|
|
 Planning Commission Minutes FEBRUARY 15, 2005
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Present: | Allen, Hoffman, Koenig, Pizer, Chairman Perrotti |
| Absent: | None |
| Also Present: | Sol Blumenfeld, Community Development Director Kent Robertson, Senior Planner Denise Bothe, Recording Secretary |
Oral / Written Communications
None.
Consent Calendar
-
Approval of Approval of January 18, 2005 Minutes..
With regard to Page 9, third full paragraph, Commissioner Hoffman noted that he had recused himself from this matter and that he was not the Commissioner who asked that question. The correction will read as follows: “Director Blumenfeld noted for the Commission that this project will not conform to code if the wall is moved over to the property line.” (just omit Commissioner Hoffman questioned…)*
MOTION by Commissioner Koenig, seconded by Commissioner Hoffman, to APPROVE the January 18, 2005, Minutes as amended. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Hoffman, Koenig, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: Allen ABSENT: None -
Resolution(s) for consideration
a. Resolution P.C. 05-1 validating the legality of four dwelling units on the property at 1533 Manhattan Avenue and 1534 Palm Drive.
MOTION by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Vice-Chairman Pizer, to APPROVE Resolution P.C. 05-1, validating the legality of four dwelling units on the property at 1533 Manhattan Avenue and 1534 Palm Drive. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Koenig, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None Chairman Perrotti noted that representatives from the Police and Fire Departments are present this evening to assist the Commission in consideration of Agenda Item No. 19, and he asked that this matter be considered at this time. There being no objection, Item No. 19 was considered out of Agenda order at this time.
Public Hearing(s)
-
Staff Recommended Action: To direct staff to 1) Continue code enforcement inspections for three months and report back to the Planning Commission on Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and code compliance for the businesses. 2) Schedule CUP revocation/modification hearings if the businesses continue to operate in violation of their CUP or otherwise violate the Municipal Code.
Director Blumenfeld stated that on January 18, 2005, the Planning Commission conducted its annual review of conditional use permits (CUP’s) for various Downtown businesses on the Pier Plaza area; as reported at that time, there remain problems with respect to six of the businesses in the area; stated that over the last year, staff has attempted to cooperatively work with these problem businesses to obtain conformance with their CUP’s or the requirements of the Municipal Code and/or encroachment regulations; and noted that in some instances, there has been some compliance. He advised that there are still six businesses that are not in full compliance with their CUP or the Municipal Code. He stated that the problems generally pertain to doors and windows not remaining closed during live entertainment or loud amplified music; noted that the outdoor patios have not been used for dining, but rather for lounge areas; that people have been standing in required aisles; that loud music and/or televisions have been installed in the encroachment areas; and mentioned that these problems were uniform for the following six businesses: Aloha Sharkeez, Sangria, Patrick Malloys, Lighthouse, Fat Face Fenner’s Fishack, and Dragon Bar. He noted that this evening, based upon the Commission’s direction from the January 18th meeting, the Commission would informally review the CUP compliance specifically for Sharkeez and Dragon.
Director Blumenfeld stated that with respect to Sharkeez, staff conducted code inspections and CUP inspections beginning August 13, 2004, and concluded those inspections December 31, 2004; and found violations including: violations were reoccurring, and also the same violations with respect to leaving doors and windows open during live entertainment, with extremely loud amplified music in the outdoor patio; and advised that the noise was clearly audible from outside the restaurant. He advised that there were also violations of the encroachment regulations; that during those same dates, staff observed the outdoor dining patios were not being used primarily for dining, as required under the encroachment permit regulations; that customers were standing in required aisles in the patios; and that televisions were installed and operating in the encroachment areas, which is in violation of the encroachment permit guidelines. Director Blumenfeld advised that these same problems were also observed at Dragon, although in Dragon’s case, there were also violations of the business CUP; and that these same problems were observed during the same dates: August 13, 2004, August 28, 2004, October 2, 2004, November 25, 2004 to November 28, 2004, December 1, 3, 12, 2004, and December 20, 31, 2004. He pointed out that the purpose for this evening’s hearing is to provide an informal opportunity for the Commission to take public testimony from the businesses to try and understand what they are doing to comply with the requirements and to give the Commission an opportunity to explain its position on these violations.
Director Blumenfeld stated that it is staff’s recommendation to continue the code enforcement inspections over the next three months, concurrent with the Commission’s informal reviews with each of the six businesses; that during this three-month period, staff will proceed with ticketing and citations for violations of the relevant codes; and advised that the ticketing will be used as a means to provide background should the Commission decide to go forward with revocation or modification process for each of these six businesses if they continue to fail in their conformance.
Director Blumenfeld advised that the Commission also received a draft memorandum which is based on the Commission’s input that will be submitted to City Council should the Commission so decide by Minute Order. He mentioned that the memorandum basically recounts the actions of the Commission over the past few months with respect to review of the CUP’s, the problems that the Commission has observed, those that staff has identified, and the proposed solution that was recognized by the Commission, which was to ticket those violating businesses in order to provide a record and try to get more immediate conformance relative to correcting the violations; and for staff to proceed with code enforcement for the outdoor patio area, requesting that the Director of Public Works be directed by City Council to issue violation notices for encroachment permit violations and requiring correction of those violations or the business to be subject to revocation of their encroachment permit. Director Blumenfeld advised that both business owners were notified of this evening’s informal hearing.
Addressing Commissioner Hoffman’s inquiry regarding who would be issuing the citations, Director Blumenfeld stated that it would either be done by a code enforcement officer or a member of the Police Department. Director Blumenfeld added that the City Manager has also indicated an interest in hiring temporary/part-time staff to assist in this effort because of the late hours and limited staffing.
Director Blumenfeld noted for Commissioner Allen that a business has the right to dispute a ticket in a court of law, that it would be considered in court because the City does not have an administrative penalties ordinance where it can consider these matters with an administrator; he added that the evidence would be presented and that citations may be issued repeatedly; but he explained that the intent of the ticketing is not to create a great financial penalty, but to build a record through the citation process leading to modification or revocation of the business if it refuses to comply with the requirements.
Commissioner Koenig questioned if the tickets will be the same whether given by code enforcement or the Police Department.
In response, Director Blumenfeld explained that it is the same ticket, the same process; and explained that the code enforcement officer is trained in issuance of citations and warrants and would follow the same procedure.
Chairman Perrotti questioned what violations a code enforcement officer could cite.
Director Blumenfeld noted for Chairman Perrotti that the code enforcement officer could work in concert with the Fire Department – noting that the Fire Department is now conducting bi-monthly occupant load checks of the Downtown businesses and that the Fire Department could address the occupant load issues on a regular basis and issue citations, which it has done; and advised that the code enforcement officer has authority established under the Zoning Code to cite CUP’s infractions.
Commissioner Koenig asked if staff has estimated how much the additional resources will cost to implement this process and how frequent the inspections will be done.
Director Blumenfeld stated that staff has not estimated the cost, but noted that it already has required a lot of staff time; advised that he and the code enforcement officer spent at least two hours each time when they visited the sites over the above-mentioned dates; stated that in addition, the Police Department Foot Patrol also was involved – pointing out that they are already out in the area and that he is not sure if that would be counted separately, but noted that it does represent a City expense that is occupying the police time, and he stated that if the route of ticketing is followed, there will be more time invested with the ticketing process and more time if the business owner contests the ticket, which may include City Attorney time. He pointed out that the Commission and City Council have expressed their intent to enforce CUP’s, and that the City recognizes code enforcement as a necessary cost. Director Blumenfeld advised that no schedule has been created, but that he anticipates staff will visit this area on the same basis as was done last year and on the weekends, and added that staff will collaborate with the Police and Fire Departments. He reiterated that someone may be hired temporarily to help do this work over the next three months.
Commissioner Koenig questioned if there is any data on any visits with the code enforcement officers when there weren’t any violations on these businesses.
Director Blumenfeld stated that the above-mentioned dates were those that staff went out to inspect and that these businesses were in violation each time an inspection occurred.
Addressing Commissioner Allen’s inquiry regarding a business owning up to its responsibility/violation, Director Blumenfeld stated that page 7 of the memorandum prepared by the Police Chief and himself lists all businesses that have received communications in regard to the violations; advised that staff specifically spoke with the business owners listed on that page and that the specific violations for each business were addressed at that time; and that the owners, without admitting guilt, just said they’ll have their own management monitor the conditions and that they’ll cooperatively try to solve the violations. He advised that staff has tried to cooperatively solve these problems; that staff is not getting any results with these six businesses and that, consequently, this matter is before the Commission this evening.
Director Blumenfeld noted for Vice-Chairman Pizer that the proposed three citations per calendar year before going to the Commission for CUP review was only a suggestion and that the Commission can recommend another figure if it so chooses. He expressed staff’s belief that three citations is enough to demonstrate a record of noncompliance.
Fire Chief Russ Tingley stated that historically, there has been a concern with over-crowding in the taverns, Pier Plaza area and along Hermosa Avenue; advised that typically in the past, the Fire Department has responded by complaint only; however, over the last four months, he stated that he instituted a program at the Fire Department wherein each of the three shifts responds with the engine companies on random weekends, Friday/Saturday nights, to check for compliance. He pointed out that the Fire Department is not necessarily out to write a ticket, but that they are more focused on life safety issues. He stated that there is a lot of activity on the Plaza and a lot of over-crowding issues, and that they have found crowded exits on patios and near the front doors of the establishments; and advised that the doorkeepers have been asked to take care of this issue and mentioned that the problem has subsided. He explained that it takes the entire engine company to handle an over-crowding complaint because they have to use a number of counters; that they go inside an establishment and check the occupant load number that’s properly posted and then determine by head count how many people are inside. He stated that it is time-consuming, takes a lot of effort to do so; and advised that if they find the over-crowding is greater than 10 percent, they will write a citation.
Fire Chief Tingley noted for Chairman Perrotti that separate counts are taken for the outdoor dining areas as opposed to the interior area; and stated that these inspections are creating a greater awareness of over-crowding issues.
Director Blumenfeld added that staff is observing people standing in required aisles in outdoor patios, that clearly is a violation of the Building Code and Encroachment regulation pertaining to outdoor dining.
Director Blumenfeld noted for Commissioner Koenig that staff has prepared a checklist that the police can utilize during their inspections, that simplifies the inspection process.
Captain Tom Eckert expressed his belief that having a part-time code enforcement officer would be the best option, expressing his concern with using police resources on a continual basis for this effort. He advised that the outdoor patios are a major problem for the police; that those areas are typically used as smoking lounges, with people entering and exiting all night long; and pointed out that the doors constantly being opened and shut creates a noise problem out on the Plaza. He stated that the noise is manageable if the doors and windows remain closed.
Chairman Perrotti stated that he concurs that police resources should be limited in this effort when possible.
Ron Newman, owner of Aloha Sharkeez, passed out a memorandum from his lawyer which answers many questions.
Chairman Perrotti highlighted one of the first statements in Mr. Newman’s memorandum, “outdoor patio patrons are not required to be seated,” stating that as he reads the Ordinance, the intention is for that to be an outside dining area, not drinking.
Mr. Newman stated that he has not violated his CUP. He stated that when they met with staff and the police representatives on this matter, what was supposed to happen from his understanding was that they were going to come around and inspect; and that if there was a problem, they were going to be notified at that time. Mr. Newman stated that the violations that have been written up are difficult to address because he was not aware of the violations. He advised that the police do their walk-throughs almost every night and that they always say everything is fine with the establishment. He noted that he gets incident reports from his staff every day and that he has never received one incident report that said they were over-crowded, that they weren’t in compliance. He stated that at night, the sliding doors are always closed; that the patron door opens and closes on a regular basis; and expressed his belief that some of the statements are inaccurate. With regard to people leaving an establishment to smoke and then re-enter, he explained that it isn’t realistic to control who comes in and out to smoke and expressed his belief that this entire process needs to be handled differently, believing this is too complicated. He expressed his concern that the City is spot checking for CUP compliance and stated that all CUP’s in the City should be checked for compliance, not just the promenade businesses. He stated that he is willing to cooperate with the City, but stated that he does not want the televisions taken out of the patio area because they do not create a noise problem, noting that the televisions are not on in the evenings. He stated that his patio capacity is set up so there is stand-up room and that 23 individuals can be seated. He stated that he wants to know about the problems at the time they are happening and not to learn about the problems a few months later, questioning how he can tell if the citing is accurate; and suggested that a copy of the inspection report be given at the time of inspection so they can see the violation for themselves at that time.
Mark Kosgrove, representing Dragon, stated that he has been involved with this project from its inception; noted that he went before the Commission approximately a year ago to amend the CUP; advised that they have gone out of their way to cooperate; and concurred with Mr. Newman’s comment about being advised of a violation at the time it is happening, not months later, allowing them a chance to remedy that situation as quickly as possible. He advised that they have an excellent relationship with the Police and Fire Departments; and stated that each time Director Blumenfeld has called him and brought up a situation, they have immediately responded. With regard to the meeting on November 2, 2004, Mr. Kosgrove stated that he and another owner met with Director Blumenfeld and a police representative to discuss noise issues; and that they were told that the noise from this establishment was too loud on a Sunday afternoon. He stated that there are televisions in the patio area, but that they were not on that Sunday, but that staff has indicated this is a violation of their CUP. He advised that initially, staff directed them to cover the televisions; that there was to be a meeting to address the situation of the televisions; advised that they complied with that direction; and noted they were later told that until the issue is addressed, they could uncover the television, but that there was to be no sound. Mr. Kosgrove stated that he was under the impression this evening’s meeting was to address that television situation; and he questioned if after the meeting on November 2, 2004, there were any other complaints or violations documented. He stated that neither he nor any of the owners were ever contacted after that meeting.
Chairman Perrotti noted for Mr. Kosgrove that staff report indicates documented violations after the November 2nd meeting.
Mr. Kosgrove stated that they believed they were in compliance after November 2, 2004; and that they didn’t know there were more problems after that time. He noted his desire to cooperate and reiterated that they need to be notified at the time the violation is taking place. He noted some concern that a part-time, temporary code enforcement officer might not be as familiar with the City’s codes as need be.
Commissioner Hoffman pointed out that Mr. Kosgrove’s CUP clearly states televisions are not permitted.
Mr. Kosgrove stated that at the meeting on November 2, 2004, they we were told that another meeting would be scheduled to address the use of televisions among the various businesses.
Commissioner Allen explained for Mr. Kosgrove that Sharkeez has an older permit which allows for more leeway than his CUP; that Mr. Kosgrove’s CUP clearly indicates that no televisions are permitted; and he questioned if Mr. Kosgrove would commit to removing the televisions, demonstrating his willingness to comply with his CUP.
Mike Mattarocci, co-principal of Dragon, advised that the other owner, Jeff Bland, is out of town on business; and explained that Mr. Bland is responsible for overseeing the installation of the television.
Director Blumenfeld advised that he conveyed the information at the November 2, 2004, meeting; and stated that staff discussed the following CUP violations: live amplified music and non-live amplified music with doors and windows open, outdoor televisions and speakers, patio over-crowding with customers standing in the aisles and drinking. He stated that the owners agreed at that point to have management monitor the conditions and comply. He explained that he indicated there were questions from some of the other business owners about their televisions; and advised that he informed everyone that their encroachment permit did not include televisions on their patios and to leave televisions off while staff reviewed the encroachment permit issues at City Council. He advised that each business owner was told to leave their televisions off for the time being; and that in the case of Dragon this is a violation of the CUP.
Commissioner Hoffman questioned if it is also a Building Code violation having televisions outdoors as permanent fixtures.
Director Blumenfeld stated that the televisions and the hook-up for the televisions require a weatherproof plug/receptacle, but that the actual connection for the television or any appliance has to be hard-wired and has to be weatherproofed as well. He stated that it is likely a Building Code violation.
Mr. Mattarocci commented on the improvements at this establishment as a result of his work with staff and the Police Department; and he addressed the problems with keeping the noise contained when the doors are being opened for patrons entering and exiting the establishment.
Chairman Perrotti suggested that the applicant work with staff on helping with the noise problem when patrons are entering and exiting the establishment, noting that other businesses are successful in their efforts to control noise.
Director Blumenfeld pointed out that when he met with the business owners in November 2004, he made it very clear to all that staff would meet once for a site visit to apprise the businesses of the issues observed from August until November; that he was going to point out the problems that needed to be corrected; and that he was not going to come back every week with reminders. He stated that this effort was simply to point out the violations and that it was up to the businesses to manage their businesses. He pointed out that beyond that, staff is always available to help answer questions about their establishments and assist with any issues of concern. He added that occupant loads are based on seating, not standing in the patios.
Chairman Perrotti stated that he sees a lot of violations when visiting the Plaza area and that he concurs with staff’s findings of these violations as a result of his personal experience; and he expressed his belief the drafting of the memorandum is a way of having the owners comply. He noted his support to inspect this area for the next three months.
Commissioner Hoffman commented on the Commission’s duty, stating that this body is not supposed to enforce CUP’s; and expressed his belief that staff has properly documented in this case that there has been a violation. He explained that this process tonight sounded like a good idea when it was discussed at the first meeting, to bring these issues back to an informal hearing, but stated that now having gone through this informal hearing, he believes this is not a constructive process. He stated that a citation is an objective means where everybody understands how one contests the citation, everyone understands the implications, with the onus of proof clearly laid out; and stated that the citation, a formal mechanism, is the only way to enforce this.
Vice-Chairman Pizer stated that the memorandum prepared by staff would be sufficient for the Planning Commission’s responsibility; and noted that City Council should review this memorandum and provide direction.
Chairman Perrotti noted his concurrence to forward the memorandum to City Council; and asked that staff continue to work with these two business owners and respond to Mr. Newman’s letter.
Commissioner Koenig addressed the importance of having proper data in making a determination and noted his concurrence in sending the memorandum to City Council.
Commissioner Hoffman stated that there already exists a record and noted that he is not sure three more months of City staff devoted to recording essentially the same business practices is going to change anyone’s perception of what’s going on in this area. He stated that he does not feel issuing citations is a policy this body can implement.
Commissioner Allen echoed Commissioner Hoffman’s comments.
Director Blumenfeld explained that CUP infractions are citable under the zone code, and under the purview of the Planning Commission. He stated that staff is proposing to use citations as a record to continue this process to help build a record; advised that the investigations conducted thus far have given the Commission written evidence to consider; and that if the Commission decides to go forward with a revocation hearing, the Commission will need this evidence in order to make a determination and that short of giving citations, this is the best and only evidence this body has at this point.
Commissioner Hoffman stated that short of citations, it may not be sufficient evidence for him to make a decision on the kinds of issues that have been raised this evening.
Director Blumenfeld highlighted six months’ worth of evidence before the Commission this evening and stated that staff is proposing to continue the inspections and proposing to cite the violations during the next three months to draw a record.
Commissioner Hoffman stated that the business owners have not had an opportunity to contest/dispute this same evidence in front of this Commission.
MOTION by Chairman Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Allen, to APPROVE staff recommendation 1) Continue code enforcement inspections for three months and report back to the Planning Commission on CUP and code compliance for the businesses; 2) Schedule CUP revocation/modification hearings if the businesses continue to operate in violation of their CUP or otherwise violate the Municipal Code; and to forward the memorandum to City Council.
Commissioner Hoffman stated that short of the formal issuance of citations, he does not find this to be a compelling process; and stated that the owners should have ample documentation to defend themselves before this body.
Chairman Perrotti amended his motion to include that the businesses receive a copy of the inspection reports prior to reporting to the Planning Commission. No objection was noted to this amendment.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Koenig, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: Hoffman ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None
-
Staff Recommended Action: To direct staff as deemed appropriate.
Senior Planner Robertson stated that this matter had been continued because the project plans did not provide a complete plan for backyard landscaping, hydrology calculations or a final detailed grading and construction plan for this proposed retaining wall; and noted that the applicant has now submitted the individual site and landscape plans for backyard improvements and a revised hydrology study. He advised that in May 1997, the City approved a subdivision and CUP for an R-1 planned development consisting of four single-family lots and a private street; noted the project was very specific regarding this low profile retaining wall and landscaping improvements to stabilize the slope; and that the project was also very specific regarding drainage improvements since the project replaced a largely undeveloped 1.3-acre site located at one of the lowest points in the Valley Park area. Since that time, he advised that all the lots have been developed with single-family homes pursuant to the approved plans and are owned by four separate property owners who are party to this proposed amendment in an effort to increase the amount of their flat, usable backyards. Senior Planner Robertson noted that there have been no reported problems related to drainage since the project was constructed. He advised that the applicants are proposing to replace an existing low profile retaining wall located at the toe of the slope along the western side of the properties; stated that the new retaining wall structure will be placed further into the hill in order to provide another 15 to 20 feet of yard area for each lot; and that the proposed new wall measures as high as 13 feet. He mentioned that some of the trees and shrubs that were planted to stabilize the slope will be removed and replanted further up the slope where feasible; and stated that the applicant has now submitted the landscaping plan and revised hydrology study to supplement previously submitted information, which includes a description in detail of the proposed wall construction and some photographs.
Director Blumenfeld advised that the applicant plans to submit detailed structural designs and calculations and any needed soils reports and detailed shoring plans regarding construction of the wall at the time of permit issuance; and explained that the construction will involve removing and hauling soil at the base of the slope, erecting shoring, and erection of a new concrete retaining wall using the shotcrete method. He noted that staff is recommending, if this is approved, that the conditions specifically include a requirement that a soil and debris hauling plan be included prior to the issuance of permits with detailed calculations as to the amount of soil and debris and the route and timing for hauling away the soil. He added that the other issue relates to the overall storm water runoff for the four lots, which will be increased by proposed future improvements to the rear yard areas, which include pools, concrete patios, guesthouses, and other impermeable surfaces. He advised that the drainage and detention system was designed in 1997 to limit storm water flows into the County storm drain system at rates below pre-development levels; explained that this is achieved by the use of an underground storm water detention system which temporarily stores storm surges and releases the water at a rate lower than pre-development rates; that the detention area is located below the surface of the private street, which is held in common by the property owners; and that the sizing of the storage area and the outflow pipes are based on the original site design which assumed a certain amount of permeable surfaces. He stated that the revised hydrology study concludes that the existing capacity of this subsurface drainage detention area is adequate to hold the increased runoff caused by these changes; advised that the Public Works Department has reviewed the hydrology study, which is included in a memorandum that was provided today, and pursuant to that memorandum, the Public Works Department has verified the accuracy of the analysis and agrees with the conclusions. He noted that the plans at this point do not include detailed finished grading information, site specific drainage information or details of how much soil will have to be hauled offsite. He advised that the slope is very steep and consists of very sandy soil that will complicate the shoring and construction process; therefore, if the Commission approves this project based on the plans submitted, staff would recommend eight additional conditions as outlined on page 3 of staff report.
Vice-Chairman Pizer would like to see Director of Public Works/City Engineer Richard Morgan’s three recommendations included on the list of conditions: 1) Provide a de-silting chamber upstream of the detention facility. It shall have an access manhole for annual cleaning. The de-silting chamber shall also provide low-flow infiltration. This can be accomplished by such means as employing a perforated bottom/invent. 2) Clean the existing detention facility. Remove and properly dispose of all sediment and debris. 3) Provide a maintenance agreement requiring annual cleaning of the de-silting chamber prior to the rainy season. This agreement shall be recorded with the County Recorder against all four properties and shall run with the land. Certified maintenance records shall be kept current and available upon request.
Senior Planner Robertson stated that those recommendations were to be incorporated into Item No. 4.
Commissioner Koenig questioned what impact there will be upon the neighborhood.
Senior Planner Robertson stated that there might be some minimal visual impact to the neighborhood.
Chairman Perrotti opened the public hearing.
Tom Polich, Power Street Homeowners Association (HOA) representative, stated that he concurs with the conditions of approval, including the ones mentioned above; and he stated that the HOA wants to prove that this can be safely and structurally accomplished. He stated that there were no problems with the recent rains.
Mr. Polich noted for Commissioner Hoffman that the pile drivers and backhoes will access this site between the two homes that have a 30-foot separation.
Karen Marigal, resident of Loma Avenue, noted her concerns that rebuilding the retaining wall will destabilize the hill and cause erosion problems which may adversely affect the properties on Loma Avenue; stated that when these properties were initially built, the lots were 10,000 to 16,000 square feet for these four properties compared to the average 4,000-square-foot lots in the neighborhood; advised that these large lots were provided so that they would have plenty level land to use for their houses and recreational purposes; and expressed her belief that extending their lots 10 to 15 feet more into the hill, building up to a 13-foot retaining wall, is too much of a gamble. She stated that the steep and sandy slope creates additional concern and noted her opposition to this request.
Ira Fierberg, 1940 Loma Drive, stated that he has not seen the project plans, but noted that he is preliminarily opposed to the project; he echoed the prior speaker’s concerns; and advised that when he walks down his back yard, his foot sinks into this unstable hillside. He stated that there is great risk to the safety of each resident living above these four homes; and noted his concern that this project will move his backyard, that it will structurally degrade his house. He stated that if this can be done with certainty, that they can do it without jeopardizing the 10 properties on top of the hillside, he would support this project, otherwise, he stated that it only creates a huge liability problem for the association, the contractors, and the City. He questioned where the wall will be in relation to his property line.
Chairman Perrotti noted for Mr. Fierberg that staff will provide him a copy staff report which shows the existing wall and the new wall.
Celeste Coar, hilltop resident, stated that the plans are not drawn to scale; stated that the prior landscaping was not adequately maintained on the northern end of the property; requested that the acacia and wild clover under the 1950 Loma Drive property not be disturbed, believing that this vegetation is holding the hillside; and she questioned whether the new landscaping will be maintained. She addressed her strong opposition to a modification of a retaining wall on the sand dune hill above the Power Street properties; advised that these walls were to be low profile; stated that a lot of grading was done long ago to maximize the desired square footage of these homes; and expressed her belief that removing more of the slope is taking a gamble with the homes above on Loma to benefit four residents on Power. She noted for the record that her neighbor Saundra Stevenson, 1950 Loma Drive (who could not be here tonight), shares her concern about the safety of the homes with the shoring of the wall during and after construction; and she urged the Planning Commission to deny this request. She distributed to the Commission a newspaper article in regard to the recent slope failure in Anaheim.
Stan Konin, 1936 Loma Drive, commented on the vulnerability of the properties above Power Street; advised that his property has a deck with two columns which hold up the back of his house and come near the downhill property line; he echoed the comment that when walking down that hill, it’s extremely unstable; and questioned if the applicants will be obtaining liability insurance to protect the uphill owners. He asked that the abandoned city street at the juncture of the toe of the hill to the flat land, a 20-foot easement granted down the middle to the adjoining property owners, be maintained in conformance with the survey, that the placement of the wall honor this property line. He noted his opposition to this project.
Travis Wood, Loma resident, commented on the problems with slides in the hillside areas; addressed his concern that the report does not address the problem of whether or not there’s going to be erosion that causes sliding from above; stated that this is a very steep hill with sandy soil that easily slides; and stated that the applicants need to be concerned with the houses above Power Street. He expressed his belief that when they cut into this hill, they will be destabilizing the entire hill and stated that this will create a huge liability problem; and he noted his opposition to this proposal.
There being no further input, Chairman Perrotti closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Allen noted his support for the additional conditions; and questioned whether there is any evidence to suggest this new wall might make the hill more stable than it is now.
Director Blumenfeld stated that a slope cut typically creates a condition that requires retaining; pointed out that within the City, most of the lots contain sandy soil, and that it is not unique to this project. He stated that the question about slope stability would have to be addressed with a geotechnical report, which is what staff is recommending. He highlighted one of the speaker’s concerns with sliding from above, and stated that these questions can be specifically framed for the geotechnical engineer to address.
Commissioner Koenig questioned if there are any other places in the City that have a similar slope where work has been done.
Director Blumenfeld stated that there are few properties with similar conditions. He stated that one of the problems staff observed is that the plan doesn’t show a footing design, and that staff did not have enough information to evaluate that – noting that the applicants will have to supply that information for staff to know how it affects the rest of the hardscape.
Chairman Perrotti questioned if this can be designed with a drainage system within the slope.
Director Blumenfeld stated that the geotechnical engineer can work with the engineer who did hydrology calculations and come up with a solution to drainage on the slope. He added that one of the problems staff observed is that there was no discussion in the plan or the report about how the site was going to be drained from lot to lot and from the slope to the detention basin. Director Blumenfeld stated that there is a requirement to provide landscaping and noted that the applicants plan on landscaping the hillside, noting that this would also need to be a condition of approval.
Vice-Chairman Pizer expressed his belief that there is a definite risk of destabilizing the hillside with this project; stated that a 50-percent sandy slope is pretty steep; and noted that only to obtain a larger backyard at the risk of those residents living above is not acceptable. He questioned if the applicants will be obtaining liability insurance to cover the residents above.
Director Blumenfeld explained that in the original approval, there was reference to a hold harmless clause with respect to the City and the drainage detention system, but that he would need to speak to the City’s attorney about how that condition would be drafted.
Commissioner Hoffman explained that the Commission deals with projects all the time that involve mechanical and engineering decisions that the Commission does not evaluate; and he questioned if City staff will be reviewing the detailed geotechnical study.
Director Blumenfeld stated that the City has qualified engineers and contract engineers who can review those studies.
Chairman Perrotti noted that because there is a certain amount of risk involved, staff is requesting the expertise to make sure that the construction is done properly and correctly.
MOTION by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Koenig, to APPROVE 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; and to include the Director of Public Works three recommendations for Item 4. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Koenig, Perrotti NOES: Pizer ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None RECESS AND RECONVENE
Chairman Perrotti recessed the meeting at 9:20 P.M. and reconvened the meeting at 9:30 P.M.
-
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.
Senior Planner Robertson advised that the subject site is located on the north side of 15th Street between Beach Drive and Hermosa Avenue; stated that the property is zoned R-3; and advised that this project was continued from the August and subsequent meetings because the plans had some Building Code issues relative to emergency egress that preempted the zoning requirements for the condominium project – noting that those issues have now been resolved. He stated that the proposed project consists of two attached units containing basements with three stories above; noted that the basement level is fully subterranean, which requires an access well over eight feet in depth along the side of the property; advised that each unit contains four bedrooms, four and one-half bathrooms and a roof deck; and that the units are designed in a contemporary Mediterranean style with smooth plaster finish and tile roof. He advised that the project complies with the zoning requirements with respect to the height limit, required yards, lot coverage and open space; and advised that there are some issues that need to be resolved. He stated that the access to the front unit basement, which contains a bedroom and a bathroom, is only through the garage with no other interior access from within the unit; and he stated that that basement access needs to be relocated to provide a standard interior connection from within the unit, noting that this is a condition of approval.
Senior Planner Robertson noted that the required parking for each unit is provided in garages accessed directly from 15th Street and 16th Court; that the required guest parking for the front unit is provided in the driveway in front of the garage; that guest parking for the rear unit is provided adjacent to the rear garage with direct access from the alley, but added that this guest parking space for the rear unit is not of sufficient width to meet the minimum parking space width requirement of 8.5 feet; and that the parking layout for the rear unit will need to be reconfigured in order to have enough room to provide the guest and standard parking spaces that comply with minimum parking and setback requirements. He added that the garage setback off the alley is not in compliance with the required setback for garages, which must either be three, nine, or seventeen feet; and that there was not enough information on the plans to determine if the driveways comply with the maximum driveway slope of 12.5 percent. He added that the plans show a new curb cut and driveway apron that do not line up with the proposed driveway on 15th Street; and stated that to address all these issues, staff believes these issues can be resolved with conditions of approval. He noted that the project meets the storage requirements of the Condominium Ordinance and provides for landscaping in the required yards.
Commissioner Hoffman asked for clarification on access to the basement with the two exterior doors going into the well area.
Senior Planner Robertson explained that the doors access the well eight feet below grade; that those are essentially emergency exits into that well; and stated that it’s not easily accessible.
Chairman Perrotti opened the public hearing.
Mr. Zeto, project manager, noted concurrence with the conditions of approval; advised that they made some modifications to the east side of the basement access area; explained that the original set of drawings have been revised; stated that they have a second egress from the basement, but that the City Engineer recommended they not put in a second set of stairways to the basement because it is not allowed by code and that, therefore, it was left at one stairway. Mr. Zeto noted for the Commission that this unit is not designed to be a bootleg; stated that the unit is only accessible through the garage; and that the purpose for the basement unit is for a recreation area and storage.
There being no further input, Chairman Perrotti closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Hoffman noted his concern with the potential for a bootleg, a unit which only needs a set of stairs into that one well that makes those separate units and noted his assumption that that situation has been remedied.
Chairman Perrotti stated that he concurs there is a potential problem, but expressed his belief the proposed resolution covers all the issues and pointed out that the applicant has agreed to comply with the deficiencies.
MOTIONby Vice-Chairman Pizer, seconded by Commissioner Allen, to APPROVE 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. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Koenig, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None -
Staff Recommended Action: To direct staff as deemed appropriate.
Senior Planner Robertson advised that this facility is located at the corner of Monterey Boulevard and Pier Avenue on a lot containing five businesses, including three on Pier Avenue and two on Monterey Boulevard; stated that the subject building is currently being used as a market specializing in wine sales and has been previously used/occupied by convenience and food markets with off-sale beer and wine; that a CUP for off-sale beer and wine was granted in 1990; that this CUP allows the off-sale business to be open until midnight; and added that since the applicant is proposing on-sale consumption, no matter how limited it may be, a CUP amendment is required for the on-sale beer and wine. He advised that the applicant’s proposal for limited on-site consumption will require a Type 42 Alcohol Beverage Control license to allow on-site consumption.
Senior Planner Robertson stated that the property is currently nonconforming to current parking requirements, as only four off-street parking spaces exist with one available for the subject business and three spaces located in front of the businesses on Monterey Boulevard; noted that the applicant is proposing to offer customers wine sampling for a small fee as part of their normal business operations in conjunction with the wine market; explained that the plans show an 80-square-foot portion of the business will be sectioned off during regular business hours; and that this area will be sectioned off by low barriers to prohibit access to persons younger than 21 years of age. He explained that the sampling section will include two stand-up tables with no seating and wine storage for the sampling; and that the wine sampling will be with 1-ounce cups/sips of wine and a maximum of five samplings, with all the pouring being done by market employees. He mentioned that the applicant is willing to limit the market and wine sampling hours to no later than 10:00 P.M.; and added that the applicant is modeling this concept after the Sepulveda Wine Company, which is a business in Manhattan Beach.
Senior Planner Robertson explained that staff considers this proposed on-premises consumption of wine, although limited to sampling, as an on-sale alcohol beverage establishment pursuant to the City’s permitted use list; and stated that the proposed use does not fit into any other category and this is clearly the most similar use. He noted that pursuant to this permitted use list, this business is only permitted with a CUP; and stated that no other interior changes to the premises are proposed at this time. Based on the information and plans submitted, he noted that it is not completely clear if this proposal to consume alcohol as samples can be considered incidental to the retail market with respect to the Uniform Building Code or the requirements of the L.A. County Department of Health; advised that the applicant is proposing to use disposable plastic cups and is requesting that the sampling area be considered secondary or incidental to the primary use of the property as a market, similar to sampling other food items, and, therefore, they will be requesting to be exempted from certain Building Code requirements, including Title 24 requirements for handicap accessibility. He advised that the applicant believes incidental beverage sampling does not change the business and thus is not subject to the Health and Safety requirements or Building Code upgrades that are normally required, which would require upgrade to the bathroom facilities or washing facilities. He advised that the City will get clarification on these issues during the plan check process should the Commission approve this request.
Senior Planner Robertson stated that the applicant will also be applying for the Type 42 ABC license; in this case, that license would only apply to the sectioned off portion of the business and that the rest of the market would operate under the Type 20 off-sale license. He added that the applicant is also requesting a determination from the Commission that this not be considered an intensification of the existing use; and explained that if the project were considered as more intense, the proposed new use classification would require additional parking. Given the proposed limitation on hours, limited area for the sampling, he stated that it would seem reasonable to consider this area as incidental and causing no such intensification of use. If the Commission makes a favorable decision on this request, he noted that staff would recommend the following special conditions to limit the intensity of the wine consumption and to ensure that the business or any future business operating under this CUP retains its primary character as a retail market: on premises consumption be limited to wine sampling only within the 80-square-foot area; sampling area to be separated from the retail market by non-portable barriers that would be affixed to the floor and clearly marked on the floor and noted on the plan; the hours for the market limited to no later than 10:00 P.M.; no seating allowed in the wine sampling area and tables appropriate for standing only as shown on the plans; limit to 1-ounce sampling sizes, with a maximum of five samples per customer and pouring by the employees only; no serving or preparation of food or meals other than minimum associated with sampling; prohibition of exterior signs for advertising the wine sampling to be in compliance with the County, ABC and the City; and a condition that the Planning Commission review the project in six months. He stated that the Commission must make a basic determination in this case in findings that this proposal will be compatible with surrounding commercial and residential uses and decide if it warrants granting this CUP; in addition, given the unique nature of this proposal, the Commission must decide if the operational conditions to limit the on-sale portion of the business are reasonable and will prove to be practical and enforceable; and noted that staff will return with a resolution based upon the Commission’s direction.
Director Blumenfeld stated that staff is concerned about enforcement of the CUP because of the on-sale consumption of wine, and the potential for the use to change into a wine bar. He noted that this is why staff is recommending the area be sectioned off and improvements made to the building.
Chairman Perrotti questioned if there is anything in the codes requiring the type of barricade to use.
Director Blumenfeld advised that the owner had proposed similar barriers as seen in banks to establish a cue for the wine tasting area. Director Blumenfeld stated that staff has not resolved the restroom issues and this time and that staff will continue to study those issues.
Director Blumenfeld noted for Commissioner Allen that the CUP has to be put into effect in order for it to be in place, that the business must be put into operation within two years of approval for the CUP to take effect.
Chairman Perrotti opened the public hearing.
Laura Zuenski, owner of Smokey Hollow Wine Shop, explained that the intent is to give the customer a chance to sample wines that are not easily found; advised that this is not a wine bar; pointed out that the patrons will sample from a 1-ounce cup; and noted that the sampling will help with sales. She noted for Commissioner Koenig that she would not be opposed to erecting a short wall. Ms. Zuenski stated that she concurs with all the conditions of approval.
Mr. Nelson, 2415 Silverstrand Avenue, noted his support for this applicant’s request; and stated that the applicants run a fine establishment.
Cynthia McCann, co-owner, read a letter of support from a City resident, Judith Prager (who was not able to attend this evening’s meeting), stating that she believes this facility will improve the culture of the City.
There being no further input, Chairman Perrotti closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Hoffman expressed his belief that staff has developed enough conditions to adequately address any concerns with this project; and he wished the applicants success in this venture.
Vice-Chairman Pizer echoed Commissioner Hoffman’s comments; expressed his belief that wine-tasting is an essential part of the success of their business; and stated that the limited size of the sectioned area is acceptable.
Commissioner Koenig expressed his belief that the owners are responsible individuals who care about this community; stated that this activity adds to the ambiance of this community; and suggested that the applicant be permitted to have signage which advertises the wine sampling so that they can generate interest, believing that not allowing signage is an unfair prohibition.
Commissioner Allen noted his support for signage advertising the wine tasting and expressed his belief that this is a sincere proposal.
Chairman Perrotti addressed concern with the CUP should this property or business change ownership, but added that he believes there are adequate conditions to alleviate these concerns, including the six-month review.
MOTION by Vice-Chairman Pizer, seconded by Commissioner Koenig, to APPROVE CUP 04-5 -- Conditional Use Permit amendment to allow on-premises wine tasting in conjunction with an existing market with off-sale beer and wine at 302 Pier Avenue; to allow signage advertising the wine-tasting, deleting Item No. 7; and for staff to prepare the proposed resolution with the nine conditions of approval. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Koenig, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None -
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.
Senior Planner Robertson stated that the subject property is located on the east side of Loma Drive north of 16th Street, on top of a hill overlooking Hermosa Valley School; that the project is on a 4,000-square-foot R-2 lot; that it consists of two detached units containing basements with two stories above; that each unit contains three bedrooms; that the front unit has two and one-half bathrooms, and the rear unit has three and one-half baths; and that the units are designed in a contemporary Minimalist style with facades showing different colored smooth plaster finishes, tongue and groove wood siding, stainless steel sunshades and deck guardrails. He advised that the project complies with the Zoning requirements with respect to height, yards, lot coverage, open space; stated that required parking is provided in the basement level for each unit with a separate driveway access from Loma Drive; and noted that staff is recommending the plans detail more clearly some of the exterior materials, including the window types to match the design of the building.
Chairman Perrotti opened the public hearing.
Ben Burkhalter, project architect, stated that he will work with staff on any issues of concern; and stated that he is not clear on the Building Department’s concern with the basement qualifications.
Senior Planner Robertson stated that the Building Department’s initial review showed that basement issue can be resolved with slight redesigns to the perimeter yard area.
There being no further input, Chairman Perrotti closed the public hearing.
Vice-Chairman Pizer expressed his belief that the exterior needs more articulation, but noted that it meets the standards.
Chairman Perrotti pointed out that the proposed lot coverage is lower than what is allowed; and noted that the architect has agreed to work with staff to resolve all deficiencies.
MOTION by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Koenig, to APPROVE Conditional Use Permit 04-8/PDP 04-27 -- Conditional Use Permit and Precise Development Plan for a new motor vehicle sales and repair business, and adoption of an Environmental Negative Declaration at 2775 Pacific Coast Highway; Section 4, Item 9, delete “that are intended for sale” and to replace with, “The public right-of-way shall not be used for parking or storing of vehicles”; Section 4, Item 4, to change the word “easterly” to “westerly”; Item 12 to amend the language on delivery hours and the operation of automatic machinery. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Koenig, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None -
Staff Recommended Action: To direct staff as deemed appropriate.
Director Blumenfeld stated that this is a request to modify an existing CUP; advised that the project was originally approved with a parking plan in 1997 for The Mix, which contained a combination of retail and restaurant uses; subsequently, that the business was sold to a new business operator, Seafood Grotto, which amended the CUP to reconfigure the dining areas and to locate a portion of the retail at the rear of the restaurant and a portion at the front of the restaurant; and pointed out that the issue of the amount of retail is important because it has a bearing on the parking requirement. He advised that the original project provided in-lieu parking fees to compensate for their required parking; and stated that if the retail portion of the project is eliminated, the owner would be compelled to park that portion of the project. He advised that the current restaurant owner is Hibachi, which has been in business since December 2002; stated that the owner is not proposing to change the emphasis of the restaurant with the proposed CUP amendment for full alcohol, nor is there a proposal to intensify the use or provide a bar; noted that they are simply trying to accommodate their business, make it more competitive with the surrounding businesses; and stated that they’re proposing to have signature tropical mixed drinks. He advised that the resolution contains conditions that are similar to other conditions for full alcohol in the area; and stated that the business is willing to operate with reduced business hours, from 7:00 A.M. to 11:00 P.M. He noted that there are 42 businesses with on-sale alcohol permits, 22 with full alcohol and 20 with beer and wine; advised that if this project is approved, it would change to 23 with full alcohol and 19 with beer and wine; and mentioned that this will be the first permit for a full alcohol permit which extends past Hermosa Avenue. He stated that the draft resolution includes a six-month review of this business.
Chairman Perrotti opened the public hearing.
Bob Elling, co-owner of Hibachi Restaurant, stated that this will help the business to compete in a very competitive area; and expressed his belief that serving these tropical mixed drinks is consistent with their restaurant concept, a Japanese/Hawaiian fusion, and that these tropical drinks will compliment the menu. He stated that his customers routinely request these drinks; and he distributed copies of his customers’ petitions in support of this request. He stated that he only plans to operate a restaurant, not a bar; and that they do not intend to make any structural changes. He stated that this business is very responsible and he asked for the Commission’s approval.
Chairman Perrotti explained that this building was given a break with parking because part of it was going to be retail, and he stated that the merchandise area should be expanded a bit more.
Mr. Elling stated that they do plan on expanding their line of merchandise.
Mr. Elling noted for Commissioner Koenig that they will not be serving hard drinks, that there will only be a limited number of tropical mixed drinks.
Christen Campisi, 802 Monterey Boulevard, expressed his support of this request and stated that this is a fine establishment; and he urged the Commission to approve the request.
Susan Gillette, resident, expressed her support of the applicant’s request and stated that she enjoys dining at the Hibachi.
There being no further input, Chairman Perrotti closed the public hearing.
Vice-Chairman Pizer pointed out that this is a small restaurant with limited hours.
Commissioner Hoffman stated that the key issue is the hours of operation; and he briefly commented on the possible passing along of the CUP onto the next operator who may have a very different intent. He stated that he is reluctant to approve this request.
Commissioners Koenig and Allen echoed Commissioner Hoffman’s concern with the future of the CUP for this property.
Chairman Perrotti stated that the CUP has been adequately modified to address any of his concerns of a future owner turning this property into a future sports bar or regular bar; and pointed out that a future operator would have to come before this body to modify the CUP if they plan to change the floor plan and the hours of operation.
Vice-Chairman Pizer pointed out that the number of liquor licenses does not change, it’s only changing their type of license; and stated that it would be difficult for a nighttime bar to succeed if it is forced to close its doors at 11:00 P.M.
MOTION by Vice-Chairman Pizer, seconded by Chairman Perrotti, to APPROVE CUP 05-2 -- Conditional Use Permit amendment to change from on-sale beer and wine to on-sale general alcohol in conjunction with an existing restaurant at 117 Pier Avenue, Hibachi Restaurant.
Commissioner Koenig requested that the motion be amended to limit the size of the bar area.
Vice-Chairman Pizer, with Chairman Perrotti’s concurrence, amended the motion to limit the bar area to the area as indicated on the floor plan.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Koenig, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: Hoffman ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None -
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.
Director Blumenfeld stated that this is a proposed new tenant for the Hermosa Pavilion, which is currently being renovated; advised that the applicant is proposing to occupy 2,925 square feet of the second floor level of the building; noted that the use will provide a music academy and performing arts school for children; that it would provide a place for children’s parties, provide instruction, catered food served -- which would consist of desserts, drinks and prepackaged snacks; and mentioned that there will also be a membership fee for the facility and a cover charge for special events. He advised that the property is zoned SPA 8; and stated that the proposed use is consistent with the uses allowed on the permitted use list for music academy even though this proposal includes a slightly broader range of activities. He stated that the applicant has submitted a list of hours of operation; noted that there will be after school classes for up to 20 students; and that there would be summer operations with a summer camp. Director Blumenfeld stated that the applicant is also proposing to have adults attend these events, noting that beer, wine and light snacks will be offered to the adults (and regulated by ABC). With respect to parking, he stated that the shared parking analysis, land use, indicates 5:00 P.M. as being the peak hours for parking demand, but that even with that demand among the various uses at this center, the project is adequately parked with valet parking. He added that conditions have been added which pertain to ensuring the operating hours are maintained and that there are qualified staff available to monitor the use.
Chairman Perrotti opened the public hearing.
Mary Ramirez, Hermosa Beach City School District kindergarten teacher (on leave of absence), stated that she is looking forward to offering this program to South Bay’s children; and noted for Chairman Perrotti that a survey will be conducted to get feedback on what the residents would like to see offered. She stated that she is open to offering musical instrument instruction, but indicated that most of the requests have been for voice and dancing.
Commissioner Hoffman questioned what will be going on in the auditorium on Friday evenings that will include alcohol and food.
Ms. Ramirez explained that the children will be performing; noted that the children will be auditioning during the week; will be conducting classes after school; and that there will be weekly performances every Friday and Saturday. She added that the talent shows typically last 4 hours.
Commissioner Koenig noted his delight for a children’s academy for the arts and stated that this is a good addition to this community.
Bill Nunley questioned if this structure is insulated for noise.
Director Blumenfeld stated that the business will be located on the second floor, in the central part of the facility.
Ryan Shook, Vice-President of the Development Company, owner of the Hermosa Pavilion, stated that the building is very well insulated.
There being no further input, Chairman Perrotti closed the public hearing.
Chairman Perrotti stated that this is a positive program for the community and commented on the importance of music improving children’s self-esteem.
MOTION by Vice-Chairman Pizer, seconded by Commissioner Koenig, to APPROVE CUP 05-3 -- Conditional Use Permit to allow a 2,925 square foot music academy and performing arts center within the Hermosa Pavilion at 1605 Pacific Coast Highway #285, Kids Kabaret. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Koenig, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None -
Staff Recommended Action: To continue to March 15, 2005 meeting.
Chairman Perrotti opened the public hearing.
MOTION by Commissioner Koenig, seconded by Commissioner Hoffman, to CONTINUE to March 15, 2005, GP 05-1/ZON 05-1 -- General Plan amendment from CC, Commercial Corridor, to MD, Medium Density Residential, and zone change from SPA7, Specific Plan Area No. 7, to R-2, Two-Family Residential, or to such other designation/zone as deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission, to allow the development of up to six residential units, and adoption of an Environmental Negative Declaration at 737 3rd Street. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Koenig, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None -
Staff Recommended Action: To continue to March 15, 2005 meeting.
Chairman Perrotti opened the public hearing.
MOTION by Commissioner Koenig, seconded by Commissioner Hoffman, to CONTINUE to March 15, 2005, GP 05-2/ZON 05-2 -- General Plan amendment from CC, Commercial Corridor, to MD, Medium Density Residential, and zone change from SPA7, Specific Plan Area No. 7, to R-2, Two-Family Residential, or to such other designation/zone as deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission, to allow the development of up to two residential units, and adoption of an Environmental Negative Declaration at 722 1st Street. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Koenig, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None -
Staff Recommended Action: To continue to March 15, 2005 meeting.
Chairman Perrotti opened the public hearing.
MOTION by Commissioner Koenig, seconded by Commissioner Hoffman, to CONTINUE to March 15, 2005, GP 05-3/ZON 05-3 -- General Plan amendment from CC, Commercial Corridor, to MD, Medium Density Residential, and zone change from SPA7, Specific Plan Area No. 7, to R-2, Two-Family Residential, or to such other designation/zone as deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission, to allow the development of up to four residential units, and adoption of an Environmental Negative Declaration at 7 Pacific Coast Highway and 730 1st Street. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Koenig, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None -
Staff Recommended Action: To direct staff as deemed appropriate.
Director Blumenfeld stated that the applicant is requesting a continuance of this matter due to another commitment, asking that it be continued to the April agenda or soon thereafter.
Chairman Perrotti opened the public hearing.
Justin Beimford, resident, expressed his belief that approving this project would set a dangerous precedent for zone changes on a parcel-by-parcel basis; and stated that this is detrimental to what the City should accomplish overall. He stated that this matter should be referred to City Council; and he questioned if anything had changed with regard to the City’s outlook on this proposal relative to staff’s recommendation in 2002 and 2003.
Director Blumenfeld noted for Mr. Beimford that nothing has changed since that time and noted that the applicant submitted a new application, as they are permitted to do.
Chairman Perrotti closed the public hearing.
MOTION by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Vice-Chairman Pizer, to CONTINUE GP 05-4/ZON 05-4/CON 05-3/ PDP 05-3 -- General Plan Amendment from Neighborhood Commercial (NC) to High Density Residential (HD) and Zone Change from Neighborhood Commercial (C-1) to Multiple-Family Residential (R-3) or to such other designation/zone as deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission, and a Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan, and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 26923 for a two-unit condominium, and adoption of an Environmental Negative Declaration at 19 2nd Street. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Koenig, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None Commissioner Hoffman recused himself from Agenda Item No. 16.
-
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.
Senior Planner Robertson stated that the subject site is located on the east side of Monterey Boulevard between 8th and 10th Streets; advised that the proposed project consists of two detached units containing basements with two stories above; that each unit contains three bedrooms, three and one-half baths and each contains a roof deck; noted that the primary living area is on the second floor with the bottom two levels containing the bedrooms; and that the units are designed in a contemporary Mediterranean style with a smooth plaster finish and a clay tile mansard roof. He stated that the project complies with the zoning requirements with respect to height, yard, lot coverage, open space; advised that the required parking is provided in the basement level for each unit with access directly from Monterey Boulevard and Sunset Drive; and noted that the project meets the requirements of the Condominium Ordinance with respect to storage.
Chairman Perrotti opened the public hearing.
Elizabeth Srour, representing the owner and applicant, stated that the project is in full compliance with the development standards.
There being no further input, Chairman Perrotti closed the public hearing.
MOTION by Vice-Chairman Pizer, seconded by Commissioner Allen, to APPROVE CON 05-5/PDP 05-5 -- Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 62219 for a two-unit condominium at 918 Monterey Boulevard. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Koenig, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: Hoffman ABSENT: None -
Staff Recommended Action: To receive and review additional background information.
Director Blumenfeld highlighted the variables for consideration in evaluating the potential build-out options for some of the following typical lot sizes and typical zones associated with those lot sizes: 1) R-1 zoned property with a 30 by 70 lot with an existing 800-square-foot building nonconforming to parking, only one parking space, and nonconforming to the front yard; 2) R-2 zoned property with a 30 by 80 foot lot with nonconforming duplex with one parking space per unit; 3) also within R-1, proposing a 40 by 90 foot lot with 1,600-square-foot single-family dwelling and two-car garage nonconforming to the garage setback and guest parking; 4) R-1 zoned property with a 40 by 100 foot lot, 2,500-square-foot home with nonconforming side yard; and 5) R-3 zoned property with a 30 by 100 foot lot, nonconforming triplex with less than one parking space per unit. He stated that these are a mix of various lot sizes, building sizes and various nonconforming conditions on each of these lots; and added that staff is also proposing to look at a nonconforming residential use in the C Zone. In each case, he noted that the owner can either develop their property and make it conforming or they can comply with the conditions under the existing nonconforming ordinance. He stated that staff is proposing to look at the nonconforming ordinance scenarios in terms of the following: expansion/remodel under the terms of the current nonconforming ordinance and expansion and build-out under the proposed new nonconforming provisions with the following alternatives: expansion as a percentage of the existing, up to 100 percent; expansion up to 1,000 square feet; expansion up to 2,000 square feet; and expansion up to 1:1 floor area ratio to lot area. He stated that staff will do the analysis, tabulate it, put it in matrix form and present it to the Commission at its next meeting.
Director Blumenfeld clarified for Commissioner Hoffman that staff is talking about expansion up to 2,000 square feet.
There was consensus to proceed with the study.
-
Staff Recommended Action: To extend the expiration date by one year to March 18, 2006.
Director Blumenfeld advised that the Commission approved this project in January 2003 for a 2-lot subdivision with less than required lot width/size; noted that the Commission approved the Tentative Map March 18, 2003; and explained that the variance was granted because the two lots were substandard and consistent with the prevailing lots in the area. He stated that the applicant indicates the extension is needed because of delays in the preparation of architectural plans for the homes and in processing the Final Map with the County.
MOTION by Commissioner Koenig, seconded by Vice-Chairman Pizer, to APPROVE SUB 03-1/VAR 02-4 -- Request for a one-year extension of a Variance and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 26464 for a two lot subdivision at 836 Beach Drive. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Koenig, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None Agenda Item No. 19 was considered out of Agenda order.
-
STAFF ITEMS
None
-
COMMISSIONER ITEMS
Director Blumenfeld, in response to Chairman Perrotti’s request, stated that the City Attorney has provided direction in the event a Commission member needs to recuse themselves from a matter; and suggested that the Commission utilize these guidelines should they need to recuse themselves.
-
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was formally adjourned at 11:20 P.M.
HEARING(S)
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 February 15, 2005.
| Sam Pizer, Vice-Chairman | Sol Blumenfeld, Secretary |
| Agendas / Minutes Menu | Planning Commission Agendas | Planning Commission Minutes |