HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-08-21 PC AGENDA 1
AGENDA
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
1315 VALLEY DRIVE
HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254
August 21, 2012
7:00 P.M.
Sam Perrotti, Chairman
Ron Pizer, Vice Chairman
Peter Hoffman
Kent Allen
Michael Flaherty
Note: No Smoking Is Allowed in the City Hall Council Chambers
THE PUBLIC COMMENT IS LIMITED TO THREE MINUTES PER SPEAKER
Planning Commission agendas and staff reports are available for review
on the City’s web site at www.hermosabch.org.
Written materials distributed to the Planning Commission within 72 hours
of the Planning Commission meeting are available for public inspection immediately
upon distribution in the Community Development Department during normal business hours
from Monday through Thursday, 7:00 a.m. - 6:00 p.m. and on the City’s website.
Final determinations of the Planning Commission may be appealed to the City Council within
10 days of the next regular City Council meeting date. If the 10th day falls on a Friday
or City holiday, the appeal deadline is extended to the next City business day.
Appeals shall be in written form and filed with the City Clerk's office, accompanied by
an appeal fee. The City Clerk will set the appeal for public hearing before
the City of Hermosa Beach City Council at the earliest date possible.
If you challenge any City of Hermosa Beach decision in court, you may be limited
to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing
described on this agenda, or in a written correspondence delivered to the
Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing.
To comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, Assistive Listening Devices
will be available for check out at the meeting. If you need special assistance to participate
in this meeting, please call or submit your request in writing to the Community Development
Department at (310) 318-0242 at least 48 hours (two working days) prior to the meeting time
to inform us of your needs and to determine if/how accommodation is feasible.
2
1. Pledge of Allegiance
2. a) Introduction and welcome of new Commissioner Michael Flaherty
b) Roll Call
3. Oral / Written Communications
Anyone wishing to address the Commission regarding a matter not related to a public hearing
on the agenda may do so at this time.
Section 1
Consent Calendar
4. Approval of the July 17, 2012 Action Minutes
5. Resolution(s) for Consideration
a) Resolution P.C. 12-12 denying a Conditional Use Permit amendment for on-sale general
alcoholic beverages in conjunction with an existing restaurant with live entertainment,
outside seating, and a Parking Plan, as amended at 1139-1141 Aviation Boulevard, Suzy’s
Bar & Grill.
b) Resolution P.C. 12-18 approving a Conditional Use Permit amendment to allow minor
modifications to the floor plan in conjunction with an existing restaurant with live
entertainment, outside seating, and a Parking Plan, as amended at 1139-1141 Aviation
Boulevard, Suzy’s Bar & Grill.
THE RECOMMENDATIONS NOTED BELOW ARE FROM THE PLANNING STAFF AND ARE RECOMMENDATIONS ONLY.
THE FINAL DECISION ON EACH ITEM RESTS WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION. PLEASE DO NOT ASSUME
THAT THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION WILL BE THE ACTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
Section II
Public Hearings
6. CUP 12-6 -- Conditional Use Permit to modify an existing wireless telecommunications facility,
(Sprint PCS) by replacing antennas on the building roof with new antennas exceeding the
height limit, with a maximum height of 41 feet, install remote radio units, and replace interior
equipment cabinets, on an existing 3-story commercial building at 1200 Artesia Boulevard.
Staff Recommended Action: To continue to the September 18, 2012 meeting for applicant to
submit revised plans.
7. CUP 12-7 -- Conditional Use Permit to allow a walk-up automatic teller machine (ATM) facing
Pier Plaza (Chase Bank) at 49 Pier Avenue.
Staff Recommended Action: To adopt the resolution approving subject Conditional Use
Permit.
3
8. CUP12-2 -- Conditional Use Permit to allow a ground-mounted small wind energy system
exceeding the height limit at 1947 Manhattan Boulevard.
Staff Recommended Action: To adopt the resolution approving subject Conditional Use
Permit.
9. CUP 12-5 / PARK 12-8 -- Conditional Use Permit Amendment to allow a restaurant with on-
sale beer and wine closing by 10:00 p.m. on Sunday through Thursday and 11:00 p.m. on
Friday and Saturday at 425 Pier Avenue (Buona Vita Pizzeria) to expand into a 849 square
foot space and increase seating at 423 Pier Avenue (currently Omaggio Art Glass) resulting in
a 2,024 square foot restaurant with open air dining and modified floor plan (Buona Vita
Trattoria; the restaurant will vacate the space at 439 Pier Avenue). Parking Plan to allow the
expanded business at 423/425 Pier Avenue to use eight (8) offsite shared parking spaces at
555/565 Pier Avenue after 5:00 P.M. (Hermosa Professional Building).
Staff Recommended Action: To adopt the resolution approving subject Conditional Use
Permit amendment and Parking Plan.
Section III
Hearing(s)
10. S-4 #26 -- Request to allow a third mural for the Hermosa Beach Mural Project on the wall of a
commercial building at 1007 Hermosa Avenue.
Staff Recommended Action: To approve the proposed mural by Minute Order.
Section IV
11. Staff Items
a. Appointment of alternate Commissioner for the PCH/Aviation Improvement Committee.
b. Report on City Council actions.
c. Tentative future Planning Commission agenda.
d. Community Development Department activity report of June, 2012.
12. Commissioner Items
13. Adjournment
1 Planning Commission Action Minutes
July 17, 2012
ACTION MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON
JULY 17, 2012, 7:00 P.M.,
AT THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
All public testimony and the deliberations of the Planning Commission can be viewed
on the City’s web site at www.hermosabch.org, On-Demand Video of City Meetings
The meeting was called to order at 7:02 P.M. by Chairman Perrotti.
1. Pledge of Allegiance
2. Roll Call
Present: Commissioner Allen, Darcy, Hoffman, Pizer, Chairman Perrotti
Absent: None
Also Present: Community Development Director Ken Robertson
Assistant City Attorney Lauren Langer
Senior Planner Pamela Townsend
Assistant Planner Eva Choi
3. Oral / Written Communications
Anyone wishing to address the Commission regarding a matter not related to a public
hearing on the agenda may do so at this time.
Section I
CONSENT CALENDAR
4. Approval of the June 19, 2012 action minutes
ACTION: To approve the above minutes as presented.
MOTION by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Pizer. The motion
carried by a unanimous vote.
5. Resolution(s) for Consideration - None
Section II
Public Hearings
6. CUP 12-4 -- Conditional Use Permit Amendment to allow on-sale general alcohol and
make minor modifications to the floor plan for an existing restaurant with on-sale beer and
wine and live entertainment closing at 1:00 a.m. Friday and Saturday and 12:00 midnight
Sunday through Thursday and outdoor seating (Suzy’s Bar & Grill) at 1139-1141 Aviation
Boulevard (continued from the June 19, 2012 meeting).
2 Planning Commission Action Minutes
July 17, 2012
Staff Recommended Action: To adopt the resolution denying the proposed Conditional
Use Permit Amendment.
Commissioner Allen and Chairman Perrotti recused themselves as they live within 500’
radius of the project.
ACTION: To direct staff to return with resolutions for adoption at the next meeting:
1) To deny the requested amendment to intensify the use to allow on-sale general
alcohol. 2) To approve the requested minor modifications to the floor plans.
MOTION by Commissioner Darcy, seconded by Commissioner Hoffman. The motion
carried as follows:
AYES: Comms. Darcy, Hoffman, Pizer
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Comm. Allen, Chmn. Perrotti
7. CUP 12-3 / PARK 12-4 -- Conditional Use Permit Amendment and Parking Plan to convert
approximately 3,500 square feet of an existing church facility to a day care center for
approximately 50 children with outdoor playground, with less than required parking, at
1063 Aviation Boulevard, Church of Christ (continued from the June 19, 2012 meeting..
Staff Recommended Action: To adopt the resolution approving the Conditional Use
Permit amendment and Parking Plan.
ACTION: To adopt the resolution approving subject Conditional Use Permit Amendment
and Parking Plan as presented.
MOTION by Commissioner Darcy, seconded by Commissioner Allen. The motion carried
as follows:
AYES: Comms. Allen, Darcy, Chmn. Perrotti
NOES: Comms. Hoffman, Pizer
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
8. PARK 12-6 -- Parking Plan Amendment to allow approx. 9,000 square feet of spa and
fitness center use at 705 Pier Avenue (currently Club 705) and 3,360 square feet of
medical/dental office use at 1559 Pacific Coast Highway (currently Aaron Brothers) with
less than required parking using shared parking in the Plaza Hermosa Shopping Center.
Staff Recommended Action: To adopt the resolution approving the Parking Plan
Amendment.
ACTION: To adopt the resolution approving subject Parking Plan Amendment as presented.
MOTION by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Pizer. The motion
carried as follows:
AYES: Comms. Allen, Darcy, Hoffman, Pizer, Chmn. Perrotti
3 Planning Commission Action Minutes
July 17, 2012
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
9. CON 12-6 / PDP 12-8 -- Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Vesting
Tentative Parcel Map No. 71951 for a 3-unit residential condominium including elimination
of one on-street parking space at 162 Monterey Boulevard.
Staff Recommended Action: To adopt the resolution approving the Conditional Use Permit,
Precise Development Plan, and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map.
ACTION: To adopt the resolution approving subject Conditional Use Permit, Precise
Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 71951.
MOTION by Commissioner Allen, seconded by Commissioner Darcy. The motion carried
as follows:
AYES: Comms. Allen, Darcy, Hoffman, Pizer, Chmn. Perrotti
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
10. CON 12-7 / PDP 12-9 -- Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Vesting
Tentative Parcel Map No. 71937 for a 2-unit residential condominium at 1627 Golden
Avenue.
Staff Recommended Action: To adopt the resolution approving the Conditional Use Permit,
Precise Development Plan, and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map.
Commissioner Allen recused himself as he lives within 500’ radius of the project.
ACTION: To adopt the resolution approving subject Conditional Use Permit, Precise
Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 71937.
MOTION by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Pizer. The motion
carried as follows:
AYES: Comm. Darcy, Hoffman, Pizer, Chmn. Perrotti
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Comm. Allen
11. TEXT 12-3 -- Text amendment to incorporate a policy for no intensification of on-sale
alcoholic beverage establishments open after 11:00 P.M. into the code, including a cap on
the number of such late night establishments (continued from the June 19, 2012 meeting).
Staff Recommended Action: To adopt the resolution recommending to the City Council a
text amendment.
ACTION: To adopt the resolution recommending City Council approval of subject Text
Amendment with a modification to Section 17.40.080, by renumbering subsection A5 to
state "Any changes to the interior or exterior layout..." and to direct staff to add a column
4 Planning Commission Action Minutes
July 17, 2012
to Attachment 2 (list of late night on-sale establishment open after 11:00 p.m.) showing
occupant load.
MOTION by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Pizer. The motion
carried as follows:
AYES: Comms. Allen, Darcy, Hoffman, Pizer, Chmn. Perrotti
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
Section III
Hearing(s)
12. Report on compliance of Hermosa Beach Car Wash (1000 Pacific Coast Highway) with its
Conditional Use Permit and determination of whether to set for possible modification/
revocation hearing pursuant to Municipal Code Section 17.70.010.
Staff Recommended Action: To direct staff to continue enforcement and monitoring with the
objective of achieving full compliance and mitigation of nuisance concerns, enlisting the
assistance of the City’s mediation service, and to report back to the Commission in 6
months on progress made to resolve these issues.
ACTION: To direct staff to continue enforcement and monitoring with the objective of
achieving full compliance and mitigation of nuisance concerns, enlisting the assistance of
the City’s mediation service, and to report back to the Planning Commission in four (4)
months on progress made to resolve these issues.
MOTION by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Pizer. The motion
carried as follows:
AYES: Comms. Allen, Darcy, Hoffman, Pizer, Chmn. Perrotti
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
13. S-21#4 -- To determine whether alternative spot elevations rather than property corner
elevations at northeast and northwest property corner can be used as a basis for
determining building height at 230 34th Street.
Staff Recommended Action: To direct staff as deemed appropriate, by minute order.
ACTION: To determine, by minute order, to use alternative elevations as basis for
determining building height.
MOTION by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Darcy. The motion
carried as follows:
AYES: Comms. Allen, Darcy, Hoffman, Pizer, Chmn. Perrotti
NOES: None
5 Planning Commission Action Minutes
July 17, 2012
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
14. CON 12-8 / PDP 12-10 / PARK 12-7 – Request for a two-year extension for a Conditional
Use Permit and Precise Development Plan for a 21-unit commercial condominium and
Parking Plan to pay fees in-lieu of onsite parking at 906-910 Hermosa Avenue.
Staff Recommended Action: To adopt a Minute Order extending the expiration date of the
Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Parking Plan by two years, to
June 18, 2014.
ACTION: The Planning Commission consensus was to adopt a minute order extending
the expiration date of the Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Parking
Plan by two years, to June 18, 2014.
Section IV
15. Staff Items
a. Review of Fiscal Year 2012-2013 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for
conformance with the City’s General Plan.
ACTION: The Planning Commission consensus was to approve Fiscal Year 2012-
2013 Capital Improvement Program to be conformance with the City’s General Plan,
b. Report on City Council actions.
c. Tentative future Planning Commission agenda.
d. Community Development Department activity report of May, 2012
16. Commissioner Items
17. Adjournment
The meeting was formally adjourned at 11:11 P.M.
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify the foregoing Minutes are a true and complete record of the action taken by
the Planning Commission of Hermosa Beach at the regularly scheduled meeting of July 17,
2012.
Sam Perrotti, Chairman Ken Robertson, Secretary
Date
1
P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 12-12
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
HERMOSA, BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DENYING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
AMENDMENT FOR ON-SALE GENERAL ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES IN
CONJUNCTION WITH AN EXISTING RESTAURANT WITH LIVE
ENTERTAINMENT, OUTSIDE SEATING, AND A PARKING PLAN, AS AMENDED
AT 1139-1141 AVIATION BOULEVARD, “SUZY’S BAR AND GRILL,” LEGALLY
DESCRIBED AS PART OF LOT 7, BLOCK 88 OF SECOND ADDITION TO
HERMOSA BEACH, HERMOSA HEIGHTS TRACT, CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH.
The Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach does hereby resolve and order as follows:
Section 1. An application was filed by The Horowitz Group, 1141 Aviation Boulevard, seeking
approval of, and amendment to, a Conditional Use Permit by changing from beer and wine to on-sale general
alcoholic beverage as well as minor floor plan modifications. No other changes are proposed.
Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the
application for Conditional Use Permit Amendment 12-4 on June 19, 2012 at which time testimony and
evidence, both oral and written, was presented to and considered by the Planning Commission.
Section 3. Based on the testimony and evidence received, the Planning Commission makes the factual
findings relating to the request to convert from beer and wine to general alcohol:
1. The site is located at 1139-1141 Aviation Boulevard, within the City of Hermosa Beach and is zoned C-
3, which allows on-sale general alcoholic beverages with approval of a Conditional Use Permit.
2. The existing restaurant with beer and wine, live entertainment, and outside seating is operating under a
Conditional Use Permit issued in 1997. P.C. Resolution 96-30 approved a CUP for on-sale beer and
wine in conjunction with a restaurant and a Parking Plan to allow less than required parking under the
consolidated parking rate in shopping centers exceeding 10,000 square feet. P.C. Resolution 97-72
approved an amendment to the CUP for expansion of floor area, live entertainment, and outside seating
for eight people.
3. Current operating hours are 12:00 p.m. to 12:00 a.m. Sunday through Thursday and 12:00 p.m. to 1:00
a.m. Friday and Saturday. The CUP approved in 1994 allows the restaurant to operate from 7:00 a.m. to
12:00 a.m. Sunday through Thursday, 7:00 a.m. to 1:00 a.m. Friday and Saturday, and outside seating is
limited to 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. daily.
4. There are currently two establishments with beer and wine within the shopping center. One
establishment closes at 10:00 p.m. Sunday through Thursday and 11:00 p.m. on Friday Saturday (Gu Gu
Sushi), and one establishment closes at 12:00 a.m. daily (Akbar Indian Cuisine).
5. The 1997 approved floor plan allows 48 seats, and the approved occupant load is 68 interior and 8 on the
outdoor patio. The proposed plans indicate for a total of 54 seats inside, and no change to exterior
seating. No change to occupant load is proposed.
6. Adjoining neighbors have submitted correspondence opposing the change to general alcohol on the
basis of late night noise from music, including leaving the doors open, noise associated with use of the
outdoor patio, motorcycles revving in the parking lot, use of alcohol, and traffic and disturbances in the
parking lot.
2
7. The establishment has not fully complied with Planning Commission Resolution 97-72, Condition of
Approval No. 16 requiring double-pane glass or a comparable substitute with sound dampening
properties, and floor plan changes involving tables near the stage which provided more space for people
to gather in front of the stage, had been made without City approval per Condition 1 as verified by City
staff on May 4, 2012. The current operation may also be operating in violation of Conditions 7 and 17
(noise shall not create a nuisance to surrounding uses), 13 (management responsible for maintaining
music/entertainment volumes at reasonable levels), and 14 (windows and doors to remain closed during
loud music and live entertainment).
Section 4. Based on the foregoing factual findings the Planning Commission makes the following
findings pertaining to the application for a Conditional Use Permit Amendment pursuant to Subsections A, D,
H, I, J and K of 17.40.020 and Subsections A and E of 17.40.080 of the Municipal Code:
A. The proposed use may impact residential and other uses in the surrounding area. Suzy’s Bar and Grill is
located within the ‘Big Lots’ shopping center along a main commercial arterial (Aviation Boulevard). It
is located within the north section of the shopping center, which directly borders residences located to
the north at higher elevation. The restaurant operates from 12:00 p.m. to 12:00 a.m. Sunday through
Thursday and 12:00 p.m. to 1:00 a.m. on Friday and Saturday, and is proposing to maintain the same the
same operating hours with Conditional Use Permit amendment 12-4. Conditions 14 to 16 of P.C.
Resolution 97-72 require measures to reduce noise. The requirement to install double-pane glass or
sound dampening windows has only been partially complied with, thus, the facility is not fully
soundproofed.
B. The site’s proximity to residences, coupled with the existing permitted live entertainment and closing
hours after 11:00 p.m., could lead to an increase of intoxication of customers and resulting noise,
disorderly behavior and disturbances, need for increased police services at the establishment, and
impacts on nearby residences. Nearby residents have submitted correspondence in connection with this
hearing stating the current use adversely impacts them due to late night noise from music, including
leaving the doors open, use of the outdoor patio, motorcycles revving and disturbance in the parking lot.
C. The proposed use may intensify alcohol use and de-emphasize restaurant use, and result in adverse
impacts. There are two other restaurants with beer and wine in the shopping center, and any request to
convert to general alcohol would require a CUP amendment. Following a history of repeated alcohol-
related disturbances in the City, the City Council has expressed concern over the incremental
intensification of alcoholic beverage establishments in the city, in terms of number of establishments,
number of people at these establishments, geographic concentration, and other changes that emphasize
bar/nightclub activity or may contribute to noise, disturbances and other land use incompatibilities.
The City Council’s ‘No Intensification Policy’ for late-night alcohol-serving establishments (CC
Resolution 12-6789), incorporated herein by reference, provides a comprehensive problem statement
and approach to reduce the negative land use impacts associated with such businesses since there is a
tendency for various establishments to seek additional land use entitlements, which over time can
increase noise, disorderly behavior and similar impacts. Goal 3 states: “To prevent the expansion and
intensification of individual "late night, alcohol-serving establishments" through increases in occupant
loads as a result of increases in square footage and/or floor plan alterations by owner/operator-initiated
new construction and/or remodeling.” Guideline 3 states: “The City should not approve new
Conditional Use Permits, or intensification of any existing CUP for “late-night, alcohol-serving
establishments”, subject to the following additional guidelines.” The City is in the process of codifying
this policy and incorporating it into the Municipal Code.
3
Conversion from beer and wine to full alcohol sales is an intensification of alcoholic beverage use
because increased alcohol content can lead to greater intoxication, provision of a greater range of
alcoholic beverages, and emphasis on service of alcohol rather than focus on restaurant use, which, in
the absence of any offsets (such as reduction of hours or relinquishing live entertainment) per Guideline
3, is contrary to the City’s policy striving to ensure intensification does not occur and adverse impacts
are not increased. The actual existing floor plan has been altered without approval of the Community
Development Director or Planning Commission by consolidating the dining area and providing an open
area in front of the stage where standing and dancing could occur; the applicant proposes to retain this
arrangement. These changes, together with the allowance for live entertainment and dancing tend to
facilitate bar/nightclub use as opposed to the original approved restaurant use.
D. While police reports at the establishment have decreased, a CUP runs with the land and there is no
guarantee that this operator will always operate the business. Future changes in the business plan or
owner/management could result in poor management and an increase in adverse impacts. The proposed
changes, together with live entertainment and late night hours, tend to exhibit the characteristics of and
facilitate a bar/nightclub atmosphere rather than a restaurant, with the potential for adverse behavior and
impacts to neighboring residences. The property itself is directly adjacent to residential properties and
the existing business operations, as conditioned, have become more compatible with the neighboring
residences in recent years. Intensification to the use through characteristics of a nightclub/bar (i.e. full
alcohol and remodel that allows standing and dancing in front of the stage), create the potential for
adverse behavior and impacts such as noise, disturbances, and partying in the parking lot, which are not
compatible with the residential uses.
Section 5. Based on the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby denies the request for Conditional
Use Permit Amendment 12-4, only as pertains to the request to change from on-sale beer and wine to on-sale
general alcohol in connection with an existing restaurant with live entertainment and outdoor seating.
Section 6. Pursuant to Section 15270 of the ‘Guidelines for Implementation of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, the project is not subject to
CEQA because CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves.
Section 7. Pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6, any legal challenge to the decision
of the Planning Commission, after a formal appeal to the City Council, must be made within 90 days after the
final decision by the City Council.
VOTE: AYES: Comms.Darcy,Hoffman,Pizer
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Comm.Allen,Chmn.Perrotti
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify the foregoing Resolution P.C. No. 12-12 is a true and complete record of the action
taken by the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach, California at its regular meeting of
July 17, 2012 and memorialized on August 21, 2012.
________________________________ ____________________________
Sam Perrotti, Chairman Ken Robertson, Secretary
August 21, 2012
Date
1
P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 12-18
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW MINOR MODIFICATIONS TO THE
FLOOR PLAN IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN EXISTING RESTAURANT
WITH LIVE ENTERTAINMENT, OUTSIDE SEATING, AND A PARKING
PLAN, AS AMENDED AT 1139-1141 AVIATION BOULEVARD, “SUZY’S
BAR AND GRILL,” LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS PART OF LOT 7, BLOCK
88 OF SECOND ADDITION TO HERMOSA BEACH, HERMOSA HEIGHTS
TRACT, CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH.
The Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach does hereby resolve and order as follows:
Section 1. An application was filed by The Horowitz Group, 1141 Aviation Boulevard, seeking
approval of, and amendment to, a Conditional Use Permit by changing from beer and wine to on-sale
general alcoholic beverage together with minor floor plan modifications. No other changes are proposed.
Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the
application for Conditional Use Permit Amendment 12-4 on June 19, 2012 at which time testimony and
evidence, both oral and written, was presented to and considered by the Planning Commission.
Section 3. Based on the testimony and evidence received, the Planning Commission makes the
factual findings as relates to the request to modify the floor plan:
A. The site is located at 1139-1141 Aviation Boulevard, within the City of Hermosa Beach and is
zoned C-3, which allows on-sale alcoholic beverages with approval of a Conditional Use Permit.
B. The existing restaurant with beer and wine, live entertainment, and outside seating is operating
under a Conditional Use Permit issued in 1997. P.C. Resolution 96-30 approved a CUP for on-
sale beer and wine in conjunction with a restaurant and a Parking Plan to allow less than required
parking under the consolidated parking rate in shopping centers exceeding 10,000 square feet.
P.C. Resolution 97-72 approved an amendment to the CUP for expansion of floor area, live
entertainment, and outside seating for eight people.
C. Current operating hours are 12:00 p.m. to 12:00 a.m. Sunday through Thursday and 12:00 p.m. to
1:00 a.m. Friday and Saturday. The CUP approved in 1994 allows the restaurant to operate from
7:00 a.m. to 12:00 a.m. Sunday through Thursday, 7:00 a.m. to 1:00 a.m. Friday and Saturday,
and outside seating is limited to 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. daily.
D. There are currently two establishments with beer and wine within the shopping center. One
establishment closes at 10:00 p.m. Sunday through Thursday and 11:00 p.m. on Friday Saturday
(Gu Gu Sushi), and one establishment closes at 12:00 a.m. daily (Akbar Indian Cuisine).
E. The 1997 approved floor plan allows 48 seats, and the approved occupant load is 68 interior and 8
on the outdoor patio. The plans propose a total of 54 seats inside, and no change to exterior
seating. No change to occupant load is proposed.
F. Adjoining neighbors submitted correspondence opposing the concurrent proposed change to
general alcohol on the basis of late night noise from music, including leaving the doors open,
2
noise associated with use of the outdoor patio, motorcycles revving in the parking lot, use of
alcohol, and traffic and disturbances in the parking lot, and said request was denied by the
Planning Commission per PC Resolution 12-12 adopted August 21, 2012. The proposed
modifications to the floor plan are not directly related and will not exacerbate those stated
impacts.
G. This approval is conditioned upon full compliance with all Conditions of Approval set forth in
Planning Commission Resolution 97-72.
Section 4. Based on the foregoing factual findings the Planning Commission finds the proposed
floor plan changes will not adversely affect the surrounding residential and other uses the environment,
or provision of services pursuant to Sections 17.40.020 and 17.40.080 of the Municipal Code, because
Suzy’s Bar and Grill is not a stand-alone structure and is located within the ‘Big Lots’ shopping center
along a main commercial arterial (Aviation Boulevard), and the proposed changes will not intensify the
existing use, or reduce the the emphasis on restaurant use, or increase focus on live entertainment or use
of alcoholic beverages.
Section 5. The project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act
pursuant to Section 15301(a) of the CEQA Guidelines because the proposal involves only minor changes
to the floor plan of an existing use, and such changes will not alter the type, scale, or intensity of use.
Section 6. Based on the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby approves the Conditional
Use Permit Amendment, limited to alterations to the floor plan, subject to the following Conditions of
Approval:
1. The development and continued use of the property shall be in conformance with
submitted plans received and reviewed by the Commission at its meeting of August 21,
2012. Minor modifications that do not affect the type, scale or intensity of use shall be
reviewed and may be approved by the Community Development Director.
2. All requirements and conditions of Planning Commission Resolution 97-72 shall remain
in full force and effect except as modified herein. Condition 16 shall be fully complied
with.
3. If a review of this Conditional Use Permit occurs, the Planning Commission may amend
the above conditions and/or impose any new conditions deemed necessary to mitigate
detrimental impacts on the environment or neighborhood arising from use of the
premise.
4. Approval of this permit shall expire twenty-four (24) months from the date of approval
by the Planning Commission, unless significant construction or improvements or the use
authorized hereby has commenced. One or more extensions of time may be
requested. No extension shall be considered unless requested, in writing to the
Community Development Director including the reason therefore, at least sixty (60)
days prior to the expiration date. No additional notice of expiration will be provided.
Section 7. This grant shall not be effective for any purposes until the permittee and the owners of
the property involved have filed at the office of the Planning Division of the Community Development
Department their affidavits stating that they are aware of, and agree to accept, all of the conditions of this
grant. The Conditional Use Permit Amendment shall be recorded and proof of recordation shall be
submitted to the City of Hermosa Beach.
3
Each of the above conditions is separately enforceable and, if one of the conditions is found
unenforceable by a court of law, all other conditions shall remain valid and enforceable.
The Permittee shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of Hermosa Beach and its agents,
officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City or its agents, officers or
employees to attack, set aside, void or annul this Parking Plan. The City shall promptly notify the
Permittee of any claim, action or proceeding and the City shall fully cooperate in the defense. If the City
fails to promptly notify the Permittee of any claim, action or proceeding, or the City fails to cooperate
fully in the defense, the Permittee shall not thereafter be responsible to defend, indemnify or hold
harmless the City.
The Permittee shall reimburse the City for any court and attorney’s fees that the City may be required to
pay as a result of any claim or action brought against the City because of this grant. Although the
Permittee is the real party in interest in an action, the City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own
expense in the defense of the action but such participation shall not relieve the Permittee of any obligation
under this Conditional Use Permit.
Section 8. Pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6, any legal challenge to the
decision of the Planning Commission, after a formal appeal to the City Council, must be made within 90
days after the final decision by the City Council.
VOTE: AYES: Comms.Darcy,Hoffman,Pizer
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Comm.Allen,Chmn.Perrotti
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify the foregoing Resolution P.C. No. 12-18 is a true and complete record of the action taken
by the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach, California at its regular meeting of July 17,
2012 and memorialized on August 21, 2012.
________________________________ __________________________
Sam Perrotti, Chairman Ken Robertson, Secretary
August 21, 2012
Date
ADESCRIPTIONWALK UP - ATMDRAWN BYJHISSUE02.07.12CLIENTCHASE BANK53 PIER AVEHERMOSA BEACH, CA 9025401PROJECTTHE STRANDPROJECT NO.CA1774ATM LOCATIONTHE STRAND53 PIER AVE.HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254NORTHNORTHSITELOCATION MAPNO SCALEZONING MAP PER CITY OF HERMOSA BEACHWALK UP ATMTYPE OF PROJECT FREE STANDING WALK UP ATMSCOPE OF WORKTHE EXISTING WOOD STICK FRAMED & STUCCO FINISH WALL WILL BE OPENED AND COVED.APPLICABLE BUILDING CODE2010 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE (BASED ON IBC 2006)ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 600 OF NEC 2010OCCUPANCY TYPE - CONTACT INFORMATION:JOSHUA HIGGINS10672 JASMINE ST.FONTANA, CA 92337909-770-7927NO SCALEPARKING ANALYSISNAZONING: C2-RESTRICTEDAPN: 4183002020TRACT ID: LOT SIZE: 4,656 NO.: 22BLOCK: OWNER REF.:SQUARE FOOTAGE OF DISTURBED SOIL FOR FOUNDATION OF CANOPY AND ATM - 0sq ft
ADESCRIPTIONWALK UP - ATMDRAWN BYJHISSUE02.07.12CLIENTCHASE BANK53 PIER AVEHERMOSA BEACH, CA 9025402PHOTO ELEVATIONSPROJECT NO.CAPROJECTTHE STRANDSCALE: 3/4" = 1'
ADESCRIPTIONWALK UP - ATMDRAWN BYJHISSUE02.07.12CLIENTCHASE BANK53 PIER AVEHERMOSA BEACH, CA 9025403PROJECTTHE STRANDPROJECT NO.CAPHOTO ELEVATIONSNOT TO SCALE
Attachment 4: Zoning Map
11
49 Pier Avenue
NT-1SHEETSOFDATE:JOB NO:SCALE:SHEETCHECKED:DRAWN BY:SHEET TITLE:JOB SITE:32PREPARED BY:
RPG CAD Services1
REVISIONSTITLE SHEET,GENERAL
NOTES, VICINITY MAP &
SITE PLANM.SAMSAS NOTEDCONTRACTOR:
5119 SCOTT STREET
TORRANCE, CA 90503
310-792-5306
FAX-310-792-5308
EMAIL-RPGCAD@VERIZON.NETENGINEERS STAMP:1947 MANHATTAN AVE.
HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254
LIFLAND RESIDENCE
25/19/2012
A-1SHEETSOFDATE:JOB NO:SCALE:SHEETCHECKED:DRAWN BY:SHEET TITLE:JOB SITE:32PREPARED BY:
RPG CAD Services1
REVISIONSWIND TOWER
ELEVATIONS
M.SAMSAS NOTEDCONTRACTOR:
5119 SCOTT STREET
TORRANCE, CA 90503
310-792-5306
FAX-310-792-5308
EMAIL-RPGCAD@VERIZON.NETENGINEERS STAMP:1947 MANHATTAN AVE.
HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254
LIFLAND RESIDENCE
25/19/2012
1
To: David & Ivy Charlton
The Charlton Family Trust
1937 Bayview Drive
Hermosa Beach CA 90254
I am sure that I dropped off a copy of our letter to those residents, surrounding our property,
impacted by some way or another on our proposed energy system. I wanted to take the time to respond
to your objections so that you might gain a better perspective on what it is on what we are trying to
achieve here. We are not at all interested on polluting the skies; the telephone poles do that by
themselves. We are surrounded by palm trees with an excess of 50-80 feet, perhaps you can take a
broader perspective and think of this just another palm tree.
The following are our responses to your objections:
PARAGRAPH 2: The wind turbine proposed in the 1947 Manhattan Avenue property would extend
as high as ten feet above the current height limit of the Hermosa Beach City and will be within one or
two feet of the existing telephone pole in Palm Drive. The wind turbine technology has matured
dramatically; therefore, turbines today are sleek and slender machines, a far cry from their wooden
ancestors. This particular turbine that will be erected is state-of-the-art popular sized machine in the U.S.
today. Moreover, this wind turbine will not detrimentally affect the value of properties, but rather
instigate some kind of a scenic view for the city of Hermosa Beach. With this stated, it can attract people
to the city because of the economic, social and environmental advantages that wind energy can create.
According to a national study published in 2003 by the Renewable Energy Policy Project (REPP),
commercial-scale wind turbines do not harm “viewshed” property values. The Effect of Wind
Development on Local Property Values systematically analyzed property values data, including over
25,000 transactions of properties in view of wind projects over 10 MW in size from 1998 to 2001. REPP
found no evidence that property values are harmed by wind installations. In fact, for the great
majority of wind projects, property values in the viewshed actually rose faster than in the comparable
community with the pace increasing after the turbines came online.
PARAGRAPH 3: For your information, the PV system installed at 1947 Manhattan Ave. is maxed out
and complies with the codes imposed by the city of Hermosa Beach and the fire department. If I had the
opportunity to install more panels on our roof, I would have done it. As an additional factor, and one of
the reasons behind our energy system, is that in the winter months, because of the excessive height of
the new home directly to the south of us in Manhattan Avenue, will cast a shadow and will not get a full
benefit of our collector array of those winter months when the sun is lower on the horizon. The
reduction in grid consumption that this wind turbine will deliver is that as system size increases the cost
per installed, kW will decrease, improving the economics of the project. Net metering is a way to
connect the wind turbine behind the meter at the house. Energy produced is used to offset a portion or
all of the electricity at a site. Excess generation is then "stored" on the grid for times when the generator
is not producing. At the end of the billing period, the net excess generated or consumed is used to
determine how much you owe the utility or the utility owes you. . Net metering can be very helpful for
the economics of a wind project because it allows a qualifying facility to receive retail rate for a portion
2
or all of the electricity generated. The Database of State Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency (DSIRE)
is a comprehensive database of incentives for wind and other forms of renewable energy. According to
DSIRE, the state of California allows Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) customers to
net meter their PV, wind, and hybrid systems with a capacity of not more than one megawatt.
PARAGRAPH 4: According to the California AB 1207, wind energy systems enhance the reliability and
power quality of the power grid, reduce peak power demands, increase in-state electricity generation,
diversify the state's energy supply portfolio, and make the electricity supply market more competitive by
promoting consumer choice. Wind energy systems, designed for onsite homes, are recognized by the
Legislature and the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission, as an excellent
technology to help achieve the goals of increased in-state electricity generation, reduced demand on the
state electric grid, increased consumer energy independence, and nonpolluting electricity generation.
According to the U.S. Department of Energy:
PARAGRAPH 5: Answered above.
PARAGRAPH 6: Wind turbines produce sounds
that are typically foreign to the rural settings where
wind turbines are most often used, but as turbine
technology has improved over the years, the amount
of noise has fallen considerably. Table 1 shows how
sound emissions about 1000 feet from operational
wind turbines compare with other sounds in terms of
decibel output. The sounds of wind turbines do not
interfere with normal activities, such as quietly
talking to one’s neighbor, any more than the sounds
common in any suburban or rural setting. Moreover,
they are likely to be masked to some extent by the
background sound of the wind itself. Decibel levels
for the system shall not exceed the lesser of 60
decibels (dBA), or any existing maximum noise levels
3
applied pursuant to the noise element of a general plan for the applicable zoning classification in a
jurisdiction. Our wind turbine that will be erected will only produce approximately 45 decibels at about
30 feet, which is less than 15 decibels of the maximum amount of noise.
PARAGRAPH 6:
At a 150 feet, your property will have zero impact from any noise created from the system.
Report summary
Nieuwegein, November 5th 2009 Number : V068304aaA0.md
Project : Sound emission V200
Location : Biervliet
This is a summary of report R068304aaA0.md d.d. November 5th 2009. Measurements were
made according to ‘Wind turbine generator systems – part 11’ IEC61400-11, December
2002.
Turbine: Wind Energy Ball V200
Rotor diameter: 1.98 m
Hub height: 14 m (tube mast)
Rated power: 2250 W
Date of measurement: October 16th 2009
Location: Braakmanweg 1, Biervliet, the Netherlands
Sound pressure level at 50 m distance (with no reflecting or attenuating objects)
California AB 1207 1.1 D
“Decibel levels for the system shall not exceed the lesser of 60 decibels (dBA), or any existing
maximum noise levels applied pursuant to the noise element of a general plan for the applicable zoning
classification in a jurisdiction, as measured at the closest neighboring inhabited dwelling, except during
short-term events such as utility outages and severe wind storms.”
Wind Class Sound Pressure Level at 50m [dB(A)]
Wind 5 m/s 11.2 mph 37
Wind 6 m/s 13.44 mph 39
Wind 7 m/s 15.68 mph 42
Wind 8 m/s 17.92 mph 44
Wind 9 m/s 20.16 mph 47
Wind 10 m/s 22.4 mph 50
4
PARAGRAPH 7: We have spent the last 8 months dealing with the city of Hermosa Beach and
answering every inquiry made relative to the system. We have spent an excess of $ 8,000 on
engineering, foundations, electrical, etc. We are not touting the fact that the money has been spent but
we have gone to excessive lengths on every engineering and every aspect of this project to the city of
Hermosa Beach.
PARAGRAPH 8: According to the U.S. Department of Energy, tower height is significantly important
when it comes to zoning for wind. Additionally, according to DoE, the most common mistake of having a
wind system is that it is too short of a tower. California AB 1207 also that wind systems can be up to ten
feet higher than our wind zoning for residential property. Again, the height of the tower is inversely
proportional to the energy created. For example, if the tower is 30 feet high, it can generate x. And if the
tower is 60 feet high, it can generate x10. We are not looking to go 60 feet high but is simply an example
to show you that height is the most critical consideration of the project. The site must be large enough
to accommodate setbacks from a neighbor's property or buildings, which may be required by local
zoning laws. It's a good idea to place your turbine back from property lines, in case your neighbor later
builds an obstruction that affects the flow of wind. This specifically reflects our new house to the south,
whose height limit will be as higher as our wind turbine.
PARAGRAPH 9 & 10: Personally not applicable.
PARAGRAPH 11: We can erect the silhouette until we have the determination of the city to its
allowable height. As stated earlier, it will be within one or two feet of the unsightly telephone pole.
PARAGRAPGH 12: All renderings have been submitted to the city of Hermosa Beach. If you’d like the
time, we are more than happy to show you a copy of the rendering in our home.
Refer back to paragraph 6 about noise evaluation.
While we do not believe that we will change your opinions or beliefs, we wanted to make an effort
to give you a better understanding of what is involved. This is not a game for us. I have been personally
an environmental advocate since college and I have always done both in my business and personally to
enhance our footprint on this planet. For your information, our solar system, thus far produced over 7
5
megawatts of power and our carbon footprint is an excess of 1.1 tons per month. Adding wind to this
equation and creating a hybrid system will enhance both of these numbers.
Respectfully,
Ira Lifland and Dr. Alice Villalobos
1
From: David Charlton [mailto:dcharlton@mac.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2012 12:35 PM
To: Pamela Townsend
Cc: agelocker@gmail.com
Subject: Additional Response to conditional use permit application at 1947 Manhattan avenue
Dear Ms. Townsend, Monday August 21st
As you are aware, the applicants for the conditional use permit at 1947 Manhattan Avenue, Ira
and Dr Alice Villalobos, have responded directly to us via email with a response to the
objections we raised and the suggestions we made to you and the planning department. Since
you were also copied on the email, which may be part of the planning commission’s
consideration, we think it is appropriate that we respond to you with our comments on a number
of the points the applicants raised in their email. We wanted to get this to you and the committee
in advance of this evenings hearing.
Firstly, the question here is not intent (to ‘pollute the skies’) but rather what will take place if this
conditional use permit is allowed. It will be an unprecedented increase above current property
building height restrictions. It will have a direct impact on a number of ocean views, which are
well known to be of significant value both financially and in terms of quality of life for property
owners across the beach cities, including Hermosa Beach.
The applicants state that
“this wind turbine will not detrimentally affect the value of properties, but rather instigate some
kind of a scenic view for the city of Hermosa Beach. With this stated, it can attract people to the
city because of the economic, social and environmental advantages that wind energy can
create.”
We are convinced that the majority of residents and property owners, if made aware of this
application and its potential implications, would take the opposite view. It is therefore critically
important that this application receive wider review, and that a broader section of the residents
and property owners have the opportunity to assess its implications, not just the neighbors in the
vicinity. The renewable energy study the applicants reference as supporting the claim that the
city will benefit from rising property prices due to windmills adorning the Hermosa skyline is
highly questionable. As its title states, it is 11 years old, was sponsored by the Renewable
Energy Policy Project, and specifically refers to commercial-scale wind turbines. It is therefore
not relevant and certainly not specific enough to this location, or city, which is one of the more
densely populated in the country.
You suggested when we spoke on the phone that it would be helpful to not just make objections,
but to suggest alternatives or ideas. To that end the committee might consider seeking the
professional opinion of a cross section of experienced real estate agents from the South Bay to
comment on the likely impact of property values should this application be approved. This would
give a good read on the impact on real estate values for locations (and cities overall) that change
their energy consumption and skyline in this way vs. those that don’t. In addition, as we
suggested in our previous email, it would be better still for a wider audience of property owners
2
to be consulted. Property owners will have their own best interests at heart and are therefore
likely to use very good judgment when assessing the likely impact of this application on the
current and potential future value of their home or business - in most cases, their most significant
personal asset. We judge that this project will have a negative impact.
A number of points made in the applicants email are technical in nature. We have no direct
experience with this technology. We don’t think we are qualified to undertake such a technical
assessment, but in the limited time allotted to respond we wanted to raise what seemed to us
common sense questions, which is what we attempted to do in our email last week. To try to
summarize, the technical issues for the committee to understand in depth and report on would
seem to us to include, but are not limited to:
- the effectiveness of trying to utilize wind energy at this location
- a realistic estimate of the amount of energy this project will generate in this specific
location and instillation, and how that varies according to the height employed
- the specific benefits of adding wind to already employed solar
The question of height impact on effectiveness does seem to be an important one. The applicants
point out height is exponentially correlated to effectiveness. We wonder if it may be the case
that the practical height needed to generate meaningful energy from wind in many Hermosa
Beach locations will vary dramatically – Hermosa valley is an obvious example. As a result we
wonder whether the city has fully thought through whether this application, and any future
application, is worth the considerable effort required to invest in this technology in a residential
city. A number of other practical questions come to mind. A couple of examples are:-
- How does height limits need to vary by location to be worthwhile?
- Will property owners in front of already installed windmills be allowed to install windmills
that reduce the efficiency and therefore purpose of the neighbor’s instillation?
- Will owners wanting to install a windmill behind an existing windmill be allowed to go
higher to generate power, and if not how will they be compensated for the loss of wind
generating power at the their location?
These additional questions should also be considered by the committee and should form a part of
what residents and property owners have a chance to assess city-wide. This application should
not be approved until that has taken place.
If the applicants are right in suggesting that noise is not thought to be an issue under any wind
speeds, then the most important question may be how this will this be monitored by the city to
ensure compliance. It would be helpful to hear from the planning committee how they plan to
monitor noise for compliance of these sorts of projects.
In terms of the question of a silhouette, we are not familiar with the cities process, but the
municipal code states:
“The applicant shall erect a silhouette of the proposed SWES, unless this requirement is waived
by the Community Development Director due to limited height, mass and low probability of
visual impacts in the particular case.”
3
This is not a case of “low probability of visual impacts. ” We would reiterate that a silhouette
needs to be put in place as part of the application process.
However difficult it may be to say without sounding unsympathetic, the amount of money
already spent to progress this application should not be a factor in determining such an
important, unprecedented and first instance of this fundamental change to our cities skyline.
Finally the applicants close by suggesting that this is a question of “beliefs”, and that this is not a
game to them. We are wholeheartedly in agreement that this is not a game. This is a serious
issue for all concerned. But it is not necessarily about beliefs. While we respect and support the
applicants passion for the environment, we would suggest that an individual’s total
environmental impact are complex and multilayered in nature. The products we buy, the cars we
choose to drive, the origin of food we choose to buy, the way we commute, are all examples of
the choices we each make every day that impact the broader environment, and are not limited to
atmospheric CO2 levels and domestic energy consumption. The planning committee should not
attempt to judge or factor into its review the complex question of someone’s overall commitment
to environmental causes when judging this particular issue.
In summary the question at hand is that the proposed conditional use permit will have a
significant negative impact on many property owners, with a potentially small gain in wind
energy generation at one location. This important issue has not had a chance to be reviewed by
the broader community who we suspect are largely oblivious as to where this could lead the
future skyline of the city.
Thank you for your continued consideration.
David and Ivy Charlton.
The Charlton Family Trust
1937 Bayview Drive
Hermosa Beach
1
To: David & Ivy Charlton
The Charlton Family Trust
1937 Bayview Drive
Hermosa Beach CA 90254
I am sure that I dropped off a copy of our letter to those residents, surrounding our property,
impacted by some way or another on our proposed energy system. I wanted to take the time to respond
to your objections so that you might gain a better perspective on what it is on what we are trying to
achieve here. We are not at all interested on polluting the skies; the telephone poles do that by
themselves. We are surrounded by palm trees with an excess of 50-80 feet, perhaps you can take a
broader perspective and think of this just another palm tree.
The following are our responses to your objections:
PARAGRAPH 2: The wind turbine proposed in the 1947 Manhattan Avenue property would extend
as high as ten feet above the current height limit of the Hermosa Beach City and will be within one or
two feet of the existing telephone pole in Palm Drive. The wind turbine technology has matured
dramatically; therefore, turbines today are sleek and slender machines, a far cry from their wooden
ancestors. This particular turbine that will be erected is state-of-the-art popular sized machine in the U.S.
today. Moreover, this wind turbine will not detrimentally affect the value of properties, but rather
instigate some kind of a scenic view for the city of Hermosa Beach. With this stated, it can attract people
to the city because of the economic, social and environmental advantages that wind energy can create.
According to a national study published in 2003 by the Renewable Energy Policy Project (REPP),
commercial-scale wind turbines do not harm “viewshed” property values. The Effect of Wind
Development on Local Property Values systematically analyzed property values data, including over
25,000 transactions of properties in view of wind projects over 10 MW in size from 1998 to 2001. REPP
found no evidence that property values are harmed by wind installations. In fact, for the great
majority of wind projects, property values in the viewshed actually rose faster than in the comparable
community with the pace increasing after the turbines came online.
PARAGRAPH 3: For your information, the PV system installed at 1947 Manhattan Ave. is maxed out
and complies with the codes imposed by the city of Hermosa Beach and the fire department. If I had the
opportunity to install more panels on our roof, I would have done it. As an additional factor, and one of
the reasons behind our energy system, is that in the winter months, because of the excessive height of
the new home directly to the south of us in Manhattan Avenue, will cast a shadow and will not get a full
benefit of our collector array of those winter months when the sun is lower on the horizon. The
reduction in grid consumption that this wind turbine will deliver is that as system size increases the cost
per installed, kW will decrease, improving the economics of the project. Net metering is a way to
connect the wind turbine behind the meter at the house. Energy produced is used to offset a portion or
all of the electricity at a site. Excess generation is then "stored" on the grid for times when the generator
is not producing. At the end of the billing period, the net excess generated or consumed is used to
determine how much you owe the utility or the utility owes you. . Net metering can be very helpful for
the economics of a wind project because it allows a qualifying facility to receive retail rate for a portion
2
or all of the electricity generated. The Database of State Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency (DSIRE)
is a comprehensive database of incentives for wind and other forms of renewable energy. According to
DSIRE, the state of California allows Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) customers to
net meter their PV, wind, and hybrid systems with a capacity of not more than one megawatt.
PARAGRAPH 4: According to the California AB 1207, wind energy systems enhance the reliability and
power quality of the power grid, reduce peak power demands, increase in-state electricity generation,
diversify the state's energy supply portfolio, and make the electricity supply market more competitive by
promoting consumer choice. Wind energy systems, designed for onsite homes, are recognized by the
Legislature and the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission, as an excellent
technology to help achieve the goals of increased in-state electricity generation, reduced demand on the
state electric grid, increased consumer energy independence, and nonpolluting electricity generation.
According to the U.S. Department of Energy:
PARAGRAPH 5: Answered above.
PARAGRAPH 6: Wind turbines produce sounds
that are typically foreign to the rural settings where
wind turbines are most often used, but as turbine
technology has improved over the years, the amount
of noise has fallen considerably. Table 1 shows how
sound emissions about 1000 feet from operational
wind turbines compare with other sounds in terms of
decibel output. The sounds of wind turbines do not
interfere with normal activities, such as quietly
talking to one’s neighbor, any more than the sounds
common in any suburban or rural setting. Moreover,
they are likely to be masked to some extent by the
background sound of the wind itself. Decibel levels
for the system shall not exceed the lesser of 60
decibels (dBA), or any existing maximum noise levels
3
applied pursuant to the noise element of a general plan for the applicable zoning classification in a
jurisdiction. Our wind turbine that will be erected will only produce approximately 45 decibels at about
30 feet, which is less than 15 decibels of the maximum amount of noise.
PARAGRAPH 6:
At a 150 feet, your property will have zero impact from any noise created from the system.
Report summary
Nieuwegein, November 5th 2009 Number : V068304aaA0.md
Project : Sound emission V200
Location : Biervliet
This is a summary of report R068304aaA0.md d.d. November 5th 2009. Measurements were
made according to ‘Wind turbine generator systems – part 11’ IEC61400-11, December
2002.
Turbine: Wind Energy Ball V200
Rotor diameter: 1.98 m
Hub height: 14 m (tube mast)
Rated power: 2250 W
Date of measurement: October 16th 2009
Location: Braakmanweg 1, Biervliet, the Netherlands
Sound pressure level at 50 m distance (with no reflecting or attenuating objects)
California AB 1207 1.1 D
“Decibel levels for the system shall not exceed the lesser of 60 decibels (dBA), or any existing
maximum noise levels applied pursuant to the noise element of a general plan for the applicable zoning
classification in a jurisdiction, as measured at the closest neighboring inhabited dwelling, except during
short-term events such as utility outages and severe wind storms.”
Wind Class Sound Pressure Level at 50m [dB(A)]
Wind 5 m/s 11.2 mph 37
Wind 6 m/s 13.44 mph 39
Wind 7 m/s 15.68 mph 42
Wind 8 m/s 17.92 mph 44
Wind 9 m/s 20.16 mph 47
Wind 10 m/s 22.4 mph 50
4
PARAGRAPH 7: We have spent the last 8 months dealing with the city of Hermosa Beach and
answering every inquiry made relative to the system. We have spent an excess of $ 8,000 on
engineering, foundations, electrical, etc. We are not touting the fact that the money has been spent but
we have gone to excessive lengths on every engineering and every aspect of this project to the city of
Hermosa Beach.
PARAGRAPH 8: According to the U.S. Department of Energy, tower height is significantly important
when it comes to zoning for wind. Additionally, according to DoE, the most common mistake of having a
wind system is that it is too short of a tower. California AB 1207 also that wind systems can be up to ten
feet higher than our wind zoning for residential property. Again, the height of the tower is inversely
proportional to the energy created. For example, if the tower is 30 feet high, it can generate x. And if the
tower is 60 feet high, it can generate x10. We are not looking to go 60 feet high but is simply an example
to show you that height is the most critical consideration of the project. The site must be large enough
to accommodate setbacks from a neighbor's property or buildings, which may be required by local
zoning laws. It's a good idea to place your turbine back from property lines, in case your neighbor later
builds an obstruction that affects the flow of wind. This specifically reflects our new house to the south,
whose height limit will be as higher as our wind turbine.
PARAGRAPH 9 & 10: Personally not applicable.
PARAGRAPH 11: We can erect the silhouette until we have the determination of the city to its
allowable height. As stated earlier, it will be within one or two feet of the unsightly telephone pole.
PARAGRAPGH 12: All renderings have been submitted to the city of Hermosa Beach. If you’d like the
time, we are more than happy to show you a copy of the rendering in our home.
Refer back to paragraph 6 about noise evaluation.
While we do not believe that we will change your opinions or beliefs, we wanted to make an effort
to give you a better understanding of what is involved. This is not a game for us. I have been personally
an environmental advocate since college and I have always done both in my business and personally to
enhance our footprint on this planet. For your information, our solar system, thus far produced over 7
5
megawatts of power and our carbon footprint is an excess of 1.1 tons per month. Adding wind to this
equation and creating a hybrid system will enhance both of these numbers.
Respectfully,
Ira Lifland and Dr. Alice Villalobos
Attachment 2 - Photos - 1947 Manhattan Ave
Palm Drive looking North
Retaining wall is
approx. 10’ high
Palm Drive looking South
Wind turbine height is measured from
property corner elevation (bottom of
retaining wall)
Site
15
Rear yard, approximately 7’ above
alley grade. Proposed wind turbine
footing is on top of the patio finished
grade, which is another 6.5’ higher.
Thus the wind turbine footing will sit
about 13.5’ above alley grade.
Maximum 35’ height of wind system
will be measured from natural grade
at bottom of retaining wall.
Top of retaining wall
at 7’ above Palm Drive grade
6.5’ above
retaining wall
Top of retaining wall at 7’
above Palm Drive grade
Top of finished patio. Total
13.5’ above Palm Drive grade.
Proposed
footing.
16
West view from subject rear yard. Proposed wind system
is approximately 10’ lower in height than the utility pole,
but natural grade where the wind system location is about
14.5’ higher than the utility pole. Therefore, the proposed
system would appear to be a little lower in height than
the utility pole as seen from the alley.
View from east side of Manhattan Avenue. The proposed turbine will be
approximately 5’ higher than the existing chimney (the wind turbine
would be at a lower elevation in the rear yard, so that from this vantage
point it would appear to stand just above the chimney).
17
http://www.homeenergyamericas.com/v-200-energy-ball-wind-turbine-installation-in-saint-john-virgin-islands
18
Attachment 6: Zoning Map
1947 Manhattan Avenue
27
28
Attachment 5: Zoning Map
423-425 Pier Avenue
555 Pier Avenue
2
3
4
Hermosa Beach Mural Project at
1007 Hermosa Ave
Attachment 2 Site Photographs
View from City Parking Lot A and traveling southbound on Hermosa Ave
Mural #3
Tentative Future Agenda
PLANNING COMMISSION
City of Hermosa Beach
SEPTEMBER 18, 2012
Project Title Staff Public
Notice
Meeting
Date
Date
Rec’d Remarks
3rd Qtr GPA, if any. 9/6 9/18
Rotation of chairmanship to Comm. Ron Pizer (10/2012-
6/2013)
9/18 11/22
Report on City Council Actions (staff item)
6 month CUP review (Hearing only. Per 1/25/11 CC.:
Review establishments with incidents report. Per Ken on 2-
11-10, do ER ad & list first on the agenda as hearing)
9/18 8/16
Options for regulating special events and mobile food
vendors (e.g., food trucks).
9/18 8/16
Presentation on Strategic Growth Council (SGC) grant 9/18 8/16
f:b95\cd\wpc - future agenda 8/16/12
11c
Easy Reader
Run Date: August 9, 2012 DISPLAY (at least 1/8 of Easy Reader newspaper size)
Acct: 7010-2110
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach shall hold a public
hearing on Tuesday, August 21, 2012, to consider the following:
1. Conditional Use Permit to allow a ground-mounted small wind energy system exceeding the height limit at
1947 Manhattan Boulevard.
2. Conditional Use Permit to allow a walk-up automatic teller machine (ATM) facing Pier Plaza (Chase Bank)
at 49 Pier Avenue.
3. Conditional Use Permit to modify an existing wireless telecommunications facility, (Sprint PCS) by
replacing antennas on the building roof with new antennas exceeding the height limit, with a maximum
height of 41 feet, install remote radio units, and replace interior equipment cabinets, on an existing 3-story
commercial building at 1200 Artesia Boulevard.
4. Conditional Use Permit Amendment to allow a restaurant with on-sale beer and wine closing by 11:00
p.m. at 425 Pier Avenue (Buona Vita Pizzeria) to expand into a 849 square foot space and increase
seating at 423 Pier Avenue (currently Omaggio Art Glass) resulting in a 2,024 square foot restaurant with
open air dining and modified floor plan (Buona Vita Trattoria; the restaurant will vacate the space at 439
Pier Avenue). Parking Plan to allow the expanded business at 423/425 Pier Avenue to use eight (8)
offsite shared parking spaces at 555 Pier Avenue after 5:00 P.M. (Hermosa Professional Building).
SAID PUBLIC HEARING shall be held at 7:00 P.M., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard in the
City Council Chambers, City Hall, 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254.
ANY AND ALL PERSONS interested are invited to participate and speak at this hearing at the above time and
place. For inclusion in the agenda packet to be distributed, written comments of interested parties should be
submitted to the Community Development Department, Planning Division, in care of City Hall at 1315 Valley
Drive, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 prior to Thursday, August 16, 2012, at 12:00 noon. All written testimony
by any interested party will be accepted prior to or at the scheduled time on the agenda for the matter.
IF YOU CHALLENGE the above matter(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or
someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to
the Community Development Department, Planning Division, at, or prior to, the public hearing.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, please contact the Community Development Department, Planning Division,
at (310) 318-0242 or fax to (310) 937-6235. The Department is open from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday
through Thursday. Please contact a staff planner to discuss any project on the Planning Commission agenda.
A copy of the staff report(s) in the Planning Commission packet will be available for public review at the end of
the business day on Thursday, August 16, 2012, at the Hermosa Beach Police Department, Public Library,
and, on the City’s web site at www.hermosabch.org. Relevant Municipal Code sections are also available on
the web site.
Ken Robertson, Director
Community Development Department
f:95\cclerk\legads\display\2012\planning commission\pc08-21-12