HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Resolution 12-12 - (1139-41 Aviation, Suzy's) DenialP.C. RESOLUTION NO. 12-12
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
HERMOSA, BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DENYING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
AMENDMENT FOR ON -SALE GENERAL ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES IN
CONJUNCTION WITH AN EXISTING RESTAURANT WITH LIVE
ENTERTAINMENT, OUTSIDE SEATING, AND A PARKING PLAN, AS AMENDED
AT 1139-1141 AVIATION BOULEVARD, "SUZY'S BAR AND GRILL," LEGALLY
DESCRIBED AS PART OF LOT 7, BLOCK 88 OF SECOND ADDITION TO
HERMOSA BEACH, HERMOSA HEIGHTS TRACT, CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH.
The Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach does hereby resolve and order as follows:
Section 1. An application was filed by The Horowitz Group, 1141 Aviation Boulevard, seeking
approval of, and amendment to, a Conditional Use Permit by changing from beer and wine to on -sale general
alcoholic beverage as well as minor floor plan modifications. No other changes are proposed.
Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the
application for Conditional Use Permit Amendment 12-4 on June 19, 2012 at which time testimony and
evidence, both oral and written, was presented to and considered by the Planning Commission.
Section 3. Based on the testimony and evidence received, the Planning Commission makes the factual
findings relating to the request to convert from beer and wine to general alcohol:
1. The site is located at 1139-1141 Aviation Boulevard, within the City of Hermosa Beach and is zoned C-
3, which allows on -sale general alcoholic beverages with approval of a Conditional Use Permit.
The existing restaurant with beer and wine, live entertainment, and outside seating is operating under a
Conditional Use Permit issued in 1997. P.C. Resolution 96-30 approved a CUP for on -sale beer and
wine in conjunction with a restaurant and a Parking Plan to allow less than required parking under the
consolidated parking rate in shopping centers exceeding 10,000 square feet. P.C. Resolution 97-72
approved an amendment to the CUP for expansion of floor area, live entertainment, and outside seating
for eight people.
3. Current operating hours are 12:00 p.m. to 12:00 a.m. Sunday through Thursday and 12:00 p.m. to 1:00
a.m. Friday and Saturday. The CUP approved in 1994 allows the restaurant to operate from 7:00 a.m. to
12:00 a.m. Sunday through Thursday, 7:00 a.m, to 1:00 a.m. Friday and Saturday, and outside seating is
limited to 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. daily.
4. There are currently two establishments with beer and wine within the shopping center. One
establishment closes at 10:00 p.m. Sunday through Thursday and 11:00 p.m. on Friday Saturday (Gu Gu
Sushi), and one establishment closes at 12:00 a.m. daily (Akbar Indian Cuisine).
5. The 1997 approved floor plan allows 48 seats, and the approved occupant load is 68 interior and 8 on the
outdoor patio. The proposed plans indicate for a total of 54 seats inside, and no change to exterior
seating. No change to occupant load is proposed.
6. Adjoining neighbors have submitted correspondence opposing the change to general alcohol on the
basis of late night noise from music, including leaving the doors open, noise associated with use of the
outdoor patio, motorcycles revving in the parking lot, use of alcohol, and traffic and disturbances in the
parking lot.
7. The establishment has not fully complied with Planning Commission Resolution 97-72, Condition of
Approval No. 16 requiring double -pane glass or a comparable substitute with sound dampening
properties, and floor plan changes involving tables near the stage which provided more space for people
to gather in front of the stage, had been made without City approval per Condition 1 as verified by City
staff on May 4, 2012. The current operation may also be operating in violation of Conditions 7 and 17
(noise shall not create a nuisance to surrounding uses), 13 (management responsible for maintaining
music/entertainment volumes at reasonable levels), and 14 (windows and doors to remain closed during
loud music and live entertainment).
Section 4. Based on the foregoing factual findings the Planning Commission makes the following
findings pertaining to the application for a Conditional Use Permit Amendment pursuant to Subsections A, D,
H, I, J and K of 17.40.020 and Subsections A and E of 17.40.080 of the Municipal Code:
A. The proposed use may impact residential and other uses in the surrounding area. Suzy's Bar and Grill is
located within the `Big Lots' shopping center along a main commercial arterial (Aviation Boulevard). It
is located within the north section of the shopping center, which directly borders residences located to
the north at higher elevation. The restaurant operates from 12:00 p.m. to 12:00 a.m. Sunday through
Thursday and 12:00 p.m. to 1:00 a.m. on Friday and Saturday, and is proposing to maintain the same the
same operating hours with Conditional Use Permit amendment 12-4. Conditions 14 to 16 of P.C.
Resolution 97-72 require measures to reduce noise. The requirement to install double -pane glass or
sound dampening windows has only been partially complied with, thus, the facility is not fully
soundproofed.
B. The site's proximity to residences, coupled with the existing permitted live entertainment and closing
hours after 11:00 p.m., could lead to an increase of intoxication of customers and resulting noise,
disorderly behavior and disturbances, need for increased police services at the establishment, and
impacts on nearby residences. Nearby residents have submitted correspondence in connection with this
hearing stating the current use adversely impacts them due to late night noise from music, including
leaving the doors open, use of the outdoor patio, motorcycles revving and disturbance in the parking lot.
C. The proposed use may intensify alcohol use and de-emphasize restaurant use, and result in adverse
impacts. There are two other restaurants with beer and wine in the shopping center, and any request to
convert to general alcohol would require a CUP amendment. Following a history of repeated alcohol -
related disturbances in the City, the City Council has expressed concern over the incremental
intensification of alcoholic beverage establishments in the city, in terms of number of establishments,
number of people at these establishments, geographic concentration, and other changes that emphasize
bar/nightclub activity or may contribute to noise, disturbances and other land use incompatibilities.
The City Council's `No Intensification Policy' for late -night alcohol -serving establishments (CC
Resolution 12-6789), incorporated herein by reference, provides a comprehensive problem statement
and approach to reduce the negative land use impacts associated with such businesses since there is a
tendency for various establishments to seek additional land use entitlements, which over time can
increase noise, disorderly behavior and similar impacts. Goal 3 states: "To prevent the expansion and
intensification of individual "late night, alcohol -serving establishments" through increases in occupant
loads as a result of increases in square footage and/or floor plan alterations by owner/operator-initiated
new construction and/or remodeling." Guideline 3 states: "The City should not approve new
Conditional Use Permits, or intensification of any existing CUP for "late -night, alcohol -serving
establishments", subject to the following additional guidelines." The City is in the process of codifying
this policy and incorporating it into the Municipal Code.
2
Conversion from beer and wine to full alcohol sales is an intensification of alcoholic beverage use
because increased alcohol content can lead to greater intoxication, provision of a greater range of
alcoholic beverages, and emphasis on service of alcohol rather than focus on restaurant use, which, in
the absence of any offsets (such as reduction of hours or relinquishing live entertainment) per Guideline
3, is contrary to the City's policy striving to ensure intensification does not occur and adverse impacts
are not increased. The actual existing floor plan has been altered without approval of the Community
Development Director or Planning Commission by consolidating the dining area and providing an open
area in front of the stage where standing and dancing could occur; the applicant proposes to retain this
arrangement. These changes, together with the allowance for live entertainment and dancing tend to
facilitate bar/nightclub use as opposed to the original approved restaurant use.
D. While police reports at the establishment have decreased, a CUP runs with the land and there is no
guarantee that this operator will always operate the business. Future changes in the business plan or
owner/management could result in poor management and an increase in adverse impacts. The proposed
changes, together with live entertainment and late night hours, tend to exhibit the characteristics of and
facilitate a bar/nightclub atmosphere rather than a restaurant, with the potential for adverse behavior and
impacts to neighboring residences. The property itself is directly adjacent to residential properties and
the existing business operations, as conditioned, have become more compatible with the neighboring
residences in recent years. Intensification to the use through characteristics of a nightclub/bar (i.e. full
alcohol and remodel that allows standing and dancing in front of the stage), create the potential for
adverse behavior and impacts such as noise, disturbances, and partying in the parking lot, which are not
compatible with the residential uses.
Section 5. Based on the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby denies the request for Conditional
Use Permit Amendment 12-4, only as pertains to the request to change from on -sale beer and wine to on -sale
general alcohol in connection with an existing restaurant with live entertainment and outdoor seating.
Section 6. Pursuant to Section 15270 of the `Guidelines for Implementation of the California
Environmental Quality Act CEQA), Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, the project is not subject to
CEQA because CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves.
Section 7. Pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6, any legal challenge to the decision
of the Planning Commission, after a formal appeal to the City Council, must be made within 90 days after the
final decision by the City Council.
VOTE: AYES:
Comms.Darcy,Hoffman,Pizer
NOES:
None
ABSTAIN:
None
ABSENT:
Comm.Allen,Chmn.Perrotti
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify the foregoing Resolution P.C. No. 12-12 is a true and complete record of the action
taken by the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach, California at its regular meeting of
July 17 . 012 and in on August 21, 2012.
Sam Perrotti, thairman
August 21, 2012
Date