Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-04-15 PC AGENDA4/8/25, 9:58 AM Planning Commission Meeting 4/15/08 Peter Hoffman, Chairman Kent Allen, Vice Chairman Shawn Darcy Sam Perrotti Ron Pizer AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1315 VALLEY DRIVE HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 April 15, 2008 7:00 P.M. 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.hennosabch.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. 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. Pledge of Allegiance 2. Roll Call 3. Oral / Written Communications https://hermosabeach.granicus.com/GeneratedAgendaViewer.php?view_id=6&clip_id=551 1 /4 4/8/25, 9:58 AM Planning Commission Meeting 4/15/08 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 Any Planning Commissioner or member of the public wishing to pull an item from below may request to do so at this time. 4. Approval of March 18, 2008 minutes March 18, 2008 Minutes Resolution(s) for consideration 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 Hearing(s) 6. CUP 08-4 -- Revocation or modification of a Conditional Use Permit to allow on -sale general alcohol and live entertainment in conjunction with a restaurant at 22 Pier Avenue, Dragon. Staff Recommended Action: To open the public hearing and continue to May 20, 2008 meeting as requested by the representative for Dragon. Staff Report 7. PARK 08-2 -- Parking Plan amendment to modify the allocation of uses within the Hermosa Pavilion to include a wine storage facility for private wine collectors at 1601 Pacific Coast Highway (continued from March 18, 2008 meeting)_ Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request. Staff Report Supplemental Information Supplemental Information Supplemental Information VAR 08-2 / A-14 -- A Variance to allow the expansion of an existing one -car garage to a two - car garage with an 8.75-foot garage setback rather than the required 17 feet in conjunction with a remodel and expansion to the existing two-story dwelling; and, an Appeal of the Director's Decision for a convex slope determination for the purpose of measuring building height and to be considered a small lot in order to obtain exceptions to lot coverage and open space requirements otherwise required in the R-1 zone pursuant to Section 17.08.040 for the property located at 1130 2nd Street (continued from March 18, 2008 meeting)_ Staff Recommended Action: 1) To direct staff as deemed appropriate for the Variance. https://hermosabeach.granicus.com/GeneratedAgendaViewer.php?view_id=6&clip_id=551 2/4 4/8/25, 9:58 AM Planning Commission Meeting 4/15/08 2) To declare subject property as a small lot and direct staff as deemed appropriate for the height measurement method. Staff Report 9. CON 08-6 -- Conditional Use Permit and Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 70445 for a new 3,289 square foot 2-story commercial office building divided into seven commercial condominium units at 722 1 st Street. Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request. Staff Report 10. CUP 08-3 -- Conditional Use Permit for on -sale beer and wine in conjunction with a restaurant with a closing time of 10:00 P.M. Sunday through Thursday and 12:00 midnight Friday through Saturday and outdoor dining at 844 Hermosa Avenue. Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request. Staff Report 11. TEXT 03-1 -- Renewal of an amendment to the Certified Coastal Land Use Plan (LUP) to continue reduced parking requirement for office and retail uses in the downtown. Staff Recommended Action: To recommend amending the City's Certified Coastal Land Use Plan to renew the use of reduced parking ratio in the downtown district. Staff Report Supplemental Information Section III Hearing(s) 12. CON 08-5 -- Request for a one year extension of the Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 67610 for a two -unit condominium at 421 Monterey Boulevard. Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request. Staff Report 13. A -14 -- Appeal of the Director's Decision to base the height measurement on a convex sloping lot at 1929 Manhattan Avenue. Staff Recommended Action: To direct staff as deemed appropriate. Staff Report 14. PDP 08-4 -- Request for a one year extension of the Precise Development Plan for a new two- story commercial office building at 3001 Pacific Coast Highway_ Staff Recommended Action: To extend the expiration date by one year to March 20, 2009. Staff Report Section IV 15. Staff Items https://hermosabeach.granicus.com/GeneratedAgendaViewer.php?view_id=6&clip_id=551 3/4 4/8/25, 9:58 AM Planning Commission Meeting 4/15/08 Tentative Planning Commission agenda of May 20, 2008. 5-20-08 Tentative Agenda b. Community Development Department Activity Report of February, 2008. 2-2008 Activity Report City Council minutes of February 26, March 11 and March 14, 2008. 2-26-08 City Council Minutes 3-11-08 City Council Minutes 3-14-08 City Council Minutes 16. Commissioner Items 17. Adjournment https://hermosabeach.granicus.com/GeneratedAgendaViewer.php?view_id=6&clip_id=551 4/4 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON MARCH 18, 2008, 7:00 P.M., AT THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS The meeting was called to order at 7:06 P.M. by Chairman Kersenboom. Commissioner Pizer led the Salute to the Flag ROLL CALL Present: Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer Absent: None Also Present: Community Development Director Ken Robertson Police Chief Greg Savelli Assistant City Attorney Lauren Feldman ORALIWRITTEN COMMUNICATION Jim Lissner, resident, stated that an updated, more comprehensive list of over -crowding citations issued to businesses in the downtown area can be viewed on his website at vivahermosa.com; and stated that he has printouts of that information available this evening. Commissioner Hoffman thanked and commended Police Chief Savelli and his officers for their professionalism in a serious altercation that took place Saturday night on the strand. Police Chief Savelli acknowledged the assistance of other South Bay cities that helped his department that evening, noting there was a good team effort by all. Chairman Kersenboom pulled Agenda Item No. 11 to the front of the Public Hearings, C-36 -- Annual review and report on Conditional Use Permit compliance for restaurants with on - sale alcohol. 4. Approval of February 19, 2008 Minutes MOTION by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Vice -Chairman Perrotti, to APPROVE the February 19, 2008, Minutes as presented. The motion carried as follows: AYES: Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: Allen ABSENT: None S. Resolution(s) for Consideratlon a) Resolution P.C. 08-17 approving an after -the -fact variance to the provisions pertaining to expansion of nonconforming uses to allow demolition and reconstruction of the floor system in conjunction with an approximate 307-square-foot expansion to an existing single-family residence located on commercially zoned property at 818 4th Street. Planning Commission Minutes March 18, 2008 MOTION by Vice -Chairman Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Pizer, to APPROVE Resolution P.C. 08-17. The motion carried as follows: AYES: Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: Allen ABSENT: None HEARING(S) Agenda Item No. 11 was considered out of Agenda order. 11. C-36 -- Annual review and report on Conditional Use Permit compliance for restaurants with on -sale alcohol (continued from February 19, 2008 meeting). Staff Recommended Action: To direct staff as deemed appropriate. Director Robertson presented staff report and the recommendation. Vice -Chairman Perrotti asked if ABC indicated the exact ratio of food to alcohol sales in connection with the 50150 violations at the two establishments. Director Robertson stated that staff is not privy to that information; explained that ABC is able to audit the food/alcohol ratio, noting they have more resources to do those audits and investigations. Police Chief Savelli stated that when ABC closes its cases, that statistical audit information will become available; advised that the business owners have been informed on what the percentage is; explained that ABC has access to the Franchise Tax records of the alcohol sales that the City cannot obtain; and that the City has to solely rely upon the documents from the business. He added that ABC has the resources for a check -and -balance system and people specifically trained to do the 50150 audits. Commissioner Allen stated he viewed the entire video taping of the last meeting wherein this matter was discussed; and he commended Chief Savelli for the informative materials that have been provided to the Commission. Commissioner Hoffman stated he has had an opportunity to get a better understanding of these issues and has received clarification on the unclear statistics regarding the disturbances; and stated that because three establishments have demonstrated operational problems with clear violations of their CUP's, he would suggest a formal hearing be set for modification or revocation of their CUP's based on the evidence presented. He pointed out those businesses will then have an opportunity to answer the charges; and he suggested The Dragon should be taken as the first hearing because it has the highest number of operational violations. MOTION by Commissioner Hoffman to schedule The Dragon for a formal CUP modification/revocation hearing. This motion was amended. Vice -Chairman Perrotti thanked and commended Police Chief Savelli for a comprehensive package of information that was provided to the Commission. He stated that after further consideration, he would support formal hearings for those offending businesses. He stated the 2 Planning Commission Minutes March 18, 2008 three establishments he believes should be set for formal hearings are Blue 32 because of the 8 assaults, over -crowding and ABC hours; secondly, The Dragon, with multiple ABC violations, including dancing and violation of the 50150 rule; and thirdly, The Shore, which is in violation of the 50/50 rule. He added that all establishments violating the 50150 rule should be set for formal hearing. Commissioner Pizer noted his support with setting formal hearings. AMENDED MOTION by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Vice -Chairman Perrotti, to set formal CUP revocation/modification hearings over the next three months in the following order: The Dragon, Blue 32, and The Shore. Chairman Kersenboom stated he'd like to see more teeth put into the CUP citations, such as increasing the fines. The motion carried as follows: AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None Commissioner Hoffman asked staff to look into the City's Municipal Code a provision that will make it easier to give citations to these establishments when they violate their CUP's or ABC conditions. Assistant City Attorney Lauren Feldman stated that staff will look into the legality of that suggestion. The Commission returned to the regular order of the Agenda. PUBLIC HEARINGS) 6. PDP 08-2 -- Precise Development Plan for a new City Public Works facility composed of approximately 3,000 square feet of office and 20,000 square feet of maintenance and storage area replacing the existing facility, and adoption of an Environmental Negative Declaration at 555 6th Street, City Yard. Staff Recommended Action: To approve Phase I of the project. Director Robertson presented staff report and the recommendation. Chairman Kersenboom opened the public hearing. Mike Flaherty, Public Works Superintendent, stated the improvements are necessary for this old building and stated that the project will comply with all standards for wash -down sites. Chairman Kersenboom closed the public hearing. The Commission agreed this would be a dramatic improvement. Planning Commission Minutes March 18, 2008 MOTION by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Vice -Chairman Perrotti, to APPROVE PDP 08-2 -- Precise Development Plan for a new City Public Works facility composed of approximately 3,000 square feet of office and 20,000 square feet of maintenance and storage area replacing the existing facility, and adoption of an Environmental Negative Declaration at 555 6th Street, City Yard. The motion carried as follows: AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None Commissioner Hoffman recused himself from Item No. 7, noting the project architect is working on one of his projects. 7. ZON 08-1 1 TEXT 08-21 CON 08-2 I PDP 08-1 -- Zone Change from R-1A (two units per lot zone) to a Specific Plan Area (SPA) zone incorporating all the R-1A standards including the density standard of 3,350 square feet of lot area per unit but to exclude the specific restriction of two units per lot; Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 70310 for a 4-unit condominium project. The Zone Change is being requested so the two existing 35-foot wide lots on 21st Street can be combined for the development of four detached units with access from a shared driveway along the side, rather than the development of four units with separate two -unit projects fronting on 21st Street, and adoption of an Environmental Negative Declaration at 719 and 725 21st Street. Staff Recommended Action: To recommend approval of said Zone Change and Text Amendment and approve the condominium project. Director Robertson presented staff report and the recommendation; and he noted a supplemental item was distributed this evening, reflecting minor amendments to the two resolutions. Chairman Kersenboom opened the public hearing. Brad Scott, president of Urban Point Development, stated they will have the same amount of density that is currently permitted, but that this change will allow them to combine these lots and provide a much nicer design. He stated it will provide 4 detached units, with each one having a sizable backyard and attractive fagades; advised that there will be no curb cuts or an additional driveway; noted there will be one guest parking space per unit; and highlighted the pleasing 50 percent lot coverage. Chairman Kersenboom closed the public hearing. Commissioner Allen stated this is a better project by merging the lots. Vice -Chairman Perrotti stated the proposed option is more attractive, noting that there will be more landscaping and a decrease in lot coverage. Commissioner Pizer stated this is an excellent utilization of the lot. MOTION by Commissioner Pizer, seconded by Commissioner Allen, to APPROVE ZON 08-1 Planning Commission Minutes March 18, 2008 and TEXT 08-2, Zone Change from R-1A (two units per lot zone) to a Specific Plan Area (SPA) zone incorporating all the R-1A standards including the density standard of 3,350 square feet of lot area per unit but to exclude the specific restriction of two units per lot. The motion carried as follows: AYES: Allen, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Hoffman MOTION by Commissioner Pizer, seconded by Vice -Chairman Perrotti, to APPROVE CON 08-2 1 PDP 08-1, Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 70310 for a 4-unit condominium project and adoption of an Environmental Negative Declaration at 719 and 725 21 st Street. The motion carried as follows: AYES: Allen, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Hoffman 8. SUB 08-1 -- Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 70173 to subdivide a 21,301-square- foot lot into two lots at 2117 Power Street. Staff Recommended Action. To approve said request. Director Robertson presented staff report and the recommendation. Chairman Kersenboom opened the public hearing. Stacy Harrison stated that she and her husband and another partner are in escrow to purchase this property; and stated that if the split is approved, two homes will be built for their use. Chairman Kersenboom closed the public hearing. The Commission concurred that the project is acceptable and consistent with the area. MOTION by Vice -Chairman Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Pizer, to APPROVE SUB 08-1 -- Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 70173 to subdivide a 21,301-square-foot lot into two lots at 2117 Power Street. The motion carried as follows: AYES: Allen, Kersenboom, Hoffman, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None 9. VAR 08-21 A-14 -- A Variance to allow the expansion of an existing one -car garage to a two -car garage with an 8.75-foot garage setback rather than the required 17 feet in conjunction with a remodel and expansion to the existing two-story dwelling; and, an Appeal of the Director's Decision for a convex slope determination for the purpose of measuring building height and to be considered a small lot in order to obtain exceptions to lot coverage and open space Planning Commission Minutes March 18, 2008 requirements otherwise required in the R-1 zone pursuant to Section 17.08.040 for the property located at 1130 2nd Street. Staff Recommended Action: To continue to the April 15, 2008 meeting. Director Robertson noted the applicant's request for a continuance of this matter because they were not able to attend this evening's meeting. Chairman Kersenboom opened the public hearing. There being no input, Chairman Kersenboom closed the public hearing. MOTION by Vice -Chairman Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Pizer, to CONTINUE to the next meeting VAR 08-2 1 A-14 -- A Variance to allow the expansion of an existing one -car garage to a two -car garage with an 8.75-foot garage setback rather than the required 17 feet in conjunction with a remodel and expansion to the existing two-story dwelling; and an Appeal of the Director's Decision for a convex slope determination for the purpose of measuring building height and to be considered a small lot in order to obtain exceptions to lot coverage and open space requirements otherwise required in the R-1 zone pursuant to Section 17.08.040 for the property located at 1130 2nd Street. The motion carried as follows: AYES: Allen, Kersenboom, Hoffman, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None 10. PARK 08-2 -- Parking Plan amendment to modify the allocation of uses within the Hermosa Pavilion to include a wine storage facility for private wine collectors at 1601 Pacific Coast Highway. Staff Recommended Action: To continue to the April 15, 2008 meeting. Director Robertson noted the applicant's request for a continuance of this matter because they need to complete more information for staff's review. Chairman Kersenboom opened the public hearing. Gene Shook stated that he needs to make some modifications to the plans; and noted that while it's private storage, a lot of the wine will be used in the restaurant and will be available for consignment sales. Ron Miller, resident, noted his concern that the property owner is not following through with the promises he made with City Council, pointing out he has yet to erect any mirrors to improve the safety for pedestrians and vehicles. George Banc, owner of Ideal 55 Wine Storage, stated this use will require very little parking. Chairman Kersenboom closed the public hearing. MOTION by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Vice -Chairman Perrotti, to CONTINUE to the next meeting PARK 08-2 -- Parking. Plan amendment to modify the allocation of uses within the Hermosa Pavilion to include a wine storage facility for private wine collectors at 1601 Pacific Planning Commission Minutes March 18, 2008 Coast Highway. The motion carried as follows: AYES: Allen, Kersenboom, Hoffman, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None Agenda Item No. 11 was considered at the beginning of the meeting. 11. C-36 -- Annual review and report on Conditional Use Permit compliance for restaurants with on -sale alcohol (continued from February 19, 2008 meeting). Staff Recommended Action: To direct staff as deemed appropriate. 12. STAFF ITEMS a. Use determination in regards to a proposed wine storage facility located at 1601 Pacific Coast Highway. Director Robertson stated that the Commission should resolve the issue whether private wine storage is a permitted use in this zone; advised that the City does not have wine storage or self - storage facilities listed; and stated that staff is suggesting the Commission support this use under the classification for Hobby and Craft Suppliers. He stated it is defined as, "Retail sales, service and provision of facilities for various types of crafts and hobbies engaged in by individuals typically for fun or relaxation, but not for financial gain, including, but not limited to, photography, knitting, weaving, cooking, home brewing, collecting, model trains and cars, stained glass and other typical home arts and crafts." He advised that this classification does not include sports and recreation activities or hobbies that involve heavy machinery or motor vehicles. He stated if the Commission believes wine collecting is a hobby, then this would be a category where this use could fall under and they could proceed with a parking plan amendment at the next meeting. Chairman Kersenboom pointed out that some of these wines would be on consignment and therefore would not fall under the "not for financial gain" category. Vice -Chairman Perrotti expressed his belief this is a retail business, generating some revenue for this establishment; and he suggested that staff check with the city of Los Angeles and San Francisco to see what they have proposed. He stated it is a stretch to call this a hobby. Commissioner Hoffman made the analogy that this is sort of like a safety deposit box at a bank, paying a fee; and that it sounds more like a self -storage facility and not really a hobby. Director Robertson noted staffs belief this is not for financial gain in terms of those who are engaged in the hobby. In response to Vice -Chairman Perrotti's suggestion, he stated that any Los Angeles storage would most likely be in a manufacturing zone; and noted that the City does not list storage businesses as a permitted use in the Commercial zones. Commissioner Pizer noted his support of Commissioner Hoffman's analogy with the safety deposit box, stating it's not that big of a distinction; and that this is mainly a property owner who is storing the collection of a wine collector. Planning Commission Minutes March 18, 2008 Gene Shook explained that when this restaurant proposal first came before the Commission, this is exactly what he had intended for storage of his wine and private wines; and noted he never planned to own all the wine himself. He stated this is ancillary to the wine retail and the restaurant; and pointed out that the space will not be reconfigured. Director Robertson stated that consignment sales is ancillary to the wine retail shop and is permitted as a storage for the retail; and expressed his belief this use can fall under the hobby and craft category. MOTION by Commissioner Pizer, seconded by Commissioner Hoffman, to consider the private wine storage under Hobby and Crafts. The motion carried as follows: AYES: Allen, Kersenboom, Hoffman, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None b. Memorandum regarding rotation of Planning Commission chairmanship. Director Robertson noted the next person in the rotation to serve as Chairman will be Sam Perrotti. The Commission noted its support of Sam Perrotti becoming the next Planning Commission Chairman. Director Robertson noted the next person in the rotation to serve as Vice -Chairman will be Ron Pizer. The Commission noted its support of Ron Pizer becoming the next Planning Commission Vice -Chairman. Director Robertson introduced Rosie Lackow who will be working on an interim basis as a Senior Planner, noting she recently retired from Manhattan Beach. 13. COMMISSIONER ITEMS None. 14. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was formally adjourned at 8:32 P.M. 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 March 18, 2008. Langley Kersenboom, Chairman Ken Robertson, Secretary Date 8 Planning Commission Minutes March 18, 2008 April 10, 2008 Honorable Chairman and Members of the Regular Meeting of Hermosa Beach Planning Commission April 15, 2008 SUBJECT: REVOCATION/MODIFICATION HEARING FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 03-24 FOR ON -SALE ALCOHOL AND LIVE ENTERTAINMENT IN CONJUNCTION WITH A RESTAURANT KNOWN AS THE DRAGON BAR, 22 PIER AVENUE, HERMOSA BEACH Staff Recommendation: Open the public hearing and continue to May 20, 2008 as requested by the representative for Dragon by letter dated April 9, 2008 (copy attached). Proiect Information ZONING DESIGNATION: GENERAL PLAN: FLOOR AREA: (TOTAL) EXISTING USE: OPERATING HOURS: ENTERTAINMENT: ALCOHOL SERVICE: ON -SITE PARKING PROVIDED: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION C-2, Downtown Commercial General Commercial 2,523 Sq. Ft. interior / 377 Sq. Ft. Patio Restaurant (50:50 alcohol: food gross sales) 7:00 am - 2:00 am daily Live entertainment 7:00 pm — 1:15 am Thurs thru Sunday and holidays. Type 47 ABC (General on -sale) None (collective use of public parking lot) Categorically Exempt Background: At its regular meeting on February 19, 2008, the Planning Commission conducted its annual compliance review of restaurants in the City with Conditional Use Permits (CUP) that allow on - sale alcohol. At that meeting, the Commission heard testimony from City staff including the Chiefs of Police and Fire Protection as well as business owners, patrons and residents. The public hearing was closed and the Commission voted to continue the item for the purpose of continuing deliberation only, with no further public testimony. Due to the number and serious nature of alleged code violations presented during the February meeting, on March 18, 2008, the Commission voted 5-0 to conduct a modification/revocation hearing for three restaurants, starting with the Dragon Bar on this date. On April 9, 2008, the legal representative for Dragon submitted correspondence requesting a public hearing continuance. The letter also contains a list of l I "proposed voluntary conditions" that Dragon is willing to implement. On the same date, the City Attorney sent a written response to Dragon's lawyer. Key points of the response by the City Attorney are: 1) the correspondence from Dragon's attorney is not to be considered a "settlement communication" and therefore not protected by Evidence Code § 1152, 2) the requested continuance is subject to approval of the Planning Commission and, 3) the City staff including the Police Chief does not have the authority to negotiate changes to the Dragon CUP outside of a public hearing. Attachments 2 and 3 contain these letters. Project History: The following is the planning history for 22 Pier Avenue: ❑ December 06, 2006 - P.C. Reso. 06-37: Planning Commission denied application for televisions within the outdoor seating area (Dragon). ❑ May 20, 2003 - P.C. Reso. 03-24 Planning Commission approved CUP amendment to allow alterations to existing restaurant (Dragon). ❑ July 10, 1990, City Council Reso.90-5384 denied CUP amendment to allow extended hours for live entertainment. (End Zone). ❑ January 6, 1987 P.C. Reso. 87-4 allowed limited live entertainment and dancing with on -sale alcohol (End Zone) ❑ May 6, 1986 P.C. Reso. 86-30 amended a CUP to allow sale of alcoholic beverages with live musical entertainment with hot meal service. Analysis: The purposes of this hearing are to 1) determine if the Dragon is operating as a restaurant; 2) to determine whether existing problems or detrimental impacts are occurring due to violations of the CUP conditions and other requirements of law or City ordinance, and 3) to determine whether the CUP should be revoked or modified, and if modified, the terms of a modified CUP. Planning Commission Authority Pursuant to HBMC Section 17.56.010 the Planning Commission has the authority to grant and review use permits. The purpose of a Conditional Use Permit is to assure that the business will be compatible with existing or potential uses within the surrounding area and to recognize and compensate for impacts relating to the business such as noise, smoke, dust, fumes, vibration, odors and hazards (HBMC 17.56.020). Pursuant to HBMC 17,70.010 the Planning Commission also has the authority to revoke or modify a Conditional Use Permit after its implementation, after a public hearing, based on any of the following findings: A. The approval was obtained by fraud; B. The use for which such approval is granted is not being exercised; C. The use for which such approval was granted has ceased to exist or has been suspended for one year or more; D. The permit or variance granted is being, or recently has been, exercised contrary to the terms or conditions of such approval, or in violation of any statute, ordinance, law or regulation; E. The use for which the approval was granted was so exercised as to be detrimental to the public health or safety, or so as to constitute a nuisance. Dragon Impact Issues: Alcohol service, entertainment and hours The Dragon, located at 22 Pier Avenue is one of 17 restaurants on the Pier Plaza (including the Beach Hotel) that are permitted to serve alcohol. The current business owner has operated the Dragon since 2004 after securing a CUP and a business license from the City and an alcoholic K beverage license from the State Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC). (Attachment 4 contains P.C. Resolution 03-24, and Attachment 8 contains the ABC License) The business is classified as a restaurant which requires a CUP for three reasons: it is a restaurant that serves alcohol ("type 47 on -sale" ABC general license), it has an outdoor patio and, offers live entertainment. The outdoor dining patio has a City Council approved Encroachment Permit as the patio is located on public property.I The operational, aspects that should be evaluated at this hearing include the sale of alcohol, the type of entertainment, and the business's closing hour, because these strongly influence the character, use and environmental impacts of this business. Dragon has been the subject of numerous citizen complaints and calls for police department service. Finding No. 1 of Resolution 03-24 describe the purpose of the Dragon CUP amendment "to allow alterations to an existing restaurant... with on -sale general alcohol and live entertainment". Finding No. 2. of the same document also states: "The current Conditional Use Permit (CUP) granted in 1987 was approved as an amendment to allow live entertainment and dancing in conjunction with a restaurant with on -sale general alcohol. The proposed amendment, with its limited scope of alterations, does not significantly alter the existing and approved primary use as a restaurant with on -sale general alcohol and live entertainment and does not substantially alter the seating layout, bar area, stage location and other features of the business." Section 17.04.050 of the Municipal Code defines an "on -sale alcohol beverage establishment" and a "restaurant" as follows: "Restaurant" means an establishment which primarily sells prepared food. Where beer and wine are sold, a minimum of sixty-five (65) percent of the total gross sales, computed monthly, shall result from the sale of prepared food; where other alcoholic beverages, not exclusively beer and wine, are sold, a minimum of fifty (50) percent of the total gross sales, computed monthly, shall result from the sale of prepared food. The establishment shall serve either one of the following: breakfast, lunch or dinner or has a kitchen with equipment capable of serving breakfast, lunch or dinner. Alcohol Beverage Establishment, On -Sale. "On -sale alcohol beverage establishment" means sale of alcoholic beverages (beer, wine, spirits) for consumption on the premises whether in conjunction with a restaurant, or as a bar or cocktail lounge or in conjunction with a nightclub (see definition of "restaurant"). Because Dragon has a general on -sale alcohol license it must, by use definition have no more than 50% of its total gross sales from the sale of alcohol, compared to food. This is referred to as the I The Encroachment permit for the patio is a revocable license and its terms expressly state that it may be revoked by the City (Council) "at any time, with or without cause, in City's sole discretion, upon giving property owner thirty (30) days' advance notice of revocation." 3 "50:50" provision. The City in conjunction with the State ABC enforces this rule along with other alcohol license conditions which may overlap with City Use Permit conditions. The Municipal Code (Section 17.04.050) further defines "live entertainment" as follows: "Entertainment, Live. "Live entertainment" means the provision of live entertainment, such as live music, stand-up comedy, and/or live theater on a regular basis. The current CUP Resolution and the plan filed for the 2003 amendment are silent with respect to dancing. It is clear, however, that dancing is expressly prohibited as a condition of the business ABC license which was signed by the owners on April 2, 2003 (copy attached). The current CUP has 16 conditions of approval; of note are the permitted hours of operation and live entertainment (conditions 2, 3), requirements for noise mitigation, including prohibition for all types of live entertainment in the outdoor seating areas (4, 5, 6), and special review by the Police Chief (9). Staff is not aware of a condition of over -crowding, a condition where a posted occupancy limit (enforced by the Fire Department) has been exceeded. However the applicant has submitted a revised seating plan due to recent changes and on April 2, 2008 Staff approved new occupancy limits of 159 patrons for the interior (decrease from 204) and 35 for the outdoor patio (decrease from 46). These will now be posted and enforced immediately. Nuisances and HBPD Calls for Service The City has received numerous complaints regarding the Dragon including offensive entertainment (see memo from Fire Department 6/12/06 attached) and several other impacts usually related to bar establishments such as noise in various forms, peace disturbances in various forms, littering, public urination and public drunkenness (see Attachment 9 for the minutes and Staff Reports from prior City Council meeting February 12, 2008, Attachment 11 for Planning Commission meeting February 19, 2008, and Attachment 10 for Planning Commission meeting March 18, 2008). In its February report to the Commission, the Police Chief provided a table summary of 2007 calls for service for 30 restaurants or bars that serve alcohol throughout the city between January 1, 2007 and January 1, 2008. These calls demonstrate the kinds of problems that are generated by businesses that serve alcohol and cover the following categories: general disturbances, public drunkenness, suspicious persons, assaults, thefts, narcotic related activities, vandalism, weapons, 9-1-1 hang ups, parking problems and officer checks. The February report indicates a total throughout the City of 1,538 which includes 138 for Dragon. Of the 138, the highest number is for officer checks (58) and disturbances (36). The Police Chief has updated the service call information to April 1, 2008, The Police Chief reports shows that Dragon had 52 calls for service between January and April, 2008, a total of 190 calls in the last 15 months. Of these 190 calls, 82 occurred between midnight and 2:00 am. The Police Chief will be in attendance at the Planning Commission hearing to respond to any questions regarding any of the calls for service. 11 ABC License Violations In its report to the Planning Commission in February, staff included a memo from the Police Chief (February 13, 2008) that describes the calls for service for alcohol serving businesses. It notes The Chief notes: "The Dragon was audited by the ABC and found to be selling more alcohol than food and disciplinary action is being considered by ABC. In addition, Dragon was found to be violating their ABC conditions a minimum of three times during this past year and ABC is proposing disciplinary actions. " The Police Chief has reviewed seven quarters of ABC Report information and, for each quarter, the ratio of alcohol to food sales has exceeded the 50.50 requirement from between $20,000 to $85,000. Community Development has requested the attendance of the ABC enforcement representative at this review hearing. In addition to the "50:50" rule, the ABC license for Dragon also prohibits dancing. Information regarding dancing violations will be provided at the Planning Commission meeting. Hearing Notification Days after the March 18, 2008 Planning Commission meeting the Community Development Director informed the owners of Dragon in writing of the date of this hearing. In addition, pursuant to legal requirements, notice of the public hearing has been posted on the site (see verification photo, Attachment 14), published in the Easy Reader and mailed to all property owners of record within 300 feet of the project boundaries. Other than the letter received from the Dragon attorney, Staff has not received any public input on this proposal as of the writing of this report. Summary The subject hearing has been properly scheduled. The applicant has requested that the Planning Commission continue the matter to a future date to allow time for legal representation, which is subject to the discretion of the Commission. While the Commission has customarily granted such requests in the past, it is not required. Ultimately the Commission decision to revoke, modify or affirm the existing CUP is subject to appeal to the City Council. If the Commission decides to grant the continuance Staff believes nevertheless it will be useful for the Commission to open the hearing tonight, accept public testimony, and then continue to a date certain. Roserffgy Lackow, Temporary Senior Planner CONCUR: Ken Robertson, Director Community Development Attachments: I. Location Map/1:2�2�iuS Ma,p 2. Letter 4/09/08 from Salomon, Saltsman & Jamieson 3. Letter 4/09/08 from City Attorney to Salomon, Saltsman & Jamieson 4. Reso. P.C. 03-24: Current CUP and affidavit 5. City Council Reso 90-5384 (denial) 6. Reso. P.C. 87-4 7. Reso. P.C. 86-30 8. ABC License 9. City Council Minutes 2/12/08 10. Planning Commission Minutes and Staff Report 3/18/08 11. Planning Commission Staff Report 2/19/08 w/attachments 12. Downtown Area (Pier Plaza) Beer and Wine/General Alcohol Matrix 13. HBFD Memo from Capt. Crawford 6/12/06 14. Posting of Notice Verification: 22 Pier Ave R XY Maps - Dragon Page 1 of 1 Dragon 22 Pier Avenue http://xymaps/servlct/com.esri.esrimap.Esrimap?ServiceName=HermosaBeach OV&CIien... 04/10/2008 w idr Aven 30T,J,Zadius 1221 32 20 30 1250 73 5965 73 57 5 39 APR 0 i 2008 jNi 1 Y DEA,. DEPT. LAW OFFICES OF SOLOMON, SALTSMAN & JAMIESON A Partnership Including Professional Corporations 426 CULVER BOULEVARD PLAYA DEL REY, CA 90293 (310) 822-9848 FAX (310) 822-3612 April 9, 2008 SETTLEMENT COMMUNICATION PER EVIDENCE CODE § 1152, ET SEQ. Via Email and Facsimile Chief Greg Savelli Hermosa Beach Police Department 540 Pier Avenue Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Re: Dragon Restaurant, located at 22 Pier Avenue, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 from January 1, 2006 to present. It was a pleasure meeting with you and Officers Kansaku and Sellan last week to discuss Dragon. In sum, my clients understand that your Department wants the restaurant character of premises to be emphasized. You further want the Dragon to be in compliance with the more stringent of the CUP and ABC license requirements. As you know, there is presently a conflict between the CUP and ABC license because the CUP expressly authorizes dancing, while the ABC license does not. To address that issue, I presented a copy of the plans which show the first floor remodel recently completed by my clients. As a result of this City approved remodel, the dance floor authorized by the current CUP has been eliminated. Thus, the floor plan is now consistent with the ABC license condition prohibiting dancing. Additionally, the occupancy was reduced by 25%, from 204 persons to a current occupancy of 155 permitted occupants in the interior portion of the premises. The interior remodel and the reduction in occupancy should help significantly to address your Department's concerns. In working with the Department of Public Works, my clients also paid to put up flood lights in the adjacent alley which should greatly reduce illegal activity and other nuisances. Additionally, I presented to you a draft policy to be signed by all employees and strictly enforced by Dragon, including the prohibition of dancing and the policy regarding the responsible sale of alcoholic beverages. I further presented a set of voluntary conditions/operating policies to help assure the premises operates as a bona fine restaurant without causing nuisance impacts. Furthermore, as a showing of good faith and to assure you that my clients will comply with these conditions/operating policies, Dragon will stipulate to these conditions being made part of the CUP and further stipulate to an administrative review hearing in six months to evaluate the premises after the above remodel and remedial measures have been implemented. The owners of Dragon understand the City will be watching their operation closely and is confident these remedial measures will assure that Dragon can continue to operate as a responsible business and generate valuable tax revenue to the City. Dragon April 9, 2008 Page 2 I have revised the voluntary conditions in light of your input, as follows: First, you requested a dress code to be adopted and posted. In response, my clients will post and implement a dress code prohibiting gang clothing or persons with apparent gang affiliation from entering, as follows: "DRESS CODE; shirts and shoes required, no gang clothing or other articles/'ewelr indicative of gang affiliation is -permitted, no beanies no bandanas and no offensive messages on clothing, are permitted. We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone." Second, you requested Dragon not promote "pub crawl" type events. In response, Dragon will agree to a CUP condition which provides: "Permittee shall not solicit advertise or otherwise encoura e the use of its premises for " ub crawl" activities whereby persons travel in an organized or redetermined fashion from premises to premises with the goal of consuming alcohol at each stop along the Third, we discussed permanently fixing the dining tables. Upon further review, however, this is not feasible because the tables need to be moveable to facilitate the removal and cleaning under the booths. My clients will modify the condition originally proposed so that it now reads: The furniture and interior improvements within the busines premises shall conform to the most recent Lapproved floor plan attached as Exhibit . Under no circumstances shall furniture or other interior/exterior im rovements be rearranged to accommodate dancing, more entertainment or greater occu anc . Tables and chairs shall not be moved from the location depicted on Exhibit Fourth, my clients currently maintain an open kitchen at all hours. However, to address your concerns, my clients will agree to a CUP condition which provides: The business shall operate as a bona fide restaurant: The kitchen shall beequipped to prepare food from its component in edients• whenever the restaurant is open is it shall offer a full service -lunch and/or dinner menu,• food service from the menu shall be available all hours the establishment is open for business. For your review, I have attached a revised list of voluntary CUP conditions/operating policies which incorporate your input during our meeting and my clients continued effort to address the concerns of the Hermosa Beach Police Department. I would appreciate your input on the revised conditions as soon as possible. We are hopeful we can come to a mutual understanding with the City regarding this matter prior to any hearing. ID Dragon April 9, 2008 Page 3 Because our clients have a vested right to the entitlements granted by its CUP, due process requires my clients be given notice and an opportunity to meaningfully respond to any allegations set forth by the City. To date, the notice provided by the City states only that the April 15, 2008 hearing is to determine compliance with the CUP and Municipal Code. In this case, revocation and/or modification of its CUP could result in a death sentence for this business, and the 20 jobs provided by this business. The interests at stake are therefore considerable and raise the level of due process necessary to protect the valuable property interest. We are asking that this letter and the attachments be circulated to the Planning Commissioners, Community Development Director, and City Attorney. We respectfully request the April 15, 2008 hearing be continued so that we may adequately prepare a defense and to provide additional time to meet and confer with the City regarding an acceptable resolution to both sides. We are also requesting a continuance because Ryan Kroll and I are handling this matter, and presently have depositions scheduled for April 15th as well as public hearings in the City of Newport Beach and Montebello on April 15th as well. Please inform us at your earliest convenience as to whether the City will agree to a brief continuance of this matter so that we may plan accordingly. Very truly yours, SOLOMON, SALTSMAN & JAMIESON R. Bruce Evans . Enclosure cc: Hermosa Beach Planning Commission Ken Robertson, Community Development Director City Attorney City Manager Ryan M. Kroll, Esq. (via e-mail) I Dragon April 9, 2008 Page 4 LI5T OF PROPOSED VOLUNTARY CUP CONDITIONS FOR DRAGON I. The premises shall be maintained as a bona fide restaurant consistent with the premises' Type 47 ABC license. During normal meal hours, at least 50% of the premises' seating shall be designed and used for, and must possess the necessary utensils, table service, and condiment dispensers, with which to serve meals to the public. 2. The business shall operate as a bona fide restaurant: The kitchen shall be equipped to prepare food from its component ingredients; whenever the restaurant is open is it shall offer a full service -lunch and/or dinner menu; food service from the menu shall be available all hours the establishment is open for business. 3. The furniture, and interior improvements within the business premises shall conform to the most recent approved floor plan attached as Exhibit . Under no circumstances shall furniture or other interior/exterior improvements be rearranged to accommodate more dancing, more entertainment or greater occupancy. Tables and chairs shall not be moved from the location depicted on Exhibit 4. There shall be no promoter -run activities at the premises. 5. Permitee shall post and enforce a dress code which provides: "DRESS CODE: shirts and shoes re uired no gang clothing or other articles/jewelry indicative of gang affiliation is pennitted, no beanies no bandanas and no offensive messages on clothing are ermitted. We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone." b. Permittee shall not solicit, advertise or otherwise encourage the use of its premises for "pub crawl" activities whereby persons travel in an organized or predetermined fashion from premises to premises with the goal of consuming alcohol at each stop along the way. 1 �- Dragon April 9, 2008 Page 5 T . "There shall be no reduced price alcoholic beverage promotion that would reduce the price of a single beer below $3.00. 8. Permittee shall provide a copy of these license conditions to employees engaged in the sale or service of alcoholic. beverages and security personnel, and all such persons shall acknowledge in writing that they are familiar with the conditions stated herein. 9. Continuing through one-half hour after closing, the Permittee shall provide uniformed security to ensure the orderly dispersal of patrons from the facility and parking area at closing time, preventing any disorderly congregations. 10.The Permittee shall post a list of phone numbers for taxi cab service providers at visible locations. 11. The licensee(s) shall support a "designated driver" program. Servers shall ask groups of four or more if there is a designated driver. The designated driver may receive free non-alcoholic drinks and/or food. r3 JENKINS & H®GIN, LLP A LAW PARTNERSHIP MICHAELJENKINS MANHATrAN TowfiR$ CHRISTI HCGIN 1230 RosEc iANs AvENUE, SUITE 110 MARK D. Y Wo E. WOHLFN BRADLEY E. BEAG MANHATI"AN BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90266 KARL H. BERCER (310) 643.8448 • FAX(310) 643-8441 GRECG KovAcevicH W W W.LOCALGOVLAW.COM JOHN C. Co-rrl ELIZABETH M. CALCIANG LAURFN a FELDMAN R. Bruce Evans, Esq. Solomon, Saltsman & Jamieson 426 Culver Boulevard Playa del Rey, CA 90293 Re: Dear Mr. Evans: April 8, 2008 Drggon_Restaurant WRITER!s EMAIL ADDRESS: M J ENKIN s @Lo cA LGov LA W, coM This responds to your letter of this date directed to Hermosa Beach Police Chief Greg Savelli regarding the Dragon Restaurant and copied to me. At the top of your letter is a stamp misidentifying your letter as a "settlement communication." The City is not engaged in settlement negotiations with you, nor is Chief Savelli authorized to negotiate with you for any purpose. Hence, your letter is not protected by Evidence Code Section 1152. The public hearing before the City's Planning Commission to consider modification or revocation of the Dragon's Conditional Use Permit has been scheduled and noticed for April 15, 2008. Any request for a continuance of the hearing must be directed to the Commission, and the Commission will consider the request when the hearing item is called on the 15`h. In evaluating your request, the Commission will consider and weigh, among other factors, the length of time you and your client already have had to prepare for the hearing, the availability of other lawyers in your office to represent your client at the hearing, any prejudice to your client that may arise from denial of a continuance, and any prejudice to the public that may arise from grant of the request. Your request should be sent to the City to the attention of Ken Robertson, Community Development Director. Your letter suggests avoiding the public hearing altogether by stipulating to certain new conditions and a six month review. However, a conditional use permit may be amended only following a public hearing before the Planning Commission. I note that you have copied your ((V JENmNs & HOGiN, up R. Bruce Evans, Esq. April 8, 2008 Page 2 letter to the Commission and it may certainly consider your proposed new conditions at the hearing. The City may not legally avoid a hearing by negotiating changes to a conditional use permit outside the process required by the Municipal Code. Let me know if you have any questions regarding the foregoing. City of Hermosa Beach cc: Chief Greg.Savelli Steve Burrell, City Manager Ken Robertson, Community Development Director a x. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 P.C. RESOLUTION 03-24 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, AS AMENDED, TO ALLOW INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR ALTERATIONS, AND TO ALLOW ON -SALE GENERAL ALCOHOL AND LIVE ENTERTAINMENT IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN EXISTING RESTAURANT AT 22 PIER AVENUE LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 6 BLOCK 12 HERMOSA BEACH TRACT Section 1. An application was filed by Mark Cosgrove seeping an amendment to a Conditional Use Permit to allow alterations to an existing restaurant, to be named "Dragon," with on -sale general alcohol and live entertainment. Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticedr.public hearing to consider the application to amend the Conditional Use Permit on May 20, 2003, at which testimony and evidence, both written and oral, was presented to and considered by the Planning Commission Section 3. Based on evidence received at the public hearing, the Planning Commission makes the following factual findings: ' 1. The current Conditional Use Permit (CUP) granted in 1987 was approved as an amendment to allow live entertainment and dancing in conjunction with a restaurant with on -sale general alcohol. The proposed amendment, with its limited scope of alterations, does not significantly alter the existing and approved primary use as a restaurant with on -sale general alcohol and live entertainment, and does not substantially alter the seating layout, bar area, stage location and other features of the business. 2. The site is located .in the downtown district, which has several similar restaurants with on -sale general alcohol and live entertainment. 3. The site is zoned C-2 allowing the existing on -sale alcohol use with a Conditional Use Permit. Section 4. Based on the foregoing factual findings, the Planning Commission makes the following findings pertaining to the application to amend the Conditional Use Permit: 1. The site is zoned C-2, and the continued operation of the restaurant with the proposed modifications is suitable for the proposed location. 2. The imposition of conditions as required by this resolution to address noise concerns relative to the current requirements of the noise ordinance and to address nuisance concerns will mitigate any negative impacts on, and will improve its compatibility with, nearby residential or commercial properties within the downtown district. 3. This project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to 15301, Class 1 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, minor alterations to existing private structures. Section 5. Based on the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby approves the requested amendments to the Conditional Use Permit, subject to the following Conditions of Approval, which supersede the conditions contained in P.C. Resolution 87-4: 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1s 19 20 21 22 23 24 2s 26 27 2s 29 1. Interior and exterior building alterations and the continued use and operation of the restaurant shall be substantially consistent with the plans submitted and reviewed by the Planning Commission on May 20, 2003. 2. The hours of operation shall be limited to between 7:00 A.M. and 2:00 A.M. daily. 3. The hours for live entertainment shall be limited to the hours between 7:00 PM to 1:15 Thursdays through Sundays and on Federal, and State holidays, Cinco De Mayo and Patrick's day. d. Double pane windows or solid doors shall be provided on all openings to the outside. 5. An acoustical study shall be prepared by an acoustical engineer, including proposed sown dampening features to baffle and direct sound away from the entrance/exit and windo, areas to ensure compliance with the noise ordinance. Said study and sound dampenin features shall be reviewed and approved by the`Commui ity Development Directoir prfort the issuance of building permits and shall be implemented in the building prior t occupancy. A. The acoustical study shall be based on the worst -case scenario, or on a soun level that will not be exceeded at any given time. B. Management shall be responsible for the music/entertainment volume levels. C. During the performance of any live entertainment, the exterior doors an Windows shall remain dosed. D. The air conditioning system shall be of an adequate capacity to air condition th entire restaurant. E. All exterior doors shall have self -closing hardware. G. No live entertainment or amplified music, audio, television or speakers of any kind shall be permitted in the outside seating areas. 7. The establishment shall not adversely affect the welfare of the residents, and/or commercial establishments nearby. S. The business shall provide adequate staffing and management and supervisory techniques to prevent loitering, unruliness, and boisterous activities of the patrons both inside and outside the business and in nearby public areas. 9. The Police Chief shall determine if a continuing police problem exists, and may authorize the presence of a police approved doorman and/or security personnel to eliminate the problem, and/or shall submit a report to the Planning Commission, which will automatically initiate a review of this conditional use permit by the Commission. 10. The exterior of all the premises shall be maintained in a neat and clean manner, and maintained free of graffiti at all times.. 11. Any changes to the interior layout which would alter the primary function of the business as a restaurant shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Commission. 12. The project and operation of the business shall comply with all applicable requirements of the Municipal Code. /T x, 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1s 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27, 2s 29 13. Noise emanating from,the property shall be within the limitations prescribed by the city's noise ordinance and shall not create a nuisance to surrounding residential neighborhoods, and/or commercial establishments. Noise emanating from the property shall be monitored to verify compliance with the noise ordinance in response to any complaints. 14. The Planning Commission shall review the operation of the restaurant for compliance with conditions of approval and compliance with the Noise Ordinance 6 months from the opening of the new restaurant, and in response to any complaints thereafter. 15. The Conditional Use Permit shall become null and void if not executed within two years of the date of the approval of this Resolution. 16. The owner shall comply with requirements of the encroachment permit for use of the public right-of-way. Section 6. This grant shall not be effective for any purposes until the permittee and the owners of the property involved have filed a 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 th conditions of this grant. The grant for live entertainment shall not be in effect until the acoustical study is complete and approved by the Community Development Director, and all sound proofing measures are implemented in the building pursuant to Condition Nos. 4, 5, and 6. The Conditional Use Permit Amendment shall be recorded, and proof of recordation shall be submitted to the Community Development Department prior to the issuance of a building permit. Each of the above conditions is separately enforced, and if one of the conditions of approval is found to be invalid by a court of law, all the other conditions shall remain valid and enforceable. Permittee shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City, it agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City or its agents, officers, or employee to attack, set aside, void or annul this permit approval, which action is brought within the applicable time period of Government Code Section 65907. The City shall promptly notify the permittee of any claim, action, or proceeding and the City shall cooperate fully in the defense. If the City fails to promptly notify the permittee of any claim, action or proceeding, or if the City fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the permittee shall no thereafter be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City. The permittee shall reimburse the City for any court and attorney's fees which 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 condition. The subject property shall be developed, maintained and operated in full compliance with the conditions of this grant and any law, statute, ordinance or other regulation applicable to any development or activity on the subject property. Failure of the permittee to cease any development or activity not in full compliance shall be a violation of these conditions. r 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 s 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 The Planning Commission may review this Conditional Use Permit and may amend the subject conditions or impose any new conditions if deemed necessary to mitigate detrimental effects on the neighborhood resulting from the subject use. 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: Hoffman, Perrotti, Pizer, Tucker NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Kersenboom CERTIFICATION I hereby certify the foregoing Resolution P.C. 03724 is a true and complete record of the action taken by the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Bead, California, at their regular meeting of May 20, 2003. Date Mqy 20 2003 Cupr22Pier t9 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 .20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: o City of Hermosa Beach Community Development Department Planning Division 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS 5, ks This declaration Qf cov nattts, co 0itions and restrictions ("Declaration"), is made this �, day of ( 2�ip by Gerald J. Centofanti, the owner of the hereinafter desc b d5real property in the City of Hermosa Beach, California, and hereinafter referred to as the "owner"; WHEREAS, pursuant to the applicable provisions of the laws of the state of California and of the laws 3f the City of Hermosa Beach, the Owner has requested a Conditional Use Permit, as amended, to 31Iow interior and exterior alterations, and to allow on -sale general alcohol and live entertainment in ,onjunction with an existing restaurant; WHEREAS, the property subject to this Declaration is legally described as Lot 6, Block 12, H� :� eac Tract, City of Hermosa Beach, County of Los Angeles, State of California, and kno *Aq y y I 'ermosa Beach, California, as per map recorded in Book 1, pages 25 and slaps, Los Angei'es County Records; WHEREAS, the City is willing to grant said Conditional Use Permit for the above mentioned property, subject to the following conditions imposed for the benefit of the public, and which conditions have been agreed to by the Owner freely, and said conditions are as contained in attached City Council P.C. Resolution 03-24. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the facts stated above and of the benefit conferred thereby on the property, the owner declares that the City of Hermosa Beach is the beneficiary of this Declaration and the Conditional Use Permit approved by the City of Hermosa Beach shall be appurtenant to said property and that the above stated use of the property is subject to the conditions, covenants and restrictions as contained herein and in attached City Council P.C. Resolution 03-24. Owner acknowledges that a violation of said Conditional Use Permit, at the option of the City of Hermosa Beach, cause any benefit granted herein to be revoked or terminated or, in the alternative, cause any condition to be enforced by order of court of competent jurisdiction or to pursue any or all; remedies available in Law or Equity. Said Covenant shall apply to the property described herein. M 1 1 f 2 3 4 5 6 7 s 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1.6 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 2s 29 Further, the owner consents and agrees that the Code Enforcement Officer or his representative may enter the premises and building at any reasonable time for the purpose of insuring the Owner's compliance with this agreement, and only for such purpose. Unless specifically modified or terminated in writing by the City of Hermosa Beach, this Conditional Use Permit shall remain in full force and effect. The execution of this Declaration by the Owner shall be deemed for the benefit of the City of Hermosa Beach as to each provision, term and condition contained herein and shall be recorded as a covenant running with the land and which shall be prior to all encumbrances except tax liens and shall be binding upon the heirs, devisees, assigns, transferees, tenants and/or successors in interest of the Owner. If any sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this Declaration is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of a court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Declaration. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the owner has executed this Declaration the date and year first above written. X - " �6erkdJ,Ce fanti *Signature(s) must be notarized (See attached notarization: sheets). This is to certify that the Declaration set forth above, dated l�6ACyJ and signed by EAITDF/'9A17' Owner, is hereby accepted by the City of Hermosa Beach with instructions to the City Clerk to record said document. r By Date: a3 6 President of the Ci Ctrmosa il, and Mayor of the City of Beach ATTEST: City Clerk 04 1032647 F:b931cdlcc&r122pier 2 CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT State of _ L County of �} On i a a before me, " �'4_4 � / J DATE NAME�E(S)'OFS TITLE OF OFFICER -'E.G.. -JANE DOE, OTARY PUBLIC" personally appeared NNER(S) ❑ personally known to me - OR - (�2 proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(* whose name( is/ate subscribed to the within instrument and ac- knowledged to me that he/sheA4" executed the same in his/hQ##iV* authorized capacity(ia:s:), and that by his/h-SlAff6ir signature(z) on the instrument the person*, or the entity upon behalf of which the person(* acted, executed the instrument. JACKIE DRASCO COmmt,3fon#I275TrZ WITNESS my hand and official sea[. Notam ArWiles CbLnV QW0=MB#M5SepZ=41 I c d co SIGNATURE OF NOTARY OPTIONAL Though the data below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could prevent fraudulent reattachment of this form. CAPACITY CLAIMED BY SIGNER ❑ INDIVIDUAL ❑ CORPORATE OFFICER TITLE(s) ❑ PARTNER(S) ❑ LIMITED ❑ GENERAL ❑ ATTORNEY IN -FACT ❑ TRUSTEE(S) ❑ GUARDIAN/CONSERVATOR ❑ OTHER: SIGNER IS REPRESENTING: NAME OF PERSON(s) OR ENTITY(IES) DESCRIPTION OF ATTACHED DOCUMENT TITLE OR TYPE OF DOCUMENT NUMBER OF PAGES DATE OF DOCUMENT SIGNER(S) OTHER THAN NAMED ABOVE Np. 9Q7 01993 NATIONAL NOTARY ASSOCIATION • 8236 Remmet Ave., P.O. Box 7l" • Canoga Park, CA 91M-71" 04 1032647 �Z .... ... ..... ............ .... . ................. ... . .... .. ... . ....... . . ........... .......... . .......... . ... ........ . . ......... . ....... .. . ............ ........ .. .. ..... .... .. ... . . . . . . . . . . \ �� \ � �� « ...: 2$»?\ \� }`� z . \ \�� � �. \� .� � � .� \ - �\ >ƒ \ � \ \ \. . ƒ.� \� \\ y \�� / \\# �� . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .> / � �� \ \\ \ / ¥A� D- -3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 f 20 21 i 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION 90- 5384 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, CONCURRING WITH' THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION TO DENY A REQUEST TO AMEND AN EXISTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ON -SALE GENERAL ALCOHOL, LIVE ENTERTAINMENT AND DANCING, TO EXTEND THE HOURS ALLOWED FOR LIVE ENTERTAINMENT, AT 22 PIER AVENUE, THE END ZONE. WHEREAS, the City Council Commission held a public hearing on this matter on July 10, 1990 and made the following Findings: 1. The addition of the hours from 4:00 P.M. to 7:00 P.M. on weekends and holidays would contribute towards increasing the problems of noise, public drinking, and loitering, and require greater police surveillance; 2. The business is located in an area saturated with bars that include amplified live entertainment and, therefore, expansions to these establishments should not be allowed as it would only exacerbate many of the existing problems; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, does hereby concur with the Planning Commission to deny a request to, amend the Conditional Use Permit to expand the hours for live entertainment. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this loth day of July 199b, by following vote: AYES:Essertier, Midstokke, Sheldon, Wiemans, Mayor NOES:Non Creighton ABSTAIN•V.e n / ABSENT •P /, n A A FRE5IDENT/of the City�6uncil and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY -Z T - STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH ) I, Naoma Valdes, Deputy City Clerk of the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 90-5384 was duly and regularly passed, approved and adopted by the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach at a Regular meeting of said Council at the regular meeting place thereof on July 10, 1990. The vote was as follows: AYES: Esserti.er, Midstokke, Sheldon, Wiemans, Mayor Creighton NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None DATED: July 11, 1990 Deputy City Clerk 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 41 RESOLUTION P.C. 87-4 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE SALE OF GENERAL ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AT 22 PIER AVENUE, THE END ZONE. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on .this matter on January 6, 1987 and made the following Findings: 1. The proposed use is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and consistent with the General Plan; 2. The imposition of conditions of approval will mitigate any significant problems; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby amend the Conditional Use Permit for the sale of general alcoholic beverages at 2 Pier Avenue to allow live entertainment and dancing subject to the following conditions: 1. Hours of operation shall be from 9:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. with no occupancy of the premises after 2:30 a.m. a. Live musical entertainment shall be permitted from 7:00 p.m. until 1:30 a.m. on Thursday through Sunday and on Federal and State holidays, Cinco De Mayo, and St. Patrick's Day. 2. The establishment shall not adversely affect the welfare of the residents, and/or commercial establishments nearby. 3. The business shall provide adequate management and supervisory techniques to prevent loitering, unruliness, and boisterous activities of patrons outside the business or in the immediate area. 4. Noise emanating from the property shall be within the limitations prescribed by the City's Noise Ordinance and shall not create a nuisance to the surrounding residential neighborhoods,'and/or commercial establishemnts. a. During the performance of any type of entertainment, the exterior doors and windows shall remain closed. b. Air conditioning shall be installed and maintained in working order. c. Sound dampening acoustical back drop shall be designed and installed in such- a manner so as to baffle and direct the sound away from the entrance/exit and window areas. - 2-�, - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 d. Dua, pane windows shall be provided on all windows. e. Loudspeakers shall be oriented toward center of the room. f. An alcove shall be provided at the front entrance as shown on submitted plans. g. Tectum shall be provided as stated in the attached accoustical report. h. Front and rear doors shall be sealed as noted in the attached accoustical report. i. All music/entertainment volume levels shall be conscientiously controlled by the management.. 5. Hot meal service, including entrees as well as hors' d'oeuvres, shall be available whenever alcohol is served. 6. The business shall provide adequate management and supervisory techniques to prevent loitering, unruliness, and boisterous activities of patrons outside the business or in the immediate area. 7. The exterior facade and all signs shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Commission. 8. Operators of the business shall be responsible for the maintenance of the grounds immediately surrounding this establishment. 9. Screens shall be installed on all openable exterior windows at ground floor level to prevent pass -through of alcoholic beverages and to control flies. 10. Signs shall be posted in a conspicuous location warning patrons of the illegality of open alcohol containers in any public areas such as the public sidewalk and beach. 11. A manager or clerk who is aware of conditions of thel Conditional Use Permit shall be on the premises during! business hours. a. Each manager shall be given a copy of the Conditional Use Permit and shall acknowledge by signature that the Conditional Use Permit has been read and understood. 12. All alcoholic beverages shall be served in non -throw -away. glass containers, including beer and wine. 13. The Police Chief may determine that a continuing policeli problem exists and may require the presence of a police approved doorman and/or security personnel. 14. Any violation of the conditions of approval and/or violation of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code may be grounds for a public hearing for the revocation of.the Conditional Use Permit. 15. The exterior of the premises shall be maintained in a neat and clean manner at all times. 1 16. Any changes to the interior layout shall be subject to review 2 and approval by the Planning Commission. 17. Prior to a Conditional Use Permit being in effect, the applicant shall submit to the Planning Department, a signed 4 and notarized "Acceptance of Conditions" form. 5 18. A Conditional Use Permit shall be recorded with the deed and proof of recordation shall be submitted to the Planning G Department. 7 19. All permits required by the City of Hermosa Beach shall be obtained by the applicant. by January-10, 1987. 8 20. The Planning Commission may review the Conditional Use Permit 9 at 6 month intervals and may amend the conditions or impose any new conditions if deemed necessary to mitigate 10 detrimental effects to the neighborhood resulting from the use. The Commission has the right to terminate the 11 Conditional Use Permit if the conditions are not adhered to or if the subject use is contributing detrimentally to the 12 surrounding neighborhood. 13 21. In the event that any one condition is found to be illegal or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, then the 14 patties agree that all other conditions shall remain in full force and effect. The parties understand that the applicant 15 is represented by counsel at all steps of this proceeding and it is th eopinioii of the City Attorney that the conditions 16 meets Constitutional requirements and in the event that either attorney is in error both parties agree that no action 17 for damage shall be brought against the other party and that the exclusive remedy on behalf of the applicant is for a 18 Mandate of Declaratory Relief to make the determination that any one or more conditions is illegal and unenforceable, and 19 parties waive all rights to damages. 20 VOTE: AYES: Comms.Rue,Compton,Peirc,e,Schulte,Chmn.Sheldon NOES: None 21 ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None 22 CERTIFICATION 23 I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution P.C. 87-4 is a 24 true and complete record of the action taken by the Planning 25 Commission at their regular meeting of January 6, 1987. 26 12 27 C uck She don, Chairman Michael Schu ach, Secretary 28 Date m ci C RESOLUTION P.C. 86-30 1 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF HERMOSA BEACH, CAL- 2. IFORNIA, AMENDING A CONDITIONAL 'USE PERMIT FOR THE SALE OF GENERAL ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AT 22 PIER AVENUE, KNOWN AS THE THE END ZONE. 4 5 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on 6 this matter on May 6, 1986 and made the following Finding: 7 1. The proposed use is compatible with the surrounding neighbor- 8 hood and consistent with the General Plan; 9 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission 10 of the City of Hermosa Beach -..California does hereby approve a 11 Conditional Use Permit for the sale of general alcoholic 12 beverages at 22 Pier Avenue subject to the following conditions: 13 _ 14 1. Hours of operation shall be from 9:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m, with no occupancy of the premises after 2:30 a.m. 15 a. Live musical entertainment shall be permitted from 7:00 16 p.m. until 1:30 a.m. on Thursday through Sunday and on federal and state holidays, Cinco De Mayo, and St. Pat- 17 rick's Day.. 18 2. Noise emanating from the property shall be within .the limita- tions prescribed by the City's noise ordinance, or no more 19 than five (5) d.b.a. above the ambient of general area, .whichever is lower. Noise shall not create a nuisance to the 20 surrounding residential neighbors. 21 a. All live and/or amplified music shall be confined to the premises, and all doors and windows shall be closed .22 during live musical performances. 23 b. Sound dampening acoustical ceiling tiles shall be in- stalled throughout. .24 c. Sound dampening acoustical back drop shall be designed 25 and installed in such a manner so as to baffle and di- rect the sound away from the entrance/exit and window 26 areas. 27 d• All music amplification equipment shall be set to direct sound to the common wall away from the entrance/exit and 28 window areas. e. Double doors and double glass windows shall be provided. C' C f. All music/entertainment volume levels shall be conscien- tiously controlled by the management. 1 3. Hot meal service, including entrees as well as hors 2 d'oeuvres, shall be available whenever alcohol is served. 3 4. All alcoholic beverages shall be consumed on the premises and contained in permanent glass containers. 4 5. The business shall provide adequate management and superviso- ry techniques to prevent loitering, unruliness, and bois- terous activities of patrons outside the business or in the immediate area. 7 .6. The exterior facade and all signs shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning commission. 8 7. Operators of the business shall be responsible for the main- 9 tenance of the grounds immediately surrounding this establishment. 10 8. All permits required by the City of Hermosa Peach shall be I1 obtained by the applicant by June 15, 1986, and shall include a live entertainment permit, a building permit and all other 12 permits required for the operation of this establishment. 13 9. A manager shall be present on' the premises at all times who is aware of the Conditional Use Permit and the manager shall 14 manage accordingly. The manager shall receive a copy of the permit and acknowledge that it has been read and understood. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 '22 23 24 25 26 10. 11. The Planning Commission shall review the Conditional Use Per- mit at 6 month intervals and may amend the conditions or im-. pose any new conditions if deemed necessary to mitigate detrimental effects to the neighborhood resulting from the use. The Commission has the right to terminate the Condi- tional Use Permit if the conditions are not adhered.to or if .the _subject use is contributing detrimentally to the sur- rounding neighborhood. In the event that any one condition is found to be illegal or'' unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, then the parties agree that all other conditions shall remain in full. force and effect. The parties understand that the applicant is represented by counsel at all steps of this proceeding and it is the opinion of the City Attorney that the conditions meet Constitutional requirements and in the event that either attorney is in error both parties agree that no action for .damage shall be brought against the other party and that the exclusive remedy on behalf of the applicant is for a Mandate of Declaratory Relief to make the determination that any one or more. conditions is illegal and unenforceable, and parties waive all rights to damages. CERTIFICATION C c. 1 2 3 d 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1$ 19 20 21 22 231 24 25 26 27 28 I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution P.C. 86-30 is a true and complete record of the action taken by the Planning Com- mission of the City of Hermosa Beach, California at their regular meeting of May 6, 1986. Chuck Sheldon, Chairman Michael Scbubach, Secretary 71 Date -3i. x'r1rAn A ir1111 to A.LC;UROL,IC BEVERAGE t G.- ME STATE OF CALIFORNIA tTROL in the Matter of the Application of; File. 47-397636 2 PfER LLC ragon Bar 22 Pier Ave Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 PETITION FOR_ CONDITIONAL LICENSE For issuance of an On -Sale General EAting Place License Under the Alcoholic Beverage -Control Act b Y�g�o n1 WBERFAS, petitioner(s) has/have filed an application for the issuance of the above -referred -to license(s) for the above -mentioned premises; and, WHEREAS, the issuance of an unrestricted license would be contrary to public welfare or morals; WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 23958 of the Business and Professions Code, the Department may deny an application for a license where issuance would result in or add to an undue concentration of licenses; and, WHEREAS, the proposed premises are located in Census Tract 6211.01 where there presently exists an undue concentration of licenses as defined by Section 23958.4 of the Business and Professions Code; and, �x EREAS, the petitioner(s) stipulate(s) that by reason of the aforementioned over concentration of licenses, e, finds exist for denial of the applied -for license(s); and, WHEREAS, petitioner(s) desires to sell, serve and permit patron(s) to consume alcoholic beverages on an exterior patio: and, WHEREAS, the Department has expressed concerns of the petitioner(s) ability to control the activity of patron(s) in said patio; and, WHEREAS, the Department has expressed concerns that the petitioner will not operate as a bona fide eating place on said patio, and, WHEREAS, the petitioner wishers to initigatc the aforementioned concerns of the Department; and, NOW THEREFORE, the undersigned petitioner(s) do/does hereby petition for a conditional license as .follows, to -wit: l . Sales, service or consumption of alcoholic beverages shall be permitted only between the hours of 11:00 AM and 2:00 AM each day of the week. 2. The premises shall be maintained as a bona fide American food restaurant and shall provide a menu containing an assortment of foods normally offered in such restaurants. IL,"ZIAL(S)_— A2 (2//Qo) 7� ,� (100M3 �3 JN I J S ='3 T zz rl= LLC ' !Page 2 Any graffiti painted or marked upon the premises or on any adjacent area under the control of the licensee(s) shall be removed or painted over within 48 hours of being applied. .y At all times when the premises are open for business, the sale of alcoholic beverages shall be made only in conjunction with the sale of food to the person ordering the beverage. 5. The quarterly gross sales of alcoholic beverages shad not exceed the gross sales of food during the same period. The licensee shall at all times maintain records which reflect separately the gross sale of Mood and the gross sales of alcoholic beverages of the licensed business. Said records shall be kept no less frequently than on a quarterly basis and shall be made available to the Department on demand. 6. There will be no dancing allowed on the premises, 7. Bntersainment provided shall not be audible beyond the area under the control of the licensee(s) as defined on the ABC-257 dated 2f7f03 and ABC-253 dated 2I7/03 . t 8. The sale of alcoholic beverages for consumption off the premises is strictly prohibited. 9. The subject alcoholic beverage license shall not be exchanged for a public premises tyke license nor operated as a public premises. 10. The petitioner(s) shall be responsible for maintaining free of titter the area adjacent to the pretnsies over which they have control, as depicted on the ABC-257 dated 2f7fp3 and ABC-253 dated 2f7f03. 11 There shall be no exterior advertising or sign of any kind or type, including advertising direct to the exterior from within, promoting or indicating the availability of alcoholic beverages. Interior displays of alcoholic beverages or signs which are clearly visible to the exterior shall constitute a violation of this =` condition. r 12. Whenever the petitioner(s) is exercising licensed privileges on the patio, alcoholic beverages shall be made only in conjunction with the sale of food to the person ordering the beverage on said patio. 13. On the exterior patio, the petitioner(s) shall serve full and complete meals in compliance with Section 23038 of the Business and Professions Code until 10:00 PM, each day of the week. 14. The licensee(s) or an employee of the licensee(s) will be present in this patio, at all times that alcoholic beverage are being served or consumed on said patio. 15. On the exterior patio, the petitioner shall only serve alcoholic beverages to patrons who are seated at a dining table. 16. The boundaries of'this patio will be clearly defined and designated by physical barriers to separate it from the public sidewalk and adjacent private property which is not under the exclusive control of the licensee(s). These barriers and boundaries, as approved and designated on ABC-257, shall not be changed witfioct prior approval of the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control. IIA L (S /Z ASD 72 (voo) ��'J cTQ(3M310hl 39H 2S:9T 2002—Eo—d8H 33 ........ ..... ..... .... ........... ........ 22 PIER LLC P .ge 3 ;his petition for conditional license is made pursuant to the provisions of Sections 23800 trough 23805 of the --,-j�nsiness and Professions Code and will be tamed forward in any transfer at the applicant-premises. --etitioner(s) agree(s) to retain a copy of this petition on the premises at all times and will be prepared to produce it immediately upon the request of any peace officer. The petitioner(s) understand(s) that any violation of the foregoing condition(s) shall be .grounds for the suspension or revocation of the license(s). If NIA DATED THIS DAY OF a�G Appfi antfPetitiouer t ARC-172 (2/00) h0 ' d '3+ QOOMTION I :mad zS : 9 t ` 00Z- -cldtJ UL:CRICU. F' r—MIMCS UTA(iI!'i. (MC I AIL) &wnem Transportation & Hcu�g-Agency MARIA CONTRERAS-SWEEC, Secretary t. APPLlCANTNAME (Lm lint, middy) •• � Z UCENSE TYPE - r -" 89SES ADDRESS (Swat nunwi tnmta rnT, pp rode) <. NEAREST CROSS STREET e diagram below is a true and correct description of the entrances, exits, interior walls and exterior boundaries of the premises to be licensed, including dimensions. .. ...................................... ...................... .... .. ..... ................................... .................................. ..................... ............... ...........I.................._..... .............. .. ........_I....._................ ..................... ......... ... ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . .... ............... .. ...... ... .................................. ................. ......... ... ......... .................... ................... 0.................................... is hereby declared that the above -described boundaries, entrances and planned operation as indicated on the verse side, will not be changed without first notifying and securing prior written approval of the Department of Icoholic Beverage Control. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. (Onty0" sgnffiun FOR ABC USE ONLY Ff50 CORRECT `(Sqr#WMt IF"NTED NAME INSP CnON DATE - J %IJDI�L�L�n -257 (9/01) v t 35 SUPPLEMENTAL DIAGRAM I.:IILL HArrlt: lLs9L FA�SL M4icW1 . STATC []!F (%ALIFORMA CEPARTMENT OF ALCOHOLIC 9EVERAGE DONTA01 LICENSE APPLIED FOR V II-- �. Nett ceois SterM ;:'SES ADDAESS+LOCAMM of EVEW (Ah-00' mwL IAI BEMU _Te diagram below is a true and correct description of the property owned or otherwise controlled by me/us on which the Licensed premises described on Form ABC-257 is located or on which an event for a daily type license, catering authorization or miscellaneous use will occur. DIAGRAM ...... ............ j . .............. ............................ {-.,�... ...... ............................ ........ .-.. ........... .- .. ........... - - .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . it= .'..................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . _ : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . k.r.- .�-r-,.....c...... _._ _ .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .J. . . . . . . . .e01 - - •ram: L.. r 3.y . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . S . . . . . . . . . }�,. : . . . . . . . . rfi . . . . POST A COPY OF DIAGRAM WITH DAILY LICENSE OR CATERING AUTHORIZATION WHERE THE EVENT IS HELD• Please read carefully and sign below. It is hereby declared that the above -described property is owned or otherwise controlled by me/us and it is agreed and understood that the only area therein in which alcoholic beverages will be sold, served, consumed, possessed or stored is that portion designated above and/or on Form ABC-257 as the Licensed premises. If this is an event for a daily license, catering authorization or miscellaneous use, it is understood that sales and consumption of alcoholic beverages will be confined w an area designated in the diagram and supervised to prevent violations of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. 4. APKrANr WgNA U^ �A 7 // //. 5. DATE cent FLED -?, Z � Guy MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, held on Tuesday, February 12, 2008, at the hour of 7:12 p.m. -Jeff Duclos ROLL CALL: Present: Bobko, 'Virgilio, Reviczky, Tucker Absent: Mayor Kee n ANNOUNCEMENTS - Cound ember D' rgilio thanked the over 100 attendees at the ribbon cutting ceremony for t fo tness stations on the Greenbelt; said there were drawings for prizes such as bi , sneakers, skateboards and wetsuits. Councilmember Tucker said hensat.d other ' officials met with the FAA and banner airplane operators, with de trons of fl ' g at altitudes of 1000, 500 and 300 feet; which made it s obvi that they often flbW lower than 300 feet. He said another meeting was eduled for February 28 d a code of ethics was being written, offering hop r ished his wife a Happy a solution within a month or , without the City having to a wValent Valentine an ordinance]ine Day. Councilmemb Bobko reminded the community about the bl d drive tomorrow, February 1 n the Council Chambers and said walk-ins were welc6me. Mayor o Tempore Reviczky thanked the Public Works staff and Rick oenig for the ' tallation of the fitness equipment, which he said was a nice addition or the co munity. He wished his wife a Happy Valentines' Day. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: 1. ORAL AND WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS There were no written communications. Coming forward to address the City Council at this time were: Jim Lissner - Hermosa Beach, asked the Council to protest, by tomorrows deadline, the transfer of the ABC liquor license for 39. Pier Avenue to new owner Ron Newman, on the basis that the new business will aggravate or create an enforcement problem and the need for more restrictions on a liquor license that was issued in 1997; said the City could ask the ABC for a 20-day extension, but that would also require Council action this evening; asked that notice of future liquor license transfiers be olaced on Council meeting agendas; berleX --- Hermosa Beach, said she had to le a 'rig early but was to- oe t o and (b), stating that she was hap2y-tbese- ouncilmem mina good on their cani-p-aign promises to try to make some positive cavng -in•--tom downtown; and 12e(2) City Council Minutes 2-12-08 Page 12347 -3 7� MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY MANAGER - None 8. MISC.ELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY COUNCIL a. ORAL REPOW REGARDING COUNCILMEMB 102 2008. Councilmember Tucker gave a mm of sessions he attended at the seminar, including the topics of (1 law enforcement procedures, with the development of cyber Comm posts an a distribution of information from crime scenes to emer y operation centers, owing experts to assist from all over the world unmanned air vehicle reconn ' sance program, (3) the use of taze , and (4) the 2007 California firestorm hick required the evacu ' n of 340,000 people with no deaths or injuries, t se of mutual , and the importance of allowing media access and reverse 9 essages for communication to the public. 9. OTHER MATTERS - CITY COUNCIL - None a. Reguest from Councilmember Tucker that the Cit Council direct staff to develop an amendment to the Norse Ordinance to address noise coming from taverns and restaurants outside of the Pler. Plaza area. The purpose of the amendment is to provide fighter standards in and around these businesses as well as making it easier to enforce. Councilmember Tucker spoke to his request. In response to Council questions, Chief Savelli said he thought the bigger problem was ambient noise from patrons coming and going rather than noise coming directly from inside businesses. City Attorney Jenkins agreed with the Chief about ambient noise, said the current noise ordinance was already very strict and residents should not be able to hear any sustainable noise from the establishment, and suggested that during conditional use permit reviews, conditions requiring the hiring of private security be added if establishments are creating problems. Coming forward to address the Council on this item were: Carolyn Pell -- Hermosa Beach, said she liked to sit outside the bakery on the Plaza some afternoons and noticed that music from Dragon was very loud during that time of the day, while music from the.band at the Lighthouse could not be heard in other areas of the Plaza, .Jeff Duclos — Hermosa Beach, agreed that noise outside establishments was a problem and asked specifically if loud people lining up to get inside were breaking a law since they were on a public sidewalk; and City. Council Minutes M 2-12-08 Page 12353 Jim Lissner — Hermosa Beach, said until there is a way to enforce noise laws, further discussion is a waste of time, noting the difficulty of defining noise let alone to what degree it becomes a problem; asked what happened about the Special Plan Area (SPA) that was proposed by the Council in March 2007 (City Manager Burrell said the SPA issue was last discussed at a Council meeting in January 2008, at which time Council suggestions were made, and the issue would come back for further Council discussion at the next meeting). Action: Councilmember Tucker withdrew his request, pending further discussion of all restaurant and bar conditional use permits at the Planning Commission meeting of February 19, 2008. b. Request from Councilman DiVir ilio to direct staff to return with an a enda item to review. the Ci s approach to enforcement during weekend evenings in the neighborhoods and areas surroundincl nighttime establishments. Councilmember DiVirgilio spoke to his request regarding the enforcement of violations in neighborhoods related to bars and restaurants and mentioned five areas to be considered: (1) jaywalking, (2) litteringlopen liquor container, (3) disturbing the peace, (4) public drunkenness and (5) public urination. He suggested Hermosa Beach try its own version of New York Mayor Giuliani's "Broken Windows Policy," for example, specifically citing immediately, rather than warning, a person who is urinating in public, hoping that word would spread that the City was enforcing the law. Coming forward to address the City Council at this time were: Scott_ McMurray — Hermosa Beach, said he was block captain in his neighborhood, and noise, trash and public urination were ongoing problems, along with vandalism to parked cars; said 90 percent of the problems occur between midnight and 3 a.m. and suggested policing the residential neighborhoods near bars around closing time; said he would be willing to participate in an effort to work with the bars to resolve the problems; Jeff Duclos — Hermosa Beach, said graffiti was another illegal activity difficult to enforce, citing the recent tagging of the retail store p.i.n.k.; asked if a restoration fund could be established, maybe matching money with the Chamber of Commerce, to help businesses that are victimized like this; suggested that additional public rest rooms might help with the public urination problem; asked what responsibilities the bars had for their patrons once they left; Dave Rodriguez - Hermosa Beach, said he lived near the pier for ten years and things have worsened in the last five years; said he had someone urinate on his house while he was having a barbeque and he had to call the police to remove someone who was sleeping in his yard and refused to leave, noting that his neighbors have had similar problems; said traffic patterns of people walking back to their cars from the bars City Council Minutes 2-12-08 Page 12354 39 should be analyzed and Police patrols, maybe even foot patrols, should be in those areas; said Manhattan Beach had similar problems but seemed to have found a way to improve conditions; Carolyn Pptty — Hermosa Beach, shared similar experiences such as people displaying the effects of drugs in front of her children while the family was on the pier during the day having ice cream and having someone urinate in her neighbor's yard at 10 a.m., said whatever Manhattan Beach did to make those people feel unwelcome should be done in Hermosa also; Sandy Seaman — Hermosa Beach, said he lived across the street from a bar and could furnish video taped evidence of drunken people screaming obscenities as they walked down the street, public urination and fights with large number of people; said no one is ever ticketed, arrested or taken to jail; said if the laws were enforced, people would get the message; and Jim Lissner — Hermosa Beach, said it was expensive for the City to make arrests and prosecute; suggested the bars not serve customers who were already drunk to decrease the number of drunk people walking the streets; did not approve of using the "Broken Windows Policy" approach to focus on minor issues. Council consensus was to direct staff to look into the issues raised this evening and report back for Council consideration at a future meeting on the issues of exactly which activities are illegal as well as what the City can do in the way of enforcement. SESS 1. CONFER"CE The City Council-ftds, based on advice from legal c nsel, that discussion in open session will prej ice the position of the Ci n the litigation. Existing Litigation: Govern t Cod ection 54956.9(a) Name of Case: Johnpy-Andon v. City of Hermosa Beach Case Number: C 6-5078 ADJOURN TO CLOSED SJESSION —The Regular Meeting. the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beat adjourned, on Tuesday, February -1 08, at the hour of 9:19 p.m. to a clos session. RECONV TO OPEN SESSION — The Closed Session convened at the ur of 9:20 p At the hour of 9:40 p.m., the Closed Session adjourned to the Reg r Meng. City Council Minutes if 0 2-12-08 Page 12355 MOTIDN by Vice -Chairman Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Pizer, to Resolution P_C--06-t7_ The motion carried as follows: AYES: Hoffman, Kersenboom, NOES: None ABSTAIN: Allen ABSENT- one HEARING(S) Agenda item No. 11 was considered out of Agenda order. 11. C-36 -- Annual review and report on Conditional Use Permit compliance for restaurants with on -sale alcohol (continued from February 19, 2008 meeting). Staff Recommended Action: To direct staff as deemed appropriate. Director Robertson presented staff report and the recommendation. Vice -Chairman Perrotti asked if ABC indicated the exact ratio of food to alcohol sales in connection with the 50150 violations at the two establishments. Director Robertson stated that staff is not privy to that information; explained that ABC is able to audit the food/alcohol ratio, noting they have more resources to do those audits and investigations. Police Chief Savelli stated that when ABC closes its cases, that statistical audit information will become available; advised that the business owners have been informed on what the percentage is; explained that ABC has access to the Franchise Tax records of the alcohol sales that the City cannot obtain; and that the City has to solely rely upon the documents from the business. He added that ABC has the resources for a check -and -balance system and people specifically trained to do the 50150 audits. Commissioner Allen stated he viewed the entire video taping of the last meeting wherein this matter was discussed; and he commended Chief Savelli for the informative materials that have been provided to the Commission. Commissioner Hoffman stated he has had an opportunity to get a better understanding of these issues and has received clarification on the unclear statistics regarding the disturbances; and stated that because three establishments have demonstrated operational problems with clear violations of their CUP's, he would suggest a formal hearing be set for modification or revocation of their CUP's based on the evidence presented. He pointed out those businesses will then have an opportunity to answer the charges; and he suggested The Dragon should be taken as the first hearing because it has the highest number of operational violations. MOTION by Commissioner Hoffman to schedule The Dragon for a formal CUP mod ifcationlrevocation hearing. This .motion was amended. Vice -Chairman Perrotti thanked and commended Police Chief Savelli for a comprehensive package of information that was provided to the Commission. He stated that after further consideration, he would support formal hearings for those offending businesses. He stated the Planning Commission Minutes March 18, 2008 . r R Z three establishments he believes should be set for formal hearings are Blue 32 because of the 8 assaults, over -crowding and ABC hours; secondly, The Dragon, with multiple ABC violations, including dancing and violation of the 50/50 rule; and thirdly, The Shore, which is in violation of the 50/50 rule. He added that all establishments violating the 50/50 rule should be set for formal hearing. Commissioner Pizer noted his support with setting formal hearings. AMENDED MOTION by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Vice -Chairman Perrotti, to set formal CUP revocation/modification hearings over the next three months in the following order: The Dragon, Blue 32, and The Shore. Chairman Kersenboom stated he'd like to see more teeth put into the CUP citations, such as increasing the fines. The motion carried as follows: AYES: Alien, Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None Commissioner Hoffman asked staff to look into the City's Municipal Code a provision that will make it easier to give citations to these establishments when they violate their CUP's or ABC conditions. Assistant City Attorney Lauren Feldman stated that staff ' will look into the legality of that suggestion. The Commission returned to the regular order of the Agenda. 6. PDP -- Precise Development Plan for a new City Public orks facility composed of_qpproximately 3,000 square feet of office and ;A -NO square feet of maintenance an orage area replacing the existing facmfg, and adoption of an Environmental Negati eclaration at 555 6th Street y Yard. Staff Recommended Action: To approve e I of th oject. Director Robertson presented staff report and a reco endation. Chairman Kersenboom opened the lic hearing.. Mike Flaherty, Public Wor uperintendent, stated the improvements are n ssary for this old building and stated th a project will comply with all standards for wash -down s Chairman K enboom closed the public hearing. The Commission agreed this would be a dramatic improvement. Planning Commission Minutes March 18, 2008 L� 2- Honorable Chairman and Members of the Hermosa Beach Planning Commission Continued from February 19 March 5, 2008 Regular Meeting of March 18, 2008 SUBJECTS: ANNUAL REVIEW AND REPORT ON CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT COMPLIANCE FOR RESTAURANTS WITH ON -SALE ALCOHOL Staff Recommendation: Continue discussion based on evidence presented at the February 19, 2008 meeting and direct staff as deemed appropriate from the following alternatives: 1. To receive and file, and continue enforcement by the Police and Fire Department for Conditional Use Permit (CUP) violations and other violations. 2. Conduct further investigations with the Code Enforcement Officer, and report back with a status report update for businesses with multiple citations over the previous year. 3. Schedule CUP revocation/modification hearings for businesses with multiple violations to consider modification or revocation of the CUP. Background: At its February 19, 2008 meeting, the Planning Commission conducted its annual review of CUP compliance for restaurants with on -sale alcohol. At that meeting the Commission heard testimony from both City staff including the Police Chief and Fire Protection; and, business owners, patrons and residents. The public hearing was closed and the Commission voted to continue the item to the March 18, 2008 by a vote of 4:0 for the purpose of deliberation and no further testimony can be considered. Analysis Please refer to the February 19, Staff Report (Attachment 1) � - <' �4_ 5 � �": Z'Z� - - obeerector Community Development Attachments: 1. February 19, 2008 Planning Commission Staff Report (with attachments) 2. February 19, 2008 Planning Commission Minutes W3 12. C-36 -- Annual review and report on Conditional Use Permit compliance for restaurants with on -sale alcohol. his matter was considered out of Agenda order.) Staff Recommended Action: To direct staff as deemed appropriate. Director Robertson presented staff report and referred to a supplemental correspondence regarding the North End Bar & Grill that was provided to the Commission this evening. He advised that staff has met with the North End owner in an attempt to resolve some of the issues with noise and activities outside the bar; and advised that there is an ABC issue with regard to their proportion of food service versus their alcohol sales. He noted that investigation has not yet taken place. He advised that since North End's CUP was granted without any conditions over 30 years ago, the City's continued enforcement efforts will be focused on the operations of the business as a restaurant and compliance with the noise ordinance and other provisions of the code to protect public health, safety and welfare. He advised that the supplemental document is from Sandy Saemann. Police Chief Savelli explained that it is difficult to narrow down the statistical data to the exact locations, but noted the department did its best to identify where the calls for service originated from; and expressed his belief the matrix indicates a fair representation of what's going on at the Plaza. He advised that the Restaurant Association has been given this same information, noting that some of the businesses disagree with the recorded violations; and he expressed his opinion there has been some. improvement in the last year. Planning Commission Minutes February 19, 2008 Commissioner Perrotti asked if the City's Code Enforcement Officer is continuing the routine checks in this area. Director Robertson noted for Commissioner Perrotti that the City has not utilized the Code Enforcement Officer in this area recently; that they are relying on their relationship with the police department and their increasing understanding of the provisions of the CUP's to perform those checks; and expressed his belief this is a better method of dealing with this type of enforcement. Police Chief Savelli stated the officers are provided copies of the CUP's in order to address each CUP business; that the police officers are present to assist and provide support on a complaint - generated basis in this regard; and he explained that it is important to have direction as to what the department's enforcement posture is going to be and what a tolerable level of activity is. He added that the police officers routinely do bar checks on their own without needing to respond to a complaint as a preventative measure and also to check for violations. Commissioner Perrotti asked which hours of operation take precedence when those hours conflict. Police Chief Savelli stated the more restrictive hours of operation are enforced when there is a conflict between the City and ABC. Commissioner Pizer stated the report/chart is the best and clearest report the Commission has received since its policy to annually review the CUP's. He asked what can be done about illegal intoxication enforcement of pedestrians who wander into the neighborhoods and cause a lot of the problems. Police Chief Savelli explained that it is not illegal to go to a bar, have a few drinks and be under the influence of alcohol and walk home; advised that the definition of drunk in public is intoxication to the point that they're unable to care for themselves and/or present a danger to themselves or others; and noted it is a police determination of what they observe, such as slurred speech, unsteady gait, and/or bloodshot eyes, etc. He noted that they do arrest for public intoxication in Hermosa Beach; and that there has been a 10-percent reduction in these arrests, noting there were approximately 170 drunk in public arrests over the last year and approximately 190 the year prior. Commissioner Hoffman asked what ABC's policy is for violation of the 50/50 rule, sales of food versus sales of alcohol and asked what precipitates an ABC audit. Brandy Richards, ABC representative, explained that the _gross sales of alcohol cannot exceed food sales; and advised that the standard penalty is a 15-day suspension with 5 days' stayed for a one-year period, meaning the business is put on probation for one year; and if they re -violate with any conditions, those 5 days would be re -imposed. She stated the audit would be precipitated by complaint. Ms. Richards noted for Chairman Kersenboom that not all establishments in Hermosa Beach are under the 50/50 rule; and that any license they issue to a restaurant, those are expected to be a bona fide eating establishment, meaning their food sales should be greater than their alcohol sales. Chairman Kersenboom opened the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes I' February 19, 2008 Marianne Webberly, resident, urged the City to do an official review of those businesses that have violated their CUP'S, believing there is adequate evidence presented this evening to identify those establishments. Jeff Duclos, resident, stated that Hermosa Beach needs to implement tougher controls with all establishments having a crowd limit above 50 persons; and stated that all those businesses should have fire sprinklers to make them safer for the public. James Crawford, Captain of the Hermosa Beach Fire Department and Fire Marshall, advised that Hermosa Beach does have an ordinance requiring fire sprinkler systems in new buildings over 3,500 square feet. Dan Gonzalez, resident, commended the police department for improving the problems in the Downtown area, noting his appreciation of their extra enforcement efforts; noted his support of the alcohol checkpoints in the City; and he urged the City to keep. holding business owners and operators responsible for their businesses. George Barks, resident, stated that when he was on the City Council, there was a declining business atmosphere in the Downtown area; expressed his belief this area could be better managed; and noted his support for stricter enforcement of the CUP's and sending a strong message to the business owners/operators that they will be held responsible for violating the CUP's. He expressed his belief there needs to be a better balance in this community, noting the occupancy rates are too high and there is far too much alcohol being served in this community. He encouraged the City to continue moving in the right direction. Julie Jennings, resident, urged the City to continue with its CUP enforcement efforts and stated that there should not be any more alcohol licenses granted. Morty Benjamin, resident, expressed his belief the hours of operation for these businesses should be earlier. Kelly Victor, resident living near North End Bar & Grill, stated they have never observed any problems or disruptions from this business and noted support of North End. Mary (last name inaudible), resident, noted her support of North End. Susan Saemann, resident living near North End Bar & Grill, stated she fears for her family's safety as a result of seeing a high number of intoxicated people staggering out of this bar and advised that she has to regularly call the police because of various disturbances stemming from this establishment, such as destruction of property, obscenities yelled at all hours of the night, street fighting on a regular basis, and an occurrence of a rape that occurred next to her home. She advised that their family can hear the patrons yelling for a cab; that some of these bar patrons are holding alcohol containers; and she stated that this bar has three security guards for this establishment, pointing out that it wouldn't need all this security if it wasn't a nuisance business. Kevin Mitchell, resident living near North End Bar & Grill, stated that he has lived here since 1993; commended North End. for taking steps necessary to make sure this is a safe establishment; expressed his belief the owners are very responsible business owners; and stated'that no one from his homeowners association has made any complaints regarding this business and that they are supportive. of its operation. Planning Commission Minutes f February 19, 2008 Steve (last name inaudible), Redondo Beach resident and employee at North End Bar & Grill, stated he understands the concerns raised about bar establishments, but stated they do not allow anyone to leave their premises with alcohol; that they try their best to keep their customers under control as much as possible; advised that they have 4 to 5 security people to control this establishment; and stated if there was a lot of opposition to this establishment, there would be more people present this evening in opposition. Mike McMann, resident living near North End Bar & Grill, noted his support for this establishment, stating he has had no problems with its operations. Norm Quint, resident, resident living near North End Bar & Grill, stated that in his experience with this establishment, it has been well regulated and considerate of the neighborhood; and that he does not see any need for further regulations on these establishments. He stated the current policing and enforcement is working well in Hermosa Beach. Jim Lissner, resident, commented on the high cost of providing additional enforcement; and he highlighted a chart which reflects the areas where there is a high concentration of assaults and a need for more enforcement. Mr. Saemann, resident living near North End Bar & Grill, stated that he appreciates the efforts of the police department, but stated it is not enough with regard to the activities that are taking place at this establishment. He submitted to the Commission a videotape of some of this activity, which includes drunk individuals walking down the street, screaming obscenities/profanity at all times of the night, fighting, etc.; and he advised that he has been documenting this nuisance activity for the past five years. He stated this establishment does not have adequate parking and that it has more alcohol sales than it does food sales; and he urged the City to conduct a formal hearing on this establishment. Nick DiAvilla, resident, stated that this area has greatly improved over the past couple years; and stated there is security at North End on the weekends. Duke Noor, resident, expressed his concern the lines that form outside these venues block equal and free access to those in wheelchairs, noting this is a violation of the law. He cited those businesses along Hermosa Avenue, such as The Shore and Blue 52 as two of the offenders and asked that they be cited for blocking free and equal access to the handicapped population. John Court, proprietor of the North End Bar & Grill, stated that he cares about the quality of life and safety of this neighborhood and his patrons; stated that he has met several times with the police to proactively address various problems; advised that he has 4 people on duty in the evenings to maintain an acceptable level of noise and other activity; stated they have an employee who polices the neighborhood within two blocks making sure that no body is causing problems; and advised that his employees are instructed to pick up any trash in the near vicinity even though it is not from his facility. He stated his establishment does have a 50/50 situation coming up with ABC, but noted he is confident that through accounting adjustments and through adjusting other things, there will not be a problem with the 50150 rule. He mentioned that they sell a lot of food, noting on Monday nights, they serve an average of 70 meals. Ron Newman, Sharkeez, stated that the City has done a good job in managing these businesses; and advised that his facility is equipped with fire sprinklers and other emergency safeguards. He stated there are a lot of customers in these businesses and noted that there are going to be some mistakes from time to time; advised that the restaurant association is diligently working to address Planning Commission Minutes February 19., 2008 those businesses that consistently violate their CUP's; and that there will continue to be more improvements with the enforcement activities. He expressed his belief that limiting the operating hours any earlier will have a negative impact on all the businesses in this area, not just the restaurants and bars. Chris Pike, Sangria Restaurant, stated his establishment is equipped with fire sprinklers; and expressed his belief that closing these establishments any earlier will only drive the people into the community for individual house parties. Patty Pgerer, resident, stated there is a deepening divide between the commercial businesses and the residents in this community and she asked that this Commission maintain a fair balance with both sides; she expressed her belief there is a chronic abuse of the CUP regulations; and that there is adequate evidence to support the need for stricter enforcement. She pointed out that the police report/matrix was not generated because dinnertime meals were being served; and she advised that Suzy's bar, east of PCH, has been cited for an over -crowding problem and stated that there is no security at the door, which is a requirement of their CUP. She stated she'd like that issue addressed in the near future. Police Chief Savelli stated that he is aware of the violations at Suzy's, noting that an incident took place at this establishment on January 25, 2008; that he took official action in determining it was an unsafe condition and posted police officers at the door to control the environment; and stated that as a requirement of the CUP, he has placed this matter in the memo that was distributed to the Commission this evening. Chairman Kersenboom asked the police chief if he believes closing these bars at 8:00 P.M. will result in more partying in the neighborhoods. Police Chief Savelli stated that there is an increase in activity in the residential areas on major holidays when the Downtown facilities are closed; and noted the perspective of the police department is "if you close it, they don't come." He stated the majority of the clientele is young and prefers to visit this area after 11:00 P.M.; and advised that before their arrival, everything is completely fine in the Plaza. He stated if these bars and restaurants serving alcohol were to close at 8:00 P.M., the younger crowds would go elsewhere. He reiterated there is a definite change in the demographics around 10:30 to 11:00 P.M. - Gary Vincent, Fat Face Fenner's, stated he is a very active, hands-on owner; noted that he takes exception to the 35 disturbances that his establishment is being held accountable for; and he asked that this information be provided to the businesses on a more short-term basis to allow the business owners to obtain the information that can be substantiated and cross-referenced with those incidents that have been placed against the businesses. He suggested that the business establishments be permitted to validate parking at a discounted rate to help entice dining customers to this area; and asked that consideration be given to allowing the use of sandwich boards to advertise daily specials. He stated the restaurant association is collaboratively working to improve this area; and stated when considering the high number of people that visit this area, the percentage of violations is very small. Ron Robuck, resident, expressed his concern with the nuisance activity in this area, such as screaming, public urination/defecation, graffiti, and vandalism to vehicles; and stated that more enforcement is necessary. There being no further input, Chairman Kersenboom closed the public hearing. Planning Conunission Minutes February 19, 2008 Commissioner Perrotti stated that the problems in the Plaza area have improved over the years; noted his concern that the City is not using its Code Enforcement Officer to investigate the CUP violations, believing this officer should be checking for infractions on the weekends; and stated that the City needs to hire another Code Enforcement Officer if necessary. Because the Community Development Department revenues are down, he suggested the City use some of its $10 million reserves to fund another position until the Community Development Department revenues pick up again. He stated that because some of the noise on weekend afternoons comes from the outside dining areas, it may be time to review the standards/regulations for outside dining to determine what's working and what's not working and then make some adjustments. He noted that Chief Savelli's letter and matrix indicate Blue 32 had 8 assaults, had over -crowding violations, violated its ABC operating hours; and noted that last year, this business had the largest number of violations. He pointed out that the Dragon has been cited for multiple ABC violations; and he recommended the Commission schedule informal hearings to address those two businesses. Commissioner Pizer expressed his belief Police Chief Savelli has done a good job in using all the tools available to make it better for the community; that looking at the matrix data, he could support conducting hearings to address the biggest offenders, possibly learning what the problems are and seeking a solution to those problems. He expressed his belief there is little that can be done to completely solve all the problems, noting that limiting the operating hours would be a last option. He stated in the meantime, there needs to be continued support for the police department. Commissioner Hoffman stated this is the most data the Commission has received for its annual review process, but pointed out that for him, it is difficult to interpret the statistics on the matrix. He noted the City can't arbitrarily close the businesses at midnight, that it would have to be a Council policy; advised that Council, at their last meeting, addressed how the City is going to handle the Downtown problems; and stated he would not support additional hearings at this time until Council gives clear direction and policy on this issue. He stated there does appear to be some establishments that seem to be blatant violators of their CUP'S, but stated he is not ready to address those businesses until there is further clarification with regard to the data prepared_ by the police department. Chairman Kersenboom noted that the restaurant association is in its infancy; that it is making strides to self -police; and stated that there needs to be larger fines for those who violate their CUP's. Commissioner Hoffman stated that there is a lot of misinformation being circulated in regard to this matter; advised that the data indicates more than 90 percent of the police responded calls have nothing to do with these establishments; that the notion the police department spends all of its time policing 16 bars in the Plaza is not supported by the evidence; and expressed his belief there is a climate here that's not productive in solving these problems. Commissioner Pizer asked if more police enforcement would improve the problems. Chief Savelli stated that a surge in enforcement will help for a limited time; advised that he is reviewing all the alternatives available, including defining the elements of each of these crimes; and expressed his belief the City cannot police its way out of this problem. He stated his next report will be available two months from now. Commissioner Perrotti pointed out that some of the. establishments do an excellent job while others push the envelop, noting that these violators should be taken to hearing. Planning Commission Minutes, CO February 19, 2008 MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Pizer, to schedule an informal CUP review hearing for Blue 32 and the Dragon. Commissioner Hoffman stated there is no informal hearing on a CUP before the Commission, stating the Commission has the authority to set them for hearing to revoke or modify a CUP or conduct an annual review, which is now being done. Commissioner Perrotti stated that an informal hearing is the third option in staff's recommendation. Director Robertson stated that an informal hearing is a legitimate option, noting this has been done this in the past; explained that it would serve the purpose of flushing out more detailed information on specific businesses; and he stated that the Commission might as well make it a formal hearing so they can take action based on the information that will be presented at that meeting. Commissioner Hoffman stated that the data does not indicate to him who the biggest violators are; and that he does not have sufficient evidence to make a determination to bring a specific forward for hearing. Chairman Kersenboom reiterated that the fines need to be greater for the CUP violations. Commissioner Pizer stated that more evidence will be available at that meeting wherein the offending business is called to the hearing and that the Commission will be able to obtain a better idea on how best to deal with those specific problems related to that business. Chief Savelli stated that there is some disagreement in the statistics from the bar owners/operators; and expressed his belief a hearing would pull out valuable information that could be used to solve those particular problems. He added that the matrix is simply a snapshot of the violations. Commissioner Hoffman asked Commissioner Perrotti why he has singled out Blue 32 and the Dragon. Commissioner Perrotti reiterated that Blue 32 had 8 assaults, cited twice for over -crowding, violated their ABC hours; and that the Dragon has multiple ABC violations. Commissioner Hoffman questioned if those are the two biggest offenders, noting that the statistics are unclear; and stated that any business called to hearing for their CUP is a serious matter for that establishment. Commissioner Perrotti stated that he disagrees with the use of the words "singled out," pointing out he used the logical process of utilizing the information in the CUP matrix provided by the police department and the memo by Police Chief Savelli; and stated that the data indicates these two establishments had the most violations. Chief Savelli concurred with Commissioner Perrotti's use of the data to make that selection; and stated he would support looking at objective symptoms and basically doing a diagnostic to see what's going on with a specific business. Assistant City Attorney Feldman stated that Commissioner Perrotti is correct, that he is adequately using evidence that was presented tonight from the police department. Planning Commission Minutes 5� February 19, 2008 Commissioner Perrotti's motion failed as follows: AYES: Perrotti, Pizer NOES: Hoffman, Kersenboom ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Allen MOTION by Commissioner Hoffman to continue the reviewing the CUP's from all the bars/restaurants on the list, seeking additional input from Police Chief Savelii to clarify data as it relates to the top half dozen establishments with violations, and that the Commission seek direction from City Council, which is going to be considering CUP violations at its next meeting, and seek guidancelclarification from them on the technical enforcement of the CUP's. This motion died due to the lack of a second. MOTION by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Pizer, to continue reviewing the CUP's of all the bars/restaurants on the list until the next scheduled meeting wherein a full Commission will be present. The motion carried as follows: AYES: Hoffman, Kersenboom, Pizer NOES: Perrottl ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Allen Planning Commission Minutes S February 19, 2008 t January 28, 2008 Honorable Chairman and Members of the Regular Meeting of Hermosa Beach Planning Commission February 19, 2008 SUBJECTS: ANNUAL REVIEW AND REPORT ON CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT COMPLIANCE FOR RESTAURANTS WITH ON -SALE ALCOHOL Staff Recommendation: To direct staff as deemed appropriate from the following alternatives: 1. To receive and file, and continue enforcement by the Police and Fire Department for Conditional Use Permit (CUP) violations and other violations. 2. Conduct further investigations with the Code Enforcement Officer, and report back with a status report update for businesses with multiple citations over the previous year. 3. Schedule informal hearings at Planning Commission for businesses with multiple violations to review violations and steps to achieve compliance. 4. Schedule CUP revocation/modification hearings for businesses with multiple violations to consider modification or revocation of the CUP. Background: Consistent with the Planning Commission's conditional use permit annual review policy, in January 2007, staff presented police incidents reports and investigation records for various downtown businesses and heard testimony from the Police and Fire Departments. Based on this testimony, the Commission recommended that staff continue enforcement. Enforcement efforts over the past year for these nighttime businesses have primarily been conducted by the Police Department in partnership with the State Department of Alcohol Beverage Control (ABC) in the enforcement of ABC license conditions. Analysis• Attached are the Police Statistics for 20071 (Attachment 2) showing the Police Department was very busy, both responding to calls and conducting officer checks for several of the restaurants. According to Fire Department records, the following businesses have been cited for exceeding the maximum occupant load of their businesses (Attachment 3): • Blue 32 • Cruz Room • Union Cattle Company • Patrick Malloy's • Light House • Suzy's Bar and Grill (January 25, 2008) • Cafe Boogaloo (February 9, 2008) Blue 32 was cited for overcrowding twice and was warned by Alcohol Beverage Control (ABC) for serving alcohol outside the permitted hours of operation. Both The Shore and Dragon have been found to be selling more alcohol than food in violation with the conditions of their Type 47 license as reported by ABC. ABC is proposing disciplinary actions against Dragon for violating the Conditions of their ABC license a minimum of three times in one year. Given that the City's Municipal Code also requires at least 50% food sales, this is a violation of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code and grounds for revocation or modification. The Commission has specific authority with respect to the Conditional Use Permits if there are violations or if the use has become a nuisance. Pursuant to Section 17.70 of the Zone Code, the Commission may revoke or modify a CUP on any one or more of the following grounds: A. That the approval was obtained by fraud; B. That the use for which such approval is granted is not being exercised; C. That the use for which such approval was granted has ceased to exist or has been suspended for one year or more; D. That the permit or variance granted is being, or recently has been, exercised contrary to the terms or conditions of such approval, or in violation of any statute, ordinance, law or regulation; E. That the use for which the approval was granted was so exercised as to be detrimental to the public health or safety, or so as to constitute a nuisance. The process requires a noticed public hearing at Planning Commission, where, upon consideration of all the facts and public testimony, the Commission may revoke or modify the conditions of the CUP to address specific problems. If modification is deemed appropriate, the Commission may establish more restrictive operating conditions, which can range from eliminating live entertainment to establishing earlier closing times. The City Attorney has advised that a conditional use permit conveys a property right to the business and that the Commission must carefully weight the relevant evidence before revoking or modifying a permit. Revolting a CUP will also result in suspension of the business alcohol license issued by the ABC. In the past the annual CUP review has focused on the downtown area businesses, but in this review we are including restaurants with on -sale alcohol throughout the City. With respect to the North End Bar and Grill, the City has received several complaints about noise and other issues from a nearby resident. Staff has met with the complainant and is working with the owner of the restaurant to attempt to resolve some of the issues, which primarily deal with the noise and activities outside the bar by patrons either waiting to get inside, going outside to smoke, or leaving the restaurant, and from delivery service. Another issue that could be investigated further by the ABC is the proportion of food.to alcohol sales. Since the CUP for the business was granted without any conditions in 1973, the City's continued enforcement efforts will be focused on the operation of the business as a restaurant and compliance with the noise ordinance and other provisions of the Code designed to protect the public health, safety and welfare. At this point, there does not appear to be sufficient evidence to warrant a revocation/modification hearing. However, after taking testimony tonight, the Commission may decide to conduct a public hearing at a future date specifically addressing the North End. This would allow an opportunity for full community input on the business and the Commission would be better able to 53 understand any impacts generated from the business and to make recommendations on future investigations and possible enforcement actions. I Roberts , Director Community Development Attachments: 1. Memorandum from Police Chief Greg Saveili 2. Police Department Statistics Matrix 3. Fire Department Overcrowding Citations Gre \ Sa lli, Police Chief Jerry Gome Fire Chief 12007 Police Statistics represents calls for service only. It does not provide the outcomes, just the fact that the police were called or the police generated a call at the business and the initial reason. SL� HERMOSA BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT Office of the Chief of Police MEMORANDUM DATE: February 13, 2008 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Chief Greg Savelli SUBJECT: CUP Review information In your report from the Planning Department you will find a spreadsheet outlining the "Total Calls for Service" at each of the listed establishments. It is important to note that these numbers reflect merely a_police response to the location in reference to the listed reason. It does not mean the outcome of the call resulted in an arrest, a report or that the reason for the call for service was valid, they merely represent that we in fact responded to the location in regards to the referenced disturbance, narcotics or parking issue etc, and investigated the call. In addition, the column that references "Officer Checks" are generated by the officer and not a response to a call for service. The following are actions that are not reflected on the statistical sheets provided, however, they are issues you may wish to consider while conducting your CUP review. The Alcoholic Beverage Control has informed us of the following activity, (some were in conjunction with our partnership grant); • Paisano's was cited for serving a minor decoy, and the ABC will be proposing disciplinary action. • Sangria was cited for serving a minor decoy, and the ABC will be proposing disciplinary action. , • The Shore was audited by the ABC and found to be selling more alcohol than food and disciplinary action is being considered by ABC. t • Cantina Real had two citations for alcohol storage issues and ABC will be proposing a disciplinary action. • The Dragon was audited by the ABC and found to be selling more alcohol than food and disciplinary action is being considered by ABC. In addition, Dragon was found to be violating their ABC conditions a minimum of three times during this past year and ABC is proposing disciplinary actions. • Blue 32 was warned by .ABC for serving alcohol outside the permitted hours of operation. The following establishments were cited for "Over -Occupancy" (based on PD records): • Blue 32 — (Twice) • Sangria • Lighthouse • Patrick Malloy's • Union Cattle • Cruise Room • Suzy's Bar (1-25-08, see note below) • Cafe Boogaloo (2-9-08) Note: On Friday, 1-25-08 at 9:34pm, Officers and Fire Inspectors doing a routine check of Suzy's Bar and Grill on Aviation found the place to be extremely over -crowded, they found a local popular band playing and the place stuffed with 299+ people when occupancy allowed for 82. The owner informed them that he had no bouncersldoormen as this was a private event and he didnI anticipate such a large crowd. As Chief, 1 personally responded and spoke with the owner. The patrons were cooperative and all exited the establishment upon request and once the number was diminished, they allowed patrons to re-enter up to the occupancy, however there was still no provision for security at the door and over 60 persons waiting to get in. Per Suzy's CUP resolution 97-72 under "General Operating Standards and Conditions", paragraph 8, the Chief of Police may determine a continuing problem exists and may authorize the presence of a police approved doorman and/or security personnel. I assigned a police officer to remain at Suzy's to ensure the over crowding situation did not re -occur. I will be billing the establishment for our presence and submitting this as part of the CUP review on the 991h to the Planning Commission as required by the CUP. Respectfully submitted, Greg Savelli Chief of Police a 'C7 -o a t, 0 w w 4M 0 0 N 1;'1 4 O f• N OND O M Cl) O OD a0 V V M C* � N Cl) a�o [rn hQM O 0 6 t LO M rO 01 � U a ramJ � U a v v (L a U a O U a O v (� a� U a C O C6 .. - dS F a; LL c ,� "' (q LL c li c c 7 > W �'�� U% O N W c (A c fA c J rt Z, O .: c6 O � O L O IG �� O �fn N O �(n m�W O .�L y ❑ E LL O a._ E c O O O F E O O E. E -ma O O E E -a .E a ,m O O O (q F L0 cx) L� o z z z m o C)Lo Z Z t m 0 z Z Ln m o LO o r z Z Z LU Lo (n SLU a E aQ aE 0.E 1 aE ti '0 ONO OL CL hN Mcd c N �N Z Q ~ �z Q a. '' is E = c .. ZLI LL Z a m ❑ ` (a ❑ _ 00 m m ❑ �rE m m O E a ❑ E E E E [1Eo E E E E— O Op E cm 04 M N r N cu z O z al 'O WL M i Mo M i 1 •m aQ ro p .c 0..� co r E w m co 3 U >x �. ao o � E E n ro r- o r r, r� o O c OaOm. �N co z O O Q Z [n LL w O CO LU fn LU U! LL1 N LU fn LJ N LJ fn LU {n W N W [n LU U w U w w O U ui O z z E E - c y 77 o o o a o-0 a n.0 n o o �� =LL 3 Q E E E Em E e E E E E ('n E co� a E m 2 3c. CV CV Cyr CV ¢ ca CV @m ¢ N CV CV C) O E N E E N a E E E E o E E o E E E "' co E N E E E cm0 cf0a cm0 cm0 0 n a ti c10o E E E 1° E E cc ca m n 2 G CO COr o 1@ I's= r „,,,.. y' era—). 7+ .7. T ❑ E ❑ E m c. �' ❑ E 2 (o E E a E m ❑ E o �' a ❑ E ❑ E m a w Q rn Y; O S LU �?. fmV N N C N 0 0 O a Q? co N C - m N m CV CN O N C a T r E E E E = O L ♦ V r` CA E. co 0 coco ti i E E N. f� 0 m I� m I� m 1� I� N r� 4. 7 O. .F, y Q Q N N O TO 2 w 2 LU O CO LI CO) LL[ 0 L! 0 co w co w z co LU CO L1 Cn LU O Cn LU fA LU LU z z W LU �� r r r z z r r z r r r z r z. z } yF 0 a C w Z Ca Ca U U (n (n 0)0 (0 N N (n co N W (n (n �,. uj w� W w w w LL W LU LLL LL W LLL Li W L1 LJ LJ LL m �+ v W m m �� ZO m m a) m m a) m m a) a) a) a) c C C C m C m C m a a ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ a ¢ a ¢ a ¢ m ram+ � �5 Q Y` a1 QI N N- Qf 41 fl7 L N ' 2 N 'a N 'a a) A?L .mC L IL 'a m m m a Q a a 'a 0. a F F co i0 0 a CN M M O co O � O T T N N m n V) L un Ln Lo N N N `• LU a""' i. - - N- - to N c0' 43 V) - N L L iL (Ocqq U l0 2L .0 N rn y - a) U LL Ca `m I` L h O ❑ 2 .c 7`• to �O ` m (i _m N '.f U O Y (n m N y C m rm. O Q O. a _Z N C C- -J 06 m V m m O-•— c6 LL LL N a N O a a) Co _ L F O N J _ m a ¢� m a m rL a) g u. ❑ ¢ U- L— , cn a c J m m a G O rr c 'C T C O O Ch E O 0 0 O N CD o as= m N N < w t O t L i to y N _ r N o L o C.)8 U 0 c 0 U ca C i m i � m m i L O cc [ O m f mzLL- - w m � {(� 1VI CAP `. Far- Hermosa Beach Fire Department Memorandum Date: 6/12/2006 To: Chief Tingley From: Captain Crawford Re: Operations at Hermosa Nightclubs Recently, a resident phoned the H.B.F.D. to voice her concern regarding the use of "Go -Go" dancers in Hermosa Beach Night Clubs. She felt it was offensive, and didn't believe they should be allowed in our city. Although she did not want to leave her name, she asked that we look into the practice of having women, with very little clothing, dancing on stages. I have personally witnessed this practice at " Me Dragon;' "Blue 32," "The Shore," as well as this past Saturday night at "Saphire. " I am not sure which department handles these type of "Use" issues, so I am forwarding this concern to you. Please let me Imow how we should proceed. Respectfully, Captain Crawford Notice of meeting posted at Dragon, 22 Pier April 2, 2008 at 11:30 am. C. CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM Date: April 15, 2008 To: Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission From: Ken Robertson, Director, Community Development Department Subject: Parking Demand Analysis — Wine Storage Business The parking demand analysis submitted by Walker Parking Consultants on April 10, 2008, confirms that the parking impact from the wine storage business is minimal. While the study also references a plan to reserve 20 spaces for specific office tenants, the analysis of the demand for the wine storage business is the only part relevant to the subject request. The second paragraph includes a reference to an addendum for reserving 20 parking spaces within the Pavilion for specific office tenants. This proposal has never been authorized by the City and is a separate matter from the current agenda item. The governing Parking Plan approval for the Pavilion (Resolution No. 06-6482) contains a specific condition (3a) which requires that all parking spaces shall be available on a first come first serve bases (i. e. no assigned parking). If the Pavilion owner wants to modify that condition to provide reserved or assigned parking, it must be specifically requested as an amendment the Parking Plan and noticed for a public hearing at a future date. Assigning or reserving parking is contrary to the concept of "shared parking" that was the basis for the approved allocation of uses for the Pavilion (which otherwise provides less than the aggregate required parking for the mix of uses.) F:1B951CDIPC12008104-15-081memo1601 parking.doc Hermosa Beach Planning Commission City Hall MAR 3 2008 CCNi:-'VUN I DEV.. L);P RE: PARKING PLAN AMENDMENT TO MODIFY THE ALLOCATION OF USES WITHIN THE HERMOSA PAVILION TO INCLUDE A WINE STORAGE FACILITY FOR PRIVATE WINE COLLECTORS AT 1601 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY Commission Members, We wish to express our opposition to any modification of the CUP for the Pavilion Parking structure for an liquor storage business based up the following: 1. The entrance to the parking structure is a fatal accident waiting to happen. Almost one year ago the owner stood in front of the Hermosa Beach City Council and told them that he had 20 mirrors ordered that were to be installed in the entrance and within the interior of the Pavilion parking structure. That was a lie. There still is not one mirror installed to alert the school children and the seniors using the sidewalk that a vehicle is exiting the garage. Facts: Children use the sidewalk to go to and from school. Each day they are at risk when they pass the garage. No mirrors and no way to tell if a car is exiting. That same risk exists for seniors. Why did the city council and the code enforcement folks in the city not hold the owner accountable for his statement. The City Council gave the Pavilion owner everything he wanted. 2. The removal of the five parking spaces HAS NOT reduced the congestion in front of the parking structure as was determined by the city staff. Facts: The curb has been painted red where the prior parking spaces were. That area is now used for truck parking during the day while waiting to get into the VON's unloading area. It is also used for stop and go parking by people using the health club who are. waiting for their class to begin. Remember, only two hours free. It is also used by vehicles waiting to pick health club attendees. Some times there are five or six vehicles waiting in either the Voris truck unloading parking entrance or along the street where there used to be parking. Can we not place signage that states no stopping — parking — standing along both sides of 16'h street west of PCH? We also would welcome speed bumps west of the VON's truck unloading area for speed control. The north most lane (turning lane) on 16"' street along side of the Pavilion Parking structure is not usable by cars turning into the Pavilion parking garage because of the tight turns necessary to enter the narrow openings of the garage. Facts: During the early morning and the early evening there are still lines on the street and drivers honking their horns as they try to get pass the cars hying to get into the parking garage. Those of us living in the Commodore Condo's must go west out of our parking structure. 3. A wine storage facility... That must really be a high priority for a city that has made the news and specials several times lately for problems with the patrons of their bars and lounges on the strand. While one of the specials was really positive for our police department it sure gave outsiders a great image of our problems with drinking. Facts and questions: Does the installation of a wine storage facility require ABC approval? Do we really need the 94th liquor facility in this town? We oppose this use of space and request that the city really consider what the approval of another liquor facility will do to the citizens of this community. 4. Where is the fancy restaurant? The City Council gave approval for a fancy restaurant on the Pavilion premises? That approval was based up designs and proposals of the investors in that restaurant. Instead we find that a major wine tasting company has been put in its place. The Pavilion owner even let the most important exterior signage location go to that tenant. Note the following from a Dec. 12, 2006 memo to the City Council. The plans called for a 6704 sq. ft. restaurant. The local area surrounding the Pavilion contains high density housing for residents. This bar will impact the lives of all the residents living within a 5 block area. The addition of a bar which can contain some additional 400+ patrons at any given time from 6 pm to 12 pm will create major issues for the area. The parking garage already has the `Use Other Entrance' sign out around 6 pm several times a week in the evening. Where are these additional 200-300 plus cars for the restaurant going to park. Facts: The city blessed the installation of a restaurant. The citizens of the town opposed that restaurant as well as the liquor license that went with it. Something has changed and we wonder if what is being installed in that building is consistent with the approvals given by the City Council. 5. The 16th street traffic west of PCH is still a mess. The Pavilion parking structure still appears to be full at time. Facts and questions: Does the City require another parking structure study? It appears that all of the current business investments and operations all are parking intensive. Will the spillover vehicles use parking currently used by tenants of the various condos along Pacific Coast Highway. There is not enough parking now for neighborhood use. 6. Speeds of vehicles using 161h street west of PCH still is excessive at times. We have yet to see a police vehicle use a speed gun on the west bound traffic. The installation of the traffic light at PCH/ I6th street has routed thousands of cars down 16th street (west of PCH) so they can avoid the congestion created by the traffic light at 16`h and PCH and the traffic light at Pier Ave and PCH. Traffic counts taken by the city Public Works and the consultant's report did not consider 16th street west of PCH, only east of it. The counts from the Public Works consultant indicated that some 4000+ cars a day use the one block long 16th street west of PCH. The addition of traffic into the Pavilion has further increased the volume of traffic on the Street. Speed levels have increased on W4 street. At times during the day, namely 5 pm — 8 pm., the traffic is so heavy that cars turning into the Pavilion parking garage are blocking 16th street. The traffic light at PCH and 16th street creates long lines on 16th street while the parkers along the south side of 16th street negate the changes to parking made by the city. Ronald Miller 1600 Ardmore Hermosa Beach, California April 1, 2008 Honorable Chairman and Members of the Regular Meeting of Hermosa Beach Planning Commission April I5, 2008 SUBJECT: PARKING PLAN AMENDMENT 08-2 LOCATION: HERMOSA PAVILION, 1601 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY APPLICANT: MR GENE SHOOK, PROPERTY OWNER REQUESTS: TO INCLUDE A WINE STORAGE FACILITY FOR PRIVATE WINE COLLECTORS WITHIN 10,069 SQUARE FEET OF CLIMATE CONTROLLED STORAGE AREA AND TO AMEND THE ALLOCATION OF USES AT THE HERMOSA PAVILION, 1601 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY Recommendation To approve the requested parking plan amendment subject to conditions as outlined in the attached Resolution. Background ZONING: GENERAL PLAN: LOT AREA: PAVILION BUILDING SIZE: PROPOSED FACILITY SIZE: EXISTING PARKING: PROPOSED PARKING: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Specific Plan Area 8 (SPA8) Commercial Corridor 83800 Square Feet 115,569 Square Feet 10,069 Square Feet 496 spaces 496 spaces Categorically Exempt Project Description At its March 18 2008 meeting the Planning Commission determined that the proposed wine storage use falls within the definition of "commercial hobby/craft supplier" (Municipal Code Section 17.04.050), which is a permitted use within the SPA-8/C-3 zone. As agreed at the March 18 meeting, the applicant is now presenting an amended Parking Plan to modify the allocation of uses within the Hermosa Pavilion to include a wine storage facility for private wine collectors. The applicant proposes to improve a portion of the lowest basement area of the Pavilion for use as a wine storage facility. The applicant has stated that the primary use will be to store wine for private collectors as well as for Brix restaurant in the Pavilion building. Also, a small portion will be used to store wine to be sold in the Pavilion wine shop on behalf of collectors as consignment. The facility will be located in the south eastern corner of the lowest basement beneath the mall area and will comprise a total of 10,069 square feet. The applicant proposes to install a mezzanine floor to create two Ievels of refrigerated storage area. The main or lower floor will have 4,856 square feet of storage and 148 square feet for consignment and the upper mezzanine will comprise 4,891 square feet of storage and 174 square feet for consignment.. The internal layout will be vertically stacked with 4' wide circulation corridors providing access to approximately 123 small storage lockers (approx. 2' wide by 4'depth) and 38 storage rooms (approx. 5' wide by 8' depth) on the ground floor and, on the mezzanine, 109 lockers and 40 storage rooms. The applicant estimates a total storage capacity of approximately 300,000 bottles. Visitors will enter the site via an existing access door in the car parking structure on the vehicle entry level and a proposed new access from Parking Level Two directly to the mezzanine level. Visitors dropping off/collecting wine would be able to park anywhere within the structure and would be conditioned eligible for 2 hours of free validated parking. The facility will be open 24/7 to private collectors only. Access will be controlled via a door entry code and close circuit cameras will record all movements within the facility. Site Description and Surroundings The Hermosa Pavilion is located on the corner of Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) and 16d' Street. The Pavilion mall contains a variety of uses including a health and fitness center, retail shops, offices, a restaurant and a children's performing arts school. A 6-story parking structure is located to the rear of the mall and is accessed via 16"' Street. The Mall is located on a busy section of PCH and is surrounded by a wide variety of retail offer, services and entertainment. Parking in this area is constrained so the Mall offers free 2 hour parking with validation from mall retailers. Planning History Key events in the site's planning history include: • September 2007: Planning Commission tables the 6 monthly parking review until Stillwater Bistro and retail uses have been operational for six months; • December 2006: City Council sustains Planning Commission's decision to expand restaurant use from 4,000 to 8,000 square feet with appurtenant wine and cheese retail use, requiring a six month operational review • July 2006: City Council sustains the Planning Commission's decision to require two-hour free validated parking within the rear onsite parking structure with a six-month re-evaluation of the program; • February 2006: Review of parking program at Hermosa Pavilion, decision to require 2 hour free validated parking; • February 2005. Kids Kabaret Performance Academy approved; • August 2003: permission granted to add 4000 square feet for a single restaurant (PC Resolution 03-45) • February 2002: City approves a Precise Development Plan, Parking Plan and Variance to expand and remodel the Hermosa Pavilion site to accommodate a fitness center, expand the retail area, add office space and enclose the upper deck; Analysis The Planning Commission has determined this proposal is classed as Hobby/Craft Supplies and Service (MC 17.26.30), a permitted commercial use in the SPA-8/C-3 zone. As required by the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code, this proposal meets the following standards: 9 Has no significant impact on adjacent residential properties (MC 17.26.020, A4) Is a use that is compatible with the character and intensity of the surrounding urban area (MC 17.26.020 A5) Has sufficient parking and Ioading facilities (MC17.26.020, A6) The California Department of Alcohol Beverage Control (ABC) confirms no ABC license is needed since the facility be used for wine storage only and any wine sold will be within the separate wine shop, which is located on the ground floor of the Pavilion and already has city approval for off -sale wine and beer, The City of Hermosa Beach Fire Department commented on this application (received April 8, 2008). The Fire Department requests further detail of all proposed fire safety measures. A condition is recommended that requires the applicant to submit these details for the City's written approval prior to the issuance of the final Building Permit. Attachment 5 contains a copy of the Fire Department's comments. See Attachment 6 fora detailed list of relevant Municipal Code standards. Traffic & Parking Management Based on an analysis of Municipal Code standards and details submitted regarding the proposed use, there is sufficient capacity within the existing Pavilion parking structure to accommodate parking demand arising from the wine storage facility. Fallowing a review of the Hermosa Pavilion parking program in December 2006, the parking analysis by Walker Parking Consultants showed, during the am and pm peak, parking generated by the existing uses resulted in a surplus of 186 spaces (of 496 total stalls) in the 6-level onsite parking structure. Under the December 12, 2006 City Council approval for restaurant expansion, the new restaurant and retail uses reduced the surplus to 76 stalls. The applicant has stated that based on his experience with four other similar wine storage facilities that he owns in California, he anticipates a maximum of 10 patrons daily between 6 am and 10 pm. This would generate very little demand and have a negligible impact on parking. As such, parking demand from the wine storage facility is unlikely to cause the existing parking structure to reach capacity. However, the shared parking study needs to be updated, and the impact of this change quantified. The applicant has retained Walker Parking Consultants to provide this update, which has not been submitted, but should be available for the hearing. The current Parking Plan, as set forth in Resolution 03-45, amended by Resolution 06-16 and sustained by the City Council on July 11, 2006, and the proposed changes, requested under this application are set out in Table 1: Table 1: Current and Proposed and Use Allocation (approximate square feet Land Use Current Allocation Proposed Allocation Health and Fitness Facility 46,000 No change Office 20,400 No change Day Spa 13,000 No change Retail 9,600 No change Restaurant (including food related sales) 8,000 No change Auditorium 1 3,000 No change General Storage 1000 5,500 Wine Storage 0 10,100 Total 110,600 115,600 Residents state that congestion remains a problem along 160' Street during am and pm peak traffic flows. On September 18, 2007, Planning Commission unanimously voted to review the Pavilion's parking program once the Stillwater Bistro and other retail uses have been operating for six months. It is difficult to conduct a proper review prior to this time, as all uses would not be active and fully operational. After six months, staff will review the Hermosa Pavilion parking program and report their findings to Planning Commission. Summary The parking plan amendment is consistent with the goals and policies of the Zoning Code and General Plan designation and staff recommends approval of the proposal subject to the Conditigagw Approval. Angie M, Mason Interim Planner Concur: Ken Robertson, Director Community Development Department Attachments 1. Resolution 2. Location and Radius Map 3. Poster Verification 4. Photo Survey 5. Comments by the City of Hermosa Beach Fire Department d. Municipal Code Standards F:\B951CDNPC\2008\04-15-08kl6OlPCHReport.DOC 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 24 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 2s 29 P.C. RESOLUTION 08- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A PARKING PLAN AMENDMENT TO MODIFY THE ALLOCATION OF USES TO INCLUDE A WINE STORAGE FACILITY FOR PRIVATE WINE COLLECTORS OF 10,069 SQUARE FEET OF CLIMATE CONTROLLED STORAGE AREA WITIHIN THE HERMOSA PAVILION 1601 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY The Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach does hereby resolve and order as follows: Section 1. An application was filed by Mr Gene Shook, .owner of property comprising the project site at 1601 Pacific Coast Highway, California 90254, known as the Hermosa Pavilion, on behalf of Ideal 55 Wine Storage Co. seeking approval of a Parking Plan Amendment to modify and update the allocation of uses on -site. Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the parking plan amendment on April 15, 2008 and considered testimony and evidence, both written and oral. Based on said testimony and evidence received the Planning Commission makes the following factual findings: 1. On August 19, 2003, the Planning Commission adopted PC Resolution 03-45 to approve a Precise Development Plan and Parking Plan to remodel and expand an existing commercial building and to allow shared parking to accommodate a new allocation of uses on - site, including a health and fitness facility, office, retail and restaurant uses with ancillary storage. The Precise Development Plan and Parking Plan were amended by PC Resolution 06-16, sustained by CC Resolution 06-6513, to increase the restaurant allocation from 4,000 to 8,000 square feet and other minor modifications that have occurred since 2003. CC Resolution 06-6513 required a review of traffic and parking capacity at the site once the permitted uses have been fully operational for six months. 2. The site is zoned SPA-8/C-3 (General Commercial) allowing the provision of hobby/craft commercial services and supplies. 3. Mr Gene Shook, 1601 Pacific Coast Highway, Hermosa Beach has submitted this application to amend the above Parking Plan and modify the allocation of uses on -site to include a wine storage facility for private wine collectors of 10,069 square feet on the Hermosa Pavilion site bordered by Pacific Coast Highway to the east and 16th Street to the south. 4. The applicant intends to install the wine storage facility on the basement level of the Hermosa Pavilion in the south western section of the site, adjacent to the existing Hermosa Pavilion Parking Structure. This space is currently allocated as ancillary restaurant storage and is a double height space with a floor area of 5,100 square feet. The applicant will install a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 is 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 mezzanine floor to create 10,069 square feet of refrigerated storage area over two levels. The ground floor will have 5,004 square feet of storage and the mezzanine 5,065 square feet of storage. 5. The facility has two separate accesses. Firstly, via an existing access door off Parking Level 1 into the facility's ground floor lobby and, secondly, a proposed new access off Parking Level Two to the mezzanine floor. The internal layout will provide a 4' circulation corridor and access to approximately 232 wine storage lockers (approx. 2' wide by 4' depth) and 78 wine storage rooms (approx. 5' wide by 8' depth). The applicant estimates approximately 300,000 bottles could be stored on -site. Section 3. Based on the foregoing factual findings the Planning Commission makes the following findings pertaining to the application to amend the parking plan and use allocation to include a wine storage facility for private wine collectors within 10,069 square feet of climate controlled storage area: 1. The site is zoned SPA-8IC-3 (General Commercial) which permits hobby and craft supplies and service. The Hermosa Pavilion site is deemed suitable for the proposed use, consistent with the character of the Pacific Coast Highway commercial corridor and is sufficiently secured within a multi -tenant building so will not have any significant impacts on neighboring residential uses. 2. The proposal complies with the development standards for the SPA-8/C-3 (General Commercial) zone (MC 17.26.050) including that merchandise on -site will not being sold other than at designated retail sales areas; 3. The storage facility will have separate access to/from the Hermosa Pavilion Parking Structure. 4. The existing Hermosa Pavilion parking structure provides 496 spaces and the current allocation of uses generates the requirement for 420 parking spaces at peak am and pm flows (Walker Consultants, December 2006). This leaves a surplus of 76 spaces available. The parking demand for the proposed use will have little impact (estimated demand of 10 per day) which can be accommodated within the existing 76 space surplus. 5. The imposition of conditions, including limiting the type of alcohol permitted for storage and sale, the hours of operation and a review of parking capacity once the Hermosa Pavilion uses have been operational for six months should mitigate any adverse impacts on nearby residential or commercial properties. 6. Pursuant to section 15332, Article 19 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, the project is categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA in. that it: 1) is consistent with applicable general plan and zoning policies, designations and regulations 2) is located on a site of less then five acres and is substantially surrounded by urban uses 3) has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species 4) will not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise air or water quality, and 5) will be adequately served by utilities and public services. 2 3 7. The proposed use is consistent with the goals and policies of the Municipal Code and the 4 General Plan. 5 8. The applicant has not submitted plan details outlining: 6 a. Waste and refuse collection, including frequency of refuse collection and capacity 7 of on -site storage. b. Ventilation and Refrigeration, including details of proposed mechanical system s and the location of external vents. 9 The applicant is required to submit the above details prior to the City's issuance of final Building 10 Permits. 11 Section 4. Based on the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby approves the 12 amendment to the Parking Plan and the allocation of uses subject to the following Conditions of 13 Approval: 14 1. The development and continued use of the property shall be in conformance with submitted plans as revised and reviewed by the Planning Commission at their meeting 1-5submitted April 15, 2008. Any minor modification may be approved by the Community 16 Development Director. 17 2, The Parking Plan approval, as set forth in PC Resolution 03-45, as amended by PC 18 Resolution 06-16 and again by City Council Resolution 06-6513 (September 2006), is further amended with respect to the allocation of uses, which shall be substantially 19 consistent with the following new allocation: 20 Table 1: Current and Pro 21 Land Use 22 Health and Fitness Facility Office 23 Day Spa 24 Retail Restaurant (including food 25 related sales Auditorium z6 General Storage 27 Wine Storage Total 28 29 Land Use Allocation (square feet Previous Allocation I New Allocation 46,000 No change 20,400 No change 13,000 No change 9,600 No change 8,000 No change 3,000 No change 10,600 5,500 0 10,100 110,600 115.600 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 s 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Any material change to this allocation that increases parking demand will require written approval by the City of Hermosa Beach. I. Architectural treatment of the building shall be as shown on building elevations and sections and site and floor plans. 4. Alcohol stored at the wine storage facility shall be permitted for sale only within the restaurant or wine retail shop located on the ground floor level of the Hermosa Pavilion. 5. Heavy goods vehicles servicing the site must conduct all deliveries and collections in the allocated truck loading area, as shown on approved drawing Reference Sheet 6 of 13 by Keisker & Wiggle Architects, dated July 29, 2003 (Resolution PC03-45). 6. The applicant shall submit details of waste and refuse collection for written approval by the City prior to the issuance of final Building Permit. 7. The applicant shall submit a roof plan showing the location, type and height from finished roof level for all roof vents installed in connection with the climate controlled wine storage facility for written approval by the City prior to the issuance of the final Building Permit. All vents shall be located so minimize their visibility when viewed from public areas. 8. The applicant shall submit details of proposed internal fire safety systems for written approval by the City prior to the issuance of the final Building Permit. 9. The project shall comply with the requirements of the Fire Department. 10. The business shall provide adequate staffing, management and supervisory techniques to prevent public nuisance and unruliness of patrons outside the business. 11. No drinking shall be permitted within the wine storage facility. 12. The exterior of the premises shall be maintained in a neat and clean manner and maintained free of graffiti at all times. 13. Two hour free validated parking shall be provided to patrons of the wine storage facility for use within the Hermosa Pavilion parking structure and signs shall be prominently displayed at the storage facility entrances and within the storage facility to promote the parking validation program. _ 14. Final building plans/construction drawings including site, elevation, floor plan, sections, details and signage submitted for building permit issuance shall be reviewed for consistency with the plans approved by the Planning Commission and the conditions of 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 B 9 1a 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 this resolution, and approved by the Community Development Director prior to the issuance of any Building Permit. 15. All roof equipment shall be located and designed to be screened from public view by the parapet walls. 16. The project and operation of the business shall comply with all applicable requirements of the Municipal Code. 17. Each of the above Conditions of Approval is separately enforced, and if one of the Conditions of Approval is found to be invalid by a court of law, all the other conditions shall remain valid and enforceable. 18. The subject property shall be developed, maintained and operated in full compliance with the conditions of this grant and any law, statute, ordinance or other regulation applicable to any development or activity on the subject property. Failure of the permittee to cease any development or activity not in full compliance shall be a violation of these conditions. Section 5. 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 Parking Plan Amendment shall be recorded, and proof of recordance shall be submitted to the Community Development Department prior to the issuance of a final building permit. The Permittee shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City, its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City or its agents, officers and employees to attack, set aside, void or annul this permit approval, which action is brought within the applicable time period of the State Government Code. The City shall promptly notify the Permitee of any claim, action or proceeding and the City shall fully cooperate in the defense. If the City fails to notify the Permitee of any claim, action or proceeding, or if the City fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the Permitee shall not thereafter be responsible to defend, indemnify or hold harmless the City. The Permitee shall reimburse the City for any court and attorney's fees which 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 Permitee 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 condition. The subject property shall be developed, maintained and operated in full compliance with the conditions of this grant and any law, statute, ordinance or other regulation applicable to any 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 1fl 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 development or activity on the subject property. Failure of the Permitee to cease any development or activity not in full compliance shall be a violation of these conditions. The Planning Commission may review this parking plan amendment and the associated allocation of uses and may amend the subject conditions or impose new conditions if deemed necessary to mitigate detrimental effects on the neighborhood resulting from the subject use. . Section 6. 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: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: CERTIFICATION I hereby certify the foregoing Resolution P.C. No. 08- is a true and complete record of the action taken by the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach, California at their regular meeting of April 15, 2008. Sam Perrotti, Chairman April 15 2008 Date F:1B951CD1PC12008104-15-0811601PCHResolution.doe Ken Robertson, Secretary Q XY Maps - City of Hermosa Beach Page 1 of 1 - 1 1830 i 3 t 87 1b p p 1802 09 840- ,{764 W�NMI, � #� Y� 167/ K. q t x.x t6t00Pk 609 nv 846 Q i� ,u 7 City of Hermosa Beach 1601 Pacific Coast Highway 1in=155ft Date Printed: 4/10/2008 f! http://xymaps/servlet/com.esri.esrimap.Esrimap?ServiceName—HermosaBeach OV&CIie... 04/10/2008 i:. TI Q►i co4� ��" � r I 271 1 . Olwy O 5�j l T!i $ a 1 C r^- — 24 23 �e 20120 1 r 17 zar, s� 1 q O2 dBLK 2 rsr. rf 1 y 27 d 0 170— h p frnsS y �7 ' f 1 Fpv t+1. o �l ♦ I oY ST. p' -fill 5'0� r M r J ' Lo r�1 m t0 -i 78 f d0 11: �- �+ c (n ro _ w O a * H ~ o 0i nw r UO �I i 2 J5 2 ik i 1 FI :i�o4 Y ' 2 BLK.' A 7 0�65 i 4 Q I ro 790 78:5'ro0s 6 TH-+ 027ST ti 404- Az5` N A,r, H �j f85 006 s _ FN -air 16 T H ST." Ld IM � J °w Txu Jos 3 cl) n —_ry --J �1` F �e— y g 2 a BU<. 2 �72 n�� Ir LOT I A I 746 U 4 'Ja'E 7117 4lS. M 4 '^ ^ 1TNJOIK G) " n Jc• .e„ " � � JOy f56.6�r � - 8 6TH 5 ADDRESS; 1601 PACIFIC COAST HWY #280 �ONTiNENTAL MAPPING SERVICE 6325 Van Nuys 8oufevard, Van Nuys, CA 91491 SCAL-2 1", = 100' - 1818i787.1663 POSTER VERIFICATION 1601 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY PHOTO SURVEY HERMOSA PAVILION, 1601 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY View from SE corner of PCH and 16'h Street, April 1, 2008 at 5:30pm PHOTO SURVEY HERMOSA PAVILION, 1601 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY View of unloading area & wine storage area external wall (right) dated March 11, 2008 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT - PLANNING DIVISION / MEMORANDUM TO: v Jerry Gomez, Fire Department Rick Morgan, Public Works Department Bob Rollins, Building Division FROM: Ken Robertson, Director SUBJECT: Project Review at 1601 Pacific Coast Highway DATE: April 1, 2008 Attached please find the plans for the project located at 1601 Pacific Coast Highway: C� Parking Plan amendment to modify the allocation of uses within the Hermosa Pavilion to include a wine storage facility for private wine collectors Please review and respond by April 8, 2008. Thanks. have- / a q c� may] Ge rd � a-b b& Th 1 S rc? err! r , !^�i�1�4i1lJEL?UL_l.'. iJ 1�I I 1 6 Attachment 6: Municipal Code Standards Munici al Code 17.26.020 C-3 Commercial Zones Standard Analysis A2 Strengthen the city's economic base, and also The proposal will create an additional hobby/craft protect small businesses that serve city service for local residents and will not adversely residents im act on existing small businesses. A4 Minimize the impact of commercial There are no residential properties adjacent to the development on adjacent residential districts site, which is contained entirely within the existing Hermosa Pavilion structure. A5 Ensure that the appearance and effects of The character and intensity of the proposed use is commercial building and uses are harmonious similar to those already onsite and are in keeping with the character of the area in which they with the area's commercial character. There is no are located material change to the building's appearance. A6 Ensure the provision of adequate off-street See report section 7. parking and loading facilities B3 To provide opportunities for the full range of The City supports new and innovative services to office, retail, and service businesses deemed encourage a varied economic base, to provide a suitable for the city, and appropriate for the wide range of services for city residents and to Pacific Coast Highway and Aviation generate employment opportunities. Boulevard commercial corridors, including business not appropriate for other zones The proposed use is compatible with the character because they attract heavy vehicular traffic or of the PCH commercial corridor. It will not have specific adverse impacts. (Ord. 95-1130 attract heavy vehicular traffic nor have adverse § 1, 1995: prior code § 8-2) environmental impacts. 17 April 10, 2008 Honorable Chairman and Members of the Regular Meeting of Hermosa Beach Planning Commission April 15, 2008 SUBJECT: ADDENDUM TO STAFF REPORT PARKING PLAN AMENDMENT 08-2 LOCATION: HERMOSA PAVILION, 1601 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY APPLICANT: MR GENE SHOOK, PROPERTY OWNER REQUESTS: TO INCLUDE A WINE STORAGE FACILITY FOR PRIVATE WINE COLLECTORS WITHIN 10,069 SQUARE FEET OF CLIMATE CONTROLLED STORAGE AREA AND TO AMEND THE ALLOCATION OF USES AT THE HERMOSA PAVILION, 1601 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY CONTINUED FROM ITEM 7, MAIN REPORT Traffic & Parking Management On April 10, 2008, the applicant submitted a parking demand analysis, dated April 9, 2008, for the proposed wine storage facility at 1604 Pacific Coast Highway (attached). Municipal Code Standards Walker Parking Consultants notes that the City has classified this proposal as `hobby and craft supplies and service,' which has no associated parking standards (Section 17.44). Walker looks to the City for guidance as to the appropriate parking standards and, instead, focuses this study on forecast parking, demand. Forecast Parking Demand Walker used data from the wine storage facility operator's Marina Del Rey facility at 4935 McConnell Avenue for comparison. The McConnell Avenue facility has been operating for one year and accommodates 189 storage units; the proposed Hermosa Pavilion facility will have 310 storage units (232 lockers and 78 rooms). Walker's initial parking analysis for the Hermosa Pavilion, dated December 4, 2006, showed that land uses proposed at that time would leave a surplus of±76 spaces in the Pavilion parking structure. Since that time, the applicant has reserved an additional 20 spaces for Hermosa Pavilion office tenants, leaving a current capacity of =1=56 spaces at peak times. The current peak condition, before the opening of the restaurant and retail space, is Monday evening based on occupancy counts performed at the Hermosa Pavilion parking facility. For the first few months after opening, Walker forecasts that peak parking demand for the wine storage facility would add no more than 3 parking spaces and on average roughly one space after the first few months (Table 6). Walker's report shows 70% of parking demand will occur between noon and 6pm on weekdays and between noon and 4pm on weekends (Table 3). Based on the current tenant mix, weekday peak demand from the wine storage facility occurs mainly outside the current week day peak between 5pm — 7pm but within the current weekend peak of between l I am — 2pm. Walker expects peak parking demand conditions will continue to be subject to the parking activity from. 24-Hour Fitness, as the highest parking demand generator in the Pavilion. Parking demand from the wine storage facility will be negligible and is forecast to leave Hermosa Pavilion with a f53-space surplus under peak conditions. Six-month parking review As noted in the main report, the new restaurant and retail uses at the Hermosa Pavilion will be subject to a parking and traffic review once they have been operating for six months. Planning staff will report the review findings to Planning Commission. Summary The parking demand analysis shows that the proposal will not cause the Hermosa Pavilion parking structure to reach capacity and is consistent with the goals and policies of the Zoning Code and General Plan designation. Staff recommends approval of the proposal subject to the Conditions of Approval. V, 'Angie M. Mason Interim Planner Concur: P6VVC, en Robertson, Director Community Development Department Addendum Attachments I. Walker Parking Consultants: Parking Demand Analysis, April 9, 2008 F:1B951CD1PC12008104-15-0811601 PC1111601PCHAddendum.DOC 2 q WALKER Walker Parking Consultants PARKING CONSULTANTS 2550 Hollywood Way, Sutte 303 Burbank, CA 91505 April 9, 2008 George Fansmith Ideal 55 1601 Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 290 Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Re: Parking Demand Analysis for a Wine Storage Business Hermosa Pavilion Hermosa Beach, CA Dear Mr. Fansmith, Voice: 818.953,9130 Fax: 818.953,9331 www.wolkorpoking.com 2008 Thank you for contacting Walker Parking Consultants ("Walker") regarding our performing parking consulting services for your proposed wine storage business in Hermosa Beach, CA. Within this letter you will find the following: • A project understanding, • A parking demand analysis of you existing business in Marina Del Rey, • Projected parking demand for your proposed new facility in Hermosa Beach, and • Our findings regarding how this business will affect the overall parking program at Hermosa Pavilion. PROJECT UNDERSTANDING Walker's initial shared parking analysis for the Hermosa Pavilion development located at 1601 Pacific Coast Highway was performed for Shook Development Corporation ("Shook") and dated December 4, 2006. It noted that then existing land uses generated a peak parking demand of 310 vehicles. Shook proposed to build out the remaining space within the building with the addition of retail and restaurant space. Hermosa Beach municipal code would require an additional 110 spaces be provided for these land uses. The parking supply on site is 496 spaces (this does not count the possible valet spaces also marked in the parking structure). The addition of the retail and restaurant space would add to demand, but the supply would still yield a ±76-space surplus for the development. Shook requested that Walker provide an addendum to that analysis in regards to providing some of the parking for office tenants on a reserved -by -space basis. Shook inquired how setting 20 spaces aside within the supply would affect the parking adequacy of the Hermosa Pavilion development. Our addendum indicated that because those spaces would be reserved for a specific user; a user who is already parking on site, the net effect would be 20 spaces or less, resulting in at least a ±56-space surplus. CADocuments and Seltings Uromere \Desktop \Hermosa PoYXon\[TR040908-1dea155,doc George Fansmith Parking Demand Analysis for a Wine Storage Business April 9, 2008 Page 2 Ideal 55 has requested that Walker prepare a second addendum to the Shared Parking Analysis for the Hermosa Pavilion. The second addendum has been requested in regards to the City's comments on the inclusion of a 10,400 square foot "Wine Storage Business" (Ideal 55) at Hermosa Pavilion. Some of this storage space had been accounted for already as 'warehouse' space in Walker's initial study. The minimum parking requirement for warehouse from the Hermosa Beach municipal code is 1 space per thousand square feet (f10 spaces for 10,400 SF). The City has indicated that it believes that this business may be similar to "Hobby and craft supplies and service", which has no associated minimum parking requirement. Therefore, a minimum parking requirement must be established through discussion with the Planning Commission. To begin the discussions, Ideal 55 has requested that Walker prepare a letter regarding parking generation for the Wine Storage Business at Hermosa Pavilion. EXISTING FACILITY — MARINA DEL REY Ideal55 has operated a wine storage business/facility at 4935 McConnell Avenue in Marina Del Rey for several years. This facility is not staffed and requires a keycard for entry. The keycard entry system records the point of entry, the time and date of entry, and the keycard number of the card used to gain access. This information can be used to gauge the amount of activity generated by a facility of this size. Although we do not have actual parking data from this facility, it would not be reasonable to walk to the site, or to require more than one parking space per user visit. Therefore, the keycard transactions should reasonably reflect the parking occupancies as well Walker requested a full year of keycard activity for the Ideal55 Marino Del Rey facility. This information was provided as printouts from the system dated January through December 2004. During October of that year the facility was expanded as follows: Table 1: Marina Del Rey Program Data M rina Del RJanuary through October 180 Fifteen Case lockers Occupied by 60 Customers 9 Rooms Occupied by 8 Customers 189 Units Occupied by 68 Customers MarinaR em D 180 Fifteen Case Lockers Occupied by 60 Customers 84 Twelve Case Lockers Occupied by 42 Customers 12 Rooms Occupied by 10 Customers 276 Units Occupied by 112 Customers Source; ldea155, 2008. The data delivered to Walker in hardcopy was entered into excel for analysis and broken into the two time periods based on the varying program data. A summary of the data provided can be found in the following table. George Fansmith Parking Demand Analysis for a Wine Storage Business April 9, 2008 Page 3 Table 2: Marina Del Rey Activity Data Summary Average Daily Volume 9 y Weekday _ „..,y Weekend Jan - Oct 2.25 Vehicles 5.84 Vehicles Nov- Dec 5.24 Vehicles 12.63 Vehicles Peak Hour Parking Demand Weekday Weekend Jan - Oct .33 Spaces .84 Spaces Nov - Dec .98 Spaces 2.5 Spaces Parking Demand Ratios Weekday Weekend Jan - Oct .18 Spaces/ 100 units .44 Spaces/100 units Nov- Dec .35 Spaces/100 units .91 Spaces/100 units Source: ldeal55, Walker Parking Consultants, 2008. As can be observed in Table 2, the parking ratio for November/December is considerably higher than that of January — October. Without another year of data for comparison it would be difficult to speculate on any seasonality also affecting the parking demand ratios for January — October versus those of November/December. But, it would be a reasonable assumption that activity would see an uptick if new units were available, as the new tenants of those units would likely visit the site more frequently in order to fill their unit. Therefore, it should be expected that a parking demand ratio similar to that of November/December would occur in new facilities during their first few months of operation, but then settle into. the ratios observed from January — October. Walker also performed an analysis of how the activity at the site has been distributed throughout the day for the entire year. Weekdays have been averaged together to find a typical weekday distribution while Saturday is the only day considered for the weekend distribution. Table 3: Marina Del Rey Time of Day Distribution DAY 6 AM 7 AM 8 AM 9 AM i 0 AM 11 AM 12 PM 1 PM 2 PM 3 PM Weekday 2% 6% 8% 13% 34% 35% 73% 100%, 90% 79% Weekend 5% 5% 8% 11 % 59% 62% 57% 73% 89% 100% DAY 4 PM 5 PM 6 PM 7 PM 8 PM 9 PM 10 PM 11 PM 12 AM Weekday 76% 89% 95% 44% 21 % 1 1 % 8% 3% 2% Weekend 100% 62% 41 % 8% 5% 0% 3% 3% 3% Source: ldeaf55, Walker Parking Consultants, 2008. This time of day distribution shows weekday visits fairly well spread out over the course of the day, and above 70% of the peak activity (0.33 spaces Jan — Oct, or 0.98 spaces Nov/Dec) from noon until 6PM. Weekend (Saturday) distribution is more centered, and is above 70% of peak activity (0.84 spaces Jan — Oct, or 2.5 spaces Nov/Dec) from 1 PM until 4PM. These distributions will be helpful in gauging the impact of the proposed wine storage business on the overall parking supply at Hermosa Pavilion. George Fonsmith Parking Demand Analysis for a Wine Storage Business April 9, 2008 Page 4 PROJECTED PARKING DEMAND — HERMOSA BEACH The following table shows the program data provided by Ideal55 for the proposed facility at Hermosa Pavilion. Table 4: Proposed Hermosa Pavilion Program Data Marina DPI Rey -January through October 180 Fifteen Case Lockers Occupied by 60 Customers 9 Rooms Occupied by 8 Customers 189 Units Occupied by 68 Customers Marina Del Rey - November and December 180 Fifteen Case Lockers Occupied by 60 Customers 84 Twelve Case Lockers Occupied by 42 Customers 12 Rooms Occupied by 10 Customers 276 Units Occupied by 112 Customers Source: Idea155, 2008. Given the program data for the proposed new facility at Hermosa Pavilion, we project that during the opening period the wine storage business will generate weekday peak hour parking of roughly three (3) spaces, and seven (7) spaces on the weekend. After a few months we would expect that number to decrease to about one (1) space during the weekdays and three (3) spaces during the weekend peak hour. Table 5: Hermosa Pavilion Projected Activity Data Summary Parking Demand Ratios Weekday Weekend Jan - Oct 0.18 0.44 Nov - Dec 0.35 0.91 Average Daily Volume Weekday Weekend Jan - Oct 9 24 Nov - Dec 15 36 Peak Hour Parking Demand Weekday Weekend Jan - Oct 1 3 Nov - Dec 3 7 Source: Idea155, Walker Parking Consultants, 2008, Although the daily volume may look to be a significant impact on the parking supply when compared to the space utilized as wine storage, it should be noted that Walker would expect this facility to realize roughly the same hourly distribution as the facility. in Marina Del Rey. The distribution of parking demand will be addressed within the following section. George Fan -smith Parking Demand Analysis for a Wine Storage Business April 9, 2008 Page 5 HERMOSA PAVILION SHARED PARKING Per our initial shared parking analysis of Hermosa Pavilion which considered the addition of restaurant and retail space, and the subsequent addendum regarding providing reserved parking there would be roughly a 56-space parking surplus under peak conditions. The current peak condition, before the opening of the restaurant and retail space is Monday evening based on occupancy counts performed within the Hermosa Pavilion parking facility. During opening conditions Walker estimates that the peak parking demand for the wine storage business would add no more than 3 parking spaces (as seen in Table 6), and on average roughly one space after the first few months. The wine storage business peak parking would occur during the weekend, which based on the current tenant mix would not bring the overall demand for the development to weekday levels. Peak parking conditions are expected to continue to be subject to the activity from 24-Hour Fitness. Therefore, incremental demand from this business would likely leave Hermosa_ Pavilion with a 53-space surplus under peak conditions. .......... Table 6: Proposed Hourly Parking Demand for Ideal55 Facility January - October DAY 6 AM 7 AM 8 AM 9 AM 10 AM 1 1 AM 12 PM 1 PM 2 PM 3 PM Weekday 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0A 0.7 1.0 0.9 0.8 Weekend 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 1.8 1.9 1.7 2.2 2.7 3.0 DAY 4 PM 5 PM 6 PM 7 PM 8 PM 9 PM 10 PM 1' 1 PM 12 AM Weekday 0.8 0.9 1.0 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 Weekend 3.0 1.9 1.2 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 November/December DAY 6 AM 7 AM 8 AM 9 AM 10 AM 11 AM 12 PM 1 PM 2 PM 3 PM Weekday 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.4 1.0 1.1 2.2 3.0 2.7 2.4 Weekend 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.8 4.2 4.4 4.0 5.1 6.2 7.0 DAY 4 PM 5 PM 6 PM 7 PM 8 PM 9 PM. 10 PM 11 PM 12 AM Weekday 2.3 2.7 2.9 1.3 0.6 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 Weekend 7.0 4.4 2.8 0.6 0.4 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.2 Source: ldeal55, Walker Parking Consultants, 2008. Should you have any questions concerning our methodology or findings, please feel free to contact Walker at your convenience. Sincerely, WALKER PARKING CONSULTANTS Ezra D. Kramer Parking Consultant, CPP EDK:edk April 8, 2008 Honorable Chairman and Members of the Regular Meeting of Hermosa Beach Planning Commission April 15, 2008 CONTINUED FROM MARCH 18, 2008 MEETING. SUBJECT: VARIANCE 08-2 APPEAL OF DIRECTOR'S DECISION TO BASE HEIGHT MEASUREMENT ON A CONVEX SLOPING LOT APPEAL OF DIRECTOR'S DECISION TO BE CONSIDERED A SMALL LOT LOCATION: 1130 2'�'D STREET APPLICANT: ZANE KOSS 1130 2ND STREET HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 REQUEST(S): VARIANCE TO ALLOW THE EXPANSION OF AN EXISTING ONE -CAR GARAGE TO A TWO -CAR GARAGE WITH AN 8.75-FOOT GARAGE SETBACK RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED 17 FEET IN CONJUNCTION WITH A REMODEL AND EXPANSION TO THE EXISTING TWO-STORY DWELLING; AND AN APPEAL OF DIRECTOR'S DECISION FOR A CONVEX SLOPE DETERMINATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF MEASURING BUILDING HEIGHT AND TO BE CONSIDERED A SMALL LOT IN ORDER TO OBTAIN EXCEPTIONS TO LOT COVERAGE AND OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS OTHERWISE REQUIRED IN THE R-I ZONE PURSUANT TO SECTION 17.08.040. Recommendation: Variance - To direct staff as deemed appropriate. Appeal of Director's Decision for the subject property to be considered a small lot — Declare as small lot by minute order. Appeal of Director's Decision to base height measurement on a convex sloping lot - To direct staff as deemed appropriate by minute order from the following alternatives: 1. Determine the property to be a uniformly sloping lot and interpolate the grade from the corner points only; or, 2. Determine the property to be a convex sloping lot and interpolate from intermediate points on the top of the slope, as proposed by the applicant. Background: ZONING: GENERAL PLAN: LOT SIZE: EXISTING FLOOR AREA: PROPOSED FLOOR AREA ADDITION: PROPOSED TOTAL FLOOR AREA: EXISTING LOT COVERAGE: PROPOSED LOT COVERAGE: EXISTING OFF-STREET PARKING: PROPOSED OFF-STREET PARKING: R1 Low Density Residential 2,242 Square feet 1,455 Square feet 744 Square feet 2,199 Square feet 43.7% 66.8% 1-car garage 2-car garage The subject lot is a "through lot" fronting on 2nd Street with garage access from 1st Place. The lot size is relatively narrow with a 25-foot wide frontage and a 90-foot depth; it is one of nineteen 25-feet wide through lots on 2nd Street. The lot is currently developed with a two-story single-family dwelling and a detached one -car garage which has the following nonconformities: • A substandard garage width of 13 feet as opposed to the required 17 feet to qualify as two spaces; • No guest parking space as required for the R 1 zone; • A garage setback of 8.7' feet rather than the required 17 feet; and • An easterly side yard setback of 2.8' feet and a westerly side yard setback of 2.98' feet rather than the required 3 feet for both side yards. The applicant is proposing to expand the existing detached single -car garage to create a complying two -car garage for an additional off-street parking space. The applicant also proposed an addition of 270 square feet on the first floor to connect the existing detached garage to the main structure and building over the expanded garage with 474 square feet of habitable floor area on the second floor. Further, the applicant will provide 180 square feet of required open space adjacent to primary living area that does not currently exist on the property. AnaIvsis• Variance The applicant's objective is to widen the existing garage into a qualifying two -car garage, thus allowing for a 100% addition in floor area as permitted in the Non -Conforming Ordinance (H.B.M.C. 17.52.030 (13)(2)(a)). This can be achieved with a Variance to the garage setback requirement. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a Variance to allow an 8.75-foot garage setback rather than required 17 feet. The nonconforming easterly side yard will be eliminated by the new wall with a conforming 3-foot setback. In order to grant a Variance, the Commission must make the following findings: • There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances; limited to the physical conditions applicable to the property involved. • The Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone, and denied to the property in question. • The granting of the Variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property is located • The Variance is consistent with the General Plan. The concept of a Variance is that basic zoning provisions are not being changed but the property owner is allowed to use his/her property in a manner basically consistent with the established regulations with such minor variation as will place him/her in parity with other property owners in the same zone. Finding 1: The subject property is narrow in size 25' x 90' and it is the common R-1 lot size on the subject block'. There are 22 through lots fronting 2nd Street having the same lot dimensions as the subject lot. Due to its common lot dimensions, it is difficult to support an argument that the lot is exceptional and extraordinary in comparison to neighboring properties as to require the granting of a Variance. Of the 22 through lots front Zd Street, 13 have garages accessed from 1st Place and the remainder 9 lots have garages front 2nd Street. Similar non -conforming garage setback condition exists with 1 I of the 13 properties with garages accessed from Is'Place. The only two properties with complying garage setbacks were single family residences developed in 2004 and 2005 (attachment 3). Therefore, a non -conforming garage setback is not an unusual condition on the subject block. A Variance would allow the applicant to connect the existing detached garage to the main structure rather than demolishing the garage and rebuilding it to provide for the required 17-foot garage setback. The applicant states that demolishing the existing garage would be a financial hardship. Further, the applicant is providing one additional off-street parking space alleviating on -street parking demand2. 2 Finding 2: Without the approval of the requested Variance, a 500-square foot addition to the home could certainly be constructed while maintaining the existing single car garage. The applicant is proposing to add 270 square feet on the ground level and 474 square feet on the second level, the proposed addition will result in 2,199 square feet of habitable area. Therefore, a Variance is requested to widen the existing garage in order to attain the desirable square footage of addition. The applicant contends that the proposed 744 square feet addition is reasonable when considering the existing residence is 1,455 square feet. If a complying garage setback were provided, the proposed 270 square feet of habitable area on the ground level would be eliminated to allow for a 17-foot setback and a complying 20-foot depth garage which would allow as addition to the second floor only. Granting of the Variance will place the applicant in parity with neighboring properties in term of non -conforming garage setback. Findings 3 and 4: The Variance only involves a reduction in the garage setback and is consistent with a majority of garages accessed from I" Place (Attachment 3). Arguably, the setback reduction will not be detrimental to neighboring properties as it provides additional off-street parking as compared to the existing condition. However, the Variance allows for less guest parking than would be permitted with a 17-foot garage setback. The addition and remodel to an existing single-family home in this Iocation is consistent with the General Plan. Appeal of Director's Decision for the subject property to be considered a small lot The applicant is requesting that the subject lot be considered a "small lot" for the purpose of increasing the allowable lot coverage from 65% to 70%, the applicant is proposing a lot coverage of 66.8%. The proposed single-family residence contains 2,199 square feet of living area with a two -car garage. The applicant is also seeking relief from the open space requirement. The R-1 zone requires a minimum of 400 square feet of open space with 300 square feet required on grade and the remainder provided in balconies or decks with a minimum dimension of ten feet and open from ground to sky. A total of 355 square feet of open space is proposed in the front yard and on a second floor deck, but the dimension and location of these areas are insufficient to meet the R-1 open space requirement. While the proposed open space areas meet the "open to sky" requirement, these areas violate the minimum dimension required, and are provided in the front yard. According to the open space requirement for small lots (lots of2,100 square feet or less in R-1 zone), a minimum of three hundred square feet of open space with minimum dimension of seven feet in length and width and all the required open space may be provided on balconies or decks and also, open space may be provided in the required front yard. At least sixty percent of the required three hundred square feet of open space is required to be directly accessible to primary living areas and located on the same floor level as the accessible primary living area. Further, lots within ten percent of the lot size defined as small lots, (lot sizes range from 2,101 to 2,310 square feet) may also be permitted. some or all of the open space exceptions for small lots subject to review and approval by the PIanning Commission if found justifiable based on any of the following reasons: 1. To achieve a consistent and comparable amount of indoor living space with existing dwelling units in the immediate neighborhood; 2. To allow design flexibility in the application of the open space standard in conjunction with the remodeling and expansion of existing structures; 3. To allow an innovative design which otherwise is consistent with the goals and intent of the open space and development standards for the R I zone; 4. To address unusual Iot configurations or topography, as compared with surrounding lot and development patterns. The proposed project appears to meet these criteria as proposed lot coverage is 66.8% (below the allowable maximum of 701/o) and all required yards are provided. Open space will be provided from an 133 square feet front yard and an 180 square feet second floor balcony. The second floor balcony is accessible from the enlarged living room and will meet the small lot open space dimension requirement. The applicant stated that the view corridor along 1st Place looking west, currently enjoyed by neighboring properties, will not be disrupted as the second story addition design proposed a balcony toward the rear of the lot facing I' Place. As shown on submitted plans, Sheet A- 4 east and west elevations indicated the proposed roof eave above the second floor balcony will be 10 feet 4 inches away from the property line, thereby preserving the view corridor along 1" Place. Also, given the unusual lot configuration, indoor habitable space will be substantially reduced in order to meet the required three hundred square feet of open space on the ground level for an R-1 zoned property. The ground level open space requirement also adversely affects the amount of habitable space on the second level reducing the overall buildable area of the small lot. Appeal of Director's Decision for a convex slope determination for the purpose of measuring building height Pursuant to the definition of building height and grade, as set forth in Section 17.04.040 of the Zoning Ordinance, and the method of determining building height in Section 17.46.015, the grade used for the height measurement is based on the surveyed elevations points at the property corners. The method for determining building height, however, allows for consideration of other points along the property line for lots with "convex" contours. In these situations, the grade of a lot may be based on alternate points along the property line in addition to property corner points. The intent of this convex slope finding is to allow use of alternate points if the evidence supports that there is a natural or unaltered convex condition. In cases where the datum for height measurement is disputed, the final determination of the grade may be referred to the Planning Commission. The applicant is requesting consideration of alternate points along both the east and west property lines where the survey and topographic profile show a convex condition. As shown on the topographic profile and survey, both side yards shows consistent gradual elevation increases for the front 60 feet of the lot and more apparent elevation changes take place for the remainder 30 feet toward the rear of the lot. The topographic profile shows an abrupt change in grade for the easterly property line toward the rear of the lot; while the westerly property shows a less apparent change in grade. The elevation change for the rear 30 feet of the lot is 2.4 feet along the easterly property line and 3.6 feet along the westerly property line. Though staff believes a convex condition exists it is not very pronounced along the westerly property line, and the topographic profile shows that only the easterly property line has a clear convex condition. The same condition appears to exist within other properties on the same block. In summary, staff believes that the current grades demonstrate a convex slope where the convex condition is more apparent along the easterly property line which appears to be a natural condition consistent with other properties on the block. Summary: The requested relief from the 17 feet required garage setback is consistent with majority of neighboring properties with garage access on I` Place and the proposed project will provide for one additional off-street parking, however staff finds it difficult to support the argument that the subject lot is exceptional and extraordinary given that its similar to most lots in the immediate neighborhood. Staff believes that the convex sloping condition of the subject property is indicated on the topographic survey and property profile. The narrow lot width which adversely affects the available habitable space on the ground level and constraints proposed designs are sufficient reasons to deem the subject property a `small lot'. CONCUR: / E/ v Eva Choi, Plah6ing Assistant ` tee`n Robertson, Director, Community Development Department Attachments 1. Applicant's letter 3. Photo Survey 2. Radius MapJ ocation Map 4. Zone Check t The subject block is bounded by Prospect Avenue to the east, 2nd Street to the north, l't Place to the south and Barney Court intercept to the west. 2 City Council approved in March 2007, on reconsideration, an addition and remodel project with a 4.5 feet nonconforming garage setback for a property located on 1144 2nd Street. DAVID WATSON A R C H I T E C T February 19, 2008 City of Hermosa Beach Planning department Re: Variance for small lot exception and expansion of existing non -conforming garagelparking Required Findings. The following written findings are required for all variances and administrative variances: 1. Exceptional circumstances applicable to the property involved; • The property involved has an existing non -conforming 1-car detached garage that we are proposing to expand to accommodate 2 cars. The existing detached garage has a non- conforming rear setback of 8.7'. We are proposing to continue this setback with the added garage area. This is consistent with several other properties adjacent to and nearby on the same street. 2. That the variance is necessary for the preservation of a substantial property right possessed by other properties in the vicinity of the subject property; • Other properties in the area have reduced rear yard setback that accommodate 2-car garages. 3. That the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which the property is located; • Having a reduced rear setback off of the garage is consistent with several other properties on the street and will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which the property is located. 4. That the granting of the variance will not conflict with the provisions of, or be detrimental to,. the general plan. + Based upon the statements and information provided above and in the form of attached drawings, the granting of the variance will not conflict with the provisions of, or be detrimental to, the general plan_ Thank you very much for taking the time to review our proposed findings. Please do not hesitate to contact us with any questions or concerns. Since i: t�_ David Watson, Architect 21oo N S$PULVEDA BLVD, SU1TE 9 MANHATTAN BEACH, CA 90266 T',P' 310 546 0044 3105469698 WWW.WAT$ONARCHITECT.COm .may .� o-gC1 � a � tih '4 �o ao eft! o l• 3 a,AO X /OD RID) p 22 S 417,1 i8��oz �106-0T. - 2& E z� o P5 p r zs z� -4 ±lar• �30 �,3sb, +n((.� 25 25a �D 25 e-O' zs 25 3 C95 0 O Q 1, o o fa �, f s r !0 72 a, 27 i 312 334 35 36 38 it ¢ ` 4i 441 43 f 0 I I v 3 45 146 54 7( 48 4 n N ! � 3 �5 JZazs � zR� zs - Z3 ate. -1# 73 72 71 0 69 68 67 �64 &i gp z2! zs f 66 6 = 6fz f 58 58 57 6f 55 q �` 40 434 x 25 2S.8 AD'�' li5lZ5 25 25 p 2-ND � 20 34.P5 40�t 37.18 2,5 :s 2- � 3 ST. ' 2.5 25 I z 24 7 79 85 S V 9! g 93 39 26 27 44 67 29 . 95 96 97 38 99 100 ! p i966 z_s 01 I 2 16. .� • 1 5 T .25 25 e 3p fD % ® 3 Z r~7 �¢ - 1QIP ► ©,27 • ----�- __ Z3 S/1 ` Im. .f "6' 2T./S 251G Z5./F l5./S ZS/G 2G lS C ao V ./6 ri 7,6 w- la/Fq a � b !u 2-9 2"up IsSt< ilia 5i . i2 w 'l. �. rs. amp• ! 22 23 2 tp fC2-8a � fC�-%TT30 4O..? 1 . `e 2S - 1 �5�! Q �] -p 9 O" �� as G�pi �3.Y i/w �fza7 snr� 33 2 33 0� 1 O PM 36 4 g J ST. �� as � � 11 GC-f5'F I LD 's r - '�► � P5, O 2/ 7D o r a6 16 14 65 68 87 65 69/ s it oil z3 r 9 /a 57 58 59 F;0 za 0 O 5i 52 5 5s ' 0 o 48 $9 50 ;1i !i1 S a� b 4all Zj ADDRESS: 1130 2ND ST SCALE 1" = 100' GNTINENTAL MAPPING SERVICE 6325 Van Nuys Boulevard, Van Nuys, CA 91401 ( 818) 787-1663 XY Maps - 1130 2nd Street Page 1 of 1 1 1134 r }+ gif, 202 �i7�r'�s : yg 1 � 5k 1 5 a k 1130 d 2 n Street i in=65ff 7 http://xymaps/servlet/com.esri.esrimap.Esrimap?ServiceName=HermosaBeach OV&Clien... 03/10/2008 v iew or i riace, iooxing west from nintop (near rrospect Avenue) View of properties front on 2n Street with garage access on I" Place. Subject site showing single car garage and non -conforming garage setback. Attachment 3-A Subject site and neighboring properties to the east. Subject site and neighbor to the immediate east. Subject site and neighboring properties to the west. Attachment 3-B Neighboring properties to the west have similar non -conforming garage condition. 1110 2nd Street has a complying garage setback, the single family residence was built in 2004. 1102 2nd Street located near the intersection of 1st Place and Barney Court has a complying garage setback. The single family residence was built in 2005. Attachment 3-C may, ZONING CHECK LIST ADDRESS '!� � S- "'t ZONE J OWNER/ARCHITECT b - 1) Il 1111I2fSW GENERAL PLAN L'✓ APN # 4 100 Le 'ii yyD 7/� 0 ) 9? LOT SIZE �� Z PROTECT TYPE f,/ t� i'1 + 11Z*Yi�JL' I JV SFCz- COASTAL ZONEYES NO DATE ✓ D REVIEW BY 9�1 ITEMS CHECKED NEED CORRECTION 1} ALLOWABLE DENSITY ` �� i0��EXISTING DENSITY 4 �PROPOSED ALLOWABLE BUILDING HEIGHT r EXISTING ' S��PROPOSED MAXIMUM HEIGHT INFORMATION PROPERLY SHOWN ON ROOF PLAN/ELEVATIONS: PC ELEVATIONS CRITICAL POINT MAX AND PROPOSED DISTANCES TO C.P.'S 3) MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE '707 EXISTING 43 • � % PROPOSED (P U ^ T/ % 4) REQUIRED FRONT YARD SETBACK 1 EXISTING q�PROPOSED , 5) REQUIRED REAR YARD SETBACK, 1 FL. ! may, f EXISTING PROPOSED i r sTrJ 2N° FL '/ �� + 6) REQUIRED SIDE YARD SETBACK b EXISTING I & 2 + PROPOSED .� _9$_ & p we6t - ri t5�F We6+- �� { MULTIPLE ROW DWELLINGS YES NO IF YES: (no �\ REQUIRED SIDE -YARD EXISTING PROPOSED 7) REQUIRED PARKING SPACES STANDARD 2 GUEST EXISTING SPACES STANDARD ! GUEST PROPOSED SPACES STANDARD GUEST 8) PARKING SPACES MINIMUM SIZE: STANDARD INSIDE GARAGE �' ��)C � D r EXISTING IV)( Z, Za'FROPOSED q i X � 0, 16 GUEST SPACE(S) OUTSIDE '7 r EXISTING PROPOSED PO �'►Pi 9) GARAGE OR PARKING SETBACK REQUIRED I t EXISTING { PROPOSED Ob aa4Vd 10) MIN. GARAGE DOORICEILING CLEARANCE EXISTING . �J f PROPOSED. ( 11) TURNING AREA REQUIRED �j� r EXISTING `L f PROPOSED 00 C-"el 12) DRIVEWAY: REQUIRED WIDTH � EXISTING /VZ PROPOSED MAXIMUM SLOPE + EXISTING PROPOSED �10 Vry w{e GRADES TO DETERMINE SLOPE CONSISTENT ON SITE PLAN AND C-SHEET i 1 MINIMUM CLEARANCE EXISTING PROPOSED 11 Cr-I , swolL Lvv) �y, 13) REQUIRED USABLE OPEN SPACE "l" EXISTING 4 + � PROPOSED MINIMUM DIMENSION REQUIRED EXISTING 2 ? PROPOSED r MAXIMUM COVERAGE ALLOWED EXISTING `� PROPOSED -6" MINIMUM ADJACE TOP PRIMARY LIVING AREA (R-2, R-3 OR R-1 SMALL LOT) OR MINIMUM MoAi j,� REQUIRED ON GRADE (R-1 & R-1A) I'N "i EXISTING � PROPOSED I� 14) MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN BUILDINGS: MAIN BUILDINGS EXISTING PROPOSED MAIN BUILDING AND ACCESSORY ! EXISTING 10 , W PROPOSED w`mj�a e d��� Coed e ARCHITECTURAL ENCROACHMENTS INTO REQUIRED YARDS: 1 MINIMUM EAVE SETBACK /L , 5 EXISTING PROPOSED MINIMUM FIREPLACE SETBACK 2, J EXISTING PROPOSED MINIMUM BAY WINDOW SETBACKI)' EXISTING PROPOSED MINIMUM COLUMNS/CHASES ETC. SETBACK EXISTING PROPOSED 16) MAXIMUM STAIRWAY/BALCONY FRONT SETBACK ENCROACHMENT EXISTING 4' PROPOSED 2' (s nd wet 17) STAIRWAY IN SIDEYARD: ABOVE 1 ST LEVEL YES NO V EXTEND IN BOTH DIRECTIONS YES NO MAXIMUM HEIGHT EXISTING PROPOSED 18) PERIMETER WALLS/FENCES --LOT TYPE: INTERIOR ,I CORNER REVERSED CORNER r1 FRONT HEIGHT MAXIMUM EXISTING PROPOSED 41" SIDE HEIGHT MAXIMUM to r EXISTING V' PROPOSED �r REAR HEIGHT MAXIMUM to EXISTING PROPOSED ; (p 19) CHIMNEY/VENTS PROJECTION ABOVE HEIGHT LIMIT INDICATED (NOT TO EXCEED MAXIMUM BUILDIN( HEIGHT EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT AS NECESSARY TO MEET BUILDING CODE) WITH REFERENCE TO ULI LISTED ASSEMBLY ONLY 2` 20) SOUND TRANSMISSION INSULATION BETWEEN WALLS (CONDOMINIUMS) MIN. S.T.C. RATING BETWEEN FLOORS PROPOSED MIN. S.T.C. RATING BETWEEN COMMON WALLS PROPOSED NO PLUMBING FIXTURES IN COMMON WALLS 22) NONCONFORMING REMODEL STRUCTURE: (PAt�RKING MINIMUM SPAS SIZE: 8 /z FT. W x 17.5FT. D) MAX. EXPANSION (PERCENT SQUARE FEET) BY RIGHT 5 PROPOSED -1 # � LESS THAN 3,000 SQUARE FEET, OR 5,000 SQUARE FEET FOR DUPLEX 2 t ONE PARKING SPACE PER DWELLING UNIT MAX. EXPANSION � PROPOSED LESS THAN I PARKING SPACE PER UNIT MAX. EXPANSIONA PROPOSED NONCONFORMING USE - GREATER THAN 45-UNITS PER ACRE? 4`j IF YES, NO EXPANSION ALLOWE 23) REVIEW CARD FILE AND MASTER FILE OPEN PERMITS YES NO CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTION PENDING P YES NO' y OPEN COMPLAINTS YES NO V PREVIOUS ADDITION TO NONCONFORMING REMODEL NO ✓ YES IF YES, % A 24) CORNER VISION CLEARANCE YES NO 25) SCREENED TRASH FACILITY YES V NO 26) SIGNED DOCUMENTS CONNECTED WITH DISCRETIONARY APPROVAL NEEDED RECEIVED ACCEPTANCE OF CONDITIONS AFFIDAVIT NOTICES OF PENDING CONSTRUCTION AFFIDAVIT CC & R'S FOR RECORDATION ASSUMPTION OF RISK IF SUMP PUMP AO 27) HISTORIC LANDMARK OR RESOURCE ? 1 NOMINATED DESIGNATED CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS 28) SUBSTANDARD LOT SIZE OR WIDTH, WITH EXISTING STRUCTURE STRADDLING THE PROPERTY LINE WITH ADJACENT LOT (SUBJECT TO LOT MERGER) 00 29) *IF A COASTAL APPROVAL FOR THIS PROJECT IS REQUIRED, 2 SETS OF CONCEPTUAL PLANS AND A COASTAL PERMIT APPLICATION NEEDS TO BE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY AFTER ZONE CHECK APPROVAL. CONTACT PLANNING STAFF FOR INFORMATION (310) . 318-0242. 30) ADDITIONAL COMMENTS F:133951CD1zonecheck2005.doc revised 2/07 �3 March 13, 2008 To Whom It May Conern, MAR 1 3 2008 CQIMIMPJWDEV,, DEPT We are writing this letter inrds to the 1130 2nd Street project in Hermosa Beach. We are their westerly neighbor and want to let you know that we are very favorably impressed with their project. They have showed us their plans and they are excellent. We think that homeowners like Zane and Elisa who choose to improve their homes in a creative and aesthetically pleasing way should be embraced and encouraged in Hermosa Beach. Kind Regards, ' Off. &l �b Joanne and Frank Montelongo 1126 2nd Street Honorable Chairman and Members of the Hermosa Beach Planning Commission SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 08-6 VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO.70445 LOCATION: 722 1 ST STREET APPLICANT: CG BUILDING GROUP, LLC (C/O CAREY MARTZ AND GARY LANE) P.O. BOX 729 REDONDO BEACH, CA 90277 April 3, 2008 Regular Meeting of April 15, 2008 REQUESTS: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP FOR A 3,289 SQUARE FOOT 2-STORY COMMERCIAL OFFICE BUILDING CONTAINING 7 OFFICE CONDOMINIUM UNITS Recommendation To approve the project subject to conditions as contained in the attached resolution. Background ZONING: GENERAL PLAN: LOT SIZE: PROPOSED BUILDING SIZE: FLOOR AREA RATIO: OFFICE UNITS: REQUIRED PARKING: PARKING PROVIDED: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: SPA-7 Specific Plan Area Commercial Corridor 4,517 Square Feet 3,289 Square Feet 0.68 7 12 Spaces 12 Spaces (8 standard, 3 compact, 1 handicap space) Categorically Exempt The subject site is located on the south side of I" Street and ,vest of Pacific Coast Highway. The property is currently vacant and was previously used for car storage as part of the Vasek Polak dealership located to the north that has since been redeveloped. The site abuts residentially zoned and developed property to the west on 1" Street. The project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, pursuant to Section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines which exempts new commercial projects of less than 10,000 square feet that comply with all the requirements of the prescribed zone. Analysis The project involves the construction of a two story building above surface level parking. The building will contain office uses with 7 office suites on the second level with interior access in each unit to the upper level that functions as deck areas (see west elevation on Sheet A-7). The suites have 15-foot high ceiling with the exception of one (Room A, facing I" Street) that has an 18-foot ceiling height. The office suites will be marketed to sole proprietors and other small businesses. The suites range in size from 220 to 440 square feet and the center suites have the option to option to combine two suites together by removing the partition wall. The plans also include private bathroom for every suite and elevator access from the surface level lobby. The surface level parking is accessed by a common driveway from 1st Street; it contains a total of 12 spaces for the net office area. Of the 12 parking spaces provided, there are 8 standard, 3 compact and 1 handicap space. The parking level layout involved a simple center access aisle, with 90 degree angled parking on each side. Under this parking layout, a 25-foot aisle width, 8.5-foot wide stalls, and 18-foot in depth is required. The Planning Commission approved the configuration of 10-foot parking stalls and 20-foot aisle at their June 20, 2006 meeting. A new curb cut is required for the proposed driveway located at the center of the site; however it will not reduce any available on -street parking spaces in front of the property. The building is designed in a Contemporary "Craftsman" style of architecture with a mix of wood siding and smooth stucco finishes, wood windows, and metal roof. As designed, the building has a two-story appearance fronting I" Street and it is compatible with surrounding commercial and residential uses. S.P.A. 7 ZONE COMPLIANCE The Specific Plan Area zone provides two sets of development standards. This two-tier approach was established to allow development that complies with the first tier standards as a matter of right without a Precise Development Plan. The four development parameters that are subject to this two- tier system are maximum building height, bulk, and size and minimum landscape coverage. As proposed, the project complies with the first tier standards and therefore is not subject to a Precise Development Plan. As follows, the S.P.A. 7 guidelines for Planning Commission review are four development parameters: BUILDING HEIGHT: The building is designed with a maximum height of 29.98 feet, which is below the allowable height limit for the first tier height of 30 feet. The highest point on the proposed flat roof is located near the southwest corner of the building. Each individual unit has direct access to the roof deck and mechanical equipment on the roof are screened from public view. BUILDING BULK: The proposed building has a floor area ratio of 0.68, which is within the first tier standards. BUILDING SIZE: The first tier standards limit the building size to a maximum floor area of 10,000 square feet or less. The proposed building has a floor area of 3,086 square feet, which comply with the first tier standards. LANDSCAPING: As required, a 5-foot landscaped buffer is provided along the westerly property line adjacent to residentially zoned property. A total of eight (8), 15-gallon size specimen trees will be planted along the 5-foot landscaped buffer. In addition, the project provides for a 3-foot wide landscaped area at the street frontage as specified in the SPA zone. In order to comply with the first tier standards, the landscaped areas must cover a mini num of 5% of the lot area. The proposed landscaped areas cover only 4% of the lot area, therefore staff is recommending the slight deficiency to be resolved as a Conditions of Approval. OFFICE CONDOME\TJMS The condominium form of ownership for commercial buildings is subject to the requirements as set forth in Section 17.22.080 through 17.22.140 of the Zoning Ordinance, including the requirement for a Conditional Use Permit and the approval of a condominium tract map. The guidelines require that Covenants Codes and Restrictions (CC&R's) be included in the project to "ensure that potential problems resulting from lack of continuous and centralized management, do not impact upon the public health, safety and welfare." Specific provision to be included in the CC&R's are set forth in Section 17.22.120. Therefore, as noted above the project conforms to the commercial condominium standards. Staff recommends the following conditions of approval in addition to standard conditions for commercial projects and condominiums: 1. The applicant should work with staff to provide a minimum of 5% landscaped areas for the project and provide a detailed landscape plan indicating size, type, and quantity of plant materials. 2. All required parking shall be shared amongst the occupants of the buildings on site, and owned in common, which shall be clearly set forth in project CC & R's, and no required parking spaces shall be assigned for exclusive use by any owner, occupant, or tenant. 3. Decorative paving surfaces shall be provided for the entries into the parking area and main pedestrian entry. 4. Office condominiums limited to general office uses as listed in C-3 zone and shall not include medical clinics, or retail uses. Residential use strictly prohibited. CC & R's shall include provisions to regulate uses. 5. Install appropriate pavement marking (i.e. stop bar with STOP legend) on the project driveway immediately beyond the sliding gate to ensure motorists stop prior to the sidewalk before exiting the site. 6. Any changes to the interior layout of the building require Planning Commission approval with the exception of removing partition walls to combine the center units (Room B and C, Room F and G). 7. The applicant shall work with staff to incorporate "green building" design in building construction such as high efficiency glazing and heating, HVAC systems, tankless water heaters and cool roofs. CONCUR: G &Ro 2 Kenson, Director Community Development Department Attachments 1. Proposed Resolution 2. Location Map 3. Photos W `� Eva Choi Acting Planning Associate fAb951cd\pc12008104-15-081722 I' St Office 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 s 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 as 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 P.C. RESOLUTION 08- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 70445 FOR A 3,289 SQUARE FOOT 2-STORY ; COMMERCIAL OFFICE BUILDING CONTAINING 7 OFFICE CONDOMINIUM UNITS AT 722 1IT STREET LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 145, WALTER RANSOM CO'S VENABLE PLACE The Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach does hereby resolve and order as follows: Section 1. An application was filed by CG Building Group, LLC, owner of property at 722 1't Street, seeking approval of a Conditional Use Permit and Vesting Tentative Tract Map for 7 office condominium units. Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted a duly. noticed public hearing to consider the subject application on April 15, 2008, and considered testimony and evidence. Based on the testimony and evidence received the Planning Commission makes the following factual findings: 1. The applicant is proposing to construct a two-story commercial building containing 3,289 square feet, consisting of surface level parking and 7 commercial office condominium units on the upper level. 2. The building on site contains 7 separate commercial units intended to be sold separately as condominium units. Commercial condominiums require a Conditional Use Permit pursuant to Section 17.22.100 of the Zoning Ordinance and approval of a Vesting Tentative Tract Map. 3 The subject site is located on the south side of 1st Street between Pacific Coast Highway and Ardmore Avenue, easterly adjacent to a residential building. The property has been vacant since 1961 and was a residential building previously. The proposed project involves the construction of a new two-story commercial building with surface level parking. 4. The project will provide 12 surface level parking spaces, which included 8 standard, 3 compact, and 1 handicap space. The parking level layout involved a simple center access aisle, with 90 degree angled parking on each side. 5. At the June 20, 2006 meeting, the Planning Commission approved a reduced turning radius for wider parking stalls dimension for the subject project. The approved configuration was 10-foot parking stalls and 20-foot aisle. Section 3. Based on the foregoing factual findings the Planning Commission makes the following findings pertaining to the application for a Conditional Use Permit, and Vesting Tentative Tract Map: Ll 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 1. Pursuant to the guidelines in Section 17.38.320 of the Zoning Ordinance for review of projects that comply with the first tier standards in the SPA 7 zone. The Planning Commission has determined that: a. The building is designed with a maximum height of 29.98 feet, which is below the allowable height limit for the first tier height of 30 feet. The highest point on the proposed flat roof is located near the southwest corner of the building. Each individual unit has direct access to the roof deck and mechanical equipment on the roof is screened from public view. b. The proposed building has a floor area ratio of 0.68, which is within the first tier standards. The first tier standards limit the building size to a maximum floor area of 10,000 square feet or less. The proposed building has a floor area of 3,086 square feet, which comply with the first tier standards. d. A 5-foot landscaped buffer is provided along the westerly property line adjacent to residentially zoned property. A total of eight (8), 15-gallon size specimen trees will be planted along the 5-foot landscaped buffer. In addition, the project provides for a 3-foot wide landscaped area at the street frontage as specified in the SPA zone. In order to comply with the first tier standards, the landscaped areas must cover a minimum of 5% of the lot area. The proposed landscaped areas cover only 4% of the lot area; therefore staff is recommending the slight deficiency to be resolved as a Conditions of Approval. 3. The subdivision or types of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems; 4. The subdivision or type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision; 5. Design of the proposed subdivision is compatible and consistent with applicable elements of the City's General Plan, and is compatible with the immediate environment; 6. The project, as conditioned, will conform to all zoning and condominium laws and criteria and will be compatible with neighboring residential properties. Section 4. Based on the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby approves the subject Precise Development Plan, Conditional Use Permit and Vesting Tentative Tract Map subject to the following Conditions of Approval: 1. The development and continued use of the property shall be substantially consistent with submitted plans as reviewed by the Planning Commission at their meeting of April 15, 2008, incorporating all revisions as required by the conditions below. Any major modification, including changes in the layout of the condominium units, shall be subject to review and approval of the Planning Commission. Minor modifications S- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 s 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 2s 29 modifications may be approved by the Community Development Director. 2. Final plans for building permit issuances shall be revised to incorporate the following. a. The applicant should work with staff to provide a minimum of 5% landscaped areas for the project and provide a detailed landscape plan indicating size, type, and quantity of plant materials. 3. The use of the building and the individual condominium units shall be limited to general office uses allowed in the SPA-7 zone, and shall not include medical or dental clinics, retail or any other uses subject to greater parking requirements. 4. All parking shall be shared amongst the occupants and patrons of the buildings on site, and owned in common, which shall clearly be set forth in project CC & R's, and no parking spaces shall be assigned for exclusive use by any owner, occupant, or tenant. 5. Decorative paving surfaces shall be provided for the entries into the parking area and the main pedestrian entry. 6. Install appropriate pavement marking (i.e. stop bar with STOP legend) on the project driveway immediately beyond the sliding gate to ensure motorists stop prior to the sidewalk before exiting the site. 7. The applicant shall work with staff to incorporate `green building' design in building construction such as high efficiency glazing and heating, HVAC systems, tankless water heaters and cool roofs. 8. The project shall meet all requirements of the Condominium Ordinance. a. Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions in compliance with the Condominium Ordinance Section 17.22.120 shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. b. Proof of recordation of approved CC & R's shall be submitted to the Community Development Director thirty (30) days after recordation of the Final Map. 9. A detailed drainage and (SUSMP) Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan is required for approval by the Public Works Department, prior to the issuance of building permits and implemented on site, demonstrating best management practices for stormwater pollution control, and for sediment control and erosion control during construction. 10. The applicant is responsible for all off -site right-of-way construction required by the Public Works Department. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 11. The project shall comply with the requirements of the Fire Department. 12. The applicant shall submit all required plans and reports in two steps to comply with the City's construction debris recycling program, including manifests from both the recycler and County landfill, prior to final approval of building demolition and issuance of building permits, and prior to project final approval. 13. Final building plans/construction drawings including site, elevation, floor plan, sections, details, signage, landscaping and irrigation, submitted for building permit issuance shall be reviewed for consistency with the plans approved by the Planning Commission and the conditions of this resolution, and approved by the Community Development Director prior to the issuance of any building permit. 14. All roof equipment shall be located and designed to be screened from public view and any portion that exceeds the height limit shall not cover more than 5% of the roof area. 15. The project and operation of the business shall comply with all applicable requirements of the Municipal Code. 16. The Conditional Use Permit and Vesting Tentative Tract Map shall be recorded, and proof of recordation shall be submitted to the Community Development Department. 17. Each of the above Conditions of Approval is separately enforced, and if one of the Conditions of Approval is found to be invalid by a court of law, all the other conditions shall remain valid and enforceable. 18. Permittee shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City, it agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City or its agents, officers, or employee to attack, set aside, void or annul this permit approval, which action is brought within the applicable time period of the State Government Code. The City shall promptly notify the permittee of any claim, action, or proceeding and the City shall cooperate fully in the defense. If the City fails to promptly notify the permittee of any claim, action or proceeding, or if the City fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the permittee shall not thereafter be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City. 19' The permittee shall reimburse the City for any court and attorney's fees which 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 condition. 20. The subject property shall be developed, maintained and operated in full compliance 7 1 2 3 4 s 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 compliance with the conditions of this grant and any law, statute, ordinance or other regulation applicable to any development or activity on the subject property. Failure of the permittee to cease any development or activity not in full compliance shall be a violation of these conditions. Section 6. 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. 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: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: CERTIFICATION I hereby certify the foregoing Resolution P.C. No. 08- is a true and complete record of the action taken by the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach, California at their regular meeting of April 15, 2008. Sam Perrotti, Chairman April 15 2008 Date I CUP 722 1" Street Office Ken Robertson, Secretary 0 XY Maps - 722 1st Street Page 1 of 1 722 1 St Street 1 in=73fi 1� http://xymaps/servlet/com.esri.esn'map.Esrimap?ServiceNamc=HermosaBeach OV&Clien... 04/08/2008 a �z PL Aa 39.8 39-8/ 40 ros.3o 'jN I570"''4•-._ . tr :Por, 90 N 4 .5(j O 33�4 IT 23 130 'i \ ,. 2 Pnc • K I w O Ieg rib 127 12 125 i 6a /oi7g Ja w O O � � -- • � '• 6.BB C7 �Cly� ��- • j D iLlS� �1 �i� r 22 3 3 Zv - .. 1,e4ar=. raz.;/3 �.z ✓ -T � 5 i34 z� r6 S`! `� 6^.sa .� - � � 35 136 S l) p� rn 7 [38 139 ) O $Par ! O O + . � 7 Yzz6ar�, 1e1 12 E 110 .3 3 a.34 •a !S7 �� �'�' V � z6a� � M YI,05 t�133. � 4 `h da 418g- 0 S.T. Q I A _ d0 d� 43 d7.• Gp r t 3 o1 IA3 3� Q N C N my ci_ /> 4 ~ (D ` ` 3 3o r46 145 h r6 .�f I�srs 144 `+Y 6 34pR j2,6 - z � Zd zz SHEI {47 ? Si �l7sr„ 1 ���"� > 76.6 es 7j wn riEs ur 4o 1 N ODD � ���36_031 ti T o f� • Ys,as. �'•3r � �� f `µ poi / 'ti -9 71 /00 iS N �' � � o f` • l � zYsp Jc•noJ ADDRESS: 722 1ST ST CONTINENTAL MAPPING SERVICE SCALE 1" = 100' 6325 Van Nuys Boulevard, Van Nuys, CA 91401 (818) 787-1663 Subject site. The subject property has been vacant since 1961. Ivv auu / iv i btreet --- r,ignt units resiaentiai building west of the subject site. Attachment 3 Honorable Chairman and Members of the Hermosa Beach Planning Commission SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 08-3 LOCATION: 844 HERMOSA AVENUE A.K.A. KEN AND KENT'S NY STYLE DELI APPLICANT: LOUIS SKELTON, ARCHITECT 2537-D PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY TORRANCE, CA 90505 April 9, 2008 Regular Meeting of April 15, 2008 REQUEST: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW ON -SALE BEER AND WINE AND DINING PATIO IN CONJUNCTION WITH A NEW RESTAURANT. Recommendation: To approve the Conditional Use Permit request and adopt the attached Resolution. Project Information: ZONING DESIGNATION: GENERAL PLAN: LOT AREA: BUILDING AREA (TOTAL) RESTAURANT LEASED AREA ON -SITE PARKING PROVIDED: ALCOHOL SERVICE PROPOSED: OPERATING HOURS PROPOSED; ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: C-2, Downtown Commercial General Commercial 5,863 Square feet 6,383 Square feet 4,220 Square feet (400 SF Patio) 6 spaces Beer/wine 7:00 am - 10:00 pm Sun. thru Thurs 7:00 am — midnight Fri., Sat and holidays 7:00 am — 8:00 pm winter Categorically Exempt 844 Hermosa Avenue Permit and Plannin Entitlement Chronolo : • October 10, 2007: Community Development Department issued Building Permit to allow interior non -bearing wall demolition for and interior finishes, and create ground floor lobby entrance (in progress). • April 17, 2007: The Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 07-06 (sustained by City Council) revoking a Conditional Use Permit for on -sale beer and wine service, pursuant to HBMB 17.70.010, and finding that the use for which the alcohol service approval was granted had ceased to exist for more than one year. • Planning Commission adopted P.C. Resolution No. 96-13, approving a Precise Development Plan, Conditional Use Permit and Environmental Negative Declaration for new 6,200 square foot restaurant with on -sale beer and wine service (sustained.by City Council). A restaurant known as California Beach Sushi first occupied the premises, followed by another Japanese restaurant, and ultimately a sushi academy which operated until November, 2005. Background/ Proposal: The subject property is located at 844 Hermosa Avenue and is improved with a two story commercial structure that has been vacant since November 2005, On March 13, 2007 an application was filed for a new Conditional Use Permit for a new restaurant at this location to be known as "Ken and Kent's New York Style Deli". The two features of the business proposal that require a Conditional Use Permit are: 1) the service of beer and wine in conjunction with and supplemental to the restaurant and 2) modifications to the exterior front building wall to open up an existing seating area for conversion to a dining patio. The restaurant is expected to offer a full breakfast, lunch and dinner trade with the following proposed hours of operation: Summer: 7:00 am —10:00 pm Winter: 10:00 am — 8:00 pm Holidays: 7:00 am —12:00 am midnight The plans (copy attached) indicate the changes, mostly interior that are proposed. The main area will have an open floor plan with approximately half of the total devoted to the kitchen and service areas, with the remaining area devoted to dining. Analysis The stated purpose of a Conditional Use Permit in the Municipal Code is to ensure that "compatibility shall be maintained with respect to the particular use on the particular site and in consideration of other existing and potential uses within the general area in which such use is proposed to be located." (HBMC 17.56.020(A)). Staff focused its evaluation therefore on land use compatibility and compliance with all applicable zoning and other development standards. Land Use The subject building location is located on the west side of Hermosa Avenue near the south end of the C-2 Downtown Commercial between 8th Street and 10th Street. The stated purpose of this zone in the Municipal Code is "To provide opportunities for a limited range of office, retail, and service commercial uses specifically appropriate for the scale and character of the downtown -- resident and visitor serving pedestrian oriented shopping/entertainment district." (HBMC 17.26.020 B.2.Specific purposes). The proposal to improve this site with a new restaurant is consistent with this purpose as it will provide a new dining opportunity for residents and visitors. The use is complementary to the building if occupies as it will cater to future tenants of the second story offices which are being improved at the same time. The use will blend well with other nearby uses between 8t" and 10th Street, mainly commercial, including retail, personal service and.similar restaurants (Barnacle, Banzai Beach, Mexican Cafe, Mama Di's). 2 The site is designated "General Commercial" in the City's General Plan, which is the broadest and most intense form of commercial. The project intensity, considering both the physical and operational aspects is more similar to a neighborhood or downtown commercial and therefore is consistent with the General Plan. Appropriate findings have been incorporated into the Resolution. Dining Patio The submitted plans indicate that there will be minor changes to the front building wall to accommodate two new 60 square foot removable windows. This work is adjacent to a 30 seat dining area thus creating a dining patio near the public sidewalk. Other than the front window change, this area will be enclosed by roof and surrounded by the other restaurant space. Staff believes this will add visual interest to the building fagade as well as a measure of life and vibrancy to the building and adjoining commercial area. New noise impacts are not expected to be significant in that the space is located towards the street and faces other commercial uses. In addition the hours of operation as conditioned by the approval should be limited to those typical of a restaurant use, as opposed to catering to downtown nightlife. Alcohol Service The applicant proposes beer and wine service, as with the prior restaurants at this site. The proposed hours for the entire restaurant are 7:00 am - 10:00 pm Sunday through Thursday, 7:00 am — midnight, Friday, Saturday and holidays. The closing hour is proposed to be cut back to 8:00 pm during the winter. The only staff concern is regarding potential noise impacts from the dining patio which faces Hermosa Avenue. This can be controlled by regulating alcohol service and the closing hour as well as prohibiting live entertainment. As shown on the attached map, the closest residential uses to the patio on Hermosa Avenue are at 10th Street (a nonconforming use) to the north and at 8th Street (high density residential) to the south. The structure most likely to hear noise from this project is on the west side of Hermosa Avenue at 10`h Street, approximately 250 feet away. In order to simplify and ease enforcement Staff believes that the patio and inside closing hours be the same. Staff surveyed nearby restaurants with dining patios and alcohol service for their approved closing hours. Staff found two including Barnacles, across the street, and Mama Di's just north of 10'h Street. Mama Di's has a patio closure at 10 pm and inside closures of 11 pm/12 am. Barnacles has patio closure at 10 pm/l 1 pm and an inside closure of 2 am. . Staff recommends that the closing hour for the 30-seat patio and the inside be the same and consistent with Mama Di's (10 pm) as this restaurant is catering to more to the regular dinner trade and not the late nightlife such as on the Pier Plaza. This would represent a reduction of only four hours a week and only during the summer months, based on the application. Staff has incorporated this condition into the draft Resolution. Parking The building is classified as a nonconforming structure in that the parking standards have become more restrictive since 1996. Pursuant to HBMC 17. 52.035 "Requirements for buildings nonconforming to parking requirements" the existing supply parking spaces as 3 approved in 1996 and governing PDP must be maintained with this project and the building must not be expanded. The plans submitted indicate that the project will be consistent with these requirements. The size, location and amount of parking (six independently accessed spaces) will be maintained at the rear and the building envelope and square footage will not be increased. Sanitation, Health and Environmental The project will continue the practice of the prior restaurant tenant in using an enclosed area with roll -up door at the rear of the building for trash bin storage area. The business owner will contract and coordinate trash pick-up with the City's waste hauler. The physical provisions for trash, parking lot drainage (regarding water runoff) and the entire tenant space will be reviewed by various City departments for compliance with applicable codes when construction plans are submitted for plan -check. Health code compliance will be checked and enforced by the Los Angeles County Health Department during the plan -check period. Public Notification Pursuant to legal requirements, notice of the public hearing has been posted on the site, published in the Easy Reader and mailed to all property owners of record within 300 feet of the project boundaries. Staff has not received any public input on this proposal as of the writing of this report. Summary: The proposed project is consistent with applicable development standards and objectives of the City's Zoning Ordinance as well as the goals and policies of the General Plan. Staff believes that the subject proposed restaurant will be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood on Hermosa Avenue. Any potential impacts will be mitigated by conditions imposed in the Conditional Use Permit Resolution. Rosem y Lackow, Temporary Senior Planner CONCUR: rr . A6"o ertson, Director r ,F, Community Development Attachments: 1. Resolution (Draft) 2. Location Map 3. Poster Posting Verification 4. Plans (11 x 17) Ilhba s0llvol11S951CD1ROSIE1Plannin CommissionlPC 04 150 081CUP 844 Hermosa Staff Report (Ken & Kents).doc In 10 11 12 I3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 PC RESOLUTION 08- (DRAFT) A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW ON -SALE BEER AND WINE AND OUTDOOR DINING IN CONJUNCTION WITH A NEW RESTAURANT ("KEN AND KENTS") IN AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING AT 844 HERMOSA AVENUE Section 1. On April 15, 2008 the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa conducted a public hearing regarding an application for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) on the p legally described as Lot 23, Tract No.1564, located at 844 Hermosa Avenue in the City of H Beach. The Los Angeles County Tax Assessor's Parcel reference is 4187-007-020. Section 2. The applicant requests approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow service of beer and wine and a 400 square foot dining open patio for a new restaurant on the subject property. The restaurant is to occupy 4,365 square feet on the ground floor of an existing xxxx square foot two story commercial building. The proposed restaurant closing times are 10:00 pm Sunday through Thursday and 12:00 am (midnight) Friday through Saturday. No live entertainment or expansion of building area is proposed. Section 3. The applicant is Louis Skelton, for Piled High Deli, Inc. Section 4. Prior entitlements for the subject property include P.C. Resolution No. 96-13 approving a Precise Development Plan (PDP), Conditional Use Permit and Environmental Negative Declaration adopted February 20, 1996. The Conditional Use Permit portion of the entitlement was revoked by the Planning Commission on April 17, 2007 (P.C. Resolution 07-15) because the use permit for alcohol service expired after closure of a former restaurant. Resolution PC 96-13 and all applicable conditions remains in effect as the governing entitlement for the overall building improvement. Section 5. The proposal is consistent with all findings and all conditions of P.C. 96-13, except as amended or clarified by this proposal and approval. Section 6. Pursuant to section 15332, Article 19 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, the project is categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA in that it: I) is consistent with applicable general plan and zoning policies, designations and regulations 2) is located on a site of less then five acres and is substantially surrounded by urban uses 3) has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species 4) will not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air or water quality, and 5) will be adequately served by utilities and public services. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DOES HEREBY APPROVE ON -SALE BEER AND WINE SERVICE AND DINING PATIO, IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A a 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 f0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 RESTAURANT, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. The use of the restaurant shall be consistent with plans submitted and approved by the Planning Commission on April 15, 2008. Other minor modifications to the plan shall be reviewed and may be approved by the Community Development Director. Any substantial deviation must be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. 2. All applicable conditions of P.C. Resolution 96-13 are incorporated in this approval by reference, and include "Specific Conditions of Approval, numbers 2 through 9 which relate to: rear building door closure, roll -up door, trash storage area and deliveries, rear parking area and prohibition of live entertainment and "General operating and standard conditions" numbers 1 though 8, and 10. 3. General condition 9 of P.C. Resolution 96-13 is amended to allow the windows in the front building wall to be modified to accommodate a dining patio. In addition, the new patio shall be used strictly for seating and dining and shall not be used for other purposes such as a standing or smoking area. 4. The Conditional Use Permit applies exclusively to on -sale beer and wine in conjunction with a restaurant. For clarification, Specific Condition 9 of Resolution PC 96-13 is revised as follows: Live entertainment (including amplified music, disc jockeys, live music whether acoustic or amplified, and live performances of all kinds and customer dancing) is prohibited. 5. The closing hour for all operations of the restaurant, including the dining patio shall be limited to 10:00 pm daily. All customers shall vacate the premises and the doors locked. by not later than 11:00 pm. 6. The restaurant shall be subject to annual review by the Planning Commission to conformance with the Conditions of Approval. 7. The project degree of building modification, in that it involves a changes to an nonconforming structure (regarding on -site parking) shall be in conformity with Section 17.52.035.D. entitled "Requirements for buildings nonconforming to requirements." 8. The project shall be in conformance with all other applicable City of Hermosa Beach and regulatory agency requirements and standards including but not limited to: California ABC (Alcoholic Beverage Control), Los Angeles County Health Department, California Disabled Access Standards (Government Code Title 24) and Los Angeles County National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit (NPDES). Section 7. This grant shall not be effective for any purposes until the permittee. and the owners of the c 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 a2 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 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 shall be recorded, and proof of recordation shall be submitted to the Community Development Department. Each of the above conditions is separately enforced, and if one is found to be invalid by a court of law, all of the other conditions shall remain valid and enforceable. Permittee shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City, its asgents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City or its agents, officers , or employees to attach, set aside, void or annul this permit approval, which action is brought within the applicable time period of Government Code Section 65907. The City shall promptly notify the permittee of any claim, action, or proceeding, or if the City fails to cooperate fully in the defense. If the City fails to promptly notify the permittee of any claim, action or proceeding, or if the City fails to cooperated 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 which 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 condition. The subject property shall be developed, maintained and operated in full compliance with the conditions of this grant and any law, statute, ordinance or other regulation applicable to any development or activity not in full compliance shall be a violation of these conditions. The Planning Commission may review this Conditional Use Permit and may amend the subject conditions or impose any new conditions if deemed necessary to mitigate detrimental effects on the neighborhood resulting from the subject use. The subject property shall be developed, maintained and operated in full compliance with the conditions of this grant and any law, statute, ordinance or other regulation hereafter adopted that is applicable to any development or activity on the subject. property. Failure of the permittee to cease development or activity not in full compliance shall be a violation of these conditions. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this day of 52008, 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 I3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California ATTEST: CITY CLERK FAB951CD1rosielCUPR1844 Hermosa Av.doc APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY ATTORNEY InTH - Y 97— 003 ^ a: roo y � 9 Ea rr 12 13 I -"IS 17 B L .10 IOTH zq�I aN `v T�iBa 4187-77"�' /00 zoN vipp D3" K F,, DiLJ g to 19 20 2 22 23 24 i 23 26 27 �7 21 © ® •TA7., Q ® ® ® - - w N W W v P fv ST O� W ti p, 4 O YY ITN P O M r7b y(D08 + 87-0o Z W N a ru 13 9 la I! 1-2 13 14 13 16 17 O ik V N sn W N � 4 /. t o I J � w Y M _`� SN grH 2fi 3 1� CT. N u 4 �67 20 2 J22 � •• •• 60 3D 3$S b E4 "� i � N i't raa w /oo w Q a w C ,7�I I w �I 8-(H 8TH p �DaB 4��f�7- 197- px; -5Y iN 30 •• a0 .7a.S /00` r3 41 _ I 3/ O 33 3 O O v n B 9 f 0 11 x I 13 14 I S - 9991 i DOa I SO O 1, V o i 2.7 30 _ ULl \. xt9 N' ' xY0 <ae p -� —O >U u 87N CT. n IV z 3T5 30 •• - .. 3o Jd.B 75� se - Z5 SCALE 1" = 100' ADDRESS: 844 HERMOSA AVE CONTINENTAL MAPPING SERVICE 9 6325 Van Nuys 6oufevard, Van Nuys, CA 91401 (818) 787.1663 I1 Supplemental to PUBLIC HEARING ITEM # 11 Hermosa Beach Planning Commission meeting agenda of April 15, 2008. City Clerk, vR i f; 2008 Please distribute immediately this supplemental to the Community Development Director, and have added as supplemental material displayed on the Internet for this Planning Commission meeting item. This supplemental is also for delivery and announcement to the Plannin Co 'o' t the commencement of their Public Hearing Item #11 at the meeting. !. Please also copy as city mail to each of the City Councilmembers. Thank You All. C,,-v To: Hermosa Beach Planning Commission, Community Development Director From: Howard Longacre, a Hermosa Beach resident Re: Opposition by Howard Longacre to the renewal of an amendment to the Certified Coastal Land Use Plan (LUP) to continue reduced parking requirements for office and retail uses in the downtown. Public Hearing Item 11. TEXT 03-1 -- Renewal of an amendment to the Certified Coastal Land Use Plan (LUP) to continue reduced parking requirement for office and retail uses in the downtown. Staff Recommended Action: To recommend amending the City's Certified Coastal Land Use Plan to renew the use of reduced parking ratio in the downtown district. The above is as contained on the agenda face of the 4/15/2008 Planning Commission Honorable Members of Planning Commission: Please indicate in the minutes of the meeting my strong opposition to staff's recommendation. This was an outrageous change to the Land Use Plan back in 2004. It has had nothing but negative effects on the ability for visitors to the downtown to find parking. It has resulted in additional parking spillover into the surrounding residential neighborhoods. It has allowed the maxing-out of commercial buildings in the downtown. It is leading to the downtown being turned into an over- densified urban -jungle that benefits no one other than owners of existing buildings who can charge more rent stuffing more commercial into their existing buildings, along with a handful of developers who are packing into -the -downtown three-story monoliths with office condominiums and which every intelligent person in town knows are under -provided with parking and are likely to morph into sub- standard boot -leg living units. - Please continue reading on the next page. Supplemental from H.Longacre to Planning Commission Meeting Public Hearing Item-11, Apr-1 5-2008. �3 DEFT. Page 1 of 2 I urge the Commission to use common sense and not continue this absolutely insane reduction of parking requirements. Is the Commission fully cognizant of the fact that the entire city, except for the downtown has gone through several decades of various kinds of density reduction? Now the Commission is approving projects that are not only further densifying this tiny Hermosa Beach downtown but causing untold degradation to the present businesses there, the visitors to the city being able to find parking, and destruction of the residential quality of life_ The Commission needs to come to its senses, even if the City Council will not! This was a total scam to reduce the required parking in the downtown back in 2004. It's proposing to continue the scam! It's time commercial projects stop being encouraged by the city to max -out and instead provide for their own logical parking requirements instead of dumping their parking into our downtown streets and surrounding residential community. Someone(s) appears to be trying to keep this city impacted. Why? It is time residential parking permits are returned to being for impacted zone residents only, and not for being sold for the ridiculously cheap 27 cents a day to businesses and their employees to further densify Hermosa's dinky downtown. Hermosa Beach is unquestionably being systematically destroyed evidently for someone(s) greedy personal agenda. There is zero justification for any of this. If it is the Commission's desire to wreck this city, then each and everyone of you making these decisions, should state outright, that, "we are carrying out the City Council's and city management's agenda of packing as much commercial into Hermosa's dinky downtown as possible, and to hell with the quality of life of the 18,000 residents of this city." The original parking requirements are themselves too low. In my view these reduced requirements are proof positive that there is something very wrong somewhere in the thinking going on in this town. Each day it appears less and less honorable. And by the way, about a year or so ago, at the time of the Pier Avenue striping fiasco, the scam of the original tiny parking spaces in the North Pier Parking Structure came to an end when the structure's parking spaces were restriped to be larger so cars could fit in them. The original higher number of tiny spaces was in my view part of a scam used to win approval from the Coastal Commission back when parking was removed from lower Pier Avenue to create what is now essentially a bars plaza. Did the city request and receive permission from the Coastal Commission for the restriping that eliminated so many spaces with that restriping? Were those lost spaces replaced anywhere? A significant number of spaces were lost from the parking structure when that restriping occurred about a year or so ago. The Planning Commission would best do everything possible to set a direction that solves problems instead of adding to the problems. Do not approve the continuation of this ridiculous reduction in required parking for commercial projects. It was a scam from the get -go and it's time that it is ended. How can you reduce parking requirements, increase commercial density, and then say, "Oh this is improving the parking and access for the visitors and residents." Outrageous! Thank you for your careful attention and consideration Howard Longacre Supplemental from H.Longacre to Planning Commission Meeting Public Hearing Item-11, Apr-15-2008. Page 2 of 2 April 3, 2008 Honorable Chairman and Members of the Regular Meeting of Hermosa Beach Planning Commission April 15, 2008 SUBJECT: AMENDMENT TO THE CERTIFIED COASTAL LAND USE PLAN TO RENEW THE REDUCED PARKING RATIO FOR OFFICE AND RETAIL USES IN THE DOWNTOWN DISTRICT Recommendation: Recommend amending the City's Certified Coastal Land Use Plan to renew the use of reduced parking ratio in the downtown district. (Three spaces per 1,000 square feet of floor area for retail and office uses instead of the standard of four per 1,000, which is required in areas outside the downtown district). Background: In 2004, the City Council amended the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to parking requirements in the downtown, including a reduction in the requirement for office and retail uses from 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet to 3 spaces per 1,000 square feet, and submitted Amendment 2-03 to the City's Coastal Land Use Plan (LUP). The amendment was certified by the Coastal Commission in June, 2004, to allow the reduced parking ratio for office and retail land uses in the downtown, however, the Coastal Commission limited it to a period of three years from the date of certification of the Amendment, with a possible one year extension. The purpose of the amendment was to encourage more daytime office and retail uses in the downtown to balance the nighttime uses. To date four new projects have been approved in the downtown district, containing office and retail uses, which arguably were encouraged by the reduced parking ratio. The City requested a one year extension in October, 2006, in order to extend the program to June 2008, based on the premise that the projects which have been approved with the reduced ratio had not been completed. After waiting 6 months for a response, the extension request was denied by the Coastal Commission staff. In its letter of May 22, 2007, the Coastal Commission staff indicated that a new LUP amendment would be required to continue the City's use of the reduced parking ratio for the downtown and that, "...As a part of the amendment request, a parking analysis for the downtown district is required, investigating the impacts of the reduced parking rate." Analysis: Staff completed a parking inventory in the summer of 2007 which supports the City's position that the reduced three -per -thousand parking ratio will not adversely impact visitor access to the beach. The study surveyed parking utilization at all public parking areas in the downtown area at peak daytime hours on a weekday, and it was found that more than sufficient vacancy exists should the lower parking ratio cause any impact on beach access parking. Of the 838 public parking spaces in the downtown area, the number of vacant parking spaces ranged from 275 to 373 on the summer days when the parking was surveyed. Staff recommends initiation of the LUP amendment in order to continue the use of the reduced parking ratio for retail and office uses in the downtown. If approved by the City Council, staff will submit the amendment for Coastal Commission consideration. 4� Robertson, Director Community Development Attachments: 1. Resolution 2. Parking Inventory 3. LUP (current parking policies) 4. Public Notice 1 The four projects approved since 2006, and their current status: 200 Pier Avenue 18,000 square feet office condominiums Under construction 338-400 Pier Avenue 14,500 square feet office and retail Site work in progress 1429 Hermosa Avenue 19,000 square feet office with some retail/restaurant Demo complete 906 Hermosa Avenue 10,000 square feet office condominiums Demo in progress MI 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 to 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 I9 20 21 22 23 .24 25 26 27 28 29 RESOLUTION 08- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH RECOMMENDING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CITY'S CERTIFIED COASTAL LAND USE PLAN TO RENEW A REDUCED PARKING RATIO FOR RETAIL AND OFFICE USES IN THE DOWNTOWN DISTRICT WHEREAS, in April of 2004, the City Council approved Amendment 2-03 to the Certified Coastal Land Use Plan (LUP) which authorized the City to allow a reduced parking ratio for office and retail land uses in its Downtown District, as shown on Exhibit A attached hereto, for a period of three years from the date of certification of the Amendment by the California Coastal Commission. The Amendment allowed a parking ratio of three spaces per 1,000 square feet of floor area for office and retail land uses instead of the standard of four per 1,000 as required for areas outside the downtown district; and WHEREAS, the preceding Amendment was certified by the Coastal Commission in June of 2004 and expired in June of 2007. In its letter of May 22, 2007, the Coastal Commission staff indicated that a renewal of the LUP amendment would be required to continue the City's use of a reduced parking ratio in I the downtown district. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Based on the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby recommends an amendment to the City's Certified Coastal Land Use Plan to renew the use of a reduced parking ratio for retail and office I uses within the Downtown District. VOTE: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: CERTIFICATION I hereby certify the foregoing Resolution P.C. No. 08- is a tale and complete record of the action taken by the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach, California at their regular meeting of April 15, 2008. Sam Perrotti, Chairman April 15,_2008 Date Ken Robertson, Secretary EXHIBIT A: DOWNTOWN DISTRICT: q a Coastal Land Use Plan - Re: Parkingslncluding LUP Amendment #6 and 02-3 I 3 III. Parking Access Summary A. Statement of Philosophy To preserve and increases where feasible, residential, commercial, and general public parking within the Coastal Zone. B. Goals and Objectives 1. To provide adequate residential parking. 2. To maintain adequate parking space for both visitor and shoppers. 3. To provide easy access to work -related parking for merchants. 4. To maximize the safety • and accessibility of parking while minimizing noise, traffic congestion and negative visual impacts. 5. To provide an equitable distribution and allocation of parking resources. 6. To recognize the unique parking needs of the pedestrian oriented downtown business area --which are less than a typical commercial area because .of its proximity to a regional bike path and to high density residential areas --in order to maximize improvements and expansions to visitor serving business activities without the burden of unnecessary parking regulations an4 further, to encourage alternatives to - motorized vehicles in reaching downtown destinations. C. Policies and Programs Hermosa`s particular history of development is reflected in the following policies and programs. Policies have been divided into those policies that are now in force and currently supported by codes and ordinance and those policies that.the City should consider for enactment. I. Existing Policies and Programs Policy. The City should. not allow the elimination of existing on -street parking or off-street parking spaces within the coastal zone. Future residential and commercial construction should provide the actual parking necessary to meet the demand generated. In the pedestrian /D 4 oriented downtown commercial district alternatives to providing ... parking to meet increased demands for use should be allowed, to encourage alternatives to using motorized vehicles and to encourage improvement and enhancement of visitor serving business activities. Program: Current City Building Codes and Ordinances support the current policy. Two on -site parking spaces are required for each residence that is constructed, with an additional guest space provided per every three units constructed. Replacement of parking spaces is mandatory for all new developments in which on -street parking spaces are eliminated or the total number of on -street parking spaces are reduced. Policy: The City should control congestion through the granting of parking permits through an allocation plan which reflects actual need and supply. Program: The City has enacted a permit plan to control parking congestion. Permits are available to both residents on a long-term basis and non- residents on a short-term basis. Program: Free parking will be provided to beach visitors on the railroad right of way. Policy: A separation of long-term (beach user) and short-term (shoppers) parking be created in the downtown area to provide adequate and flexible number of parking spaces for commercial demand. Program: A study is being done by the VPD to develop a downtown parking plan. Program: The manner in which time is purchased in each of the downtown parking lots determines how the lots will be used. Program: The City has established the Downtown Enhancement Commission (DEC) to determine the best use of revenue funds for the downtown district which will be recommended to the city council. The proposed uses are for the acquisition, construction of new parking facilities, and/or the maintenance and operation of existing parking facilities for the benefit of the area; for other improvements and enhancements including, but not limited to: street, landscaping and.pedestrian sidewalk improvements; public events; and the general promotion of business activities in the area. it 4a Policy: The City shall establish parking requirements in the Downtown Enhancement District (DED) similar to the requirements set forth in other areas of the City's coastal zone. However in recognition of the unique parking needs and constraints in the downtown district, the City may explore the creation of and grant exceptions to the parking requirements such as, but not limited to, in -lieu fee programs, parking plans, the creation of remote parking lots with shuttle connections, reduced parking requirements for office and retail uses to recognize the lower parking demand experienced in the downtown during daytime hours, or shared parking programs, provided that any such exceptions are consistent with the public access provisions of the Coastal Act. in carrying out any such program the City shall assure that there is parking available within the DED to support beach access and the proposed development. This LUP Amendment approves a reduce parking program for retail and office use that is in substantial conformance with attachment A (Ordinance 04- 1239). The City's ability to grant exceptions that authorize reduced parking for office and retail uses in order to reduce the imbalance of uses downtown shall remain in effect for three (3) years from the date of certification of the amendment. If the City wishes to continue with the use of the reduced parking program, the City shall return to the Commission with a LUP amendment request that includes a parking analysis for the DED. The parking analysis submitted with the amendment request shall include a current parking analysis that addresses cumulative public access impacts of office use parking demand, of the demolition of existing commercial development, and of the construction of more intense retail or office uses on summer day -time beach parking. Using the provisions of this program, if fewer than 15,000 square feet of retail or office space has been approved under this reduced parking program at least two years into the program, the city may submit a request for a one year extension for review and approval by the Executive Director Policy: Minimize parking impacts by encouraging a mix of visitor - serving and other commercial uses that balances peak and non - peak parking demand that occurs during the day and seasonally. However, the City may only offer reduced parking to this goal for uses that are listed in, and by means of a parking standard that is in substantial conformance with Attachment A to this document (Ordinance 04-1239). /z- Program: In order to mitigate the impacts of increased parking `..� demand that is created by new development, but is not compensated for by requiring additional parking spaces, the City Council shall provide an in -lieu fund transfer or an in -lieu fund transfer or an in lieu fee as described in Section 17.44.040 of the Zoning Ordinance and Ordinance No.80-643 and Resolution Nos. 80-4307 and 99-6001 to an improvement fund earmarked specifically for creating parking, in an amount determined to be sufficient to off -set the increase in required parking spaces caused by the expansion, intensification, or new construction not provided on site. If the City Council determines that the private party is responsible for the in lieu fee, the private party shall pay said fee. Program: The City shall not accept a fee in lieu of providing on site parking unless the Community Development Director assures that sufficient parking exists to accommodate the parking demand of new development without causing a significant adverse impact on parking that is available to the beach going public. The improvement fund to mitigate increased parking demand shall be geared to a threshold limit of increased parking demand. The threshold limit was established at 100 parking spaces in 1982 and has not yet been reached. The City shall continue tallying the J number of spaces (of that 100) that have been allocated based on receipt of in -lieu fees, and the City shall construct new parking upon reaching that threshold limit or the City shall not accept any fees in -lieu of parking beyond that threshold limit. The City shall provide an annual accounting of the in -lieu parking program. A. In -lieu Fee Program annual accounting shall include: I. A report of the number of spaces in the 100-space pool that have been "sold"; 2. The current dollar amount required for an in -lieu, and annual account balance of in -lieu fees collected and the number of spaces sold during the review period; 3. The number of parking spaces provided by payment of in -lieu fees since inception of the program. Program: Parking Validation All new commercial development on any lot within the Downtown Enhancement District shall require participation by the business owner(s) in the parking validation program. Existing development of less than 500 square feet may expand or increase in intensity of 13 5a use up to 15 % without participation in the validation program. The validation program shall provide validation for no less than two hours unless all required parking is provided on site without any parking exceptions specified in Section 2 above or any other parking variances or exceptions. Policy: That the City has the responsibility to insure the safety of its citizens by removing vehicles which are parked in illegal parking spaces and may pose a threat to the safety or its citizens and/ or guests./ Program: Within the Motor Vehicles and Traffic Codes of the City and the State, specific regulations have been outlined for curbing violations regarding illegal parking of vehicles. 2. Future Policies That the City should investigate and, where feasible, enact the following policies. Policy: City should consider land donations or equivalent for parking as part of a condominium conversion. Policy: City should consider establishing a fee in lieu of providing additional parking on -site for curb cuts. Policy: That the City should investigate the possibility of lease or purchase of parking lots dispersed throughout the city so as to minimize the impact on the parking demand to the City and its residents. Policy: City should examine the current status of public lands leased and the rents received. 1� Community Development Department Planning Division City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 IMPORTANT PUBLIC NOTICE RENEWAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE CERTIFIED COASTAL LAND USE PLAN (LUP) TO CONTINUE REDUCED PARKING REQUIREMENT FOR OFFICE AND RETAIL USES IN THE DOWNTOWN NOTICE 1S HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, April 15, 2008, to consider renewal of an amendment to the Certified Coastal Land Use Plan (LUP) to continue reduced parking requirement for office and retail uses in the downtown. SAID HEARING shall be 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, California. 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, April 10, 2008 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 THIS PROJECT 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 [Government Code Section 65009 (b) (c)). 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 in the Planning Commission packet will be available for public review at the end of the business day on Thursday, April 10, 2008 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. CITY OF HERMOSA BE CHI -'n c Community Development Department . April 2, 2008 Honorable Chairman and Members of Regular Meeting of Hermosa Beach Planning Commission April 15, 2008 SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 06-9 ' PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN 06-8 VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 67610 LOCATION: 421 MONTEREY BOULEVARD REQUEST: TO EXTEND THE EXPIRATION. DATE OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND TENTATIVE MAP NO. 67610 FOR A TWO -UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT. Recommendation: To extend the expiration date of the Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan by one year to March 19, 2009 and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 67610 by one year to September 19, 2009. Back2roundlAn alysis: At the meeting of September 19, 2006, the Planning Commission approved a Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan, and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 67610 for a two -unit condominium project. The Conditional Use Permit and Precise Development Plan become null and void eighteen months from the date of approval unless building permits have been obtained. Approval of the Vesting Tentative Parcel Map expires twenty-four months from the date of approval unless the map is final and the project implemented. The applicant may apply in writing to the Planning Commission for a time extension prior to the date of expiration. A tentative map may be extended up to five -years from its original expiration date. This is the first request for extension for the project. On March 5, 2008, the applicant submitted an extension request for the Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map. The project is currently in structural plan check phase and cannot begin construction until building permits has been issued. The requested extensions will allow additional time for the applicant to implement and complete the project. Eva Choi Acting Planning Associate f �lxwo Ken Robertson, Director - Community Development Department Attachment 1. Letter from applicant f1B951cd1pc1200814-15-081Ext 421 MontereyBlvd SUBTEC SUBDIVISION TECHNICAL SERVICES 5147 WEST ROSECRANS AVENUE, HAWTHORNE, CA 90250 (310) 644-3668 March 5, 2008 . Ken Robertson City of Hermosa Beach Civic Center Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Re: Parcel Map 67610 421 Monterey Blvd. Dear Ken: MAR 0 8 20010) On behalf of the applicant, Hassan & Mary Arianpour, I would like to request a one-year extension of time in order to record the final map. Because construction of the project has not started, the final map has not yet been submitted to the County for plan check and we don't believe we will e able to record it before the expiration date of Sept. 18, 2008. We will also need a one-year time extension for both the CUP and PDP as the building permits are not yet ready to be issued. For your information, a "Notice of Permit Waiver Effectiveness" was granted by the Coastal Commission on February 22, 2008 a copy of which should have been forwarded to you by the Coastal Commission. Thank you for consideration of our requests. Sincerely, Cheryl Virgo, Applicant's representative 2- April 8, 2008 Honorable Chairman and Members of the Regular Meeting of Hermosa Beach Planning Commission April 15, 2008 SUBJECT: APPEAL OF DIRECTOR'S DECISION TO BASE THE HEIGHT MEASUREMENT ON A CONVEX SLOPING LOT LOCATION: 1929 MANHATTAN AVENUE APPLICANT: ALYSA AND TIMOTHY BRENNAN Recommendation To direct staff as deemed appropriate by minute order, from the following alternatives: 1. Determine the property to be a uniformly sloping lot and interpolate the grade from the corner points only; or 2. Determine the property to be a convex sloping lot and interpolate from intermediate points on the top of the slope and also use elevation points at the top of the retaining wall within 3 horizontal feet from the front and rear of the property line for height calculation, as proposed by the applicant. Background The subject lot is located on the west side of Manhattan Avenue between 19th Street and 21st Street. The property is located within the R-1 zone with a height limit of 25-feet. The lot, like others along this block, slopes up and down along its 90 feet length. The elevation change from the front of the lot to the rear is approximately 11 feet along the northerly side and 7 feet along the southerly side of the property. The applicant is requesting consideration of alternate points along both the north and south property lines where the survey and topographic profile show a convex condition as compared to a straight line interpolation. In addition, the applicant is requesting to use the top of the retaining wall elevation at the front of the property along Manhattan Avenue for the height calculation. No other newly constructed homes on the block have requested a convex slope interpretation. Analysis Pursuant to the definition of building height and grade, as set forth in Section 17.04.040 of the Zoning Ordinance, and the method of determining building height, as set forth in Section 17.46.015, the grade used for the height measurements is based on the surveyed elevations points at the property corners. The method for determining building height, however, allows for consideration of other points along the property line for lots with "convex" contours. In these situations, the grade of a lot may be based on alternate points along the property line in addition to property corner points. Alternate points must be unaltered grade that best represent the natural contour of the property. In cases where the datum for height measurement is disputed, the final determination of the grade may be referred to the Planning Commission. The applicant's request is reasonable given the topographic profile clearly shows a convex condition along both southerly and northerly property lines. The convex condition is more apparent along the northerly property line as series of elevation changes take place. Along the southerly property line, the front and rear of the lot exhibit a noticeable convex condition while the middle portion has a relatively consistent slope. The same condition appears to exist with neighboring properties on the block, although it is less clear for the property to the north, which has been cut to allow for a driveway. Under the definition of grade in Section 17.04.040 of the Zoning Ordinance, an alternate point within 3 horizontal feet of the property corner can be used for the height calculation when supporting evidence indicate that it best represents unaltered grade. The subject property has a front retaining wall as Manhattan Avenue was cut approximately 4 feet to establish the current street right-of-way. Therefore, it is appropriate to use the elevation points from the top of retaining walls for height calculation. In summary, the current grades demonstrate a convex contour and the existing grades from the top of retaining walls are unaltered, natural grade. Thus, there is sufficient evidence for the Commission to consider this property having a convex condition and also to base the height calculation with top of the retaining wall elevations. The convex slope interpretation and the use of elevation points from top of the retaining wall will allow the applicant more feasible options to construct a new single family residence. CONCUR - Eva Choi Acting Planning Associate en Roberson, Director Community Development Department Attachments 1. Property survey 2. Topographic profile 3. Photos . F.\B951CD1PC12008104-15-081Appeal-1929Manhattan.doc IN l x 7Y.i. J. 10-- 77- r'. �w e... . . . . . . . . . . . . . O. i ti w. I h 0 z C<L LU z z LL 0 w w LU oo n 4U ti kY l` MOM 9 �p v- i 1' I YO ty ,A April 3, 2008 Honorable Chairman and Members of Regular Meeting of Hermosa Beach Planning Commission April 15, 2008 SUBJECT: PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN 08-4 LOCATION: 3001 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY REQUEST: TO EXTEND THE EXPIRATION DATE OF THE PRECISE DEVELOMENT PLAN FOR A NEW 8,750 SQUARE FOOT TWO-STORY COMMERCIAL OFFICE BUILDING WITH TWO LEVELS OF BASEMENT PARKING. Recommendation: To extend the expiration date of the Precise Development Plan by one year to March 20, 2009. Back roundlAnal sis: At the meeting of March 20, 2007, the Planning Commission approved a Precise Development Plan for a new 8,750 square foot two-story commercial office building with two levels of basement parking. The Precise Development Plan is valid for a one-year period from the date of approval unless building permits have been obtained and development have commence. The applicant may apply in writing to the Planning Commission for a time extension prior to the date of expiration. On March 17, 2008, the applicant submitted an extension request for the Precise Development Plan. The project is currently in structural plan check phase and cannot begin construction until building permits has been issued. The requested extensions will allow additional time for the applicant to implement the project. CONCUR: w, ZZ, ...Ken R66ertson, Director �. `,.."Community Development Department Attachment 1. Letter from applicant f\B951cd1pc1200814-15-081Ext 3001PCH Eva Choi Acting Planning Associate i SROUR & ASSOCIATES, LLC Business and Real Estate Development Services 1001 Sixth Street, Suite-110, Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 Email address srourllc@esrour.com 310/372-8433 ■ FAX 310/372-8894 MEMORANDUM DATE: March 17, 2008 TO: CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH KEN ROBERTSON, DIRECTOR, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. 1315 Valley Drive, HB CA 90254 FROM: ELIZABETH SROUR RE: 3001 Pacific Coast Hwy.NTTM 68769 C & C Partners PDP Extension Request This correspondence is submitted on behalf of the owner of the subject property, Patrick Cunningham/ C & C Partners. We are assisting the owner with coordination of the Final Tract Map as well as other aspects of the condominium project. P.C. Resolution No. 07-12 approving the CUP, VTTM 68769 and PDP for a 16 unit commercial condominium project was adopted March 20, 2007 (attached). Construction drawings have been submitted for plan check, the property owner is working with CALTRANS, and the Final Map has been submitted to the County Engineer. The building permit has not been issued. We hereby request that the Planning Commission grant a one year extension of the PDP. Please let me know if anything further is needed. Thank you for your consideration. ELIZABETH SROUR On Behalf of C & C Partners Property Owner attachment cc: PAWOPM-Nondre\Commercial condoMermosa13001 PCHTPP Extend-city-M DOC 2- PLANNING COMMISSION City of Hermosa Beach � 2nd tr GPA (Notification) --- ----- .................. .__-.-.-.-.............------------------ => Capital Improvement Program (C1P) consistency with .................-____ -_-__..__-_-._..............--------------- 5/20 12/11 General Plan ------- ---- --.....--...__..._ ............... ------.........._...-___..._.---------------- -- - - -- -- _._._-..-.-.-.-....-..-. => 1106 The Strand, Scotty's —CUP Amendment to allow for -------------- .--.-----.......-...-_-.-.-.-._ 5/8 ....... .... _.................. 5/20 ...................... . 2/25 "on -sale" general alcohol and outdoor dining in conjunction with an existing restaurant (currently with on -sale beer and wine) .._._..._._,.,.._... __................. ..... - .... - - ---..__-...-.-.-.._.....-----------..........-..----- ---------------------------- ___ -..................... => 1332 Hermosa Ave. #1, Blue 32 -- Revocation or --... __..... .......... . ...... ............ 5/8 5/20 3/19 modification of the CUP _...................... ---....-.........__.W..__.--.--._.-.-.......------- -------...-............-.-...---....._..-_.-.--................-.----- 205 Pier Ave. -- CUP, PDP, & VTTP #70364 for a new --------..-............_.- 5/8 .- ..--- 5/20 3/24 6,640 sq. ft. 2-story commercial structure with basement parking containing office and a restaurant uses, divided into 5 condo units on the 1st & 2nd floors and 1 restaurant on the ground floor; a CUP for "on -sale" general alcohol with closing time of 2:00 a.m. in conjunction with the restaurant; and, a Parking Plan to base parking requirements on the peak shared parking requirements of the proposed uses and to use tandem parking and pay parking in lieu fees to compensate for providing less than the required parking on site at the property & NEG. DEC. I: DYZ)1ca\wpc 15a CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BUILDING DIVISION FEBRUARY, 2008 MONTHLY REVENUE REPORT NUMBER OF PERMITS TYPE OF ACTIVITY CURRENT THIS MONTH FY TO DATE LASTFY MONTH LAST FY TO DATE BUILDING 46 47 .. .. 419 378 PLUMBINGIMECHANICAL 37 38 306 331 ELECTRIC 26 20 238 240 PLAN CHECK 17 22 193 170 SEWER USE 0 0 2 9 RES. BLDG. REPORTS 13 25 113 141 PARKS & RECREATION 0 0 0 2 IN LIEU PARKS & REC 2 1 5 7 BOARD OF APPEALS 0 0 2 0 SIGN REVIEW 7 1 24 10 FIRE FLOW FEES 5 9 53 54 LEGAL DETERMINATION 0 0 0 0 ZONING APPEALS 0 0 0 0 TEMPORARY SIGN 1 2 7 10 COMMERCIAL INSPECTION 0 0 0 0 TOTALS 154 165 1,362 1,352 FEES COLLECTED TYPE OF FEE CURRENT MONTH': THIS MONTH LAST FY FY TO DATE LAST FY TO DATE BUILDING $24,878.14 $32,868.30 $301,350.69 $288,183.89 PLUMBING/MECHANICAL $5,529.00 $5,844.00 $53,194.00 $51,568.10 ELECTRIC $4,297.80 $4,549.00 $45,963.80 $56,827.00 PLAN CHECK $6,756.09 $39,006.69 $238,700.95 $218,698.73 SEWER USE $0.00 $0.00 $2,963.00 $24,925.02 RES. BLDG. REPORTS $3,081.00 $5,575.00 $26,291.00 $30,970.00 PARKS & RECREATION $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $7,000.00 IN LIEU PARKS & REC $31,788.00 $10,188.00 $91,768.00 $51,564.00 BOARD OF APPEALS $0.00 $0.00 $1,004.00 $0.00 SIGN REVIEW $1,680.00 $226.00 $5,662.00 $2,176.00 FIRE FLOW FEES $4,558.50 $5,606.50 $52,683.50 $81,509.00 LEGAL DETERMINATION $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 ZONING APPEALS $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 TEMPORARY SIGN $249.00 $468.00 $1,713.00 $2,328.00 COMMERCIAL INSPECTION $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 TOTALS $82,817.53 $104,331.49 $821,293.94 $815,749.74 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BUILDING DIVISION BUILDING PERMITS ISSUED REPORT MONTH OF FEBRUARY, 2008 TYPE O STRUCTURE PERMITS DWELLING UNITS, VALUATION 1 101 NEW SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES DETACHED 2 102 NEW SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES ATTACHED 3 103 NEW TWO FAMILY BUILDINGS 4 104 NEW 3 OR 4 FAMILY BUILDINGS 5 105 NEW 5 OR MORE FAMILY BUILDINGS 6 213 NEW HOTELS/MOTELS 7 214 NEW OTHER NON HOUSEKEEPING 8 318 NEW AMUSEMENT & RECREATION 9 319 NEW CHURCHSIOTHER 10 320 NEW INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS 11 321 NEW PARKING GARAGES. 12 322 NEW SERVICE STATIONS/REPAIR GARAGES 13 323 NEW HOSPITALSIOTHER INSTITUTIONAL 14 324 NEW OFFICESIBANKS 1 $10,000 15 325 NEW PUBLIC WORKS/UTILITY BUILDINGS 16 326 NEW SCHOOLS/OTHER EDUCATIONAL 17 327 NEW STORESIOTHER MERCH BLDGS. 18 328 NEW OTHER NON RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS 19 329 NEW STRUCTURES OTHER THAN BUILDING 1 $23,880 20 434 ADD/ALTER DWELLING/POOLS 37 $528,987.41 21 437 ADD/ALTER NON RESIDENTIAL 9 $113,900 22 438 RESIDENTIAL GARAGES/CARPORTS 23 645 DEMOLITION -SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES 2 2 $15,000 24 646 DEMO 2-FAMILY BUILDINGS 25 647 DEMO 3-4 FAMILY BUILDINGS 26 648 DEMO 5+ FAMILY BUILDINGS 27 649 DEMO ALL OTHER BUILDINGS 50 $691,767.41 TOTAL UNITS ADDED FY 2007-08 TO DATE: 30 TOTAL UNITS DEMOLISHED/LOST FY TO DATE: 38 (See Attached List) TOTAL NET UNITS FY TO DATE: -8 FY 2005-06 FY 2006-07 Total New Dwelling Units: 90 Total New Dwelling Units: 50 Total Demolished Units: 92 Total Demolished Units: 29 Net Units: -2 Net Units: 21 E Dwelling Units Demolished/Lost as of February, 2008 i4QDRESS .... TYPE ... ............. ... PERMIT DATE ......... ..... PERMIT:'No. No..bF UNIT::: 1208 Ocean Drive SFR 7/19/07 B07-373 1 2634 The Strand SFR 7/24/07 B07-379 1 1206 2nd Street SFR 7/24/07 B07-380 1 1922 Hillcrest Drive SFR 7/26/07 B07-387 1 1614 & 1416 Hermosa Ave. Duplex 7/18/07 B07-370 2 1286 Bonnie Brae Street SFR 8/6/07 B07-407 1 132 28th Street Duplex 8/6107 B07-411 2 309 26th Street SFR 9/5107 B07-454 1 830 2nd Street SFR 9/5107 B07-455 1 734 Ba iew Drive SFR 9/10/07 B07-458 1 1212 15th Street SFR 9/6107 B07-460 1 1130 9th Street SFR 9/11/07 B07-466 1 339 26th Street SFR 9/13/07 B07-480 1 2114 Manhattan Avenue SFR 9113/07 B07482 1 427 11 th Street Duplex 1019/07 B07-525 2 119 16th Street SFR 10/25/07 B07-565 1 640 Braeholm Place SFR 1118/07 B07-591 1 945 16th Street SFR 11/19/07 B07-605 1 67 18th Street Converting a 4- lex to Triplex 11/13/07 B07-582 1 1222 2nd Street Converting a Duplex to SFR 12/19/07 B06-149 1 1632 The Strand SFR 12/19/07 B07-640 1 482 25th Street SFR 12/13/07 B07-641 1 711 30th Street SFR 12/20/07 B07-655 1 1084 Monterey Boulevard 5 Unit Apartment 12/12/07 B07-639 5 905 15th Place SFR 1/2/08 B08-2 1 731 21st Street Duplex 1/16/08 BOB-25 2 737 21st Street SFR 1/16/08 BOB-26 1 739 21 st Street SFR 1/16/08 B08-27 1 242 31 st Street SFR 2/13/08 BOB-79 1 921 16th Street SFR 2/14/08 BOB-82 1 Total Units Demolished 38 March 19, 2008 HONORABLE MAYOR and MEMBERS of Regular Meeting of HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL March 25, 2008 ACTIVITY REPORT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT - PLANNING DIVISION FEBRUARY, 2008 STAFF REPORT PREPARED SUBJECT ' .. ,._.. 7HIS MONTH i THIS FY To. LAST FY APPEAL 1 RECONSIDERATION 1 0 4 5 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT C.U.P. - CONDOMINIUMS 0 1 3 7 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT C.U.P. - COMMERCIAL 0 0 6 5 C.U.P./PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT 0 0 3 3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT MODIFICATION/REVOCATION 0 0 1 4 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/MAP EXTENSION 0 0 5 4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 0 0 0 0 FINAL MAP 0 0 5 14 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 0 0 1 0 HEIGHT LIMIT EXCEPTION 0 0 0 0 LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT 1 0 1 1 1 NONCONFORMING REMODEL 0 0 0 0 PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN 0 1 1 2 PARKING PLAN 0 0 3 0 SPECIAL STUDY 0 0 2 0 VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 1 0 1 1 TEXT AMENDMENT 1 3 9 11 TRANSIT 0 0 1 1 VARIANCE 1 2 5 5 ZONE CHANGE 0 0 0 0 MISCELLANEOUS 7 8 54 39 TOTAL REPORTS PREPARED 12 15 105 102 NOTE: A staff report may be written for one or more of the'items listed above, but it will be listed and counted only once. 4 CONCU en Ro ri n, Director Community Development Department NOTED: w"s, t IIt f - fab951cdlactivity Respectfully submitted, � u-Ying Ting - Administrative Assistant 5 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, held on Tuesday, February 26, 2008, at the hour of 7:12 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE — Jerry Olguin ROLL CALL: Present: Bobko, DiVirgilio, Reviczky, Tucker, Mayor Keegan Absent: None ANNOUNCEMENTS Councilmember Tucker said he learned at a Sanitation District meeting that fees for sewer usage and developer hookups would increase incrementally to 2010 and that a future hearing would take place to discuss the increases; announced a Hermosa Beach Woman's Club fundraiser — "Adrienne's Search for Children Cancer Cure" — at 6 p.m. Saturday, March 8, at the Kiwanis Club, with $30 tickets and all proceeds going to Ronald McDonald House; asked that the meeting be adjourned in memory of his neighbor Olga Anna Noor, mother of Duke Noor and Arnie Beisel. Councilmember Bobko announced the Hermosa Beach Education Foundation's "Hearts of Hermosa" fundraiser at 6:30 p.m. Friday, March 7, at Sangria and urged everyone to make reservations early because, as one of the best parties in town for a very good cause, the $125 tickets sell out fast. Mayor Keegan asked that tonight's meeting also be adjourned in memory of Garrett Ogushi, a 23-year old physical therapist who worked in Hermosa Beach and had provided physical therapy for the Mayor after his surgery. City Attorney Jenkins asked the Council to add an existing litigation item with Macpherson Oil to the closed session, noting that the issue arose after the posting of the agenda. Action: To add the existing litigation case with Macpherson Oil to this evening's closed session agenda based on the findings that the matter required immediate action and came to the City's attention after the posting of the agenda. Motion Mayor Keegan, second Tucker. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: 1. ORAL AND WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS There were no written communications. Coming forward to address the City Council at this time were: Jim Lissner — Hermosa Beach, commented on the description of the closed session items on the posted agenda, asking that more information be City Council Minutes 2-26-08 Page 12357 provided for anticipated litigation rather than just the number of cases; submitted related information; Alan Toman — Hermosa Beach, cited three construction sites on 16th Street with no cones or safety signs but lots of noise and, since they are not properly watered down, a lot of dust; said his wooden fence was crooked now because of all the dirt piled up against it; asked the City to monitor the work by the company involved to ensure compliance; Rosalind Bender — Hermosa Beach, expressed concern about the amount of dust from the 16th Street construction sites, citing trips to her allergist and urgent care due to its affect on her allergies and asthma; said 16th Street traffic and parking issues had been discussed at Public Works Commission and City Council meetings for the last year and a half with no resolution; said she spoke to the contractors about illegally parked construction vehicles on both sides of the street, and also to the Public Works Department about safety, speeding and parking issues, noting that issued warnings by the City did not seem to help; and Patty Egerer — Hermosa Beach, thanked Councilmember Tucker for honoring the memory of Olga, a dear member of the community who connected with so many families; requested a traffic plan to reduce uphill traffic from the highway onto 15th Place, a narrow, short street which can handle traffic in only one direction, noting that the traffic had increased because of the construction on 16th Street. In response to Mr. Lissner's comments about closed session items, City Attorney Jenkins said the City shares his concern about strict compliance with the Brown Act, and explained the difference between anticipated litigation and initiation of litigation. Responding to 16th Street construction comments, Councilmember Tucker said the City could not limit the number of construction sites on a particular street, but enforcement was vital, with staff checking more often than just for scheduled inspections to ensure compliance; said the sites should have been watered for dust control and construction workers should not park illegally, adding that the Police could shut down a site for non-compliance. 2. CONSENT CALENDAR: Action: To approve the consent calendar recommendations (a) through a), with the exception of the following item, which was removed for discussion in item 4, but is shown in order for clarity: 2(f) Reviczky. Motion Reviczky, second Tucker. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. (a) RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF JANUARY 22, 2008. Action: To approve, as presented, the minutes of the Regular Meeting of January 22, 2008. City Council Minutes 2-26-08 Page 12358 (b) RECOMMENDATION TO RATIFY CHECK REGISTER NOS. 50871 THROUGH 51017 AND TO APPROVE CANCELLATION OF CHECK NO. 50825 AS RECOMMENDED BY THE CITY TREASURER. Action: To ratify the check register as presented. (c) RECOMMENDATION TO RECEIVE AND FILE TENTATIVE FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS. Action: To receive and file the Tentative Future Agenda Items. (d) RECOMMENDATION TO RECEIVE AND FILE THE JANUARY 2008 FINANCIAL REPORTS: 1) Revenue and expenditure report; 2) City Treasurer's report; and, 3) Investment report. Action: To receive and file the January 2008 financial reports. (e) RECOMMENDATION TO RECEIVE AND FILE THE ACTION MINUTES OF THE UPPER PIER AVENUE COMMITTEE MEETING FEBRUARY 6, 2008. Action: To receive and file the action minutes of the Upper Pier Avenue Committee meeting February 6, 2008. (f) RECOMMENDATION TO ACCEPT DONATIONS OF $2,500 FROM HERMOSA BEACH CHAMBER OF COMMERCE TO BE USED FOR THE SAINT PATRICK'S DAY PARADE EVENT AND $3,000 FROM THE SOUTH BAY SAINT PATRICK'S DAY WEEKEND COMMITTEE INC. TO BE USED FOR THE SAINT PATRICK'S DAY PARADE EVENT. Memorandum from Finance Director Viki Copeland dated February 14, 2008. This item was removed from the consent calendar by Mayor Pro Tempore Reviczky for separate discussion later in the meeting in order to acknowledge and thank the donors. Action: To accept the following donations: $2,500 from the Hermosa Beach Chamber of Commerce to be used for the Saint Patrick's Day Parade event; and, - $3,000 from the South Bay Saint Patrick's Day Weekend Committee, Inc. to be used for the Saint Patrick's Day Parade Event. Motion Reviczky, second Bobko. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. (g) RECOMMENDATION TO RECEIVE AND FILE PROJECT STATUS REPORT. Memorandum from Public Works Director Richard Morgan dated February 20, 2008. City Council Minutes 2-26-08 Page 12359 Action: To receive and file the Status Report of capital improvement projects that are either under design or construction as of January 31, 2008. (h) RECOMMENDATION TO RECEIVE AND FILE THE ACTION MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 19, 2008. Action: To receive and file the action minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of February 19, 2008. (i) RECOMMENDATION TO RECEIVE AND FILE THE ACTION MINUTES OF THE EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS ADVISORY COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 4, 2008. Action: To receive and file the action minutes of the Emergency Preparedness Advisory Commission meeting of February 4, 2008. {J) RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE CLASS SPECIFICATION FOR SENIOR PLANNER. Memorandum from Personnel Director/Risk Manager Michael Earl dated February 21, 2008. Action: To approve the class specification for Senior Planner. At 7:35 p.m., the order of the agenda was suspended to go to public hearing item 5 (a), (b), and (c). 3. CONSENT ORDINANCES - None 4. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE DISCUSSION Item 2(f) was heard at this time but is shown in order for clarity. Public comments on items removed from the Consent Calendar are shown under the appropriate item. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. APPEAL OF A DENIAL BY THE COMMUNITY SERVICES DIVISION OF THE POLICE DEPARTMENT OF A PERMIT TO KEEP MORE THAN TWO DOGS AT 1218 ELEVENTH STREET. Continued from meeting of January 22, 2008. Memorandum from Police Chief Greg Savelli. Police Chief Savelli presented the staff report and responded to Council questions. City Attorney Jenkins also responded to Council questions. The public hearing opened at 7:38 p.m. Coming forward to address the Council on this item were: City Council Minutes 2-26-08 Page 12360 Donald Stidham — owner of the property where the dogs live, asked to be allowed to keep three dogs until oldest one passes; said as requested at the last meeting, they have picked up waste twice a day instead of once, are using a strong spray and bathing the dogs regularly, and put a bark collar on only the puppy, as it would be dangerous for the older dogs and Newfoundlands did not bark a lot anyway; said they agree to bi-monthly inspections and requested that they be allowed to bathe the dogs themselves rather than pay $40 per dog each professional bath; Cathy Smith — Manhattan Beach, a former Hermosa Beach resident who had been to the Stidham's house only one time; distributed aerial photos to the Council showing the proximity to the neighbors with the pool and to houses with other dogs; said Newfoundlands are not barkers unless a stranger comes into the yard, and a bark collar would be cruel; urged the Council to allow the owners to bathe the dogs themselves; Candace Stidham — owner of the dogs, said right after the last meeting, she located an area that smells behind their property and only four feet from the neighbors who are complaining about the odor; said a large Burmese Mountain Dog lives on this adjacent property and the owners had not cleaned up for a week; said her dog run is on the opposite side of the yard; agreed that Newfoundlands do not bark; Gordon Ross — Hermosa Beach, said he has been paying on property he owns down the hill that cannot be occupied or sold; said he dropped the price and then received pressure from realtors who say that action is driving down the value of other neighborhood homes; said when the neighbors wash down their yard, the water runs onto his property along with the dog urine; urged the Council to find a way to divert the dogs' waste to decrease the odor. The public hearing closed at 7:49 p.m. Action: To grant a temporary pet permit with the following conditions: (1) The dogs shall be required to wear "citrus" anti -barking collars outside; (2) Each dog shall be professionally bathed/groomed once a month with documentation; (3) The owners shall acquire and maintain an automatic closing container to hold feces, the feces shall be picked up twice a day and the waste in the container shall be removed weekly; (4) The owners shall use a product recommended by veterinarians called "Eliminator" (or its equivalent) to treat the areas used most commonly by the dogs for urination; (5) The owners shall allow the Hermosa Beach Police Department Animal Control personnel to inspect the property bi-monthly to ensure compliance; (6) The permit shall be issued for the three current dogs by name, with a six-month review by Council, the owners shall sign an agreement to comply with all conditions and non-compliance will result in immediate revocation of the permit. Motion Reviczky, second Tucker. The motion carried, noting the dissenting votes of Bobko and DiVirgilio. City Council Minutes 2-26-08 Page 12361 b. RECONSIDERATION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF A VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A 3-CAR GARAGE WITH A 4-FOOT SETBACK RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED 17 FEET ON A "REVERSE" CORNER LOT LOCATED AT 201 PROSPECT AVENUE. Memorandum from Community Development Director Ken Robertson dated February 20, 2008. Community Development Director Robertson presented the staff report and responded to Council questions. City Attorney Jenkins also responded to Council questions. The public hearing opened at 8:24 p.m. Coming forward to address the Council on this item were: William Blechen -- property owner, submitted a letter with attachments explaining the project and letters from their neighbors; said he and his wife had talked to some of the neighbors who were confused by the four -foot setback; said they thought about bringing the building toward Prospect but it would be too dangerous to back out onto that street; said they wanted to retain the charm of their 1928 home frontage, with their expansion in the rear; said they needed a garage large enough for their vehicles as well as storage; did not feel the garage size was a negative impact and said the variance would provide for access, parking, and storage which would improve the neighborhood; JerryOlquin — Hermosa Beach, neighborhood resident and builder/developer, discussed what he thought was a better solution than the variance the Planning Commission approved; said adjustments could be made to the plan that would be only one foot short of what the property owner is requesting and would provide adequate on -site parking, noting it would still require a variance but would be a better project all around; Steve Crecv -- Hermosa Beach, a resident of this neighborhood, said he was not opposed to the remodeling but thought it was important to provide adequate parking, noting a bigger need due to the increased size of the home; said the project did not meet the required findings and favored Mr. Olguin's suggestion; and George Barks — Redondo Beach, former Hermosa Beach resident, said he grew up in this neighborhood and believed these property owners were trying to improve the area; said when he was on the City Council, he spearheaded the additional setback to get cars off the sidewalks, and he encouraged rollup garage doors to allow more space for parking; thought Mr. Olguin's proposal made sense; said it was important to look at all the options. The public hearing closed at 8:43 p.m. Action: To deny the variance and direct staff to bring back for adoption at the next Council meeting a resolution overturning the Planning Commission's City Council Minutes 2-26-08 Page 12362 decision to grant the variance, and to remand the project back to the Planning Commission. Motion Tucker, second Mayor Keegan. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. The meeting recessed at 8:52 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 9:04 p.m. C. TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING ADULT BUSINESSES. Memorandum from Community Development Director Ken Robertson dated February 20, 2008. Community Development Director Robertson presented the staff report and responded to Council questions. The public hearing opened at 9:14 p.m. As no one came forward to address the Council on this item, the public hearing closed at 9:14 p.m. Action: To approve the staff recommendation to waive full reading and introduce Ordinance No. 08-1291, entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A ZONE TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING ADULT BUSINESS REGULATIONS," as amended to add 'or portion thereof' to the definition of Adult business in Section 1 of the Ordinance to read "Adult business means any business, or portion thereof, which........" Motion Reviczky, second Bobko. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. 6. MUNICIPAL MATTERS a. AWARD LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE CONTRACT. Continued from meeting of February 12, 2008. Memorandum from Public Works Director Richard Morgan dated February 19, 2008. Public Works Director Rick Morgan presented the staff report and responded to Council questions. City Manager Burrell also responded to Council questions. Action: To approve the following three staff recommendations to: (1) Award the landscape maintenance contract to Trugreen Landcare of Gardena, California, in the amount of $706,000 for the period beginning March 1, 2008, and ending June 30, 2010 (28 months); (2) Authorize the Mayor to execute and the City Clerk to attest the contract subject to approval by the City Attorney; and (3) Authorize the Director of Public Works to make minor changes as necessary within the budget. Motion Reviczky, second Tucker. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. City Council Minutes 2-26-08 Page 12363 b. DOWNTOWN PLAN. Continued from meeting of December 11, 2007. Memorandum from Community Development Director Ken Robertson dated February 20, 2008. Community Development Director Robertson presented the staff report and responded to Council questions. Coming forward to address the City Council at this time was: Jim Lissner — Hermosa Beach, suggested that the consultant undertake the preparation of a downtown balance sheet, noting that the current one produced by the City Manager and Finance Department indicates four times the revenue for money spent, while his analysis showed the opposite; favored an analysis of data by an independent party; also said diesel generators should not be used for events. Action: To direct the Planning Commission to work with staff to prepare a request for proposal for a facilitator to carry out a program of community outreach and to assist in creating a vision for the future of the downtown. Motion Keegan, second Tucker. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. 7. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY MANAGER City Manager Burrell spoke of upcoming changes in the agenda pertaining to how items appearing under Other Matters — City Council are to be handled. City Attorney Jenkins said the changes would appear on the next agenda. 8. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY COUNCIL - None 9. OTHER MATTERS - CITY COUNCIL - None ANNOUNCEMENT IN OPEN SESSION OF ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED IN CLOSED SESSION AS FOLLOWS: 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: a. Closed Session meeting held on November 27, 2007; b. Closed Session meeting held on December 11 2007; and C. Closed Session meeting held on January 2, 2008. 2. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL The City Council finds, based on advice from legal counsel, that discussion in open session will prejudice the position of the City in the litigation. a. Existing Litigation: Government Code Section 54956.9(a) Name of Case: Johnny Anderson v. City of Hermosa Beach Case Number: CV06-5078 City Council Minutes 2-26-08 Page 12364 b. Anticipated Litigation: Government Code Section 54956.9(b) Number of potential cases: 1 C. Existing Litigation: Government Code Section 54956.9(a) Name of Case: Macpherson v. City of Hermosa Beach Case Number: BC172546 ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION — The Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach adjourned on Tuesday, February 26, 2008, at the hour of 9:49 p.m. to a closed session. RECONVENE TO OPEN SESSION — The Closed Session convened at the hour of 9:50 p.m. At the hour of 10:55 p.m., the Closed Session adjourned to the Regular Meeting. ORAL ANNOUNCEMENTS — By a unanimous vote, Council decided to file a write seeking immediate review in the court of appeal of the trial court's summary judgment ruling in the Macpherson Oil case. ADJOURNMENT - The Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach adjourned, in memory of Olga Anna Noor and Garrett Ogushi on Tuesday, February 26, 2008, at the hour of 10:56 p.m. to the Regular Meeting of Tuesday, March 11, 2008. t City Clerk(_�Deputy City Clerk City Council Minutes 2-26-08 Page 12365 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, held on Tuesday, March 11, 2008, at the hour of 7:11 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE — George Barks ROLL CALL: Present: Bobko, DiVirgilio, Reviczky, Tucker, Mayor Keegan Absent: None ANNOUNCEMENTS — Councilmember Tucker announced that the City met with the FAA and the airplane banner group and believed there would be an agreement and code of conduct soon; also wished good luck to St. Rock, the Union Cattle Company owners' new restaurant located in the space vacated by the Pitcher House. Mayor Pro Tempore Reviczky invited the community to the annual St. Patrick's Day Parade on Saturday, March 15 at 11 a.m., noting that there would be music and Irish dancing afterward on Pier Plaza. Councilmember Bobko reminded everyone that the Upper Pier Avenue Committee would have its final meeting Monday, March 17, to fine tune the recommendations that will be presented to the City Council at the March 25 meeting. Mayor Keegan thanked the Hermosa Beach Little League for the honor of throwing the first pitch of the season, noting it was a great day and 435 children participated. PROCLAMATIONS 1 PRESENTATIONS USIMEXICO SISTER CITIES ASSOCIATION YOUTH SCHOLARSHIP AWARD PRESENTED BY GEORGE BARKS, SO. BAY CITIES REPRESENTATIVE, TO HERMOSA RESIDENT NICOLE BURKE. George Barks, board member for the United States/Mexico Sister Cities Association of which Hermosa Beach is a member; mentioned that the Association had an annual convention in January and an annual barbeque fundraiser in April as well as a scholarship program; introduced one of this year's scholarship recipients, Nicole Burke, a Hermosa Beach resident and Mira Costa High School senior who has been an active member of the Hermosa .Beach Sister City Association; said following her two-year participation as a junior high exchange student, she become a youth ambassador assisting the chaperones. Nicole Burke said she had met many great kids during her Hermosa Beach Sister City activities with Loreto who had been an inspiration to her and encouraged her study of Spanish to become a translator, adding that it was an experience she wished everyone could have. City Council Minutes 3-11-08 Page 12366 Mr. Barks then presented the City with a Humanitarian Award plaque from the United States/Mexico Sister Cities Association in recognition of the paramedic training in Loreto and the student exchange program; announced the U.S./Mexico Association scholarship fundraiser on April 12 at Seaside Lagoon in Redondo Beach, and the Tri-Beach Sister Cities Association's Cinco de Mayo celebration on May 3 at Muchos Restaurant in Manhattan Beach. CLOSED SESSION REPORT FOR MEETING OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008: By a vote of 5-0, the City Council directed its legal counsel to file a writ seeking immediate review in the court of appeal of the trial court's summary judgment ruling in Macpherson Oil v. City of Hermosa Beach. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: 1. ORAL AND WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS There was one written communication. (a) Letter from Jim Lissner dated March 5. 2008 regarding a moratorium on shared parking downtown. Coming forward to address the City Council on his letter was: Jim Lissner — Hermosa Beach, asked for clarification concerning the agenda format change; then spoke to his letter on shared parking downtown, saying the Planning staff should not give false impressions about what might be approved, and specifically referred to the proposal for office condos to be built over a restaurant on the Alta Dena Dairy site, which would be on an upcoming Planning Commission agenda (the City Manager and City Attorney clarified the effect of the change to the agenda format, and the Mayor said anyone has a right to apply for a proposed project, which the Planning Commission would then review) No one else came forward to address the City Council at this time. 2. CONSENT CALENDAR: Action: To approve the consent calendar recommendations (a) through 0), with the exception of the following items, which were removed for discussion in item 4, but are shown in order for clarity: 2(e) Reviczky. (f) and (g) Tucker. Motion Reviczky, second Tucker. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. (a) RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF FEBRUARY 12 2008. Action: To approve, as presented, the minutes of the Regular Meeting of February 12, 2008. City Council Minutes 3-11-08 Page 12367 (b) RECOMMENDATION TO RATIFY CHECK REGISTER NOS. 51018 THROUGH 51162. Action: To ratify the check register as presented. (c} RECOMMENDATION TO RECEIVE AND FILE TENTATIVE FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS. Action: To receive and file the Tentative Future Agenda Items. (d) RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE TENTATIVE DATE OF THURSDAY MAY 292 2008 AT 7:10 P.M. FOR REVIEW OF THE 2008-2009 BUDGET. Memorandum from Finance Director Viki Copeland dated February 25, 2008. Action: To approve tentative date of Thursday, May 29, 2008 at 7:10 p.m. for review of the proposed 2008-2009 Budget, (e} RECOMMENDATION TO ACCEPT DONATION OF $130 FROM BOEING CHARITABLE TRUSTICHRISTOPHER ASHLEY TO SE USED FOR RECREATION PROGRAM MATERIALS. Memorandum from Finance Director Viki Copeland dated March 3, 2008. This item was removed from the consent calendar by Mayor Pro Tempore Reviczky for separate discussion later in the meeting in order to acknowledge and thank the donors. Action: To accept the following donations: $130 from Boeing Charitable Trust/Christopher Ashley to be used for recreation program materials Motion Reviczky, second DiVirgilio. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. (f) RECOMMENDATION TO AWARD PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT TO ADRIAN GAUS ARCHITECTURE INC. TO PROVIDE DESIGN SERVICES FOR PROJECT NO. CIP NO. 99-631 BEACH RESTROOM IMPROVEMENTS, INCLUDING REHABILITATION OF THE EXISTING BELOW -GRADE RESTROOMS AT 2ND STREET AND 22ND STREET AND STRUCTION OF A NEW AT -GRADE RESTROOM AT 14TH STREET, R.A FIXED FEE OF $74,300; AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE AND THE CITY CLERK TO ATTEST THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY THE CITY ATTORNEY; AND, AUTHORIZE THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS TO MAKE CHANGES TO THE AGREEMENT WITHIN THE PROJECT BUDGET. Memorandum from Public Works Director Richard Morgan dated March 4, 2008. Supplemental email from Public Works Commissioner Janice Brittain received March 11, 2008. City Council Minutes 3-11-08 Page 12368 This item was removed from the consent calendar by Councilmember Tucker for separate discussion later in the meeting. Public Works Director Morgan and City Manager Burrell responded to Council questions. Proposed Action: To direct staff to send out a request for bids for the design of the three restrooms. Motion Tucker. The motion died for lack of a second. Action: To approve the staff recommendation to: (1) Award Professional Services Agreement to Adrian Gaus Architecture, Inc. to provide design services for Project No. CIP No. 99-631 Beach Restroom Improvements; including rehabilitation of the existing below - grade restrooms at 2nd Street and 22nd Street, and construction of a new at -grade restroom at 14th Street; for a fixed fee of $74,300; (2) Authorize the Mayor to execute and the City Clerk to attest the Professional Services Agreement subject to approval by the City Attorney; and (3) Authorize the Director of Public Works to make changes to the agreement within the project budget. Motion Tucker, second Mayor Keegan. The motion carried, noting the dissenting vote of Tucker. (g) RECOMMENDATION TO RECEIVE AND FILE THE ACTION MINUTES OF THE PUBLIC WORKS COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 20 2008. This item was removed from the consent calendar by Councilmember Tucker for separate discussion later in the meeting. Proposed Action: To schedule a public hearing before the City Council for item 6(a) on the Public works Commission agenda -- the beach restroom improvement project. Motion Tucker, second Keegan. The motion failed, noting the dissenting votes of Bobko, DiVirgilio and Reviczky Action: To receive and file the action minutes of the Public Works Commission meeting of February 20, 2008. Motion Tucker, second Keegan. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. (h) RECOMMENDATION TO AUTHORIZE THE PURCHASE OF EIGHT (8) MOBILE DATA COMPUTER (MDC) SYSTEMS FROM SOUTH BAY REGIONAL PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS AUTHORITY IN THE AMOUNT OF $67,652 TO REPLACE THE EXISTING SYSTEM_ S CURRENTLY INSTALLED IN THE POLICE DEPARTMENT PATROL VEHICLES AND APPROPRIATE $22,364 FROM THE EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT FUND City Council Minutes 3-11-08 Page 12369 NEEDED TO COVER REPLACEMENT AND INSTALLATION COSTS. Memorandum from Police Chief Greg Savelli dated February 28, 2008. Action: To approve the staff recommendation to: (1) Authorize the purchase of eight (8) Mobile Data Computer (MDC) systems from South Bay Regional Public Communications Authority in the amount of $67,652 to replace the existing systems currently installed in the Police Department patrol vehicles; and (2) Appropriate from the Equipment Replacement Fund an additional $22,364 needed to cover replacement and installation costs. (1) RECOMMENDATION TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE TO ACCEPT GRANT FUNDS TOTALING $4,000 AND AUTHORIZE THE POLICE DEPARTMENT TO UTILIZE THESE FUNDS TO PARTICIPATE IN THE "CLICK IT OR TICKET" CAMPAIGN. Memorandum from Police Chief Greg Savelli. Action: To authorize the City Manager or his designee to accept grant funds totaling $4,000 and authorize the Police Department to utilize these funds to participate in the "Click It or Ticket" Campaign. (j) RECOMMENDATION TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION OVERTURNING THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION TO GRANT A VARIANCE FOR A 4- FOOT GARAGE SETBACK RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED 17 FEET AT 210 PROSPECT AVENUE, AND REMAND THE APPLICATION BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR CONSIDERATION OF AN ALTERNATIVE DESIGN IF ANY PRESENTED BY THE APPLICANT. Memorandum from Community Development Director Ken Robertson dated March 5, 2008. Action: To approve the staff recommendation to adopt Resolution No. 08- 6582, entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, OVERTURNING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO GRANT A VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A 3-CAR GARAGE WITH A 4-FOOT SETBACK RATHER THAN THE REQUIRED 17 FEET, AND TO REMAND THE APPLICATION BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE PROJECT LOCATED AT 201 PROSPECT AVENUE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 54, TRACT NO 733." At 7:30 p.m., the order of the agenda was suspended to go to public hearing item 5 (a), (b), and (c). 3. CONSENT ORDINANCES a. ORDINANCE NO. 08-1291 — "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A ZONE TEXT City Council Minutes 3-11-08 Page 12370 AMENDMENT TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING ADULT BUSINESS REGULATIONS." For adoption. Memorandum from City Clerk Elaine Doerfling dated December 5, 2007, Coming forward to address the Council at this time was: George Barks — Hermosa Beach landowner, spoke in support of removing the ratio mechanism to categorize a business as adult but opposed allowing those businesses closer to residences and schools; said the geographically small size of Hermosa Beach would make the previous restrictions defensible against a claim of denial of constitutional rights; said adult businesses should be located in a manufacturing zone, not on Pacific Coast Highway where children walk daily to and from school. Action: To waive full reading and adopt Ordinance No. 08-1291. Motion Bobko, second Reviczky. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Bobko, DiVirgilio, Reviczky, Tucker, Mayor Keegan NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None 4. ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE DISCUSSION Items 2(e), (f) and (g) were heard at this time but are shown in order for clarity. Public comments on items removed from the Consent Calendar are shown under the appropriate item. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MERGING OF TWO LOTS INTO ONE PARCEL FOR THE PROPERTY AT 230 LONGFELLOW AVENUE. Memorandum from Community Development Director Ken Robertson dated March 4, 2008. Action: To postpone the hearing to the Council meeting of April 22, 2008, as requested by the applicant. Motion DiVirgilio, second Bobko. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. b. APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MERGING OF TWO LOTS INTO ONE PARCEL FOR THE PROPERTY AT 315-317 24TH STREET. Memorandum from Community Development Director Ken Robertson dated March 4, 2008. City Council Minutes 3-11-08 Page 12371 Action: To postpone the hearing to the Council meeting on April 22, 2008, as requested by the applicant. Motion Tucker, second DiVirgilio. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. C. TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO PROHIBIT MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES THROUGHOUT THE CITY. Memorandum from Community Development Director Ken Robertson dated March 4, 2008. Community Development Director Robertson presented the staff report and responded to Council questions. City Attorney Jenkins also responded to Council questions. The public hearing opened at 7:50 p.m. Coming forward to address the Council on this item were: William Leahy — representing The Farmacy, a marijuana medical dispensary with three locations in Venice, Westwood and West Hollywood, said his stores were clean, bright and open, and were staffed by herbalists, an acupuncturist and a licensed pharmacist; distributed photographs of his stores and a brochure explaining available services and products; said purchase of cannabis required a prescription from a doctor, and the product was prepackaged, not on display; Jim Rosenberg — Hermosa Beach, said Mr. Leahy was a friend that he invited to the meeting to describe his business; said the staff report presented only the view that the dispensaries should be banned in the City; said there were ways to control them with zoning (restrict to the C-3 zone), parking regulations and security guards; said there are Hermosa Beach citizens who would benefit from this type of business; Glenn Forbes — Hermosa Beach, General Manager of The Farmacy in Venice said they take precautions to make sure people do not re -sell the marijuana or use it on the premises; said a 4th grade class was at their location that day for a field trip; Bill Hedrick -- spoke of two friends who served in Viet Nam and had self medicated with marijuana and tried to commit suicide while under the influence; said marijuana should not be sold at these dispensaries without a doctor's prescription; Marvin May — Hermosa Beach, supported a dispensary in the City and hoped a good location could be found; Dency Nelson — Hermosa Beach, said while he did not want the City to be burdened with enforcement of problems these businesses can bring with them, he did not want Hermosa Beach to have an attitude of "not in my backyard" and hoped that a well regulated business could be established in the City for residents who need this type of help; Dennis Souers — Hermosa Beach, suggested that the need by City residents be determined before a dispensary is opened; Tom Nyman — Hermosa Beach, noted that a doctor's prescription is required; Eric Ham — Hermosa Beach, said his employment brought him into close contact with these types of businesses and he had seen safes opened with money not accounted for and marijuana recovered from kids with City Council Minutes 3-11-08 Page 12372 medical dispensary stamps on the bags; said the dispensaries are not all bad but it is an industry driven by profit; urged the Council to take a long hard look at the situation before making a decision because once the decision is made it cannot be taken back; June Pulcini — Hermosa Beach, said she was a cancer patient and had many friends who were as well; spoke of the benefits she had seen such as easing of pain and the nausea associated with cancer treatments; asked the Council to be compassionate and leave the door open for further discussion to weigh the pros and cons; and George Barks — Hermosa Beach property owner, said this was a politically charged, emotional issue; said he believed in alternative medicine but was not sure this business was right for Hermosa Beach; urged caution in making a decision; suggested involving the Beach Cities Health District to determine if there is a need in the South Bay area. The public hearing closed at 8:22 p.m. Proposed Action: To continue the public hearing to the next Council meeting and direct staff to prepare an ordinance and regulations for operating a medical marijuana dispensary within the City. Motion Mayor Keegan. The motion died for lack of a second. Action: To approve the staff recommendation to waive full reading and introduce Ordinance No. 08-1292, entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A ZONE TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE PROHIBITING MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES." Motion Tucker, second Reviczky. The motion carried, noting the dissenting vote of Mayor Keegan 6. MUNICIPAL MATTERS a. STREET LIGHT BANNER PROGRAM. Memorandum from Public Works Director Richard Morgan dated March 3, 2008. Public Works Director Morgan presented the staff report, and he and City Manager Burrell responded to Council questions. Coming forward to address the Council at this time was: Daniel Marinelli — Hermosa Beach, said all funding sources had not yet been explored but the school is excited about the student banner program; said two possible funding sources are the Hermosa Beach Education Foundation and Kiwanis Club. Action: To approve the staff recommendation to: (1) Approve the policy to implement a Commercial Street Light Banner Program; City Council Minutes 3-11-08 Page 12373 (2) Adopt Resolution No. 08-6583, entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING A COMMERCIAL STREET LIGHT BANNER PROGRAM AND AMENDING RESOLUTION 90-5422 (MASTER FEE RESOLUTION) TO ADD A FEE FOR COMMERCIAL E L STREET LIGHT BANNERS."; and (3) Authorize the City Manager to waive the Banner Permit Fee for non- profit special events. Motion Mayor Keegan, second DiVirgilio. The motion carried, noting the dissenting vote of Reviczky. Further Action: To (1) approve a City -funded Banner Art Program for 12 student art banners on Pier Avenue between Monterey and Valley, with direction to staff to work with the School District for installation during the summer of 2008 and (2) appropriate $4,000 to cover the cost of the program, including a $600 donation from Art Walk. Motion Tucker, second Bobko. The motion carried, noting the dissenting votes of Reviczky and Mayor Keegan. b. REQUEST FOR A FEE WAIVER FOR CUP REVIEW TO ALLOW FOR PLACEMENT OF FIVE (5).CLOTHING DROP OFF/RECYCLING BINS BY PLANET AID. Memorandum from City Manager Stephen Burrell dated February 28, 2008. City Manager Burrell presented the staff report, responded to Council questions, and distributed a map and photographs showing proposed locations. Coming forward to address the City Council at this time was: Eric Gross — Hermosa Beach, said he was not opposed to the project but hoped that other charities would have the same opportunities and advantages. Action: To approve the permit review for all five locations at the same time, thereby reducing the processing charge to $4,776. Motion Mayor Keegan, second Bobko. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. 7. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY MANAGER - None 8. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY COUNCIL - None 9. OTHER MATTERS - CITY COUNCIL — None a. Request from Councilmember Bobko to agendize a discussion of City bike paths. City Council Minutes 3-11-08 Page 12374 Councilmember Bobko asked that the topic of providing a City bike path be placed on a future agenda for Council discussion and subsequent referral to the Public Works Commission, City Manager Burrell and City Attorney Jenkins responded to Council questions. Action: To agendize a discussion of this topic for a future Council meeting. Motion Bobko, supported by Tucker and DiVirgilio b. Request from Councilmember DiVir ilio to agendize a discussion of staff more clearly communicating potential business operating hours to s applicants. new business ,.,.. Councilmember DiVirgilio asked that a policy to give business applicants a clearer picture of what might be the likely closing times for their business be placed on a future agenda for Council discussion. Action: To agendize a discussion of such a policy for a future Council meeting. Motion DiVirgilio, supported by Bobko and Tucker. ANNOUNCEMENT IN OPEN SESSION OF ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED IN CLOSED SESSION AS FOLLOWS 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: a. Closed Session meeting held on February 12 2008; and b. Closed Session meeting held on February 26, 2008. 2. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL The City Council finds, based on advice from legal counsel, that discussion in open session will prejudice the position of the City in the litigation. Existing Litigation: Government Code Section 54956.9(a) a. Name of Case: Macpherson v. City of Hermosa Beach Case Number: BC172546 b. Name of Case: Johnny Anderson v. City of Hermosa Beach Case Number: CV06-5078 c. Name of Case: Villani v. City of Hermosa Beach Case Number: YC053631 d. Name of Case: Cummings v. City of Hermosa Beach Case Number: YC055524 City Council Minutes 3-11-08 Page 12375 3. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR Government Code Section 54957.6 City Negotiator: Stephen Burrell Employee Organizations: Hermosa Beach Police Officers Association Hermosa Beach Firefighters' Association Teamsters Union, Local 911 Professional and Administrative Employee Group Hermosa Beach Management Association Hermosa Beach Police Management Association Unrepresented employees ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION — The Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach adjourned on Tuesday, March 11, 2008, at the hour of 9:43 p.m. to a closed session. RECONVENE TO OPEN SESSION — The Closed Session convened at the hour of 9:52 p.m. At the hour of 10:42 p.m., the Closed Session adjourned to the Regular Meeting. ORAL ANNOUNCEMENTS — There were no decisions made requiring a public announcement. ADJOURNMENT - The Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach adjourned, on Tuesday, March 11, 2008, at the hour of 10:43 p.m. to the to an Adjourned Regular Meeting on Friday, March 14, 2008, at the hour of 8:00 a.m., for the purpose of conducting a team -building workshop. co City Clerk Deputy City Clerk City Council Minutes 3-11-08 Page 12376 MINUTES OF THE ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, held on Tuesday, March 14, 2008, at the hour of 8:25 a.m. ROLL CALL: Present: Bobko, DiVirgilio, Reviczky, Tucker, Mayor Keegan Absent: None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None CITY COUNCIL TEAM BUILDING WORKSHP LED BY DON MARUSKA ADJOURNMENT - The Adjourned Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach adjourned, on Friday, March 14, 2008, at the hour of 4:15 p.m., to the Regular Meeting of Tuesday, March 25, 2008, at the hour of 7:10 p.m. City Clerk City Council Minutes 3-14-08 Page 12377 Easy Reader Run Date: April 3, 2008 DISPLAY Acct: 7010-2110 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach shall hold a public hearing on Tuesday, April 15, 2008, to consider the following: Conditional Use Permit and Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 70445 for a new 3,289 square foot 2-story commercial office building divided into seven commercial condominium units at 722 1st Street. 2. Conditional Use Permit for on -sale beer and wine in conjunction with a restaurant with a closing time of 10:00 P.M. Sunday through Thursday and 12:00 midnight Friday through Saturday and outdoor dining at 844 Hermosa Avenue. 3. Revocation or modification of a Conditional Use Permit to allow on -sale general alcohol and live entertainment in conjunction with a restaurant at 22 Pier Avenue, Dragon. 4. Renewal of an amendment to the Certified Coastal Land Use Plan (LUP) to continue reduced parking requirement for office and retail uses in the downtown. 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, April 10, 2008, 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, April 10, 2008, 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 D partment f:951ccl eridleg adsld isplay120081planni nglpc04-15-08 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH CERTIFIED PROPERTY OWNERSIOCCUPANTS LIST AND MAILING AFFIDAVIT I, _ George Bromberg hereby certify that I mailed with first class postage fully prepaid a notice of public hearing to all property owners and occupants within a three hundred (300) foot radius of the exterior boundaries of the properties listed below. The property owners list was compiled from the latest available assessment roll of the County of Las Angeles. The date of mailing was April 3, 2008 The addresses of the subject properties are: 844 Hermosa Avenue 722 1st Street APR e MOB D PT SIGNED State of California County of Los Angeles Subscribed and sworn to (or affirmed) before me on this 04th day of Ap61, 2008 , by George Bromberg_, proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person who appeared before me. (Seal) Signature ROD ELY ON Commission # 1501834 La llotary Public - CQGtornia Los Angeles County My Comm. Expires Jul 19,2008