Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 07-05-1988I • .• / MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON JULY 5, 1988, AT 7:30 P.M. IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS Meeting called to order at 7:30 P.M. by Chmn. Compton at 7:36 P.M. Pledge of Allegiance led by Comm. Rue. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Comms. DeBellis, Ingell, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Compton None Also Present: Michael Schubach, Planning Director; Andy Perea, Planning Associate; James P. Lough, City Attorney; Sally White, Recording Secretary APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to approve the minutes of June 21, 1988, as submitted. Noting the abstention of Comm. DeBellis, no objections; so ordered. APPROVAL OF RESOLUTIONS Comm. Rue discussed Resolution P.C. 88-47, referring to Section 9.623, Bicycle Parking: "The developer shall provide not less than one hundr.e.d , pefrmanently mounted bicycle stalls, at a location to be approved by the Planning Director." He stated that the Commission had desired the bicycle stalls to be dispersed at various locations. MOTION by Comm. DeBellis, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to approve as amended Resolution P.C. 88-47, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 84-751, A SPECIFIC PLAN AREA FOR AREA COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE BILTMORE SITE. No objections; so ordered. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. DeBellis, to approve Resolution P.C. 88-48, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 1119757 FOR A TWO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 1057 LOMA DRIVE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS THE NORTHERLY 30 FEET OF LOT 4, BLOCK 2, SECOND ADDITION TO HERMOSA BEACH TRACT. Noting the abstention of Chmn. Compton, no objections; so ordered. MOTION by Comm. DeBellis, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to approve Resolution P.C. 88- 49, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THE CREATION OF THE NEW ZONE, R-lA, TO ALLOW A MAXIMUM OF TWO DWELLING UNITS AND TO ADOPT AN ENVIRONMENT AL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. No objections; so ordered. l P .C. Minutes 7 / 5/88 MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve Resolution P.C. 88-50, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ANO VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #19525 FOR A THREE-UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 532 11TH STREET, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 7, KNUTSEN TRACT. Noting the abstention of Chmn. Compton, no objections; so ordered. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to approve Resolution P.C. 88-51, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ANO AN ENVIRONMENT AL NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO ALLOW A SNACK SHOP BUSINESS AT 113 HERMOSA AVENUE. Noting the objection of Comm. DeBellis, so ordered. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve Resolution P.C. 88-52, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DENYING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A GARAGE EXPANSION WITH UNIT ABOVE TO ENCROACH WITHIN 1.3 FEET OF THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE AT 1056 7TH STREET, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 16, GLORIETTA TRACT. No objections; so ordered. MOTION by Comm. DeBellis, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to approve Policy Statement 88-1, A POLICY STATEMENT BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, INTERPRETING THE LOCATION OF FRONT YARDS ON "THROUGH LOTS." No objections; so ordered. RECOGNITION OF RESIGNING PLANNING COMMISSIONERS AND INTRODUCTION OF NEW PLANNING COMMISSIONERS Chmn. Compton and Comm. DeBellis thanked the other Comn;ussioners and staff for the help they have been given while serving on the Commission. They, in turn, were thanked by their fellow Commissioners for serving. Mr. Schubach introduced the new Commissioners, John Edwards and Chris Ketz. ELECTION OF NEW CHAIRMAN AND VICE CHAIRMAN Comm. Ingell noted that the Commission had previously discussed the issue of a rotating chairmanship, allowing each Commissioner to serve as Chairman for a specified period of time. MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Edwards, that Comm. Peirce act as Chairman and Comm. Rue serve as Vice Chairman. No objections. Chmn. Peirce stated that the Commission could discuss the time length for serving as Chairman at the end of the meeting under Commissioner Items. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC Butch Kuflex, 666 Longfellow Avenue, Hermosa Beach, asked for clarification on Policy Statement 88-1 regarding the location of front yards on through lots, particularly on Boundary Place. 2 P.C. Minutes 7 /5/88 Mr. Schubach explained the policy statement. He noted, however, that Boundary Place is not at issue in regard to Policy Statement 88-1. He continued by explaining that staff is considering exceptions to the policy statement in cases where the lot is extremely small. Mr. Ku flex continued by stating that he is delaying his building plans because he is attempting to gain an understanding of the required setbacks, driveway dimensions, etc. Chmn. Peirce suggested that Mr. Ku flex meet with the planning staff in order to discuss his specific plans. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 1119728 FOR A THREE­ UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT 845 15TH STREET Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated June 23, 1988. This project is located in the R-2, two-family residential zone. The general plan designation is multi-use corridor. The environmental determination is categorically exempt. This lot is located immediately adjacent to Area 8, which is scheduled to be rezoned. The lot to the east contains a two-unit condominium development which is subject to rezoning. There has been some concern voiced by neighbors in regard to view blockage; however, the proposed development is in conformance with all City ordinances. Unit l is approximately 2200 square feet in size, and Units 2 and 3 are approximately 2000 square feet. Each unit will contain three bedrooms and two and a half baths. The project will provide two parking spaces per unit and three guest spaces, for a total of nine parking spaces. No additional guest parking spaces are needed since no on-street parking spaces will be lost due to curb cuts. "'-" . The units conform to the open space requirements. Unit 1 will provide 457 square feet of open space, utilizing a second floor deck and roof deck. Units 2 and 3 will provide 473.5 square feet of open space, utilizing a second floor deck and a roof deck. Unit l will provide 222 cubic feet of storage space which will be located in the garage area. A total of 336 cubic feet of storage shall be provided for Units 2 and 3. The trash facilities for the proposed units shall also be located adjacent to the turning area. Unit l contains a subterranean den, over which staff has some concern. The den has the potential of being converted into a bootleg unit; however, the condominium ordinance requires that the precise number of units allowed is to be stated in the CC&Rs. This requirement has been complied with. The plans conform to all other planning and zoning requirements and are compatible with the surrounding uses. Therefore, staff recommended that the Commission approve the conditional use permit and tentative parcel map, subject to the conditions specified in the resolution. Chmn. Peirce noted that this project is in the multi-use corridor, which was established to provide possible additional depth for commercial establishments, although it is zoned R-2. He asked what the depth is of the multi-use corridor in this particular area. Mr. Schubach replied that it is approximately 180 to 220 feet. He stated that this particular lot is not directly on the multi-use corridor; it is one lot in from the corridor. 3 P.C. Minutes 7 /5/88 The east side of the project abuts an R-2, low-density zone, Area 8, which is scheduled to be rezoned next month. Mr. Schubach discussed height, stating that the maximum height in the R-2 zone is 30 feet; in the C-3 zone, which corresponds to the multi-use corridor, the maximum height is 45 feet. Chmn. Peirce explained the process the Commission has been going through in order to bring the zoning and general plan into consistency as mandated by the 1980 Advisory Measure EE. He noted that Area 8 will be addressed at the meeting of July 19. He noted, however, that the rezone of Area 8 would not affect this particular lot. Mr. Schubach explained, in response to a question from Comm. Edwards, that the City currently has no view ordinance. He noted, however, that the City is currently in the process of studying the method by which height is determined. He stated that staff has noted concern over property owners losing their views due to zone changes. He noted that there is no guarantee, though, that people will be able to retain their views. Public Hearing opened at 8:03 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. Elizabeth Srour, 820 Manhattan Avenue, Manhattan Beach, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission. She stated that this project is a three-unit residential condominium. The applicant is appearing pursuant to State Subdivision Law and also City ordinances pursuant to condominium use. Ms. Srour explained the precise location of this particular piece of property. She stated that the multi-use corridor extends the entire length of Pacific Coast Highway. She stated that the multi-use corridor zoning also permits the underlying zoning. This land is R-2 zoned. The C-3 zoning is the most intense use that the.,~Ct:t.y..aHows currently., She noted for the record the differences between the R-2 and C-3 zoning standards. Ms. Srour stated that this particular project meets or exceeds all of the development standards currently in use. Ms. Srour stated that the code requires 1750 square feet per unit; this project will have approximately 1890 square feet. The three units will be in a townhouse configuration. The project is actually somewhat under the permitted 30-foot height limitation. Each of the units is very self-contained, with its own parking, storage, trash, and utility areas. There is more than enough private open space as well as common open space at this project. Ms. Srour discussed the parking, explaining that there will be two enclosed parking spaces per unit as well as a total of three guest parking spaces, for a total of nine parking spaces. She stated that the rear two units each have a sufficient turning radius to enable a driver to pull out directly onto the street. Ms. Srour stated that the front setback at the garage is 19 feet, two feet in excess of the required 17 feet. She stated that there is more than enough area to safely ingress and egress from the garage. Ms. Srour stated that each of the uni ts is similar in size and configuration. Each shares equally in the amenities. 4 P.C. Minutes 7 /5/88 Ms. Srour stated that the topography of the lot is such that at the front, there is a seven­ foot rise on the property line from the low end to the high end. The property immediately to the east is the building pad itself, which is three feet higher; therefore, the property to the east is set at least three feet higher than this property. The project itself will be set somewhat into the lot. It will be either the same height or lower than the building to the east because of the topography. Even though the code allows the five-foot height differential between 25 and 30 feet, this building will be lower than that to the east. Ms. Srour stated that they are asking for no exceptions to the code, reiterating that this project meets or exceeds all code requirements. Ms. Srour stated that she is aware of the neighborhood concerns because of the abutment of this project to the proposed zone change area. She stated that this project should be judged on its merits, based on the existing zone and the fact that it conforms to all of the current development standards. In fact, she stated that this project will serve as a buffer between the multi-use corridor and this area should Area 8 be rezoned to R-1. She felt that this project is an appropriate use of the land. Comm. Edwards asked whether any attempt has been made to design this project in order to alleviate the potential view blockage of the neighbors. Ms. Srour stated that the neighboring building to the east is a fairly new unit which was built to the maximum height. She stated that the proposed project takes advantage of the topography to use the low end for the driveway. Ms. Srour continued by discussing the grade and topography of this parcel. She stated that a different project could be built closer to the street. She stated that there is a ten and a half foot setback to the west. ·a,.,-.••.•..• ,. Bill Cameron, 24254 Hawthorne Boulevard, Torrance, project designer, addressed the Commission. He discussed the height, explaining that along the easterly property line, the height at finished grade, or the height of the sidewalk along the entrance, is the same height as the driveway on the property to the east. He discussed the pitch of the roof and stated that if a tile roof is used, people should be able to see it. He continued by discussing the grade of this project. Mr. Cameron stated that the reason this project is situated as it is is to minimize the grade at the easterly side of the driveway going into the front garage, which is currently at 18 percent, which is fairly steep. Steve Burton, representing the owners of the building immediately to the east of this parcel, the Sandborgs, addressed the Commission. Prior to leaving on vacation, Mr. Sandborg had discussed with the Planning Department the hearing to rezone Area 8. He quoted from a letter dated June 29, 1988, from Mr. Sandborg to the Planning Department/Planning Commission. Mr. Burton stated that Mr. Sandborg opposes approval of this project for reasons stated in the letter of June 29, 1988. Mr. Burton stated that the hearing for this project should be postponed until after a decision is made in regard to the Area 8 rezone. He felt that approval of this three-unit condominium project would be premature at this time, and he asked the Commission to wait until Area 8 is rezoned. It is Mr. Burton's understanding that if this property is 5 P.C. Minutes 7 /5/88 rezoned to R-1, there could be substantial impacts on the Sandborg's property, including that of being a non-conforming use. Dorothy Ross, 829 and 905 15th Street, passed out a petition signed by the neighbors opposing this project. She opposed the proposed project based on its size, stating that she would like to preserve the character of the neighborhood by retaining the larger lots. She also opposed the height of the project, stating that it will block views. She said most of the houses on the block sit approximately 20 feet back on the lots. Ms. Ross stated that the parking situation on this street is already terrible. Additional cars on the street would exacerbate the traffic and parking problems. She asked how density will be reduced if this developer constructs a three-unit project and the rest of the area is downzoned to R-1. Ms. Ross felt that the City is allowing too many large projects which are not consistent with the neighborhoods. This project would cause a severe environmental impact to the street. Even though she agreed that the project is attractive, she felt it would be more appropriate in an area with condominiums, not in a residential neighborhood. Ms. Ross stressed that she wanted space around her house. She urged the Commission to deny this proposed project. She suggested that new plans be submitted which are more in keeping with the neighborhood. Abraham Kedani, original owner of the property immediately east of the proposed project, opposed the project. He noted concern for the aesthetic value of the neighborhood, noting that people pay dearly to live in the area. Mr. Kedani discussed the natural topography in the area and stated that the zoning is illogical because there will be differentiations in zoning .. Me ,asked why suddenly the zoning should be arbitrarily changed by the City. Mr. Kedani noted concern over the possibility that his property will be down zoned to R- 1. He felt that no decision should be made on this project until after the rezoning of Area 8 is complete. He therefore requested that the Commission postpone hearing of this project request until the rezoning is addressed. Mr. Kedani stated that if this proposed project is constructed to be equal in height to his property, he would completely lose his view. Mr. Kedani stated that he had been attempting to obtain information from the City in regard to this project but to no avail. He explained that he was attempting to sell this property; however, several potential buyers wanted a decrease in price of between $50,000 to $75,000 because of the possibility of a large development next door. Mr. Kedani stated that if the property is downzoned to R-1, he would be denied the option of expanding his property. Mr. Kedani felt that approval of this proposed project would be premature, untimely, and unfair. He said that he does not have an alternative plan in mind for this proposed project in order to minimize the view loss. He did note, however, that if the project property is rezoned to R-1, view loss would be prevented. Comm. Peirce reminded the audience that this particular piece of property, 845 15th Street, ls not subject to any rezoning. 6 P.C. Minutes 7 /5/88 Dennis Cleland, 434 28th Street, Hermosa Beach, applicant, stated that he purchased this property with the intent of developing a three-unit condominium. He checked with the Planning Department to ensure that this could be done, and he paid appropriately for this piece of property in order to build the three units. He stated that he took into consideration the fact that if anyone builds in front of his project, the view of this project would be lost, just as those to the east have lost their views. Marcus Galoop, licensed real estate broker and appraiser, addressed the Commission and opposed this project. He stated that the value of any piece of property is based upon the use to which it can be put. He stated that, in essence, this parcel would be subdivided into three lots by approval of this project, noting that three pieces of property obviously is worth considerably more than one or two pieces of property. Mr. Galoop stated that the City is allowing developers to arbitrarily subdivide lots, thus giving to one and taking from another. He stated that many nonconformities will result by such actions, resulting in lower property values. Mr. Galoop stated that the three additional units would increase the traffic and parking problems in the neighborhood. He stressed that the streets are very dangerous. John Lacey, 944 15th Street, Hermosa Beach, opposed the project. He stated that he wants to retain the quality of his residential neighborhood. He opposed turning this street into a group of condos and large structures. He also favored retaining the setbacks. Mr. Lacey favored the commercial area of the City; however, he did not want condominiums being approved for single-family residential neighborhoods. Mr. Lacey felt that to make a decision on this project before,,ad~r,essing the issue of the Area 8 rezone would be premature. Therefore, he requested the Commission to defer their decision until the rezoning matter has been heard. Gerry Compton, 832 7th Street, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and explained that the Planning Commission had previously suggested to the City Council, in regard to a similar rezone area, that lots which are large enough should be rezoned to R-2B and that the general plan be modified. He continued by explaining what occurred at the Council meeting in regard to this issue. Ed and Jennifer Alvarado, 3602 Green Avenue, Los Alamitos, stated that they would like to purchase one of the proposed condominiums. She stated that they intend to raise a family and be good neighbors in the area. She stated that the project will be very architecturally consistent with the area and will be well maintained by consistent, family-type people. Mr. Alvarado felt that the project would be a very homogenous use for the neighborhood. He felt the project conforms to the residential-type neighborhood and would in fact be an improvement in the neighborhood, and would serve as an incentive for others to improve their older homes. Fred Walty, 960 15th Street, Hermosa Beach, opposed the project and stated that he agrees with the comments made by his neighbors. He asked that the Commission postpone hearing this project until after the rezone of Area 8 is considered. 7 P.C. Minutes 7 /5/88 Linda Ross, 905 15th Street, Hermosa Beach, opposed the project. She passed out photographs depicting the proposed site and surrounding neighborhood. There were also photos depicting other areas of the City which have allowed these large projects in residential neighborhoods. Ms. Ross stated that she has been on 15th Street for 40 years and hopes to be there another 40 years. She stressed that she would like to retain the neighborhood ambience as it exists today. Ms. Ross felt that the Commission should weigh the comments of the citizens just as they would take into account building and zoning codes. If the Commission does not listen to the citizen input, she felt that the meetings should be discontinued altogether. Ms. Ross wanted to maintain the uniformity and quality of life of the neighborhoods in the City. She stated that the proposed project is directly in the middle of the neighborhood. Each existing building is unique and is set back an average of 20 feet from the street. The only existing condo on the street is set back 35 feet; therefore, its excessive height impacts only a few views. Ms. Ross stated that the height and setbacks of the proposed project will be detrimental to the neighborhood since it is not in keeping with the flavor of the neighborhood. Ms. Ross stated that this street is already too congested. Additional cars will compound the parking and traffic problems in the area. She felt that the quality of the neighborhood is more important than the monetary value of the land. Ms. Ross felt that no decision should be made on this project until the Area 8 rezone has been addressed. She suggested that if this project is approved, that it be set back further from the street. ", •,, .... , Don McDougal, 940 15th Street, Hermosa Beach, opposed the project, stating that problems result from overbuilding in the City. He stated that a gas station opposed by the neighbors was approved 20 years ago has now become nothing more than a junk yard. Andy Seltzer, living on the block east of the proposed project, opposed the project and stated that he agreed with the comments given by the neighbors. He felt that this matter should be postponed until after the hearing on the Area 8 rezone. Elizabeth Srour, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission. She asked that the issue of the rezone and this project be kept separate. She stated that this project is before the Commission based on the very clear City of Hermosa Beach development standards, zoning standards, permitted uses, and State subdivision law. Ms. Srour stressed that this is one lot and will remain one lot, not subdivided into three lots as was suggested by a citizen. Ms. Srour stated that the multi-use corridor is well established, and the line of demarcation between multi-use corridor and adjacent zoning is consistent. She did not see how anyone could consider the line of demarcation to be arbitrary. She continued by discussing the zoning map. Ms. Srour stated that the applicant is asking for no exceptions to the code, explaining that this project meets or exceeds all code requirements. She continued by discussing the roof design. She stated that the property to the east has a very extreme roof design. 8 P.C. Minutes 7 /5/88 Ms. Srour agreed that parking on the street can be difficult; however, the parking for this project meets all code requirements. Ms. Srour stated that this project will serve as a buffer between the commercial and residential zones. Ms. Srour felt that condominiums tend to encourage home ownership and are normally owner occupied as opposed to apartments. She felt that the applicant deserves serious consideration and approval for this project. Comm. Ingell asked whether a two-week delay of this project would create a hardship for the applicant. Ms. Srour replied in the affirmative, stating that they have been waiting a long time to have this item placed on the agenda; any further delay would cause an imposition. Public Hearing closed by Chmn. Peirce at 9:12 P.M. Chmn. Peirce noted that there are four options available to the Commission: ( 1) to modify the project; (2) to delay the project for two weeks or to a date certain; (3) to deny the project; or (4) to approve the project. Mr. Lough explained the purpose of a conditional use permit, stating that the Commission can impose additional conditions if deemed necessary. He stated that this is an allowed use; therefore, the Commission can't deny the project, but merely add or remove conditions. Chmn. Peirce asked whether it is within the purview of the Commission to modify the building standards, such as height and setback. ..,.,: _ Mr. Lough responded that the building standards are dictated by the code; therefore, they cannot be conditioned. Mr. Schubach clarified the parking, stating that since the project's driveway will be widened, thus removing a parking space from the street, an additional parking space is required for the project. Mr. Schubach discussed the issue of architectural review, stating that the City Council has turned architectural review over to the Planning Commission. Comm. Edwards asked for clarification on adding conditions to conditional use permits. Mr. Lough explained the purpose of conditional use permits and the addition of conditions, explaining that findings must be made to impose conditions. Comm. Rue noted that the Commission is bound by the zoning code. He further noted that people do have the right to develop their property. He noted that the City has no view ordinance. He felt that, in the long term, this project will be beneficial to the City, noting that the project would serve as a buffer between the commercial and residential zone. MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to continue this matter for two weeks or until after the rezone hearing on Area 8 takes place, based on the fact that this particular area is subject to rezoning, and on the fact that many of the citizens expressed concern over this project in a rezone area. 9 P.C. Minutes 7 /5/88 Comm. lngell felt that when Area 8 comes up for hearing, many of the residents will express a desire to maintain their R-2 zoning, rather than being downzoned to R-1. Comm. Ingell felt, however, that this condominium project is attractive and noted that it is below lot density by several points. He noted that this project has not been maximized out, as are so many other projects being built in the City. Comm. Ketz noted concern that the single-family residential area here is also in the multi-use corridor. She stated that she would favor hearing additional citizen input in regard to the rezone. Chmn. Peirce argued against a continuance of this matter, stating that no matter what occurs in the Area 8 rezone, this particular property will not be affected. He noted that in order to change the zoning of this property to preclude a three-unit condominium, a general plan and/or zoning amendment would be necessary, which could take up to six months. Mr. Lough concurred that a general plan and/ or zone change could take up to six months. He continued by explaining what action would be necessary to undertake such a change. He stated that individual properties cannot be picked out for such action. Mr. Lough explained that the Commission's function in reviewing the condominium conditional use permit is to determine whether or not the conditions are adequate for the proposed project and whether mitigating measures should be imposed. He noted that the Commission acts as a quasi-judicial body in such matters. Comm. Edwards noted that there are people who stand to lose if this project is approved. He suggested that if the plans are studied more carefully, alternatives can be determined in order to mitigate the impacts. Even though a .i::.~ne woul.d r.iot affect this particular piece of property, it may affect those next to the project; therefore, he would favor continuing this matter until after the hearing of Area 8 has taken place. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Edwards, Ingell, Ketz Comm. Rue, Chmn. Peirce None None Recess taken from 9:29 P.M. until 9:38 P.M. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP //19766 FOR A TWO­ UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT 625 10TH STREET Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated June 28, 1988. This project is located in the R-2 zone with a general plan designation of medium density residential. The lot size is 4113.5 square feet. The environmental determination is categorically exempt. The applicant is proposing to construct a detached two-unit condominium. Each unit will be approximately 2200 square feet and will contain three bedrooms, a den, and three baths. The design of the structure is two floors over a partial subterranean garage level. P.C. Minutes 7 /5/88 The den will be adjacent to the garage level of each unit. The applicant is proposing to add a wet bar to the den. Since these dens possess a possible ''bootleg" use, a condition of approval should limit the plumbing to a wet bar. The plans conform to the open space requirements. Unit l will provide 300 square feet of private open space: 189.5 square feet on a roof deck, and 110.5 square feet on the second floor. Unit 2 will provide 330 square feet: 176 square feet on the roof, and 154 square feet on the second floor. Both units provide additional deck area on the second floor, but this area is not included in the open space calculations since the area is completely covered, Each unit will provide two enclosed parking spaces. The proposal will also provide one guest space. Trash and storage areas are located adjacent to the garage. The plans conform to all other planning and zoning requirements and are consistent with the surrounding uses. Therefore, staff recommended approval of the conditional use permit and tentative parcel map, subject to the conditions specified in the resolution. Public Hearing opened at 9:40 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. Bill Cameron, 24254 Hawthorne Boulevard, Torrance, project designer, addressed the Commission. He stated that he agrees with the conditions imposed by staff. Mr. Cameron asked if he could make a small revision to the submitted elevations. He stated that he would like to add trim to the bottom level. He also wanted to change the balcony railing trim. He stated that the trim would go all the way around both buildings. He stated that he would like to change the balcony railings to a more traditional star pattern instead of the straight six-inch picket wrought iron as proposed on the plans. .,, ... ,· .. , - Mr. Cameron noted that this project meets all the requirements; he even tried to exceed requirements in some cases. Comm. Rue asked about the wet bar in the downstairs den of both units. He asked whether the stairway is open and goes all the way up. Mr. Cameron replied in the affirmative, explaining that there is no way to close it off with a wall for a separate unit. Comm. Ingell stated that this is an attractive project which utilizes only 58 percent of the lot instead of the 65 percent maximum allowed under the code. Public Hearing closed at 9:45 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. Comm. Peirce asked whether this project meets all the standards of the building and zoning codes. Mr. Schubach replied that it meets all of the the standards of the zoning code; building code requirements will be determined at plan check by the Building Department. Chmn. Peirce noted that no landscaping plans were included. Mr. Schubach stated that landscaping will soon be required on all submitted projects. 11 P.C. Minutes 7 /5/88 Comm. Edwards noted that there are several small towers on the roof which exceed the 30-foot height limit. Mr. Schubach explained that chimneys are allowed to go over the 30-foot height limit. He continued by stating that staff would prefer to amend Section 1201 which addresses this particular issue. He stated that the Section has no clear parameters on what can exceed the height limit and by how much. MOTION by Comm. Edwards, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve Resolution P.C. 88-56 with the conditions imposed by staff; and to approve the two modifications requested by the applicant in regard to the trim and the balcony rails, and that the revised plans shall be subject to approval by the Planning Director. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Edwards, Ingell, Ketz, Rue, Chmn. Peirce None None None CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 1119637 FOR A TWO­ UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT 637 MANHA TT AN A VENUE Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated June 23, 1988. This project is in the R-3 zone with a general plan designation of high density residential. The lot size is 3000 square feet with an environmental determination of categorically exempt. The applicant is proposing to construct two units. Each unit will be approximately 2150 square feet and will contain two bedrooms and two and a half baths. The units are detached and will consist of two floors over a partial subterr.anean ga,r,age. The development will provide two enclosed parking spaces per unit, for a total of four spaces and four guest spaces. One guest space is required for the development since no on-street parking is being lost due to curb cuts. The units conform to the open space requirements. The units will provide 243 square feet of private open space on a mezzanine level deck. The development will also provide 240 square feet of common open space. Each unit will also have a 64.5 square foot deck on the second-floor level. This deck is not included in the private open space calculation since the deck has dimensions less then seven feet. Trash and storage area is provided in a location within the garage. The plans conform to all other planning and zoning requirements and are consistent with the surrounding uses; therefore, staff recommended that the Commission approve the conditional use permit and tentative parcel map, subject to the conditions specified in the resolution. Public Hearing opened at 9:52 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. Elizabeth Srour, 820 Manhattan Avenue, Manhattan Beach, representing the owner and developer of the property, addressed the Commission. She concurred with the staff report, stating that this project is in conformance with all of the development standards, and the project meets or exceeds all of the requirements. Ms. Srour stated that this is a very attractive project and will be a complement to the City of Hermosa Beach. These are intended to be owner/occupied homes. 12 P.C. Minutes 7 /5/88 Chmn. Peirce noted that the vicinity map on the plot plan is on the wrong side of the street. He asked that that be corrected, stating that it should be on the west side. Comm. Rue asked for clarification on the front elevation in regard to the placement of windows and trim. Ms. Srour explained the location of the trim and window arches. Public Hearing closed at 9:56 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. Chmn. Peirce stated that this project is very attractively designed and shows architectural diversity. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to approve the conditional use permit, Resolution P.C. 88-54, with the conditions as imposed by staff. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Edwards, Ingell, Ketz, Rue, Peirce None None None VARIANCE TO ALLOW GARAGE TO ENCROACH INTO THE SEVENTEEN-FOOT PARKING SETBACK AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 2426 MANHA TT AN A VENUE Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated June 28, 1988. This project is in the R-1 zone, with a general plan designation of low density residential. The lot size is 3000 square feet. The applicant is proposing to construct a two-car garage located five feet from the rear property line. The project will also have a _ storage area located below. The zoning ordinance requires the garage to be located 17 feet from the property line. Building records indicate the existing dwelling unit on the site to be a single-family dwelling. The site presently has no on-site parking. The proposal will provide two enclosed parking spaces. The lot is approximately 3000 square feet and has a severe slope. The proposed garage will be accessed from the alley in the rear, which is approximately ten feet above the grade of the existing dwelling unit. A storage area will be located below the garage on the same grade as the dwelling unit. Staff is recommending approval of the variance since the topography will make a 17-foot setback very difficult and would require several retaining walls. A recommended condition of approval should require the garage to be set back a minimum of nine feet. This will allow for a vehicle to temporarily parallel park within this area without encroaching into the alley and will therefore maintain the spirit of the 17-foot setback. The site will still be able to maintain required open space. The storage room below the garage is approximately 280 square feet and has a potential to be converted to an illegal dwelling unit. Conditions of approval should require deed restrictions limiting the site to one unit as well as prohibiting any plumbing fixtures within the storage room. 13 P.C. Minutes 7 /5/88 The plans conform to other zoning and planning requirements and are consistent with the general plan; therefore, staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve the variance and negative declaration subject to the conditions specified in the resolution. Chmn. Peirce clarified that the applicant is requesting a variance for a five-foot setback; staff is recommending nine feet. He asked whether staff has discussed this with the applicant. Mr. Schubach stated that he thought his assistant has discussed the matter with the applicant. Comm. Rue asked whether there is room on the south side of the property for an additional parking space. Mr. Schubach stated that the problem in this case is that the 17-foot setback is not for parking, but rather to prevent cars from hanging over the sidewalk. He stated that it is possible to put a guest parking space in the 17-foot setback on the south side of this property. Comm. Rue noted that in several places, the plans refer to Manhattan Beach Boulevard. He suggested that they be corrected to read Manhattan Avenue. Public Hearing opened at 10:06 P.M. by Chmn. Peirce. Adriane Woodward, 2137 Temple Avenue, Signal Hill, representing the contractor, addressed the Commission. He stated that the concept of a nine-foot setback had not been discussed until this meeting. He stated, however, that he discussed the matter with the applicant in the audience. The only concern would be the distance between the garage and the existing structure. Chmn. Peirce stated that the distance would be l l.6 feet if there is a nine-foot setback. Mr. Woodward stated, then, that there would be no objection to having a nine-foot setback for the garage. He stated that the garage will have a roll-up door. He stated that there is a concern with the concept of a parking space on the south side. He stated that the parking requirements will be met by the two enclosed parking spaces and the one space in front of the garage. He said that if there is a side parking space, the garage will then be too shallow. He stated that the owner would like to have a small work shop in the garage storage area. Comm. Rue noted that the City has concerns that the work shop area does not become a bootleg unit. Mr. Woodward stated that the work shop will have no allowance for plumbing, and the electrical wiring will be very minimal, having only overhead lighting with a switch. Tom Arnold, 2426 Manhattan Avenue, Hermosa Beach, owner and applicant, addressed the Commission. He stated that the original garage was 20 f eet by 20 feet, but it had to be taken down because of termites. He stated that this garage is costing $37,000 to build. He noted that he is a large man, and he needs a large garage in order to open his car doors wide enough to get into and out of the car easily. He stated that he would like to have the work area in order to be able to work on his cars. He stressed that the storage area will be used strictly for storage. There will be no plumbing and only a minimum of electrical wiring. 14 P.C. Minutes 7/5/88 Brian Dunbabin, next door neighbor of Mr. Arnold, addressed the Commission. He stated that he fully approves of the proposal because it will ease the parking problem in the area. He stated that it would be very difficult to have a 17-foot setback for the garage because the lot has a steep slope. He stated that if a setback is required, people will be parking there, and Mr. Arnold would have to put up a fence to prevent people from parking there. Public Hearing closed at 10:14 by Chmn. Peirce. Chmn. Peirce noted that the applicant has agreed to a nine-foot setback and to install a roll-up garage door in order to provide an additional parking space in front of the garage. He noted that there is to be no plumbing in the storage area. There will be a deed restriction on the property limiting the use to a single-family dwelling. Comm. Rue stated that the proper findings have been made to grant this variance due to the steep slope of the property. MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve the variance request and negative declaration, Resolution P.C. 88-57, with the addition of a condition requiring a roll-up garage door. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Edwards, Ingell, Ketz, Rue, Chmn. Peirce None None None HEARING OF DETERMINATION FOR LOT MERGER GROUP L.M. 88-3 (CONTINUED FROM MEETING OF 5/17/88) AND L.M. 88-5 {CONTINUED FROM MEETING OF 6/21/88) Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated June 29, 1988. The City Council amended the zoning ordinance to delete the section which allowed the Planning Commission and City Council discretionary authority to unmerge lots. However, the City Attorney has determined that these lots are subject to the previous ordinance since they were mailed before the ordinance was amended. Staff can determine no reason to exempt these lots from merger under either ordinance. Less than 80 percent of the block has been split, and the contiguous parcels are held by the same owner. 1549 Golden Avenue and 701 Longfellow Avenue: The Planning Commission, at their meeting of May 17, 1988, continued the hearing for determination of merger. 1549 Golden Avenue was continued per the request of the property owners. 701 Longfellow was continued in order to allow the applicant time to submit verification of a recorded deed which resubdivided the lots. Staff had received no documentation from the property owner until tonight. 3001 The Strand: The Planning Commission, at their meeting of June 21, 1988, continued the hearing for determination of merger per the request of the applicant. Mr. Schubach stated that staff recommends the Commission to deny the applicants' request to maintain their parcels as two separate lots. 15 P.C. Minutes 7/5/88 Mr. Lough stated that he had just received information pertaining to 701 Longfellow Avenue, but he has not had a chance to read it. Mr. Lough discussed the property at 3001 The Strand. He stated that that evening he had received a copy of a surveyor's report indicating that the three lots in question are comprised of a total of 8,000.84 square feet. He stated that he has discussed this matter with the applicants and their attorney. He noted that 8,000.84 square feet meets the minimum lot size for two lots. In light of this surveyor's report, he felt that a continuance would be in order so that he and staff could further study the matter. Chmn. Peirce noted, however, that the two proposed lots would not meet the 40-foot frontage requirement. He suggested that staff carefully study this matter. Mr. Schubach stated that he would review this matter with the City Attorney. Chmn. Peirce stated that 300 l The Strand would be continued to the meeting of July 19, 1988, so that staff and the City Attorney could further study this matter. There were no objections to the continuance. Recess taken from 10:23 P.M. until 10:28 P.M. Mr. Lough discussed the preliminary title report done by First American Title Company of Los Angeles for property located at 701 Longfellow Avenue. The report indicates that the property in question is indeed owned by two separate people and has been held separately since 1912. Mr. Lough continued by reading aloud from the title report. Based on the preliminary title report, there is no common title between the two lots. Further, there is no house straddling the property line. He stated that the problem ar~,tie.h:.ecause 0f a,n assessor's mistake. Rebecca Dexter Kovich, 701 Longfellow A venue, Hermosa Beach, daughter of Madeline Dexter, property owner, addressed the Commission. She clarified that the two lots are not 20 feet and the other 30 feet; rather, there are two 25-foot lots. She stated that an assessor's mistake was made years ago, explaining that the assessor drew the lot lines incorrectly. She said that the house is on the 25-foot lot to the west.· The confusion arose because of the misplaced five-foot assessor's line. Mr. Schubach stated that the incorrectly drawn line makes it appear as though there is a house straddling the property line; however, the assessor's line is incorrect according to the preliminary title report. Also, there are two separate lots owned by two different people; therefore, for these two reasons the two lots should not be merged. MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to not merge the lots at 701 Longfellow Avenue, based on the evidence contained in the preliminary title report indicating that there are two 25-foot lots, not one 30-foot lot and one 20-foot lot; the fact that these are two separate lots owned by two different people; and there is no house built over the property line. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Edwards, Ingell, Ketz, Rue, Chmn. Peirce None None None 16 P.C. Minutes 7 /5/88 1549 Golden Avenue: This parcel is comprised of two 30-by 100-foot, lots. Aerials indicate that the main structure straddles the property line. Building records indicate this structure is a two-unit dwelling. The property is located in a low-density, R-1 area and is on the south side of the water company. This property should be considered under the old ordinance. Mr. Schubach explained for the benefit of the audience and new commissioners the old ordinance, under which this parcel should be considered. Comm. Ingell noted that there are several 30-foot lots in this particular vicinity which have already been split. Mr. Schubach stated that the number of lots already developed on 25-foot parcels on this block is 47 percent; therefore, under half of the lots are split. Dorothy and John Schmidt, 1549 Golden Avenue, Hermosa Beach addressed the Commission and requested that their lots not be merged. They purchased this property in 1952, at which time it was zoned R-2, and they could have built four units on the two lots. In 1960 the two lots were rezoned to R-1. Mrs. Schmidt continued by discussing her neighborhood and how many units are on the various lots. She stated that Golden Avenue is very unique because it curves, and 15th Street comes in at an angle, and the water company property encroaches on the houses on the east side of the street. Although some of the lots look as though they are wide, they are actually very shallow. She also noted that they have owned the property for many years. She felt that to merge the lots would decrease the property value. In response to a question from Chmn. Peirce, Mrs. Schmidt stated that across the street on the corner there is a very shallow 90-foot lot. This lot .i:s:; l:0'<1;atre d next to the water company. Next to it is a 30-foot lot which is only about 30 or 40 feet deep. Then there is a wider lot of approximately 50 feet, a portion of which is taken up by the water company property. There are then several 30-foot lots developed with houses. There is only one other property which is large, comprised of two 30-foot lots with a house straddling the property line, just as their property does. MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Rue, to not merge the lots at 1549 Golden Avenue, based on the fact that there are two 30-foot lots, and on the fact that the owners do not want the lots to be merged. Comm. Rue stated that the previous ordinance was written in such a way that if a property owner did not want his property to be merged, the only thing necessary to preclude that was that the property owner could make such a request. Therefore, he would fully support the motion. Chmn. Peirce stated that he would support the motion based on the fact that this neighborhood appears not to be developed. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Edwards, Ingell, Ketz, Rue, Chmn. Peirce None None None Comm. Rue stated that he hoped the City Council would take into account the oddly­ shaped lots in this particular area. 17 P.C. Minutes 7 /5/88 STUDY OF VIEW BLOCKAGE AND HEIGHT MEASURE METHOD Chmn. Peirce stated that this issue would be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of July 19, 1988, as requested by staff. BILTMORE SITE SPECIFIC PLAN AREA -ORDINANCE 84-751 (REFERRED BACK BY THE CITY COUNCIL) The City Council has requested that the Planning Commission consider the proposed mod if ica tions. Essentially, the intent is to eliminate any additional discretionary actions after the approval of the SPA ordinance. The basic areas of concern are: (1) trash enclosures; (2) bicycle spaces; and (3) required conditional use permits. Chmn. Peirce discussed the City Council comments made on this item at their last meeting. He noted that the City Attorney has included several conditions in the proposed Biltmore Site Specific Pian. Chmn. Peirce directed the Commission's attention to the City Attorney's letter dated June 29, 1988, with the recommended changes by the Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe Railway Company to the Specific Plan for the Biltmore Site. Mr. Lough stated that his letter contains recommendations made by the Railway Company to the 1985 specific plan area. He noted, however, that this matter will probably be placed on the ballot. Mr. Lough stated that the purpose of a Specific Plan is to act as a tool to regulate much more specifica!Iy than a zoning ordinance, and it limits the development or use of the land to the specific items within the specific plan. Mr. Lough discussed the proposed changes, explaining that Section 9.615 should be changed from "public park" to "garden plaza." The proposed 1985 development was a public/private development. The idea is now being discussed to sell the Biltmore site and possibly Lot C, which would then make the land privately owned. Park facilities would still be desired; however, it would not be desirable to have public control over a private park, mainly because of liability issues. Therefore, the wording should be changed to "garden plaza." He continued by explaining some of the legal problems which could arise if the wording "public park" remains. He noted, however, that the space will remain as a park-type land. The Planning Director has also included conditions related to the park­ type area. Mr. Lough discussed Section 9.619, explaining that that section will establish typical conditional use permit standards which have been applied in the area around the beach. He stated that he culled several of the conditions imposed on the Comedy and Magic Club for incorporation into this document. After discussion with the railroad, the document was returned to the City. He noted that the Planning Commission would still retain its discretionary reviews if this remains as a conditional use permit. Chmn. Peirce asked whether the City Attorney had any recommendations as to conditions to add to this document in order to protect the City. Mr. Lough explained that he had discussed the matter with representatives from the railroad; this is the document which resulted from those discussions. He stated that the only thing which should be incorporated would possibly be hours of operation. He noted, 18 P.C. Minutes 7/5/88 however, that it is difficult to impose hours of operation when it has not yet been determined what the uses will be. He suggested that the Commission wait to see what the uses will be; if there are problems, additional conditions could be imposed. He noted that a hotel operator desires orderliness; otherwise, customers will not be able to sleep. Mr. Lough discussed the parking, explaining that since the 1985 ordinance, new parking requirements have been adopted thereby making the requirements more stringent. He stated that not considering shared parking, 403 parking spaces would now be necessary. He continued by explaining how the parking requirements were determined for this project. He stated that the analysis was done based on reports done by national land use planners. Mr. Lough stated that a condition should be added on Page 6 under HBCC Appendix A-A Zoning: "Valet parking shall be required at all times whenever tandem parking is used." Mr. Lough discussed Section 9.621 (h) and (1) and Section 9.623 where it is suggested to delete the wording "and approval of the Planning Director." He explained that the Planning Commission will have later discretionary approval; since this issue will probably be on the ballot, the public should be able to make a decision which is not based on later discretionary approval. Comm. lngell suggested the inclusion of several conditions: ( 1) The establishment shall not adversely affect the welfare of the residents and/or commercial establishments in nearby; (2) Screening shall be installed on all openable exterior windows at ground level to prevent the pass-through of alcoholic beverages and to control insect problems. Mr. Lough stated that the first suggestion is in the document as Condition No. 6. Mr. Lough stated that this building will have sealed windo~~efor.:e,, he:: did. not feel screened windows to be necessary. Comm. lngell continued: (3) Signs shall be posted in a conspicuous location warning patrons of the illegality of open containers in any public area such as the street and beach. Mr. Lough stated that that condition seems reasonable. Comm. lngell continued: (4) All alcoholic beverages shall be served in non-throw-away glass containers, including beer and wine. Mr. Lough could think of no objection to such a condition; however, he would need to consult the railroad people. Comm. Ingell continued: (5) The police chief may determine that if a continuing police problem exists, it may require the presence of a police approved doorman and/or security personnel; (6) The exterior of the premises, including parking areas, shall be maintained in a neat and clean manner; (7) Any changes to the interior layout shall be subject to the review of the Planning Commission; (8) This conditional use permit is exclusively for and so long as the premises remain a restaurant (or hotel); (9) The business must maintain a food/alcohol sales ratio of (to be determined) percent. Mr. Schubach noted that all of the standard conditions of approval as suggested by Comm. Ingell are in the City Code under Article 10.7. He suggested that that Article be referenced in the document. Mr. Lough stated that the percentages were discussed; however, they were inadvertently omitted. 19 P.C. Minutes 7 /5/88 Comm. Ing ell continued: (10) Alcoholic beverages may be served only during the times when the service of food is available; (11) Maximum permissible occupancy shall be clearly posted and shall not be exceeded at any time; (12) This establishment shall be in compliance with all Building and Fire Department regulations; (13) Any violations of the conditions of approval and/or violations of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code is grounds for either a 50 dollar or above fine, or a revocation hearing. Chmn. Peirce noted that all of these conditions are contained in Article 10 on Page 516 of the code. He asked whether there would be any objection to referencing all of Article 10 in the document. Mr. Lough stated that that would not be a problem. Comm. Ingell continued: He suggested the addition of a Condition 7(a) stating "The general manager shall be aware of all conditions of all of the businesses located within the hotel." Also Condition No. 8 should reference the general manager. Comm. Edwards asked for background information on what is being done now and what has previously been done in regard to this document. Comm. Edwards discussed the prior EIR and noted that the document addressed traffic problems and proposed remedies. However, he saw no specific traffic mitigation measures to be imposed. Chmn. Peirce explained the traffic mitigations previously proposed. Comm. lngell noted concern over the hours of operation at this establishment. He noted that other CUPs contain specific hours of operation. Chmn. Peirce stated, however, that the hotel must be allowed to begin operations; the City can then impose additional conditions if problems ari~µ,tie noted that the City does not have extensive experience with CUPs for hotels. Parker Herriott, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission, and stated that four hotels have previously been denied at this location. He did not feel that the City Council should be burdening the Commission and citizens again with this issue. Mr. Herriott continued by giving background history of this site and the proposed hotels. He voiced his objections to the 1984 and 1985 specific plans. Mr. Herriott stated that he opposes a hotel on the site because of traffic and density problems, especially since the proposed site is very close to residential areas. He also noted concern about increased noise in the area. Additionally, the height limit in the surrounding area is only 35 feet, the hotel proposal is for 39 feet. He felt that the height should be limited to 35 feet. Chmn. Peirce stated that the Commission agreed that the height limitation should be 39 feet. They also agreed that Article 10 of the code should be referenced in the document. It was agreed to revert to the original recommendation of the specific plan in regard to the 58 percent less or minus 2 percent for development standards. Comm. Ketz asked for clarification on the height issue. Chmn. Peirce explained the height. Mr. Lough stated that Comms. Ketz and Edwards have read the previous minutes on this issue; therefore, there was no objection to their partaking in the discussion of this matter. 20 P.C. Minutes 7 /5/88 Comm. Edwards discussed the previous focused EIR, Book 1, March 1984, as it related to traffic and the generation of additional vehicle trips. He asked for clarification of the proposed mitigation measures. Mr. Schubach stated that he was not working in the City in 1984. The 1984 EIR related to a previous proposal and is therefore not relevant to this project. If this measure goes on the ballot, an EIR would not be required. Mr. Lough explained the differences between the previous proposal and the proposal now before the Commission. He discussed the proposed parking for the hotel. Mr. Schubach stated that no sophisticated calculations have been performed for the new proposal because the City Council has requested the Commission's input on this document as soon as possible since the issue will be placed on the ballot. He stated that if the Commission desires, they can recommend to the Council that additional calculations be made in regard to parking and traffic. He stressed that the previous EIR was prepared on the basis of a much larger hotel. Mr. Schubach explained, in response to questions from Com ms. Edwards and Ketz, the parking proposed for the current project. He stated that the calculations took into account peak hours. Comm. Ingell stated that the assertion that the peak hours are during the day holds true for only about three months of the year. During the other nine months, the peak hours are definitely during the evening hours. Mr. Lough summarized the differences between the 1984 proposal and the current proposal: (l) the number of rooms has now been lowered; (2) the number of parking spaces has now been increased; (3) the size of the restaurant lit~,,_been decreased; (4) the conference area has been downsized; (5) the bar area has now been downsized; and (6) additional bicycle spaces have been added. Comm. Edwards asked about the hours of construction and mitigation measures to limit the effects of construction. Chmn. Peirce stated that the builders must adhere to the code in regard to limiting hours of construction. Mr. Schubach stated that construction requirements are contained in the Building Code. Therefore, it is not necessary to include such a condition. MOTION by Chmn. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ingell, that the specific plan be returned to the City Council with the following modifications: To include everything contained in tonight's staff recommendation, but to in corporate Article 10.7 of the code, per the City Attorney's suggestion, under Section 9.6 l 9(e); to include a Condition 7(a) requiring that the general manager shall be aware of all conditions for all establishments located within the hotel; to include a Condition 8(a) requiring that the general manager shall read and sign a copy of the conditional use permit; a condition shall be added requiring that any violations of the cond itions of approval and/or violations of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code is grounds for either a 50 doiiar or above fine, or a revocation hearing; to change the height limit from 40 feet to 39 feet; that the parking spaces be determined per the staff recommendation; that a condition be added requiring that valet parking shall be required at all times whenever tandem parking is used. 21 P.C. Minutes 7 /5/88 .. Comm. Edwards commented on the use of an airport shuttle and asked whether that is a condition. Mr. Lough explained the use of a shuttle as it pertains to a development agr eeme nt. He stated that that issue is contained in the body of the Specific Plan under Sect ion 9.622. Comm. Edwards noted concern over traffic and parking at the proposed site. He asked whether other options are being addressed at this time. Mr. Lough stated that the Commission is being asked to look only at a particular section of the document at this time. Comm. Ingell felt that a trolly system would be beneficial to the City. Mr. Lough noted, however, that the cost of the previous trolly was quite expensive. Comm. Edwards felt that more study should be given to the issue of traffic impacts and mitigations measures. He noted that a hotel would add significantly to the traffic in the area. Comm. Ingell stated that a traffic circulation element is currently being prepared. AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION by Chmn. Peirce as maker and agreed to by Comm. Ingell as second, to recommend to the City Council that additional traffic mitigation meaures should be studied for any proposal placed on the ballot. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: STAFF ITEMS Comms. Ingell, Ketz, Rue, Chmn. Peirce None Comm. Edwards None a. Mem ora ndu m Regar d in g Planning Commis s ion Lia ison for July 12, 1988, C ity Counci l Me et in g b. No one will be attending as liaison. City Council Minutes of June 14, 1988 No comments. COMMISSIONER ITEMS MOTION by Chmn. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Rue, that the Chairmanship and Vice Chairmanship of the Commission shall be rotated every nine months so that each Commissioner would have a chance to serve. However, no one should be forced to serve as Chairman if he/she doesn't want to. If a Commissioner desires to serve as Chairman, he/she will have the right to lobby for support for the position. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Edwards, Ingell, Ketz, Rue, Chmn. Peirce None None None 22 P.C. Minutes 7 /5/88 ' . ( Comm. Ingell suggested that there be an overlay map for items being discussed so that the audience can follow along with the Commission discussions. Chmn. Peirce asked that titles be provided on the television screen so that home viewers will know what is being discussed. Mr. Schubach stated that the issue will be discussed with Joan Noone. MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Chmn. Peirce, to adjourn at 11 :53 P.M. No objections; so ordered. CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and complete record of the action taken by the Planning Commission of Hermosa Beach at the regularly scheduled meeting of July 5, 1988. Jam Date 23 P.C. Minutes 7/5/88