|
|
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Present: | Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer, Chairman Allen |
| Absent: | None |
| Also Present: |
Sol Blumenfeld, Community Development Director Kent Robertson, Senior Planner Denise Bothe, Recording Secretary |
Oral / Written Communications
Howard Longacre, resident, stated that City Attorney representation should be available at the once-a-month Planning Commission meetings; and he stated that the resolutions should come back to the Planning Commission for a second reading. He asked that all minutes reflect when he has distributed materials to the Planning Commission, noting that he provided materials to the Planning Commission this evening concerning Agenda Item No. 7. He asked when the next Aviation Corridor study group is to meet and questioned how it will be advertised.
Director Blumenfeld advised that the Aviation Corridor Study is a study that has been ongoing for several months; noted the City conducted its first meeting on this matter approximately two months ago at City Hall; stated that a mailed notice was done to property owners within approximately three blocks of the corridor; and noted that staff will likely publish a display ad and handbill the area for the next meeting and place a notice of that meeting in the City’s e-newsletter. He pointed out these meetings are not hearings, and are intended to gather input from the commercial and abutting residential neighborhoods.
Chairman Allen encouraged the residents to get on the mailing list for the City’s e-notices.
Consent Calendar
-
Approval of December 6, 2006 Minutes .
MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Vice-Chairman Kersenboom, toAPPROVE the December 6, 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. 06-34to deny a Conditional Use Permit amendment to allow televisions in the outdoor patio area for an existing restaurant with on-sale general alcohol and live entertainment at 22 Pier Avenue.
MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Vice-Chairman Kersenboom, to APPROVE Resolution P.C. 06-34. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None
-
-
Staff Recommended Action: To consider revisions to the Lot Merger Ordinance, take testimony, and continue the hearing to the next meeting to ensure adequate public input on the matter.
Senior Planner Robertson advised that staff is conducting this as a two-step hearing process with public testimony of the draft ordinance being conducted this evening; and noted the final approval will be scheduled for the February meeting to allow consideration of tonight’s input before preparation of the final draft of the ordinance revisions. He stated that the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code currently contains lot merger provisions in the Subdivision Ordinance, adopted in 1986 in response to state legislation at that time, which requires merging of properties under common ownership that contain substandard sized lots or units of land that otherwise would be considered separate legal parcels, thus requiring merging of those parcels; advised that the Lot Merger Ordinance requires the City to merge two or more contiguous parcels of land owned in common if one of the parcels is less than the minimum parcel size of 4,000 square feet – pointing out that substandard lot width is not a criteria for consideration; and stated that the main structure straddles the property line and is thus sited on both contiguous parcels and that if not more than 80 percent of lots on the same block have already been split and developed separately, which is called the 80-percent rule.
Senior Planner Robertson stated that after the Ordinance was adopted, the City completed a program in 1989 to merge lots throughout the City; however, he stated that recently, a few parcels that meet the merger criteria were found not to have been included in the 1989 program and that staff has conducted hearings to resolve those cases. He stated that in response to those cases, staff has conducted a detailed survey of all properties in the City to determine if other lots that meet the merger criteria were not included in the 1989 program; pointed out that the information indicates over 70 lots are subject to merger; and noted that the Lot Merger Ordinance itself was reviewed by City Council in August and November 2006 for possible revisions. He advised that Council directed staff to focus on R-1 zoned lots, to notice all the affected property owners, and to refer the potential revisions to the Planning Commission for consideration. He noted that staff has prepared a final detailed list of all the affected properties; that they found 71 R-1 zoned properties remain which should be considered for merger; that 25 of these properties containing separate parcels could be developed while 46 contain remnant parcels that would not be feasible for separate development; and he noted these properties are listed in detail in the attachments provided to the Commission. He mentioned there also are detailed block maps of the 25 lots in question that were deemed to be developable.
Senior Planner Robertson explained that the intent of the Ordinance is to ensure that future development is consistent with the neighborhood and to reduce the opportunity to develop lots that do not conform with minimum lot size; stated that the proposed changes to the Ordinance are generally to clarify the process and criteria for merger in order to meet this objective; and advised that staff’s proposed changes are based on their review of the remaining properties that are subject to merger.
Senior Planner Robertson advised that the first change recommends limiting the applicability of the Ordinance to the R-1 properties; that this is in order to address the basic intent of the Ordinance to prevent splitting and separation of lots in R-1 neighborhoods; and that in R-2 and R-3 areas, merging the lots has limited or no impact and may actually encourage higher density development in some instances.
Senior Planner Robertson advised that the 80-percent rule is not always applicable to situations; that there are problems defining how “split and develop separately,” applied to some of the blocks which don’t have a uniform pattern; and that the draft ordinance includes a change the 80-percent rule as a guideline rather than to automatically remove a property from lot merger consideration. He explained this would mean that if a substandard lot is similar in size to more than 80 percent of the parcels, a hearing will still be held and the property will likely not be merged unless there is a compelling reason to merge for neighborhood integrity; advised that since several properties subject to merger are on blocks with fewer than five parcels, staff found the 80-percent rule is not a useful evaluation tool for such blocks because there is not enough parcels in the comparison; that the Commission would then analyze consistency of the lots in the neighborhood area; and that part of this process for comparisons with lot width could also be considered in making the determination of neighborhood consistency.
Senior Planner Robertson stated the third recommended change is to broaden the public noticing requirements; advised that currently, a public hearing is only required if a merger is appealed by the affected property owner and no neighborhood noticing is required; that staff is suggesting a noticed Planning Commission hearing be conducted for all the properties that have a potential to be split and developed separately; that such a hearing shall not be necessary for the properties containing remnant parcels and, therefore, the hearing would apply to the 25 properties that contain developable parcels.
Senior Planner Robertson stated the fourth recommended change is that the definition of “block” used for the 80-percent rule include both sides of the street between intercepting streets, that this definition be included in the Subdivision Ordinance rather than in the Zoning Code; finally, it is recommended that special consideration be given to cases where a merged property would create a large lot; and that staff is suggesting the Commission have discretion on combined parcels of at least 7,000 square feet in order to consider re-dividing the property or to not merge the lots. He noted that staff has identified four cases where merging into over 7,000 square feet will result in a parcel less consistent with the neighborhood than leaving the lots unmerged; and stated that in one other case, the results of the merger of three lots where the option of a lot line adjustment to re-divide into two lots would perhaps be a better option. He mentioned that a list of these properties are included in staff report.
Senior Planner Robertson advised that when City Council takes final action on these revisions, staff will proceed under its obligations to notify property owners of a pending merger; that the Commission will hold hearings as necessary and make a final decision on a case-by-case basis; after that, the determination of merger will be recorded with the property; and he emphasized these mergers will occur at no cost to the property owner and will have no impact on property taxes.
Commissioner Perrotti asked if the alternative notice provision to publish a display ad and listing all the affected properties is in addition to the mailing.
Director Blumenfeld stated that would be in lieu of the mailing, noting City expense to do noticing for the 25 properties within a 300-foot radius, involving hundreds of properties.
Commissioner Perrotti questioned as each individual property goes to hearing, will there be full noticing.
Director Blumenfeld explained the City would be complying with state law; and that individual property owners will also receive a letter describing the City’s intent.
Chairman Allen opened the public hearing.
Greg Eberhardt, resident, urged the City to do a full notice and to include the 300-foot radius, believing this is fair to all. He asked the Commission to keep in mind the intent of the Merger Ordinance is to merge lots to maintain their current condition and prevent properties from being split and separately developed.
Howard Longacre, resident, noted there are only 25 parcels that will be affected; suggested that the two items/properties on 7th Place under the “yes” on Item 5 and Item 8 on the first page of the spreadsheet should have a double star, noting this street now is in the lot merger; he commented on the importance of noticing; and suggested the City could save some money by noticing several cases for the same date. He stated there should not be any alternate noticing; and he suggested the Hermosa School District parcel should be merged and that the church parcel should not be merged.
Referencing the table, Director Blumenfeld explained that the last column indicating “Proposed Merger” is staff’s recommendation; advised that the City Attorney will be looking at the school district and church properties and explained the reason for the 2-step process is to make sure there is adequate input from the community. He stated the cost is directly related to the mailings.
Ashley Beck, resident, stated he received a notice of this hearing and asked for a definition of lot merger.
Director Blumenfeld explained the definition.
Mr. Beck stated he converted one of the first commercial properties to a residential property in the City; and noted he has two lots that are 25 x 100, questioning if his property value will be re-evaluated.
Chairman Allen indicated no.
Judy Kalfin, representing her father Harry Kalfin, 628 Prospect Avenue, questioned how this proposal will affect their property, noting there are two houses on that lot; and advised that one house was built prior to early 1950’s and the other one built in the early 1970’s.
Director Blumenfeld advised that approximately a month ago, he spoke with Mr. Kalfin and reviewed his property file that shows his property approved for a PUP and that he will have the City Attorney review the file too.
Ms. Kalfin advised that they have a file containing numerous documents to support their claim if staff is interested in copying that file.
Allie Curtis, resident and property owner of 1202 and 1204 11th Street, stated there currently is a duplex on the property, the only one on the street; and questioned how this will affect their property.
Director Blumenfeld stated that property shown on the list; recommended for merger because of neighborhood consistency.
Bruce Tuttle, property owner of 1161 and 1163 7th Place, questioned how this would affect his 50 x 100 lot.
Director Blumenfeld stated that approximately 53 percent of the properties on his block have been merged and at this point, his property is being recommended for merger. He stated there would be a public hearing and stated if there is some compelling evidence based on the ordinance criteria, such as neighborhood consistency, the Commission can exercise its discretion.
Mr. Tuttle noted his opposition with staff recommendation.
Albro Lundy, 943 Strand, questioned if this process is necessary, noting the expense in undertaking this effort; and he suggested a better solution would be to notify the property owners when they apply, if they apply, that they have two lots which are susceptible to merging. He stated that a simple letter would do the same; noted that those individuals would have an obligation if they were to sell their property to tell the purchasers this property is susceptible to merger; and that when they make the application, the City would have already identified that piece of property.
Director Blumenfeld stated the City Council believes this is a significant issue; noted that the City Attorney has advised this is an existing Ordinance that has to be enforced; added that the City Council has indicated it wants to initiate a program and not handle the mergers on a case-by-case basis.
Jonathan Coleman, resident, requested, and received, input on what criteria staff is considering in making this determination.
Director Blumenfeld noted he spoke with Mr. Coleman at length prior to this evening and advised he would be requesting the City Attorney review both the Kalfin and Coleman properties. He noted Mr. Coleman’s properties may be removed from the list after the City Attorney reviews the files.
There being no further input, Chairman Allen closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Perrotti noted his support for staff recommendation to clarify and rework the Lot Merger Ordinance; and asked that the City go with the standard noticing procedure.
Vice-Chairman Kersenboom noted his support for staff recommendation and suggested saving some money by mailing only to those affected property owners.
Chairman Allen noted his concurrence with Vice-Chairman Kersenboom’s suggestion to save some funds by directly contacting only those property owners who are affected; and that consideration be given to alternative noticing.
Commissioner Hoffman highlighted the controversy in the past with what the public believed was inadequate noticing and noted his preference to continue with the full notice efforts that includes noticing property owners within the 300-foot radius.
Commissioner Pizer noted his support for the fully noticed process.
MOTION by Chairman Allen, seconded by Commissioner Perrotti, to APPROVE TEXT 06-3 -- Text Amendment regarding Lot Mergers; that the standard noticing policy remain in effect; and to continue this matter to the February 2007 Planning Commission meeting. This motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None -
Staff Recommended Action: To direct staff as deemed appropriate.
Director Blumenfeld advised this is a hearing to consider revocation for Modification to the CUP for Club 705/Saffire; stated the business is under new ownership; noted that at the prior meeting, the owner submitted a request to continue this hearing from January to better prepare for this hearing; that the Commission granted that request but took testimony at that meeting. He noted the club is located in Plaza Hermosa Shopping Center; stated that during 2006, the Police and Fire Departments responded to complaints involving fights, public intoxication, under-aged serving, and over-crowding, all summarized in staff report; and noted there were a total of 24 callouts, which include violations of the Building, Penal, and Fire Codes, occurring from February through June. He advised that the current owner contests part of the police record, believing that many of the operating problems were a function of the transition of the business; stated the owner has submitted a letter indicating there will be a new business plan, proposing an upscale Japanese sushi restaurant; and advised that they have a non-binding letter of interest from a major entertainer. He noted that staff has asked the Police Department to update the callout report; and that in summary since July, there have been 9 new callouts for disturbances, loud music and fighting, occurring during the old and new owners’ tenures.
Director Blumenfeld advised that the business was originally approved as a restaurant; that there have been several changes in ownership and four amendments to the CUP since 1985; that over the years, the CUP has been amended to allow live entertainment, one additional bar, and the addition of an outside waiting area; advised that the business has not been operated previously in conformance with these various CUP’s with respect to operating the business in violation of the requirements of the Municipal Code, failing to provide management/supervisory techniques to prevent loitering, unruliness, and boisterous behavior in the restaurant, supervision of the building frontage and the parking area, operating the business as a lounge or disco and venue for special events, removing tables and chairs for those activities rather than operating as a restaurant; and mentioned their business is currently being promoted on the website for these venues/uses. He noted this promotional activity occurred prior to the new ownership and is occurring with the new ownership; that they are offering live entertainment without submitting the required acoustical study as one of the standard conditions and are required to provide any noise attenuation features that might be required. He noted that in addition, there is a violation of Resolution 94-17 with respect to operating the business so as to adversely affect the residents in commercial establishments in the area.
Director Blumenfeld stated the Commission is empowered to modify or revoke a CUP when there is good cause to do so, and when the violations are so egregious that the CUP should be revoked or modified; he added that based upon the emergency response record, the business has been operating in violation of the CUP, and there have been violations as well with the new ownership. He stated the owner indicates that was a lapse in management that led to these ongoing violations and that the proposed change in ownership will cure these problems under a new business plan.
Commissioner Perrotti noted the operator’s attorney indicates an acoustic study had been done.
Director Blumenfeld stated there is no acoustical study in the files.
Commissioner Perrotti pointed out that one of the proposed revisions concerns not requiring a cover charge, questioning if this is for the entire business.
Director Blumenfeld noted it is not standard procedure for a restaurant to charge a cover fee to purchase a meal and that if there is some other venue going on in the business, that may be considered and reflected in the CUP.
Commissioner Perrotti noted he has some reservations with the City getting involved in cover charge issues.
Commissioner Hoffman asked what time of day the 11 callouts usually occur.
Police Chief Greg Savelli stated that most of the calls occurred in the evening hours after 10:00 P.M. and as late as 4:00 A.M.; and stated that after reviewing this list today, two of the callouts were appropriately removed from the list, noting it should indicate 9 callouts related to the business.
Vice-Chairman Kersenboom questioned when the new owners took over this establishment.
Director Blumenfeld stated the original application was made in the summer.
Police Chief Savelli advised that June 26th was the date for application of the ABC transfer, noting that is what triggered the Police Department’s interest in the property; advised they were approached by ABC to ask for comments on possible conditions to the ABC license transfer, which is what triggered the Department’s investigation on the number of callouts for service; and that when it was determined there was a significant number of calls for service, it was then referred to the Planning Commission for consideration. He noted that since August 2006, there have been approximately 8 callouts identified for this business.
Commissioner Perrotti stated that security should be increased to minimize the garage noise.
Police Chief Savelli stated that may be one of the Department’s recommendations to increase doormen or security personnel; noted that out of the 6 concerns listed, 4 were management related, such as under-aged serving, excessive crowding, and loud music; and explained that security would help with the disturbance of patrons coming and going from the facility. He stated the new owners have claimed they want to improve the management; pointed out the record indicates that in the first 6 months of new ownership, there was a significant number of calls; and that the second 6 months, the number has decreased.
Chairman Allen opened the public hearing.
Albro Lundy, representing the new owner Maximoore, explained that when the new owner took over the business, they were obligated to honor the prior contractual commitments of the producers and the venue of entertainment; and stated that since they have been running it their own programs, there have not been any calls for service. He provided a summary of special events that have taken place with the new management and noted there have not been any callouts since then.
Tim Moore, resident and owner, commented on his prior experience with this type business; and advised that the new business plan has been put in place and that with the new general manager and new management system, they are moving in the right direction.
Jim Lissner, resident, expressed his concern with the proliferation of bars all over Hermosa Beach; he pointed out there is a higher callout rate in the Downtown area and with smaller businesses than with this business, questioning if this business is being treated equitably; stated this business has reduced its callout rate from 24 in the first half down to 9 in the second half; and he suggested that sound absorbing materials be placed in the parking area if deemed to be a problem.
Lee Grant, resident, expressed his belief this is not the proper location for a nightclub; commented on the prior problems this established has experienced; stated there may not always be an interest to provide an upscale business at this location; and suggested the City look again at what kind of businesses it wants to have in this community.
Morty Benjamin, resident, stated he lives up the street from Club 705; expressed his belief this area has deteriorated; asked the new owner what other commitments he has for entertainment other than the ones that caused the other complaints; and stated he’d like to see much needed improvements in this part of town. He expressed his belief this business does not improve the area and he questioned what is required to shut down a problematic business.
Director Blumenfeld explained that this hearing is required to close a business under Chapter 17.70; stated the CUP represents a property right; that the City has to provide a property owner with due process; that the owner is required to present their evidence; that the Commission takes testimony and based on the testimony evidence the City takes actions. He advised if there is a repeated pattern of violation, the Commission can consider revocation/modification of a CUP.
Mr. Benjamin noted his support to revoke the CUP, stating he would like to see a nice restaurant at this site, such as a Marie Callendars; and questioned what additional obligations this new owner has from the previous owner.
Tim Norquist, resident, stated he has been a regular patron at Club 705 since the new management has taken over, taking salsa dancing lessons every Thursday; and he commended the new management for their operations and for creating a pleasant environment.
Ann Sullivan, resident, stated this type of business at this location is not an upgrade to the area; noted her concern with restaurants eventually becoming late evening bars/nightclubs; and stated the quality of life in this City has deteriorated.
Shirley Castle, resident, stated this CUP should be revoked or modified; and urged the City to stop allowing these troublesome businesses.
Eric Nadler, El Segundo resident, stated that in February 2005, he became a lender to Saffire; that as a condition of his loan, he was granted unrestricted access to the club and privy to many of the issues and decisions affecting the club during 2005 and early 2006; and expressed his belief it was poorly run in that era and not capable of properly managing this facility, noting the blame rests entirely on the shoulders of prior management. He urged the Commission not to project those issues on the current management, stating he has full confidence in the ability of the new management team/system. He stated they have already shown a clear pattern of improvement, dropping the callouts from 24 to 9 and asked that the CUP be maintained as is.
Anthony Chavez, Los Angeles resident, stated he is a regular patron of this club, noting he also attends the salsa dancing classes on Thursdays; noted he not only comes to the dance classes, but that he also shops in this community as do other club patrons; and stated he has not seen the problems that have been discussed this evening at this facility. He suggested that something be done with the garage if that’s where the problem is and he noted that approximately 25 people are present this evening who are patrons of this business. He noted for Chairman Allen that he usually leaves this establishment by 11:00 P.M.
Jim Lundy, Bel Aire resident, stated that he is a patron of Club Saffire; that he has spent many years enjoying this community; that he also enjoys the salsa dance lessons at this facility, commending the dance instructors at the facility; and stated that most of the problems would be coming from the parking structure. He stated he has done some sound testing on his own; and that his findings indicate the noise is within normal limits.
Patty Egerer, resident, noted a lack of confidence this business will not morph into another nightclub; stated that making money on alcohol sales is the driving force behind these businesses; expressed her belief the property owner and leasing agents knew they were violating the CUP and conditions; and she urged the Commission to protect this City against troublesome businesses. She noted her support to revoke the CUP; stated that should that not be the Commission’s vision, this establishment should not be permitted to serve alcohol beyond 9:00 P.M.; and that they don’t have the right to be in business at this time because they are not in compliance with state law. She stated that base-heavy music should be prohibited; and she urged the Commission to consider what impact the alcohol serving businesses are having on this community.
John Bowler, resident, expressed his belief the transition taking place here is favorable; stated the prior management was responsible for the problems; and that the new owners should not be punished for attempting to improve this business and working with the City to reduce the problems in their first months in business.
Xavier Flamenco, general manager, stated he worked for the previous owner, but noted that the new management team and system is proving this business can become an important part of this community; and stated that since June 28th, the new management has put in place new rules, implementing more security, more hours and days of security, and put in place parking attendants. He stated that since meeting with City officials, they immediately responded to the issues brought up, stepping up their policies and procedures. He noted that their security people have been instructed to bring people out as quietly as possible, to make sure they advise patrons they’re not permitted to linger on the sidewalks, to follow patrons into the parking lot; and that they’re not to leave the parking lot until everyone has left, keeping them as quiet as possible. He stated they have done a number of fund-raisers for this community and have hosted events at the Civic Center, noting their desire to be a positive business in this community. He stated that one dimensional dining is not possible at this location, pointing out that Marie Calendars could not survive at this location even with the strength of that large chain; and noted they look at the dining of this business as the foundation of the entire business, that it’s how they establish their customer base; and he stated they are not interested in becoming a nightclub. He stated they continue to be interested in an entertainment venue, but to keep it upscale and not target the younger crowds. He urged the City to allow them the opportunity to correct any problems, taking the steps necessary to resolve the issues.
Mr. Flamenco noted for Vice-Chairman Kersenboom that they are not interested in advertising this business as the prior management had and that the advertisements would be tasteful.
Commissioner Pizer questioned if the new owner is planning on modifying the website for this business, stating it is has some tasteless images.
Mr. Longacre, resident, address his concern with the proliferation of bars in this community and the loss of beach culture; expressed his concern that the City only gets $780 a day from all liquor serving businesses in this town, but that the daily expense for public safety costs $43,000; and stated the City Council and Planning Commission have a responsibility to get control of these issues. He asked if escrow has closed at this time. He asked that the lights not be turned off in the parking area until all vehicles have left; and suggested that the parking be free/validated.
Mr. Lundy stated the new owners want to make a good difference in this community, that the new management is interested in providing an upscale establishment; he urged the City to allow the business owners who want to go upscale the financial opportunity to do so, to be able to make a living here as well as make this a better place to live; pointed out that this business has not had any callouts in the past few months because of their new business plan; and stated it has the backing and money to make this a well-managed destination location.
Commissioner Pizer asked the owner if he agrees with the January 9, 2006 letter submitted to the Planning Commission.
Mr. Moore indicated yes.
Police Chief Savelli noted that the Police Department has worked with the transition of the ownership to try and express those concerns, at the same time passing those concerns along to the Planning Commission; stated the Police Department is relatively neutral in this as long as the operation of any business at this location meets the conditions imposed. He reiterated that the number of calls have decreased with the new ownership.
There being no further input, Chairman Allen closed the public hearing.
With regard to the January 9, 2006, letter that was provided to the Commission, Commissioner Pizer noted his discomfort with the following sentences contained in that letter: “Saffire was only over its allowed occupancy by 78 persons”; “They’re proposing to bring an elegant upscale restaurant and lounge business to Hermosa that is sorely needed”; “The new Segal establishment is exactly the type of restaurant that the citizens of Hermosa Beach are hoping for, a restaurant which will eliminate unruly drunkenness that currently prevails in this City on Friday and Saturday nights,” noting he doesn’t see how this business is going to eliminate that. “The Segal establishment must create a place where people want to come and spend their money,” stating this gives him a feeling the new owner will manage the place much better, but pointed out it’s still going to be the same type of operation. He stated this business should close at midnight and that free parking should be provided.
Commissioner Hoffman explained that this is not a policy or management issue for the Commission to consider, that Commission is charged with enforcing and implementing the City’s General Plan, and in this particular case, to consider the proper land use and its affect upon the surrounding properties and community; and noted the intent to protect and maintain the small town beach community atmosphere of Hermosa Beach. He stated this is not a site that is consistent with the small town beach community atmosphere when it houses a club, restaurant, lounge, or sports bar; noted that given that charge and taking the direction of Council and its most recent decision at a similar location in the same part of town, he would be inclined to recommend a midnight closing hour; and to support staff’s recommendations.
Chairman Allen noted his intent to support the Police Department and staff’s recommendations; and expressed his belief midnight closing would be appropriate.
Vice-Chairman Kersenboom noted his support of staff recommendation and a midnight closing.
Commissioner Perrotti stated he will support staff’s recommendations; noted his concern with eliminating cover charges; stated that eliminating cover charges will result in a loss of revenue that pays for entertainment; that eliminating the cover charges will create an incentive to sell more liquor to make up for that lost revenue; and added that cover charges also help to regulate an establishment’s clientele, thereby curbing some of the less desirable patrons. He stated it is a business decision and should not be micromanaged by the City. He stated there should be security in the parking lot; and noted his support to limit the hours of operation to midnight.
Commissioner Pizer added this is the same type of late night use that has caused problems in the past.
Director Blumenfeld stated the Commission could require the owners to submit a security plan for review by the Chief of Police and to have the City determine what is adequate with the submittal.
Taking into consideration Commissioner Perrotti’s comments concerning cover charges, Police Chief Savalli indicated he would support eliminating the recommendation for cover charge.
MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Vice-Chairman Kersenboom, to APPROVE CUP 01-1 -- Modification of the Conditional Use Permit for on-sale alcohol, live entertainment with two stages and additional bar and added seating, outside dining and outside waiting area in conjunction with a restaurant at 705 Pier Avenue, Club 705/Saffire; to delete Paragraph 9 concerning the cover charge; and to add a sentence in Paragraph 5 that a Parking Security Plan should be submitted for review by the Chief of Police. This motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None RECESS AND RECONVENE
Chairman Allen recessed the meeting at 9:23 P.M. and reconvened the meeting at 9:30 P.M.
-
Staff Recommended Action: To direct staff as deemed appropriate.
Senior Planner Robertson stated this is a request to allow the expansion of an existing garage with a 2.7-foot side yard setback rather than the required 3 feet and a 4.7-foot garage setback rather than the required 17 feet; stated that the subject lot is an R-1 lot, a through lot fronting on 2nd Street, with garage access from 1st Place; noted that the lot is currently developed with a single story dwelling which has several existing nonconforming conditions, having a substandard garage width of 15.9 feet instead of the required 17 feet to qualify for two spaces, no guest parking, the 4.7 garage setback, the 2.7-foot side yard setback along the west property line, and no qualifying open space. He noted the applicant is proposing to add 26 square feet to the existing attached single car garage to create a complying 2-car garage for an additional off-street parking space; that the applicant is also proposing to include an additional 1,390 square feet of floor area, including a second story, conversion of a deck into a master bedroom, and a bedroom with an adjacent bathroom in the basement; and that the applicant is proposing a 169-square-foot roof deck and four additional balconies. He stated the applicant’s main objective is to widen the existing garage into a qualifying 2-car garage; explained that with this, it would allow 100 percent addition to the floor area as permitted in the nonconforming ordinance; and, therefore, the applicant is requesting variances to allow the expansion with a 2.7-foot side yard setback and a substandard garage setback. He noted the garage cannot otherwise be widened in its current location without these variances.
Senior Planner Robertson explained that in order to grant these requested variances, 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.
With respect to Finding No. 1, Senior Planner Robertson stated it is difficult to support the argument that the 25-foot by 90-foot lot, a common R-1 sized lot on this block, is exceptional and extraordinary; however, it should be noted that of the 16 homes fronting on 2nd Street and having garage access from 1st Place, 12 are in a similar situation that have nonconforming garage setbacks; and that it should also be noted the applicant is making an effort to at least provide one additional parking space by making a garage of conforming width.
With respect to Finding No. 2, Senior Planner Robertson stated that without the approval of the requested variances, it’s possible for the applicant to provide a 500-square-foot addition in accordance with current codes; that it has not been demonstrated the 100-percent increase in floor area is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of the home; furthermore, the plans as submitted show a new bedroom and bathroom in addition to the storage area adjacent to the existing garage at the basement level, and therefore staff believes it is possible the garage could be located where this proposed bedroom is planned and that the plans can be revised to not only provide a conforming 2-car garage, but also to accommodate a conforming tandem guest parking space in front of the garage. He advised that staff has discussed this with the applicant, asking them to demonstrate why this alternative may not be reasonable, and noted the applicant has not provided any plans at this time to show why this alternative could not be accomplished. However, he noted that despite these arguments, the applicant has provided a viable solution since the variance in the side yard is necessary for the basement first floor only and extends an existing nonconforming yard along that side; and stated this enables the property to conform to the onsite parking requirements.
With respect to Finding Nos. 3 and 4, Senior Planner Robertson stated that the variance only involves a minor reduction in the side yard; that the garage setback reduction is consistent with the majority of garages that have access from 1st Street; and that the setback reduction will not have any detrimental impact upon neighboring properties and will provide an additional parking space.
Senior Planner Robertson noted that the proposal as submitted exceeds the 100 percent floor area permitted by the Nonconforming Ordinance by 31 percent and is not part of the applicant’s request; and stated if the Commission approves a variance, this will have to be conditioned upon the plans being revised not to exceed 100 percent. With respect to open space, he stated since the plan provides for several new deck areas, that the applicant provide these areas with the minimum 10 x 10 dimension in order to bring the property into closer conformance with the open space requirements of the R-1 zone. He stated the scope of the variance is rather small given the small addition to the garage, but that it is difficult to make the findings to support the variance given the circumstances.
Commissioner Pizer questioned how many of the homes fronting on 2nd Street have guest parking spaces.
Senior Planner Robertson stated that the 12 which have the same nonconforming garage setback do not have guest parking; and stated he cannot say for sure this evening if the other 4 have guest parking.
Commissioner Perrotti asked if the applicant can proceed with a regular nonconforming remodel if the variance is denied.
Senior Planner Robertson stated they would be limited to the 500-square-foot expansion because they have only one qualifying parking space in the garage, that they can only build up to 500 square feet if they cannot expand their garage to comply with the 2-car garage standard; and he noted the garage is the only element of the variance, that everything else is maintaining the existing nonconforming conditions, which is allowed by code.
Chairman Allen opened the public hearing.
Terry Lane, project designer, explained that the garage has an unusual offset in the corner which restricts a conforming sized garage and by granting the variance to obtain that southwest corner of this garage, they would expand the garage into a usable 2-car garage, which would resolve this issue. He stated that most of the homes on this block have 25-foot wide lots, that a lot of these homes were built with that setback in the side yard; and explained that what they are trying to accomplish with the garage is to be able to get the owner more than 500 square feet, believing the simple solution would be to accomplish this without tearing down three-quarters of the house. He stated the applicant wants to create a storage bedroom or useable space in that area, but pushing the garage back 17 feet would be too cost prohibitive for the applicant.
David Trudgen, property owner, stated the squared off part of the garage presently houses the trash cans for him and his neighbors to the left; and he urged the Commission to allow the variance to accommodate his growing family. He stated this will improve the look of the house and property and add an additional parking space onsite.
There being no further input, Chairman Allen closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Hoffman stated this is a significant alteration to the property; and stated there is no physical condition on this site that would support a finding to justify the granting of the variance.
Commissioner Pizer stated he cannot make a finding for No. 1.
Commissioner Perrotti stated he cannot make a finding for No. 1, noting that all the lot sizes on this street are the same and that there is nothing unique to this individual lot.
Vice-Chairman Kersenboom stated the trash can receptacle area is so minor that the applicant’s request should be approved.
Chairman Allen stated he cannot make a finding for No. 1.
MOTION by Vice-Chairman Kersenboom to APPROVE VAR 07-1 -- Variance to side yard and parking setback requirements for an expansion to an existing substandard garage to accommodate a complying two-car garage as necessary for a second story addition at 1144 2nd Street. This motion died due to the lack of a second.
Director Blumenfeld stated that findings are required to grant the variance.
MOTION by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Pizer, toDENY VAR 07-1 -- Variance to side yard and parking setback requirements for an expansion to an existing substandard garage to accommodate a complying two-car garage as necessary for a second story addition at 1144 2nd Street, noting the Commission cannot make a finding for Nos. 1 and 2. This motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: Kersenboom ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None Senior Planner Robertson noted for the applicant he has an opportunity to appeal this decision to City Council.
Responding to Mr. Longacre’s comment regarding the return of resolutions, Director Blumenfeld explained that the Commission has its final reading on a resolution when it does not have a final resolution to review or when Commission make a substantial change to the resolution, noting those are the only circumstances when a resolution returns to the Commission; and he stated there is no mandatory requirement for a second reading of resolutions, only when there are changes or staff is otherwise directed to do so.
-
CUP 07-1 -- Conditional Use Permit to allow a massage therapy business at 1093 ½ Aviation Boulevard.(PDF File).
Staff Recommended Action: To approve subject request.
Senior Planner Robertson stated that the applicant is proposing to operate a massage therapy business within a 3-tenant commercial building that contains 1,892 square feet; that the applicant is proposing to occupy one of the 3 spaces, which contains 520 square feet; that the property is located at the northwest corner of Aviation Boulevard and Prospect Avenue; that it is zoned C-3 General Commercial; and noted that the uses on the property include a pottery studio/gallery and a dining establishment. He noted there currently is no onsite parking for the businesses; advised that the pottery studio/gallery offers private showings by appointments only; that the restaurant contains very few tables; and so it appears there is not a great demand for the on-street parking for these businesses at this time. He noted the subject business is considered a massage therapy business; and noted the City adopted an ordinance in 1997 to allow massage therapy businesses subject to a conditional use permit, adopting fairly restrictive regulations for obtaining a business license to conduct the massage therapy. He noted this is the third application for a CUP under the 10-year-old provisions, as other massage businesses in the City are secondary uses to health clubs, beauty spas/salons or medical related uses; and noted that currently, the only massage therapy business approved by the Commission in operation as an exclusive massage therapy business is the Just Massage on PCH near 4th Street. He advised that the applicant is proposing to offer massage therapy treatment as the primary function of the business; that they have indicated skin care services will comprise only 15 percent of the business operations; and he advised that the parking requirement for a massage business is the same as a retail use and does not change the current nonconforming parking situation on the property. He commented on the regulations under the Municipal Code regulating massage therapy, business license regulations, and the Zoning Ordinance regulations, noting the hours are limited between 7:00 A.M. and 10:00 P.M. He added that more detailed floor plans are being requested by staff prior to permit issuance to clearly identify a separate closet or storage area for soiled and sanitary towels and linens and specifying the types of massage tables and seats used in the work rooms.
Senior Planner Robertson stated that according to the applicant, the business will provide customized deep tissue massage in a Japanese inspired environment and other facial and waxing services. He noted that if the CUP is approved, there are several steps necessary for the applicant to take prior to opening the proposed business, such as providing detailed floor plans, filing of a business license application, and City inspection of the premises to ensure compliance.
Director Blumenfeld stated if the Commission decides to approve the resolution, staff would incorporate in the title of the resolution that this is approving a Conditional Use Permit with approximately 500 square feet of commercial area for a massage therapy business located at 1093 ½ Aviation Boulevard.
Commissioner Perrotti noted the storage at the back and limited access.
Director Blumenfeld stated the owner of the pottery shop has used the back area for storage, stating this is a use appurtenant to the pottery shop; noted that the pottery business owns this parcel; and noted the storage at the back is used by the pottery business, mentioning this type of storage is generally prohibited. He added that this area is not used for parking.
Vice-Chairman Kersenboom questioned where the patrons park for these businesses.
Director Blumenfeld stated there currently is nonconforming parking, that they park on the street; noted that staff is looking at the Aviation Corridor Study and trying to work out reciprocal parking arrangements from lot to lot; and stated that staff would need to study this issue in more detail should the Commission approve this request if predicated on parking.
Vice-Chairman Kersenboom stated that it is only fair for this business to provide parking as is done with all other businesses and residences in this community.
Chairman Allen opened the public hearing.
Charles Howell, property owner, stated he has had his pottery business at this location since 1983; advised that the back storage area contains kilns and bricks for his pottery business; and stated there is no access to the property due to retaining walls being erected years ago.
Erik Gray, representing the applicant, stated they do not foresee the parking becoming an issue nor traffic concerns, noting there is always a minimum of 3 parking spaces available on Prospect Avenue.
Dr. Bernice Whittaker, resident on Corona Street, noted her opposition to allowing a massage therapy business at this location; and suggested that when the City does allow these type businesses, that it require men to only massage men and women to massage only women.
Shirley Castle, resident, noted her opposition to allowing this business at this location, noting her concern for traffic safety and the lack of parking for this property. She stated that the property owner should buy in-lieu parking if he wants to rent the building to tenants.
Howard Longacre, resident, noted his concern with the lack of parking and traffic safety with those who try to park for this building. He suggested that if this is approved, that the resolution title be similar to the title of the massage business that was done on PCH, stating its legal description is not appropriate in the resolution.
Mr. Howell stated he would not consider renting this space if it would cause harm to anyone; and stated the accountant on the corner has given permission to the La Paz business to use their parking lot when deliveries are made.
Director Blumenfeld stated this resolution is worded the same as with all resolutions; noted that staff does not change the legal description that’s describing the underlying property in the Assessor book; noted that staff limits the CUP by showing the address, naming the applicant, describing the use, indicating where it’s located, and by the addition with the limitation of the square footage, which he is suggesting to include in the resolution title. He added it’s limited to that use; that the rest of the lot is not subject to this use, only the address at 1093 ½; that the rest of the property in the underlying legal description is not relevant to this; and reiterated this is the same procedure/process staff follows for all CUP’s.
Commissioner Pizer questioned if any parking has been grandfathered for this parcel.
Director Blumenfeld stated this is a discretionary permit; that if the Commission chooses to reject this discretionary approval based on a lack of parking, that can be done because of environmental considerations or believed the use was inappropriate to the area; and explained that if this was formerly a retail business, the parking would be grandfathered if it wasn’t subject to discretionary review. He stated the prior retail use with parking is grandfathered with the property; that the issue of parking is subject to discretionary review with this application; and that the Commission has the option to reject this application if it believes there is an environmental problem with the use.
There being no further input, Chairman Allen closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Perrotti stated that he would support massage therapy businesses, believing there are adequate safeguards in place to ensure the business operations; but stated he is concerned with the lack of parking at this site, pointing out it is not only a problem for the patrons, but also for those living on the nearby residential streets; and he noted his concern with traffic safety in front of this facility.
Vice-Chairman Kersenboom stated he is opposed to this request due to the lack of parking for this facility, stating there is a potential traffic hazard for those seeking to visit these businesses.
Commissioner Hoffman stated that due to parking limitations, he cannot support the request, noting that the nature of the arrivals and departures of customers for this type business create a greater parking demand than what is available at this site.
Commissioner Pizer stated if this business is successful, it will certainly create a shortage of parking.
Chairman Allen stated that because of the lack of parking, he would be opposed to this request.
MOTION by Vice-Chairman Kersenboom, seconded by Commissioner Perrotti, to DENY CUP 07-1 -- Conditional Use Permit to allow a massage therapy business at 1093 ½ Aviation Boulevard. This motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Kersenboom, Perrotti, Pizer NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None At this point, due to the late hour, Director Blumenfeld suggested that the Commission continue Agenda Item No. 12 to the next Planning Commission meeting.
Seeing no one interested in addressing Item No. 12, the Commission unanimously agreed to continue Agenda Item No. 12 to the February meeting.
-
Staff Recommended Action: To table this review until the final phase of the Hermosa Pavilion (Stillwater Bistro and retail uses) have been occupied for six months.
Director Blumenfeld recommended this matter be tabled until the Stillwater Bistro and the retail uses have been occupied for six months so there is something to evaluate; and he noted the applicant is currently in plan check, that Planning staff is studying the plans, and that the Building staff is finishing up its review of the structural process. He advised that in six months, he will provide a status report on this matter.
MOTION by Chairman Allen moved to TABLE PDP 03-11 / PARK 03-4 – Six-month review of the modified Parking Plan regarding two-hour free parking validation program at 1601 Pacific Coast Highway, Hermosa Pavilion until the operations have been opened for six months, and that a status report be provided to the Commission within the next six months. There was unanimous concurrence.
-
Staff Recommended Action: To direct staff as deemed appropriate.
Director Blumenfeld stated this is the annual review of CUP’s in the Downtown area, noting the Commission has directed staff over the past two years to create a common anniversary date for review of these businesses; advised that in 2006, there were continuing code violations which have been summarized on page 3 in staff report; and noted that the review provided by the Police Department and the Fire Department indicates the violations relate to loud music and doors/windows remaining open, assaults, thefts and disturbances. He explained that the Police Department identifies a disturbance call as a matter of convenience; and explained that if the call comes in and it’s recorded at one of the Downtown businesses, it may or may not have originated at that business and may just be where the call-in occurred. He stated this is relevant in reviewing this summary table because most of the issues are disturbance calls and hard to figure out where they originated. In terms of a concentration of use, he stated they tend to get more calls for disturbances and they tend to be more difficult to associate with a particular use. He advised that Code Enforcement staff indicates they did not find a large number of violations, but that there still are some issues with noise violations; and noted that after staff discussed the issues with the businesses, they complied but no citations were issued. He noted the issues before the Commission in the summary shows a wide range of activity, referring to the businesses with the highest number of callouts being Blue 32, The Underground, Hennessy’s, Dragon, Lighthouse, Patrick Malloy’s, Fenner’s, Sangria, and Saffire. He commented on the options to consider with investigating each issue more fully, conducting informal hearings with the businesses that have had multiple violations, and directing staff to do some concentrated code enforcement investigation, which is a conclusion of staff at this point. He expressed his belief that without a regular review of what’s going on, it’s very hard to be certain about where the violations are occurring, how often those are occurring and whether there is a repeat pattern of violation; and suggested that staff do some focused code enforcement investigation for a period of time using the parking enforcement personnel late at night and the Police Department and then to come back to the Commission with a very specific report on potential issues. He stated that parallel to that, staff is in the process of trying to adopt an Administrative Penalties Ordinance, a tool to enable the City to do citations and handle them internally without sending them out to court and allowing some cost recovery there as well if that is done. He reiterated that staff does not believe there is enough site-specific evidence to revoke or modify any CUP’s at this time and stated the Police Chief shares a similar opinion.
Commissioner Perrotti asked that the annual reports mimic that of last year’s, believing this year’s report is not as comprehensive and suggested a more uniformed report.
Police Chief Savelli stated there is a significant difference with enforcement on the Plaza and in the Downtown areas as opposed to the stand-alone areas, commenting on the number of officers patrolling the City; he commented on the visibility issues at various locations and decoy operations with enforcement efforts; and he commented on the callouts and the attempts to do narrowed focus of where the trouble is coming from instead of the officers’ standard locations for visibility, noting that a particular establishment may inappropriately be getting the blame for a disturbance that happened elsewhere because of standard locators that officers use to witness and handle disturbances. He noted there is a significant number of calls on the Plaza, but the Department has taken steps to deal with that and have assigned additional officers there to bring that number down; and he added they have been successful in bringing down those numbers. He stated the officers’ general impression is there has been a reduction in disturbances over the past year.
Chairman Allen opened the public hearing.
Don Logan, owner of Waterfront Furnishings, provided a video of the disturbances his business is experiencing from The Shore business located next door, which includes yelling, screaming, smoking, etc.; noted his support to increase the code enforcement activities to monitor more closely the nuisances on the Plaza; and stated that the noise has created a nuisance to his business operations and profitability, noting the decibel levels are around 120. He stated he has filed a lawsuit against The Shore. He noted that The Shore has done little to mitigate the ongoing problems. He questioned why The Shore is checking identification at the door if it is a restaurant; and stated it is impossible for him to do business next door to The Shore. He stated that he is in constant communication with the Police Department and noted that 15 other businesses are in support of further policing of The Shore.
Jim Orlind, resident and representing The Shore, stated there is no basis for Mr. Logan’s lawsuit; stated Mr. Logan is a minority shareholder and that the majority shareholders are not in agreement with his actions; expressed his belief the majority of disturbance calls were originated by Mr. Logan and/or his mother and believes no one else is complaining about The Shore’s operations; and stated that Mr. Logan is harassing this business. He stated that The Shore has been extremely compliant and that anytime an issue has been raised, they have addressed it within the next day. He noted they provided a new acoustical report and a CUP was granted for live entertainment. He stated that The Shore does not open until 6:00 P.M., which is after the close of Waterfront Furnishings, but stated the exception has been during the football season wherein the football games have been playing on the televisions. He stated The Shore has a late-night menu, has an extensive dinner menu beginning at 6:00 P.M. and that they are focusing on the food aspect of their business. He advised that The Shore owners have spent thousands of dollars to sound proof The Shore beyond what is required; and stated they are conducting meetings with their staff to remind them to keep the doors closed so as not to disturb other businesses.
Mike resident and part owner of The Shore, stated that The Shore is not open during the day, with the exception of football season and that he does not foresee being open before 6:00 P.M. after football season is over, which is approximately two weeks; advised that he has gone beyond the call of duty to try to be a good neighbor; and he read into the record a letter from the majority owners of Waterfront Furnishings, who own 55 percent of that business: “We the Middlebrooks and our son Joe Middler are the majority owners of Waterfront Furnishings at 1316 Hermosa Avenue and we are also the lease holders of that location. I am a professor emeris at the California Institute of Technology. My wife, Val, is a former Western Union sales development manager for Rubbermaid Party Planner and Joe has been well-known in the South Bay for many years as Joe’s Band. The three of us are all partners of The Shore as well as next door, the Waterfront Furnishings. This letter is intended to clarify a situation that exists between The Shore and Waterfront partners Don Logan, his mom, Katheryn Logan-Brown. We, of course, are doing everything we can to make both businesses successful. Don Logan says that Waterfront business has declined since Labor Day and blames this entirely upon The Shore principally for excessive noise on Saturday and Sunday afternoons. The Shore has done everything possible to keep the sound level down and we are reasonable and well below any nuisance level. Some of our visits have occurred at the same time Don Logan has complained to the police, and the police have confirmed that the sound levels were perfectly acceptable. The Shore operation has no negative impact upon Waterfront. To the contrary, it is generated several major sales for the furniture store. Waterfront closes about the time The Shore opens, which is several hours before the restaurant becomes busy. During construction, The Shore took exceptional measures to significantly and adequately sound proof the interior. The Shore restaurant operates in harmony with all other businesses in the immediate vicinity, which in fact welcomes its presence because it generates more sales for them. We object to the constant threats and harassment aimed at The Shore by the Logans since there is absolutely no basis for the allegations. We also object to the repeated complaints to the Police and City officials because they have no merit and are merely attempts to divert attention from Don’s inability to properly manage our Waterfront business and to prevent its failure. We continue to try to mediate between both businesses, but Mr. Logan insists on blaming The Shore for all his problems and appears intent on driving The Shore out of business.” He stated that The Shore received a letter from Mr. Loan requesting $50,000 for him to leave the business.
Highlighting Mr. Logan’s video of activity and noise outside The Shore, Commissioner Perrotti asked if a doorman was present when this was being videotaped.
Mike explained that when Mr. Logan brought forth the issue of noise, they brought in a door person to instruct everyone to stay away from the front of Waterfront Furnishings.
Commissioner Perrotti noted the video proves the noise can get pretty loud; stated if a doorman were outside, it would have been his responsibility to calm down that noise; and that if the doormen are not able to keep the patrons quiet, they should be escorted inside so they’re not disturbing the neighboring businesses. He stated the noise needs to be better managed in the outdoor area.
Mr. Orlind stated the entire staff has been instructed on handling these issues and they are reminded to make sure the doors/windows are closed at all times so it does not disturb the other businesses.
Mike reiterated there are only two weeks left for football season; and stated he will turn off the televisions that can be viewed from that outdoor area.
Jim Lissner, resident, distributed some materials to the Commission for their review, police reports he obtained from the press board at the Police Department; and he highlighted the incidents and the locations where the disturbances were recorded. Mr. Lissner stated it is the City’s job to figure out why these occurrences are happening and to try and stop it; and he stated the bad behavior and type of incidents should be cause to review the CUP’s of those businesses cited in the report, but stated that more information is necessary when writing the incident reports.
Chris Pike, representing Sangria restaurant, stated the restaurant owners in the Downtown area have concerns with the annual review system, noting it is an addition to what already is in place to deal with somebody who is in violation of their CUP; he noted this is one more step to potentially eliminate due process for them; he advised the restaurant owners are taking steps to help police themselves; that they have formed the Hermosa Beach Restaurant Association, working with the City and police; and noted they will be giving more information in terms of these self-policing efforts. He pointed out there are issues between various establishments and that they want to avoid collectively taking the brunt for what one operator may do, noting they are trying to address that with the new restaurant association. He stated entertainment uses exist in every city and that those areas tend to always have a higher rate of incidents than other pockets in a city; and he reiterated that as a group, they will be policing themselves.
Ann Sullivan, resident, noted her support for the suggested options in staff report; stated there are not enough police officers to address the problems in these areas; noted that the bar patrons routinely park on Hermosa Avenue and create a lot of noise when going to their cars; and asked how many drunken driving citations are issued each year, noting her concern with traffic safety. She stated that the noise can be lessened if the windows and doors are closed at all times.
Patty Egerer, resident, noted her concern with public safety and drinking activities in this town; stated the merchants are not policing themselves and following the ABC Act; stated she wants to see a balance of businesses in this community and not overrun with alcohol businesses; and stated that if those businesses on the Plaza can’t police themselves, then sanctions should be placed against all violators.
There being no further input, Chairman Allen closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Perrotti noted his expectation to hear a certain amount of noise in this area; stated he is concerned with the noise, cussing and use of profanities on Saturday and Sunday afternoons when residents are trying to enjoy this area with their families, believing a lot of this nuisance behavior is related to the sporting events. He questioned why it is so difficult for these businesses to keep their doors/windows closed when music is playing; and urged the businesses to take control of their future by eliminating the nuisances in these areas, especially on weekend days. He noted his concern with using parking enforcement personnel to augment code enforcement, noting it was tried before and was unsuccessful; and stated an additional code enforcement officer should be hired. He noted his support for obtaining more focused information on the violations.
Vice-Chairman Kersenboom suggested more stringent citations.
Police Chief Savelli commented on implementing stricter enforcement and compliance, but stated it should be applied fairly and evenly throughout the City.
Vice-Chairman Kersenboom noted that some of the biggest complaints deal with noise, profanity, yelling; stated that there should not be any televisions in the outside areas; and that the doors/windows must stay closed.
Police Chief Savelli stated the police try to gain cooperation before enforcement; stated they can step up the level of enforcement, noting this is something he will be addressing with the restaurant association, such as uniformity and application with doormen responsibilities.
Vice-Chairman Kersenboom noted the necessity for the restaurant association to be very proactive with its self-policing, suggesting it use hand-held walkie-talkies to police themselves.
Commissioner Hoffman stated there is not enough information present this evening to modify any of these CUP’s; expressed his belief it is not fair to a centrally located business, such as Union Cattle Company, to incorrectly apply a disturbance call for purposes of convenience and that it is necessary to obtain more focused information to point to a specific business and pattern of neglect.
Commissioner Pizer stated the reports this evening do not have the detail necessary to modify/revoke a CUP, noting the necessity to determine where most of the problems are coming from; and stated there must be more code enforcement activity.
Chairman Allen noted he agrees with the Commission’s comments.
Director Blumenfeld stated the report to Commission is very general and noted that staff is seeking direction to undertake a more focused study within a specific period of time, such as 30 or 60 days, and either work with parking enforcement and/or the Police Department, taking this list and specifically looking at the businesses where there are a large number of police calls for whatever reason, and then dealing with the CUP specific issues -- are the doors/windows open, are there other CUP violations -- and then cite for those items and then come back to the Commission in a specified period of time with information on those citations. He stated this would provide concrete evidence that a violation was present; and he highlighted the Administrative Penalty Ordinance which will enable the City to deal with citations in a faster manner. He noted that the code enforcement officer’s time is limited and no code enforcement staff are to be added at this time.
Commissioner Pizer stated that a review of the entire system is necessary.
Director Blumenfeld stated he is recommending staff work in the interim with the Police Department and parking enforcement personnel during off hours and weekends to provide citations; and stated the City Manager has directed staff and the police department to work on CUP issues.
Police Chief Savalli stated his department is more than willing to work with staff on this effort for a finite period of time; and noted there are full-time staff in this area during the peak hours who can also assist in the effort to provide more detailed activity reports.
The Commission noted its support for staff to go forward with this proposal.
-
Staff Recommended Action: To receive subject status report.
The Commission unanimously agreed to continue this matter to the February Planning Commission meeting.
-
STAFF ITEMS
-
Draft sustainability guidelines for residential development.
Director Blumenfeld asked the Commission to look at these guidelines over the next month and noted staff’s intent for direction on putting these into a form that could be used as conditions for discretionary review. He noted for Commissioner Pizer this will only be for discretionary review of any residential project coming before the Commission.
Commissioner Pizer expressed his desire to see this done with all single-family developments.
Director Blumenfeld stated that would require a code amendment; explained that applying these under a discretionary basis does not require a code approval as long as there is a nexus with the approval; and stated if Commissioner Pizer wants the code amendment, it would be a different r process with a different set of issues to consider.
Commissioner Hoffman expressed his belief the Commission is not in a position to unilaterally enact, for example, noting some materials might not be readily available; and that the City needs to be careful about extending this on a blanket level.
Director Blumenfeld stated that staff review the list, look at issues concerning cost and come back at the next meeting with recommendations.
Commissioner Hoffman stated the City needs to take a realistic approach, taking into consideration issues concerning beach communities versus those issues concerning inland communities.
The Commission directed staff to examine the list, looking at the cost and availability issues and to return with an amended list.
-
-
COMMISSIONER ITEMS
Chairman Allen suggested that some of the less complex condominium cases be approved at staff level to help streamline the process.
Director Blumenfeld explained that he presented that suggestion and noted that City Council at that time rejected that idea.
Chairman Allen suggested bringing this issue before the current City Council.
Commissioner Hoffman expressed his belief the Commission has done a good job over the years of reviewing and significantly requiring improvements of condominium projects that have been constructed; and stated that because of this discretionary review, it encourages the architects/builders and property owners to be more sensitive to the issues and desires of this community.
-
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 12:03 A.M.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
At this time, Chairman Allen advised that staff is not seeking any action on Agenda Item Nos. 10, 11 and 12 this evening; stated those items will be noticed for another meeting; and that there will be further opportunity to speak on these matters at a later time.
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 20, 2007.
| Kent Allen, Chairman | Sol Blumenfeld, Secretary |
| Agendas / Minutes Menu | Planning Commission Agendas | Planning Commission Minutes |