HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes - 11.21.1989r .
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
HELD ON NOVEMBER 21, 1989, AT 7:00 P.M. IN 'lllE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Meeting called to order at 7:02 P.M. by Chmn. Rue.
Pledge of .Allegiance led by Mr. Lee.
ROLLCALL
Present:
Absent:
Comms. Ingell, Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Chmn. Rue
None
Also Present: Michael Schubach, Planning Director; Edward Lee, City Attorney;
Sally White, Recording Secretary
APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 8. 1989
Chmn. Rue commented on Page 4, Paragraph 2, regarding comments which were made about
the swastika appearance of a proposed window design. He clartfied that he would oppose such a
design; however, in the case of this particular project, he did not feel the glass blocks give the
appearance of a swastika.
Comm. Peirce noted a correction to Page 23, Paragraph 1, last line: delete the word "spectrum."
Comm. Ingell stated that there was a mix-up in delivering his copy of the minutes and he had
not received them; therefore, he would abstain from voting on approval.
MOTION by Comm. Moore, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve as amended the minutes of
November 8, 1989. Noting the abstention of Comm. Ingell, no objections; so ordered.
APPROVAL OF RESOLUTIONS
MOTION by Comm. Ketz, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to approve Resolution P.C. 89-17, A
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH,
CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE REGARDING THE
EXCEPTIONS TO THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT ALLOWED AND ADOPTION OF THE
ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. Noting the abstentions of Comm. Moore and
Chmn. Rue, no objections; so ordered.
MOTION by Comm. Moore, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve Resolution P.C. 89-74, A
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH,
CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE
PARCEL MAP #21370 FOR A THREE-UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 515 8TH STREET,
LEGAILY DESCRIBED AS TIIE EASTERLY 60 FEET OF THE WESTERLY 92.50 FEET OF LOTS 8
AND 9, BLOCK C, 1RACT 1677. No objections; so ordered.
MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Moore, to approve Resolution P.C. 89-82, A
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH,
CALIFORNIA, DENYING AV ARIANCE TO AI.LOW AN ENCROACHMENT INTO THE REQUIRED
17-FOOT GARAGE SETBACK AT 3133 THE S1RAND, LEGAILY DESCRIBED AS LOT 23, BLOCK
1, SHAKESPEARE 'IRACT. No objections; so ordered.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC
No one appeared to address the Commission.
1 P.C. Minutes 11/21/89
MASTER CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR EXPANSION OF E&E AUTO BODY SHOP AND FOR
ALL THE AUTOMOTIVE USES AT 505 AND 555 PACIFIC COAST IDGHWAY AND ADOPTION
OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION (CONTINUED FROM 8/ 15. 10/3. AND
11 / 8 MEETINGS]
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated October 31, 1989. Staff recommended that the Planning
Commission approve the master conditional use pennit for the entire property, subject to the
conditions specified in the proposed resolution.
On November 14 staff met with the property owner, Mr. Mardikian, and the property manager,
Mr. Wilson, to discuss the proposed conditions. The owner expressed a willingness to work
with staff toward the general goal of cleaning up the property. However, strong reservations
were also expressed over certain conditions because of the financial burden. In consideration
of the concerns about meeting certain conditions and the relative importance of others, staff
has slightly modified its original recommendations.
Staff believes that the :implementation and the enforcement of these conditions, as modified,
present a more workable solution and should begin the process of improvement of the subject
property. Also, with the addition of a recommended six-month review, staff and the Planning
Commission can assess the progress and perhaps consider additional conditions at that time.
Mr. Schubach explained that the applicant's property manager has read the conditions
proposed by staff and has indicated concerns over some of the conditions. Staff proposed
suggestions as to how these concerns could be addressed, if so desired by the Commission:
Condition 4(b): This condition requiring trees on the rear of the property is not specific
enough. The manager would like to see a specific size requirement for the initial planting so
that the initial cost impact can be estimated. Staff therefore recommended additional wording
to require minimum 15-gallon sized trees, a minimum of three feet high, planted in minimum
5-foot dimensioned planters, at intervals ofno more than 20 feet.
Condition 7: The manager feels that this condition requiring a uniform plan for signage is too
strongly worded. He feels that it requires a complete sign overhaul to be implemented
immediately. He would rather see an allowance for dealing with signs in a phased program.
Staff therefore suggested the following modified condition: "A program for uniform signage
addressing the types, size, materials, and timing for the installation of new signs shall be
submitted to the Planning Director."
Condition 26: This condition would require a six-month review, and the applicant would like
the review to be annually. Since staff will be continually monitoring the progress of the site
improvements, the timing of the review by the Planning Commission should be determined by
the Commission.
Condition 27(e): This condition, originally agreed to by the property manager, has forced him
to ask a tenant to remove a costly fence. He would rather see the continuation of the existing
arrangement, whereby three-deep parking stalls are accessed from one driveway aisle off 5th
Street. To address this concern, the Planning Commission could simply eliminate the
proposed condition. If stacked parking is to be allowed. the .first row could be designated as
employee parking. and the last row could be designated as customer parking.
Mr. Schubach noted that the applicant is attempting to comply with all conditions, and the
illegal roof sign has now been removed.
Comm. Peirce commented that evidence of automobiles being worked on outside the indoor
repair areas has been noted in the past, and he asked whether that is still occurring.
Mr. Schubach stated that no such activity has been noted or reported.
2 P.C. Minutes 11/21/89
Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Comm. Peirce regarding new vehicles being
stored in the rear parking area in the location designated for Cheap Wheels, stated that as far
as staff is aware, those vehicles have been removed.
Mr. Schubach stated that, as far as staff is concerned, the violations which have been noted in
the past appear to have been resolved. The applicant has also indicated a willingness to
comply with all requirements.
Public Hearing opened at 7:13 P.M. byChmn. Rue.
Mike Wilson, Rancho Palos Verdes. property manager acting on behalf of the applicant,
addressed the Commission. He noted that much has been accomplished since this matter was
last heard two weeks ago. He said that he has requested an annual review of the site, exp1aining
that he would like to upgrade the property in increments. He hoped that by the end of next
summer the signage on the street would be complete, and the following year the building could
be addressed. He noted that he has made several suggestions that were not even requested by
the P1anoing Department; i.e., that the area containing a rather large parking space has now
been redesignated as a handicapped space. He stated that he is willing to cooperate in this
matter. He explained that when he originally received the materials, there were only a few
days in which to comply; therefore, he was quite surprised when this matter was heard earlier.
Mr. Wilson continued and: (1) stated that a hedge will be placed on 5th Street from the
intersection all the way to the entrance driveway, and there will also be a hedge at the front of
the property; (2) stated that the cost of the signage will be shared by both the tenants and the
property owner; (3) stated that he has agreed with the recommendations, and work has
commenced in order to be in compliance; (4) noted that the illegal sign has been removed, and it
is actually an improvement; (5) explained that the various signs will have complementary
lettering and will be of similar heights; (6) stated that he would prefer to have attractive signs
and said that next year the sign issue will be addressed; (7) stated that the building itself will be
addressed the following year, noting that this will be quite an expense for the tenants, and it is
easier to deal with the cost over a period of time rather than all at once; (8) noted that other
issues will be addressed as well, such as the driveway, trees, and fences; (9) said that tenants are
now starting their improvements, such as sign painting and sign changes; (10) explained that
the tenants are being advised to start saving for future improvements.
Comm. Moore was pleased to see the progress being made at this site, noting that
improvements will be beneficial for all the businesses concerned. He noted that the City needs
the types of services being provided at this location. He felt that there are many improvements
which can be made which will result in higher rents. He said that improvements can be made
in the signage at a relatively low cost. He continued by discussing the overhang and awning
which were previously located at the site.
Comm. Moore encouraged the applicant to continue with the improvements.
Mr. Wilson, in response to questions from Chmn. Rue, explained that he feels the street signage
should be given highest priority. primarily because of visibility from passersby. Therefore, the
street signage will be upgraded first. He said that all sign poles will be eliminated, and suitable
signs will be erected.
Mr. Wtlson, continuing in response to questions from Chmn. Rue, explained that during the
next 12 months, they will tackle the conditions as now proposed by staff. The following year,
beginning approximately September 1990, the street signage plan will be addressed and
implemented; and the building facade itself will be addressed the next year (1991). He stated
that the tenants are not opposed to such a plan so long as they can spread out the expenses over
a period of time. He explained that this is the reason he has requested a one-year review period
for this property.
3 P.C. Minutes 11/21/89
Mr. Wilson stressed that the tenants are monitored to ensure they are in compliance with City
requirements. He encourages the City to enforce these matters so that there is adequate
documentation in the event it becomes necessary to evict a tenant for failure to comply.
Chmn. Rue explained the purpose for the review periods, stating that it does not appear to be a
major issue in this particular case. He noted that the reviews are undertaken to ensure that
properties do not slip back into their old unacceptable ways.
Mr. Wilson hoped that the conditions can be met by the end of the year, noting that many of
them have already been met.
Comm. Peirce commented on the enforcement procedures and asked who would be notified in
the event of a violation, the tenant or the property owner.
Mr. Schubach explained that a violation would be issued to the person on site at the time,
either the tenant or the property owner. He noted, however, that the owner is ultimately
responsible.
Mr. Wilson explained that if a tenant is ticketed, the property owner also receives a copy.
Comm. Peirce noted concern that the issue of who should uphold the requirements of the
conditional use permit is not clear.
Mr. Schubach stated that the procedure implemented by the police department is to issue a
ticket to whoever is present at the time the violation is noted; the property owner, however, is
ultimately held responsible for ensuring compliance. He stated that in certain instances, it
can be difficult to locate the property owner; therefore, the ticket is issued to the person present
at the time.
Mr. Wilson noted that the property owner is right across the street 12 hours a day. He stated
that activities such as working on cars outside are prohibited not only by the conditional use
permit conditions, but also by the City codes.
Comm. Peirce stressed that it is the responsibility of the property owner to uphold the
conditions of the CUP, even if those same requirements are addressed in the zoning code.
Mr. Lee explained that most lease agreements have a covenant requiring tenants to abide by all
applicable laws; in the event a tenant is in violation of the zoning ordinance while under the
conditions of the CUP, the property owner would be cited, and would have recourse against his
own tenants under the lease agreement. He stated that even though zoning ordinance
requirements must be met, conditions mandating compliance are included in CUPs.
Scott Alden, 646 6th Street, Hermosa Beach: (1) was pleased to see the progress being made at
this site; (2) noted concern over the amount of antifreeze on the street emanating from this
property; (3) noted there are a number of Alpha Romeo cars being stored at this site, and he
questioned whether work is actually being done on all of those cars; (4) noted concern over the
constant flow of liquid emanating from this site which constantly runs down 6th Street, and
he felt it should be stopped; (5) did not feel there should be parking or working along 6th Street,
especially since there are no sidewalks, and parking there presents dangers to pedestrians who
must walk in the middle of the street; (6) felt that there should be a red zone along 6th Street
where cars are now parking; (7) agreed that the property owner is making an attempt to comply,
but there appear to be other continuing violations.
Mr. Tootoonchi, owner of Pacific Auto Cleaning, 505/501 Pacific Coast Highway, addressed the
Commission: (1) stated that there is confusion as to what constitutes "working outside the
shop"; (2) explained that his business, as many others, requires a certain amount of work to be
done outdoors, such as checking out a problem when a customer brings in an auto for repair
and when an estimate is being prepared; (3) explained that actually "working on a car" means
4 P.C. Minutes 11/21/89
that a car is being worked on for more than just a few minutes; (4) requested that this matter be
clarified: (5) said that this matter should be addressed so that problems do not arise in the
future; (6) explained that opening the hoods of cars for estimates and viewing purposes is
common in this type of business.
Mr. Schubach referred to Condition No. 7: "Repair, service, maintenance, and washing of
vehicles shall be conducted within the building, and all outdoor work activities shall be
prohibited." He stated that staff would have no objection to flexibility in this condition, noting
that the condition is intended to be reasonable. He suggested additional wording to the
condition: "Minor examination and adjustment excluded." He stated that it is obvious to an
enforcement officer whether a brief inspection is occurring or whether major work is being
performed. He noted that there is a difference between someone viewing under the hood and
someone covered in grease with wrench in hand working on a car. He stated that enforcement
is usually performed by the code enforcement officer as opposed to a police officer.
Chmn. Rue felt that this is still an ambiguous issue. He noted that sometimes it is necessary to
remove air filters in order to find out what the problem is.
Mr. Tootoonchi stated that removing an air cleaner takes only five or ten minutes. He stated
that working on a car involves putting a car on the jack or doing major work. He asked that the
Commission make an attempt to understand the nature of his business. He noted that he is
doing his best to comply.
Mr. Schubach felt that the differentiating factor between minor and major work is delineated
when tools are brought out and parts are removed, which would constitute major work.
Writing up estimates and making minor adjustments constitutes minor work. When major
work commences, the cars should be taken inside.
Comm. Moore felt that there is no way around this issue, and he stated that a substantial
amount of judgment will need to be exercised in this matter. He said it should be stressed that
the City is pro-business, not anti-business, so long as businesses do not interfere with or
damage the surrounding neighbors. He noted that this is an auto repair shop and it cannot be
expected to operate as though it were a fine restaurant. He expected that the City would
appreciate the difference between opening a hood for inspection and the performance of major
work. He felt that the code enforcement officer would be reasonable. He noted that the City
wants to establish itself as one that wants to help businesses succeed, rather than acting
merely as an enforcement agency.
Mr. Tootoonchi explained instances where people bring in their cars with complaints, and it is
necessary only to check under the hood and maybe make a minor adjustment to repair the
problem. He stated that such circumstances would not present any problems.
Kenny Bornstein, 501 1 /2 Pacific Coast Highway, Hermosa Beach: (1) stated that he previously
addressed the Commission regarding his dealer's license and he explained that after talking to
someone in the Planning Department, it had been confirmed that he did receive the license
from the City; (2) stated that he does not have very many cars for sale at any one time, and he
will now attempt to sell cars without having them outside: (3) stated that if he does decide to
maintain cars for sale, he will return to the City at a future date; (4) asked whether it is
necessary for him to take any further action at this time.
Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Cbmn. Rue, stated that Mr. Bornstein would be
allowed to have cars for sale as long as he meets the parking requirements, and that issue could
be addressed further if he does intend to keep cars for sale at that site.
Mr. Bornstein continued: (1) noted concern over his competitive edge, in that this
establishment is being required to comply with conditions that are not imposed on other
similar businesses in the City; (2) stated that if the City imposes conditions on this property,
other similar businesses should have the same conditions.
5 P.C. Minutes 11/21/89
Mr. Schubach noted that other automotive uses will be addressed in the near future; therefore,
this business is not being singled out.
Mr. Bornstein continued by discussing the issue of washing cars on site: ( 1) stated that this is a
common practice in the automotive business; (2) stated that the landlord will be taking
measures to prevent the water from going onto Pacific Coast Highway: (3) stated that only
biodegradable materials are used when cars are washed.
Chmn. Rue stated that the intent of this condition is to prevent water from going over the
sidewalk.
Mr. Schubach noted, however, that no work is supposed to be done outdoors; therefore, washing
cars outside is not a permitted use.
Chmn. Rue questioned whether the washing of cars could be permitted if a special area is
designated for such activity.
Mr. Schubach stated that it would be necessary for the applicant to return with such a request
and discuss the issue with staff.
Mr. Bornstein stated that all other car lots on P.C.H. wash cars. Comm. Ingell concurred and
stated that it is not possible to move cars to another location to wash them.
Mr. Bornstein stated that he is not in the car wash business; however, if a client's car becomes
dirty while being repaired, it is desirable to return it to him in a clean condition.
Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Comm. Peirce regarding where car wash
drainage goes, stated that many times the water is recycled through the system. Otherwise, it
goes into the sewer system.
Comm. Peirce felt that washing cars outside in automobile-related businesses is not a major
issue, so long as the water is draining properly. He did not feel washing cars constitutes
"working outside."
Mr. Schubach concurred and stated that proper drainage is required.
Mr. Bornstein noted that other local car lots do not provide the proper drainage for car
washing.
Public Hearing closed at 7:55 P.M. byChmn. Rue.
Chmn. Rue noted concern over liquids, waste, and antifreeze running off and going into the
storm drains. He noted that it has been said that these materials are collected into containers,
removed, and then recycled or treated for future use. He said that he would like to see this
requirement specified in the conditional use permit.
Chmn. Rue also noted concern, not over the actual washing of cars, but rather over the spillage
onto the sidewalks. He wanted to ensure that the water is disposed of properly. He stated that
certain soaps and cleaners could pose problems if not disposed of properly, noting that they
could eventually end up in the storm drains and finally into the ocean if proper precautions are
not taken.
Chmn. Rue approved of the proposed sign changes, noting that they will be an improvement.
He suggested, however, that the timing be specified in the conditional use permit so that there is
no miscommunication on anyone's part.
6 P.C. Minutes 11/21/89
Comm. Ketz agreed that it is nice to see the businesses ma)cjng an attempt to comply and to
improve the property. She noted that these efforts will not only improve the businesses, but
also they will improve the City.
Comm. Ketz stated that she had no opposition to the staff-proposed changes to the resolution.
Comm. Ketz noted concern over possible run-off, stating that there should be a provision in the
conditional use permit addressing this issue.
Comm. Peirce stated that he has no opposition to the time phasing for the improvements,
explaining that he understands improvements take time and money. He felt that progress is
being made; however, he questioned whether it would be appropriate to have a six-month
review, as opposed to one year, in order to ensure that improvements which were supposed to be
done in six months are actually completed on schedule.
Comm. Ingell agreed that run-off on 6th Street and Pacific Coast Highway is a concern which
should be addressed. He felt that there should be a condition requiring that any materials used
in washing cars should be biodegradable.
Comm. Ingell, noting that he once was in the auto business, stated that it is inevitable that
some work will take place outdoors when estimates are given and minor adjustments are
made. He felt that if the work can be kept to ten or fifteen minutes, no tires are removed, and
the auto is not jacked up, that such a situation would be pennissible. He noted, however, that
no engine dismantling should be allowed. He felt that there needs to be flexibility in this
matter.
Comm. Moore favored approving staff's recommendation. He felt that the one-year review
period is adequate. He agreed that run-off is a concern and is an issue which needs to be
addressed.
MOTION by Comm. Moore, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve staff's recommendation,
Resolution P.C. 89-83, (including the staff-proposed changes dated November 20, 1989), and to
specify that the review period shall be one year.
AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION by Comm. Peirce to modify Condition No. 11 to read: "Repair,
service, and maintenance of vehicles shall be conducted within the buildings, and all outdoor
work activities shall be prohibited, except for inspections, examinations, and minor
mechanical adjustments which shall not exceed a total overall time of ten to fifteen minutes."
AMENDMENT ACCEPTED by Comms. Moore and Ketz, as maker and second.
Comm. Peirce felt that a condition should be included addressing the issue of run-off.
Comm. Moore questioned whether such inclusion would be advisable at this time, and he asked
whether the City has conducted any studies related to the issue.
Mr. Schubach stated that it would be necessary for staff to study the run-off issue before
making a recommendation.
Chmn. Rue, noting that the Commission was previously informed that oil and antifreeze run
off waste was being disposed of through a recycling company, questioned whether that is still
being done.
Public Hearing reopened at 8:04 P.M. by Chmn. Rue.
Mr. Wilson addressed the Commission and explained that on the P.C.H. side of the property,
there is very little activity in the area where the cars are directly abutting the sidewalk.
Therefore, the cars on the highway are not being worked on. He stated that he has never seen a
7 P.C. Minutes 11/21/89
case where liquid is going across the sidewalk or at the curb at that location, due to the
inactivity taking place there.
Mr. Wilson stated that the 55-gallon dnrms containing waste materials are stored at the rear of
the lot, and they are removed from that location by the disposal company.
Mr. Wilson discussed drainage problems occurring on 6th Street and concurred that that is a
difficult area because there is a grade.
Chmn. Rue stated that the Commissions' main concern is waste materials, rather than plain
water.
Public Hearing closed at 8:08 P.M. by Chmn. Rue.
AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION by Mr. Schubach, who referred to the proposed resolution and
noted that Condition No. 27 is misnumbered and should be No. 28, suggested a Condition No. 29
regarding disposal of waste: "Drainage of waste shall be to the sewer system or disposed of
according to local, State and Federal laws."
Mr. Wilson stated that he was not certain whether such containment is possible for the shop
facing 6th Street, noting that he is not certain whether there is a sewer line there. He is not even
certain where the materials are emanating from or what they are. He stated that as far as the
shop is concerned, no massive amounts of water ever emanate from that location. He did agree
that liquids go down 6th Street, but he knows of no way to containing them.
Chmn. Rue could see no problem with the inclusion of the staff-proposed condition, stating
that if there is liquid going down 6th Street, the tenant, by virtue of the lease agreement, will
ultimately be responsible.
Mr. Schubach pointed out that proper drainage is a requirement, not only of the conditional
use permit, but also of the zoning code.
AMENDMENT ACCEPTED by Comms. Moore and Ketz, as maker and second.
AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION by Chmn. Rue: Condition No. 2(a) to read: "The chain link
fence located along the northerly property line adjacent to the rear parking area shall be
improved and maintained with vinyl or aluminum slats painted .... " Condition No. 7 shall
contain wording specifying the time limits proposed by the applicant for completion of the
proposed signage.
AMENDMENT ACCEPTED by Comms. Moore and Ketz, as maker and second.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Ingell, Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Chmn. Rue.
None
None
None
Recess taken from 8: 17 P.M. until 8:20 P.M.
CONDmONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #21688 FOR A THREE
UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 1460 LOMA DRIVE
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated November 13, 1989. Staff recommended that the
Planning Commission approve the condominium and vesting tentative parcel map, subject to
conditions specified in the proposed resolution.
8 P.C. Minutes 11/21/89
This project is located in the R-3 zone, with a general plan designation of high density
residential. The lot size is 4,000 square feet, or 40 by 100 feet. The current use is single-family
residential. The environmental determination is categorically exempt.
The applicant is proposing to construct a three-unit attached condominium on a rectangular
lot located at 1460 Loma Drive. Each proposed unit is the same, containing approximately
1750 square feet, two bedrooms, a mezvmine, and two and a half baths. The proposed structure
will have two stories and a mezvmine level above a semi-subterranean garage.
This project appears to be identical to the finished project on the adjacent lot to the south (1452
Loma Drive, approved January of 1988). Proposed architectural features that are noted include
a stucco exterior, glass block, an exposed chimney, and asphalt shingled roof. The
combination of shapes and features give the building a contemporary nautical appearance.
The project meets the minimum parking requirements; six parking spaces are enclosed in
three tandem garages, and two guest parking spaces are available inside the subterranean
structure. No public on-street parking spaces would be lost as a result of the curb cut along
Loma Drive since no parking is permitted along this portion of the street. The project would
provide a sidewalk and curbing and would make one on-street parking space available.
Staff calculates that the lot coverage on the plans is 67 .2 percent, which exceeds the maximum
allowed of 65 percent. Apparently the architect failed to include the raised planters located
along the north side of the building in his calculations. A condition of approval will require a
reduction in lot coverage.
The plans conform to all other minimum planning and zoning requirements, except that the
amount of enclosed storage space is provided on second-floor and mezzanine-level decks, and
an enclosed location for the trash dumpster is provided.
Staffs only concern regarding this proposal is that its appearance would be identical to the
project to the south. To distinguish this project from the one to the south, staff is
recoIDIIlending a condition that a modification to the west elevation be made at the discretion
of the applicant, subject to approval of the Planning Director, to provide a slightly different
facade and that the building be painted a different color.
The subject property is located in an area of the city undergoing a rapid transition from single
family homes and apartments to large multiple-unit condominiums, many just recently
completed. Therefore, this type of project is compatible with surrounding development.
Chmn. Rue asked whether raised planters are considered as part of the building.
Mr. Schubach replied in the affirmative, explaining that they are subject to certain height
requirements, and they are calculated into the lot coverage calculations.
Public Hearing opened at 8:26 P.M. by Chmn. Rue.
Gerry Compton, 200 Pier Avenue, project architect: (1) explained that this project is a mirror
image of the project located next door to the proposed project; (2) stated that the project next
door received an award for design; (3) noted that he originally had considered changing the
facade of the current proposal; (4) continued by discussing the massing of the proposal and
stated that this project design was based on the size of the site; (5) stated that the parking
arrangement is totally dictated by the site itself; (6) explained that a central court is being
proposed and that the auto access will be opposite the court on both sides; (7) said there are
other multiple-dwelling units on this street, and they fit in with the currently evolving
neighborhood.
Mr. Compton continued: (1) stated that he felt by retaining the same design and color, this
building would be complementary to the project next door and would give the appearance of
9 P.C. Minutes 11/21/89
"'
being one single project. therefore being less obtrusive to the area; (2) stated that he favors the
project as it is proposed; (3) felt that two projects together will look better than one project
alone because they will give each other balance; (4) discussed the raised planter boxes and
asked what the height requirement is.
Mr. Schubach stated that he would have to look up the exact height; however, he noted that
there is a provision in the code related to raised planter boxes.
Mr. Compton went on: (1) stated that the lot coverage in its present configuration has already
been approved by the Building Department, and he was surprised to see that staff had concerns
over this issue; (2) stated that the planters at the building next door are identical to the ones
being proposed. and that project was approved: (3) explained that the planters are in an open
space area; (4) stated that with other projects he has done, the interpretation has always been
the same. and if a change has been made he would like to know about it; (5) stated that. if
necessary, six inches can be removed from the planters.
Mr. Compton, in response, to a comment from Chmn. Rue regarding lowering the height of the
planters if necessary, stated that it may or may not be possible because of the placement of the
stairway in that area He continued by discussing the locations of the proposed planters.
Mr. Schubach stated that staff can work with the applicant on the issue of the raised planters
in order to avoid any problems related to the loss of landscaping.
Mr. Compton explained the current trend of using plant shelves with drip watering
systems.which allow people to easily replace small plants that die. Using large plants in
planter boxes only creates maintenance problems in the long run.
Mr. Compton discussed changing the west facade; however, he felt that a change would be more
obtrusive than having the buildings look the same for the sake of unity.
Charles Avvampato, representing the homeowner's association at 1452 Loma Drive, which is
the building that is the exact duplicate of the current proposal: (1) stated that one of the main
reasons they purchased their units was because they were so unique, especially with the large
windows; (2) noted concern that the new building will intrude on their privacy at the top level;
(3) stated that their front doors face the north side, and since the current proposal's planter will
face their doors, it could intrude on their privacy; (4) questioned whether the entire building
will be identical to their building but constructed with inferior materials, noting concern over
their property value being lowered; (5) noted concern that the uniqueness of their building will
be diminished by construction of the new project.
Mr. Compton: (1) stated that the specifications call for materials of a similar type to be used for
the new project, explaining that the materials are dictated by the construction documents; (2)
reiterated that the project next door was very successful and sold very quickly because of its
unique floor plan; (3) stated that judgment must be used when drawing the line on how many
units of the same design are too many; (4) stated that the two projects will look unified.
Mr. Compton, in response to a question from Chmn. Rue, explained that his contract specifies
he is the owner of all architectural plans he designs. Unless other arrangements are agreed
upon, he is free to use the plans as he sees fit.
Comm. Moore asked whether the neighbors have been consulted in order to discuss the
proposed planters and walkway.
Mr. Compton stated that it is not within his purview to ask that the neighbors' fence be moved
or relocated. He noted, however, that he would be willing to meet with the neighbors to work
out any potential problems. He continued by explaining how he designed the proposed
walkway and planter area.
10 P.C. Minutes 11/21/89
Public Hearing closed at 8:41 P .M. by Chmn. Rue.
MOTION by Comm. Moore, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to approve Resolution P.C. 89-85, as
written.
Comm. Moore noted that many popular designs are proliferating for two-and three-unit
developments in the area. He felt that in some instances, such as this one, mirror images are
an enhancement. He did note, however, that this project is another typical use of maxing out a
project. He felt, however, that the impacts have been minimized in this case.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Ingell, Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Chmn. Rue.
None
None
None
Chmn. Rue noted that the decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed by writing to
the City Council within ten days.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #21575 FOR A THREE
UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 641 6TH STREET
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated November 15, 1989. Staff recommended that the
Planning Commission approve this conditional use permit and vesting tentative parcel map
for a three-unit condominium. subject to the conditions specified in the proposed resolution.
The subject property is a rectangular-shaped parcel of 0. 15 acres, with a slight slope, located on
the north side of 6th Street, approximately 165 feet east of Ardmore Avenue. This parcel
consists of one and a half lots, as it has been mentioned in the legal description, and it
currently contains two single-family homes and four large trees.
The proposed project is located in the R-2 zone, with a general plan designation of medium
density residential. The lot size is 6487 square feet. The density is 20.14 units per acre. There
are eight parking spaces provided. Open space for each unit is 1100, 650, and 520 square feet
respectively. The current use is two single-family dwellings. The environmental
determination is categorically exempt.
The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to construct a three-unit attached
condominium. Also, pursuant to Section 1 of Ordinance 89-1002, the applicant is requesting
Planning Commission approval to allow more than two units per lot in the R-2 zone.
Each of the units contains 2389 square feet in area and includes three bedrooms, two decks,
three bathrooms, and a :fireplace in the master suite on two stories above the subterranean
garage level.
The proposed building elevations will exhibit exterior treatments that consist of tile roofing,
stucco , muntin bar doors and windows, and stucco and clay tile cap fireplaces. These materials
and features give the building a Mediterranean-style appearance.
The minimum front yard setback requirement for condominium projects is five feet. Three
projects that have recently been approved on 6th Street, across the street from this project,
were required to provide a 10-foot setback, and the applicant is proposing a IO-foot setback.
The number of parking spaces proposed on the plans meets the minimum parking standards.
Six parking spaces and two guest parking spaces would be provided in the enclosed garages.
The proposed project shows a 24-foot turning area to meet the parking requirement standards.
No on-street parking spaces will be lost as a result of this project.
11 P.C. Minutes 11/21/89
Lot coverage calculates to be approximately 64.6 percent. which is slightly below the maximum
allowed of 65 percent. Private open space for each unit is provided on the ground floor, second
floor, and roof deck for a total of 1100, 650, and 520 square feet, which easily exceeds the 300
square feet required for each unit. Storage area is designated on the proposed plan only for one
unit without showing the amount. Providing storage area is required for all the units and must
be at least 200 cubic feet, with minimum rumensions of two and three feet.
The building height in an R-2 zone may not exceed 30 feet. The south elevation exhibit shows a
30-foot height. which is consistent with the City code. There are no dimensions shown on the
other elevations. but after talking to the Building Department, it was determined that all the
building elevations appear to be in compliance with the City's height limit.
Currently, there are four relatively large trees on the subject parcel. Three which are located in
the front and sideyard setback area are to be maintained. The fourth, which is an avocado tree
13 inches in diameter and over 20 years old, is currently planted 10 feet from the rear lot line
within the development area and is going to be relocated to the front yard. Staff believes that
the avocado tree will experience difficulties in surviving when it is moved to the new location.
Perhaps an alternative building design should be considered if the Planning Commission
wishes to ensure preservation of this tree.
In regard to the concern over the development of three units on one lot, the applicant also owns
the adjacent one and a half lots, for a total of three contiguous lots. Therefore, the zoning
ordinance would allow the construction of two units on each lot, for a total of six units without
being subject to the moratorium ordinance, No. 89-1002. The applicant, however, intends to
construct this building and another of three units each, which results in the same number of
units. The proposed density of 20.14 units per acre is well below the maximum of 25 required
by Section 1 of Ordinance No. 89-1002. Further. the applicant is proposing open space
exceeding that which is required. As such. staff believes that this lot is acceptable for three
units and would be consistent with the intent of Ordinance No. 89-1002.
Mr. Schubach and the Commission discussed the current configuration of lots as depicted on
the plans.
Mr. Schubach stated that Lot 18 and one half of Lot 19 constitutes one lot; Lot 20 and the other
half of Lot 19 comprises another lot. He stated that there are currently three legal lots, and the
lots have not been merged.
Mr. Lee stated that the assessor's map indicates three legal lots at this time. The applicant is
proposing a reparcelization in an attempt to eventually create two lots. At this time the parcel
map which has been submitted creates only one lot from one and a half legal lots. There is
therefore the potential for the creation of one substandard lot resulting from the remainder of
Lot 19.
Mr. Schubach stated that the applicant must voluntarily make an application to merge the
remaining one and a half lots He noted, however, that the other lots are not at issue in regard
to this project.
Comm. Ingell noted concern over the creation of an illegal lot.
Mr. Schubach explained what happened at this property many years ago prior to the
subdivision map act requirements. However, since this one applicant owns all of the parcels in
question. he is intending to merge the remainder of Lot 19 with Lot 20. He explained that the
lot split was grandfathered in previously.
Mr. Lee stated that he must presume the facts as presented by Mr. Schubach are correct. Since
the lot was presumably grandfathered in, this is a preexisting condition of a lot split which
occurred prior to the subdivision map act, and this may prevent the Commission from taking
12 P.C. Minutes 11/21/89
r'-any action now. However, he suggested if the applicant is present, he be asked whether he
would be amenable to merging the one half of Lot 19 with Lot 20 on a voluntary basis.
Public Hearing opened at 8:56 P.M. by Chmn. Rue.
Judy Pecci, 820 Manhattan Avenue, Manhattan Beach, representing the applicant, addressed
the Commission. She commented on the Commissions' concern over half of Lot 19 and Lot 20
and explained that the owner I applicant does intend to develop a three-unit project on those
lots also, and the drawings have been completed and will be submitted to the City sometime in
December. Therefore, the City can be assured that that is what will take place.
Ms. Pecci stated that this project is in conformance with the intent of the ordinance, in that
there is lower density and more open space than is required
Ms. Pecci commented on the staffs concern over the avocado tree which was proposed to be
relocated. That tree will now be replaced with a mature palm tree. She noted that Condition
No. 7 of the resolution requires that "All trees over six inches in diameter shall not be removed
unless it can be demonstrated that their removal is an unavoidable consequence of
development and that any trees will be replaced by comparable landscaping." She felt that
replacement of the avocado tree will meet the intent of the requirement.
Cbmn. Rue asked, if the owner intended to develop both properties, why didn't he attempt to
develop the parcels together in an attempt to provide additional open space.
Ms. Pecci explained that the applicant owned one and a half lots and one project was already in
the works when he purchased the additional one and a half lots; therefore, he did not want to
start over with all new plans.
Ms. Pecci, in response to a question from Comm. Ingell, stated that the owner will consent to
merging half of Lot 19 with Lot 20.
Mr. Schubach explained that a condition referring to this issue was not included at the time the
resolution was prepared because that parcel did not relate to this particular project. However,
if the applicant agrees to the merging, staff has no opposition to the inclusion of such a
condition.
Chmn. Rue stated that he would prefer to see the avocado tree replaced with a palm tree, rather
than relocating the avocado tree to an inappropriate location on the site.
Ed Johnson, Walnut, property owner, addressed the Commission and asked how to merge the
lots in question.
Mr. Schubach explained that a form is filled out to voluntarily merge the lots, and the form is
then filed with the County Recorder.
Public Hearing closed at 9:04 P.M. by Chmn. Rue.
MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve staff's recommendation,
Resolution P.C. 89-87, but with the addition of a condition requiring the owner to voluntarily
merge Lot 19 and one half of Lot 20.
Comm. Peirce felt that this project is an appropriate use of the site since there is actually a lot
and a half: however, on a lot any smaller, it would be inappropriate.
Chmn. Rue noted that the Commission had received a letter of opposition to this project from
Rosamond Fogg.
13 P.C. Minutes 11/21/89
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Cormns. Ingell, Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Chmn. Rue
None
None
None
Chmn. Rue stated that the decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed by writing to
the City Council within ten days.
CONDI'TIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #20342 FOR A THREE
UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 226 MANHATTAN AVENUE
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated November 13 , 1989. Staff recommended that the
Planning Commission approve the condominium and vesting tentative parcel map, subject to
the conditions specified in the proposed resolution.
This project is located in the R-3 zone with a general plan designation of high density
residential. The lot size is 4000 square feet. The density is 32. 7 units per acre . The current use
is as a single-family residence. The environmental determination is categorically exempt.
The applicant is proposing to construct a three-unit attached condominium on a rectangular
lot at 226 Manhattan Avenue. Each proposed unit has a different floor plan and the units
contain 1453, 2065 , and 2191 square feet. Unit 1 contains two bedrooms and two and a half
baths; Unit 2 contains two bedrooms, four baths, a ground-level recreation room and a
mezzanine; and Unit 3 contains two bedrooms, three baths, and a mezzanine. The proposed
structure would have two stories and a mezzanine level above a semi-detached subterranean
garage.
Proposed architectural features that are noted include a stucco exterior, glass block, and pipe
railings. The combination of shapes and features give the building a contemporary
appearance.
The project meets the minimum parking requirements: six parking spaces are enclosed in four
garages, and six guest spaces are available in the 17-foot setback area behind the garages . The
garage spaces fo r Unit 1 are split into two one-car garages with access off the alley and the
s treet . Two on-street parking spaces will be los t as a r esult of the curb cut on Manhat tan
Avenue. Although this plan is not ideal because of the loss of street parking or from a
standpoint of convenience for the residents of Unit 1, staff believes this option to be better than
the use of tandem garages, which is the only option available to access all parking from the
alley for a three-unit project on a lot this small.
Staff calculates that the lot coverage on the plans is 66. 7 percent, which exceeds the maximum
of 65 percent. Staff has included a condition requiring the applicant to revise the lot coverage
prior to the issuance of building permits.
Staff is also concerned about the inclusion of a bathroom with the recreation room in Unit 2
and its possible conversion to a rentable unit. As such, staff has included a condition that the
bathroom be e1iminated.
The proposed project provides the minim,rm front yard setback of five feet , which is consistent
with setbacks along this portion of Manhattan Avenue which actually average less than five
feet.
The plans conform to all other minimum planning and zoning requirements, except that the
specific locations and the amount of enclosed storage area is not clearly indicated. Mequate
private open space is provided on second-floor and mezzanine-level decks, and an enclosed
location for the trash dumpster is provided.
14 P.C. Minutes 11/21/89
The subject property is one of the few 4000 square-foot lots that are larger than most of the lots
in the surrounding area which are 2900 to 3000 square feet. It is located in an area of the city
undergoing a transition from apartments and beach cottages to larger multiple-unit
condominiums which are mostly two-unit projects and which have been recently completed.
This project is therefore compatible with surrounding development.
Public Hearing opened at 9: 10 P.M. by Chmn. Rue.
Stuart Kinzey, 226 Manhattan Avenue, applicant, addressed the Commission. He stated that
he purchased this property seven years ago, and it has a very small, old house on it,
approximately 600 square feet. He felt that the proposed project will add to the neighborhood.
He stated that he will live in one unit; his parents will live in one unit; and they will share the
third unit. He said that there are other multi-unit dwellings on this street, and this project will
be an enhancement to the neighborhood.
Gerry Compton, 200 Pier Avenue, project architect, addressed the Commission. He discussed
the uniqueness of this project, explaining that the applicant was interested in doing a different
type of project. He continued by stating that it will look nice from the street, and the project is
very low. Unit 2 steps back from the side, and Unit 3 is designed to look out over Unit 1 at the
ocean view.
Mr. Compton continued: (1) stated that this is a quality project, and he requested approval; (2)
stated that raised planters are proposed and, if necessary, he will work with staff on that issue;
(3) discussed the lot coverage and explained that he used a one-foot setback off the rear alley,
noting that larger frontyard setbacks were used in an effort to create more open space; (4) felt
that the project will be a real plus for the area.
Mr. Compton, in response to a comment from Chmn. Rue, explained the parking configuration,
noting that tandem parking is not being proposed at this time. He noted, however, that there
will be four parking spaces per unit plus the additional space for Unit 1. He said that there will
be a total of 13 parking spaces for the three units.
Mr. Compton, in response to a question from Chmn. Rue, discussed the proposed bathroom in
the recreation room of Unit 2. He stated that he was aware of the City's concerns; therefore,
only a half bath is being proposed in that location. He did not think that area could be
transformed into a bootleg unit since there is no direct access to the area.
Comm. Moore stated that when he first saw these plans, it was very difficult for him to
visualize the project, which makes decision making difficult. He questioned whether
architects are now using CAD systems to prepare 3D plans.
Mr. Compton stated that new computer software is becoming available, but it is very time
consuming to use. He stated that hand-drawn perspective views would be very expensive for
this particular project. He agreed that it is difficult to visualize the plans for this building. He
noted, however, that he will keep this in mind when working on future projects.
Mr. Kinzey stated that so many new projects are plain boxes, lacking any architectural detail.
Concurring that these plans are difficult to visualize, he noted, however, that this project will
be an enhancement to the neighborhood. He discussed the half bath in Unit 2, stating that he is
aware it cannot have its own access because of the bootleg potential. He stated that it is a
convenience to have the half bath in that particular location.
Public Hearing closed at 9:23 P .M. by Chmn. Rue.
Comm. Peirce stated that the half bath in this particular project differs from other cases
because it is buried deep within the building. Even though he feels it is wasted space, he had no
opposition to the half bath in the rec room of Unit 2.
15 P.C. Minutes 11/21/89
MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to approve staffs recommendation,
Resolution P.C. 89-86, with the amendment that Condition No. 6 (prohibiting the half bath in
Unit 2) be deleted.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Ingell, Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Chmn. Rue.
None
None
None
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE
DECLARATION FOR ADDITIONAL PARTS S'IORAGE FOR VASEK POLAK BMW AND SUBARU
DEALERSHIPS AT 2851 PACIFIC COAST filGHWAY (CONTINUED FROM MEETING OF
OCTOBER. 17, 1989}
VARIANCE FOR CAR STACKERS TO ENCROACH INTO THE SETBACK REgUIREMENT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 2901 PACIFIC COAST filGHWAY, VASEK
POLAK BMW DEALERSHIP {CQN11NUED FROM MEETING OF OCTOBER 17. 1989)
CONSIDERATION FOR 'l1IE REVOCATION OF THE EXISTING CONDmONAL USE PERMIT FOR
VASEK POLAK BMW DEALERSHIP AT 2901 PACIFIC COAST filGHWAY (CONTINUED FROM
MEETING OF OCTOBER 17. 1989)
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated November 16 , 1989. Due to the lack of information on the
originally submitted plans, submitted for the public hearing of October 17. 1989. the Vasek
Polak request was continued to the hearing of November 21. 1989. The purpose of this was to
give the applicant adequate time to provide enough information that had not been submitted.
During the last two weeks, the staff has been in contact with the architect who is assisting the
applicant on this case to remind him of the next public hearing date and to submit the revised
plans; deadlines have been set twice.
Late this afternoon, staff received written correspondence from the architect requesting
another two-week continuance so that he would have time to complete the modified site plan as
requested by staff.
The variance will not now be necessary, since they were able to verify the model dimensions
and modify the location of the car stackers to be outside the eight-foot required setback. At the
same time, the Fire Department's access requirements will be met.
Mr. Schubach stated that staff believes there has been adequate time for the applicant to show
good faith to submit the revised plans and to abate several violations which have occurred
during the past few months. At this point, staff is ready to take the next step of the Code
Enforcement Procedure. which would be to issue citations, if directed to do so by the
Commission.
Mr. Schubach recommended that this matter be continued to the next meeting of the Planning
Commission, December 5, 1989,
Mr. Lee suggested that the hearing be opened and continued so that people can give testimony at
this time.
Public Hearing opened at 9:29 P.M. by Chmn. Rue.
Jim Deutch, 707 30th Street, addressed the Commission: (1) stated that he is the newly elected
chairman of the concerned citizens group on 30th Street; (2) discussed various materials which
the Commission should have when this matter comes back at the meeting of December 5; (3)
stated that Vasek Polak was granted a CUP in 1986, and the citizens group has gone on record
16 P.C. Minutes 11/21/89
before both the Commission and Council to ask why the conditions in the CUP are not being
enforced; (4) stated that the CUP was actually issued in 1968, and compliance was supposed to
start in 1969; (5) noted concern that 20 years have gone by and there has not been compliance,
and Mr. Polak has been able to defer and delay continuances since that time; (6) stated that
citizens must comply, and he asked why this applicant has been allowed to continue for 20
years.
Mr. Deutch went on: (1) asked how there can be harmonious relations between this business
and the neighbors when there has been no attempt on the part of the applicant to comply; (2)
asked that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council that this CUP be revoked;
(3) noted concern that this matter is again being continued; (4) stated that if the revocation
issue is addressed, the other matters would become moot; (5) asked why the City has not
enforced the conditions; (6) stated that the residents do not want this business to vacate the
City, but they feel the conditions must be enforced.
Mr. Deutch noted concern over a number of issues: (1) noise; (2) parking, which should be off
street, but where employees are parking on 30th Street, thus eliminating parking for the
residents; (3) auto repair noise which is heard during the evening hours; (4) demo drivers going
up and down the street; (5) noted that 30 or 35 violations have occurred at this business; (6)
again recommended that revocation be recommended; (7) suggested that there be City
enforcement of the conditions.
Larry Bryant, 2960 La Carlita, addressed the Commission: (1) noted concern that the parking
of cars and trucks on the slope is causing erosion on surrounding property; (2) said he was told
that the erosion problem would be taken care of because of the extension of the fence along the
property line as shown in Exhibit B of the 1986 development agreement; (3) continued by
discussing the fact that Mr. Polak has asked for a deviation from that requirement in order to
save money; (4) felt that the erosion problem should be adequately addressed; (5) said that he
was told by the City to fix the fence himself if he didn't like it; (6 ) discussed the car stackers and
noted concern because they are mechanical, noisy, and would be visible from the neighbors'
property; (7) noted concern over the fire lane requirement in regard to the placement of the
stackers; (8) noted that semis are still unloading equipment on 30th Street; (9) stated that
employees are still parking offsite and have not been provided with on-site parking; (10) felt
that this matter should be resolved tonight, noting that this has been going on for 20 years; (11)
recommended revocation of the conditional use permit.
Chris Howell, 2966 La Carlita Place, addressed the Commission: (1) spoke against granting of
a variance for the car stackers, explaining that the tops of the cars will be visible over the top of
the retaining wall thereby creating noise; (2) preferred to have the stackers located closer to
Pacific Coast Highway and away from the residential area; (3) noted concern over delivery
trucks on 30th Street every morning; (4) stated that trucks on 30th actually block the entire
street; (5) felt that the City should not have to monitor delivery trucks on the street because that
condition should be complied with by the applicant; (6) stated that there is no employee or
customer parking on site for this business, and he felt that such parking should be required; (7)
stated that employee parking on his portion of 30th Street has decreased as a result of the
neighbor's complaints, but employees are now parking further down the street and walking
back up the street to the business; (8) said that many employees are now parking across the
street in Manhattan, but he noted that that is a restricted area during certain hours, and traffic
congestion is now being created in that area; (9) felt that there is a potential for those people to
again return to parking on 30th Street; (10) urged that on-site parking be addressed in the CUP;
(11) has not seen any customer parking on-site, explaining that most park on 30th Street; (12)
stated that test drives are continuing on 30th Street; (13) noted safety concerns for his street;
(14) asked that these issues be taken into account and addressed in the CUP.
Mike Pitton, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission: (1) noted concern that this issue has
been going on for 20 years and asked why the conditions are not being enforced; (2) noted
concern over the location of the car stackers; (3) stated that the conditions should be enforced ,
but for years they have been ignored; (4) asked whether the neighbors must move out in order to
17 P.C. Minutes 11/21/89
get satisfaction; (5) stated that no tickets have been issued for violations; (6) felt that the only
way to ensure compliance at this point is to revoke Vasek Polak's conditional use permit; (7)
felt that another extension would be inappropriate; (8) stated that the citizens have had
enough.
Arlene Howell, 2966 La Carlita Place, addressed the Commission: (1) stated she has been
compiling materials related to this issue for 20 years; (2) acknowledged staffs help related to
this matter; (3) stated that another continuance would be inappropriate; (4) discussed the hours
of operation and stated that the current hours of 7:00 AM. until 9:00 P.M. are excessive; (5) felt
that 8:00 AM. until 8:00 P.M. would be much more reasonable; (6) stated that the hours of
operation should be inclusive; (7) felt that service operation should be no longer than half days
on Saturday, noting that even construction work cannot be done during early morning hours;
(8) discussed car alarm testing and suggested that it be allowed only indoors; (9) stated there
should be no outdoor speaker systems or amplified paging of employees; (10) stated that
approving a variance for the car stackers would not be fair to the residents on the western
boundary.
Jim Lissner, 2715 El Oeste, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and stated that the
alley mooing southward behind the BMW dealership is a swamp, and he questioned what types
of chemicals are being used in that area.
Gerry Compton, 200 Pier Avenue, Hermosa Beach, project architect, addressed the
Commission: (1) explained that a continuance was requested due to his schedule, rather than
at the request of the applicant; (2) stated that he has only recently become involved in the
matter and retained by Mr. Polak; (3) said that the applicant would like to resolve these
problems, noting, however, that this is a heavy usage business located on the highway; (4)
agreed that the conditions should be complied to; (5 l felt that some of the conditions need to be
modified; (6) stated that most of the conditions have been addressed by the applicant, and
efforts have been made to come to an agreement on compliance; (7) hoped that his involvement
will speed up the process so that this issue can finally be resolved; (8) stated that he will be
meeting with the residents to discuss the concerns and problems, which he will then discuss
with Mr. Polak; (9) stated that a revised condition should clarify the parking issue at this site;
(10) noted concern that trucks are still unloading on 30th Street, stating that the applicant
would be very upset to hear this news; (11) stated that appropriate signage should be required to
make it clear of the proper location for loading and unloading; (12) stated that he will do
whatever he can to resolve these problems, and he will be available to discuss the matter with
the citizens.
Public Hearing continued at 10:04 P.M. to the meeting of December 5, 1989, by Chmn. Rue.
Chmn. Rue noted that the Commission had received only three pages of information related to
this issue. He therefore questioned what action the Commission can take at this time, other
than to require enforcement.
Comm. Ingell asked whether it would be appropriate to begin issuing citations while this
matter is still pending.
Mr. Schubach stated that revocation would accomplish nothing at this time and would not be a
realistic solution. He therefore felt it would be appropriate to begin code enforcement.
Comm. Moore stated that it is important to begin code enforcement immediately. He noted
concern that the applicant merely presumed this matter would be continued as requested, with
no action taken at this time, and that a representative with no real authority was sent to
address the Commission. He felt no sympathy for this business, and he suggested taking the
strongest action possible at this time. He noted, however, that he is not in favor of revoking the
conditional use permit at this time, explaining that such an action would not be practical. He
favored strict code enforcement and the issuance of citations, feeling that would be the most
effective action.
18 P.C. Minutes 11/21/89
Comm. Ketz expressed disappointment that the applicant did not return with the plans as they
had previously stated they would, especially since this matter had been continued to a date
certain. She felt that enforcement and the issuance of citations would get the attention of the
applicant.
Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Cbmn. Rue, stated that he is not certain of the
exact violations at this time, and additional study of the conditional use permit is necessary.
He suggested that the matter be continued to the meeting of December 5, and that code
enforcement begin immediately.
Comm. Peirce stated that the applicant must be made aware of the fact that the Commission of
tired of waiting to make a decision on this matter.
MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to continue this matter to the meeting of
December 5, 1989, and in the meantime to begin enforcement of all applicable codes.
Cbmn. Rue noted that Vasek Polak is an important asset to the City because of the amount of
sales tax revenue the business brings into the City; however, he noted concern that nothing will
happen at the next meeting if the applicant intends merely to send in a representative on his
behalf.
Gerry Compton, representing the applicant, stated that Mr. Polak was not present at the
meeting because he was informed by Mr. Compton that a continuance was being requested, and
Mr. Compton was not aware there would be so much public testimony on this matter. He
discussed the issue of citations, and stated that the only thing which could possibly be cited at
this time is the car stacker on the used BMW lot. He stated that he is currently in the process of
detennining the date those stackers were placed there. He said it is possible that the stackers
were legally placed there; therefore, he suggested that the matter be resolved before a citation is
issued. He stated that the question remains of whether the stacker is a structure or not, noting
that this is a gray area.
Mike Pitton agreed that revocation is not a viable solution; however, he pointed out that
citations can be issued.
Comm. Ingell stated that the applicant has been making an attempt to negotiate the issue in a
positive manner; therefore, he did not feel it would be appropriate to begin issuing citations
while this matter is pending. He felt that any proposal to relocate stackers would not be
appropriate at this time.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Chmn. Rue
Comm. Ingell
None
None
Chmn. Rue suggested that this matter be placed at the beginning of the agenda when it comes
back at the next meeting.
Comm. Ingell felt that this issue should be renoticed before the next hearing.
Chmn. Rue directed staff to renotice this issue before the next meeting.
Recess taken from 10: 16 P.M. until 10:24 P.M.
19 P.C. Minutes 11/21/89
DRAFT CIRCULATION. TRANSPORTATION, AND PARKING ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL
PLAN CCON'I1NUED FROM MEETING OF OCTOBER 3. 1989)
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated November 15, 1989. Staff recommended that the
Planning Commission approve a resolution recommending approval of the circulation
element with all the explanations, changes, modifications, and/ or additions as determined
necessary in regard to the memorandums and public correspondence, and any additional
changes deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission.
At the meeting of October 3, 1989, the Planning Commission accepted input concerning the
revised element and continued the matter to the meeting of November 21, 1989.
The consultant has now had time to examine the input from the previous public hearing and
will be able to address the issues noted in the memos, correspondence, and Planning
Commission minutes of October 3.
Once the consultant makes his presentation, the Planning Commission should provide their
input and render a decision. The input from the Planning Commission may be of such a nature
that additional data or changes are needed prior to recommending approval; however, staff
believes that in most instances, any additional input or changes can simply be noted in the
Planning Commission's recommendation to the City Council.
No resolution has been provided at this time, since the resolution should identify all changes,
additions, deletions, modifications, et cetera, which the Planning Commission deems
necessary.
Michael Meyer, 411 West 5th Street. Los Angeles, DKS Associates, addressed the Commission.
He summarized the points made in his letter dated November 13, 1989, to Mr. Schubach which
relate to the two main issues addressed at the Planning Commission meeting of November 3,
1989. The issues are: (1) Is an engineering and traffic survey required in order to issue valid
traffic citations on a local street for speeds above the prima facie 25 MPH speed limit? (2) Can
Gould Avenue be reclassified as a local street, thereby enabling the City to lower the speed limit
and write traffic tickets for speeds which currently cannot be enforced?
Mr. Meyer responded to Issue No. 1. State law, per the Vehicle Code and California Department
of Transportation Traffic Regulations. previously found no difference between applying
engineering surveys on arterial, collector , or local streets. He concurred with the City Traffic
Engineer's statement that the law has now been amended to specifically exclude local streets
from the speed trap law (California Vehicle Code, Section 40802 and Caltrans Traffic Manual
Section, 8-03). Based on current guidelines, it appears that a 25 MPH speed limit could be
enforced with radar without a standard engineering and traffic survey.
Mr. Meyer responded to Issue No. 2 regarding the reclassification of Gould Avenue from a
collector to a local street. He stated that the redesignation of Gould Avenue to a local street
would not accomplish the desires of the residents to reduce the speed limit to 25 MPH. He stated
that lowering the speed would require a significant amount of police enforcement. He stated
that, based on the number of cars traveling on Gould, its width, and the fact that it provides a
route between PCH and Ardmore, it is actually a collector street rather than a local street. He
felt, therefore, that its designation as a collector street should be retained.
Mr. Meyer stated that several concerns were made regarding the removal of one parking lane
on Pacific Coast Highway during peak evening hours. He noted that a detailed response to that
issue has been provided in the appendix. He stated that the recommendation is to implement a
peak hour parking prohibition to provide a third southbound travel lane.
Mr. Meyer discussed the issue of a parking structure downtown. He stated that the element
contains an objective which discusses pursuing development of a parking structure in the civic
20 P.C. Minutes 11/21/89
center area. He stated that, if the Commission so desires, language can be added specifying that
the location should be downtown in the civic center area.
Mr. Meyer noted that the Commissioners were opposed to additional traffic signals; therefore,
no recommendation has been made to install more. He suggested that staff monitor the
situation in town to determine when more signals would become necessary as traffic volumes
increase.
Mr. Meyer discussed one-way streets, noting that Comm. Peirce had expressed opposition to
one-way streets. He stated that Page 40 of the Circulation Element addresses the 2nd and 8th
Street couplet, and since those streets are rather far apart, no recommendation has been made
to redesignate those streets as one-way.
Mr. Meyer commented on new street construction, noting that Comm. Peirce had expressed his
opposition. Mr. Meyer stated that the City Council advised, in a working session, that they did
not favor additional streets or street widenings which could not be accommodated within the
existing right-of-way. Some consideration was given to an additional crossing near Pier
Avenue; however, other crossings were not deemed necessary across the railroad tracks.
Mr. Meyer continued by noting that the Circulation Element proposes a long-term
recommendation that the City consider the southern end of Ardmore be widened into a two
way street in order to address potential accident problems.
Mr. Meyer stated that a safety analysis for Pacific Coast Highway has been included in the
appendix.
Mr. Meyer said that comments were made by the City Manager regarding bicycles and future
need for bicycle grade separations.
Mr. Meyer noted that the Director of General Services as well as the City Manager had
submitted written comments and suggested changes, which were taken into account in the
preparation of the document.
Mr. Meyer commented on several other changes which were recommended, and he noted that
they are merely clarifications and corrections of typos in tables and graphics. He stated that
these changes could be worked out with staff since they are not substantive modifications.
Mr. Meyer noted that the question had been raised as to why Monterey could not be designated
as a collector north of Pier Avenue. He stated that it is already designated as a collector, and
the recommendation is to retain it as it is currently.
Mr. Meyer stated that a memo was received from the Director of General Services suggesting an
update to the language for parking permits for purposes of clarification on prices and who can
purchase them. If so directed by the Commission, those changes can be incorporated into the
document. Descriptions of public parking lots can also be added.
Mr. Meyer commented on the memo from the City's traffic engineer which suggested several
changes. Most changes , however, were suggested clartfications to tables and graphics. If so
directed by the Commission, he can work with staff on implementing the changes to the
document. One topic includes Policy 4.0, in which it might be considered to provide service
Level C as the desired level of service as opposed to Level D as the acceptable level. He noted that
implications can be addressed further.
Mr. Meyer continued by commenting on other suggested changes in the memo and stated that
one which should be adopted and added to the circulation element is Manhattan Avenue north
of Pier be designated as a collector street, stating that future projections show traffic will
exceed the desired level for a local street. He noted that a redesignation would not involve any
21 P.C. Minutes 11/21/89
physical changes to the street itself, and the change would merely make its designation
consistent with the way it is actually being used.
Mr. Meyer stated that another suggestion was made to designate Ardmore as a collector street
all the way south to Herondo Street, noting that this would not preclude any further action if
the Council decides to extend Ardmore south to Herondo. An additional suggestion was made
to designate Valley and Monterey as one-way couplets. This suggestion was studied; however, it
was determined that this would provide more of an incentive to make this a desirable
north/ south route, which was not the direction given by the City Council. Toe desire is to keep,
as much as possible, through traffic on Pacific Coast Highway and not provide incentives to
divert traffic to other through routes. It would therefore be more appropriate to leave Valley
and Ardmore as two-way streets.
Comm. Peirce was pleased to hear the recommendation for removing the parking lane during
peak hours on Pacific Coast Highway. He noted, however, that right turns must be allowed
from the curb lane; otherwise, traffic will back up north of Herondo.
Mr. Meyer stated that whenever there is a transition and merging from three lanes into two,
there will be congestion, noting that that is seen in other locations. At the southern City
limits, however, much of the traffic turns onto Catalina, which is a natural termination point
for the southbound lanes. He therefore did not foresee a great problem.
Comm. Peirce noted that he favors a parking structure downtown. He asked what statistics can
be provided for showing the current parking, such as during the week, during the summer, and
during the evening. He asked whether there is information available showing how a parking
structure would alleviate the parking problems.
Mr. Meyer stated that the surveys done show that there is a definite parking shortage on
summer weekends close to the beach. In terms of absolute numbers of spaces, a detailed
parking demand study was not done, since that is a study in and of itself. He could therefore
not provide an exact number of how many parking spaces would be needed in a structure. He
stated that a previous study was utilized and some new data was collected; however, they did
not attempt to anive at an absolute number of spaces which would be necessary. He noted that
such a survey is not within the scope of a circulation element.
Comm. Peirce stated that lack of this specific information presents a problem. He stated that
there must be implementation policies.
Comm. Peirce discussed traffic lights and noted that the recommendation is for the staff to
continue monitoring those intersections which are heavily used. He asked whether it is
required to install an additional light if the traffic reaches a certain volume.
Mr. Meyer said that such installation is not mandatory when traffic reaches a warrant level; it
was merely recommended that those areas be monitored. He agreed that it is up to the City
whether to install signals on City streets and up to Caltrans to determine whether additional
signals should be installed on the highway.
Comm. Peirce commented on the bike paths and questioned whether the railroad right-of-way
is actually designated as a bike path, stating he does not think it is. He noted that Santa Fe has
in the past adamantly opposed any bikes in that area. He therefore favored prohibiting bikes
there and retaining the area for walkers and joggers
Gary Hamrick, DKS Associates, responded to comments on the parking issue. He stated that a
survey was done in October on a Saturday, which was not a peak period. Toe survey was broken
up into 17 areas of the City. Several downtown zones showed over 100 percent utilization of the
legal parking spaces. He continued by discussing the actual percentages contained on Page 65
of the report. He noted that this was an on-street survey, not one of the lots. He stated that one
22 P.C. Minutes 11/21/89
of the suggested implementation policies is to update the parking lot survey to include a more
specific and detailed evaluation.
Comm. Ingell commented on the prohibition of parking on southbound Pacific Coast Highway,
noting that safety concerns had been voiced during the last meeting. He asked whether
Manhattan Beach officials had been contacted to discuss this issue.
Mr. Hamrick said that material collected by Manhattan Beach has been studied; however, he
noted it is difficult to predict traffic accidents and safety problems. He said that such
forecasting is difficult to incorporate into a document such as this, especially because of
potential liability problems.
Comm. Ingell asked whether bu-sinesses on the highway were contacted to evaluate the impacts
which would be created for them if the parking is removed.
Mr. Meyer stated that Caltrans did a study which evaluated economic impacts; however,
separate contact with businesses was not done.
Comm. Ketz asked whether alternatives for using other streets were addressed if Gould were to
be redesignated as a local street.
Mr. Meyer explained that if Gould were redesignated, traffic would not necessarily have to be
diverted to other streets. Noting that it would be inconsistent to redesignate it as a local street,
however, he stated that it would be necessary to have a physical changes at the intersection of
Pacific Coast Highway. He said that the street could be narrowed in order to discourage people
from turning onto Gould. Short of undertaking physical changes, traffic would not be reduced
merely be redesignating it as a local street.
Mr. Meyer, in response to questions from Comm. Ketz, stated that some of the through traffic
entering the City from the north does tum onto Gould. If parking is indeed removed on the
highway during peak hours, some of the cars might be discouraged from turning onto Gould,
thereby reducing the traffic on that street somewhat. He stated that no specific analysis was
undertaken to determine what other streets people would use if they were not on Gould;
however, he noted there are not many alternatives.
Comm. Moore discussed parking impacts downtown, stating that he feels parking structures in
those lots would create problems. He noted that the business environment downtown must be
taken into consideration. He said that structures would be unattractive and lead to social
problems. He agreed that there are parking problems; however, he did not feel a parking
structure is the solution.
Comm. Moore stated that there is a location downtown which could support parking; however.
it probably was not considered because it is the old church site which is private property. He
stated that that site would be more oriented to helping businesses rather than just providing
additional beach parking.
Comm. Moore commented on the tie-in between parking and the killing off of businesses due to
the restrictive codes in the City. He stated that many businesses can do nothing because
sufficient parking cannot be provided. The proposed alternative has been to build a parking
structure; however, he said another alternative is to remove some of the very restrictive
parking requirements on downtown businesses. He said that parking has been based on square
footages: however, he noted that many more densely populated areas. such as New York City. do
not implement such restrictions. and they are very viable business areas. He wanted to make it
easy for businesses to succeed in this City. If more and more space is required for cars , then it
should be addressed in the parking element. He also noted that parking enforcement is not
addressed in the parking element. He favored doing away with nit-picking parking
enforcement.
23 P.C. Minutes 11/21/89
Mr. Meyer asked if Comm. Moore has specific policies he would like to see reworded as they
relate to this issue.
Comm. Moore stated that he would like to see enforcement be safety oriented, as opposed to
revenue oriented. He also wanted the downtown business parking requirements to be relaxed
or at least studied for consideration to be relaxed, as opposed to just building a parking
structure. He stated that a structure would provide parking for an entity that provides no
revenue; i.e., the beach.
Comm. Peirce noted concern over the reference on Page 33 to Prospect and Artesia which states
that this area needs improvement. He asked what improvements are recommended, noting
that he feels this area is in good shape.
Mr. Hamrick stated that even though there is no problem today at that intersection, the
recommendation was based upon future traffic projections and anticipated problems.
Comm. Peirce had a problem with addressing projected problems 20 years from now when past
and current problems cannot even be adequately addressed today. He noted that there are
currently traffic problems on Prospect.
Mr. Meyer stated that alternative routes have been proposed to accept the extra capacity;
however, he agreed there is no alternative route to accept all the traffic from Prospect. He said
that the only other way to reduce the traffic on Prospect is to reduce the traffic overall.
Cbmn. Rue commented on the issue of one-way streets and asked if one-way streets are
converted from two-way streets whether it is possible to increase parking by using both sides of
the street for parking. He also asked whether traffic would be slowed down, thus creating more
residential-type streets.
Mr. Meyer stated that residents usually perceive two-way streets converted to one-way streets
more as through-streets, thus creating more of a downtown-type environment. As far as
providing additional parking, the numbers actually gained are not significant enough to
justify the change. He could not give a specific number as to the amount of spaces which would
be gained by going to one-way.
Chmn. Rue stated that he would like to have more information on the amount of parking
which would actually be gained by converting from two-way to one-way streets.
Chmn. Rue commented on the suggestions made by Ed Rusak and asked what the effects to the
City would be of going from a Service Level C to a Service Level D.
Mr. Meyer stated that the difference is that at Service Level C the waiting period to go through
lights is shorter than that encountered at Service Level D, where people have to wait for more
than one cycle to go through the intersection. He stated that Level C is more in keeping with the
level of the City today, noting, however, that some cities implement both levels. He stated that
a policy could be implemented whereby all intersections would be Level C, except for Pacific
Coast Highway, which would be Level D. He did not feel that Service Level C could ever be
attained along the highway.
Public Hearing opened at 10:54 P.M. byChmn. Rue.
Emily Mager, 451 Gould Avenue, addressed the Commission: (1) said that increased traffic
brings increased noise; (2) said that she and her neighbors on Gould between Valley and
Morningside have been the victims of property damage caused by speeding autos on this street;
(3) favored reducing the speed on Gould Avenue to 25 MPH; (4) noted that the speed limit on
Prospect is 25 MPH, there are numerous stop signs, and traffic is very well controlled along
that street; (5) stated that government needs to be concerned for the welfare of the residents,
noting that so much is at stake here; (6) said that designating Gould as a collector is very unfair;
24 P.C. Minutes 11/21/89
(7) noted that Gould is very narrow near Valley Drive and there is only one side of parking,
which is parallel parking; (8) said that the proposed physical changes will not control the
number of cars already using that route; (9) said that speed control is necessary in this area,
noting that it is not feasible to reduce the number of cars using the street; (10) stressed that it is
time to reduce the speed, the noise, and the insanity; (11) suggested signage and rumble dots on
the street in an attempt to reduce speed; (12) requested that the City give these methods a try to
see if they work.
Jim Lissner, 2715 El Oeste, addressed the Commission: (1) stated that parking restrictions on
Pacific Coast Highway will force customers of P.J. Bretts to park on his street, and he hoped
that is taken into consideration before approval is given; (2) stated that two left-tum areas will
be blocked if parking is removed; (3) hoped that the two left turns will be added, as was
recommended ten years ago; (4) asked that Gould Avenue be redesignated as a local street in the
circulation element update; (5) showed a transparency on the overhead projector and discussed
the configuration of the streets and their various speed limits; (6) said that he is not suggesting
that traffic be diverted off of Gould, merely that the speed be reduced; (7) noted that there are
12 ,000 cars per day travelling on Gould, with more than 15 percent of them exceeding 43 miles
per hour: (8) commented on the concerns over safety in regard to the removal of the parking
lane during peak hours on Pacific Coast Highway, and he referred to Appendix A2 which
contains a letter stating there would be an increase in traffic collisions because of the number
of uncontrolled intersections where left-hand turns are allowed; (9) commented on diversion of
Artesia traffic and alternatives, stating that he wrote up a response to this explaining that
there is no alternate route, and he has received no comment from the City. which he had
requested by certified mail.
Steve MacNicholas, 2704 El Oeste, addressed the Commission: (1) said he is a police officer and
traffic investigator; (2) said there is an extensive problem on Gould due to the grade; (3) said
that the City would open itself to great liability by not redesignating it; (4) noted that he has
tried to enforce the speed limit, but explained that it is difficult since so many cars are
speeding; (5) stated that reducing the speed limit to 25 MPH is the answer to this problem; (6)
said that the only other alternative would be to completely cut off through traffic on Gould,
which would probably not be the best method; (7) noted that the problem is caused by outsiders,
not the residents of the street; (8) stated that many accidents have occurred on the street and
stressed that the speed must be reduced.
Lance Widman. 1015 4th Street, addressed the Commission: (1) commended the consultants
and Commission on their work; (2) felt that in any circulation element there is a need to have a
balance between those who Jive and work in the City; (3) commented on the green belt and usage
by bikes and stated that the use of bicycles i::; strictly prohibited along the right-of-way as
specified by the lease agreement; (4) stated that the opening of Ardmore to Herondo would be a
disaster and would create another Highway l; (5) discussed the removal of parking on PCH
during rush hour and stated that it was once done before in 1980; (6) said the during the rush
hour one can travel along the highway and find that very few businesses do not have adequate
off-street parking; (7) said that very few businesses will be adversely affected by the parking
removal, and he continued by discussing points he made in his September letter to the
Commission; (8) stated that there is a need to press forward and consider the potential benefits
of removing the parking lane during peak hours; (9) stated that traffic and congestion problems
will greatly decrease by the removal of parking on the west side of PCH during rush hour; (10)
discussed the various service levels; (11) said that the current traffic problem is a disaster in
the evening but noted that in the morning hours when no parking is allowed the problem is not
as severe; (12) stressed that much of the traffic entering the City is going through the City.
Gerry Compton. 200 Pier Avenue. addressed the Commission: ( 1) stated that he does not favor
removal of parking on the highway because there will be too many safety problems; (2) said
that the main issue is where the bottleneck begins and how will it be stopped; (3) did not feel
that traffic on Prospect will be affected too drastically by opening another traffic lane on the
highway; (4) agreed that the afternoon traffic seems to be worse on Prospect but commented
that it may be due to the fact of its accessibility; (5) said that it must be decided whether the City
25 P.C. Minutes 11/21/89
is going to cater to people just passing through or to cater to residents and business owners of
the City; (6) wanted to open up the corridor to Valley/ Ardmore for a test period to see how it
would work.
Public Hearing closed at 11:47 P.M. by Cbmn. Rue.
Cbmn. Rue stated that the Commissioners would go through the element section by section and
make their recomn1endations.
Comn1. Peirce directed attention to Page 32 related to signalized improvements on Pacific
Coast Highway. He stated that one of the reasons traffic moves faster up the highway in the
morning is that right turns can be made onto Aviation without stopping. People will not take
Prospect because they can travel faster on the highway. During the evening traffic is heavier
because there are shoppers and others out on the street. He favored the suggested parking
restriction on the highway during the peak evening hours.
Chmn. Rue read the recommendation aloud: "Implement a parking restriction program on
P.C.H. in the southbound direction during evening peak commuter hours and restripe
southbound roadway to provide three through lanes on P.C.H. throughout the City during the
P .M. peak period. Provide police enforcement adequate to discourage illegal parking and
maintain three through lanes southbound."
Comm. Ketz favored the recommendation, stating that it would improve traffic flow.
Comm. Peirce, responding to a comment from the audience regarding safety in Manhattan
Beach, stated that the chief problem is when people make illegal left-hand turns from the
highway during hours when such turns are strictly prohibited by sign.age. He noted that this is
an issue which can be fine tuned by staff and Caltrans , who holds the ultimate responsibility
for safety along the highway.
Comm. Peirce stated that this is the time to make broad recommendations to the Council,
noting that fine details can be addressed at a future date.
Chmn. Rue suggested, however, that such details can be included in the minutes at this time.
Comm. Peirce noted, then, that the recommendation would be to prohibit left turns from the
northbound lanes during the evening peak period. He noted that there are currently some such
prohibitions.
Comm. Peirce stated that he feels there are no problems on Prospect Avenue at this time. In
response to the consultant's recommendation to monitor that street, he did not feel there is
adequate staff to continually monitor these intersections. He therefore recommended that this
item be removed.
Comn1. Peirce stated that he is adamantly opposed to additional signals on small local
collector streets. Noting that they may speed up traffic through the intersections. they do
nothing for the local residents. He noted that many of the streets designated as collectors are
actually local streets which are actually acting as collectors since there is no other route to
take.
Mr. Schubach and the Commissioners discussed the recommendation to install a signal at
27th Street and Manhattan Avenue. Comm. Peirce could see no reason to take such action. He
opposed the recommendation to eliminate unsignalized intersections, noting that the City
lacks the proper staff to undertake such a proposition, would be very costly. If it becomes a
problem in the future, the issue can be addressed then. Chmn. Rue agreed with Comm. Peirce,
as did Comm. Ketz.
26 P.C. Minutes 11/21/89
Comm. Peirce noted that there is a problem with Ardmore, especially in the south end of town
where it is very narrow; however, he did not know what the solution is. He noted that when it
was previously opened, Herondo was in a different configuration without a median.
Chmn. Rue commented on Ardmore, stating that it is a dangerous street to travel on because it
becomes so narrow as one goes south, and there is parking on the east side of the street. If a
truck is coming, it is very hard to see, and he felt this issue needs to be addressed.
Comm. Peirce suggested a recommendation to study the Ardmore right-of-way and its possible
widening south of 2nd Street to Pier Avenue.
Chmn. Rue questioned whether new projects going in will affect the right-of-way, and he
suggested that 2nd Street to 1st Street be monitored in the future once the units are developed,
noting that there will be an increase in local traffic.
Chmn. Rue directed to Commissions' attention to Page 38, one-way streets. He stated that he
was interested in obtaining data regarding the potential number of parking spaces which could
be obtained by redesignating streets one-way west of Valley Drive in both the north and south
portions of the City. He noted that there could be parking on both sides of the street, with one
through lane for traffic.
Comm. Peirce opposed such a plan, explaining that there has been massive opposition from
citizens when this suggestion has been proposed in the past.
Comm. Ketz did not feel that creating one-way streets to obtain additional parking would be a
good idea.
Chmn. Rue stated that this recommendation died for lack of interest on the part of the
Commission. However, he felt it would be a good way to increase parking and to reduce speed.
Comm. Peirce noted concern over traffic on Prospect; however, he did not have the solution.
Chmn. Rue suggested that Prospect Avenue be studied further once the changes take place on the
highway during peak evening hours. If traffic is still bad on Prospect, alternatives can be
investigated.
Chmn. Rue noted that the recommendation for Prospect Avenue is to wait and see what the
outcome will be.
Chmn. Rue referred to Gould Avenue and stated that he did not oppose a redesignation to a local
street with a speed limit of 25 MPH. He noted, however, that enforcement will be of the utmost
importance if such a method is to succeed. He noted that there is a slope on Gould.
Comm. Moore noted that Gould Avenue is conducive to speeding, especially once people turn off
from the congested highway. He stated that it is a collector street, and it should be a safe
collector street. He therefore did not favor redesignating it as a local street, but he questioned
whether a 25 MPH speed limit could be imposed on a collector. He stated that the speed limit
could not be enforced by radar, at least not below the 85th percentile. He stressed that Gould is
a collector street. Because there is a tendency to speed in that area and its downhill slope
makes any speeding more dangerous, those are factors calling for a lower posted speed limit.
He suggested higher fines to discourage speeding.
Chmn. Rue noted that the consultant agrees that this is a collector street.
Comm. Moore noted that the main issue on Gould is one of speed enforcement, but he doubted
whether radar can be used on a collector street.
27 P.C. Minutes 11/21/89
Mr. Meyer explained that if Gould is redesignated as a local street, radar can be used to enforce
the 25 MPH speed limit, and the speed limit on a local street does not have to be set at the 85th
percentile. He noted that this has been a change in the traffic laws within the past few years.
He said that a 35 MPH speed limit on a collector street can be enforced by use of radar, since
this is relatively close to the 85th percentile speed. The speed limit on a collector street cannot
be set at 25 MPH because it varies too much from the 85th percentile.
Mr. Meyer, in response to a question from Chmn. Rue as to whether he feels setting a 25 MPH
limit on a collector street would work, stated that there would need to be a great deal of
enforcement; however, he noted that the volume would not change.
Comm. Peirce stated that an option could be to recommend to the Council that there needs to be
more enforcement on Gould. Comm. Moore, however, opposed such a recommendation, stating
that the police department has too many other things to do. He said that he could sympathize
with the residents on Gould; however, the police are already stretched to their limit with other
problems.
Comm. Ingell stated that he discussed Gould Avenue with the police chief, who stated that
accidents are not currently a major problem on that street. The chief said that there is not a
safety problem, and it would place a burden on his force to require additional monitoring and
enforcement in an area where a big problem is not perceived.
Comm. Ketz felt that Gould is a collector and should not be redesignated.
Comm. Peirce noted that Gould Avenue is already designated as a 35 MPH rone.
Chmn. Rue directed the Commissions' attention to the recommendations regarding
transportation, Page 52. Comm. Peirce stated that the information is good; however, it is
mostly policy related.
Comm. Ingell suggested that the next hearing be taken out of order, noting the late hour and the
fact that someone was waiting in the audience.
(Agenda Item No. 12 was heard at this point. See Page 30 of the minutes.)
Comm. Peirce noted that the recommendations contained on Pages 52 to 62 in the
transportation section are mostly policy related; however, he had no objection to what is
recommended. He noted that many of the suggestions have already been tried in the South Bay.
Comm. Moore discussed local services such as WAVE, and said they have been effective in a
small way. He stated that he would like to see the City become active with RTD. He noted that a
light rail system appears to be coming in, and he favored the City's support for a light rail
system into the area. He said that the City must direct someone to be the contact in this matter.
Comm. Peirce suggested that the recommendations on Pages 52 through 62 be left as is.
Chmn. Rue directed the Commissions' attention to Page 58 and the issue of bicycle route
recommendations.
Comm. Peirce stated that the City has already done a great deal in regard to bike routes.
Chmn. Rue suggested making the recommendation to create a separate lane on the Strand for
bike traffic.
Comm. Peirce stated that such a plan will never work. Chmn. Rue countered, and stated that
some realistic action should then be taken for bike use on the Strand. He noted another
recommendation regarding bike travel through the right-of-way.
28 P.C. Minutes 11/21/89
Mr. Schubach noted, however, that bikes are prohibited from using any portion of the right-of
way.
Comm. Peirce suggested that the recommendation for a bike lane on the Strand not be made.
Comm. Ingell, however, felt that such a lane could be effective, and it once was close to
implementation. He stated that it would be very beneficial to separate bikes from pedestrians
on the Strand since it sometim.es becomes so congested. He therefore favored including the
recommendation, as did Comm. Moore.
Comm. Moore noted that bikes currently are using the Strand. He suggested that the Strand be
expanded into the sand area to provide a walkway for pedestrians. He stated that the extension
does not have to be concrete; it could be wood, thereby creating a boardwalk effect.
Comm. Peirce stated that he would not oppose such a plan; however, he noted that it would be
too expensive.
Chnm. Rue directed the Commissions' attention to the railroad right-of-way
recommendations.
Comm. Peirce stated that he would adamantly oppose the recommendation, noting that that
area is a park.
Chmn. Rue noted that none of the Commissioners favored the recommendation. especially in
light of the greenbelt issue.
Chmn. Rue directed the Commissions' attention to the truck route recommendations. Page 62.
He said that the Greenwich Village area has been highly resistant to any through truck traffic,
especially because of its effect on 27th Street.
Comm. Peirce stated that there is already signage in that area advising that trucks can go in
only to make deliveries.
Mr. Hamrick explained that the recommendation is to designate a collector route to be used for
those trucks entering the area, since there is currently no designated route. Trucks up to a
certain weight limit would then still be allowed.
Comm. Peirce stated that the desire of the Commission is to allow no through truck traffic;
merely to allow small trucks for local deliveries only. It is desired to have no truck traffic
route in that portion of the City.
Chmn. Rue directed the Commissions' attention to parking recommendations, Page 70.
Chmn. Rue noted that Comm. Moore has expressed opposi1ion to any parking structures
downtown. Chmn. Rue, however, favored at least one structure.
Comm. Peirce noted that people do not like to shop downtown because of the parking problems.
He noted that it is difficult to park downtown even in the evening because of the theater and
restaurants. The only way to attract people to the downtown area is to provide more parking.
Comm. Ingell stated that the usage must be separated into daytime businesses and nighttime
businesses. He noted that there are not very many daytime business uses, and the daytime
parking is used mainly by beachgoers. He noted the difficulties for businesses who try to
expand because of the very restrictive parking requirements.
Mr. Schubach explained why the parking requirements were created. He noted, however, that a
study relating to private parking will be coming before the Commission in the future, in an
attempt to resolve some of the parking problems in the downtown area. He said this issue will
be discussed with the land use element.
29 P.C. Minutes 11/21/89
Comm. Ingell agre ed with Comm. Moore 's previous suggestion that the ideal parking area for
the downtown area is the old church s ite , due to the availability of its grade and the great
number of cars which could be accommodated.
Comm. Ingell stated that there could be problems with a parking structure because of the types
of people that could be attracted. He agreed, however, that more parking is definitely needed.
Comm. Moore noted that the downtown area is an economic success during the evening hours.
However, he noted concern for daytime businesses because of the parking restrictions placed
upon them.
Mr. Schubach discussed several projects in the works in the downtown area as they relate to
parking.
Comm. Ketz agreed that more parking is necessary; however, she felt that the Commission
should be looking at something which would provide more favorable parking requirements for
the downtown and beach area. She stated that those areas differ greatly from uses along the
highway where there is more drive-in traffic as opposed to walk-in.
Chmn. Rue said that the recommendation is to encourage businesses through parking
mitigation measures. Also, that sites should be looked at as potential sites for either a parking
structure or additional parking site.
Comm. Ketz did not feel it is necessary to address the residential parking areas. Chmn. Rue
concurred, stating that residential parking policies are already in place which are effective.
Comm. Ingell countered by saying it might be beneficial to study increasing the standards for
R-1, R-2, and R-3 residential parking.
Chmn. Rue directed that the recommendation on Page 71 should be to study commercial
parking. requirements.
Comm. Peirce said that he would have no opposition to studying the residential parking
requirements.
Chmn. Rue directed the Commissions' attention to the recommendation for angled parking
spaces on Hermosa Avenue. Comm. lngell noted that several merchants he has talked to
vehemently oppose such a parking configuration .
Chmn. Rue stated, then, that no recommendation will be made favoring angled parking on
Hermosa Avenue. He noted that in past studies, it was detennined that such parking would be
dangerous and would slow down traffic.
MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to adopt staffs recommendation to
approve the recommendations, and to incorporate into the resolution the aforementioned
recommendations.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. lngell, Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Chmn. Rue
None
None
None
TO REZONE PORTIONS OF THE AREA AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF ARTESIA
BOULEVARD AND PROSPECT AVENUE FROM R-P '.IQ C 2 AND R-P TO R-1 AND TO GENERAL
PLAN~AMEND A PORTION FROM GENERAL COMMERCIAL TO LOW DENSITY RESIDEN'llAL
(Chmn. Rue stated that this hearing was taken out of order.)
30 P.C. Minutes 11/21/89
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated October 11, 1989. Staff recommended that the Planning
Commission direct staff to conduct an environmental assessment and to schedule a public
hearing to change the zoning from R-P to C-2 for the properties fronting on Artesia Boulevard,
and to general plan amend from general commercial to low density residential and change the
zoning from R-P to R-1 for the residences fronting on 24th Street and Prospect Avenue by
adoption of the proposed resolution of intent.
The zone change and general plan amendment would be scheduled for the first quarter of 1990.
The Planning Commission at their meeting of October 17, 1989, continued this item to allow a
concerned property owner time to study the proposal. The P1anning Commission at their
meeting of June 6, 1989, directed staff to return with a recommendation to resolve the zoning
and general plan inconsistency for this area.
The entire subject area is currently zoned R-P, allowing high density residential or office uses,
subject to a conditional use permit. The subject area is designated general commercial on the
general plan.
The existing land uses along the Artesia Boulevard frontage include a vacant lot which is the
site for a proposed office building, an existing currently vacant small office building, and a
florist shop. Eight residential lots are located along 24th Street and Prospect Avenue; five are
developed with two units, and three are single-family homes. The lot sizes range from 2900
square feet to 3750 square feet. The residential areas across the street and to the west are
designated low density and are zoned R-1.
In regard to the office building proposed by Mr. Compton, the plan is currently in the process of
plan check. If the zoning changed from R-P to C-2 as recommended by staff, the change, in
staffs judgment, would only benefit the project as it could then be used by a wider variety of
tenants other than only office uses. The change to the C-2 classification would lower the height
limit from 35 feet to 30 feet, but if the project, which is in plan check, is carried out, it would be
grandfathered to the 35-foot proposed height.
Staff's recommendation is based primarily on the existing land uses of the area, although the
change of R-P to C-2 will permit commercial uses of a higher intensity than the current office
uses. Staff believes that this location is appropriate for C-2 restricted commercial uses and
that such a designation will contribute to the City's commercial base.
Hearing opened at 12: 16 AM. by Chmn. Rue.
HarveyTimkin, 2035 Westwood Boulevard, Los Angeles, addressed the Commission: (1) asked
questions regarding the difference in height between R-P and C-2 zoning; (2) asked if his entire
parcel remains R-P, would an eight-foot setback be required between his property and the
existing house next door; (3) referred to the plans and discussed the lots with staff; (4) favored
rezoning this property to C-2, since the use is already commercial; (5) said that he bought this
property to use as a medical building. but he hates to see his options lowered from 35 to 30 feet;
(6) asked whether he could be grandfathered in in order to comply with the older height
requirement; (7) stated that with current traffic and problems, local areas need local
commercial areas, therefore noting that he supports the recommendation.
Hearing closed at 12:21 AM. by Chmn. Rue.
MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Moore, to approve staffs recommendation,
Resolution P.C. 89-79, as written. No objections; so ordered.
31 P.C. Minutes 11/21/89
STAFF ITEMS
a) TENTATIVE FUTURE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Chmn. Rue, to receive and file. No objections; so
ordered.
b) CI1Y COUNCIL MINUTES OF OCTOBER 24. 1989
MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Chmn. Rue, to receive and file. No objections; so
ordered.
COMMISSIONER ITEMS
Comm. Ingell asked when there would be a joint meeting between the Planning Commission
and City Council. Mr. Schubach stated that a meeting would probably be scheduled for
January.
Comm. Ingell noted concern over the poor condition of the City vehicles.
Comm. Peirce noted concern over illegal window signs on businesses along Pacific Coast
Highway. He expressed additional concern over the parking problems at the Hermosa
Pavilion.
MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to adjourn at 12:50 AM. 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 November 21, 1989.
-7 // 1/i !-
7 Date ,
tJ1}2/1o ,
32 P.C. Minutes 11/21/89