HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC_Minutes_1991_01_15n
'\
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
HELD ON JANUARY 15, 1991, AT 7:00 P.M. IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Meeting called to order at 7:00 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz.
Pledge of Allegiance led by Comm. Rue.
ROIL CAIL
Present: Comms. Aleks, Marks, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ketz
Absent: None •
Also Present: Michael Schubach, Planning Director; Edward Lee, Assistant City
Attorney; Sally White, Recording Secretary
CONSENT CALENDAR
MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Aleks, to approve the following consent calendar
items:
Planning Commission minutes of January 2, 1991;
Resolution P.C. 91-1, A RESOLUTION OF THE PI.ANNING COMMISSION OF THE CI1Y OF
HERMOSA BEACH , CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, VESTING
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #22666 AND PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PI.AN FOR A 1WO-UNIT
CONDOMINIUM AT 36 15TH STREET, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 30, BLOCK 15, HERMOSA
BEACH TRACT;
Resolution P.C. 91 -2, A RESOLUTION OF THE PI.ANNING COMMISSION OF THE CI1Y OF
HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW OFF-
SALE GENERAL ALCOHOL AND ADULT VIDEO AND MAGAZINE SALES AND ADOPTION OF
AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR 400 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY,
COAST LIQUORS, AND LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS Lars 1 AND 2, AND WESTERLY 16 FEET OF
Wf 3, HURD'S OCEAN VIEW;
Resolution P.C. 91-3, A RESOLUTION OF THE PI.ANNING COMMISSION OF THE CI1Y OF
HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DENYING A PARKING PLAN TO ALLOW A SECOND-STORY
ADDITION TO AN EXISTING OFFICE BUILDING WITHOUT PROVIDING ADDITIONAL OFF-
STREET PARKING AT 415 PIER AVENUE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 23 OF HISS'
ADDillON TO HERMOSA BEACH TRACT;
Resolution P.C. 91-4, A RESOLUTION OF THE PI.ANNINC COMMISSION OF THE CI1Y OF
HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDillONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW ON-
SALE GENERAL ALCOHOL IN CONJUNCTION WITH A RESTAURANT AND ADOPTION OF AN
ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR 1605 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, #206
AND #207, AND LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS A POITTION OF LOT 13 AND SOUTHERLY 6.24 FEET
OF A POITTION OF Wf 14, BWCK 81, SECOND ADDmON TO HERMOSA BEACH;
Resolution P.C. 91-5, A RESOLUTION OF THE PI.ANNING COMMISSION OF THE CI1Y OF
HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW ON-
SALE BEER AND WINE IN CONJUNCTION WITH A RESTAURANT AND ADOPTION OF AN
ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR 1559 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, SUITE D,
AND LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS A PORTION OF LOT 1, TRACT 9203, AND LOTS 11 -18
INCLUSIVE, BLOCK 80, SECOND ADDillON TO HERMOSA BEACH TRACT;
1 P.C. Minutes 1/15/91
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Aleks, Marks, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ketz
None
None
None
CITY COUNCll. REFERRAL -CON 90-16, 17, 18. AND 19/PDP 90-4, 5. 6 AND 7 -CONDfflONAL
USE PERMITS. VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAPS #22634-37, AND PRECISE
DEVEWPMENT PLANS FOR FOUR TWO-UNIT CONDOMINIUMS AT 138-142, 144-148, 150-
154, AND 158-160 MANHATTAN AVENUE
Mr. Schubach stated that the City Council at their meeting of January 8, 1991, considered an
appeal of the four two-unit condos at 138-160 Manhattan Avenue, previously approved by the
Planning Commission.
The subject project was referred back to the Planning Commission for comments and
recommendations on the modifications in the floor plans and exterior appearance.
, The overall layout and site plan were not changed, and the changes reflect an effort by the
applicant to reduce the appearance of bulk and mass of the structures. The exterior was
designed to be more architecturally pleasing. There were some very minor changes to the
plans, and the railings will now be pipe railings.
Comm. Rue discussed the colors and asked whether any color changes would be subject to
planning director approval, to which Mr. Schubach explained that it is not necessary to obtain
approval for color changes.
Comm. Rue asked whether the actual materials to be used are the same as those shown on the
plans: to which Mr. Schubach explained that the applicant has been requested to use the same
materials as depicted on the plans.
Comm. Rue wanted to ensure that there are no major deviations from what is shown on the
plans. He felt it is important that different materials be used so that the building facades are
broken up. He said that the applicant need not use the exact materials as shown: however, they
should be substantially the same as depicted.
MOTION by Comm. Aleks, seconded by Comm. Rue , to approve the revised architecture, with
the additional recommendation that substantially the same materials as shown on the plans
be used.
AYE S :
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms . .AJeks, Marks, Rue
Comm. Peirce,Chmn.Ketz
None
None
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC
No one appeared to address the Commission.
CUP 90-35 -CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO ENCLOSE OUTDOOR DINING
AREA AT 49 & 53 PIER AVENUE, CASABLANCA RESTAURANT IN LORETO PLAZA
Mr. Schubach req~ested that this item be continued to the meeting of February 5, 1991, because
this agenda already contains several public hearings. The applicant was notified of staffs
desire for a continuance and will send out public notices for the meeting of February 5, 1991.
2 P.C. Minutes 1/ 15/91
)
(I
Public Hearing opened at 7: 12 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz.
Shirley Castle, Monterey Boulevard, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and opposed
approval of this request. She questioned how approval could be granted since the property in
question is public open space that belongs to the City.
MOTION by Comm. Peirce. seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve staff's recommendation to
continue this item to the meeting of February 5, 1991.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Aleks, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ketz
Comms. Marks
None
None
CUP 90-28 --CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR PRESCHOOL WITH MORE THAN TWELVE
STUDENTS AND ADOPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 44
HERMOSA AVENUE. BEACH SHORES PRE-SCHOOL
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated January 8, 1991, and recommended approval of the
requested conditional use permit, subject to the conditions specified in the proposed
resolution.
This project is located in the C-1 zone, with a general plan designation of neighborhood
commercial. The lot size is 4800 square feet. The building size is 1680 square feet, and the
outside play area is 2580 square feet. There are three parking spaces. The current use is as a
day nursery.
The existing conditional use permit for the day nursery was granted by the Planning
Commission on April 10, 1967, for a maximum of 20 children. The current owners took over
the operation of the nursery approximately nine years ago, and according to the owners it was
already licensed by the State for up to 34 children.
At their meeting of November 8, 1990, the staff environmental review committee
recommended an environmental negative declaration.
The owners of the preschool were notified of the need for a CUP amendment by the City's code
enforcement officer after a routine inspection where it was discovered that they were operating
with approximately 25 children, five more than the maximum number of children authorized
by the existing CUP.
The CUP amendment is necessary to authorize the continued operation of the day nursery for
more than 20 children. Staff has verified that the owners currently have a license from the
State Department of Social Services for up to 34 children.
Three parking spaces are located off the alley, and the applicant indicates that there are three
employees. The parents pick up and drop off the children from Hermosa Avenue. This parking
situation is obviously not adequate, nor is the use of the metered parking spaces for pick up and
drop off. Nonetheless, it has operated this way for several years without any major problems.
The original CUP was approved with six parking spaces. three in tandem behind three spaces.
Since that time, the depth of the parking area has been reduced to 18 feet to expand the outdoor
play area. Since the lost three spaces were in tandem, staff is not particularly concerned with
the removal of the spaces.
Although the parking and circulation for this business are not ideal, it has been in operation
since 1978 and staff does not anticipate that even at maximum capacity any significant
detriment to the surrounding areas would occur. However, the maximum number of children
3 P.C. Minutes 1/ 15/91
(/
should not exceed 26, unless additional parking is provided since the number of employees
would increase, and the additional number of pick ups and deliveries. would be significant.
Mr. Schubach, in response to questions from Comm. Rue, stated that the staff-recommended
number of 26 students was an arbitriuy number.
Mr. Schubach, in response to questions from Comm. Peirce, explained that the applicant had a
CUP allowing for 20 children when the applicant obtained a license from the State allowing for
34 children. He explained that the State does not always pay attention to the number of
children allowed by the CUP.
Public Hearing opened at 7:19 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz.
Isabel Currie, operator of the business for nine years, addressed the Commission and: (1) stated
that she has worked closely with the City in regard to this business: (2) said that she was
allowed to operate with the three parking spaces, since the ratio is one teacher per twelve •
children: (3) said that when she took over the business, she was not aware that she needed to
apply for a new CUP: (4) said that she obtained permission from the City to move the fence in
order to obtain more square footage for the inside of the building: (5) said she did not realize
that the CUP specifies a maximum of 20 children.
Ms. Currie continued and: ( 1) said that there have been no problems associated with the school
since she has been operating it; (2) explained that she needs only three parking spaces for the
business: (3) said that there are no problems with the Department of Social Services related to
this school: (4) stated that she plans to have 34 children at the school: (5) explained that she
does not own the property, but she has the first right of refusal to purchase it.
Ms. Currie went on and: (1) stated that she has added no square footage to the building since she
has run the school: (2) explained, in response to questions from Comm. Aleks, that the school
is cleaned by a professional Janitor service who come in on the weekends and during the
evening after the school itself is closed.
Mr. Schubach, in response to questions from Comm. Aleks, stated that the City has received no
complaints related to the operation of this business.
Public Hearing closed at 7:25 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz.
Comm. Peirce asked whether it is acceptable to have a lessee apply for the CUP rather than the
owner.
Mr. Lee stated that there is not a problem with approval of this CUP, explaLn.i.11g that leases
typically give lessees the right to use property for a specific lawful purpose.
MOTieN by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Aleks, to approve staffs recommendation,
Resolution P.C. 91-9, allowing for a maximum of 34 children.
Comm. Rue noted that there have been no problems with the business, and no complaints have
been received.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Aleks, Marks, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ketz
None
None
None
4 P.C. Minutes 1/15/91
n
!I
CUP 90-19 --CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW SALES . OF MOTORCYCLES,
ACCESSORIES, AND REPAIR AT 638-640 PACIFIC COAST lilGHWAY, SOUTH BAY CYCLES
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated January 9, 1991, and recommended approval of the
requested amendment for motorcycle sales and parts sales, subject to conditions: however,
denial was recommended for the request to allow major repairs.
On October 23, 1990, the City Council adopted an ordinance to amend the zoning code to allow
motorcycle sales and motorcycle parts sales in the C-3 zone. subject to a conditional use
permit, consistent with the Planning Commission's recommendation. Previous to that
amendment, the code already allowed motorcycle repair subject to a CUP.
The effort to amend the zoning code to include motorcycle sales and parts sales was initiated by
the City Council after it was determined, in response to the request of South Bay Cycles to open
a business on P.C.H., that a separate category was necessary to distinguish motorcycle sales
and parts sales from automobile sales and part sales.
On August 21, 1990, the Planning Commission denied the request of South Bay Cycles for a
motorcycle repair business because of the proximity of residential uses and the non-mitigable
noise impacts that would result from the proposed use. The request, however, was appealed to
the City Council and it was approved at their meeting of September 25, 1990, subject to several
conditions.
The reasonthe repair business was approved for only "minor" repairs was because of the nature
of the applicant's request. The business was originally presented as a business of primarily
motorcycle sales and parts sales with minor repairs to allow installation of chrome parts and
other types of accessories sold at the location. It was not presented or considered as a repair
business for general repair of motorcycles.
Staff recommended approval of the sales and parts sales because the business would be subject
to the same strict conditions imposed by the Council on the "minor" repair aspect of the
proposal, and in staffs judgment, the repair aspect is the more intense part of the overall use of
the site.
Further, the sales of motorcycles and parts would be limited to inside the building, in the front
show room, and outside display would be strictly prohibited.
However, staff does not believe that the location or the size and the design of the building is
appropriate for full general repair. The repair of exhaust systems, the rebuilding of engines
and other moving parts requires greater storage areas, and results in a host of other problems
such as noise and fumes, the storage and use of petroleum-based products and other potentially
hazardous materials, and the potential for junk motorcycle parts to accumulate on the site.
Further, the applicant has not provided any explanation of the extent of repair activities
envisioned, nor has he discussed the potential volume of business. Withou~ such information,
allowing full general repair would open the door for many activities that potentially could not
be adequately controlled or monitored.
In regard to the proposed conditions, they are essentially the same as what the Council
imposed on the "minor" repair business. So far. according to the code enforcement officer, the
applicant has satisfactorily addressed conditions which have to do with signing the property
to inform patrons not to park motorcycles in the rear of the building, not to ride on nearby
residential streets, and not to rev up engines. However, the condition to place a chain or other
impediment, to be monitored by an attendant, to restrict motorcycles from using the rear
parking area has not been implemented.
Further, a noise study and traffic study were required by the Council, and the noise study was
submitted only today: therefore, staff has not had an opportunity to study the report. Staff
5 P.C. Minutes 1/15/91
suggested that a continuance might be desired if the applicant wishes ,to have the results of the
noise study taken into consideration on this request.
The City, otherwise, has not noticed any major problems with the business since it has opened,
and no complaints have been received from nearby residents.
Public Hearing opened at 7:33 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz.
William Campbell, 640 Pacific Coast Highway, Hermosa Beach, applicant, addressed the
Commission and: (1) explained that a noise study was done using a very loud Harley-Davidson
when the readings were recorded: (2) stated that it is necessary for the business to be able to
conduct full repair services: (3) continued by discussing the noise report, explaining that very
loud tools were used, and the noise did not exceed the maximum requirements: (4) in response
to questions from Comm. Peirce, explained that the noise readings were taken with all doors
and windows closed.
Comm. Peirce pointed out that the noise study does not contain information related to the
maximum noise level when motorcycles leave or approach the business. He stated that the
, report contains only an average, not the maximum reading.
Mr. Campbell explained that he was informed that all readings are in conformance with the
City's requirements.
Comm. Aleks pointed out that the readings were taken indoors with all doors and windows
closed. He questioned whether actual repairs would be done inside with doors and windows
closed.
Mr. Campbell stated that doors are kept closed, explaining that the business has an indoor
water filtration system.
Comm. Rue recalled that when this applicant originally appeared before the Commission, it
was not his desire to do major repairs.
Mr. Campbell explained that customers are now coming in asking for repairs. The way the
CUP currently reads, even minor repairs cannot be done on any moving parts. He explained
that if he can do repairs, he intends to give the City a break on its motorcycle repairs. He
further noted that no problems or complaints have arisen since this business has opened.
Mr. Campbell, in response to questions from Comm. Rue, stated that even though loud impact
tools were measured in the noise study, those types of tools are not normally used in Harley-
Davidson repair. He explained that other, quieter tools are actually used for the repair.
Comm. Rue noted, however, the the CUP runs with the business, and there could be problems if
the business is sold to someone else wl.o wants to do repairs using very loud equipment.
Mr. Campbell stated that he is well aware of the fact that he would be shut down immediately if
his business were not adhering to the requirements. He stressed that he is making an attempt
to comply with all City regulations. He also noted that he has installed more than 60 baffies on
motorcycles in the City: therefore. he has contributed to noise reduction in the City overall. He
said that much of the noise problem emanates from other businesses in the area. He asked
only for an opportunity to prove that he can succeed and comply with all requirements.
Grady Pheiffer, 2323 W. 229th Place, Torrance, spoke in support of the request. He explained
the types of tools used in the repair of motorcycles, stating that there will not be a noise
problem. He felt it is important to have this type of service in the City, and he said that this is a
very attractive business. He urged the Commission to give its support to this business.
6 P.C. Minutes 1/15/91
(I
Raphael Bourdieu 710 Esplanade, Redondo Beach, spoke in support .of the request. He noted
that the applicant has kept his word to the City in complying with all requirements. He stated
that this is one of the best shops in the City, and the noise levels have not been excessive. He
urged the Commission to give the applicant an opportunity.
Public Hearing closed at 7:49 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz.
Mr. Schubach, in response to questions from Comm. Marks, stated that since the noise study
was received late, he would prefer not to comment on the results until after he has had an
opportunity to study the report.
Mr. Schubach, in response to questions from Comm. Rue, stated that the City does now have a
noise meter when people who can operate it.
Comm. Rue felt that the CUP contains enough conditions to have some real "teeth." He noted
that there have been no problems during the five months this business has been in operation;
therefore, he was inclined to support approval to see how the business does. He further noted
that there are many neighborhood watchdogs who will report any violations. He stated that he
could therefore support even the request for major repairs.
Comm. Aleks stated that he does not need a study to prove to him that the highway is already
very noisy. He felt that major repairs would exacerbate the noise problem. He felt that because
of the additional impacts to the surrounding area and neighborhoods, major repairs would not
be appropriate at this location and would be a negative factor for the area. He agreed that the
business is making an attempt to comply, and he sympathized with the applicant's plight;
however, he could not support this type of business in the area.
Mr. Schubach, in response to questions from Chmn. Ketz, stated that the City does maintain a
record of noise complaints; however, he was not aware of how long the records are actually
maintained. In regard to this specific business, he was aware of no complaints; albeit, the
business is not now doing major repairs.
Mr. Schubach, for the benefit of the new commissioners, explained the process which is
undertaken by the City related to noise complaints.
Comm. Peirce stated that he was in support of motorcycle sales and parts sales; however, he
could not support approval of major repairs, based on the fact that there would be increased
noise.
Comm. Rue questioned whether it would be advisable to continue this matter so that the
planning director could study the noise report.
Comm. Peirce stated that only two numbers are missing from the report: the peak noise levels
and the actual noise level of a motorcycle leaving the business . He felt that both of those
numbers would be quite high: therefore, he did not feel a continuance is necessary. He stated
that his decision can be made without those numbers, noting that major repairs would greatly
increase the noise intensity in the area. He also noted that during the hot summer months, the
doors and windows will be opened for ventilation, and that will exacerbate the problems.
MOTION by Comm. Aleks, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to approve staffs recommendation,
Resolution 91-10, to allow the sales of motorcycles and parts in conjunction with minor
motorcycle repair at 638 -640 Pacific Coast Highway, with the inclusion of the condition
prohibiting major motorcycle repair.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Aleks, Marks, Peirce, Rue
Chmn. Ketz
None
None
7 P.C. Minutes 1/15/91
/I
Chmn. Ketz stated that this decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed by writing
to the City Council within ten days.
CUP 90-9 --CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR OUTSIDE DINING AND ADOPTION OF AN
ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 1605 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY. MRS.
GARCIA'S
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated January 8, 1991, and recommended that this item be
continued to the meeting of February 5, 1991, and that it be re-advertised as a master
conditional use permit for all outside dining within the Hermosa Pavilion.
At their meeting of December 6, 1990, the staff environmental review committee recommended
an environmental negative declaration and further recommended that the outside dining for
Mrs. Garcia's be clearly separated from other outside dining areas. The committee also
recommended that the application be processed as an amendment to Mrs. Garcia's CUP to
allow outside dining rather than pursuing a master CUP.
Although this was advertised as an amendment to the Mrs. Garcia's CUP pursuant to the staff
environmental review committee, staff now believes that the master CUP concept to control all
outside dining is more appropriate.
Staff felt that the master CUP would be beneficial as it would address the distinct issues
associated with outside use, such as late night noise and passing of alcohol outside the
designated areas. Also, the total square footage of all outdoor areas, regardless of the
operators, is limited due to the approved parking plan for the whole center, and the current
management has rearranged where the outside dining is to be located. Furthermore, one of the
proposed outside areas is a common divisible area for potentially more than one restaurant
operator.
Since this item was only advertised as an amendment, it is necessary to continue the request to
properly advertise it as a master conditional use permit.
Public Hearing opened at 8:03 P.M.by Chmn. Ketz.
Dee Harris, 1605 Pacific Coast Highway, Hermosa Beach, applicant, addressed the Commission
and: (1) described the outdoor dining areas, stating that there are three locations, two of which
are for two specific restaurants and which are not accessible to others: the other outdoor dining
area is for other restaurants' patrons: (2) stated that the outdoor dining areas will be clearly
demarcated as to which area is for which restaurant: (3) explained that there is a security firm
at the location: (4) stated that there is ample parking: (5) stated that ·walls will be constructed to
separate the dining areas from passersby: (6) stated, in response to a question from Chmn. Ketz,
that if staff feels it necessary to continue this matter, she has no objection.
Comm. Rue stated that he would like to see plans of the area before making a final decision on
this request.
MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Aleks, to approve staffs recommendation to
continue this item to the meeting of February 5, 1991.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Aleks, Marks, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ketz
None
None
None
8 P.C. Minutes 1/ 15/91
.\
CUP 90-31 -CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ON-SALE BEER AND WINE IN CONJUNCTION
WITH A RESTAURANT AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION
AT 1605 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY. PICASSO'S PIZZA
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated January 8, 1991, and recommended approval of the
requested conditional use permit, subject to the conditions specified in the proposed
resolution.
This project is located in S.PA. 8, with a general plan designation of commercial corridor. The
size of the leased space is 2773 square feet inside. The current use is as a restaurant under
construction.
The proposed restaurant is located within the Hermosa Pavilion on the second level on the east
end of the building facing P.C.H. The parking requirements for the entire Pavilion are subject
to a parking plan. This space was originally identified for restaurant purposes on the approved
parking plan.
At their meeting of December 6, 1990, the staff environmental review committee recommended
, an environmental negative declaration.
The requested CUP would authorize the sale of beer and wine for consumption on the premises,
subject to the standard conditions of the zoning ordinance. The applicant will also be required
to apply to the State Alcoholic Beverage Control office for a license.
The plans also show a small outdoor balcony area to be used for outside dining. Although this
area was not identified for dining on the original parking plan for the Pavilion, the Pavilion
management is willing to trade away a portion of the outside dining area on the northwest
portion of the building to allow this area to be used. The issue of the outside dining for the
entire Pavilion, including this balcony, will be addressed in a master CUP for the outside
dining.
The floor plan and seating plan show that there will be seating for approximately 64 people
indoors and up to an additional 24 outdoors. A small bar area with four bar stools is also
shown.
Staff has no concerns related to the existing appearance or operation of the business that
would necessitate any further conditions than the standard conditions required for this type of
CUP. Those conditions would include the restriction that at least 65 percent of the gross sales
must be from prepared foods, and a maximum of 35 percent from beer and wine sales.
The business is contained inside the existing mall, and the applicant has indicated that the
hours would be from 10:00 AM. to 1:00 AM. Staff is also recommending a condition to limit
the operation to these requested hours.
Staff recommended approval of the request because this area, unlike the downtown area, is not
considered to be heavily impacted by a saturation of alcohol establishments, and adequate
parking is available. Also, the primary function of the business will be as a restaurant, which
fits in with the original designation for this floor within the Pavilion. Additionally, the mall
maintains its own security patrol during its operating hours, meaning that additional police
patrol should not be necessary.
Chmn. Ketz, noting that Comm. Aleks lives within 300 feet of the proposed project site, stated
that he would abstain from discussion and voting on this item.
Mr. Schubach, in response to questions from Comm. Marks, explained that there is adequate
parking at this facility.
Public Hearing opened at 8:10 P .M. by Chmn. Ketz.
9 P.C . Minutes 1/15/91
Dee Harris, 1605 Pacific Coast Highway, Hermosa Beach, applicant, addressed the Commission
and: ( 1) stated that the staff report is very clear; (2) described the location of the proposed
restaurant: (3) stated that there will not be a full bar, noting that only four bar stools are
proposed to a ccommodate people waiting fo r a table; (4) explained, in response to ques tions
from Comm. Rue, that the balcony is adjacent to P.C.H , and s he is not allowed to cover it in any
way, per the requirements of the conditional use permit
Public Hearing closed at 8 : 13 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz.
MOTION by Chmn. Ketz, seconded by Comm. Peirce. to approve staffs recommendation,
Resolution P.C. 91 -6, as written.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Marks, Peirce , Rue, Chmn. Ketz
None
Comm. Aleks
None
CUP 90-33/PARK 90-8 --CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND PARKING PLAN FOR VIDEO GAME
ARCADE AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION AT 1605
PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY. PAVILION ARCADE
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated January 7, 1991, and recommended approval of the
requested CUP, subject to the conditions specified in the proposed resolution.
This project is located in S .P A. 8, with a general plan designation of commercial corridor. The
leased space size is 1070 square feet. The space is currently vacant.
The proposed game arcade is located within the Hermosa Pavilion on the first level, the same
level as a beauty salon, a beauty and hair products retail store. and retail stores for compact
discs and athletic shoes. The parking requirements for the entire Pavilion are subject to a
parking plan. This space was originally identified for retail use.
At their meeting of December 6, 1990, the staff environmental review committee recommended
an environmental negative declaration and further recommended that conditions be included
to require a maximum occupancy sign, to prohibit school children during school hours, to
restrict loitering, to enforce a dress code to restrict gang attire, to provide a bike rack in a
convenient location, and to install sound proofing.
The requested CUP would allow the operation of a video game arcade at the subject location.
Pursuant to the zoning ordinance. a "game arcade" with five or more machines is permitted
only with the benefit of a CUP. This would be the second "game arcade" with five or more
machines in the City; the other is located at 344 Pacific Coast Highw::y and operates under a
CUP granted in October of 1982.
A parking plan is required because the code requires one parking space for every 75 square feet
of "recreation or amusement establishment." The subject location was permitted for retail,
which carries a parking requirement of one space per 250 square feet. As such, the proposed
use creates a parking deficiency. The parking plan provisions, however, allow the
Commission to permit less than required parking based on the "unique features of a proposed
use." Staff felt that for the proposed arcade, given its orientation to youths who do not drive, a
finding can be made that it would not generate a parking demand any greater than retail.
In regard to the bike rack location. the Pavilion management recently has decided to provide
the bike rack that is required as part of the overall parking plan on the same level as this
arcade near the entrance from level 6 of the parking structure.
P.C. Minutes 1/ 15/91
..
Other concerns associated with a business of this type relate to the proper supervision of the
business to prevent loitering, noise, overcrowding, and/ or boisterous activity. For example,
the CUP for 344 P.C.H. contains several conditions to ensure that appropriate supervision is in
place. The proposed location within the Pavilion has the advantage of being located within a
larger facility with adequate lighting and security personnel.
In anticipation of these concerns, the applicant has indicated that a uniformed employee will
be on the premises and that strict rules will be enforced to prohibit smoking, bringing in food
or drink, loitering, loud and abusive language, and horseplay. Further, a dress code would be
enforced, and a school time policy of not allowing unaccompanied school age children.
The proposed hours of operation during the off season are from 10:00 AM. until 10:00 P.M. on
weekdays and from 10:00 AM. until midnight on Fridays, Saturdays, and holidays. Also
proposed are on season hours to be open until midnight daily and until 1:00 AM. on weekends.
Staff is recommending a condition that year round hours limitations be imposed. pursuant to
the proposed off season hours.
Also, the plans depict the use of the existing fluorescent lighting fixtures which appear to
provide adequate lighting.
Staff recommended conditions similar to the other game arcade, to require uniformed adult
supervision. compliance with the noise ordinance, police security if complaints arise, and to
prohibit school age children during school hours. and is additionally recommending
conditions to have a dress code regarding gang attire, a requirement that the adult supervisor
be at least 21 years old, and that the front door be kept closed to minimize the noise impact into
the hallway.
Chmn. Ketz, noting that Comm. Aleks lives within 300 feet of the proposed project site, stated
that he would abstain from discussion and voting on this item.
Public Hearing opened at 8:18 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz.
Dee Harris, 1605 Pacific Coast Highway, Hermosa Beach. applicant. addressed the Commission
and: (1) stated that all of the requirements have been outlined to the operator, who agrees to
comply; (2) stated that the operator has agreed to hire additional security during peak hours; (3)
stated that carpeting will be installed to mitigate the noise: (4) explained that a uniformed
person will be on guard; (5) stated that the other arcade has had no problems with the police; (6)
stated the "No Loitering" signs will be posted.
Ms. Harris continued and: (1) passed out diagrams depicting the project site and continued by
discussing the location of the arcade; (2) explained that a bike rack will be installed on level 6,
so that kids will be more inclined to use it; (3) described how the patrons will get to the bike
rack and stated that the rack will be very visible; (4) commented that there will also be a
walkway to and from the bike rack.
Comm. Rue noted concern over the dim lighting in the area and the possibility that teens could
loiter and drink or use drugs. He also noted concern over the area being kept clean.
Ms. Harris went on and: (1) responded to comments by Comm. Rue related to the lighting, and
stated that she agrees additional lighting could be installed; (2) stated that she personally
checks the lights, and they all work; (3) stated that she would not oppose a condition requiring
extra lighting; (4) explained the security system in place and described how the guards make
their rounds of the Pavilion; (5) stated that the owner is aware of the acoustical requirements;
(6) explained that the operator of this business has another extremely successful arcade in
Redondo Beach, and there have been no problems at that location.
11 P.C. Minutes 1/15/91
Comm. Peirce suggested that a sign be posted indicating "No Bike Riding" near the entrance of
the arcade near the stairs or elevator, to which Ms. Harris agreed and stated that she will post
several signs.
Comm. Rue asked questions about the security system, to which Ms. Harris responded by giving
details about the operation of the system and how the guards patrol the area.
Comm. Rue asked how the guards would deal with unruly teenagers, to which Ms. Harris
explained that the security guards would ask the off enders to leave the premises. If they did not
leave, the police would then be called.
Comm. Rue asked whether the security guards are able to contact someone for help in the event
trouble arises, to which Ms. Harris explained that telephones are located throughout the area.
Each officer also carries a beeper. She noted, however, that there have been no gang problems
to her knowledge. She said that the biggest problem involves kids throwing the flower pots off
the railings.
Comm. Rue expressed concerns over the safety at this location, to which Ms. Harris responded
that the security force is outstanding at this location.
Public Hearing closed at 8:30 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz.
Comm. Rue noted that Ms. Harris has agreed to install additional lighting. He also noted
concern over the safety of the security guards, stating that they should be able to reach someone
in the event of an emergency.
Chmn. Ketz agreed that safety is an important factor. She noted that Condition No. 7 addresses
the issue of lighting.
MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Chmn. Ketz, to approve staffs recommendation,
Resolution P.C. 91-7, with the following modifications: (1) that Condition No. 7 be modified to
include wording requiring that additional lighting be installed in the downstairs retail arcade;
(2) that a "No Bicycle Riding" sign shall be posted at the entrance to the arcade at the parking
level and at the east P .C.H. side; (3) that the security personnel have a means of
communicating, preferably by radio or a walkie-talkie system, with other security guards and
the office in the event of an emergency.
Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Comm. Rue related to the future need for
additional bike racks, explained that the CUP contains a provision that would allow for the
requirement of additional bike racks in the event they become necessary.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
Comms. Marks, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ketz
None
Comm. Aleks
None
CUP 90-29 --CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ON-SALE GENERAL ALCOHOL.
ENTERTAINMENT. AND DANCING. AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE
DECLARATION AT 30 PIER AVENUE, THE LIGHTHOUSE CAFE
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated January 10, 1991, and recommended approval of the
proposed conditional use permit, subject to the conditions specified in the proposed resolution.
This project is located in the C-2 zone, with a general plan designation of general commercial.
The lease space size is 2639 square feet. The current use is as an existing restaurant/bar with
live entertainment.
12 P.C. Minutes 1/15/91
)
The location is on the south side of Pier Avenue, five properties east of The Strand. Parking is
either metered street parking or off-street City parking lots.
At their meeting of November 21, 1990, the staff environmental review committee
recommended an environmental negative declaration.
The requested CUP would authorize the continued on-sale of alcohol, the continued use of the
restaurant. the live entertainment permit, and dancing.
Staff has several concerns related to the existing appearance and operation of the business that
would necessitate further conditions than the standard conditions required for this type of
CUP. Those conditions would include the restriction that at least 50 percent of the gross sales
must be from prepared foods, a maximum of 50 percent from the sale of all alcoholic beverages.
Additionally, this location has a long history of police and fire violations relating to crowd
control and noise pollution.
The exterior of the location, although a brick facade. could stand repainting/sanding. The
famous "Lighthouse" sign over the business is both faded and extremely rusty, possibly even
dangerous to pedestrians below, as one of the braces is missing. Inside, the location could use
air conditioning so that all doors could be closed during performances. Double front doors
could be installed to help shield sound. and double paned windows should be mandatory for
noise pollution rather than the present single pane windows. Finally, some sort of sound
absorbing materials such as that used at the End Zone nearby should be utilized to absorb the
sound of live presentations.
The location is one of three similar types of establishments, all vying for customers in a very
crowded area in one small block less than 1000 feet long. The business ordinarily is open
during the summer months from 4:00 P.M. until 1:30 A.M. Maximum occupancy occurs on
most evenings between 8:30 P.M. and 1:30 AM. The manager of the location has specified the
following hours of operation: 8:00 P.M. to 1:30 A.M. Monday through Thursday: 6:00 P.M. to
2:00 A.M. on Friday: and 8:00 A.M. to 2:00 A.M. on Saturday and Sunday.
In an attempt to keep conformity in the area, it is staffs opinion that the Lighthouse hours
should be substantially the same as those imposed on the End Zone, its nearest similar
competitor. The End Zone's hours are: 9:00 A.M. to 2:00 A.M. weekly. Live entertainment is
permitted from 7:00 P.M. until 1:30 AM . Thursday through Sunday and on Federal and State
holidays, Cinco de Mayo, and St. Patrick's Day.
Staff recommended approval of the request with restrictions regarding hours of operation:
since breakfast is served, those hours shall be 8:00 A.M. until 1 :30 A.M. Allowing the
Lighthouse to open earlier, no great impact should be realized by the one hour difference. Since
live entertainment is the usual cause for noise pollution, it is recommended that the
Lighthouse entertainment hours be restricted to essentially the same hours as the End Zone,
Thursday through Sunday, 7:00 P.M. to 1:30AM.
Double paned windows and doors would seem to be an absolute necessity to bring the
Lighthouse in line with the improvements that the End Zone has made to control noise
• pollution. Additionally, based on the statements of the Police Department, it would seem that
these changes are absolutely necessary. Since the downtown area is so heavily impacted, these
additional requirements and restrictions are believed to be reasonable by staff.
Public Hearing opened at 8:38 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz.
Paul Hennessey, applicant, addressed the Commission and: (1) referred to staffs
recommendation that the brick facade be repainted or sanded, and stated that he did not know
what that meant, to which Mr. Schubach explained that that was merely a suggestion, not a
requirement: (2) asked why the Lighthouse was being compared to the End Zone, to which Mr.
Schubach replied that the businesses are similar: (3) stated that the hours of the two businesses
13 P.C. Minutes 1/15/91
are different ; (4) discussed the entertainment at the Lighthouse, stating that the hours have
been unrestricted for 40 years, and it would not be possible to _ continue oper ation if a
limitation of hours is imposed; (5) continued by discussing the hours currently in use at the
business, stressing that this is an entertainment club .
Mr. Hennessey went on and: (1) disagreed with Comm. Rue , by stating that he does not feel there
is a noise problem at this business; (2) stated that the noise is addressed in a number of the
other conditions; (3) stated that he has never heard any complaints related to this business,
other than one about the noise from the back door; (4) stated that the back door n ow has a
doorman, and people can exit from that door; however, people are asked to enter through the
front door; (5) explained that there are no police records of citizen complaints related to the
noise.
Mr. Hennessey continued and: (1) discussed Condition No. 4b and stated that air conditioning
is neither necessary nor feasible at this location, noting that the building is not hot and there
is adequate ventilation; (2) in response to questions from Comm. Marks, discussed his crowd
control methods; (3) discussed Condition No. 4c and stated that it would not be feasible to
install a double door in the front alcove area or to install double paned windows to replace all
r, single glassed area, and such an arrangement would not be possible; (4) discussed Condition No.
4d and stated that there is no point in providing an acoustical back-drop behind the stage to
absorb sound from the bands, due to the configuration of the stage and the fact that it does not
help reduce noise in any event.
Mr. Hennessey continued and: (1) responded to questions from Comm. Marks related to the
percentages of food sales to alcohol sales, and he stated that the numbers vaxy depending on the
season, but the alcohol sales are usually about 85 percent of the total sales; (2) noted that the
Mermaid does not have percentage restrictions imposed on their operation.
Mr. Hennessey went on and: (1) discussed Condition No. 5 requiring that screens shall be
installed on all exterior windows, and he stated that there are no operable windows at the
ground level; (2) asked for clarification on Condition No. 10a which requires that the
"dilapidated roof sign shall be removed"; (3) stated that the sign is part of a historical building,
and he questioned what staff wants to have done to the sign; (4) discussed Condition No. 14a
and explained that they do not want to have the rear used for entrance; (5) discussed Condition
No. 15 and stated that he is not aware of any City loitering ordinance, but he noted that he
would be happy to enforce any laws related to loitering.
Mr. Hennessey noted that the Lighthouse is world famous, and he displayed a Japanese tour
booklet with a photograph of the establishment.
Mr. Hennessey continued and: (1) r eferred to Condition No . 16 and stated that he is not
familiar with the EASY program, however, he is willing to comply, but he noted that he already
takes great steps to ensure that no liquor is sold to minors; (2) referred to Condition No. 19
related to the hours of food service operation, and he stated that he does not want to be bound to
certain specific hours for food service , noting that food is available at all times when they are
open: (3) noted that the hours specified in Condition No. 19 are incorrect; (4) explained that
breakfast is served in the summer from 8:00 AM . on; (5) noted that music is available during
the breakfast hours .
Comm. Peirce noted that the Commission had not been provided with any interior plans of the
Lighthouse. He asked how many seats are allowed, to which Mr. Schubach explained that the
Fire Department does have occupancy limits.
Mr. Hennessey stated that when he remodeled several years ago, he was allowed to have over
240 people . However, a year and a half ago, the number was adjusted to approximately 140
people.
14 P .C. Minutes 1/15/91
...
Mr. Schubach stated that the staff environmental review committee minutes indicate that the
allowed occupancy is 117 .
Comm. Peirce stated that there appears to be confusion over the allowed occupancy number. He
also wanted to see an interior layout of the business.
Mr. Lee stated that the minutes of the staff environmental review committee minutes specify a
maximum of 117 occupants. He noted that the Fire Department oversees the occupancy limits.
Comm. Peirce asked Mr. Hennessey's opinion about the letter dated January 10, 1991,
submitted by the Police Department related to the myriad problems at the Lighthouse, to which
Mr. Hennessey replied that he had not seen a copy of the letter.
Mr. Hennessey, in response to questions from Comm . Peirce related to Condition No. 4c, stated
that he does not feel it is physically possible to install a double door in the front alcove due to
the configuration of the area. He understood staffs concerns related to noise emanating from
the business: however, he noted that a number of other conditions relate to the noise . He stated
that it is possible that a sound engineer would find that staff's recommendations are not
appropriate.
Comm. Rue asked if Mr. Hennessey would prefer to have a sound consultant come in to make
findings before conditions are imposed on the CUP, to which Mr. Hennessey replied that that
would seem to make the most sense.
Pete Mangurian, 52 11th Street. Hermosa Beach. addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that
he has owned his property for twenty years, and the noise from the Lighthouse has never
stopped: (2) said that the Police Department has not been able to control the noise: (3) said that
the noise comes through the windows and travels quite a distance: (4) stated that there is an
open transom, and the noise comes through it; (5) noted that he has complained to the police on
numerous occasions, and nothing is ever done: (6) commented that even though rules are
passed, they are not enforced: (7) stated that the bars have an adverse impact on the downtown
area: (8) said that the noise is much worse when the rear door is open: however, even if it is
closed, the noise is unbearable.
Mr. Hennessey again addressed the Commission and: ( 1) stated that much of the noise that is
attributed to the Lighthouse is, in fact, from other sources: (2) stated that he has several letters
from the enforcement officer stating that the Lighthouse is in compliance: however, he did not
bring the letters to the meeting, since he was not aware that noise is a problem: (3) thought that
they were in compliance since the police had not informed him othexwise: (4) noted that noise
meter readings have been taken at the Lighthouse: (5) described the interior configuration of
the business, stating that the noise must travel a great distance before it goes outside: (6) in
response to questions from Comm. Peirce related to the comments in the letter from the police ,
stated that he was unaware of the concerns of the police, since he had received letters stating
that he was in compliance.
Mr. Mangurian again addressed the Commission and stated that much of the noise comes from
radios: however, a great deal of the noise emanates from the bars.
Public Hearing closed at 9: 16 P.M. by Chmn. Ketz.
Comm. Peirce stated that the letter from the police seems to be incomplete, noting that all the
documentation has not been provided to the Commission. He noted that the applicant is
unaware of the noise problems, and he felt it would be beneficial to have written
documentation on the issue.
Mr. Schubach stated that this item could be continued, and he would request written
documentation related to the noise complaints.
15 P.C. Minutes 1/15/91
Comm. Rue favored a continuance so that the applicant could retain a noise consultant. He felt
that the applicant should be given a chance to study ways to reduce the noise.
Comm. Peirce pointed out, however, that the applicant does not acknowledge there is a noise
problem. He stated tha t the n oise comes right out the front of the business. He felt that if
double paned windows and doors are not installed , the noise will not be reduced.
Comm. Aleks agreed that the Lighthouse is noisy. He wanted to see the business continue,
though, noting that it is a local institution.
Comm. Marks felt it would be beneficial for the applicant to retain an acoustical engineer so
that methods of noise containment and reduction can be addressed t o satisfy the requirements
of the City.
Comm. Aleks favored retention an acoustical engineer to be selected by the City and paid for by
the applicant.
Mr. Schubach, in response to questions from Comm. Marks, explained that the noise
requirements are clearly outlined in the code.
Mr. Hennessey stated that he would retain a noise consultant: however, he would prefer to hire
someone himself, with the City having the right to reject the choice, if so desired. Mr.
Schubach agreed that such a method would be easier than going through the City process.
Mr. Hennessey stated that he would present the choice to the City before the study is done so
that the City can concur with the choice of who will be hired.
Comm. Rue suggested that the applicant meet with staff prior to this item being heard again
before the Commission. In this way, the applicant would be clear as to what is required.
Mr. Hennessey stressed that this business cannot operate with limitations on the hours of
operation. He continued by explaining, in response to questions from Comm. Aleks, that
during the breakfast hours, appropriate music is played, not loud big band music. He explained
that this is the oldest established club in the area.
Mr. Hennessey stated that he does not want to go through the expense of having a sound study
done, only to come back and have limitations placed on his hours of operation. He said that
Condition No. 1 is the most restrictive of all the conditions.
Comm. Aleks stated that he would have no opposition to unrestricted hours of operation, so
lo n g as no disruptive noise is emanating from the busi11ess. Cmr..m. Peirce concurred, as did
Chmn. Ketz.
Cmnm. Rue discussed the percentages related to the sale of food versus alcohol. He felt that
such a condition is not necessary at this business, noting that the Mermaid does not have such
a requirement. He felt that there is good supexvision at the Lighthouse: therefore , such a
condition is not necessary.
Mr. Schubach, in response to questions from Comm. Aleks related to the percentages, gave
background history on why such a condition came into being.
Comm. Peirce explained that the condition was imposed in an attempt to prevent the
proliferation of bars: however, he did not feel it is necessary in this case.
MOTION by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Rue, to continue this item to the meeting of
April 16, 1991, for the purpose of allowing the applicant time to retain an acoustical
consultant: and for the purpose of the applicant meeting with staff regarding the conditions
16 P.C. Minutes 1/15/91
prior to appearing again before the Commission; further, to recommend that the sound
engineer work closely with the City.
AYES :
NOES:
ABSTAIN :
ABSENT:
Comms. Aleks, Marks, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Ketz
None
None
None
Recess taken from 9:33 P.M. until 9:41 P.M.
STAFF ITEMS
a) Interpretation of Condition No . 2A of the Conditional Use Permit for 1018 Hermosa
Avenue, Comedy and M3aic Club
Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated January 10, 1991, and requested the Planning
Commission to interpret Condition No. 2A of the CUP for the Hermosa Beach Comedy and
Magic Club.
The subject condition reads: "Entertainment shall be permitted only as an ancillary use to the
restaurant use with performances limited to stand-up comedy or magic acts, acoustic music, or
entertainment dancing."
Webster's defines "acoustic" as "of, relating to, or being a musical instrument whose sound is
not electronically modified."
Mr. Lacey, the applicant, is requesting an interpretation because of his concern that a strict
reading of "acoustic music" would prohibit amplified music.
The subject condition reads precisely as motioned by Comm. Rue at the meeting of August 7,
1990. The condition was a modification of the staff-recommended condition which
specifically stated "non-amplified acoustic music." As such, it appears that the Planning
Commission motion intentionally deleted the words "non-amplified." However, it is not clear
if the intent was to exclude other types of amplified music such as electric guitars or electronic
keyboards.
Comm. Rue recalled that the Commission had no objection to amplification of some
instruments. He noted that. by their very nature, some instruments are amplified.
Chmn. Ketz did not feel that the Commission made a distinction between "amplified" and
"acoustic." She felt that the Commission's intent was to allow amplified music.
MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Chmn. Ketz, to add wording to the condition specifying
that electric guitars and electronic keyboards shall be allowed. No objections; so ordered.
Mike Lacey, 1018 Hermosa Avenue, applicant, addressed the Commission and: (1) recalled the
discussions which took place on this matter previously, and stated that it would be appropriate
for the condition to state that "amplified entertainment" shall be allowed; (2) recalled that he
and the Commission discussed the issue of entertainment dancing as well as customer dancing,
but he noted that the condition was not included, apparently through an oversight; (3)
explained that the minutes of the next Planning Commission meeting contain a correction to
the resolution; however, the correction (to allow customer dancing) was not incorporated.
Comm. Rue recalled that Mr. Lacey's comments are correct, that it was the intention of the
Commission to allow both entertainment dancing and customer dancing. Chmn. Ketz
concurred. •
17 P.C. Minutes 1/15/91
C
(
Mr. Lacey discussed the alcohol versus food sale percentages. He stated that a full menu is
offered to customers, and food is a large part of the business. He stated that the wording in the
CUP is not very clear related to the percentages. He noted concern over compliance with this
condition.
Mr. Lee halted Mr. Lacey's comments related to the percentages, noting that this matter was
advertised only as an interpretation. If the applicant desires to discuss the percentages, the
matter would need to be renoticed and opened for public hearing.
Mr. Lacey explained that he is not requesting an amendment related to the condition: rather,
the resolution was returned to him with percentages differing from what he understood were
imposed on this business.
Mr. Schubach stated that it should be 65 percent food sales and 35 percent alcohol. He stated
that staff would check into the matter.
Mr. Lacey stated that he does not want to change anything: he merely wants a clarification of
the condition related to the percentages.
Mr. Schubach explained that with the amortization process, the newest conditions in place are
imposed in the conditional use permits. -
Mr. Schubach stated that he would look into the matter of the percentages and bring it back to
the Commission as a staff item.
b) Tentative Future Plannin2 Commission J\2enda
No action taken.
c) City Council Minutes of December 11, 1990
No action taken.
COMMISSIONER ITEMS
Comm. Rue asked about the study regarding parking on alleys. to which Mr. Schubach replied
that several staff members have been out ill , but the study will soon begin.
MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Chmn. Ketz, to adjourn at 10:02 P.M. No objections: so
ordered.
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and complete record of the action
taken by the Planning Commission of Hermosa Beach at the regularly scheduled
meeting of January 15, 1991. ,......., ~ . (_/-!!5/~l--~ ~ ~
Christine Ketz, Chairman Michael Schubach;·Secretary
Date
18 P .C. Minutes 1/15/91