30th Street --Virginia J. Peacock (not present) 733 30th Street --Donald Rickerd (not present) These parcels are each comprised of two 25 by 100 foot lots; total parcel area is 5000 square feet. Aerials indicate that the main structure straddles the property lines. Building records indicate these two parcels have nonconforming duplexes. The appeal letter submitted by the property owner at 733 30th Street states that building plans were previously submitted for two units. However, building records show these permits expired in 1984 because the permhs were never issued. The zoning is R-1, with a general plan designation of low density. There are nine lots on the block, with five individually developed lots. These parcels meet all the criteria for merger. Mr. Schubach clarified that there are four lots, with three addresses, being merged into two parcels. MOTION by Chmn. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Edwards, to approve staff's recommendation to merge the parcels at 733 30th Street. No objections; so ordered. MOTION by Chmn. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Edwards, to approve staff's recommendation for 737 and 739 30th Street, to merge the lots. No objections; so ordered. 1125 8th Street Owners: James and Ellen Withers (not present) This parcel is comprised of two 25 by 100 foot lots. Total parcel size is 5000 square feet. Aerials indicate the main structure straddles the lot lines. Building records indicate this to be a single-family dwelling. The zoning is R-1, with a general plan designation of low density. There are nine lots on the block, with 17 individually developed lots. All the criteria for merger have been met; therefore, staff recommended merger of the lots. MOTION by Chmn. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve staff's recommendation to merge the lots at 1125 8th Street. No objections; so ordered. STAFF ITEMS a.) Letter from Pulse Fitness Systems Mr. Schubach stated that a letter has been received requesting that "gymnasium" be added to the C-2 zone permitted use list. 30 P.C. Minutes 4/4/89 .. ,. Currently the proponent has a retail sales location at 934 Hermosa Avenue for gym equipment. He would like to relocate to a larger location and also include a limited­ membership gym. The location proposed, 1106 Hermosa Avenue, in addition to being in the wrong zone, also has no parking. This location would require either additional parking, in-lieu fees, or a parking plan since a gym would be a more intensive use. The applicant has been made aware of these problems and desires to pursue the matter regardless. Staff recommended that the Commission either receive and file the letter or direct staff to study the matter further. Shane McColgan, 934 Hermosa Avenue, applicant, addressed the Commission. He stated that he has been at his present location since October of 1987, and he has established a growing and profitable business. Several weeks ago, he learned of the commercial space which is available. He stated that the proposed located would be suitable to accommodate his future business needs. Mr. McColgan stated that the new location is 3200 square feet as opposed to his current area of 2000 square feet. He stated that he understands the importance of parking in this area; however, in doing his own research on the matter, he has discovered there is ample parking space in the proposed area. Mr. McColgan clarified that his establishment is not merely a "gym." He explained that he trains professional athletes, as well as others. He stated that he is a "private fitness consultant" as opposed to a "gymnasium." Mr. McColgan said that most of the people who come to his facility arrive between 5:00 A.M. and 9:00 A.M. Directly across the street from the proposed location are 53 available parking spaces; adjacent to that parking, there is a public parking lot with 127 spaces which is available for validated parking. In addition, 300 yards from the proposed location are two additional public parking lots. Mr. McColgan stated that he wants to work with the City, and he is willing to operate under any City guidelines in order to relocat~ to the new location. He stated that he is in business to succeed and get ahead. He said this new, larger location is necessary for him to be successful. If he stays where he currently is, he will be able only to maintain the business, not expand and be more successful. Chmn. Peirce turned to Page 49 of the zoning code and referred to several of the permitted uses to see whether any of them could be construed to be a "gymnasium." Comm. Edwards felt it would be beneficial to study this matter further, explaining that this is a typical use for a beach area and something which would be appropriate in the City. Chmn. Peirce agreed. He stated that options are available, such as limiting the use to early morning hours when the parking demand is not as great. He suggested that perhaps a use could be added to the list such as "private gymnasium, appointments only." Mr. Schubach suggested, then, that staff be directed to return with a study on this matter. 31 P.C. Minutes 4/4/89 MOTION by Chmn. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Rue, to direct staff to study this matter and return with a report and proposed text amendment. No objections; so ordered. b.) City Council/Planning Commission Workshop Comm. Rue noted the staff shortage and suggested that only those issues of major importance be addressed until more staff is available. Chmn. Peirce suggested that the workshop be postponed until the end of June. c.) Letter from and Response to the Citizen Regarding 21 l Pacific Coast Highway, Hermosa Saloon MOTION by Chmn. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Rue, to receive and file. No objections; so ordered. d.) Memorandum Regarding Noise Monitoring Equipment Mr. Schubach stated that the police now have all the necessary equipment to monitor noise, and they are now in the process of training police officers to use the equipment. e.) Activi ty Report for February 1989 Chmn. Peirce asked for an update on the conditional use permit violations at Casey's Isuzu. Mr. Schubach also discussed several other violations listed on the activity report. f.) Memorandum Regarding Employee Shortage MOTION by Chmn. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Rue, to receive and file. No objections; so ordered. g.) Memorandum Regarding Planning Commission Liaison for 4/ 11/89 City Council Meeting Chmn. Peirce stated that no one would attend as liaison. h.) City Council Minutes of March 14, 1989 MOTION by Chmn. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Rue, to receive and file. No objections; so ordered. COMMISSIONER ITEMS Comm. Edwards stated that he will be absent from the next two meetings since he will be out of town on business. Chmn. Peirce excused Comm. Edwards from the next two meetings. Comm. Rue asked about parking trends in the City. Mr. Schubach stated that he would look into the matter. 32 P.C. Minutes 4/4/89 ,,..--·.'-Comm. Edwards asked for an update on Herman. Mr. Schubach stated that things are moving along as planned. He continued by explaining the proposed routes for the transit system. MOTION by Chmn. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Edwards, to adjourn at 11:26 P.M. No objections; so ordered. CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and complete record of the action taken by the Planning Commission of Hermosa Beach at the regularly scheduled meeting of April 4, 1989. 0--/ J Mich I! &11'--/ q<J'1 Date 33 P.C. Minutes 4/4/89