Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Reso 09-6683 (1200 Hermosa, Rocke Sushi) 09-6683 1 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 RESOLUTION NO. 09-6683 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, SUSTAINING THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND PARKING PLAN AMENDMENTS FOR MINOR ALTERATIONS AND TO UPDATE AND CLARIFY THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RELATING TO OCCUPANCY OF AN EXISTING RESTAURANT WITH ON-SALE ALCOHOL AND LIVE ENTERTAINMENT, AT 1200 HERMOSA AVENUE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS 1 AND 2, BLOCK 34, FIRST ADDITION TO HERMOSA BEACH THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. An application was filed by Allen Sanford for Conditional Use Permit Amendment 09-8 and Parking Plan Amendment 09-9 to allow minor alterations to an existing restaurant with on-sale general alcohol and live entertainment and modification of Condition 3 of the CUP/Parking Plan. SECTION 2. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the application for the CUP and Parking Plan Amendment on October 20, 2009, at which time testimony and evidence, both oral and written, was presented to and considered by the Planning Commission, and at which the Planning Commission voted 3:2 to approve the project as requested subject to conditions as set forth on Planning Commission Resolution 09-28. SECTION 3. On October 27, 2009, the City Council, pursuant to Section 2.52.040, initiated review and reconsideration of the decision of the Planning Commission. SECTION 4. The City Council conducted a duly notice public hearing to review and reconsider the decision of the Planning Commission on October 10, and December 12, 2006, at which the record of the decision of the Planning Commission and testimony and evidence, both written and oral, was presented to and considered by the City Council. SECTION 5. The project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303, since the proposal involves only minor interior changes to an existing use within an existing building located in an urbanized area that do 09-6683 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 not have the potential to increase occupancy, noise or disturbances, parking demand or other impacts. SECTION 6. Based on the testimony and evidence received, the City Council makes the following factual findings: 1. The business is currently operating under the terms of a Conditional Use Permit and Parking Plan approved as amended on January 19, 1999 pursuant to Planning Commission Resolution 99-6, allowing an on-sale general alcohol establishment and live entertainment in connection with an existing restaurant, including a 360 sq. ft. mezzanine dining area and designating a stage and dance floor on the first floor. 2. The property is zoned C-2 and is located within a building occupied by other commercial uses and is surrounded by commercial uses. 3. The applicant is seeking minor modifications to the approved floor plan, including conversion of some tables to counters or booths on the first floor; on the mezzanine level an increase in dining area from 360 to 522 sq. ft. by partitioning off a private dining room and increasing seating from 24 to potentially 50 or more, and modification of Condition 3 of Approval set forth in Planning Commission Resolution 99-6. SECTION 7. Based on the foregoing factual findings and pursuant to H.B.M.C. Sections 17.40.020, 17.40.080 and 17.44.210, the Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings: 1. While the increase in the dining area on the mezzanine from 360 to 522 sq. ft. could potentially represent an intensification of use, Condition 3 in Resolution 99-6 limits occupant load to that which was allowed under the pre-existing restaurant use, prior to improvement of the mezzanine for restaurant use. 2. Condition 3 in Resolution 99-6 also states: “The Parking Plan for the reduced parking requirement is only valid as long as the restaurant with the added mezzanine does not exceed the maximum occupant load of the pre-existing restaurant prior to the mezzanine addition, as calculated to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director." This calculation is problematic because City files do not contain adequate information to definitively determine the 09-6683 3 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 occupant load of the 'pre-existing' restaurant, which over the years has been set at 109, and building codes—including the methods for calculating occupant load—have changed over time. Limiting occupant load to a set point in time also created issues with fairness with respect to similar restaurants and consistency in enforcement. Standards are also updated over time to reflect the best method for calculating safe occupant loads. 3. Notwithstanding alterations proposed to the first floor and mezzanine, the overall uses within the building will not be intensified or demand additional parking because overall occupant load will be limited to the occupant load calculation for the first floor, consistent with the intent of Condition 3. 4. Amended Condition of Approval No. 3 set forth herein contains safeguards to ensure the alterations do not intensify the use or increase the parking demand. SECTION 8. Based on the foregoing, the City Council hereby sustains the decision of the Planning Commission and approves the Conditional Use Permit and Parking Plan Amendments subject to the following Conditions of Approval: 1. Condition 3 of the Conditional Use Permit and Parking Plan approved on January 19, 1999 pursuant to Planning Commission Resolution 99-6 is hereby amended to read: "The Parking Plan for the reduced parking requirement is only valid as long as the layout of the restaurant with the added mezzanine level is consistent with the floor plans approved on October 20, 2009 and the combined occupant load for first floor and mezzanine is limited to the maximum occupant load of the first floor only, as determined by the current methods of calculating occupant load to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. The Community Development Director may approve minor modifications to the floor plan that do not materially change the intensity or nature of use or impact parking demand. The Fire Department shall maintain a record of the posted allowable occupant load for the business and regularly check the business for occupant load compliance, and any violation of occupant load shall be reported to the Planning Commission to determine whether a hearing should be set to consider modification of conditions or new conditions if deemed necessary to 09-6683 4 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 ensure the use and occupant load and parking demand is maintained in accordance with this Conditional Use Permit and Parking Plan." 2. Notwithstanding the elimination of the stage floor and dancing area from the approved plans, live entertainment and dancing may be allowed. 3. Minor modifications to the floor plan that do not materially change the intensity or nature of use may be approved by the Community Development Director. 4. All other provisions and Conditions of Approval set forth in P.C. Resolution 99-6 shall remain valid and in full force and effect. 5. This Conditional Use Permit and Parking Plan Amendment shall become null and void if not executed within two years of the date of approval of this Resolution. SECTION 9. This grant shall not be effective for any purposes until the permittee and the owners of the property involved have filed at the office of the Planning Division of the Community Development Department their affidavits stating that they are aware of, and agree to accept, all of the conditions of this grant. The Conditional Use Permit and Parking Plan Amendments 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. To the extent permitted by law, Permittee shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of Hermosa Beach, California, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”) from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside, or void any permit or approval for this project authorized by the City, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City its actual attorneys fees and costs in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its choice.