Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 06-07-1988r MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON JUNE 7, 1988, AT 7:30 P.M. IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS Meeting called to order at 7:33 P.M. by Chmn. Compton. Pledge of Allegiance led by Comm. Rue. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Comms. Ingell, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Compton Comm. DeBellis * Also Present: Michael Schubach, Planning Director; James P. Lough, City Attorney; Sally White, Recording Secretary (* Comm. DeBellis entered Council Chambers at 7:58 P.M,) APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION by Chmn. Compton, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to approve the minutes of May 17, 1988, as submitted. Noting the abstention of Comm. Rue, so ordered. APPROVAL OF RESOLUTIONS MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to approve Resolution P.C. 88-40, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #19588 FOR A TWO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT 1061 LOMA DRIVE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS THE SOUTHEAST 30 FEET OF LOT 3, BLOCK 2, HISS SECOND ADDITION TO THE HERMOSA BEACH TRACT. Noting the abstentions of Comm. Rue and Chmn. Compton, no objections; so ordered. MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to approve Resolution P.C. 88-41, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON OCTOBER 10, 1978, TO ALLOW THE ADDITION OF A SMALL DANCE FLOOR AT 1334 HERMOSA AVENUE, BESTIE'S. Noting the abstention of Comm. Rue, no objections; so ordered. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to approve Resolution P.C. 88-42, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE FOR A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT FOR 572 18TH STREET, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 16, TRACT NO. 15546 AND 1782 VALLEY PARK AVENUE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS THE SOUTHERLY 95 FEET OF THE NORTHERLY 238.15 FEET OF LOT 10, BLOCK 71, SECOND ADDITION TO HERMOSA BEACH TRACT. Noting the abstention of Comm. Rue, no objections; so ordered. P.C. Minutes 6/7 /88 MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to approve Resolution P.C. 88-45, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING ADOPTING THE ZONING MAP BY CHANGING THE ZONE FOR AREA 7 FROM R-2 TO R-2B AND DESCRIBED BELOW AND SHOWN ON THE ATTACHED MAPS AND RECOMMENDING AN ENVIRONMENT AL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. Noting the abstention of Comm. Rue, no objections; so ordered. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC Newell Kahler, 605 Longfellow, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and asked when his agenda item would heard. Chmn. Compton stated that the Lot Merger Hearing was Agenda Item No. 10 and would be heard later in the meeting. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 1119555 FOR A TWO-UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT 803 LOMA DRIVE Chmn. Compton stated that he would abstain from discussion on this matter, noting that he is the project architect of record. Vice-Chairman Peirce presided over the hearing of this item. Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated May 25, 1988. The proposed project is in the R-3, multiple-family residential zone with a general plan designation of high density residential. The environmental determination is categorically exempt. The proposed units are approximately 1300 square feet in size. Each unit will contain two bedrooms and two and a half bathrooms. The project will provide two parking spaces per unit and two guest parking spaces. Only one guest space is required since no on-street parking spaces will be lost due to curb cuts. The units conform to the open space requirements. Each unit will provide 369 square feet of open space. The open space is distributed between the courtyard, a second-floor deck, and a mezzanine deck. The location of the storage area and the trash facilities is not identified on the submitted plans. Revised plans shall be required to display their location. The plans conform to all other planning and zoning requirements and are compatible with the surrounding uses. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve a conditional use permit and vesting tentative parcel map #19555, subject to the conditions specified in the resolution. Comm. Rue referred to Page A6 of the plans and asked about the height of this project, noting that the front floor elevation is below grade. If all the floors were added, it would be a total of 35. 99 feet. Mr. Schubach stated that if there is any discrepancy in regard to the height, it will be discovered during the plan check phase. Any problems at that point will be corrected. 2 P.C. Minutes 6/7 /88 He noted that it is sometimes difficult when working with conceptual drawings to be absolutely certain about the height of sloped properties. In these cases, the structural plans are very carefully studied by the plan checker to ensure that the project conforms to the height requirements. Staff understands that this project will comply with the maximum height requirements. Comm. Rue asked if the zoning code regulates how many floors can be built. Mr. Schubach replied that the zoning code mandates that there can be a maximum of two stories in the R-2 zone; in the R-3 zone, the maximum height is 35 feet, but there is no mention of the number of stories allowed. Public Hearing opened at 7:40 P.M. by Comm. Peirce. Michael DeVere, 1808 West 255th Street, Lomita, representing the project architect, addressed the Commission. He confirmed that the first ground level is below the natural grade; however, the plans will conform with the 35-foot height limit. He noted that staff has been consulted on this matter. Mr. DeVere stated that there is ample room to provide for storage and trash facilities on the subterranean garage level, and they will be provided. Comm. Rue asked if the floor-to-floor reveal will be different colors. Mr. DeVere replied in the affirmative, explaining that the reveal will be painted different colors to break up the facade. Public Hearing closed at 7:43 P.M. by Comm. Peirce. Comm. Peirce asked whether this project meets all of the requirements of the condominium ordinance and the zone in which this project is located. Mr. Schubach replied in the affirmative. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to approve Resolution P.C. 88-44, approving a conditional use permit and vesting tentative parcel map for the two-unit condominium project located at 803 Loma Drive. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ingell, Peirce, Rue None Chmn. Compton Comm. DeBellis CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR OUTSIDE STORAGE OF BICYCLES AT 74 14TH STREET Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated May 30, 1988. This project is located in the C-2, restricted commercial zone. The general plan designation is general commercial. The lot size is 2850 square feet. The applicant is proposing to operate a bicycle rental shop at a site to be leased from the City of Hermosa Beach. The applicant has been working with the City Council and the 3 P.C. Minutes 6/7 /88 General Services Department in negotiating the terms of the lease. The applicant is seeking a conditional use permit to allow bicycles to be displayed outdoors within a fenced enclosure. In addition to the rental of bicycles, the applicant is proposing to rent "quadricycles," which are four-wheeled bicycles. The Munic ip al Code prohibits bicycles with more than three wheels on the Strand. The Cit y Co u ncil recently denied a request to amend the Municipal Code to allow this type of bike. A condition of the CUP is to require the applicant to inform all bicycle renters that riding the quadricycles on the Strand is prohibited. The applicant will conduct all operations of the business within a fenced enclosure to be constructed by the applicant; i.e., display and rental. The bicycles will be stored at night in a temporary storage bin also to be provided by the applicant. A small booth will be constructed to process all rentals. No plans have been provided to indicate the appearance of the bins; therefore, staff has added a condition prohibiting the use of "sealand" type containers and requiring an elevation plan for all proposed structures to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director prior to the City leasing the property to the applicant. The applicant will be providing three parking spaces on site; the zoning ordinance requires two parking spaces. In addition to the on-site parking, the site is adjacent to a City-leased parking facility. The rental shop will also generate business from people who are already using the beach. The use is compatible with the surrounding uses and is in conformance with the zoning ordinance and the general plan. Staff felt that the use is desirable and will not create a noise problem in the City; therefore, staff recommended that the Planning Commission grant a conditional use permit, subject to the conditions specified in the resolution. Comm. Ingell asked on what criteria the parking requirements were based. Mr. Schubach stated that the parking requirements are based on the requirements of a recreational use, which is one parking space for every 7 5 square feet. However, in looking at this particular use, staff felt that many of the customers will be people who are already using the beach and who will be using the public parking facilities. Based on the code, staff feels that the parking requirements are being met, and staff has no opposition to the plan. Comm. Ingell concurred that most of the business will probably be people coming from the beach. However, he asked for further information as to how the parking was determined. Mr. Schubach explained that these are actual code requirements, and staff is not disagreeing with them; however, if the Planning Commission sees the parking issue differently, they can transmit their concern to staff. He stated that the square footage is based on the storage space area inside the enclosures as well as the small booth. The storage space consists of two eight be twenty-foot areas. Mr . Lo ug h explaine d the lease issue , st a ting that the le a se will be g oing to th e City Counc il ; t he refo r e, a ny appr ova l will be contin gent up on the Cit y signing t he lea se. The C it y's prov isi ons should cont a in a clause s t at ing t ha t the app lica nt must comply wi th all r e qu ir e me nt s of t he c ondi t ional use permit a s a condi tion of obtaini ng t he lease. He 4 P.C. Minutes 6/7 /88 stated that the wisdom of the use of the project is an issue for the City Council to decide. Mr. Schubach stated that the lot is currently a vacant, City-owned property. Comm. Ingell noted, however, that the lot was purchased by the City for the purpose of parking. Public Hearing opened at 7:52 P.M. by Chmn. Compton. Ali Banihashemi, 12531 S. Eucalyptus Avenue, Hawthorne, applicant, addressed the Commission. Comm. Rue asked what the width is of a quadricycle. He also asked where they will be ridden if they are not allowed on the Strand. Mr. Banihashemi stated that they are 2 feet and 7 inches wide. Quadricycles are allowed on the City streets, other than the Strand. He felt that the streets between the Strand and Hermosa Avenue are not that congested and would not be hazardous for quadricycle riding. Comm. Rue noted that Beach Drive is the only through street, but that street has barricades which are too wide to permit the passage of quadricycles; therefore, the quadricycles would be driven in normal traffic lanes on the other streets. He felt this to be a main concern. Comm. Rue asked how the applicant would enforce the restriction that the quadricycles are to be kept off the Strand. Mr. Banihashemi replied that there will be a sign posted stating that the quadricycles are not to be ridden on the Strand; otherwise, people will be subject to ticketing by the police. He stressed that the rules will be enforced. Comm. lngell asked how crucial the four-wheel bikes are to this business. He noted concern over the bikes being in traffic as a potential hazard. He felt that customers will be upset to learn that they are not allowed to ride on the Strand. He felt that people will ignore the sign, ride on the Strand, and end up getting a ticket for doing so. They may then refuse to pay for the bike rental. Mr. Banihashemi felt there would not be a problem with prohibiting the bikes from the Strand because there are other streets on which to ride. Further, there will not be hundreds of the bikes, only a maximum of 15 to 20 quadricycles. Comm. Ing ell noted, however, that the name of the business is "Quadricycle." He assumed that the main goal, then, would be to have as many of the bikes as possible in the public eye. He questioned whether there are any streets in town which are safe enough for these bikes. Chmn. Compton pointed out that there is nothing illegal about quadricycles being in a traffic lane. However, he also noted concern over the issue of safety and the possibility of accidents occurring. He noted how congested the City is during the summer months. Mr. Banihashemi agreed; however, he stated that he is choosing Hermosa Beach for his business because of the fact that so many people coming to the beach park in the public 5 P.C. Minutes 6/7/88 lots or are residents who walk to the beach. He felt that people park in the public lots and then just walk to the beach from there. Chmn. Compton noted concern over the fact that Redondo Beach and Manhattan Beach may have prohibitions against the quadricycles on the Stand. He noted that bike renters could leave Hermosa and then ride the bikes on the Strand in those cities. Mr. Banihashemi was unaware of the requirements for quadr icycles in those other cities. He did note that his business will provide maps to customers showing the streets which are to be ridden. He stated that all details of the business have been very carefully thought out. He explained that there can be a maximum of three people riding in a quadricycle. Mr. Banihashemi handed out several photographs depicting the types of quadricycles he is proposing for his business. Comm. Ingell asked if it would be possible to put signs on each of the quadricycles indicating that they are not allowed on the Strand. Mr. Banihashemi stated that there would be no problem with such signs being placed in the bikes. Comm. Ingell noted that he still had concern over the fact of renting these bikes so close to the beach and then telling people they are not allowed on the Strand. Mr. Lough replied, in response to a question from Chmn. Compton, that there is no law prohibiting three-person bikes. The only regulation deals with the number of wheels per bike; and that is to prevent wide vehicles which take up too much space on the streets. The issue of what is or what is not allowed on the City, streets is one left to the determination of the City Council. The City Council will also deal with the issue of traffic safety. Chmn. Compton noted that, because the quadricycles are wide, there is a potential for them to be turned sideways and block traffic. He suggested to the applicant that handouts be given to renters advising them to use caution when turning. Jerry Freese, 22 14th Street, Hermosa Beach, handed out a petition signed by almost everyone on 14th Street opposing this project. He stated that 14th Street is very congested and has two very popular restaurants. On any weekend, there is already too much traffic. The idea of an outdoor vending establishment on this street is opposed by almost everyone concerned because of additional congestion. He felt it would be better to operate businesses in town through stores as opposed to outdoor vending booths. Mr. Freese noted that there are City ordinances prohibiting the riding of skateboards and bikes on the City sidewalks; however, those ordinances are not enforced. Since there is a wide sidewalk on 14th Street, he felt that these quadricycles would be ridden there because the streets are too crowded. Frank Molina, 68 14th Street, Hermosa Beach, property directly next to the proposed business. He stated that he did not want this business right next to his house. He noted that there is currently a wall separating his property from this lot, and this area is a catchall for trash. He felt that the bike storage area would exacerbate the trash problem. 6 P.C. Minutes 6/7 /88 Mr. Freese stated that the City acquired this particular lot for public parking. If this plan is approved, the City will be losing parking which is very much needed. Mr. Banihashemi stated that there will not be an excessive number of bikes stored. He stated that the area will not be congested. He stated that the storage area will be attractively painted and will be an improvement over having an empty lot. He stated that the area will be kept clean. He stressed that much thought and planning has gone into this project, and there will not be any problems. Public Hearing closed at 8:06 P.M. by Chmn. Compton. Mr. Lough answered, in response to a question from Comm. Peirce, that the City purchased this lot in approximately 1986 for the purpose of parking if there was to be hotel development there; however, he could not recall the exact details of the reasons. Comm. Peirce asked about the City's liability in the event of an accident involving a quadricycle or with nuisance problems. Mr. Lough stated that there would be no City liability. If the owners of the business misrepresented the rentals to customers and where they were allowed to ride, then the owner would be responsible. However, the City has laws barring these vehicles from the Strand because of safety reasons. He noted, however, that these bikes are allowed on the public streets by the vehicle code. He noted that the Planning Commission's purpose in this issue is to approve the conditional use permit with mitigation measures as deemed appropriate, not to disapprove the CUP altogether. Comm. Rue favored the idea of two-wheeled bike rentals; however, he noted concern over safety issues concerned with four-wheeled bikes. He noted that Beach Drive has barricades which would cause problems for the bikes because the riders would need to go up walk streets then back down towards the Strand. He felt that most people would want to ride on the Strand. He felt that the police already have enough problems on the Strand without having to worry about quadricycles; and he did not feel the quadricycle prohibition would be enforceable. He felt the bikes would be too dangerous because they are too wide and the streets are too crowded. He stated that other cities with the quadricycles have drivers who are skilled in their operation and traffic regulations; he felt that this might be more appropriate in this City. He felt that it would be too dangerous for inexperienced quadricycle riders to operate the bikes on busy streets. He felt that anything over two wheels in this City would be too dangerous. Chmn. Compton agreed that there is a safety concern; however, he questioned whether it is within the purview of the Commission to do anything more than require mitigation measures in the conditional use permit. Mr. Lough stated that bicycle rentals is an allowed use. The Commission can impose conditions on the CUP if they feel that to be necessary. The City Council will review whether this is an appropriate use in the City. He noted that this issue will probably go before the City Council at their meeting of June 14th. Comm. Rue asked whether the types of bicycles to be rented can be mandated in the CUP if there are specific findings to warrant such a restriction. He noted the traffic and safety concerns involved with this use. Mr. Lough stated that the purpose of the CUP is to allow the Commission to impose conditions in order to mitigate problems so long as the proper findings are made. 7 P.C. Minutes 6/7 /88 Chmn. Compton noted that the City allows "bicycles," meaning two-wheel bikes, but not necessarily four-wheel bikes. Mr. Lough stated that the City categorizes bicycles as having any number of wheels. Comm. Ingell noted deep concern over four-wheel bikes and not allowing them on the Strand. MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Chmn. Compton, to approve Resolution P.C. 88- 43 as submitted by staff for two-, three-, and four-wheeled bicycle rentals. Comm. Peirce did not feel that this proposal is the greatest idea; however, he was satisfied that the City is not liable for any damages either for operation of the business or for operation of these vehicles on the Strand. He felt that if the applicant can make a success of the business by using City streets only and people can be convinced to ride them safely, the Planning Commission should not pass judgment on the business proposal. AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION by Chmn. Compton as second, and agreed to by Comm. Peirce as maker, to add two conditions: ( 1) Condition No. 4 shall include a statement stating that a sign shall be posted on the property as well as within each four-wheel bicycle itself advising that quadricycles are prohibited from being driven on the Strand; (2) A Condition No. 16 shall be added stating that the applicant shall provide safety guidelines for his clients and a map delineating where the bikes can and cannot be ridden, not only for quadricycles, but for all bikes rented at this establishment. Chmn. Compton also noted safety concerns, but he pointed out that there is no law against riding quadricycles on the City streets. He felt that the applicant should be given an opportunity to try to make a success of this business. Chmn. Compton asked about the time limit for reviewing the conditional use permit for this establishment. He suggested that there be a three-month review, rather than the usual six months. Mr. Schubach stated that such a condition could be added; however, staff has a new person who reviews all CUPs, and this one will be reviewed routinely. Chmn. Compton noted the importance of regulating this business. AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION by Comm. Peirce as maker, and agreed to by Chmn. Compton as second, to review the conditional use permit for this business in four months. AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION by Comm. Rue, agreed to by Comm. Peirce and Chmn. Compton as maker and second, to add a condition stating that manager of the business shall be required to read and sign a copy of the conditional use permit. Comm. DeBellis stated that, on the advice of the City Attorney, he would abstain from voting on this matter because he entered Council Chambers after the hearing had started. However, he stated for the record that when he was on the City Council he voted to acquire this particular property for parking purposes; therefore, he would object to the proposed use. 8 P.C. Minutes 6/7 /88 AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comm. Peirce, Chmn. Compton Comms. Ingell, Rue Comm. DeBellis None (MOTION FAILS.) MOTION by Comm. DeBellis to forward this item to the City Council with no recommendation from the Planning Commission. Mr. Lough advised that Comm. DeBellis' abstention applies to this entire hearing. MOTION DIES FOR LACK OF A SECOND. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Ingell for purposes of discussion, to approve Resolution P.C. 88-43 as written, and with the changes as proposed in the previous motion to approve (Page 8); however, with the mod if ica tion that only two-and three­ wheel bicycles shall be allowed; no four-wheel quadricycles shall be permitted. Comm. Ingell favored conditioning approval to anything which is allowed on the Strand. He felt that some of the three-wheel bikes would exceed the width limit on the Strand. Further, if the quadricycles are not approved, there is no sense in the CUP requiring that signs shall be posted in them. Comm. Peirce stated that he would accept Comm. Rue's motion to allow only two-and three-wheel bikes; staff could then be directed to delete all references to quadricycles in the CUP. Comm. Ingell stated that for him to vote for the motion, it would be necessary to limit it to anything that is legal on the Strand. He noted concern over the width of various bicycles. Chmn. Compton had no problem with approving the CUP with a limitation as to only those bikes which would be legal on the Strand. As it is currently, the only problem would be the quadricycles. Comm. Rue noted difficulty in making a decision on this issue because it is impossible to tell what will happen with this business. He felt that most people would like to see this business succeed. However, he noted concern if there are problems. Chmn. Compton noted that people have a right to try to make a success of their businesses. He noted that if there are problems, the CUP will be reviewed and the applicant would return before the Commission. Comm. Rue felt that four months might be too long before the first review. He felt a one-month review might be more appropriate. MOTION WITHDRAWN by Comm. Rue. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Chmn. Compton, to approve Resolution P.C. 88-43 as written, with the amendments as made to the motion by Comm. Peirce, and with the amendment that there be a one-month review period (one month from the date of opening) on the conditional use permit, and that there be a maximum of six quadricycles for the duration of the trial period. 9 P .C. Minutes 6/7 /88 Comm. DeBellis noted that he originally voted to acquire this property for parking purposes; therefore, he did not feel this to be an appropriate use of the land. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Compton Comm. Ingell Comm. DeBellis None Mr. Freese pointed out that there are no street signs indicating the location of "The Strand." He questioned how out-of-towners would know where they are prohibited from riding the bikes. TEXT AMENDMENT TO ADD "SCHOOL" TO THE PERMITTED USE LIST IN THE R-1 ZONE WITH A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND ENVIRONMENT AL NEGATIVE DECLARATION Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated June 1, 1988. At the Staff Environmental Review meeting on May 19, 1988, the review committee recommended that a focused EIR be prepared for the proposed text amendment. Staff is recommending a negative declaration for this project since a text amendment is not a site specific action. Since a school within a residential zone will require a discretionary action (CUP), a focused EIR would be more applicable to a site specific request. The zoning ordinance currently allows educational buildings and playgrounds in the open space zone. The proposed zoning amendment would allow elementary schools, grades kindergarten through eighth grade. The Hermosa Beach School District currently has a school sitet Hermosa View School, which is currently zoned partially open space and partially unclassified. The City Attorney has determined that all unclassified areas are designated R-1 for all intents and purposes. Therefore, the School District has school property which cannot be used for school purposes since schools are not allowed in the R-1 zone. Overall, staff believes that schools are beneficial to residential uses; e.g., recreation. Upon a request for a conditional use permit for a specific site, staff can analyze the site and add conditions and mitigation measures which will resolve any impacts the school may cause. It should be noted that once the use is listed in the R-1 zone, it is also automatically included in the R-2 and R-3 zones. Staff recommended the addition of "Elementary School, Grades K-8, CUP Required" to the R-1 permitted use list. He stressed that only K-8 will be allowed, not any other types of schools, such as business schools or ballet schools, for example. Chmn. Compton asked why this issue is before the Planning Commission at this time. Mr. Lough explained that the Bilingual School, which is now located at the South School site, would like to relocate to Hermosa View School. To do so, it is necessary to occupy more than the buildings currently located there. They need to add temporary classrooms on the site; however, they pref er not to put all the temporary classes on the open space because it would eliminate the playground area and cause too much crowding. By putting the temporary classrooms on the unclassified area, they will have the ability to have a 10 P .C. Minutes 6/7 /88 better school area. If the area is left as open space, there would be a conflict with the ten percent lot area requirement. He stated that the applicant has been working with staff on this matter, and a text amendment appears to be the least offensive way to resolve the problem. Staff feels this to a fairly innocuous request compared to a case where someone wants to construct a school from scratch. He explained that unclassified area is treated as R-1 under the current code. Mr. Lough concluded by stating that the current litigation with the School District has nothing whatsoever to do with this request. Comm. DeBellis asked whether the zoning code definition of "school" refers to private school and public school. Mr. Schubach replied that the definition does not distinguish between private and public; therefore, the K-8 grades could be either private or public. Public Hearing opened at 8:39 P.M. by Chmn. Compton. Todd Haro, principal of the International Bilingual School located at 425 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission. He said that if this recommendation is approved, it will be possible to install four portable buildings at the site in addition to the existing classrooms. This would be very convenient for the school children. If the recommendation is not approved, it would be necessary to put the temporary classrooms on the playground area, which would not look attractive to the neighbors. He asked the Commission to consider approval of this request. Public Hearing closed at 8:40 P.M. by Chmn. Compton. Chmn. Compton asked whether the neighbors had been notified of this request. Mr. Schubach replied in the negative, explaining that the request at this time is only for a text amendment. All neighbors within 300 feet of this property will be notified at such time when the International Bilingual School actually requests the conditional use permit. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to approve Resolution P.C. 88-46 as written by staff. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. DeBellis, Ingell, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Compton None None None Recess taken from 8:42 P.M. until 8:48 P.M. Chmn. Compton noted the large number of people waiting for Agenda Item No. 10. He stated that the agenda order would be reversed to take up Item No. 10 before Item No. 9. There were no objections to reversing the order. HEARING OF DETERMINATION FOR LOT MERGER GROUP L.M. 88-4 Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated May 24, 1988. Forty-one Notifications of Intent to Merge Lots were mailed on March 10, 1988; ten hearing requests for appeals were received. The number of lots already developed on 25-foot parcels per block are: 11 P .C. Minutes 6/7 /88 Longfellow A venue, 33 percent; 629-637 30th Street, 0 percent; and 641-657 30th Street, 5 percent. The Planning Department has determined that the lots included in L.M. 88-4 are subject to merger pursuant to Hermosa Beach Municipal Code Sections 29.5-19 through 29.5-28 and State Government Code Section 66451. 11-66451.21. 605 Lo ng fellow Avenue : This parcel is comprise d of two 25 by 100-foot lots. Ae r ia ls­ indicate that the main structure straddles the pro perty line. Buil d in g records indicate this st r ucture to be a two-unit dwelling. This parcel is located within a general plan/zoning inconsistency area. The general plan designation is low density, and the zoning is R-2. 634 and 638 Longfellow Avenue: These parcels are comprised of two 25 by 105.58-foot lots each. Aerials indicate that the main structures straddle the property lines. Building records indicate these structures to be two-unit dwellings. These parcels are located within a general plan/zoning inconsistency area. The general plan designation is low density, and the zoning is R-2. 666 Longfellow Avenue: This parcel is comprised of two 25 by l 00.58-foot lots and a 10 by 100.58-foot por tion of an adjacent lot. Aerials indicate that the main structure straddles the property line. Building records indicate this structure straddles the property line. Building records indicate this structure to be a single-family dwelling, rezoned to R-1. 657 30th Street: This parcel is comprised of two 25 by 100.58-foot and a 12.5 by 100.58- foot portion of an adjacent lot. Aerials indicate that the main structure straddles the property line. Building r e cords indicate this structure to be a single-family dwelling, zoned R-1. 641 and 645 30th Street: These parcels are comprised of two 25 by 100.58-foot lots each. Aerials indicate the main structures straddle the property line. Building records indicate the structure at 641 30th Street to be a duplex. 645 30th Street is a single­ family dwelling, zoned R-1. 629, 633, and 637 30th Street: These parcels are comprised of two 25 by 105.58-foot lots each. Aerials indicate the main structures straddle the property line. Building records indicate these structures to be two-family dwellings. These sites are within a general plan/zoning inconsistency area. The general plan designation is low density, and the zoning is R-2. Staff finds these lots to be subject to merger since less than 80 percent of the block has been split, and the contiguous parcels are held by the same owner. Staff can determine no reasons to exempt these lots from being subject to merger; therefore, staff recommended that the Planning Commission deny the applicants' requests to maintain their parcels as two separate lots. Chmn. Compton asked how staff has determined which lots were to be merged or not. He felt that they should be left alone so that in time the old units will be torn down and new units will replace them. Comm. DeBellis asked whether staff feels the reason some of these lots have two units on them is because they were originally zoned R-2. 12 P.C. Minutes 6/7 /88 Mr. Schubach replied in the affirmative. Hearing opened at 8:55 P.M. by Chmn. Compton. 605 Longfellow Avenue Appellant: Newell B. Kahler Newell Kahler, 605 Longfellow Avenue, Hermosa Beach, opposed the merging of his lots. He stated that he bought the property 26 years ago as R-2 as income property. He stated that there are 28 duplexes on his block and 28 single-family homes. The duplexes are much finer than the homes on the block. Most of the homeowners have been there for many years. He said that this is a beautiful residential street. He handed out photos depicting the street. Mr. Kahler continued by stating that there are no parking problems on this street at all. He felt that the City is not giving full notice of the consequences of the proposed downzoning. He cited an article in the "Easy Reader" edition of March 24, 1988. Mr. Kahler asked whether it would be possible for the people on Longfellow A venue to petition to become part of Manhattan Beach. Comm. DeBellis asked if a duplex existed at this property when it was purchased 26 years ago. Mr. Kahler replied in the affirmative. Mr. Kahler stated that he will be out of town for six weeks and would therefore be unable to attend that City Council hearing on this matter. Chmn. Compton advised Mr. Kahler to submit in wntmg a request to the Planning Department for a continuance explaining that he would be out of town. 634 Longfellow Avenue Appellant: A. E. Stone A. E. Stone, 634 Longfellow Avenue, Hermosa Beach, opposed the merger of his lots. He stated that a decision has already been made on what action to take in regard to these properties. He bought this property in 1967 as two full-sized lots. He felt it is unfair that the City is now saying they are not two full-size lots. He did not feel that anyone in the City has the right to change his zoning without his permission, especially since such an action would be to his detriment. He stated that he has spoken to several realtors, and they all stated that the property would be worth less if the lots were merged. He estimated his possible loss at approximately $45,000. He felt that if the City downzones property, owners should be compensated for their loss. Mr. Stone did not feel that lot mergers would control the density. He stated that families can no longer afford single-family dwellings in the City, so several single working adults move in together in order to make the payments. This creates additional parking problems because of all the extra cars. He continued by discussing at length problems with renters in the area. 13 P.C. Minutes 6/7 /88 Chmn. Compton advised Mr. Stone to make his presentation to the City Council. He ,~ noted that the Planning Commission acts only as an advisory body to the Council in this matter. Mr. Stone urged the Planning Commission to recommend that this property not be merged. 638 Longfellow A venue Appellant: Garrison Frost Garrison Frost, 2900 Tennyson Place, Hermosa Beach, opposed the merger of his lots. He purchased the property ten years ago with the idea of using the property as rental income during his retirement years. This was an attractive piece of property to purchase because there were many available options, such as improving one of the units and having a rental on the property. He felt that this street is very nice, wide, and nicely landscaped. He wanted to improve his property; however, if too many restrictions are placed upon his property, he will seriously consider putting his money and interests elsewhere. Mr. Frost did not feel it is appropriate for the City to change the zoning on people's property. He did not feel this would effectively control density. By losing the number of options available to this property, the number of potential buyers will be diminished therefore reducing the price. Mr. Frost felt that people should be allowed to continue with their dreams just as our forefathers felt should be done. 666 Longfellow A venue Appellant: Butch Kuflak Butch Kuflak, 666 Longfellow Avenue, Hermosa Beach, opposed the merging of his lots. He felt that this proposal is very unfair. He felt that his neighborhood is based on family living. The action of merging lots would not improve the City. He would rather see a new home than two units. He favored single-family living in the City. He said that he researched the possibility of defining his area with the Planning Department. He stated that there is a mini-block that interrupts the flow of Longfellow from Tennyson to Ardmore. He continued by discussing this break off point. There are 19 dwellings on the south side of the street, of which none are on double lots. On the other side of the street, on which he lives, there are five double lots. Of thirty dwellings, only five are on double lots, or only 20 percent. In other words, 80 percent of the dwellings in the area are not on double lots. Mr. Kuflak stated that he had planned to split his lots, in which case he would have two 30-foot lots. This would be greater than 80 percent of the dwellings on the street. He stated that this street has the luxury of alleys on both sides; therefore, this is one of the few streets in town with ample parking. He stressed that this is a very unique street. Mr. Kuflak noted that he has 60 feet of frontage on his property. He did not feel that requiring 40 feet of frontage would eliminate the density problems in the City. Mr. Kuf lak noted that he bought this property with the intent of building a new home, but he cannot afford to build one house on a 60-foot lot; however, two homes on two 30-foot 14 P .C. Minutes 6/7 /88 lots is within reach. He stated that c1t1zens are not properly informed of changes occurring in the City, noting that he submitted plans in 1986, and he feels he was misinformed by the Building Department in regard to his options at that time. 657 30th Street Appellant: Swee-Teck and Lilly Tan Swee-Teck Tan, 657 30th Street, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission. He disagreed with the staff report and stated that the main portion of his dwelling does not straddle the property line. He stated that the front footage of his house is 62.5 feet; therefore, he actually has two and a half lots. The main body of the house is on one side of the lot; the other side is completely dear. He stated that he has studied the map. The only thing on the other side of the lot is a garage which was converted into a living room and a garage which was added in the rear. Mr. Tan stated that his house is on one lot, and there is an empty lot next to that. All the other houses in the area are on 25-foot lots. At this time he has no plans to build on the other lot; however, in the future he may want to live in one house and build one on the other lot to sell for his retirement. He felt it is unfair for the City to merge these lots because the options for his property would be diminished. Mr. Tan passed out a drawing of his property. He stated that he purchased this property twelve years ago. He said that he would not be able to afford to build one large house on one merged lot; however, he could afford to build a smaller house. He stated that he did not have enough time to prepare a presentation and he noted that he would like to appeal the merger. Chmn. Compton stated that, according to the lot layout plan, this dwelling definitely straddles the property line. He stated that the property line for Lot No. 156 goes directly through the dwelling. The house is 26 feet with a four-foot setback. If the lots were configured differently, there might be a different situation where two lots could be created; however, that is not the case here. 645 30th Street Appellant: John W. Woodslair (No one appeared to speak about this property.) 641 30th Street Appellants: John and Kathleen Tims and Joseph Knapik (No one appeared to speak about this property.) 63 7 30th Street Appellants: Charles and Susan Lehman Sue Lehman, 637 30th Street, Hermosa Beach, opposed the merger of these lots. She did not feel that merger would reduce the density problems in the City. She has owned this property for ten years. Two years ago the property was improved, and a front unit was built, and the rear unit provides income. She stated that there is no parking problem in 15 P .C. Minutes 6/7 /88 the area. She felt that the area would be irreversibly changed if the lots are merged. She stated that all of the improvements at her property have been done by permit. 633 30th Street Appellant: Carmen Dougharty Carmen Dougharty, 633 30th Street, Hermosa Beach, opposed the merger. He rents the front duplex. He stated that he is the original owner of the duplex, and the property was purchased solely because of the fact that it provides supplemental income. He stated that the duplexes in the area are maintained very well. He said he has spent a lot of money on improving his property, and he wants to maintain the property as it is. 629 30th Street Appellants: Francis and Marie Freitas (No one appeared to speak about this property.) Hearing closed at 9:45 P.M. by Chmn. Compton. Comm. DeBellis asked whether the Planning Commission still has the ability to not merge lots. Mr. Schubach replied in the affirmative. Mr. Lough explained recent Supreme Court decisions regarding the issue of lot mergers. He concluded by stating that the old rules still apply, and the Planning Commission still has the discretion allowed by the former rules. Comm. DeBellis noted, however, that the City Council has appealed those instances where the Planning Commission recommended that lots not be merged. He asked if that will still be the case. Mr. Schubach replied in the affirmative. Mr. Lough noted that they have all been appealed; however, not all of the decisions have been reversed, nor have all the lots been merged; some have not been merged. Chmn. Compton stated that in cases where there are two units, it makes no sense to him to merge the lots into one single lot. If that is done, the only thing to be accomplished is that the old units will remain for a very, very long time. He questioned how density would be reduced if two units remain on one merged lot. All that can be guaranteed is that the units will remain for a long time and possibly be added onto. When the time comes for those old units to be removed, he felt that two new nice units should be allowed in their place. Comm. Rue concurred with Chmn. Compton's comments about the lots with two units. He commented on the remodeling done by Mrs. Lehman, and he felt that that is the type of thing which should be encouraged in the City. He stated that 30th Street and Longfellow are probably two of the nicest streets in the entire City. He suggested that the City Council reach a compromise in order to allow the type of development such as was done by Mrs. Lehman. He felt that one house in front of the other, maintained in a nice manner, is more appropriate than two 19-foot houses on 25-foot lots next door to 16 P.C. Minutes 6/7 /88 each other. Comm. DeBellis noted that some of these properties are in areas of general plan/zoning inconsistencies. He noted that he has walked and driven these streets many times, and it is difficult to differentiate between the homes and duplexes; therefore, he felt that the general plan, rather than the zoning, should be changed in that area. He noted that as recently as two years ago, two units were allowed in this area. He hoped that the Council would take this fact into consideration. MOTION by Comm. DeBellis, seconded by Chmn. Compton, to not merge the properties at: 605 Longfellow; 634 Longfellow; 638 Longfellow; 641 30th Street; 629 30th Street; 633 30th Street; and 637 30th Street because they are all existing two-unit dwellings in an R-2 zone. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. DeBellis, Ingell, Rue, Chmn. Compton Comm. Peirce None None MOTION by Chmn. Compton, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to not merge the lots at 666 Longfellow and 657 30th Street, because they can both be developed into two 30 by l 00- foot lots; and that type of development would be consistent and reasonable in the area. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. DeBellis, Ingell, Rue, Chmn. Compton Comm. Peirce None None MOTION by Comm. DeBellis, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to .r.e.commend to the City Council that, if the lots at 666 Longfellow and 657 30th Street are appealed and are merged, that they be allowed to be split into two 30 by 100-foot lots. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. DeBellis, Ingell, Rue, Chmn. Compton Comm. Peirce None None Comm. DeBellis discussed the property at 645 30th Street and noted that it is a single unit in an R-1 zone. He did not feel that he could support a motion to not merge this particular lot. MOTION by Chmn. Compton, seconded by Comm. Rue, to not merge the parcel at 645 30th Street, based on the fact that the owner requested that they not be merged and on the possibility of development into two 50 by 50-foot lots accessed off the alley in the front. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ingell, Rue, Chmn. Compton Comms. DeBellis, Peirce None None Chmn. Compton urged all citizens to appear at the City Council hearing on this matter to make their feelings known. 17 P.C. Minutes 6/7 /88 TEXT AMENDMENT TO AMEND THE SPECIFIC PLAN AREA FOR THE BILTMORE SITE-ORDINANCE 84-751 Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated May 24, 1988. On December 15, 1987, the City Council adopted a resolution of intent to study repealing the specific plan area. On March 15, 1988, the Planning Commission recommended a comprehensive study to consider alternatives to repealing the SPA. On May 24, 1988, the City Council directed staff to study amending and/or repealing the existing SPA and to have this matter brought back before the City Council within 60 days. Mr. Schubach stated that the Specific Plan Area is located between 13th and 15th Streets and The Strand and Hermosa Avenue. The original SPA was adopted in 1984. Mr. Schubach stated that a specific plan is similar to a zone in that it addresses the various permitted uses, height, setbacks, bulk, and open space. All of the standards contained in a typical zoning ordinance are included in a specific plan area. The difference between a zone and a specific plan area is that the SPA is only for this particular area of the City. As pointed out previously, the specific plan area clearly states that this property is to be used essentially as public access to the beach. It was felt that a hotel does provide that access; that is why the hotel was originally approved for that property. Mr. Schubach continued by stating that if it is desired to repeal the SPA, then the question of what should be done with that property based on what the Coastal Commission wants must be addressed; or, conversely, decide if it desired to start over again with the Coastal Commission. That Commission's m~date is to_ provide public access to the coast. The staff has prepared an analysis and has made a recommendation concerning repealing the ordinance; the report was submitted to the Planning Commission on March 15, 1988, and to the City Council on April 26, 1988. In essence, staff believes a comprehensive study should first be conducted so that the LCP and LUP can also be appropriately amended with the approval of the Coastal Commission. The existing SPA is lacking comprehensiveness and in some instances is ambiguous. However, the SPA is conceptually acceptable to the State Coastal Commission and meets the goals, objectives, and policies of the LCP. By amending the existing SPA, an improved version would result which would not be in conflict with the Local Coastal Program or the certified Land Use Plan. In amending the SPA as proposed in the ordinance, the following subjects are addressed: (1) area description; (2) conceptual plans; (3) purpose; (4) objectives; (5) policies; (6) permitted uses; (7) prohib ited uses; (8) conditional uses; (9) approval process; (10) development standards; (11) public transit; (12) bicycle parking; and (13) severability. Mr. Schubach recommended adoption of the proposed resolution amending the Biltmore Specific Plan Area (SPA). He stated that it is desired that the SPA be a concise, good document. He noted that the 1984 SPA is still on the books, and any development would be under those guidelines unless the SPA is amended. 18 P .C. Minutes 6/7 /88 Mr. Schubach continued by discussing the proposed document itself, including the issues of height and ancillary uses for a specific plan area. He stated that this would actually be a zoning ordinance for this particular piece of property; and that is what staff is recommending at this time as a good amendment to the existing SPA which is currently on file. Approval would not preclude the Commission from amending the document in the future. Comm. DeBellis asked about the timing schedule for the Planning Commission to complete their recommendation for this matter. He noted that the City Council minutes of May 10, 1988, state that "This item to be returned within 60 days day, or notice to the City Council of why not." Mr. Schubach stated that the issue is currently at the 30-day point; the matter can be returned to Council before the 60-day period expires. Comm. DeBellis noted, however, that this is the first opportunity that the Planning Commission has had to study this document. He noted that staff has stated in the past that they felt it necessary that there be a comprehensive study done of the matter. Mr. Schubach stated that staff originally felt that the document would be repealed; therefore, a comprehensive study was undertaken, and the local coastal plan, land use plan, and general plan were studied. Staff felt that it would be more appropriate to start from the beginning and not just repeal the ordinance, because that would not accomplish anything. He felt that a workshop would have been appropriate in order to examine the issues thoroughly. Staff, however, was unable to do all these things in a short time. Now, there is time, because the request has been changed to state either "repeal" or "amend" the specific plan area. Tonight staff is recommending an amendment to the Specific Plan Area. Comm. DeBellis questioned how different a new ordinance would be from the one previously adopted. Mr. Schubach noted that a copy of the previous ordinance was attached to the packet received by the Commissioners. He stated that the major difference is that the old 1984 ordinance simply does not have as many standards and restrictions imposed as the proposed new ordinance. Comm. DeBellis noted that the 1984 ordinance included areas in the specific plan area which were privately owned. He questioned whether there has been input from those property owners in regard to the proposed new ordinance. Mr. Schubach stated that this matter has been publicly noticed to everyone within 300 feet surrounding this site. He noted, however, that he has not personally discussed this issue with any of the private property owners. He stated that this recommendation is that solely of staff with regard to what would be the best use of that property, regardless of who owns the property. Mr. Lough explained that staff was requested to look at this matter from a planning perspective, rather than from a development proposal standpoint of what has already been approved by the Coastal Commission and Coastal Plan, Comm. Ingell asked whether it is necessary to take action on this matter immediately. 19 P.C. Minutes 6/7 /88 Mr. Schubach stated that the City Council has requested that a recommendation be made. They feel that the ordinance as it exists today is not adequate, and they favor a more restrictive and more qualitative ordinance to be imposed and adopted; that is what this action would accomplish. Chmn. Compton discussed the actual specific plan and stated that in some cases it appears to more general; and in other cases it seems to be much more restrictive, such as the issues of parking, height allowance, and square footage areas. He stated that much of the information contained in this document does not relate even to the project which came close to being approved previously. He complimented staff on the fine work done on this document. Chmn. Compton noted that the previous plan was approved in 1984 and is now ridiculously out of date. He stated that it is now important to put together a comprehensive document to address the current state of matters in the City. Chmn. Compton specifically discussed the document itself. He referred to Section 9.612, Location, stating that the language should be changed to clarify the specific exhibits and maps. He suggested that the maps be numbered. Chmn. Compton asked if staff feels adequate time has been spent on putting together this document. Mr. Schubach replied in the affirmative. Chmn. Compton discussed Section 9.62l(a) ( 1), Intensity, and asked for clarification on the wording in regard to the percentages. Chmn. Compton asked if projects are allowed to go over the height limit in certain cases, such as when elevator towers exceed the height limit. Mr. Schubach stated that that issue is still being studied, and no final decision has yet been made by the City Council. Chmn. Compton discussed Section 9.621 (k), Sprinklered Building, and suggested that the wording be changed to reflect that currently adopted versions of the codes be adhered to, rather than citing the exact version with the year included. Public Hearing opened at 10:24 P.M. by Chmn. Compton. David Sonablick, 1506 The Strand, Hermosa Beach, asked numerous questions about the past history of this project. He questioned whether a hotel is the best and highest use of this property. Chmn. Compton gave background information on this history of this project and the concept of a specific plan area. He continued by explaining the issues currently before the Commission. Mr. Sonablick was not certain whether a hotel is the best use of this site. He felt that a hotel would increase traffic and density in the area. He stated that careful thought must be given to the use of the land. He felt that possibly retail or a park would be a better use. Even though a park would not provide revenue, it would bring people to the area who would then patronize the local shops. 20 P.C. Minutes 6/7 /88 ( Paul Beckett, 1502 The Strand, Hermosa Beach, asked numerous questions about the history of this project. He recently bought this property and was informed by the realtor that a hotel would probably not be built on this site, and he was now noting concern over this issue. He asked about the access if there is to be a hotel on that site. Chmn. Compton explained possible means of access. He stated that interested persons could go to the Planning Department to review documents related to this issue. Mr. Beckett stated that he would like to see the height of any hotel limited to the height of the residential buildings in the area. Jerry Freese, 22 14th Street, Hermosa Beach, stated that his house is designated as part of the Biltmore Specific Plan Area. If there is a new project, then there would be no Biltmore Specific Plan Area left on his property. He has lived at this address for 23 years, and he favors a hotel on the site. He stated that no one has approached him about the possibility of starting this matter over from scratch or about any participation by him in this matter at all. He suggested that if this matter is to be decided in 30 days, the building site boundaries should be redrawn. Chmn. Compton explained that Mr. Freese's property is currently zoned specific plan area. If he desires to have a different zoning, he can request staff to rezone his property. Comm. DeBellis noted that Mr. Freese's property used to be zoned C-2; it is now zoned specific plan area. If the specific plan area is dropped, the property would revert to the previous zoning of C-2, and Mr. Freese could sell or develop the property at the C-2 standards. Tliis woul.d not be possible under the SPA zoning. Under SPA zoning, only a hotel can be built on the property. Mr. Freese stated that he is not asking for the SPA zone to be dropped. He just wants further information on this matter. He stressed that he would like to give input on any actions taken by the City in regard to this property. Myrna Marshall, 360 35th Place, Hermosa Beach, wanted the Planning Commission to ensure that any new document will not be ridiculously outdated in four years, as the past document has been deemed. She wanted to ensure that the new document will still be good in 30 to 40 years. She did not feel that this issue should be rushed through just because the Council wants it back in 60 days. Mr. Sonablick again approached the Commission and suggested that the property be rezoned to C-2, noting that a hotel could still be built under that zone. He suggested that a new feasibility study be done on this site. He felt that more study should be done on the matter. Ms. Marshall asked what other uses could be utilized on this property. She strongly disagreed with rezoning this site to C-2 as suggested by Mr. Sonablick. Public Hearing closed at l 0:55 P .M. by Chmn. Compton. Comm. lngell felt that this issue needs more study, both by the Commission and staff. He asked if staff feels they have had adequate time to study this issue. Mr. Schubach replied in the affirmative, stating that he feels the document to be well thought out because it is based on what was previously done and based on a previously 21 P.C. Minutes 6/7 /88 proposed development. Comm. Peirce felt that this document is much better than the previous one, stating that it is important for the City to have strict control over the property. Comm. DeBellis agreed that this is a monumental subject to study. He did not feel it appropriate to rush the matter through. He stated that the Commission does have the option of continuing the matter, noting that it would still go back to the City Council within the 60-day period as requested by Council. Or, the Commission could send a message on why the document has not been returned. He stated that he has no problem with the document as proposed; however, he noted that he has had an intimate knowledge of the issue for quite some time. He stated that he would have no objection to continuing this matter for the purpose of additional time to study the issues. Chmn. Compton stated that he would have no objection to continuing the matter for the purpose of additional study. He noted that if the matter is continued, he would like to see the rest of the exhibits which will be going before the City Council. Also, additional public input could be obtained if there is a continuance. MOTION by Chmn. Compton, seconded by Comm. DeBellis, to continue this item to the next meeting of the Planning Commission so that there can be additional study on the matter; further, to note that the Public Hearing is reopened and continued to the next meeting. No objections; so ordered. Chmn. Compton suggested that staff might incorporate the suggestions as proposed by him in regard to this document. STAFF ITEMS a. Mem ora ndum regar ding Planning C ommission li a ison fo r 6/ 14 /8 8 C ity C ou ncil Meeting MOTION by Comm. DeBellis, seconded by Comm. Rue, to receive and file. No objections; so ordered. b. City Council Minutes of May 10, 1988 No comments. COMMISSIONER ITEMS a. Alternative Schedule and Map for Rezoning Mr. Schubach noted that this is the same schedule as presented to the Commission at the last meeting; however, this time a map has been included. b. Tentative Future Planning Commission Agenda No comments. Comm. DeBellis asked whether anyone is preparing a response to the letter received by Mr. Fleet Nuttall. Mr. Schubach stated that the City Manager is handling the matter. 22 P .C. Minutes 6/7 /88 Chmn. Compton noted that the Commission has recommended certain properties to be rezoned to R-2B. He noted that past discussions have taken place in regard to the zero lot line coverage requirements in the R-2B zone and the need to modify that wording. He asked that that issue be placed on the next agenda so that the Planning Commission can formally recommend that the modification take place. Chmn. Compton stated that it is necessary for staff to include in the packets only one copy of the public noticing announcements, rather than attaching a copy to every single agenda item. He noted that this would save on the cost of paper. A single copy could be attached to the agenda. Chmn. Compton noted that there are quite a number of upcoming issues for the Planning Commission agenda. He suggested that there be an extra meeting of the Commission sometime soon to accommodate all of the extra requests for conditional use permits. He suggested that the issue of an additional meeting be placed on the next agenda so that it can be discussed by the Commission. Chmn. Compton suggested that staff include on a future agenda the issue of Hope Chapel so that the Commission can discuss what is happening with their conditional use permit. MOTION by Comm. DeBellis, seconded by Comm. Rue, to adjourn at 11:13 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 meeti June z ___,.,..,..,,.., __ ,, Date 23 P .C. Minutes 6/7 /88