Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC_Minutes_74.07.08MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HELD IN THE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, HERMOSA BEACH, ON MONDAY, JULY 8, 1974, AT 7:30 P.M. Meeting called to order by Acting Chairman Rosenberger at 7:36 p.m. ROLL. CALL Present: Comm. Burt, Chiu, Hough, Peirce, and Chmn. Rosenberger Absent: Chmn. Collis and Comm. Haller APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion by Comm. Burt, seconded by Comm. Hough, to approve the minutes of the meeting of June 24, 1974, of the Planning Commission as submitted. Ayes: Comm. Burt, Chiu, Hough, Peirce, and Chmn. Rosenberger Noes: None Absent: Chmn. Collis and Comm. Haller APPROVAL OF RESOLUTIONS None DETERMINATION OF LEGAL USE - 1159 9TH STREET City Planner Crawford reviewed the history of the property in which the ground floor was apparently converted without a building permit; the ceiling height being less than required by the Building Code both at the estimated time of conversion and at the present time. He said the item was continued to allow the owner to submit evidence concerning the conversion, the only additional evidence received being the letter of June 10, 1974 from Mrs. Byron Smith with postscript from Mr. Smith. He said that if the Planning Commission finds that it is non -conforming in use the decision still would not validate any violations of other codes, and that the Planning Commission should consider the zoning, not the Building Code. Public hearing opened 7:46 p.m. No one wished to be heard. Public hearing closed 7:47 p.m. Comm. Burt said the Building Department permits are very sketchy and the Planning Commission has only the two letters on which to base a decision. Comm. Peirce said the Building Department would not have issued a permit to convert with a substandard basement. Comm. Hough recalled that'the list of documents suggested by Mr. Grippo as evidence of use as a duplex was read at the previous hearing when the representative of the applicant was present and he said he would bring them in. Comm. Chiu said the burden of proof is upon the applicant to prove the legality of the use, and suggested that staff should make the determination that it Is not a legal use to force the applicant to bring in sufficient proof. Mr. Crawford said the Building Director used to make the determination with appeal to Planning Commission, but due to action of citizen groups a policy change was ordered by the City Council and the Planning Commission now makes the determination. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - July 8, 1974 Page 2 Chmn. Rosenberger said the Planning Commission is asked to determine an issue on which it has very little to base an opinion. Since the applicant is not present and did, in fact, ask for the continuation, he said he is not in favor of determining in his behalf. Motion by Comm. Hough, seconded by Comm. Burt, to find that based on the evidence sub- mitted, the duplex building is legally non -conforming. Ayes: Comm. Burt Noes: Comm. Chiu, Hough, Peirce, and Chmn. Rosenberger Absent: Chmn. Collis and Comm. Haller Motion by Comm. Chiu, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to request City Council to consider revising the policy on determination of legal use to require as a first step that the Building Director make a determination as to the status of the use of the property, which may be appealed to the Planning Commission; and that appropriate notice of the listed information needed be given by the Building Director to the owner and occupants of the building in question in all future cases. Ayes: Comm. Burt, Chiu, Hough, Peirce, and Chmn. Rosenberger Noes: None Absent: Chmn. Collis and Comm. Haller PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO N.S. 154 _ Revisions of definitions and conditional use sections of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Crawford said the only change suggested by the Committee was in Section 224.2, by changing "transients" to "paying guests"; and that this item was advertised in the newspaper for public hearing. Public hearing opened 8:03 p.m. No one wished to be heard. Public hearing closed 8:04 p.m. Comm. Chiu asked the difference between Section 224.1, Hotel or Motel; and Section 224.2, Hotel or Motel, Resort. Mr. Crawford replied that .2 permits kitchens and .1 does not. Section .2 requires a Conditional Use Permit according to Section 1000 for resorts; .1 does not. Transients are defined as staying not more than 30 days. The subcommittee felt the use of the word "transients" proper in .1 but not in .2 where guests may stay a longer time. Comm. Burt noted that according to the proposed ordinance, guests may not stay longer than 30 days in .2; and said .1 should say "paying guests" also. Chmn. Rosenberger reported that the Illegal Housing Committee says both of these fail in that in both instances they consider guests staying less than 30 days, and their concern is with the over-30-days resident in which case it becomes a bootleg. He said there can be no guest for over 30 days unless there is another definition. Mr. Crawford said it is reasonable to expect that having kitchens in some hotels or motels will entourage longer occupancy. According to State law, there is no bed tax for guests staying over 30 days, but if they claim more than 30 days occupancy, they will be in violation of this ordinance. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - July 8, 1974 Page 3 Concerning Section 250.1 Wet Bar, Chmn. Rosenberger asked if, per prior discussion, the Building Director would refer to the Planning Commission any instances of construction that appeared likely to be converted into extra units. Mr. Crawford affirmed that he would. Motion by Comm. Hough, seconded by Comm. Burt, to approve the ordinance as amended and recommend to City Council for adoption. Ayes: Comm. Burt, Chiu, Hough, Peirce, and Chmn. Rosenberger Noes: None Absent: Chmn. Collis and Comm. Haller Motion by Comm. Hough, seconded by Chmn. Rosenberger, to adopt Resolution P.C. 154-973 after reviewing recommendations to the City Council for the reason that it is a clarification and further edification to the property owners of the many nebulous items in our Zoning Ordinance. Ayes: Comm. Burt, Chiu, Hough, Peirce, and Chmn. Rosenberger Noes: None Absent: Chmn. Collis and Comm. Haller PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO N.S. 154 Revisions of R-2 and R-3 zones. Mr. Crawford reviewed the proposed Resolution and said the subcommittee had met and considered the R-2 revisions. He said Section 503 will result in some potential duplex sites being made single-family sites, and referred to a map display showing all R-2 lots in the City, some of the R-2 lots being school or City property. He said that of the 1280 lots, 340 are now single family use, and another 400 will be in -single family use if the ordinance is passed. He said very little change in,property value is expected of sites less than 3000 square feet; and that it would reduce the potential density of the City. Public hearing opened 8:27 P.M. Bob Bikeman (no address given) asked if the property owners of these 400 lots have been notified or are aware of the proposed changes. Chmn. Rosenberger said standard procedure is through legal notification in City newspaper. Mr. Crawford added that the actions of the Planning Commission are transmitted to the City Council for final action. Public hearing closed 8:29 p.m. The Commission discussed the report from Board of Zoning Adjustments on the proposed R-1 zone. Chmn. Rosenberger said some of these could be incorporated in the revision and in the R-2 or R-3 zone. He said they might consider a sliding scale for front yard setback rather than ten feet. Comm. Peirce preferred to leave it at ten feet to make it simpler and to provide uniformity in the R-2 areas and provide reduced density in the City. Comm. Burt said the ten feet gave room to pull a car off the street while opening the garage door. Motion by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Burt, to accept Resolution P.C. 154-974 as written, revising the zoning ordinance in the R-2 zone. Ayes: Comm. Burt, Chiu, Hough, Peirce, and Chmn. Rosenberger Noes: None Absent: Chmn. Collis and Comm. Haller PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - July 8, 1974 Page 4 Comm. Hough repeated her request of last Planning Commission meeting for a chart showing the requirements of the R-1, R-2, and R-3 zones. Comm. Burt reported two changes in the R-3 zone; the change from 950 to 1000 square feet floor area per dwelling unit; and the change in the open space requirement. Comm. Peirce read and explained the Exception to Section 604, which was then diagrammed by Mr. Crawford. Comm. Hough requested that the word "usable" be inserted in front of every instance of the words 'open space" in Section 604. Mr. Crawford said he would reword the Exception to Section 604 for clarity. Comm. Chiu suggested (in the Exception, third line) deleting the words "and within one story" and inserting the words "not to exceed 50% of the Usable Open Space required for units within one story of the roof open space." Comm. Hough said the responsibility designated in Section 606 is not within the scope of the Park Director, and should be changed to Improvement Commission. She also questioned the omission of R-2 in f1 (Any use in the R-1 or R-2B zone...) Chmn. Rosenberger said the Planning Commission should have comments from the subcommittee on this with reasons for the omission. Motion by Chmn. Rosenberger, seconded by Comm. Hough, to continue to August 12 and refer back to subcommittee and to workshop meeting. Ayes: Comm. Burt, Chiu, Hough, Peirce, and Chmn. Rosenberger Noes: None Absent: Chmn. Collis and Comm. Haller Z-74-3 Request to change land use zone of "Biltmore Site" from C-1 and R-3 to C-2 general commercial. Mr. Crawford said this action was initiated by the Planning Commission at the June 24 meeting for preliminary analysis. Three maps were prepared shaving the proposed zones, the existing zones, and the General Plan. The change is consistent with the C-2 zone. If changed, it would be in Commercial Recreation limiting the uses to hotels, motels, restaurants, etc. that are commercial recreational in character. He said the property is not quite an acre, transected by two alleys, Beach Drive and 15th Court. Comm. Hough asked if these could be combined into one usable parcel, or if the alleys could be bridged. Mr. Crawford replied that they could be combined if Beach Drive were vacated, but sewers and power lines would have to be relocated; or bridged over If power lines were undergrounded, and encroachment permit obtained from the City to bridge a City street. Public hearing opened 9:02 p.m. John Inscho, property on 15th Street, spoke in favor of the zone change, and said he would like to see it sold to a private developer to have the land generate taxes for the City. No others wished to be heard. Public hearing closed 9:09 p.m. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - July 8, 1974 Page 5 Comm. Chiu said the Downtown Committee, at meetings and at previous public hearings, has indicated firm support for the change to C-2. Chmn. Rosenberger gave the reasons of the Downtown Committee as their opposition to having the site developed as resi- dential as that would destroy the potential of the area as a focal point for business change and development; and they stressed that whether the land is sold or leased, the City will have control over the development of the area. Motion by Comm. Burt, seconded by Comm. Hough, to change the zoning of the Biltmore Site lot frontage on the Strand In addition to the 15th Street lot in back of the Biltmore Site (City -owned property adjacent to the Biltmore Site.). Mr. Crawford said the purchase price would be paid back to the Parking Fund if the lot goes out of use for public parking. Ayes: Comm. Burt, Chiu, Hough, Peirce, and Chmn. Rosenberger Noes: None Absent: Chmn. Collis and Comm. Haller Motion by Comm. Burt, seconded by Comm. Hough, to adopt Resolution P.C. 154-975 changing the zoning of the Biltmore Site and adjacent City -owned land from C-1 and R-3 to C-2 for the reasons that it is the first step in getting the City out of the land- owning business in the Downtown area, returning land to the tax rolls, and incentive to both the downtown business merchants and to the upgrading and improving of the downtown area; and made in accordance with the required findings: 1. That the proposed change is consistent with the General Plan, and 2. That the proposed change is the highest and best use of the property, and 3. That the proposed change is necessary for public convenience and general welfare. Ayes: Comm. Burt, Chiu, Hough, Peirce, and Chmn. Rosenberger Noes: None Absent: Chmn. Collis and Comm. Haller C-74-14 PD Request of Mr. L. Graziadio for commercial planned development on two lots located on Pier Avenue and Manhattan Avenue in order to construct a commercial building with three apartments over. Mr. Crawford said this is the first request for Commercial Planned Development which allows, subject to approval, residence use above commercial use. The plan displayed gives no indication of the kind of commercial use that is proposed. The statistical information is within requirements except livability space, where 167. is provided while 25'5o is required. He said the basic question is whether the Planning Commission feels that the residential use mixed with commercial use is acceptable at this site and whether the design is suitable. Comm. Hough asked if the Planning Commission may restrict the kinds of businesses that would be compatible with residential use. Mr. Crawford replied yes, if it is a reasonable restriction. Public hearing opened 9:26 p.m. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - July 8, 1974 Page 6 L. Graziadio, applicant, said the uses anticipated are a real estate office, attorney's office, dress shop. He said the offices were not plumbed for medical or dental offices. In answer to questions from the Commissioners, Mr. Graziadio said the storage area is for the residents and is next to the laundry room below the mezzanine; that a noise limitation that might be imposed would present no problem; concerning insulation, the downstairs walls would be light -weight concrete, and upstairs wall between commercial and residential would be soundproofed; and the commercial area will have restrooms. Chmn. Rosenberger asked the reasons for mixing commercial with residential building, and whether Mr. Graziadio has any background knowledge for successfully marketing this kind of structure. Mr. Graziadio said they tried to design a structure that would lend itself to the residential area around it plus getting the benefit of the commercial streets, and he believes it can be compatible. Comm. Hough asked why there is no time table of construction as stated in the required findings. Mr. Graziadio said the timing is contingent upon the Coastal Commission and other Boards that must approve, but the construction after all permits are obtained would be about four or five months. Comm. Hough suggested changing the Planning Commission required findings to reflect the building time after permits are obtained. After discussion by the Commissioners, the parking plan was determined to be not workable as shown, and Mr. Graziadio said it could be remedied. Comm. Chiu asked if the applicant was aware of recommendations of staff. Mr. Graziadio said he was not, and the recommendations were read. Paul Froug, 1348 Manhattan Avenue, requested a continuance so he could get more information. Dan Mello, Morningside Drive, asked if the parking spaces being proposed would not eliminate present parking spaces; and remarked that the proposed commercial structure is in between the two major commercial areas of the City and isolated from those areas. Mr. Crawford replied that if parking is established on Bayview, parking on the alley will be prohibited. Becher Anderson, 25 17th Street, asked how the setback is determined for the combined usage. Mr. Crawford said it can vary and will be determined by the Planning Commission; a minimum of 23 feet for turning radium is required. Mr. Anderson asked how the parking ratio is determined for different commercial usages. Comm.. Burt said parking is based on number of square feet of commercial area, regardless of the use. Mr. Anderson said he is not opposed to the development but would like to clarify some of the problems that need more exploration. Jack Bliss, 636 Prospect, said that in the past the City has opposed residence on C-2 property and wants to know, if this i.s approved, if residences could then be built above commercial property on the Biltmore Site and on the Strand. Chmn. Rosenberger said the commercial planned development involves decisions based on each individual permit request and does not make a precedent; there are no designated areas for this development; and the developer accepts restrictions imposed by the Commission when he uses this type of development. Public hearing closed 10:03 P.M. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - July 8, 1974 Page 7 Motion by Comm. Hough, seconded by Chmn. Rosenberger, to continue to August 12, 1974 to give the applicant time to look over recommendations of the staff; that commer- cial parking be re -oriented to more directly relate to businesses; that Pier Avenue frontage be revised to provide better visibility of parking area; and the second story commercial area be reduced, ground floor increased; that setbacks be considered for parking and turning, and the way the buildings are set on the lot. Ayes: Comm. Burt, Chiu, Hough, Peirce, and Chmn. Rosenberger Noes: None Absent: Chmn. Collis and Comm. Haller C-74-15 PD Request of T. J. Wynne for a Planned Development permit in order to subdivide an existing two-family dwelling into two townhouse condominium units. Public hearing opened 10:09 p.m. No one wished to be heard. Public hearing closed 10:10 p.m. Motion by Comm. Burt, seconded by Comm. Hough, to continue as requested by the applicant to the August 12, 1974 meeting. Ayes: Comm. Burt, Chiu, Hough, Peirce, and Chmn. Rosenberger Noes: None Absent: Chmn. Collis and Comm. Haller STREET VACATION Request of Hermosa Beach School District to vacate 17th Street within boundaries of Valley Vista School. Mr. Crawford said this item was initiated by the Planning Commission at the request of Hermosa Beach School District to consider whether that portion of 17th Street located within Valley Vista School should be vacated or not. The General Plan shows it as within an enlarged elementary school. The School District intention, if vacated, is to make it part of Valley Vista School site. That portion which abuts the City lots would accrue to the City. The City Engineer has not been able to prepare a report nor_ has the Environmental Impact Report been through the Board of Zoning Adjustments. The question is whether under the General Plan the street will be needed in the future for street purposes. The Open Space Committee has recommended in the Open Space Plan that no streets be vacated in the future; that if they become surplus they be used for open space use, in landscaping, as bike paths, etc. Comm. Peirce said that the street is definitely not necessary to the Circulation Element of the City as it is dead ended now, and recommended not waiting for the City Engineer report. Public hearing opened 10:24 p.m. John L. Rogers, 1921 Pacific Coast Highway, representing governing board of Hermosa Beach School District, presented a large scale map. He said the playing fields are inadequate for a middle school; and also that they would like to have this primarily in campus rather than playing field. Mr. Crawford asked if it was usable for open PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - July 8, 1974 Page 8 space without vacation by removing the pavement. Mr. Rogers said yes, but they would want to be assured the use of it would continue. He said with the street removed it would give a more pleasant vista and more flexibility for development of playing fields. Mr. Crawford pointed out that there is a sewer in the street that cannot be built over; and that the street is School District property with an easement to the City for the street. Chmn. Rosenberger asked if the City does not now need the street but does not wish to vacate, could it be used as open space with rights retained. Mr. Crawford added that the City could abandon the street in its present form but retain the street for future use if reasons are stated. Location, purpose and extent of the vacation must be given to show conformity with the General Plan. Public hearing closed 10:38 p.m. Chmn. Rosenberger said he would favor a lease arrangement. Comm. Hough asked what would happen if the School District combined with Manhattan Beach. Motion by Comm. Burt, seconded by Comm. Hough, to vacate the street, retaining a twenty foot wide easement for sewer and public purposes. Ayes: Comm. Burt, Chiu, Hough, Peirce, and Chmn. Rosenberger Noes: None Absent: Chmn. Collis and Comm. Haller Motion by Comm. Burt, seconded by Chmn. Rosenberger, to adopt Resolution P.C. 154-976 recommending to the City Council vacation of 17th Street within the boundaries of Valley Vista School for the following reasons: it is compatible with the General Plan; and recommend that the City retain easement rights for sewer and other public purposes. This is a cooperative effort worked out in the best interests of both the City and the School District in recognition of their efforts to provide the best educational facili- ties for the children of the community and trying to provide open parklike areas, the vacated space to be used for open space area. Ayes: Comm. Burt, Chiu, Hough, Peirce, and Chmn. Rosenberger Noes: None Absent: Chmn. Collis and Comm. Haller GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2# Mr. Crawford said the two new pages to insert in #9 reflect the Planning Commission desire to change the density figures to come as close as possible to the 24,000 popula- tion maximum, which was determined as: Low Density, 0-13; Medium Density, 26-40. On the second page, the Parks and Open Spaces, and Administrative and Civic Facilities, were rewritten as requested. Under Parks and Open Spaces, Comm. Chiu questioned the use of the word "adjacent" con- cerning the park at 4th and Ardmore. Mr. Crawford said he would reword the paragraph. Public hearing opened 10:59 p.m. No one wished to be heard. Public hearing closed 10:59 p.m. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - July 8, 1974 Page 9 Motion by Comm. Burt, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to approve the revision of land use element of the General Plan, with correction stated above, and send to City Council. Ayes: Comm. Burt, Chiu, Hough, Peirce, and Chmn. Rosenberger Noes: None Absent: Chmn. Collis and Comm. Haller Motion by Comm. Burt, seconded by Chmn. Rosenberger, to adopt Resolution P.C. 154-977 for adopting revision of land use element of the General Plan with reasons (A thru H as corrected in Sample Resolution, Amendment #9). Ayes: Comm. Burt, Chiu, Hough, Peirce, and Chmn. Rosenberger Noes: None Absent: Chmn. Collis and Comm. Haller FINAL KAP 31558 Approval of Final Map for condominium conversion at 15 15th Street. Mr. Crawford said this was a condominium conversion processed through the Planning Commission prior to their policy of refusing to approve. The map shows the lot in question, was checked by the City Engineer for accuracy, and is consistent with the State Map Act and with the tentative map. Staff recommends approval. Motion by Comm. Hough, seconded by Comm. Burt, to adopt Tract Map 31588 as being con- sistent with the tentative tract map and the standards existing at the time the tenta- tive tract map was approved. Ayes: Comm. Burt, Chiu, Hough, Peirce, and Chmn. Rosenberger Noes: None Absent: Chmn. Collis and Comm. Haller C-72-5 Arcade at 1330 Strand. Mr. Crawford said this was a regular annual review. A prior request was for vending machines for food and drink which was denied by the Planning Commission on March 18, 1974. The Arcade was reviewed last July and approved for an additional year. He said there is some argument about the manner in which the con- ditions have been lived up to: repainted in a garish manner not in accordance with the scheme approved by the Improvement Commission; maintained premises but with some question as to how well. Comm. Hough said she thinks the Planning Commission should give the people a chance to speak about this place in public hearing. Warren Wolfe, lessee, said the rear of the building has been repainted; he doesn't think it is in keeping with the other permits that they have annual review, and that even though the Planning Department doesn't have complaints, the owners should be put to the expense of coming before a hearing. He said it is an attempt to harass the Game Palace and its owners, and he urges that the Planning Commission approve the permit. Chmn. Rosenberger asked whether written complaints have been received, and who is notified of review besides the owners. Mr. Crawford said complaints have not been received in his office, and only the owner was notified. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - July 8, 1974 Page 10 Motion by Comm. Hough, seconded by Comm. Burt, to hold public hearing on October 14, 1974, with appropriate advertising and notification of neighbors in the area within 300 feet to review the conditions and effect on the neighborhood. Ayes: Comm. Burt, Chiu, Hough, and Peirce Noes: Chmn. Rosenberger Absent: Chmn. Collis and Comm. Haller PROPOSED OPEN SPACE PLAN AND ZONE Comm. Hough asked what kinds of permanent structures can be built in the ocean. Mr. Crawford said Sacramento is sending information on rules and regulations for building in the tide lands. Motion by Comm. Hough, seconded by Comm. Burt, to set for public hearing and put on agenda for next workshop meeting. Ayes: Comm. Burt, Chiu, Hough, Peirce, and Chmn. Rosenberger Noes: None Absent: Chmn. Collis and Comm. Haller BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS REPORT ON PROPOSED R-1 ZONE Chmn. Rosenberger remarked that he found the Board of Zoning Adjustments recommendations very constructive. He said some schematics should be presented on what can ba put on a lot, by using a scale based on square footage with a minimum of ten feet set�)ack, or based on depth rather than width. He suggested compiling a fact sheet show'Ing the number of lots which might present a problem. He questioned the remarks in -i?, and said the fact sheet might contain the number of units affected which will be either minimal or nonexistent. He said he does not agree with the height limits in #1. Comm. Peirce said the number of lots affected by #2 is minimal, a sliding scale more complicated and defeats the purpose, and that we should state reasons for the decision. Mr. Merl said the Board of Zoning Adjustments prefers to see open space between buildings and to the rear rather than in the front. Front setback is not used, and is often paved. Chmn. Rosenberger suggested that a member of the Zoning Committee attend the next Board of Zoning Adjustments meeting, and Comm. Peirce said he would attend Monday, July 15. PROCEDURES FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS Mr. Crawford said procedures for public hearings have been revised as foiiows: when a Conditional Use Permit is submitted to the Planning Commission, it will go first to the Board of Zoning Adjustments for Environmental Impact Report, then to the Planning Commission with the Environmental Impact Report, and then to the Design Review Commission. This course was set by a directive from management to staff that the Environmental Impact Report must'be done first, as It is the most important, and the Planning Commission has to have the Environmental Impact Report, acted upon by the Board of ,Zoning Adjustments, as part of the public hearing. PROPOSED CONDOMINIUM ORDINANCE Mr. Crawford said these were drawn up by Councilman Widman, and had been revised by staff to take out items which were duplicated or paralleled by Planned Development regulations. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - July 8, 1974 Page I Motion by Chmn. Rosenberger, seconded by Comm. Hough, to schedule for public hearing for August 12 and put on workshop agenda for addition of elements relating to senior citizens' housing, guest parking and usable open space. Ayes: Comm. Burt, Chiu, Hough, Peirce, and Chmn. Rosenberger Noes: None Absent: Chmn. Collis and Comm. Haller ELECTION OF OFFICERS The Commissioners unanimously agreed to wait for a full Commission. Meeting was adjourned at 11:45 p.m. CERTIFICATION hereby certify that the foregoing minutes were approved by the Planning Commission of the .City -of Hermosa Beach at a public hearing held on July 8, 1974. DATE JAMES ROSENSERGER, ACTING CHAIRMAN