|
|
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Present: | Allen, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer, Chairman Hoffman |
| Absent: | None |
| Also Present: |
Sol Blumenfeld, Community Development Director Kent Robertson, Senior Planner Denise Bothe, Recording Secretary |
Oral / Written Communications
Chairman Hoffman noted that the Commission received a written communication from Mr. Stefani who lives on 6th Street, addressing a condominium project adjacent to his property; and noted that staff has forwarded this letter onto the Building Department because it is related to construction activity.
Consent Calendar
-
Approval of Approval of the January 17, 2006 Minutes .
MOTION by Commissioner Pizer, seconded by Commissioner Perrotti, toAPPROVE the January 17, 2006, Minutes as presented. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None -
Resolution(s) for consideration
-
Resolution P.C. 06-4approving Variances to the garage setback, rear yard, open space, and front yard encroachment requirements for a bay window to allow a second story addition to a single-family dwelling, resulting in a 3-foot garage setback and rear yard, rather than the required 17 feet from a street (Loma Drive), 200 square feet of ground level open space rather than 300 square feet, and a bay window encroaching in the front 30 inches at 2056 Monterey Boulevard.
MOTION by Commissioner Pizer, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom, to APPROVE Resolution P.C. 06-4. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None
-
-
Staff Recommended Action: To deny said request.
Director Blumenfeld stated that this property is located at the southeast corner of Massey Avenue and 5th Street; that the property is comprised of 27 lots and is an unusually large site located in the R-1 residential neighborhood; and stated that the lot is currently developed with a church campus consisting of two separate buildings, an outdoor patio area and a large paved parking area. He advised that the church was constructed in 1959; that in 1958, the Planning Commission approved a CUP to allow the church use and later approved an amendment to the CUP in 1960 to allow the addition of a school use on the property; and that the CUP allowed the church to exceed the height limit in effect at the time. He explained that churches are conditionally permitted uses in the R-1 zone and are subject to the same development standards as other R-1 developments in the area. He advised that in 1990, the Planning Commission approved the CUP Amendment and a Parking Plan, in this case to allow the installation of a portable classroom and also the reduction of 8 parking spaces on the property in connection with this new use; and that in 1991, the Planning Commission approved an amendment to add a permanent classroom building and an office building addition, which was located between the existing school and assembly hall, and eliminated the portable classroom in the parking lot.
Director Blumenfeld noted that this request is for an attractive remodel to the existing church, which will enhance the building; and advised that staff met with the representatives of the church and its project architect to discuss possible options to avoid processing the application, but stated that the applicant was interested in pursuing this request. Director Blumenfeld advised that the applicant is requesting a Variance in order to allow the construction of a new addition; stated it would exceed the 25-foot height limit in the R-1 zone; and noted that the applicant advises that the church hasn’t been renovated since it was originally constructed in 1959 and that the addition and remodel is needed to accommodate accessibility requirements. He explained the intent is to create a more contemporary “in-the-round” seating forum, which will reduce the number of seating but make it a more intimate setting; and that the proposed addition increases the main worship area.
Director Blumenfeld explained that in order to grant a Variance, there are four required findings that must be made:
- There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances limited to the physical conditions applicable to the property involved;
- The Variance(s) are necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone and denied to the property in question;
- The granting of the Variance(s) will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property is located; and
- The Variance(s) are consistent with the General Plan.
Director Blumenfeld explained that the concept of a Variance is to establish parity with surrounding properties and not to convey a special property right; with respect to the first finding, he noted the applicant argues that because the church is located on the northwest corner of a contiguous parish property, which the applicant contends is the highest elevation in the neighborhood, and that combined with the unusually large size of the property relative to the adjacent residential properties is an exceptional condition with respect to the physical conditions of the property. He stated that while the property may be unique in these respects, this has little to do with the necessity to exceed the height limit since the larger property and higher grade elevations aren’t conditions that necessitate a higher building profile; that, in fact, it can be argued, the larger site provides more opportunities for a substantial amount of development in compliance with the height standards than would ordinarily be possible on the neighboring lots.
Director Blumenfeld advised that the applicant also notes there is a unique history to the building, that it hasn’t been remodeled since 1959; stated that the parish cannot afford to demolish and rebuild the existing building but, instead, wishes to proceed with these modest improvements; explained that while these aspects are important considerations, they are not valid with respect to a Variance; and that neither the condition of the existing building nor the financial considerations are exceptional conditions related to the physical conditions of the property and are not factors which can be considered in granting a Variance.
With respect to Finding No. 2, Director Blumenfeld stated that the proposed Variance does not appear to be necessary for the enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone; and, in fact, that staff could argue otherwise, that the CUP originally approved in 1958 improperly conveyed an unusual property right allowing the church to build in excess of the mandated allowable height; and, further, that in exercising this property right, the church has a property right that isn’t available to others in the same vicinity and zone. He advised that staff generally agrees with the applicant that the actual seating capacity will be reduced, and as a result, the proposed addition won’t have a material effect on the neighborhood; and, further, that there aren’t any obvious conflicts with the General Plan. He stated that in order to grant a Variance, the Planning Commission must make all four findings; and because staff believes it’s not possible to make Finding Nos. 1 and 2, staff is recommending the Variance be denied.
Chairman Hoffman opened the public hearing.
Jeff Fidler, parish administrator for Our Lady of Guadalupe, stated that this church has been a member of this community since 1927; advised that they have over 200 registered families that attend this church; noted that in 1958 when the church applied for the CUP permit, it was granted with a height Variance; that they want to continue on with that height Variance; that they don’t want to substantially change the property; and that they are requesting to continue using the property in the same manner that it is currently being used without having an impact on the surrounding neighborhood. He explained that part of the reason they need to add a small addition to the church is for them to be able to have more room for various uses; advised that currently, there are no restrooms upstairs; that they need to add two small additions, which they believe will create a minor impact to the height above the 25 feet both on the east and west side; that there is no handicapped accessible bathrooms at this time; and that that they would not be able to build the remodel without this small section. Mr. Fidler expressed his belief there are extremely extraordinary circumstances because they are the only property in the area containing 27 pieces of property, an extremely large property that no one else in the community has; that when going from the highest point of the property to the lowest point, it’s over 35 feet in difference; that with a 25-foot limit, there are places where one can argue they can’t build a 10-foot piece of property if they were using the full topography – noting this is the argument the City is making; and stated this is partly why they originally applied. He stated they were approved in 1958 for this height Variance; that it was granted up to 65 feet; noted they are not trying to increase the height; and that everything they’re building is lower than what is currently existing. He stated that there are no other properties they can compare with, no other churches in this area, and there are no other residents who own property that expand this size lot. Mr. Fidler stated they are in compliance with Finding Nos. 3 and 4.
Mr. Fidler stated that church representatives visited the neighbors and showed them plans to improve the property; that the neighbors were asked them to look at the plans; that everyone he spoke with and those adjacent to the property have signed a petition about their awareness of the church’s height Variance, aware of the issues; and that these neighbors support the proposal. Mr. Fidler stated that one of the problems with this lot is that because of the topography, it makes it almost impossible for one to build a church on that site without going over the height Variance.
Dan Young, 214 North Irena Street, Redondo Beach, project designer, advised that the existing building roof is over the height limit; explained that three different versions of where the corner point would be taken from were considered; explained that if one were to take the best of the calculations for determining height, it would add approximately 2 feet to what would be the height limit at the worst point, which is the east end of the proposed transit; that combining that with lowering the gable roof and recalculating according to the original lot, it moves it to approximately 4, 5 feet, about 11 feet out if they take one version of the calculation at the worst point. He stated they could compromise by approximately 5 feet with Version B, and short of that, they would be going to the existing roof plan. He noted there were two reasons why he looked at the transit concept when they started planning this renovation: 1) when the seating changes in this type space, they need to change the access of the building, and the transit helps do that spatially; 2) on the east side there is a bulky, unattractive building; and that he thought a transit on each side of the building, basically cutting the elevation in thirds, would be an aesthetic improvement to the building. He noted that this was a height Variance in the first place; noted that currently, the main level of the church at the corner of Massey and 5th, measuring from that point, from the floor level at that point up to the peak is 26.5 feet, a foot and a half above the 25-foot limit at the main gable roof; that the gable addition they are putting on is approximately 2.5 feet below that ridge; and that taken in absolute terms, they are below what one might have calculated in 1959.
Director Blumenfeld advised that the height calculation is based on an interpolation from the corner point elevations of the lot; noted the method for currently calculating height was approved in early 1994 and amended slightly thereafter; and that when the original approvals occurred on this project, in ‘58 and ‘60, the method for determining height was just to measure to the finished grade from the roof line.
Mr. Young stated that the ridge of this building is a couple feet higher than 35 feet if one measures from the lower grade and is consistent on the lower and upper grade; noted the height calculation has changed since the building was originally constructed; and mentioned that the parish is planning on a series of terraces east of the building.
Commissioner Perrotti asked for clarification on page 3 of staff report, Finding No. 2.
Mr. Young explained that Version F at the top of the plans leave the roof alone; stated that if they did not change the existing roof, there would not be a Variance required; and that they believe this architectural plan for the building is worth the effort.
Commissioner Allen questioned if the applicant spent any time on a plan that would comply with the City’s requirements.
Mr. Young noted for Commissioner Allen that they did not do that; and noted if they did look at it, they would basically leave the upper roof alone.
Richard Herd, Hermosa Beach, advised that his lot backs up to the church; stated the activities put on by this church creates a nuisance, constantly violating the Noise Ordinance with their parties; advised that beer bottles are thrown into his backyard; that the numerous cars traveling up his street for the church events create a negative impact; and that Mariachi music is sometimes played at 5:00 A.M. He advised that no one has come to his home to talk about this project.
Mary Franklin, Hermosa Beach, advised that her garage backs up directly to this church; stated that she loves this church; and noted her belief that the height restrictions are too restrictive. She stated it is unfair for the Strand properties to be able to go up to 30 feet in height and that they are restricted to 25 feet; and she noted her support for the applicant’s request.
Lee Aguiar, Hermosa Beach, stated it is a good idea for the outdated church to be remodeled; pointed out that back in 1927, views were not as important as they are today; mentioned that most of the houses were single level in those days; and stated that because the surrounding properties to the church have to abide by the height code, the church should also have to abide by the height code. He stated that currently, many residents’ mountain views are obstructed by the church; and stated if it went up another 11 feet, that would be a further obstruction. He noted his opposition to the request.
There being no further input, Chairman Hoffman closed the public hearing.
Director Blumenfeld pointed out that the City primarily uses the corner point elevations to measure building height but advised that in the instance where it can be demonstrated one has a convex slope, either over the entire lot or a portion of the lot, an owner can request an interpretation. He advised that staff looked at the possibility of a convex slope condition and found that there was a partial convex slope condition but added that it turned out it didn’t contribute enough to resolve the height issue; in other words, the building was still severely over height. He explained that the code also allows the Commission to make a determination to take another that represents an unaltered grade, but noted that staff looked at street profile information and couldn’t find another point and other datum that would contribute enough to accommodate the overall building height of the proposed alterations.
Commissioner Pizer stated he does not think Finding No. 1 could have ever been met because there’s no exceptional or extraordinary circumstance based on the physical conditions of the property; and noted that because of the large size of the lot, there are more opportunities here to expand and accommodate the use. With respect to Finding No. 2, he stated that they have already enjoyed a property right and privilege that hasn’t been granted to anyone in that area and, therefore, he cannot make Finding No. 2.
Commissioner Perrotti stated there isn’t anything in the City’s Zoning Code that gives churches any different type of treatment from any other structure, whether residential or commercial; noted that the architect indicated he did not consider other design options that wouldn’t require a Variance. He stated that Finding No. 1 is the largest obstacle in granting the Variance, that he does not find any exceptional condition that exists with the physical condition of the property; and noted that the remodel should be done according to the existing height limit.
Commissioner Kersenboom stated that he is not able to make Finding Nos. 1 and 2.
Commissioner Allen mentioned that those signing petitions in this type matter should be property owners, not renters. With regard to Finding No. 1, he noted his belief there’s a lot of room to build at this church site; noted the option to build within the confines of the City’s guidelines were not considered; and advised that he is not able to make Finding No. 2, but that he can make a finding for No. 1.
Chairman Hoffman stated there are other design alternatives that could have been considered/promoted that would have enabled expansion within the existing height standards; stated that he is not able to make Finding No. 1; and that the only exceptional issue is the size of the property.
MOTION by Commissioner Pizer, seconded by Commissioner Perrotti, to DENY VAR 06-1 – a Variance to allow an addition and remodel to an existing church to exceed the maximum height limit of the R-1 zone at 320 and 440 Massey Avenue. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None -
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.
Director Blumenfeld stated that the applicant is requesting the construction of a new wireless telecommunications facility on an existing office building constructed on City-owned property which was developed under a long-term ground lease; noted that the City will need to review and approve the lease for the proposed telecommunication facility as a precondition before installing the facility on site; advised that the antennas will be mounted on the northeast and southeast corners of the building and on the west building façade facing the parking structure; and that the wireless facility antennas will be installed as an appendage to the building that will entirely conceal it and will resemble the original architecture. He stated that the proposed antennas will be completely screened from view, painted and textured to be compatible with the building architecture; that most of the equipment for the wireless facility will be placed in a room on the third floor, except for two roof-mounted condensing units; advised that these roof-mounted units are needed to cool the equipment and that these will exceed the height limit of the building by 26 inches; but noted that code allows these units to exceed the height limit by that amount to meet Code. Given that the addition of the condensing units only increases the roof coverage of the existing building from 10 to 10.4 percent, he noted this is a minimal effect. He noted the applicant has submitted a map that indicates the amount of coverage currently available without the facility, noting that the cell coverage is deemed to be poor and inadequate in this surrounding area.
Chairman Hoffman questioned if any of the 15 inches in the screening represent an encroachment into the required setback.
Director Blumenfeld advised that a small portion does encroach, but that this area was previously granted an encroachment permit when the original design was approved approximately five years ago with the development of the building.
Chairman Hoffman opened the public hearing.
William Bennett, representing Cingular Wireless, stated that greater coverage will be provided for Cingular subscribers; noted it will be an inconspicuous facility; and stated that he concurs with the conditions of approval.
Chairman Hoffman questioned what type of screening will be used.
Mr. Bennett stated it will be a radio frequency material, made to resemble stucco, matching the architecture of the building.
There being no further input, Chairman Hoffman closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Kersenboom indicated his support for this proposal.
Commissioner Pizer stated that the reception is poor in this area and noted his support for the proposal.
Commissioner Perrotti noted his support for this request.
MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Pizer, to APPROVE CUP 06-1 -- Conditional Use Permit to allow a wireless telecommunications facility for Cingular Wireless to collocate with existing businesses at 1311 Hermosa Avenue. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None -
Staff Recommended Action: To reinstate said Vesting Tentative Tract Map.
Senior Planner Robertson stated that in August 2003, the Planning Commission approved a CUP, Precise Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Tract Map for a 7-unit condominium project on this property; advised that the map has expired and that the applicant failed to apply for an extension; and that they have to re-file and have the map reinstated.
Chairman Hoffman opened the public hearing.
Elizabeth Srour, representing the applicant, advised that the final map is currently with the City waiting for signature, pending the reinstatement of this map; explained that the applicant is close to completion of this project and recordation of the final map; and noted that the project has been built with careful supervision from City staff.
There being no further input, Chairman Hoffman closed the public hearing.
MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Kersenboom, to APPROVE CON03-4/PDP 03-5 -- Reinstatement of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 54429 for a seven-unit condominium at 801-813 20th Street (previously known as 2006, 2014 and 2024 Pacific Coast Highway). The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None -
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.
Senior Planner Robertson stated that the proposed project consists of two attached units that contain 2,380 square feet and 2,120 square feet of living area; advised that the front unit, No. 1, contains a two-level basement and two stories above; that the rear unit, No. 2, contains a single-story basement with two stories above and a roof deck; and noted that the primary living areas of both units are on the upper level, with the lower level containing the bedrooms He advised that the front unit has 4 bedrooms, 4 bathrooms; that the rear unit has 3 bedrooms and 3 bathrooms; and that the building is designed in a contemporary style with exterior smooth finish hard board siding, metal railings and metal barrel roofs. He noted that this project design and style is similar to a project that’s already been completed in the same neighborhood; advised that the project complies with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance; that the lot coverage is 64.4 percent; stated that the garages have separate access from the street and alley; and noted that required parking is provided in two 2-car garages with the guest parking spaces located at the front of the garages. He noted that the new driveway on Manhattan Avenue will create a new curb cut, which will cause a loss of one existing on-street parking space, but added this is compensated for by an additional guest parking space in the 17-foot setback; and advised that all required yards are provided and all required open space is provided, including at least 100 square feet directly accessible to the primary living area. He noted that the project is designed to meet all the requirements on the Condominium Ordinance and Zoning Ordinance; stated that the storage areas are provided; that the landscape plan provides at least two 36-inch box trees; and that the applicant is providing four mature trees. He noted that the landscape plan does not accurately show which landscaped areas are being proposed; that the site plan and elevation plans are incomplete with respect to finished grade information; and explained that in reading the plans, it’s difficult to verify if the building as designed qualifies as a basement with two stories above. He added that the plans, the line work, are incomplete and inaccurate; and noted staff’s belief these inaccuracies and incomplete items can be corrected as a condition of approval. He added they would need to provide a revised site plan, landscape plan and elevation drawings that have all this information accurately shown.
Senior Planner Robertson noted for Commissioner Perrotti that the plans are sufficient to show they are in compliance with the height limit, open space requirements, all the basic zoning requirements; and that it’s just an issue with knowing where some of the finished grades are located.
Chairman Hoffman opened the public hearing.
Elizabeth Srour, representing the property owner, explained that some of the details on the plans were lost when they went through the CAD printer system; and noted that the plans don’t show the detail of the building, which is intended to be a very clean, contemporary streamlined structure with a flat roof. She advised that the developer intends to incorporate extensive landscaping, including the four trees as shown on the plans; and stated that all the issues staff has addressed can easily be resolved through the detailed plan check process.
There being no further input, Chairman Hoffman closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Allen noted his support as long as the plans satisfy the requirements.
Commissioner Perrotti stated that because of the number of deficiencies, the Commission should consider approving the CUP this evening contingent upon seeing the plans at the next meeting prior to approving the resolution.
Commissioner Pizer noted his support for Commissioner Perrotti’s suggestion to approve the CUP subject to final approval of the resolution at the next meeting, seeing the revised plans at that time.
Chairman Hoffman noted that a letter was received in the packet from Mr. Fordiani regarding construction issues and asked that staff respond to Mr. Fordiani’s concern.
MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Allen, to APPROVE CON 06-1/PDP 06-1 -- Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 65881 for a two-unit condominium at 635 Manhattan Avenue, contingent on providing the revised plans at the next meeting prior to adoption of the resolution. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None -
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.
Senior Planner Robertson advised that the restaurant is located in Sand Castle Plaza, which contains a mix of retail, office and restaurant tenants; noted that the subject location has been a restaurant for over 25 years, dating back to a 1978 CUP granted for California Beach Sushi; stated that the restaurant space has been vacant for two years; that the current request is to change it back to a Japanese-style restaurant with the addition of teppan grills using the existing floor plan, with the exception of minor changes to a portion of the dining area; advised that the City has already issued a tenant improvement permit which has enabled the applicant to start plumbing and mechanical work inside the restaurant; and that the applicant has already installed the teppan grills and new bench-style seating areas. He stated that only recently were plans submitted showing the proposed alterations to the seating plan, which is the subject of this request and considered a minor amendment. He advised that the current applicable CUP includes conditions imposed by the Planning Commission as a result of a CUP hearing process initiated by the City in response to CUP and code violations connected with Ibiza restaurant in 1999; stated that the Master Parking Plan for the entire commercial building was also out of compliance at that time; that the property owner at that time evicted Ibiza; and that the premises has since been brought into compliance with the modified conditions of approval. He noted that the 1995 Parking Plan and the subject space has been occupied by one other restaurant in the past six years, called Passport; noted that the conditions imposed in that 2000 CUP were primarily to address noise concerns; that these included more restrictive closing times – 11:00 P.M. daily for the restaurant and 9:00 P.M. for the outdoor patio; and required some building improvements to address noise and safety concerns.
Senior Planner Robertson advised that the outdoor patio has been enclosed, which is now the proposed location for these new grills; added that staff believes this alteration is minor, reflecting a change in the type of restaurant, and should not have any impact on the operation of the business as a restaurant; noted that the floor plan is very similar, with no increase in bar seating, and includes a conversion of the bar area to a sushi bar and increases the amount of bench seating consistent with the proposed style restaurant. He stated that the existing dining area located in the now enclosed outdoor patio will continue to be used for dining purposes with the added amenity of the teppan grill stations where food is cooked directly in front of the seated customers; and he indicated that staff is recommending these modifications be approved by Minute Order.
Commissioner Perrotti questioned if the Commission is able to modify the existing CUP, bringing it up to date.
Director Blumenfeld stated that the Commission could modify the conditions; that there is reference to an outdoor dining patio which no longer exists; and that the Commission could revise the condition to say the operating hours shall be daily 7:00 to 11:00 P.M. for the entire restaurant, making it current with the conditions on site.
Commissioner Pizer stated that the physical conditions of approval should be updated to make it clear and stated that page 3 should also include the current operating hours that were approved in the 2000 hearing, Section 3.
Chairman Hoffman opened the public hearing.
John Vilenica, applicant, stated he’d like to add these Japanese grills near the window.
There being no further input, Chairman Hoffman closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Allen stated this is a low-key restaurant and indicated his support to update the permit.
Commissioner Perrotti indicated his support to update the existing CUP in Paragraph Nos. 1C and 1D; and stated that the modified hours of 7:00 A.M. to 11:00 P.M. alleviates a lot of problems which existed in the past.
Chairman Hoffman noted there is no intensification of the bar use with this proposal; and stated this is a good example of attempting to regulate what was essentially a nuisance business, noting that using the CUP’s can often create a restriction on a subsequent property owner that really was not ever the intention of the Commission.
Commissioner Pizer suggesting revising the hours on page 3 in Section 1.
Director Blumenfeld stated that Section will be revised to reiterate the permit history and make it current.
MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Pizer, to APPROVE CUP 06-2 -- Conditional Use Permit amendment to allow interior alterations to add three Japanese teppan grills to an existing restaurant with on-sale alcohol at 934 Hermosa Avenue; and to modify the hours in Section 1; that the Conditions of Approval, Paragraph 1C and 1D, be updated to state that the hours will be 7:00 A.M. to 11:00 P.M. daily. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None RECESS AND RECONVENE
Chairman Hoffman recessed the meeting at 8:18 P.M. and reconvened the meeting at 8:23 P.M.
-
Staff Recommended Action: To direct staff as deemed appropriate.
Director Blumenfeld advised that the subject review is of parking operations; explained that the owner and staff have been monitoring the parking operations since the opening of the fitness club, which occurred last summer, and some of the other tenants that have recently opened; and stated that the owner has provided a lengthy report, which describes the operation of the fitness club and the other tenants in the facility. He noted that the study indicates the facility provides an adequate parking supply, which is based on the shared parking analysis that was originally approved; however, the study is also intended to monitor the efficiency of the overall parking situation and not simply the parking supply. He advised that the City has received several complaints from nearby residents and businesses about customers of the fitness club parking on the neighborhood streets and in front of other businesses rather than parking in the parking structure; and noted this spill-over is directly related to the efficiency of the parking facility.
Director Blumenfeld advised that there are 454 standard single-load parking spaces in this structure, 42 tandem spaces for employee parking, and an additional 44 parallel spaces which can be used as valet parking; stated that the parking rates are $1 per hour or $16 per day in the structure; pointed out that there’s also a validation program with 24 Hour Fitness, whereby customers can park for 2 hours for $1; and advised that monthly parking passes are also available for $20 per month. He noted that the supply of garage parking is currently more than adequate, as the report indicates, however, he stated the consultant prepared an additional study which included an intercept survey from those parking in the neighborhood streets; advised the study documents that on weekends, approximately 40 percent of weekend drivers parking their vehicles were parking along the streets, then headed for the Hermosa Pavilion; and that on weekdays, it’s about 30 percent. He added that these are people who are parking not only on the side streets but along Pacific Coast Highway (PCH); and stated there is some spill-over effect in the Plaza Hermosa. He stated that on 16th Street, about 94 percent have been documented to park on one of the surveyed Saturdays; noted that given the Hermosa Pavilion is not fully occupied at this point, staff does not have a definitive understanding of the amount of spill-over parking that will result when the building is fully occupied; however, that staff does know at this point a significant number of people are choosing to not park in the parking structure but are parking on the street.
Director Blumenfeld advised that the Parking Plan the Planning Commission and City Council approved in 2003 was predicated on the owner’s obligation to ensure that the project does not create neighborhood parking problems; and noted staff’s belief the consultant has documented that there is, in fact, a spill-over parking problem and that staff has corroborated that to a lesser extent with their own observations. He stated that staff also surveyed some surrounding fitness clubs and found that at other fitness clubs, parking is available either free or at a lesser charge than what is currently available at the 24 Hour Fitness in the Hermosa Pavilion; and staff believes there clearly is a parking impact in the neighborhood that needs to be addressed. He stated that the owner’s consultant has determined some of these issues can be addressed by simply promoting the parking as being more safe and convenient than parking on the street and that these issues should be promoted by the owner of the fitness club. He stated that staff believes there are other options for the Commission to consider, including 2-hour free parking for all customers or those with validation, a lower price structure/validation program for the fitness club members and other tenants with a lower price, lower monthly or annual price with parking passes for the fitness club members, parking privileges through club membership or negotiated through lease arrangements rather than user fees, limiting parking on the street through establishment of a Residential Parking Permit District on 16th Street – pointing out this would be subject to review and approval by the City Council. He noted that another option would be on a strictly voluntary basis, making parking in the parking structure available to residents at a significantly reduced parking rate – noting this would give them an opportunity to garage their cars to keep them safe/secure; and noted if that could be done at a reduced parking rate, that might also reduce some of the competition for curb spaces. He advised that the parking consultant was not able to attend this evening’s meeting.
Commissioner Allen asked if this project was approved with parking, knowing that it would be paid parking.
Director Blumenfeld advised that the project was approved recognizing the owner was going to be responsible for operating the parking, operating it as either paid or not paid parking; and noted that the City simply said the parking must be efficient – noting efficiency can be defined as not creating a negative impact on the neighborhood.
Chairman Hoffman noted that he was a member of the Commission at the time this project was approved and that he was not aware it would be a paid parking facility.
Commissioner Kersenboom echoed Chairman Hoffman’s comment, stating that paid parking was never brought up.
Gene Shook, owner of the Hermosa Pavilion, stated that he tried to build a beautiful structure for the City, hoping that most feel it’s an improvement from what was there previously; explained that they did make the parking more efficient by totally reconfiguring the ingress/egress to make it much easier to get in/out of the facility; and that they also fully coated all the floors, painted, and did a substantial number of improvements to make it a much better and safer facility. He stated they also chose to provide a number of amenities that are expensive; that there are typically 4 to 9 people working the parking structure; and advised that he has spent a substantial amount of money, approximately $100,000, and another $60,000 to add in other cashiering options/items to make it a more efficient and safe structure. He stated he has received many compliments for this structure; advised that he provides three 8-hour security shifts each, 7 days a week, a program which also includes cameras; and stated this costs approximately $600,000 a year. He mentioned that if he were to staff and run the same type employee shift as the City’s structure, his cost would be approximately $140,000 per year. He added that there is a person who helps people get their tickets and helps with problems/issues; expressed his concern for the safety of those leaving the fitness center in the early morning hours, such as 4:00 A.M.
Mr. Shook stated that this facility has been extremely expensive for him to build and maintain; advised that they have tried to offer very reasonable parking fees; stated that the Gold’s Gym in Redondo Beach charges 0.50 cents for 4 hours of parking, but noted there are an extremely limited number of parking spaces; and that if those are fully parked, one then has to park in the regular facility, which could cost one $6 to work out at that facility for two hours. He stated he realizes there is spill-over parking; and that people are not parking in the proper locations; and he suggested painting those streets either 30-minute or 1-hour parking and that meters be installed. He pointed out that parking is an issue throughout the beach communities and not just Hermosa Beach.
Chairman Hoffman noted his understanding that on average, approximately 30 percent of all cars that come to the Pavilion don’t park in the lot and that many of them are parking across the street in the Vons lot and on PCH.
Mr. Shook stated that many business owners in the Vons parking lot are happy with the increase in business because of this facility and that some businesses believe this has been a positive project for this area.
Chairman Hoffman questioned what should the City do to get those people out of the Vons lot, off PCH and into the lot.
Commissioner Allen expressed his belief that as long as there is free parking across the street, the customers will take advantage of that free parking; and suggested that the applicant offer free parking for approximately 2 hours for the fitness club members.
Mr. Shook stated that last month, they had a substantial number of people go into the building, but pointed out there is a cost in providing a nice, safe facility; and advised that no cars have been stolen from this facility.
Commissioner Allen stated that the approximate two hours of free parking needs to be advertised, believing all the customers will park in this structure.
Commissioner Kersenboom suggested offering free parking, but having the parking validated by the center’s businesses; and he noted his concern for pedestrian safety of those crossing PCH.
Mr. Shook stated that he has purchased a signal light for 16th Street and PCH, costing approximately $200,000.
Commissioner Allen expressed his belief the signal light will enhance people’s desire to park across the street in the Vons center, believing many don’t do it now because of the unsafe condition of traffic.
Mr. Shook stated there are over 50,000 people going to the gym; noted that if he were to offer free parking to all these people, he would lose $400,000 to $500,000 in lost revenue per year; advised that there currently is validation for up to 2 hours, costing $1; that without validation, it’s $1 per hour; stated that parking passes are offered for the fitness clients, 100 hours for $20 and 200 hours for $25; and expressed his belief they are offering quite a bit for a small amount of money. He mentioned that he is losing money on this parking structure by charging these small rates.
Chairman Hoffman commended Mr. Shook for building this nice facility.
Mr. Shook noted that garage rents are much higher in the City; pointed out that the City lot charges substantially higher fees than what is charged with this building; and reiterated he is trying to offer a good product at a good price. He suggested that the City limit the parking on 16th Street for residential use only.
Commissioner Pizer commended Mr. Shook on the changes made to this facility; pointed out that the gym is the most intensive use; and expressed his belief this traffic signal may have a negative impact upon the traffic flow on PCH.
Director Blumenfeld stated that the signal will soon be installed; advised that there are some issues related to the of turning movements at the intersection that have to be explored further; that staff anticipates this will take a few months; and noted that the intent of the signal is to deal with pedestrian crossings and not intended to interrupt the traffic flow along the highway, noting this is sure to happen to some degree. He noted the primary reason for installation was for pedestrian safety and to minimize traffic hazards.
Commissioner Pizer urged Mr. Shook to promote these parking passes to members of the gym, noting he had no idea parking passes were available.
Mr. Shook stated that signs are posted for monthly parking passes and that flyers are handed out at 24 Hour Fitness; and he reiterated they are charging a minor amount for the services. He mentioned that on average there are 110 to 140 clients using this facility between midnight and 5:00 A.M.; and he reiterated that they are providing a safe facility.
Alan Dresser, 824 17th Street, stated that his home is the first house off PCH on the south side; and he stated that his neighborhood is inundated 24 hours a day by this facility and by other local businesses and apartment dwellers. With regard to the new signal, he added that he is concerned with the increase in traffic and noise in his neighborhood; and noted he has made numerous complaints regarding traffic, parking and noise in his neighborhood, adding that many people parking cars in his neighborhood are inconsiderate and rude.
Victor Winnek, Chairman of the Public Works Commission, advised that his Commission has had public hearings dealing with this intersection and the Pavilion property; stated that they have identified a tremendous parking problem in this area and neighboring streets; and noted there is a tremendous amount of over-spill; and expressed his belief that providing free 3-hour parking will help with the situation.
Lisa Holcombe, stated that her business, The Pet Care Company, is located directly across the street; advised that they have taken a huge hit with their business because their parking is being used by the Pavilion customers; noted that the fitness customers use the 2-hour parking in front of her store; mentioned that they are placed flyers on the cars being improperly parked on her property, but that that has little effect; and noted that her customers have complained that they’ve had to take their business elsewhere because of the lack of parking. She stated this has only happened since 24 Hour Fitness has opened. She added that she likes the development across the street, but she urged the City to find a way to encourage people to use the parking structure. She asked that the parking spots in front of her business be limited to 30-minute parking and that the City enforce those restricted times.
Steven Berneker, Long Beach, stated that he is a member of 24 Hour Fitness and a prior employee of 24 Hour Fitness; advised that this company oftentimes provides structures with parking attendants, automotive gates, cameras, and parking attendants – noting that these amenities help to stop thefts and break-ins. He stated that as a member, he does not want free parking because it increases the likelihood for criminal activity.
Nathan Koher, Hermosa Beach, stated that he is an employee at the Pavilion; expressed his belief there is not a lot of free parking in this beach community; and expressed his belief that making the Pavilion free parking is not going to solve the parking issue. He suggested resident parking permits and parking meters. He expressed his belief that the low parking fee is more than adequate for the services being provided at this facility.
Lee Grant, 1011 16th Street, stated that this facility is a great improvement for that site, but stated that it has dramatically and negatively impacted the neighborhood; he addressed his concern with the speeding traffic down his street and with the lack of parking due to the Pavilion customers using his neighborhood for parking. He urged the City to get the word out that parking in that facility is as low as $1, questioning why it isn’t being utilized.
Patty Egerer, 925 15th Place, stated that her street has been severely impacted by the 24 Hour Fitness business; that this intrusion into the neighborhood is unacceptable; and stated that if a preferred parking district is implemented, the owner of the Pavilion should pay for the cost to the residents in this area. She expressed her belief that the signal light will give people the impression it’s okay to use the residential neighborhood as a parking area for the Pavilion businesses.
Dean Francois stated that the traffic signal will be put in without any proper environmental study and noted his concern with the gridlock this signal will have on PCH; and he stated that the only solution is free parking in this facility.
Travis Jones, Orange County, independent restaurateur opening a restaurant in the Hermosa Pavilion, stated that he has two other restaurants in Orange County; commented on the importance of providing a safe place for his customers to dine in the late evening hours; and stated that he is concerned with the City going from one extreme to the other without fully investigating the options. He suggested that security patrol the Vons parking lot for those improperly using that lot and that the vehicles be towed from the Vons lot for those using 24 Hour Fitness and other Pavilion businesses. He expressed his belief that the 3-hour free parking is not feasible, making it impossible to keep this facility maintained at its current level. He added that one of the requirements for his business is valet parking in a plaza structure and noted that free parking will make it more difficult to offer these services when they are unable to offset the costs. He noted that in his experience in Santa Monica, 4 to 10 car related incidents occurred in parking structures every 3 weeks when no one was manning the structure.
Tracie Nix, employed by the developer of the Pavilion, stated that she was engaged to do marketing research and to provide project management in the areas of marketing and operations for this project; and noted that she was engaged to work with Mr. Shook last summer to look at 36 retail locations across Southern California, especially looking at facilities where 24 Hour Fitness or high end retail spas were the anchors of a destination spot. She stated that this Pavilion adds a lot to this community; she explained that this is not so much an issue of efficiency, but that it is a change in behavior, asking the citizens to be responsible in parking where there are supposed to park. She stated that customers are offered amenities that they will not find anywhere else when they come to this facility; and she urged the City and the neighbors to do everything possible to enforce the rules and to consider having some of those cars towed. She added that at the end of the day, it’s the responsibility of the business owners and car owners to park where they’re supposed to park; and expressed her opinion that Mr. Shook should not have to subsidize the cost to keep people using other businesses in this area.
Kelly Ann O’Callaghan, stated that she works in Hermosa Beach; and stated that there are few free parking spots in the City.
Bob Conte, resident, member of 24 Hour Fitness, thanked Mr. Shook for building a great facility; expressed his belief that people don’t want to pay to park even if it is just $1, noting the majority of the problem is fitness club members. He urged the City to find a solution to those people who are improperly using other properties to park.
Monica Chavez expressed her opinion that people park on the street or in Vons parking lot because it has easy ingress/egress and that they don’t have to wait in line to pay an attendant for this parking service.
Commissioner Kersenboom expressed his belief this is not the developer’s problem, even though he’s created the problem; that the problem lies with those who do not park where they’re supposed to park; suggested that the neighboring residents receive parking permits; and he suggested enforcement of the improperly parked vehicles.
Commissioner Allen expressed his belief this is the owner’s responsibility because he created it; stated that a reasonable thing to do is to give a customer an hour and a half to park there free of charge, giving them time to complete their full workout session and shower. He suggested this free parking last for six months to allow those to get used to parking in this facility; and stated that if people are still improperly parking in the neighborhoods after that period of time, then the fee for parking should take place; and he added that the businesses should be validating parking.
Commissioner Pizer stated that the gym is negatively impacting the neighborhoods; suggested that a special parking district be implemented with a small fee for residential parking permits; and stated that others should be able to park in this area for 30 minutes. He suggested that the gym raise its fees, which would include a parking pass for each customer. He added that Mr. Shook should negotiate a lower price with 24 Hour Fitness so they can include the parking fee in their annual dues.
Commissioner Perrotti stated there is great potential for these problems to increase once the building is fully occupied; noted that when this project was being developed, there should have been a business plan to take into consideration the expenses that were going to be incurred; and noted that in the long term, perhaps a Residential Parking Permit District may have to be created. He noted his support for the first option, 2 hours free parking for all customers or for those with validation; and if that doesn’t work out in the long term, then to start a Residential Parking Permit Program.
Chairman Hoffman stated there is adequate parking in this structure but that it’s not being used efficiently; noted that the issue somehow is related to the cost of the parking and the inconvenience that comes with that; that it’s not just paying the dollar, it’s waiting in line to pay the dollar. He stated he is not inclined to establish a Residential Parking Permit Program for the residents, believing this is not a free solution for the residents; and stated that he does not know enough about the operation of the facility to dictate whether it should be an hour free parking or two hours, etc., or what the cost of the other alternatives may be; and suggested that Mr. Shook meet with staff to develop a viable alternative and bring that back to the Planning Commission for consideration.
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None -
Staff Recommended Action: To extend the expiration date by one additional year to March 18, 2007.
Senior Planner Robertson stated that this is a request to extend the expiration date for a Variance and Subdivision by one additional year; and that this is a Variance to create two lots that were smaller than the standard lot size on 8th Street.
MOTION by Commissioner Allen, seconded by Commissioner Perrotti, APPROVE VAR 02-4/SUB 03-1 -- Request for a one-year extension of a Variance and Subdivision/Vesting Tentative Parcel Map at 836 Beach Drive. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None -
STAFF ITEMS
-
Status update: Aviation Specific Plan.
Director Blumenfeld stated that staff has attached a preliminary work program that describes some of the preliminary data collection; advised that staff is making good progress, but noted that the department intern who was working on this project is no longer with the City; and advised that staff anticipates a short delay until staff is able to complete this task. He advised that staff has identified at this preliminary stage some issues and potential solutions; and asked that the Commission look at those and make any comments on what they’d like to see. He noted his intent to initiate pubic review once the information is obtained.
Director Blumenfeld advised that some suggested dates/times for the joint meeting with the Public Works Commission will be provided to the Commission.
In response to the Commission’s prior inquiry, Director Blumenfeld stated that there is a $500 fine for violation of occupant load, with possible imprisonment for repeat offenders.
-
-
COMMISSIONER ITEMS
None
-
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 9:57 P.M.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
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 21, 2006.
| Peter Hoffman, Chairman | Sol Blumenfeld, Secretary |
| Agendas / Minutes Menu | Planning Commission Agendas | Planning Commission Minutes |