MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CITY OF
HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON OCTOBER 17, 2000, AT 7:00 P.M. IN THE
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS

CUP 00-2 – CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO CHANGE FROM ON-SALE BEER AND WINE TO ON-SALE GENERAL ALCOHOL IN CONJUNCTION WITH A RESTAURANT AT 1301 MANHATTAN AVENUE, EINSTEIN'S.

Director Blumenfeld summarized the staff report and stated that the attached Resolution describes the operating hours from 7:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. which is typical of the businesses downtown. He said that Einstein’s has been a full service restaurant since late 1996 and the owner is now seeking to expand to a full service alcohol. He noted that the proposed use is consistent with the zone and the General Plan and with the Conditions of Approval in the Resolution, staff believes that any potential problems would be mitigated relative to adjacent residential or commercial uses. He also pointed out a fax was received from Jim Lissner which is attached to the report.

In response to Chairman Perrotti, Director Blumenfeld explained that most of the police record incidents occurring at this establishment over the last three years have been items more connected to the garage or security checks and less connected to the restaurant.

Mike Ludwig, 2010 Monterey Boulevard, owner of Einstein’s Restaurant, explained that with their banquet room and functions, full alcohol is needed for their restaurant to survive. He said they have a full service restaurant and run a clean operation. He further explained that most of the police incidents were illegal parking, vandalism to automobiles, tow away of automobiles, burglar alarms going off and one drunken public incident.

In response to Vice-Chair Ketz, Mr. Ludwig stated that the kitchen closes between 10:00 p.m. and 11:00 p.m. and after the kitchen closes, appetizers are still served.

In response to Commissioner Schwartz, Mr. Ludwig indicated that the banquet room is upstairs.

Pete Tucker noted that when the building was originally approved, there were to be two attendants available and suggested that this be checked to make sure the attendants are still in place.

Jim Lissner expressed concern with more establishments continuing to be converted to full liquor. He also believed that the past police incidents should not be used to predict what will happen to an establishment when it’s converted to full liquor. He further expressed concern with what Downtown will look like in two years.

Jack Williams, 400 7th Street, Manhattan Beach, pointed out that Einstein’s is not a bar. He said their banquet room is used for wedding receptions and various parties. He indicated that their restaurant is a dining room, and their clientele is an older crowd.

Commissioner Hoffman expressed concern with the type of establishment of the restaurant and the need for full alcohol.

Vice-Chair Ketz questioned the restaurant needing to be opened until 2:00 a.m. if the kitchen closes at 10:00 p.m.

Commissioner Schwartz questioned why the restaurant would need to be expanded to full alcohol.

Commissioner Pizer said he would not like to see a "bar atmosphere" expand in the City. He questioned why the restaurant would need to stay open from 10:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m., and he is not in favor of approving for full liquor.

Chairman Perrotti believed that he does not see a problem to the community in serving general alcohol, and the CUP’s would be enforced whether there is just beer and wine served or general alcohol served. He also considered the location as a commercial area bordering on the Downtown and is part of the core district. He also indicated that he does not see the Downtown area changing much over the next five to ten years, and he said he is proud of the development of Hermosa Beach. He further believed that each request is a case by case situation.

MOTION by Vice-Chair Ketz and seconded by Chairman Perrotti to APPROVE CUP 00-2 – Conditional Use Permit amendment to change from on-sale beer and wine to on-sale general alcohol in conjunction with a restaurant at 1301 Manhattan Avenue, Einstein’s.
AYES: Hoffman, Ketz, Chairman Perrotti
NOES: Pizer, Schwartz
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None

AGENDA
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
1315 VALLEY DRIVE
HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254
December 4, 2002

live entertainment (live piano / radio music), the elimination of outdoor amplified music on the 2nd

q Enclosure of the lower patio pursuant to plans approved by a qualified acoustical engineer

q Glass or other barrier along west side of the outdoor dining areas, approved by an acoustic

q Occupancy of the upper patio until 10:00 P.M., and occupancy of the second level patio until

q No live entertainment in outdoor seating areas, any amplified music to be monitored for volume

q Any project changes to building interior layout or operations subject to review and approval of

q All parking to be available during evening and night hours for customers of business in the

DENIAL OF THE REQUEST FOR UPPER FLOOR DECKS TO EXCEED THE 30-FOOT HEIGHT LIMIT

APPLICANT: UNION CATTLE COMPANY, 1301 MANHATTAN AVENUE, HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254, ALLEN SANFORD

Should Hermosa Beach increase the height of commercial buildings from a 1991 Hermosa Beach Voter mandated 30 feet to a 40 foot limit?

The applicant is requesting approval of a Variance to maintain an existing deck cover and seasonal tent structure which exceed the height limit, and which were constructed without required permits. The illegal condition surfaced as a code enforcement action in October 2004 when the City’s code enforcement officer discovered the structures. The owner was advised at that time that the structures were over height and must be removed but he inquired about processing a Variance application and requested that the structure be permitted to remain pending review by the Planning Commission.

The owner agreed to immediately commence with processing a Variance application and provided evidence from a structural engineer to confirm that the subject structures were stable and constructed in compliance with the Building Code. The owner was further advised that if the Variance application was approved, then he could proceed with processing plans to obtain an after-the-fact building permit (similar to permit issuance for legal determinations or other code enforcement cases involving illegal construction). Alternately, if the owner did not prevail, then he would be required to remove the roof structure and tent immediately.

The second floor deck is adjacent to the restaurant banquet room. A deck trellis was originally permitted for this deck for the previous restaurant. This was shown on the 2003 approved plans for Union Cattle Company. The deck trellis was below the existing roofline and complied with the 30-foot height limit.

The newer structure (see photo) extends above the existing roofline and exceeds the height limit by 6 feet at the peak of the sloped roof. The proposed seasonal canvas tent, on the third level, is between 8 and 9 feet above the height limit at its highest point. Variances are necessary for both structures as they exceed the 30-foot height limit in the C-2 zone.

The applicant’s letters indicate these structures are required to improve noise attenuation, accommodate roof drainage, allow use of the patio in winter months for corporate and private functions and necessary for the continued success and economic viability of the restaurant. Also, the applicant states that there are no significant view impacts. The applicant’s arguments are set forth in the attached letter.

In order to grant a Variance, the Commission must make the following findings:

1. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances, limited to the physical conditions applicable to the property involved.

2. The Variance is 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.

3. The granting of the Variance 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.

4. The Variance is consistent with the General Plan.

Discussion of findings:

Finding 1: The applicant has not demonstrated that exceptional or unusual conditions exist with respect to the physical conditions of the property.

The lot is fairly typical of lots in the vicinity sloping from east to west, and with the construction of the building in 1997. It is clearly a site that can accommodate a substantial development, with two levels of parking and two floor levels above, which include the subject restaurant with ample interior seating , banquet area and exterior seating.

The applicant’s argument rests more on the issue of the unique nature of the business as compared to the prior use and other restaurant/bars downtown, and the need for more enclosed seating areas in the winter months to keep this restaurant economically viable. Economic viability is not grounds for approving a Variance.

Finding 2: The proposed Variances are not necessary for the enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by others in the same vicinity and zone.

The property was originally developed several years ago with a variety of commercial uses demonstrating that that a substantial property right is currently being enjoyed by several businesses on the property including the subject restaurant.

The applicant appears to be seeking a special privilege, beyond the substantial property rights currently enjoyed, to exceed the height limit otherwise applicable to surrounding properties, and to convert areas that were always constructed for outdoor dining. The applicant’s argument relates to maintaining the amount of seating all year in order to support an upscale restaurant.

Finding 3: The project may be materially detrimental to property improvements in the vicinity and zone since it may obstruct views, sunlight and air to adjacent properties.

The owner has not submitted a view analysis in support of his statements that the structures will not affect views, although he has submitted a statement from some adjacent owners who indicate support for the restaurant. The structures may in fact obstruct views to the south or north.

Given this potential, it does not seem a finding can be made that the structure will not be materially detrimental to any other properties. Further the tent and trellis enclosures have no relationship to the original architectural design of the building and may be considered detrimental to the property improvements in the surrounding area. (See Attached Photos).

Finding 4: The project does not directly conflict with the General Plan, as there is no substantial change in the use of the property.

With respect to the amendment to the proposed C.U.P., approval of the existing construction does not impact the intensity of the business, or parking requirements, occupant load or seating, since the outdoor patios have not been enlarged and were always included as part of the original approved project.

Ken Robertson,

Senior Planner

CONCUR:

Sol Blumenfeld, Director

Community Development Department

________________________

Stephen R. Burrell,

City Manager

Section 6.

Based on the foregoing factual findings, the City Council makes the following findings pertaining to the application for a Variance:

1. The applicant has not demonstrated that exceptional or unusual conditions exist with respect to the physical conditions of the property. The lot is fairly typical of lots in the vicinity sloping from east to west, and with the construction of the building in 1997 it is clearly a site that can accommodate a fairly substantial development project, with two levels of parking and two floor levels above, which include the subject restaurant which contains ample interior seating and banquet areas in addition to the exterior seating.

2. The proposed Variance is not necessary for the enjoyment of a substantial property right. The relatively recent development of the property has established a variety of commercial uses demonstrating that that a substantial property right is currently being enjoyed by several businesses on the property including the subject restaurant. The applicant appears to be seeking to obtain a special privilege, well beyond the substantial property rights currently enjoyed, to exceed the height limit otherwise applicable to surrounding properties, and to convert areas that were always constructed and intended to be outdoor dining in order to partially enclose and weather proof these spaces.

3. The project may potentially be materially detrimental to property improvements in the vicinity and zone since the project as constructed may marginally obstruct some views, or access to sunlight, of adjacent properties. While the construction apparently does not obstruct prominent westerly views to the ocean from properties directly to east, it potentially has impact on other views from a southerly or northerly direction, or at angles from the northeast or southeast.

Section 7.

Based on the foregoing, and since all four required finding as required by Section 17.54.020 of the Zoning Ordinance cannot be made, the City Council hereby sustains the Planning Commission decision to deny the requested Variance and the requested amendment to the Conditional Use Permit.

PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 13th day of January, 2004, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

_____________________________________________________________________

PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR PROTEM of the City of Hermosa Beach, California

ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:

CITY CLERK _____________________CITY ATTORNEY

The Hermosa Beach City Council voted down the following resolution to approve the CUP and Variance by a 3-2 vote at its March 22, 2005 meeting.

Subject: Resolution to Approve the Conditional Use Permit and Variance for Union Cattle Company

a. Recommendation to adopt resolution to approve a Conditional Use Permit amendment to allow alterations to an existing restaurant and a variance to allow a permanent deck cover on the second floor deck, and seasonal tent on the upper floor deck, to both exceed the 30-foot height limit at Union Cattle Company Restaurant at 1301 Manhattan Avenue. Memorandum from Community Development Director Sol Blumenfeld dated March 14, 2005.(PDF File).

CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

MEMORANDUM

Date: March 14, 2005

To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council

From: Sol Blumenfeld, Director

Community Development Department

Concur: Stephen Burrell, City Manager

Subject: Resolution to Approve the Conditional Use Permit and Variance for Union Cattle Company

Attached is the resolution, reflecting the City Council’s action at the March 8, 2005 meeting, to overturn the Planning Commission’s decision and approve the Conditional Use Permit Amendment and Variance.

RESOLUTION NO. 05-

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, TO APPROVE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW ALTERATIONS TO AN EXISTING RESTAURANT AND A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A PERMANENT DECK COVER ON THE SECOND FLOOR DECK, AND SEASONAL TENT ON THE UPPER FLOOR DECK, TO BOTH EXCEED THE 30-FOOT HEIGHT LIMIT AT UNION CATTLE COMPANY RESTAURANT AT 1301 MANHATTAN AVENUE

The City Council does hereby resolve and order as follows:

Section 1. An application was filed by Allen Sanford, owner of the restaurant, Union Cattle Company, located at 1301 Manhattan Avenue, seeking a Conditional Use Permit Amendment and a Variance to allow to allow a permanent deck cover on the second floor deck, and seasonal tent on the upper floor deck and to allow these deck structures to exceed the 30-foot height limit of the C-2 zone.

Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to consider the application for a Conditional Use Permit and Variance on January 18, 2005, and based on the testimony and evidence, both written and oral, presented to and considered by the Planning Commission, the Commission could not make the necessary findings for a Variance and therefore denied the requested Conditional Use Permit Amendment and Variance as set forth in Planning Commission Resolution 05-5.

Section 3. On January 25, 2005, the City Council, pursuant to Section 2.52.040 of the Municipal Code initiated review of the decision of the Planning Commission.

Section 4. The City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing to review the decision of the Planning Commission on March 8, 2005, at which testimony and evidence, both written and oral, and the record of decision of the Planning Commission was presented to and considered by the City Council.

Section 5. Based on the evidence received at the public hearing, the City Council makes the following factual findings:

1. A Conditional Use Permit and Precise Development Plan amendment was approved by the City Council in January 2003 for Union Cattle Company to reconfigure the interior and outdoor dining areas of the building as set forth in City Council Resolution No. 03-6246.

2. The applicant is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit amendment to allow outdoor deck covers and seasonal tent structures on the existing outdoor dining decks, and a Variance so the deck cover and seasonal tent structure, located on the 2^ndand 3^rdlevel decks respectively, can exceed the height limit. These alterations require amending the 2003 Conditional Use Permit for the restaurant.

3. The deck covers that are the subject of this request have already been constructed without permits. The decks are approved for outdoor dining as set forth in City Council resolution No. 03-6246. The illegal conditions surfaced as a code enforcement action in October 2004 when the City’s code enforcement officer discovered the structures and issued a notice to remove the illegal structures. Other building code violations that have been identified as part of this code enforcement action include the installation of a tent structure on the first level patio without permits, improper termination of heating vents below the tent structure, improper termination of kitchen exhaust equipment and chimneys at the second floor deck cover.

4. The second floor deck is adjacent to the banquet room on the second floor of the building. A deck cover trellis structure was permitted for this deck when the restaurant was Einstein’s, equipped with a retractable canvas roof, and is shown on the approved plans for Union Cattle Company. However, the deck cover that was issued a building permit was below the existing roofline, and sloped down at a much lower ceiling clearance than the new cover in order to comply with the 30-foot height limit. The newer structure extends above the existing roofline creating a much higher clearance, and exceeds the height limit by as much as 5 feet at the peak of the sloped roof. The proposed seasonal “canvas” tent, which also is considered a structure, is located on the upper most level deck, and is 8-10 feet above the height limit at its highest point.

5. Variances are necessary for both structures as they exceed the 30-foot height limit for the C-2 zone, and cannot be considered as elements that are allowed to exceed the height limit pursuant to Chapter 17.46.

Section 6. Based on the foregoing factual findings, the City Council makes the following findings pertaining to the application for a Conditional Use Permit Amendment

1. The alterations are minor in scope, and do not change the use or occupant load of the restaurant, and involve enclosing or providing seasonal tent enclosures to existing approved outdoor dining areas.

2. The site is located in the downtown and zoned C-2. Restricted Commercial, and the existing restaurant use and outdoor dining areas with the proposed alterations will generally comply with the use standards contained therein, and with these enclosures the use will continue to be compatible with surrounding uses and the alterations may actually help to better mitigate noise impacts of the outdoor dining patio areas.

3. Compliance with the conditions of approval will mitigate any negative impact resulting from the proposed alterations.

Section 7. Based on the foregoing factual findings in Section 5, and the testimony and evidence presented at the public hearing, the City Council makes the following findings pertaining to the application for a Variance:

1. There are exceptional circumstances relating to the property due to the combination of site conditions, the existing open deck design on the upper floors of the west-facing portion of the building and the property location in the downtown. The lot is exceptional in that it has a severely sloping grade which averages approximately 15%, as measured from the corner point spot elevations pursuant to the definition of “grade” in Section 17.04.040 of the Zoning Ordinance. In contrast, most commercial properties in the downtown are located on flat lots or lots with less than a 15% slope.

Furthermore, the building is constructed to its near maximum height of 30’, although to comply with the height limit pursuant to Section 17.46.015 of the Zoning Ordinance, it is tiered down to follow the grade from east to west from the highest point of the roof to the west edge of the outdoor decks. According to these building height provisions, the highest part of the building tends to pierce the height envelope more quickly at the lowest part of the lot. In this case, the height limit is pierced most quickly along the westerly portion of the lot where the outdoor dining decks are located. Most commercial properties in the downtown are located on flat lots or lots with less than a 15% slope and thus are less like to be encumbered by the provisions of the height ordinance relative to enclosing open decks at upper levels. In fact, this tiered or sloping height limit results in substantial open deck areas on the upper level on the west side of the building, which compromises the utility of the building for restaurant purposes since these areas can only be used for open patio seating. Consequently, the severely sloping site affects the building design so that there are unique and exceptional conditions limiting the year round use of property with respect to the dining decks.

2. The Variance is necessary for the enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other properties in the vicinity because the property owner is seeking to upgrade and alter the outdoor deck areas for a reasonable permitted use and purpose. The retrofit requires enclosing upper level open decks so they can be used for restaurant seating throughout the year. Strict application of the height limit severely restricts year round use of these areas for their permitted purposes, since the upper decks cannot be enclosed and weatherproofed in compliance with the height limit. This denies the owner the opportunity for full use of the property and denies a substantial property right possessed by others in the vicinity and zone.

3. With incorporation of the Conditions of Approval below, the Variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare of injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity because it permits enclosure of outdoor decks at or below existing roof lines and therefore will negligibly effect the visual appearance of the building and will negligibly effect views from the east. Also the enclosure of these deck areas which are used for outside dining may potentially attenuate noise to the benefit of residents and commercial businesses in the vicinity.

4. The Variance does not conflict with and is not detrimental to the General Plan as it does not result in material damage to surrounding properties and is also consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan. The General Plan encourages viable economic uses in the commercial distircts and encourages compatibility between commercial and residential uses.

Section 8. Based on the foregoing, the City Council hereby overturns the decision of the Planning Commission and approves the subject Conditional Use Permit Amendment and Variance subject to the following Conditions of Approval which supplement the Conditions of Approval contained in City Council Resolution No. 03-6246 which remain in full force and effect:

1. The alterations to cover the outdoor dining areas shall be in conformance with submitted plans reviewed by the City Council at their meeting March 8, 2005, modified in accordance with the conditions below.

2. The Variance to the height limit is specifically limited to the situation and circumstances that result relative to the proposed specific use of deck covers for the existing outdoor dining decks and is not applicable to the development of new structures or any future expansion or alterations to the structure.

3. The tents on the first level deck and upper level deck are seasonal and subject to Building Code regulations for temporary structures.

4. The seasonal tent structure on the upper level deck may only exceed the height limit to the height of the existing roofline as viewed from the east (the existing roof equipment screen wall), shown on plans (submitted December 19, 2004, page 4, “revision”) at a maximum height elevation of 141.9.

5. The project shall comply with the requirements of the Fire Department and the Public Works Department.

6. Final building plans/construction drawings including, floor plan, roof plan, (indicating property lines, surveyed corner point elevations, finished roof heights), occupant load plan, sections, details, submitted for building permit issuance shall be reviewed for consistency with the plans approved by the City Council and the conditions of this resolution, and approved by the Community Development Director prior to the issuance of any Building Permit.

7. Each of the Conditions of Approval is separately enforced, and if one of the Conditions of Approval is found to be invalid by a court of law, all the other conditions shall remain valid and enforceable.

8. The Permittee shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City, its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, liability, judgment or proceeding against the City or its agents, officers, or employees, initiated to challenge, set aside, void or annul this approval. The City shall promptly notify the permittee of any claim, action, or proceeding. The City may in its discretion select the counsel of its choice to defend any such action on behalf of the City, and the permittee shall reimburse the City its actual attorneys fees, and any other costs or damage awards of any kind which the City may be required to pay as a result of any claim or action brought against the City because of this grant. The Permittee will be obligated to represent itself at its expense in any such proceedings.

9. The subject property shall be developed, maintained and operated in full compliance with the conditions of this grant and the conditions of City Council Resolution 03-6246 and any law, statute, ordinance or other regulation applicable to any development or activity on the subject property. Failure of the permittee to cease any development or activity not in full compliance shall be a violation of these conditions

Section 9. This grant shall not be effective for any purposes until the permittee and the owners of the property involved have filed at the office of the Planning Division of the Community Development Department their affidavits stating that they are aware of, and agree to accept, all of the conditions of this grant.

The Conditional Use Permit Amendment and Variance shall be recorded, and proof of recordation shall be submitted to the Community Development Department.

The Planning Commission may review this Precise Development Plan, Parking Plan and Variance and may amend the subject conditions or impose any new conditions if deemed necessary to mitigate detrimental effects on the neighborhood resulting from the subject use.

Section 10. Pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6 any legal challenge to the decision of the City Council, must be made within 90 days after the final decision by the City Council.

PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this day of , 2005,

______________________________________________________________

PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California

ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:

CITY CLERK _____________________CITY ATTORNEY

REGULAR MEETING HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, March 22, 2005 - Council Chambers, City Hall
1315 Valley Drive

Recommendation to adopt resolution to approve a Conditional Use Permit amendment to allow alterations to an existing restaurant and a variance to allow a permanent deck cover on the second floor deck, and seasonal tent on the upper floor deck, to both exceed the 30-foot height limit at Union Cattle Company Restaurant at 1301 Manhattan Avenue. Memorandum from Community Development Director Sol Blumenfeld dated March 14, 2005.(PDF File).

MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL

of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, held on Tuesday, March 8, 2005, at the hour of 7:14 p.m.

COUNCIL REVIEW AND RECONSIDERATION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S DENIAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW A PERMANENT DECK COVER ON THE SECOND FLOOR DECK, AND SEASONAL TENTS FOR OUTDOOR BANQUETS ON THE UPPER LEVEL DECK, AND A VARIANCE FOR THESE STRUCTURES TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM 30-FOOT HEIGHT LIMIT AT 1301 MANHATTAN AVENUE, THE UNION CATTLE COMPANY. Memorandum from Community Development Director Sol Blumenfeld dated March 1, 2005. Supplemental letter from anonymous residents and Resolution No. 03-6246 from staff received March 7, 2005.

Community Development Director Blumenfeld presented the staff report and responded to Council questions. City Manager Burrell and City Attorney Jenkins also responded to Council questions.

The public hearing opened at 8:44 p.m. Coming forward to address the Council on this item were:

Allen Sanford, Jed Sanford, Steve Jones – Union Cattle Company, made a slide presentation; said they were not familiar with the planning process and addressed the four findings to be met; described the building they now owned, which had previously been a brewery; compared their project to the Pavilion project on Pacific Coast Highway, for which a similar variance had been granted; showed pictures of the current appearance of the three outdoor decks; said they were more than willing to work with the City to make necessary changes; and

Roger Creighton – Hermosa Beach, asked if the deck cover was fire resistant (Director Blumenfeld replied that the owners’ indicated that it was but that an investigation was necessary to confirm that).

Proposed Action : To overturn the Planning Commission decision and approve the variance, based on the Council’s ability to make all the findings. Motion Yoon, second Edgerton. The motion was replaced by the following substitute motion.

Action : To overturn the Planning Commission decision and approve the variance with the stipulation that the canopy on the upper deck be reduced in height to not exceed the roofline.
Motion Yoon, second Edgerton. The motion carried, noting the dissenting votes of Mayor Reviczky, and Mayor Pro Tempore Tucker, who said he was unable to make the first three of the four findings required for granting a variance.

Further Action: : To direct staff to agendize a discussion of corrective action against the person or persons responsible for building these improvements without a building permit. Motion Yoon, second Edgerton. The motion carried, noting the dissenting votes of Keegan and Mayor Reviczky.

Further Action: : To require that the cover on the first level deck meets the Building Code.
Motion Tucker, second Edgerton. The motion carried by a unanimous vote.

The meeting recessed at 8:29 p.m.
The meeting reconvened at 8:48 p.m., with the continuation of item 5(b).

Further Action: : To clarify that the roofline is considered to be the top of the parapet, and the height of the canopy on the third level deck shall not exceed the top of the parapet.
Motion Yoon, second Edgerton. The motion carried, noting the dissenting votes of Mayor Pro Tempore Tucker and Mayor Reviczky.

Further Action: : To refer the issue of revising the method currently used to measure the height of commercial buildings to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation.
Motion Edgerton, second Yoon. The motion carried by a unanimous vote.

Director Blumenfeld said a resolution would be prepared for adoption at the next meeting, and that he would immediately check that the deck cover is fire resistant.

MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON
JANUARY 18, 2005, 7:00 P.M.,
AT THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS

The Union Cattle Company, 1301 Manhattan Avenue, CUP

Conditional Use Permit amendment to allow a permanent deck cover on the second floor deck, and seasonal tents for outdoor banquets on the upper level deck, and a Variance for these structures to exceed the maximum 30-foot height limit at 1301 Manhattan Avenue, The Union Cattle Company.

4. Conditional Use Permit 05-1/VAR 05-1 -- Conditional Use Permit amendment to allow a permanent deck cover on the second floor deck, and seasonal tents for outdoor banquets on the upper level deck, and a Variance for these structures to exceed the maximum 30-foot height limit at 1301 Manhattan Avenue, The Union Cattle Co. (PDF File).

http://www.hermosabch.org/departments/building/agenmin/pc20050118/12.pdf

Commissioner Koenig recused himself from consideration of this matter.

Staff Recommended Action: To deny said request.

Director Blumenfeld advised that the original Conditional Use Permit and Precise Development Plan amendment was granted by the Planning Commission in December 2002 and approved as amended under reconsideration by City Council in January 2003; noted that the applicant is requesting approval of the Variance to maintain an existing deck cover and a seasonal tent structure, which is located on the second and third level decks; advised that these structures exceed the height limit and were constructed without benefit of a permit; and noted that this illegal condition surfaced as a code enforcement action in October 2004 when the City’s code enforcement officer discovered the structures. He noted that the owner was advised at that time that the structures were over height and that they must be removed; that the owner inquired about processing a Variance application and requested that the structure be permitted to remain pending review by the Planning Commission. Director Blumenfeld explained that since the owner agreed to immediately commence with processing a Variance application, staff gave the owner the option to have a structural engineer confirm that the roof structure was stable and constructed in compliance with the Building Code, or alternatively, to have the space on the second floor deck posted for no occupancy pending Commission review; and if the Commission approved the Variance application, the owner could then proceed with processing plans to obtain an after-the-fact building permit (similar to permit issuance for legal determinations or other code enforcement actions involving illegal construction). If the owner did not prevail this evening, he noted that he would be required to immediately remove the roof structure and the tent.

Director Blumenfeld stated that the second floor deck cover/trellis was permitted originally for this property when the property contained the Einstein’s business and that it was equipped with a retractable canvas roof; however, that deck cover was issued with a building permit and was below the existing roof line; advised that the newer structure extends above the existing roof line at a higher level and exceeds the height limit by as much as 6 feet at the peak of the sloped roof; and that the proposed seasonal canvas tent, which is located on the upper deck, is between 8 and 9 feet above the height limit. He explained that Variances are needed for both these structures because they exceed the 30-foot height limit in the C-2 zone.

Director Blumenfeld advised that the applicant believes this improvement will better attenuate noise, that it will deal with rain water and allow better use of the patio areas in the winter season; and that he believes the use of the patio area is necessary for the continued success of the business. He commented on meeting the four primary findings for granting a Variance: 1) there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances, limited to the physical conditions applicable to the property involved; 2) the Variance is 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; 3) the granting of the Variance 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 4) the Variance is consistent with the General Plan.

With regard to Finding No. 1, Director Blumenfeld expressed staff’s belief that the applicant has not demonstrated there are exceptional or unusual conditions that exist with respect to the physical conditions of the property. He stated that this lot is a typical commercial lot, an assemblage of three lots for the premises; that it’s a sloping lot similar to all the other sloping lots on the block; and that it’s a site which clearly accommodates substantial development and that a substantial development was created when the project was originally approved in 1997. He advised that the applicant’s arguments rest on the issue of whether this is a unique nature of the business; and he noted staff’s belief that that has not been demonstrated and isn’t applicable or relevant to the question of whether or not there are conditions that pertain to this property that do not pertain to other properties in the same vicinity and zone.

With regard to Finding No. 2, Director Blumenfeld expressed staff’s belief that the proposed Variances do not appear to be necessary for the enjoyment of a substantial property right; noted that the development of the property has established a variety of commercial uses that were developed in 1997; that it can clearly accommodate these uses without this addition; and that it is staff’s belief this would be granting a special privilege to this property owner that isn’t available to other properties in the same vicinity.

With regard to Finding No. 3, Director Blumenfeld expressed staff’s belief that this would be materially detrimental, that it would have a potential effect on the vicinity and zone relative to some marginal obstruction of scenic views and that the applicant has not demonstrated there’s any supporting evidence to demonstrate anything to the contrary.

With regard to Finding No. 4, Director Blumenfeld stated there are no issues or concerns relative to any conflict with the General Plan. He mentioned that in order for the Commission to approve this amendment, all four mandatory findings would need to be made.

Chairman Perrotti questioned if the deck cover can be built within the height limit.

Director Blumenfeld stated that the deck cover could probably be reduced in height; explained that the original cover which was approved was within the height limit, but that it was configured differently as opposed to sitting basically at the roof line; and that where the former trellis structure was built, the proposed structure is a shed roof which sticks above the roof line.

Chairman Perrotti opened the public hearing.

Allen Sanford, principal of Union Cattle Company, advised that the patios represent about 60 percent of their seating, 119 seats out of 198 seats; expressed his belief that this project fits within the intended use; advised that they are not trying to do a bar or put a bunch of people onto the decks, but rather it is for restaurant seating and for wintertime banquets; and added that sound mitigation was also a reason for putting up these structures. He stated that the structures were put up without benefit of a permit due to their inexperience in working with the permit process; and reiterated that this is a seasonal tent.

Steve Jones, project architect, explained that the applicant inherited a very unique building, purposely built to house a microbrewery; and advised that one of the unique features is a very large, double high space which still exists and uses up quite a bit of volume. He advised that the brewery is still on the premises, but that it’s been reduced in size quite a bit from when the Einstein’s business operated. He mentioned that if this building were originally built as a more general restaurant use, he does not think this issue would have come up – reiterating that over 60 percent of the seating area is outside on these decks. In addition, he explained that the decks were constructed to the very west side of the property because it was the view at that time that the success of the restaurant would be driven by ocean views, people being outside looking at the scenery; advised that, unfortunately, between the time the building was designed and actually occupied, there was a City parking structure built directly in line with that obstruction and several roof top items that hinder the view. He mentioned that there’s also a hotel on the beach that has 8-foot encroachments into the height allowance; and suggested that if these City plans were known, the decks could have been placed further to the east on the building; and advised that making those major changes to the building are not financially feasible at this time.

With regard to Finding No. 2, Mr. Jones stated that this is a restaurant that is primarily used for dining; advised that the patio cover was originally built under a permit; and stated that what exists now is a safer and more structurally secure version of what was granted at that time for Einstein’s.

With regard to Finding No. 3, Mr. Jones stated that the patio cover is actually 6 inches lower than the screen walls that screen rooftop mechanical equipment, which was required to clean up the views on that side of the building; and that it can be substantiated this patio cover has less of an impact than other items further east on the building. He stated that he is not aware of any complaints to view blockage.

With regard to Finding No. 4, Mr. Jones stated there is no conflict with the General Plan. He expressed his belief that the Commission is permitted to exceed the height limit when warranted.

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

Commissioner Hoffman commended the applicant for running a good operation; explained that findings for a Variance are not something that exist at the whim of the Commission, but rather it is stipulated very clearly by state law, not by municipal ordinance; and noted that it’s been very clearly determined through legal precedence in the courts what constitutes the findings that are necessary, particularly for Finding No. 1. He stated that he is not able to make any finding for Nos. 1 or 2 and that 3 and 4 become moot at that point.

Vice-Chairman Pizer stated that he is not able to make a finding for Nos. 1 and 2; and questioned if there is a way to get a permit to put up a temporary tent for special events.

Director Blumenfeld stated that the City cannot allow anything that violates the development standards in the zone; and noted that there’s nothing in the zone code authorizing a permit for a temporary structure. He mentioned that temporary permits are issued by City Council for special events.

Chairman Perrotti reopened the public hearing.

Jed Sanford, principal of Union Cattle Company, stated that the entire tent can be taken down in one day, usually in four hours; and advised that the tents are put up in November and taken down late March.

Vice-Chairman Pizer noted his support for a temporary tent permit.

Director Blumenfeld noted that staff would need to study how that would occur; and mentioned that special event permits are under the purview of City Council.

With regard to the statement of the City’s parking garage and those items piercing the height limit, Chairman Perrotti explained that this encroachment of the City’s parking structure and the mechanical equipment have special designations as to piercing the height limit; he expressed his belief that the tent structure could have been built without exceeding the height limit; and in reviewing the four findings for a Variance, he advised that he cannot make the findings for Nos. 1 and 2; and stated that it is not a good precedent to set a Variance for height limits. He expressed his belief that the tents are not temporary or permanent when they are up for that length of time.

Chairman Perrotti closed the public hearing.

MOTION by Vice-Chairman Pizer, seconded by Commissioner Hoffman, to DENY Conditional Use Permit 05-1/VAR 05-1 -- Conditional Use Permit amendment to allow a permanent deck cover on the second floor deck, and seasonal tents for outdoor banquets on the upper level deck, and a Variance for these structures to exceed the maximum 30-foot height limit at 1301 Manhattan Avenue, The Union Cattle Co. The motion carried as follows:

AYES:	Hoffman, Pizer, Perrotti
NOES:	None
ABSTAIN:	Koenig
ABSENT:	Allen

MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON
MAY 20, 2003, 7:00 P.M.,
AT THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS

11. STAFF ITEMS

a. a. Interpretation of the condition of approval regarding the sound barrier around the perimeter of the upper deck at 1301 Manhattan Avenue, The Union Cattle Company. (PDF File).

Director Blumenfeld commented on the Planning Commission's prior approval of this project and the condition that the sound attenuation wall shall be between 7 and 8 feet around the outdoor seating area; advised that an acoustical study was a requirement of this project permit relative to the Precise Development Plan for this project; and that the acoustical study that was conducted stated that a 4-foot high wall could be constructed and still meet the requirements for noise attenuation. Because of problems constructing the 7- to 8-foot wall, he indicated that the applicant is requesting that they be permitted to reduce the height of this wall to 4 feet.

Director Blumenfeld confirmed that the acoustical engineer has completed the process and that he's amended his report to reflect a lower height wall will meet the sound attenuation requirements. He indicated that this wall will also act as railing.

It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to direct staff to approve this change by minute order.

Hermosa Beach Conditional Use Permit with On-Sale ABC License