Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 01-05-1988MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON JANUARY 5, 1988, AT 7:30 P.M. IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS Meeting called to order at 7:30 P.M. by Comm. Compton. Pledge of Allegiance led by Comm. DeBellis. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Also Present: Comms. Compton, DeBellis, Ingell, Peirce, Rue None Michael Schubach, Planning Director; James P. Lough, City Attorney; Sally White, Recording Secretary Comm. Compton acted as Chairman. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Comm. DeBellis asked that the minutes of December 1, 1987, be amended to reflect that his absence was excused because of illness. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to approve the minutes of December 1, 1987, as amended. Noting the abstention of Comm. DeBellis, no objections; so ordered. APPROVAL OF RESOLUTIONS Comm. Rue commented on Condition No. 12 of Resolution P .C. 87-62, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A PRECISE PLAN FOR 720 8TH STREET, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS 5 AND 6, BLOCK A, REDONDO HERMOSA TRACT AND APPROVE AN ENVIRONMENT AL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. Comm. Rue noted that Condition No. 12 should specify decorative trash can locations. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to approve Resolution P.C. 87-62 as amended. Noting the abstention of Comm. DeBellis, no objections; so ordered. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC Wilma Burt, 1152 7th Street, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission. She stated that she had received a letter from the City in regard to the combining of lots. She asked for clarification on several issues. On May 22 the City Attorney stated that if the merger was not at the County Recorder's Office before January 1, 1986, that the option of lot mergers no longer existed. She asked for clarification of this matter. Mr. Lough explained that that deadline had to do with the old procedures, stating that if something was not on the books before that date, one had to follow the new State rules which require more noticing and therefore make it more difficult for cities to merge lots. He stated that this is in compliance with the law after 1986. ,- PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JANUARY 5, 1988 PAGE 2 Mrs. Burt asked how things changed in 1986. Mr. Lough stated that the City Council adopted a new set of ordinances which changed the old procedure. The technical language on the notice may have been the same; however, the procedures under which the City operates were changed to require more noticing and make the procedure more difficult. He noted that under State law, lots can still be merged; however, the requirements are now more stringent. He explained that prior to 1986, the City did not have a merger procedure on the books which met the State criteria. Mrs. Burt noted that this is the last day (January 5) to request a public hearing, and she stressed that she wanted a public hearing on this matter. Mrs. Burt felt that this entire issue is ridiculous, stating that the City talks about downzoning and lessening the density; yet the lesser density has increased density in the City. She stated that, according to the Planning Commission minutes of May 1986, there are only 206 lots involved in the lot merger issue for R-1 and R-2 lots. She stated that most of those 206 lots involve older people who have lived in the City for years. She felt that it is possible that people in the City are jealous because they don't have the same thing as those who have been there for years; therefore, they want to take it away from those who have it. Mrs. Burt continued by discussing the fact that the City has stated if a property owner requests a public hearing, the property owner must do a survey. She stated that her lot was surveyed in the past, and the survey results are in the City records. She did not ask to have her lot changed; therefore, if the City wants a survey, the City should have to pay for it. She stressed that she will not pay to have her lot surveyed again. Mrs. Burt stated that the letter also said that the homeowner was supposed to determine the names of everyone who lived and owned property within 300 square feet of the lot in question. Since she did not ask to have her lot changed, she felt that the City should be responsible for determining the names of the surrounding neighbors and property owners. Furthermore, she will not pay for such an activity. Mrs. Burt was under the impression that, according to State law, the City, not citizens, must pay for the public hearing. Mrs. Burt felt that this letter is merely a scare tactic aimed at the older citizens in the City so that they will be afraid to participate in local government. She stated that these people will be afraid to do anything if they feel they will have to bear the costs. Mrs. Burt noted that State law specifies that lots "may" be merged, not that they "must" be merged. She said that the rules have been ignored for a long time, and she questioned why the ordinance is going to be enforced now. She noted that the schools did not have to abide by the rules regarding lot sizes; therefore, the citizens should not be required to do so. She felt it is unfair that citizens will now be required to abide by a law passed in 1956, which has been ignored for many years. Mrs. Burt stressed her objection to this new requirement and demanded that a public hearing be held on the matter. She further objected to the fact that this issue was not properly noticed. She felt that the City is using tactics to harass citizens who have been the backbone of the City for many years. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JANUARY 5, 1988 PAGE 3 Mr. Lough noted that Mrs. Burt has raised policy statement issues and legal points, and he stated that he will further study the matter and return with additional information before any process starts on Mrs. Burt's property. Mrs. Burt noted that the letter stated that a request for a public hearing must be made within 30 days; however, the Planning Commission met only once last December. Therefore, she appeared at this meeting since it was the only available opportunity for her to appear to request a hearing. Chmn. Compton noted that the next agenda item would be the certification of the A TSF Railroad Right of Way, even though it was listed as Item No. 9 on the agenda. There were no objections to hearing the matter as the first agenda item. CERTIFICATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE ATCHISON, TOPEKA &. SANT A FE RAILROAD RIGHT OF WAY (CONTINUED FROM DECEMBER 1, 1987, MEETING) Mr. Schubach read into the record the following statements: "The California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines do not require a public hearing for E.I.R. 's according to Section 15202. However, if a public hearing is provided as the City has opted to do in the case of the Railroad Right-of-Way E.I.R., Section 15202 suggests that the same procedures be used as are used for other city public hearings. "The City, however, has gone beyond its regular public noticing for adoption of resolutions in the following manner: 1. Provided a schedule of all public hearing dates and times to Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Company. 2. Provided a written reminder to the railway company of the continued public hearing date of January 5, 1988, already specified at the December 1, 1987, public hearing. 3. Posted the subject property three times: once for the 45-day review period; once for the December 1, 1987, public hearing; once for the January 5, 1988, continued public hearing. 4. Publicly noticed in the local newspaper three times: once for the 45-day draft E.I.R. review period; once for the December 1, 1987, public hearing; and once for the continued January 5, 1988, public hearing. "Since the CEQA guidelines recommend the same noticing process as for other public hearings, the appropriate process is noted in Section 1605(A) of the zoning ordinance. Note this is not a hearing for the actual zone change, but only for the E.I.R. II Mr. Schubach continued by giving staff report dated December 30, 1987. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on June 16 and 18, 1987, to accept input concerning the draft Environmental Impact Report prepared by the consultants, Sanchez Telarico. The report was found to be erroneous and inadequate. The major problems were the use of PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JANUARY 5, 1988 PAGE 4 the wrong project description and winter traffic counts instead of summer counts. These two problems caused all related sections such as noise and air quality to be in error. Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council certification of the Environmental Impact Report subject to additional modifications as noted in the reports received by the Commissioners and any other changes deemed necessary based on public hearing testimony. The document has now been rewritten. Because the document had to be rewritten, another 45-day public review period and public hearing were provided. At the December 1, 1987, meeting, the Planning Commission continued this matter to January 5, 1988, so that all comments could be responded to. The responses are generally adequate except for areas noted. However, the format should be modified prior to submittal to the City Council. The document should have the current text which needed rev1smg removed and the new text integrated into the document. Also, a revised table of comments identifying all parts of the document should be provided. The revised noise section is complete; however, some of the numerical figures seem low. For instance, the increase in traffic between Ardmore and Pacific Coast Highway on 8th Street is almost doubled, but the increase in noise is only 1.8 bda. Some explanation should be given. The Air Quality Section is still being revised, as more time than was anticipated was necessary. Mr. Schubach stated that it is important to expedite this matter and be within the legal parameters; therefore, staff recommended the Planning Commission to recommend certification of the EIR, subject to the necessary modifications. Comm. Rue asked whether other matters could be brought up and discussed in the future if the Planning Commission recommends certification of the EIR at this time. He noted that it is possible that other areas of concern could be discovered at a future time. Mr. Schubach replied in the affirmative, noting that the Commission is merely making a recommendation to the Council at this time. He noted that if anyone has additional comments, those comments should be related to the responses given, not to. the draft EIR, since the 45-day review period is over. If anyone feels that the responses are inadequate, they have a right to comment upon that. Comm. Rue asked whether new issues could be included in the EIR which may arise as a result of new public hearing information or information based on the comments of the reports relating to noise, traffic, and air quality. Mr. Bruce Tepper, consulting attorney to the City, replied in the affirmative. He stated that the public response period has technically ended; however, in view of the flexibility provided by CEQA, a public body considering a document of this type has the ability to incorporate comments which are received late, with some exceptions, into the report. Mr. Tepper noted that the areas of concern in the document are statistical data supporting the conclusions, not changes in conclusions reached by the document. In terms of the ultimate substance, the document will not change one bit. Some of the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JANUARY 5, 1988 PAGE 5 statistical data may change somewhat, but not much. He noted that staff recommended certification subject to these additional details because it is staffs' opinion that the data to be included is not of a material nature, but merely additional back-up information for the conclusions that are reached in the document itself. Comm. Ingell asked when the EIR would go before the City Council if the recommendation to certify is approved tonight. Mr. Schubach stated that it would go to the Council in one month. Comm. Peirce asked about the placement of the responses within the document. Mr. Tepper stated that the comments and responses to comments are a part of the body of the EIR, not part of the appendices. The comments are of no less import than any of the initial portion of the document. He continued by explaining the locations of the comments within the document, stating that they are a separate portion of the EIR. Chmn. Compton asked whether it is the opinion of Mr. Tepper that the document is certifiable. Mr. Tepper replied in the affirmative. Public Hearing reopened at 7:56 P.M. by Chmn. Compton. Frank Greco, representing Turini and Brink, 1920 East 17th Street, Santa Ana, addressed the Commission. He stated that late last week he had received a package of information, and there has not been adequate time to review the materials. However, the applicant does not object to this document going forwa,Gi to the City Council for certification at this time, subject to several conditions. If there are to be any substantive changes, the applicant would like to request an opportunity to review and comment on any changes at such time the comments are forwarded to the City Council. This would include any changes to the summary of the traffic and circulation, noise elements, and air quality, as well as any other changes that might be made to the document. Mr. Greco felt that in fairness to the applicant and to the public, it is appropriate that the applicant and citizens have an adequate period of time in which to comment on those changes. Mr. Greco stated that the issue of air quality information is somewhat undecided at this point as to when it might be completed. He urged that there be no delay in the continued process of the matter. Rosamond Fogg, 610 6th Street, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission. She stated that she feels the document is indeed certifiable. She commented on Page 9, No. 8, "Toxic and Hazardous Substances," and read a portion of that response: " ... The act of approval or disapproval of this Project will not in itself result in any disturbance of the soil of the site. While the potential for subsurface contamination due to toxic or hazardous substances exist, approval of the land use changes will not activate such toxic and hazardous conditions .... " Ms. Fogg stated that the reason behind not doing the soils testing appears to be somewhat faulty. She felt that there should be another, more sound reason given for not doing the testing. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JANUARY 5, 1988 PAGE 6 Public Hearing closed at 8:01 P.M. by Chmn. Compton. Comm. Rue commented that the issue of how noise would affect the surrounding neighborhoods was not addressed. He hoped that that issue would be addressed in the final noise study. Comm. Ingell stated that he favored the soils testing, noting that he feels a potential problem could exist at the site, and it should be addressed. Comm. Ingell stated that the document as presented is difficult for the layperson to read and understand. Chmn. Compton noted that soils testing would be required at such time when an actual structure is proposed for the site. He noted that he would be very much in favor of doing everything possible to ascertain whether a problem does actually exist with toxic waste. He noted, however, that it is a question of when the testing would be required, suggesting that now might not be the appropriate time. He noted that it is not even certain whether the applicant will apply for the zone change. Comm. Ingell felt that soils testing should be done regardless of whether or not any structure is put on the site because of the water structure. Also, people use that area for jogging, and they could be kicking up toxic dust. Comm. DeBellis stated that he has read the documents presented and the previous minutes of this matter, as well as watched the meetings on television. He asked, however, if he was eligible to participate in discussion of the issue. Mr. Lough replied in the affirmative. Comm. DeBellis stated that this EIR has been studied at length, and there comes a time with any project when a decision must be reached. He noted that the Commission is being asked to make a recommendation based solely on whether or not it is felt that the report is adequate. He noted that legislative acts are not at issue at this time. Comm. DeBellis read from Page 9, Alternatives: " ... What is clear from the discussion of alternatives is that any development constructed on the site will be environmentally inferior to the existing condition. The question before the City is whether it should change the existing Open Space uses in the proposed Project. The alternatives presented are reasonable and feasible to this determination. If the land use changes are approved, it is A TSF's responsibility to prepare and submit a specific development plan for the site which would integrate the development objectives with City policies .... " Comm. DeBellis noted that Page 9 states: " ... CEQA does not require that the City conduct every test and perform all research, study, and experimentation recommended to it to determine true and full environmental impact before it can approve or disapprove the proposed Project. It can properly, as here, identify the potential impact and require subsequent testing and research prior to any work or construction and development on the site .... " Comm. DeBellis believed that more than adequate information has been presented in order to enable the City Council to make a decision on the impacts of approving or disapproving a requested zone change request and general plan change. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JANUARY 5, 1988 PAGE 7 Comm. DeBellis was somewhat dismayed that nobody has expressed a concern that the soils testing should be done immediately since there could be a daily problem with the dust. He stated that every times it rains, something could be percolating into the well system. He noted that it is not appropriate to delay the EIR; however, if there is indeed concern, testing should be done to ascertain whether or not a problem does actually exist, because the problem will exist whether or not anything is built on the site. Comm. DeBellis concluded by stating that he feels the EIR to be adequate and certifiable. Comm. Peirce stated that he had no comments, noting that he agreed with the comments made by the other Commissioners. He felt that the EIR is certifiable. Chmn. Compton discussed the lease of this land, stating that there could be a major impact on the salt water intrusion project if the railroad decided to exercise its option to end the lease. He asked for clarification of this issue. Mr. Tepper stated that there is a license which is not an interest in land which is terminable. He continued by speculating what the railroad may or may not do in this regard. He discussed the issue of eminent domain. He stated that the response points out the fact that the equipment used in the salt water intrusion program is quite cumbersome and bulky. A particular governmental body does have the power of eminent domain itself, and there does not appear to be in the adjacent property areas of ent open open space sufficient to bring in that equipment on a regular basis in order to perform the work. He stated that this may prove to be more of an impediment to development on this property than most people realize. The response given, however, is accurate. Chmn. Compton discussed the issues of toxic waste, literature. searches, and interviews of long-time residents. He agreed that if there is a potential problem with toxic waste, study should be given to the matter. He suggested that effort be given to trying to determine whether there have been toxic problems in the past. Chmn, Compton concluded by stating that he feels the EIR is a certifiable document. MOTION by Comm. DeBellis, seconded by Comm. Rue, to certify the Environmental Impact Report for the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railroad Right-of-Way and recommend that it be referred to the City Council. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. DeBellis, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Compton Comm. Ingell None None Comm. DeBellis returned to the issue of hazardous waste and suggested that there be a resolution or recommendation sent to the City Council stating that the Planning Commission has expressed concern that there may be a problem existing, and that the Council should take appropriate steps to make a determination by whatever means are necessary. He noted also that animal feces may pose a danger at the site. MOTION by Comm. DeBeilis, seconded by Chmn. Compton, to direct staff to prepare a resolution or recommendation (whichever is deemed appropriate by staff) to be sent to the City Council as noted above. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JANUARY 5, 1988 PAGE 8 Comm. Peirce agreed that this is a good idea; however, he felt that the issue should not be restricted to the railroad. He noticed that there are several other areas, specifically on 6th Street west of Valley, where there are probably just as high a potential for ground contamination. Therefore, he felt that the resolution should be for a City-wide survey. Mr. Schubach stated that staff could either prepare a memo to be sent to the City Council which relays the concerns expressed by the Commission, or staff could draft a resolution. Mr. Lough stated that either way is acceptable, so long as the issue remains separate from the action taken on the railroad right-of-way EIR. Chmn. Compton favored a resolution. He also felt that it is appropriate to conduct interviews of long-term residents. AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION by Comm. Peirce to include all areas of the City in the survey. Agreed to by Comm. De Bellis as maker and Chmn. Compton as second. Frank Greco addressed the Commission and asked for clarification on the intent of the motion. He noted concern that there could be a delay in the EIR process and the project. Chmn. Compton noted that the issue of the railroad EIR is separate from the action being taken in regard to a City-wide survey on hazardous waste. John Edwards, 501 Herondo, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and discussed hazardous waste, stating that there is a difference between what is existing and what there would be with a project. He felt that the difference with this particular project, though, is that by digging up earth, hazardous particles could be. l.ofted through the air. Mr. Edwards stated that he would like to see a copy of the final EIR. He felt that the intent of CEQA is to ensure that the impacts of a project are completely understood before it is started. He favored a literature search prior to in depth testing. Comm. DeBellis stated that the purpose of his motion is to investigate to determine whether there is an existing problem; and that if a change is approved, that any future development on the project would require additional testing. He stated that it is up to the City Council to approve or disapprove any final project; and he feels that the EIR presented is adequate for the City Council to make its determination. Comm. Rue felt that if anything detrimental turns up in the literature search, the City Council should at that point decide upon a mechanism by which responsibility is determined in addressing the matter. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. DeBellis, Ingell, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Compton None None None VARIANCE TO PROVIDE LESS THAN THE REQUIRED USABLE OPEN SPACE AT 40 7THCOURT Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated December 30, 1987. The Staff Environmental Review Committee, at their meeting of November 5, 1987, recommended that the Planning Commission grant a negative declaration for the subject parcel. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JANUARY 5, 1988 PAGE 9 The applicants are requesting a variance to obtain an "after-the-fact" building permit for work already completed. The variance request is for the elimination of open space due to the enclosure of the deck on the third level of the structure. The deck area was approximately 150 square feet. The applicant has enclosed approximately 110 square feet of the deck area. The remaining deck is 40 feet, eight feet by five feet. The remaining 40 square feet of deck area does not meet the minimum dimension of seven feet, and therefore is not included in the total open space calculation. There is no other usable open space available on the site. The residence was constructed in 1973 as a three-story, one-bedroom dwelling unit. The first floor consists of a garage and laundry facilities. The second floor contains a living room, kitchen, and half bath. The third floor contains one bedroom, bath, and deck. On May 7, 1973, the Board of Zoning Adjustments granted the owners a variance to provide less than the required 200 square feet of open space when the structure was constructed. Resolution BA 154-99 allowed the single-family structure to be constructed with only 180 square feet of open space which included the stairway. On August 15, 1973, the Board of Building Appeals granted the owners a modification to the Building Code which allowed the structure to have only one contiguous stairway from the third floor to the ground floor in lieu of the two required contiguous stairways. In the early part of 1986 the owners requested a building permit to enclose the deck area and to add a deck on the roof. At that time the owners were informed that they would need to appear before the Board of Building Appeals to request a modification to the Building Code to allow a roof deck to be constructed with one conventional stairway and an exterior metal ladder. The Board of Building Appeals.,...6f:enied the request for the fourth-level deck because of exiting problems, and recommended the enclosure of the third-level patio area, subject to a variance approved by the Planning Commission for the elimination of open space. In June of 1987, the Building Department noted that the owners had enclosed the deck, added a satellite dish, and installed a ladder leading to the roof without obtaining any permits. The Building Department has cited the owners for the violations, and they have instructed the owners to remove the structures or obtain the required permits. The ladder leading to the roof will have to be removed since it is in violation of the Building Code. Staff is recommending denial of the variance request since the structure is already nonconforming. The granting of this variance will make the structure more nonconforming because of open space. Staff is unable to find exceptional circumstances related to this property since the structure has already been granted a variance and modifications to the Building Code. Also, granting this variance will add floor area to a building that presently has fire exiting problems. Public Hearing opened at 8:30 P .M. by Chmn. Compton. Tom Shea, 40 7th Court, Hermosa Beach, applicant, addressed the Commission. He stated that he is quite surprised that staff is recommending denial of the variance. He explained that it was necessary to enclose the stairway because it was hazardous when it rained and water would flood down over the stairs. He noted that this is the only exit from the house, and he desired to make if safer. He said that several contractors were engaged, and each one felt it was necessary to enclose the stairway since it is the only exit. Many methods were used to try to make the area safe, but nothing worked. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JANUARY 5, 1988 PAGE 10 Mr. Shea admitted that the house should not have been built the way it was, but he did try to obtain a building permit for the work. He said that the issue is one merely of safety. He said the matter of the satellite dish can be cleared up immediately since he is willing to relocate it. The building complies with all the zoning ordinances. All he has done is enclose 100 square feet, noting that the site never did have adequate open space. Mr. Shea stated that prior to enclosure of the stairway, the area was merely cluttered space, not large enough even for a chaise lounge. Also, it was always necessary to have plastic hanging over the area in order to keep out the rain. He said that he made very practical changes by enclosing the area. Mr. Shea stated that he couldn't believe it when he was informed he must appear before the Board of Building Appeals. He appeared at the specified meeting, only to discover there was not a quorum. He was again informed by the Building Department that he could not proceed with his project. Mr. Shea said he then received a recommendation from the Board to proceed with enclosing the stairway in order to make it safer, which it is. He was then informed by the Building Department that a variance request could cost almost one thousand dollars, and he probably would not receive approval. Mr. Shea stated that this house is very small. No one is being hurt because the stairway in enclosed. He could see no reason why the variance request should be denied. He stressed that there was never enough open space at this property. Mr. Schubach noted that a variance was granted in regard to the open space. Mr. Shea stated that he has owned the property for approJ6imat e ly one year. He was unaware of the history of the property or the variances when he purchased the house. He only tried to make the house safer, noting that he has not built out or increased the living space. He said that since the house only has one exit, it should be as safe as possible. Mr. Shea said that there was no other way to rectify the leaking, other than to enclose the stairway. He said that he tried several other methods, but they all proved to be unsatisfactory. Also, the open space area is over living space, which was a problem because of constant leaking. He tried to make the stairs safer by installing metal strips, but the strips kept getting rusty. He said the rubber strips did work a little better. Comm. Rue asked several questions about the location of the stairways in the house and ref erred to the plans. Mr. Shea explained that there in only one continuous stairway which can be used to exit the house. There is another stairway, but it goes only from the third floor to the second floor. Mr. Shea stated that he installed metal strips on the stairs which helped with the traction; however, it did nothing to help eliminate the puddles. Mr. Shea stressed that there is only one continuous exit from this house, and it should be as safe as possible. Comm. Rue felt that there could be an alternative method of exiting from this house, and he discussed the second stairway. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JANUARY 5, 1988 PAGE 11 Comm. Ingell felt that there should be two continuous stairways from the third floor level to the ground level. Mr. Shea agreed; however, he noted that the house was not built with two continuous stairways. Chmn. Compton asked about the open space existing before the stairway was enclosed. Mr. Schubach stated that there was the area approved as open space, which is what was subsequently covered. The Building Department previously allowed the stairway to be included in the open space measurement. He stated that only 107 square feet has been enclosed. Comm. Ingell noted difficulty in understanding the plans. Chmn. Compton asked why the applicant did this project without first obtaining a building permit. Mr. Shea explained that when he first began this process, the staff recommendation was to approve the project. When he went to the Board of Appeals meeting and there was no quorum, he just decided to commence with the project, because he thought it would have been approved at that meeting. He felt that there would be no problem, but when he went to the Building Department, he was informed that there was a problem. He stated that the work was done by contractors, and everything is legal and conforming but without benefit of a permit. Public Hearing closed at 8:48 P.M. by Chmn. Compton. Comm. DeBellis asked how common a 30' x 32' foot lot is in the City. Mr. Schubach stated that that is quite small; however, lots of this size are fairly common, and he estimated 100 to 150 lots are that small. Comm. ;peirce felt that there are two issues here: (1) does the City want to limit the open space? and (2) were proper engineering techniques utilized for this project? He felt that there are other methods by which the stairwell can be made safe. Mr. Schubach stated that a staff member did go out and look at the project. Comm. Peirce felt that the applicant has not pursued all available construction methods to remedy the problem. He felt the real question is whether the City wants to allow the open space to go to zero, noting that he was not inclined to do so. Comm. Rue did not feel the required findings could be made to grant this variance, noting that the only difference with this project is the small lot size. He felt that there are other techniques which could be utilized to deal with the exiting problem. He felt that the exterior stairwell is a mitigating measure for not having another exit from the third floor in case of a fire. The fact there is only one staircase down from the living area to the garage is fairly common in this City. Comm. Ingell noted that he would have preferred to have seen more detailed plans for this project, as well as looked at the actual property. He agreed that there seem to be alternative methods for solving the problem with the stairs. "-----"' PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JANUARY 5, 1988 PAGE 12 Chmn. Compton noted that there were no plans for the garage, which would have clarified the matter. He noted, however, that he did not see any grounds for granting of the variance. He did note that this is one of the smallest lots he has seen in the City; however, that should not preclude the owner from conforming with the Building Code. He felt that there should be two means of egress from the third floor. Tim Shea, 40 7th Court, Hermosa Beach, brother of the applicant and Palos Verdes Building Inspector, addressed the Commission. He stated that this lot is so small that it is difficult to do anything with it. He noted that stairways must be of a required size. There is only a five-foot front yard setback, and the yard dead ends into another lot. He just could not see how anything else could be done. He said that a major problem is the lack of open space at the site. He said that it might be possible to do something with several spiral staircases and decking, but he felt it could be quite difficult. Mr. Shea discussed the problem with open space, stating that there is a fourth-level roof deck on the house, with alternate means of exit by fire safety ladders on each corner going all the way down, even with the 30 inch wide area in the back yard. If there is a way this could be done, it would be a solution. Mr. Shea stated that the problem is that this house was granted several variances when it was built. This has created many problems for this owner. Mr. Shea noted concern that if he offered a new plan, he would have to pay additional variance fees. Comm. Rue asked whether the Commission could waive the variance fee if the applicant decided to pursue an alternate method of construction. Mr. Schubach suggested that the item be continued, but that the fee not be waived. The applicant could then return with an alternative plan. Mr. Lough suggested that the public hearing be continued, thereby eliminating the need to renotice the matter. Mr. Shea stated that it is impossible to reconfigure the stairway, noting that the stairs must be of a certain size. He stated that the issue then would become one of zoning. Chmn. Compton suggested to the applicant that he study the issue further to try to determine an alternative method. He stated that it might be possible to do something in the area of the end of the garage, within the envelope of the building. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Chmn. Compton, to continue this item to the first meeting in February 1988. No objections; so ordered. Comm. DeBellis noted that if this matter is continued and the applicant devises a method of providing the second stairway, a variance would not be necessary. Mr. Schubach stated that a variance may indeed be necessary. Comm. Rue suggested that all of the Commissioners drive by the project to study the actual site. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JANUARY 5, 1988 PAGE 13 VARIANCE TO ENCROACH INTO THE REQUIRED 17-FOOT PARKING SETBACK AND THE REDUCTION IN REQUIRED TURNING RADIUS AT 3220 MORNINGSIDE DRIVE Chmn. Compton stated that he would abstain from this matter, since he is the architect or record. Comm. Peirce acted as Chairman during the hearing of this item. Mr. Schubach gave staff report. He stated that the applicant has submitted revised plans and is now requesting only one variance. The plans have been revised to eliminate the need for the variance for the turning radius. The project still needs a variance for the seventeen-foot setback. Staff is recommending approval of the seventeen-foot setback variance. A finding of unusual circumstances is the location of a large mature tree on the site. The tree would have to be removed if the applicant was required to provide a seventeen-foot setback. The revised plans show a patio planter encroaching into the garage area. The garage has been designed so that the area over the hood is a planter. The Building Department has allowed over-the-hood area for storage and has allowed stairways to partially encroach into this area. A design as proposed in the plans has never been brought before the Planning or Building Departments. Staff is requesting that the Planning Commission advise staff on these types of proposals. The dimensions for the area of the hood of the car are not specified on the plans. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission grant a variance for the seventeen­ foot parking setback at 3220 Morningside Drive, subject to a thorough zoning analysis by the Planning Department for conformance to all zoning requirements. Staff also requested that the Commission interpret the issue of the over-the-hood areas. Public Hearing opened at 9:10 P.M. by Comm. Peirce. Jim Anderson, 3320 Morningside Drive, Hermosa Beach, applicant, addressed the Commission. Althoug h he understands the importance of the seventeen-foot setback, he felt it is very i mpor t ant to save the tree in lieu of providing the additional paved setback area. He said that the impact of a less than standard setback will have a minimum impact on the character of the neighborhood compared to the destruction of the tree which would probably greatly impact the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Anderson noted that the Commission had received photographs depicting the tree in question. He also passed out additional materials. Mr. Anderson felt that the tree is very significant to the area, noting that it is a California pepper tree that is approximately 40 years old. It is approximately 35 feet wide and 35 feet tall and is very much visible to the surrounding neighborhood. Mr. Anderson noted that many of his neighbors have appeared to show their support for granting of this variance. (Approximately ten people stood in the audience to show their support.) Mr. Anderson noted that many of his neighbors had signed a petition noting their favoring the saving of the tree. Other neighbors had also sent letters of support for this variance. Mr. Anderson stated that the tree is important because it provides shade in the summer and protection in the winter. He noted that it is a specimen tree. It adds color to the neighborhood, as well as adding privacy. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JANUARY 5, 1988 PAGE 14 Mr. Anderson noted that he has done much improvement to his home, as well as added much landscaping to the property. He stated that he has tried to conform to the original intent of the lot and the neighborhood. Mr. Anderson noted the plethora of literature available which stresses the importance of good landscaping and trees. He noted that he included several such articles in the handout materials. Mr. Anderson stated that granting of this variance would be appropriate because it would be in keeping with the intent of having more greenery in the area. Mr. Anderson discussed the four fin dings necessary in order to grant a variance. He substantiated the need for the variance based on the following: (1) Exceptional Circumstances: The existing conditions of the site, including the slope of the site, the larger than required front setback, and the existing location of the highly visible, desirable, and mature pepper tree would require removal of the tree to conform to the seventeen-foot setback. (2) Preservation of Property Rights Currently Enjoyed by Others: In this neighborhood, the majority of R-2 zoned properties fronting streets such as Longfellow, 33rd, Morningside, and Highland have units or garages facing the alley with the separation of the buildings as usable open or green space. Conforming to the seventeen-foot setback would use up the usable open space in lieu of paved space for vehicles. (3) No Action Detrimental to the Public Welfare: As evidenced by the signed statements by the immediate neighbors, they suppoi.ct the· construction of the unit, but they do not wish to see the destruction of this mature and beautiful tree to accommodate the seventeen-foot setback. They believe that the tree improves the surroundings by providing additional privacy, adding greenery, shade during the summer months, and a sense of quality to the neighborhood irreplaceable if the tree were destroyed. (4) Conformance: This proposed development is in conformance, with no adverse effect to the general plan. Mr. Anderson read aloud a portion of a letter from Walter & Schwartz, the well-known landscape architects in San Francisco, Comm. Peirce asked whether the applicant is amenable to an additional condition requiring that the tree be replaced if it is damaged or should perish by a tree of the same type or size. Mr. Anderson replied that he would agree with such a requirement. Mike DeVere, 1808 West 255th Street, Lomita, representing the architect, addressed the Commission. For the record, he noted that the applicant took exception to the City requirement stating that the applicant must pay the entire cost for the upgrading of the fire hydrant. Public Hearing closed at 9:23 P.M. by Comm. Peirce. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JANUARY 5, 1988 PAGE 18 On November 17, 1987, the Planning Commission requested minutes of the November 4, 1987, meeting and a policy statement interpreting coverage of open space for proposed developments. The proposed policy statement allows total square footage to be covered by 50% of the required open space rather than each individual open space area to be covered by 50% as originally interpreted by staff. The proposed policy statement was created through an interpretation by the Planning Commission. Previously, staff had interpreted Section 7.2-6 of the Condominium Ordinance to mean that 50% of the individual area may be covered open space. However, since this issue was discussed, the applicant has submitted revised plans which make the policy statement no longer applicable to the project. Mr. Schubach recommended adoption of the proposed policy statement 87-3 or a revised statement as originally recommended by staff. Comm. Peirce stated that the real issue is to decide what open space is actually to be used for. He felt that open space is basically to be used to enjoy the outdoors. By allowing the coverage of decks of up to 50%, the basic goal of enjoying the outdoors is not achieved. Comm. DeBellis felt that a purpose of open space is to reduce the bulk of a building on a lot. He asked if there is an actual definition of "open space." Mr. Schubach stated that a new definition was recently adde.d;..however, it does not state for what purposes open space should be used. He stated that open space varies according to the zone. Basically, though, open space should be open from ground to sky excluding driveways and parking areas. He stated that this definition has recently been adopted. Mr. Schubach stated that the 50% deck coverage is allowed only in the R-2 and R-3 zones. Chmn. Compton noted that the wording is still somewhat ambiguous as to what is allowed. He continued by discussing various methods by which open space has been achieved throughout the City on different projects. Mr. Schubach stated that he could do further research on this issue. Comm. Peirce stated that there is not much open space in the City, and views of the sky should be encouraged when doing the open space calculations. He felt that allowing deck over deck and the 50% aggregate would defeat the purpose of open space. Comm. DeBellis favored moving towards a more clear and concise definition of "open space." Comm. Peirce discussed open space as it relates to the 17-foot setback. He noted that the slope of a lot and how it is positioned would make a difference in the final determination; therefore, each case would need to be addressed individually. Comm. DeBellis felt that it is important to define "open space" before adopting open space regulations. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JANUARY 5, 1988 PAGE 15 Comm. Rue stated that the parking plan is very innovative and great. He thought that saving the tree is very commendable. Comm. Peirce could see no problem with having the planter over the hood of the car. He stated that he will always support a plan where a designer opts on the side of landscaping. Comm. DeBellis thought the design is very innovative and that more people should do it. MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve staff's recommendation, Resolution P .C. 88-2. AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION by Comm. Peirce to add a condition requiring the replacement of the tree with a specimen-size tree if it should perish (exact wording to be devised by staff). Also, that approval of the project is contingent upon staff review of the zoning analysis. Agreed to by Comms. Ingell and Rue and maker and second. Comm. DeBellis felt that the plan is wonderful and very creative. However, as author of the seventeen-foot setback requirement, he could not support the motion. He noted concern over the precedent which may be set by approval of this variance. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ingell, Peirce, Rue Comm. DeBellis Chmn. Compton None Comm. Rue asked if anything is being done in regard to the fire hydrant upgrade requirement. Mr. Lough replied in the affirmative, noting that the City Council will be addressing the issue in the near future. Comm. DeBellis asked about the procedure for making findings. Mr. Lough explained the issue of making findings in order to grant a variance. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP //19302 FOR A TWO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT 330 CULPER COURT Chmn. Compton abstained from this issue because he is the architect of record on the project. Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated December 21, 1987. The proposed units are approximately 1700 square feet in size. The units will contain two bedrooms and three bathrooms. Both units contain two floors and a mezzanine over a partial subterranean garage. The development will provide two parking spaces per unit plus one guest space. No additional guest parking spaces are required since no spaces are lost due to curb cuts. Plans indicate a nine-foot wide driveway. This area shall be clear of all obstructions; that is, fences, walls, et cetera. The units conform to the open space requirements. Each unit will provide 305 square feet of open space. Plans indicate that 330.13 square feet of open space is provided; PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JANUARY 5, 1988 PAGE 16 however, a portion of the deck on the second floor is used for storage and a water heater, and therefore cannot be counted as open space. Private storage for the units is provided in an area adjacent to the garage. The plans fail to show an area for trash facilities. A condition of approval should require revised plans to show trash facilities. On November 24, 1987, the City Council approved Ordinance No. 87-908 establishing regulations for vesting tentative maps. A vesting tentative map is a conditional approval granting the applicant the right to proceed with the development, provided that the development complies with ordinances, policies, and standards described in the State Subdivision Map Act. The plans for this project conform to all other planning and zoning requirements, and the project is consistent with the surrounding areas. Staff recommended approval of the conditional use permit subject to the conditions specified in the resolution. Mr. Schubach noted that the public noticing in the newspaper will now contain a signed affidavit noting that the proper noticing was done. Each and every public hearing report received from now on will contain such an affidavit. Comm. Ingell asked whether this requirement could be made part of the resolution. Mr. Schubach replied in the affirmative. Public Hearing opened at 9:35 P .M. by Comm. Peirce. Mike Devere, 1808 West 255th Street, Lomita, representing the architect, addressed the Commission. He stated that the proposed location of the trash facilities is the area in front of the guest parking garage level. Public Hearing closed at 9:36 P.M. by Comm. Peirce. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. lngell, to approve staff's recommendation, Resolution P.C. 88-3, a Resolution of the Planning Commission recommending approval of a conditional use permit and vesting tentative parcel map for a two-unit condominium project at 330 Culper Court. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. DeBellis, Ingell, Peirce, Rue None Chmn. Compton None Recess taken from 9:38 P .M. until 9:48 P .M. POLICY STATEMENT 87-2: CONDOMINIUM CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT EXPIRATION DATE (CONTINUED FROM MEETING OF DECEMBER 1, 1987) Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated December 15, 1987. He suggested that the Planning Commission not adopt the Policy Statement 87-2 as suggested by the Commission at their meeting of December 1, 1987; rather, he suggested that the policy PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JANUARY 5, 1988 PAGE 17 r,,..._ statement as proposed by staff be adopted. To adopt a policy statement which makes the staff in any way responsible for the applicant requesting an extension to the conditional use permit is not wise. The staff should not be burdened with reminding an applicant of his responsibility. If the reminder letter is lost in the mail, or the applicant claims he did not receive the letter, the staff will be blamed for the expiration of the permit. Further, staff has a large workload at this time which has a high priority with the City Council. At this time, staff sends a letter and the resolution to each applicant notifying him of the conditions of approval. The expiration condition will be noted in every resolution. If necessary, staff will put the expiration condition in bold print. Mr. Lough agreed that a requirement that staff send out notices would put the staff at a disadvantage. He noted that there could be a problem if an applicant says he did not receive such a notice. He continued by discussing the legal aspect of this issue. Comm. Rue agreed with staff on this matter, stating that he feels it is adequate to put the expiration date in bold letters on each application. He concurred that the burden of sending out letters should not be placed on staff. Comm. Ingell suggested that the date be stamped on the form in large red letters. He felt that such a notice is very important, stating that property rights are involved in this issue. Chmn. Compton suggested that the expiration date be in a large box at the top of the page. He stated that the date should be as conspicuous as possible. Chmn. Compton asked about automatic extensions for the conditional use permits. Mr. Schubach stated it would not be necessary to go through the public hearing process again. He stated that the applicant could send a written communication to staff, who would then check to make sure the project conforms with all current zoning regulations. That information could then be passed along to the Planning Commission. He noted that sufficient notice must be given by the applicant before the expiration date. Comm. Peirce suggested that there be wording in the resolution advising that a written request for an extension must be made at least 30 days before the expiration date. Chmn. Compton felt that the date on the original form should be 30 days before the actual expiration date; or, he suggested that both dates be on the form. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. DeBellis, to approve Resolution P.C. 87- 2, with the modifications that Condition No. 3 be deleted; and Condition No. 2 be modified to clearly indicate that the written notice must be received at least 30 days prior to the date of expiration. No objections; so ordered. POLICY STATEMENT 87-3 REGARDING COVERAGE OF OPEN SPACE FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated December 28, 1987. On November 4, 1987, the Planning Commission granted a conditional use permit for a three-unit condominium project located at 1452 Loma Drive, subject to an open space interpretation. ( PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JANUARY 5, 1988 PAGE 19 Chmn. Compton discussed open space as it relates to smaller lots in the R-1 zones. Mr. Schubach noted that the exception rules for open space and for the seventeen-foot setback will be presented to the Commission at their next meeting; therefore, he suggested that this item be continued. MOTION by Comm. DeBellis, seconded by Chmn. Compton, to continue this matter to the Planning Commission meeting of January 19, 1988. No objections; so ordered. STAFF ITEMS AUTO DEALERS IN THE C-2 ZONES Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated December 14, 1987. During oral communications from the public at the meeting of November 17, 1987, Mr. Feldman requested that the Planning Commission consider adding auto dealer/broker to the list of permitted uses in the C-2 zone. The City Attorney at that time noted that the matter could not be discussed until it was placed on the agenda. Mr. Schubach asked that the Planning Commission direct staff as deemed appropriate in this matter. Comm. Peirce felt that auto dealers/brokers would have several cars on site at any given time; therefore, there would need to be special parking requirements if this issue is to be considered. He felt that the C-2 zone is really for small shops. He thought this use would be incompatible with the C-2 zone; therefore, he felt-that this issue needs to be studied no further. Comm. Ingell stated that he did not have enough information on this type of business to make a decision. He noted that he favors having viable businesses in the City. Chmn. Compton stated that this applicant's office is in the same building as his office. He stated that there have been no parking problems associated with the auto dealer/broker business so far as he can tell. He noted that this business generates much sales tax revenue for the City which is a very favorable aspect of the business. He felt that this use is relatively innocuous; however, he noted that all owners might not operate the same as this applicant. Chmn. Compton suggested that the Commission at least study the possibility of allowing such a use in the C-2 zone, possibly with a conditional use permit or required extra parking. He noted that this business provides a definite service for people in the area. Comm. Rue suggested that the item be set for a public hearing. He felt that more information is necessary in order to make a determination. David Feldman, 200 Pier Avenue, Hermosa Beach, applicant, addressed the Commission. He stated that he sells between 32 and 60 cars per month. He stated that most of the cars do not even arrive at the office; they are usually delivered directly to the customer, not stored at the office. He noted that his partner is usually not at the office because he works out of his home. He noted that he has only two employees, one of whom does not drive. He stated that he is actually using fewer parking spaces than he is entitled to at this location. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JANUARY 5, 1988 PAGE 20 Mr. Feldman noted that he is fully licensed by the Department of Motor Vehicles as a licensee in that location. He stated that sales tax is generated to the City from this business. Comm. DeBellis stated that he would like more information on this business before making a decision. MOTION by Chmn. Compton, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to study this issue further and direct staff to return with additional information. Comm. Peirce voiced his opposition, stating he feels there are issues of more pressing importance to be studied than this use in the C-2 zone. Noting the objection of Comm. Peirce, so ordered. 905 15TH STREET, VARIANCE RECONSIDERATION Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated December 23, 1987. The Planning Commission at their meeting of August 18, 1987, denied a variance request to encroach into the required seventeen-foot setback and to have less than the required 400 square feet of open space. At the Planning Commission meeting of November 17, 1987, the applicant requested that the Planning Commission consider rehearing this matter. Since this matter was not placed on the agenda, the item was referred to staff for a report and recommendation. The applicant is requesting a rehearing of his variance after.·,a;iternative designs of the project were prepared. The major changes to his design are the access to the garage. The original plan shows the garage being accessed from the north. The applicant's new proposal will be accessed from the west. The Planning Department has not received the revised plans. The applicant has reviewed his plans with the Building Department. The applicant also stated that at the meeting of November 17, 1987, he had difficulty in understanding comments made by the Planning Commission because of a hearing impairment. Section 1402.4 of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code states that: "After the denial of a variance ... no further application for the same variance shall be filed for the same property for the ensuring six months unless the project has been redesigned so as to eliminate the Board of Zoning Adjustment's (Planning Commission's) or Zoning Administrator's or City Council's previous objection to the project. Said redesign will require a completed new application process." On August 20, 1987, the applicant was mailed a letter notifying him of the decision of the Planning Commission. The letter also stated that the decision of the Planning Commission could be appealed to the City Council. The applicant never filed an appeal. February 18, 1988, will conclude the six-month period since the denial of the variance. Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission advise the applicant they will rehear the matter after the six-month time period has elapsed. At that time, the applicant should refile a new application and pay new fees. If the Planning Commission decides to rehear this item prior the expiration of the six months, fees will have to be repaid. The fee can only be waived by the City Council; the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JANUARY 5, 1988 PAGE 21 r--~, Planning Commission does not have the authority to waive fees. Based on the zoning ordinance, staff recommended that the Planning Commission deny the applicant's request to rehear this item. Mr. Schubach discussed various ways this project could be redesigned to eliminate the need for a variance; however, if a different design is used, two on-street parking spaces would be lost. Mr. Lough stated that if there are changes in a project, the issue could be reheard. However, in this case a public hearing is necessary in order to grant a variance. He stated that the agenda for the next meeting is full, and the following meeting would be after the required six-month period has expired. Mr. Schubach noted that if a project is changed, it would be a new hearing not a rehearing. Fleet Nuttall, 905 15th Place, Hermosa Beach, applicant, addressed the Commission. He stated that everyone involved in this issue has a different impression of this project. He passed out copies of the revised plans for this project. He said that he is requesting now exactly what was requested last August. He continued by discussing the plans for this project. He said that if the first request is denied, he would proceed with Plan No. 2, which does not require a variance. However, he was cut off at the last meeting from discussing Plan 2. Comm. Peirce stressed that the project discussed last year was Plan 1, not Plan 2. At that time, the applicant was supposed to provide information showing why Plan 1 was the better plan. Mr. Nuttall stated that he was prevented by the Commission from discussing Plan 2 at that previous meeting. Chmn. Compton explained that the application was submitted for Plan 1, not Plan 2. It was noted that Plan No. 2 could have been built without obtaining a variance. Mr. Nuttall did not feel that Plan 2 is very desirable for the neighborhood, noting that two on-street parking spaces would be lost if Plan 2 is built. That is why he wants the variance for Plan 1. He stressed that he was prevented from making his presentation on Plan 2 at the time this item was previously heard by the Commission. Mr. Lough explained that this item could not be placed on the agenda for the next meeting. He noted, however, that the item could be set for the first meeting in February. If it is heard in February, the six-month period would have expired. So long as the applicant is willing to pay the fee, no other action is necessary other than to set the hearing for the first meeting in February. At that time the applicant may present any project he so desires. He stated that the only issue is that of the fee. Comm. DeBellis explained to Mr. Nuttall that nothing could be done at this time because the issue was not publicly noticed. Furthermore, it is too late to notice the item for the next meeting. He stated that the item would need to be set for the first meeting in February. Chmn. Compton noted that the expiration of the six-month period is actually February 18, 1988, as noted in the staff report. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -JANUARY 5, 1988 PAGE 22 'I ,,.,--r~ Mr. Lough stated that the issue could be heard at the first meeting in February as a changed plan; or at the second meeting in February as a new hearing. MOTION by Chmn. Compton, seconded by Comm. DeBellis, to continue this matter to the Planning Commission meeting of February 2, 1988. No objections; so ordered. CONDmONAL USE PERMIT ENFORCEMENT AND REVIEW Chmn. Compton complimented staff on its fine work in preparing this report. Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated December 29, 1987. At the November 17, 1987, meeting, Comm. Compton asked for a list of active conditional use permits and their applicable review dates. In response, staff prepared a list of CUPs as well as conducted a preliminary inspection of all 74 businesses. The findings of the initial inspection and the list of businesses with active CUPs was presented to the Commission. Mr. Schubach stated that those businesses in violation of their CUPs have been notified by letter of their. violations. Comm. Peirce was appalled at the number of establishments exceeding their required hours of operation. Comm. DeBellis noted for the record that several of the downtown bars have not been in compliance with the condition that screens be installed on their windows. Chmn. Compton noted that the six-month reviews have not been occurring. He felt that letters should be sent out and the establishments shou!Clt ,,go through their review processes. All Commissioners agreed with this suggestion. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. DeBellis, to direct staff to choose those establishments in most serious violation of their CUP's and begin the review process with those. No objections; so ordered. Chmn. Compton requested staff to provide the Commission with a monthly update on the Conditional Use Permits and those establishments in violation. Comm. DeBellis was alarmed at the number of establishments selling alcohol in the City. He suggested that this information would be useful to the City Council in their attempt to limit CUPs to such businesses. Chmn. Compton noted concern over those bars with no conditional use permits. He would like those establishments identified in the CUP monthly update report. • • • ELECTION OF NEW CHAIRMAN By a vote of three-two, Ge.raid Compton was elected Chairman; by a unanimous vote, James Peirce was electeq Vice:..Chairman. • • • Comm. DeBellis suggested that th~ chairmanship be rotated on a yearly basis. Comm. Peirce suggested that there be a gentleman's agreement to rotate, rather than having a policy statement stating that the chairman shall be rotated every year. \ .\ ... ' PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -_JANUJ\RY },_) 988 PACE 23 PLANNING SUBCOMMITTEE Mr. Schubach suggested that the Commission~_rs. decJde . which issues they would like to discuss with the City Council at th~ future subcoi;nmittee .rri~eting. Chmn. Compton discusse.d · ~veral items : he f~!t s_houl<t be_ discussed at the workshop: parking structure downtown, parking lots c!own-tpw,n and th~r upgrade .and slgnage; CBO grant inonies; transportation and par~J9g circulation: q~w.ntown; open space; and, conditional use permits. It was noted that _ Comms. Ingell· and: Peirce w~~ld s.er:v.e. a$ the sµbcommit~ee rpembers with the City Council suoc.ommittee~. The Commissioners received the_ foUowing_: • City Council Minutes of Novemb~r ~-4, l~~? • Roster of-Hermosa Beach. City Of fici~l$_ • UCLA.Extension Public Polic~ Prog~am COMMISSIONER ITEMS Comm. DeBellis suggested that s)aU devi~e a mt;?thod of page Tlumbering in the sta,ff reports which makes is easi~r to locate materials which are bein_g dis,cussed. He suggested sequential pagination. Comm. Ingell suggested that the staff m.~terials b.e correlated to the item nun:i.be.r used on the agenda • • • • • • •• • • MOTION by Comm. DeBellis, ~~condec;_f-by Co_mm. Rue, to adjourn ~t q~l~ P.M. ~ objections; so ordered. CERTIFICATION I hereby c;ertify that the foreg,oing minute~ are a trµe and cot"!lplete r~~fd of t~ action tak by t lanning Commission of Hermosa Beach at tr,e reguf~r1y· ~~~¢:~~~4 meet· o a , ary , 1988. • Date