J.2. PC21-2757 A PUBLIC HEARING FOR CONSIDERATION OF AN EXEMPTION DECLARATION, PLANNING COMMISSION DESIGN REVIEW, AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION TO AN ATTACHED GARAGE TO AN EXISTING BUILDING ON A LEGAL NON-CONFORMING PROPERTY LOCATED WITHIN A COMMERCIAL (C-2) ZONE AT 607 S. PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY.
APPLICANT: SCOTT CHERNOFF, CUMBERLAND HOLDINGS LLC.
ADDRESS: 607 S. PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY
APPLICATION NOS: PCDR-2021-03; CDP-2021-06
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Open public hearing and administer oath;
2. Take testimony from staff, applicant, and interested parties;
3. Close public hearing and deliberate; and
4. Adopt a resolution by title only approving the request subject to the findings and
conditions contained therein:
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF REDONDO BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN EXEMPTION DECLARATION AND GRANTING THE REQUESTS FOR A PLANNING COMMISSION DESIGN REVIEW AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 200-SQUARE FOOT ADDITION (GARAGE) TO AN EXISTING, LEGAL NON-CONFORMING PROPERTY LOCATED WITHIN A COMMERCIAL (C-2) ZONE AT 607 S. PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY
I Support the commission decision to deny a setback closer than 5 ft. Changing the rules to allow a setback closer than 5 ft. would allow too little space in our already congested neighborhood and would lead to other homeowners seeking similar exemptions.
I am strongly in favor of the construction of an attached garage at 607 S. PCH. The neighborhood has many poorly maintained buildings and it is refreshing to have an owner that has made substantial improvements to the property. I am happy to see this improvement, growth and development in our area and I wish them much success.
I just read the comments by Sean at 606 Elvira and I sympathize a bit since I have a direct neighbor with 2 non conforming garages with property line issues behind their home. It's mildly annoying, but I am in favor of property owners having the right to build what they want on their property especially if it is as well done as 607 S PCH's improvements so far. The property at 607 S. PCH was awful before the new owners came in. I am happy to welcome people who have pride in ownership and are actively improving the area. As for parking, each property has it's own parking. If I understand the parking comment correctly, I don't see why anyone should expect street parking as their personal parking. If their happens to be overflow to much needed and appreciated businesses (wildflower cafe, Ragin Cajun or the bike shop), why shouldn't patrons be allowed to park on the streets?
Sincerely,
Wendy Gutierrez
Owner
615 S Pacific Coast Hwy
Redondo Beach, CA 90277
The proposed addition is an encroachment into the required 20-foot side and rear setbacks that provides no basis for an exemption. Primarily, the addition to this commercial property is too high and too close to adjacent residential property lines. The additions would cause more harm to these SFR homes. The addition would reduce existing commercial parking space. Parking would spill over to Elvira Ave and up Sapphire. These streets already have parking impacts from Wildflower Café and Ragin’ Cajun usage. The addition’s purpose is a garage for the owner’s personal storage. That’s a residential expansion on a commercial property and contrary to the zoning code. Yet the surrounding properties all abide to their Zoning. The building at 607 S PCH needs to move in the direction of compliance to commercial code rather than seek more exceptions.
As it is, the building on 607 is a pre-existing, non-conforming structure. The non-conforming facts about this building make it among the most contrary to Code properties. Its North wall is literally on the property line and its West wall in places violates Residential zoning allows. The applicant’s request is to make it even more non-conforming than it is now. To me, that is not part of the intent of the General Plan and Municipal Code.
For comparison, I have looked at the letters in favor of the proposal. When considering their addresses relative to the Site, I am seeing very limited credence. Their properties are non-adjacent and too remote to be persuasive.
I am highly concerned about what future precedent this exemption could set if this current proposal were accepted. The result would be a structure two stories in the front and two stories in the back corner. There would be nothing to stand in the way of filling in between to create a giant, non-conforming commercial property worse than what it is now.
So, for the facts, the intentions, comparisons and precedent, I request that the proposed application for exemption by Cumberland Holdings in this hearing is rejected.
Sincerely,
Sean Killackey
Owner
606 Elvira Ave
Redondo Beach, CA 90277
I Support the commission decision to deny a setback closer than 5 ft. Changing the rules to allow a setback closer than 5 ft. would allow too little space in our already congested neighborhood and would lead to other homeowners seeking similar exemptions.
I am strongly in favor of the construction of an attached garage at 607 S. PCH. The neighborhood has many poorly maintained buildings and it is refreshing to have an owner that has made substantial improvements to the property. I am happy to see this improvement, growth and development in our area and I wish them much success.
I just read the comments by Sean at 606 Elvira and I sympathize a bit since I have a direct neighbor with 2 non conforming garages with property line issues behind their home. It's mildly annoying, but I am in favor of property owners having the right to build what they want on their property especially if it is as well done as 607 S PCH's improvements so far. The property at 607 S. PCH was awful before the new owners came in. I am happy to welcome people who have pride in ownership and are actively improving the area. As for parking, each property has it's own parking. If I understand the parking comment correctly, I don't see why anyone should expect street parking as their personal parking. If their happens to be overflow to much needed and appreciated businesses (wildflower cafe, Ragin Cajun or the bike shop), why shouldn't patrons be allowed to park on the streets?
Sincerely,
Wendy Gutierrez
Owner
615 S Pacific Coast Hwy
Redondo Beach, CA 90277
To the Planning Commission of Redondo Beach
Dear Neighbors,
The proposed addition is an encroachment into the required 20-foot side and rear setbacks that provides no basis for an exemption. Primarily, the addition to this commercial property is too high and too close to adjacent residential property lines. The additions would cause more harm to these SFR homes. The addition would reduce existing commercial parking space. Parking would spill over to Elvira Ave and up Sapphire. These streets already have parking impacts from Wildflower Café and Ragin’ Cajun usage. The addition’s purpose is a garage for the owner’s personal storage. That’s a residential expansion on a commercial property and contrary to the zoning code. Yet the surrounding properties all abide to their Zoning. The building at 607 S PCH needs to move in the direction of compliance to commercial code rather than seek more exceptions.
As it is, the building on 607 is a pre-existing, non-conforming structure. The non-conforming facts about this building make it among the most contrary to Code properties. Its North wall is literally on the property line and its West wall in places violates Residential zoning allows. The applicant’s request is to make it even more non-conforming than it is now. To me, that is not part of the intent of the General Plan and Municipal Code.
For comparison, I have looked at the letters in favor of the proposal. When considering their addresses relative to the Site, I am seeing very limited credence. Their properties are non-adjacent and too remote to be persuasive.
I am highly concerned about what future precedent this exemption could set if this current proposal were accepted. The result would be a structure two stories in the front and two stories in the back corner. There would be nothing to stand in the way of filling in between to create a giant, non-conforming commercial property worse than what it is now.
So, for the facts, the intentions, comparisons and precedent, I request that the proposed application for exemption by Cumberland Holdings in this hearing is rejected.
Sincerely,
Sean Killackey
Owner
606 Elvira Ave
Redondo Beach, CA 90277