Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 04-19-1988(' MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON APRIL 19, 1988, AT 7:30 P .M. IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS Meeting called to order at 7:32 P.M. by Chmn. Compton. Pledge of Allegiance led by Comm. Ingell. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Comms. Ingell, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Compton Comm. DeBellis Also Present: Michael Schubach, Planning Director; James P. Lough, City Attorney; Sally White, Recording Secretary APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to approve the minutes of April 5, 1988, as submitted. No objections; so ordered. APPROVAL OF RESOLUTIONS MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to approve Resolution P.C. 88-30, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF ItiE CIIY OF , HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A GUEST PARKING SPACE TO BE COUNTED WITHIN A 15.5 FOOT GARAGE SETBACK AREA RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED 17 FEET AND A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 1101 VALLEY DRIVE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS THE EAST 50 FEET OF LOTS 21 AND 22, KNUTSEN TRACT. No objections; so ordered. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve Resolution P .C. 88-29, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A MODIFICATION OF PLANS OF AN APPROVED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP #17679 FOR A TWO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM LOCATED AT 429 BAYVIEW DRIVE. No objections; so ordered. Chmn. Compton discussed Resolution P.C. 88-29, stating that he has obtained information from the Building Department indicating that the applicant had given untrue information at the public hearing. He noted that the applicant was in fact informed by the Building Department that the chances of obtaining a variance for the project were not good. He asked if there was any recourse which could be taken against the applicant. Mr. Lough replied in the negative, stating that at public hearings, applicants are giving an opinion. Chmn. Compton noted tha t the Commission had requested that this applicant's fees be returned, based on the assumption that the applicant was not informed that the chances for obtaining an approval for the variance were slim. He asked staff to please alert the Commission in the future in instances where applicants give misleading information. P.C. Minutes 4/19/88 MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve Resolution P.C. 88-32, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DENYING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A WALL TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT WITHIN THE SIDEY ARD SETBACK OF A CORNER LOT AT 2919 HERMOSA VIEW DRIVE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 1, TRACT 28895. No objections; so ordered. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to approve Resolution P.C. 88-26, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING AMENDING THE ZONING MAP BY CHANGING THE ZONE FOR THE AREA AS DESCRIBED BELOW AND SHOWN ON THE A TT ACHED MAPS AND AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. No objections; so ordered. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC No citizens appeared to address the Commission. VARIANCE TO EXCEED MAXIMUM ALLOW ABLE HEI GHT AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 2012 LOMA DRIVE (CONTINUED F ROM 4/5/88 MEETING} Mr . Schubach gave st a ff re po rt date d April 14, 1988. The Planning Commission, at their meeting of April 5, 1988, r equested t hat this matter be continued to request additional in fo r ma t ion from t he C ity Att orne y and the Building Director on the measurement of height. Jim Lough, City Attorney, and William Grove, Building .. ,Directer~ .have submitted information on the interpretation and measurement of height. The Planning Department also prepared additional analysis. Mr. Schubach stated that this project does, in fact, require a variance, and the Building Department was able to follow the natural grade in determining the location of the plane. Staff recommended approval of the variance subject to the conditions specified in the resolution. Comm. Ingell noted, then, that if this resolution is approved, Item B should be amended to say "The applicant is proposing an addition to the master bedroom which does exceed the maximum allowable height." Public Hearing opened at 7:41 P.M. by Chmn. Compton. Howard Silverstein, 2012 Loma Drive, Hermosa Beach, applicant, addressed the Commission. He clarified the plans, stating that there is actually only one retaining wall on the property. He continued by discussing the plans. Comm. Peirce discussed the new pla ns dated April 19 and noted that someone had drawn in a dotted line to indicate the exist in g gr a de . He asked if the applicant agreed with the location of that line. 2 P.C. Minutes 4/19/88 r Mr. Schubach stated that the diagram was prepared by the applicant or his representative. The staff then investigated the matter with the Building Department. The Building Department, after careful inspection, drew this new diagram showing the corrections. This was based on the adjacent vacant land to the north. They were therefore able to actually find the original location of the natural grade. Comm. Peirce wanted to ensure that the location of the grade is accurate. He asked if the applicant agreed that the present plans are correct. Mr. Silverstein replied in the affirmative. Comm. Peirce asked if the existing house is cross-hatched on the drawing. Mr. Silverstein replied in the affirmative and continued by discussing the roof of the present building. Comm. Rue asked if there is any other way that the master bedroom addition could be constructed without exceeding the 25-foot height limit. Russel Keldorff, 1737 1st Street, Manhattan Beach, project designer, replied in the negative, stating that it would then be necessary to go to a flat-type roof which would not agree aesthetically with the present structure. He stated that it might be possible to drop the roof line six to ten inches, but not much lower than that because there could then be water problems. Chmn. Compton agreed that the addition could not be done any other way. Mr. Silverstein stated that there is no other available area that could be added onto, commenting that he is locked into the proposed area. He said that he has a permitted deck off the back; and as a last resort, that could be used to~,obtain,a,few hundred square feet from the house. Public Hearing closed at 7:47 P.M. by Chmn. Compton, Comm. Rue commented on the side profile which was previously submitted and which showed an extreme dropoff from the existing deck, from 94.7 feet to 62 feet. He noted that, in looking at that two weeks ago at the previous meeting, it was quite apparent that the grade dropoff is quite radical. Comm. Rue noted that it is necessary to make findings to show that this project is unique. He noted that this project has a nice design and will be attractive; however, he stressed the importance of making adequate findings so that a precedent will not be set by the granting of this variance. Comm. Rue felt that this is the appropriate time to ask for mitigations in order to make the project appear softer. He noted that he likes the proposed design, stating that the roof has a nice pitch and matches the rest of the building. He did not feel that the addition will impact anyone's view, noting that the house is on the back side of a hill. He noted, however, that if this project were located on the ocean side, probably many people would object. Chmn. Compton noted that this project will have a very minimal impact on views. He felt that this is a very exceptional circumstance because the lot drops off some 35 feet; he felt that in itself is a mitigation measure. 3 P.C. Minutes 4/19/88 Chmn. Compton noted that there is a possibility of setting a precedent of some sort because there are many similar lots on hills; however, he felt that the beauty of the variance process is that each project is taken on a case-by-case review basis. In this particular case, the main portion of the area being discussed as above the height limit is the peak of a roof and not the main bulk of a flat-roofed building. He felt that this is a very minimal encroachment into the height limit. Chmn. Compton felt that the only possible mitigation would be to require a flat roof, thereby necessitating the room being only about half the proposed size. He did not feel this would be a feasible alternative. He felt that this would be too restrictive on the applicant's rights to develop his property. Comm. Peirce agreed that this is an odd lot, noting that it is not flat and it lends itself to an interpretation. He noted that the addition would not block views. He stated that four and a half feet doesn't seem like much, but it will project, especially to the people who will live in the new Power Street tract. He felt that this is a difficult case to decide. Chmn. Compton noted that the code says the height must be measured from the existing grade; which means that whatever the grade is at the time, whether it has been built up or changed, that would be the existing grade, not the natural grade. He stated that the code says nothing about natural grade. He said the Building Department has used the natural grade to determine that this project will be 29.5 feet in height. There is a retaining wall at 94.7 feet, and if one goes from the retaining wall to the top of the roof, one would probably be within inches of being over the height limit. Chrnn. Compton felt that the main issue is to determine how the height is actually measured. He felt that the existing grade should be used, not necessarily what is next door. He stressed the importance of having an accurate inte~preta,tion. He noted, also, that the erosion process can have an impact of the measuring of grade. Comm. Peirce asked for clarification on how the Building Department determined the grade. Mr. Schubach stated that the adjacent property on both sides of the project were examined. The north side is vacant and the other is built up. Mr. Lough noted that staff rarely recommends approval of a variance. The key element of any variance is to look at the land itself to determine if the topography is unique. In this case, staff feels the land to be unique because of the 38-foot drop off. He noted, however, that even if the Commission does feel the situation is unique, they are under no obligation to approve the variance. MOTION by Chmn. Compton, seconded by Comm. IngeH, to approve staff's recommendation, Resolution P.C. 88-31, with the addition of the following findings: (H) this project is unique in that most of the projection above the height line is the peak of the roof and therefore does not have a huge mass related to an over-height area; (I) also, this project is specifically a remodel, and new buildings certainly would not be favorably looked at to be over the height limit. Comm. Peirce stated that he would favor the motion based on the probability that this lot may have been at that particular level before it became eroded over the years. However, he wanted to ensure that his vote would not signal a landslide of people coming in with projects of this type. He wanted to examine every project based on the existing 4 P.C. Minutes 4/19/88 code and make it existing grade as developed by the Building Department, and then decide on the basis of each project as to how to vote. Chmn. Compton stated that this approval will in no way open the door to allow people to exceed 25 feet above the existing grade; specifically, not for new construction. He noted that this is a remodel with this particular condition. Comm. Rue agreed, stating that if this were a new building, he would vote against the approval; however, this is a remodel. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ingell, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Compton None None Comm. DeBellis Recess taken from 8:05 P.M. until 8:10 P.M. ZONE CHANGE OF AREA 9 FROM R-2 TO R-1 AND R-3 TO R-1 AND ENVIRONMENT AL NEGATIVE DECLARATION Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated April 12, 1988. He used an overhead projector to display the various areas as he discussed them. According to the City Council sched ule for zone changes, this a rea requires rezoning consideration at this time for consistency with the general plan whic h designates this area as low density. Staff has divided the area into two sub-areas because of significant factors related to lots generally east and west of Prospect A venue. Sub-Area 9A There are 136 lots in the area, 37 of which are utilized for Our Lady of Guadalupe Church and School. There are currently 120 units. Twenty-one units have been constructed in the last ten years; eight units were constructed ten to twenty years ago; and fifty-two units were constructed twenty to thirty years ago. Thirty-nine units are over thirty years old. There are seventy-eight lots with one unit, and twenty-one lots with two units. The 1922 land use map designated this area as R-1; 1930 land use map designation was R- 2 and 1943 land use map designation was also R-2. The 1956 and 1978 zoning maps designated the area as R-2. There are 16 lots over 3500 square feet; 11 lots over 5250 square feet; and one lot over 7000 square feet. According to the general plan, the subject area should be zoned to R-2, single-family residential. The rezonin g would also be in accord with advisory measure EE passed by the electorate in 1980. Seventy-nine percent of the to tal lots have single-family dwellings, and 41 percent of the single-family units were built in the last 30 years; 52 percent of the duplexes are over 30 years old, with an average age of 32 years. 5 P.C. Minutes 4/19/88 This sub-area differs from Sub-Area 9B in respect to lot size. Generally, the lots in the area are smaller, ranging in size from approximate ly 2500 to 5000 square feet, with only a few exceptions. Only 21 percent of the lots are large enough to have more than one unit under present R-2 zoning standards. Overall, staff cannot find reasons that this sub-area should be spared from rezoning. It does not possess features which make it different from other areas slated for rezoning. Based on the data provided, particularly the number of single-family units and the size of the lots, this area has a potential for rezoning to R-1. Some nonconformity will occur, however, as stated in the staff reports for other rezoned areas; however, it would be impossible to rezone most areas of the City without creating some nonconformity. Public Hearing opened at 8:17 P.M. by Chmn. Compton. Gene Drury, 1222 7th Place, Hermosa Beach, noted concern over the height in his neighborhood should the zoning be changed. He did not want to have a tall building next to his small home. He questioned what alternatives would be available in his case, other than requesting a variance. Jim Langtree, 442-444 Hollowell Avenue, Hermosa Beach, noted concern over height in his area, stating that he no longer has an ocean view. He would like to maintain a 30- foot heigh t if the zone is changed from R-2 to R-1. Don Sellers, 320 Prospect Avenue, Hermosa Beach, asked what could be done with his property today, noting that when purchased, it was two R-2 lots. His home straddles the property line. Mr. Schubach noted that Mr. Sellers coJJl d come to the Planning Department for further information on his par ticular lots and what could be done with them. Mr. Sellers stated that if his lots were merged and the rezone is approved, he would go from having two R-2 lots with a capability of four units to one R-1 lot with a capability of only one unit. Chmn. Compton noted that this case is unusual, and he suggested that if this property is subject to the merger, that the matter be pursued to request an appeal. Mr. Sellers objected to any downzone of his property, stating that it would affect his property value. He felt that appeals to the City CounciJ would be fruitless. He passed out a letter to the Commission and read it aloud for the benefit of the audience. He stated that it has always been his intention to build a rental unit on his property and to use the income for his retirement years. He felt it is unfair, immoral, and un-American to have the City downzone his property. He asked that his property not be downzoned. Don Kissler, 917 6th St reet, Hermosa Beach, fel t that the City is unduly frustrating the people in Hermosa Beach. He felt that the City is making arbitrary decisions. He stated that the people in town are very confused about the differences between general plan and zoning plan. Mr. Kissler felt that the City caters t o developers, with no regard for the aesthetics of the City. He stated that the basic issue here is one of density. He felt that the areas should be left alone, and developers should not be allowed to come in and build units 6 P.C. Minutes 4/19/88 which are double the size of the surrounding residences. Mr. Kissler opposed the downzone, stating that it will adversely affect his property value. Frank Sikian, 1204-1206 6th Street, Hermosa Beach, agreed with the comments made by Mr. Kissler. He stated that he purchased his property with the intent of building a rental unit on the property, which he did. He noted, however, if one of his buildings is destroyed, he would only be able to rebuild one unit. Mr. Sikian suggested that, if an area is downzoned, the buildings already existing there be protected under a grandfather clause. He noted concern over the loss of his property value. Edgar Moody, 1157 6th Street, Hermosa Beach, bought his duplex last year, and the lot is 40' by 140'. When he purchased the property, he was informed it was R-2; however, he was unaware of the existence of a general plan. He stated that he has not had adequate time to study this issue because of the noticing. Mr. Moody opposed the downzone, based on the potential loss of property value if one of his units were to burn down and he could only rebuild one unit. Ruth Berrin, 1154 6th Street, Hermosa Beach, was furious at the action being taken by the City. She stated that her property rights are being taken away. She stated that the downzone would lower her ability to sell this property. Lew Xenos, 705 Pacific Coast Highway, Hermosa Beach, opposed the City's taking away of people's property rights. He suggested that the voters of the City take the initiative to require a referendum. This way, voters could have their .,say,. i1 property is proposed for downzoning. Mary Holmes, 1146 6th Street, Hermosa Beach, bought her duplex 21 years ago for the sole purpose of living in one and her daughter living in the other. She stated that many huge buildings are going in all over town. She objected to the loss of her property value. She stated that there is actually no recourse for people opposing the downzone. Earle Seales, long-time local real estate broker, stated that downzoning would lower the property values in the City. He said that people buy property based on the zoning and based on what the property might be used for in the future. He felt it is unreasonable to downzone people's property. Steve Hall, 1203 6th Street, Hermosa Beach, and Steve Bessler, 1203 6th Street and 1206 7th Place, Hermosa Beach, owners of a duplex which was purchased as R-2 property. They each have a fifty percent interest in this property. They asked if they could obtain a lot split to maintain the property as R-2. They questioned what would happen if one of the units should be destroyed. They opposed the downzone based on the potential loss of property value. Don Kissler, 917 6th Street, Hermosa Beach, asked what other options the Commission is considering for certain portions of Sub-Area 9A. Chmn. Compton explained that the area below Prospect Avenue is essentially R-2 zoning. However, since most of the lots in this area are much larger, a different recommendation is being contemplated and must be discussed by the Commission. 7 P.C. Minutes 4/19/88 Mr. Kissler suggested that the zoning definition be changed, rather than the square footage being based on the size of the lot. Ruth Berrin, 1154 6th Street, Hermosa Beach, noted the current moratorium in effect, and asked how it is that two huge houses have been built on a single lot on the southwest corner of Gentry and 6th Street. Ms. Berrin stated that it is her all-American, God-given right to maintain her property rights. She felt that the City is taking away her property value by downzoning. Frank Sikian, 1206 6th Street, Hermosa Beach, asked how many lots in this area have the capability of having more than one unit. He continued by asking for clarification on the length of the present moratorium. Mr. Schubach stated that the moratorium will end in January of 1989. Comm. Ingell stated that only fifteen percent of the lots in the area have two or more units on them currently. Don Sellers, 320 Prospect Avenue, Hermosa Beach, asked if the moratorium will run until the general plan and zoning are brought into conformity. Chmn. Compton stated that the moratorium will end as planned, in January of 1989. By coincidence, however, t he timetable set up by staff for bringing the general plan and zoning into conformance will also end in January. He stated that the two issues are not necessarily connected by a time frame, bu t they are connected in that they have the same time limits as imposed by staff for the conformance issue. Jim Langtree, 442-444 Hollowell Avenue, Hermosa Beach, asked if it is a correct assumption that Area 9 will be broken into two separate areas, 9A and 9B, based on the fact that 9B has lots of a much larger size. He asked whether any lots in 9A also fall into the large-lot size category such as those in 9B. Chmn. Compton stated that it is a possibility that some of the lots in 9A are large enough to fall into the 9B category. Mr. Langtree stated that he actually has a lot and a half with an existing duplex in Area 9A. He was more interested in size consideration, rather than his being a half a block away from area 9B. Sub-Area 9B This area is bounded on the east by Prospect Avenue, and on the north by 8th Street. The southern boundary is generally 5th Street; and the west is bounded by the commercial area on Pacific Coast Highway. Area 9B has a total of 114 lots, with 193 units. Thirty-six of the units were constructed in the last ten years; 35 units were constructed ten to twenty years ago; and 34 units were constructed 20 to 30 years ago. Eighty-eight units are over 30 years old. Fifty-eight lots have one unit; forty-seven lots have two units; five lots have three units; and four lots have four or more units. 8 P.C. Minutes 4/19/88 The 1922 land use map designation was R-1, except for 5th Street between Ocean View and Hopkins, which was zoned R-3. Both the 1930 and 1943 land use map designation was R-3. The 1956 and 1978 zoning map designations were R-2. There are 58 lots over 3500 square feet; 19 lots over 5250 square feet; and 15 lots over 7000 square feet. According to the general plan, the subject area should be zoned to R-1, single-family residential. The rezoning would also be in accord with advisory measure EE passed by the electorate in 1980. Forty-nine percent of the total lots have two or more units, and eighty-three percent of the multiple units are two-unit complexes. This sub-area has a large variety of lot sizes, ranging in size from approximately 2000 square feet to 10,500 square feet which are scattered throughout this area. Eighty percent of the lots are over 3500 square feet, which is the minimum size for two units in the R-2 or R-2B zone. Fifty-six percent of the dwelling units are less than 30 years old. Based on the age, lot sizes, and number of existing two-unit developments, staff believes that this area could be rezoned to R-2B, limiting density to a maximum of two units per lot. This zone still limits the number of units to two per lot over 3500 square feet in area. It also has a minimum floor area requirement of 1300 square feet for one unit and 750 square feet for the second unit. An additional difference between R-2 and R-2B relates to a sideyard exception which has never been utilized in conjunction with any development. Staff would recommend amending the ordinance in the future to eliminate this exception. By rezoning this sub-area to R-2B, a 21 percent reduction in potential density will result. Chmn. Compton asked whether staff is actually recommending that part of this area be changed from low density to medium density. Mr. Schubach replied in the affirmative, stating that staff is recommending it be changed to R-2B. He stated that there would be a general plan change recommendation made to the City Council after the R-2B designation has been adopted. The R-2B would not become effective, however, until after the general plan modification has been approved. They would then become simultaneously effective. Mr. Lough noted, however, that the area is designated low density, and the the City Council could still downzone the area to R-1. Chmn. Compton explained to the audience that the Planning Commission merely makes recommendations to the Council; the City Council makes the final decision. Phillip Donatelli, Marina del Rey, owner of property at 456 Ocean View, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission. There is currently at this property a 65-year-old structure. Approximately a year and a half ago, he built a new structure at the back of the property. He objected to the downzone because of the possible loss of ability to develop the property in the future. 9 P.C. Minutes 4/19/88 .-....... Mr. Donatelli noted that, since he does not live in the area, he was unaware of the imposition of the moratorium. He did state that he received a notice of this meeting. He stated that he hopes to live in Hermosa Beach in the future. He stated that it was his intention to demolish and reconstruct the dwelling that borders on Ocean View and 5th Street. Chmn. Compton noted that staff's recommendation would not affect the status of Mr. Donatelli's property. Mr. Donatelli noted, however, that the Planning Commission recommendation is not necessarily that which the City Council will adopt. Mr. Donatelli noted for the record his objection to any downzoning of this area. He continued by asking for further clarification of the moratorium issue. He quoted from a letter he had received by the City Manager, Kevin Northcraft, in regard to the moratorium. Chmn. Compton explained, for the benefit of the audience, the purpose of the general plan and zone changes. He continued by addressing the issue of the multi-use corridor. Mr. Donatelli asked whether the zoning must be changed to conform with the general plan; or conversely, whether the general plan can be changed to conform with the zoning. Chmn. Compton explained that that issue has been debated in court over the past several years. However, the Elysian Heights case mandated that the zoning must take precedence over the general plan. Mr. Donatelli asked where the specifics of this issue can be located. Mr. Lough stated that Government Code Section 65860 addresses this issue. He continued by further clarifying the matter. Mr. Donatelli asked for the procedure for applying for a variance. He stated that he needs further information from the City in regard to what can be done with his property. He stated that he needs a concise definition from the City for "remodeling. 11 Chmn. Compton suggested that Mr. Donatelli make an appointment with the Building Director to discuss the available options. Richard and Donna Barts, 901-903-905 5th Street, Lot 10, Block 85, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission. He gave to the Planning Director a chart he had made depicting his property. He stated that his property is completely surrounded by large, condominium projects. He stated that they would like to have their property rezoned to high density in order to make it conform with the rest of the area. He noted that his lot has three units, two of which are 67 years old. Mr. Barts explained all of the surrounding uses around his property. Mr. Barts said his lot is 6000 square feet, and is totally surrounded by huge buildings. By changing this property to high density, it will then conform to the rest of the buildings on the block. Notwithstanding the moratorium, four units could be built on this lot; however, if this property is included in the R-2B zone, it would limit them to only two units. They specifically bought the property to tear down the two old houses in the front, leave the house in the back, and build a house for them to live in in the front, with the rear units providing income. 10 P.C. Minutes 4/ 19/88 Mrs. Barts stated that they have no intention of ever building four units on the property; they jus t want to have th r ee units. She noted that the two 67 year old houses will not last forever; and the time will soon come when they wiU need to be replaced. She stated that they need the R-3, high density zoning to keep the three units. Also, they need the R-3 designation because of the height. This is the only lot in the area affected in this regard. Mr. Barts stated that there is R-3 development in front of their property; if they were zoned to R-2B, they would need to adhere to the 30-foot height limit, thereby losing their view. Mrs. Barts stated that all of the surrounding buildings have been constructed within the past eight years; they are the only ones who have not rebuilt. Now with the moratorium, they can't do anything. Mr. and Mrs. Barts concluded by asking that they be rezoned to R-3, high density. He continued by discussing the dwelling units per acre allowed under the ,R-3 designation. Mr. Barts also stated that if the zoning is changed to R-3, the parking will be upgraded. Chmn. Compton stated that it will be necessary for staff to study this lot separately and very carefully. Mike Smith, 715 Prospect Avenue, Hermosa Beach, stated that his unit is a public unit development, differing from all other R-2 properties, in that his next door neighbor owns his own unit, and Mr. Smith owns his own unit. He recommended that the Commission accept staff's recommendation to allow this property to remain R-2. Rezoning to R-1 would create myriad problems for him. He stated that there are only three PUD's in the City. Dana Shaw, 913 5th Street, Hermosa Beach, owns property which is up the hill from one of the very large buildings. His lot is 150 feet long, and he purchased it because he felt it would be a good investm ent. He stated that the current two units are very old and nobody would buy them as they exist. They really need to be torn down and r ebuilt. He also stated that he is surrounded by 35-foot tall buildings. He noted concern should one of the buildings be destroyed and only one of the units can be rebuilt. He felt that the general plan is out of date. He opposed the proposed downzoning. He could see no reasoning behind anyone wanting to downzone property and take away wealth. Betty Ryan, 588 20th Street, Hermosa Beach, owner of property on Pine Street, noted concern. She passed out copies of detail ed plot maps she had prepared depicting Pine Street. She stated that Pine Street is curren tly consistent with the existing zoning . She opposed taking a one-block street on which every structure was built according to the code. By changing the zoning, every single property on the street will become nonconforming. She stated that Pine Street is between 5th and 6th Street and parallels Prospect Avenue and Pacific Coast Highway. Ms. Ryan was unaware that staff was recommending this area to be changed to R-2B. She stated that there are three duplexes on Pine Street, one triplex, one single-family home on one lot, and two which are two on a lot. Ms. Ryan stated that by the downzoning, everybody will stand to lose. She stated that she is a real estate broker, and people look to the zoning when they purchase property to determine what can be done with their property in the future. 11 P.C. Minutes 4/19/88 Ms. Ryan stated that five feet of height may ensure that views remain, and views are extremely valuable. She stated that it is a shame that all the proper ties cannot remain R-2. She stated that property downzoned to R-1 will definitely lose value. Jan Hallgren, owner of 605 Prospect Avenue and 1039 6th Street, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission. She favored rezoning this area to R-2B; however, she cautioned against forgetting about those propert ies to the east of Prospect and their problems with the proposed downzoning. Ms. Hallgren stated tha t several issues have not been addressed regarding this issue: (1) What will happen t o those properties east of Prospect downzoned to R-1 when they become legal nonconforming duplexes? (2) The insurance issue has not been addressed for cases where one of the houses is destroyed. (3) The issue of lenders and the fact that they do not like to lend money for legal nonconforming properties has not been discussed. She noted that her ability to sell will be affected if the property is downzoned. Ms. Hallgren felt that the proposed downzone on a block which recently allowed large condominium developments (6th Street) is not appropriate. Jim Sullivan, 1051 8th Street, Hermosa Beach, lives in an R-1 single-family home area. He asked for clarification between R-2 and R-2B zones. He stated that 8th Street is very busy and is one-way with parking allowed only on one side of the street. He felt that to allow any increase in density in that area would be inappropriate and detrimental to the present property values. Also, the 30-foot height of the proposed zone would block the current views thereby reducing property values even further. Mr. Sullivan noted that the R-1 zone can certainly be impacted by the decision made by the Planning Commission. He stressed that 8th Street doe£ not need any additional density. Robert Laddock, 1042-1044 7th Street, Hermosa Beach, commented on the moratorium as it regards the duplexes in the area. He felt that his existing units would become more valuable if no new units are being built. He stated that he supported the R-2B recommendation. He noted that by keeping his units R-2B, the units would be protected should one of them be destroyed. Jeff Leandro, owner of property at 906 7th Street, Hermosa Beach, stated that the units are very old. He felt that one of the effects of the proposed downzoning would be that he would lose the incentive to further develop the property. He favored the R-2B proposal; however, if it is downzoned to R-1, the home would need to be very expensive, and there would be no market for it. Jim Carpenter, 711 Prospect Avenue, Hermosa Beach, stated that he lives in the other half of the public urban development unit discussed earlier. He stated that he supports the R-2B recommendation. He questioned what would happen if the property is rezoned to R-1, and asked if the property could be split. Jan Donatelli, Marina de! Rey, owner of property at 5th Street and Ocean View, asked what consideration has been given to historical properties in town. She asked whether there could be a grandfather clause for the older homes in order to protect them. Susan Termus, owner of property at 940-942 5th Street, Hermosa Beach, discussed the issue of obtaining loans. She stated that banks are more willing to give loans on R-2 12 P .C. Minutes 4/ 19/88 property versus R-1 property, because banks feel R-2 property is more valuable. Phyllis Maysing, owner of l 023 6th Street, l 021 6th Street, and 423 Ocean View, Hermosa Beach, stated that the proposed downzoning to R-1 would be approximately a quarter million dollars out-of-pocket loss for her. She sta ted that she would support a rezone to R-2B. She continued by stating that part of the density problem in the City is the fact that many people do not park in their garages. Public Hearing closed at 10:32 P.M. by Chmn. Compton. Chmn. Compton noted that any decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed. He stated that there is no guarantee that the recommendation made by the Commission to the City Council will be adopted. He stated that it is very important for interested persons to also attend the City Council hearings on this matter. Comm. Rue asked about many dwelling units per lot are allowed under the low density requirements. Mr. Schubach stated that in order for someone to have more than one unit in a low density area, it would be necessary to have a lot of at least 6700 square feet in size. Comm. Peirce stated that he agrees with the staff recommendation to rezone the west side to R-1 and the east side to R-2B; however, he would agree to study the one R-3 area further. Comm. Peirce commented on concerns raised during the public hearing and stated that very few structures actually burn down in the City. He discussed the density issue, and stated that the standards have recently become more restrictive such as larger setbacks, lower heights, and increased parking standards. He also nQ:ted that there is no law or section in the Consti tution which allows people to have inalienable property rights, other than instances where the government takes away all the value of a property. Comm. Ingell complimented staff on the fine work they have done on this particular issue. He stated that he supports the staff rncommendation. Chmn. Compton agreed almost entirely with staff's recommendation; however, he would like to have two areas studied further: ( 1) Tract No. 5209, which actually includes lots on both sides of Prospect Avenue and was apparently developed at the same time. He continued by discussing the various lot sizes in this tract.. He felt that this tract is di fferent from the other areas; (2) The one R-3 area discussed in the public hearing. Comm. Rue had noted concern in th e past over t he larger 6th Street lots. The smaller lots can only develop one unit now; however, for lots over 3500 square feet, he liked the recommendatio n to rezone to R-2B. He could see no reason for not applying the same R- 2B zoning to portions of Area 9A, other than lack of City Council support. From a planning standpo int , he felt that the R-2B designation would be appropriate for both Area 9A and 9B. He felt that the small area off of Pine Street needs to be studied further. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to approve staff's recommendation to rezone Area 9B to R-2B, with the exception of the existing R-3 area. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ingell, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Compton None None Comm. DeBellis 13 P .C. Minutes 4/ 19/88 MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Chmn. Compton, to recommend a rezone of Area 9A to R-1; with the exception of Tract No. 5209, which should be studied further to determine whether it should be rezoned to R-2B. (Tract No. 5209 is bounded by 6th and 7th Streets from the City boundary to the east and to Prospect Avenue on the west, and also includes seven lots fronting to the west of Prospect between 5th and 6th Streets. Also, the lots fronting on the south side of 6th Street from Prospect to the City boundary.) AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ingell, Rue, Chmn. Compton Comm. Peirce None Comm. DeBellis MOTION by Chmn. Compton, seconded by Comm. Rue, to recommend that the R-3 zone on 5th Street near Pine Street to the multi-use corridor be studied for their age and suggested to be looked at for possible high density general plan designation. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ingell, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Compton None None Comm. DeBellis Recess taken from 10:55 P.M. until 11:01 P.M. PARKING PLAN BETWEEN 2306 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY AND HOPE CHAPEL TO ADD 760 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE SPACE TO A BUILDING AT 2306 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated April 12, 1988. The City Council, at their meeting of February 10, 1987, approved Resolution No. 87-5013 approving an amendment to a conditional use permit for a proposed expansion and parking plan for Hope Chapel at 2420 Pacific Coast Highway. Permits have not yet been issued for the expansion. The environmental review committee, at their meeting of October 22, 1987, recommended the Planning Commission grant a negative declaration for the project and recommend denial of the parking plan based on the conflict of simultaneous uses of existing parking. A corrected parking study has been provided indicating that a conflict does not exist. The applicant is requesting the parking plan to provide the additional parking required to add 760 square feet of office space to an existing office building at 2306 Pacific Coast Highway. The structure at 2306 Pacific Coast Highway is 9405 square feet and provi.des 32 parking spaces. The proposed addition is within common area located in the existing building. The addition would require three additional parking spaces. Based on the current parking standards, the existing structure would require 38 parking spaces. Therefore, the existing structure and proposed addition would require a total of 41 parking spaces. The 2306 building is office use. The peak hours of use for the building are 8:00 to 5:00 Monday through Friday. Therefore, parking is generally available for use by Hope Chapel in the evening hours and on weekends. 14 P.C. Minutes 4/ 19/88 Hope Chapel has a total of 254 deeded parking spaces. These include 120 on-site parking spaces, 97 spaces deeded from Lucky's Market, and 37 from an office building at 2200 Pacific Coast Highway. The parking study submitted by Hope Chapel indicates most of the parking is utilized on Sundays and evenings. More than enough parl<lng is available during the week. Spot checks of available parking has determined the availability of parking with the parking lot of Hope Chapel. The applicant is proposing to grant to Hope Chapel the use of fifteen parking spaces on the second level of the parking area as contained in the building at 2306 Pacific Coast Highway on Fridays and Saturdays commencing at 7:00 P.M. and on Sundays commencing at 8:00 A.M. In return, Hope Chapel will allow 2306 Pacific Coast Highway to use 15 parking spaces between the hours of 8:00 A.M. and 7:00 P.M. The parking spaces being proposed for use by Hope Chapel at 2306 Pacific Coast Highway are located on the second level. As a condition of approval, staff is recommending that parking spaces being allocated for use by Hope Chapel are located on the lower level. Pedestrian access to Hope Chapel from the upper level of the parking lot is through a door on Borden Street. A condition of approval listed in the City Council Resolution No. 87-5013 approving a conditional use permit for Hope Chapel states that "the door on Borden Street shall not be used as a general access door, but for emergency purposes only. Panic hardware for said door shall be provided .... " The use of the lower level parking lot at 2306 will require the pedestrians to use the Pacific Coast Highway entrance. The proposed parking plan conforms to planning and zoning requirements and is in conformance with the general plan. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve the parking plan subject to the conditions specified in the resolution. Comm. Peirce asked whether Hope Chapel currently has an approved parking plan. Mr. Schubach stated that they do have an approved parking plan; however, they have not implemented that plan. They are still working on arrangements with the Lucky Market to guarantee that parking will be there permanently. Comm. Peirce asked if the plan contained on Page 28 of the packet will be the plan to be used. Mr. Schubach replied in the affirmative; however, he noted that the applicant may come back to request an amendment if they cannot meet the conditions of the conditional use permit. Chmn. Compton asked if there is a time limit on the conditional use permit. Mr. Schubach replied in the affirmative, stating that there is a two-year time limit, and there is still time remaining. If the plan is not implemented within two years, it becomes void unless the applicant requests an extension. He stated that the same conditions apply to the parking plan. Chmn. Compton asked about the zone change request by Hope Chapel. Mr. Schubach stated that the zone change request was denied. 15 P.C. Minutes 4/ 19/88 ,,..... Chmn. Compton asked about the Borden Avenue exit, noting that he had received input from a citizen who was concerned about that exit. He thought that under the terms of the original conditional use permit, Hope Chapel was required to close that entrance. Mr. Schubach responded that Hope Chapel ori ginally required a conditional use permit. That one required that the Borden Avenue entrance/exit not be used except in case of emergency. At the request of the Hope Chapel a hole was cut in the wall. A permit was obtained through the Building Department, which was not aware that there was to be no door, and it was never finalized and has now expired. The hole will be sealed because it never should have been permitted in the first place. Chmn. Compton asked whether sealing of the hole could be made a requirement of the conditional use permit. Mr. Schubach replied in the affirmative. Chmn. Compton felt that one of the obvious intents of the parking plan and conditional use permit is to limit access on Borden Avenue because of the potential for adverse effects on the surrounding neighborhood. Comm. Rue asked whether staff feels it necessary for the parking spaces to be designated at 2306. Mr. Schubach stated that they probably should be designated; however, he noted that those spaces will be for employees and office people. Mr. Schubach stated, in response to a question by Comm. Rue, that parking is adequate at 2306 because the peak times of usage for that area differs from the peak times for Hope Chapel. As far as staff is aware, there is currently adeqiJate parking at 2306. Chmn. Compton suggested that signs be posted advising that people use Pacific Coast Highway as the means of access to Hope Chapel. He felt that it makes more sense to use PCH rather than Borden Avenue for exiting the Hope Chapel. Comm. Peirce noted, however, that the natural exit would be onto Borden Avenue since there is already a hole there. He noted there the plans show no designated exit area. Mr. Schubach explained the exiting area as depicted on the plans. He did not feel that there would be a problem with exiting. Chmn. Compton suggested that the designated exiting area should be in the Lucky Market area. He pointed out his proposed location on the drawings. Mr. Schubach stated that they do not want to use any Lucky Market parking. He explained that Hope Chapel does not have a deeded agreement with the owner of Lucky Market, only with the market itself. This is why Hope Chapel cannot implement the parking plan and conditional use permit. Mr. Schubach noted that there could be problems if Lucky Market vacates the property because the owner of the property would be under no obligation to provide parking for Hope Chapel. Public Hearing opened at 11:16 P.M. by Chmn. Compton. 16 P.C. Minutes 4/ 19/88 Ed Carlisle, representing Tom Walsh, stated that he is one of the owners of the building. He stated that he has discussed the issues with staff, and will agree to implement their recommendations. Comm. Peirce asked about the parking during the daytime underneath the Hope Chapel. He asked whether it is possible to reach Pacific Coast Highway from the southwest corner of the parking structure without going out the Borden Avenue exit or back to the entrance of the parking structure. Mr. Carlisle replied that it is possible to reach the sidewalk of Pacific Coast Highway, but it is necessary to go to the driveway cut which is only a few feet. One would then proceed from there down to the entrance of the lobby. Chmn. Compton asked whether there would be a problem if the parking along Pacific Coast Highway was designated rather than the parking along the side of the building. Mr. Carlisle stated that that would not be a problem. Comm. Rue asked whether it would be possible to install any kind of stairs or means of exit from the southwest corner down to the sidewalk from Hope Chapel's parking lot. Mr. Carlisle stated that that would not be possible because there is a retaining wall there; therefore, the grade is different. Comm. Rue noted that it would then be necessary for people to walk approximately 15 car lengths to the north, or more than a hundred feet. He noted that people tend to use the easiest path. By using stairs, he felt that there would be a two-pronged effect, noting it would encourage people using the Lucky parking lot to get to Hope Chapel to not use the Borden Avenue exit and to go up the stairs. Fur-ther, it would encourage Lucky employees or people visiting 2306 to use the Hope Chapel parking lot, therefore avoiding the necessity of having to walk the approximately one hundred feet. Mr. Carlisle stated that the Hope Chapel people will park on the first level of 2306. There is no way to leave that structure other than to go to the sidewalk at Pacific Coast Highway and then come up. The lobby of the church is almost even with the driveway cut. Reversing that, if the assigned parking for the office building is near the front area, again, the quickest and most convenient route would be via the Pacific Coast Highway sidewalk and down to the 2306 lobby. Dan Goodrich, 839 South Beacon Street, San Pedro, architect for Hope Chapel, addressed the Commission. He stated that Hope Chapel has four vans which park in the front spaces_ along Pacific Coast Highway. He asked that the vans be allowed to remain parking in that location. Mr. Goodrich discussed the opening on Borden Avenue, stating that it is not an emergency exit. It is merely an opening; therefore, he suggested that it not be required to add panic hardware as required by the conditional use permit and other devices. He stated that the opening could be filled in with block or some other type of material. He agreed that this is currently an illegal opening, and he has not planned to use it as an emergency exit. He stated that the problem could be solved by filling in the opening. Mr. Goodrich questioned who would fill in the opening. He asked that they be allowed to "-.J fill it in at the time the permit is obtained and construction in underway. He wanted to 17 P.C. Minutes 4/ 19/88 avoid confusion as far as construction work is concerned, noting that there are two rulings on the same opening. Comm. Peirce suggested having bars placed over the opening to block access. He felt quite strongly that it should be taken care of as soon as possible, noting that it has already been there for a year and a half. Mr. Goodrich stated that he would do whatever the Commission deems necessary, whether it be closed with blocks or covered with bars. Mr. Goodrich stated that if the opening is closed, it will not be necessary to deal with panic hardware or alarms. Chmn. Compton stated that there are constant complaints from the neighbors about people from Hope Chapel exiting onto Borden Avenue. Until such time that the problem is taken care of, there will continue to be complaints. Closing off the opening alone will not completely solve the problem because people can still exit out to where their cars are parked. He stressed the importance of the applicant correcting this problem. Mr. Goodrich stated that money would be more wisely spent by putting an alarm on the emergency exit door, rather than putting an alarm on an opening that shouldn't even be there. John Robb, 901 24th Street, Hermosa Beach, stated that his house is directly behind Hope Chapel. He stated that there is a lot of noise pollution caused by the chapel. He stated that the breezeway underneath Hope Chapel acts as an echo chamber. He noted that there is currently much traffic in the area, and additional cars would make the situation much worse. Also, additional traffic would create additional noise. Mr. Robb commended the Commission for requiring that the opening on Borden Street be blocked. He felt that the opening should be blocked before final approval is given. He also felt that having an alarm system would be wise because it would force people to park nearer the front of the building and to use Pacific Coast Highway. Comm. Peirce asked about the noise wall at the rear of the property. Mr. Goodrich stated that there is six-foot block wall in the rear; however, there is a space between the block wall and the actual beginning of the building which is set on stilts. The noise is amplified underneath the building, and it exits between the block wall and the building. He stated that he would be happy to give the Commission an on-site inspection. He stated that he would not like to see the situation get any worse. Mr. Schubach stated that landscaping will be required in the location of the block wall and the setback. Mr. Robb suggested that the mitigation measures be taken before final approval is given to this project. Bob McKeech, 901 21st Street, Hermosa Beach, stated that there are other office buildings in the area, as well as a restaurant and auto body shop. Those people all park up and down 21st Street. He asked why this building should be allowed to add square footage in an area already impacted by parking problems. He noted that, even though it is only 700 square feet, additional cars will be added. He did not see the need for the applicant to be allowed to add square footage when the applicant is not providing parking 18 P .C. Minutes 4/ 19/88 on property they already own. He noted concern for the future and future owners of this property. He felt that approval would create additional problems for the neighborhood and the commercial zones. He did not feel it is appropriate to allow someone to overdevelop property when there is not adequate parking. He felt that everyone should be required to adhere to the regulations of the City. Ann Latner, 936 24th Street, Hermosa Beach, agreed wi th the concept of lower-level parking. She also agreed with the requirement that the applicant must fill in the opening on Borden. She felt that it would be a good idea t o require emergency hardware on the door exiting on Borden A venue. Ms. Latner questioned the good faith efforts of Hope Chapel, noting that it has been over a year and a half since they have been required to do something about the Borden Avenue exit. She noted concern that if a parking plan is approved, they will just go ahead with construction. She stated that it would cost only several hundred dollars to fill in the opening. She noted concern over future traffic problems. She suggested that time limitations be placed on the issues of closing the opening and installing emergency hardware on the Borden Street exit so that this matter doesn't drag on for years. Public Hearing closed at 11:40 P.M. by Chmn. Compton. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to approve staff's recommendation with the following modifications: Condition No. 5 be modified to read: ''The doors exiting from Hope Chapel onto Borden Street shall not be used as general access doors, but for emergency purposes only. Alarmed panic hardware for said doors shall be provided limiting access except during emergencies only, and the opening in the block wall accessing Borden at ground level shall be sealed with concrete blocks." Comm. Rue stated that he would prefer to have the opeaing closed with concrete blocks. He did not feel that bars would be desirable from an architectural standpoint. Comm. Peirce suggested that a time limit be imposed in regard to blocking the opening. Mr. Schubach stated that he would prefer that the issue be resolved before the building permit is obtained to ensure that it is taken care of. Chmn. Compton felt it would be reasonable that t he closing of the opening would take place at the same t i me construction commences, noting that they would be working with concrete blocks during the main portion of construction. Then the same contractor could do the work. Chmn. Compton felt that the issuance of the building permit should be contingent upon the applicant's closing of the opening. Comm. Rue noted that Condition No. 7 states that: "Building permits for 2306 Pacific Coast Highway shall not be issued until all of the above conditions have been met." He added wording, though, which states: "except that the opening in the wall must be sealed up by the time of final approval of the certificate of occupancy." AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION by Comm. Rue as maker and agreed to by Comm. Peirce as second, to add wording to Condition No. 7 as noted in the above paragraph. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ingell, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Compton None None Comm. DeBellis 19 P .c. Minutes 4/ 19/88 '-------7 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR TICKET SALES AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 727 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY -MUSIC PLUS Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated April 11, 1988. The Planning Commission, at their meeting of November 4, 1987, recommended that the City Council approve a zone change and precise plan to allow a parking lot at 720 8th Street. The City Council approved the zone change and precise plan with added conditions of approval. The applicant has requested the second reading of this mat ter be continued until the applicant has had an opportunity to apply for the conditional use permit for the ticket sales. The City Council, at their meeting of February 23, 1988, approved Ordinance No. 88-916 requiring a conditional use permit for ticket sales. The staff review committee, at their meeting of April 7, 1988, recommended a negative declaration for this project and recommended that this conditional use permit be subject to approval from the City Council in conjunction with the zone change and precise plan for 720 8th Street. The applicant is currently selling special event tickets without a conditional use permit. At the public hearing for the zone change and precise plan, nearby residents raised issues of problems associated with the ticket sales. These problems included loitering and noise from patrons "camping out" in an attempt to obtain choice seats. Music Plus has initiated a policy not to sell special event tickets until 11:00 A.M. The other Music Plus stores in the area open their ticket outlets at 10:00 A.M. Therefore, the patrons attempting to obtain choice seats at special events will line up in the other stores. Police records indicate only one call has been received since the inception of the change in ticket sale hours. The call was made by the Music Plus management regarding a customer dispute. The management has also been working with nearby residents to resolve their concerns. The store is presently open from 10:00 A.M. to 11:00 P.M. The ticket outlet is open from 11:00 A.M. to 11:00 P.M. The precise plan, as approved by the City Council, will require the lights in the parking lot to be turned off at l 0:00 P .M. and the parking lot to be secured. The applicant would like to amend the precise plan to allow the proposed parking lot to be open until 11:00 P.M. There will be no changes to .the existing layout of the store. As a condition of approval, staff is recommend ing that the conditional use permit be subject to approval by the Planning Commission in conjunct io n with t heir zone change and precise plan. Also, staff recommends the Planning Commission require a business license for the ticket sales. The approval of the conditional use permit will give staff the ability to place conditions upon the business which could mitigate any poten tial problems associated with the use. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission grant the conditional use permit subject to the conditions specified in the resolution. Public Hearing opened at 11:50 P.M. by Chmn. Compton. 20 P.C. Minutes 4/19/88 Mark Westley, 3324 Colorado, Long Beach, and Jerry Cohen, 1429 4th Street, Santa Monica, representing Music Plus, addressed the Commission. They drew the Commission's attention to Condition No. 7 which states: "Any changes to the interior layout shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Director." Mr. Westley felt that such a condition would be far too restrictive as far as his ability to run the store, stating that it would be necessary for him to obtain approval every time he desires to change or remodel the store. He said that this appears to be a new condition which has been added, and he could not understand how such a condition could add to the effectiveness of the control of ticket sales. Mr. Westley asked for clarification on the intent of the City in regard to this proposed Condition No. 7. Mr. Schubach stated that condition is typically imposed in conditional use permits. In this case the the City would not want the applicant to suddenly become a major ticket distributor. Also, this condition would preclude future potential problems with the layout arrangement of the store. Mr. Cohen noted that Condition No. 8 states: "Additional conditions may be imposed if problems arise, such as loitering and overnigh t camping." He felt that that condition could be refere nced if there were to be any problems with ticket sales or the layout of the store. This condition would give t he City the ongoing authority to oversee conditions at Music Plus. Mr. Cohen stressed that the City has various other means of operational control, other than the imposition of a condition dictating the layout of the store as addressed in Condition No. 7. He stated that the face of the language seems to dictate any changes in the layout of the store; therefore, they object to the wording .,oiLtbe condition. Mr. Lough suggested a modification to Condition No. 7 stating that "any changes to the interior of the layout which lead to a significant increase in the floor area for ticket sales ... " Mr. Westley stated that they should be able to add terminals in the store without approval every time an addition is made so long as there are no problems. If there are problems, the City has the authority to take action. Comm. Peirce noted concern that many terminals might be installed, noting that the Commission thought this establishment was only going to be a small ticket outlet. Mr. Westley stated that all of the restrictions seem to be . overbearing and unnecessary. He stated that the possibility of this establishment turning into a huge ticket outlet is highly unlikely. He stated that the attempt of the City to cover itself before such an occurrence grossly restricts his ability to change fixtures or lean more towards videos and other changes. He felt that the entire purpose of the CUP was to give the City control over the way in which tickets are sold. Comm. Peirce asked why the applicant objected to the City's attempt to maintain the size of the ticket sales to what it currently is. Mr. Westley felt that the C ity does not have such a right. If he can conduct the business with no prob lems , he should be allowed to carry on business. He stated that he is providing a community service. He agreed if the ticket sales are tripled, he could see 21 P.C. Minutes 4/ 19/88 the addition of more conditions; however, to try to tie that condition in at this time is inappropriate. He noted that every single Music Plus store has only one ticket terminal per store. Mr. Westley stated that the problems concerned with the long lines for ticket sales have been resolved. He felt that things are being carried too far by the imposition of these conditions. Chmn. Compton stated that if all the stores have only one terminal, the applicant should have no objection to a condition stating that any significant changes which lead to increased tickets sales shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Director. Comm. Rue disagreed, stating that additional ticket sales might not be detrimental to the public welfare. Comm. Ingell agreed with Comm. Rue, stating that the applicant's ability to merchandise could be limited by such a condition. Chmn. Compton stated that his comments regard only ticket sales, not videos or any other merchandise. No other layout changes would be included. Mr. Cohen stated that if increased ticket sales can be accomplished without negatively impacting the surrounding neighborhood, the applicant should be able to do so without the imposition of said condition. He stated that this would be good business practice. He stressed that the City has the right to come in if there are problems. Chmn. Compton stated that any modification which would lead to enhanced ticket sales could lead to potential problems that the applicant is not now aware of. If the City does not know that such enhance ments are being done they will mot be able to oversee the opera tion. He stated that he would prefer that the condition be included in order to avoid future problems and complaints from the neighbors. He felt that the Planning Director would be amenable, and would not necessarily require every item to come before the Planning Commission. Mr. Westley asked if the Commission would be amenable to changing the condition to state that the applicant shall give notice to the Planning Director, as opposed to being required to ask for approval. Comm. Ingell felt that Condition No. 8 is adequate if there are problems. He felt that the applicant, as a businessman, has the right to conduct his business. He felt that the neighbors will definitely let the Planning Commission know if there are problems. Further, he felt that the applicant might be better .able to serve customers if additional terminals are added. Mr. Lough agreed that the wording in Condition No. 7 is overly broad. He stated that this is a standard condition imposed to ensure that whatever the reason was for the conditional use permit being required is not causing problems. He felt that better wording would be something such as "Any changes to the inte rior layout which substantially increases the use of floor area for the purpose of ticket sales shall be subject to review by the Planning Director .11 He noted, however, that problems could arise in determining exactly what would constitute a "substantial increase." He suggested that the Planning Department be notified by the applicant when there is a modification to the amount of ticket sales. He noted that the City does now have a full­ time CUP enforcement officer. He noted that there are merely suggestions for the 22 P .C. Minutes 4/ 19/88 ,--. Planning Commission to discuss. Mr. Lough did note that if the CUP is approved, Condition No. 7 should be modified in order to avoid ambiguities. Comm. Ingell felt that the applicant can probably run his business better than the Commission can. Whether the ticket sales are increased or not would not create a problem so long as people are kept from camping out and causing other problems. Mr. Westley stated that he is unclear about the issue of the parking lot closing hours and when the lights should be turned off. He noted that that issue is not part of the present package; however, he asked for clarification of the matter. He asked if the parking lot lights are off, and the parking lot itself is closed, can the City say that the store cannot remain open because they are not providing parking. Comm. Peirce stated that that would be a question to pose before the City Council. Chmn. Compton stated that the intent of the condition in question is to ensure that the public is not parking in the Music Plus lot during off hours. Pat Price, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission. She felt that the citizen's concerns have been pretty well addressed. She noted concern over the fact that the applicant has not attempted to converse with the residents. She noted that there are still people loitering around Music Plus. There is still a problem with noise. She stated that the problems have been somewhat reduced; however, she felt that that is because Music Plus has not been selling choice tickets since the last public hearing. Ms. Price noted that there have been problems with the parking lot. She felt that the area should be monitored to ensure that customers are parki.Rs .. m, the designated parking areas. She hoped that the Commission does not change the wording in Condition No. 7, stating that she feels it is appropriate. Shirley Meyer, 654 8th Street, Hermosa Beach, stated that she would hate to see the problems increase; therefore, she favored the inclusion of Condition No. 7 as submitted. She noted that she still has concerns over the parking, traffic, speeding, and other issues. She stated that she has never been included in regard to any impact study. Ms. Meyer stated that she has never been contacted by anyone from Music Plus in order to discuss any of the problems. She stated that only one person has ever been contacted, and she felt she and the others have been ignored. Marianne Wright, 731 8th Street, Hermosa Beach, stated that with the ticket sales, people are now stopping everywhere to drop off somebody to run in and pick up the tickets. She passed out several photographs depicting the traffic jams and people running into the store. Ms. Wright stated that people prefer to park on the street rather than in the lot, She said that people sometimes park in the lot all night long. Ms. Wright stated that the Music Plus store closes at various times of the night. George Katoulis, 701-703 8th Street, Hermosa Beach, questioned the addition of more parking spaces at this establishment. He noted concern that the business would expand once they have the additional parking. 23 P.C. Minutes 4/19/88 Public Hearing closed at 12:23 A.M. by Chmn. Compton. MOTION by Comm. lngell, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve staff's recommendation, with the deletion of Condition No. 7. Therefore, Conditions 8, 9, and would need to be renumbered to reflect the deletion. Comm. Rue discussed Condition No. 8: "Additional conditions may be imposed if problems arise, such as loitering and overnight camping." He suggested the addition of wording to encompass other disruptive actions. He noted that there have many concerns voiced by citizens. Comm. Rue discussed Condition No. 2: "Regular event, low demand ticket sales may commence at 10:00 unless complaints are received." He noted concern over this condition. Mr. Lough noted two typographical errors on the Resolution: Condition No. 3: "Signs shall be places! clearly stating ... ; Condition No. 4: "The owner shall obtain a business license for the ticket sales." AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION by Comm. Ingell as maker and Comm. Rue as second, to direct that the typographical errors be corrected. Comm. Peirce discussed Condition No. 2, stating that he remembered that the Planning Commission had required that no ticket sales shall take place before 11 :00 A.M. He agreed that 10:00 might be inappropriate. Comm. Peirce favored the inclusion Condition No. 7, stating that ticket sales can have a large impact on the community, and it is something that t he City should watch very carefully. He stated that action should be taken before problems arise so that problems will not be several years behind in the correction process. Comm. Ingell agreed; however, he felt that the applicant is in the business of selling music and tickets. He felt that the applicant is the best judge of what impact an additional ticket machine would have on his business. Comm. Peirce felt that the Planning Director should be notified when a change is proposed in the ticket sales. With the addition of a ticket machine, it could be several months before any problems surface. He said that it is more difficult to correct a problem after the fact that it is to watch a problem and take action to remedy the situation. Comm. Rue stated that he would agree that notice should be given to the Planning Director. Chmn. Compton suggested wording for Condition No. 7: "Any changes to the interior layout which leads to significantly enhanced ticket sales shall require the Planning Director to be noticed." This specifically would be tied only to ticket sales. Also, approval by the Planning Director shall not be required; merely, that the Planning Director be notified. Comm. Rue agreed with Chmn. Compton's suggestion. AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION by Comm. Ingell as maker and agreed to by Comm. Rue as second, to retai n Conditio n No. 7, with the following wording: "Any changes to the 24 P.C. Minutes 4/ 19/88 interior layout which leads to significantly enhanced ticket sales shall require the Planning Director to be noticed." Comm. Ingell stressed that the City needs to develop a rapport with successful businesses, noting the importance of businesses in town. Comm. Peirce asked if the issue of the time for selling tickets should be addressed, explaining that when the matter left the Planning Commission, tickets wer·e not to be sold until 11:00. This resolution (Condition No. 1) states that tickets can be sold at 10:00. He felt that 11:00 is more appropriate than 10:00. Mr. Schubach stated that the applicant wanted to leave that issue open. He stated that the applicant will be proposing a new method by which tickets are sold, which might prove to be more effective than is being done presently. Chmn. Compton noted, however, that the applicant was allowed to sell low-demand tickets at 10:00; only the high-demand special event tickets were to be sold beginning at 11 :00. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ingell, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Compton None None Comm. DeBellis REVOCATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ALLOWING BEER AND WINE AND OUTDOOR DINING AT 23-25 22ND STREET-MARTHA'S RESTAURANT Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated April 13, 1988. On Oct0b.er 21, 1986, the Planning Commission approved Resolution P.C. 86-49, which amended an existing conditional use permit for the sale of beer and wine, to allow encroachment onto the public right of way. On November 25, 1986, the City Council held a public hearing to consider an appeal of the Planning Commission decision. Specifically, the conditions limiting the total seating capacity to 50 and prohibiting the sale of beer and wine on the patio, except during restricted days and hours, were appealed. The Council denied the appeal and concurred with the Planning Commission decision. Thus, City Council Resolution No. 86-4997 was adopted. The Planning Department on February 10, 1988, informed Mr. Hoffman that he has failed to comply with several approved conditions: (l) to intall a 20-space bicycle rack on the premises; (2) to limit seating to fifty persons, including indoor and outdoor seating; (3) to submit to the Planning Department a signed and notarized "Acceptance of Conditions" form; (4) to submit proof of recordation of the conditional use permit with the deed to the Planning Department; (5) to obtain a valid Encroachment Permit from the Public Works Department. In addition, staff has now discovered that alcohol is being sold during periods prohibited by the conditional use permit. Due to noncompliance, the business owner was notified on April 5, 1988, that Martha's had been scheduled for a revocation hearing for April 19, 1988. 25 P .C. Minutes 4/ 19/88 Public Hearing opened at 12:33 A.M. by Chmn. Compton. Robert Hoffman, owner and operator of Martha's 22nd Street Grill, addressed the Commission. He stated that he was unaware of any violations in regard to the sale of beer and wine. He asked for clarification. Mr. Schubach stated that Martha's has been observed selling beer and wine during hours which they are not permitted such sales. Mr. Hoffman stated that this matter is very long and complicated. He addressed several points contained in the letter he received and to which he responded. He received the first letter on April 4, 1988, which outlined five violations. Mr. Hoffman discussed the 20-space bicycle rack. He said that there is currently a 16- space bicycle rack at the premises. He stated that he will add the additional four spaces which are required. Mr. Hoffman discussed the requirement that he submit to the Planning Department a signed and notarized "Acceptance of Conditions" form. He stated that he was not certain whether he had done this, because he was not certain if he had received a complete package from the Public Works Department. He stated that this requirement is contingent upon the requirement to submit proof of recordation of the CUP with the deed to the Planning Department. He stated that he had not received all the necessary information. He has tried to work with the Public Works Department on these matters, but it has proven to be a very frustrating experience. Mr. Hoff man discussed the issue of the seating being limited to 50 persons, including indoor and outdoor seating. He stated that for fifty years there has been outdoor seating at this site, and he can prove this fact by witnesses and photo.graphs. Mr. Hoffman stated that he has operated on the patio for many years. When the adjoining restaurant was purchased, a beer and wine license was transferred in the process which necessitated the approval of a conditional use permit. At this time, the Building Department suggested that the outdoor dining issue also be formalized. As it happened, this turned out to be poor suggestion. Since no outdoor seating was ever approved, it was felt by the Planning Department that outdoor dining did not really exist. Mr. Hoffman felt that the outdoor dining was approved by the fact of many years' usage and tacit consent by the City. Mr. Hoffman stated that year-after-year inspections by the Health Board and Fire Department turned up no complaints with regard to the outdoor dining. Mr. Hoffman stated that the Planning Department then proceeded to calculate the existing seating capacity based only on the indoor area, not the outdoor patio, of which he had just agreed to rent from the City for $4200 per year. Mr. Hoffman stated that this matter then triggered the issue of parking requirements. He was notified that the establishment would then come under the parking plan rules. He stated that parking exists in north Hermosa Beach in copious amounts. Mr. Hoffman stated that he said at a previous hearing it was not fair of the City to strip this establishment of its grandfather status in the face of evidence supporting the existence of outdoor seating. 26 P.C. Minutes 4/ 19/88 Mr. Hoffman stated that the matter has come to loggerheads. Because the issue could not be resolved, there was nothing else that could be done since the conditional use permit was not actually in effect. He stated that the matter needs to be resolved with the Public Works Department. Mr. Hoffman stated that according to Table 333A of the Uniform Building Code, Martha's is allowed 53.5 seats inside and 43.9 seats on the patio, for a total of 97 .4 seats. Mr. Hoffman explained the traditional seating at Martha's, stating that they are currently 13 under the allowed maximum. Mr. Scott of the Fire Department has stated that he has been in town for eight years, and there has always been outdoor dining at this establishment. Mr. Hoffman discussed a survey he did to determine how most patrons arrive at Martha's. Based on a sampling of over l 000 people, it was determined that thirty-five percent of the customers drive; twenty-five percent ride bikes; and forty percent walk to the restaurant. He continued by discussing the other findings made in the survey. Mr. Hoffman stated that he has hundreds of thousands of dollars invested in this business. Mr. Hoffman asked the Commission to recognize the fact that the preexisting conditions of the outdoor seating which predates the parking ordinance and the encroachment ordinance entitles them to continue with the outdoor seating at least until such time that that area is used in the calculations to determine the available seating. He asked that the Commission recognize the fact that the Fire Department has ascertained the allowable seating to be 97 .4. He said that the current number of 50 is baseless and was arrived at incorrectly. Mr. Hoffman noted that the Planning Commission is empowei.ed-to reduce the required number of parking spaces in certain instances. In this case, nothing could be more appropriate than to reduce the required number of spaces. He asked for a good reason why he should not be allowed to continue with the outdoor seating at this establishment. Comm. Peirce noted that at the original hearing of this matter in 1986, the minutes clearly reflect that the Planning Commisison approved only 50 seats. Mr. Hoffman stated that if he complies with the 50-seat requirement, Martha's would go out of business. He noted that at the time of the original hearing, he was not allowed to give further information in regard to the 50-seat requirement. He stated that the Chairman at that time stated such discussion was out of order. He said that he wrote to the Planning Director the following day explaining that the figures used to determine the seating were inaccurate. He was informed by the Planning Director that there was no back-up data to warrant additional seating. Mr. Hoff man continued by explaining what occurred after he sent the letter to the Planning Director. He noted that he was unable to get past the problems with the Public Works Department. He stressed that he did not add any additional seats; he merely continued with the existing seating. He stated that he did not continue with this process because of the time involved and the large amount of money required for hearings and appeals. In response to a comment by Comm. Peirce, Mr. Hoffman stated that at the time the Planning Commission said there could be only 50 seats, Martha's already had 84 seats. 27 P .C. Minutes 4/ 19/88 Mr. Schubach stated that only 50 seats are allowed inside. If the applicant obtains an encroachment permit, additional seats could be added outdoors. However, no encroachment permit was obtained. He stated that the 50 seat figure is based on unfixed sea ting indoors and on the floor area. Mr. Hoffman stated that he has researched City records and has not been able to find any definitive information as to how many seats are actually allowed. Chmn. Compton noted that there is obviously a difference of opinion as to how many seats are allowed. The question is whether or not this applicant has a vested right to continue with the outdoor seating. He noted that there is a problem, though, if the applicant has not obtained an encroachment permit. Mr. Lough noted, however, that Civil Code Section 1007 states that no right against public property can ripen by adverse possession or by any color of title. Assuming the Planning Commission did approve Mr. Hoffman to continue with the outdoor seating, the applicant would still be in violation of the California statutes. Therefore, the Planning Commission does not have the power to impose a grandfather clause in cases involving public property. Mr. Hoffman stated that there is nothing in the code to prevent the Planning Commission from allowing him to continue with the 84 seats. Mr. Lough stated that that is correct; so long as the applicant obtains an encroachment permit and meets the other requirements in regard to the bond which must be obtained. Mr. Hoffman stated that, from the very beginning, Martha's has had in effect a one million dollar liability insurance policy on Martha's and Hoff mans. Records are on file with the City to verify this fact. In response to a questiQQ.,about the encroachment permit, Mr. Hoffman stated that he had not obtained it because the Public Works Department would not accept the check because they said the paperwork was not in order. He then mailed in a check for $2,030, which was subsequently placed in a file and never cashed. Mr. Lough agreed that the check has never been cashed; however, the City is still waiting to receive a completed application for a valid permit. Comm. Rue read from the minutes of the previous public hearing on this matter in order to refresh the memories of the Commissioners (pages 20 through 22 of the packet). He noted that it was felt previously by the Commission that parking was not a substantial problem. He did state that the motion approved only 50 seats. He noted that the main objection at the time of the hearing seemed to be an objection to the in-lieu fees for parking. Carol Briedenbacht, 2140 Strand, Hermosa Beach, stated that she is only 75 feet from the patio at Martha's. She has lived there for 17 years, and for as long as she can remember, there has been outdoor seating at this location. She could see no reason to take away the patio seating, noting that if it is removed people will still wait around on the sidewalk until a table becomes available. She felt it would make better sense to allow the outdoor dining. She stated that Martha's has been a good neighbor and she has no complaints with their operation. She did not feel additional parking is necessary for Martha's customers. 28 P .C. Minutes 4/ 19/88 Ms. Briedenbacht did agree that traffic is a problem in the area on the weekends. However, if the street is closed off, it would be difficult for her to enter her driveway. But she would agree to closing off the cul-de-sac during the summer months in order to alleviate the traffic problems. Ms. Briedenbacht stated that Martha's is providing a service for the City and they provide taxes to the City. She stated that there is no problem related to the serving of beer and wine. She asked the Commission to allow Martha's to continue operations. Leslie Hoffman, 2203 Hermosa Avenue, owner and applicant, addressed the Commission. She discussed many of the problems which have been encountered with the Public Works Department. She talked about the encroachment permit. She stated that when they took over the restaurant, they merely continued operations as they had always been done with the outdoor dining. She displayed photos depicting outdoor dining in this location from years past. Comm. Peirce did not disagree that there has been outdoor dining at this location; however, he stressed that it was intermittent, not permanent use. Mrs. Hoffman continued by discussing the past history of this establishment, stating that they had not been notified in years past that they were in violation of anything. They passed all inspections undertaken by the City officials. Mrs. Hoffman explained the history of when the Middle Store's lease was purchased and when the beer and wine license was transferred. At that time they were informed it would be necessary to apply for a conditional use permit. She felt that Martha's is being penalized for its success. Mrs. Hoffman stated that they did apply for the conditiona,l.,use permit; however, the condition requiring a commercial encroachment permit held up the process for months. The permit required a one million dollar liability policy. The Hoff mans do not own the property, and the owners refused to carry any liability insurance for the patio area. After lengthy negotiations, the City's ordinance was rewritten to allow the permittee to obtain the policy and provide insurance proof to the City. She stated that they complied with the insurance requirements. Mrs. Hoffman discussed the conditional use permit. She stated that they were going to be required to pay the City $4000 per year, up front, in a lump sum. She requested the Public Works Department to investigate whether they could pay the fee in quarterly installments. This had to go to Council, where it was approved. They had already paid two installments, and the check for the balance of the payment is still in file uncashed. Mrs. Hoffman stated that in September 1987, Mayor Cioffi requested an additional requirement that a bond be posted because the City would not be liable in the event the City had to restore the property. She stated that this process has been quite costly. She said that restoration costs would be $17,000. The City said it would cost $17,290 to remove a fence that cost only $2000 to install, including the materials. After a search to find a bonding company, they were turned down unless they posted a certificate to cover the $17,000. She then went back to the Public Works Department and the person who had been handling this problem had left the job. Therefore, Mrs. Hoff man had to start all over again with a new person. She then wrote a letter to the Public Works Department, dated December 1, 1987, which she read aloud to the Commission. 29 P.C. Minutes 4/ 19/88 Mrs. Hoffman stressed that it has been the intention of the Hoffmans to comply and get things in order in regard to this matter. Mrs. Hoffman stated that to date there has been no response from Public Works. She stated that the City's copy of the letter was received and stamped on December 7, 1987. Mrs. Hoffman felt that once she has made a move, it is up to the City to make a response. She stated that it is now the issue of the bond which is holding up the process for the encroachment permit. She said that the actual amendment to the encroachment ordinance makes no mention of the requirement of a bond; therefore, she felt it is unnecessary that they be required to obtain a bond. Mrs. Hoffman stated that the ball is now in the court of the Public Works Department. Mr. Lough discussed the issue of the bond, stating that the requirement is in the actual ordinance. He stated that the question of whether or not it is fair is left to the determination of the City Council. Mr. Lough discussed the issue of the Hoff man's check being held by the City. He said that when the City received the check, if it had been cashed it would have meant that the applicant had the permit. If the check was returned, then the applicant would have no permit, and the application would become null and void and and would have to be prosecuted. The City did not wish to take those steps; therefore, they held the check. Mr. Lough suggested that the bond issue be presented to the City Council for their determination. Mrs. Hoffman stated that they would be willing to take steps to obtain a realistic bond application, but she stressed that $17,000 is an outlandish figu1re, .. Mr. Lough suggested that the encroachment permit and bond issue be continued in order to obtain further information from the Public Works Department. Comm. Rue stated that this is a complex issue which deserves further study. He stated that he would favor a continuance of this matter in order to obtain further information from both the Public Works Department and staff. Comm. Peirce stated that more information is necessary on the bond and encroachment permit. However, he felt that the main issue is the number of seats allowed at Martha's; and if they cannot comply with the 50-seat requirement, he could see no reason not to revoke the conditional use permit. Comm. Ingell noted that the original requirement of 50 seats was appealed to the City Council who denied the appeal and upheld the Planning Commission decision. Chmn. Compton asked whether the survey done by Mr. Hoffman in regard to how people arrive at the restaurant could have any bearing on an attempt to have the required number of parking spaces reduced. Mr. Schubach stated that the applicant could apply for a parking plan if so desired. Chmn. Compton felt that a main issue is whether or not the additional seats generate an additional requirement for parking. 30 P.C. Minutes 4/19/88 MOTION by Chmn. Compton, seconded by Comm. Rue, to continue this matter to the Planning Commission meeting of May 3, 1988, with the stipulation that the Planning Commission hear from the Public Works Department in regard to the encroachment of Martha's Restaurant, the permit status, the bond, and what is being required of the Hoffmans so that the City Attorney can study this issue further. No objections; so ordered. Public Hearing continued at 1:31 A.M. by Chmn. Compton. Chmn. Compton explained to the applicant what procedure should follow in this matter. He stated that an agreement must be made between the City and the Hoffmans. Chmn. Compton stated that the following items were continued to the next meeting of the Planning Commission: • Hearing for determination for lot merger Group L.M. 88-2 • Staff Items • Commissioner Items MOTION by Chmn. Compton, seconded by Comm. Rue, to adjourn at 1:33 A.M. No objections; so ordered. CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and complete record of the action taken by the Planning Commission of Hermosa Beach at the regularly scheduled meeting of April 19, 1988. 31 P.C. Minutes 4/19/88