The Hermosa Beach Neighborhood Association

   Home Page       HB Web Community       Surveys & Forums      HB History

   City of HB Info       HBNA Photo Gallery       HB Crime Info      HB Weblinks 



Recent Hermosa Beach Alcohol CUP Proceedings

  HB Planning Commission Annual Review of CUP's

  Lee's Teriaki & Tofu CUP     302 Pier Ave. CUP      T. J. Charlyz CUP 

   Hibachi Rest. CUP      Mama's Original CUP      Dano's / Element CUP

Hit Counter


 

SUBJECT:

CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT 04-3

MAMA’S ORIGINAL PIZZA AND PASTA (to be known as “OCEAN”)

2205 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY

 


REQUEST:

 

CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW FLOOR PLAN ALTERATIONS;

EXTENDED HOURS OF OPERATION; AND OUTDOOR DINING IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN

EXISTING RESTAURANT WITH ON-SALE BEER AND WINE AND TO ALLOW ON-SALE GENERAL ALCOHOL

 

 

SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT 04-3

MAMA’S ORIGINAL PIZZA AND PASTA (to be known as “OCEAN”)

2205 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY


 

September 9, 2004

 

Honorable Chairman and Members of the Regular Meeting of

Hermosa Beach Planning Commission September 21, 2004

 

CONTINUED FROM THE JULY 20, AND AUGUST 17, 2004 MEETINGS

SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT 04-3

MAMA’S ORIGINAL PIZZA AND PASTA (to be known as “OCEAN”)

2205 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY

 

 

REQUEST:

CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW FLOOR PLAN ALTERATIONS;

EXTENDED HOURS OF OPERATION; AND OUTDOOR DINING IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN

EXISTING RESTAURANT WITH ON-SALE BEER AND WINE AND TO ALLOW ON-SALE GENERAL ALCOHOL

 

Recommendations

 

That the Planning Commission:

 

1. Approve the floor plan alterations, extended hours, and outdoor dining.

 

2. Direct staff as deemed appropriate in regards to the request for on-sale general alcohol.

 

Background

 

At the July meeting the Commission held the public hearing, and considered testimony from the applicant and some residential neighbors, but since it could not reach a consensus the matter was continued to allow consideration by the full Commission. At the August meeting, the applicant requested continuance of the hearing, as he could not attend, and the Commission heard additional testimony from residential neighbors.

 

Analysis

 

Please refer to the July 20 staff report for the analysis of this project. Since the original hearing staff has discussed the parking issue with the City Attorney in greater detail, and the Commission has received additional correspondence and public testimony from residential neighbors.

 

PARKING

 

The existing C.U.P. condition of approval from 1985 requires that an agreement be maintained with neighboring property owners to provide 15 additional parking spaces off-site. This condition was imposed at the time based on concerns that the 1:300 ratio was not sufficient for a restaurant with beer and wine, but was not based on any parking requirements in effect at that time. No additional parking is currently required since the parking requirement is related to gross floor area only, and the grandfathered and underlying use for a restaurant is not being intensified.

 

The City initially accepted a letter from the owner of neighboring office building making available 15 parking spaces after 6:30 P.M. as a method to meet this Condition of Approval. No enforcement of this condition has occurred since that time. The City Attorney indicates that the Commission cannot ignore this condition, but should consider its current applicability, recognizing that added parking may still be needed.

 

If the Commission desires to keep this condition in force, it may also be appropriate to clarify that the additional parking be provided only in the evening and strengthen the language so that this “additional” parking condition can be effectively enforced.

 


 

Alternatively, the Commission could  determine that since the off-site parking agreement for additional parking is not necessary to meet parking codes and has limited effect it may eliminate it from the C.U.P. as part of this amendment.

 

Adjacent residential property owners and residents, who appeared at the prior hearings and submitted correspondence have expressed additional concerns and suggestions regarding the outdoor dining, the on-sale alcohol and floor plan not previously expressed.

 

Some of the suggestions noted are as follows:

 

        To eliminate the noise and privacy issues caused by outside dining, it was suggested that outdoor dining not be permitted, and instead that a floor to ceiling glass enclosure be provided at the westerly side of the restaurant.

 

        Require a closing time appropriate for the residential area (no later than midnight).

 

        Maintain the required agreement for 15 additional parking spaces off site, with language that the additional parking be required only in the evenings, and be permanently available through a legally recorded instrument with the involved properties.

 

        Minimize bar stool seating and provide a code complying seating plan prepared by a licensed design professional indicating more table seating.

 

        Do not allow on-sale general alcohol, as it will substantially change the character of the business.

 

        Provide an acoustical study to mitigate noise for adjacent residential areas.

 

Staff believes that it is possible to provide more standard table seating to address some of the above concerns about the operation of the business as a restaurant, by relocating the bathrooms to the east adjacent the proposed storage and service areas. This will provide a larger area for table seating with ocean views.

 

Staff has drafted an approval resolution should the Commission decide to approve the applicant’s requests. The resolution includes standard conditions for restaurants with on-sale alcohol, including compliance with the noise ordinance and a 6-month review but does not contain any specific conditions regarding off-site parking, acoustical studies or reconfiguration of the restaurant.

 

The Commission may want to add these conditions and must be determined whether to continue to impose condition regarding off-site parking from the original C.U.P.

 

 

_________________________________ Ken Robertson,

CONCUR: Senior Planner

 

Sol Blumenfeld, Director

Community Development Department

 

Attachments

1. Correspondence

 

 

 


 

SUBJECT:

CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT 04-3

MAMA’S ORIGINAL PIZZA AND PASTA (to be known as “OCEAN”)

2205 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY

 

REQUEST:

CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW FLOOR PLAN ALTERATIONS;

EXTENDED HOURS OF OPERATION; AND OUTDOOR DINING IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN

EXISTING RESTAURANT WITH ON-SALE BEER AND WINE AND TO ALLOW ON-SALE GENERAL ALCOHOL

 

 

6.      Staff Recommended Action:

 

1) To approve the floor plan alterations, extended hours and outdoor dining.

 

2) To direct staff as deemed appropriate in regards to the request for on-sale general alcohol.

 

Director Blumenfeld stated that this project involves an amendment to a conditional use permit that was approved in 1985; and noted that the conditional use permit had certain requirements relative to parking, that are currently an issue. He explained that an agreement was to be maintained with the neighboring property owners to provide 15 additional offsite parking spaces, based on a parking requirement of 1 per 300 square feet; noted that this was in effect at the time based on a parking requirement for a restaurant with beer and wine sales. He stated that it was a requirement that was set with the discretionary review at the time; and he explained that no additional parking is currently required with this proposed project because no additional floor area is being provided, that the space is being reconfigured and that the use is proposed to change from beer and wine sales to full alcohol sales.

 

He advised that the City initially accepted an agreement from the neighboring office building owner, to make these 15 parking spaces available in the evening; however, with the sale of this adjacent property, the agreement was no longer in effect and the condition was not enforced. He stated that if the Planning Commission wishes, it can maintain this condition at this time, not based on increased floor area, but simply based on the initial Commission consideration of the need for additional parking with the proposed use. Director Blumenfeld added if that is the Commission direction, it would need to be incorporated into the final draft resolution.

 

Director Blumenfeld advised that at the previous hearing, several neighbors spoke about their concerns with the noise, privacy, and spill-over parking into the neighborhood, and he summarized the residents’ suggestions: to require a floor to ceiling glass enclosure on the westerly portion of the restaurant to eliminate noise and privacy issues caused by outside dining; to require a closing time appropriate to the residential area; to maintain the parking agreement or make sure that the 15 additional spaces is enforced on site; and to not permit general alcohol sales.

 

He added that staff is requesting that the owner provide a seating plan, prepared by a licensed design professional, indicating the table and bar seating. He stated that staff believes it’s possible to provide a bit more table seating by reconfiguring the interior of the restaurant and by relocating the restrooms in the facility from the current westerly location to the easterly portion of the business, which would free up the westerly portion and provide the ocean view dining experience the owner is seeking. He noted that staff will come back to the next meeting with a final resolution; and advised that staff is recommending approval of the reconfiguration of the business and direction on the request for full alcohol.

 

Chairman Perrotti opened the public hearing.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Chairman Perrotti noted his support for owners updating/upgrading their businesses; highlighted the fact that a lot of residents travel outside of this City for dining purposes; but stated that there are legitimate concerns with establishments turning into noisy bars or sports bars. He stated that with adequate conditions put in place, he would support the outdoor dining and noted that a good compromise is to close the outdoor dining around 9:30 P.M. He noted his support for a glass barrier 8 feet in height but also stated that he would support a fully closed area.

 

Chairman Perrotti stated that he would be opposed to restricting television activity in this establishment and pointed out that this body has never gotten involved with sound studies when there was no live music being proposed and noted his opposition to placing an additional burden on this operator for a sound study. He added that with adequate conditions, he could support the general alcohol license, highlighting the 6-month review process to determine if the establishment is in compliance with the conditional use permit; and he pointed out that these residents surely let the City know of any problems at this establishment.

 

He stated that the major concern is the parking and asked that the applicant prepare an agreement that would be reviewed by staff and the City Attorney for the 15 offsite parking spaces before the expansion can take place. He added that the valet parking be put in place to help manage the offsite parking and the interior parking area.

 

 

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

 

AYES:

Allen, Hoffman, Koenig

NOES:

Pizer, Perrotti

ABSTAIN:

None

ABSENT:

None

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

AYES:

Allen, Hoffman, Koenig, Pizer

NOES:

Perrotti

ABSTAIN:

None

ABSENT:

None

 

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

 

AYES:

Allen, Hoffman, Koenig, Pizer, Perrotti

NOES:

None

ABSTAIN:

None

ABSENT:

None

 

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

 

AYES:

Allen, Hoffman, Koenig, Pizer, Perrotti

NOES:

None

ABSTAIN:

None

ABSENT:

None

 

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

 

AYES:

Allen, Hoffman, Koenig, Pizer, Perrotti

NOES:

None

ABSTAIN:

None

ABSENT:

None

 

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

 

 


 

 

August 10, 2004

 

Honorable Chairman and Members of the                                                      Regular Meeting of

Hermosa Beach Planning Commission                                                           August 17, 2004

 

CONTINUED FROM THE JULY 20, 2004 MEETING

 

SUBJECT:

CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT 04-3

 

LOCATION: 2205 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY

APPLICANT: MAMA’S ORIGINAL PIZZA AND PASTA

 

REQUEST:

CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW FLOOR PLAN ALTERATIONS;

EXTENDED HOURS OF OPERATION; AND OUTDOOR DINING IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN

EXISTING RESTAURANT WITH ON-SALE BEER AND WINE AND TO ALLOW ON-SALE GENERAL ALCOHOL

 

Recommendations

 

To approve the floor plan alterations, extended hours, and outdoor dining.

To direct staff as deemed appropriate in regards to the request for on-sale general alcohol.

 

Background

 

At the last meeting the Commission held the public hearing, and considered testimony from the applicant and some residential neighbors, but could not reach a consensus. The Commission, therefore, continued the matter to allow consideration by the full Commission.

 

Analysis

 

Please refer to the July 20 staff report for the analysis of this project. Since the last meeting staff has discussed the parking issue with the City Attorney in greater detail, and has received an additional letter from a residential neighbor (attached) opposing the outdoor dining and on-sale alcohol.

 

PARKING

The existing C.U.P. condition of approval from 1985 requires that an agreement be maintained with neighboring property owners to provide 15 additional parking spaces off-site. This condition was imposed at the time based on concerns that the 1:300 ratio was not sufficient for a restaurant with beer and wine, but was not based on any parking requirements in effect at that time. No additional parking is currently required since the parking requirement is related to gross floor area only, and the grandfathered and underlying use for a restaurant is not being intensified.

 

The City initially accepted a letter from the owner of neighboring office building making available 15 parking spaces after 6:30 P.M. as a method to meet this Condition of Approval. No enforcement of this condition has occurred since that time. The City Attorney indicates that the Commission cannot ignore this condition, but should consider its current applicability, recognizing that added parking may still be needed. If the Commission desires to keep this condition in force, it may also be appropriate to clarify that the additional parking be provided only in the evening and strengthen the language so that this “additional” parking condition can be effectively enforced. Alternatively, however, the Commission could determine that since the off-site parking agreement for additional parking is not necessary to meet parking codes and has limited effect it may eliminate it from the C.U.P. as part of this amendment.

 


 

Also, attached is a letter from an adjacent property owner, who appeared at the prior hearing, who has additional concerns regarding the outdoor dining, and the on-sale alcohol not previously expressed. The property owner suggests a floor to ceiling glass enclosure at the westerly side of the restaurant that will enable the business to maintain ocean views while better attenuating noise impacts to the adjacent residential neighborhood.

 

_________________________________ Ken Robertson,

CONCUR: Senior Planner

 

Sol Blumenfeld, Director

Community Development Department

 

Attachments

1. Correspondence


 


 

 

 

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

 

Director Blumenfeld advised that the applicant is asking for a continuance of this matter to the September 21, 2004, meeting because the applicant is not able to attend this evening’s meeting.

 

Chairman Perrotti pointed out that a letter was received from one of the neighbors living near this facility, indicating that they too would not be able to attend this evening’s meeting.

 

Chairman Perrotti opened the public hearing and reminded the audience members that they would have a chance to speak at the next meeting.

 

Norm Levin, 720 24th Street, requested clarification on how staff analyzes projects.

 

Director Blumenfeld stated that staff does conduct site visits, takes into consideration the surrounding area and the effects upon neighboring properties, and that staff prepares an evaluation based on the City’s Zoning Ordinance as well as other codes. He added that a summary of the findings are found in staff reports.

 

Mr. Levin noted his concern that the open patio activities will create a nuisance for the neighbors; addressed his concern with the negative impact this condition may have upon his property value; and noted his concern with the loss of privacy, increased noise, limited parking in the area, and potential need for more security. He questioned if the public hearing notice cited the proposed extended hours and request for an alcohol permit.

 

Elaine Lipkin, 727 24th Street, echoed Mr. Levin’s concerns; stated that she is a tenant in the office building; advised that she works in her office until 9:00 P.M. two to three evenings a week as a psychotherapist; and that she leases her office one or two other evenings. She addressed her concern with parking and expressed her belief that the outside dining will be disruptive to her business and to the business of other office building tenants.

 

Jason Wallace, resident living on 24th Place, noted his concerns that the patio dining will create a nuisance and suggested that consideration be given to replacing the existing wall with a full glass wall, thereby giving the applicant the view they are seeking.

 

Teryl Bernette, 24th Place resident, echoed the concerns with the inadequate parking in this area; stated that this neighborhood should not be subjected to a neighborhood bar; and expressed opposition to approving a full liquor license at this establishment. Ms. Bernette expressed her belief that the 6-foot glass barrier will not provide relief for the residents.

 

Mike Brudek, 725 24th Street, highlighted his concerns with parking, excess noise and disruptive bar activities.

 

Bob Albert, 730 24th Street, echoed the concerns expressed this evening.

 

MOTION by Vice-Chairman Pizer, seconded by Commissioner Koenig, to CONTINUE CUP 04-3 to the September 21, 2004 meeting. The motion carried as follows:

AYES:

Allen, Hoffman, Koenig, Pizer, Perrotti

NOES:

None

ABSTAIN:

None

ABSENT:

None

 


The Hermosa Beach Neighborhood Association

   Home Page       HB Web Community       Surveys & Forums      HB History

   City of HB Info       HBNA Photo Gallery       HB Crime Info      HB Weblinks