MINUTES

The meeting was called to order by Chairman Perrotti at 7:02 P.M.

1. Pledge of Allegiance

   Commissioner Hoffman led the Pledge of Allegiance.

2. Roll Call

   Present:	Allen, Hoffman, Koenig, Pizer, Chairman Perrotti
   Absent:	None
   Also Present:	Sol Blumenfeld, Community Development Director Ken Robertson, Senior Planner Denise Bothe, Recording Secretary

3. Oral / Written Communications

   None

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 Approval of August 17, 2004 minutes.

   MOTION by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Koenig, to APPROVE the August 17, 2004, Minutes as submitted. The motion carried as follows:

   AYES:	Allen, Hoffman, Koenig, Pizer, Perrotti
   NOES:	None
   ABSTAIN:	None
   ABSENT:	None

5. Resolution(s) for adoption

   a. Resolution 04-29 denying requested Variance to the lot coverage requirement and maximum allowable valuation increase for a nonconforming structure in order to allow an addition and remodel of an existing single-family dwelling, resulting in 70.9% lot coverage rather than the maximum 65% and a 148.1% valuation increase rather the maximum 100% at 311 31st Street.

   b. Resolution 04-31 denying a requested Variance to allow a 3-foot side yard rather than the required 5-feet for a merged lot at 3410 Hermosa Avenue.

   Director Blumenfeld stated that these resolutions codify the Planning Commission’s actions at the previous meeting.

   AYES:	Allen, Hoffman, Koenig, Pizer, Perrotti
   NOES:	None
   ABSTAIN:	None
   ABSENT:	None

Section II

Public Hearing(s)

6. CUP 04-2 -- Conditional Use Permit amendment to an R-1 Planned Development for four single-family homes to modify the retaining wall and landscaping areas at the rear of the homes at 1911, 1921, 1931 and 1941 Power Street (continued from June 15, July 20 and August 17, 2004 meetings).(PDF File).
   Staff Recommended Action: To require that the applicant provide a new public notice when plans and studies are completed.

   Director Blumenfeld explained that this is the third continuance of this matter; and added that the applicant is attempting to make arrangements to produce the necessary information that the Commission needs for its consideration.

   Chairman Perrotti opened the public hearing. There being no input, Chairman Perrotti closed the public hearing.

   MOTION by Commissioner Allen, seconded by Commissioner Pizer, to CONTINUE this matter to the next Planning Commission meeting and that the applicant provide a new public hearing notice at that time. The motion carried as follows:

   AYES:	Allen, Hoffman, Koenig, Pizer, Perrotti
   NOES:	None
   ABSTAIN:	None
   ABSENT:	None

7. CUP 04-3 -- Conditional Use Permit amendment to allow outdoor dining, on-sale general alcohol and extended hours of operation in conjunction with an existing restaurant at 2205 Pacific Coast Highway, Mama’s Feast At Large (continued from July 20 and August 17, 2004 meetings).(PDF File).

   Staff Recommended Action: 1) To approve the floor plan alterations, extended hours and outdoor dining. 2) To direct staff as deemed appropriate in regards to the request for on-sale general alcohol.

   Director Blumenfeld stated that this project involves an amendment to a conditional use permit that was approved in 1985; and noted that the conditional use permit had certain requirements relative to parking, that are currently an issue. He explained that an agreement was to be maintained with the neighboring property owners to provide 15 additional offsite parking spaces, based on a parking requirement of 1 per 300 square feet; noted that this was in effect at the time based on a parking requirement for a restaurant with beer and wine sales. He stated that it was a requirement that was set with the discretionary review at the time; and he explained that no additional parking is currently required with this proposed project because no additional floor area is being provided, that the space is being reconfigured and that the use is proposed to change from beer and wine sales to full alcohol sales. He advised that the City initially accepted an agreement from the neighboring office building owner, to make these 15 parking spaces available in the evening; however, with the sale of this adjacent property, the agreement was no longer in effect and the condition was not enforced. He stated that if the Planning Commission wishes, it can maintain this condition at this time, not based on increased floor area, but simply based on the initial Commission consideration of the need for additional parking with the proposed use. Director Blumenfeld added if that is the Commission direction, it would need to be incorporated into the final draft resolution.

   Director Blumenfeld advised that at the previous hearing, several neighbors spoke about their concerns with the noise, privacy, and spill-over parking into the neighborhood, and he summarized the residents’ suggestions: to require a floor to ceiling glass enclosure on the westerly portion of the restaurant to eliminate noise and privacy issues caused by outside dining; to require a closing time appropriate to the residential area; to maintain the parking agreement or make sure that the 15 additional spaces is enforced on site; and to not permit general alcohol sales. He added that staff is requesting that the owner provide a seating plan, prepared by a licensed design professional, indicating the table and bar seating. He stated that staff believes it’s possible to provide a bit more table seating by reconfiguring the interior of the restaurant and by relocating the restrooms in the facility from the current westerly location to the easterly portion of the business, which would free up the westerly portion and provide the ocean view dining experience the owner is seeking. He noted that staff will come back to the next meeting with a final resolution; and advised that staff is recommending approval of the reconfiguration of the business and direction on the request for full alcohol.

   Chairman Perrotti opened the public hearing.

   Charles Rogers, 620 9th Street, Manhattan Beach, applicant, expressed his desire to improve the quality of this facility; stated that he understands the concerns of the residents and advised that he intends to do everything possible to not create a negative impact upon the neighborhood. He stated that if the Commission so chooses, he will provide a higher glass barrier for the outdoor dining area; and that he would be agreeable to restricting the hours for the outdoor dining area. He noted his concern that relocating the front facing area, the restrooms, and completely enclosing this area will create a “hot box” atmosphere, noting that it is very hot in that area of the building. With regard to parking, he stated that there was no requirement for additional parking and currently is no requirement for additional parking; pointed out that since the conditional use permit was granted 20 years ago, there have been no complaints with regard to parking; he explained that he is prepared to incorporate a valet parking plan and advised that an offsite parking agreement has been undertaken. He stated that he is amenable to suggestions on reconfiguring this establishment and explained that the proposed reconfiguration was done in the proposed manner to help reduce the cost of relocating the plumbing. He advised that he has no intention in turning this establishment into a bar or sports bar.

   Commissioner Koenig noted his concern with loud television sets and sound systems.

   Mr. Rogers reiterated that he is not creating a bar; and stated that he would like the opportunity to have a television for those patrons who wish to watch television or watch the games of their children playing ball following a game.

   In regard to Commissioner Allen’s suggestion that there be no television activity after 6:00 P.M., Mr. Rogers stated that if at all possible, he would not like to see that time restriction on this establishment and he noted a need to respond to what the customers want. Mr. Rogers stated that he would be amenable to not having any speakers on the outdoor dining area.

   Addressing Vice-Chairman Pizer’s inquiry regarding the location of the restrooms, Mr. Rogers explained that the proposed design was purely a matter of cost and stated that he would relocate those restrooms if the Commission so desired. He noted for Vice-Chairman Rogers that 10:00 P.M. would be a reasonable closing time for the outdoor dining area.

   Commissioner Hoffman asked for input on what the applicant is proposing to do for additional parking, pointing out that an improvement in business will most likely result in the need for additional parking.

   Mr. Rogers explained that he has a two-phase parking plan: 1) valet parking that will allow an additional 6, 8, potentially 9, parking spaces on site; and 2) an executed agreement with the adjacent property owner to secure an additional 10 parking spaces. He pointed out that with these plans, he will be providing more than the 15 original spaces required. Mr. Rogers stated that he has not provided a copy of that memorandum of understanding to staff because he is waiting for possible new requirements that may be imposed on the parking arrangements; and he noted that the parking agreement is with the property owner at 2309 Pacific Coast Highway, the property directly to the north of his business.

   Vice-Chairman Pizer mentioned that at the last meeting, three items of concern were addressed by the public: noise from open air balconies; nuisance with general liquor licenses; and inadequate parking.

   Claudia Levin, 720 24th Street, stated that she is representing 45 other residents who have signed a petition in opposition to the expansion of this establishment; she pointed out that the view the applicant is seeking will one day be gone because that view is provided through an empty lot, expressing her belief that this empty lot will one day be built upon; and she addressed her concern that this establishment will create a negative impact upon the neighbors, such as loss of privacy, increased noise, loss of security, and decreased parking. She expressed her belief that this establishment should stick with its current beer and wine sales at this family restaurant.

   Mark Tall, 732 24th Street, stated that he wishes Mama’s Pizza much success, but not on the backs of the residents in this neighborhood; stated that his bedrooms face this establishment and addressed his concerns with noise and loss of privacy; he asked that the proposed patio area be fully enclosed; that no speakers be permitted on the patio area; and that a 9:00 P.M. curfew be established on the outside area.

   There being no further input, Chairman Perrotti closed the public hearing.

   Commissioner Hoffman addressed his concerns with limited parking in this City; pointed out that while this establishment has functioned without parking problems in the passed, its goal now is to increase its business, highlighting the ultimate need for additional parking. He expressed his belief that valet parking can become an enforcement problem for the City and stated that it’s not always successful. He commented on prior cases that have come before the Commission for full alcohol sales, but noted that at some point down the road, the market has driven some of these establishments to increase the bar activities. He noted his reluctance, given the location of this establishment, to support a full alcohol license; and pointed out that while the problems may not be related to the establishment, they tend more to occur when a patron leaves the establishment and behaves inappropriately in a neighborhood setting. He stated that at this point, he would not support outdoor dining at this location.

   Vice-Chairman Pizer stated that he does not consider any establishment that closes at midnight to be a bar business; commented on enclosing the proposed outdoor dining area; and noted that he would accept the parking plan if the applicant provides a valid agreement for 10 additional parking spaces and agrees to implement a valet parking plan.

   Commissioner Koenig stated that this parking lot is difficult to maneuver; expressed his belief that this business owner should obtain an irrevocable lease from the neighboring business for the 15 parking spaces that were in the original conditional use permit. With regard to the patio area, he stated that it would be public nuisance; that this area should be covered; and stated that a sound survey should be conducted.

   Commissioner Allen stated that he would not support a full liquor license at this establishment, expressing his belief that the existing beer and wine license is adequate for this establishment; stated that he would support a valet parking plan and the 10 offsite parking spaces, provided that some written agreement is provided to the City. He pointed out that while he believes this applicant is sincere in his plans to not negatively impact the residents, he is worried about the future ownership of this site. He stated that the speakers should be limited in the outdoor area; that a barrier be erected to mitigate the noise; and that the outdoor dining hours be restricted.

   Chairman Perrotti noted his support for owners updating/upgrading their businesses; highlighted the fact that a lot of residents travel outside of this City for dining purposes; but stated that there are legitimate concerns with establishments turning into noisy bars or sports bars. He stated that with adequate conditions put in place, he would support the outdoor dining and noted that a good compromise is to close the outdoor dining around 9:30 P.M. He noted his support for a glass barrier 8 feet in height but also stated that he would support a fully closed area. Chairman Perrotti stated that he would be opposed to restricting television activity in this establishment and pointed out that this body has never gotten involved with sound studies when there was no live music being proposed and noted his opposition to placing an additional burden on this operator for a sound study. He added that with adequate conditions, he could support the general alcohol license, highlighting the 6-month review process to determine if the establishment is in compliance with the conditional use permit; and he pointed out that these residents surely let the City know of any problems at this establishment. He stated that the major concern is the parking and asked that the applicant prepare an agreement that would be reviewed by staff and the City Attorney for the 15 offsite parking spaces before the expansion can take place. He added that the valet parking be put in place to help manage the offsite parking and the interior parking area.

   MOTION by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Allen, to DENY the request for onsale general alcohol. The motion carried as follows:

   AYES:	Allen, Hoffman, Koenig
   NOES:	Pizer, Perrotti
   ABSTAIN:	None
   ABSENT:	None

   MOTION by Commissioner Hoffman to DENY the request for outdoor dining. This motion died due to the lack of a second.

   MOTION by Commissioner Koenig, seconded by Commissioner Allen, to require enclosed dining.

   Commissioner Hoffman stated that his motion was for an enclosed dining area.

   Following this clarification, Commissioner Hoffman’s motion to DENY the request to reconfigure the floor plan alterations for outdoor dining was seconded by Commissioner Allen. The motion carried as follows:

   AYES:	Allen, Hoffman, Koenig, Pizer
   NOES:	Perrotti
   ABSTAIN:	None
   ABSENT:	None

   MOTION by Commissioner Koenig, seconded by Vice-Chairman Pizer, to REQUIRE the applicant to have the 15 parking spaces as called out in the original conditional use permit and to provide a copy of an irrevocable lease and a valet parking agreement. The motion carried as follows:

   AYES:	Allen, Hoffman, Koenig, Pizer, Perrotti
   NOES:	None
   ABSTAIN:	None
   ABSENT:	None

   MOTION by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Allen, to APPROVE the extended hours and the proposed interior alterations. The motion carried as follows:

   AYES:	Allen, Hoffman, Koenig, Pizer, Perrotti
   NOES:	None
   ABSTAIN:	None
   ABSENT:	None

   MOTION by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Allen, to APPROVE the extended hours and the proposed interior alterations. The motion carried as follows:

   AYES:	Allen, Hoffman, Koenig, Pizer, Perrotti
   NOES:	None
   ABSTAIN:	None
   ABSENT:	None

   Director Blumenfeld advised that staff will have to come back with a resolution reflecting the Commission’s decisions at the next meeting.

8. CON 04-16/PDP 04-17 -- Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 061452 for a three-unit condominium at 445 Manhattan Avenue (continued from August 17, 2004 meeting). (PDF File).

   Staff Recommended Action: To continue to October 19, 2004 meeting.

   Chairman Perrotti opened the public hearing.

   AYES:	Allen, Hoffman, Koenig, Pizer, Perrotti
   NOES:	None
   ABSTAIN:	None
   ABSENT:	None

9. CON 04-17/PDP 04-18 -- Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 061822 for a two-unit condominium at 85 15th Street (continued from August 17, 2004 meeting).(PDF File).

   Staff Recommended Action: To continue to October 19, 2004 meeting.

   Chairman Perrotti opened the public hearing.

   MOTION by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Vice-Chairman Pizer, to CONTINUE CON 04-17/PDP 04-18 -- Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 061822 for a two-unit condominium at 85 15th Street to the next meeting. The motion carried as follows:

   AYES:	Allen, Hoffman, Koenig, Pizer, Perrotti
   NOES:	None
   ABSTAIN:	None
   ABSENT:	None

10. CON 04-15/PDP 04-16 -- Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 061290 for an 18,000-square-foot commercial building containing 54 commercial condominium units, and adoption of an Environmental Negative Declaration at 200 Pier Avenue. (PDF File).

    Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request and adopt the Environmental Negative Declaration.

    Senior Planner Robertson stated that this proposed project is located in the Downtown area on the south side of Pier Avenue at its intersection with Manhattan Avenue; advised that the existing three-story building on the site is a commercial building occupied predominantly by professional offices; that it contains approximately 12,500 square feet, 42 rental units, and 44 parking spaces; and advised that this building will be demolished as part of this project. He explained that this project involves the construction of a commercial building complex containing over 18,000 square feet in four buildings, connected by a two-level parking structure; and stated that the buildings will contain 54 commercial condominium units, each one containing 333 square feet. He advised that the buildings are designed to maximize the number of commercial units with direct street frontage on Pier Avenue or Manhattan Avenue and to maximize the westerly ocean views; and explained that this will be achieved by locating the parking towards the easterly and southerly properly lines, that the commercial buildings will front on the major streets and by stepping the buildings to follow the slope to take advantage of ocean views. He stated that the project is organized in four buildings to create an office campus setting with a contemporary style, with standing seam metal roofs, smooth plaster, wood exterior finishes, exposed beams and open deck areas with decorative railings. Senior Planner Robertson stated that the project as submitted meets the basic requirements of the C-2 Zone; that a 5-foot setback is provided adjacent to the residential property to the south; that the building is designed to comply with the 30-foot height limit at the critical points on the roof – with one exception: the proposed exit stairs and cellular antenna locations proposed along the south property line cannot be allowed in the required 5-foot yard.

    Senior Planner Robertson explained that the project plans show a substantial improvement that will help revitalize Upper Pier Avenue and a prominent location in the City’s Downtown, while providing a lower profile building than the existing three-story development. He stated that the commercial uses will predominantly be professional office uses, will be compatible with surrounding uses and will be consistent with the general objectives of City Council to balance the existing restaurant and bar uses with office and retail uses. He advised that a separate conditional use permit application will have to be submitted and approved to give final approval for the wireless antennas, noting that staff does not support the proposed location within the required yard along the south properly line adjacent to residential uses.

    Senior Planner Robertson stated that vehicle access to the site will be from Manhattan Avenue to access the lower level of the parking garage and from the alley to access the upper level, each level containing 28 parking spaces; and noted that an existing curb cut will be eliminated on Pier Avenue, adding up to 5 metered public parking spaces. He stated that the applicant has submitted a traffic analysis which clearly indicates that the impacts of the proposed project are insignificant as compared to the current use on site; advised that the project is expected to generate a net increase of 6 vehicle trips during the AM and PM peak hours and a net increase of 40 vehicle trips on a typical weekday, based upon the building occupancy; and that it further concludes that no significant traffic impacts are forecast for the nearby study intersections. He added that the proposed building requires 56 parking spaces and that the applicant is proposing to meet that parking requirement; he added that the parking will be available in common and will be shared amongst all legitimate users of the building; and added that staff is recommending no assigned parking be provided in the parking structure. He advised that the applicant submitted a parking analysis to address this issue; explained that the office condominiums will be marketed, according to this parking analysis, to sole proprietors seeking the benefits of owning versus that of leasing office space; that the assumption is there will be no medical offices; and that with an assumed 90 percent occupancy rate and 15 percent for alternate modes of transportation to these office condominiums and a visitor rate of 1 per 5 businesses, the parking analysis shows that the demand will be 53 parking spaces. He mentioned that the proposed locker room and conference room, totaling 670 square feet, will not contribute to the parking demand, but are included in the gross floor area parking calculation.

    Senior Planner Robertson stated that according to the developer the target market for buyers will be local residents who are sole proprietors and operate their business within the area and/or work out of their homes; but that a larger business may wish to purchase several units or an investor may purchase units to lease to start-up businesses or that the units may be sold to one entity and the building operated more in a traditional office space with centralized management.

    Senior Planner Robertson highlighted staff’s recommendation for the following conditions of approval:

    1. The location and installation of wireless communication facilities are subject to review of a conditional use permit.
    2. All available parking shall be shared amongst the occupants of the building 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.
    3. CC&R’s must be submitted for review and approval by the City.
    4. A 5-foot setback area adjacent to the residential zone shall be maintained clear from ground to sky.
    5. Tree planting and accent landscaping in the pedestrian entry on Pier Avenue.
    6. Provision of a minimum of 7 street trees and tree grates on the Pier Avenue frontage, or alternatively the applicant may deposit funds in an amount to cover the cost of the City doing these improvements in accordance with the Downtown Implementation Plan.
    7. Provision of 4 street trees on Manhattan Avenue.
    8. Decorative paving surfaces for the pedestrian entry and entries into the parking areas.
    9. Provision of a decorative block wall be provided along the southerly property line adjacent to residential uses, consistent with the architecture of the building.

    Commissioner Hoffman asked for clarification in what type of situations a change in design would come back before the Planning Commission, such as someone who buys three units and wants to put three connecting doorways. Director Blumenfeld stated that in that case, the matter would be referred to the Commission for consideration per the resolution.

    Chairman Perrotti asked that appropriate street trees be planted, highlighting the work done by the Public Works Department and the task force.

    Vice-Chairman Pizer noted his concern that there is not enough parking for this number of units.

    Director Blumenfeld explained that the parking analysis assumed the number of visitors per unit when the project has a maximum occupancy of 90 percent. This is the peak occupancy period in the study; and pointed out that the City approved a new parking standard of 1 space per 333 square feet, consistent with one space per unit on the plans. He further stated that the City is trying to encourage office development in the Downtown area and explained that by not assigning the parking, the maximum utility of the parking area can be achieved; and that based on the parking analysis and the City’s desire to attract office/retail developments in the Downtown area and based on the City’s parking requirement in the Downtown area, he stated that this project is commensurate with the City’s goals.

    Addressing Commissioner Koenig’s concern with the possibility of a VCR television repair business going into this complex, Director Blumenfeld explained that a number of different uses may occupy the building with the exception of medical office which has a higher parking demand; and stated that as long as a business has a parking demand consistent with office or retail, it will not exceed the required parking for the project.

    Senior Planner Robertson noted for Commissioner Koenig that some of the frontage units on Pier Avenue might lend themselves to a retail operation, which would be acceptable, but the intent is for most of the building to be office uses; and added that if the use is consistent with the same parking requirement as the office uses, it doesn’t matter. He clarified that the CC&R’s would reflect no medical office uses.

    Chairman Perrotti opened the public hearing.

    Bill Growdon, project architect, provided a power point presentation highlighting the project design, elevations, and parking areas. He pointed out that this project is gaining five street parking spaces; and noted his hope that many of the owners will be walking or riding a bike to work. He asked that the conditions be flexible enough to accommodate future needs of tenants and changing trends and asked that assigned parking be permitted. Mr. Growdon stated that there will be bicycle parking at the front location.

    Vice-Chairman Pizer expressed his pleasure with the design/concept of this project.

    Mr. Growdon noted for Commissioner Koenig that each unit will have a toilet and sink; and stated that there are common restrooms on each floor.

    Addressing Chairman Perrotti’s inquiry regarding the location of the wireless antennas, Mr. Growdon stated that the alternate location for the wireless antennas will have to be worked out with the wireless companies; and he added that these locations will be properly screened from view.

    Nick Schaar, 800 Manhattan Beach Boulevard, project developer, commented on the parking analysis and the anticipated vacancy rate and expressed his belief that the 90 percent figure in the studies is a good estimate. He urged the Commission to allow for assigned parking, believing that it will have a negative impact upon the unit owners.

    Bob Dunn, 1052 Bayview Drive, neighbor across the street from this project, asked that the side facing his house from the alley be more aesthetically pleasing than what currently exists; addressed his concern with the traffic from Manhattan and Pier Avenues and the limited parking in this area.

    Dean Micholus, 1158 Manhattan Avenue, neighbor adjacent to the proposed project, noted his concern with limited parking in this area; asked that the elevation which faces his house be visually pleasing; expressed his belief that the design is too industrial for this area; and urged the Planning Commission to be sensitive to the neighbors’ concerns.

    James Patterson, 1068 Bayview Drive, addressed his concerns with the limited parking in this area; expressed his belief that this project does not have adequate parking; and urged the Planning Commission to increase the parking requirements to 1.5 spaces per unit.

    Jim Rosenberger, 1121 Bayview Drive, owner of one of the new structures built on this alley/street, stated that more parking is needed with this project; and he noted his support for assigned parking to deter parking abuses.

    Carla Merriman, Executive Director of the Hermosa Beach Chamber of Commerce, noted her support for this project and noted her support for assigned parking or to designate space for their customers; and stated that the City should separately address the shortage of parking throughout the City.

    Mr. Dunn asked for input on where the trash will be stored.

    Mr. Growdon noted for Mr. Dunn that the trash will be maintained in the parking structure until the day of trash pickup; explained that the back of the building has been beautifully designed; and pointed out that this project is providing more on-street parking spaces. He explained that planters will line the back elevation, along with a fabric mesh that will eventually be covered with greenery that will block the view to the parking structure.

    Chairman Perrotti questioned if this parking will be secured in the evening.

    Mr. Schaar noted that there will be no parking access at night and that the site will be enclosed with some type of security gating. He added that this is a daytime use.

    Commissioner Koenig stated that “No parking” signage should be posted for those who aren’t part of this complex.

    Chairman Perrotti suggested that a parking sticker be utilized for the tenants.

    There being no further input, Chairman Perrotti closed the public hearing.

    In response to the concerns with the adequacy of parking, Director Blumenfeld explained that City Council approved this parking requirement over the last 12 months, that it was deemed to be appropriate to the downtown; that this use has been encouraged by City Council and that it meets the parking standards. He explained that staff recommends that parking is not assigned because it will have less utility in that parking area; and stated that the question is whether the parking can be managed to accommodate the number of users to meet the code requirement and added that it is up to the building’s management to make sure the parking is being properly utilized. He reiterated that staff believes the only way to adequately manage this parking is to not assign any spaces.

    Commissioner Allen complimented the applicant on this project; and stated that he would support no assigned parking but that some type of parking identification should be implemented.

    Commissioner Koenig noted his support not to assign parking; suggested that parking stickers be utilized and also suggested that restrictive parking signs be posted on site to deter illegal parking.

    Vice-Chairman Pizer stated that he would prefer assigned parking.

    Commissioner Hoffman stated that the proposed building will enhance this area; and commented on the established parking requirements for this facility.

    Chairman Perrotti commented on the recent change to the parking criteria to increase office and retail use and noted that the applicant has followed this criteria.

    MOTION by Commissioner Allen to APPROVE CON 04-15/PDP 04-16 -- Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 061290 for an 18,000- square-foot commercial building containing 54 commercial condominium units, and adoption of an Environmental Negative Declaration at 200 Pier Avenue.

    Director Blumenfeld noted the following proposed changes to the resolution: Condition 2C, eliminate split-face concrete masonry from the condition and replace it with decorative block wall; include “The development and continued use of the property shall be substantially consistent with the submitted plans as reviewed by the Planning Commission at their meeting of September 21, 2004, incorporating all revisions as required by the conditions below. Any major modifications, including changes in the layout of the condominium units, shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Commission”; and minor modifications may be approved by the Director but shall not be final until confirmed by the Planning Commission as a Consent Calendar item on the Commission agenda following the Director’s determination. He suggested the submittal of a parking management plan that could include parking signage and to provide some method to ensure the tenants have parking on site, either through a parking sticker or plaque.

    Commissioner Allen noted his concurrence with the changes to the resolution. Vice-Chairman Pizer seconded the motion. The motion carried as follows:

    AYES:	Allen, Hoffman, Koenig, Pizer, Perrotti
    NOES:	None
    ABSTAIN:	None
    ABSENT:	None

    RECESS AND RECONVENE

    Chairman Perrotti recessed the meeting at 9:40 P.M. and reconvened the meeting at 9:49 P.M.

11. 11. L-5 -- Determination of the legality on whether four dwelling units are legal nonconforming at 67 18th Street.(PDF File).

    Staff Recommended Action: To determine that the fourth unit is legal and may contain a kitchen.

    Senior Planner Robertson stated that the subject property is a two-story building containing 4 one-bedroom units and a detached three-car garage that is accessed from the alley to the rear; stated that the one-bedroom units are between 582 and 630 square feet each; advised that the 4-unit building was constructed in 1954 in accordance with a building permit that was issued for three units and a bachelor; and noted that the Municipal Code in 1954 did not contain any definition for bachelor unit, but it appears the intention of the original permit was for three units with kitchens and one unit without a kitchen, which is underscored by a 1956 variance request to add a kitchen to the fourth unit, which was withdrawn; and stated that in 1961, the City found that a kitchen had been installed and required the removal of the kitchen sink, which was removed, and the case was closed. He noted that no other City records show any permit application or approval for a kitchen in the bachelor unit, assumed to be Unit 71A; and added that a residential building report from 1975 indicates four units and states “no building violations.”

    In summary, Senior Planner Robertson stated that there really is no dispute as to the number of units on the property, as the City did issue a permit for four units; that the only issue in dispute is the intent of the three units and a bachelor, whether or not that bachelor was to exclude a kitchen; and stated that it should be considered whether the exclusion of a kitchen really serves any public purpose since the City otherwise authorized the construction and subsequent rental and occupancy of the unit for a separate tenant. He advised that the applicant has submitted records to show how the property has been used for the last 30 years; that all the evidence does reflect there has been a kitchen; and that it has been rented as a separate unit. Since the bachelor is not connected to the units that have a kitchen, he stated that it could be argued that impacts on parking, density and other considerations are no different with or without a kitchen. Without a clear and supporting definition that distinguishes a bachelor unit from a dwelling unit or that does not allow a kitchen in a bachelor unit, he stated there is a record of continuous use as four units and there does not appear to be a practical reason to exclude a kitchen from the fourth unit, and that staff is recommending granting this legal determination and allowing the continued use as a unit with a kitchen.

    Senior Planner Robertson noted for Commissioner Koenig that the City has inspected this kitchen and that there are no building code violations.

    Chairman Perrotti opened the public hearing.

    Michael Allen, applicant, stated that he purchased this as an investment property; and noted that the previous owners have been paying taxes on this property as four units.

    There being no further input, Chairman Perrotti closed the public hearing.

    Commissioner Hoffman stated that he would support the applicant’s request, noting that the City has not provided a clear definition/distinction of what constitutes a bachelor unit.

    Chairman Perrotti stated that whether there is a kitchen or not, it would not have that much of an impact on parking or anything else.

    MOTION by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Koenig, to APPROVE L-5 -- Determination of the legality on whether four dwelling units are legal nonconforming at 67 18th Street. The motion carried as follows:

    AYES:	Allen, Hoffman, Koenig, Pizer, Perrotti
    NOES:	None
    ABSTAIN:	None
    ABSENT:	None

12. CUP 04-4 -- Conditional Use Permit amendment for automobile sales in conjunction with an existing automobile repair business at 600 Pacific Coast Highway, Doctor Auto Tech.(PDF File).

    Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.

    Director Blumenfeld stated that this property contains a retail building along the Pacific Coast Highway frontage and that the subject auto repair business is located along the 6th Street frontage with access entirely from 6th Street; advised that the current auto repair consists of two buildings on site that contain service areas, a small office and customer waiting area and a small parking area; and noted that the rear portion of the property has been used for auto repair. He stated that the current application is proposing to add a small used automobile sales business to the existing auto repair business; noted that the existing block building will be converted from a service area to a showroom that will accommodate two cars; and that the limited parking area for auto repair and auto sales customers will be shared. He explained that the parking requirements are not increased because there is no intensification of use; and he added that the conditions have been updated to meet current codes.

    Chairman Perrotti opened the public hearing.

    Lina Manquel, applicant, stated that this business has been in Hermosa Beach since 1975; and noted her intent to buy vehicles, do the repairs and sell the vehicles. She stated that there will not be more than two cars for sale on this lot.

    There being no further input, Chairman Perrotti closed the public hearing.

    Commissioner Hoffman stated that the key point is updating the conditional use permit to improve relations with the neighbors.

    Chairman Perrotti expressed his belief that this will have minimal impact and that updating the conditional use permit brings this property into conformance.

    MOTION by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Vice-Chairman Pizer, to APPROVE CUP 04-4 -- Conditional Use Permit amendment for automobile sales in conjunction with an existing automobile repair business at 600 Pacific Coast Highway, Doctor Auto Tech. The motion carried as follows:

    AYES:	Allen, Koenig, Pizer,Hoffman, Perrotti
    NOES:	None
    ABSTAIN:	None
    ABSENT:	None

13. CON 04-19/PDP 04-20 -- Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 61742 for a two-unit condominium at 1054 - 1056 7th Street.(PDF File).

    Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.

    Senior Planner Robertson stated that this is a detached two-unit condominium project; that the project consists of two units containing basements with two stories above; that each unit has 4 bedrooms and 3.5 baths; and that the building is designed in a Craftsman style, with cedar shake siding, asphalt shingle roof, stone veneer, wooden trim and window frames and wooden deck guardrails. He noted that the building complies with the 30-foot height limit at the critical points; advised that lot coverage is 44.7 percent; and noted that all required yards and building separations are provided. He stated that the project is designed with garage access from a common driveway and a centrally located turn-around area with required parking in the two-car garages and one guest space at the end of the driveway. He added that the project will use the existing curb cut for the proposed driveway, which will not result in the loss of on-street parking. He pointed out that the plans are missing some information on grade elevations at the garage entrances and at the driveway edges and transition points to determine the slope. He added that the open space for the front unit is provided on first- and second-story decks; that open space for the rear unit is provided on a second-story deck, a roof deck, and in the rear yard; and that the proposed open space does comply with the City’s zoning requirements. He stated that the project is designed to meet the requirements of the Condominium Ordinance.

    Chairman Perrotti opened the public hearing.

    Steve Witherow, applicant, stated that he and his wife reside at this property; and that this request is to allow for more room for his growing family.

    Commissioner Koenig noted his approval of the Craftsman style architecture.

    Mr. Witherow noted for Commissioner Hoffman that there will be a planter area at the front of Unit B.

    Neil Vosmajian, 1069 7th Street, expressed his concern that this project will completely eliminate his small ocean view; and asked that the applicant maintain the current height of the building.

    There being no further input, Chairman Perrotti closed the public hearing.

    Commissioner Hoffman asked that the landscaping plan be amended to reflect the addition of a planter in front of Unit B; and he noted for the neighbor that this City does not have a view ordinance.

    Vice-Chairman Pizer noted his delight with the style of this building; and added that this City does not have a view ordinance and that this applicant is within code.

    Commissioner Koenig noted his pleasure with this project.

    Chairman Perrotti stated that this applicant has a certain amount of development rights within the City’s standards; noted that the applicant is only proposing 45 percent lot coverage, which is below what is allowed.

    MOTION by Vice-Chairman Pizer, seconded by Commissioner Koenig, to APPROVE CON 04-19/PDP 04-20 -- Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 61742 for a two-unit condominium at 1054 - 1056 7th Street.

    Commissioner Hoffman offered a friendly amendment that the landscaping plan be changed to add a planter area in front of Unit B.

    Without objection to the proposed amendment, the motion carried as follows:

    AYES:	Allen, Koenig, Pizer,Hoffman, Perrotti
    NOES:	None
    ABSTAIN:	None
    ABSENT:	None

14. CON 04-20/PDP 04-21 -- Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 061567 for a two-unit condominium at 652 5th Street.(PDF File).

    Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.

    Due to a possible conflict of interest, Commissioner Hoffman recused himself from consideration of this matter.

    Director Blumenfeld stated that this project consists of two detached units containing basements with two stories above; noted that each unit has 3 bedrooms and 3.5 baths; that the buildings are designed in a Mediterranean style; that the project complies with all zoning requirements; that the lot coverage is 63.5 percent; and that all required yards are provided, including a 10-foot front yard setback. He added that both units have open space on first- and second-story decks, a roof deck and stated that the project meets all condominium requirements.

    Chairman Perrotti opened the public hearing.

    Larry Peha, project architect, stated that the floor plan is unique.

    There being no further input, Chairman Perrotti closed the public hearing.

    Vice-Chairman Pizer stated that this is a great design and noted that it is refreshing to see a different design, both on the exterior and the interior.

    Chairman Perrotti commended the applicant and architect for the larger setbacks than what is required.

    MOTION by Vice-Chairman Pizer, seconded by Commissioner Koenig, to APPROVE CON 04-20/PDP 04-21 -- Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 061567 for a two-unit condominium at 652 5th Street. Motion carried as follows:

    AYES:	Allen, Koenig, Pizer,Hoffman, Perrotti
    NOES:	None
    ABSTAIN:	None
    ABSENT:	None

15. NR 04-2 -- Roof deck addition to an existing duplex with a nonconforming side yard resulting in the extension of an existing nonconforming side yard at 1085-1087 Monterey Boulevard (continued from June 15, July 20 and August 17, 2004 meetings).(PDF File).

    Staff Recommended Action: To continue to October 19, 2004 meeting.

    Director Blumenfeld explained that the applicant has acquired evidence to determine the construction date of the garden room; and in order to preserve the application and related application fee, staff is recommending that the Commission continue this matter.

    MOTION by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Koenig, to CONTINUE NR 04-2 -- Roof deck addition to an existing duplex with a nonconforming side yard resulting in the extension of an existing nonconforming side yard at 1085-1087 Monterey Boulevard and that the applicant pay for the re-noticing efforts. Motion carried as follows:

    AYES:	Allen, Koenig, Pizer,Hoffman, Perrotti
    NOES:	None
    ABSTAIN:	None
    ABSENT:	None

Section IV

16. Staff Items

    None.

17. Commissioner Items

    Commissioner Hoffman asked what the hours are for the new Sav-on. Director Blumenfeld stated that he would have to check on those hours and report back to the Commission at the next meeting.

    Chairman Perrotti stated that a meeting will be conducted this Thursday at 7:00 P.M. on the update of the General Plan.

18. Adjournment

    The meeting was formally adjourned at 10:40 P.M.