Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-03-19Tuesday, March 19, 2024 7:00 PM City of Hermosa Beach City Hall 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Council Chambers Planning Commission Chair Peter Hoffman Vice Chair Marie Rice Commissioners David Pedersen Kate Hirsh Stephen Izant Regular Meeting Agenda Executive Team Angela Crespi, Deputy City Manager Viki Copeland, Finance Director Myra Maravilla, City Clerk Paul LeBaron, Chief of Police Joe SanClemente, Public Works Director Carrie Tai, Community Development Director Vanessa Godinez, Human Resources Manager Lisa Nichols, Community Resources Manager City Treasurer Karen Nowicki City Attorney Patrick Donegan Suja Lowenthal, City Manager 1 March 19, 2024Planning Commission Regular Meeting Agenda PUBLIC MEETING VIEWING OPTIONS Hermosa Beach Planning Commission meetings are open to the public and are being held in person in the City Hall Council Chambers located at 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254. Public comment is only guaranteed to be taken in person at City Hall during the meeting or prior to the meeting by submitting an eComment for an item on the agenda. As a courtesy only, the public may view and participate on action items listed on the agenda via the following: * ZOOM - https://us02web.zoom.us/j/82539742028?pwd=OUNTRDNvd2l6TzBpTDljc2x6bGFwdz09 Meeting ID: 825 3974 2028, then #; Passcode: 207860 * PHONE - Toll Free: (833) 548 0276 Meeting ID: 825 3974 2028, then #; Passcode: 207860 Please be advised that while the City will endeavor to ensure these remote participation methods are available, the City does not guarantee that they will be technically feasible or work all the time. Further, the City reserves the right to terminate these remote participation methods (subject to Brown Act restrictions) at any time and for whatever reason. Please attend in person or by submitting an eComment to ensure your public participation. Similarly, as a courtesy, the City will also plan to broadcast the meeting via the following listed mediums. However, these are done as a courtesy only and are not guaranteed to be technically feasible. Thus, in order to guarantee live time viewing and/or public participation, members of the public shall attend in Council Chambers. * CABLE TV - Spectrum Channel 8 and Frontier Channel 31 in Hermosa Beach * YOUTUBE - https://www.youtube.com/c/CityofHermosaBeach90254 * LIVE STREAM - www.hermosabeach.gov and visit the Agendas/Minutes/Videos page If you experience technical difficulties while viewing a meeting on any of our digital platforms, please try another viewing option. View staff reports and attachments at www.hermosabeach.gov and visit the Agendas/Minutes/Video page. Council Chambers WiFi Network ID: CHB Guest Password: chbguest To comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Assistive Listening Devices (ALD) are available for check out at the meeting. If you require special assistance to participate in this meeting, you must call or submit your request in writing to the Office of the City Clerk at (310) 318-0204 or at cityclerk@hermosabeach.gov at least 48 hours before the meeting. Submit Supplemental eComments Page 2 City of Hermosa Beach Printed on 6/4/2024 2 March 19, 2024Planning Commission Regular Meeting Agenda Submit an eComment via Speak Up Hermosa at hermosabeach.granicusideas.com by 12:00 p.m. on the meeting date. For items on the agenda, supplemental communications may be submitted via eComment or emailed to planning@hermosabeach.gov. Supplemental emails should indicate the agenda item and meeting date in the subject line and must be received by 12:00 p.m. on the date of the meeting to be posted to the corresponding agenda item before the meeting begins. Supplemental communications submitted after 12:00 p.m. on the date of the meeting but before the meeting ends will be posted to the agenda packet the next business day. ____________________________________________________________________ I. CALL TO ORDER II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III. ROLL CALL IV. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION -- ORAL AND WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS This is the time for members of the public to address the Planning Commission on any items within the Commission's jurisdiction and on items where public comment will not be taken. The public is invited to attend and provide public comment. Public comments are limited to two minutes per speaker and shall only be taken from those present in the Council Chambers. No remote public comment will be taken during this time unless required by the Brown Act. A total of thirty minutes will be allocated to this initial public participation item. This time allotment may be modified due to time constraints at the discretion of the Chair. No action will be taken on matters raised during public comment, except that the Planning Commission may take action to schedule issues raised during public comment for a future agenda. Speakers with comments regarding City management or departmental operations are encouraged to submit those comments directly to the Community Development Director or City Manager's Office. V. CONSENT CALENDAR The following matters will be acted upon collectively with a single motion and vote to approve with the majority consent of the Planning Commission. Planning Commission members may orally register a negative vote on any consent calendar item without pulling the item for separate consideration prior to the vote on the consent calendar. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Commission member removes an item from the Consent Calendar prior to the vote on the consent calendar item. Items removed will be considered under a latter agenda item, with only in-person public comment permitted at that time in the Chambers. The title is deemed to be read and further reading waived of any resolution or ordinance listed on the consent calendar for introduction or adoption. a.REPORT 24-0097 ACTION MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OF FEBRUARY 20, 2024 (Administrative Assistant Melanie Hurtado) Planning Commission Action Minutes Regular Meeting of February 20, 2024 Attachments: VI. PUBLIC HEARING Page 3 City of Hermosa Beach Printed on 6/4/2024 3 March 19, 2024Planning Commission Regular Meeting Agenda a.REPORT 24-0127 TRI-ANNUAL REPORT FOR ON-SALE ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS REPORTING PERIOD OF JULY 1, 2023 TO DECEMBER 31, 2023 (Assistant Planner Jake Whitney) 1. Process and Standards 2. HBPD-ABC Report July 1 2023-December 31 2023 3. HBPD-ABC Report March 1 2023 to August 31 2023 Attachments: b.REPORT 24-0132 TIME EXTENSION REQUEST FOR PREVIOUSLY APPROVED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT (CUP 21-09) AND PARKING PLAN (PARK 21-01) AT AN EXISTING ASSEMBLY HALL AND RESTAURANT (THE COMEDY AND MAGIC CLUB) AT 1018 HERMOSA AVENUE, PURSUANT TO HERMOSA BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 17.70.020. (Assistant Planner Johnathon Masi) 1. Draft Resolution 24-XX 2. PC Resolution No. 22-02 3. PC Resolution No. 22-01 4. Applicant Letter dated February 5, 2024 5. Public Notification Package 6. August 6, 1979 Board of Zoning Adjustment Meeting Minutes 7. June 29, 1982 Board of Zoning Adjustment Meeting Minutes 8. May 7, 1984 Board of Zoning Adjustment Meeting Minutes 9. March 15,1988 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 10. August 7, 1990 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 11. Link to February 15, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting Attachments: VII. STAFF ITEMS a.REPORT 24-0133 STUDY SESSION TO DISCUSS COMPREHENSIVE ZONING AND SUBDIVISION UPDATE (Maricela Guillean, Associate Planner) Page 4 City of Hermosa Beach Printed on 6/4/2024 4 March 19, 2024Planning Commission Regular Meeting Agenda 1. 2020 Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Code Assessment Report 2. Link to the March 4, 2020 Joint City Council/Planning Commission Study Session 3. Link to the May 19, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting 4. Link to the February 17, 2021 Economic Development Stakeholders Advisory Working Group 5. Link to the March 1, 2021 Economic Development Committee Meeting 6. Link to the March 3, 2021 Joint City Council/Planning Commission Study Session 7. Link to the August 10, 2021 City Council Meeting 8. Link to the February 2, 2022 Special Planning Commission Meeting 9. Link to the April 6, 2022 Special Planning Commission Meeting 10. Link to the June 7, 2022 Special Planning Commission Meeting 11. Link to the August 8, 2022 Special Planning Commission Meeting 12. Link to the September 22, 2022 Special Planning Commission Meeting 13. Link to the October 3, 2022 Special Planning Commission Meeting 14. Link to the November 2, 2022 Special Planning Commission Meeting 15. Link to the December 13, 2022 City Council Meeting 16. Link to the March 21, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting 17. Link to the July 11, 2023 City Council Meeting 18. Link to the September 26, 2023 City Council Meeting 19. Link to the September 26, 2023 City Council Meeting 20. Link to the November 14, 2023 City Council Meeting Attachments: b. VERBAL REPORT ON CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS c. STATUS REPORT ON MAJOR PLANNING PROJECTS d. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS e.REPORT 24-0147 PLANNING COMMISSION TENTATIVE FUTURE AGENDA (Administrative Assistant Melanie Hurtado) Planning Commission April 16, 2024 Tentative Future AgendaAttachments: VIII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS a. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS Planning Commission members may briefly respond to public comments, may ask a question for clarification, or make a brief announcement or report on his or her own activities or meetings attended. b. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS Page 5 City of Hermosa Beach Printed on 6/4/2024 5 March 19, 2024Planning Commission Regular Meeting Agenda Requests from the Planning Commission for possible future agenda items and questions from Planning Commission members regarding the status of future agenda items. No discussion or debate of these requests shall be undertaken; the sole action is whether to schedule the item for consideration on a future agenda. No public comment will be taken. Planning Commission members should consider the City's work plan when considering new items. IX. ADJOURNMENT _____________________________________________________________________ CITY OFFICES CLOSED FRIDAY - SUNDAY AND ON THE FOLLOWING DAYS: • Monday, April 1, 2024 - César Chávez Day • Monday, May 27, 2024 - Memorial Day • Wednesday, June 19, 2024 - Juneteenth • Thursday, July 4, 2024 - Independence Day • Monday, September 2, 2024 - Labor Day • Monday, November 11, 2024 - Veterans' Day • Thursday, November 28, 2024 - Thanksgiving Day • Wednesday, December 25, 2024 - Christmas Day • Wednesday, January 1, 2025 - New Year's Day PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS: • Tuesday, March 19, 2024 - 7:00 PM Planning Commission Regular Meeting • Tuesday, April 16, 2024 - 7:00 PM Planning Commission Regular Meeting • Tuesday, May 21, 2024 - 7:00 PM Planning Commission Regular Meeting • Tuesday, June 18, 2024 - 7:00 PM Planning Commission Regular Meeting • Tuesday, July 16, 2024 - 7:00 PM Planning Commission Regular Meeting • Tuesday, August 20, 2024 - 7:00 PM Planning Commission Regular Meeting • Tuesday, September 17, 2024 - 7:00 PM Planning Commission Regular Meeting • Tuesday, October 15, 2024 - 7:00 PM Planning Commission Regular Meeting • Monday, November 18, 2024 - 7:00 PM Planning Commission Regular Meeting • Monday, December 16, 2024 - 7:00 PM Planning Commission Regular Meeting Page 6 City of Hermosa Beach Printed on 6/4/2024 6 City of Hermosa Beach Staff Report City Hall 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Staff Report REPORT 24-0097 Honorable Chair and Members of the Hermosa Beach Planning Commission Regular Meeting of March 19, 2024 ACTION MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OF FEBRUARY 20, 2024 (Administrative Assistant Melanie Hurtado) Recommended Action: Staff recommends Planning Commission receive and file the action minutes of the Planning Commission regular meeting of February 20, 2024. Attachment: Planning Commission Action Minutes Regular Meeting of February 20, 2024 Respectfully Submitted by: Melanie Hurtado, Administrative Assistant Approved: Carrie Tai, Community Development Director City of Hermosa Beach Printed on 3/24/2024Page 1 of 1 7 City Hall 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 City of Hermosa Beach Action Minutes - Draft Planning Commission Chair Peter Hoffman Vice Chair Marie Rice Commissioners David Pedersen Kate Hirsh Stephen Izant 7:00 PM Council Chambers I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chair Hoffman at 7:00 P.M. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Vice Chair Rice. III. ROLL CALL Assistant Planner Jake Whitney announced a quorum. All Planning Commissioners attended in-person in the Council Chambers. Staff Present: Carrie Tai, Community Development Director Ali Tehrani, City Attorney Alexis Oropeza, Planning Manager Maricela Guillean, Associate Planner Jake Whitney, Assistant Planner Commissioner Kate Hirsh, Commissioner Stephen Izant, Vice Chair Marie Rice, Chair Peter Hoffman, and Commissioner David Pedersen Present:5 - Absent:0 IV. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION -- ORAL AND WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS There were no public comments at this time. a.REPORT 24-0095 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS (Administrative Assistant Melanie Hurtado) V. CONSENT CALENDAR Page 1City of Hermosa Beach 8 February 20, 2024Planning Commission Action Minutes - Draft a.REPORT 24-0085 ACTION MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OF DECEMBER 11, 2023 (Administrative Assistant Melanie Hurtado) A motion was made to approve recommendation on the Consent Calendar. Motion carried as follows: Aye:Commissioner Hirsh, Commissioner Izant, Chair Hoffman, and Commissioner Pedersen 4 - Absent:0 Abstain:Vice Chair Rice1 - VI. STAFF ITEMS a.REPORT 24-0061 TRI-ANNUAL REPORT FOR ON-SALE ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS REPORTING PERIOD OF JULY 1, 2023 TO DECEMBER 31, 2023 (Assistant Planner Jake Whitney) Assistant Planner Jake Whitney presented a presentation. Chair Hoffman provided comment. Public comment was provided by: 1. Adam Koslin 2. Raymond Dussault Chair Hoffman provided comment. Commissioner Izant provided comment. Director Tai provided comment. Chair Hoffman provided comment. Commissioner Hirsh provided comment. Director Tai provided comment. Chair Hoffman provided comment. Director Tai provided comment. Commissioner Izant provided comment. Chair Hoffman provided comment. Motion by Commissioner Pedersen and seconded by Vice Chair Rice to receive and file the Tri-Annual Report. Motion carried as follows: Aye:Commissioner Hirsh, Commissioner Izant, Vice Chair Rice, Chair Hoffman, and Commissioner Pedersen 5 - Page 2City of Hermosa Beach 9 February 20, 2024Planning Commission Action Minutes - Draft Absent:0 b.REPORT 24-0046 A PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PDP 19-3) TO EXPAND AN EXISTING POWER-FEED EQUIPMENT (PFE) FACILITY WITHIN AN EXISTING BUILDING AT 1601 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY IN SPECIFIC PLAN AREA NO. 8 (SPA-8). THE PFE IS A PART OF THE TRANSPACIFIC FIBER-OPTIC CABLES PROJECT TO INSTALL AND OPERATE TWO SUBSEA CABLES SYSTEM CONNECTING THE UNITED STATES TO LOCATIONS ON THE WESTERN PACIFIC RIM RUNNING BENEATH THE PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY AND GREENBELT WITH A LANDING SITE AT ONE OF TWO PROPOSED LOCATIONS - 6TH STREET (OPTION A) OR 10TH STREET (OPTION B) BETWEEN HERMOSA AVENUE AND MANHATTAN AVENUE. (Planning Manager Alexis Oropeza) Planning Manager Alexis Oropeza presented a presentation. Public comments were provided by: 1. Chris Brungardt 2. Scott Sorenson 3. Stephen Chick 4. Peter Tucker Chair Hoffman provided comment. Applicant Chris Brungardt provided comment. Commissioner Pedersen provided comment. Director Tai provided comment. Commissioner Pedersen provided comment. Applicant Chris Brungardt provided comment. Commissioner Pedersen provided comment. Applicant Chris Brungardt provided comment. Commissioner Pedersen provided comment. Chair Hoffman provided comment. Vice Chair Rice provided comment. Applicant Chris Brungardt provided comment. Commissioner Pedersen provided comment. Applicant Chris Brungardt provided comment. Commissioner Pedersen provided comment. Page 3City of Hermosa Beach 10 February 20, 2024Planning Commission Action Minutes - Draft Applicant Chris Brungardt provided comment. Chair Hoffman provided comment. Commissioner Izant provided comment. Planning Manager Alexis Oropeza provided comment. Commissioner Izant provided comment. Chair Hoffman provided comment. Commissioner Izant provided comment. Commissioner Hirsh provided comment. Chair Hoffman provided comment. Commissioner Pedersen provided comment. Commissioner Hoffman provided comment. Vice Chair Rice provided comment. Chair Hoffman provided comment. Motion by Commissioner Hirsh and seconded by Commissioner Pedersen to adopt a resolution certifying the Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2019080175), making findings of fact, adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and adopting the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the transpacific fiber-optic cables project. Motion carried as follows: Aye:Commissioner Hirsh, Commissioner Izant, Vice Chair Rice, Chair Hoffman, and Commissioner Pedersen 5 - Absent:0 Chair Hoffman provided comment. Commissioner Izant provided comment. Motion by Commissioner Izant and seconded by Vice Chair Rice to adopt a resolution approving Precise Development Plan 19-13 with conditions of approval for the construction and operation of an expanded Power Feed Equipment Facility at an existing building at 1601 Pacific Coast Highway. Motion carried as follows: Aye:Commissioner Hirsh, Commissioner Izant, Vice Chair Rice, Chair Hoffman, and Commissioner Pedersen 5 - Absent:0 Page 4City of Hermosa Beach 11 February 20, 2024Planning Commission Action Minutes - Draft c. VERBAL REPORT ON CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS Director Tai provided an updated on the Pedone's CUP Modification public hearing at the City Council meeting on January 23, 2024. City Council upheld the recommended 7-day suspension. They also altered the proposed hours for online-only food delivery. Online-only food delivery will be allowed on Sunday through Thursday after 11:00 P.M. and on Friday & Saturday from midnight to 2:00 A.M. City Council also approved the short-term rental ordinance refinements and those will take effect at the end of February. At the City Council meeting on February 15, 2024, City Council requested an item on ground floor businesses in light of the numerous vacancies. Council also approved new meeting protocols regarding public participation during meetings. The public participation comment period at the beginning of the meeting will allow 2-minute comments per person, for up to a total of 30 minutes. If there are still additional public comments after the 30 minute time allotment, those comments will be heard at the end of the meeting in an additional public comment period (when needed). d. STATUS REPORT ON MAJOR PLANNING PROJECTS Director Tai updated that the City resubmitted the Housing Element two weeks ago and are awaiting a response. Commissioner Izant provided comments. Director Tai provided comments. Commissioner Izant provided comments. Director Tai provided comments. Commissioner Pedersen provided comments. Director Tai provided comments. Chair Hoffman provided comments. Director Tai provided comments. Chair Hoffman provided comments. e.REPORT 24-0086 PLANNING COMMISSION TENTATIVE FUTURE AGENDA (Administrative Assistant Melanie Hurtado) Director Tai provided comments. Motion by Vice Chair Rice and seconded by Commissioner Pedersen to receive and file the March 19, 2024 Planning Commission tentative future agenda. Motion carried as follows: Page 5City of Hermosa Beach 12 February 20, 2024Planning Commission Action Minutes - Draft Aye:Commissioner Hirsh, Commissioner Izant, Vice Chair Rice, Chair Hoffman, and Commissioner Pedersen 5 - Absent:0 VII. COMMISSIONER ITEMS a. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS Chair Hoffman provided comment. Commissioner Izant provided comment. Vice Chair Rice provided comment. Commissioner Izant provided comment. Chair Hoffman provided comment. Vice Chair Rice provided comment. Chair Hoffman provided comment. b. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS VIII. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Pedersen and seconded by Vice Chair Rice to adjourn the meeting until the next Planning Commission meeting on March 19, 2024. Motion carried as follow: Aye:Commissioner Hirsh, Commissioner Izant, Vice Chair Rice, Chair Hoffman, and Commissioner Pedersen 5 - Absent:0 The meeting was adjourned by Chair Hoffman at 8:20 P.M. Page 6City of Hermosa Beach 13 City of Hermosa Beach Staff Report City Hall 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Staff Report REPORT 24-0127 Honorable Chair and Members of the Hermosa Beach Planning Commission Regular Meeting March 19, 2024 TRI-ANNUAL REPORT FOR ON-SALE ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS REPORTING PERIOD OF JULY 1, 2023 TO DECEMBER 31, 2023 (Assistant Planner Jake Whitney) Recommended Action: Staff recommends Planning Commission conduct a public hearing on the tri-annual Conditional Use Permit report. Executive Summary: The tri-annual report presents the findings of the administrative review process in which the activities of establishments that have a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and on-sale alcoholic beverage licenses are reviewed against an established set of criterion (Attachment 1). This report covers the period from July 1, 2023 to December 31, 2023. Based on the data collected during this reporting period, no establishments have reached the threshold for referral to initiate a Planning Commission review of a CUP. Background: The tri-annual report is presented to the Planning Commission over the course of two meetings; the first meeting presents the report as an informational item, while the second meeting is conducted as a public hearing. This report represents the public hearing portion of the report. The informational item was previously presented to the Planning Commission on February 20, 2024.If an establishment violates any criterion within the set of standards identified in (Attachment 1)by exceeding the defined number of incidents in any six-month period, it will be referred to the Planning Commission for review of its CUP. The review may lead to a modification or revocation hearing based on the frequency or number of incidents or violations. The tri-annual report provides data related to each criterion, from City departments and outside agencies involved in the review, including Code Enforcement, Hermosa Beach Police Department, LA County Fire Prevention, and California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC). The data provided in the report does not change between the two meetings presenting the data as an informational item, and a public hearing. The two-step Planning Commission review was established in 2017, and in March 2019, the City Council approved Planning Commission recommended changesCity of Hermosa Beach Printed on 3/13/2024Page 1 of 5 14 Staff Report REPORT 24-0127 Discussion: HBPD and ABC As part of each triannual review, the Hermosa Beach Police Department is consulted for any calls for service or reports at establishments with a Conditional Use Permit for alcohol sales. During the current reporting period of July 1, 2023 through December 31, 2023, the Hermosa Beach Police Department reported seven (7) police reports and seven (7) calls for service related to establishments with CUPS for alcohol sales. Of the seven (7) reports only two were characterized by HBPD as CUP violations; however, they were evaluated during the last triannual review in October 2023. For additional details on the Police reporting data and protocols please refer to Attachments 2 and 3. There were no police reports warranting a CUP review during this review period. LA County Fire The Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACFD) provides information about paramedic records which may be used to assist in the investigative analysis of responsible alcohol-serving practices at on-sale beverage serving establishments. LACFD reported a total of 68 calls for ambulance service that were attributed to alcohol during this review period. Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Privacy Rules prevent LACFD from identifying the reported incidents with a specific address. Therefore, the data is not capable of providing any meaningful information on the alcohol-serving practices of specific establishments.LACFD is also responsible for inspecting the various establishments in the City for fire prevention measures which are conducted after the Summer season. Although this data is site-specific, it relates to the facility inspected and does not correlate with alcohol service. Code Enforcement Code Enforcement routinely checks on-sale establishments for Conditional Use Permit compliance. Violations that are both a Municipal Code violation and a CUP violation are only counted once. Although many other businesses received warnings, the Department’s policy is to request compliance before issuing a citation fine. The following list identifies the observed violations at on-sale establishments with CUPs; 10 of which City of Hermosa Beach Printed on 3/13/2024Page 2 of 5 15 Staff Report REPORT 24-0127 ·On July 18, 2023, Code Enforcement issued Decadence (1332 Hermosa Avenue #1) an Administrative Citation for a noise violation. ·On August 28, 2023, Code Enforcement issued Pedone’s Pizza (1332 Hermosa Avenue) an Administrative Citation for violations of their CUP conditions relating to hours of operation and a separate noise violation. ABC issued a citation for selling alcohol after the allowed hours. ·On September 7, 2023, Code Enforcement issued Pedone’s Pizza (1332 Hermosa Avenue) a second Administrative Citation for violations of their CUP conditions relating to hours of operation. The Planning Commission and City Council conducted CUP reviews and approved modifications to the CUP. ·On September 13, 2023, Code Enforcement issued Tower 12 (53 Pier Ave) an Administrative Citation for 2 violations of their CUP conditions relating to noise violations. The citation was appealed, and an administrative appeal hearing was held that overturned one violation but upheld the second violation. ·On September 13th, 2023, Code Enforcement issued American Junkie (68 Pier Ave) an Administrative Citation for 2 violations of their CUP conditions relating to noise violations. The citation has been appealed. ·On September 13th, 2023, Code Enforcement issued Lighthouse Cafe (30 Pier Ave) an Administrative Citation for 2 violations of their CUP conditions relating to noise violations. The citation has been appealed. ·On September 13th, 2023, Code Enforcement issued Hennessey’s Tavern (8 Pier Ave) an Administrative Citation for 2 violations of their CUP conditions relating to noise violations. ·On September 20th, 2023, Code Enforcement issued Baja Sharkeez (52 Pier Ave) an Administrative Citation for a noise violation. The violation was overturned in an administrative appeal hearing. Process Criteria Statistics for On-Sale Alcoholic Beverage Conditional Use Permit Businesses (July 1, 2023 to December 31, 2023) Criteria Summary of All Businesses 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 City of Hermosa Beach Printed on 3/13/2024Page 3 of 5 16 Staff Report REPORT 24-0127 Criteria Summary of All Businesses 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Public Notification: For the March 19, 2024 Planning Commission hearing, a legal ad was published on March 7, 2024 in the Easy Reader, a newspaper of general circulation. Conclusion: Based on the data collected during this reporting period from all relevant departments and agencies, no establishments have reached the threshold for referral to initiate a Planning Commission review of a CUP. General Plan Consistency: This report and associated recommendation have been evaluated for their consistency with the City’s General Plan. Relevant Policies are listed below: Public Safety Element Goal 5. High quality police and fire protection services provided to residents and visitors. Policies: ·5.1 Crime deterrence. Regularly evaluate the incidence of crime and identify and implement measures to deter crime. ·5.2 High level of response.Achieve optimal utilization of allocated public safety resources and provide desired levels of response, staffing, and protection within the community. ·5.3 Use of technology.Provide and use smart surveillance technology and communication systems to improve crime prevention and inform the community regarding actions to take in case of emergency. ·5.4 Physical design standards.Reduce opportunities for criminal activity through physical design standards and Crime Prevention through Environmental Design principles. ·5.8 Nuisance abatement.Encourage Police Department review of uses that may be characterized historically by high levels of nuisance (noise, nighttime patronage, and/or rates City of Hermosa Beach Printed on 3/13/2024Page 4 of 5 17 Staff Report REPORT 24-0127 Governance Element Goal 2. The community is active and engaged in decision-making processes. Policies: ·2.6 Responsive to community needs.Continue to be responsive to community inquiries, providing public information and recording feedback from community interactions. Fiscal Impact: There is no fiscal impact associated with the recommended action. Attachments: 1. Process and Standards 2. HBPD/ABC Report July 1, 2023 to December 31, 2023 3. HBPD/ABC Report March 1, 2023 to August 31, 2023 Respectfully Submitted by: Jake Whitney, Assistant Planner Concur: Alexis Oropeza, Planning Manager Approved: Carrie Tai, Community Development Director City of Hermosa Beach Printed on 3/13/2024Page 5 of 5 18 Process and Standards for Review of On-Sale Alcoholic Beverage Conditional Use Permits 1) The CUP review process will consist of an administrative review process in which the on-sale establishments’ activities would be reviewed against an established set of criteria three times per year. 2) On-sale establishments with a CUP would be referred to the Planning Commission for a CUP review, and subsequently for a modification/revocation hearing if the Commission so decided upon its review, when they exceed established standards for each criteria to trigger such a review. 3) The standards that would trigger a referral to the Planning Commission for a CUP review and potential modification/revocation hearing will be based on the frequency or number of incidents/violations within a stipulated timeframe. 4) The standards that would trigger a referral to the Planning Commission for a CUP review and potentially for a subsequent modification/revocation hearing are as indicated in Table 1 below. 5) The administrative review of CUPs should be conducted three times per year with an evaluation of the on-sale establishments’ activities for the prior 6-month period. 6) The standards or criteria of the CUP review system will be made readily available to all on-sale establishments with CUPs and the public via the City website and/or other appropriate media (including direct mailings) to minimize any confusion over what standards will initiate a Planning Commission review and potential modification/revocation hearing. 7) Information from Police and Fire Department related to patterns of patronage of on-sale establishments (as indicated by investigations of intoxicated persons after incidents) and consistency with “Model House Policies” may be generally considered by the Planning Commission as factors in whether the business is being operated responsibly and engaging in the responsible service of alcohol. This information may be considered by the planning commission, as additional justification for holding a CUP review hearing after referral based on the criteria above has been determined and as evidence in any CUP modification/revocation hearing. Table 1. CUP Review Standards Standard Initiating P.C. Review(a) Criterion (Number of incidents in any 6 months) Violation of Operating Hours 2 ABC Violations (underage serving, violation of hours, etc.) 2 Overcrowding Citation 1 Criminal Citation of Staff while Working/on Premises 2 Serious Crime on Premises indicative of Lack of Adequate Security 2 (Combination of any 3 or more) Violation of any CUP Condition (b) ABC Violations (underage service, violation of hours, etc.) Overcrowding Citation Criminal Citation of Staff while Working/on Premises Serious Crime on Premises indicative of Lack of Adequate Security Noise Citation Health Department Violation Outdoor Encroachment Permit Violation Building Code Violation (incl. remodeling without permit) Sign Ordinance Violation NPDES Violation (Administrative Determination) “Excessive Number” of Calls for Police Service “Excessive Number” of Public Complaints to City “Excessive Number” of Criminal Events on/adjacent to Premises NOTE: (a) – Recommended threshold number; Chief of Police may recommend CUP review to Commission at his/her discretion—at any time regardless of number of incidents in any period of time, to determine whether revocation/medication is appropriate under HBMC 17.70.010—as stipulated in many current CUPs and the Municipal Code. (b) Non-submittal of food to alcohol sales ratio reports in a timely manner when required by a CUP is considered a violation of the CUP condition. Reporting of the food to alcohol sales ratio required by a CUP, ABC license, or the Municipal Code may be required and considered during any modification/revocation action. 19 HBPD and ABC The Hermosa Beach Police Department (HBPD) conducts a thorough review of all police reports related to establishments which hold a CA Department of Alcoholic Beverage (ABC) on-sale alcohol license in conjunction with a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). Additionally, HBPD contacts owners and managers of establishments related to any concern(s) the Police Department may have, of issues that do not rise to CUP violation. The Police reports are initiated by a Call for Service (CFS) or if an officer observes an incident/violation/or contacts someone in an enforcement capacity. The CFS may result in a report, citation, arrest, or no action may be taken. It is important to not e that a CFS or a report at a specific address does not mean an incident happened inside the address or is directly related to a specific business; the address may simply be associated as a landmark (identifying the location of an incident) wherein the location itself had nothing to do with the incident. Therefore, a CFS or report should not be assumed to be problematic or involved in the incident as the CFS or report may have nothing to do with the specific address or location other than used as a landmark/identifying the location of an incident which may have occurred outside of the location. HBPD will note the number of CFS, and Reports associated with an address, along with the category of the reports (e.g., Drunk, Disturbance, Assault, etc.). An establishment will not have a CUP violation charged against them, unless, in HBPD’s review process it is determined that the establishment was complicit or clearly negligent in its actions which results in a violation of the CUP standards. As detailed in Attachment 2, HBPD’s statistics may have four (4) “Total” reports, of which only three (3) are “reviewed”, which would indicate that one of the four reports has nothing to do with the location. The number under the type of report may or may not be charged against the establishment, based on information demonstrating the establishment’s complicity or negligence, that would then inform a determination made by the HBPD Chief of Police. During the reporting period of July 1, 2023, to December 31, 2023, there were seven (7) police reports and seven (7) calls for service related to establishments with CUPs that merited review by HBPD staff. Of the seven (7) police reports reviewed, five were previously reviewed during the last CUP reporting period, as the tri -annual review contains overlapping time periods (previous period covered March 1, 2023, to August 30, 2023). Additionally, there were seven (7) calls for service that were reviewed, one of which was reviewed during the last period. Of the seven reports reviewed, one was deemed to count for CUP violations, and wase previously counted. The remaining reports were not considered CUP violations. The only Call for service to count towards a CUP was related to an ABC violation report in August and was therefore counted in the previous report. 20 As noted in Attachment 2, a joint ABC grant with Manhattan Beach Police Department has been issued for October 2023 -September 2024. Training per the grant has been administered and there are deployments planned over the next several months. Baja Sharkeez had no new reports deemed as violations of the CUP. The previous case reviewed in the last CUP report is detailed as follows. In August, HBPD and ABC completed a joint operation at Baja Sharkeez . Subjects were identified as being underage and three individual police reports were generated in which three juveniles were cited for possession of a false identification . For this report, these are combined into one violation. During the current reporting period, Pedone’s did not have any new incidents to count toward CUP violations. Reviewed in the prior period, Pedone’s was cited in August by ABC for selling alcohol after permitted hours and allowing consumption of alcohol after permitted hours. During this operation, multiple people were observed with beverages believed to be alcoholic and only one bartender appeared to be on duty. Additionally, when HBPD conducts routine patrols of establishments with ABC licenses. If, during those patrols, an officer finds any suspicious activity in or around the premises, they log it as a security check (Attachment 2). The suspicious activity that would warrant it being logged as a security check would not necessarily be related to the CUP for the respective establishment. As part of Driving Under the Influence (DUI) and Drunk in Public arrests, HBPD officers, to the best of their abilities, ask arrestees to tell them where they have previously been drinking and more specifically the last place, they recall drinking. Not all contacts with arrestees provide an opportunity to ask these questions, however, the answers are presented in Attachment 2 for the current period and Attachment 3 for the previous period. 21 Business Total Cases Total Reviewed Drunk in Public Disturbance Assaults Sexual Assaults Narcotics Other Reports Total Reviewed Disburbance or Assault CUP Violations American Junkie 2 (2) 1(1) 0 1 (1) 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 Baja Sharkeez 3 (3) 3 (3) 0 0 0 0 0 3 (3) 1 0 1 (1) Barnacles 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Chipotle Mexican Grill 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hennessey's Tavern 3 (1) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lighthouse 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NorthEnd 1 (1) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Paisano's 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Palmilla 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pedone's 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 (1) 0 1 (1) Saint Rocke 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tower 12 2 (1) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 The Underground 1 (1) 1 (1) 0 0 1 (1) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Vista 3 (2) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Totals 24 (11) 7 (5) 0 3 (1) 1 (1) 0 0 3 (3) 7 (1) 3 2 (2) Overcrowding Citation Criminal Citation of Staff while Working/on Premise Serious Crime on Premises indicative of Lack of Adequate Security Violation of any CUP Condition ABC Violations (underage serving, violation of hours, etc) Overcrowding Citation Criminal Citation of Staff while Working/On premises Serious Crime on Premises indicative of Lack of Adequate Security Noise Citation ABC Violations (underage serving, violation of hours, etc) July 2023 - December 2023 CUP 6 Month Review Violation of Operating Hours Reports CFS Numbers contained within ( ) are reports and or CFS that were counted on the previous report. The total number does included these previously counted numbers. 22 Health Department Violation Outdoor Encroachment Permit Violation Building Code Violation (incl. remodeling w/o permit) Sign Ordinance Violation "Excessive Number" of Calls for Police Service "Excessive Number" of Public Complaints to City "Excessive Number" of Criminal Events on/adjacent to Premises 23 BARSHA 1141 Aviation Bl.# CAD 5 BONPARTE BISTRO 36 Pier Pz # CAD 1 CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL 1439 PCH # CAD 1 COMEDY & MAGIC CLUB 1018 Hermosa Ave # CAD 1 FUSION SUSHI 1200 PCH # CAD 1 PEDONE'S 1332 Hermosa Ave # CAD 2 SAINT ROCKE 1429 Hermosa Ave # CAD 2 TOWER 12 53 Pier Pz # CAD 1 Security Checks for Businesses with Alcohol Licenses July 2023 - December 2023 24 7-Eleven 0 American Junkie 1 American Junkie 2 Barnacles 1 Barnacles 0 Hennesseys 2 Comedy and Magic Club 0 In Vehicle 1 Hermosa Beach 6 Park 1 Hotel Hermosa 0 Saint Rocke 1 Other City 21 Sharkeez 2 Patrick Molloy's 0 Unknown 62 Pedone's 0 Grand Total 71 Refused 6 Sharkeez 5 Tower 12 1 The Underground 2 Unknown 3 Vista 0 Work 2 Grand Total 48 Driving Under the Influence Public Intoxication July 2023-December 2023 July 2023-December 2023 25 HBPD and ABC The Hermosa Beach Police Department (HBPD) conducts a thorough review of all police reports related to establishments which hold a CA Department of Alcoholic Beverage (ABC) on-sale alcohol license in conjunction with a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). Additionally, HBPD contacts owners and managers of establishments related to any concern(s) the Police Department may have, of issues that do not rise to CUP violation. The Police Department reports are initiated by a Call for Service (CFS) or if an officer observes an incident/violation/or contacts someone in an enforcement capacity. The CFS may result in a report, citation, arrest, or no action may be taken. It is important to note that a CFS or a report at a specific address does not mean an incident happened inside the address or is directly related to a specific business; the address may simply be associated as a landmark (identifying the location of an incident) wherein the location itself had nothing to do with the incident. Therefore, a CFS or report should not be assumed to be problematic or involved in the incident as the CFS or report may have nothing to do with the specific address or location other than used as a landmark/identifying the location of an incident which may have occurred outside of the location. HBPD will note the number of CFS, and Reports associated with an address, along with the category of the reports (e.g., Drunk, Disturbance, Assault, etc.). An establishment will not have a CUP violation charged against them, unless, in HBPD’s review process it is determined that the establishment was complicit or clearly negligent in its actions which results in a violation of the CUP standards. As detailed in Attachment 2, HBPD’s statistics may have four (4) “Total” reports, of which only three (3) are “reviewed”, which would indicate that one of the four reports has nothing to do with the location. The number under the type of report may or may not be charged against the establishment, based on information demonstrating the establishment’s complicity or negligence, that would then inform a determination made by the HBPD Chief of Police. During the reporting period of March 1, 2023, to August 31, 2023, there were eleven (11) police reports and twelve (12) calls for service related to establishments with CUPs that merited review by HBPD staff. Of the eleven (11) police reports reviewed, four were previously reviewed during the last CUP reporting period, as the tri -annual review contains overlapping time periods (previous period covered November 1, 2022, to April 30, 2023). Additionally, there were twelve (12) calls for service that were reviewed, six of which were reviewed during the last period. Of the eleven reports review ed, five were 26 deemed to count for CUP violations, with one of those previously counted. The remaining reports were not considered CUP violations. None of the reviewed Calls for Service were counted as CUP violations. Attachment 2. As noted in Attachment 2, the HBPD had previously been awarded a joint ABC grant with Manhattan Beach Police Department and El Segundo Police Department to conduct ABC enforcement of retailers through June 2023. This grant has concluded and a new joint grant with Manhattan Beach Police Department has been issued for October 2023 - September 2024. AKA Ramen and Sushi has two violations in the reporting period. One of these was previously addressed in the reporting period of November 2022 -April 2023. In June of 2023, during an ABC operation, three juveniles were found drinking alcohol inside Aka Ramen and Sushi. The employee was cited for selling alcohol to a minor. Juveniles were cited for minor purchasing alcohol in a bar and for possession or use of a false identification. Baja Sharkeez had four separate police reports deemed as violations of the CUP, yet for the purpose of this report, are counted as 2 violations, as they occurred during 2 operations. In March, five juveniles were cited by ABC during an operation. The corresponding HBPD police report was written in June 2023. The citations included charges of Sales/furnishing alcohol to a minor, purchasing/consuming alcoholic beverages as a minor, and minor in possession of false identification. Then in August, HBPD and ABC completed a joint operation at the establishment. Subjects were identified as being underage and three individual police reports were generated in which three juveniles were cited for possession of a false identification. For this report, these are combined into one violation. Pedone’s was also cited in August by ABC for selling alcohol after permitted hours and allowing consumption of alcohol after permitted hours. During this operation, multiple people were observed with beverages believed to be alcoh olic and only one bartender appeared to be on duty. Additionally, when HBPD conducts routine patrols of establishments with ABC licenses. If, during those patrols, an officer finds any suspicious activity in or around the premises, they log it as a security check (Attachment 2). The suspicious activity that would warrant it being logged as a security check would not necessarily be related to the CUP for the respective establishment. 27 As part of Driving Under the Influence (DUI) and Drunk in Public arrests, HBPD officers, to the best of their abilities, ask arrestees to tell them where they have previously been drinking and more specifically the last place, they recall drinking. Not all contacts with arrestees provide an opportunity to ask these questions, however, the answers are presented in Attachment 2 for the current period and Attachment 3 for the previous period. 28 Business Total Cases Total Reviewed Drunk in Public Disturbance Assaults Sexual Assaults Narcotics Other Reports Total Reviewed Disburbance or Assault CUP Violations Agave 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 (1) 0 0 Aka Ramen & Sushi 1 (0) 1 (0) 0 0 0 0 0 1 (0) 1 (1) 0 2 (1) American Junkie 2 (0) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Baja Sharkeez 5 (1) 5 (1) 0 0 1 (1) 0 0 4 (0) 4 (0) 0 2 (0) The Brews Hall 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 (1) 0 0 Chef Melba's Bistro 1 (1) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Chipotle Mexican Grill 1 (0) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Crafty Minds 1 (1) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Decadance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 (1) 0 0 Fritto Misto 1 (1) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Good Stuff 1 (1) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hennessey's Tavern 2 (1) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hermosa Saloon 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 (1) 0 0 Lighthouse 1 (1) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 (1) 1 (1)0 North End 1 (0) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pedone's 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 (0) 0 1 (0) Playa Hermosa 1 (1) 1 (1) 0 0 0 0 0 1 (1) 0 0 0 Saint Rocke 2 (1) 2 (1) 0 0 1 (0) 0 0 1 (1) 1 (0) 1 (0)0 Silvio's 1 (0) 1 (0) 0 0 1 (0) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tower 12 1 (0) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Totals 23 (10) 11 (4) 1 (1) 0 3 (1) 0 0 7 (2) 12 (6) 2 (1) 5 (1) March 2023 - August 2023 CUP 6 Month Review Reports CFS 29 Overcrowding Citation Criminal Citation of Staff while Working/on Premise Serious Crime on Premises indicative of Lack of Adequate Security Violation of any CUP Condition ABC Violations (underage serving, violation of hours, etc) Overcrowding Citation Criminal Citation of Staff while Working/On premises Serious Crime on Premises indicative of Lack of Adequate Security Noise Citation Health Department Violation Outdoor Encroachment Permit Violation Building Code Violation (incl. remodeling w/o permit) Sign Ordinance Violation "Excessive Number" of Calls for Police Service "Excessive Number" of Public Complaints to City "Excessive Number" of Criminal Events on/adjacent to Premises ABC Violations (underage serving, violation of hours, etc) Violation of Operating Hours Numbers contained within ( ) are reports and or CFS that were counted on the previous report. The total number does included these previously counted numbers. 30 BAJA SHARKEEZ 52 Pier Pz.# CAD 3 BARSHA 1141 Aviation Bl.# CAD 15 FUSION SUSHI 1200 Pacific Coast Hwy # CAD 1 HENNESSEY'S TAVERN 8 Pier Pz.# CAD 2 H2O HOTEL 1429 Hermosa Ave.# CAD 1 SAINT ROCKE 1429 Hermosa Ave # CAD 2 Calls for Service for Businesses with Alcohol Licenses March 2023 - August 2023 31 7-Eleven 0 American Junkie 1 American Junkie 3 Barnacles 1 Barnacles 0 Park 1 Comedy and Magic Club 1 Public 1 Hermosa Beach 2 Saint Rocke 1 Hotel Hermosa 0 Street 1 Other City 12 Tower 12 1 Patrick Molloy's 1 Underground 1 Pedone's 1 Unknown 45 Refused 4 Vehicle 2 Sharkeez 8 Grand Total 55 Tower 12 3 The Underground 0 Unknown 4 Vista 1 Work 1 Grand Total 41 Driving Under the Influence Public Intoxication March 2023-August 2023 March 2023-August 2023 32 City of Hermosa Beach Staff Report City Hall 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Staff Report REPORT 24-0132 Honorable Chair and Members of the Hermosa Beach Planning Commission Regular Meeting of March 19, 2024 TIME EXTENSION REQUEST FOR PREVIOUSLY APPROVED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT (CUP 21-09) AND PARKING PLAN (PARK 21-01) AT AN EXISTING ASSEMBLY HALL AND RESTAURANT (THE COMEDY AND MAGIC CLUB) AT 1018 HERMOSA AVENUE, PURSUANT TO HERMOSA BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 17.70.020. (Assistant Planner Johnathon Masi) Recommended Action: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution determining the extension is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and approving a two-year extension to CUP 21-09 and PARK 21-01. Executive Summary: The Planning Commission adopted Resolutions 21-01 (Attachment 2) and 21-02 (Attachment 3) at its February 15, 2022 meeting, to allow a stage relocation and addition in floor area at 1018 Hermosa Avenue. The applicant filed an application requesting an indefinite time extension to CUP 21-09 and PARK 21-01, to provide more time to effectuate the entitlements. Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve a two-year extension to CUP21-09 and PARK21-01 in accordance with HBMC 17.70.020. Background: The Comedy and Magic Club opened in 1978. At its August 6, 1979 meeting, the Board of Zoning Adjustment (BZA) approved Resolution 154-337, modifying an existing conditional use permit (CUP) allowing service of alcohol in conjunction with a comedy and magic entertainment club. At its June 29, 1982 meeting, the BZA approved Resolution 154-467, approving a CUP amendment to allow outdoor dining along Hermosa Avenue. At its May 7, 1984 meeting, the BZA approved Resolution 154-561, approving a CUP amendment to allow an expansion of the use into the adjacent tenant space at 1016 Hermosa Avenue. At its March 15, 1988 meeting, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 88-25, approving a CUP amendment to allow the relocation of a box office. At its August 7, 1990 meeting, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 90-62, approving a Parking Plan and CUP amendment. The approval allowed an expansion of conditional uses into an adjacent tenant space at 1014 Hermosa Avenue, including live entertainment and service of alcohol. City of Hermosa Beach Printed on 3/13/2024Page 1 of 4 33 Staff Report REPORT 24-0132 Attachment 2) and 22-02 (Attachment 3), approving a Parking Plan and CUP amendment to allow an expansion of seating and enclosure of a patio area on the corner of 10th Street and Hermosa Avenue. Per HBMC 17.70.020, a permit granted by the Planning Commission or City Council that is not established within two years from the date of approval will automatically expire on that date. If no changes to the plans as approved are proposed, the Planning Commission may deny, approve or conditionally approve one (1) or more time extensions provided a public hearing be held, for any extension up to a two-year period. The applicant requests an extension, citing the COVID-19 crisis and related cost increases (Attachment 4). Past Board, Commission and Council Actions Meeting Date Description August 6, 1979 Board of Zoning Adjustment (BZA) approved Resolution 154 -337, modifying an existing conditional use permit (CUP) allowing service of alcohol in conjunction with a comedy and magic entertainment club. June 29, 1982 BZA approved Resolution 154-467, approving a CUP amendment to allow outdoor dining along Hermosa Avenue. May 7, 1984 BZA approved Resolution 154-561, approving a CUP amendment to allow an expansion of the use into the adjacent tenant space at 1016 Hermosa Avenue. March 15,1988 Planning Commission adopted Resolution 88-25, approving a CUP amendment to allow the relocation of a box office. August 7, 1990 Planning Commission adopted Resolution 90-62, approving a Parking Plan and CUP amendment. The approval allowed an expansion of conditional uses into an adjacent tenant space at 1014 Hermosa Avenue, including live entertainment and service of alcohol. February 15, 2022 Planning Commission approved PC Resolution PC 22-01 and 22-02, approving a Parking Plan and CUP amendment to allow an expansion of seating and enclosure of a patio area on the corner of 10th Street and Hermosa Avenue. Discussion: The applicant submitted a Planning Application for a Time Extension Request on February 7, 2024 with the corresponding application fee paid on February 13, 2024. The CUP 21-09 and PARK 21-01,City of Hermosa Beach Printed on 3/13/2024Page 2 of 4 34 Staff Report REPORT 24-0132 Attachment 4). On October 25, 2022, the applicant submitted construction plans to the City’s Building and Safety Division for review. The plans proposed to relocate the stage in the lounge area but refrained from adding square footage, pursuant to CUP21-09 and PARK21-01. During the course of plan review, the permit expired because a six-month period elapsed with no activity and no resubmittal after corrections were issued. Following the approval of Resolutions PC 22-01 and PC 22-02, the applicant had two years from the date of approval to begin significant construction or improvements consistent with Planning Commission-approved plans. Though the building permit expired, the applicant still had an opportunity to receive approval or apply for an extension to retain the previous entitlement approvals. A new building permit application was eventually resubmitted on May 24, 2023. The permit received Planning approval and is nearing permit issuance. The applicant requested an indefinite extension of the entitlements. However, HBMC 17.70.020 specifies that the Planning Commission may approve an extension of for a period not to exceed two years. As such, staff recommends that the Planning Commission grant a two-year extension of CUP21-09 and PARK21-01. General Plan Consistency: This report and associated recommendation have been evaluated for their consistency with the City’s General Plan. Relevant Policies are listed below: Land Use and Design Element Goal 11. A proud and visible identity as an arts and cultural community. Policy: ·11.3 Art as cultural tourism.Recognize the value of the arts to the City’s quality of life and economic stability and promote cultural tourism as an engine for economic development. Goal 13. Land use patterns that improve the health of residents. Policy: ·13.2 Social and health needs. Support the continuation of existing and new uses that enhance the social and health needs of residents. Environmental Determination: The extension of time for CUP 21-09 and PARK 21-01 does not involve any physical changes to the environment and thus the action does not have the potential to cause a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, environmental determination made when the project was approved - that the City of Hermosa Beach Printed on 3/13/2024Page 3 of 4 35 Staff Report REPORT 24-0132 Public Notification: For the March 19, 2024 Planning Commission meeting, a total of 720 public hearing notices were mailed to occupants and property owners of properties within a 500-foot radius on March 6, 2024. A legal ad was published on March 7, 2024 in the Beach Reporter, a newspaper of general circulation. Additionally, the applicant received a notice poster to post on-site and provided proof of posting a minimum of ten days in advance of the public hearing, in accordance with HBMC 17.68.050. Public notification materials are included as Attachment 5. As of the writing of the report, staff received no public comments. Attachments: 1. Draft Resolution #24-XX 2. PC Resolution No. 22-02 3. PC Resolution No. 22-01 4. Applicant Letter dated February 5, 2024 5. Public Notification Package 6. August 6, 1979 Board of Zoning Adjustment Meeting Minutes 7. June 29, 1982 Board of Zoning Adjustment Meeting Minutes 8. May 7, 1984 Board of Zoning Adjustment Meeting Minutes 9. March 15,1988 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 10.August 7, 1990 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 11.Link to February 15, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting Respectfully Submitted by: Johnathon Masi, Assistant Planner Concur: Alexis Oropeza, Planning Manager Legal Review: Patrick Donegan, City Attorney Approved: Carrie Tai, AICP, Community Development Director City of Hermosa Beach Printed on 3/13/2024Page 4 of 4 36 Page 1 of 3 RES NO. 24-XX P.C. Resolution NO. 24-XX A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA DETERMINING THE EXTENSION IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) AND APPROVING A TIME EXTENSION REQUEST FOR PREVIOUSLY APPROVED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT (CUP 21-09) AND PARKING PLAN (PARK 21-01) AT AN EXISTING ASSEMBLY HALL AND RESTAURANT (THE COMEDY AND MAGIC CLUB) AT 1018 HERMOSA AVENUE. The Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach does hereby resolve and order as follows: Section 1. The Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on February 15, 2022 to consider approving a Conditional Use Permit Amendment (CUP 21-09) and Parking Plan (PARK 21-01) for an existing Assembly Hall and Restaurant at 1018 Hermosa Avenue. The Planning Commission approved the CUP and Parking Plan, giving the applicant until February 15, 2024 to begin significant construction or improvements to effectuate the entitlem ents, or submit a request for a time extension. Section 2. An application was filed on February 7, 2024, by the applicant/owner Michael Lacey, requesting a time extension for CUP 21-09 and PARK 21-01 at 1018 Hermosa Avenue. Section 3. The Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on March 19, 2024 to consider the time extension request for previously-approved entitlements, CUP 21-09 and PARK 21-01. Section 4. The Planning Commission, at its public meeting of March 19, 2024, considered all testimony and evidence, both oral and written, presented to the Planning Commission. Section 5. The proposed extension does not involve any physical changes to the environment and thus the action does not have the potential to cause a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, the environmental determination made when the project was approved – that the Conditional Use Permit Amendment and Parking Plan Amendment are categorically exempt pursuant to 37 Page 2 of 3 RES NO. 24-XX Class 1, Section 15301(a) Existing Facilities of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) – is sufficient, and no further analysis is required. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 6. Based on the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby upholds all Conditions of Approval set for in Resolution 22-01 (PARK 21-01) and Resolution 22-02 (CUP 21-09) except Condition #5 and Condition #30 respectively, which are replaced with the following condition: 1. Approval of this permit shall expire twenty-four (24) months from the date of approval by the Planning Commission unless significant construction or improvements or the use authorized hereby has commenced. One or more extensions of time may be requested. No extension shall be considered unless requested, in writing to the Community Development Director including the reason therefore, at least sixty (60) days prior to expiration date. No additional notice of expiration will be provided. Section 7. Pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6, and legal challenge to the decision of the Planning Commission, after exhaustion of any available administrative remedies, must be made within 90 days after the final decision by the City. The Hermosa Beach City Council may on its own initiative review all actions of the Planning Commission. If the City Council does not initiate review of this decision as set forth in Hermosa Beach Municipal Code Section 2.52.040, this decision will become final. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED on this 19th day of March, 2024. Votes: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: 38 Page 3 of 3 RES NO. 24-XX CERTIFICATION I hereby certify the foregoing Resolution P.C. 24-XX is true and complete record of the action taken by the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, at its regular meeting of March 19, 2024. _____________________ _______________________ Peter Hoffman, Chair Carrie Tai, Secretary ____________________ Date 39 40 P.C. RESOLUTION 22-02 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT (CUP 21-09) TO RENOVATE AND EXPAND AN ASSEMBLY HALL (THE COMEDY AND MAGIC CLUB) AND RESTAURANT (THE LOUNGE) AT 1108 HERMOSA A VENUE, INCLUDING ADDITION OF 147 SQUARE FEET TO MAIN SHOWROOM WITH 100 ADDED SEATS; AND ENCLOSURE OF EXISTING OUTDOOR RESTAURANT AREA OF 399 SQUARE FEET WITH NO ADDED SEATS, AND DETERMINATION THAT THE PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA The Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach does hereby resolve and order as follows: SECTION 1. An application was filed by Architect William (BJ) Wickett, seeking approval of a conditional use permit amendment and parking plan to renovate and expand an assembly hall use (The Comedy and Magic Club) and restaurant use (The Lounge) at 1018 Hennosa Avenue. SECTION 2. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing on February 15, 2022, to consider the application for Conditional Use Pe1mit 21-09 at which time testimony and evidence, both written and oral, was presented to and considered by the Planning Commission. SECTION 3. The proposed project is Categorically Exempt, Section 15301(e), Class 1 Exemption, Additions to existing structures provided that the addition will not result in an increase of more than 50% of floor area, or 2500 sq. ft., whichever is less. The renovation of the existing structure and addition of 546 sq. ft. or 5.8% of floor area is well under the CEQA exemption limits and will not create adverse environmental impacts as conditioned. Further, none of the exceptions to the CEQA exemptions apply. The project will not have cumulative impacts, will not damage scenic resources, is not located on a hazardous waste site and will not have a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. There is no reasonable possibility that the proposed project will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances. SECTION 4. Based on the foregoing factual findings, the Planning Commission makes the following findings for the Conditional Use Permit pursuant to Hermosa Beach Municipal Code Sections 17.40.020 and 17.40.080, finding that the use as conditioned will be compatible with the surroundings and all impacts can be reduced to an insignificant level including criteria for Late­ night alcohol beverage establishments: 17 .40.020 General criteria for all uses A. Distance from existing residential uses: 41 The nearest residences are located in the R-3 (Multiple Family Residential) zone across Palm Drive (designated as an alley 20 feet wide) to the east with residences mostly facing Manhattan Ave.; R-3 zone across 10th Street (a local street 60 feet wide) and across Palm Drive (20 feet wide) for a total of 80 feet to the southeast with residences mostly facing Manhattan Ave; R-3 and R-2 (Two Family Residential) across Hermosa Ave. (a minor arterial street 100 feet wide) to the west behind varying widths of commercial space facing Hermosa Avenue. Paciugo Gelato is to the immediate north and other businesses continue along Hermosa Avenue to the north and south. Conditions of approval are included in the resolution to reduce noise impacts to nearby uses, including requiring doors and windows to be closed during performances and requiring that any noise emanating from the property complies with the City's Noise Ordinance. B. The amount of existing or proposed off-street parking facilities, and its distance from the proposed use: The Comedy and Magic Club is a one-story building with a rooftop parking lot accessible from the rear on Palm Drive. It has been deficient in parking for the use since its establishment in 1978. The 1990 CUP required restriping of the parking lot to increase the 35 parking spaces to 40. The proposed enclosure of the 399 sq. ft. restaurant patio would extend the roof to add 2 additional ADA accessible parking spaces, for a new total of 42 spaces. Parking is more fully discussed in the Parking Plan section below. The following condition has been added to ensure on-site parking is available: Gates to the parking lot shall remain open and available for customer parking when either business is open. C. Location of and distance to churches, schools, hospitals and public playgrounds: Noble Park, located at 14th Street and The Strand, is the nearest of these types of sensitive receptors at approximately 1,200 feet northwest of the project site. Due to the distance and characteristics of The Comedy and Magic Club and Lounge restaurant, the uses are not anticipated to have adverse effects on Noble Park. Conditions of approval have been included in the resolution to mitigate potential impacts to the surrounding area and it is unlikely that the use will affect similar sensitive receptors in the vicinity. D. The combination of uses proposed: The building includes two businesses owned and operated by the property owner, The Comedy and Magic Club and the Lounge restaurant. The Comedy and Magic Club entertainment showroom is the primary use with an assembly hall use with food and alcoholic beverage service. The proposed renovation includes an addition of 14 7 sq. ft. to enclose a covered area facing Hermosa Avenue to add to theatre main showroom, removal of employee offices to allow the existing theater seating area to expand and increase by I 00 seats (from 250 to 350). The secondary use in the southern portion of the building is the Lounge restaurant with entertainment and 180 seats around full-size dinner tables. The proposed renovation includes enclosure of the existing 399 sq. ft. restaurant patio, integrating the two spaces to simplify meal service and provide visual access to the stage. The enclosure allows addition of 2 ADA accessible parking spaces above on the extended 2 42 roof parking lot. The Lounge restaurant area will continue the condition of 180 seat limit around full-size dinner tables, with auditorium style seating or cocktail lounge style seating prohibited. Both uses include food and alcohol beverage service, and if both areas have booked shows the timing is staggered to allow the shared kitchen area to serve one area at a time. E. Precautions taken by the owner or operator of the proposed establishment to assure the compatibility of the use with surrounding uses: To assure compatibility with surrounding uses, the business owner proposes to continue its staff-assisted parking program when shows are scheduled in the main showroom or the Lounge restaurant when patrons arrive and depart at the same time. Conditions of approval are included to ensure these precautions are maintained throughout the life of the operation and, as conditioned, it is anticipated that the proposed establishment will be compatible with existing surrounding uses. The proposal will not increase the number of late-night alcohol beverage establishments and is consistent with the surrounding uses, and the intent of the C-2 zone. F. The relationship of the proposed business-generated traffic volume and the size of streets serving the area: The uses are established at The Comedy and Magic Club and The Lounge. The renovation will potentially increase traffic volume for the increase of seating in the main showroom from 250 to 350 seats. Hermosa A venue is classified as a Minor Arterial Street designed to carry vehicles entering, leaving, or traveling through the city and is adequate to serve the Downtown District. I 0th Street is considered a Local Street designed to provide connections within neighborhoods. Local streets are not intended to serve through traffic and are generally one lane in each direction with lower vehicle volumes. Palm Drive is classified as an Alleyway. Alleyways provide access to private properties, including parking spaces and garages. G. The proposed exterior signs and decor, and the compatibility thereof with existing establishments in the area: The exterior fa~ade modifications proposed with this request are minor; the 147 sq. ft. enclosure of the covered area will match the existing exterior with two new doors, replacing two existing adjacent doors; the restaurant patio enclosure will continue the window and beam exterior finishes at the front facing Hermosa Avenue, and will continue the masonry block wall finish along the side facing 10th Street. H The number of similar establishments or uses within close proximity to the proposed establishment: The Comedy and Magic Club and The Lounge are unique to Hermosa Beach. The only somewhat comparable entertainment venues could be the Community Center theater or perhaps the currently closed Sainte Rock music venue, both along Pacific Coast Highway. The Lounge restaurant with live entertainment could be considered similar to the Lighthouse with food and featured entertainment. The Downtown District includes 26 late night alcohol establishments, with 10 approved for live entertainment. Late night alcohol 43 establishments are detailed further below with added criteria for late-night alcohol beverage es tab Ii shments. I Noise, odor, dust and/or vibration that may be generated by the proposed use: The amended CUP for The Comedy and Magic Club and Lounge restaurant uses, as conditioned, are not anticipated to create adverse impacts. Conditions of approval are included in the resolution to reduce noise impacts to nearby uses, including requiring doors and windows to be closed during performances and requiring that any noise emanating from the property complies with the City's Noise Ordinance. J Impact of the proposed use to the city's infrastructure, and/or services: The existing building is adequately served by the various utility companies, infrastructure and municipal services, and the amended uses are not anticipated to place additional burden on current infrastructure and services. Police services are impacted by existing late-night uses in the area, but this established use -which has been in operation for over 40 years - has not created problems for the Police Department and due to operational practices, additional strain on police services is not expected .. K. Will the establishment contribute to a concentration of similar outlets in the area: The Comedy and Magic Club and Lounge restaurant are established businesses. The renovation and CUP amendments to the existing businesses will not contribute to a concentration of similar outlets in the area. L. Other considerations that, in the judgment of the Planning Commission, are necessary to assure compatibility with the surrounding uses, and the city as a whole. 1 , The CUP amendment application CUP 21-09 is requested to renovate and reopen the Comedy and Magic Club and Lounge restaurant, both of which have been closed and boarded up since March 2020. The proposed resolution for CUP 21-09 includes applicable conditions of approval from the 1990 CUP approval, removal of two conditions requested by this application (Condition 2a requiring entertainment to be permitted only as an ancillary use to the restaurant has been modified and Condition 12 requiring Comedy/Theatrical productions be maintained at least 50% of the operating time of the main showroom has been removed). A table summarizing of condition changes from PC Resolution 90-62 is attached for reference. 17.40.080 Criteria for late-night alcohol beverage establishments. a. Whether the total number of late-night alcohol beverage establishments will exceed the City's limit on such establishments. The limit shall be set by City Council Resolution and may, upon recommendation by the Planning Commission or its own motion, be amended by the City Council from time to time. This CUP amendment request is for continuation of a late-night alcohol beverage establishment operating since 1978 with a renovation and small addition and will not affect the number of such businesses in the City. b. Whether the use will intensify through increases in the assigned occupant load from owner/operator-initiated construction and/or remodeling that expand the square footage or alter 4 44 the floor plan. Assigned occupant load is calculated by the City under the relevant provisions of the Building Code. The current request is to renovate The Comedy and Magic Club, add 147 sq. ft. and increase seating in the main showroom from 250 to 350 seats to restore previous occupant load and become a viable business for reopening. The 399 sq. ft. enclosure of The Lounge restaurant patio is currently part of the restaurant and is not considered an intensification since the 180-seat limit around full dinner tables will remain. The two additions total 546 sq. ft. or 5.8% of the building area. c. Whether proposed modifications to floor plans, conditions of approval, type of alcoholic beverages served (beer and wine versus full alcohol service), or other factors may increase adverse impacts. The only identified modification with potential to increase adverse impacts is the increase of 100 seats in the main showroom, which is likely to increase parking demand in the area. The Comedy and Magic Club building was constructed with a deficient number of parking spaces, which has been optimized through the 1990 condition to restripe to add 5 additional parking spaces. The proposed renovation will add 2 additional ADA accessible parking spaces on the extended roof over the restaurant patio. Parking impacts and mitigation measures are detailed further in the Parking Plan below and in the attached Parking Study. d. Whether the type, quantity, or geographic location of the establishment will create an over­ abundance of similar establishments in a particular area ~f the City such that it will reduce the diversity of businesses operating in the immediate area. The CUP amendment request is for renovation of a long-established unique business, The Comedy and Magic Club and The Lounge restaurant. Renovation of the existing businesses will not create an over-abundance of similar establishments. e. Notwithstanding the criteria in (a) through (d), whether exceptional opportunities exist to achieve other Community Development goals that will benefit the community, such as redevelopment of an underutilized parcel or older building; to promote or catalyze economic activity (e.g., new large or mixed use development); or to recognize the unique attributes of a new business. On page 7 of the attached Hermosa Beach Economic and Market Study Update "Key Trends: Issues and Opportunities" section discusses reopening of the Comedy and Magic Club as an important opportunity, stating: "The Comedy and Magic Club is an iconic destination in He1mosa Beach and a valuable asset for the downtown. It is recommended that the City work to retain this unique entertainment asset." This is the type of use that many cities would try to attract to add recognition, vitality, and overnight hotel stays. Hermosa Beach is fortunate that this legacy business is established in the City and providing a unique cultural impact for over forty years. The owner is requesting this CUP amendment and Parking Plan for consideration to help it reopen as a viable business. 45 PLAN Hermosa recognizes arts and cultural as a unique identity of Hermosa Beach. The Comedy and Magic Club, as amended through this application, will have the ability to continue and expand its operation as a unique performance venue in the City. SECTION 5. Based on the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby approves the requested Conditional Use Permit, subject to the following Conditions of Approval: 1. The proposed development shall be in substantial conformance with submitted plans. Any minor modification shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director. 2. The "cafe" in the southwesterly portion of the building shall be used primarily for restaurant purposes. a. Entertainment is permitted with the restaurant use. Food shall be offered for sale whenever entertainment is provided. b. The seating shall be around full-size dinner tables with adequate room to serve a full meal to each customer, auditorium style seating or cocktail lounge style seating is prohibited. 3. The applicant shall submit a seating plan for the entire operation, subject the approval of the Community Development Director, the Building Department and Los Angeles County Fire Department. a. The general seating plan shall be posted in the business. b. The occupancy as dictated by the seating plan shall not be exceeded. c. The seating plan may be modified for special occasions provided all requirements of the Building and Los Angeles County Fire Departments are met. 4. The business shall be soundproofed to the satisfaction of the Building Official. 5. The business shall provide adequate management and supervisory techniques to prevent loitering, unruliness, and boisterous activities of patrons outside the business or in the immediate area. 6. Off-sale or take-out of any alcoholic beverages shall be prohibited. 7. A maximum of 504'/o of total receipts of the entire business shall be for alcoholic beverages. The City shall have the right during business hours, upon 15 days notice, to inspect the books and records of the establishment to determine the gross sales of alcoholic beverages. Upon request at the inspection, the business establishment shall also submit to the City, copies of all records submitted to the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration. 8. A sign shall be posted notifying the patrons of the illegality of open containers on the public streets, sidewalks, Stand and the beach. 6 46 9, If, in the judgement of the Police Department, it is deemed necessary, two police officers will be assigned as doormen at the business' expense during hours of operation. 10. Alcoholic beverages shall only be sold to individuals over the age of21 years old, and violations of this condition may result in revocation and/or a citation. 11, Service of alcohol to anyone on skates shall be prohibited. 12. Noise emanating from the property shall be within the limitations prescribed by the City's noise ordinance and the business shall not create a nuisance to the surrounding residential neighborhoods or commercial establishments. a. During the performance of any type of entertainment after 10:00 P.M., whether in the main showroom or in the restaurant, the exterior doors and windows shall remain closed. 13. Screens shall be installed on all open able exterior windows at the ground floor level to prevent pass-through of alcoholic beverages and to control flies. 14. An employee who is aware of the conditions of this conditional use permit shall be on the premises during business hours. a. All employees shall be given a copy of the conditional use permit and shall acknowledge by signature that the conditional use permit has been read and understood. 15. The exterior of the premises, including parking areas, shall be maintained in a neat and clear manner at all times. 16. Any changes to the exterior or interior design shall be subject to review and approval by the Community Development Director. 17. The hours of operation shall be limited to between 6:00 A.M. and 2:00 A.M daily for both the main showroom and the restaurant. 18. Gates to the parking lot shall remain open for customer parking when either business is open. 19. An illuminated exit sign is required on all exit doors. 20. Emergency lighting is required on the path of travel to each exit. 21. The building must be fully Fire Sprinklered. 7 47 22. The Occupant Load Review, including all emergency exiting and lighting, will be conducted by the Building Department in conjunction with the Los Angeles County Fire Department. 23. The establishment shall not adversely affect the welfare of the residents, and/or commercial establishments nearby. 24. The project and operation of the business shall comply with all applicable requirements of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code. 25. The practice of washing and rinsing floor mats, equipment, tables, etc., or discharge of any liquids, other than storm water, onto the public right-of-way, into the parking lot drain or storm drains, is strictly prohibited. Discharge of liquids or wash water shall be limited to the sanitary sewer, 26. Exterior and interior water use shall comply with Chapter 8.56. 27. The operations shall comply with all requirements of the Building, Public Works, and Los Angeles County Fire Department. 28. The project shall maintain in conformance with all other applicable City of Hermosa Beach and regulatory agency requirements and standards, including but not limited to: California Disabled Access Standards (Government Code Title 24) and Los Angeles County National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit (NPDES). 29. This conditional use permit incorporates where applicable and supersedes all previous conditional use permit resolutions regarding 1018 and 1014 Hermosa Avenue (Resolution P.C. 90-62, Resolution P.C. 88-25, B.Z.A. Resolution 154-561, B.Z.A, Resolution 154-472, B.Z.A. Resolution 154-467, B.Z.A. Resolution 154-337, and Resolution P.C. 78-3). 30. Approval of this permit shall expire twenty-four (24) months from the date of approval by the Planning Commission unless significant construction or improvements or the use authorized hereby has commenced. One or more extensions of time may be requested. No extension shall be considered unless requested, in writing to the Community Development Director including the reason therefore, at least sixty (60) days prior to the expiration date. No additional notice of expiration will be provided. SECTION 7. This permit 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 48 Community Development Depa1tment their affidavits stating that they are aware of, and agree to accept, all of the conditions of this permit. The Conditional Use Permit shall be recorded, and proof of recordation shall be submitted to the Community Development Department prior to the issuance of a building permit. Each of the above conditions 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. To the extent permitted by law, Permittee shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of Hermosa Beach, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the "indemnified parties") from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside, or void any permit or approval for this project authorized by the City, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City its actual attorney's fees arid costs in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its choice. The pe1mittee shall reimburse the City for any court and attorney's fees which the City may be required to pay as a result of any claim or action brought against the City because of this permit. Although the permittee is the real party in interest in an action, the City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of the action, but such participation shall not relieve the permittee of any obligation under this condition. The subject property shall be developed, maintained and operated in full compliance with the conditions of this permit 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. The Planning Commission may review this Conditional Use Permit 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 8. Pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6, any legal challenge to the decision of the Planning Commission, after a formal appeal to the City Council, must be made within 90 days after the final decision by the City Council. VOTE: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: 5 -Commissioner Saemann, Commissioner Hoffman, Commissioner Izant, Vice Chair Pedersen and Chair Rice None None None 9 49 CERTIFICATION I hereby certify the foregoing Resolution P.C. 22-02 is a true and complete record of the action taken by the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, at their adjourned regular meef , ofFebruary 15, 2022. ~ ooe son , Secretary February 15. 2022 Date 10 50 P.C. RESOLUTION 22-01 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PARKING PLAN (PARK 21-01) TO RENOVATE AND EXPAND AN ASSEMBLY HALL (THE COMEDY AND MAGIC CLUB) AND RESTAURANT (THE LOUNGE) AT 1018 HERMOSA AVENUE, INCLUDING ADDITION OF 147 SQUARE FEET TO MAIN SHOWROOM WITH 100 ADDED SEATS; AND ENCLOSURE OF EXISTING OUTDOOR RESTAURANT AREA OF 399 SQUARE FEET WITH NO ADDED SEATS, AND DETERMINATION THAT THE PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA The Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach does hereby resolve and order as follows: Section 1. An application was filed by Architect William (BJ) Wickett, seeking approval of a conditional use permit amendment and parking plan to renovate and expand an assembly hall use (The Comedy and Magic Club) and restaurant use (The Lounge) at 1018 Hermosa A venue. The previous conditional use permit amendment was approved in 1990 and acknowledged existing parking deficiencies at that time. Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing on February 15, 2022, to consider the application for a Parking Plan (PARK 21-01) in conjunction with an Amendment of Conditional Use Permit 21-09 (CUP 21-09) at which time testimony and evidence, both written and oral, was presented to and considered by the Planning Commission. Section 3. The proposed project is Categorically Exempt, Section l5301(e), Class 1 Exemption, Additions to existing structures provided that the addition will not result in an increase of more than 50% of floor area, or 2500 sq. ft., whichever is less. The renovation of the existing structure and addition of 546 sq. ft. or 5.8% of floor area is well under the CEQA exemption limits and will not create adverse environmental impacts as conditioned. Further, none of the exceptions to the CEQA exemptions apply. The project will not have cumulative impacts, will not damage scenic resources, is not located on a hazardous waste site and will not have a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. There is no reasonable possibility that the proposed project will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances. Section 4. Based on the testimony and evidence received, the Planning Commission makes the following factual findings pursuant to Hermosa Beach Municipal Code Section 17.44.210 pertaining to the application for a Parking Plan: Parking PJau Criteria, Conditions and Standards Page 1-PARK 21-01 51 HBMC Section 17.44.210 states that a parking plan may be approved by the planning commission to allow for a reduction in the number of spaces required. The applicant shall provide the infonnation necessary to show that adequate parking will be provided for customers, clients, visitors and employees or when located in a vehicle parking district, the applicant shall propose an in-lieu fee according to requirements of this chapter. 17.44.210 Factors to be considered A. Van pools, Van pools are not proposed with this application; however, carpooling should be encouraged for employees working the same shifts. For this reason, a new condition of approval has been added to the Parking Plan resolution encouraging employees working the same shifts to carpool when possible. Applicant shall encourage employees working the same shifts to carpool when possible. B. Bicycle and foot traffic. The daytime uses are expected to generate greater bicycle and foot traffic than the nighttime uses. There is an opportunity identified in the parking study to add employee bike racks to offset demand for one parking space. A new condition of approval has been added to add racks for securing bicycles: Applicant shall install racks for securing five bicycles on the rooftop deck for employee use. C. Common parking facilities. The Comedy and Magic Club and restaurant uses established in 1978 and amended by CUP in 1990 which allowed the use to be established in an existing building with 35 on-site parking spaces. Pursuant to P.C. Resolution 90-62 findings noted the mix of uses was "significantly deficient to current zoning requirements for parking." Further, the 1990 expansion into an adjacent vacant restaurant space to expand the existing restaurant/cafe operation and found that "by limiting the expansion to primarily restaurant purposes, the expansion into existing restaurant space did not increase the deficiency in parking for the building" and required the lot to be re-striped to provide 40 spaces. D. Varied work shifts. Employees provide a variety of tasks, including parking assistance, doormen, kitchen staff and servers, with the greatest number at one time a total of 40, though most often it is fewer. Shifts vary according to staffing needs, especially in The Comedy and Magic Club showroom based on frequency of perfo1mances, which varies from week to week. E. Valet parking. While no valet parking is proposed as part of this application, the applicant currently uses an attendant managed self-parking system that allows for greater parking capacity in conjunction with performances. A condition of approval has been added to continue the managed self~parking system: Page 2-PARK 21~01 52 The business shall maintain its attendant managed self-parking system that allows for greater parking capacity in conjunction with performances. F. Unique features of the proposed uses. For perfonnances where tickets are sold, both in The Comedy and Magic Club main showroom and sometimes in the restaurant area with entertainment, the number of tickets sold before the show helps to identify the staffing needs. Some performers will draw audiences from beyond the immediate region who will stay in nearby hotels and walk to the show. Another unique feature of a venue that attracts audiences from surrounding areas is that patrons, who had been unfamiliar with Hermosa Beach and Downtown area, will come to see a performance and then plan to come back to experience the City to shop, dine, or for an overnight stay. G. Other methods of reducing parking demand In 2019, as recommended in the Coastal Parking Management Plan, the City added three rideshare drop-off locations within two blocks both north and south along Hermosa A venue on both the east and west sides of the street: in front of Hermosa Brewing Co. on the east side of Hermosa Avenue near 13th Street, just south of Pier Plaza on the west side of Hermosa Avenue in front of the Bank of America building, and on the west side of Hermosa A venue near 11 th Street in front of Parking Lot A. Rideshare availability makes it safe to drop off and pick up visitors to the area. They all are identified with rideshare signs and are shown on rideshare apps (such as Uber, Lyft and taxi services) for easy use by drivers and patrons. Rideshare usage is expected to continue to grow, including for a segment of the population who are turning to these services instead of driving personal vehicles. H. Peak hours of the proposed use as compared with other uses sharing the same parkingfacilities especially in the case of small restaurants or snack shops in the downtown area or in multi­ tenant buildings. As described in the applicant's project description, the peak time for parking for The Comedy and Magic Club is for the typical 8:00 P.M. show. Doors open at 6:30 P.M., with the parking lot opened at about 6:00 P .M., with frequent exiting between 9:30 P .M. and 10:30P.M. Section 5. Based on the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby approves the proposed Parking Plan amendment 21-1 subject to the following Conditions of Approval: 1. Applicant shall encourage employees working the same shifts to carpool when possible. 2. Applicant shall install 5 bike racks on the rooftop deck for employee use. 3. Gates to the parking lot shall remain open for customer parking when either business is open. Page 3-PARK 21-01 53 4. The business shall maintain its attendant managed self-parking system that allows for greater parking capacity in conjunction with performances. 5. Approval of this permit shall expire twenty-four (24) months from the date of approval by the Planning Commission, unless significant construction or improvements or the use authorized hereby has commenced. One or more extensions of time may be requested. No extension shall be considered unless requested, in writing to the Community Development Director including the reason therefore, at least sixty (60) days prior to the expiration date. No additional notice of expiration will be provided. Section 6. This permit 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 permit. The Parking P Ian amendment shal 1 be recorded, and proof of recordation shall be submitted to the Community Development Department prior to the issuance of a building permit. Each of the above conditions is separately enforced, and if one of the conditions of approval is found to be invalid by a court oflaw, all the other conditions shall remain valid and enforceable. To the extent permitted by law, Permittee shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of Hermosa Beach, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the "indemnified parties") from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside, or void any permit or approval for this project authorized by the City, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City its actual attorney's fees and costs in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its choice. The permittee shall reimburse the City for any court and attorney's fees which the City may be required to pay as a result of any claim or action brought against the City because of this permit. Although the permittee is the real party in interest in an action, the City may, at its sole discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of the action, but such participation shall not relieve the permittee of any obligation under this condition. The subject property shall be developed, maintained and operated in full compliance with the conditions of this permit 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 7. Pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6, any legal challenge to the final decision on this Parking Plan ( either by the Planning Commission, or the City Council should they take jurisdiction of the project), must be made within 90 days after the final decision. Page 4-PARK 21-01 54 VOTE: AYES : NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: 5-Commissioner Saemann, Commissioner Hoffman, Commissioner Izant, Vice Chair Pedersen and Chair Rice None None None CERTIFICATION I hereby certify the foregoing Resolution P.C. No. 22-01 is a true and complete record of the action taken by the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach, California at its regular meeting of February 15, 2022. L Mal{/fti~ ~ ~~ February 15. 2022 Date Page 5-PARK 21-01 55 ----=1..::..01;:.:.11'-"11:.::.0.::.r,n::.:o:..::s=-a ;;.;.;nv:..::e.::..·• ::c;He:.:.r.:c.:m""os;:.:;·a:;..;:B;..;:.e.;;;.ac::.::h::...:. C:cc.ll.c.::9~02=-=54:;..:._....:.13::::...1:..;.;.il::::...J 3:.:.7=-:t-...:..11=9-=-~--~" '!~IJ" City of Hermosa Beach Community Development/Planning Division 2/5/2024 I am writing this letter to confirm my request, to extend my entitlement for seating and re-model of The Comedy and Magic Club. I am requesting an extended entitlement for the following reasons: 1. It was my understanding that when I went before the planning commission two years ago. I was given back the 350 seats, that I started with in 1978. I received a letter a few months ago, stating that if I don't start remodeling the main showroom the entitlement of 350 seats would be taken away from my business again. I think these additional seats are critical because the Im prov and Laugh Factory are at 500-600 seats. 2. I have experienced great financial hardship, during Covid and with the re-opening of my business. With increases in all areas including payroll, Insurance, and food costs. While trying to maintain a viable business. I am open 4 nights on most weeks vs the previous 6 nights before closure. This remodel would be very expensive and time-consuming. It would require all my backup funds and probably borrowing funds on top of that. That would put my employees' jobs and businesses in jeopardy I believe doing that would be irresponsible. Therefore I greatly appreciate an indefinite length of time to carefully save to move forward with this project. I would meet all safety and building codes at the time the remodeling starts. My intention for remodeling was to stabilize my business financially before I started the main room remodel. I began the remodeling plan by moving the stage in the sma lier room. The purpose of this was to gain better sight lines and use the smaller room during the main room remodel. I would greatly appreciate the assistance of the City of Hermosa Beach in fulfilling my request for an lndefi nite length of time for my extension. Sincerely, Mike Lacey Owner & President of The Comedy and Magic Club Public Notification Package – 1018 Hermosa Avenue 56 57 City of Hermosa Beach PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach shall hold a public hearing on Tuesday, March 19, 2024 at 7:00 PM to consider the following: 1. THE TRI-ANNUAL REVIEW OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR ON-SALE ALCOHOL SERVING ESTABLISHMENTS WITHIN THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DURING THE REPORTING PERIOD OF JULY 1, 2023 TO DECEMBER 31, 2023. THIS MATTER IS NOT A PROJECT AND IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA). 2. A TIME EXTENSION REQUEST FOR A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT (CUP 21-09) AND PARKING PLAN (PARK 21-01) AT AN EXISTING ASSEMBLY HALL AND RESTAURANT (THE COMEDY AND MAGIC CLUB) AT 1018 HERMOSA AVENUE, AND A DETERMINATION THAT THE REQUEST IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) PURSUANT TO STATE CEQA GUIDELINES \ SECTION 15301 - EXISTING FACILITIES, WHERE NONE OF THE EXCEPTIONS TO THE EXEMPTION APPLY. SAID PUBLIC MEETING is open to the public and being held in-person in the City Hall Council Chambers located at 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254. Public comment is only guaranteed to be taken in person at City Hall during the meeting or prior to the meeting by submitting an eComment, email or letter for an item on the agenda. As a courtesy only, the public may view and participate on action items listed on the agenda via the following: ZOOM - https://us02web.zoom.us/j/82539742028?pwd=OUNTRDNvd2l6TzBpTDljc2x6bGFwdz09 Meeting ID: 825 3974 2028 Password: 207860 PHONE - Toll Free: (833) 548-0276; Meeting ID: : 825 3974 2028, then #; Passcode: 207860 PLEASE BE ADVISED that while the City will endeavor to ensure these remote participation methods are available, the City does not guarantee that they will be technically feasible or work all the time. Further, the City reserves the right to terminate these remote participation methods (subject to Brown Act restrictions) at any time and for whatever reason. Please attend in person or by submitting an eComment prior to the meeting to ensure your public participation. In order to guarantee live time viewing and/or public participation, members of the public shall attend in Council Chambers. CABLE TV - Spectrum Channel 8 and Frontier Channel 31 in Hermosa Beach YOUTUBE - https://www.youtube.com/c/CityofHermosaBeach90254 LIVE STREAM - www.hermosabeach.gov and visit the Agendas/Minutes/Videos page To comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Assistive Listening Devices (ALD) are available for check out at the meeting. If you require special assistance to participate in this meeting, you must call or submit your request in writing to the Office of the City Clerk at (310) 318-0204 or at cityclerk@hermosabeach.gov at least 48 hours before the meeting. 58 IF YOU CHALLENGE the above matter(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the above-listed departments at, or prior to, the public meeting. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, please contact the Community Development Department at (310) 318- 0235 or CommunityDevelopment@hermosabeach.gov. The Department operates from 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM, Monday through Thursday. A copy of the agenda and staff report(s) will be available for public review 72 hours in advance of the meeting on the City’s website at www.hermosabeach.gov. Carrie Tai, AICP Director of Community Development 59 SCALE: 1" = 200FT AD DRESS: 1018 HERMOSA AVE PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 19, 2024 500 " RADIUS MAP COMEDY & MAGIC CLUB 60 _J \ _ -----------:si-:--001 ~ ff\ 4 84 ... .,,. 150 149 148 180 83 82 187 80 147 009 81 4W,l 006 Si 41 ~ •;;;L ~-_. ,_ ___ _....""'06 %~~ 00 r 61 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS OF THE CITY HALL, ON AUGUST 6, 1979 AT 7:30 P.M. Meeting called to order at 7:31 p.m. Pledge of allegiance led by Comm. Moore. ROLL CALL Present: Corrons. Corky Beard ., Bob Cummings, Tony Debellis, Carl Moore, Chmn. Coralie Ebey Absent: Comms. George Merrill, Jim Walker Also Present: Laurie Duke, Ed .King, Pam Sapetto, Staff APPROVAL OF MINUTES Correction by Comm. Moore to the minutes of June 4, 1979, Page 6, vote on motion to read: 11 Ayes: Comms. Merrill, Cummings, Noes: Comms. Beard, Moore, Walker Absent:Comm. Debellis, Chmn. Ebey 11 Motion by Comm. Beard, seconded by Comm. Moore, to approve the minutes of June 4, 1979, as corrected. Ayes: Noes: Abstain: Absent: Comms. Beard, Cummings, Debellis, Moore None Chmn. Ebey Comms. Merrill, Walker Correction by Comm. Moore to the minutes of June 18, 1979, Page 6, vote on motion to read: nAyes: Cornms. Beard, Cummings, Moore, Walker, Vice Chmn. Debellis Noes: None 11 Motion by Comm. Moore, seconded by Comm. Beard, to approve the minutes of June 18, 1979, as corrected. Ayes: Noes: Abstain: Absent: Comms. Beard, Cummings, Debellis, Moore None Chmn. Ebey Comms. Merrill, Walker Motion by Comm. Beard, seconded by Chrnn. Ebey, to approve the minutes of July 2, 1979, as submitted. Ayes: Noes: Abstain: Absent: Cornms. Beard, Cummings, Moore, Chmn. Ebey None Comm. Debellis Cornms. Merril, Walker APPROVAL OF RESOLUTIONS None 62 MINUTES OF THE BZA -8/6/79 Page 2 CONSENT CALENDAR Comm. Debellis requested to pull Preliminary Environmental Impact Reports HB-79-042 (40 -15th St. -construction of 3-unit condominium) and HB-79-044 (131 -20th St. -remodel existing dwelling and add unit). Chrnn. Ebey asked if anyone in the audience wished to request a Pre­ liminary Environmental Impact Report to be pulled for discussion. There was no response. Motion by Comm. Beard, seconded by Comm. Cummings, to declare the following preliminary environmental impact reports to be adequate, not significant, and ask that negative declarations be filed: HB-79-041 -1200 Pacific Coast Highway, CUP for used car sales. HB-79-043 -1018-1022 Hermosa Avenue, Modification of existing CUP. HB-79-045 -837 Hermosa Avenue, Modification of existing CUP. HB-79-033 -8 Pier Avenue, CUP request for live entertainment. Ayes: Noes: Absent: VARIANCES 3009 Strand Comms. Beard, Cummings, Debellis, Moore, Chmn. Ebey None Comms. Merrill, Walker Applicant: R. W. & Susan Gillett Comm. Moore asked what is the nature of the current non-conforming use. Mrs. Duke replied it is a duplex in an R-1 zone. She explained the applicant is still within his own front yard, but will be encroaching 2'2" into the required front yard. Mrs. Duke added that because of the changes in R-1 requirements, the applicant is required to have a 10 foot front yard. Open to public hearing at 7:45 p.m. In reference to the applicant's statement re: findings which was included in the packets, Comm. Beard noted the applicant indicated there were rrno particular exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions associated with this p roperty." Comm. Beard explained to the applicant that the Board has to find that there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances to justify granting the variance. Mr. Gillett stated that the surrounding properties have similar encroachment. Chrnn. Ebey noted that this structure was originally built much further back than those on surrounding properties. In reference to the applicant's statement that the rrproposed balcony will be positioned such that the view fron either neighbors' house is preserved", Comm. Cummings asked how this would be accomplished. 63 .. MINUTES OF THE BZA -8/6 /79 Pag e 3 Mr. Gi llett stated the y went to t he neighbor's hou se to visua lly check ~t a nd to measure it. He noted i t doe s impact the side view somewhat. Public hearing closed a t 7:50 p.m. Comm. Cummi ngs felt the argument in favor of granting this varia nce is t hat t here are a substantial number of pr o perties in t he same vicinity and zone that encroac h more than th is project wo uld. He fe lt the argument against the variance is that in time those e ncroachments wo uld b e requir e d to conform whe n buildings are t orn down . He n o ted t he applicant is n o t requesting to e xtend his building , just the deck. comm. Cummings sta te d that in his opinion t he applicant's project is r ea so nabl e an d the re ar e exceptional ci rc ums tan ces . Motion by Comm. Cumming s, se co nde d by Comm . Beard, to gra nt Varian ce Request BZA 154 -335 wi t h the condition that the supporting pos ts be set back so that they are not in the requir e d front y ard. Comm . Debellis c omme nted that t hi s i s st ill a non con fo rmi ng use. He added t ha t possibly t he Board h ad given out a lot of variances they should not h a ve or perhaps th es e othe r pr o perti es did not require vari an ces. Comm . Cummings sai d he was taking the hi sto ry o f the area into co nsideration. Mrs . Duke st ated that most of t he o t her p r operti es h a d their encroach­ ments prior to the 1 975 R-1 zoning r e quire ment c hange . Comm . Cummings commented that the implicati on of the new require­ ments is that the p r opert ies ar e all owe d a 3' balcony . Mr s . Duke s ai d that if the de c k did not e xpand the e xtra 2 1 2 11 the applicant c oul d add the deck withou t a v ariacn e . Comm. Cummings fel t the reques t is minor, co nsid e ri n g somethi n g could b e done to the nonconforming building. Vote on mo tion above : Aye s : No es : Absent: Conuns . Beard, Cummings, Moore Conun . Debellis, Chmn. Ebe y Comms. Merrill, Wa lker Mo tion by Comm . Cummings, se conded by Comm . Beard, to adopt the fo llowing find i ngs: 1. because encroachment i nto the fr ont yard setback is minor in n ature co nside ring th e properties on the ot her s ides. 2. because th e re are more significant encro achments in t h e immediate a rea. 3 . b ecause th e app lic ant has obtained the s ignatures o f th e adja ce nt propert y owne rs stat ing they have no objections . 4. because it does not inc reas e the density spec ifi e d in the General P lan. 64... MINUTES OF THE BZA -8/6/79 Ayes: Noes: Absent: Cornms. Beard, Cummings, Moore Comm. Debellis, Chmn. Ebey Comms. Merrill, Walker PEIR HB-79-044 -31 -20ty Street Reviewed in conjunction with Variance Request BZA-154-338. Applicant: David & Susan Erb Page 4 Comm. Debellis noted the proposed dwelling units per acre is 30.54. He stated the General Plan and Zoning Code only allow 25 dwelling units per acre. He felt this was a significant increase; and the report should be declared significant. Comm. Beard said she agreed that it is significant; but felt that Mrs. Sapetto would advise the Board to just declare whether or not the information on the report was adequate. It was the consensus of the Board to hold over the review until Mrs. Sapetto arrives. Variance Request BZA 154-339 -341 -33rd Street Applicant: Lionel & Suzzie Levin Mrs. Duke gave the staff report. Chrnn. Ebey asked if the survey indicates there is a difference from the plot plan and the Building Director determines it is a significant and adverse difference, would the applicant have to pay another fee. She also questioned why the survey was not conducted before. Mrs. Duke replied the applicant would normally have to pay another fee, if such a determination were made. She added there was not enough time to have the survey done. Mrs. Duke stated that no new survey was done when the garage was constructed in 1966. She said it was not a requirement that a survey be done for some projects at that time. Public hearing opened 8:10 p.m. Chmn. Ebey asked the applicant if he would prefer to continue the request until the survey can be done. Mr. Levin replied no. He said they agree with staff that a new survey will show less of an encroachment. He felt that all four findings can be made easily. Mr. Levin stated they want to expand to provide more space in their single family residence. He said this will not interfere with community plans. He added it would be injurious to their enjoyment of a substantial property right, if it were denied. Comm. Debellis asked if the walls of the addition would be set inside 3' from the setback. Mr. Levin replied yes. He explained they discussed this with the architect, and it is their feeling it will not take away from the house visually. Mrs. Kaplan, of 34th Street, stated she did not want to stop the applicant from building the second story; but noted the addition 65 MINUTES OF THE BZA -8/6/79 Page 5 would block her entire view. She suggested perhaps the design of the roof could be changed to allow her view on the sides. Chmn. Ebey asked if the roof is pitched. Mrs. Duke replied it is pitched east to west. Comm. Moore asked what was the proposed height of the project. Mrs. Duke said the project is 31 ft. high; the applicant is allowed to build to 35 ft. high. Mrs. Duke explained the height is measured around the perimeter of the roof from grade to the high point. Public hearing closed at 8:19 p.rn. Comm. Moore felt the only significant issue is whether the garage, built in 1966, is so close to the street that the Board would not want it to remain. Comm. Beard noted the garage was built at a time when that was allowed. She did not feel the Board should punish the applicant for that. Chrnn. Ebey agreed. She noted the applicants are trying to follow current setback requirements. Comm. Beard suggested that Mrs. Kaplan meet with the applicant and perhaps they can iron out the problems together. Motion by Comm. Beard, seconded by Comm. Debellis, to grant Variance Request BZA 154-339, subject to providing a new lot survey~ Mr. Kaplan stated he had lived in Hermosa Beach since 1935. He added he once requested a variance and was turned down. Mr. Kaplin stressed the importance of the beauty of Hermosa Beach. He asked that the board consider the effect this project would have on the community. Ayes: Noes: Absent: Comms. Beard, Cummings, Debellis, Moore, Chmn. Ebey None Comms. Merrill, Walker Comm. Beard commented the Board has to abide by the laws of the City. She noted the applicant is allowed to build up to 35 feet. She said the Board cannot determine whether that is good or bad. Comm. Debellis asked if the applicant could get a refund if the new survey indicates that a variance was not needed. Mrs. Duke said the applicant could request a refund in that case. Motion by Comm. Beard, seconeed by Comm. Debellis, to adopt the following findings: 1. because the sideyard variances in this instance are extremely minor and occur regularly within the City, the ficinity and the zone; also, the sideyard non-conformities were pre-existing. 2. because variances which deal with the minor nature of pre­ existing sideyard setbacks are frequently granted variances. 66 ' . MINUTES OF THE BZA -8/6/79 Page 6 3 . because it do es not directly e ffec t the sur rounding propertie s ; and the a dditi on is in conformance with the code. 4. because it wil l not increas e the d ensi ty. Ayes: Noe s: Absent: Comrns. Beard, Cumming s, t e bellis, Moor e, Chmn. Ebey None Comm. Merri ll, Walker PEI R HB-79-0 44 -31 -20th St reet Co ntinued fr om ea rl ier in the agenda . Review in co nju ncti on with Variance Request BZA-1 54-338. Applicant: David & Sus an Erb Comm . Debellis questioned Mr s . Sape tto about the d well ing unit s per acre . Mrs. Sapetto stated it is the City Attorney's interpretation and the City's p-licy t hat duple x es do not ne ed to co n form with the General Plan and t he subdivis ion map act . She ad ded they ar e not considerin g a subdivision. Mr s . S ape tto sugges ted t he Bao rd could ask the Cit y Attor ney for a clarification~, Comm . Debellis s t ress e d that h e feels t his is a s i gni f icant in c r ea se in density. He suggested the Bo ard could app rove the Pr elimina ry Environmental Impac t Repo rt, and dec l are it adequate and significant . Mr s . Sapetto sa id she tho ugh tha t action wo uld a utomat i cally requi re a full draft EIR. Comm . Cummings said h e was d ist urbed t hat ther e is no d ocumentation on this. Comm. Moo re agreed that a clarification is needed; but felt the Bao rd could go ahead with the pro ject . Mo t ion by Comm . Moore, sec onded by Comm. Cummings, to de clare PE IR HB -79-044 adequat e , not signifi c ant, a nd r equest that a negative d ec l ar ati on b e f iled. Ayes : Noes : Abs ent : Comrns . Beard, Cummings, Moore Comm. Debel lis, Chmn. Ebey Comrns. Merrill , Wa l ker Variance Reque st BZA-1 54 -338 -31 -20th Stree t Mrs. Duke gave the staff report . She noted the e x isting front p orch already e ncroaches t wo feet; and th e proposed would encroach approximately 4 feet. She stated the request would have to go t o the Ci ty Co unc il for app rova l. Mrs. Duke added that the porc h did not show on the survey. Open to p ublic hearing at 8 :21 p.m. David Er b, appl icant , exp la ined that the foundation would e n cro ach on the sideyards; but the building would not. He st ated h e would cut back the porch. Mr. Erb said they wa nted to enl arge f or their family, and the addit iona l unit would benef it t hem .economically. He note d the y are proposing additional parking beyond what is requi red . 67 MINUTES OF THE BZA -8/6/79 Page 7 Chmn. Ebey asked if the applicant was planning to move in all the walls. Mr. Erb replied yes. He added that the foundation is adequate. Chmn. Ebey asked if the foundation is up from the ground. Mr. Erb said it is up about 1½' in the front. He added there would be about one inch from the edge of the foundation to the wall on one side; and about six inches on the other side. Comm. Moore asked about the front yard setback. Mrs. Duke explained the applicant has 2½"; but with the porch encroaching 2', it is still nonconforming. Mrs. Duke commented that if the applicant demolished and rebuilds to more than 50% of value, then the project would be considered a new building and would have to meet all current codes. Mr. Erb stated that even if the walls were brought in, what would be saved in the flooring and foundation would be more than 50% of the value. He added it would be more aesthetic to bring in the walls, because of the regulations on windows. Comm. Debellis asked the applicant if he would consider undertaking the project without the additional unit. Mr. Erb stated he needs it economically. He £elt that he had sacrificed lot coverage by providing additional parking. Marland Vick, 1928 Strand, stated his wife was the previous owner. Mr. Vick stated that the sideyard nonconformity might be due to the fact that he remodeled in 1975, and put furring strips and cedar siding up. He felt this probably added a width of 4". He noted there are shingles underneath. • Mr. Vick commented there might be some contention as to whether or not the proposed project is aesthetic; but he felt it is appealing. He said there is some claim that this block has the cottage or village look. He said this is partially true; but nine of the fourteen homes on the block are two-story. He added that two of the homes built recently do not have the cottage look. Dillan Perrine, 52 -20th Street, questioned the encroachment on the sideyards. Chmn. Ebey explained the applicant now is proposing to set all the walls in to conform. Vickie Post Riedel, 37 -20th Street, stated she lives directly east of the project. She said she was also speaking for Margaret Rolland of 21 -20th Street. She explained they both signed the application, but should not have signed until they saw the plans. She stated they have since withdrawn their signatures. Mrs. Riedel commented on the massiveness of the building and the nonconforming setbacks. She noted the effect of the lack of light and air on her home. She felt this was not in keeping with energy conservation concerns. She stated that she strongly opposed this project. Mike Roth, 61 -20th Street, stated there have been mistakes con­ structed on the block; but he felt that was no reason to continue making mistakes.· He said the project would be like a wall in the middle of the block. He said it would shut out sunlight. He added that it is too voluminous, and is not in keeping with the neighbor­ hood. 68 . . MINUTES OF THE BZA -8/6 /79 Page 8 Comm. Moor e comme nte d that h i s impress i o n was that Mr. Roth's c on cern was not r eal l y with the varian c e; but with the way the s~ructure f its into the community. Mr. Roth stat e d he wa s c on­ cerne d about both, wi t h e mphasis o n the community. In re f erence to the s i deyards, Mr. Roth expr e ssed conce r n about how f iremen would be able t o put up a ladder to fight a f ire in a 5 ft. area. He added that he would be i n favor of seeing some thing d one t hat was more in keeping with the neighborhood. Don Anders o n , 43 -20 t h Stre e t, stated h e do es not like the large wall ef fec t . He added that it bl o cks the view and the light and air. Mike Riedel , 37 -20th S tree t, fe l t tha t people do not really visual ize this type of project. He pres e nted scal e drawings and overlays for comparison of th e proposed proj ect with the h ouse i n t he surrounding are a. He s t r e ssed that the project is too big. He said that should the plans be approved, there will be 3 stori es, and the top two stories will not h a ve windows. He a dded t hat t he minimum height is 3 8 f ee t. Mrs. Duke said the applicant indicat ed h e would not e xceed 30 f eet. Mr. Riedel said the proposal is not for 40%; it is f o r 250%. He s tress e d the impact of the ar e a is i n terms of peopl e . He said t hat l a ws are only guidelines to help the Commissione rs. Mrs. Duke submitted a l etter of oppo sition from Mrs. P. Fuehring of 21 -21st S tree t recei ved t his date. Public hearing closed 9:15 p.m. Comm. Moore a sked i f thi s project is a remodel or new construction. Mrs. Duke sta ted i t was presented a s a remodel and addition. She added tha t if the s tructur e was scrapped d own t o foundation, then it is n e w construction. Comm. Moore asked wh at e ff ect this would h a ve on the wa y the Board considers variance s . Mrs. Duk e said that would have t o be determined by the Bo ard. Comm. Cummings felt it i s new constr u ction . He s aid t he pur pose of the 40 % limitation is t o pre s erve t he character of the neighbor­ hood. He added that he could not find any except iona l circumstanc es. Co mm . Moo re felt the majori ty o f the a udience wa s conc e rned with air and light, bulk, and g e nera l fit into t he community. He commented that is not so much wh a t the Board dea ls wit h . Moti on by Comm. Debel l is, seconde d by Comm. Cummings, to deny Variance Reque st BZA 154-3 3 8 for the f o llow ing reasons: 1. Be c au s e criteria for e xception to code, 250%, does not a l low this to be considered. 2. Because the nonc o nformi ng front y a rd s e t backs are s ubstantial, a nd in excess of the intent of granting a variance. 3. Becau s e it is d e triment al to the neighborhood and the public welfare. 69 MINUTES OF THE BZA -8/6/79 Page 9 4. Because it would be in excess of the General Plan designation. Ayes: Noes: Comms. Beard, Cummings, Debellis, Moore, Chmn. Ebey None Absent: Comms. Merrill, Walker Chmn. Ebey informed the applicant of his right to appeal. In reference to questions by the Commissioners about the Preliminary Environmental Impact Reports, Mrs. Sapetto stated the City Council passed a Resolution dated April 3, 1973, regarding the implementation of Section 12. She said the Resolution states that when a Prelimi­ nary Environmental Impact Report is declared to be significant, a full draft report must be written. Variance Request BZA 154-341 1002 Fifth Street Applicant: Jeffrey & Donna Clark Mrs. Duke presented the staff analysis. Chmn. Ebey asked if it would be possible to get a survey before a variance request is made. Mrs. Duke said that staff has discussed this for a long time and are now requiring a survey prior to full acceptance of applications. Chmn. Ebey suggested it could be a requirement for a complete application. . Public hearing opened at 9:32 p.m. Mr. Clark stated his mistake was in the location of the garage. He said that he would move the garage wall out of the encroachment. ~e noted the house as originally submitted is approximately in the same location. He added the lot is not as long as he thought previously. Comm. Cummings said his understanding of the original proposal was that the applicant wanted the garage and house aligned. He noted the garage would have to be moved to the setback of the house in order to accomplish that now. Mr. Clark stated he was more interested in the west elevation, because that is the elevation that shows. He stated his intention is to move the garage wall a few inches so that it is on his property. Comm. Moore asked if the applicant had considered ths possibility of ,moving the walls so that they would be in line with the rest of the house. Mr. Clark said it could possibly be done; but added it would cost a little more. Comm. Moore felt that would be closer to what the code allows. Mr. Clark did not feel that would gain anything. Comm. Moore stated the problem is that the neighbor might want to redo their property in the future. Mr. Clark noted the neighbor's house was remodeled recently ~bove the current height limitations, and it encroaches on both sides. He felt it was a very remote possibility that they would redo their property. 70 ... MINUTES OF THE BZA -8/6/79 I! Page 10 Jane Brown, 1042 -4th Street, stated she is opposed to the project because the existing fence on the west side and the garage extend almost flush with the sidewalk. She added it does butt up on the south side against the existing fence. She said it is not possible to know what someone might want to do with the surrounding proper­ ties in the future. Mrs. Brown said she would like to see the structure go back within the property lines with the setbacks, and the garage flush with the existing building. Mr. Holman, 1040 -4th Street, stated the house is not in line with the garage. He added there is no aesthetic value to the project. Mr. Clark noted the building was proposed to the existing wall. He said it would not stick out when looking from north to south. Comm. Debellis asked if the applicant was required to bring the east garage wall into line with the existing structure. Mrs. Duke replied that based on the survey, it could be reduced 2 feet in depth and still have a garage that meets code. Public hearing closed at 9:47 p.m. Comm. Cummings asked if the front yard fence is nonconforming in height. Mr. Clark said the fence is about 4½ feet high and located on the property line. Mrs. Duke stated there is a 3 foot height limit on the property line. Comm. Cummings commented he was not certain the new addition could not meet the new setback requirements. He added the south sideyard is not an acceptable variance. Mrs. Duke explained the garage interior has to have a clear 18 feet width. She said the existing garage has 20.1 feet; therefore, 2.1 feet would be the maximum that could be removed. Comm. Moore commented that by the time the applicant removed both walls, it would be like starting from scratch. Comm . Cummings stated the plans are not working. Mr. Duke agreed the applicant would have to toally redesign the proposed addition if he was required to come into conformity. She suggested the Board give guidelines and continue the request. Comm. Moore recommended getting the existing structure back into the property line, consider granting a variance for the east side, and rebuild the garage to get the south side in line with the east side. He felt this was necessary to protect the community on the long range basis, and to protect the property to the rear and east. Comm. Debellis commented he would not be adverse to granting vari­ ances for the third and fourth nonconformities, if the applicant is willing to amend the plans to bring the garage in, to the greatest extent possible, and do whatever necessary on the new construction. Comm. Cwnmings did not feel the Board should grant any variances on this project. 71 MINUTES OF THE BZA -8/6/79 Page 11 Comm. Beard suggested bring the south wall into total conformity, not requiring the full setback on the east side,' and aligning the garage witb the building. Mr. Clark stated he could move the east wall of the garage in line with the house~ but he could not move the south wall in because the garage would have to be reguilt. He stated he could not afford this; and it would make the unit above too small. Chmn. Ebey stated that based on the discussion, the request would be denied if the Board were to take a vote now. Mrs. Clark asked if the request could be continued so that different plans could be considered. She noted it would be a radical change from the current proposed plans. Comm. Moore asked if there was any response from the property owner to .the south. Mr. Clark stated the neighbor to the south signed the petition. He commented this neighbor also has plans to construct a second story on their garage. Motion by Comm. Beard, seconded by Comm. Debellis, to continue the request to the meeting of September 5, 1979, at which time the applicant will either submit revised plans, or the Board will vote on the current request. There were no objections. So ordered. The Board recessed at 10:12 p.m. and reconvened at 10:20 p.m. CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS Conditional Use Permit BZA 154-333 -837 Hermosa Av·enue Mr. John Bowler 0£ Fat Face Fenner 1 s Falloon made a statement regarding their application for a conditional use permit for out­ side dining on the patio. He stated that after discussion with the neighbors, they no longer feel it would be in the best interest of the neighborhood to pursue the permit. Mr. Bowler rescinded the request for the permit. Conditional Use Permit BZA 154-336 -1200 Pacific Coa·st Highway Applicant: Maury Silver Mr. King explained the applicant got a temporary conditional use permit until the Board could hear the ·request. He said the appli­ cant supplied the City with a copy of the lease and met the four conditions recommended by staff. He noted the City Manager approved the temporary permit on the condition that it was only temporary until the Board made a decision. Mr. King stated that any automo­ tive-related business requires a conditional use permit. He added the applicant indicated he will be going into a different auto . related business soon. Open to public hearing at 10:25 p.m . Mr. Silver stated he read and would agree to all the conditions. Comm. Moore asked when the applicant would have plans for a more permanent structure. Mr. Silver replied the plans would be sub- 72 • .. MINUTES OF THE BZA -8/6/79 Page 12 mitted within about 4 months. He explained the new business would be a complete auto center including parts, auto rental, eight bays for car repair and auto sales. Mr. King commented this request is just for the used cars. Comm. Debellis asked if the owner of the property knows about these plans. Mr. Silver said yes, adding the owner has approved them. Comm. Moore expressed concern about approving car sales from a trailer. Mr. Silver said he does not want to work out of a trailer. He explained that he has to have the permit because of the Depart­ ment of Motor Vehicles requirements. Public hearing closed at 10:30 p.m. Motion by Comm. Beard, seconded by Comm. Moore, to approve Conditional Use Permit BZA 154-336. Mr. King noted Condition #5, for 6 month review, does not mean 6 month permit. Mr. King added Condition #9: "failure to observe any conditions would be grounds for setting a hearing for revocation." Ayes: Noes: Absent: Comrns. Beard, Cummings, Debellis, Moore, Chmn. Ebey None Cornms. Merrill, Walker Conditional Use Permit BZA 154-337 -1018-1022 Hermosa Avenue Applicant: Mike Lacey for The Comedy and Magic Club Mr. King reported the original Conditional Use Permit dated January 23, 1978, was for the sale of beer and wine. He said the applicant feels the proposed modification of the permit to allow the service of liquor would benefit his business. Mr. King said he spoke with the applicant regarding a 50% admission­ alcoholic beverage percentage requirement; and the applicant indi­ cated it would be a hardship. He said they also discussed modifying the condition "maintan live entertainemnt at least 25% of the time" to 50% of the time. Comm. Debellis said he did not understand the reference to "off-sale 11 in the Preliminary Environmental Impact Report under the sections Environmental Impact and Growth Inducing Impact. Mr. King noted both references were errors and should have read "on-salelt. Open to public hearing at 10:35 p.m. Mr. Lacey stated the entertainment is actually much higher than 50%-50%; but he noted there are times when the club is used by specific businesses for dinner-meetings, and then the percentage goes down. He noted they do not serve the beer and wine during certain portions of the show, such as the magic act. He added there are always two doormen present. Mr. Lacey stated there have been no problems. Closed to public hearing at 10:39 p.m. 73 MINUTES OF THE BZA -8/6/79 Page 13 Motion by Comm. Moore, seconded by Comm. Cummings, to approve the Conditional Use Permit BZA 154-337 with the staff recommendations; and to modify Condition #7 11 ••• to maintain comedy/t h eatrical productions .... 11 Comm. Moore felt a permit to serve alcoholic beverages was appro­ priate in conjunction with this kind of club. He felt there is firm control. Ayes: Noes: Absent: Comms. Cummings, Debellis, Moore, Chmn. Ebey Comm. Beard Comms. Merrill, Walker Conditional Use Permit BZA 154-330 -8 Pier Avenue Mr. King noted this item was pulled because the applicant is withdrawing his request. PEIR REVIEW PEIR 79-042 -40 -15th Street Comm. tebellis explained he pulled this report because many of the questions on the application had not been £illed out. The applicant gave the following responses to the questions: Cost: The applicant stated $250,000 to $300,000. He added they were not sure because it would depend on how lux­ urious the units would be. Demolition: Bulldozer. He noted the old buildings are encroaching. Landscaping: Only bushes existing. He said they would be putting in more trees and landscaping. Size of Sewer Main. The applicant said he did not know; but he was sure it would be adequate. Noise and Vibration: The applicant said the landscaping would help to decrease this. Comm. Moore commented on the close proximity of the proposed condo­ minium units to the public parking lots, where there is continuous noise. The applicant noted each unit would have its own patio area. He did not anticipate any problems. Aesthetics: The applicant stated he submitted renderings of the proposed building. He noted there will be landscaping, and each unit will have some landscaping. Motion by Comm. Debellis, seconded by Comm. Cummings, to declare PEIR HB-79-042 adequate, not significant and ask that a negative declaration be filed. Ayes: Noes: Absent: Comrns. Beard, Cummings , Debellis, Moore, Chmn. Ebey None Comms. Merrill , Walker 74 l MINUTES OF THE BZA -8/6/79 Page 14 Comm. Debellis commented that he likes the new £ormat for the Preliminary Environmental Impact Reports; but it doesn't help if it is not completely filled out. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REVIEWS 1014 Hermosa Avenue -Hermosa ca·fe Mr. King noted the reason this was continued from the July 2nd and July 16th meetings was because the applicant was not present. He added there were no problems with the business. Mr. King suggested adding the condition for posting the sign advising of the illegality of open containers on public streets, etc. Motion by Comm. Cummings, seconded by Comm. Beard, to approve the review. Ayes: Noes: Absent: Comms. Beard, Cummings, Debellis, Moore, Chmn. Ebey None Cornms. Merrill, Walker 53 Pier Avenue -Casablanca Mr. King reported that staff found no problems in connection with this business. The applicant agreed to the conditions. Motion by Comm. Beard, seconded by Comm. Cummings, to approve the review. Ayes: Noes: Absent: Cornms. Beard, Cummings, Debellis, Moore, Chmn. Ebey None Caroms. Merrill, Walker 2-4 Pier Avenue -Diana's Mr. King repoted that staff advised the Board about the problems with beer being served along with plastic cups; and people walking out with them. He explained the Board questioned whether the appli­ cant fully understood the conditions. He reported the applicant indicated he has implemented a new policy and is only serving in glass containers. The applicant noted his sale of beer dropped 50% since these con­ ditions were set. He added that he did not receive the notifica­ tion of the last meeting because the notice was just left by the register; it was not brought to his attention. He suggested it would be better to either mail or special deliver papers of this importance. Comm. Cummings asked if screens should be required. Mr. King stated there are no openable windows, just doors. The applicant stated they do not sell beer by itself or to go. Comm. Beard said she would like to emphasize not serving in plastic cups or bottles. She commented it is not something the applicant ,,,.• is trying to perpetuate; but it is something the Board is trying ·· to stop. The applicant felt it should be sufficient to not serve 75 MINUTES OF THE BZA -8/6/79 Page 15 beer with food to go; but he agreed to the conditions. Motion by Comm. Cummings, seconded by Comm. Beard, to approve the review with a one month review. Ayes: Noes: Absent: Comms. Beard, Cummings, Moore Comm. Debellis, Chmn. Ebey Cornrns. Merrill, Walker 52 Pier Avenue -Pier 52 Mr. King repoted he spoke with the City Attorney regarding how the license was initially Type 47 and was eventually changed to Type 48 without any apparent City approval. He noted the City Attorney felt that because of the change in license without City approval and due to the fact that the City did not follow through, a public hearing should be held to resolve this. Mr. King said the City's position would be that it was initially a Type 47 license. He added the City may have forefeited any right to require Type 47 because there were no reviews. He noted that documentation was sent to the City regarding the change, and the City did nothing. Mr. King reported the Building Director felt the Board should delay public hearing for 6 months to see how the business operates and to see if the business will incorporate the sandwiches. Chmn. Ebey asked if the applicant would be interested in serving sandwiches. Mr. Lloyd, applicant, said they would be willing to continue the public hearing for 6 months while trying to solve their acoustical problems and trying the sandwiches. He added the order for the acoustical curtains had been delayed and should be received within 90 days. Comm. Cummings felt the delay in setting a public hearing was a bad idea. He felt the public hearing should be held in order to get all the information on record. Mr. Lloyd stated the problem with the previous owners request was one of allowing more dancing. He did not think the issue on the restaurant should be an issue. He said they were not still obli­ gated. Mr. Lloyd stated a bonified restaurant would not be feasible; he added they could try the sandwiches. He said that if it does not work out, the Board will still have the power to set a public hearing. Comm. Beard felt the City has been remiss in this issue; and the Board should give the applicant the opportunity to see how the sandwiches work. Comm. Moore agreed that there is a need to clarify how the license got from a Type 47 to a Type 48; but he did not see how it ties into this review. He added the City Attorney seems to be indicating that the applicant could not be forced back into a Type 47. Mr. Lloyd explained that Mr. Martinez, the former owner, applied at one Board meeting for live entertainment; and a compromise was made. He said Mr. Martinez then reapplied for dancing which was approved, and the sandwiches were deleted. 76 \ MINUTES OF THE BZA -8/6/79 Page 16 Chmn. Ebey stated she spoke with members of the City Council; and the policy is clear that they do want the sandwiches incorporated. She said she would like to see an honest attempt to serve food. Mr. Herring, applicant, noted the business does not open until 5 p.m. He added there are a lot of places to eat. He did not understand what the food would accomplish. He said the license has been a Type 48 since 1970 and the business license was issued under it. Motion by Comm. Beard, seconded by Conun. Debellis, to review in 4 months with regard to acoustic problems and serving of sandwiches, at which time the Board can set a date for a public hearing; and to request a full report for review. Ayes: Noes: Absent: Cornms. Beard, Debellis, Moore, Crunn. Ebey Comm. Cummings Comms. Merrill, Walker 22 Pier Avenue -Flagship Mr. King reported a conununication was sent to the City Council requesting their rationale behind the phasing in of hot food service. He said the informal answer was that the Board should make recom­ mendations to the City Council concerning whether or not hot food service should be retained. The applicant stated he was willing to cooperate. He said he recently had the sewer cleaned out at his own expense because he could not get the City to do it. He stated that food service is not profitable; and conditions 6 and 7 requiring food service were dropped on April 11, 1977. The applicant said if he thought he could make a dollar off selling food, he would do it. He noted there are now 13 establishments serving food within 2 blocks. The applicant also addressed the motorcycle problem. He said he would do what he could to help solve the problem. Motion by Comm. Cummings, seconded by Comm. Moore, to recommend to the City Council that they drop the hot meal conditions from the Flagship's conditional use permit. Ayes: Noes: Absent: Cornms. Beard, Cummings, Debellis, Moore, Chrnn. Ebey None Cornms. Merrill, Walker 19 -Pier Avenue -Cantina Real Applicant: not present Mr. King stated the review was continued from July 16th because the applicant was not present. He added there were no problems with the business. Motion by Comm. Cummings, seconded by Comm. Debellis, to continue the review. No objections. So ordered. 77 MINUTES OF THE BZA -8/6/79 Page 17 1229 Hermosa Avenue -Cove Cinema Mr. King explained staff recommended two additional conditions: 1: based on interpretation of Code by the Police Department, staff reconunended approval of entertainment by the Police Chief: 2: doors to remain closed (the applicant stated the doors are being kept closed now.) Comm. Cummings explained that a theater is defined as a public place and the Police Chief wants to exercise his control. He stressed the applicant would have to obtain each permit at least 48 hours prior to each live entertainment program. The applicant agreed. Motion by Comm. Debellis, seconded by Comm. Cummings, to approve the review w{th a 6 month review period. Ayes: Noes: Absent: Comms. Beard, Cummings, Debellis, Moore, Chmn. Ebey None Conuns. Merrill, Walker 1200 Hermosa Avenue -Shenanigan's Mr. King reported that the proposed setting of a hearing for revo­ cation was continued from the last meeting. Chmn. Ebey asked if the escrow closed. Mr. Bales, President of Fat Howie's, explained they are in the process of subleasing the building to Tw-o Guys From Italy. He added they will not be selling the liquor license. He requested that the Board continue the review for one month, so they can produce the sublease. Chmn. Ebey commented that was the same request the last time. Mr. Bales explained there were problems with stock holders before. Chmn. Ebey asked how much notice had to be given for a revocation hearing. Mr. King replied two weeks. Mr. Bales expressed concern that too many problems might scare off the prospective lessee. Mr. King asked how long it would be until Two Guys From Italy take over after they sign the sublease. Mr. Bales replied that part of the conditions of the lease is that Two Guys From Italy get the permits necessary before December 31, 1979. He added they were hoping to slide along like they have been in the meantime, because it would be a great hardship if they were forced to stop doing business, carry the ·location and cover the rent for 3 or 4 months. Motion by Comm. Debellis, seconded by Comm. Beard, to direct staff to wait until August 29th for a certified letter stating that the sublease has been signed; and if a certified letter is not received, to set a public hearing for October 1, 1979. Ayes: Noes: Absent: Comms. Beard, Cummings, Debellis, Moore, Chmn. Ebey None Conuns. Merrill, Walker The meeting was adjourned at 12:15 by Chmn. Ebey. 78-· ... MINUTES OF THE BZA -8/6/79 Page 18 CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes were approved at a regular meeting of the Board of Zoning Adjustment. DATE /()-/-7f ~61/Lt v 79 MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUS'IMENI'S OF THE CilY OF HERMOSA BEACH HEID AT THE HERMOSA BEA.CH CXM1UNI'IY CENTER ON JUNE 29, 1982, AT 7: 30 P .M. Meeting called to order at 7: 40 P .M. by Chnn. Moore ROIL c:ALL PRESENT: Comns. DeBellis, Ebey, Merrill, Williams, Chnn. Moore ABSENT: Conrns. Cutler, Toth ALSO PRESENT: Laurie Duke , Staff Liaison Comn5. Cutler and Toth had excused absences for this reeting. c.oom. DeBellis was appointed Acting Secretary for this neeting. APPROVAL OF MINUI'ES Motion by Coorn. Williams, seconded by Cornn. Merrill, to approve the June 7, 1982 minutes , as submitted. No objections. So ordered. APPROVAL OF RESOLurIONS Motion by Coom. Merrill, seconded by Cornn. DeBellis , to approve Resolution BZA. 154-460. No objections. So ordered. Motion by Cornn. Merrill, seconded by Cornn. DeBellis, to approve Resolution BZA 154-461. No objections. So ordered. Motion by Camn. Merrill, seconded by Cornn. DeBellis, to approve Resolution B2A 154-462. No objections. So ordered. Motion by Canrn. Merrill, seconded by Cornn. DeBellis, to approve Resolution B2A 154-463. No objections. So ordered. CONSENT CAT.ENDAR PEIR HB 82-015 -Comrercial Planned Developrrent Overlay Zone (Revised) Mrs. Duke info:rned the &lard that the Planning DepartnEnt had requested that this item be continued to the July 19, 1982 reeting. PUBLIC HF.ARlliGS VARIANCE BZA. 154-464 -2618 Manhattan Avenue Applicants: Mr. and Mt's. Brenner fur land Mrs. Duke gave staff report. She stated that the property was located in the R-3 zone, nedium density residential. The lot size is 30.03 x 100.09, and the lot area is 3005.7 sq. ft. Toe existing lot density is 14.49 du/ac, and the proposed lot density is 28.98 du/ac. The existing 80 BOARD OF ZONING ADJUS'IMENTS -June 29, 1982 Page 2 VARIANCE BZA. 154-464 -2618 Manhattan Avenue (Cont.) lot coverage is 50.61%, and the proposed lot coverage is 73. Tn. 1be existing floor area is 2 , 542 sq. ft; the proposed addition, 606 . 25 s_q . ft.; the proposed garage and utility room, 519 sq. ft.; the proposed deck, 204 sq. ft. She stated that the applicants are rEquesting penni.ssion to add a second unit to the rear of an existing single family dwelling with nonconfonni.ng front yard setback and a nonconforming 2'11" south sideyard and to conform to the required setbacks with addition; to increase the existing 50.61% lot coverage to 73.77%; also to provide less than the required usable open space. The usable open space requirenEnt in the R-3 zone is 200 sq. ft. per dwelling unit, half of which may be in decks. The plans show a 165 sq. ft. deck and a 39 sq. ft. deck. The smaller does not rreet 10' :m:inirnum dirrension requireaents, and the larger deck can only account for 100 sq. ft. of the requirEd open space for the new unit. These requests are in exception to Sections 606, 607, and 1309 of the Zoning Code. She stated that an interior inspecticn of the premises was made by the Building Departaent on June 16, 1982, and the plans of the existing unit show one bedroom that does not presently exist. Conm. Williams believed there was another door at street level with numbers that had been painted out. She asked if it had ever been two units in the lar,;,e.r level. Mrs. Duke replied in the negative, noting that it was not indicated on the Building Card. Cbrm. Moore asked for the current front yard setback as opposed to what is required. Mrs. Duke rEplied that the required front yard setback is 10 feet, the current setback being 6' 2" at ground floor and 4' at the upper floor. She added that there is no change to the proposed front yard. Public Hearing opened at 7:56 P.M. Michael Downs, 2618 Manhattan Avenue, Henmsa Beach, representing the applicants, stated that he made the error of putting thrEe bedrooms on the eris ting house plans. He stated that he carre across two problems, those being, lot coverage and open space. He noted that he and Bill Grove conterrplated putting the new unit an top of the eristing house, but it could not be counted as lot coverage. He stated that he did attenpt to provide 200 sq. ft. of usable outdoor space. C,arrm. Ebey asked if it would be possible to put the new unit over the structure and have the parking in the back. Mr. Downs replied that he discussed that possibility with Bill Grove; however, he was inforned that even a concrete slab would count as lot coverage. He stated that there is 30 feet in the back, which vJOuld leave a space approximately 10 feet wide by 30 feet long. It would still not neet the requirements for the requirEd open space for two units. 81 BOARD OF ZON1NG ADJUS'IMENTS -June 29 , 1982 VARIANCE BZA 154-464 -2618 Manhattan Avenue (Cant.) Chim. Moore asked if the deck is usable by the rental unit or by the master unit. Mr. Downs replied that the deck is usable by the rental unit. No one appeared to speak in favor of the varianc.e. No one appeared to speak in oppositicn to the variance. Public Hearing closed at 8:04 P.M. CCJr11IJ. Ebey stated that she could not approve the plans as submitted. Comn. DeBellis stated that he could not make Finding f,!-4.because the proposed lot density is greater than that allowed by the general plan. Conm. Merrill asked how many garage spaces were required. Mrs. Duke replied that two parking spaces are required for each unit. Conm. DeBellis did not agree that the applicants were not seeking to increase the density. Mrs. Duke stated that if the applicants deleted the deck, they would not meet the ten-foot cli.nensions to qualify the ground level space as usable open space. Also, they would not neet the requirem:nts for the distance between buildings, which is eight feet. Chrm. Moore stated that they IIDJSt clarify the differenc.e between open parking areas as they affect lot coverage verses usable open space. He stated that the Board is of the impression that an open parking area does not cm.tribute to lot coverage, but it does not qualify as usable open spac.e. Mrs. Duke stated that she -would obtain a determinaticn of whether or not an open parking area counts as lot coverage. Page 3 Cbnn. Moore felt that the request for the variance did not have lfilusual or extraordinary circumstances. Moticm. by Cornn. Merrill, seconded by Conm. Ebey, to deny Variance BZA 154-464. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Canms. DeBellis , Ebey, Merrill, Williams , Chrm. Moore None Conms. Cutler, Toth Chrm. Moore infoTIIEd the applicant that he could appeal the Board's decisicn by writing within 10 days to the City Council. 82 BOARD OF 2.rnWG ADJUS'IMENTS -June 29, 1982 VARIANCE BZA 154-464 -2618 Manhattan Avenue (Cont.) Motion by Omn. Moore, seconded by Cornn. Ebey, to offer the applicant the option of returning to the Board with a rmdified plan as opposed to appealing the Board's decision. There will be no application fee. So ordered. Corrn:n. DeBellis noted his objection to the above rmtion. CO[IIIl. Merrill stated that the only part of the plans he was opposed to was the annunt of lot density. Conm. Ebey stated that, with respect to Finding ffrl, there are no extraordinary circumstances at all that do not apply to other places. Cl:nm. Moore stated that two of the Board 'ITE'.ITlbers could not make Finding ://4 under any circumstances, and the entire Board could not oo.ke Finding :/frl. Comn. Williams stated that, with respect to Finding :/13, that plans do require a sigpificant lowering of the required open space, and therefore it would be materially detri.rrental to the neighbors. VARIANCE BZA 154-465 -29 19th Street Applicants: Mr. and Mrs. J~s Parker Page 4 Mrs. Duke gave staff report. She stated that the property was located in the R-2B zone, :rredium density residential. The existing lot density is 11. 94 du/ ac, and the proposed lot density is 23. 88 du/ ac. The existing lot coverage is 55.42%, and the proposed lot coverage is 65%. She stated that the applicants -were requesting pennission to add a second tm.it on an R-2B lot providing less than the required usable open space. Section 557 of the Zoning Code requires a minirm.m of 300 sq. ft. of usable open space per dwelling tm.it. The proposed open space is 405 sq. ft. She stated that the above property is located an a walk street and the applicants utilize a 20 x 37 ft. area of City property as part of their front yard. Ccmrn. DeBellis asked if these plans will neet all of the garage requirenE11ts. Mrs . Duke rep lied in the af finrati ve . Public Hearing opened at 8:37 P.M. Janes Parlcer, 29 19th Street, Hernnsa Beach, applic.ant, stated that all of the adjacent neighbors signed the application in favor of the variance. He knew of no one who was opposed to the variance. He added that the width of the lot is an extraordinary circumstance that should be 83 BOARD OF ZOOING ADJUS'IMENTS -June 29, 1982 Page 5 VARIANCE Bl.A. 154-465 -29 19th Street (Cont.) considered by the Board. No one else appeared to speak in favor of the variance. No one appeared to speak in opposition to the variance. Public Hearing closed at 8:40 P.M. Conm. Ebey asked if the City property would also be used by the tenants. Mr. Parker replied in the affinnative. Motion by Cornn. William; , seconded by Canm. :t-Errill , to approve Variance BZA 154-465. AYES: NOES: C-onms. DeBellis, Ebey, :t-Errill, Williams, Omn. Moore None ABSENT: COIIIIJS . Cutler, Toth Required Findings: 1. . . . because it does abut City property with 740 sq. ft. of open space; there appears to be no feasible constructional alternative that would provide the usable open space on the property itself. 2. . . . because it predates existing code; others have been granted the saIIE right :in the sanE vicinity and zone. 3. . . . because it does not substantially reduce light, air, open space, and the fact that it is next to 740 sq. ft. of usable open space mitigates any impacts; all of the adjacent property owners signed a petition :in favor of the variance; no one appeared to speak in opposition at the public hearing. 4. . .. because it does:not exceed the density allowed by the general plan. Motion by Coorn. Williams , seconded by Conm. Ebey, to approve the above Findings. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Conms . DeBellis , Ebey, Merrill, WilliaIIB , Chim. Moore None Comns . Cutler, Toth CUP BZA 154-466 -2701 Pacific Coast Highway Applicant: Courtney Foods, Inc. Mrs. Duke gave staff report. She stated that the property is located in the C-3 zone, general c.arrmercial. The applicant had an existing conditional use permit to allCM the service of beer and wine in conjunction with the 84 BOARD OF ZONING ADJUS'IMENTS -June 29, 1982 Page 6 CUP BZA 154-466 -2701 Pacific Coast Highway (Cont.) operation of a restaurant. This original permit also allowed outside patio service; however, the outside patio has since been enclosed. Therefore, Conditions 8, 9 , and 10 are ro longer appropriate. She stated that at their ~eting of June 2, 1982, the Staff Review Corrrni.ttee found this request to have a non-significant envirorurental iIIpact and requested that a negative declaration be filed. During the phase 2 portion of that hearing, the C.ormrittee reviewed the existing conditional use permit and felt the applicable conditions adequately covered the proposed use; therefore, they did not have any additional conditions to suggest to the BZA. Comn. Ebey stated that she would like the inclusion of the 50/50 condition in the conditional use permit. Public Hearing opened at 8 :55 P .M. Chuck Lahman, 753 Deep Valley Drive, Rolling Hills Estates, applicant, stated that there would be no problem with the 50/50 restriction. No one spoke in favor of the conditional use permit. No one spoke in opposition to the conditional use permit. Public Hearing closed at 9:01 P.M. Motion by Cornn. DeBellis, seconded by Cornn. Merrill, to approve CUP BZA. 154-466 with the condition. that 50% food be sold and 50% alcohol be sold and with the deletion of Conditions 8, 9, and 10. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Corrms. DeBellis, Ebey, Merrill, Williams, Chrm. Moore None Conms . Cutler, Toth CUP BZA 154-46 7 -1018 Hennosa Avenue Applicant : C,orredy and Magic Club Mrs. Duke gave staff report. She stated that the property was located in the C-2 zone, general comrercial. The applicant was requesting penrrissian. to provide outside dining facilities in front of his existing business. His proposal was to enclose the front 7' 10" area with a block wall 8" wide and 40" high with planters on top. 'lhe proposed hours of operation for the patio ,;.;,ere 7 :00 A.M. to 2 :00 A.M. The Staff Review Committee suggested several changes to the existing conditianal use permit for consideration by the Board, those being, 1. to delete the existing Condition 1/10 in BZA 154-337 and replace with the following wording: "Chapter 19 1/2 of the City Code entitled Noise Regulation shall be corrplied with. Specifically, this conditional use permit is not a permit to violate Section 19 1/2-3 entitled Noise Llmi.ts . "; 2. that sane additional barrier be interposed between the 85 BOARD OF ZONING ADJUS'IMENI'S -June 29, 1982 CUP BZA 154-46 7 -1018 Hemosa Avenue (Cont.) new seating and the sidewalk to prevent passage of alcoholic beverages between the two areas. Public Hearing opened at 9 :04 P .M. Page 7 Mike Lacey, 1018 Hernosa Avenue, He:mnsa Beach, applicant, stated that glass will be used in the front. He stated that he will be using thick plastic t;\7[lich will snap an when the weather turns cold. He requested that Condition #10 be rerrvved from his conditional use permit. He stated that he would like to start serving bruches and early dinners in the front, along with SOIIE close-up nagicians. He noted that, at present, the people attending the 10: 30 P .M. show have to stand outside. Conm. Ebey suggested putting sorrE type of restriction on the percentage of alcohol sales to food sales. c.omn. Williams stated that if the Board allows the applicant to serve alcohol on an open patio, it 'WOuld set a precedent. Chim. Moore stated that he recollected that the Board was concemed that this business be a Corredy and Magic Club rather than a Ill.lSic bar. C-ondition #10 was to limit the possibility of it being a live ImJSic bar. Mr. l.acey stated that he had a different conditional use pennit, and it had been lost. He stated that he asked for a copy of this conditional use permit, and he never received a copy. Conm. Ebey stated that she would like to change Condition f/=5. She felt that a certain percentage of the total recepts should be food related. Mr. Lacey explained that the enclosed patio area should not be terned as a bar; it will be used mainly as a waiting room for those persons waiting to go in to the show. He stated that he would be happy to offer food in that area, but he would not want the restriction of selling a percentage of food in that area. Conm. Merrill asked the applicant if he would be willing to try a 50/50 percentage of food and alcohol :in that area, and reappear before the Board :in 6 m::mths for review. Mr. Lacey stated that he was pushing to sell food; however, he was not certain that food would sell in that area. Ch!m. Moore stated that it would be a burden on the applicant to keep separate books for each area. He suggested that only a certain arrount of the gross receipts be alcohol related. He recOlmEilded arIE11.ding C-ondition 1{5 to read, ''No rrore than sixty-five percent (65%) of total receipts of the entire bus:iness to be alcohol beverage related." Conm. Ebey suggested limit:ing the hours of the outside area to 11:00 P.M. 86 BOARD OF ZOOING ADJIB'IMENI'S -June 29, 1982 CUP BZA 154-467 -1018 Hernosa Avenue (Cont.) M:>tion by Coom. Ebey, seconded by Comn. DeBellis , to approve CUP BZA 154-46 7 with the conditions that the outside area be restricted to the hours of 7 :00 A.M. to 11 :00 P .M.; that Condition :/15 read, ''No m:,re than 65% of total receipts of .the entire business to be alcohol beverage related."; Condition {flO to be the Staff Review Conmi.ttees' recomrended Condition /11; that a barrier be installed sufficient t o prevent the passing of drinks from inside to outside. There will be a six-llDtlth review period. Page 8 Mr. Lacey expressed his cancem for not being able to open the patio as deliniated in his plans. He felt as though his e stablishnent were well-operated. c.arrm. Merrill suggested anending the notion t o limit the outside hours to 12 : 00 mi.dnight . AYES: Q:mn. DeBellis , Ebey, Merrill, Williams , Qmn. M:Jore NOES: None ABSENT: Com:ns. Cutler, Toth Comn. Merrill noted his objecticn to the hours set for the outside area. Chnn. Moore inferred the applicant that he may appeal the Board's decision by writing to the City C.Ouncil within 10 days. REVIEWS None MISCELI.ANEOUS Material for City Council/BZA Workshop 7/13/82 Conm. Williams stated that she will be attending the workshop. Conm. DeBellis stated that he will atte.npt to attend the workshop. Conm. Ebey stated that she would be an vacation from July 15 to July 29. Comn. Merrill stated that he would be on vacation from August 4 to Septen:ber 1. Mrs. Duke stated that the next reeting will be July 19, 1982. Motion t o adjourn. at 9:52 P.M. 87 BOARD OF ZONJNG ADJUS'Il1ENI'S -June 29, 1982 Page 9 CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes were approved at a regular n:eeting of the Board of Zoning .Adjusrnents of the City of Henwsa Beach, California. ~ DATE 88 I' MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS ON MAY 7, 1984, AT 7:30 P.M. Meeting called to order at 7:32 P.M. by Chmn. Moore Plepge of Allegiance led by Chmn. Moore ROLL CALL PRESENT: Comms. Berardo, Corder, Cutler, Williams, Chmn. Moore ABSENT: None ALSO PRESENT: Bi Tl Grove, Building Di rector APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion by Comm. Corder, seconded by Comm. Berardo, to approve the April 2, 1984 meeting. No objections; so ordered. APPROVAL OF RESOLUTIONS Motion by Comm. Corder, seconded by Comm. Cutler, to approve Resolutions B.Z.A 154-514, 154-385, 154-494, 154-505, 154-510, ahd 154-511. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Comms. Berardo, Corder, Cutler, Williams, Chmn. Moore None None CONSENT CALENDAR None CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST BZA 154-560 -1227 Hermosa Avenue Applicants: Donald and Bobby Putman dba Putt 1 s Place Mr. Grove gave staff report. He stated that this was a request for permission for service of beer and wine in conjunction with the operation of a restaurant and art gallery. It is locat~d in the C4-.i2 zone, and it has a general plan designation of general commercial. This business would feature an art gallery as well as a restaurant and also a painting studio. Mr. Putman would be located in the lo-ft area. The loft area is visible from the restaurant seating area .allowing patrons to view Mr. Putman while he paints. He stated that if the Board acts to approve the request, the Staff Review Committee recommended 13 conditions to be placed upon the approval. Public Hearing opened at 7:37 P.M. Donald Putman, 1607 Carnigie Lane, Redondo Beach, applicant, stated that it is his intention to sell alcoholic beverages only with food. 89 • BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS MINUTES -May 7, 1984 Page 2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST BZA 154-560 -1227 Hermosa Avenue (Cont.) Bobby Putman. 1607 Carnigie Lane. Redondo Beach, applicant, stated that her husband is very well known in the art field. She stated that they will have many visitors coming from out of state to view his work, and she would like to be able to serve beer and wine in conjunction with food. Comm. Williams stated that someone might come in to have a glass of wine and view the paintings. She questioned whether the applicants would allow that. Mrs. Putman replied that it is a possibilityi however. she is hoping people will also order food. She noted that she loves to cook, and she is offering a variety of food. She stated that she will be serving hot hors d 1 oeuvres, soups, salads, et cetera. She noted that they will also have bottled wine. She stated that she would eventually like to be open only four days a week and be on a reservation-only basis. She stated that people would come in for three hours, and she would charge a minimum price which would include dinner. Mr. Putman stated that the drinking crowd would not be attracted to his business because they will be playing classical music. He added that there is one section of the business that will not sell coffee, beer and wine, pastries, or sandwiches. Comm. Cutler questioned whether the rules and regulations of the alcohol-food ratio still apply to a business that has become a private club or hall. He asked if the rules and regulations would be the same. Mr. Grove replied that the conditions of the conditional use permit would still apply . Should the operation of the establishment differ significantly, the applicants would have to return to the Board for review of the conditions. Comm. Cutler asked whether the percentage of food and alcohol sales was a topic of discussion rather than a steadfast law. Mr. Grove replied in the affirmative. Chmn. Moore informed the applicants that the conditional use permit and the liquor license will stay with the business; that is, if the applicant leaves the premises, the conditional use permit and the liquor license will remain with the business. He stated that the conditions are : applied to protect the City for the next 50 years, not just for a few years. Comm. Berardo asked if the counter in the kitchen is a service counter where patrons will order food. Mrs. Putman replied in the negative, adding that it is an antique piece of furniture that will be used for linens and glassware. She added that she will be doing most of the cooking, and she is training her daughter to accommodate her. She informed the Board that they will have no food to go. 90 ' ' BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS MINUTES -May 7, 7984 Page 3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST BZA 154-560 -1227 Hermosa Avenue (Cont.) Comm. Corder asked the applicant if he would accept the 13 conditions set forth by the St a ff Review Committee . Mr. Putman replied in the affirmative. Comm. Cutler asked the applicant if he has ever had any experience in the restaurant or alcohol business. Mr. Putman replied in the negative. Comm. Cutler asked the applicants for their interpretation of the condition that alcholic beverages be sold in conjunction with food. Mrs. Putman hoped that the patrons would buy food; howevert she noted that she was not certain whether she would refuse service to a customer who wanted to order a glass of wine with no food. Chmn. Moore asked staff if the applicants would be allowed to have unamplified singers or if that would require an expanded permit. Mr. Grove replied that live entertainment does require an additional conditional use permit. Mrs. Putman stated that they were considering bringing in a harpist. Chmn. Moore cautioned the applicants that live entertainment would require a conditional use permit. No one else appeared to speak in favor of the conditional use permit. No one appeared to speak in opposition to the conditional use permit. Public Hearing closed at 7:48 P.M. Comm. Cutler asked Mr. Grove if there were any guidelines to give the applicants with the regard to the 65/35 food and alcohol ratio. Mr. Grove stated that the 65/36 food and alcohol ratio is not important on an individual customer basis. He stated that it is set up so as not to confuse a restaurant with a bar. The intent of Condition Y2 is that alcoholic beverages be sold only in conjunction with food. The Board may amend that condition if they feel it is not appropriate. Motion by Comm. Corder, seconded by Comm. Cutler. to approve Condi ti ona 1 Use Permit Request BZA 154-560 with the 13 conditions. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Comms. Berardo, Corder, Cutler, William$, Chmn. Moore None None 91 BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS MINUTES -May 7, 1984 Page 4 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST BZA 154-560 -1227 Hermosa Avenue (Cont.) Chmn. Moore announced that the Board's decision may be appealed by writing to the City Council within ten days. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST BZA 154-561 -1018 Hermosa Avenue Applicant: Michael Lacey dba Comedy and Magic Club Mr. Grove gave staff report. He stated that the request was for a modi fi cation to an existing conditional use permit to allow the adjacent store space to be used in conjunction ~ith the~eii~tjng :business. The existing conditional use permi,t allows for live entertainment. alcoholic beverages that are sold in conjunction with food. He noted that in reviewing with the various departments in the City, staff could find no references to any problems attributable to this business; however, earlier in the day the City received a letter in opposition to the expansion listing some problems they find with the business. Public Hearing opened at 7:53 P.M. Michael Lacey. 1018 Hermosa Avenue, Hermosa Beach, applicant, stated that he wishes to expand into an area that used to be a store called Just Beachy. He stated that he has expanded food sales in the last six years, and the kitchen area is very small. He noted that he is serving up to 200 dinners per show at this time. He stated that he desparately needs the extra space to expand the kitchen and service bar. Comm. Williams asked the applicant if he was aware of the letter in opposition to his project. Mr. Lacey replied that he had just been handed the letter in opposition. Comm. Williams stated that the letter of opposition indicates that the person is having problems with smoke coming into his house from the vents of the club. She asked Mr. Lacey if he has ever received any complaints about the smoke from his vents. Mr. Lacey replied in the negative, adding that many of the complaints in the letter are based on problems with the parking lot on Saturday and Sunday afternoons. He noted that he is not opened during those hours. Comm. Berardo asked Mr. Lacey for his hours of operation. Mr. Lacey replied that they have a show at 8:00 P.M .• and they open the doors at 6:00 P.M. Dinner is served .from 6:00 P.M. to 9;30 P.M. There is an additional show at 10:30 P.M. on the weekends. Comm. Cutler asked the applicant if he could think of a way to alleviate the problem with the smoke coming from the vents. 92 BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS MINUTES -May 7, 1984 Page 5 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST BZA 154-561 -1018 Hermosa Avenue (Cont.) Mr. Lacey stated that he has not considered it si nee this is the first ti me he was aware there was a problem; however, he stated that he would attempt to alleviate the problem. He noted that the expansion of his club would not increase the amount of smoke coming from the vents. Comm. Cutler asked the applicant what he could do to respond to the resident's complaint. Mr. Lacey replied that he knows the complaining resident, and they have always been very friendly. He informed the Commission that they did a nice job on improving their property, which is right above the club. He stated that he would be happy to look at another ventilation system. Perh~ps he could find one with a better burnoff. He stated that his club consists of six separate stores that have beams running across :the top; therefore, he cannot expand the hood area in the least. Chmn. Moore stated that the letter in opposition indicates that the dumpsters get overfull in the summer. He requested the applicant 1 s comments on this matter. Mr. Lacey replied that he has them dumped about four times a week at this time. He stated that the residents in back of his club use his dumpsters. He has a cleaning crew that comes six days a week and they 'are very thorough. He informed the Board that he has an attendant who polices the lot, and the lot is cleaned once a day in the summer. Chmn. Moore asked if the dumpsters could be locked up at night. Mr. Lacey replied that the residents will throw it over the fence and miss the dumpsters completely. Comm. Cutler asked Mr. Lacey if he would be willing to have the dumpsters dumped six or seven days a week. Mr. Lacey stated that he is planning on having this business last 30 years; therefore, he is very careful with the maintenance. He stated that he has not had any problems with overflowing of the dumpsters unless the trash crew does not come by. Comm. Cutler asked Mr. Lacey if he would be willing to accept a condition that the club emptj ~the dumpsters on a daily basis. • Mr. Lacey replied that if the dumpsters are full, he has nowhere to dump his trash. He stated that they increase the number of pick-up days in the summer. Chmn. Moore asked Mr. Grove what responsibility a business has in relationship to the trash receptacles it maintains. Mr. Grove replied thI1.t it is a problem that is not unique to that particular location, and it is difficult to determine who is at fault; however, the business 93 BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS MINUTES -May 7, 1984 Page 6 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST BZA 154-561 -1018 Hermosa Avenue (Cont.) owner is ultimately responsible for keeping it clean. If locking the bins does not solve the problem, it is possible that a cover over the top of the enclosure would alleviate the problem. Lance Widman, 7015 Fourth Street, Hermosa Beach, appeared to speak in favor of the proposed extension. He noted that Condition #9 states that any improvements upgrading changes to current use and structured use would have to be in the spirit of the original approval. He stated that the proposal certainly meets that spirit. He believed that the expansion would be a benefit for the club in terms of making it easier for the employees to deliver a high level of service that they have been delivering to the customers and patrons. The expansion is not an expansion to deliver more meals; it is to make it a more efficient operation. He felt that the elimination of Conditons #14 and #15 were reasonable. He noted that the club has been a good neighbor to the other businesses in the area as well as to the residents. He stated that since he has been on the Council, he could not recall any types of complaints from this business. He questioned whether there were any additional requirements for additional in-lieu fees as part of this approval. He offered his observations, stating that when he was on the City Council and the in-lieu program was set up, it was the Council's intent to try to encourage businesses to take full advantage and use of their buildable site. It was their feeling that a business located in the VPD could provide money to VPD for additional parking spaces instead of having to meet the parking requirements on the lot. In this case, there is a terrace on the top of the building which has 35 parking spaces which exceeds the Code. The applicant is also a member of the VPD. He stated that the club presents an optimal situation by allowing persons to go to the club after the movies, theater, or a concert. He suggested that the Commission modify Condition #11 so that dancing could be made available in the remaining third of the expansion. Comm. Williams asked Mr. Widman if he was representing Mr. Lacey in this matter. Mr. Widman replied in the negative, adding that he knew that dancing was not a request of the applicant. However, he thought it would be oeneficial. John Delgado, 2300 Oak Avenue, Manhattan Beach, stated that he has been attending the club for several years. He stated that he brings many clients to the club because it is an excellent source of entertainment. He noted that he has brought his family to the club, and he has sent other familtes to the club. He stated that Mr. Lacey has done a wonderful job at controlling the quality of entertainment. He stated that he was very pleased to have this operation in the community. He explained that he has known Mr. Lacey for many years, and he described him as being a fine citizen. No one else appeared to speak in favor of the conditional use permit. No one appeared to speak in opposition to the conditional use permit. Public Hearing closed at 8:14 P.M. 94 BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS MINUTES -May 7, 1984 Page 7 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST BZA 754-561 -1018 Hermosa Avenue (Cont.) Chmn. Moore asked Mr. Grove to clear up the conflict with the parking spaces. Mr. Grove replied that the amount of parking provided at this time is sufficient for the existing area only. However, the applicant indicated that he provided additional parking that was not required. He stated that he would investigate the matter further. Chmn. Moore stated that if the conditional use permit is granted and if staff determines that extra parking is required, in order for the permit to be effective, the applicant would have to pay extra money under Section 1167. Mr. Grove replied in the affirmative. Chmn. Moore asked if the conditional use permit would be effective if the applicant did not pay the extra money. Mr. Grove rep 1 i ed in the negative. Comm. Williams stated that she could vote for the request as long as the conditions protect the public. &he stated that it is a permitted business in that zone. Comm. Corder concurred, stating that the applicant has expanded and upgraded the club since its inception, and it is a definite asset to the downtown business area. Motion by Comm. Corder, seconded by Comm. Cutler, to approve Conditional Use Permit BZA 154-561 with Conditions #1 through #13 and with the deletion of Conditions #14 and #15. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Comms. Berardo, Corder, Cutler, William~. Chmn. Moore None None Chmn. Moore stated that the Board's decision :may be appealed by writing to the City Council within ten days. CONDIITONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST BZA 154-562 -1300-1400 Block of Strand Applicants: Mr. Greenwood and Mr. Langlois Mr. Grove gave staff report. He stated that the City is presently in negotiations with Mr. Greenwood and Mr. Langlois for the purpose of arriving at a development agreement for the construction of a hotel on the city-owned Biltmore site and several adjacent properties. In conjunction with that hotel, the applicants are requesting permission for some conditional uses that are normal for that type of hotel. The request includes perrrli:sasion for sales of alcoholic beverages, live entertainment, customer dancing, and outside dining. He stated that the uses associated with the type of hotel establishment and conference center under consideration would be as follows: The sale of 95 BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS MINUTES -May 7, 1 984 Page 8 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BZA 154-562~-1300-1400 Block of Strand (Cont.) alcoholic beverages would be located in the show lounge, lobby bar, restaurants, partial-level terraue, coffee shop, outside dining area, pool area, ballroom, meeting rooms and guest rooms in conjunction with room service. Live entertainment would be located in the show lounge, lobby bar, ballroom and in the meeting rooms. Customer dancing would be in the show lounge, lobby bar, ballroom, and meeting rooms. Outside dining would be in the area adjacent to the restaurant, show lounge, pool area, and also with room service around the pool area. This request is before the Board at the request of the City Council that the applicant proceed with the conditional use permit;process for the purpose of determining the appropriate conditions that will be included in the City Council approval. The Board's function at this time is to recommend appropriate conditions to be included in the lease agreement or development agreement. The Staff Review Committee had recommended 17 conditions to be considered if the Board acts to approve the request. Comm. Williams asked whether the conditional use permit will be reviewed once the business is in operation. Mr. Grove replied that there will periodic review periods through the terms of the lease agreement and development agreement. These reviews will be by the City Council. Comm. Williams felt that the review should be by the Board of Zoning Adjustments. She questioned why it will be reviewed by the City Council. Mr. Grove replied that it is a unique case in that the City has never had a development of this type located on city property. He noted that the Staff Review Committee-r,felt that the review should be through the City Counci 1 . Mr. Grove stated that Condi ti on #8 should be reworded to indicate. 11 • • • they may cite the business and initiate a Notice of Noncompliance with the terms of the 1 ease agreement. 0 Chmn. Moore asked Mr. Grove why pornographic was added to the nude, topless, and bottomless restrictions. Mr. Grove stated that staff had a discussion with the Police Department on what is considered nude entertainment and what is considered theater. The Committee felt that by including that term, it better represented their intention with regards to the entertainment. Comm. Hilliams asked if the City Council always has the discretion to determine whether or not the reviews should come before the Board of Zoning Adjustments. Mr. Grove replied that the City Council will be approving the final Environmental Report and the final Development Agreement, Lease Agreement, Specific Plan, Local Coastal Plan Amendment. Therefore, they feel that the conditonal use permit should be a part of that. It was their wish that the Board review the request and place the appropriate conditions. 96 BOARD OF ZONfNG ADJUSTMENTS MINUTES -May 7, 1984 Page 9 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BZA 154-562 -1300-1400 Block of Strand (Cont.) Comm. Williams felt that this conditional use permit should be treated the same as any other conditional use permit with regard to the conditions and the review. Comm. Cutler requested a clarification of Condition #15. Mr. Grove replied that the plans have not proceeded beyond the conceptual state indicated in the Draft Environmental Impact Report.•. Since these are the conceptual plans, it is the intention of the Staff Review Committee to recommend that they review the final development plans to determine if they are complying with the intent of the conceptual plans. He stated that in reality the exact square footage and the exact location of the certain rooms may differ slightly from what is indicated in the conceptual plans. Public Hearing opened at 8:32 P.M. Joe Langlois, 11726 San Vicente Boulevard, Los Angeles, with the development partnership of Greenwood and Langlois, applicant, stated that he is responding to a set of standards and a perceived need on the part of the City. He stated that he has submitted as part of the development and design process a b~ilding which conforms with those standards and needs. He stated that part of the request is that he develop, own, finance, and operate a first-class hotel. The City Council has been very specific and demanding in that regard. Double Tree, their co-development partner, is a first-class operation controlled by Metropolitan Life Insurance Company. This hotel will be '.$80.00 a night and up. He informed the Board that this will be a $30,000,000 project. He noted that he has been required by the City to provide all of the amenities that normally are associated with that type of operation. He stated that the proposed site has a long and troubled history, and it has been a difficult piece of property to construct a business. He explained to the Board that a first-class hotel in Hermosa Beach is very, very difficult to finance and construct. He stated that often a development agreement is entered into whereby the City will set out certain conditions'that must be f~lfilled, that is, to describe the project and submit pictures of the project. Also, a devloper might be asked to do things such as contribute to the beach shuttle ,X number of dollars per year, to synchronize traffic lights in the City. and to contribute to the Community Center. He stated that he and his partner contractually agreed to do these things. In exchange, he requested the City to gua~antee that they will not later change their minds and not allow him to build the hotel after he has optioned a great deal of wery expensive property and spent time doing architectural renderings with top-flight firms. It is a mutual agreement that assures the City that they are going to end up with the product that they want, and he is going to be able to build it without having subsequent changes. Consequently, with a number of discretionary processes, he has asked that the City contractually decide that one body is going to make a decision on this project after all the required public hearings have taken place. Once the decision is made, he is going to end up with a single contract controlling the development that will be self-defining and self-governing. He explained to the Board that it is not intented to be a slight to the Board of Zoning Adjustments; it is simply that a $15,000,000 97 BOARD OF ZO~ING ADJUSTMENTS MINUTES -May 7, 1984 Page l O CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BZA 154-562 -1300-1400 Block of Strand (Cont.) or $18,000,000 lender must know the developer's vested rights. He displayed renderings of the hotel to the Board. He noted that he has been through a great number of pub1ic hearings on this process. He noted that he has placed the heavy traffic areas such as the restaurants and bars towards the pier away from the residential neighborhoods. The meeting rooms will be up against 15th Street, and the windows in those rooms are sealed and nonoperable. He stated that what he has requested from the City is very typical of what Double Tree, Marriot, Sheraton, Hilton, and other first-class hotels would ask for. Comm. Cutler stated that hotels such as the Marriot, Sheraton, and the Hilton are typically located near the airport. He asked the applicant if there were a way to use soundproofing techniques for the restaurant and bar areas of this hotel. Mr. Langlois replied that there are two considerations they have dealt with throughout the negotiations, those being, that they have to meet the City Code requirements that deal with Noise Regulations and that they are in a commercial zone, so they should be permitted normal commercial activities. He assured the Board that the hotel will be quieter than the Lighthouse. He explained to the Board that there are guest rooms above the restaurants and bars which eent for a very high price; therefore, the noise level will have to be kept to a minimum. Comm. Corder questioned whether the interior walls will be of drywall construction. Mr. Langlois replied in the affirmative. Comm. Berardo asked the applicant what type of barriers will be used for the outside dining. Mr. Langlois replied that they have considered having a planter barrier with a six-foot plexiglass wall on top of the planter. This will provide a breeze break and prevent persons from reaching over. Comm. Berardo asked if there were any entrances besides the main entraoce~, Mr. Langlois replied in the affirmative, statjng that there is an extrance to the hotel from the Strand; however, there will be a doorman stationed at the entrance to make certain that the people coming in are either proper1~ attired or are hotel guests. He used the renderings of the hotel to explain the layout of the proposed hotel. Comm. Cutler asked if the hotel will be called the Biltmore. Mr. Langlois replied that he would like to call it the Biltmore; however, there are some restrictions as to the use of the name Biltmore. He stated that Double Tree would have to agree with the name. 98 BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS MINUTES -May 7. 1984 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BZA 154-562 -1300-1400 Block of Strand (Cont.} No one else appeared to speak in favor of the conditional use permit. No one appeared to speak in opposition to the conditional use permit. Public Hearing closed at 8:45P.M. Comm. Williams stated that she had no further recommendations. She stated that the request for this conditional use permit was not for the hotel; it was for permission to sell beer and wine and for live entertainment. She stated that the Board was not to approve or deny Page 11 the request; the City Council merely asked the Board to make recommendations. Chmn. Moore did not believe that to be true. He stated that the Board is being presented with a request, and they are to approve or deny that request and make further recommendations if need be. Comm. Williams stated that the Board's function was to review only and make appropriate recommendations. She requested Mr. Grove to clarify the Board's function for this matter. Mr. Grove replied that the intent is to provide the City Council with the Board of Zoning Adjustments' recommendations. These recommendations can range from denying all of the potential uses; however, if that be the case, reasons would have to be stated as to why the Board feels that the project could not be conditioned to be compatible .. The Board may amend, add to, or delete from the conditions delineated by the Staff Review Committee in the staff report. The action by the Board should be a recommendation to the City Council. Chmn. Moore noted that before the Board is a public hearing for a particular conditional use permit that bears a number. The Board's action may be overridden by the City Council or it may be appealed. There is an advertised public hearing to approve with conditions or to deny a conditional use permit. He stated that the City Council could treat it as a recommendation; however, it comes in the form of a specific action. Comm. Cutler asked ' i. f the Board's ··recommendati ans for con di ti onal use permits on less unique cases are appeabble. Mr. Grove replied in the affirmative. Comm. Cutler felt that the Board should debate and vote as usual on this matter. Mr. Grove concurred, stating that the Board should proceed in the usual manner. He stated that the only difference between making recommendations L and approving or denying a conditional use permit is that in this case the majority of the property is owned by the City, and the City Council has the final word. 99 BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS MINUTES -May 7, 1984 Page 12 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BZA 154-562 -1300-1400 Block of Strand (Cont.) Comm. Cutler recommended deleting Condition #15. He felt that the public should have more input on this matter. Mr. Grove stated that if the Board feels that the Staff Review Committee should not be the body reviewing the final development plans for compliance with the conceptual plans, the Board should indicate what body or what method should take place to assure that the final development plans agree with the conceptual plans. Comm. Cutler asked Mr. Grove how familiar he was with the Lease Agreement. Mr. Grove replied that the Lease Agreement has not reached a final form at this point. Comm. Cutler stated that since the Board is not familiar with the Lease Agreement, it renders placing conditions on this project as being futile. Since the Lease Agreement shall prevail and the Board is not familiar with it, there is no reason to place conditions upon the project. He stated that for the Board to give any meaningful input or make an advisory statement, they must be able to see the conflicts between the lease Agreement and the conditions. Chmn. Moore stated that the Board is to pass upon what they believe to be a legitimate set of conditions. Comm. Cutler stated that a document should be prepared for the next public hearing on this matter that indicates any potential conflicts between the conditions approved by the. Board and the Lease Agreement. He recommended adding a condition which states, "That a document be prepared which explicitly notes~potential conflicts between the conditions and the Lease Agreement." Mr. Grove stated that the above could be an added condition; however, the conditions of the conditional use permit will be incorporated into the Lease Agreement. Chmn. Moore stated that he could not support the addition because it would be an attempt of the Board to control what happens to its advice after it leaves the Board. Motion by Chmn. Moore, seconded by Comm. Williams, that the Board of Zoning Adjustments recommends to the City Council that the conditions proposed by the City Staff are adequate to meet the requirements for this project. Chmn. Moore stated that he left Condition #15 as a condition because it does not say that no other body may review the conditions. Comm. Berardo stated that he would like to see a condition that delineates the period of review. Chmn. Moore withdrew his motion, and Comm. Williams ·withdrew her se<;and. 100 BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS MINUTES -May 7, 1984 Page 13 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BZA 154-562 -1300-1400 Block of Strand (Cont.) Motion by Comm. Berardo, seconded by Comm. Cutler, that the Board of Zoning Adjustments recommends to the City Council that the conditions proposed by the City Staff are adequate to meet the requirements for this project with the addition of Condition #1B to read, "There is to be a review of thH conditional use permit within six months of the opening of the hotel." There is to be Condition #19 which should read, "Staff should prepare a statement which identifies any conflicts between the Conditional Use Permit, Conditions #1 through #18 and the Lease Agreement.= That statement of potential conflicts is to be presented at the next appropriate public hearing be.f6re whatever body is holding the public hearing." (Vote, para; 8.) Comm. Cutler stated that Condition #19 is needed because Condition #17 is very unique . Mr. Grove asked if Condition #19 could merely be a recommendation and not a condition. Comm. Cutler wished it to be]a0fotmal condition. Motion by Comm. Cutler, seconded by Comm. Williams, to recommend to the City Council that staff should prepare a statement which identifies any conflicts between the Conditional Use Permit, Conditions #1 through #1B and the Lease Agreement. That statement of potential conflicts is to be presented at the next appropriate public hearing before whatever body is holding the public hearing. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Berardo, Cutler, Williams; Chmn. Moore Comm. Corder None Comm. Corder noted that he abstained due to a possible conflict of interest. Vote on main motion: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Berardo, Cutler, Williams, Chmn. Moore None Comm. Corder None Comm. Corder noted that he abstained due to a possible conflict of interest. Chmn. Moore stated that the Board's decision may be appealed by writing to the City Council within ten days. REVIEWS GON9-IT·10NA!:.~USE PERMIT REVIEW -807 21st Street Mr. Grove stated that the City has not received any complaints about the business 101 BOARD-OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS MINUTES -May 7, 1984 Page 14 '-I CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REVIEW -807 21st Street (Cont.) since it has opened. Comm. Cutler asked where it is indicated that the applicants are allowed to have outside dining. Mr. Grove replied that it is indicated in the first WHEREAS of the Resolution. Chmn. Moore asked if there were any requirements that would be different for outside dining as opposed to inside dining. Mr. Grove replied that the only difference is the parking requirement. Comm. Cutler stated that the applicants put tables out on the parking lot on Sundays. Mr. Grove stated that he was not aware that the applicants were using any other area for outside dining. He stated that he would look into this matter. Comm. Corder believed that it was the duty of the Department of Building and Safety to investigate this matter. Mr. Grove stated that he will have it investigated. He suggested having input on this matter at the next meeting, and if the Board determines at that time that the applicant is in violation of the conditional use permit, they may revoke that part of the permit that applies to outside dining . Chmn. Moore noted that the applicant was not present. Comm. Williams felt that the City should send a letter to the business that they should not use the parking lot for outside dining on Sundays. Motion by Chmn. Moore, seconded by Comm. Cutler, to postpone this review until May 211 1984. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Comms. Berardo, Corder, Cutler, Williams, Chmn. Moore None None Chmn. Moore asked if the City has had any input from the neighbors. Mr. Grove replied that there was a partial banning of parking on Borden that was brought about because of the general magnitude of the commercial development in that area; however, there have been no complaints directly related to this business. 102 l ► BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS MINUTES -May 7, 1984 l!j MISCELLANEOUS Page 15 Comm. Williams directed staff to submit a report on Jeno's Restaurant at the May 21, 1984 meeting. She stated that their conditional use permit states that they may be open until 9:00, and they are now open until 11 :00. She stated that it is located at 2700 Manhattan Avenue. Motion to adjourn at 9:27 P.M. CERTI Fl CATION I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes of the Board of Zoning Adjustments were approved at a regular meeting. DATE 103 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON MARCH 15, 1988, AT 7:30 P.M. IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS Meeting called to order at 7:30 P.M. by Chmn. Compton. Pledge of Allegiance led by Comm. Rue. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Comms, Ingell, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Compton Comm. DeBellis * Also Present: Michael Schubach, Planning Director; James P. Lough, City Attorney; Sally White, Recording Secretary (* Comm. DeBellis joined the meeting at 7:46 P.M.) APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chmn. Compton commented on the minutes of March 1, 1988. He discussed the motion on Page 15, and questioned whether the wording is correct. Mr. Schubach stated that the minutes accurately reflect the motion made; however, he said that he would listen to the tape to ensure that the wording is correct. Chmn. Compton made an addition to Page 20, Paragraph 3: 11Chmn. Compton disagreed, stating that this issue has arisen because of the development of these particular types of lots, in extremely sensitive areas of town where the majority of neighbors wanted to have the lots merged, and this is not such an area.11 Comm. Rue made an addition to Page 20, Paragraph 10: 11Comm. Rue noted that the Planning Commission has been given the authority by the State to not merge these lots if an owner does not want them merged, and the intent of the City Council and State, by their wording, is to make it the least difficult way of keeping the lots unm~ged.11 MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to approve the minutes of March 1, 1988, as amended. No objections; so ordered. APPROVAL OF RESOLUTIONS Chmn. Compton discussed Resolution P.C. 88-17, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING A TEXT AMENDMENT TO SECTIONS 1209, 1210, 1211, AND 1212 PERTAINING TO ENCROACHMENTS INTO REQUIRED YARD AREAS AND ENVIRONMENT AL NEGATIVE DECLARATION. He commented on Section 1, (Section 1209) Condition No. 2 and questioned whether the dimensions accurately reflect the motion made by the Commission. He asked Mr. Schubach to listen to the tape to ensure that the numbers are correct. 1 P .C. Minutes 3/ 15/88 104 Chmn. Compton also asked Mr. Schubach to check on Section 4 (Section 1212) in regard to the balcony encroachments into yard areas. He further suggested that the title of this particular section be changed to "Section 1212. Stairway and Balcony Encroachments into Front Yard Areas." Chmn. Compton continued by discussing the second paragraph of Section 4: "An unenclosed stairway or steps uncovered leading from grade to the first floor level only may encroach into a required front yard thirty-six (36) inches, but in no case shall such encroachment be closer than three (3) feet to the front property line." He assumed that this does not include stairs at the ground level that actually step down and not up. He wanted additional language included to clarify this section. Chmn. Compton stated that he would like to see a precise definition for "architectural pro jection.11 Chmn, Compton asked that this resolution be brought back to the Commission for approval at the next meeting with the appropriate changes. Mr. Schubach stated that he would listen to the tape and return Resolution P.C. 88-17 to the Commission at the next meeting. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to approve Resolution P.C. 88-18, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP #19517 FOR A FOUR-UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT 1111 VALLEY DR IVE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS THE NORTHERLY SECTION 67 .4 FEET OF LOTS 21 & 22, KNUTSEN TRACT. No objections; so ordered. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. lngell, to appr0-ve.Resolution P.C. 88-22, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN EXTENSION OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP /117513 FOR A FOUR-UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT 1020 MONTEREY AVENUE. Noting the abstention of Chmn. Compton, no objections; so ordered. Chmn. Compton noted a correction to Resolution P.C. 88-23, Condition No. 8. The wording should be changed to: 11All common areas are to be kept clean of trash and debris." MOTION by Chmn. Compton, seconded by Comm. Rue, to approve as amended Resolution P.C. 88-23, A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A PARKING PLAN FOR A 400 SQUARE FOOT RETAIL ADDITION AT 1100 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION. No objections; so ordered. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC No citizens appeared to address the Commission. Mr. Schubach stated that a letter had been received from Mark J. Kavanaugh dated March 15, 1988, requesting an extension of one year on tentative tract map /130986 for an eight lot subdivision at 532, 534-548 20th Street, The map will expire on April 21, 1988, and he therefore requested that this matter be placed on the Planning Commission agenda for the meeting of April .5, 1988. 2 P .C. Minutes 3/ 1.5/8 8 105 •, MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to set for hearing the issue of tentative tract map #30986 for an eight lot subdivision at 532, 534-548 20th Street. Noting the abstention of Comm. DeBellis, no objections; so ordered. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND TENTATfVE PARCEL MAP 1119542 FOR A TWO­ UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED AT 21.5 MANHATTAN AVENUE Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated March 8, 1988. The project is located in the R-3 multiple-family residential zone with a general plan designation of high density residential. The lot size is 3,000 square feet. The proposed units are approximately 2050 square feet in size. The units will contain three bedrooms and two baths. Each structure consists of two stories and a subterranean floor. The development will provide two parking spaces per unit and two guest spaces. One additional parking stall shall be provided as a result of curb cuts. Therefore, a recommended condition of approval is to require the applicant to refurbish the curb according to the specifications of the Public Works Department. The units conform to the open space requirement. Both Unit A and Unit B will provide 311 square feet of private open space. However, this development will not provide any common open space area. Sufficient private storage per unit is provided in the garage area. However, the plans fail to show the area where the trash facilities shall be located. Thus a condition of approval should require revised plans to display the location of trash facilities. A Planning Department concern regards the turning radius for the parking of Unit B. The alley to the rear of Unit B is only twenty feet wide. To remedy this situation, a condition of approval is to require that only one parking stall shall be located in the rear of Unit B. The dimensions of the stall should include the width of at least 10.5 feet or greater. By providing parking with the width of 10.5 or greater, the required turning radius is reduced to 19 feet. Another concern of the Planning Department involves the grade of the project. The applicant has proposed to raise the grade to produce a partial subterranean first floor. Staff wishes to ensure the grading meets all Building Code requirements. Therefore, a condition of approval is to require revised plans to display the grade in conformance with the Building Code. The project conforms to all other planning and zoning requirements and is consistent with surrounding uses. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve a conditional use permit and ten ta ti ve parcel map # i 9 54 2, subject to the conditions specified in the proposed resolution. Chmn. Compton noted concern over plans which do not show any dimensions. He noted further concern over these particular plans, stating that they do not specify the location or size of the guest parking. He noted that such requirements are mandated by the zoning code; and he questioned whether approval should be given for a project whose plans are incomplete. 3 P.C. Minutes 3/ 15/88 106 Mr. Schubach stated that the Commission could add a condition requmng that all requirements are met; however, he noted that staff would ensure that all requirements are complied with before final approval of the plans. He noted that guest parking and turning radius requirements must be met. Chmn. Compton stated that it is difficult to approve a project when the plans are incomplete, noting that the plans do not show the rear yard setbacks or balcony projections. He continued by noting concern over the grade. Mr. Schubach stated that if the Commission so desires, this item could be continued to the next meeting of the Planning Commission. Comm. Ingell noted that the plans do not show the location of the trash area. Mr. Schubach stated that many times trash enclosures are allowed to be located in larger garage areas; however, that issue falls within the purview of a different portion of the zoning ordinance, and it is enforced by the Building Department. Public Hearing opened at 7:55 P .M. by Chmn. Compton. Jack Wood, 200 Pier Avenue, Suite 38, Hermosa Beach, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission. He stated that it is very expensive to have plans professionally prepared. He noted that this applicant has had many expenses related to the project; also, the City has never precluded anyone from preparing their own plans. He further noted that interpreting the code can prove to be quite an undertaking for the average person. Mr. Wood noted that the applicant has been working closely with the staff on this project, and there is adequate parking. Also the applicant is agreeing to the trash enclosure requirement. Mr. Wood discussed the parking condition, stating that the Planning Department has noted concern over the turning radius. He stated that if there is an abbreviated turning radius, the applicant will agree to an additional legal parking space in that area. If the applicant can get two parking spaces, Mr. Wood felt that the applicant should be allowed to do so without interference from the City. Mr. Wood felt it would be counter-productive to require a larger turning radius at the expense of additional parking. Mr. Wood discussed the trash enclosure, stating that it will be located in the proper area. He continued by saying this project will be built according to all requirements, including the height limitation. The applicant will also pay for a survey. Mr. Wood stated that the impact of resubmitting the plans will be minimal; therefore, the plans could be approved at this time. He stated that the applicant wiil agree to conform to all conditions in the code. Public Hearing closed by Chmn. Compton at 8:00 P.M. Chmn. Compton felt that this project will upgrade the neighborhood. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to approve staff's recommendation to approve a conditional use permit and tentative parcel map 1119.542 for a two-unit 4 P.C. Minutes 3/15/88 107 condominium project located at 215 Manhattan Avenue, subject to the conditions specified in the resolution, and subject to the project's meeting all requirements of the building and zoning codes. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. DeBellis, Ingell, Peirce, Rue, Chmn. Compton None None None CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW A BOX OFFICE EXPANSION AT 1018 HERMOSA AVENUE (COMEDY AND MAGIC CLUB) AND ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLAR./\ TION Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated March l O, 1988. The Planning Commission, at their meeting of January 23, 1978, approved Resolution P.C. 78-3 to allow the on-site sale of beer and wine and to allow live entertainment. The Board of Zoning Adjustments, at their meeting of August 6, 1979, approved BZA Resolution 154-337 to modify a CUP to allow the sale of alcoholic beverages, including beer and wine. The Board of Zoning Adjustments, at their meeting of June 29, 198.3, approved BZA Resolution 154-467 to modify a CUP to allow outside dining. The conditions pertaining to this request were omitted in BZA Resolution 154-561 since the use no longer exists. Resolution BZA 154-56 l was approved by the Board of Zoning Adjustments on March 7, 1984, to ailow the adjacent retail space to be used in conjunction with the existing business. The Environmental Review Committee, at their meeting of January 21, 1988, recommended that the Planning Commission grant a negative declaration for this project and requested the applicant to submit plans showing the interior of the building and the seating layout. The applicant is requesting an amendment to the existing conditional use permit to allow for an 84-square foot addition for a new box office. The proposed addition is located in front of the existing office area and adjacent to the sidewalk. The area requested for the addition is located under the existing roof area. The existing box office has one window. The proposed box office will provide three windows and therefore will reduce or eliminate the Jines that often exist along the sidewalk before a show. The management of the Comedy and Magic Club is proposing to separate the lines based on the types of transactions. The management is also requesting the box office addition to improve the safety of the employees within the box office. Currently, after the box office closes, the employee must carry the cash and receipts across the seating area of the club to get to the general offices. The proposed location of the box office will be directly in front of the general offices, thereby eliminating the risk incurred by the employee while carrying the cash. The addition will not require any additional parking. The area proposed for the addition is presently under roof area and enclosed by three walls, and is therefore part of the existing building area. 5 P .C. Minutes 3/15/88 108 The Planning Department has investigated this business for conformance with the existing conditional use permits and has found the business to be in violation of some of the existing conditions; i.e., no screens for the windows and no sign related to open containers in the public right-of-way. In the past, the club has had problems with exceeding maximum allowable occupancy. The management has been working with the Building and Fire Departments to develop an approved seating plan. A copy of the seating plan was provided to the Commission. As a condition of approval, staff recommended that a copy of the seating plan be displayed at the club and shall be adhered to. The addition conforms to planning and zoning codes and is compatible with the general plan. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve the conditional use permit, subject to the conditions specified in the proposed resolution. He concluded that all previous conditional use permits have been combined and supercede previous CUPs. Comm. Peirce asked about the sign at this location which is depicted in the plans provided to the Commission. Mr. Schubach had no knowledge of the sign; however, the sign is not part of the issue before the Commission at this time. Comm. Ingell asked whether other businesses have ever been required to post their seating plans. Mr. Schubach stated that posting has not been required in the past; however, because of the concerns expressed by the Fire Department, it is being required in this case. He stated that it is more feasible for the plan to be posted, since an inspector can arrive at any given time, including times when the office may be locked up and there is no access to a copy of the plan. Staff has proposed that the sign be posted in an area such as the kitchen or hallway where it could be easily seen yet will not detract from the surroundings. Public Hearing opened at &:O& P.M. by Chmn. Compton. Mike Lacey, applicant, addressed the Commission and discussed the seating issue. He stated that this matter had arisen when he went to apply for the permit for the box office. At that time it was discovered that the Building Department had never consulted with the Fire Department in regard to the maximum seating occupancy. The Building Department then went to the Fire Department and obtained a seating chart showing a number significantly higher than what is ever seated in the room. He stated that there has never been any problem with the seating, and he is awaiting further word from the Building Director on this matter before the diagram is put up. He noted that it will be located near the podium, and this is in no way a problem. Mr. Lacey discussed the sign, stating that he has taken over the businesses to either side of the club and he therefore wanted to expand the sign and make it all one piece. He was told that there are square footage requirements for sign space. He is in conformance with the square footage requirements, and he is currently awaiting the installment of the new sign. He said that he needs no approval; this sign is merely a replacement. Public Hearing closed at 8:10 P.M. by Chmn. Compton. MOTION by Comm. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Peirce, to approve staff's recommendation to approve the conditional use permit amendment to allow a box office 6 P.C. Minutes 3/15/88 109 expansion at 1018 Hermosa Avenue, the Comedy and Magic Club, and environmental negative declaration. Comm. DeBellis asked how staff proposes to enforce all of the conditions. Mr. Schubach stated that the Planning Department has a new employee whose job is to ensure that businesses comply with the conditions of their CUPs. Also, the efforts of the Building, Planning, Fire and Police Departments are all being combined. Comm. DeBellis thought it odd that a seating chart should be required for the benefit of inspectors, He felt that the requirement is dumb. He felt that the inspector assigned to check on the seating should already have a copy of the chart. Mr. Schubach stated that it was felt that it would be easier and more accessible if the chart is posted. Chmn. Compton did not feel it necessary for the sign to be posted where it can be seen by the public. He felt that a location in the office or otherwise out of sight would be acceptable. Mr. Schubach noted, however, that problems have arisen in the past because managers frequently change, and new managers say they are not aware of the requirements. Therefore, it is felt that if the seating plan is posted, there can be no excuse for the manager not knowing the requirements. Chmn. Compton then agreed that the posting of the seating chart is a good idea. He further added that all restaurants should probably be required to seating charts and that a copy of the CUP should be posted right next to the seating chart. He noted, however, that he did not feel it necessary to post the chart within view ot.~he public. Chmn. Compton suggested an amendment to the motion to modify the condition requiring posting of the seating chart to state that posting can be in the office or other place that is accessible to the inspecting officer. Comm. Rue noted that the manager is required to read and sign the conditional use permit, indicating that he has read and understood each of the conditions. Comm, Ingell did not feel it necessary to indicate where the seating chart should be posted. He felt that the main thing is to specify the maximum number of seats allowed in the building. He noted that occasions arise such as banquets where the tables are rearranged, thereby making a precise seating arrangement difficult to enforce. Mr. Schubach noted if additional tables or chairs are brought in, or the furniture is positioned too closely to ailes or doorways, this might constitute a violation. The Fire Department would need to be consulted on such occasions to ensure that such rearrangement is not in violation of the code. Comm. Ingell discussed instances where banquets occur and seating is rearranged. He noted concern over the inclusion of a condition which cannot be enforced. Chmn. Compton stated that he favors the posting of the seating plan, although not necessarily in public view. He noted, too, that the applicant has no problem with such posting. 7 P.C. Minutes 3/ 15/88 110 Comm. Ingell disagreed, stating that he does not favor setting the precedent of requiring establishments to post seating plans. AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION by Comm. Ingell as maker and agreed to by Comm. Peirce as second, to delete Condition No. 2(a) ''The seating plan shall be posted within the club." (Condition No. 2(b) then becomes 2(a).) Chmn. Compton noted, however, that Condition 2(b) contains no maximum number; it states only that 11The occupancy of the seating plan shall not be exceeded," Comm. Peirce stated that the maximum occupancy issue is within the purview of the Fire Department. Comm. Rue asked about seating plans. He also asked whether sea ting plans are required by the Fire Department. Mr. Lough explained that the applicant is not being tied to a specific seating plan; merely, that one be prepared. Also, several seating plans could be submitted allowing for banquets and regular activities, so long as they meet all requirements. The Fire Department does not require a specific seating plan, only that an establishment conform to the certain standards. Comm. Rue then suggested that it be required to post only standards, not a seating plan. Chmn. Compton stated that he would vote against the motion, noting that he feels the seating plan to be an important aspect of this approval. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. lngell, Peirce Comms. DeBellis, Rue, Chmn. Compton None None (MOTION FAILS) MOTION by Chmn. Compton, seconded by Comm. Rue, to accept staff's recommendation with the modifications to Condition No. 2 as follows: Condition No. 2(a) shall be amended to state: "The general seating plan shall be posted within the club." A Condition No. 2(c) shall be added stating: "The seating plan may be modified for special occasions provided all requirements of the Building and Fire Departments are met." AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ingell, Peirce, Rue, Chmn, Compton Comm. DeBellis None None Comm. DeBellis stated that he voted against the motion because he feels the Planning Commission has a window of opportunity every time someone requests an amendment to a conditional use permit. He referred specifically to Condition No. 22 of this very CUP: "The Planning Commission may review the conditional use permit 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.11 He said there is no question that this establishment impacts on the surrounding areas. 8 P.C. Minutes 3/15/88 111 Chmn. Compton noted, however, that there is a six-month review process provided for in this case. Mr. Schubach stated that this establishment is actually reviewed every month. He stated that there have been no complaints from the surrounding neighbors. Also, public noticing went to everyone within 300 feet of this establishment. REZONE OF AREA 2 FROM R-2 TO R-1 AND ENVlRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated March 10, 1988. He stated that this is the second of ten areas which the City Council has directed the Planning Commission to address. He stated that a large map has been posted and copies have been provided for the benefit of the public. Mr. Schubach discussed Area 2 in detail: The total land area is 625,684 square feet. Total number of lots is 176. The typical lot size varies. There are currently 267 dwelling units in Area 2, and the average number of units per lot is l.5. The existing density is 18.6 units per acre. The existing zoning is R-2, with a general plan designation of low density. The potential number of units under the current R-2 zoning ordinance (of 1,750 square feet per unit) is 281, or 19.56 units per acre; the potential number of units under the previous R-2 zoning ordinance (of 2,400 square feet per two units) is 322, or 22.4 units per acre. The potential number of units under the proposed R-1 zone change (one unit per lot by ordinance) would be 176, or 12.25 units per acre. There are a total of 50 lots with nonconforming units under the current R-2 ordinance; under the current R-1 ordinance there are a total of 80 nonconforming units. Fifteen units were constructed in the last ten years; 32 units were built in the last 20 years; and 220 units on 116 lots were constructed more than 30 years ago. The surrounding use to the west is residential, with a zoning of R-1 and R-2 and a general plan designation of low and medium density. The surrounding use to the east is residential except for a small portion of open space (the railroad right-of-way). The zoning to the east is open space and R-1, with a general plan designation of open space and low density. To the north the surrounding use is open space. The northerly portion is zoned as open space and unclassified school use, with a general plan designation of open space. The surrounding use to the south is residential and is zoned R-1, with a general plan designation of low density. According to the general plan, the subject area should be rezoned to R-1, single-family residential. The rezoning would also be in accord with advisory measure EE passed by the electorate in 1980. Eighty-seven percent of the existing dwellings were constructed more than thirty years ago, which is generally an adequate amortization period for most types of construction. 9 P .C. Minutes 3/ 15/88 112 If this area were rezoned to R-1, a potential reduction in density of 37 percent will be recognized. The subject area is surrounded almost completely by low density, R-1 zoned and open space areas. Rezoning the subject area would be a logical extension to the already low density surrounding areas. According to the City Council schedule of zone changes, Area 2 requires rezoning at this time; therefore, staff recommended that the area be rezoned from R-2, two-family residential, to R-1, single-family residential. Chmn. Compton asked what the effect of this zone change will be, based on the idea that there is a current number of 267 dwelling units, and the proposed number is 176. Mr. Schubach stated that the existing two-unit lots will probably remain as two-unit lots, unless they are extremely old. He noted, however, that staff is still studying the issue of non-conforming property as it relates to this issue. He stated that it is hoped staff will return in the near future with some considerations for non-conforming uses. He noted it is very difficult to deal with the issue of condominiums sharing air space in the event the structure burns down, and the issue must be addressed of what can be rebuilt. Chmn. Compton discussed the multi-family dwellings in this area and questioned whether they could be rebuilt in the event of fire, earthquake, or other devastation. Mr. Lough explained that each particular situation would need to be addressed individually. Apartments could only be rebuilt to the current standards. In the case of condominiums, the current condominium ordinance would need to be consulted. He felt, however, that in most cases the structures could be rebuilt according to current state law. The trend is towards more property rights rather than less.. Chmn. Compton noted that staff had mentioned the lot sizes 11vary," He asked for further clarification on the sizes. Mr. Schubach stated that this area is extremely mixed, ranging from very large to very small lots. Some lots are approximately 5,000 square feet and over. Other lots have been split and are quite small. He noted that Area 2 is quite large. Chmn. Compton asked whether there are any tracts in this area which have been developed and could be reasonably split off from this area and left as medium density. Mr. Schubach stated that many of the smaller lots, whether zoned R-1 or R-2, would not be able to accommodate two units in any case. The larger lots to the east would be able to accommodate two units. Comm. DeBellis asked about the process by which this issue is before the Commission. He asked when the general plan was adopted in the City. Mr. Schubach stated that the most recent plan was adopted in 1979. The document was then certified by the Coastal Commission in 1980. He stated that the previous plan was adopted in 1976, and the original general plan was created in 1965, Comm, DeBellis stated that it is mostly likely, then, that the low density designation was placed in this area in 196.5. 10 P.C. Minutes 3/ 15/&& 113 Mr. Schubach stated that it would be necessary to consult the 1965 general plan in order to determine when the area was actually designated low density. Comm. DeBellis asked what the zoning was in 1965, Mr. Schubach suspected that the zoning was R-2 at that time. Comm. DeBellis noted that the City has waited 23 years before attempting to correct this discrepancy between the general plan and zoning. Mr. Schubach explained that the the City is under the state requirements to reconcile the zoning the general plan designation. Further, the citizens passed advisory measure EE to lower the density. Comm. DeBellis questioned how many eligible citizens actually voted in the election in which EE was passed. He doubted whether the actual voter turnout was more than thirty percent of the registered voters, noting that that is why he is against ballot box voting. Comm. DeBellis asked what planning studies the Planning Department has actually done in order to substantiate why the zoning or general plan should be changed. Mr. Schubach stated that all statistical background data has been provided in order for the Commission to study and make a decision based on that. Public Hearing opened at 8:42 P.M. by Chmn, Compton. Coming Forward to Speak in Favor of the Proposed Zone Change: Elizabeth Dunbar, 2524 Morningside Drive, lives in a single-family dwelling which cannot be turned into a duplex because there is not adequate parking. Therefore, she favored the area being rezoned to R-1. Dominick Sarensioni, 577 25th Street, noted concern over the quality of life issue and the low density intention. If the general plan calls for low density, then it should be because of parking and traffic problems. He wanted to maintain low density and focus on reducing pollution, noise, traffic, and parking problems. Melissa Miller, 318 24th Street and 2222 Loma Drive, could not favor or oppose the proposed zone change until more information is made available. She questioned whether other areas will be upzoned as a result of this downzone. She questioned whether the impacts of this downzone have been studied as it relates to other areas which will be addressed in the future. She felt that the proposal is capricious and arbitrary at this time. Todd Kalish, 541 24th Place, noted that the area currently zoned R-1 has two-unit duplexes which occurred after all the rezoning took place. It is a very long, time consuming process for duplexes to disappear and be replaced with single-family residences. He said there is a tremendous property value in the single-family area. He said the area is very attractive and still very valuable even if it can only be developed with single units. He noted concern over traffic in the area, He said it would be appropriate to downzone the area to keep it in conformance with the family and child oriented atmosphere of the area. 11 P.C. Minutes 3/15/88 114 Joel Beckett, 2424 Silverstrand Avenue, felt the downzone would improve the quality of life in the area. He felt that it would further improve transportation and parking. However, he noted concern over the zoning of the North School site, and questioned whether condos would be built on that site. He felt that condos would be detrimental if the rest of the area is rezoned R-1. Coming Forward to Speak in Opposition to the Proposed Zone Change: Walt Taylor, 2468 Myrtle Avenue, noted concern that he received no notice of this public hearing. Mr. Schubach stated that thousands of notices were sent out; however, he will check to ensure that Mr. Taylor is on the list. He noted that the notice could have been lost in the mail. Mr. Taylor felt that downzoning would decrease his property value, and he stressed that he would like to be notified of any such future actions. He opposed not only the City's rezoning of his property and mandating the number of units he can put on his property, but also limiting the height to which he can build. Jim Calhoune, 566 25th Street, has a large undeveloped parcel specifically purchased by him in 1973 because of the fact it is zoned R-2. He has chosen at this time not to develop the property because he enjoys the open space; however, to rezone his property from R-2 to R-1 would substantially reduce his property value should he decide to sell the parcel. Mr. Calhoune continued by discussing the square footage of his parcel. He noted that the general plan has not been in effect since 1965. He cited advisory measure EE and questioned how many people actually voted for that item. He felt that EE should be placed on the ballot again because there have been seve00<s:,Glilanges since 1980. He stressed that there must be a consensus of all the citizens of the City before any drastic measures are taken, and he felt that more information is necessary before making a decision on this area. He felt that additional clarification is in order. He felt that the 1965 general plan does not meet 1988 requirements. Ron Hobbs, 544 25th Street, referred to the area on the south side of 25th Street from Lots 3 through 10, and then Lots 1 through 4. He noted that all of those lots are 50 by 150 and very large. He presented a petition signed by 17 people living on that block, all opposed to any rezoning of that area. The opposition is because the downzoning does not take into consideration the lot sizes, which is the major factor in this issue. He stated that lots of many different sizes, ranging from 50' by 150' to JO' by 421, have all been lumped together in Area 2. Many of the Jots conform to existing low density requirements. He suggested that some of the areas be considered separate and apart from others in Area 2. Mr. Hobbs stated that some of the residents desperately need the income derived from their rental properties, and without that income many of the people probably could not even afford to live in Hermosa Beach. John Dunbabin, 2432 Myrtle Avenue, noted his single-family dwelling is already built to the JO-foot height limit. By downzoning, his property would become non-conforming. He lives on the east side of Myrtle; across the street is zoned medium density, which is five feet higher. As a result of the downzoning of Area 2 from R-2 to R-1, the east side of Myrtle Avenue will be limited to a height of 25 feet; while the west side, which is zoned R-2 and not subject to rezoning at this time, will have a height restriction of 30 feet. 12 P.C. Minutes 3/ 1.5/88 115 Since the view is important for its beauty and the value it adds to the property in the area, and if Area 2 must be rezoned to R-1, he asked the Commission to consider a height variance for the east side of Myrtle Avenue and the area east of Myrtle and to set the height limit at 30 feet instead of 25 feet. He said that the lower heights should be in front of areas with a higher designation. Harold Sterns, owner of 2416 Park A venue, bought his property in 1962 and it was zoned R-2. He is retired and was hoping to return to Hermosa Beach; however, the proposed downzoning would impact his property value. He asked how the government can take property from individuals without just compensation. He stated that the downzoning would not permit the maximum use of his lot. Mr. Sterns felt that the various areas should be addressed individually because of the vast difference in lots sizes. He stated that he lives in San Diego and has been receiving notices from the City with no problems. Leon Miller, 2412 Silverstrand Avenue, purchased his property in 1972, at which time it was zoned R-2 and had the minimum square footage requirements for a duplex. He noted concern over his height limitation being affected, and he felt this would impact the value of his property. He noted concern over the rezone of his property and the height of surrounding buildings. He suggested that this issue be placed on the ballot as opposed to being acted upon piecemeal. Walter Adam, owner of 2419 and 2421 Silverstrand Avenue, opposed; because if one cannot rebuild to the same standard if a structure is destroyed, he felt it is an arbitrary taking of property rights and property value. He stated that if a duplex suddenly becomes nonconforming, it will be worth far less. He said that all of the duplexes at issue were built under the code, some of which were completed within the past year. He noted concern over the loss of value if they become nonconfOUini-mg-. • Mr. Adam said that the downzoning will not decrease the density because buildings being constructed today will last at least a hundred years. He said the only way to decrease the number of duplexes would be if they burned down. Bill Pomatri, owner of 2112 Monterey Boulevard, stated that this same downzoning proposal arose seven years ago but did not come to pass. He felt that downzoning would accomplish nothing except to take away the incentive to develop or build on a lot. Therefore, there will be an increase in the number of absentee landlords, with no incentive to ever return to live on the property because those owning duplexes will milk the property for rent. Mr. Pomatri stated that the new duplexes are very beautiful, and they also help the parking situation because they must provide off-street parking. He stated that the shape of the lots themselves actually limits the types of construction which can go in. John Vandewhile, 2426 Silverstrand Avenue, objected to the change in height from 30 feet to 2.5 feet. He is across the street from new homes which are at least 30 feet or more due to variances. He also noted concern over the requirement of additional living space combined with the setback requirements, noting that if had to rebuilt, a home would have to be very small to be ln compliance. He noted that his house and lot are very small. Elizabeth Dunbar, 2524 Morningside Drive, which is an irregularly-shaped lot, originally spoke in favor of the zone change; however, she now opposed based on the fact she is 13 P.C. Minutes 3/ 15/88 116 adjacent to the open space area near the North School property, and she noted concern over the duplexes which would be able to build to a greater height. She noted that she wants to take advantage of her front yard. Phil Simovich, 505 24th Place, and owner of 2460 and 2460 1/2 Park Avenue, opposed because he felt that if the North School property becomes available, developers will offer a very attractive package to the City so they can develop the site into a high density development. He noted concern that a person can buy an R-2 lot at top dollar and then be downzoned. He felt that a new general plan will probably be imposed in another ten years. He felt that the plan should be adhered to and there should not be so many variances granted thereby enabling people to avoid the rules and regulations. Wilma Burt, 1152 7th Street, has fought the proposed downzoning for years, She stated that the general plan can be changed to conform with the zoning; the zoning does not need to be changed. Furthermore, by downzoning this area, all the houses will become legal nonconforming. If they do become nonconforming, people will have to pay very high fees to the City in order to obtain variances if they want to do any improvements. Mrs. Burt discussed the various lot sizes and stated that the 4000 square foot lot requirement was never intended for developed land, but only for open, undeveloped parcels. Mrs. Burt discussed advisory measure EE and stated that many people did not understand the issues; they merely wanted lower density and to reduce the traffic problems. Those who voted for EE did not realize they were, in effect, voting for downzoning. Mrs. Burt stressed that the general plan should be changed, not the zoning. Viva Stroiky, 320.5 The Strand, a realtor, stated that she is atter:npti □ g to sell a property at 2211 Loma, on the corner of Park and Loma, which is in a very bad state of disrepair. If the downzoning is approved, the property will then become R-1. She asked whether a grandfather clause has been proposed for this downzoning proposal, noting that the structure could then be torn down and replaced with a beautiful new building. Albert Wiemans, owner of 336 24th Street, bought the house for the specific purpose that it was zoned R-2. On either side of his house are duplexes. There are only two single­ family dwellings on his block. Across the street is medium density housing. He asked whether the City actually has a definition of "low density." He felt low density is R-2, R-2B, and R-1. He stated that the downzoning will decrease his property value. Mr. Wiemans stated that the Commission is acting under a fiduciary agreement to protect the rights of_property owners. He stated that the electorate will turn against City government if they lose their property rights. Mr. Wiemans discussed EE and stressed that the measure was merely advisory, not mandatory. He stated that, if necessary, he will take legal action to halt this downzone. Blair Smith, 316 25th Street, owner of two duplexes in this area, opposed the downzoning of his property, noting that he has spent a great deal of time and money on his properties. He stated that if his duplexes burned down and he could not rebuild them, he would stand to lose a quarter of a million dollars, explaining that that amount includes future income, not only property value. 14 P,C, Minutes 3/ 15/88 117 Mr. Smith stated that the general plan originally set out is the one that should be followed. He noted that things cannot be changed as easily as people think, because these buildings are not just going to go away. He stated that attention should be given to the general plan instead of attempting to alleviate the problems in the City by downzoning. He stated that the City government is making decisions which affect everyone in the City, and more consideration should be given to the issues. Mr. Smith stressed that the City cannot be changed at this point because it is already 99 percent developed. Pat Price, 719-718 8th Street, completely opposed the downzoning. She stated that the Commission does not care about the people who live in the City. She noted concern over what will happen in her neighborhood in the future. She stated that she, along with many others in the City, wants the City to remain as it is. She stated that the complaints and protests of the citizens fall on deaf ears. Laura Gu not, 527 25th Street, with a 50 percent undivided interest in a condo, noted concern over the fact that she lives in a condominium and owns "air space," and she questioned what would happen if this condo were to burn down or is otherwise destroyed. She stressed that there must first be clarification on this matter before any action is taken. Sal Mayo, 525 25th Street, joint owner of the condo in question at 527 25th Street, wanted clarification of his rights. He noted concern if his condo burns down and posed several questions: Would he move in with Ms. Gunot? What happens when the building has exceeded its useful life? Must the two owners decide who will move out? Who actually owns the property? How would refinancing take place? What does legal nonconforming really mean? Mr. Lough explained that the Supreme Court is currently studying this issue. He continued by stating that, more than likely, if the unit burns down, the property owners would be able to rebuild. He noted, however, that the rules are subject to change. Jeff Green, 846 16th Street, felt that the preparation for this issue has been inadequate. He stated that the City Council is putting pressure on the Planning Commission to get through this issue quickly; therefore, the Planning Department has been forced to prepare incomplete packets of information for the matter to be voted on. Mr. Green stated that the City Council is anti-development and is therefore taking advantage of this situation. He felt that by having a vote tonight on this matter, it would result in a 5-0 vote at the Council level. Mr. Green felt it would be appropriate for the Planning Department to analyze not only this particular area, but also other areas as they relate to this blanket downzoning. He felt that the Planning Department should submit additional information to be studied. He felt that there are lots in Area 2 which are certainly large enough to be zoned R-2. Comm. Peirce disagreed that preparation has been inadequate. In fact, he complimented staff on the fine work they have done in regard to this issue. He felt that the materials are ample and adequate. Mr. Green felt that staff did a fine job within the time parameters which were avaiJable; however, he felt there is doubt as to whether all available information had been provided and made available. But he noted that, after listening to all the comments, more 15 P.C. Minutes 3/15/88 118 information and clarification is necessary before a final decision can be made. He said that the staff report does not address the impact of the downzone as it relates to other areas; it does not address the City as a whole; and it does not address the impacts should the general plan to be modified. Mr. Green discussed at length zoning as it pertains to developers. He stated that in the event this downzoning occurs, there should be a recommendation to the City Council to have a grandfather clause. Harold Sterns, 2416 Park Avenue, questioned why single-family residences are not allowed to go to 30 feet, Susan Miller, 2020 Monterey, which is a duplex on which she would like to put an addition. She questioned whether she would still be able to do the addition if the downzoning is approved. Sally Reinberg, owner of property on the 2400 block of Myrtle Avenue, opposed the downzoning for all the reasons stated by other speakers this evening. She requested that the Commission not pass this recommendation to the City Council. She stated that she depends on the income from her rental property. Public Hearing closed at 10:40 P.M. by Chmn. Compton, Comm. Rue discussed the Joss of view corridors and asked whether there are any provisions either in the Coastal Commission regulations or general City policy pertaining to this issue. Mr. Schubach stated that the City has only the minimum standards; and the general plan does not specifically address the issue of height or view corrid0rs., ,. Comm. Peirce stated that view corridors are mentioned in the coastal plan; however, the issue of building height is not addressed. The section relates mainly to areas in which the City desires to maintain the view in tact from the highway and other areas. Chmn. Compton did not feel comfortable with the idea of taking away people1s property rights and at the same time property values, He noted that of the 176 lots Area 2, only 45 to 48 lots are not already single-family lots based on their size. He continued by discussing the various lot sizes in Area 2. Chmn. Compton stated that he would feel more comfortable taking the lots individually because of the vast differences in size, He questioned whether there are any reasonable alternatives for the larger lots as opposed to those lots which are already essentially single-family dwelling unit lots. Chmn. Compton did not favor the idea of creating additional nonconforming lots in the City. He felt that density is actually created by parking problems, not people. He stated that when structures are recycled, more parking is obtained thereby alleviating some of the parking problems. By downzoning, he felt that buildings will last much longer; therefore, the parking problems will remain. He noted, however, that he does not feel comfortable with this situation, Comm. Peirce felt that lot sizes should be taken into consideration as background information; however, he felt that the area itself should be looked at from a good planning standpoint as regards to whether it should be R-1 or R-2, regardless of the 16 P.C. Minutes 3/15/88 119 r general plan. The lots on 25th Street are larger than those on top of the hill; but the area, although there are duplexes and condos, appears to be surrounded on the south, east, and de facto on the west by R-1 property. Therefore, the larger lots on 25th Street, if zoned R-2, would be an island surrounded by R-1. He felt it would be more consistent from a planning standpoint to have that area R-1. If the lots are large enough to be redivided into 4,000 square foot lots, that is an option for the developers. Comm. Peirce discussed the view situation and stated that the height limit does not appear to be an issue because the lots are large and there is actually no view to protect other than the view down the hill and into the valley. He felt that the R-1 designation would not appear likely to block anyone's view in that area. Comm. Ingell commented that he did not agree that downzoning from R-2 to R-1 would actually decrease property values. He stated that other cities have done this, and there are beautiful large homes being built on the larger lots. He felt that the sections should be addressed individually, rather just looking at the lot sizes. Chmn. Compton noted that lots vary in size from 2100 square feet to almost 8300 square feet, stating that it is very difficult to lump them all together in one zone. He was bothered by the fact that this issue was not taken into consideration. He noted that the only staff analysis given is that the lot sizes vary. He felt more information is necessary. Comm, Rue stated that he would prefer to look at the areas individually, He felt that more time should be devoted to this issue; therefore, he felt a continuance of this issue would be appropriate so that more information could be obtained from staff. He noted that there is a vast difference between the various areas being discussed. Comm. DeBellis had no objection to continuing this matter m,.o.rder to obtain additional information. He noted that the staff report says 87 percent of the dwellings in this area were constructed more than thirty years ago, which would predate the general plan. Therefore, the general plan was prepared with an existing situation which was not real or accurate. The City is now attempting to cure a problem which wasn't real in the first place. Comm. DeBellis noted that the Planning Department has been directed by the Council to proceed with this ambitious proposal quickly; therefore, staff has not had adequate time to study this issue with a free mind, and staff is merely presenting statistical data to the Commission on which to base its recommendation to bring the zoning into conformance with the general plan. Comm. DeBellis questioned whether the City is really getting the best it can in this matter because staff has not had time to professionally analyze all the possibilities. He felt that staff is under pressure from the Council to move these matters through very quickly without giving a thought to all the ramifications. Comm. Peirce opposed a continuance, stating that he feels all the necessary information has been provided. He asked what information could be included that has not already been provided. Comm. DeBellis stated that there could be a staff recommendation, other than merely recommending that the area be rezoned to be in compliance with EE. He wanted a staff report based on a planning standpoint. 17 P.C. Minutes 3/15/88 120 Comm. Rue felt that there is additional information which can be provided on the various areas within Area 2, He suggested that the area be divided into three separate areas, so that they can be more adequately discussed and studied, He noted that it is difficult to make a decision on an area which is so large and diverse. Mr, Schubach stated that additional information can be provided on each of the individual areas within the overall Area 2, Comm. Ingell favored including information related to the North School site. Chmn. Compton suggested various ways to break up Area 2 for further study. Comm. DeBellis discussed the various zoning in the area of Myrtle Avenue and noted that the general plan actually isolates individual blocks with different zoning. Comm, DeBellis noted that in the future, it would be helpful if staff provided information as to the number of structures and the age of the structures on a block by block basis. Mr. Lough suggested that the public hearing be reopened at continued if this matter is to be continued. He also noted that the hearing should be continued to a date certain. Mr. Schubach cautioned that if this item is continued, a decision must be reached at the next meeting. He noted that there is a strict time schedule for completing the ten areas. MOTION by Comm. DeBellis, seconded by Comm. Rue, to continue this item to the Planning Commission meeting of April 5, 1988, in order to obtain additional information from staff on this matter; further, that the public hearing be reopened and continued until April 5, 198&. Noting the objection of Comm. Peirce, Sjl)ti~r;der ed, Recess taken from 11:11 P.M. until 11:22 P.M. APPEAL OF LOT MERGER DETERMINATION FOR LOT MERGER GROUPS L.M. 88-1 Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated March 8, 1988. He stated that the first appeal to be considered is that of Mr. Simas. The Planning Commission, at their meeting of March 1, 1988, continued the Intent to Merge request of Mr, Simas, 1214 10th Street, to allow Mr. Simas additional time to prepare for the hearing. The Planning Department has received no additional material regarding this matter. Mr. Simas has been contacted by telephone and reminded of the continuance of this matter to tonight's meeting. Also, no written material has been received from Mr. Simas on this matter. William Simas, 1214 10th Street, Hermosa Beach, applicant addressed the Commission, He stated that he has no additional information to present; however, he objects to the merging of his lots. He stated that he has no intention of leaving this property, and he objects to the City taking away his property rights and property value. He has three lots and he has no intention of selling them, developing them, or moving away. He stated that he maintains his property in very good condition. Wilma Burt, 1152 7th Street, Hermosa Beach, attested to the fine character of Mr. Simas and all that he has done for the City. She stated that many people, after paying for a 18 P.C. Minutes 3/ 15/8& 121 house for thirty years, have no intention of leaving it. She resented the fact that the City is attempting to merge lots when so much development on Prospect Avenue was allowed. She also felt it is unfair that a citizen as fine as Mr. Simas should have to come before the City to defend his rights. She felt that the City should leave him alone and allow him to live in peace. Ms. Burt stressed that the 4000 square foot requirement was never intended for the developed lots, but simply for undeveloped land. She pleaded with the Commission to not require Mr. Simas' lots to be merged. Barbara Seymour, 1233 21st Street, Hermosa Beach, asked that her two 25' by 100' lots not be merged. She stated that when they were purchased they were of a legal size. She stated that she and her husband are contemplating retirement soon and they want to have the two separate lots. She stated that the merger would decrease the property value. Comm. Peirce discussed Mr. Simas' lots, stating that there are three separate lots of 20' by 100' feet. He felt that they should be allowed to be made into two lots of 37 1/2' by 100' feet; however, that option is not within the purview of the Commission at this time. He wanted to pass on to the City Council the feeling that if there are three lots of this size, they should be allowed to be merged into two lots of 37 1/2 feet. Mr. Schubach stated that the Commission could request a text amendment to the subdivision ordinance to provide for such an option in the future. Currently, 4000 square feet is required for a lot, and it must have a 40 foot frontage. He stated that other cities have provisions for doing what Comm. Peirce has suggested. If additional wording is added, the applicant could return to request the division into two lots. Chmn. Compton noted that Mr. Simas has three legally constituted lots; if he does not want them merged, then the Commission should not recommemd that they be merged. He stated that his opinion on this matter has not changed. MOTION by Comm. DeBellis, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to not merge the property at 1214 10th Street, based on the fact that it is a resident owner who has owned it for 44 years; and that if this decision is appealed by the City Council, the Planning Commission recommends that the applicant be allowed to maintain two 37 1/2' lots. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. DeBellis, Ingell, Rue, Chmn. Compton Comm. Peirce None None MOTION by Comm. DeBellis, seconded by Comm. Rue, to not merge the lots at 1233 21st Street, based on the fact that the property is owned by a resident owner who has owned the property for over 23 years. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. DeBellis, Ingell, Rue, Chmn. Compton Comm. Peirce None None MOTION by Comm. DeBellis, seconded by Comm. Ingell, to continue the remainder of the agenda to the next meeting. Comm. Peirce noted that he had comments for Commissioner Items. 19 P.C. Minutes 3/ 15/88 122 , MOTION WITHDRAWN by Comm. DeBellis. MOTION by Comm. DeBellis, seconded by Comm. Jngell, to continue Agenda Item No. 10, Special Study 88-3 --Repeal of Biltmore Site specific plan area. No objections; so ordered. STAFF ITEMS The Commissioners received the following information: a. Status Report on Conditional Use Permit Enforcement Program b. Staff Report regarding special studies of (1) R-3 setback standards for condominiums and apartments; (2) Elimination of the 17-foot setback requirements off alleys; (3) Study of 50' by 50' lots c. Memorandum regarding circulation element workshop with OKS consultant and City Council d. Association of Environmental Professionals 1988 statewide conference e. California Association for Local Economic Development Conference VIII f. City Council Minutes of February 23, 1988 g. Memorandum from staff regarding appeal of the variance to encroach into the 17-foot setback at 905 15th Place --Fleet Nuttall, appellant. COMMISSIONER ITEMS Comm. Peirce noted that many people have expressed concern to him over the fact that the noticing in the Easy Reader is difficult to understand. He suggested that more clear language be used so that everyone can understand the items to be addressed. He stressed the importance of communicating clearly with the public. Chmn. Compton stated that a handout should be prepared for applicants to follow when they are doing a project. Comm. DeBellis suggested that the Commission prepare a list of standard requirements to be included in the handout to applicants. Mr. Schubach stated that he will return with information on what is currently given to applicants. Comm. Peirce stated that he would have no objection to receiving the Commissioner packets on Friday evening as opposed to Thursday evening. Mr. Schubach noted that the offices are closed on Fridays; however, if the City returns to a five-day work week, there would not be a problem with a Friday delivery. Comm. DeBellis discussed conditional use permits, stating that when applicants request amendments to their existing CUPs, he would like to see the Planning Commission and 20 P.C. Minutes 3/ 15/88 123 , staff use the opportunity to address impacts made by those establishments requesting amendments. MOTION by Comm. DeBellis, seconded by Comm. Rue, to adjourn at 11:55 P.M. No objections; so ordered. 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 March 15, 1988. /!1110v1'tll Date 21 P.C. Minutes 3/15/88 124 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON AUGUST 7, 1990, AT 7:00 P.M. IN THE CITY HAIL COUNCIL CHAMBERS Meeting called to order at 7:00 P.M. by Chrnn. Ingell. Pledge of Allegiance led by Comm. Ketz. RQLLCALL Present: Absent: Comms. Ketz, Rue, Chrnn. Ingell Comms. Moore, Peirce Also Present: Michael Schubach, Planning Director; Paul Yoshinaga, Substitute City Attorney; Sally White, Recording Secretary CONSENT CALENDAR Chmn. Ingell noted that, because of absences, a quorum was not present for the purpose of approving the resolutions and the minutes of July 3 and July 17, 1990. He stated that approval of all consent calendar items would be continued to the next meeting. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC No one appeared to address the Commission. PARK 90-4 •• PARKING PLAN AMENDMENT FOR SHARED PARKING TO ALLOW AN AEROBIC STUDIO AT 1310 • 1314 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY (CONTINUED FROM MEETING OF JULY 17. 1990) Mr. Schubach explained that the applicant submitted a letter dated July 23, 1990, withdrawing this request; therefore, staff did not renotice this project for public hearing. He suggested that the Commission receive and file this item. MOTION by Comm. Ketz, seconded by Chmn. Ingell, to receive and file. No objections; so ordered. CUP 90·8/PARK 90-6 •• CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT AND PARKING PLAN TO EXPAND EXISTING CAFE FOR DINNER AND COCKTAIL SERVICE AND TO INCLUDE LIVE ENTERTAINMENT AND DANCING AT 1018 HERMOSA AVENUE, COMEDY AND MAGIC CLUB AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated July 26, 1990. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve a conditional use permit amendment, parking plan, and a mitigated negative declaration to allow the expansion of the cafe and to allow limited entertainment but no dancing, subject to the conditions specified in the proposed resolution. Staff also recommended that the Planning Commission approve the request for a novelty building. This project is located in the C-2 zone, with a general plan designation of general commercial. The building size is approximately 8000 square feet. The proposed addition is 418 square feet. Existing parking is 35 spaces; 40 parking spaces are proposed. On May 1 7, 1990, the staff environmental review committee recommended a mitigated negative declaration for the project, with several recommended mitigation measures: 1 P.C. Minutes 8/7 /90 125 (1) provide sound attenuation to the satisfaction of the Building Department and the Public Safety Department; (2) pedestrian access shall be provided from the parking lot to the entrance so that pedestrians will not have to use the alley; and (3) the proposed alterations. additions, and the inclusion of the adjacent restaurant space shall not result in any increased occupancy or seating capacity of the combination of the existing uses. The Plannmg Commission, on March 15, 1988, approved an amendment to the existing CUP for live entertainment and on-sale alcohol in conjunction with food sales to allow a box office addition. The CUP granted at that time superseded all previous CUPs. The box office was never constructed; therefore, the CUP was not executed. The original conditional use permit for the Comedy and Magic Club was granted by the Board of Zoning Adjustments in 1978. It has since been modified four times. The applicant is requesting to expand the current caf e and bar portion of the business, which is separate from the main room for live comedy and magic, and to expand the use to include entertainment and dancing. The proposed expansion includes the entire adjacent vacant restaurant space (previously the Panda King) and a proposed building expansion into the open area partially occupied by a stairway. The proposed building expansion involves 418 square feet. which includes an 80 square foot stage. The area of the adjacent restaurant space is approximately 1300 square feet. The applicant is also proposing to restripe the parking area to include compact spaces, resulting in an increase from 35 to 40 parking spaces. The proposed building addition is in the form of a top hat, requiring Planning Commission approval of a novelty building. This proposal involves a change in use of the existing adjacent restaurant from strictly a restaurant use to a live entertainment and dancing use, typically considered an assembly use, plus the addition of 418 square feet to this assembly use. The current CUP for this business permits on-sale general alcohol and live entertainment, subject to several conditions. One of the conditions prohibits dancing. Also, live entertainment is not expressly permitted within the caf e area. The gross floor area of the club is approximately 8000 square feet, and 35 parking spaces are available on the roof. Because of the uniqueness of the mix of uses for this business, staff has calculated parking requirements by summing up the different uses. When classified this way. the parking requirement calculates to be approximately 90 spaces, or 55 spaces deficient. Therefore, the existing parking is clearly deficient, meaning that the building is legally nonconforming to parking. The adjacent vacant restaurant space at 1014 Hermosa Avenue has a CUP for on-sale beer and wine and also for outside dining. It is also nonconforming since it has no parking. At 1300 square feet it is deficient 13 parking spaces. The overall deficiency of the combined buildings at 1018 and 1014 Hermosa Avenue is 68 spaces. Section 1162 of the Zoning Ordinance states the following: "(d) For evecy building in a "C" or "M" zone hereafter erected, or reconstructed or expanded, the parking requirements and turning area for the entire building shall be as set forth in this ordinance (emphasis added) ...... (e) When the use of an existing building or structure is changed to a more intense use with a higher parking demand, the required parking as stated in this article for that particular use shall be met prior to occupying of the building .... " This means that to allow the proposed addition and the proposed change of use from restaurant use to assembly use would require that the parking be brought up to code. Staff calculates the 2 P.C. Minutes 8/7 /90 126 total parking requirement with the proposed changes would be 127 parking spaces, creating a deficiency 87 spaces. Staff does not believe that this deficiency can be addressed through a parking plan, nor could the findings for a variance be made. If the use remained a restaurant. the parking problem would be much less severe. Therefore, if the request for dancing is eliminated and entertainment is only offered in conjunction with a restaurant use of the cafe area (no amplified music), the parking deficiency is significantly decreased, and staff felt that the findings for a parking plan can be made. The use of the cafe would be limited to primarily a restaurant. with full dinner service, with entertainment for the dinner customers (stand-up comedy and acoustic music) only as an incidental use. This is different from a primarily entertainment or assembly type use because the customers arrive and leave at their convenience at varying times, and the entertainment does not involve scheduled performances, and no auditorium-style seating is provided. Under this scenario, which has been previously suggested to the applicant, the request is reduced in scope to simply an addition of 418 square feet. No change in use is involved except for the ancillary use of limited entertainment. and the restaurant use would be continued. Although a parking deficiency of 67 spaces still needs to be addressed, it is actually less than the existing overall deficiency of both 1014 and 1018 Hermosa Avenue of 68 spaces. Staff therefore believes that findings can be made for a parking plan under the following conditions: (1) the applicant enter into the validation program with the VPD and advertise this to patrons: (2) utilize valet parking on the roof parking deck to maximize customer parking and advertise that valet parking will be available; (3) restrict seating in the cafe to full-size restaurant tables for the serving of dinner, and no auditorium-style seating would be allowed; (4) limit entertainment in the cafe to stand-up comedy or non-amplified music, such as piano or acoustic guitar; and (5) prohibit scheduled performances. Under these conditions. staff felt the findings to allow a reduced number of parking spaces can be made because the valet system would provide for a portion of the deficiency. and the use is such that it does not increase parking demand over what is currently allowed; i.e .. a restaurant. Staff has focused on the parking concerns because it was their opinion that other concerns related to the expansion, such as noise, would not be a stgniflcant problem. The noise concern will be addressed by a standard condition to conform to the noise ordinance and an additional condition that the building's acoustics be satisfactorily designed, as well as existing conditions relating to the closing of doors and windows during performances of any type. The above conditions, and all previous conditions, are included in the proposed resolution. Staff believes the modifications and added conditions noted allow the business to be expanded without a significant impact on the surroundings. Section 209 of Section 7 -1. 7 of the Municipal Code requires Planning Commission approval of "a building or structure of an unusual or unorthodox architectural design." As depicted on the proposed elevations, the applicant is proposing a structure with the appearance of a top hat and cane. Staff believes that this building design needs to be considered by the Planning Commission in conjunction with the surroundings. Existing signs and the current building theme would seem to be adequate to capture the attention of passers-by. Staff continued by stating that there is an alternative if the applicant wishes to create a second assembly-type use on the property with dancing and scheduled performances, in that perhaps a contribution of an in-lieu fee to the VPD could be considered to compensate for the deficient 3 P.C. Minutes 8/7 /90 127 parking spaces. In staff's judgment, this would be the only way that additional assembly uses could be justified. Public Hearing opened at 7:14 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell. Mike Lacey, 94 Strawbeny Lane, Rolling Hills Estates. appllcant, addressed the Commission and: (1) displayed a rendering of his proposed plan to create a top hat and cane building. explaining that there will be a glass atrium roof with a magtc wand projecting from tt: (2) discussed the parking situation and said that his building ts in the Vehicle Parking District and explained that no parking was required at all when he opened the club, but there were 35 spaces: (3) explained that there has been a restaurant on the comer from the very beginning: (4) said that he proposes to enclose the outside dining area, which 1s already zoned for dining; (5) stressed that he does not intend to increase the seating capacity of either the front bar/ cafe as it exists or the existing restaurant; (6) said that he ts not adding even one more person to the already existing occupancy load, but he will be adding five more parking spaces. Mr. Lacey continued and: (1) discussed the staff-proposed parking recommendations, stating that the cost of the validation program 1s prohibitive and would cost him $72,000 per year; (2) said that his customers never complain about a parking problem: (3) said that tt would be difficult to have to hire someone to validate the parking, and it is also difficult to determine when customers will leave and need to be validated; (4) discussed valet parking on the roof and said that stacked parking is not feasible, and he continued by explaining that the very narrow alley would need to be used: (5) said that the valet parking would create more problems than it would help; (6) said that valet parking on the roof would cause the business as well as the neighbors problems. Mr. Lacey went on and: ( 1) said that he does not want an auditorium-style seating arrangement: (2) said that he merely wants to enclose the outdoor dining area; (3) discussed the customer flow within the establishment and said he wants to tie the two areas together; (4) discussed the entertainment provided and said he does not want to disturb his current clientele; (5) noted that he has worked very hard to build the reputation of the club; (6) stressed the importance of his maintaining the good entertainment being provided: (7) stated that he intends to bring back the art of vaudeville, along with tap dancing and music: (8) said that the theme of the caf e would be that of the 20's and 30's: (9) described items he has on display in the business and explained that he intends to provide even more memorabilia; (10) satd that he would like to have hand and footprints inside the club, in order to cany out the theme of the 20's and 30's. Mr. Lacey continued and: (1) said he has hired Disney animators to help create the appropriate atmosphere in the club; (2) discussed the dancing, stating that he would like to have small musical groups playing so that people can dance after dinner: (3) discussed the condltton stating that no cover charge can be used in the cafe and satd that it is important for him to maintain as nice a crowd as possible, and in the event the clientele should change, he would like the option to impose a cover charge to keep out undesirables: (4) discussed the condition prohibiting scheduled performances and stated that it is important to schedule acts so that plans can be made and schedules prepared, especially if he starts having dinner shows: (5) again stressed that he does not intend to add any more seating. Mr. Lacey continued and: (1) stated that he would Uke to serve lunch at the club: (2) stated that a group has been formed in an effort to revitalize the downtown area: (3) stressed the importance of putting money back into the downtown area and trying to obtain a good business mix; (4) hoped that lunch seIVice would bring business people into the area. Mr. Lacey responded to questions from Chmn. Ingell related to the vehicle parking district and: ( 1) said that the validation program was started to help the merchants: (2) felt that instead of helping, the program would create chaos and take away a lot of funds he has been saving to improve hts business and to remodel; (3) said that he firmly believes in putting as much as possible back into the business. and this expansion is very important to his business: (4) noted 4 P.C. Minutes 8/7 /90 128 that in addition to locals, he gets customers from all over the counti:y: (5) stressed that quality improvements need to made in an effort to make this a landmark, and he felt that the Disney audioanimatronics are vital in achieving that goal: (6) again noted that he receives no complaints from customers related to parking prices: (7) said that it is important to draw good businesses to the downtown area: (8) said that over $400,000 a year is generated by parking, and hopefully other businesses will contribute to build parking structures further up the street so there will not be view problems; (9) said that if he helps pay for the parking validation, nothing will be gained; (10) noted that if he is required to pay for validations. that money will be taken away from the funds generated by the lots, as well as being less money he would be able to spend on the remodeling. Edie Webber, 1201 11th Street, addressed the Commission and: (1) favored approval of the request and stated that if all businessmen were like the applicant, the business community would be quite healthy; (2) favored the spirit of what the applicant is attempting to do in his re­ creation of the 20's and 30's; (3) stated that the club has put the City on the international map; (4) stated that the applicant has a proven track record and always does what he says he will do; (5) noted that people do not object to paying for parking if they are coming to a nice, clean establishment; (6) said that the top hat is not an assembly-type usage: (7) agreed that the valet parking is not feasible: (8) hoped that the VPD can be rejuvenated in the future, and she continued by diScussing past histoi:y of the validation program stating that it does not seem to work in this city; (9) stated that with the nature of this business, validation would be difficult: (10) urged the Commission to allow the applicant to proceed with this request. Jeri:y Newton, 2041 Circle Drive, addressed the Commission and: (1) favored support of this request; (2) said that the City owes a debt of gratitude to the applicant for what he has contributed to the downtown area; (3) said that he favors a revitalization of the downtown area, and approval of this project would be a step toward achieving that goal; (4) urged the Commission to exercise their ability to help this applicant succeed. Dave Reimer, 802 Monterey Boulevard, addressed the Commission and: (l)said that he frequents the club, and it is a great place; (2) said that the business has been a good neighbor; (3) noted concern over the parking, stating that at any given time, there are 300 guests at the club; (4) at two people per car, there are 150 cars per show, or 300 cars per night; (5) said that the problem with the VPD is that the lots always have signs indicating that they are full; (6) said that the lots fill up, the street parking fills up, and the parking spills over onto the residential streets: (7) said that he has seen people parking at 8th and Monterey and walking to the club: (8) noted, however, that customers of the Comedy and Magic Club are well dressed and well mannered; (9) said that the parking situation must be addressed; ( 10) noted that his friends cannot find parking when they come to visit; (11) favored approval of the project, however, he felt that the parking problems in the residential area need to be addressed. Leslie Newton, 2041 Circle Drive, addressed the Commission and: (1) supported approval of the applicant's request; (2) said that she has worked with the applicant in efforts to revitalize the downtown area: (3) stated that parking is a City-wide problem, not one generated solely by this business: (4) said that whether or not this business is there, there will still be a parking problem: (5) said that the applicant is a visionary, and he should be encouraged to continue: (6) said that the applicant is a very good businessman who brings vei:y desirable people into the City; (7) urged the Commission to help this applicant succeed, noting that it will benefit the entire City. Pat Mitchell, 425 Longfellow, addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that he has done work for the applicant, and Mr. Lacey always demands the highest quality of work available: (2) noted that the side of the street where this business is located has been steadily improving over the past few months; (3) said that this business is maintained in a very attractive manner; (4) said that he ts always able to find parking in the downtown area; (5) said that this club is clean and a nice place to go: (6) noted that out-of-towners always want to go to the club when they are in town; (7) asked that the Commission do everything possible to help this applicant with his plans. 5 P.C. Minutes 8/7 /90 129 Karen McDonough, lOll Manhattan Avenue, addressed the Commission and: (I) noted concern over the parking problems in the area, stating that it is already difficult for her to get into her garage: (2) said that her garage is directly behind the club; (3) said that she has talked to the applicant, and he Is willing to help work out the problem. Mike Lacey again addressed the Commission and: (I) agreed that there is a parking problem: (2) stated that he cannot afford a parking structure; (3) noted the importance of attracting well-run businesses to the downtown area that could hopefully be assessed to provide parking lots: (4) stated that the next time around, the VPD funds must be protected; (5) noted that the key is to attract good, strong businesses who attract good crowds who are willing to pay for the parking so that the funds can go toward building parking structures. Mr. Lacey went on and: ( 1) strongly favored assessments for parking structures In the future; (2) stressed that he does not intend to increase the seating capacity at his business: (3) stated that he does not want to create problems for the neighbors: (4) said that he does not want to let the businesses die, and thereby allow undesirables in, allowing the tax base to die; (5) felt that staff studied these issues veiy hard, however, he does not feel that roof-top valet parking is viable. Comm. Rue asked whether Mr. Lacey has explored the option of shared parking as a short-term solution to the parking problem, to which Mr. Lacey replied that he is doing everything he can to solve the problem. He noted, however, that he has not explored the possibility of shared parking. He stated that he would even favor a shuttle service to bring customers in. He noted that parking is a severe problem; however, he does not want the issue to become solely one of parking. He said he will add no additional seating, but he will add five more parking spaces. Mr. Lacey discussed the staff-imposed conditions: (1) said that he favors deletion of Condition No. 18, which would require this business to participate in the VPD validation program; (2) said that he favors deletion of the Condition No. 19, which would require roof-level valet parking; (3) said that he favors deletion of Condition No. 12. which would prohibit dancing: (4) discussed entertainment and said that he would like to have musical performers, and in the past such entertainment has never caused any problems; (5) stressed that his entertainment must be unique, therefore, it is important that he be allowed to have music and tap dancing in an effort to bring back vaudeville: (6) discussed Condition 2(b) and said that it is sometttnes necessaiy to impose a cover charge in certain ctrcumstances: (7) discussed Condition 2(b), related to the prohibition of regularly scheduled entertainment and said that it is sometimes necessaiy to have schedules. Mr. Lacey stated that he is willing to abide by all noise regulations in the City. Mr. Schubach stated that staff was under the impression that the applicant wanted customer dancing: however, he said that staff would have no objection to dancing by performers. Mr. Lacey stated that he would like to have both entertainment and customer dancing. He said that if both are approved, it could be reviewed in six months to see whether there are any problems. He noted that the dance area would be veiy small. He said that even though he does not intend to increase the seating, he would like to have dinner shows: therefore, it would be necessaiy to have scheduled performances. Public Hearing closed at 7:58 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell. Comm. Rue asked why staff had concerns related to scheduled entertainment, to which Mr. Schubach replied that people might come in Just for the entertainment, thereby creating an assembly-type use, not a restaurant-type use. Comm. Rue noted, however, that dinner service could be required, thereby precluding an assembly-type use. He understood the need to prohibit scheduled shows because of parking; 6 P.C. Minutes 8/7 /00 130 however, he felt that scheduled performances are necessary in certain instances, and he felt that dinner service could be required to preclude problems. Comm. Rue referred to Condition No. 13: "Comedy /theatrical productions shall be maintained at least 50 percent of the operating time in the main showroom." He asked why that was included. Mr. Schubach clarified that this is an overall CUP, and he noted that an additional condition should be added specifying that this CUP supersedes all previous conditional use permits. Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Comm. Rue, stated that staff has no objection to the service of lunches. Comm. Rue discussed residential parking permits and asked whether they could be used in this area, to which Mr. Schubach replied that neighborhoods can request to be included in the parking permit program. Chmn. Ingell agreed with the comments made about the applicant being a visionary. He felt that Mr. Lacey has taken hold of this business in the downtown area and has firmly anchored it. He felt that this business is a namesake to the City, and it has contributed a great deal to the City. He felt that this business attracts the best type of people possible to the downtown area. Chmn. Ingell felt that it would be appropriate to allow dancing for six months and then have the use reviewed in six months. He felt that this applicant is an outstanding business operator and should be given a chance to succeed. He agreed that valet roof-top parking would create more problems than it would solve. He also agreed that the validation program would not be appropriate in this case. noting that his customers do not object to paying for parking to attend performances at this business. To make this applicant validate would reduce parking revenues to the lots. He also felt that the applicant can provide quality dancing at this business, and there can be a six-month review. Chmn. Ingell noted, however, that the conditional use permit runs with the land, and caution should be taken in the event this business is ever sold (which he felt is unlikely). Comm. Ketz felt that this business should be allowed to expand, noting that it has been a wonderful asset to the City. She also favored the proposed design. Comm. Rue noted that there ts excitement building among downtown businesses related to the VPD. He felt that this project is an anchor in the City, and he strongly favored the top hat design, especially since the sad demise of the Brown Derby. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Chmn. Ingell, to approve staff's recommendation, Resolution P.C. 90-62, with the following changes: (1) Condition 2(a) shall be modified to read: "Entertainment shall be permitted only as an ancillary use to the restaurant use with performances limited to stand-up comedy, magic acts, acoustic music, or entertainment dancing; (2) Condition 2(b) shall be deleted; (3) Conditions 12, 18, and 19 shall be deleted, however, Condition No. 19(a) shall specify that five parking spaces will be added that do not require the use of a valet parking system; (4) a condition shall be added stating that this conditional use permit supersedes all previous CUPs; and (5) a condition shall be added specifying there shall be a six-month review of this conditional use permit. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ketz, Rue, Chmn. Ingell None None Comms. Moore, Peirce Recess taken from 8:15 P.M. until 8:20 P.M. 7 P.C. Minutes 8/7 /90 131 CUP 90-20/PARK 90-5 --CONDfflONAL USE PERMIT AND PARKING PLAN FOR HEALTH AND FITNESS FACILITY WITH RETAIL AT 1106 HERMOSA AVENUE AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated July 26, 1990. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve the requested conditional use permit and parking plan, subject to the conditions specified in the proposed resolution and to adopt a mitigated envtronmental negative declaration. This project is located in the C-2 zone, with a general plan designation of general commercial. The present use is vacant: it was previously a snack and gift shop. The lot size is 4000 square feet. There are two unimproved parking spaces. The total building floor area is 3200 square feet. The City Council, on January 23, 1990, amended the zoning ordinance to add health and fitness facilities as a permitted use in the C-2 zone, subject to a conditional use penntt. Also, parking requirements were added to require one parking space per 50 square feet of floor area for exercise classes and/or one parking space per 100 square feet of floor area used for gymnasium-type weight lifting and weight training facilities. This amendment was originally initiated by the applicant. On July 5, 1990, the staff environmental review committee recommended a mitigated negative declaration with the following mitigation measures to deal with the parking deficiency: (1) limit hours of operation to avoid peak parking periods: (2) require employees to park off-site in the VPD parking lot: (3) utilize the VPD validation system: (4) provide bike racks; and (5) prohibit group classes. The committee also found that certain features of the proposed business and the location might justify a parking deficiency. First, the nature of the proposed business as a health and fitness facility oriented to local clientele will result in a high percentage of walkers and bicycle riders. Secondly, the previous use. although it was last occupied two years ago, involved retail and food service. And, finally, the proposal also involves using a portion of the space for retail sales. The applicant is requesting to utilize 2400 square feet of the lease space for weight training and the remaining 800 square feet for retail sales of weight training equipment. The 3200 square-foot building, which could be used for retail or office purposes without any special approval, is currently nonconforming to parking. Thirteen parking spaces are required under current zoning, and although there is room for two cars to parallel park off the alley, this area is not improved for parking. Therefore, since no paved parking is available, the existing deficiency is the full 13 spaces. The parking requirement for the proposed use would be 28 parking spaces. For the Planning Commission to approve this request, a finding would have to be made consistent with Section 1169 of the zoning ordinance. In this case, a finding would have to be made that unique features of the proposed business, as well as the hours of operation, and the amount of bicycle and foot traffic justify allowing a greater parking deficiency. In addition, the site must be improved to provide the maximum amount of off-street parking that is possible. The applicant submitted a letter indicating the limits on the hours of operation would be acceptable to him. The business would be open from 5:30 AM. to 9:30 P.M. Monday through Thursday: 5:30 AM. to 6:00 P.M. on Fridays: 7:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. on weekends, with allowance for private training only from 6:00 P.M. to 8:30 P.M. on Fridays. 8 P.C. Minutes 8/7 /90 132 These hours generally avoid the peak times for parking in the downtown area, and it would be expected that the heaviest use of the facility would be in the morning hours and the late afternoon. In staffs judgment, these times avoid the worst times for parking in the surrounding street parking and in the public parking lot which is generally weekend nights and midday on weekends during the summer. However, the proposed weekday hours would extend too late and conflict with the busy nighttime use of the area for entertainment and restaurants. Therefore. staff recommended that the hours of operation end at 7:30 P.M. on Monday through Thursday, with allowance only for individually-superviSed training until 9:30. With these restrictions, it clearly distinguishes this use from, for example, a restaurant use which peaks at the same time as the existing peak uses which are restaurants, bars, and the Comedy and Magic Club. Additionally, the applicant has indicated that a bike rack will be provided inside the building to encourage bike riders. Also, in staff's judgment, this type of use. which is oriented to local users and attracts those interested in physical fitness, would have a high percentage of local users who would walk or ride their bicycles. In regard to off-street parking, the rear of the building facing the alley is setback over 20 feet from the alley. However, a rear patio area is located behind the building at a significantly lower grade than the alley. This leaves an area only about ten feet deep for the parking of two cars in a parallel manner. The area is currently unimproved sandy soil. The applicant has indicated that up to six spaces can be provided in the back. However, there is only room, at the most, for five eight-foot wide spaces. In order to provide the parking in the rear, the patio would either have to be filled in, or perhaps a platform provided to park cars over the patio. Since the applicant is asking for approval of a reduction in required parking, staff felt that it is appropriate to require that the maximum amount of parking be provided on the site. Therefore, staff is including a condition that the rear of the site be improved to provide a minimum of 18 feet in depth for the full width of the lot to support five eight-foot wide parking spaces for customer parking. These improvements would have to be made prior to occupancy of the building. Staff felt that the proposed use is unique in terms of Its impact on parking and could therefore be deemed to be similar to the impact a retail establishment would create. In that sense, the existing nonconforming parking situation would not be made any worse. Public Hearing opened at 8:27 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell. Shane Mccolgan, 1155 17th Street, applicant. addressed the Commission and: (1) said that he has been promoting health and fitness in the City for four years. and he hopes to continue; (2) said that everything in the staff report is fine: however, he discussed the hours of operation and stated that it would be detrimental for him to close at 7:30 P.M. during the week (3) said that he would like to stay open until 9:30 P.M. Monday through Thursday and until 6:00 P.M. on Friday through Saturday; (4) explained that most businesses of this type are open until 10:00 or 11:00 P.M.; (5) said that he would like to have private training after the 6:00 P.M. closing on the weekend; (6) stressed that this project has been very time consuming and expensive, and it is necessary for him to remain open longer to meet his expenses. Mr. Mccolgan continued and: (1) stated that the longer hours would have no detrimental impact on the parking because almost everyone walks or rides a bike to the business; (2) noted that he will be providing bike racks at the business; (3) said that in the back of the building there is a potential for five spaces, noting that he was initially mistaken that there were six spaces: (4) said that he has an agreement with the building owner to provide that parking; (5) 9 P.C. Minutes 8/7 /90 133 asked if he could have extended time to build the parking deck, noting that it will be very expensive; (6) stated that he has many supporters of this project. Comm. Rue asked how many people will be training at the club, noting that his interest relates to the parking issue and the hours of operation. Mr. Mccolgan said that the staff environmental review committee recommended that there be 28 spaces; however, he did not feel that 28 spaces are necessary because he will not have 28 people using them at one time. He said that this use will be one of personal training. He said that there will be no aerobics or group training. Comm. Rue asked whether there is a completion date for the parking structure, to which Mr. Mccolgan responded that he would like to open before the structure is finished. He hoped, however, that it will be completed in six months to a year. Mr. McColgan stated that he will encourage his trainers to park in the 12-hour parking area between Valley and Ardmore; however, he will not validate for employees. He stated that he will ensure they do park in that area, or encourage them to walk, bike, or run to work. He stated that he would be willing to pay for employee VPD parking in the event employees are found to be parking in the residential areas. Wilma Burt, 1152 7th Street, addressed the Commission and: (1) voiced support for approval of this project: (2) supported extended hours for this business: (3) said that people like to exercise after work. and the extended hours are necessary in order to accommodate working people; (4) said that this business does not serve alcohol and therefore should not have to close early in order to provide parking for alcohol-related establishments: (5) said that this is a good business and will provide exercise services for many people; (6) felt that this is a good healthy business for the community; (7) urged the Commission to give the applicant a chance to operate this business Shelly Rocker, 1215 Monterey, addressed the Commission and: (1) spoke in favor of the proposed business: (2) said that health and physical fitness is a positive influence in the City; (3) said that there is a need for such a business in the City; (4) said that this business Is busiest at a time when there is the least parking demand: (5) said that many people will walk or bike to the gym; (6) stated that the benefits of the business are far greater than the minute possibility of adding to the parking problem. Gene Chavez, 815 Havana, addressed the Commission and: (1) spoke in support of the proposed business; (2) noted the strong determination of the applicant: (3) said that this business will be of benefit to the City; (4) stated that all beach cities have a parking problem; (5) said that he does not get away from his Job until sometimes after 7:00 P.M.: (6) said that no one complains about parking at this business. as most people walk or bike to the gym. Fernando Amas, 1242 Hermosa Avenue, addressed the Commission and: (1) supported approval of the project: (2) said that most people will walk or bike to the gym and will not create a parking problem: (3) said that this business will be of benefit to the City; (4) noted that the building has been empty for many years, and this business will be an asset; (5) asked that the Commission give this applicant a chance. John Warren, 1120 Hermosa Avenue, addressed the Commission and: (1) said that he is the landlord of this property; (2) explained that he has parking spaces behind his business, which the applicant could use after 7:00 or 7:30 P.M.: (3) noted that the dry cleaners could also let hbn use two or three spaces after a certain tune; (4) said that the applicant could use these spaces until such time that he can build the parking structure; (5) further noted that he would be willing to take out a loan on this building in order to help Mr. McColgan build the parking structure. 10 P.C. Minutes 8/7 /90 134 Mr. Warren continued and: (1) urged that the applicant be allowed to remain open until at least 9:30 P.M.: (2) noted that many other gyms remain open until 11:30 or even midnight: (3) suggested that he be allowed to stay open until 9:30 for six months, at which time the use could be reviewed; (4) said that if problems are discovered, the hours of operation could then be addressed at the review: (5) stressed that the City needs a gym and longer hours are necessary to accommodate the people who will go to the business. Mr. Warren went on and: (I) said that this building was kept vacant until a good business could be found; (2) stated that he no longer wants the building to be vacant; (3) said that this applicant will definitely improve the area; (4) noted that the applicant has staying power by virtue of the fact he has endured almost two years of City formalities; (5) urged the Commission to give this applicant a chance to stay open until at least 9:30 P.M.; (6) voiced confidence in the applicant's ability to remain and be successful in this business: (7) stated that if there are no problems with the business staying open until 9:30, the applicant should be allowed to remain open even longer: (8) stated that this is an Ideal location for a gym. Mr. Nafissi, 1048 Hermosa Avenue, operator of the dry cleaners, addressed the Commission and: (1) said that there is a parking space which he would be happy to let the applicant use after 7:00 P.M., which is when he closes: (2) said that the building needs to be improved, and he is confident that the applicant will be an asset: (3) clarified that there are two spaces behind his store, but one of the spaces belongs to the optical shop, which is closed on Wednesday: (4) stated that the applicant can probably also use that space after 7:00 P.M. Linda Kasner, 950 17th Street, addressed the Commission and: (1) said that it is important that a building which has been an eyesore in the City be put to good use; (2) felt that a gym would be an asset to the City: (3) stated that it would be convenient to walk or bike to the gym; (4) said that the gym would be a great addition to the City and would be beneficial to the downtown area. Sue Lockridge, 37 9th Street, addressed the Commission and: (1) said that at no time are there parking problems at this business: (2) said that most people walk or bike to the gym: (3) was very much in favor of cleaning up the downtown area: (4) favored cleaning up a building which has been an eyesore: (5) favored the addition of a health-orientea business in the downtown area. Larry Tavari, 86 16th Street, addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that some young blood is necessary in the community; (2) stated that new people are necessary to drive the businesses and provide some parking structures in the City. Brian Yasui, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and: (1) favored extended hours for the business: (2) said that extended hours are necessary for the applicant to make ends meet. Greg Jones addressed the Commission and: (1) stated that the City should help businesses which have a positive effect on the City; (2) stated that the applicant's expertise of this use is vast; (3) said that the gym will be very professional and help people be more physically fit: (4) wholeheartedly supported approval of this business; (5) felt that the business should be allowed to stay open until at least 9:30. Public Hearing closed at 8:54 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell. Comm. Ketz felt it would be economically detrimental to require this applicant to close at 7:30 P.M. She did not feel there would be a great impact on the parking if the business were allowed to stay open until 9:30 P.M. Monday through Thursday. Chmn. Ingell commended Mr. Mccolgan for his endurance. He discussed the hours of operation and stated that if the use can be justified and there are no parking problems created by this use, there should not be limitations on the hours of operation. He stated that he has no problem with allowing the business to stay open until 11 :00. He felt that this will be a good 11 P.C. Minutes 8/7 /90 135 business for the area, and the owner needs evecy opportunity available to succeed. He also noted that working people need longer hours in order to go after work He stated that if there ts a problem with staying open until 11:00 P.M., seven days a week, the matter could be reviewed. Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Comm. Rue, stated that the hours of operation were based upon the parking need in the downtown area on weekend nights. Chmn. Ing ell felt that most people will walk or bike to this business. He felt that allowing this business to have what the competition has will help it to be competitlve and to succeed. Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Comm. Ketz, explained that the hours in the resolution were the hours proposed by the applicant: however, he assumed that the appllcant would be happy to have extended hours of operation. Chmn. Ingell stated that most of the customers would probably walk or bike to the gym. In regard to the number of spaces required for the parking plan, he suggested that the applicant keep a record of how his customers arrive which could be presented at the six-month review. In this way, if there ts proof of how the customers arrived, there can be justlficatton as to why these hours were allowed. MOTION by Chmn. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve staffs recommendation, Resolution P.C. 90-63, with the following change: (1) Condition No. 1 shall be modified to state that the hours of operation shall be from 5:30AM. until 11:00 P.M. Comm. Rue suggested adding a condition related to imposing a time limit on the completion of the parking structure before a final building permit is issued. Mr. Warren stated that they will make evecy effort to complete the parking structure in six months: however, he requested that the time limit be one year. He stated that he can provide two spaces after 7:00 P.M. and one space after 7:30 P.M., and the dcy cleaner operator can let him use two spaces after 7:30 P.M., for a total of five spaces. AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION by Chmn. Ingell as maker and agreed to by Comm. Ketz as second, to require that the parking plan be completed by Memorial Day of 1991. Further, to require proof that the applicant can use the five spaces as proposed by Mr. Warren, the landlord, until such time that the parking structure is completed. Also, to add a condition requiring a six-month review of the project. Further, if necessacy at the six-month review, an extension could be granted for completion of the parking structure so long as the five parking spaces are being provided. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ketz, Rue, Chmn. Ingell None None Comms. Moore, Peirce SS 90-5 -SPECIAL STUDY AND PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT TO ADD INSTALLATION OF CAR STEREO AND CAR ALAR.MS WITH CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO C-3 PERMI'ITED USE LIST AND ADOPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated August 1, 1990. Staff recommended adoption of the proposed resolution recommending amending the permitted use list in the C-3 zone to include "automobile audio equipment sales, installation, and/or repair" and "automobile alarm sales, installation, and/ or repair" only with a conditional use permit. At the June 19, 1990, meeting, the Planning Commission directed staff to set this matter for public hearing as soon as possible. 12 P.C. Minutes 8/7/90 136 This issue was initially brought to the attention of the City from concerns noted by Mr. Sullivan in regard to the nuisances being created by a nearby alarm installation business. Currently, car stereo/alarm installers are operating in the City with business licenses. These businesses were granted approval under the general category of "automobile parts and accessories --retail sales" when it was acceptable to allow uses which were generally similar. Obviously, as noted by Mr. Sullivan, the installation of alarms and stereos can cause a severe nuisance to neighboring residents and businesses, especially with the advent of new technology and the popularity of alarms and stereos with high noise volumes, such as boom boxes. In staff's judgment, these types of installations should be regulated and should be limited to the C-3 zone. Staff felt that a separate category is appropriate for purposes of clarification and also would include all such installation uses under one specific category whether or not they are a primary or secondary use. Secondly, the CUP review process would mean that such activities would be subject to the scrutiny of the Planning Commission in regard to such important concerns as the proximity of residential uses, whether or not the installation and testing would be conducted inside, and the hours of operation. Standard conditions of approval, such as prohibiting the manufacturing of boom boxes outdoors, could also be imposed. It was noted that the existing businesses with auto stereo/alarm installation activities will be subject to CUP review under the recently adopted amortization ordinance within two years of notice if this text amendment is adopted by the City. Public Hearing opened and closed at 9:08 P .M. by Chmn. Ingell, who noted that no one came forward to speak on this issue. Comm. Rue noted that the Commission has discussed this issue in the past, and it ts something which needs to be done. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve staff's recommendation, Resolution P.C. 90-66, as written. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ketz, Rue, Chmn. Ingell None None Comms. Moore, Petree TEXT 90-5 -TEXT AMENDMENT TO AILOW OUTDOOR DISPLAY IN COMMERCIAL ZONES Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated July 30, 1990. Staff recommended adoption of the proposed resolution recommending approval of outdoor display. At the June 2, 1987, meeting, the Planning Commission determined that outdoor display of merchandise was prohibited by Section 8-5(2) of the zoning ordinance. At the meeting of June 26, 1990, the City Council requested that the Planning Commission re­ examine allowing outdoor displays on private property. Staff had previously brought this matter to the Planning Commission's attention because of the increasing number of downtown merchants who were displaying merchandise outdoors. The downtown area had taken on a swap meet appearance, and the City was receiving complaints. 13 P.C. Minutes 8/7 /90 137 Several factors should be considered in relation to outdoor display. A distinction should be drawn between "display" and "activity"; i.e., the selling of merchandise outdoors versus displaying it. Also, the type, quantity, size, permanency, and location of outdoor display should be examined. Large quantities of displayed items encroaching into the required parking area would not be desirable. The display of "adult" or similar items would also be undesirable: e.g., mannequins dressed in lingerie. Also, for example, a large inflated object left continuously on display may constitute a prohibited type of s:tgn. Finally, the general appearance of the display should be considered. It should be attractively organized and not be excessively large. Staff has attempted to consider the above factors in preparing the proposed resolution. Comm. Ketz asked several questions about whether downtown properties can go right to the property line in their displays, to which Mr. Schubach replied that this issue relates to private property. Chnm. Ingell, noting the importance of this issue, stated that he would favor continuing this item to a meeting when all Commissioners are present and can contribute to the discussion. Public Hearing opened at 9: 13 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell. Wilma Burt, 1152 7th Street, addressed the Commission and: ( 1) stated that this use has been allowed in Berkeley and the area has become quite unsavory, making the area look like a junkyard; (2) urged that the Commission proceed with caution on this matter, noting that such a use can be vecy unattractive and conducive to stealing; (3) stated that outdoor displays look very junky; (4) stated that such a use would be of benefit to no one in the City. Public Hearing continued at 9: 15 P.M. by Chnm. Ingell. Chmn. Ingell, noting the importance of this issue, again suggested that this issue be continued so that the full Commission can participate in the discussion. Mr. Schubach, in response to a question from Comm. Rue regarding what other cities allow such a use, stated that such use is very limited. He stated that it is a use mostly allowed in shopping centers; however, Hermosa Beach differs from most other cities. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Chnm. Ingell, to continue this hearing to the meeting of September 4, 1990. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ketz, Rue, Chmn. Ingell None None Comms. Moore, Peirce INTERPRETATION OF C·3 ZONE PERMITTED USE LIST "AUTO SALES AND PARTS" TO INCLUDE ''MOTORCYCLE SALES AND PARTS" AS ONE IN THE SAME Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated July 31, 1990. He suggested that the Commission direct staff to consider motorcycle sales and parts the same as auto sales and parts sales. Mr. Schubach suggested an alternative: to set this matter for public hearing as a text amendment to add to the permitted use list or to eliminate motorcycle repair from the list. At the July 17, 1990, meeting the Planning Commission continued the CUP for motorcycle sales and repair to the meeting of August 21, 1990. The applicant desires to start parts sales 14 P.C. Minutes 8/7 /90 138 immediately, and therefore needs an interpretation; parts sales do not require a conditional use permit. Since the wning ordinance permits motorcycle repair with a CUP and also auto sales and auto parts sales, staff, including the City Attorney, has questioned whether motorcycles are too closely related to warrant a text amendment which generally is necessary to add a new permitted use to the list. The permitted use, "motorcycle repair," is likely to be the most intensive between "sales," "parts," and "repair," and therefore would seem to dictate that auto parts and auto sales have little or no distinction to motorcycle sales and motorcycle parts sales. Further, motorcycle parts must be sold in conjunction with motorcycle repair and is therefore an ancillary use. The biggest distinction seems to be that motorcycle sales and parts sales may generate indirectly, via customers, more noise. However, motorcycle repair would invariably generate equal amounts of noise. If motorcycle sales and parts sales are not the same as auto sales and parts sales, then possibly motorcycle repair via a text amendment should be eliminated from the permitted use list. In any case, no use can violate the City's noise ordinance directly or indirectly by customers or others. However, to allow uses which will obviously result in noise violations and therefore public disturbances resulting in police problems should be carefully examined and possibly not permitted. The reason for a permitted use list is to allow only desirable types of businesses into the community. If the Planning Commission determines that auto sales and parts sales are not the same as motorcycle sales and parts sales, a text amendment to consider adding these uses to the permitted use list or removing motorcycle repair is warranted. Chmn. Ingell noted that this matter was heard at the last meeting, and that hearing was continued until August 21, 1990, because there was a question related to the very item being considered this evening. He asked why that item was therefore placed on this agenda. Mr. Schubach explained that motorcycle parts sales, if considered to be the same as automobile parts sales, does not need a conditional use permit. He explained that the applicant would like to begin selling motorcycle parts at thiS time, rather than waiting for the other issues to be addressed at the next meeting. He clarified that motorcycle sales and repairs do need a CUP; however, vehicle parts sales do not need to be included in the CUP. He noted, therefore, that it is necessary to have an interpretation as to whether ''vehicle parts" includes both automobile and motorcycle parts. He did note that "parts" sales are included in the permitted use list. Chmn. Ingell recollected that this was a question at the last meeting, and the purpose of continuing that hearing was to address this issue and make a determination. Mr. Schubach stated that since this particular item does not require a public hearing, staff felt that the matter could be heard before the Commission at this time. Hearing opened at 9:24 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell. Jack Wood, 200 Pier Avenue. Hermosa Beach, representing the applicant, addressed the CommJsston and: (1) stated that the main issue is to determine whether automobile parts and motorcycle parts are the same thing; (2) showed several parts, some of which were for autos and some of which were for motorcycles, and explained that the average person cannot tell which is for which; (3) said that the concept relates to whether one can sell parts which make a ''vehicle" run; (4) said that parts are parts, and the applicant should be able to sell the motorcycle parts; (5) explained that the applicant would like to begin sales of motorcycle parts; (6) gave 15 P.C. Minutes 8/7 /90 139 ./ background information on this particular business; (7) stated that the applicant is battling the public's misconception of what the average motorcycle owner is like; (8) said that this applicant is very serious about the business. and he would like an opportunity to do business; (9) discussed his concept of the conditional use pennit process; and (10) said that approval of this request would be a way for the City to determine the type of customer who will come to the business when the time comes for the Commission to address the conditional use pennit request. Dave Reimer, 802 Monterey, addressed the Commission and: (1) said that he is a Harley­ Davidson rider. and it is difficult for him to obtain parts because all of the stores are quite a distance away; (2) said that many Harley riders are in the neighborhood, and they are vexy good citizens; (3) said that the bustness will be a real asset to the City, and the sale of parts would be vexy beneficial; (4) supported approval of the request to begin parts sales. Jim Housley, 934 7th Street, addressed the Commission and: (1) strongly opposed the shop because of noise and traffic; (2) stated that more people would be present if they were aware of this hearing; therefore, he suggested that this item be continued so that more people have an opportunity to give testimony on this matter. Hearing closed at 9:33 P.M. by Chmn Ingell. Comm. Rue said that at the last meeting, noise seemed to be the main issue of concern; however, he noted that no one appeared to speak on this item tonight. He stated that, from the materials presented, he would be unable to make a decision on this matter at this time. He noted that he would be absent from the next meeting and would be unable to participate at that time. Comm. Ketz stated that this is a btgger issue than merely an interpretation. She felt that, at the vexy least, it should be a text amendment with a full public hearing since it will affect many people in the City. She noted that this interpretation was not even advertised: therefore, she felt it would be appropriate to continue this item. Chmn. Ingell, although he could emphasize with the applicant's desire to begin selling parts, did not feel that this item should even be before the Commission at this time. He noted that the matter was previously continued to a date certain; people were unaware that this would be on the agenda tonight; and he felt it would be appropriate to continue it so that people have an opportunity to speak on the matter. Chmn. Ingell, acknowledging that Comm. Rue will be absent from the next meeting, stated that the Commission needs to make a final decision at that time. He did not feel it would be in the applicant's best interests to again continue this item. He stressed that all matters related to this business should be heard at the same time. MOTION by Chmn. Ingell, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to continue this matter to the meeting of August 21, 1990. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ketz, Rue, Chmn. Ingell None None Comms. Moore, Peirce RESCISSION OF THE APPROVAL OF A NEW ELECTRONIC MARQUEE AT THE COMMUNITY CENTER Chmn. Ingell, noting that he abstained from discussion on this matter the last time it was heard, stated that he would again abstain. He noted, however, that a quorum was not present because of his abstention; and he stated that the matter should be continued to the next meeting, August 21, 1990 . 16 P.C. Minutes 8/7 /90 140 RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO STUDY A TEXT AMENDMENT REGARDING SIDEYARD EXCEPTION, Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated August 2, 1990. He suggested that the Planning Commission direct staff to study and schedule public hearings for this amendment, and to conduct environmental assessments by adoption of the proposed resolution of intent. Hearing opened at 9:41 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell. Wilma Burt. 1152 7th Street, addressed the Commission and: (1) asked questions related to whether or not this item is in the housing element, to which Mr. Schubach explained that this issue is generally directed toward new development: (2) commented on the dimensions of sideyards, and noted concern that they are being made too narrow; (3) asked what the intention is related to thiS proposed text amendment: (4) felt that this should be written more clearly so that people can understand it. Hearing closed at 9:45 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve staffs recommendation, Resolution P.C. 90-67, to direct staff to study and schedule public hearings for this amendment, and to conduct environmental assessments by adoption of the proposed resolution of intent. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Comms. Ketz, Rue, Chmn. Ingell None None Comms. Moore, Peirce THIRD QUARTER GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS: {l) SELECTED GENERAL PLAN/ZONING INCONSISTENT AREAS EAST OF PACIFIC COAST filGHWAY; (2} DRAFT REVISION OF THE HOUSING ELEMENT; AND (3) PARKS AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN CHANGES REFERRED BY THE CITY CQUNCil. Mr. Schubach gave staff report dated August 2, 1990. He suggested that the Commission direct staff to schedule public hearings for the amendments and to conduct environmental assessments. State law allows cities to amend the general plan four times per year. The Planning Commission and/or City Council may consider initiating the general plan amendments. The housing element amendment involves the adoption of the State-mandated 1989 revision to the 1984 housing element, prepared by staff. The staff environmental review committee has recommended an environmental negative declaration for this project. The Planning Commission is scheduled to conduct a public workshop on the draft housing element on August 8, 1990. The selected inconsistent areas east of P.C.H. involve three small areas east of the highway which have inconsistent general plan and zoning designations. This is another step in our continuing effort to eliminate all inconsistencies between zoning and the general plan. If these areas are resolved, only four small areas remain. The selected areas to be considered are: ( 1) the Water Company property east of Prospect between 15th and 17th Streets --designated as open space on the GP map and zoned R-1: (2) eight lots on the west side of Prospect north of Aviation between 1225 and 1255 Prospect -­ designated low density residential on the GP map and zoned C-3 with R-3 potential: and (3) 17 P.C. Minutes 8/7 /90 141 '' twelve residential lots north of the Prospect Heights school site --designated open space on the general plan and zoned R-1. The Parks and Recreation Master Plan involves the formal adoption of the Parks and Recreation policy document titled "Parks and Recreation Master Plan," prepared by Purkiss­ Rose Landscape Architects and Landerman Moore Planning and Economics, as an amendment to the open space element of the general plan. The City Council has referred this back to the Planning Commission with proposed changes. Mr. Schubach, 1n response to a question from Comm. Ketz. stated that this hearing would be scheduled for the first meeting in October. Hearing opened at 9:48 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell. Wilma Burt, 1152 7th Street, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission and: (1) asked questions related to the location of the inconsistent areas east of the highway; (2) discussed the proposed parks and recreation master plan changes, and objected to putting in more parking at the North School park, stating that the City only owns part of the land, and the intention was to use the site as a park. Hearing closed at 9:53 P.M. by Chmn. Ingell. MOTION by Comm. Rue, seconded by Comm. Ketz, to approve staffs recommendation to schedule the proposed general plan amendments for public hearing. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: STAFF ITEMS Comms. Ketz, Rue, Chmn. Ingell None None Comms. Moore. Peirce a) Memorandum Regarding Workshop Meeting Between Planntne Commission and Department Heads At the request of the Commission, Mr. Schubach stated that the meeting would be scheduled for September 4, 1990, prior to the beginnJng of the Planning Commission meeting. b) &umng Department Activity Report for June 1990 The Commissioners were pleased to see that a code enforcement officer has been hired. c) Tentative Future Planning Commission ,A&enda No action taken. d) City Council Minutes of June 26 and July 10. 1990 No action taken. COMMISSIONER ITEMS None. MOTION by Comm. Ketz, seconded by Comm. Rue, to adjourn at 9:57 P.M. No objections; so ordered. 18 P.C. Minutes 8/7 /90 142 CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a tnie and complete record of the action taken by the Planning Commission of Hermosa Beach at the regularly scheduled 7 27~ ~~__/-- MicaelSchubach~retaiy Date 19 P.C. Minutes 8/7 /90 City of Hermosa Beach Staff Report City Hall 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Staff Report REPORT 24-0133 Honorable Chair and Members of the Hermosa Beach Planning Commission Regular Meeting of March 19, 2024 STUDY SESSION TO DISCUSS COMPREHENSIVE ZONING AND SUBDIVISION UPDATE (Maricela Guillean, Associate Planner) Recommended Action: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: 1. Receive a presentation on the Comprehensive Zoning and Subdivision Code Update; and 2. Solicit public comments; and 3. Conduct discussion and provide guidance as appropriate on the upcoming Zoning updates. No formal Planning Commission actions or decision are required at this meeting. Executive Summary: The City initiated the Comprehensive Zoning Code and Subdivision Update (ZCU) in 2020. Efforts to update the zoning code are ongoing with recent Housing Element zoning changes brought before the Planning Commission and adopted by the City in 2023. Staff is resuming a focused effort to update the zoning code. Background: In 2017, the City Council adopted PLAN Hermosa, the City’s General Plan. In 2020, the City completed an assessment report outlining areas of Title 16 (Subdivision Ordinance) and Title 17 (Zoning Ordinance) of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code (HBMC) code that need to be revised in order to be consistent with PLAN Hermosa, the City’s General Plan. In 2021, the City launched the ZCU, and the Planning Commission conducted a series of special meetings weighing in on the proposed zoning changes. Past City Council and Planning Commission Actions Meeting Date Description March 4, 2020 Joint City Council/Planning Commission Study Session - Introduction to the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Assessment for Feedback May 19, 2020 Planning Commission - The Final Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Assessment Presentation February 17, 2021 Economic Development Stakeholders Advisory Working Group - Introduction to the Targeted Parking Amendments to Receive Feedback March 1, 2021 Economic Development Committee - Introduction to the Targeted Parking Amendments to Receive Feedback March 3, 2021 Joint City Council/Planning Commission Study Session - Introduction to the ZCU for feedback August 10, 2021 City Council adopts Ordinance No. 21-1436 to amend Chapter 17.26.050, Chapter 17.44, and Section 17.52.035 of the HBMC relating to off-street parking requirements in the commercial zones. February 2, 2022 Special Planning Commission Meeting to discuss Draft Land Use Regulations April 6, 2022 Special Planning Commission Meeting to discuss Draft Land Use Regulations June 7, 2022 Special Planning Commission Meeting to discuss Draft District and Design Standards August 8, 2022 Special Planning Commission Meeting to discuss Draft District and Design Standards September 22, 2022 Special Planning Commission Meeting to discuss Citywide Standards October 3, 2022 Special Planning Commission Meeting to discuss Citywide Standards November 2, 2022 Special Planning Commission Meeting to discuss Administrative Procedures December 13, 2022 City Council adopts Urgency Ordinance No. 22-1456U to amend Chapter 17.21 (Accessory Dwelling Units) of the HBMC. March 21, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting to discuss Rezoning Approach for Housing Element Implementation. July 11, 2023 City Council adopts Ordinance No. 23-1462 to amend Chapter 17.21 (Accessory Dwelling Units) of the HBMC. September 26, 2023 City Council adopts Ordinance No. 23-1469 to amend portions of HBMC Title 17 relating to commercial cannabis activities and mobile cannabis dispensaries. September 26, 2023 City Council adopts Ordinance No. 23-1468 to amend portions of HBMC Title 17 relating to Short-Term Vacation Rentals Pilot Program in Commercial Zones. November 14, 2023 City Council adopts Ordinance No. 23-1471 to amend the HBMC to implement Housing Policies and Programs. City of Hermosa Beach Printed on 3/13/2024Page 1 of 7 143 Staff Report REPORT 24-0133 Meeting Date Description , . City of Hermosa Beach Printed on 3/13/2024Page 2 of 7 144 Staff Report REPORT 24-0133 Meeting Date Description ,. -2022, the Planning Commission reviewed, and City Council adopted Zone Text Amendments relating to off-street parking in commercial zones, Accessory Dwellings Units, Short-Term Vacation Rentals, Home Occupations, and Cannabis Delivery. Focus on Housing Changes - 2023 In 2023, the City shifted its focus to updating the Housing Element to comply with state mandates and the California Housing and Community Development (HCD) requirements. As part of those efforts, the Planning Commission recommended, and the City Council adopted Housing Element related zoning changes. The Zone Text Amendments include: ·Revised Regulations for Special Housing Types ·Creation of Conditional Use Permit Objective Findings ·Creation of New Zone - R2-A Medium Density Residential Zone (22) ·Revised Regulations for Mixed-Use Development ·Creation of Housing Element Sites Inventory Overlay ·Revised Regulations for M-1 Light Manufacturing Zone ·Revised Regulations of Live/Work Definition and Development Standards ·Creation of Building Design Guidelines ·Revised Precise Development Plan (PDP) Review Process ·Creation of Land Value Recapture ·Revised Regulations for Reasonable Accommodation Procedure The amendments will go into effect upon certification of the Housing Element, which is currently under review for certification by HCD. The ZCU was intended as a single, comprehensive update. However, various factors have impacted this approach including the zoning work already completed, new State legislation relating to housing and development that must be considered, along with changes in staffing. In recognition of these changes, staff is resuming a phased approach of the ZCU. Zone Text Amendments will be presented for adoption in discrete sections. City of Hermosa Beach Printed on 3/13/2024Page 3 of 7 145 Staff Report REPORT 24-0133 Discussion: Zoning and subdivision regulations translate the policies of a general plan into parcel specific regulations, including land use regulations and development standards. The type and intensity of land uses that are permitted and how they perform is critical to achieving PLAN Hermosa’s vision for neighborhood preservation and enhancement, economic development, coastal resource protection, environmental sustainability, and community health.The ZCU would also address the issues identified in the 2020 Assessment Report. The ZCU would result in a zoning and subdivision ordinances that: ·Are consistent with and implements the General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan; ·Are modern and reflects the City’s current uses, practices, and development patterns; ·Provide clear decision-making protocols and streamlined review processes, where appropriate; ·Are clear, concise, understandable, and easy to use. Breaking down the ZCU into phased, discrete sections would allow for concrete progress towards a comprehensive update. Each section would be reviewed in the context of the entire code for internal consistency.The tentative schedule and next steps are identified below: March/April 2024 - Planning Commission to review and provide recommendation on Administrative Processes and Procedures. The proposed updates would: -Create processes and procedures for General Plan Amendments -Create processes and procedures for development of the Coastal Zone -Revise public noticing requirements to be consistent with state law -Modify the appeals and calls for Review process -Modify and consolidate the similar use determination process -Modify Precise Development Plan process to streamline review where appropriate -Review/revise Amendment to Entitlement/other applications May/June 2024 - Planning Commission to review and provide recommendation on land use regulations for Commercial and Industrial Zones, definitions related to uses, standards for specific uses and zoning map changes. -Update zoning maps for consistency with new zones -Create Coastal Overlay with no proposed zone changes City of Hermosa Beach Printed on 3/13/2024Page 4 of 7 146 Staff Report REPORT 24-0133 -Revise commercial and industrial land uses to reflect contemporary uses -Establish and revise land use definitions -Revise and add operating standards for specific uses -Revise Minor Special Event regulations pursuant to City Council direction -Establish adaptive reuse regulations -Update site development standards (lighting, landscaping, trash enclosures. fencing, etc) -Update parking ratios for consistency with commercial and industrial use definitions Summer 2024 - Planning Commission to review and provide recommendation on Land Use Regulations for Residential Zones, Public and Semi-Public Zones, and Open Space Zone, and Zoning Map Changes. -Update zoning maps for consistency with new zones -Create Coastal Overlay with no proposed zone changes -Consolidate and update Open Space Zones -Revise land use definitions -Update land use regulations for Residential Zones and Public and Semi-Public Zones to reflect contemporary uses -Update site development standards -Update site development standards (lighting, landscaping, trash enclosures fencing, etc) -Create clear standards for measuring fences, walls, distance, fractions, area, lot coverage, setbacks, signs, etc. Fall - Winter 2024 - Planning Commission to review and provide recommendation on Citywide standards including: -Revise parking standards - to right-size parking requirements and add flexibility where appropriate -Update general definitions -Update standards for solar regulations for consistency with State law -Revise legal non-conforming standards to allow some additional flexibility -Update wireless regulations for consistency with Federal law -Revise home occupation standards to address applicability in commercial and mixed- City of Hermosa Beach Printed on 3/13/2024Page 5 of 7 147 Staff Report REPORT 24-0133 -Revise sign regulations to provide flexibility and streamline review where appropriate -Review Historic Preservation provisions and revise if needed. -Review mural determination section and revise if needed -Update landscape standards -Relocate Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance to Zoning Ordinance -Establish building design standards development consistent with the Coastal Act (ex. requiring fritted glass) in the Coastal Zone -Review live entertainment provisions and revise as necessary Winter 2024 - Spring 2025 - Planning Commission review and recommendation of the Subdivision Ordinance. -Revise the Subdivision Ordinance for consistency with state law. This approach will continue to provide opportunities for the Planning Commission and the public to provide feedback on revised standards and lead to a more efficient way to achieve the goals and policies outlined in PLAN Hermosa. General Plan Consistency: PLAN Hermosa, the City’s General Plan, was adopted by the City Council in August 2017. The purpose of the ZCU is to implement the General Plan and aligns with the following PLAN Hermosa implementation actions: ·Land Use 1 - Amend the Zoning Map to bring consistency between PLAN Hermosa Land Use Designations and Zoning Ordinance Zoning Districts and review development standards for non-conforming Uses. ·Land Use 2 - Establish development standards within the zoning code to establish any new land use designations and modify existing development standards to articulate the appropriate building form, scale, and massing for each established character area and applicant density standards. The ZCU process is consistent with the following Goals and Policies established in PLAN Hermosa: ·Goal 1:A high degree of transparency and integrity in the decision-making process. o Policy 1.1 Open Meetings. Maintain the community’s trust by holding meetings in which decisions are being made, that are open and available for all community members to attend, participate, or view remotely. Public Notification: City of Hermosa Beach Printed on 3/13/2024Page 6 of 7 148 Staff Report REPORT 24-0133 https://www.hermosabeach.gov/our-government/city departments/community-development/plans- programs/zoning-andsubdivisionordinance-update <https://www.hermosabeach.gov/our- government/city%20departments/community-development/plans-programs/zoning- andsubdivisionordinance-update>. The interest lists include 1,958 email addresses to date. As of the writing of the report, staff has received no public comments. Attachments: 1. 2020 Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Assessment Report 2. Link to the March 4, 2020 Joint City Council/Planning Commission Study Session 3. Link to the May 19, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting 4. Link to the February 17, 2021 Economic Development Stakeholders Advisory Working Group 5. Link to the March 1, 2021 Economic Development Committee Meeting 6. Link to the March 3, 2021 Joint City Council/Planning Commission Study Session 7. Link to the August 10, 2021 City Council Meeting 8. Link to the February 2, 2022 Special Planning Commission Meeting 9. Link to the April 6, 2022 Special Planning Commission Meeting 10.Link to the June 7, 2022 Special Planning Commission Meeting 11.Link to the August 8, 2022 Special Planning Commission Meeting 12.Link to the September 22, 2022 Special Planning Commission Meeting 13.Link to the October 3, 2022 Special Planning Commission Meeting 14.Link to the November 2, 2022 Special Planning Commission Meeting 15.Link to the December 13, 2022 City Council Meeting 16.Link to the March 21, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting 17.Link to the July 11, 2023 City Council Meeting 18.Link to the September 26, 2023 City Council Meeting 19.Link to the November 14, 2023 City Council Meeting Respectfully Submitted by: Maricela Guillean, Associate Planner Concur: Alexis Oropeza, Planning Manager Legal Review: Patrick Donegan, City Attorney Approved: Carrie Tai, AICP, Community Development Director City of Hermosa Beach Printed on 3/13/2024Page 7 of 7 149 HERMOSA BEACH HB ZONING AND SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE ASSESSMENT REPORT CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH May 2020 150 151 i Table of Contents 1 Introduction ......................................................................................................1 The Project ................................................................................................................................ 1 This Paper ................................................................................................................................. 2 Next Steps ................................................................................................................................. 3 2 What is Zoning? ................................................................................................4 What Zoning Can Do .............................................................................................................. 4 What Zoning Cannot Do ........................................................................................................ 5 The Basic Dilemma: Flexibility vs. Certainty .......................................................................... 5 Users’ Perspectives ............................................................................................................ 5 Tradeoffs ......................................................................................................................... 8 3 Usability .............................................................................................................9 Organization and Style ........................................................................................................... 9 Code Complexity .................................................................................................................. 11 Lack of Clear Definitions and Rules of Measurement ....................................................... 11 Underutilized Tables .............................................................................................................. 12 Absence of Illustrations ......................................................................................................... 13 4 Zones ...............................................................................................................14 Zones to Implement PLAN Hermosa ................................................................................... 14 Streamline Existing Zones ...................................................................................................... 15 Zone Presentation and Organization .................................................................................. 15 152 City of Hermosa Beach ii 5 Development Standards ...............................................................................16 Physical Form and Design Related Standards ................................................................... 17 Tailor Standards to Reflect Character Areas ..................................................................... 18 Objective Design Standards ................................................................................................ 18 Residential Development .............................................................................................. 19 Mixed-Use Development ............................................................................................... 20 Provide Flexibility .................................................................................................................... 21 6 Use Regulations ..............................................................................................22 Adopt a Use Classification System ...................................................................................... 23 Reflect Contemporary Land Uses ....................................................................................... 23 Ensure All Zones Allow Appropriate Land Uses .................................................................. 23 Standards for Specific Uses .................................................................................................. 24 7 Parking Requirements ....................................................................................25 Reduce or Eliminate Minimum Parking Requirements ...................................................... 26 Exempt Small Commercial Establishments .................................................................. 27 Exempt or Reduce Parking Requirements for Changes of Use ................................. 27 8 Development Review and Approval ...........................................................28 Reliance on Discretionary Review ....................................................................................... 28 Adjust Review Thresholds ............................................................................................... 29 Consider a Minor Use Permit Process ........................................................................... 29 Unclear Review and Approval Procedures ....................................................................... 30 Clarify Administrative Procedures for All Decisions ..................................................... 31 153 Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Assessment Report 9 Compliance with State and Federal Law ....................................................32 Housing ................................................................................................................................... 32 Housing Developments .................................................................................................. 32 Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) ................................................................................... 33 Affordable Housing ......................................................................................................... 33 Housing for Persons with Disabilities .............................................................................. 33 Manufactured Housing .................................................................................................. 34 Adult Oriented Businesses .................................................................................................... 34 Coastal Act ............................................................................................................................ 34 Cottage Food Operations ................................................................................................... 35 Emergency Shelters; Transitional and Supportive Uses ..................................................... 35 Family Day Care Homes ....................................................................................................... 36 Processing and Review Procedures .................................................................................... 36 Religious Uses ......................................................................................................................... 36 Signs ........................................................................................................................................ 36 Solar Energy Systems ............................................................................................................. 36 Telecommunications............................................................................................................. 37 Water Conservation and Landscaping .............................................................................. 37 Appendix A Ordinance User Interview Summary ..........................................38 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 38 Themes .................................................................................................................................... 38 Comments .............................................................................................................................. 39 General Comments ........................................................................................................ 39 Design and Development Standards ........................................................................... 40 Land Use Regulations ..................................................................................................... 41 Parking Regulations ........................................................................................................ 43 Zoning Administration and Process .............................................................................. 44 Example References ...................................................................................................... 46 List of Interviewees ................................................................................................................ 47 154 City of Hermosa Beach iv This page intentionally left blank. 155 1 1 INTRODUCTION On August 22, 2017, the Hermosa Beach City Council unanimously adopted its first general plan update since 1979, PLAN Hermosa. PLAN Hermosa is the culmination of a multi-year community- wide effort to reflect on the community and its future. It incorporates many ideas from residents, City officials and staff, and others involved in the planning process and articulates a shared vision. “Hermosa Beach is the small town others aspire to be; a place where our beach culture, strong sense of community, and commitment to sustainability intersect.” Organized around a framework for sustainability, each section of the Plan addresses different aspects of the community and identifies goals and policies to guide residents, decision-makers, businesses, and City staff toward achieving the vision. The challenge now is to translate the policies related to zoning and subdivision controls into a user-friendly, legally adequate, and effective set of regulations and procedures that steer development to the most suitable places and helps the community achieve their long-term vision as a community that values small beach town character, vibrant economy and healthy environment and lifestyles. Zoning and subdivision regulations are one of the primary tools a city has for implementation of its general plan. Zoning and subdivision regulations translate the policies of a general plan into parcel-specific regulations, including land use regulations and development standards. The type and intensity of land uses that are permitted and how they perform will be critical to achieving PLAN Hermosa’s vision for neighborhood preservation and enhancement, economic development, coastal resource protection, environmental sustainability, and community health. The Project The Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Assessment is the first phase of a two-phase effort to comprehensively update the City’s zoning and subdivision regulations and repurpose them as a more effective tool to provide the kind of development that Hermosa Beach wants, consistent with the PLAN Hermosa. The objective is to produce a user-friendly set of regulations that provide clear direction about the City’s expectations and to facilitate development of quality projects by 156 City of Hermosa Beach 2 making standards clear and effective, streamlining review processes, and incorporating flexibility to adapt to specific circumstances. The ultimate objective for the Assessment is to set clear direction for a comprehensive Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance update. A thorough and accurate assessment will set the foundation for an updated Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance that not only complies with state law, but also: • Is consistent with and implements PLAN Hermosa; • Respects the City fabric and groundwork that has occurred overtime and reflects current uses, practices, and development patterns; • Provides clear decision-making protocols and streamlined review processes, where appropriate; • Retains the character and scale of the community’s neighborhoods, districts, and corridors; • Adds to the economic vitality and promotes adaptive reuse and reinvestment of properties; • Addresses previously created nonconforming conditions and brings them into compliance to the extent appropriate and feasible; • Complies with State and federal requirements and current case law; and • Is clear, concise, understandable, and easy to use. This Paper As the first step, City staff and the consultant team have been evaluating the current Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances to identify issues that need to be addressed and changes that should be considered as part of the update. This paper summarizes the principal findings and conclusions of the consultant team’s work and recommends a number of ways that the current ordinances could be improved. It is intended to distill key choices and present “big ideas” for the update, which will be further developed and refined as that effort progresses. The assessment undertaken by the consultant team addressed both the zoning and the subdivision ordinances. However, the dividing and merging of land within the City is largely controlled by the State Subdivision Map Act and the principal assessment finding regarding the City’s subdivision regulations is to update the ordinance for clarity and consistency with State law. As such, much of the discussion in this paper relates to recommendations for Zoning Ordinance provisions, for which the City has broader discretion. 157 Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Assessment Report The paper is organized by seven topical areas: • Usability; • Zones; • Development Standards; • Use Regulation; • Parking Requirements; • Development Review and Approval; and • Compliance with State and Federal Law Included as an appendix is a summary of comments received during interviews with ordinance users. Next Steps This paper will be the basis for a study session with the Planning Commission. Comments from the study session and further work with City staff will guide preparation of an Annotated Outline representing a recommended approach to the overall organizational structure of the updated Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances and a work plan for conducting the update. 158 City of Hermosa Beach 4 2 WHAT IS ZONING? While the General Plan and, in the Coastal Zone, the Local Coastal Plan, sets forth a wide-ranging and long-term vision for the City, zoning and subdivision regulations specify how each individual property can be used to achieve those objectives. Zoning is the body of rules and regulations that control what is built on the ground, as well as what uses occupy buildings and sites. Zoning determines the form and character of development, such as the size and height of buildings, and also includes provisions to ensure that new development and uses will fit into existing neighborhoods by establishing the rules for being a “good neighbor.” Zoning regulations deal with two basic concerns: • How to minimize the adverse effects that buildings or using one property can have on its neighbors; and • How to encourage optimal development patterns and activities within a community, as expressed in planning policies. What Zoning Can Do Zoning is used to implement the community goals expressed in a general plan and other land use plan documents. Zoning can do the following: • Use Regulations. Zoning specifies what uses are permitted or conditionally permitted, what uses are required to meet specified standards or limitations, and what uses are prohibited. In this way, the zoning determines the appropriate mix of compatible uses, as well as how intense these uses can be. • Development and Design Standards. Zoning reflects the desired physical character of the community in a set of development and design standards that control the height and bulk of buildings, streetfront and architectural character, location of parking and driveways, “buffering” of uses, and open space needs. • Performance Standards. Zoning often includes standards that control the “performance” of uses to ensure land use compatibility between new and existing neighborhoods or uses. Performance standards address items such as noise, dust, vibration, and stormwater runoff. • Predictability. The use regulations and development standards established in zoning provide neighbors with assurance of what land uses are permitted and to what scale they may be developed. Property owners benefit from knowing exactly what can be done. City staff benefits too, since the need for case-by-case discretionary review of development applications is reduced. 159 Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Assessment Report What Zoning Cannot Do There are things that zoning cannot do, since zoning is limited in some respects by State law and legal precedent. However, issues not addressed in zoning are usually addressed by other planning tools, such as specific plans and design guidelines. Zoning will not do the following: • Dictate Architectural Design. Although zoning can improve the overall physical character of the community, it can only do so with respect to the building envelope— the height, bulk, and basic elements of structures and their orientation and location on the site. The architectural style or detailed design elements of a building, such as colors and finish materials, are addressed in design guidelines. • Regulate Free Market. Zoning cannot create a market for new development. For example, it cannot determine the exact mix of tenants in a private development. It can, however, create opportunities in the real estate market by removing barriers and offering incentives for desirable uses. • Establish Land Use Policy. Zoning is a tool for implementing land use policy, not setting it. As such, zoning is not the appropriate means for planning analysis or detailed study. Zoning takes direction from the General Plan/Local Coastal Plan and other established land use plans. The Basic Dilemma: Flexibility vs. Certainty As Hermosa Beach considers how best to improve its zoning and subdivision regulations, one issue will be how to find the right balance between flexibility and certainty that will best implement PLAN Hermosa. The dichotomy between these concepts creates tension, not only for City officials and staff who use the regulations on a day-to-day basis, but also for homeowners, business owners, and others who may only come into contact with zoning a few times over the years they may live or operate a business in the City. Everyone wants to know what are the rules and standards by which new development will be judged – how are decisions made to approve, conditionally approve, or reject applications? And, for many, knowing the timeframe as well as the criteria for approval also is important – who has appeal rights, and when is a decision final so a project can proceed. For others, flexibility is important: the site or existing building may be unique, the design innovative and responsive, or the public benefits so compelling that some relief from underlying requirements and generic architectural details may be appropriate. Perspectives of code users help inform the discussion about this issue. Users’ Perspectives Expectations about what zoning should or should not do, and how far it should go, are different, depending on individual perspectives. Applicants view zoning differently than design professionals, 160 City of Hermosa Beach 6 and City staff perspectives are not always the same as those of residents or City officials. At the risk of over-simplification, we offer the following set of expectations for different ordinance users as a starting point for thinking about regulatory options for an update of the zoning and subdivision regulations. Applicants Individuals applying to the City for a zoning approval through a permit or land use review generally want to know: • What are the rules that the City follows for development review? These include use regulations, design guidelines and standards, development standards, review procedures, and criteria for decision-making. • What is the timeframe for decision-making, and when is a decision final? Is it the day the approval is granted, or is there some stated time they have to wait before they know they can proceed with the next steps, refine an architectural design, solicit bids, and initiate construction? Users also need to know how much time they have to obtain a building permit or business license. • What relief can they request if a regulation or standard constrains a design solution or otherwise limits what they would like to do with their property or their building? In thinking about relief, it often is useful to distinguish concerns about what the allowable uses are (recognizing that use variances are illegal and the only way to accommodate different uses would be through a zoning code or map amendment) from concerns about how to accommodate a design or improvement on a lot. Relief may be needed from physical development standards (e.g. setbacks or fence height limitations) or from performance requirements that relate primarily to the impact of a use or building design on an adjacent lot. • How important are neighbor concerns in the decision-making process? If an applicant follows the rules, does the City have the right to require changes to a design solely because of a neighbor’s objections? Are there limitations on conditions of approval or are all elements of a project “negotiable”? Does the City distinguish “as-of-right” development applications from those requesting exceptions to the standards in weighing how far to go to respond to community concerns? Design Professionals Architects and other design professionals typically want to know the answer to the same questions applicants pose, but because of their specific role in a project, they often want to know more specifically how much flexibility the ordinance allows for site planning and architectural design. If the City wants to mandate certain design solutions, as opposed to “encouraging” a type of design, the ordinance should say so to avoid misunderstandings during the development review process. 161 Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Assessment Report An example of a mandated design solution is a requirement for windows or display spaces and a prohibition of blank walls on retail frontages. In this context, design professionals also want to know whether the mandate is a guideline or a development regulation. If it’s a regulation and the proposed building design doesn’t benefit from adding windows, it will be necessary to request a specific form of administrative relief, which could be a variance or a design modification, in order to deviate from the dimensional requirements. By contrast, if the mandate is a design guideline, it may be possible to propose an alternative design solution that meets the guideline’s objective without applying for a variance or use permit to waive design standards if the ordinance provides for alternative ways to comply with a guideline. The flexibility that a design professional typically seeks includes: • Relief from overly prescriptive standards, including setbacks, building height, bulk and articulation, landscaping, location of parking, and architectural design standards (e.g. colors, finishes, porch dimensions, roof pitches, etc.); • Relief from provisions that constrain energy efficiency and water conservation; • Relief for buildings with historic or architectural character; and • Relief for uses or activities with unique needs (e.g. artist studios, churches, personal improvement uses). City Staff and Officials City staff and officials also want flexibility for a number of reasons: • To respond to community concerns; • To implement the General Plan, Local Coastal Plan, and other City plans and initiatives, and to further public policies; • To reconcile competing priorities; • To protect unique and special resources, which may range from coastal resources to historic buildings, affordable housing, and special retail uses; and • To respond to new or emerging technologies, services, or activities. Residents and Business Owners While planners and City officials strive to respond to community concerns, residents and business owners don’t always have the same perspective on zoning, particularly if they feel their interests are not served. Many critical issues are decided when a General Plan/Local Coastal Plan is prepared; however, as implementation details are worked out, community thinking about General Plan/Local Coastal Plan direction may evolve, and there may not be consensus on all of the regulatory solutions proposed to implement the plan. 162 City of Hermosa Beach 8 Neighbors want to know with some certainty what can be built, so there are no surprises once construction begins. However, if they have concerns, they would like to know what the process is for community input – how much flexibility the City has to condition approval and what they can do to affect the final result. Business owners likewise want to know whether they can expand or adapt space to new uses or activities. Being able to respond quickly to changing markets is important, and lengthy review times are counterproductive to that objective. Tradeoffs As the City considers the next steps for regulatory reform, discussion of choices could address these basic philosophical issues: • Flexibility vs. predictability: Are the zoning and subdivision regulations intended as a rule of law or a rule of individuals? Should the area for negotiation be wide or narrow? To what extent should this be determined by the code or by practice? • Flexibility vs. administrative cost: What are the costs to the applicant, to opponents, and to the City’s tolerance for hearings? • Development cost vs. quality: Standards should be written with an understanding of their effect on developers' and consumers' costs and on the quality of the environment for both user and community at large. • Preservation vs. development: Will a particular regulation stimulate or dampen change in uses, users, or appearance? A related issue is whether adopting a new standard will result in a proliferation of nonconforming conditions, which could also discourage investment. • Under regulation vs. over-regulation: How does the community strike the right balance and find the least number of rules that will do the job? Striking the right balance will not be easy, and lessons from similar communities that have recently amended their zoning and subdivision regulations can enable the City to avoid mistakes others have made and achieve its goals for economic development and sustainable land use. 163 Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Assessment Report 3 USABILITY The need to make Hermosa Beach’s Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances more user-friendly and concise was an important issue expressed by staff and observed by the consultant team. Ordinance users find that the text of the Ordinance is complex and that interpretations may differ among staff. The document is difficult to navigate and should rely more extensively on pointers and references to direct users to appropriate regulations. A well-organized code is easy to use, navigate, and understand. This section contains general observations about the existing organization, format, and usability, as well as strategies for improving these aspects of the existing Ordinance. Organization and Style The City’s current Zoning Ordinance, Title 17 of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code, is organized in a manner that exhibits an underlying structure that generally follows a flow from introductory provisions, to zone standards, citywide standards, and finally administrative procedures. While the underlying structure can be recognized by those with ample ordinance-using experience, this structure is not intuitive or obvious to the average user. The Ordinance lacks a user-friendly structure with clear hierarchy and chapter numbering is not consecutive. Some chapters appear to follow a pattern of every second number (ex. 17.02, 17.04, 17.06) while others don’t (ex. 17.50, 17.53, 17.54, 17.55). The chapters that follow a pattern of every second number appear to be original, while chapters that don’t follow this pattern appear to be later amendments. Over the years, as sections and chapters have been updated or added, there hasn’t been a comprehensive reformat of the Ordinance, resulting in a disorganized format as well as inconsistent organization of each individual section. The organization of Hermosa Beach’s Zoning Ordinance can be improved in several ways, with the overall organization and formatting reflecting a systematic, consistent, and sound arrangement to facilitate understanding. First, the City should consider a new level in the organizational hierarchy—Part—to organize the 39 chapters into logical groups intended to make the zoning ordinance easier to navigate. For example, the chapters contained in Title 17 could be grouped into five parts to provide an additional level of organization. • Part I: Introductory Provisions • Part II: Zone Regulations • Part III: Citywide Standards • Part IV: Administration • Part V: Terms and Definitions 164 City of Hermosa Beach 10 With this organization, the ordinance progresses from the most often referenced to the least—with basic provisions in the beginning, followed by regulations of specific zones, citywide standards, and then administrative chapters. As a general rule, the most frequently consulted provisions should come before provisions less frequently consulted. A final part or division can group all definitions and standards of measurement together, so that users have access to a comprehensive reference section in an easily located place. Next, the Ordinance could be enhanced with a comprehensive index and table of contents so that users do not have to scour the text for a section when needed. Finally, the City should supplement these organizational revisions with improvements to the appearance of the text itself, including wider spacing, different fonts for chapters, sections, and the main text, and consistent indentation. 165 USER FRIENDLY FORMATTING promi~ent O··············· -~7.030 District Standards headmgs C.:.:! Table 17 .17 .030, Development Standards-Residential Districts, prescribes the development standards for Residential Districts. Additional regulations are denoted in the right hand column. Section numbers in this column refer to other sections of this Code while individual letters refer to subsections the directly follow the table. Standard RS RH Additional Regulations Maximum Height (ft) 30 100 See Section IBD, Height and Height Exceptions Front 25 20 20(A) 20(A) Side 10 100 See Section TBD, Setback Encroachments 20 20 10 10 A. Attached Single-Unit Dwellings. Required setbacks apply to the ends of rows of attached single­ unit dwellings. FIGURE 17.17.030(A): SETBACKS FOR ATTACHED SINGLE-UNIT DWELLINGS ~ f T 1 l ! ! l ! i i graphics o--->-------- i t.. ___________ i ---------i _________ j_ _________ _ ~---~o,qYiredsld~•~tbx~provk!,d~!1he~n<I• --->­ ofrowsof•tt.><he<ldwelllng, ,_ ____ _ consist£nt ~ numbering O··· .. •• .. •••••• ·~040 Development Regulations indented A. Open Space. Open space, unoccupied by main or accessory structures and open and unobstructed to the sky, shall be provided in accordance with the following standards. 1. Single-Unit Development. Required usable open space may consist of a single area or several adjacent or separate areas. paragraph o----+--~ b. Minimum Dimensions. Minimum dimension of lSfeet. Location. Required open space shall not be located in a required front or street side setback. ·············O page header •············O cross references •··B··· •············O page numbers Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Assessment Report Code Complexity The organization of the current Ordinance leaves standards of development spread out among various sections. Because standards are dispersed, users are left with a nagging fear that a “hidden” regulation might affect the viability of a project. Uncertainty regarding development possibilities can be a significant barrier when attempting to attract investment. Also some development standards result from or have been derived from ballot measures, which is not always clearly articulated. Overall, the chapter ordering of the Ordinance is not always intuitive, and sections that should be grouped together are often found far apart or separated by other chapters. Accessory Dwelling Unit standards, which are applicable in multiple zones are located in their own chapter in the midst of chapters of zone standards. Mixed-use development standards and educational institution standards, which are only applicable in the C-1 and C-3 zone, respectively, are located in a chapter with development standards applicable to uses in multiple zones, Chapter 17.40, Conditional Use Permit and Other Permit Standards. Additional standards for specific uses, are located in a third chapter, Chapter 17.42, General Provisions, Conditions, and Exceptional Uses. Hermosa Beach should ensure that the Zoning Ordinance functions efficiently and with the fewest number of provisions necessary to achieve its goals. To this end, related content should be organized together and unnecessary sections of the Ordinance should be removed in order to avoid ambiguity and reduce the sheer bulk of the Ordinance. Lack of Clear Definitions and Rules of Measurement Though the current Zoning Ordinance includes three sections of definitions, some terms that should be defined, are not, some definitions are overly specific, and others include development standards. The definition of ‘grade’ includes a statement that the determination of grade is to be made by the Community Development Director. The definition of ‘open space’ identifies acceptable encroachments. Definitions should convey the meaning of a term; standards should be located in the body of the regulations. The definitions should be updated to include modern terminology and be made more general so that they will apply to terms as they are used throughout the Zoning Ordinance and other City codes. Where possible, definitions should also align with those of other applicable rules and regulations such as the Building Code, State Alcoholic Beverage Control regulations, and State housing laws. The Zoning Ordinance does not include a separate chapter on rules of measurement; rules for the calculation of standards are located throughout the ordinance. In some cases, such as lot coverage, and determining the baseline points for measuring building height, they are incorporated into general definitions. Others are located among regulations for specific development aspects. The calculation of floor area is located within the definition of ‘gross floor area’ in the definitions section of the off-street parking regulations. Clear rules of measurement ensure that all users are able to determine the way that standards should be applied in the same 166 City of Hermosa Beach 12 Tables with cross references enhance usability. manner in order to arrive at the same conclusion. Locating a complete set of rules of measurement in one location, either at the beginning or the end of the Ordinance, provide an easy-to-locate reference tool to ensure consistent interpretation and application of standards. Underutilized Tables The existing Ordinance does utilize tables to present certain regulatory requirements, although inconsistently and sparingly. The C-1, C-2, C-3, and M-1 zones and Specific Plan Area No. 11 use tables to present use regulations while all other zones and plan areas list use allowance or cross-reference other zones for use allowances. Tables can greatly improve the readability of complex regulations and could be used more extensively to organize and more clearly present information throughout the Ordinance. Use regulation tables can specify the level of review required, list any limitations on permitted uses, and provide cross-references to other sections of the Ordinance where additional regulations apply. Development standard tables can list dimensional requirements for lots, setbacks, heights, and other standards with cross-references to other applicable sections of the Ordinance. This approach helps avoid unnecessary redundancy, repetition of provisions, and confusion from conflicts. 167 i-··········-··-- ~ :,_-r­ ·=-:L.:__ ~~~_,cl,_ -----.. ----------------- 45feetfotlouorith slopnollHsU\MI ~ssfee1kir1ots witholopeid1!Mol 451efl gruter 25f.!flforli<Molt1Rbuildingfx•; 35f0tu1Moltheb.,iklingf-; 45for20NoolU.buildinoj)fac.e(O) Min.ioffftfromrhe~f-bmw(O) Min.~fHtdn<fromfloortocelling Mift.SfffldN<tromfloortoceiling Th,,......irrunhtlgtl(ol1~podo,m¥isit,iefrom thestrfftis4ffftfrornflnishe.dgradt, 5'1!17.)6.o&l Me•~=•nd E.Y.c.epUons) 0 8 0 0 0 CD Building Facc ll t ig h1.Alongstrcelftontagcsaodadjaccntlorcsidenlial districts,thcbuilding face shall ha,·e • maxirmm wall hcigha as ;dcntifiod in Table 17.24 .030-l (Commercial Districts• Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Assessment Report Illustrations of standards, such as these in the City’s Height Requirements & Calculating Height handout, aid in interpretation. Absence of Illustrations In addition, the current Zoning Ordinance provides few graphic examples or illustrations. Graphics can clearly depict standards for measuring building height or yard setbacks, while verbal equivalents are prone to misinterpretation and uncertainty. Clarifying visual examples of measurement standards, development standards, and other complex provisions, similar to those included on the City’s Height Requirements & Calculating Height handout, help with understanding and enforcement. Incorporating illustrations such as these into the Zoning Ordinance can communicate development regulations more clearly and in less space than written standards. 168 Exhibi t 1 Determining Location of Critica l Points (C P) CP2 CPl Maximum Hei ht Line \ C P 4 "-. _ -• ----~-~:_'>.-----------~---------I □□□□ □ □ (30') r--□ □ □ □ (30') hcightlintil □ □ □ I ----- --y ----------• __. _... __.. Comer Pomt -- ~ ~mer Po::---\ -~--~-~~ \_ Interpolated Grade Lme Along Lowest Side -- Exhibit 2 Determining Location of Critical Points (CP) Roof Plan View 100.0 "--r·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-· Low.Side '::::-,.-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·_j 87.0 LowComer CP4 CP2 CPl Flat roof --CP3 --- 101.0 /·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·-·---.....____ 88.0 City of Hermosa Beach 14 4 ZONES Zoning districts, or zones, create the framework for implementation of General Plan policies and land use designations. The General Plan establishes land use designations and the overall policy basis for land use and development. Zoning then establishes zones which are intended to define distinct locations for different uses, consistent with general plan land use designations. The Zoning Ordinance includes standards for each of these zones with detailed regulations as to what uses are permitted, what uses are allowed, and what physical development standards apply. Zones to Implement PLAN Hermosa PLAN Hermosa builds upon the city’s historic development pattern to accommodate anticipated population and employment growth. The Land Use Designations Map in PLAN Hermosa indicates the intended use of each parcel of land in the City. The land use designations were developed to provide both a vision of the organization of uses in the City and a flexible structure to allow for changes in economic conditions and community vision. There are four categories of land use designations: Residential, Commercial, Creative Industrial, and Institutional. The majority of individual designations within these four categories are consistent with or similar to previous designations or existing development types. Others are new, including Public Facilities and Beach land use designations. In these situations, new zones on the Zoning Map and in the Zoning Ordinance are warranted. 169 • nations Map 2 3 Land Use Desig figure • \ l~~-,, ,, ' \ ' • I \ 050 beach hedrmse designations Ian u low density i me<Jium densiy ■ highdensity ■ mobile home ~ neighborhood I ■ community S ■ rec,ealional ■ gateway ■ sefVice -! ■ light industrial ~ _ ■ public facility J ■ open space 'iii -= beach -!l L?} city lirnlts j C.'J coastal zone .8 Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Assessment Report Streamline Existing Zones There may also be opportunity for streamlining existing zones and eliminating those that are no longer necessary. For example, the only differences between the R-3, Multiple-family Residential, Zone and the R-P, Residential Professional, Zone are variations in lot coverage allowances, height considerations, and that the R-P Zone allows office as a conditionally permitted use. The R-P Zone is within the High Density Residential Land Use Designation in PLAN Hermosa and its existing development consists solely of residential uses. In the interest of creating a concise and user- friendly zoning ordinance, the total number of zones should be minimized and zones that are not necessary, such as the R-P Zone, should be removed or consolidated. Additionally, the Zoning Ordinance also includes 10 Specific Plan Areas. The regulations for these Specific Plan Areas vary in content and detail, ranging from refinements to the residential housing types allowed and minimum lot area per dwelling for an individual residential development to detailed use regulations and development standards for a large portion of Pier Avenue. Each of the Specific Plan Areas should be reviewed for relevance and their potential to integrate necessary standards into zone regulations. In some cases, relevant Specific Plan Areas standards may be integrated entirely into other base zones. In other cases, a unique zone may be warranted. Zone Presentation and Organization The Zoning Ordinance will benefit from combining similar zones, where appropriate, and by renaming zones to reflect the General Plan land use designation and provide information regarding the purpose and nature of the zone. Zones can then be consolidated into related groups, such as Residential, Commercial and Mixed-Use, Industrial, and Public and Semi-Public districts, similar to how the C-1, C-2, and C-3 zones are consolidated into one chapter in the existing Zoning Ordinance. When zones are consolidated, the differences among individual zones are identified through purpose statements and reflected in the use regulations and development standards, which will vary based on the unique characteristics and purposes of the zone. 170 City of Hermosa Beach 16 5 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS The importance of quality design in community spaces and residential neighborhoods cannot be overemphasized. A well-designed city directly elevates the quality of life, which in turn, attracts investment and increases communal pride. As Hermosa Beach redevelops over time, the City will continue to face design challenges. The current Zoning Ordinance does not have sufficient standards to appropriately guide and regulate development especially in building appearance and design compatibility. Development regulations that address the building form and site design of new development can respond to differences in character, promote a desirable physical form, and ensure that more intense uses of land do not become public nuisances. The Zoning Ordinance does not address the physical form of development in an organized or complete fashion. The current Zoning Ordinance was first written at a time when Ordinances focused on regulating use rather than design. More recently, design-oriented approaches are replacing traditional, use-based zoning as a means of addressing the physical character of development. Hermosa Beach has followed this trend over the years, as development standards and requirements have been added. In some instances, they have been added with little analysis of how all the standards work together and collectively influence resulting development. In other instances, such as Specific Plan Area No. 11, detailed development standards that address many aspects of site development and building design have been adopted. PLAN Hermosa provides a foundation for implementing zoning techniques designed to improve the physical form of new development. It recognizes that distinct neighborhoods, districts, and corridors contribute positively to the overall structure and character of the City. Fourteen character areas are identified, defined by their future vision, intended distribution of land use, and desired form and character. PLAN Hermosa also includes a number of policies related to design, including, but not limited to: 1.6: Scale and context. Consider the compatibility of new development within its urban context to avoid abrupt changes in scale and massing. 2.7: Context sensitive design. Wherever feasible, orient residential buildings to address streets, public spaces or shared private spaces, and consider the physical characteristics of its site, surrounding land uses, and available public infrastructure. 2.8: Neighborhood transitions. Encourage that new development provide appropriate transitions in scale, building type and density between different land use designations. 171 Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Assessment Report 3.5: Compact office formats. New employment uses should be designed in a compact format with minimal front setbacks from the street, typical lease spans of 40 feet or less, and where feasible, combined with other commercial uses. 6.6: Human-scale buildings. Encourage buildings and design to include human-scale details such as windows on the street, awnings and architectural features that create a visually interesting pedestrian environment. Physical Form and Design Related Standards In order to implement PLAN Hermosa policies, the City will need to adopt new development regulations to address the form and design of new development, such as standards for the following: • Location of a building on a lot – where a building may or must be built to the street and where setbacks are required; • Building form and massing; • Façade design and articulation; • Orientation of building entries; • Transparency – pedestrian level windows offering views into buildings and displays; • Limitations on blank walls; • Relation to adjoining sites; • Location and screening of parking; and • Landscaping. Establishing minimum design standards will set the tone for the type of development the City hopes to attract. These standards will allow developers and designers to know exactly what is Form-related standards can help achieve high quality design. 172 ----------------7 feet ..._ __ __._ _____ ----------· 2.5 feet ------------------------------Grade at Sid ewalk Minimum of 50% o f bui lding front age in Zone of Transparency shall be t ra nsparent City of Hermosa Beach 18 expected of them. At the same time, flexibility can still be achieved by allowing a modification of standards so long as certain findings and criteria are met. Flexibility is particularly important given the varied lot sizes and topography that characterize City. Tailor Standards to Reflect Character Areas It would be difficult for the City to prepare a single, comprehensive set of design requirements as neighborhoods, districts, and corridors within Hermosa Beach have distinct characters that required tailored regulations so that new development is appropriate to the context of the area. Standards should be refined to foster the type of character desired within various areas of the City. In pedestrian-oriented areas, the objective should be to have buildings enclose a street and provide an interesting, engaging front, making walking and shopping pleasurable. In more auto-oriented areas there is more potential for incompatibility between uses, so landscaping and screening may be important. Development standards should also address compatibility and ensuring that new buildings fit amongst existing buildings. The ordinance should detail how to address contextual issues of building placement, scale, massing, and height and include standards to ensure sensitive transition from more intense development to surrounding neighborhoods. While each zone or area should have individually tailored requirements, the organization of the requirements should be uniform, so that users can easily ascertain the requirements for a particular zone. Objective Design Standards The State of California has adopted recent legislation to address the State-wide housing shortage and now requires a streamlined and ministerial process for specific residential developments, including multi-unit residential development and mixed-use development with 2/3 of the square footage for residential use. These types of projects must be reviewed against existing objective standards rather than through a discretionary entitlement process. Objective Standard (per State law): reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant and the public official prior to submittal. 173 Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Assessment Report An update to the Zoning Ordinance provides an opportunity to establish objective standards to achieve quality designed housing projects without subjective interpretation or a complex review and approval process, consistent with State law requirements. Residential Development The Zoning Ordinance currently establishes standards for multi-family development primarily in Chapter 17.16 – R-3 Multiple-Family Residential Zone and Chapter 17.24 - RPD Residential Planned Development. Basic standards include height, front yard, side yards, placement of buildings, area, lot coverage, usable open space, and lot area per dwelling. Projects typically require discretionary review by the Planning Commission where more qualitative conditions are applied to ensure compatibility with neighborhood context and to elevate design quality. The Zoning Ordinance update provides the opportunity to refine existing quantitative standards and develop new objective standards that capture the qualitative conditions typically applied to multi-family residential projects through the discretionary process. Objective standards should be developed to ensure that development is compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods, that quality materials are used, and that building form and scale is appropriate to the site. Such standards may address the following: • Setbacks; • Building heights; • Floor area ratio (FAR) or lot coverage; • Usable open space • Relation to neighboring buildings (stepbacks and articulation versus “compatibility in scale”); • Explaining in details the characteristics of a particular architectural style and list the required components; • Limits on blank wall (breaks in blank walls every X feet); • Building frontage requirements (number of doors, space between doors and garage, etc.); • Material requirements; • Color requirements; and • Consistency with neighborhood character (if defined in an objective manner). To support consistent application of objective standards, it is recommended that images and exhibits representing a suggested design topic or standard with text callouts be developed in the new Ordinance, where applicable, to illustrate the design intent. 174 City of Hermosa Beach 20 Mixed-Use Development Chapter 17.40.180 – Mixed-use Development (C-1 Zone) of the current Ordinance provides the opportunity to establish mixed-use development subject to approval of a conditional use permit, a discretionary permit process, within the C-1 Limited Business and Residential zone. The residential portion of a mixed-use development is subject to the development standards of the R-3 Multiple Family Residential Zone with a few tailored exceptions relating to condominiums, percentage limitation of first floor residential use, front setbacks, lot coverage and trees. General development guidance is provided for noise, security, and lighting. In addition, parking requirements are provided in Section 17.44.010 Off Street Parking – Mixed Use where required parking is determined using on the sum requirements of all individual uses. While State law requirements for objective standards and a streamlined review process apply to mixed-use development with 2/3 of the square footage for residential use, mixed-use development may be comprised of a number of different use combinations. By providing a variety of uses within close proximity, mixed-use development can reduce automobile dependence, preserve green space and natural resources, promote revitalization, enhance economic development. Mixed-use developments can also provide for a wide range of housing types and choices for different income levels and may increase affordable housing opportunities. Development standards tailored to the unique attributes of mixed-use development can provide greater assurance of compatibility with neighborhoods and better alignment with market considerations. While the objective standards and a streamlined review process is required for certain mixed-use developments, the City should consider establishing objective standards and streamlined review for other types of mixed-use developments in order to promote their establishment while ensuring appropriate design and siting. Mixed-use development standards should address compatibility issues while providing flexibility for combining residential and commercial components with active, pedestrian-oriented ground floor uses, where consistent with PLAN Hermosa. In addition to the physical form and design related standards discussed previously in this paper, customized mixed- use regulations should consider the following: • Location of desired land uses; • Public and private access; • Building placement and orientation; • Residential private open space; • Common open space; • Noise, light, and odor control; and • Location and screening of parking, loading, and service areas. 175 Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Assessment Report Provide Flexibility In many instances, particularly in areas like Hermosa Beach with small lots with existing development, the need for flexibility in the application of development standards is not a reflection of the quality of the project or design, rather a reflection of site constraints that limit the effectiveness of a ‘one size fits all’ approach. The existing Zoning Ordinance provides for little flexibility in the application of development standards. The two primary avenues available for modification of development standards in the current Zoning Ordinance are variances and administrative variances. Specific findings related to unique characteristics of a property are required to approve variances and administrative variances are limited in scope and the legality of administrative variances is unclear. As the City incorporates additional development regulations into the Zoning Ordinance, the City should create additional opportunities for gaining relief from codified locational, developmental, and operational standards in cases where modifications are warranted by special circumstances that may not meet the requirements for approval of a variance based on physical hardship. This could be done in the form of additional provisions for approval of waivers and exceptions, including Staff level approval of a so-called de minimus waiver from dimensional standards. Options include a minor modification that allows for specified dimensional modifications (e.g. less than a 10 percent reduction in setbacks and fence heights) that would have a negligible impact and are non-controversial in nature. Some jurisdictions provide one level of adjustment without notice and a slightly higher level of adjustment with notice and the opportunity for neighbors to request a public hearing. 176 City of Hermosa Beach 22 6 USE REGULATIONS Use regulations detail the type of uses that are allowed, the review process, and specific limitations that apply to a particular activity or use. Use regulations have traditionally been used to separate incompatible land uses, minimize nuisances, and limit adverse effects on neighboring properties. Each zone currently contains a list of permitted uses and some list conditionally permitted uses. Residential zones allow any use permitted in less intense residential zones (ex. The R-3 Zone allows any use permitted in the R-2 Zone). Some zones, including the C-1, C-2, C-3, and M-1 zones and SPA-11, present use regulations in tables with cross references to use specific standards. There are outdated and overly specific uses, such as ‘detective agency’, ‘messenger service’ and ‘computer and Internet access center’. Other times, uses with little distinction between them are regulated separately. ‘Toy store’, ‘clothing and wearing apparel sales and service’, ‘department store’, drugstore’, ‘florist or plant shop’, and ‘hobby and craft sales and services’ are all examples of similar retail services, and that may even occur within a single retail establishment, that are separately regulated. The Ordinance lacks a comprehensive list of defined uses that are regulated by the Ordinance. Commercial land uses are grouped into a single section of the Zoning Ordinance while residential uses are mixed in with definitions of general terms in a separate section. Some uses are not defined. During the course of stakeholder interviews, attracting and retaining retail and restaurant uses in the Downtown was identified as one of the greatest challenges facing the City today. Over the years, the City has added strict and inflexible standards to the Ordinance and conditions of approval to individual projects that limit operations of commercial uses, particularly establishments that serve alcohol and provide live or late night entertainment. While these standards and limitations were intended to maintain and improve community livability, and reduce nuisance activity, particularly in areas with commercial and residential adjacencies, they have also stifled potential economic investment in the Downtown and along the corridors. The Zoning Ordinance update effort provides the opportunity to update the City’s approach to use regulation to reflect modern uses, current development practices, and State and Attracting and retaining retail and restaurant uses in the Downtown is a challenge. 177 Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Assessment Report federal law and support community objectives such as economic development, increased walkability, diversity of housing types, and vibrant urban centers. Through well-crafted regulations, the Zoning Ordinance can maximize the City’s economic development “pluses” and support economic investment, while ensuring it does not create undue impacts on its neighbors. Adopt a Use Classification System The Zoning Ordinance should ensure that every use regulated by the ordinance is defined through a clearly defined modern classification system, which places land uses and activities into groups based on common functional, product, or physical characteristics. There are many advantages to this type of use classification system. Listing use groups instead of specific uses help streamline the use regulation parts of the Ordinance. Categories are also broad enough to allow classification of new, unanticipated uses, so that the City does not need to amend these sections or make interpretations as frequently. Under this system, all use categories would be defined in a single chapter of the Code. This chapter would organize use categories into groups such as residential; public and semi-public; commercial; industrial; and transportation, communication, and utility uses. This way, similar uses are found near one another for comparison when a classification question arises. The official names of each use group would be utilized throughout the Code in a consistent manner, with the definitions chapter serving as a reference. Reflect Contemporary Land Uses To help modernize the Zoning Ordinance, the use classification system described above should eliminate obsolete uses (i.e., those no longer allowed, or outdated terms) such as game arcade and miniature golf course, and also include new contemporary uses such as industrial flex space and shared office spaces. Ensure All Zones Allow Appropriate Land Uses The allowable uses within each zone should be evaluated for compatibility with the purpose of the zone, the corresponding land use designation in PLAN Hermosa, and reflective of contemporary use and development trends. In particular, use regulations in nonresidential districts should be evaluated to allow a broader range of uses, reflecting the changing nature of land use and allowing a creative combination of uses, consistent with PLAN Hermosa. In particular, M-1 Zone use allowances should be evaluated, balancing the need to protect the accessibility of the area for production, design, and manufacturing uses and allowing non-manufacturing uses that are conducive to and supportive of the viability of creative and innovative endeavors. 178 City of Hermosa Beach 24 Standards for Specific Uses Regulations applicable to specific land uses are currently found throughout the Ordinance. An entire chapter, Chapter 17.21, is dedicated to standards for Accessory Dwelling Units. Chapter 17.40, Conditional Use Permit and Other Permit Standards, and 17.42, General Provisions, Conditions and Exceptional Uses, both contain specific standards for multiple uses. The fact that these regulations pertaining to particular uses are scattered throughout the Ordinance makes it hard for users to find them and determine which special regulations apply to a particular project. Some use definitions in the existing Ordinance include limitations, requirements, and allowances related to the use. For example, the definition of “Hotel” includes a statement that the decision- making body has the authority to set any limitation on the number and/or type of kitchenette facilities provided in the guest rooms for projects located on parcels of greater than 20,000 square feet. Although these provisions may be appropriate, embedding them within the use definitions complicates administration and makes it difficult for applicants to determine which development standards apply to a particular proposal. These regulations should be addressed in separate sections of the Ordinance where the limitations are visible and adequately discussed. For example, they may be located in a chapter dedicated to standards for specific uses and referenced in the use regulations for each zoning district. The City should consolidate requirements that are applicable to specific uses and activities into a single chapter. Within this chapter, the uses can be alphabetized, making them easy to locate. The standards for specific uses can be referenced in the land use tables in the zone regulations, which will reduce overall wordiness in the Ordinance. When revising use regulations, the City should be sure to reevaluate and expand its regulation of uses that create potential incompatibilities with surrounding properties. The City should incorporate explicit performance standards to ensure that the operation of one use does not cause an undue burden upon the use and enjoyment of adjacent property and everyone is clear on what the requirements are. Finally, the City should evaluate the limitations in the Ordinance and project approvals on establishments that serve alcohol and provide entertainment in in seeking a better balance of achieving community goals for a vibrant local economy and the revitalization of the downtown core while minimizing adverse impacts. The Ordinance should be evaluated in terms of creating opportunities for new investment to achieve these goals, in consideration of other mechanisms the City may employ to address public nuisances and poor behavior of individual establishments. All of these modifications to the existing use classification system and development standards will work to reduce the need for discretionary review of new development. With clarified requirements and a more comprehensive scheme of use classification, approvals will encounter fewer delays, with heightened assurances of appropriate development and compatibility with adjacent properties. 179 Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Assessment Report 7 PARKING REQUIREMENTS Parking was by far the most frequent issue raised by stakeholders. The topic has been the focus of many community conversations and planning efforts, including, but not limited to PLAN Hermosa and the Downtown Core Revitalization Strategy. The City recently completed a Parking Management Study and Recommended Parking Standards for the Coastal Zone which included a parking inventory, occupancy analysis, demand analysis, and recommendations for parking strategies. Parking requirements have a large influence on the ability to utilize property. Because of the high costs of building and maintaining off-street parking, minimum parking requirements can raise barriers to reuse underutilized parcels. This is particularly true in already built-out areas, such as Hermosa Beach, where there may not be enough space to provide required parking. Where additional parking spaces cannot be provided due to site constraints, businesses are deterred from expanding or investing within the City. The quantity, location, and appearance of parking areas also have a substantial impact on the character and functionality of streets, commercial corridors, and residential neighborhoods. Too much parking can limit the utilization of a property and be an impediment to achieving a wide range of community goals. Too little parking can impede accessibility and impact neighborhoods. The amount of parking is optimized when it strikes a right balance between supply and demand. For roughly 50 years, cities across the country, including Hermosa Beach, have included minimum requirements as a means of mitigating the impact of parking demand on public streets. These minimum parking requirements are based on inaccurate assumptions and do not reflect actual parking demand. For example, in Hermosa Beach, many of the minimum parking requirements were derived from the Institute of Traffic Engineers Trip Generation Manual and do not reflect local conditions. This approach to parking demand mitigation has created a number of unwanted side effects, including: • Reducing the viability of reuse of existing buildings; • Limiting options for development on smaller lots or awkwardly-shaped sites; • Discouraging alternatives to automobiles (by promoting an overabundance of parking, alternatives like walking, cycling, transit and car-sharing are at a distinct disadvantage); • Eroding pedestrian environments by increasing the proliferation of land devoted to the automobile, creating large swathes of inhospitable surface parking lots; and 180 City of Hermosa Beach 26 • Adding to the cost of living, since the cost of providing minimum required parking is passed down to the consumer in the price for goods, services, and housing, creating an unfair burden for those who do not drive. As such, cities are increasingly turning to other mechanisms as ways of addressing parking concerns including increasing alternative transportation options and employing parking management techniques. Additionally, our transportation systems are on the cusp of one of the fastest and most transformative shifts in history. The demand for shared mobility services is an early sign of behavior change. Autonomous vehicles are being used on streets today. These changes will have great consequences for parking demand. Although it is unknown exactly what these consequences will be, it is certain that there are more transportation options available than before and people are no longer dependent on individual vehicles for access and mobility. The future transportation system and our mobility choices will continue to have a lot more flexibility. Mobility choices will not be primarily limited to a personal vehicle or existence of a transit line. Reduce or Eliminate Minimum Parking Requirements All of the parking requirements should be evaluated and reduced where appropriate based on actual and anticipated parking demand and in consideration of the collective of City goals, including economic development, pedestrian orientation, housing affordability, and sustainability; of the recommendations from the Coastal Zone parking study and Downtown Core Revitalization Strategy, of the changing nature of our transportation systems; and of a parking management program. For example, the Downtown Core Revitalization Strategy included a number of recommendations to encourage a more pedestrian-oriented district, including: • Locating parking off-site • Reduced parking for commercial, restaurant, office, and retail uses • Reduced parking for mixed-use development • Vehicle parking reductions for the provision of bicycle parking • Utilizing net usable square footage as the basis for parking calculations, rather than gross square footage In revising parking requirements, the City should consider providing uniform parking requirements for grouped land uses with similar space and operational requirements. The City could still provide 181 City of Hermosa Beach Parking Management Study and Recommended Parking Standards for the Coastal Zone Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Assessment Report separate requirements for land uses with particular space and operational requirements that generate unique parking demands. Standardizing parking requirements so multiple uses have the same requirements can ease administration and provide flexibility with regard to re-use and re- investment. Flexibility could also be offered in the way that parking is designed and located, such as allowances for tandem, valet, and stacked parking (parking lifts), thus providing more opportunity for parking in less space. The City should consider varying or adjusting parking requirements by district as well, considering the availability of street or public parking supplies in a particular district. Exempt Small Commercial Establishments The City should consider providing an exemption from the off-street parking requirements for small commercial establishments, such as those under 1,500 square feet of gross floor area. This exemption could be across the board or limited based on certain characteristics, such as new uses in existing buildings, uses located in pedestrian oriented commercial districts, or uses within a commercial center with shared parking facilities. For many small retail and business uses, available on-street parking in the City’s commercial districts and corridors or shared in a shopping center is adequate for their parking demand. Alleviating small commercial establishments from providing parking may help fill vacant storefronts and incentivize redevelopment. Exempt or Reduce Parking Requirements for Changes of Use It is often infeasible to provide additional on-site parking on an already developed site, thus limiting the types of new uses that may locate in an existing building. To support the continued occupancy of existing buildings, the City could consider not requiring additional parking where a new commercial use is established in an existing building even if the new use is subject to a higher parking requirement than the previous use, provided existing parking is retained and there is no change to the building that results in additional gross floor area. Alternatively, when a new business moves into a building where the existing use had a legal nonconforming parking deficiency, the new use could be credited the number of required parking spaces unmet by the previous use. While this parking credit is available in the Downtown District, the City should consider applying this approach on a broader scale. Parking exemptions can incentivize small commercial establishments. 182 City of Hermosa Beach 28 8 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND APPROVAL Zoning provisions governing development review and other administrative matters create the procedural environment through which the City can achieve the goals and policies laid out in its General Plan and other adopted policies. At their best, development review provisions can promote the type of development a community wants by providing a clear, predictable path to project approval; conversely, vague review processes with unclear requirements can cause developers a high level of anxiety, frustrate community residents, and severely dampen a City’s ability to attract desirable growth. Generally, prospective investors value three central qualities in any administrative code: 1) certainty in the requirements and structure of the review process, 2) built-in flexibility to adjust development standards to the needs of individual projects, and 3) opportunities to request relief from requirements that constitute a substantial burden. Certainty about the types of development they can expect to see in their community is also important to residents. The degree to which Hermosa Beach can incorporate these qualities into its Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances will help improve its ability to compete for desirable development. This section contains general observations about the existing development review procedures and strategies to streamline development review and approval process. Reliance on Discretionary Review The flexibility of a zoning ordinance is largely defined by its hierarchy of uses and their required permits. This hierarchy establishes the different levels of review the ordinance requires to make various types of decisions. These decisions typically range from a relatively informal counter staff review of proposed uses and structures for compliance prior to the issuance of a building permit or business license to more formal and complex procedures requiring public notice and a hearing before the Planning Commission prior to issuance of a use permit or other discretionary approval. The primary factor influencing a project’s place in the hierarchy of uses is whether the proposed use is permitted "by right" or allowed subject to certain conditions, or whether a Conditional Use Permit or other permit type with review by the Planning Commission, is required. This determination is a reflection of community issues and concerns that should be embodied in the General Plan. Decisions about where an application fits in the hierarchy may also, however, be influenced by how a jurisdiction selects and designs administrative techniques. It is often possible, for example, to reduce the review threshold for a particular type of application (i.e. place it lower in the hierarchy), by increasing the specificity of development standards and performance-based criteria. 183 Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Assessment Report Adjust Review Thresholds The Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Update provides an opportunity to adjust review thresholds based on analysis of the types of issues and projects in the City that have typically generated the most interest and concern. For example, projects that currently require Planning Commission approval but are consistently approved without public comment, such as small condominium projects, might be shifted to the jurisdiction of the Community Development Department Director. Generally speaking, responsibilities should be assigned with a view toward minimizing the number of players involved in making any given decision, while increasing opportunities for meaningful public input. The number of uses that require discretionary review can be reduced by including carefully crafted standards and restrictions that are specific to specific uses throughout the City or in particular zones into the Zoning Ordinance. As a result, the community and decision-makers may be confident their vision is being implemented and may reduce the need to weigh in on individual projects, allowing more projects to be approved administratively. There are a variety of approaches the City could use to reduce the number of uses requiring review, including permitting more uses by right subject to: • Compliance with development and design standards that could be added to the Zoning Ordinance based on the General Plan’s goals for design quality; • Compliance with new standards and requirements that reflect “standard conditions” that are typically imposed when such uses have been conditionally approved; and • Compliance with specific limitations on location, floor area, hours of operation, and similar features that are the source of potential adverse impact. Consider a Minor Use Permit Process The City may also consider a new type of use permit – a Minor Use Permit – approved by the Community Development Director. The Minor Use Permit would be required for uses that are “limited in scope and impacts” but which currently require a hearing by the Planning Commission, or could be used for minor amendments to Use Permits. Applications for Minor Use Permits would be subject to public notice and a hearing before the Director would only be held if someone requested one. All decisions would be subject to appeal. The Director would also have the authority to defer action and refer the application to the Planning Commission for final action. Notice of decision or notice of pending decision could be given to Planning Commissioners with an option for the Planning Commission to call for review of a project. Such a procedure creates more certainty in the process for both the community and developers while still providing opportunities for meaningful public input. Conditional Use Permits would be reserved for uses that pose potential or significant land use compatibility issues and warrant Planning Commission review and approval. 184 City of Hermosa Beach 30 Ordinance-users expressed that it wasn’t always clear what the review process or who the review authority was for a given decision. Unclear Review and Approval Procedures Ordinance-users expressed that it wasn’t always clear what the review process or who the review authority was for a given decision. Chapter 17.68, Procedure, Hearings, Notices and Fees, of the current Zoning Ordinance contains some common permit procedures. Other chapters contain permit-specific provisions for reports of decision and findings, effective dates, appeals, reapplication, revocation, and expiration. In many cases it is unclear how these procedures differ from permit to permit, especially when many other aspects of the permit procedures, including review body, are the same. For example, both parking plans and conditional use permits are subject to Planning Commission approval. The Zoning Ordinance is clear in stating that a decision by the Planning Commission of a conditional use permit may be appealed to the City Council. However, for parking plans, the Zoning Ordinance states that processing procedures are to be set by resolution of the City Council and is silent on appeal procedures, leaving many questions. Is a parking plan appealable? If a parking plan is submitted along with a Conditional Use Permit and the Conditional Use Permit is appealed, is the parking plan up for consideration as part of the appeal? Clearly distinguishing the issuing authority and applicable review process helps clarify the level of review required for a project. Additionally, procedural nuances between different types of approvals, often with the same review authority, is confusing. The creation of a simplified permit structure that establishes a limited number of procedural tracks for approvals would provide greater clarity for all users and simplify administration. 185 r•·J~f}ltl.Q~.~ .. Jl!li©tfE lj ; r---. : r----, I • . ' . Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Assessment Report Clarify Administrative Procedures for All Decisions The updated Zoning Ordinance should set forth clear administrative procedures to be followed for all types of decisions. The level and extent of administrative process required for different types of decisions will vary. However, for even the simplest administrative procedures, the Ordinance should, at a minimum, establish unambiguous authority for approval and the process for appeal. The approval process can be streamlined simply by consolidating and clarifying procedures and permit approval criteria. Decision-making protocols should be clearly defined so that it is clear how approvals are processed, and the intent of these regulations should be included to help determine if a proposal meets the purpose of the regulation. Findings that the decision-making body is required to make in order to approve a project should be clear so that all interested parties know the criteria against which a project is evaluated. Expanding the set of common permit procedures would improve usability by helping applicants to understand the general review process more easily. Where necessary, unique procedures could be developed for specific permit types, but generally, permits with the same review body should follow the same procedures. Elements of a standard set of common administrative procedures include the following: • A clear and consistent authority for determining whether an application is complete; • Clear and consistent procedures for appeals; • Requirements for public notification; and • Permit effective dates and time extension procedures. 186 City of Hermosa Beach 32 9 COMPLIANCE WITH STATE AND FEDERAL LAW California law grants cities and counties relatively broad discretion in the regulation of land uses and development, and the Federal courts and United States Congress have, for the most part, left land use and environmental regulation up to state and local government. There are, however, some important exceptions to this approach. If local regulations conflict with federal law, pursuant to the supremacy clause of the United State Constitution, then local laws are preempted. In some cases, both Congress and the State have identified matters of critical concern that limit the authority of California cities. This section discusses some State and Federal laws to consider through the update of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances. Housing As California's housing supply and homelessness crisis continues, the State Legislature has passed numerous pieces of housing legislation in each legislative session of the past several years. Most recent legislation is aimed at streamlining approval of housing projects and reducing barriers to the creation of housing. The City has been actively working to comply with the legislation through a number of mechanisms. Highlights of housing related legislation most relevant to the Zoning Ordinance are briefly summarized below. Housing Developments SB330, the Housing Crisis Act, limits cities’ and counties’ ability to regulate housing developments, including residential development, mixed use development with 2/3 of the square footage for residential, and transitional and supportive housing. It creates a preliminary application process where existing objective development standards are those in effect when a preliminary application is submitted, establishes timeframes for when a historic determination and project approval must be made, and limits the number of hearings. A number of provisions address housing density. General Plan and zoning densities may not be reduced below 2018 numbers. This includes changes to development standards that lessen intensity of housing. Zoning may not be changed to remove housing, and there may be no onsite reduction in the number of units. 187 Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Assessment Report The Housing Crisis Act also prohibits local jurisdictions from imposing or enforcing new subjective design standards. Establishing objective development standards for housing developments are discussed in more detail in section 5 of this paper. Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) New laws further restrict what local agencies may regulate regarding ADUs. Local agencies may not adopt ADU ordinances that: impose minimum lot size requirements for ADUs; set certain maximum ADU dimensions; require replacement off-street parking when a "garage, carport or covered parking structure" is demolished or converted to construct the ADU. New laws allow for an ADU as well as a "junior" ADU where certain access, setback and other criteria are met and explicitly identifies opportunities for ADUs in multifamily buildings. Additionally, until Jan. 1, 2025, cities may not condition approval of ADU building permit applications on the applicant being the "owner-applicant" of either the primary dwelling or the ADU. Hermosa Beach adopted its Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance consistent with the new legislation in December 2019. Affordable Housing The State Density Bonus Law (Cal. Gov’t Code §65915) allows for density bonuses and additional incentives for affordable housing. Cal. Gov’t Code §65913 expedites state and local residential development, assuring local agencies can sufficiently zone for affordable housing, and encourage and incentivize affordable housing. Recent changes to the State Density Bonus Law increase the density bonus and other concessions for 100 percent affordable housing projects. Housing projects with a minimum of 80 percent low income units and up to 20 percent moderate income units are eligible for a density bonus of up to 80 percent the maximum allowed density or a density bonus with no limit if located within ½ mile of a major transit stop and qualify for at least four concessions, reduced parking requirements, and a height increase of up to three stories or 33 feet when located within ½ mile of a major transit stop. Housing for Persons with Disabilities Various provisions in both federal and State law limit the authority of local agencies to regulate facilities for mentally and physically handicapped persons. In 1988, Congress extended the 1968 Fair Housing Act’s prohibitions against housing discrimination to include discrimination on the basis of handicap or familial status (families with children). The Federal Fair Housing Act Amendments (FHAA) defined "handicapped" to include persons with physical or mental disabilities and recovering alcoholics and drug addicts. The FHAA not only prevents communities from discriminating against handicapped individuals but also requires "reasonable accommodations in rules policies, practices, or services, when such accommodations are necessary to afford [handicapped persons an] equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling." The California Fair Employment and Housing Act, codified as Government Code Sections 12900 to 12996, reinforces provisions of federal statute to prohibit any unlawful discrimination against persons with disabilities. 188 City of Hermosa Beach 34 The State Supreme Court has prohibited local agencies from limiting the number of persons unrelated by blood, marriage, or adoption who can reside in a single-family home. Pursuant to Cal. Health & Safety Code §1566.3, a residential care facility that serves six or fewer people is considered a residential use and its occupants, regardless of legal relation, are considered a family for purposes of residential use laws and zoning codes. Further, such a use shall not be included within the definition of a boarding house, rooming house, institution or home for the care of minors, the aged, or persons with mental health disorders, foster care home, guest home, rest home, community residence, or other similar term that implies that the residential facility is a business run for profit or differs in any other way from a family dwelling. Manufactured Housing The Land Use and Development Code is compliant with Cal. Gov’t Code §§65852.3-.5 which requires local agencies to allow the installation of manufactured homes certified under the National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. §§5401 et seq.) on a foundation system, pursuant to Cal. Health & Safety Code §1855, on lots zoned for single-family dwellings. Adult Oriented Businesses Local agencies may regulate, pursuant to a content-neutral ordinance, the time, place, and manner of operation of sexually-oriented business when the ordinance serves a substantial government interest, does not unreasonably limit alternative avenues of communication, and is based on narrow, objective, and definite standards (Cal. Gov’t Code §65850.4). Through the Zoning Ordinance update, regulations must ensure there are a reasonable range of alternative sites where adult-oriented businesses may be located. Coastal Act In 1976, the California Coastal Act was passed to protect coastal resources and maximize public access to the shoreline in the coastal zone, which is designated by the State Legislature. As part of the Coastal Act, local governments can prepare and implement Local Coastal Programs (LCPs) that are consistent with and achieve the objectives of the Coastal Act. The Coastal Act gives priority to: • Coastal-dependent and coastal-related uses and activities, such as commercial fishing, recreational boating and water-oriented recreational activities; • Coastal access and recreational needs, such as public coastal access and recreation, along with consideration of traffic, parking, circulation and infrastructure needs; and 189 Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Assessment Report • Environmentally sensitive areas, including the protection and restoration of water quality and sensitive habitat areas, along with consideration of shoreline erosion and sea level rise. Once an LCP is approved by the Coastal Commission, local governments have the responsibility of issuing coastal permits for most new development, subject to the standards set in the certified LCP. Each LCP consists of a local coastal land use plan, which the City drafted with the PLAN Hermosa effort and is preparing to submit to the Coastal Commission for certification, and an implementation plan consisting of measures to implement the plan (primarily the Zoning Ordinance). Thus, the Zoning Ordinance must conform with and carry out the local coastal land use plan. Cottage Food Operations Pursuant to Cal. Gov't Code §51035, a city or county may not prohibit cottage food operations (homemade and packaged food defined in Cal. Health & Safety Code §113758) in any residential dwelling, but shall do one of the following: Classify the use as a permitted use in any residential zone, grant a nondiscretionary permit for the use, or require a permit for the use. Emergency Shelters; Transitional and Supportive Uses Cal. Gov’t Code §§65582, 65583, and 65589.5 require each local government to: 1) amend its Code to identify district(s) where emergency shelters are allowed as a permitted use without a conditional use or other discretionary permit to include sufficient capacity to accommodate the need for emergency shelter identified in the housing element, and 2) treat transitional and supportive housing as a residential use of the property subject only to those restrictions that apply to other residential dwellings of the same type in the same district. Cal. Gov’t Code §65582 contains definitions for "supportive housing," "target population," and "transitional housing" to be more specific to housing element law. AB2162 requires that supportive housing be a use by right in districts where multifamily and mixed uses are permitted, including nonresidential districts permitting multifamily uses, if the proposed housing development meets specified criteria, and requires a local government to approve, within specified periods, a supportive housing development that complies with these requirements. Local governments are prohibited from imposing any minimum parking requirement for units occupied by supportive housing residents if the development is located within ½ mile of a public transit stop. 190 City of Hermosa Beach 36 Family Day Care Homes Pursuant to Cal. Health & Safety Code §§1597.30 et seq., small family day care homes in a residential unit is a residential use and is not subject to a fee or business license. Large family day care homes may not be prohibited in any district where residential is allowed, but a city or county shall do one of the following: classify the use as a permitted residential use, grant a non- discretionary permit for the use, or require a permit for the use. However, zoning requirements for large family day care home must be reasonable and are limited to spacing and concentration, traffic control, parking, and noise control. Noise control standards must be consistent with the general noise ordinance and must take noise levels generated by children into consideration. Processing and Review Procedures State law specifies a number of processing requirements and review procedures related to land use regulation. These include procedures and requirements for development agreements (Cal. Gov't Code §§65864 et seq.), general plan consistency (Cal. Gov't Code §65860), permit review timelines (Cal. Gov't Code §§65920 et seq.), prezoning land upon annexation (Cal. Gov't Code §65859), notice of public hearings (Cal. Gov't Code §§65090 et seq.), variances (Cal. Gov't Code §§65900 et seq.), and zoning amendment procedures Cal. Gov't Code §§65853 et seq.). Religious Uses The Federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA) requires public agencies to demonstrate a compelling government interest and to use the least restrictive means when making a land use decision that imposes a substantial burden on religious exercise. Religious uses must be treated the same as similar non-religious uses. Additionally, regulations cannot impose a substantial burden to religious exercise. Signs In June 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Reed v. Town of Gilbert (No. 135 S.CT. 2218, 2015) affirmed that sign regulations must be “content-neutral” to survive a legal challenge. In order to be content-neutral and satisfy First Amendment limitations, sign regulations must be based on “time, place, and manner” restrictions, rather than by content- or message-based restrictions. Content-based regulations are subject to what is called a “strict scrutiny” standard – that is, a compelling governmental interest must be demonstrated and regulations must be narrowly tailored to serve that interest. Solar Energy Systems Cal. Gov't Code §65850.5 requires that solar energy systems be approved administratively with requirements limited to health and safety requirements per local, State, and federal law and those 191 Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Assessment Report necessary to ensure systems will not have a specific, adverse impact on public health or safety. A use permit may be required if the building official makes a finding based on substantial evidence that a specific, adverse impact on public health or safety would result. Every city and county is required to have an ordinance expediting permitting for small residential rooftop solar energy systems. Telecommunications The Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 Limits state or local governments' authority to regulate placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities. State or local governments must not unreasonably discriminate against providers of functionally equivalent services and not prohibit or effectually prohibit use of personal wireless devices. Further, state or local governments shall not regulate placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities based on the environmental effect of radio frequency emissions, to the extent that such facilities comply with FCC regulations. Cal. Gov't Code § 65850.6 requires a city or county to ministerially approve an application for a co-location facility on or immediately adjacent to an existing wireless telecommunications co-location facility. It also prohibits a city or county from imposing certain conditions of approval on permits for construction or reconstruction of wireless telecommunications facility. Water Conservation and Landscaping Cal. Gov't Code §53087.7 prohibits cities or counties from enacting any regulation that substantially increases the cost of installing, effectively prohibits, or significantly impedes the installation drought tolerant landscaping, synthetic grass, or artificial turf on residential property. The Water Conservation in Landscaping Act of 2006 (Cal. Gov't Code §65597) requires local agencies to adopt the updated Department of Water Resources (DWR) Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (WELO) or a local landscape ordinance that is at least as effective in conserving water. 192 City of Hermosa Beach 38 APPENDIX A ORDINANCE USER INTERVIEW SUMMARY Introduction As part of the initial evaluation of the current Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances, the consultant team conducted a series of interviews with a range of “ordinance users”– people who have utilized the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances in Hermosa Beach and/or have a specific interest in regulations that will implement the updated General Plan/Local Coastal Plan–to understand the concerns and issues associated with updating the ordinances. The ordinance users interviewed encompassed a variety of people, which included: landowners, developers, architects, real estate professionals, and designers. The City’s consultants conducted eight hour-long interview sessions on March 4, 2020, in addition to two phone interviews on March 12, 2020. A total of 31 code users in groups of one to five people were interviewed. The confidential interviews were conducted by staff from the consulting team– Martha Miller of Miller Planning Associates and Diane Bathgate of RRM Design Group. No staff members were present during the interviews to encourage candid responses. Participants were asked a series of questions regarding overarching concerns as well as specific topics related to the City’s Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances. People attending were also given the opportunity to discuss issues of significance to them that were not otherwise discussed or addressed from the facilitated questions. Themes A strong consensus among code users emerged about what major issues are. While ordinance users may ultimately differ on precise changes to take, there was clear agreement that the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances require modifications to be more understandable, to reflect existing conditions, and to achieve major City policy goals. Generally, ordinance users thought the City’s regulations were outdated and in need of improvement in order to achieve the community’s vision for the future. Following is a list of major themes heard during the interviews. A comprehensive list of comments received, organized by topic, is attached. 1. Do not regulate based on the worst-case scenario. • This approach causes unintended consequences that often obstruct the ability to achieve other city goals. 2. Make the regulations easier to use, understand, and interpret. 193 Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Assessment Report • Include practices and interpretations currently used, but not officially documented and apply regulations with a “common sense” mindset. 3. Parking requirements are a major obstacle to investment and reinvestment. • Reduce parking requirements and incorporate flexibility, particularly for nonresidential uses. 4. Allow a wider variety of uses to occupy vacant spaces and generate activity, particularly in the Downtown and along corridors. 5. Align Downtown regulations and processes with market-driven strategies for reinvestment. 6. Clarify the review process and make it less onerous. • Adjust review bodies and processes to more appropriately reflect the significance of a project. Comments General Comments • The Zoning Ordinance is very cumbersome to work with. It’s hard to find things if you are not familiar with it. It’s hard for the first 10 years, the next 20 years of working with it are not so bad. • There are so many little idiosyncrasies in the Ordinance that you would not know if you didn’t work with it on other projects. • PLAN Hermosa policies and implementing actions should be evaluated to determine what should be addressed in the Zoning Ordinance and what should be addressed in other parts of the Municipal Code or through other means. • The City’s approach seems to be that everyone gets punished when they have issues with a few. The City tends to overreact. • In general, there is a fear of change. • City receives generational mixed messages. Now is completely opposite from previous vision. What is the desired image for the City? Boutique? Party? Quiet? • The Zoning Code lacks incentives to revitalize. • Redevelopment efforts in downtown are a “nightmare.” • Focus on the vision in PLAN Hermosa, not incremental change. • Clearer rules and regulations, all written down to minimize multiple interpretations. • Keep density to what residents want, do not facilitate overdevelopment. • Improving review processes to be more predictable and streamlined would entice more investment and improvement, especially important for downtown Hermosa Beach. 194 City of Hermosa Beach 40 • There is a need to build more housing. • Provide for more gathering and placemaking opportunities. • Align regulations to support market-driven reinvestment. • Hermosa Beach deserves a better downtown. • Address catalyst properties and need City leadership. Design and Development Standards • A lot of policy is interpreted through the code; that makes it hard. For example, the way to determine height was first changed based on a policy for interpretation. Another example is determining whether a portion of a garage is below grade. The language in the Ordinance says to take natural grade but when the City analyzed the project, they used a straight-line method to determine grade. That was different from how Staff applied the exact same standard previously. The Ordinance language didn’t change, the interpretation of how to apply it did. • Trash issue – City wanted to take away shared facilities, ordinance passed, knee jerk response to restaurants not keeping clean. Need to look at larger context and implications, not just specific case. • Small lots – make one threshold. • Open space and parking requirements can conflict. • Lot coverage and open space requirements can be redundant and need to be loosened up (“it’s now like a Rubik’s Cube). • Allow more flexibility with renovations, allow full renovations without bringing all up to code. • Important to allow for condominiums and consider reduction in size. • Modify exceptions for building height (increase from 5 percent). • R-1 zone problems with alley garage, parking in the rear, and open space compliance (for example, on Myrtle Street can push whole building back and never reach compliance). • Open space regulations currently require 10 feet by 10 feet space - provides a disincentive for varied walls and good design. • R-1 and R-2 have different interpretations of open space requirements – make consistent. • Recommend being able to allow side yard to be used toward open space requirement. • Consider allowing half of front yard toward open space for an alley condition. • For public right-of-way between parkway and lot, need consistency in regulations and a mechanism for future removal of improvements (bond, grant deed, etc.) • Reconcile General Plan and Code conflicts regarding sidewalk encroachments. 195 Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Assessment Report • Alley access is encouraged in PLAN Hermosa, but it is not in the Zoning Code. • The sign ordinance is confusing, such as fascia board requirements allow for a too big of a range and only one wall sign is allowed per business. • Design standards are lacking except for SPA-11 area. Need guidance for: – Window glazing - do not want highly reflective glazing, needs to be added to Code. – Murals – need clarifying direction as now can apply to front wall or glazing but consider allowing stepping back graphic a foot or two. – Drive-through uses – now need a use permit, in conflict with carbon neutrality goals, consider standard for new drive-throughs. – Lot mergers/subdivisions – now new lots must be 4,000 square feet in size, consider consistencies with adjacent lots, ownership ties, require lot mergers for R-1 lots only. • Reconsider building heights and floor area ratio (FAR) regulations, are currently disincentives to redevelop. • Clarify how side yards are measured (for example, existing requirement is 10 percent with 3 feet clear). • Clarify regulations regarding convex slopes, need to apply more common sense. • Have many legal nonconforming lots, consider mergers and other strategies. • Allow buildings of three stories, consistent with character. • Require more trees (consider shorter species in consideration of view protection). • Consider changing building height methodology. • Need standards tailored for each neighborhood/area. • Enhance requirements for more permeable surfaces where possible. Land Use Regulations • The community is concerned with construction impacts. The City is small, and the lots are small. Nothing can be built without impacting neighbors. Maybe there is a need for a construction ordinance. • The way traffic impacts are considered will change as the traffic impact analysis shifts to consideration of vehicle miles travelled (VMT). How the City decides to manage VMT should get wrapped into the Zoning Ordinance. • Sometimes new uses that on their own create additional vehicle trips, actually reduce the overall number and length of vehicle trips when located in already developed areas. A 196 City of Hermosa Beach 42 commercial use that adds diversity in a built area can reduce trips because people are already in an area and can meet that need without going to another location. • The jobs/housing imbalance in the City is exasperated by the Zoning Ordinance. The basic environmental issues in Hermosa Beach is affordable housing. • Mixed-use zoning would be appropriate for the PCH corridor • Reconsider conditional use permits to be more context appropriate (for example, allow full liquor CUP use to stay open past 10 pm on Friday, Saturday and Sunday nights). Make an allowable use or less stringent when not adjacent to residential. • The current open space rules sometimes push bad design. • Restaurants and party businesses should be treated differently. Restaurants should not require a CUP. • Reconsider ground floor uses to allow for creative office or office, especially in areas not as desirable for restaurant or retail (such as outskirts of downtown). This could help address Hermosa Beach’s lack of weekday, daytime population to support businesses. • Revisit assembly CUP thresholds (anything over 15 people needs CUP process which may be appropriate for a church, but not for new fitness use). • Add regulations for accessory dwelling units (ADUs) into Code and consider providing shelf ready, pre-drawn plans and allowing pre-fabricated options. • Add in requirements of SB 1818 and SB 330 into Code. • Reduce loopholes in Local Coastal Program (LCP). • For historic resources, need to be clear on regulations. • Frontage requirements along the Strand (3 feet, 9 feet or 17 feet setbacks) are impediments to design (not effective at original intent of discouraging parking behind units). • Condominium developments do not need to go to Planning Commission. • Reconcile mixed use direction between General Plan (discouraged) and Zoning Code (allowed). • In the Cypress Avenue area, loosen up light industrial/manufacturing regulations to allow for other uses (such as brewery, coffee house, galleries, architecture offices, incidental retail, other arts-related uses) and consider performance standards to ensure compatibility with neighboring residences. • Clarify and make consistent parking/driveway allowances (now inconsistent between single family and multi-family). • Clarify downhill slope transition requirements to ensure public water is not going onto private, downward driveways (sometimes request concrete swale or trench drain). 197 Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Assessment Report • For the Building Code, City uses California Code with a few modifications, and it works pretty well with the Zoning Code. Sometimes a conflict arises, such as with low impact development (LID) using rain barrels in the side yard for onsite water retention. • Regarding the M-1 zone, there are many different opinions and perspectives on current and future use and it is not designed well for public access. Current Planning Commission direction allows retail only with a temporary event permit. • Allow for mixed use (with residential or office above commercial) and address parking concerns. • Reconcile differences between California Coastal Commission, State, and City regarding housing requirements such as with ADUs, JADUs, FAR, etc. • Office uses should be allowed in commercial zones, even if need to limit amount of square footage or require to be above ground floor. • Establish adaptive reuse requirements. • Hermosa Beach generally has a “one size fits all” approach to multi-family zoning regulations but have some very different neighborhoods so requirements need to be more tailored. For example, 400 square feet of open space is required regardless of lot size – consider percentage requirement. • Remove building separation standard on same site (only really applies to past design patterns). • Ensure compatibility between uses such as between commercial and residential uses, especially important for small, compact patterns in Hermosa Beach. Parking Regulations • Parking is the issue that holds up projects. The City could address this by being more flexible on parking. • City needs to catch up with the State and revisit parking along the transit corridor (PCH). • Parking is the number one issue when requesting approvals. • City needs to build in-lieu space parking structure and has the funds. • In-lieu parking program previously approved is now not available and is unfair. • Commercial uses get push back from neighborhoods and City does not enforce residents to use garages. • Encourage Uber, Lyft, shuttle, buses and messaging that may need to walk a bit. • Consider 20 percent parking requirement if provide bicycle racks. • City may have overissued resident parking passes. • The parking variance process is too onerous, expensive, lengthy and risky. 198 City of Hermosa Beach 44 • Need to be forward thinking with parking strategies. • Consider public private partnership (PPP) approach to building a parking structure south of Sharkeez. • Recommend not requiring parking for small businesses. • Consider no parking for historic resources. • Revisit parking recommendations in the Downtown Strategic Plan. • City’s current parking regulations are outdated. • Have observed inconsistent treatment for waiving parking, need more consistency. • Move downtown parking inland so folks will need to walk by retail/stores. • Employees have no dedicated parking area. • Two-hour parking limit is too restrictive for dining/restaurants. • Parking is only an issue primarily on weekends. • Concerned with ADU garage conversions as there is no requirement for additional parking. • Reduce and eliminate off-street parking requirements. • Allow use of shared parking between private and public uses. Zoning Administration and Process • The City’s planning review process is ridiculous. Over the last four years or so, it has become extremely difficult. Staff will not talk to you about a project unless you make an appointment. Even if you simply want to drop off plans, you must have an appointment. This is cumbersome. Also, if you are missing anything, Staff will not accept the project. The problem is, they are just doing a partial plan check at the counter. So even if you correct that, they haven’t looked at everything and they will give you corrections again. It goes on and on. • The level of detail in plans required for planning review is excessive. The City basically requires you to prepare engineering drawings before you even know if a project is viable. Engineered plans are required too early in the entitlement process. • Of all jurisdictions I’ve worked in, Hermosa Beach used to be the most straightforward and common sense in their review. Now they are the worst. • Hermosa Beach doesn’t have design review, which is a good thing. • Lengthy process to entitle hotel at 14th Street and Hermosa Avenue. • Due to the length of the development process and EIR, project is now on hold and requires new financing. 199 Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Assessment Report • Time to get things approved is abnormally long due to stringent policies and general complacency at all levels (for example, patio approval along the Strand took a year and half). • City is good at processing routine items, much longer times if there are different interests involved. • Regulations are not always easily apparent, and everything goes to Planning Commission (for example, reduction of seats at a brewery went to Planning Commission and cost $6500). • Changes in staff result in different direction and can cause confusion. • Staff is helpful, accessible, and open to discussion, and provides complete information on what needs to be submitted. • Planning Commission discusses and adds restrictions if no issues or neighbor testimony. • Consider administrative approval unless comments are received and then take to a public meeting (Director, Zoning Administrator, or Planning Commission). • Applicants do not receive comments ahead of meetings and can be blindsided (for example, applicant not allowed to review screencheck EIR). • Would like more certainty in the process. • Consider better forums and opportunities to work out issues. • Code interpretations sometimes are unwritten rules that applicant finds out after the fact. • Make sure there are clear inspection standards. • Planning and Public Works sometimes do not communicate well which can result in conflicting requirements. Provide clearer areas of responsibility for site planning and for right of way, such as with grading and drainage. • Remove requirement to submit materials on CD (too antiquated). • For convex slope determinations, change from Planning Commission level to administrative (Director), but appealable. • Allow more decisions to be made at the administrative level (such as minor modifications, use permits, others). • Establish one point in time to bring lots into conformance (remove structure, merge, or fire wall). • Change of use request process is too long and too expensive (since go to Planning Commission) and is a disincentive for new small businesses. Consider more ministerial/administrative processes to be business friendly. • Provide a process for including critical points so can be reviewed in the field with plan set. • Recommend interdepartmental routing of conceptual plans, include summary “up front” of requirements for all departments, and enhance interdepartmental communication. 200 City of Hermosa Beach 46 • Regarding survey standards, require corner monuments and verifications that ties were established/set, filed and inspected in the field. • Provide a written, digital checklist on website of requirements. • Single-family related applications do not need to be reviewed by Planning Commission if comply with rules. Example References • Redondo Beach’s Code is pretty good. • Manhattan Beach’s Code is cumbersome but tailored. The Planning Department put together tools to help streamline the process. For residential projects, they have a check sheet with every code that is related to project. It’s a helpful tool to use when designing a project. • For parking, City of Los Angeles allows fractions of parking spaces or replacement with bicycle racks. • For parking, West Hollywood does not require parking for uses less than 10,000 square feet. • Look into Urban Land Institute (ULI) strategies for shared parking. • Review City of Long Beach example regarding limitations on drive-through uses. • Manhattan Beach has good regulations for ADUs and Junior ADUs including a streamlined process. • Torrance has a “one stop” desk that covers requirements of all departments. • El Segundo “Sleepy Hollow” is a good example of a creative office district. • Look at potential parking approaches in Manhattan Beach and El Segundo to help “right size” parking requirements and provide flexibility. • Coastal Commission has become more accepting of parking changes, see examples in Santa Monica and San Diego. 201 Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Assessment Report List of Interviewees Adam Eisenberg Bob Healey Bob Rollins Brandon Straus Chrissie Grasso Christie Teague Dean Nota Ed Almanza Fran Uralman George Schmeltzer George Shweiri Jason Muller John Starr Jon Davide Jonathan Wicks Karynne Thim Larry Peha Laura Pena Lisa Ryder Lori Ford Maria Islas Maryl Binney Michelle Licata Mike Grannis Mike Levine Mike Wally Nicole Ellis Peter Nolan Stacey Straus Stefan Schmandt William “Bill” Errett 202 Economic Development Stakeholders Advisory Working Group Meeting Notes 2/17/21 2:00pm – 3:00pm Virtual Meeting Participants: Jessica Accamando, Jon David, Dave Davis, Lori Ford, Ron Newman, Peter Nolan, Laura Pena, Stacy Straus, Jonathan Wicks. City Representatives: Commissioner Pete Hoffmann, Ken Robertson, Melanie Emas, Doug Krauss, Yuritzy Randle, Christy Teague 1. Targeted Parking Amendments – Presentation by Martha Miller, Zoning Code Consultant Martha Miller introduced draft targeted parking amendments to be considered as a first step in the Zoning Code update. These amendments include: residential parking requirements, on-site outdoor dining, flexibility in meeting parking requirements, adaptive reuse of buildings, and to support small establishments. Stakeholders provided comments and questions, including:  Parking requirements should be as liberal as possible. Changes will occur slowly with new development. Future car parking demand will decrease. Should allow property owners to increase square footage. Should allow tandem parking and mechanical lifts in commercial zones.  Parking is the #1 thing that City can control. Biggest concern in Coastal Commission. Redondo Beach did not get certified with Coastal Commission. Every project in the Coastal Zone must be approved by the Coastal Commission.  If codes change, they should mirror nearby cities. Ken Robertson noted that this is a targeted approach consistent with Coastal Commission policies in place.  Support for relaxing minimum parking standards. Should look at operational challenges, ex. residential parking permit revisions.  Requirement to go to Planning Commission is expensive and takes time.  We need to address outdoor dining.  Are we being bold enough to incentivize new investment? Should Planning Commission develop guiding principles to help make decisions? Martha Miller noted some targeted code amendments could exempt parking from need for Planning Commission, an example is for outdoor dining.  Changes may not have gone far enough. Pier area is a challenge and makes below- grade construction not feasible due to high water table.  We need a thoughtful, comprehensive plan or property owners will not be helped. Disappointed it will not help many property owners to develop.  A parking facility should be located near City Hall to improve Downtown area.  From property owners’ viewpoint, we need to think broadly. Minor changes will not compel owners to act and move forward. 203  There is a need to support what will incentivize property owners. For example, many buildings on upper pier have 1700-2000 square feet – perhaps allow an additional 2000 square feet without requiring parking?  It will be hard to attract new investment without bold changes.  Downtown needs parking solution, such as a Public-Private Partnership in Lot A. Need ability to go up 3 stories, flexibility with tenants, mixed use residential on upper floors.  Development is difficult in the Coastal Commission zone.  City needs institutional will to change.  Flexibility is key for market to attract business.  Would like to see parking at Upper Pier area.  Residential over commercial will be problematic unless bedrooms face alley away from commercial.  First floor should be retail and restaurants, not offices.  Areas outside Downtown could build larger residential developments.  Fully supportive of the environment of new considerations. If go big, go for it!  We need short-term and long-term parking fixes. Ken Robertson noted that the proposed changes may appear understated, but these changes will add flexibility and would remove parking restrictions. 2. Member Questions and Comments There was a question about whether or not the ambient music approved by City Council at the holidays was still in effect. The temporary ordinance ended January 15, 2021. Future Meetings:  Economic Development Committee Meeting March 1, 2021 (Zoning Code Parking, Economic and Market Study Preliminary Report)   Stakeholders Advisory Working Group Meeting March 3, 2021 at 2:00pm  City Council/Planning Commission Joint Study Session Topic: Zoning Code Update Wednesday, March 3, 2021 at 6:00pm 204 City of Hermosa Beach Staff Report City Hall 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Staff Report REPORT 24-0147 Honorable Chair and Members of the Hermosa Beach Planning Commission Regular Meeting March 19, 2024 PLANNING COMMISSION TENTATIVE FUTURE AGENDA (Administrative Assistant Melanie Hurtado) Recommended Action: Staff recommends Planning Commission receive and file the April 16, 2024 Planning Commission tentative future agenda. Attachments: Planning Commission April 16, 2024 Tentative Future Agenda Respectfully Submitted by: Melanie Hurtado, Administrative Assistant Approved: Carrie Tai, Community Development Director City of Hermosa Beach Printed on 3/13/2024Page 1 of 1 205 F:\B95\CD\PC\2024\04-16-24\Planning Commission Tentative Agenda for April 16 2024.docx Revised 03/13/2024 5:16 PM Tentative Future Agenda PLANNING COMMISSION City of Hermosa Beach April 16, 2024 Regular Meeting 7:00 PM Project Title 435 8th Street Variance and Parking Plan (Public Hearing) 4/6/24 4/16/24 Zoning Code: Administrative Processes and Procedures (Staff Item) n/a 4/16/24 206