Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 12-06-1988MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON DECEMBER 6, 1988, AT 7:30 P.M. IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS Meeting called to order at 7:30 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. Pledge of Allegiance led by Chmn. Peirce. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Comms. Edwards, Ingell, Ketz, Chmn. Peirce Rue (Excused absence) Also Present: Michael Schubach, Planning Director; James P. Lough, City Attorney; Sally White, Recording Secretary APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Chmn. Peirce, to approve the minutes of November 15, 1988, as submitted. Noting the abstentions of Comms. Edwards and Ketz, so ordered. APPROVAL OF RESOLUTIONS MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Chmn. Peirce, to approve Resolution P.C. 88-96, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #20092 FOR A TWO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT 725 9TH STREET, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 19, TRACT 223. Noting the abstentions of Comms. Edwards and Ketz, so ordered. MOTION by Comm. Inge 11, seconded by Chmn. Peirce, to approve Resolution P .C. 88-97, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DENYING VARIANCES TO CONSTRUCT A NEW GARAGE IN THE SEVENTEEN-FOOT SETBACK, TO PROVIDE NO GUEST PARKING, AND TO MAINTAIN EXISTING NONCONFORMING WALLS AT 1836 PALM DRIVE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS THE WEST HALF OF LOT 17 AND THE WEST HALF OF THE EASTERLY .84 FEET OF LOT 18, TRACT 1132. Noting the abstentions of Comms. Edwards and Ketz, so ordered. MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Chmn. Peirce, to approve Resolution P.C. 88-101, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING AMENDING THE ZONING MAP BY CHANGING THE ZONE FOR AREAS 10 AND 11 AS DESCRIBED AND SHOWN ON THE MAPS AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENT AL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. Noting the abstentions of Comms. Edwards and Ketz, so ordered. MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Chmn. Peirce, to approve Resolution BZA 154- 441, A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR LIVE ENTERTAINMENT IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE OPERATION OF A BAR LOCATED AT 211 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA. Noting the abstentions of Comms. Edwards and Ketz, so ordered. 1 P.C. Minutes 12/6/88 COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC Tom Morley, 516 Loma Drive, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and asked about the status of the environmental impact report for the oil drilling sites. He asked when the public hearing would be held. Mr. Schubach stated that the public hearing will be held in approximately two to three months. CONDmONAL USE PERMIT FOR VIDEO SALES AND RENTAL (ADULT INCLUDED) AND ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 1312 HERMOSA AVENUE, HERMOSA VIDEO Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated November 29, 1988. He stated that this project is located in the C-2 zone, with a general plan designation of general commercial. The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to continue operating a video tape sales and rental business, including adult X-rated. The site is approximately 1000 square feet in size and provides only two employee parking spaces in the rear of the property. However, there is on-street parking in front of the business, and the City parking lot is located across the street. It should be noted that Hermosa Video currently validates its customers' parking. Therefore, staff is recommending a condition of approval requiring that the validation practice be continued. The current C-2 zoning standards permit videocassette tape sales and rentals, subject to a conditional use permit. However, adult X-rated videos are prohibited under the current code. The City Attorney has determined that the exclusion of adult X-rated videos in a zone which permits other video rentals is unconstitutional. However, the City may limit the quantity to 20 percent of the total product. Staff is recommending a 20 percent limitation as a condition of approval and the physical separation of such videos. It is staff's belief that the imposition of the conditions of approval will mitigate any significant problems. Mr. Schubach recommended that the Planning Commission approve the conditional use permit and negative declaration, subject to the conditions specified in the resolution. Mr. Lough explained that the current code prevents adult uses as defined by the California legislature in certain zones such as residential and manufacturing. Adult uses are allowed only in the C-3, zone but with a distance requirement. The key issue at hand is whether or not this business is an adult use; and the occasional sale of videos, books, or magazines which have been considered harmful to minors does not make a business an adult business. This is based on California Supreme Court decisions on the matter. The key issue is whether or not the predominant use of the business is as an adult business. He did not feel that in this instance the predominant use would be that of an adult business. He further noted that the purpose of a conditional use permit is to allow the City the ability to periodically check on the business in the event it, over time, gradually changes to a use which is not permitted in the zone. 2 P.C. Minutes 12/6/88 Chmn. Peirce asked about the word "predominant." He asked what the code says in this regard. Mr. Schubach stated that video stores with 20 percent adult videos are allowed in the C-3 zone with a conditional use permit, such as the Wherehouse and Music Plus. Such use is prohibited by code in the C-2 zone. Under the current code, however, up to 20 percent adult use must also be allowed in the C-2 zone, according to the City Attorney. Chmn. Peirce commented that the current code allows no video stores in the C-2 zone. Mr. Schubach clarified that videos are allowed in the C-2 zone, but not adult videos. Mr. Lough stated that the code specifies no "adult uses." The California Supreme Court has determined that an adult use means the "predominant" use of a business. He continued by discussing the appeals case of Pringell versus the City of Covina which addressed the occasional showing of X-rated films and the fact that such occasional screenings does not qualify a theater to be considered an "adult theater" and therefore requiring it to be relegated to a certain part of a city. He noted that the main issue is one of usage. Chmn. Peirce noted that that particular case, however, is not directly applicable to the issue at hand. He asked whether there are other cases directly applicable to this case. Mr. Lough replied in the affirmative, stating that the main issue, though, is the amount of usage. Chmn. Peirce stated that occasional usage would be the sale of adult videos on a sporadic basis; the daily availability of such videos would qualify as a continuing, but not predominant, use. Mr. Lough continued by g1vmg examples of various types and amounts of usage. He stated that there are not many cases on this particular issue; therefore, cities must abide by what is currently on the books. Mr. Lough stated that the purpose of a CUP is to allow the City to monitor the usage of such businesses. He stressed that the purpose of the Planning Commission is to determine the amount of usage; not to totally preclude such use in the City, which is considered a protected right under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Mr. Lough discussed a past instance when the City attempted to preclude a fortune teller from locating in town; however, that case went to Federal Court, and the use was allowed. In the eyes of the Supreme Court free speech issues as well as religious issues are protected. Mr. Lough stated that predominantly adult uses are currently allowed in the C-3 zone only, and with the distance requirements. The issue now is whether or not to allow adult uses which are not predominantly adult in the C-1 and C-2 zones. Comm. Ingell discussed "predominant" use and asked how the City arrived at the 20 percent figure. Mr. Lough stated that staff and the applicant agreed that 20 percent and under is acceptable for designating a business as not predominantly adult. Court cases, other than one in Michigan, have not specified a certain percentage. 3 P.C. Minutes 12/6/88 Public Hearing opened at 7:45 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. William Clark, attorney representing the applicant Scott Gallagher, addressed the Commission. He stated that the applicant is in agreement with the staff recommendations, and the applicant would abide by the conditions as he has seen them in writing. In response to a question by Chmn. Peirce as to how Mr. Clark would interpret a code specifying no adult uses in the C-2 zone, Mr. Clark stated that he would abide by the City Attorney's comments on the matter. Mr. Clark stated that the main purpose of Hermosa Videos is not to sell or rent X-rated or adult videos. He stated that the store is fairly new, and only three percent of the total stock is devoted to the rental of adult videos. Of the total store inventory, less than ten percent is adult. Mr. Clark noted that the applicant has agreed to have no advertising for the adult videos or anything else which would be offensive, such as posters. The adult area would be blocked off from the rest of the store so that it is not visible, and the area would be monitored by a sales clerk. There would also be a sign on the door advising that people must be 18 or over to enter that portion of the store. He stated that the applicant is not interested in becoming an adult store, but rather in being a good neighbor in the City. Comm. Ingell asked why the allowable percentage is 20 percent when only 3.2 percent adult videos are being offered for rental. Mr. Clark stated that the applicant did not ask for the 20 percent; that figure was recommended by staff. In response to a question from Comm. Ingell regarding whether the applicant would have a problem with the percentage being reduced, Mr. Clark responded that he would need to discuss that issue with Mr. Gallagher. Mr. Schubach stated that, since there were no clear-cut gu1delines on the matter, staff felt 20 percent would be a fair and reasonable figure. Mr. Clark, in response to a question from Comm. Ingell, stated that the ages of patrons are verified by the store clerk by checking driver's licenses. Jeanette Bachelor, 631 Longfellow, opposed changing the current city code for the benefit of adult videos. She stated that after talking to other video store owners, she has determined that such stores rent about 50 percent adult videos, especially on the weekends. She further opposed, stating that people become addicted to pornography. Mike Mitchell, 715 3rd Street, noted concern over whether the City would be able to enforce the age requirements for the rental of adult videos and whether the City would properly monitor such a business. He stated that he opposed adult-videos. Tim Personius, 827 14th Street, opposed approval of the CUP for several reasons, mainly because adult use is not allowed in the C-2 zone under the current code. He continued by reading Code Section 87-905 aloud. He believes that the Council's intent was quite clear in regard to not allowing such use in the C-2 zone; therefore, he opposed approval of the conditional use permit. He did note that the sale and rental of adult videos is allowed in the C-3 zone, so they are not totally prohibited in the City. He requested that the 4 P .C. Minutes 12 /6 /88 Commission respect and uphold its own earlier recommendations on this issue. He also opposed adult videos based on the fact that their viewing contributes to the problems of troubled people, and there is much crime associated with such materials. He stated that he would not oppose this store if there were no adult videos. Polly Schneider, 157 Ardmore, opposed approval of the CUP for all the reasons given by the previous speakers. Mr. Clark clarified for the benefit of the audience that the sales clerks on duty are always 18 years or older. Mr. Clark stated that this proposed use is not much different from that of a liquor store which sells adult magazines, explaining that the sale of such magazines is a very small portion of the total business of a liquor store. He stressed that ID's will be checked, and the store will be monitored by the CUP enforcement officer. Mr. Clark stated that the applicant intends to run the store properly and according to the guidelines established by the City staff. Public Hearing closed at 7:58 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. Chmn. Peirce noted that video sales by themselves are allowed in the C-2 zone with a conditional use permit. He stated that the controversial aspect of the application is that of the adult videos. Chmn. Peirce, in response to a question from Comm. Ketz, stated that the issue of predominant use was not discussed at the time the ordinance was passed. He felt that the intent at the time was to allow no adult uses at all in the C-2 zone. Comm. Edwards asked, based on the testimony and past court decisions, whether the City Attorney feels the City ordinance is in conformance with the U.S. Constitution. Mr. Lough felt that the ordinance is in conformance, explaining that staff revised approximately one hundred uses requiring CUPs in order to achieve conformity. He did not feel there is a problem because videos are allowed in the C-1 and C-2 zones. He noted that not every, single issue was discussed at that time, however. Mr. Lough saw no problem in the ordinance with the C-1 and C-2 zones because videos are allowed on the permitted use list. He did note, however, that the ordinance possibly could have been more clear because the average person may have difficulty understanding the ordinance. Chmn. Peirce stated that, since the ordinance is constitutional, the Planning Commission can restrict adult videos in the C-2 zone. Mr. Lough replied that that assertion is incorrect, explaining that the ordinance is constitutional if it is interpreted in a way which matches all of the cases. Therefore, interpreting a use as a video store includes within it all of the laws of the State of California and the U.S. Constitution, which state that it is a video store so long as the predominant use is not an adult use. Mr. Lough, in response to a question by Chmn. Peirce, explained that the case which addressed predominant, rather than occasional, use was that of Pringell versus the City of Covina. He explained that this is not his own interpretation, but rather the court's 5 P.C. Minutes 12/6/88 interpretation of the issue. Based on the court's language, he did not feel there could be a total elimination of all possible adult uses iln video stores. Chmn. Peirce noted that adult videos are allowed in the C-3 zone; therefore, they are not totally restricted in the City, so the ordinance cannot be construed to be restrictive since they are not allowed in the C-2 zone. He asked why their use cannot be restricted. Mr. Lough explained that the adult uses can be restricted only so long as another location in the City can be found for them to operate. He noted that by virtue of the conditional use permit, a business can be monitored to see whether it is becoming a predominantly adult-type business. He referred to the cases of American Mini Theaters versus the City of Detroit and The City of Renton versus Playtime Theaters. Mr. Lough responded to a question by Chmn. Peirce by stating that he is basing his opinion on the case of Pringell versus the City of Covina. He continued by explaining the defense used in that particular case. Comm. Ingell noted that adult video rentals are allowed in the C-3 zone because they are included on the permitted use list. The reason adult video rentals are not allowed in the C-2 zone is because they are not on the permitted use list. He stated that when non X­ rated videos were included on the list of permitted uses in the C-2 zone, the intent was quite clear that no adult videos were desired in that zone. In this way, a different type of business was actually created, that of a video store with no adult videos. Mr. Lough stated, however, that this use does not fall under the heading of predominantly adult use. Chmn. Peirce stated that he intended to vote to approve the conditional use permit for the video store; however, he would vote against the rental/sale of adult videos. He felt it was the intent of the Planning Commission and City Council to prohibit adult videos in the C-2 zone. He respectfully disagreed with the City Attorney's opinion in regard to the case cited. Comm. Edwards commented that the City Attorney not only feels that the adult use is allowable, but also that it is constitutionally protected and should be allowed. Even though there are people who do not like having adult uses, there is obviously a demand for this type of material. He felt that it is not the function of the Planning Commission to enforce issues of morality on people in the City. For these reasons, he stated he would support the CUP as recommended by staff. Comm. Ingell felt that allowing adult videos in the C-2 zone could create a larger problem because then it would be necessary to determine the threshold of when a store becomes a predominantly adult use. He noted that video stores without adult videos were specifically included on the C-2 permitted use list. If no videos were desired at all in the C-2 zone, that portion would have been deleted, and their use would have been restricted solely to the C-3 zone. Comm. Ketz agreed with Comm. Ingell, stating that the ordinance is specific on this point, and the issue was specifically addressed as to what was desired in the C-2 zone. She felt that this is a specific use on the permitted use list. 6 P.C. Minutes 12/6/88 MOTION by Chmn. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to approve Resolution P.C. 88-102 as written by staff with the modification that all references to adult videos be deleted: in the title of the resolution, Sections 4, 5(a) and 7. Condition 7(a) would then become 7. Comm. Ingell noted concern over Condition 3: "The business shall validate its customers' parking." He asked whether this condition has ever before been included in a CUP. Mr. Schubach explained that it has not been required before; this was an innovative way to ease parking problems in the City. Comm. Ingell questioned what would happen if the lot is no longer available for parking. He questioned whether the loss of the parking lot would invalidate the CUP. AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION by Comm. Ingell as second, and agreed to by Chmn. Peirce as maker, to add the standard cond i tion that a copy of the CUP shall be available for the manager on duty and shall be signed to acknowledge his awareness of the CUP. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ingell, Ketz, Chmn. Peirce Comm. Edwards None Comm. Rue Chmn. Peirce noted that all decisions of the Planning Commission can be appealed by writing to the City Council within ten days. Comm. Edwards stated that if there are problems in the current code, it should be addressed in the future in regard to whether it is in conformance with the Constitution. He suggested that there be clarification either by the City Attorney or City Council on this particular section of the code. VARIANCE TO ALLOW NEW SECOND STORY AND FIRST STORY ADDITION TO ENCROACH INTO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK AND TO ADOPT AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 576 21ST STREET Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated November 29, 1988. The Board of Zoning Adjustments, at their meeting of April 15, 1985, approved a variance to allow the addition to an existing bedroom which encroaches into the required sideyard. The original variance request was also to allow construction of a breakfast nook which also encroached in the required sideyard; however, the BZA denied this variance. The applicants appealed the decision of the BZA. The City Council, at their meeting of May 28, 1985, denied the appeal and concurred with the decision of the BZA. This project is located in the R-1 zone and has a general plan designation of low density residential. The lot size is 5500 square feet, and the present use is as a single-family dwelling. The applicant is requesting a variance to construct a second-story addition directly over a structure with walls which encroach to within 3 feet, 2 inches of the side property line rather than the re uired five feet. Also, the applicant is requesting to construct a first­ floor bedroom addition which would also maintain an existing nonconforming setback of 3 feet, 2 inches. An additional variance is also required for Section 1309 of the Zoning Ordinance regarding nonconforming structures. This section allows for expansion of 7 P.C. Minutes 12/6/88 existing structures with nonconforming setbacks, provided the new construction meets current code requirements. The existing dwelling is approximately 1705 square feet. The proposed addition will add over 1200 square feet of living area. The proposed second story will include three bedrooms, two baths, and a deck. In 1985 the Board of Zoning Adjustments approved a variance which allowed an addition to the first floor bedroom which maintained an existing nonconforming setback. The findings listed in the resolution approving the variance were studied. The findings listed in Resolution 154-585 do not address any unusual physical features of the property. Rather, the variance was approved because of the location of the existing structure. Staff recommended denial of the subject variances. There are no unusual features of size, shape, or topography. The lot is large, approximately 5500 square feet, and it is not unusually shaped. The lot does not have unusual topography; nor is the property owner denied any substantial property right. A second-story addition can be constructed within the required setbacks. The variance is requested because the owner desires to maintain existing setbacks; however, alternative designs are available which would allow for a substantial addition within the required setbacks. A letter submitted by the applicant states that eight other property owners in the vicinity have been granted similar variances. However, building records indicate only two of the properties listed had variances approved. These two parcels have unusually shaped lots. A variance should only be granted when strict interpretation of a zoning code cannot be met because of a physical condition of the property involved; i.e., small lots, steep topography, and so on. A variance should not be approved because of existing nonconformities applicable to the existing structures. A substantial addition can be constructed on this lot which would meet all codes. Therefore, staff recommended that the Planning Commission deny the variances. Mr. Schubach replied, in response to a question from Chmn. Peirce, that he did not know which two properties had received variances. Public Hearing opened at 8:20 P .M. by Chmn. Peirce. Richard Gallagher, 576 21st Street, applicant, addressed the Commission. He gave a history of his home as well as past additions and plans. When he first moved in, he applied for an addition and remodel of the kitchen and a slight extension of the bedroom. At the time, two variances were requested, one on each side of the house. The variance for the bedroom was granted. All that did was extend the nonconforming wall an additional five feet. He stated that at that time, his justifications were approved by the BZA. The variance to expand the kitchen, however, was denied. Mr. Gallagher stated that he would like to expand to add a second floor with two additional bedrooms. When he purchased this home, he purchased it not because of its size, but because of its location. It was planned to remodel the home in the future. Mr. Gallagher stated that when he applied for the variance to continue with the work, he did not anticipate any problems. He has already had one variance granted for a nonconforming wall. This house was built in the l 950's. Along this street, 80 percent of the houses are nonconforming in terms of the new ordinance. He stated that when the 8 P.C. Minutes 12/6/88 last variance was approved, the BZA determined that this lot had unusual circumstances, and there were no problems. At that time three feet was added onto the bedroom. Now he would like to add an additional eight feet, which is not for the bedroom, but for the stairwell. The addition will involve less than 18 percent of the wall. Mr. Gallagher stated that when he received the staff analysis, he was dismayed to find that there were problems. He stated that he went to the Building Department and obtained paperwork showing that 13 other houses had received similar variances, rather than the two asserted in the staff report. Mr. Gallagher passed out copies of the paperwork he had culled from the records in the Building Department. He also included in the handout copies of the plot plans. Mr. Gallagher continued his presentation by discussing the plot plans. Mr. Gallagher stated that the other homes which have received sideyard variances are on very large lots and are all very similar to his home. Mr. Schubach stated that the records obtained by Mr. Gallagher are not actually variances. Mr. Gallagher stated that he showed the plans to his neighbors, all of whom signed the plans to designate their approval of this project. He passed out the plans with the signatures. Mr. Gallagher stated that his previous variance application was approved because the BZA found that the nonconforming wall qualified as an unusual or exceptional circumstance. He stated that nothing has changed from 1985 until 1988. He understoQd the reason the City wanted to prevent overgrowth in the City. Mr. Gallagher showed photographs depicting his home. He continued by explaining the nonconforming side wall in question and stated that it abuts the driveway of his neighbor. The distance between the homes is now over 13 feet. There would still be ten feet between the home if he were allowed to go straight up with his wall. Chmn. Peirce commented on the paperwork presented by Mr. Gallagher, noting that some of the projects are quite old, one of which was done in 19 56. Mr. Gallagher explained that some of the applications were double stamped, however. He noted that the majority are from l 978 and on. Mr. Gallagher noted that it was quite difficult to obtain all of the materials necessary for him to make his presentation. Mr. Gallagher stated that his 1985 variance met all four necessary findings. He stressed that nothing has changed since that time. Larry Hyler, 580 21st Street, neighbor of the applicant, stated that the GaUaghers have been good neighbors who complete their projects on time. He stated that he approved of the plans. He felt that the proposal would be a positive benefit to the neighborhood. He suggested that the Planning Commission approve the variance request. He stated that he received a similar variance, and he has received no complaints. 9 P.C. Minutes 12/6/88 Richard Doyle, 2030 Springfield, stated that the applicant's past projects have beautified and enriched the neighborhood. He stated that he tried to obtain a variance two years ago, but he was unsuccessful since three nonconforming walls were involved. Since this project has only one nonconforming wall, he asked that the Commission approve the request. Pat Mccarroll, 586 21st Street, stated that most houses on this street were built to the required three-foot setback requirements then in force. The requirement is now five feet, which means when there is a second-story addition, the project must jog inward at least two feet in order to comply with the setback requirement. When one must jog in, the outside walls cannot be used as load bearing walls. Such construction adds considerably to the cost of a project. Therefore, he suggested approval of the request. He noted that the only impact would be to improve the neighborhood. Denial of the variance would also have an impact, that of making the applicant's home less attractive to the neighbors. John McIntyre, 579 21st Street, supported the comments made by the other speakers. He stated that this project would improve the neighborhood. He felt that there should be a grandfather clause to allow existing properties to build to the standards in effect at the time they were constructed. Gary Catena, 589 21st Street, characterized the Gallaghers as reas onable, responsible, and tasteful. He said that the work they have done to date has enhanced the neighborhood, and he expected the current proposal to add even further enhancements. Public Hearing closed at 8:36 P .M. by Chmn. Peirce. Chmn. Peirce complimented Mr. Gallagher on his research and presentation. He felt that this is a difficult case because the City is in the process of upgrading, and the argument for conforming sideyards has been levied on smaller lots than this one in the City. He noted that in recent years, the Planning Commission has been denying variances to allow additions to nonconforming sideyards. Comm. Ketz could not see how requiring a second floor addition to conform to the setback requirement of five feet when the main building has only a three-foot setback would accomplish the purpose of a setback. She noted that such a requirement does not create any additional usable open space. Chmn. Peirce asked staff what he believes would be accomplished by requiring a five­ foot setback on the second-floor versus an addition which would be 3.6 feet. Mr. Schubach replied that the main issue is whether or not to grant a variance. He stated that if the Commission feels the ordinance to be incorrect, the ordinance should be changed, rather than granting variances each time this issue comes before the Commission. He stated that the granting of such variances to some people is not fair to others who make an effort to comply with the requirements. Chmn. Peirce stated that even though the house might have complied when it was built, it does not comply now; and if the owner tore it down and wanted to rebuild, it would have to comply to the current setback requirements. He noted that the five-foot setback rule was adopted because it decreases the bulk of a building. He said that this is a fairly large lot of 5500 square feet. 10 P.C. Minutes 12/6/88 Mr. Schubach stated that the five-foot setback requirement was adopted also to add increased light, air, and ventilation. Further, by allowing older buildings to add without conforming to the new requirements, recycling of older buildings will be reduced. He also noted that legal findings must be made in order to grant a variance; in this case, he could not make the required findings. Mr. Schubach again suggested that, if the Commission finds the ordinance to be in error, there should be a text amendment to change it. Mr. Schubach stated that he reviewed the materials submitted by the applicant regarding the number of other variances which have been approved. He clarified that only two variances have been granted, not eight as the applicant asserted. Chmn. Peirce stated that he could not see how the BZA made the proper findings in 1985, explaining that he did not feel them to be adequate. He stated that he would have read the code differently had he been on the BZA at that time. Rene Gallagher, 576 21st Street, applicant, addressed the Commission and stated that if the variance is not approved, she would be denied a substantial property right enjoyed by others in the neighborhood. She stated that each variance request should be looked at separately from all others. She stated that some projects have extenuating circumstances. She continued by noting that the original letter she submitted contained the addresses of eight properties in the neighborhood which were granted variances. Comm. Edwards stated that if the code is inadequate, there should be a text amendment to change it. He stated that requiring second-floor additions to jog in to comply with the setback requirement makes the building look odd. Mr. Schubach suggested that if a text amendment is desired, this variance be denied. If and when there is a text amendment, the applicant could then proceed. Mr. Lough cautioned, however, that there is no guarantee that the City Council will adopt a text amendment. MOTION by Chmn. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to approve staff's recommendation as written, Resolution P.C. 88-103, to deny the variance at 576 21st Street. Chmn. Peirce stated that it would be very difficult to make Findings 1 and 2 as required by law, noting that this is a fairly large lot. Comm. Edwards agreed that the necessary findings cannot be made in this case. He did note that the ne ighbors had no objection to the proposal. He suggested that this particular code section be studied in the future to determine whether a text amendment would be desirable. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Edwards, Ingell, Chmn. Peirce Comm. Ketz None Comm. Rue Chmn. Peirce stated that all decisions of the Planning Commission may be appealed by writing to the City Council within ten days. 11 P.C. Minutes 12/6/88 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP #46903 AND A ZONE CHANGE FROM M-1 AND OPEN SPACE TO R-2 OR TO SUCH OTHER ZONE AS DEEMED APPROPRIATE BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A 15 UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 603 FIRST STREET Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated November 30, 1988. The staff environmental review committee, at their meeting of October 20, 1988, requested that the applicant revise the original plans to correct problems with landscaping , guest parking, and the turning radius. Also, the Public Works Department requested that a parking study be prepared for the project. Based on these conditions, the staff environmental review committee recommended a negative declaration for the project. This item must be continued because the applicant did not properly notice the project. The applicant inadvertently mailed approximately 7 5 public notices with 20-cent postage. The public notices were returned to the Planning Department with a request that additional five cent postage be added. The returned notices were received on Monday, November 28, 1988, less than ten days before the Planning Commission's public hearing; therefore, the notices could not be remailed. The City Attorney has advised that this public hearing should be opened to receive testimony from interested parties who did receive notices. However, the item will need to be continued to allow for proper public noticing. The Planning Commission cannot make any decision regarding this project until it has been properly noticed. The proposed development will require a conditional use permit for a 15-unit condominium. The proposed condominium site is within a general plan/zoning inconsistency area. The general plan for this area is medium density residential; however, various lots are zoned R-2, M-1, and open space. Therefore, the M-1 and open space lots will require a zone change to R-2. A complete analysis of the project and comments on the traffic study will be prepared for the Planning Commission meeting of January 3, 1989. Chmn. Peirce noted that people had come to address the issue; therefore, he stated that the Public Hearing would be opened at this time and then continued. Public Hearing opened at 8:53 P .M. by Chmn. Peirce. Elizabeth Srour, 820 Manhattan Avenue, Manhattan Beach, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission and stated that the applicant has been working with staff on this project for at least siv months. They have gone through an environmental hearing; and a traffic study was required, which has been prepared and submitted. Ms. Srour stated that after the error was discovered, she requested that the hearing at least be opened so that comments could be obtained from the neighbors so that some benefit could be obtained from the delay. She requested input from staff and the Commission. She stated that the applicant would like to meet with the neighbors before the next hearing on this matter. Patrick Killin, 312 South Catalina, Redondo Beach, project architect, addressed the Commission. He stated that he has worked on this project for six months. He stated that he has tried to address the various concerns and possibilities related to this project and what direction would create the least impact as far as the building arrangement. 12 P .C. Minutes 12 /6 /88 Mr. Killin noted that one obvious issue in this case is that the zoning and general Rlan are not in conformance. The general plan designation is rriedium density residential; the zoning varies from open space to R-2 to M-l. This project was designed taking into account the property being designated as R-2. Mr. Killin continued by displaying color renderings of the proposed project and discussing the various locations of the buildings. He discussed the square footages. He stated that the allowable lot coverage is 65 percent; this project has only 43 percent lot coverage. Mr. Killin described the layout of the units and the placement of the buildings on the lot. He continued by discussing the placement of the garages. Mr. Killin stated that an attempt was made to create usable open space. Therefore, a pool and spa were included in the southeast quadrant of the site. Mr. Killin stated that attempts were made to give relief to the facade of the building elevations. Mr. Killin stated that a traffic study was performed and submitted to both the Planning Department and the Department of Public Works. He stated that the study concluded that this project would have no impact on the surrounding neighborhood in terms of traffic pattern, flow, or overflow. Mr. Killin stated that when this project was designed, he attempted to save as much existing on-street parking as possible; only one on-street parking spot was removed on 1st Street. All parking has been internalized into the project site in order that there be a minimum impact on the on-street parking in the area. Mr. Killin briefly discussed the plans, explaining the interior layouts of the units as well as the decks. Mr. Killin stated that he was hoping to obtain input and direction from the Planning Commission as well as from staff so that the one-month period of delay can be fully utilized to address any concerns. Chmn. Peirce noted that, since the Commissioners have not been provided with any detailed staff analysis, it would be hard to comment on the project at this time. Tom Marley, 516 Loma Drive, was pleased to see a nice project utilizing manufacturing, open space, and residential zoning. He noted concern, however, over rezoning open space without a vote of the people. Chmn. Peirce stated that this area does not fall into the category of properties requiring a vote on changing the zone. Jan McHugh, 718 1st Place, noted concern over the open space rezone and asked why the proposed zone change was not noticed in the Easy Reader. She continued by reading the ad placed in the paper. Mr. Schubach stated that this item was properly renoticed in the Daily Breeze. He further noted that it would be renoticed with a full description in the Easy Reader. 13 P.C. Minutes 12/6/88 Mr. Schubach described the piece of open space area in question, explaining that it is a very small piece of land with the cable around it. It has been owned privately for many years; the only reason it is zoned open space is due to a fluke in the zoning ordinance which many years ago rezoned all of the railroad rights-of-way, including subspurs, to open space. He stated that it is a very tiny, triangular area on the corner of Ardmore and 1st Street. It is all asphalt and is privately owned, probably less than 400 square feet. Ms. McHugh asked for clarification on the difference between an environmental impact report and a traffic study. She definitely felt that there should be an EIR for this project. She stated that the developer has not talked to her about this project. She felt it is presumptuous for the applicant to go through all the expense of preparing the plans before the zone change is even approved. Ms. McHugh felt that R-2 zoning is somewhat extreme for that area, noting problems with traffic and parking in the area. She stated that the property across the street is R­ I; therefore, the only zone she would favor is R-1. She said that the R-2 height limit would cause view blockage to the people to the east. She felt that traffic and parking problems would be exacerbated with the project. She felt that this project should be downscaled. Polly Schneider, 157 Ardmore Avenue, noted the past attempts to rezone the end strip of Ardmore to residential. She stated that the light manufacturing uses are great, there are no wild parties at night, no parking problems at night, and the workers all go home on the weekend, so there is no noise or traffic. Ms. Schneider felt that in no way is the project project medium density; no matter how you look at it, it is high density. She stated that she is surrounded by high-density condominium developments. Each development creates more noise, congestion, traffic, and parking problems. She stated that traffic is getting progressively worse with each development, especially since Ardmore is a very small street. Ms. Schneider suggested that the City take advantage of the so-called fluke in zoning and create a park out of that small portion of open space. She opposed the rezoning to R-2, and she felt that the open space should remain open space. She stated that R-1 would be more appropriate to the area. Herb Schneider, 157 Ardmore Avenue, felt that the proposed development is too large for the neighborhood. He felt that the phrase "low density" has lost its meaning in the City. He noted concern over traffic, parking problems, and congestion. Sid Coley, 719 1st Street, agreed with the previous comments. He opposed 15 more units in this neighborhood, citing the problems with traffic, parking, congestion, and loss of water pressure. He stated that the City Council members were elected on the basis of their low density viewpoints. Steve Peterson, 2416 Myrtle Avenue, commented on the proposed parking for this project, stating that subterranean parking should be discouraged because it is a means to go to more bulky buildings. He felt that all street access to condominiums should be treated as front yard setbacks. Harry PicareUi, owner of the small piece of open space in question, addressed the Commission. He stated that he has owned that parcel for many years. He stated that the land was left vacant for many years. He was advised by his attorney, that if 14 P.C. Minutes 12/6/88 something was not done, the land could be declared parking by the City. He therefore paved the land and put a railing around it. He stated that hIS company is adjacent to this small parcel, and it is used for parking. He stated that the parcel is actually zoned legal nonconforming manufacturing. That piece of land has been there for many years. Eighteen years ago the fence was installed. The land has always been used for parking by his employees and his own personal use. Mr. Picare1li stated that this land has never been for public use or for use as a park. He stated that he fenced the area in order to protect it from adverse possession. He stated that the only way he could rezone this property would be to rezone it to R-2; however, he favored rezoning it to M-1. Mr. Picarelli stressed that this property has been actively used by him for 20 years; and for the previous 20 years by John Schmoll, the previous owner. He did not feel it is fair for other people to suggest that his land be retained as open space. Mr. Picarelli did not favor his land being used at a park. Elizabeth Srour again addressed the Commission. She stated that the development parameters imposed on this project are all in keeping with the R-2 zoning. She stated that the applicant desires to bring this property into conformance with the general plan designation of medium density. No code exceptions are being asked for in this project. Ms. Srour stated that the reason an attempt is being made to rezone this property to R-2 is that that zoning would be very compatible with the surrounding area. She stated that the R-2 zoning is very apparent in that particular area. Public Hearing continued to January 3, 1988, by Chmn. Peirce at 9:30 P.M. Recess taken from 9:30 until 9:40 P.M. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE FOR THE WEST SIDE OF MYRTLE AVENUE BETWEEN 24TH STREET AND 25TH STREET FROM MEDIUM DENSITY, R-2, TO LOW DENSITY, R-1, OR TO SUCH OTHER ZONE AS DEEMED APPROPRIATE BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENT AL NEGATIVE DECLARATION Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated November 30, 1988. At the September 6, 1988, Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Commission adopted a Resolution of Intent to amend the general plan and to rezone the subject area. This area is bounded by Myrtle Avenue on the east, Ozone Court on the west, 24th Street on the south, and 25th Street on the north. The total land area is 49,529 square feet. There are a total of 16 lots, with a typical lot size of 30 feet by 100 feet. There are 24 dwelling units, with an average number of 1.5 units in this area. The existing density is 22.56 units per acre. The existing zon i ng is R-2, with a general plan designation of medium density. The potential number of units under the current R-2 zoning ordinance is 16, unless the lots were merged. There is a potential of 28 units under the previous R-2 zoning ordinance. There is a potential of 16 units under the proposed R-1 zone change. There are seven nonconforming units under the current R-2 ordinance, and seven nonconforming units under the current R-1 ordinance. 15 P.C. Minutes 12/6/88 No units have been constructed within the past ten years; nine were constructed 10 to 20 years ago; one was built 20 to 30 years ago; and 14 units are over 30 years old. There are three vacant lots in the area; four lots have one unit; seven lots have two units; and one lot has five units. All 16 lots in this area are below 3500 square feet. All lots in the area are too small to have more than one unit unless they are combined. Consequently, they are nonconforming under both R-1 and R-2 zoning. Further, this one block of lots is surrounded by R-1 zoning except for a small block to the north. Based on the data, including lot sizes, the surrounding zoning, the number of units over 30 years old (58 percent), and the fact that under either R-2 or R-1 zoning, only one unit would be allowed, staff believes that the area could be rezoned to R-1. Chmn. Peirce asked about the average slope from Myrtle Avenue to Ozone Court. Mr. Schubach stated that the slope varies from north to south. On the south, the drop is is as much as ten feet; on the north, there is a five-foot drop between Myrtle and Ozone Court. Public Hearing opened at 9:47 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. Steve Peterson, 2416 Myrtle Avenue, Hermosa Beach, stated that the issue in this particular area is no longer one of density, but rather one of building standards. He noted that views are important in this area. Noting that the surrounding areas are all R- 1, he agreed that this area should also be R-1 in order to achieve consistency in the neighborhood. Kathy Dunbabin, east side of Myrtle Avenue, favored rezoning the area to R-1 as recommended by staff. Chmn. Peirce noted that letters had been received by the Planning Commission from Vicky Dalton and Carl Dalton, both of whom opposed a rezone to R-1. Carl Dalton asked that his letter be made part of the record. Public Hearing closed at 9:49 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Edwards, to approve staff's recommendation to rezone the west side of Myrtle Avenue between 24th Street and 25th Street from R-2, medium density to to R-1, low density and to approve the negative declaration. Mr. Schubach stated that staff would return with the resolution at a future meeting. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Edwards, Ingell, Ketz, Chmn. Peirce None None Comm. Rue 16 P .C. Minutes 12 /6/88 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR AREA 8A FROM LOW DENSITY TO MEDIUM DENSITY AND TO ADOPT AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated November 28, 1988. At the July 19, 1988, meeting the Planning Commission recommended approval of rezoning the subject area from R-2 to R-2B. At the City Council meeting of August 23, 1988, the City Council adopted an ordinance rezoning the area from R-2 to R-2 B. The subject area is a portion of a larger area. This portion was rezoned to R-2B, whereas the other portion was rezoned to R-1. • The staff prepared statistical data and analysis in conjunction with the consideration of rezoning this area from R-2 to R-1. The analysis resulted in the area being rezoned to R-2B, limiting the number of units to two per lot instead of rezoning the area to R-1. Based on the completed analysis and the rezoning to R-2B, the general plan is subject to change for consistency between the zoning and general plan. Public Hearing opened and closed at 9 :53 P .M. by Chmn. Peirce, who noted that no one came forward to address this issue. MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve staff's recommendation to redesignate the subject area from low density to medium density, Resolution P.C. 88- 100. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Edwards, Ingell, Ketz, Chmn. Peirce None None Comm. Rue GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR AREA 3 FROM LOW DENSITY TO MEDIUM DENSITY AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated November 28, 1988. At the meeting of August 16, 1988, the Planning Commission recommended rezoning the subject area from R-2 to R- 2B. At the City Council meeting of September 27, 1988, the City Council adopted an ordinance rezoning the subject area from R-2 to R-2B. The staff prepared statistical data and analysis in conjunction with the consideration of rezoning the area from R-2 to R-1. The analysis resulted in the area being rezoned to R- 2B, limiting the number of units to two per lot instead of rezoning the area to R-1. Based on the completed analysis and the rezoning to R-2B, the general plan is subject to change for consistency between the zoning and general plan. Mr. Schubach recommended that the Planning Commission recommend redesignation for the subject area from low density to medium density. Public Hearing opened and closed at 9:55 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce, who noted that no one came forward to address this issue. MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Chmn. Peirce, to approve staff's recommendation to redesignate the subject area from low density to medium density, Resolution P.C. 88-99. 17 P.C. Minutes 12/6/88 AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Edwards, Ingell, Ketz, Chmn. Peirce None None Comm. Rue GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR 1344 AND 1348 MANHATTAN AVENUE, 1409 AND 1428 MONTEREY BOULEVARD, AND 1346 BAYVIEW DRIVE FROM GENERAL COMMERCIAL TO HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND ADOPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated November 29, 1988. The subject area consists of four lots, with one lot split into two half lots. The subject lots are not owned by the abutting commercially zoned property facing on Pier A venue. The applicant's development at 1344 Manhattan Avenue is 61 years old and has two units. 1348 Manhattan Avenue has four dwelling units which are two years old. 1428 Monterey Boulevard has eight dwelling units which are 17 years old. 1409 Monterey Boulevard is an office which is 35 years old. 1346 Bayview Drive has four recently remodeled units which were built prior to the issuance of building permits. 1428 Monterey Boulevard abuts commercial retail; 1409 Monterey Boulevard abuts an office; 1346 Bayview Drive abuts four dwelling units; and 1344 Manhattan Avenue abuts mixed uses of commercial and residential. Mr. Schubach discussed 1344 and 1348 Manhattan Avenue. Based on the factors concerning age and use of both existing and abutting development and ownership; that is, a relatively new mixed use structure with differing ownership to the south of 1344 Manhattan A venue, and only a two-year old residential structure to the north at 1348 Manhattan A venue. Staff believes it unrealistic to visualize expansion of the depth of the commercial zoning at this time. Further, it can be seen by the size of the relatively new mixed use development that adequate commercially zoned building area currently exists in scale with the surrounding area without expanding the C-2 zone any further. By allowing the subject property to stay zoned R-3, there is a potential increase of one dwelling unit, since both lots together already have six existing dwelling units. 1428 Montere y Boulevard is similar, in that there are eight relatively new existing dwelling units, built in 1971; and the ownership is di ffe rent than the commercial lots abutting to the south. Under the current allowed density for R-3, this lot already exceeds the maximum by four units. Also, the 8000 plus square feet of existing commercially zoned lot area to the south is adequate in size for a small retail/office complex which would be in scale with the surrounding area. The two half lots at 1346 Bayview Drive/1409 Monterey Boulevard are more "borderline" as to what they should be designated and zoned. Before 1956, they were zoned 18 P.C. Minutes 12/6/88 commercial. By 1956, they were rezoned to R-3. However, a commercial structure was constructed in 19 57 at 1409 Monterey Boulevard. Both of the commercial lots to the south are small, 2620 and 4280 square feet. However, the ownership is different than the subject lots. Since 1409 Monterey Boulevard is already a commercial structure and 1346 Bayview fronts on an alley width right-of-way where commercial development would be undesirable, the Bayview lot should remain R-3 and redesignated high density, and the Monterey half-lot should be rezoned in the future to commercial. No density increase would occur since the Bayview lot already has four units; and under current R-3 density standards, only one unit could be built. Public Hearing opened and closed at 10:05 by Chmn. Peirce, who noted that no one appeared to speak on this matter. Chmn. Peirce noted that this issue is a housekeeping matter, explaining that this action will make the existing usage compatible with the zoning. MOTION by Comm. Ket 7 , seconded by Comm. Edwards, to approve staff's recommendation, Resolution P.C. 88-104. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Edwards, Ingell, Ketz, Chmn. Peirce None None Comm. Rue GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND VACATION OF A PORTION OF 21ST STREET NEAR LOMA DRIVE APPROXIMATELY 40 FEET BY 101 FEET AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENT AL NEGATIVE DECLARATION Edgar Edwards of Harris & Associates, stated that his firm was retained to provide staff services for the Public Works Department on this issue. Mr. Edwards stated that the issue here is the general plan amendment and the vacation of 21st Street in the vicinity of Loma Drive. He stated that these are two very related issues. Mr. Edwards discussed the actual vacation of 21st Street. In order to vacate the street, it would be necessary to make a finding that the right-of-way is not necessary for any present or future use and that the vacation would be consistent with the general plan. If the general plan amendment is not recommended, there could be no vacation. Mr. Edwards noted that there has been some pedestrian use on this area; however, it is necessary to determine whether the area is actually necessary for such purpose. If it is found that there is a need for pedestrian use, a vacation should not be recommended. Mr. Edwards stated that the slope on the street almost prohibits practical construction there, andd this fact must also be taken into consideration. Chmn. Peirce asked about the fence along Loma Drive which discourages pedestrian traffic. He asked who constructed that fence. '9 P .C. Minutes 12 /6 /88 Mr. Edwards did not know who put up the fence, nor did Mr. Antich, the Director of Public Works. Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated November 30, 1988. The staff environmental review committee, at their meeting of November 3, 1988, recommended a negative declaration for this project. The applicant has requested that the City vacate a portion of 21st Street. The applicant owns three lots adjacent to the area where the vacation is proposed. The applicant would like to purchase the vacated area to create three larger parcels. The subject area is presently a very steep, undeveloped portion of 21st Street near Loma Drive. 21st Street dead ends directly to the east of the subject area. Because of the steep slope of the area, it is highly unlikely that 21st Street would ever be extended. However, residents to the east of the site use an undeveloped trail to gain pedestrian access to the beach. A potential public use of this area could be to install a stairway or path which would connect Loma Drive with the residential area located to the east. In order for the City Council to vacate any public land, it must be determined that the area is no longer needed for public use, and staff cannot make that determination under the present circumstances since it is being used for access presumably to the beach. An amendment to the circulation element of the general plan is required for this project. The circulation element shows 21st Street to be a through street. The applicant has also requested that the general plan for this area be amended to designate this area as low density residential. The surrounding areas are designated low density residential. The site is presently designated as a street in the general plan land use element. As an undeveloped street, this area can be considered open space. If the proposed general plan amendment and street vacation is approved, a condition of approval would be to revert back to the adjacent property owner to be used as enlargements of existing lots. This parcel should not be permitted to be developed as an additional lot and could not be developed without a lot division parcel map. Chmn. Peirce stated that the next access over the hill at the south is at the school site where there is a ramp over an empty lot to Loma Drive. The next access to the north is at 24th Street. Mr. Schubach clarified the location of this area by pointing to the map. He further noted that this particular area is not located in the coastal zone, noting that the R-1 area was exempted. This area is designated R-1. Public Hearing opened at 10:15 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. Gerry Compton, 200 Pier Avenue, Hermosa Beach, representing the owner, addressed the Commission. He passed out an information sheet entitled "Proposed Twenty-First Street Unused Right-of-Way Vacation and Lot Line Adjustment." 20 P.C. Minutes 12/6/88 Mr. Compton stated that this is an issue which the City has needed to address for quite some time, and it is an issue which combines several matters. One issue is whether or not the City should own unused property and whether or not is should take property that is for public use off of the tax rolls and actually not use it for development, landscaping, or for safe public use. Mr. Compton stated that there is no actual trail way; rather, it is necessary for one to go up and over a three-to four-foot retaining wail to use this access. One cannot actually walk over the public right-of-way. It is necessary to traverse private property, which is soon to be developed. Mr. Compton continued by discussing the information sheet he passed out. He pointed out on the map the proposed vacation area. He stated that the area is not owned by the City, it was deeded to the City for their use, but the City never utilized the land. Mr. Compton assumed that half of the vacation would go to the southerly property; the other half would go to the northerly property. He stated that the goal of the vacation and lot lot adjustment is to create three larger lots by combining the existing three small lots with one half of the vacation area, which will revert back to the applicant's ownership if vacated. The proposed new larger lots would be over 4000 square feet each, which will conform to the City's new lot standards. Chmn. Peirce asked whether Mr. Compton considered pedestrian use to be a non-use. Mr. Compton stated that he did not consider it as such when the pedestrian traffic goes over private property. He said that the entire vacation area is fenced. He assumed that the City installed the fence. Mr. Compton stated that there are several reasons for vacating this area: to allow for more open space and landscaped area for each home site; to allow more design flexibility with a stepped facade following the hillside; and to allow for less density by having the same number of homes on larger parcels. Mr. Compton did not feel that this area should remain as it is, particularly since it is in an unsafe condition. Mr. Compton stated that it is the intent of this proposal to return the unused right-of­ way to the adjoining properties, from which it was removed over 40 years ago during the original subdivision, resulting in its return to the tax rolls thereby benefiting the public. Mr. Compton continued by explaining that the vacation will end the noise and safety problems and the unauthorized dumping problems, which are of continuous concern on the existing vacant, unpatrollable, steeply sloping area; said vacation would also end potential City liability for injuries sustained on public property. Mr. Compton stated that the vacation would discourage the City from providing public access which would cause unwanted pedestrian traffic over private property at the top of the hill along Loma Drive north and south as well as costing a substantial amount of public money to construct and maintain something for the minimal benefit of only a few. Mr. Compton stated that the route used by pedestrians ends at an alley at Loma Drive; therefore, people must walk about two-tenths of a mile to exit the alley. If an accessway is installed, people will then just walk across private property between houses to Monterey and then to Circle Drive to get to the beach. 21 P.C. Minutes 12/6/88 Chmn. Peirce noted that a person could walk along public rights-of-way to get to the beach. Mr. Compton stated that approximately 300 to 500 feet in distance would be saved to walkers by cutting through private property. Mr. Compton stressed that people must now jump over the retaining wall in order to traverse the area. Mr. Compton stated that the main objective is to provide a quality homesite for three homes which will fit into the existing City and neighborhood with decreased density and increased open space and landscaped area. Mr. Compton hoped that, if the vacation is not approved, the City would at least develop the area with some type of landscaping, provide an access, and patrol the area in order to prevent future problems. Comm. Edwards asked who actually owns this property. Mr. Lough explained that the underlying fee title interest in the land belongs to the property owner, and the City has an easement over the property for public purposes. He continued by explaining the use and return of easements. He noted that when there is a vacation, a property owner obtains fu11 use of his property which not possible when there was an easement on the land. Hearings are held in order to ensure that the proper actions are being taken. Mr. Compton explained for the benefit of the new Commissioners the action previously taken on the proposed vacation of Power Street. Susan Miller, 2020 Monterey and 2015 Loma, hoped that the City does not relinquish the easement because her view would then be blocked. She stated that for the past seven years her children and their friends have been going up and down the hill. She even went over the retaining wall when she was pregnant; therefore, it is very easy to get over the wall in question. She favored retaining the land as it currently exists. Howard Sorce, 2012 Loma Drive, first house from the vacant lots, addressed the easement issue. He stated that he supports the applicant's proposal. He stated that the lots are open, and they have been utilized by bums who sleep under the trees. He noted that he is a police officer, and on many occasions it has been necessary for him to go in and remove the bums. He stated that the trail is misused, and there is an extremely dangerous condition existing there now. He stated that jumping over the wall is not a safe practice. Mr. Sorce stated that to level the area and install a stairway would be quite expensive. Unless that is done, this is cannot be a viable path. He also noted that dirt bikes use the hill, and it is just not a safe area. Mr. Sorce felt that access to the beach on public streets is safer than using this route. When pedestrian traffic exits into an alley, there is too much congestion in the alley. He said that large groups of teenagers use the route, and they spill out onto Loma with beer cans and cause problems. Mr. Sorce also noted security problems associated with a semi-undeveloped trail. He said he has been burglarized twice in 16 years. Unless the City builds a proper stairway, the 22 P.C. Minutes 12/6/88 City will have to assume the liability. He stated that this area has been a dumping ground and nuisance. He stated that many people want to retain the area so that they can park on the land; however, he felt that the developer's proposal would beneficial to the area. Mr. Sorce stated that he has seen people walk between the houses. Most times, though, people just wander down Loma since there is no access. Chmn. Peirce noted, however, that people can just walk down the alley. Celeste Core, 2004 Loma Drive, two doors south of the area in question, stated that her neighbor at one time had a problem with people walking up the hill between the houses. She felt that if the pedestrian route is removed, people will, out of habit, continue to come up the hill in some other way go between the houses. She favored retaining the land as open space. She felt that people will respect their neighbors' rights and will not go between the houses. She hoped that the land would remain undeveloped. She felt that this space could be used, if necessary, by emergency vehicles. She thought the development would be attractive; however, she felt some of the land should be left open. Cathy Pasell, 525 25th Street, house with the retaining wall in question. She stated that she must always clean up the trash left by people going over the wall. She noted that there is a small portion of land at the end of 25th Street which is not depicted on the map. That piece of land is not in question to be vacated, but it would remain. She stated that her driveway is at this location. She questioned how that area would be divided. Chmn. Peirce stated that that area is not at issue in this request. Ms. Pasell stated she had no opposition to the vacation. However, if the vacation is approved, the felt that the developer should be required to install a fence so that no one could use the access. Shanda Slocum, 510 21st Street, favored development of the area. She stated that the area has been a disaster for the three years she has lived there, and development would greatly improve the site. She noted that she has seen bums sleeping there, there is excess trash, and it is dangerous for chilldren. She felt that the retaining wall is dangerous and is a liability if people are hurt. She stated that people jumping over the wall sometimes jump into her front yard. She agreed that access to beach is nice; however, it is a dangerous situation. She felt that vacation would be very appropriate. Scott Manley, 520 21st Street, noted concern over the public access and increased foot traffic. He felt that development will be an improvement to the area and will clean up the land. He noted that he has had problems with his windows being broken by kids using the hill. He noted that foot traffic is quite heavy, particularly in the summer. He too has seen bums in the area. Otto Palmer, 632 Monterey Boulevard, applicant, addressed the Commission and discussed the public access to the beach. He stated that this issue was studied and the area was paced off. He stated that by looking at the map, it becomes apparent that there is sufficient access to the beach with this proposal. The people who will benefit most from the public access up the hill are those directly at the bottom of the hill and the segment of 21st Street that spills onto Power Street. Mr. Palmer stated that the route up 24th Street and then down Monterey and 22nd Street would be an access which is a shorter distance than if they backtracked down 24th 23 P.C. Minutes 12/6/88 Street, up the hill, and then north or south on Loma. Mr. Palmer stated that the access for those south of 24th Street is actually through Valley School. He felt that these would be appropriate pedestrian accesses. Mr. Palmer stated that the most advantages are to those people living at the bottom of the hill; however, those are the people who object most to the proposal. Mr. Palmer has not actually studied the number of people cutting through private property. However, the only real shortcut is by cutting through the sideyards of private homes with no gates. Mr. Palmer stated that he would like to build three single-family homes on three lots which he currently owns. Regardless of the outcome of this issue, three homes will still be built. The question is whether they will be built on the current smaller lots or on the proposed larger lots as a result of the vacation. Mr. Palmer stated that he is interested in building quality homes; in fact, he is even contemplating living in one of them himself. He felt that the development would enhance the neighborhood. He intends to provide landscaping and provide for an open feeling. Mr. Palmer stated that he has owned this property for two months. He stated that if the vacation is not approved, the houses would all essentially shift six feet to the north. Mr. Palmer stated that he was not aware of this unused property at the time he planned this project. He did note that he has a vested interest in the area. He stated that neighbors have expressed concerns over the access, and he would also be concerned if he lived in one of the houses. Mr. Palmer stressed that if there is no vacation, he will build 3000 square foot homes on 3300 square foot lots; if the vacation is approved, 3000 square foot homes would be built on 4000 square foot lots. On the larger lots, there is less congestion and more open space. Mr. Compton discussed the map he passed out, stating that the map actually shows the existing three lots owned. The solid Jines depict where the lot Jines would be moved. He noted that the applicant is also asking for a lot line adjustment. Susan Miller, 2020 Monterey, stated that the people coming up from the valley up that hill actually filter down to 19th Street or 20th Street. Everyone there has gates except for the newest resident who just moved in; therefore, private property owners are not disturbed. She stated that joggers also sometimes go up the hill and filter down to 19th and 20th Streets. Public Hearing closed at 10:52 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. Tony Antich, Director of Public Works, addressed the Commission and stated that there are five findings the Commission must make, as stated in the resolution, to recommend proposed vacation. He noted that the third finding states: "That said right-of-way is not necessary for present or future public use." He stated that various uses would include access, landscaping, or parking. 24 P.C. Minutes 12/6/88 Chmn. Peirce asked Mr. Antich what he felt would constitute a public use in regard to the number of people using the route. Mr. Lough stated that the question is actually whether the area is necessary for present or prospective public use. Chmn. Peirce noted that the report from the Public Works Department asserts that the land is not required for present public use. However, several people have testified that there is public use. He said that the City has an easement across the land. There has certainly been testimony that there is public use of the land. He asked how the City could even consider that this land is not used. Mr. Lough stated that the Commission must not only determine present use, but also whether it is necessary or unnecessary for present or future public use. Chmn. Peirce stated that it would be used in the future if it were there, because it is presently being used. He could not see the argument that the public in the future would not need it. Mr. Lough stated that it is necessary for the Commission to apply the evidence it has heard in making its recommendation. Chmn. Peirce stated that, according to staff and the consultant, what has happened in the past apparently makes no difference in regard to what will happen in the future with this land. Mr. Antich noted that past City Council discussions on this matter have implied that a public hearing was necessary to address these very questions. The Council felt that a hearing would provide an opportunity to determine whether this land, in fact, was already an easement and whether it is necessary for any present or future use. Chmn. Peirce believed that this particular property is used, and there has been testimony that it has been used for as long as people can remember, and it will be used in the future. For the vacation not to occur, the City would have to improve the area to allow access. The trail does go diagonally from northeast to southwest; therefore, it would be necessary to recommend to the City Council that funds should be appropriated to provide an access up the hill. He noted, however, that the neighbors seem to be divided in their opinions on this matter. Comm. Ketz noted that with the testimony that the area is used for access, and that it is currently a public right-of-way, she did not feel it should be vacated. She felt that there are problems with patrolling the area; however, she felt there are other ways to solve the problems rather than vacating it entirely. Mr. Schubach, in response to a question by Comm. Ingell, clarified that the Planning Commission is merely making a recommendation to the City Council on this issue. Comm. Ingell saw no way of providing access unless a very expensive stairway were built. He felt that it would be more appropriate to vacate the property and to allow the three lots to be expanded so that there could be three nicely developed homes. He felt that a stairway could be a real liability to the City. Comm. Edwards felt that people are using the property for access to the beach. He stated that the open space would remain the same. He felt that the problem with bums 25 P.C. Minutes 12/6/88 could occur anywhere there is a park or open space, and the police can be called. He felt that there could be other alternatives for this area, such as turning it into a park which would beautify the area. Comm. Ingell stated that it would have been helpful if the grade had been provided for this area. He did not feel a park would be appropriate on this site. Chmn. Peirce noted, however, that there is a flat portion at the top of the hill. He noted that this is open space in the area, and there is no other open space nearby. He noted that many of the homes in this area are built right to the property lines. Mr. Compton stated that there is a 60-foot slope from the Loma Drive side to the bottom on the applicant's property line. Chmn. Peirce suggested that there be a recommendation to deny the vacation; further, to recommend that better access be provided up the hill utilizing natural materials. In this way, the City funds would not be depleted, and the liability would decrease. Open space would be provided, and there would be some access to the beach. MOTION by Chmn. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to recommend to the City Council that there be no vacation on the portion of 21th Street; further, that the general plan amendment be denied. Comm. Ingell could not support the motion, explaining that he felt a staircase would be a liability. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Edwards, Ketz, Chmn. Peirce Comm. Ingell None Comm. Rue Chmn. Peirce stated that the citizens will be notified of the next hearing, which is scheduled for January 10, 1989. STAFF ITEMS a.) Letter from Resident Regarding 211 Pacific Coast Highway, Hermosa Saloon Mr. Schubach stated that the Police Department has been regularly investigating this establishment to ensure that they are complying with the conditions of their conditional use permit. He stated that this matter will come before the Planning Commission for review at a future date. There will be public notice advising when the matter will be heard. b.) Planning Department Activity Report for October 1988 Chmn. Peirce found the report very helpful, particularly the portion addressing conditional use permit enforcement. Chmn. Peirce noted that materials are now in the library; anyone interested may review the plans and reports prior to the meeting merely by asking to see the information. Mr. Compton requested that a packet, excluding plans, be left on the table in Council Chambers before the meeting begins so that interested citizens could review them. 26 P.C. Minutes 12/6/88 Comm. Ingell asked whether the CUP questionnaires are submitted weekly. Mr. Schubach replied in the affirmative and stated that copies could be included with the packets in the future. Comm. Ingell felt that it is beneficial to receive as much information as possible in regard to conditional use permit enforcement. c.) Memorandum Regarding Planning Commission Liaison for 12/13/88 City Council Meeting No one from the Planning Commission will attend. d.) City Council/Planning Commission Workshop Minutes of October 5, 1988, and City Council Minutes of November 9, 1988 Comm. Edwards asked about the issue of the crosswalks at Herondo and Valley. Mr. Schubach stated that that matter was referred to the Public Works Director. e.) Tentative Future Planning Commission Agenda Items No comments. No action. COMMISSIONER ITEMS Chmn. Peirce asked about the status of the traffic study. Mr. Schubach reported that the study should be completed in approximately one week. Chmn. Peirce asked if any work has been done at the Middle School bank. He suggested that a letter be sent to the owner to try to find out when work will commence. Chmn. Peirce asked about the work taking place at Pacific Coast Highway and Pier Avenue. Mr. Schubach explained that the intersection is being expanded. Comm. Edwards suggested that the issue of remodeling with nonconforming setbacks be addressed. Comm. Ketz agreed and suggested that information be provided on the impacts. Comm. Ingell felt that past minutes relating to this issue might be helpful. Mr. Schubach stated that staff can study the issue in the future. MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to adjourn at 11 :23 P.M. No objections; so ordered. 27 P .C. Minutes 12 /6/88 • r 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 re ularly scheduled meeting of December 6, 1988. Date 28 P.C. Minutes 12/6/88