MINUTES

The meeting was called to order by Chairman Perrotti at 7:02 P.M.

1. Pledge of Allegiance

   Vice-Chairman Pizer led the Pledge of Allegiance.

2. Roll Call

   Present:	Allen, Hoffman, Koenig, Pizer, Chairman Perrotti
   Absent:	Koenig
   Also Present:	Sol Blumenfeld, Community Development Director Ken Robertson, Senior Planner Denise Bothe, Recording Secretary

3. Oral / Written Communications

   Vickie Garcia invited everyone to attend the 13th Annual Pancake Breakfast that is sponsored by the Hermosa Beach Women’s Club. She noted that all proceeds for the event will benefit local charities and philanthropies. This event will be held at the Clark Building in Hermosa Beach on Sunday, October 24, 2004, from 8:00 A.M. until noon.

Section I

Consent Calendar

4. Approval of Approval of September 21, 2004 minutes.

   MOTIONby Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Vice-Chairman Pizer, to APPROVE the September 21, 2004, Minutes as submitted. The motion carried as follows:

   AYES:	Allen, Hoffman, Pizer, Perrotti
   NOES:	None
   ABSTAIN:	None
   ABSENT:	Koenig

5. Resolution(s) for adoption

   None

Section II

Public Hearing(s)

6. CUP 04-2 -- Conditional Use Permit amendment to an R-1 Planned Development for four single-family homes to modify the retaining wall and landscaping areas at the rear of the homes at 1911, 1921, 1931 and 1941 Power Street (continued from June 15, July 20 and August 17 and September 21, 2004 meetings).(PDF File).
   Staff Recommended Action: To require that the applicant provide a new public notice when plans and studies are completed.

   Director Blumenfeld advised that the applicant is still working on completing the necessary engineering studies, landscaping and hardscaping plans and that they are seeking another continuance.

   Chairman Perrotti opened the public hearing.

   MOTION by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Allen, to CONTINUE to the next meeting CUP 04-2 -- Conditional Use Permit amendment to an R-1 Planned Development for four single-family homes to modify the retaining wall and landscaping areas at the rear of the homes at 1911, 1921, 1931 and 1941 Power Street. The motion carried as follows:

   AYES:	Allen, Hoffman, Pizer, Perrotti
   NOES:	None
   ABSTAIN:	None
   ABSENT:	Koenig

7. CON 04-17/PDP 04-18 -- Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 061822 for a two-unit condominium at 85 15th Street (continued from August 17 and September 21, 2004 meetings).(PDF File).

   Staff Recommended Action: To continue to November 16, 2004 meeting.

   Director Blumenfeld noted that staff is requesting this matter be continued to November; advised that in reviewing the plans, staff found some building code issues with the proposed design; stated that the applicant has been advised of the issues; and recommended that this matter be continued to allow the applicant additional time to correct the plans and to address these building code issues.

   Chairman Perrotti opened the public hearing.

   MOTION by Vice-Chairman Pizer, seconded by Commissioner Hoffman, to CONTINUE to the next meeting CON 04-17/PDP 04-18 -- Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 061822 for a two-unit condominium at 85 15th Street. The motion carried as follows:

   AYES:	Allen, Hoffman, Pizer, Perrotti
   NOES:	None
   ABSTAIN:	None
   ABSENT:	Koenig

8. L-5/NR 04-2 -- Determination of the Legality of an existing garden room and continuation of a Nonconforming Remodel to allow the extension of an existing wall with a nonconforming side yard at 1085-1087 Monterey Boulevard (continued from June 15, July 20, August 17 and September 21, 2004 meetings). (PDF File).

   Staff Recommended Action: To direct staff as deemed appropriate.

   Director Blumenfeld advised that this item is a request that the Commission consider concurrently a determination on the legality of an existing garden room at an existing duplex with a nonconforming side yard and also approval of a roof deck addition to this existing duplex. He advised that this issue originally came up as a code enforcement action in connection with the proposed garden room; explained that the Zone Code allows a property owner to request validation of the current conditions of a property which otherwise don’t conform to building or zoning code requirements; and noted that the Commission, upon the presentation of the evidence, can validate these conditions and establish that a property is legal nonconforming. Director Blumenfeld noted the evidence that’s been submitted pertains to the building permit file and other evidence; and advised that staff has researched the building permit file and the City’s Sanborn Maps, which show the physical characteristics of property in the 1950’s. He explained that part of the standard of review for the nonconforming ordinance is that a use must be in consistent use from 1959 to present. He added that the applicant purchased this property in 1996 and that the applicant indicates he understood the garden room was a legally permitted use as part of this duplex. To support this argument, Director Blumenfeld stated that the applicant submitted a statement from the grandson of the previous property owner and that he obtained letters from his neighbors in support; and he added that photographs dating back to 1963 show the garden room fully constructed. He added that there’s also a statement from Mark Presley, who is the grandson of the prior owner, indicating the garden room has been in use since the 1950’s. Director Blumenfeld commented on what has eventually turned out to be a forged/fraudulent letter indicating opposition to this request, someone misrepresenting themselves as Sabastian D’Amico – noting that staff has confirmed with Mr. D’Amico that he is in full support of this request.

   Director Blumenfeld stated that given the information that’s been provided by the applicant and the neighbors, there seems to be evidence that the use was permitted. He noted that there is a permit on record for a “patio” that was issued in 1948; and there is some evidence to support the applicant’s contention that it was lawfully permitted, but that is if the Commission believes the word “patio” actually refers to this enclosed patio or garden room. He advised that the other issue is in regard to the nonconforming remodel and with the nonconforming side yard in extending that. He advised that the applicant is requesting an after-the-fact approval for this previously constructed, unpermitted roof deck, which is 189 square feet; noted that the proposed deck will have the same nonconforming setback of 3 feet that the main building has; and pointed out that the Planning Commission has previously approved projects with nonconforming yards. He added that the proposed roof deck addition complies with the 30-foot height limit, although staff needs more confirmation on that measurement – pointing out that the applicant’s survey shows the deck being below the height limit and the actual plans do not correctly label the critical point of the elevations; and noted staff’s belief that this can be adequately addressed as a condition of approval. He noted that the applicant has some concerns about the resolution and that he will address those concerns this evening.

   Director Blumenfeld noted for Commissioner Hoffman that today, a homeowner would not have to get a building permit to lay a cement slab.

   Chairman Perrotti opened the public hearing.

   Tom Parks, 1085-1087 Monterey Boulevard, applicant, advised that the recorded building records at the time of purchase in 1996 did not indicate there were any nonconforming structures on site; he advised that after purchasing this property, he did an extensive remodel; and stated that the garden room was already present. He advised that he has full support of his neighbors and noted his surprise with the fraudulent letter. He added that Mr. D’Amico is in full support of this request. Mr. Parks stated that some of the conditions were drafted to address the concerns in the fraudulent letter prior to it being known it was forged; and requested that the condition regarding the removal of the plumbing in the bathroom be deleted, noting that it was present when he purchased this property. He stated that he has no intention on turning this into a bootleg and stated that this bathroom is needed for his own use. Mr. Parks stated there is a small tub/shower in this bathroom.

   Sabastian D’Amico, 1101 Monterey Boulevard, stated that Mr. Parks is an outstanding neighbor and noted that he has done a great job in improving this property. He advised that he did not write a letter in opposition to this request and noted his full support for Mr. Parks. He noted that he has owned this property since 1993 and that the structure in question was there when he first moved in.

   James Patterson, 1086 Bayview Drive, stated that he has lived at this property since 1973; advised that he knew the original owners of the subject property; and noted that to his knowledge, this garden room has been at this site since he has lived here.

   There being no further input, Chairman Perrotti closed the public hearing.

   Commissioner Hoffman stated that the photographs prove the room existed in the 1960’s and noted his belief that it is likely the room has been here since the early 1950’s and that it probably was part of the construction in 1948. He noted that as long as the height issue is resolved with the deck, he would approve the request. He addressed his distaste for anyone who submits anonymous letters or fraudulent documentation and noted that he will completely disregard the fraudulent letter.

   Vice-Chairman Pizer expressed his belief that the evidence indicates the garden room was lawfully established prior to 1959 and stated that Section 5-5 should be removed.

   Commissioner Allen noted his concurrence with the Commissioners’ comments and expressed his belief that this is clearly a single-family residence.

   Chairman Perrotti noted his agreement with the Commissioners’ comments; stated that although the permit reflects “patio,” he believes the intent is that there was some structure there in addition to the patio; and stated that there’s enough information to find this is a legal, existing nonconformity. He noted his support for deleting Item 5-5, “Applicant shall remove all plumbing fixtures and supply and drain lines…”

   MOTION by Vice-Chairman Pizer, seconded by Commissioner Allen, to APPROVE L-5/NR 04-2 -- Determination of the Legality of an existing garden room and continuation of a Nonconforming Remodel to allow the extension of an existing wall with a nonconforming side yard at 1085-1087 Monterey Boulevard and moved to delete Section 5-5. The motion carried as follows:

   AYES:	Allen, Hoffman, Pizer, Perrotti
   NOES:	None
   ABSTAIN:	None
   ABSENT:	Koenig

9. CON 04-16/PDP 04-17 -- Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 061452 for a three-unit condominium at 445 Manhattan Avenue (continued from August 17, 2004 meeting). (PDF File).

   Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.

   Director Blumenfeld advised that this project consists of three attached units containing basements with two stories above; stated that the units are not considered row dwellings because only two entries front on a common side yard based on previous Commission determinations of similar projects; advised that each unit has two bedrooms and two and three-quarter bathrooms; noted that the project complies with the zoning requirements; and that it complies with the height requirement, with the exception of one critical point measurement slightly over height – pointing out that staff believes this issue can easily be resolved with a revision to the plan and included as a condition of approval. He advised that parking is tucked under the structure; noted that the project design avoids the need for curb cuts, thus avoiding the loss of on-street parking; stated that the required parking is provided in the three 2-car garages and two guest parking spaces; and added that two of the garages have tandem parking – noting that this has been a prior concern of the Commission. He advised that there may be a problem with the slope of the driveway, but that there is not enough information on the proposed plans at this time; and advised that the STC rating is not reflected on the plans. He stated that both issues can be easily resolved as conditions of approval.

   Chairman Perrotti opened the public hearing.

   Jerry Compton, project architect representing the applicant, stated that the issues are relatively minor and that they can easily be resolved; explained that this lot is tight, but that it has been designed in a pleasing style, with all access coming off the alley and not from Manhattan Avenue. He added that all parking is basically underground. Because of the slope of this lot, Mr. Compton advised that he was able to pick up views from all three units; advised that he attempted to keep the exterior simple because there are a lot of exterior angular elements, which tend to provide the detail without adding a lot of exterior treatments. He noted that high quality materials will be utilized on this project, such as finished stucco and glass handrails.

   Commissioner Hoffman expressed his belief that this proposal pushes the envelop too closely, that it’s utilized the maximum allowed and he questioned whether the 14-square-foot master bedrooms are adequate in size. He highlighted the concerns with tandem parking and stated that this site is packed to its maximum potential.

   Mr. Compton noted that this is an R-3 property that allows three units; and stated that he has designed what the City permits in this zone. He explained that tandem parking in this particular case allows one not to have a curb cut; and advised that this has successfully been done at another location in the City. He added that this is a highly sought after product.

   Tony Drockton, owner of a similar unit at 8th Street and Hermosa, expressed his delight with Mr. Compton’s design of his unit; advised that there have been no problems with tandem parking at his complex; expressed his pleasure with the access being off the rear of the property and urged the Commission’s support of the applicant’s request.

   Mark Griss, representing Norrie Group Development, stated that he is extremely pleased with Mr. Compton’s design of the property at 8th Street and Hermosa; advised that Mr. Compton has designed the space well and he urged the Commission to visit one of these units to see for themselves how open they are designed. He expressed his belief that accessing the rear of the property is an asset to the community; and advised that the demand for these units is exceptional. He pointed out that if only two units were built on this site, they would be less affordable than three units.

   There being no further input, Chairman Perrotti closed the public hearing.

   Commissioner Allen stated that while he does not particularly care for tandem parking, having no driveway on Manhattan Avenue is an added plus and noted that he cannot see how two units would improve the situation. He stated that the owner has a right to build what is permitted on this site.

   Vice-Chairman Pizer stated that he has never cared for tandem parking, but advised he is becoming sold on certain applications; he pointed out that there are no curb cuts; and noted his appreciation for the high ceilings and project design. While Mr. Compton has maxed out the project, he stated that it is perfectly in compliance with the codes.

   Commissioner Hoffman pointed out that Mr. Compton has served this community well with his work product; but reiterated that there is too much on this site, that this project pushes the envelop.

   Chairman Perrotti questioned if tandem parking would work in a complex if the complex neighbors did not get along and cooperate with each other; however, he pointed out that tandem parking is legal in Hermosa Beach, and unless this Commission plans on changing that code, he will be voting in support of this proposal. He noted his support for this project as long as the minor deficiencies are covered within the resolution. He added that this is a pleasing project.

   MOTION by Commissioner Allen, seconded by Vice-Chairman Pizer, to APPROVE CON 04-16/PDP 04-17 -- Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 061452 for a three-unit condominium at 445 Manhattan Avenue. The motion carried as follows:

   AYES:	Allen, Pizer, Perrotti
   NOES:	Hoffman
   ABSTAIN:	None
   ABSENT:	Koenig

10. L-5 -- Determination of whether there are four legal dwelling units at 1533 Manhattan Avenue and 1534 Palm Drive. (PDF File).

    Staff Recommended Action: To direct staff as deemed appropriate.

    Senior Planner Robertson advised that the subject property contains two detached two-story structures; stated that it currently contains a small 650-square-foot one-bedroom unit on the second story; advised that on the first floor, there is a two-car garage and a very small unit containing 290 square feet, the unit in question this evening. He advised that a building permit was issued October 15, 1958 to remove the stairway which had previously connected the upper and lower floors on this structure; that this permit was an after-the-fact permit that was issued after the work was completed and issued only after an affidavit was signed limiting the use of that area to a rumpus room; and advised that the affidavit states the rumpus room, shower, toilet and lavatory were solely to be used for the necessary uses and not for an additional dwelling unit or rented room. Senior Planner Robertson stated that the 1957 Sanborn Map shows the Palm Drive structure to be a single two-story dwelling unit. He advised that the property is currently zoned R-3; that the current requirements would allow two dwelling units because of the lot size; therefore, the current use, whether determined to be 3 or 4 units, is nonconforming; and added that the current minimum size for a dwelling unit is 600 square feet for a one-bedroom unit. He mentioned that in 1957, the zoning designation was R-3.

    Senior Planner Robertson stated that staff recently inspected the property and found that the building and floor layout are consistent with the plans submitted by the applicant; advised that the 290-square-foot unit contains a very small bedroom, 7 x 9 feet, which is also substandard to current building code requirements; advised that the living room is also substandard to current building code requirements; and that the kitchen is more of an efficiency kitchen. While there were no significant code violations, he noted that during inspection, the small room sizes and ceiling height were found to be substandard. He advised that the Los Angeles County tax records show this property contains three units; stated that based on these records, no evidence exists to indicate that building permits were applied for or obtained to allow for a kitchen in the rumpus room; and, in fact, after-the-fact permits were granted in 1958 and were contingent upon a filing of an affidavit that the new rumpus room would not become a dwelling unit. He added that the Sanborn Map does confirm this was a single dwelling at the time.

    Senior Planner Robertson noted that the applicant purchased this property in 1971 with the understanding that it had four units; to support this argument, he advised that the applicant has submitted a Veterans Administration appraisal report from 1971 which shows the property containing four units; that the applicant has submitted rental records from 1971, hazard insurance documents, City records for payment of guest parking passes for two units at 1534 Palm Drive, and noted that the applicant has been paying refuse bills and business license fees for a 4-unit apartment for over 30 years. He stated that these documents support the applicant’s claim that these are four legal units; and he also pointed out that building permits have been issued and finaled for several improvements to the Palm Drive units and that at these times, the City took no action to identify this unit as illegal. He pointed out that there is clearly a conflict between the records of the City and the private records obtained by the applicant; and he noted there are some ambiguities and inconclusive documents in the record. Senior Planner Robertson advised that the strongest evidence indicates the building was constructed as a single unit and when modified in 1958 with the elimination of the stair, it was agreed that the purpose of the downstairs was for the purpose of a rumpus room only and not to be a rental unit. He added that apparently sometime later, a kitchen was added to the unit and rented separately and this is what the current property owner inherited when he purchased this property in 1971. He pointed out that in making this unit legal, the City would be authorizing the continued use of what has been a substandard unit for over 30 years with some building code nonconformance; on the other hand, if the Commission denies this request, he explained that all the City would be able to do is return this space to its original approval as a rumpus room with a bathroom, shower and separate access – noting that it’s difficult to see the benefit in removing the efficiency kitchen.

    Chairman Perrotti opened the public hearing.

    Joe Bianculli, 213 North Dianthus Street, Manhattan Beach, applicant, distributed to the Commission written responses to staff report; he advised that the documentation proves to be legal based on the records. He stated that he was advised by staff that the records are incomplete and that there are missing records regarding this matter. He noted that the report includes inaccuracies; stated that the report indicates a residential building report was issued in 1971, but advised that there is no indication a report was ever issued. He stated there are no signatures and stated that the word “invalid” is written across the face of that report; and expressed his belief that this report should be disregarded and stated that it has no application for determining the legality of the building. He stated that the staff report inaccurately includes the wall, ceiling and floor coverings in the room measurements and noted that building requirements were much different 82 years old. He stated that this building does meet the current requirements as he understands it; and noted that there are no code violations on site. He pointed out that the information on the Sanborn Map conflicts with the building report and urged the Commission to deem the Sanborn Map information inconclusive and not relevant in this case. He added that the City’s building files do not include the permit he pulled on this property in 2001.

    Mr. Bianculli stated that in 1958, the then Building Director Bud Trot authorized the affidavit allowing conversion of the unit; and stated that the wording of the affidavit clearly allows the building inspector to change the terms of the affidavit and noted that Director Trot was personally involved when he pulled permits to remodel the building in 1972 on what was unquestionably two separate units. He stated that this clearly constitutes staff approval, along with other permits and approvals that were done over the years. He stated that part of a building inspector’s job is to enforce zoning regulations and pointed out that none of the building inspectors questioned the legality of this unit; and he reiterated that he has operated these units as four units the entire time, that he has been paying business license fees and trash fees for four units since he has owned this property.

    Bruce Jaffie, project tenant, noted that he has lived at this site for approximately six years; stated that this unit is adequately sized for him; advised that Mr. Bianculli is a wonderful landlord who is responsive to the tenants’ needs; and stated that Mr. Bianculli keeps the rents at an affordable and reasonable level. He addressed his desire to live in Hermosa Beach; stated that he is able to teach and still live in Hermosa Beach because of the reasonable rent; and stated that it would not be fair to close this unit off.

    There being no further input, Chairman Perrotti closed the public hearing.

    Commissioner Hoffman noted that for nearly 50 years, this has been used as a separate unit; stated that some of the things the applicant has suggested is self-declared and not persuasive; but indicated that not much will be accomplished by deeming this an illegal unit; and advised that given the absence of anything that is persuasive in either direction, he is inclined to leave this unit as is.

    Vice-Chairman Pizer pointed out that no one has complained about this condition, that this matter was brought forth because of a request for guest parking; and noted that the County Tax Assessor information shows this as three units. He expressed his belief that this unit should stay as is because it’s been operating as four units for more than 31 years. He noted that safety upgrades have been made.

    Commissioner Allen expressed his belief that this condition should no longer be permitted to exist even though it’s been allowed to continue for many years. He stated that it’s time to correct the inaccuracies and that it’s time to move in the right direction and require that this become a 3-unit complex.

    Chairman Perrotti stated that it is obvious there are a lot of inconsistent documents and faulty record-keeping in regard to this property; and he expressed his belief that because this situation wasn’t discovered earlier doesn’t mean it should not be corrected. He stated that the kitchen should be removed and that it only be considered as a rumpus room.

    MOTION by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Allen, to CONTINUE to the next meeting L-5 -- Determination of whether there are four legal dwelling units at 1533 Manhattan Avenue and 1534 Palm Drive, allowing for a full Commission to be present. The motion carried as follows:

    AYES:	Allen, Hoffman, Pizer, Perrotti
    NOES:	None
    ABSTAIN:	None
    ABSENT:	Koenig

11. CON 04-21/PDP 04-23 -- Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 061755 for a two-unit condominium at 619 5th Street.(PDF File).

    Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.

    Senior Planner Robertson advised that this project consists of two attached units containing basements with two stories above; that each unit has four bedrooms and three and a half bathrooms; that each unit contains over 2,600 square feet; and noted that the building is designed in a mix of contemporary and Mediterranean styles, with smooth stucco finish accented with ledge stone veneer, composition shingle roof and decorative metal guardrails. He advised that the project complies with all requirements of the zoning code; but indicated there is a small correction that needs to be made to the front steps that encroach into the front yard, needing at least a 3-foot setback from the property line. Staff noted that the prevailing setback in this neighborhood/block is 10 feet; and that some cases in the past, the Commission has required consistency with the prevailing setback. He explained that the property immediately to the west at the corner of Ardmore and 5th, fronting Ardmore, has a 5-foot yard setback; and advised that the parking is provided in a common driveway and has a centrally located turn-around area with two 2-car garages and one guest parking space provided at the end of the driveway.

    Chairman Perrotti opened the public hearing.

    Joyce Flood, project architect, clarified that they are not calling out for ledge stone to be used, that the ledge stone designation is only a standard note she uses on elevation drawings. She explained that the front steps encroach into the front setback and that they can easily be moved back. Ms. Flood advised that there is a prevailing 10-foot setback in the neighborhood; explained that the reason for the 8 ½ foot setback is to allow equal yards for both units, 8 1/2 foot setback in the front and an 8 ½ foot setback in the back, giving it equal yard space for each unit. She pointed out that this also will benefit the neighbors to the back because they are not building too close to those properties, that it will allow for a more visible backyard space instead of the required 5 feet. She advised that these setbacks are consistent all the way to the top floor; that there are no cantilevers; and that the top floor walls are set back further, which helps in reducing the bulk of the building. She added that the development to the west has a setback of 5 feet on 5th Street, and that what she is providing is an average setback of what is prevailing to the east of this site, giving the neighborhood some modulation.

    Chairman Perrotti noted that staff report indicates the front yard setback is 7 ½ feet. Senior Planner Robertson explained that it is 7 ½ feet to that front porch element, and the majority of the building is set back 8 ½ feet, staff speaking to where the building comes closest to the property line.

    Ms. Flood stated that it is 8 ½ feet to the livable space and 7 ½ feet to the front porch, giving the building more modulation both horizontally and vertically. She added that what’s being proposed is a French Contemporary design.

    Commissioner Allen noted that it is a nice looking design.

    Vice-Chairman Pizer noted his delight with increasing the yard space at the rear.

    Commissioner Hoffman asked that the east and west elevations have more articulation.

    Chairman Perrotti stated that he is pleased with the setback at 8 ½ feet; and noted that because 5th Street levels off where it meets Ardmore, the front of the building will not have a large impact upon view obstruction. He added that the 8 ½ foot setback creates more open area, especially to adjacent properties; and stated that he would support this proposal with the applicant clearing up any deficiencies. He suggested that 5-1-B be revised so that the applicant can work with staff in providing more articulation on the east and west elevations.

    MOTION by Vice-Chairman Pizer, seconded by Commissioner Hoffman, to APPROVE CON 04-21/PDP 04-23 -- Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 061755 for a two-unit condominium at 619 5th Street; and moved to modify Section 5-1B to read that the plans shall be revised to show more articulation on the east and west building elevations, with staff and the applicant working together on this improvement. The motion carried as follows:

    AYES:	Allen, Hoffman, Pizer, Perrotti
    NOES:	None
    ABSTAIN:	None
    ABSENT:	Koenig

12. CUP 04-5 -- Conditional Use Permit amendment to allow on-premises wine tasting in conjunction with an existing market with off-sale beer and wine at 302 Pier Avenue.(PDF File).

    Staff Recommended Action: To continue to November 16, 2004 meeting.

    Director Blumenfeld advised that the applicant is seeking a continuance of this matter to the next Commission meeting so that they can refine the proposal and plan.

    Chairman Perrotti opened the public hearing.

    MOTION by Vice-Chairman Pizer, seconded by Commissioner Hoffman, to CONTINUE to the next meeting CUP 04-5 -- Conditional Use Permit amendment to allow on-premises wine tasting in conjunction with an existing market with off-sale beer and wine at 302 Pier Avenue. The motion carried as follows:

    AYES:	Allen, Hoffman, Pizer, Perrotti
    NOES:	None
    ABSTAIN:	None
    ABSENT:	Koenig

Section IV

13. Staff Items

    Memorandum regarding request to interpret Condition Nos. 3 and 4 of P.C. Resolution 04-14 at 30-44 Hermosa Avenue

    Director Blumenfeld explained that there are two conditions that the property owner had indicated some confusion about; that the first relates to the operating hours for the commercial uses within the proposed project; and that the second condition relates to the operation of garage doors. He advised that this project had been through several iterations and that the Commission decided to modify the wording in earlier hearings regarding garage doors in Condition No. 4 to allow sliding doors rather than an over-head door for a security gate. With regard to Condition No. 3, he advised in a prior hearing, that the Commission felt the hours of operation for a snack shop, coffee shop or retail use should be limited to 7:00 A.M. to 9:00 P.M. but that professional offices need not be similarly restricted.

    Chairman Perrotti stated that he clearly remembers this as being the intent, that the hours were to be more restrictive for a snack shop, coffee shop, or retail use.

    Commission Pizer noted his recollection of Condition No. 4 allowing either door type.

    Senior Planner Robertson noted per Commissioner Hoffman’s prior inquiry regarding the operating hours for the new Sav-on drug store on Pacific Coast Highway, the approval of the project limited the hours between 7:00 A.M. and 11:00 P.M., and noted that currently, the hours are from 7:00 A.M. to 10:00 P.M.

    Director Blumenfeld stated that the General Plan Subcommittee held its Urban Design Element meeting and that the group determined it would be best to try and involve some local planning and architecture schools in helping to develop the Urban Design Element; and that it was decided staff would contact these schools over the next few months to elicit interest by these various programs to participate in helping to develop these elements. Depending on what the level of interest is, he indicated that the City will provide the necessary materials to the students.

    Vice-Chairman Pizer asked that Council be informed of this effort.

    The Commission noted its support for staff seeking this assistance.

14. Commissioner Items

    Chairman Perrotti thanked staff for providing the Commission with business cards, noting that the cards will be helpful when he is doing site visits.

15. Adjournment

    The meeting was formally adjourned at 8:53 P.M.