SUBJECT: RECONSIDERATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT 98-9 (CONTINUED FROM SEPTEMBER 14, 1999 MEETING)

LOCATION: 1100 THE STRAND

APPLICANT: PETER MANGURIAN

REQUEST: TO ALLOW ON-SALE GENERAL ALCOHOL, LIVE ENTERTAINMENT AND A DANCE FLOOR IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN EXISTING RESTAURANT WITH ON-SALE BEER AND WINE

Planning Commission Recommendation:

Deny Conditional Use Permit Amendment 98-9

Background:

• ZONING: C-2, Restricted Commercial

• GENERAL PLAN: General Commercial

• FLOOR AREA: 5,500 Square Feet (Approximately)

• PARKING: 23 Spaces (4 In Tandem)

• ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Mitigated Negative Declaration

In 1985, the City Council granted on appeal a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for beer and wine in conjunction with a restaurant at the subject location. In 1988, the Planning Commission granted an amendment to the existing CUP to expand floor space of the restaurant by adding 2,000 square feet of open-air seating. In 1989, the Planning Commission approved an amendment to enclose the outside dining area. In 1993, the City Council, on appeal, approved an amendment to allow On-sale General Alcohol, live entertainment, and 24-hour operation of the facility. The applicant never fully exercised the CUP (never applied for or obtained an ABC license for full alcohol) and never recorded the CUP or returned a signed affidavit by the property owner indicating acceptance of all the Conditions of Approval within the allowable time period prescribed in the Zone Code (two years) and the original permit expired. Recordation of Conditions of Approval and a signed affidavit from the property owner is required for all discretionary permits. The City Attorney has reviewed the matter of the expiration of the permit based on the applicant’s failure to submit the required signed affidavit, failure to record the of Conditions of Approval and failure to exercise the CUP and found that the applicant does not currently have a valid permit. (See Attachment No 3).

On January 19, 1999 the applicant filed the subject CUP Amendment and requested continuation over the following two months. On March 16, 1999, the Planning Commission directed that the project be renoticed as three months had passed since the original project application. The City Attorney further advised that a new notice be prepared for the April meeting for environmental clearance of the project. At the May 17, 1999 meeting, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and denied the request which is the subject of the appeal by the applicant. The City Council considered the matter on September 14, 1999 and continued it to the October 26, 1999 meeting at the applicant’s request.

Analysis:

The owner submitted an application to amend an existing CUP for full service alcohol and provided plans indicating a new dance floor and a piano bar. Live entertainment requires a Conditional Use Permit and the applicant was advised that the CUP application must include a request for live entertainment. No expansion of the facilities is proposed. The applicant is proposing to alter the interior of the existing restaurant with respect to the seating arrangement (no increase in occupancy) and to add a bar area and a piano for live entertainment. The subject building is located within the downtown district and is suitable for the proposed use. It is similar to other restaurants in the area which have live entertainment. However, the use is located approximately ½ block to the south of the westerly end of Pier Plaza, and there is the potential that the added noise from live entertainment may present a problem for surrounding residents. At the previous hearings on this matter before Planning Commission, several residents complained that noise and disturbances from restaurants at closing time have created a nuisance in the area, though the complaints were not necessarily connected to the operation of Scotty’s restaurant. They also expressed concern about the number of alcohol/entertainment type establishments in the downtown area. In response to the complaint, staff updated a survey of downtown businesses serving alcohol along Lower Pier Avenue and Hermosa Avenue and found that the actual number of such businesses or ABC licenses only increased by five over the last four years. (Please see attached survey.) Staff felt that based upon the survey information that the problem of noise generated by proposed live entertainment could be addressed with appropriate mitigation measures. This would require relocating the piano bar from the proposed location within a glass patio enclosure which contains sliding glass windows and installing an air conditioning system and double-glazed windows to minimize sound transmission outside the restaurant. Staff also recommended that approval be conditioned upon Planning Commission review of the business after six months of operation in order to assess compliance with the CUP Amendment. The Planning Commission, however, that felt that noise could not be adequately mitigated even with these measures and that the proximity of the restaurant to residential to the south would create an on-going conflict.

On September 27, 1999 the applicant’s representative submitted a letter requesting that the City reconsider the position that the original project CUP approved in 1993 was invalid. The City Attorney reaffirms that the 1993 CUP is invalid in his letter of October 8, 1999. (Please see Attachment 7.)

Agendas / Minutes Menu     Agenda

---

 

Attachments

RESOLUTION NO. 99-

 

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, SUSTAINING PLANNING COMMISSION’S DENIAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT REQUEST FOR ALTERATIONS TO AN EXISTING RESTAURANT TO INCLUDE A DANCE FLOOR, FOR GENERAL ALCOHOL SALES, AND FOR LIVE ENTERTAINMENT IN CONJUNCTION WITH A RESTAURANT AT 1100 THE STRAND, AND LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS 1-4, BLOCK 12 HERMOSA BEACH TRACT.

 

WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on October 26, 1999, to consider an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to deny the subject Conditional Use Permit Amendment, and to consider oral and written testimony on the matter;

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the Conditional Use Permit, at their meeting of May 17, 1999, and denied the request subject to conditions as contained in Planning Commission Resolution 99-26;

WHEREAS, after considering the decision of the Planning Commission and their record of decision, and the testimony at the public hearing, the City Council agrees with the Planning Commission, and agrees with the findings contained within Planning Commission Resolution 99-26, which are incorporated herein by reference;

 

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL DOES HEREBY SUSTAIN THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO DENY A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AS SET FORTH IN P.C. RESOLUTION 99-26.

 

PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 26th Day of October, 1999,

Agendas / Minutes Menu     Agenda