Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes - 11.08.1989. ( .. : MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON NOVEMBER 8, 1989, AT 7:00 P .M. IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS Meeting called to order at 7:03 P.M. by Chmn. Rue Pledge of Allegiance led by Mr. Schubach. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Comms. Irigell, Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Chmn. Rue None Also Present: Michael Schubach, Planning Director; Edward Lee, City Attorney; Sally White·, Recording Secretary APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve the minutes of October 17, 1989, as submitted. Noting the abstentions of Chmn. Rue and Comm. Moore, so ordered. APPROVAL OF RESOLUTIONS Comm. Ketz discussed Resolution P.C. 89-17, stating that she would move approval; however, she noted that she could not recall the Commission discussing. Item 2 as written in the Resolution: "Amend Article 12, by eliminating Section 1200. Height of Buildings on Through Lots." Comm. Peirce concurred, stating that the Commission did not include that item in the resolution, nor was that issue even discussed at the meeting. He stated that he would second the motion if Item 2 is deleted. Mr. Schubach suggested that this resolution be brought back for approval, stating that he will return with an explanation for inclusion of that section. Chmn. Rue, explaining that he was absent from the meeting at which this matter was discussed, noted concern that elevator housings may exceed by a maximum of four feet in commercial zones only. He questioned what would happen in residential zones if someone needed to install an elevator. Comm. Peirce stated that the types of elevators used in homes could be accommodated quite easily within the current height limits, explaining that commercial-type elevators have different housing requirements. MOTION by Comm. Ketz, seconded by Comm. Peirce to adopt, with the deletion of Item No. 2, 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. l P.C. Minutes 11/8/89 ~ AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ingell, Ketz, Peirce None Comm. Moore, Chmn. Rue None MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve Resolution P.C. 89-77, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A PARKING PLAN FOR 1310 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY TO ALLOW SHARED PARKING TO ALLOW THE OPERATION OF MARTIAL AR TS STUDIO, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS l AND 2 HERMOSA KNOB HILL TRACT AND LOTS l AND 4 TRACY TRACT. Noting the abstentions of Comm. Moore and Chmn. Rue, so ordered. MOTION by Comm. Ketz, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to approve Resolution P.C. 89-78, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND A TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 1121493 FOR A TWO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 840 15TH STREET DESCRIBED AS LOT 25, HEFNER, FIORINI TRACT, M.B. 9-106. Noting the abstentions of Comm. Moore and Chmn. Rue, so ordered. MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to approve Resolution P.C. 89-81, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DENYING AN AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CON 89-10 TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED FRONT YARD SETBACK AT 612 10TH STREET, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS THE EASTERLY 38 FEET OF THE WESTERLY 76 FEET OF LOT 5, BLOCK 78, 2ND ADDITION TO HERMOSA BEACH TRACT. Noting the abstentions of Comm. Moore and Chmn. Rue, so ordered. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC No one appeared to address the Commission. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 1121370 FOR A THREE-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 515 8TH STREET (CONTINUED FROM SEPTEMBER 19 AND OCTOBER 3, 19&9, MEETINGS) Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated October 24, 1989. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve this conditional use permit and vesting tentative parcel map #21370, 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 4458.956 square feet. Eight parking spaces are provided. 1000 square feet of open space is provided. The current use is as a single-family dwelling. The environmental determination is categorically exempt. This project was continued from the September 21, 1989, meeting to the October 3, 1989, meeting to allow the applicant to revise the plans because of the parking layout which had cars backing directly onto a narrow, highly traveled, collector street; i.e., 8th Street. The project was also continued from the October 3, 1989, meeting to the November 8, 1989, meeting. The purpose of this was to give the applicant sufficient time to modify two issues: first, to reduce the driveway slope from 25 percent to below the 15 percent 2 P.C. Minutes 11/8/89 -,, maximum allowable by the zoning ordinance; and second, due to uncertainty regarding conformance of the sidewalk provided with the City requirements. The driveway issue has been resolved on the revised plans submitted on October 3, 1989, by lifting the parking level up one foot. The applicant reduced the driveway slope at the entrance to the parking from 34 percent to 13.2 percent. The driveway would have a moderate slope of 8.3 percent at the garage level. The Public Works Department indicates that the minimum sidewalk requirement for 8th Street is four feet, six inches. The applicant is providing a four-foot, six-inch sidewalk and is therefore in compliance with the City's requirements. Most planning and zoning requirements are now met. Lot coverage calculates to be approximately 64.54 percent, which is below the maximum allowed of 65 percent, and private open space for each unit is provided on the first-and second-floor decks and exceeds the 300 square feet required for each unit. However, the plans do not clearly indicate the location of required storage areas or the location for trash receptacles. Additionally, the turning area for guest parking spaces needs higher turning radius or wider stall width to meet the City requirements. Conditions to require these items have been included in the proposed resolution. Public Hearing opened at 7:12 P.M. by Chmn. Rue. Elizabeth Srour, 820 Manhattan Avenue, Manhattan Beach, representing the applicants addressed the Commission. She explained that the units will be in a townhouse configuration, and the units have been reoriented to the west. This is an unusual lot, in that there is a substantial slope from front to rear. She said that the project is now to code in regard to the slope. Ms. Srour stated that an attractive aspect of this project is the open space, in that it is broken up on the three floors. She continued by explaining the placement of open space as depicted on the plans. Ms. Srour stated that this project meets all of the condominium development standards and zoning requirements for the R-3 zone. This project is in keeping with the density in the area. Ms. Srour stated that the trash location, storage, and turning radius can all be in compliance and will be addressed during the plan check phase of the project. Comm. Moore commented on the artistic design elements of the 10-foot tall diamond­ shaped window/skylight made of glass block, noting that its cruciform element gives the appearance of a swastika. He noted concern that the design could be offensive and asked whether the placement of the glass blocks could be changed in order to avoid any resemblance to a swastika. Ms. Srour stated that, if the Commission desires, the window issue could be addressed further. Comm. Moore had no other objection to the window, other than its resemblance to a swastika. Comm. Ingell agreed. Ms. Srour stated that they would be willing to work with staff on the issue of the window and an alternate design placement of the glass blocks. 3 P.C. Minutes 11/8/89 ' Public Hearing closed at 7:18 P.M. by Chmn. Rue. Chmn. Rue agreed with Comm. Moore's comments regarding the swastika appearance and stated that that type of design would be quite inappropriate. He hoped that the design could be changed in order to avoid any resemblance to a swastika. Comm. Moore stated that he would not oppose the project because of the window; however, he noted that there are myriad design alternatives, and he hoped the architect would consider a different design. Comm. Moore, Comm. Ketz, and Chmn. Rue all commented on the large size of this project; however, it was noted that it does meet all requirements. MOTION by Comm. Moore, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to approve staff's recommendation, Resolution P.C. 89-74, as written. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ingell, Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Chmn. Rue None None None MASTER CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR EXPANSION OF E&E AUTO BODY SHOP AND FOR ALL THE AUTOMOTIVE USES AT 505 AND 555 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY AND ADOPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION (CONTINUED FROM AUGUST 15 AND OCTOBER 3, 1989, MEETINGS) Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated October 31, 1989. 5,taff re.commended that the Planning Commission approve the master conditional use permit for the entire subject property, subject to the conditions specified in the proposed presolution. This project is located in the C-3 zone, with a site area of 46,440 square feet. The general plan designation is commercial corridor. The present uses include auto repair, auto body and painting, auto rental, and a retail florist. The floor area of the E&E Auto Body expansion is approximately 2000 square feet. The staff environmental review committee, at their meeting of July 20, 1989, recommended a negative declaration for this project and recommended that, if approved, that conditions requiring spray booths for painting and requiring compliance with all CUPs for the property be included. Also, concern was noted about the storage of junk cars on the site. The Planning Commission, at their August 15, 1989, meeting, continued this item because of current CUP violations on the premises and to reconsider this request as a master CUP for all the automotive uses on the property, incorporating conditions of the previous conditional use permit for "Cheap Wheels." E&E Auto Body has already expanded the body shop operation into the adjacent building area located towards the northeast portion of the property without approval. They applied to legalize the operation as requested by the Building Department. The subject building area was previously a Jaguar auto repair shop and the change of use to the more intensive use as an auto body repair shop requires a conditional use permit. No building expansion is proposed. 4 P.C. Minutes 11/8/89 - This operation is one of several businesses operating on the property, which includes several auto repair and body shops, and automobile rental business, and a flower shop. The "Cheap Wheels" auto rental agency received a conditional use permit in 1986, utilizing parking at locations throughout the site. Because automotive businesses share the same space and the only way to account for the overall operation is through the owner of the property, a master CUP is needed. Also, the subject property was tied together as one parcel by a covenant recorded as a condition of the Cheap Wheels CUP. When it was initially submitted, staff inspected the property and determined that several conditions of the previous CUP for the auto rental agency were being violated. Since that time, two notices have been sent to the owner, Mr. Mardikian, informing him of the CUP violations. Also, the building department has sent notices to E&E Auto Body for a sign violation. As a result some of the CUP violations have been resolved and the site has generally been cleaned up, but progress has been slow. A site inspection conducted on October 31 showed that the following violations were resolved: (1) derelict vehicles have been removed from the rear parking areas, and several spaces are now marked for employee parking; (2) the parking area for C heap Wheels is no longer desi gnated for the fl ower shop only; and (3) the parkin g areas in front of the repair shops have been res triped , although the striping is for tandem parking rather than single stalls as shown on the original plans. Several violations continue: (1) evidence of automobiles being worked on outside the indoor r epair areas; (2) new vehicles fr om South Bay Nissan are being stored in the rear parkin g area in the location designated for Cheap Wheels rental vehicles; (3) the par king layout to the east of Flower World is not as shown on the plans, i.e., the stalls are tandem while the plans show two separate access points from 5th Street; (4) there is no through access to the rear parking area as shown on plans appr:o'.led for Cheap Wheels. The plannin g staff also notice d several viola t ions of the zoning and sign ord inan ce: (1) two illegal t raile rs are being used to store spar e and derelict auto parts; and (2) the illegal roof sign for E&E Auto Body remains. In regard to the noted violations, staff will continue CUP and zoning enforcement procedures. However, under the recommended master CUP, staff believes that through access to the rear parking area is not necessary, and the plans can be revised to show a fence and that tandem parking in front of the repair bays is acceptable so long as landscaping is provided along Pacific Coast Highway to partially screen the vehicles from the highway. Staff is also recommending additional conditions to address concerns about the aesthetic and safety impact of these businesses as well as the air quality impacts of the auto body painting being conducted by the auto body shops. For example, staff has included a condition that the tandem parking in front of the repair bays be allowed only if the area is screened from P .C.H. with a hedge surrounded with six-inch curbing to prohibit fluids from vehicles from draining across the sidewalk. Also, the fence along the north property line adjacent to the rear parking area needs to be replaced, and staff has included a condition requiring a decorative fence which serves as partial screening but would allow some visibility of the parking area from the street. In addition, staff is recommending a condition_ that spray booths must be installed for the painting operations. In regard to the parking, staff has calculated the requirement for "service station" as one space for each 100 square feet of site area, which results in a requirement of 47 spaces, 5 P.C. Minutes 11/8/89 and added the requirement for the retail florist of one space per each 250 square feet of building, resulting in a requirement of seven spaces, resulting in a total requirement of 54 spaces. If the ratio for a general commercial use is used for the entire 13, 753 square feet of gross floor area, 55 spaces are required. A total of 61 spaces are available on the site, counting the tandem stalls in front of the auto shops as only one space and not counting the auto repair bays. The site is adequate in size, shape, and the provision of parking to support the current uses, including the additional auto body shop area being utilized by E&E Auto Body shop. There is still concern about the overall quality and appearance of the operations, especially because the building is painted in different colors, and in some cases is peeling and fading, and because of the proliferation of various types, sizes, and colors of signs. However, staff believes that enforcement of the conditions of the CUP will improve the situation, and the applicant has shown willingness to comply with the conditions. Comm. Ketz asked whether staff would recommend imposing a time limit for requiring the applicant to paint the building. Mr. Schubach stated that a time limit can be imposed to ensure that all required work is performed, if such a condition is deemed desirable by the Commission. Public Hearing opened at 7:29 P.M. by Chmn. Rue. Mike Wilson, 27038 Shorewood, Rancho Palos Verdes, property manager for the subject site, addressed the Commission and explained what he does in his capacity as property manager. He began by asking questions regarding whether a conditional use permit would be necessary if the application for the body shop on the front corner is withdrawn and the use reverts to what is was. Mr. Schubach explained that staff is proposing an amortization period for all businesses operating in the City which now require a CUP, but which were in operation prior to that requirement. Once that is in effect, the same situation would occur again. Mr. Wilson asked additional questions regarding the need for a CUP, to which Mr. Schubach replied that a CUP would be required for any use which has been modified. Mr. Wilson asked whether a CUP would be necessary if this business reverts to a Jaguar repair shop, to which Mr. Lee replied that such a reversion would be a grandfather use; however, any change or alteration would trigger the need to obtain a CUP once the City adopts its amortization program. He noted, however, that the City can at this time enforce any zoning ordinance requirements. Mr. Wilson discussed parking uses all along the multi-use corridor. He presented a number of photographs depicting other current parking uses on Pacific Coast Highway and how they are or are not hidden from street view. Mr. Wilson stated that staff sent out only ten days ago this report containing 30 different items which must be complied with. He stated that they had already spent a month taking care of all the other problems in the back lot when this report was received. Mr. Wilson stated that the owner of this property owns three pieces of property in the City and has been here for many years. The owner does not desire to have derelict property. 6 P.C. Minutes 11/8/89 Mr. Wilson continued by discussing the specific conditions contained in the resolution, first addressing the issue of fencing, Item 2(a): "The chain link fence located along the northerly property line adjacent to the rear parking area shall be replaced and maintained with a decorative fence or wall, approved by the Planning Director, which provides partial screening but would allow for some visibility of the parking area. A combination of wrought iron and brick is suggested." He stated that other similar uses along the highway are not required to provide such a fence, and he noted that such a fence would be quite costly. He showed photographs of other properties which have chain link fences. He stated that in the past, the City requested that their chain link fence be fitted with materials so that one could not see into the lot; therefore, plastic and wooden strips were inserted in the links. He did not feel that the fence needs to be town down and replaced with a decorative fence; especially since no other businesses are required to do so. Mr. Wilson continued by discussing Condition 2(b): "A solid block wall, six feet high, along the northwest property line adjacent to the residential area shall be provided." He said that it appears that the neighbors have constructed a block wall in that area which appears to be at a different grade. There is a chain link fence built atop the brick wall, and that chain link fence also has the strips to prevent people from seeing through it. Mr. Wilson could not see why this owner is being asked to do things with his fence that no one else in the City is being required to do. Mr. Wilson continued by discussing Condition No. 4(b): "A minimum five foot wide landscaped area along the westerly property line which abuts the residential property, planed with substantial trees to effectively buffer the commercial uses from the residential uses." He said that this is a parking lot with a fence already there. He said that no one else is being required to plant trees. Mr. Wilson discussed Condition No. 5: "The trash dumpster located directly adjacent to 6th Street along the north property line shall be relocated to a location on the interior of the site." He stated that condition is not being imposed on other similar businesses. Mr. Wilson discussed Condition No. 6: "The exterior of the building shall be repainted in a uniform color." He said that the tenants will address that issue. Mr. Wilson continued with Condition No. 7: "All spray painting of vehicles shall be conducted inside spray booths which are permitted by the South Coast Air Quality Management District, the Building Department, and the Fire Department." He said that tenants were told that they could do "spot" painting for touching up small nicks. They were told spray booths were not necessary for such minor repairs. Mr. Wilson discussed Condition No. 9: "The two temporary storage trailers shall be removed from the premises." He said that they are currently using trailers which are unobtrusive. He explained that car parts are saved to fix other cars, and these trailers were placed behind a building so that they would not be obtrusive. He said that the parts must be stored somewhere, and there should be a way for people to keep trailers. Mr. Wilson went on with Condition No. 10: ''The public right-of-way shall not be used for the parking or storing of vehicles that are intended for sale, repair, or service." He said he does not disagree with this condition. Mr. Wilson stated that the tenants will want to address Condition No. 12 regarding repair, service, maintenance, and washing of vehicles. 7 P.C. Minutes 11/8/89 Mr. Wilson discussed Condition No. 13, "All parking and storage areas shall be maintained free of unregistered and derelict vehicles or parts," and explained that the storage trailers are there in order to avoid derelict parts being scattered around the lot. Mr. Wilson stated that they have no problem with Condition No. 15, noting that they have no desire to store tractors or RVs in the parking area. Mr. Wilson stated that they have no problem with Conditions 16 through 28, stating that they appear to be requirements mandated by City codes. Mr. Wilson stated that the tenants who do not comply will have their lease agreements terminated, and tenants have been issued letters advising them of this fact. Mr. Wilson stated that the owner will comply with all City requirements. Mr. Wilson noted, however, that the City appears to be imposing requirements on this owner that are not imposed on other properties. Therefore, he would like to go over the conditions with staff in order to reach some agreement as to what needs to be done. Mr. Schubach explained that the requirements pertaining to the six-foot block wall and the setbacks are zoning requirements, not merely conditional use permit requirements. Other buildings along P.C.H. which are either new or which have been expanded must comply with those requirements. Landscaping is also a zoning requirement and must be provided. Chmn. Rue commented on the chain link fence and stated that the strips of wood/plastic appear to be in a state of disrepair. He also noted that there are cars on the site which appear to be in a state of dereliction. Chmn. Rue explained that Hermosa Beach is attempting to clean up the City and that the amortization program is an attempt to rectify old problems. He stated that other cities have uniformly painted buildings and signs, which seem to be an enhancement and which can command higher leases. Chmn. Rue stated that he saw water and radiator fluid going down 6th Street. He also noticed an odor in the area on the side and front of the property. Mr. Wilson stated that the owner is willing to do anything, within financial reason, to comply with City requirements. He noted that when cars come in for repair, coolant will overflow onto the street, and he knows of no way to stop that from happening. Mr. Wilson noted confusion over where the City wants trees planted, stating that such a requirement is ludicrous and would serve no purpose. Comm. Peirce discussed the staff report which indicated several violations are continuing. He asked Mr. Wilson when the City could expect these violations to stop. He asked about "evidence of automobiles being worked on outside the indoor repair areas." Mr. Wilson stated that cars are outside the building when being worked on. The tenants have been told a number of times that they are not allowed to do that. If there is no flexibility on this, the tenants will be told to stop such actions immediately. Mr. Schubach explained that working outdoors is prohibited by the code. 8 P.C. Minutes 11/8/89 Mr. Wilson, in response to the charge that "new vehicles from South Bay Nissan are being stored in the rear parking area in the location designated for Cheap Wheels rental vehicles" stated that Nissan does store some vehicles and they are are indeed being stored there. He stated that Cheap Wheels does not have a designation for a great deal of the lot. He said that Nissan uses only about 20 percent of the lot. Cheap Wheels never keeps more than 15 cars at a time on the lot. Comm. Peirce stated that the violation is that Nissan is occupying parking spaces which should be used by other businesses and Cheap Wheels. Mr. Wilson stated that the parking can be rearranged to meet City requirements. Mr. Schubach stated that the applicant needs to change the plans in order to comply with the requirements for showing the parking layout to the south of Flower World (not the east as specified in the staff report previously). Mr. Wilson, in response to the charge that "two illegal trailers are being used to store spare and derelict auto parts," stated that he does not agree that the trailers should be removed, explaining that they are set back fifty feet and they are behind two commercial buildings and are not visible. He stated, however, that if necessary, they will be removed. If the trailers are not illegal, though, they do not want to remove them. Mr. Schubach stated that the Building Department must give approval for storage of trailers; however, in this instance the zoning ordinance does not permit trailers for storage of parts. In response to a question from Chmn. Rue regarding sea-land trailers, Mr. Schubach stated that "unusual buildings" must obtain approval from the Planning Commission. Comm. Peirce asked about the illegal roof sign for E&E Auto Body. Mr. Schubach stated that, according to the Building Department, the roof sign is illegal, noting that the sign ordinance was changed to prohibit roof signs. Mr. Tootoonchi, 505/501 Pacific Coast Highway, owner of Pacific Auto Cleaning: (1) stated he has been at this property for six years, and he has always had trouble regarding which customers go to which business; (2) said he does his own advertising, and he doesn't want to steal other's customers, therefore, it was decided that each building would have its own colors to distinguish each business as a separate entity; (3) discussed the signs, stating that he has no objection to the signs beings uniform if the City wants to pay for it; (4) said that his sign is better than many others along the highway; (5) noted that there are many cars in the City, and therefore there are many car repair shops; (6) explained that cars overheat and spill fluids onto the street; (7) said he pays· someone to come and collect the coolant which spills; (8) said that he tries to clean up the fluids in order to keep the property clean; (9) stated that the storage containers are very important because he needs to stock extra parts, and he said that the containers are safe and covered; (10) he said ·that he will do anything necessary in order to maintain the containers; (11) noted that such containers are common in businesses such as this; (12) said he is willing to compromise so that everyone is happy and the City stays clean. Ken Bornstein, 501 1/2 Pacific Coast Highway: (1) discussed Condition No. 17, "Use of customer/employee designated parking spaces for displaying auto merchandise shall be prohibited. The sale of new or used vehicles is prohibited." He said that he has a business license from the City and a sales license from the State allowing him to sell cars; (2) said that he sells luxury cars, and the City receives sales tax from these 9 P.C. Minutes 11/8/89 transactions; (3) discussed with the City Attorney the types of licenses he has, stating that he has a specific City license for sales; (4) said that this location was originally a car lot. Mr. Schubach stated that there could be an error in regard to Mr. Bornstein's license; however, car sales require conditional use permits. Mr. Bornstein stated that he usually has only a few cars for sale, noting that they are not derelict cars. Mr. Bornstein discussed working on vehicles in front of the shops, asking whether conditions could be imposed to allow work outdoors. He said that the space is quite limited, and that area is necessary for work. He said he would like to have eight feet in front of the shop for a work area. Chmn. Rue noted that this prohibition is a requirement of the zoning code, not the conditional use permit. He suggested that Mr. Bornstein discuss this issue further with staff. Mr. Bornstein discussed staff's recommendation that the building be painted the same color and he asked whether that condition can be modified to allow the individual tenants to use the same color but in varying tones in order to differentiate between the businesses. He said that the distinction would be advantageous to the different tenants. Mr. Schubach stated that the tenants can make a proposal for painting which can be discussed with staff. Comm. Peirce stated that there appears to be a lack of under-standing on the applicant's part as to what is required for the conditional use permit. He therefore recommended that this hearing be continued so that the applicant can go over the conditions with staff. Comm. Ketz agreed, stating that since the applicant received this paperwork only ten days ago, a continuance would be appropriate so that the applicant can discuss the matter with staff. Comm. Moore noted concern over the sincerity of the property manager in regard to compliance with the requirements. He noted, however, that he will agree to a continuance. He felt that there is room for flexibility in these standards, but he stated that the conditions must be enforced. Mr. Wilson stated that he would like to meet with the Planning Director to discuss each condition in detail before the next meeting. He stated that there will be no gray areas in regard to compliance; he will do whatever is necessary to be in compliance with the requirements immediately. He stated that he would like to meet with staff so that staff and he are both in complete understanding of the matter. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to continue this hearing to the meeting of November 21, 1989. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ingell, Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Chmn. Rue None None None 10 P.C. Minutes 11/8/89 VARIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO THE SEVENTEEN-FOOT SETBACK AND ADOPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 3133 THE STRAND Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated August 7, 1989. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission deny the proposed variance. This project is located in the R-1 zone, with a general plan designation of low density residential. The lot size is 2647 square feet. The present use is as a single-family dwelling. The staff environmental review committee, at their meeting of July 20, 1989, recommended a negative declaration for the project. The applicant is requesting approval to construct a new single-family structure with only a nine-foot setback from the Hermosa Avenue access road rather than the required 17 feet. The house is proposed to be approximately 3870 square feet in size and contain four bedrooms, three and a half baths, a study, and an exercise room. The proposed nine-foot setback would allow for the parking of one guest vehicle behind the garage. However, it would be a parallel parking space, requiring more difficult maneuvering than a typical guest space. The standard 17-foot setback would result in the availability of two guest spaces. Since the size, shape, and topography of the subject lot is similar to surrounding lots facing the Strand, staff does not believe the physical attributes of the property are exceptional or extraordinary. In fact, the size of this lot is about the average size of the lots in Block 1 of the Shakespeare Tract, which range from 1650 to 3630 square feet. The applicant indicates that no other houses along this access road provide the 17-foot garage setback and, therefore, he argues that to provide it would be denying a property right enjoyed by others. Although no other homes along this access road provide the 17- foot setback, it should be noted that most of these homes are older and much smaller than the one proposed. As such, when owners wish to expand or reconstruct these homes to come closer to the size home being proposed by the applicant, the homeowners will not "enjoy" a right to keep the nonconforming garage setback, unless the addition were to be 50 percent or less of replacement value. The Planning Commission, on February 17, 1987, approved a variance from the 17-foot setback at 3323 The Strand. The justification of the variance, however, was because of the small lot depth (71 feet) and the small lot size (2156 square feet). This size lot was smaller in dimension and area than the lot sizes examined in the special study prior to the adoption of the 17-foot setback ordinance; the subject lot is similar in size to lot sizes which were studied and found acceptable for the 17-foot setback. It should also be noted that ground-level open space requirements were reduced so that the 17-foot setback could be imposed. In order to provide the 17-foot setback, the subject plans could be modified in a manner which would result in a loss of only 192 square feet of floor area, leaving a house with a substantial total of 3678 square feet and four available parking spaces. Public Hearing opened at 8:23 P.M. by Chmn. Rue. Chris Coppersmith, 3133 The Strand, applicant, addressed the Commission. He gave background information on the adoption of the 17-foot setback ordinance, stating that it 11 P.C. Minutes 11/8/89 was not intended to provide more parking, but rather to prevent cars from parking over public sidewalks. He stated that the ordinance was not adopted to restrict the size, shape, or buildability of housing in his neighborhood. Mr. Coppersmith stated that his property is in a unique area of Hermosa Beach, in that it is fronted by The Strand; alongside is Longfellow Place, which is a walk/drive street; and behind it is Hermosa Avenue alley, which is a 20-foot wide alley, which goes along a running/bike area. He said that the 20-foot access road allows additional room for maneuvering to park. The property is 30-feet wide; therefore, it is no problem to park at this property. There is also additional parallel parking along Hermosa A venue because there are no driveway curb cuts. Mr. Coppersmith stated that for a five-block area there are 46 houses along the access road. He stated that not one of those houses has a 17-foot setback. Mr. Coppersmith discussed the staff report, and stated that because of the access road, there is no difficulty in parking alongside this house. He noted that the staff report asserts that he would not be denied a property right enjoyed by others in his neighborhood, who will also have to provide a 17-foot setback if they decide to reconstruct or enlarge existing houses. He stated that a replacement cost of up to 50 percent could exempt someone from providing the 17-foot setback. He said that tit is certainly not the intention of the Planning Commission to force homeowners to avoid setbacks with poor construction or architectural substitutes for new houses. Mr. Coppersmith stated that this property is a through property; therefore, the property is severely restricted by such things as the 17-foot setback requirement, the height restriction, and the fact that it is on a ten-foot slope. He said that the open space policy statement is not applicable in this case because this is a through lot and therefore more restrictive in regard to open space. He said that there is a 300 square-foot open space area which is open and clear to the sky with no overhangs on the Strand side. Mr. Coppersmith stated that the garage would be on the main level. Therefore, with a 17-foot setback, the 20-foot minimum garage requirement, and the open space requirement for through lots, there would only be 30 by 24 feet of buildable space on the main floor of this house. Mr. Coppersmith discussed the impact of this project on the neighborhood, stating that it can have only a positive impact. He is attempting to make an improvement in this area of the City. The Strand should not be limited to housing subject to myriad restrictions designed for multiple units in other areas of the City; rather, it should be kept within the intent of the general plan and be an asset to the City. Bob Stroyke, neighbor of the applicant, stated that he favors approval of the variance to eliminate the 17-foot setback. He stated that there is ample parking in this neighborhood. The current house has only one parking space, whereas the proposal would provide four spaces. He stated that the parking problems are created by bootleg units with no garages, and he suggested that the parking problem be addressed by enforcement of the bootleg requirements. Don Hovis, project architect, discussed the access street than runs through the area for 46 houses. He stated another person along that area was granted a variance for seven feet, and this applicant is requesting nine feet. He noted that the other lot is smaller; however, as the lots go to the south, they become larger by approximately a foot and a half. He asked, if that person obtained approval and this person doesn't, where will it 12 P.C. Minutes 11/8/89 stop. He noted that the proposal will provide parking in excess of the requirements. Also, this is unusual in that Hermosa Avenue has no curb cuts because of the access road; therefore, there is additional parking in front of this house. He stated that the unusual aspect of this particular situation should allow them to have a smaller setback. He said all the existing homes along there do not have 17-foot setbacks, noting that some are only zero to three feet. Viva Stroyke, 3205 The Strand, stated that many of the properties along the Strand do not have 17-foot setbacks. Many of the homes are large and older; however, many provide parking for three cars. Those houses have the same square footage as the applicant is requesting. She noted that this will be a good project for the City and will provide additional parking. She asked that the project be approved as it stands. Public Hearing closed at 8:33 P.M. by Chmn. Rue. Comm. Peirce asked whether the nine-foot space in back of the garage would be considered as a guest parking space. Mr. Schubach stated that it could be used for parking; however, a standard sized parking space should be a minimum of eleven feet. He stated that the City has no provisions for allowing parallel parking behind garages; however, the City has allowed it to be used for parking. Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Comm. Peirce, stated that parallel parking behind a garage could be considered as a legal parking spot. Chmn. Rue asked whether the two new projects along the Strand meet the 17-foot setback requirement. Mr. Schubach stated that he could recollect no variances being granted for the 17-foot setback requirement, other than the one mentioned in the staff report. He said that lot was very small, and three parking spaces were still required. Comm. Peirce noted that the 17-foot setback ordinance was adopted for a variety of reasons. He said that he did not feel there are exceptions for through lots, or that this particular lot falls under the exceptions section. He did not feel that a finding can be made for this particular lot in regard to this applicant being denied a substantial property right enjoyed by his neighbors. Chmn. Rue stated that the intent of the 17-foot setback is to keep cars from parking over the sidewalks. He felt that the intent of the City is to provide as many parking spaces as possible. He noted that the code requires one guest parking space per residence in the R-1 zone. He felt that, even though this may not meet the code exactly, the spirit of the law is being met and it should be permitted. He said that there have been problems with this ordinance in regard to alleys and other areas. He felt that a requirement to have a 17-foot setback does not apply to all properties in the City. Comm. Ketz agreed that the 17-foot setback requirement is not applicable to this property, noting that it is on the Strand, on an access road, and on a pedestrian access to the Strand. She noted that the homes along there are uniformly setback; however, she doubted whether any of them are set back more than nine feet. She felt that neither the City nor the residents would benefit by requiring a 17-foot setback at this property, and not much would be gained by such a requirement. She felt this is a unique situation because of its location on the access road. 13 P.C. Minutes 11/8/89 Comm. Peirce, noting that the access road is actually an alley, asked about other alleys in the City and whether they should provide the 17-foot setback. Comm. Ketz did not feel there should be the 17-foot setback requirement on alleys. Chmn. Rue felt that if someone meets the intent of the code and provides parking, a need is being met. He had difficulty with an ordinance mandating a 17-foot setback when an architect or designer can provide parking without it. He felt that the ordinance should have been clearer. Comm. Moore was concerned over the harshness of the 17-foot setback ordinance being an attempt to solve a very real parking problem in the City. He stated that the real problem is cars overhanging the public sidewalks. He said alleys aren't a problem because there is no sidewalk. He noted that the worst situation is where the garage door is approximately nine feet from the street because people tend to park there and end up blocking the sidewalk. Comm. Moore did not feel a variance is the appropriate method by which to correct a bad ordinance. He stated that it is difficult to make findings when one really wishes to rewrite the ordinance. Comm. Moore stated that this issue hinges on the usefulness of the parallel parking as opposed to the nose-in method of parking. He could see where the parallel parking would work in this case because of the unique access road and the lack of a sidewalk, noting that it would not work in areas with curb cuts and sidewalks. Comm. Moore stated that he would vote against granting of the variance; however, he noted concern over what appears to be arbitrariness of the U-foot setback solution. He felt that his hands are tied in this case in terms of making the necessary findings. Comm. Peirce stated that when the 17-foot setback ordinance was being formulated it was clear that the City did not want nine-foot areas in front of garages because it would invite nose-in parking, thereby having cars hanging out over the sidewalk. He stated that he could not make the finding in regard to exceptional or extraordinary circumstances at this property. Comm. Ingell agreed with the comments made by Comms. Moore and Peirce, stating that he cannot make the findings for approval. He did not feel that the intent would have applied to this particular piece of property. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Moore, to approve staff's recommendation to deny the variance to allow a garage with a nine-foot setback from the street rather than the required 17 feet at 3133 The Strand, Resolution P .C. 89-82. Chmn. Rue did not feel that laws are written in stone. He felt that Strand properties are exceptional and extraordinary because there is an access road at the beach side as well as a full two-lane pedestrian and bike path to the east of the access road. To the east of that is Hermosa Avenue for a full eight blocks. He felt that a variance is appropriate in this case because of the streets. He noted that parking is being provided, and he felt that the code requirements are being met. He strongly felt that the findings can be made in this case. 14 P.C. Minutes 11/8/89 AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ingell, Moore, Peirce Comm. Ketz, Chmn. Rue None None Chmn. Rue stated that the decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed by writing to the City Council within ten days. Comm. Moore stated that properties which are providing the 17-foot setback are going to three stories with overhanging pillars above the garage area so that they can obtain as much square footage as possible on the lot. He noted concern over these supports, especially as they relate to earthquakes. He suggested that the Building Department consider safety standards in regard to earthquakes. Recess taken from 8:48 P .M. until 8:58 P .M. CERTIFICATION OF THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE PROPOSED OIL EXPLORATION AND PRODUCTION FACILITY AT THE CITY YARD, 555 6TH STREET AND AT THE SOUTH SCHOOL, 425 VALLEY DRIVE (CONTINUED FROM MEETINGS OF JULY 17 AND SEPTEMBER 191 1989) TEXT AMENDMENT TO GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING ORDINANCE TO PERMIT OIL AND GAS DRILLING AND PRODUCTION WHEN ALLOWED BY A VOTE OF THE PEOPLE (CONTINUED FROM MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 191 1989) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR OIL EXPLORATION AND PRODUCTION AT THE CITY YARD, 555 6TH STREET, AND AT THE SOUTH SCHOOL, 425 VALLE.Y DRIVE (CONTINUED FROM MEEJLNG OF SEPTEMBER 1-2? 1989) Chmn. Rue noted that the Commission would appreciate hearing only new concerns at this time, explaining that past comments have been addressed. Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated November 7, 1989. He explained the procedures followed thus far in regard to the comments and the responses to comments. He stated that the 45-day review period for the draft EIR has passed; therefore, this is the time to finalize public input concerning comments to the responses. He recommended that the Commission tentatively schedule the EIR certification for the January 3, 1990, meeting and direct staff to publicly renotice the entire matter in the future in conjunction with the City Council's directions regarding how to proceed, which will be agendized for the November 14, 1989, City Council meeting. Mr. Schubach continued by explaining the timing to be followed in this matter. Don Macpherson, Jr., president of Macpherson Oil Company, addressed the Commission and gave background information on his company as well as the proposal. He wanted to ensure that this project is done in an environmentally safe method. Mr. Macpherson gave a slide presentation on the proposed project and discussed the follow ing issues: (1) location of the project; (2) 1984 oil initiative; (3) history of Hermosa Beach and location of oil wells discovered at the turn of the century; (4) drilling of oil wells in the l 930's and the technology used; (5) Redondo Beach's 1956 oil drilling at the Marina Drill Site; (6) oil drilling concerns of the early 1980's; (7) 1984 study done by Robert Hacker in regard to drainage in Redondo Beach; (8) Ballot Measure P; (9) Ballot 15 P.C. Minutes 11/8/89 Measure Q; (10) Ballot Measure L; (11) the votes on the various ballot measures. Mr. Macpherson continued the slide presentation by discussing: (1) the bid process the City used for this project; (2) 1986 bids for the school property; (3) potential revenues to the City, school, and public; (4) potential uses for the revenues; (5) use of tideland revenues and what other cities have used their oil revenues for. Mr. Macpherson continued his presentation: (1) discussed the various phases of oil production and the approximate timeframes and included the test phase, development phase, and production phase; (2) discussed the various phases as they relate to noise, veh icle traffic, and other aspects of oil production; (3) discussed the wall to be constructed around the site and the proposed landscaping; (4) explained what will remain once the drilling is complete; (5) showed slides depicting the South School site and explained what will occur at that site. Mr. Schubach, in response to a request from Chmn. Rue, explained the process to be followed. He stated that staff believes now that each of the issues should be taken separately. Once the draft EIR has been certified, the general plan amendment can be addressed. Finally, a text amendment to allow the oil drilling to take place can be discussed. The amendments would then be adopted, at which time the actual decision will be made as to whether or not to allow an oil drilling project in the City. He said that the EIR is only an informational document and how impacts can be mitigated. After the amendments are approved, a conditional use permit and lease agreement will be addressed. After the City portion is finished, the applicant must apply to the Coastal Commission as well as many other agencies before final approval is given for all other required permits. Mr. Schubach stated that the general plan amendment and~ the-. text amendment are tentatively scheduled for decision in early March. Following that will be a hearing for the conditional use permit. Public Hearing reopened at 9:28 P.M. by Chmn. Rue. Mike Levine, attorney for the Pacific Villa Homeowner's Association: (1) discussed his letters of August 31 and November 4, which have been made part of the record; (2) noted concern over whether oil drilling can take place on an area designated as open space and which was voted upon in 1984: (3) noted that South School has been designated as open space; (4) stated that a wall and storage tanks cannot be built on land designated as open space; (5) stated that under state law, building permits cannot be issued if a project is in violation of the open space ordinance, which this proposal is, until such time that the voters enact an ordinance to the contrary; (6) stated that if this project proceeds, the taxpayers may file suit; (7) stated that this project is contrary to the zoning ordinance, contrary to the wishes of the majority of the electorate, and a conditional use permit for oil drilling is contrary to the criteria that the City is bound to apply; (8) commented on Section 10-2 of the code setting forth the criteria, and stated that this project is in conflict with the code section; (9) stated that the initiative passed in 1984 permitted only oil drilling on the South School site, not oil storage tanks or production facilities such as are now being proposed; (10) said that the open space laws are very clear in that they require open space to be preserved. Gwen Telligan, 311 2nd Street, speaking on behalf of herself as well as the Sierra Club's Clean Coastal Water Task Force: (1) noted concern over the poor quality of the EIR; (2) said she is an environmental engineer who has reviewed many EIRs; (3) stated that many serious potential negative impacts are dismissed in the report as being insignificant and 16 P.C. Minutes 11/8/89 provide no quantitative proof; (4) submitted written comments from the Sierra Club's Clean Coastal Water Task Force. Ms. Telligan outlined the contents of the submitted letter: (1) annual projected volume of waster water which would be produced from this project and where it would be disposed of; (2) separation techniques and its process need to be addressed much more specificall y; (3) more specifics on the type of permitting and how stressed the Public Treatmen t Works will be; (4) annual volume of potential gas produced by the drilling and subsequent production and how the gas will be disposed of needs to be addressed; (5) what types and volume of hazardous waste may be generated during the lifespan of the project and what methods will be used for treatment and/or disposal; (6) what type of contingency safety p lans are pr oposed, such as: (a) spill prevention and control cou ntermeasure pl an; (b) will t he facility be bonded or insured in the event of a spill, exp losion, or equip ment failure; (c) how mu ch money will be placed in a bond or insurance policy. Ms. Telligan stated that: (1) long-term and short-term impacts on the local and regional air quality should be addressed; (2) stated that these issues should not be dismissed in the EIR without having any numerical data to back them up. Ms. Telligan went on: (1) stated that the population around the proposed project site is very dense, therefore, many people will be surrounded by potential dangers and nuisances of the project; (2) there will be increased noise of up to 60 to 90 decibels and there will be unpleasant odors which will be constantly present in the immediate area; (3) the projec t's problems woul d tend t o decrease the qual ity of life and probably the property values in the immediate area; (4) the largest prob lem is the danger to the health and safety of the general public; (5) hazard footpr ints should have been shown for the site, which would have shown that hundreds of lives could be end~ed from potential fires, blowouts, and explosions; (6) she read from an article in the L.A. Times on April 7, 1987, discussing the dangers to be expected after an earthquake of 6.5 on the Inglewood­ Newport fault and fires which could break out, and asked whether these risks should be taken in such a highly populated area. Ms. Telligan continued: (1) stated that the potential for doing this same oil exploration and production from another site has not been addressed; (2) commented that state guidelines address the issue of location, and stated that there are various other potential sites which would not be as dangerous as the one being proposed. Phil Gillette, 446 Monterey: (1) did not feel there are any positive benefits to be obtained by drilling for oil in Hermosa Beach; (2) stated that the consultant is weighing the safety and environmental issues against revenue projections, and he felt that the City is being defr auded in regar d to the amount of revenues to be obtained; (3) stated that the oil rese rve figures ar e mis leading; (4) stated that the projected price convenien tly rises in a mislead ing way; (5) discussed the fact t hat oil prices are down dramatica lly from past years, and soon California crude could be so low that Macpherson would make no profit at all; (6) asked that the environmental impacts be wei ghed agains t the possibility that there very well could be no oil revenues to the City; (7) recommend ed that the EIR never be certified because it is economically misleading and would not be a prudent action on the part of the City. Harvey Caan, 523 3rd Street: (1) gave a detailed demonstration, using an easel and model truck, showing that large trucks of approximately 60 feet in length will not have adequate room to make their turns at the corner of P.C.H. and Pier Avenue; (2) discussed the number of truck trips per day in regard to the possibility of restrictions being placed 17 P.C. Minutes 11/8/89 on trucks during certain hours; (3) explained the sizes and weights of various trucks and the pipes on them, stating that each truck with its equipment wil f weigh approximately 65,000 pounds; (4) stated that specific measurements and weights of the trucks are not specified in the EIR. Mr. Caan continued his demonstration: (l) showed that trucks on Pier Avenue between Valley and Ardmore will have great difficulty in maneuvering and the trucks will encroach on the northbound traffic on Ardmore, which will tie up traffic as well as impede traffic all the way down Pier Avenue, thereby forcing people to avoid the commercial area along Pier Avenue; (2) showed the problems which can be expected when a large truck arrives at the white stop line at Pier Avenue and Valley Drive and attempts to make a left turn, stating that the truck will encroach into the opposite direction on Valley as well as the pedestrian walkway; (3) showed that trucks will have to encroach on the northbound lane of Valley Drive. Mr. Cann continued: (1) discussed the dynamic moving weight of vehicles of this size, noting they will weigh approximately 65,000 pounds, stating that the 36 truck trips per day as projected by the EIR are inconceivable; (2) stated that more specific information is necessary on the number of trips per day and the weight of the trucks and their effect on the traffic and Valley Drive; (3) stated that there will be too many trucks weighing too much, creating too much noise; (4) said that there will be a great increase in congestion on Valley between 6th and 8th Street while trucks are lining up waiting to get into the job site; (5) asked where trucks will wait while attempting to get into the job site; (6) noted concern that trucks will be sitting in traffic on the southbound side of Valley Drive; (7) stated that the issues of truck weight, size, nJJmber of trips, waiting periods, overwidth and overlength derricks, and permits are not discussed adequately in the EIR. Brent Harris, 416 Monterey: (1) asked for clarification on the number of wells given as being between 30 and 50; (2) stated that 50 wells is being used as a basis for revenue estimates, and the number should be clearly specified; (3) said 50 wells will take over three years to drill and therefore the drilling rig will not be temporary and should be subject to the City's height limitation of 35 feet; (4) felt there is insufficient environmental information in regard to the proposed oil well pipeline, stating that the details are very sketchy and should have included the digging up of the greenbelt; (5) stated that Mobil Oil has just been ordered to do an extensive EIR for their 75-mile pipeline through Los Angeles, and Hermosa should require the same; (6) since the maintenance yard was formerly a dump site, he felt there should be a complete cost analysis estimate for clean up and potential health hazards to surrounding residents; (7) felt that drilling hazards should be addressed; (8) suggested there be another EIR or a consolidated EIR to include in much more detail these other issues; (9) stated that additional information is necessary in regard to the indirect costs, including moving and cleaning of the maintenance yard, costs of road repairs, cost of traffic guards between Valley and Pier, costs of crosswalks, traffic signals and warning lights, cost of electrical supply surge suppressors to protect the residents' sensitive electronic equipment from possible power outages; (IO) commented on vested rights and the fact that the lease entered into is somehow being considered a vested right, and he continued by discussing past legal cases related to vested rights, stating that the developer does not have a vested right at this time; (11) commented on the price of oil and stated that the selling price is actually lower than that being presented by Macpherson, and he stated that he would like to see an independent analysis as to oil prices, including risk factors and inflation; (12) asked that the public comment period be continued so that people can comment on what appears to be a changing plan. 18 P.C. Minutes 11/8/89 Florence Sacks, 225 Valley Drive: (1) discussed the socioeconomic problems of the project, stating that the project will have an immediate impact on properties in the vicinity and in the long-term will affect the development of the City as an upscale beach community; (2) stated that a 15-story derrick will be visible from the beach and will be visible over a large area of the City during the three-year drilling period; (3) said that three years is not an insignificant amount of time; (4) said that oil storage and processing tanks and workover rigs will become a permanent part of the street scene, and this is not the City image to attract new business and promotes desirable development; (5) said that the oil project will reduce the amount of open space that is available for parks and recreation facilities which enhance the desirability of a residential area; (6) said that the project is using the 4.43 acres of the South School site for a possible maintenance yard and oil tank farm; (7) said that in 1984 and 1986 the voters demonstrated that they wanted the South School site to be dedicated for use as open space; (8) said that the zoning was changed to be consistent with its actual use, and therefore the city yard cannot be relocated at the South School site which is a designation open space area; (9) said that socioeconomic impacts of oil drilling are practically not addressed at all in the EIR; (10) stated that the National Research Council concluded that the Interior Department has found that other oil drilling projects in California had inadequate information to proceed with their projects, and the department stated that the primary deficiency in the reports was their lack of social and economic issues. Mrs. Sacks continued: (1) requested that the EIR not be certified due to its lack of attention to the socioeconomic aspects of oil drilling; (2) presented to the Commission a copy of an article dated November 3, 1989, relating to lack of consideration of socioeconomic issues. Beth Harris, 416 Monterey: (1) noted concern over the EIR's direct conflict with statements made by the oil proponents, specifically, Califor.nia!.s.. Proposition 65 which states that all business exposing humans to life-threatening risks must issue warnings and clean up the problems or be fined daily; (2) commented on an August 28, 1989, Los Angeles Times article regarding the warning as mandated by Proposition 65 and read and then passed out a copy of the warning; (3) continued by discussing Proposition 65 and comments made by the State that signs should be posted not only at job sites, but also anywhere else dangers are present; (4) felt that Macpherson will be added to the list of companies which will be fined; (5) felt that the City should place the lives of its citizens above money; (6) commented on possible violations which the company could have; (7) did not feel that the health risk can be mitigated; (7) did not feel that the EIR adequately addresses oil risks and concentrations sufficiently; (8) did not see any reason to propose a park next to the storage tanks at the South School site where people could be exposed to hazardous conditions; (9) said she will sue the first time she smells a noxious odor emanating from this project; (10) hoped that the City will stop this project, and she felt that potential problems were merely glossed over in the EIR. Greg Grinnell, 349 29th Street: (1) noting that he once worked in a bank, discussed oil­ related loans for other projects in the area; (2) discussed potential oil revenues for the City; (3) discussed royalty funds and steps that the City can take to ensure that they obtain revenues; (4) discussed another oil project at Del Amo and its production wells. Comm. Peirce noted that this is not the appropriate time to discuss economic impacts of the project, stating that that issue is not raised in the environmental impact report, which is currently at issue. George Sacks, 225 Valley Drive: (1) disputed the comments made by Mr. Macpherson related to the amount of revenue received by Redondo Beach for their oil drilling 19 P.C. Minutes 11/8/89 projects; (2) noted concern that Mr. Macpherson's suggestions as to what tideland revenue monies could be used for have no justification; (3) commented on the issue of liability, stating that the present contract has only a three million dollar liability insurance, which he feels is very small, considering the size and risk of this project; (4) noted concern over open space, stating that with the exception of the greenbelt, there is no other open space left in the City. Mr. Sacks continued: (1) discussed impacts of the project which cannot be mitigated, such as soils as they relate to earthquakes, and the damage which can occur including fires and liquefaction; (2) continued by discussing what happens during liquefaction; (3) stated that liquefaction can occur at the dril!l site at the city maintenance yard, which is a former garbage dump; (4) stated that it will be difficult to erect oil drilling and production equipment which will withstand an earthquake of 8.0; (5) stated that there will be an increase in noise from drilling, site preparation, pipeline construction, and truck traffic; (6) said that the proposed workday of 8:00 AM until 7:00 PM is too long and will subject residents to great hardships; (7) stated that the peak noise level analysis should be more specific in the EIR; (8) said that noise monitoring by the City will be necessary; (9) noted concern that the project will not be able to comply with the 1989 Air Quality Management Plan requirements; (10) said that weak nocturnal winds in coastal areas allow localized stagnation of emission which cause cause pollution hot spots in the City and this could significantly concentrate emissions from storage tanks or from the oil drilling operations, and this issue is not addressed in the EIR; (11) said that the issue of public safety is inadequately addressed in both the EIR and response to comments; (12) stated that there is no comprehensive disaster plan; (13) said that there will be great traffic impacts; (14) stated that the number of serious impacts which cannot be mitigated justifies rejection of the EIR. Wilma Burt, 1152 7th Street: (1) discussed the history of past-• projects in Redondo; (2) stated that the developer will bear most of the costs, not the City; (3) said that the City desperately needs money, and this project is the way to get it; (4) stated that money is necessary to buy new schools for the City; (5) did not feel that property values would decline as a result of this project, rather, they will continue to increase; (6) stated that open space can be used for a variety of purposes, not just "open" space; (7) stated that trucks could enter from Herondo and there will still be less traffic; (8) stressed that the City is in desperate need of new money on which to operate, and the oil project will provide those funds. Mike Wells, 315 4th Street: (1) noted concern over liquid waste disposal from this project, and he questioned what will be mixed in with the water, stating that a more detailed study is necessary; (2) noted concern over the dumping of waste water into the county system; (3) noted concern over what is currently emanating from the storm drains, and he wondered how this project would make it worse; (4) discussed the filtration of the water and noted concern over chemicals, pesticides, and viruses; (5) said that the discharge will be a huge environmental impact to the City; (6) stated that the plan keeps changing, and he felt that the citizens should have a static plan to study and address; (7) presented a photo of the storm drain at Herondo depicting what comes out of drains. Tom Morley, 516 Loma Drive: (1) displayed a large aerial photo of Hermosa Beach taken a number of years ago, possibly in the l 930's; (2) discussed the liquefaction issue, and pointed out on the photo the fact that the area is on an active sand dune with a compacted dune behind it; (3) said that the conditions for liquefaction are earthquakes, loosely compacted soil, and ground water; (4) discussed the geology report prepared for the Santa Fe Railroad and said that that report has a ground water topographic map showing there is high ground water in the area; (5) felt that a special report should be 20 P.C. Minutes 11/8/89 ,; prepared for this EIR addressing the issue of liquefaction; (6) pointed out the site of the city yard on the map, showing that there is a former city dump near 8th Street and Cypress, which could contain possible unconsolidated soils and should be studied for liquefaction potential. Mr. Morley continued: (1) gave to staff a copy of Volume 4 including the Geotechnical Assessment of the Santa Fe project; (2) stated that the air quality impact assessment in that document is better than the one contained in the current EIR. Mr. Morley went on: (1) stated that his specific comments and questions were not adequately addressed in the responses to comments and he would like responses to his concerns; (2) gave to staff a copy of the responses document which he had marked to indicate those questions of his he would like answered, and asked that he be told if there are reasons his questions are not relevant. Mr. Morley continued: (1) stated that he has studied the Coastal Act and CEQA guidelines, and there are specific guidelines given for the decision-making process; (2) discussed Section 30250 of the the guidelines which addresses new developments and where they can be located; (3) said that alternative sites for this project have not been considered; (4) said that the California Coastal Act, as well as CEQA guidelines, mandate that other sites be considered; (5) asked whether all of these materials have been given to the Commissioners, and he stated that he would be happy to meet with Commission members to discuss them; (6) discussed several of the specific guidelines related to this project, and he submitted a copy of the guidelines to staff. Mr. Morley continued his presentation by showing a current aerial photo of the Redondo/Hermosa border. He continued: (1) said that guidelines say that sites should be consolidated in existing facilities and in this case they could be; (2) discussed the oil wells in Redondo Beach; (3) said that the 58 well holes which are capped in Redondo Beach could be used for this project; (4) discussed the separation facility and stated that the facility in Redondo Beach could be used; (5) stated that there might be an economic benefit derived from utilizing the existing fields since the infrastructure would not have to be duplicated; (6) stated that the EIR must address alternative sites, and he continued by suggesting various sites; (7) commented briefly on the economics and the contracting of oil revenues and land leases; (8) said that the EIR cannot be adequate until it follows the CEQA guidelines. Mr. Morley went on: (1) submitted a photocopy of a map of the northwestern Torrance oil field with alternate sites noted; (2) discussed the earthquake study done by the Sierra Club and noted concern over fires which would occur, and he read from a portion of the Santa Fe EIR which specifically mentions Hermosa Beach; (3) commented on an oil show in Bakersfield, and he passed out a flyer on the event; (4) discussed an EIR prepared by Ultrasystems for a project in Bakersfield, which he felt is much more complete than the one prepared for Hermosa; (5) stated that he would submit a typewritten report outlining his comments on this project; (6) discussed California environmental laws and the adequacy of descriptions contained in EIRs. Scott Warren, 3006 Hermosa Avenue: (1) stated that even though there is a possibility of liquefaction, the structures are designed and built to withstand 8.0 earthquakes; (2) stated that air and water issues not specifically addressed in the EIR will be addressed at the time the project obtains AQMD approval; (3) said that the most likely exposure would be through air, but the problem will be mitigated; (4) stated that the project will be required to comply with AQMD, CEQA, EPA, and Proposition 65 requirements; (5) said that there are also requirements governing discharge and filtration; (6) stated that EIRs 21 P.C. Minutes 11/8/89 , \._., should spec ify which issue s will be addressed by regulatory measures in other docum ents, and that a draft EIR is a broad overview of a project; (7) stated that other cities have benefitted greatly by oil proje cts with no significant accidents; (8) state d that with modern technology, many problems can be controlled or mitigated. Karen Brody, Hermosa Beach: (1) discussed a TV program she saw where it talked about the federal government suing a city because the city's EIR was not sufficiently detailed in regard to the region's social and economic life; (2) noted concern that Hermosa could be sued for such a problem; (3) noted concern that in Santa Barbara there is tar on the beach, and she did not want the same thing to happen here; (4) said her property borders South School and felt that her property value would be decreased if this project is approved; (5) noted that the voted for oil drilling but stated that she had no idea of what would be involved in an oil drilling project and its attendant ramifications; (6) noted concern over damage which could be done to vehicles parked on the street because of air pollution, and she said this has not been addressed in the EIR; (7) said that the project will affect views and one's ability able to rent or sell property; (8) discussed a newspaper article on the sinking of Long Beach when oil wells were put in, and she stated that the EIR should address this possibility; (9) wanted to ensure that Macpherson has adequate liability insurance in the event of fires, explosion, or dispersal of hazardous waste; (10) asked who will be responsible to damage caused to surrounding residents; (11) asked who would be responsible for cleaning up the site should Macpherson go out of business; ( 12) asked what would happen to the structures if they go out of business, who will clean up the site, and who will haul away hazardous materials; (13) stated that this project will create an economic impact for the city if the oil company is not adequately insured; (14) stated that the City should be kept as free as possible from any emissions or fumes from the project itself or any vehicles. Gerry Compton, 832 7th Street: (1) favors oil drilling; (2) sa\i4 that the project will be designed to comply with earthquake requirements; (3) said that any fill sites will be uncovered and structures must be designed to spec; (4) said that the only potential problem during an earthquake could occur with the lightweight steel structure itself; (5) discussed fill sites he has worked with; (6) said that the majority of complaints concern reduced property values, but he felt scare tactics have been used; (7) discussed tar on beaches and stated that many times it is caused by natural phenomena, not oil drilling; (8) did not feel this is an environmental problem related to the beach and that people have been putting out ad campaigns that are bunk; (9) discussed the sinking of Long Beach, but said that area differs significantly in geologic terms from Hermosa; (10) stressed that this project will not create environmental problems for the beach. Chris Eberhard, 115 1/2 31st Street: (1) stated that it is important to keep in mind what this project will mean to the City; (2) said that the City as a whole will benefit by the project; (3) recommended that the project move forward and stated that the EIR is sound. Comm. Peirce noted that Ultrasystems has been directed by the City Council to prepare additional information on two alternate sites for the project. Those materials will be included when this matter comes back before the Commission, probably sometime in January. Chmn. Rue explained that additional public input will be taken after the new information becomes available. 22 P.C. Minutes 11/8/89 ., J ' , • ---,. Comm. Peirce commented that natural oil seeps occur off the coast; therefore, much of the tar seen on the beach comes from this natural occurrence. He said that very little oil from spills ends up on the beach, and he noted that there are tests which can be done on oil to determine where it came from. He said that the biggest pollutant in the waters comes from the storm drains, not from oil drilling projects. So long as there is oil consumption, there will be problems with oil disposal and broad based spectrum pollution. Chmn. Rue stated that he will welcome any additional comments or information on this matter. Mr. Schubach stated that the consultant has indicated that, with the new input, the previously proposed date for completion has now been deemed to be too soon. He noted, however, that if there is a delay, the matter can be renoticed as to when the hearing will be. He therefore suggested that the matter be continued to a date uncertain; however, it could be tentatively set for January 3, 1990. MOTION by Chmn. Rue, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to continue this matter to a date uncertain; however, the tentative date is January 3 , 1990. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: STAFF ITEMS Comms. Ingell, Ketz, Moore, Peirce, Chmn. Rue None None None a) Memorandum Regarding the Proposed Tenant Improvement at 638/640 Pacific Coast Highway Mr. Schubach stated that this project differs from what was originally proposed, and the new project will need a conditional use permit and will come before the Commission at a future meeting. b) Memorandum Regarding Referrals of Zoning Violations to Building Department No action taken. c) List of Completed Projects for Inspection This list was prepared at the request of the Commission. Mr. Schubach stated that Commissioners could either go by the projects themselves, or they could come into the Planning Department and look at copies of the final plans. d) Planning Commission Activity Report for September 1989 No action taken. e) City Council Minutes of October 10, 1989 No action taken. 23 P.C. Minutes 11/8/89 ~-" ~ ,,~ COMMISSIONER ITEMS Comm. Moore noted concern over the 17-foot setback requirement in relation to people building with overhangs and the attendant safety concerns related to earthquakes. He also noted concern that it appears that the 17-foot setback requirement is being imposed willy-nilly throughout the City. Mr. Schubach stated that the 17-foot setback issue will soon be coming back for study during the general plan revisions of the housing element. Chmn. Rue asked whether safety standards, especially for earthquakes, will be addressed in the housing and/or safety element, to which Mr. Schubach replied in the affirmative. MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to adjourn at 11:38 P.M. No objections; so ordered. CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and complete record of the action taken by the Planning Commission of Hermosa Beach at the regularly scheduled meeting of November 8, 1989. (l/?1 /~1 Date~ 1 24 P.C. Minutes 11/8/89