HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-06-21 PC AGENDAAGENDA
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGNG CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
1315 VALLEY DRIVE, HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254
June 21, 2011
7:00 P.M.
Shawn Darcy, Chairman
Sam Perrotti, Vice Chairman
Ron Pizer
Peter Hoffman
Kent Allen
NNote: No Smoking is Allowed in the City Hall Council Chambers
THE PUBLIC COMMENT IS LIMITED TO THREE MINUTES PER SPEAKER
Planning Commission agendas and staff reports are available for review
on the City’s web site at www.hermosabch.org.
Written materials distributed to the Planning Commission within 72 hours
of the Planning Commission meeting are available for public inspection immediately
upon distribution in the Community Development Department during normal business hours
from Monday through Thursday, 7:00 a.m. - 6:00 p.m. and on the City’s website.
Final determinations of the Planning Commission may be appealed to the City Council within
10 days of the next regular City Council meeting date. If the 10th day falls on a Friday
or City holiday, the appeal deadline is extended to the next City business day.
Appeals shall be in written form and filed with the City Clerk's office, accompanied by
an appeal fee. The City Clerk will set the appeal for public hearing before
the City of Hermosa Beach City Council at the earliest date possible.
If you challenge any City of Hermosa Beach decision in court, you may be limited
to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing
described on this agenda, or in a written correspondence delivered to the
Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing.
To comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, Assistive Listening Devices
will be available for check out at the meeting. If you need special assistance to participate
in this meeting, please call or submit your request in writing to the Community Development
Department at (310) 318-0242 at least 48 hours (two working days) prior to the meeting time
to inform us of your needs and to determine if/how accommodation is feasible.
1
1. Pledge of Allegiance
2. Roll Call
3. Oral / Written Communications
Anyone wishing to address the Commission regarding a matter not related to a public
hearing on the agenda may do so at this time.
a) Written communications from Mariano Alvarez.
Section I
Consent Calendar
4. Approval of the May 17, 2011 Action Minutes
5. Resolution(s) for Consideration - None
THE RECOMMENDATIONS NOTED BELOW ARE FROM THE PLANNING STAFF AND ARE RECOMMENDATIONS
ONLY. THE FINAL DECISION ON EACH ITEM RESTS WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION. PLEASE DO NOT
ASSUME THAT THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION WILL BE THE ACTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
Section II
Public Hearings
6. PARK 11-5 -- Parking Plan to allow conversion of 2,200 square feet of designated storage
area within an existing 7,033 square foot commercial building with 20 parking spaces, to
offices, employee lounge and fitness areas and/or similar ancillary uses, with no additional
parking, at 737 – 3rd Street.
Staff Recommended Action: To direct staff as deemed appropriate.
Section III
Hearings
7. CUP 08-5 -- Report on violations relating to a Conditional Use Permit to allow on-sale
general alcohol and live entertainment in conjunction with a restaurant at 1332 Hermosa
Avenue, Blue 32 (continued from the April 19 and May 17, 2011 meetings).
Staff Recommended Action: To initiate revocation/modification hearings for a Conditional
Use Permit to allow on-sale general alcohol and live entertainment in conjunction with
subject restaurant.
8. A-14#60 -- Appeal of Director’s Decision to determine the property to be a convex slope for
the purpose of measuring building height in connection with a proposed new single family
residence at 2416 Hermosa Avenue.
Staff Recommended Action: To continue to the July 19, 2011 meeting
2
Section IV
9. Staff Items
a. Discussion of Relationship of Parking Standards to Occupant Load (continued from the
May 17, 2011 meeting).
b. Discussion of Ways to Reduce Capacity of On-Sale Alcoholic Beverage
Establishments (continued from the May 17, 2011 meeting).
c. Review of Fiscal Year 2011-2012 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for
conformance with the City’s General Plan.
d. Tentative future Planning Commission agenda.
e. Community Development Department activity reports of April, 2011.
10. Commissioner Items
11. Adjournment
3
ACTION MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON
MAY 17, 2011, 7:00 P.M.,
AT THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
All public testimony and the deliberations of the Planning Commission can be viewed
on the City’s web site at www.hermosabch.org, On-Demand Video of City Meetings
The meeting was called to order at 7:03 P.M. by Chairman Darcy.
1. Pledge of Allegiance
2. Roll Call
Present: Commissioners Allen, Hoffman, Pizer and Chairman Darcy
Absent: Commissioner Perrotti
Also Present: Community Development Director Ken Robertson
Senior Planner Pamela Townsend
Assistant City Attorney Lauren Langer
Assistant Planner Eva Choi
3. Oral / Written Communication - Anyone wishing to address the Commission regarding a
matter not related to a public hearing on the agenda may do so at this time.
Section I
CONSENT CALENDAR
4. Approval of the April 19, 2011 action minutes.
ACTION: To approve the above minutes with modification on page 2, item No. 6,
Discussion of zoning regulations governing tattoo/body piercing studios, to reflect the
operation hours from 10 a.m. to 9 p.m. rather than 8 a.m. to 9 p.m.
Motion by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Pizer. The motion
carried by a unanimous vote, noting
5. Resolution(s) for approval
a. Resolution P.C. 11-10 recommending City Council approval of a Zone Text
Amendment to the Municipal Code modifying regulations pertaining to tattoo and
body piercing establishments and related sections for consistency.
ACTION: To adopt the above Resolution P.C. 11-10 noting corrections to the hours of
operation from 10:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. and changing the wording regarding 100’ and
200’ buffers from exterior wall to lot line.
Motion by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Pizer. The motion
carried by a unanimous vote, noting the absence of Commissioner Perrotti.
Planning Commission Action Minutes
May 17, 2011
1
Section II
PUBLIC HEARING(S) - None
Section III
HEARING(S)
6. CUP 08-5 -- Report on violations relating to a Conditional Use Permit to allow on-sale
general alcohol and live entertainment in conjunction with a restaurant at 1332
Hermosa Avenue, Blue 32 (continued from the April 19, 2011 meeting).
Staff Recommended Action: Determine whether to initiate revocation/modification
hearings for said Conditional Use Permit.
ACTION: To continue to the June 21, 2011 meeting as the last continuance.
MOTION by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Chairman Darcy. The motion
carried as follows:
AYES: Comms. Allen, Hoffman, Pizer, Chmn. Darcy
NOES: None
ABSENT: Comm. Perrotti
ABSTAIN: None
Section III
7. Staff Items
a. Discussion of Relationship of Parking Standards to Occupant Load.
Staff Recommended Action: Recommend to the City Council that no changes be
made to parking requirements for restaurants.
ACTION: To continue to the June 19, 2011 meeting with a request to City Council
to clarify whether their intent was to evaluate and consider new parking standards
for restaurants based on occupant load, or to focus on the connection between
occupant load and efforts to reduce the capacity and impacts of on-sale alcohol
establishments.
MOTION by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Chairman Darcy. The motion
carried as follows:
AYES: Comms. Hoffman, Pizer, Chmn. Darcy
NOES: Comm. Allen
ABSENT: Comm. Perrotti
ABSTAIN: None
Planning Commission Action Minutes
May 17, 2011
2
b. Discussion of Ways to Reduce Capacity of On-Sale Alcoholic Beverage
Establishments
Staff Recommended Action: To continue the matter to June 21, 2011.
ACTION: To continue this matter to the June 21, 2011 meeting.
MOTION by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Pizer. The
motion carried as follows:
AYES: Comms. Allen, Hoffman, Pizer, Chmn. Darcy
NOES: None
ABSENT: Comm. Perrotti
ABSTAIN: None
c. Tentative future Planning Commission agenda.
d. Community Development Department activity reports of March, 2011.
8. Commissioner Items
9. Adjournment
The meeting was formally adjourned at 9:03 P.M.
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
May 17, 2011.
______________________________ ____________________________
Shawn Darcy, Chairman Ken Robertson, Secretary
______________________
Date
Planning Commission Action Minutes
May 17, 2011
3
Attachment 1 Zoning Map
Subject
Site
PCH
5
Attachment 2 Legal Poster
6
Attachment 3 Site Photographs
7
8
1 3 3 2 H e r m o s a A v e n u e , # 1 , H e r m o s a B e a c h , C A 9 0 2 5 4
Page 1
June 20, 2011
Pamela Townsend, Senior Planner
City of Hermosa Beach
Community Development Department
1315 Valley Drive
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
Honorable Chairman and Members of
The Hermosa Beach Planning Commission
1315 Valley Drive
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
Re: Planning Commission Meeting June 21, 2011
Item 7: CUP 08-5 -- Report on violations relating to a Conditional Use Permit
to allow on-sale general alcohol and live entertainment in conjunction with a
restaurant at 1332 Hermosa Avenue, Blue 32 (continued from the April 19
and May 17, 2011 meetings).
At both the April 19th and May 11th Planning Commission meetings we provided all
documents in our possession related to the sale of our liquor license by a receiver. It
should be clear that we had absolutely no idea the license had transferred from the ABC
or any 3rd party.
The misdemeanor ticket that was issued by the ABC has been rejected by the Hermosa
Beach City Prosecutor, according to our attorney Mark Haushalter of Okabe &
Haushalter. The actual court date to receive this in writing from the court is not
scheduled until Wednesday morning June 22, 2011.
The notion that we should have had some kind of knowledge of this violation makes no
sense. Everything presented to this commission over the last two months shows that
the ABC did not know, our vendors did not know, the City did not know and we surely
did not know that the liquor license had sold. If we would have been provided notice of
the sale it would have been extremely easy to rectify or obtain another liquor license
instead of being closed 3-6 months during the summer.
We have already survived some of the toughest restrictions ever imposed in this City
over the last two and a half years. There have been no issues with the Police or the
1 3 3 2 H e r m o s a A v e n u e , # 1 , H e r m o s a B e a c h , C A 9 0 2 5 4
Page 2
Fire Department for over 40-months out of the total of 71-months we have operated in
the City. We have worked extremely hard to address the issues that were brought up
by the City. We do not feel based on that record there should be any risk of a
revocation of the CUP.
As far as the new liquor license, we put a lot of time and weighed a lot of options that
were presented. We are proud to announce that we will partner with Shane McColgan
of “Shark’s Cove”. As you may or may not know, he is losing his lease on his property
after 17-years at the beginning of July. He will begin the transfer process of his ABC
license the day after he closes operations. This opportunity will allow two businesses to
combine resources and experience. We are extremely excited to partner with Shane.
He brings nearly 30-years of business experience in Hermosa Beach and will be joining
the day-to-day operations of the business.
Both Shane and I have discussed the risks involved in continuing operations in the City
of Hermosa Beach. There are a lot of risks this year, whether it is the continuing
recession, the prospect of excessive business license fees, or the risk of having our
CUP revoked. The fact is, Hermosa is where our family, friends and customers are and
we do not envision or desire operating anywhere else.
We ask that the commission weigh the facts and vote to allow both Shane and myself to
remain in Hermosa Beach as business owners. We again want to express our
appreciation to the Planning Commission, City Staff and our landlord for their
willingness to work with us to resolve this difficult situation over the last several months.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact either myself at
dave@bluethirtytwo.com or Shane McColgan at shane.mccolgan@yahoo.com . Thank
you for your consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
David Lowe
Managing Member
Epic Restaurant Group, LLC.
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
Date: May 17, 2011
To: Hermosa Beach Planning Commission
From: Pamela Townsend, Senior Planner
Subject: Continued from April 19 - Discussion of Ways to Reduce Capacity
of On-sale Alcoholic Beverage Establishments
Recommended Action:
Continue the matter to June 21, 2011.
Background:
On March 22, 2011 the City Council expressed interest in exploring ways to reduce impacts
associated with on-sale alcoholic beverage by reducing used and excess capacity of hours for on-
sale establishments in the city. On April 19 the Planning Commission appointed Commissioners
Hoffman and Allen as a subcommittee to query businesses as to what incentives could be offered
and provide its recommendations.
The subcommittee anticipates providing a report at the June 21st meeting.
7b
1
ON-SALE ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE ESTABLISHMENTS POLICIES
City of Hermosa Beach
Planning Commission Subcommittee
Report to the Planning Commission
June 21, 2011
At its March 22, 2011 meeting, the City Council directed the Planning Commission to
examine various alternatives for reducing the negative impacts associated with late night,
alcohol-serving establishments (henceforth “restaurants”) in the city. Of particular
interest to the Council were (1) the creation of a cap on the total number of such
restaurants in the city and/or the total number of late-night operating hours allocated to
them and (2) the possibility of establishing a policy to reduce the number of late night
hours for these restaurants by offering them incentives to voluntarily surrender some of
their permitted operating hours in return for negotiated concessions from the City.
In response to the Council’s direction, at its April 19, 2011 meeting the Planning
Commission appointed a subcommittee of Commissioners Allen and Hoffman to research
the issue and prepare a preliminary report for the Commission. Since that meeting, the
subcommittee has met with members of the City Council, with members of the City staff,
with members of the public, and with owners/operators of some of the restaurants
involved.
The subcommittees’ meetings and analysis have been guided by the various proposals
discussed by the City Council in their ongoing consideration of this issue as presented in
a staff report to the Council at its March 22, 2011 meeting and in a subsequent staff
memo to the Commission at its April 19, 2011 meeting. Those documents provide the
framework for the following summary of the subcommittee’s analysis:
“Cap” or Limit on Total Number of Restaurants
To the extent that the late night, negative impacts of the restaurants in the city may be the
cumulative consequences of an excessively large number of these businesses in a
relatively small geographical area, setting a cap on the total number of restaurants might
help to alleviate the problem and/or prevent it from becoming even more problematic.
Such a policy would, however, represent a substantial departure from current City
practice that has effectively let the market and the existing zoning ordinance—
particularly parking requirements—dictate the number of restaurants in the city.
Moreover, a cap would require the City to adopt specific guidelines for its
implementation and would have to address some unresolved policy issues, most
importantly whether such a cap would be set higher, lower, or at the number of current
restaurants in the city.
Setting the cap at the current or higher levels would do little to address current negative
impacts, but would help keep the problems from escalating in the future. Conversely,
setting the cap at a number below the current condition would presumably help reduce
2
the problems, but its implementation would be difficult and present its own set of
potential problems. If, for example, the policy was set to reduce the number of
restaurants by revoking City entitlements/permits as individual businesses closed, the
resultant spatial distribution of such businesses might be less than optimal with regard to
such issues as proximity to other restaurants, parking, and residential neighborhoods.
Additionally, revoking permits would presumably open the City to potential litigation
from property owners seeking compensation for lost economic opportunities.
As might be anticipated, various individuals contacted by the subcommittee expressed
support for a cap, including some restaurants owners (who would presumably benefit
from a reduction in the number of potential competitors), and more than one expressed
surprise that the City didn’t already have such a policy in place. Conversely, some
individuals expressed concern that such a cap might discourage the redevelopment of our
commercial districts/corridors and actually prevent the development of the type of
restaurants that the city is seeking (e.g. a fine dining restaurant in association with a new
hotel project). Alternatively, a cap might provide greater motivation for the incumbent
upgrading of existing establishments as new business models and improving economic
trends encourage the improvement of increasingly valuable restaurant sites.
Finally, it was noted that the administration of a cap would create potential logistical
problems for City staff requiring the development of a “waiting” list for individuals
seeking to open a restaurant when a slot became available under the cap, a policy
regarding the buying and selling of entitlements, etc.
“Cap” or Limit on Total Number of Late Night Hours
An alternative to a simple cap on the total number of restaurants is capping the total
number of late night hours (which could be defined as either after 10:00 p.m.—i.e. after
the hours “permitted by right”—or as after midnight or some other time as determined by
the City) permitted in the city. This approach is presumably predicated on the
assumption that the most serious problems associated with the city’s restaurants are not a
function of simply their sheer numbers, but instead a product of their impacts in the late
night/early morning hours when intoxicated customers leaving the restaurants move
through adjacent commercial and residential areas creating disturbances. Setting a limit
on the total number of operating hours for these businesses would presumably reduce the
number of establishments operating in the late night/early morning, therefore reducing
the associated disturbances.
Some individuals contacted by the subcommittee expressed concern about the logistics of
implementing and monitoring such a policy and suspect that it may be beyond the
capacity of current City staff. Others expressed reservations about the potential for
complications and confusion related to such issues as CUP and ABC inconsistencies.
While this approach to a cap offers some of the same advantages as a simple numerical
cap, ultimately a reduction in total hours may be most effective as the outcome of a
3
process of negotiation between the City and various restaurants regarding their individual
late night hours—negotiations that might be compromised if an arbitrary cap had already
been reached.
Negotiated Reductions in Late Night Operating Hours
Negotiated reductions in late night hours have been considered by the Council as an
alternative to caps or numerical limits. This consideration was prompted, in part, by the
offer of an existing restaurant to voluntarily reduce their permitted late night hours in
return for their ability to acquire and operate under an expanded ABC license.
In this context, it has been suggested that the City might negotiate with individual
restaurants owners/operators to “acquire” a portion of their entitlement (i.e. their
permitted late night hours) in return for a beneficial concession or entitlement from the
City. Given that CUPs are vested property rights and the City cannot unilaterally reduce
hours or modify CUP conditions without cause, this proposal is based on the assumption
that the owners/operators of restaurants could be enticed to voluntarily enter into such
negotiations. Implicit in the proposed negotiation is the premise that the City would not
negotiate for unusable “capacity” (i.e. late night hours permitted by an existing CUP, but
not permitted in the applicable ABC license).
Critical to the potential effectiveness of this approach is the assumption that the City has
something of comparable value to trade with interested restaurants for their late night
operating hours. Among those potentially “valuable” City assets might be (1) expanded
or more lenient CUP conditions, (2) relaxed parking standards, and/or (3) reduced City
fees.
CUP Conditions: With respect to expanded/more lenient CUP conditions, incentives
that could be offered to individual restaurants without such conditions include live
entertainment and/or dancing, along with expanded alcohol sales (with appropriate ABC
licenses). However, some restaurant owners/operators contacted by the subcommittee
suggest that conditions related to entertainment enhancement are of relatively little value
(when contrasted with late night alcohol sales) and are often only useful for them in their
efforts to attract customers during “slow nights” or off hours—i.e. they are commonly
used to attract customers on days that typically have fewer customers than their peak days
(Thursdays – Sundays) or earlier in the day (e.g. during “happy hours”) than their peak
late night hours. Thus, these types of CUP enhancements might actually compound the
problems the City is trying to address by increasing the volume of customers on
weeknights when disturbances earlier in the evening might increase.
Other more lenient CUP conditions that might be considered in negotiations include such
things as permitting more TVs. The unintended consequences of such CUP conditions
might be to encourage the proliferation of business models that are often perceived to be
problematic within the city (e.g. to encourage restaurants to operate as sports bars) and
are the very basis of the restrictions that are a part of existing CUPs.
4
Granting CUP conditions for full alcohol in return for reduced late night hours is an
alternative that has been examined in at least two recent cases in the city when existing
establishments approached the City with such a proposal. In one case, the City granted
the condition, in the second, the City did not; the differing determinations being largely
predicated on the respective locations of the two applicants. While the City’s current
policy of “no intensification” of alcohol-serving establishments in the city has often been
cited as the rationale for such decisions, it is obvious from these two rulings that it is not
a definitive policy and is still subject to varying interpretations—especially as it relates to
hours of operation. Clarification of the City’s policy with regard to this issue would be
necessary for establishing a consistent and rational approach to negotiating for reduced
hours in exchange for full alcohol conditions.
The number of establishments for which such a negotiation would be attractive is unclear,
but appears quite limited. For example, in a study of the current CUPs on Upper Pier
Avenue, city staff identified nine restaurants. Three of those establishments currently
have full alcohol; the other six have just beer and wine. However, only one of the six
restaurants with a beer and wine license has a current CUP that permits hours of
operation later than 11:00 p.m. Thus, only one establishment (which currently has a CUP
permitting hours of operation until 2:00 a.m.) might have a potential interest in
negotiating for full alcohol in return for reducing their late night hours (it should be noted
that this establishment’s proposal to do so precipitated, in part, the Council’s interest in
re-considering this policy issue).
Arguably, the prevalence of CUPs as the conventional regulatory instrument to address
the problems associated with restaurants rather than negotiated agreements reflects the
difficulties inherent in identifying sufficient incentives to motivate owners/operators to
surrender their vested rights including late night hours of operation.
Parking Conditions: It goes without saying that parking standards play a consistent and
controversial role in politics and policy decisions in Hermosa Beach. This issue has been
particularly contentious as it relates to the city’s restaurants and has been the focus of
both a citizens’ initiative and numerous Council decisions.
Clearly existing parking requirements play a key role in limiting both the establishment
of new restaurants and/or the potential expansion of existing restaurants and have been a
major moderating force in the City. Moreover, the City has effectively established a
monetary value for parking through the in lieu parking program in the downtown area.
Thus, reduced parking requirements offer a quantifiable and presumably valuable asset
that the City could offer in its negotiations to reduce the hours of restaurants seeking to
alter their floor plan, add outdoor dining, or otherwise expand their business.
In order to engage in such negotiations the City must first make a policy determination of
which issue is more problematic: the late night operating hours of its restaurants, the
“intensification” of alcohol-serving establishments, or the City’s limited parking supply.
Obviously granting reductions in parking requirements in return for reduced hours would
imply that late night hours are more problematic than limited parking or intensification.
5
That may, in fact, be contrary to recent City actions and the realities of the city’s land use
problems.
Additionally, it should be noted that the Council has recently addressed the issue of
restaurant occupancy and its relationship to parking requirements—focusing primarily on
utilizing occupancy-based parking requirements as a way to dissuade restaurants from
increasing their “capacity” for alcohol service (i.e. prevent them from expanding and
effectively creating an “intensification”). This further suggests that current Council
policy would be contrary to the use of reduced parking requirements as a negotiating
strategy for reduced hours or capacity.
A consideration of occupancy-based parking requirements is being conducted
simultaneous with this analysis of restaurant policies and its outcome should be
complementary.
City Fees: The most direct economic incentive the City can offer restaurants to
voluntarily enter into negotiations to reduce their late night hours would be in the form of
reductions in business licenses and other City fees (including the fees associated with
related CUP hearings). However, current business license fees are set at such a low level
that their reduction or outright elimination would offer very little monetary incentive for
restaurants to negotiate away their late night hours. No restaurant owners/operators
contacted by the subcommittee thought that current City licenses or fees represent a
potentially effective negotiating instrument.
The value of restaurant business licenses is, of course, potentially subject to profound
increases if the current initiative measure or an alternative Council proposal with
substantial increases is passed by the city’s residents in November. In either case, the
authority of the City to negotiate lower fees in return for reduced hours/capacity has not
been established and may not be legally possible. That issue would have to be resolved
through the appropriate legal proceedings. Ironically, efforts that are apparently designed
to reduce the number of alcohol-serving establishments through the business license
program may have the unintended consequence of removing the possibility of using such
license fees as a negotiating instrument in seeking the reduction of their collective
capacity.
Alternative Strategies and Issues
The consideration of caps and negotiated incentives for restaurants to reduce their late
night hours of operation appear to be motivated primarily by the negative impacts
associated with the intoxicated patrons of the city’s many restaurants—especially in the
late night/early morning hours when they are leaving these establishments at closing
time—and the associated public safety costs for the City and its residents. These
negative impacts have been historically exacerbated by the City’s limited enforcement of
CUP conditions, its somewhat lenient regulation of the behavior of intoxicated
individuals in the city’s neighborhoods, and the undesirable business models employed
by some of the restaurant operators.
6
Clearly current City policies have reversed many of the historic problems. City staff has
increased its CUP enforcement efforts and the Planning Commission has adopted a more
effective CUP review process. The Police Department, under the direction of Council
and the guidance of its current Chief, has implemented a variety of strategies to more
effectively control the undesirable behaviors of late-night restaurant patrons. Similarly,
the majority of restaurant owners/operators appear to have adopted practices designed to
reduce the negative impacts of their businesses and their patrons.
Nevertheless, the sheer volume of restaurants in the city, with their cumulatively
enormous capacity for alcohol sales, continue to have significant consequences for the
city. Efforts to prevent the intensification of alcohol serving establishments while
simultaneously reducing their capacity remains a priority for the City. Unfortunately, the
vested nature of CUPs limits the potential remedial actions available to the City.
Similarly, the limited financial incentives available to the City for negotiations with
restaurants owners/operators result in a fairly restricted set of alternatives.
In many respects, it is the conclusion of the subcommittee that the City would be well
advised to expand its enforcement efforts and continue to utilize existing regulatory
devices (e.g. CUPs, the City noise ordinance, etc.) to reduce the negative impacts of these
establishments, rather than attempt to develop an incentive-based negotiation process to
address these problems.
While the implementation of a numeric cap on the number of restaurants permitted in the
city would probably have minimal short-term repercussions, it might prove to be useful
over the long-term in efforts to reverse what, in retrospect, were questionable decisions
about the granting of very generous CUPs to the city’s numerous restaurants.
Subcommittee Recommendations:
1) Negotiated Reductions in “Capacity” – Given the limited number of instances
in which negotiated reductions in capacity are likely to be voluntarily initiated by
restaurants operators, it is recommended that such negotiations, while encouraged,
be considered as “unique” events for each potential case and be considered on
their own merits without pre-established guidelines or policies (beyond those
already existent for CUP modifications, etc.). The commitment of staff time to
develop specific guidelines for such hypothetical negotiations does not appear to
be a productive exercise in the absence of a substantial number of likely
candidates for such negotiations.
2) Establishing a “Cap” on Total Number of Establishments – A cap on the total
number of establishments would provide long-term policy direction, but would
likely have little short-term impact on reducing the number of establishments (due
to the vested nature of existing CUPs, parking plans, etc.). Nonetheless, there
appears to be sufficient merit to this program to justify its establishment—capping
the number of restaurants at the current level and developing guidelines for how
that maximum number would be maintained, how new applicants might qualify
7
under the cap, how current entitlements might be exchanged, etc. One incentive
to encourage such negotiation, while modest, would be to waive all City fees
associated with such negotiations (regardless of the outcome).
3) “No Intensification” Policy – While current Council policy (and associated
Commission actions) have consistently relied on an implicit “no intensification”
policy guideline, the explicit nature of that policy needs to be refined to insure
consistent and rational actions. For example, the recent consideration of
occupancy load and its relationship to parking standards calls into question
whether or not an increase in occupancy represents an “intensification.” The
suggestion that it does—by requiring additional parking—would seem to
contradict the “no intensification” policy (i.e. if greater occupancy equates to an
intensification, than it should not be permitted, thus the parking issue is
irrelevant). Other issues that remain somewhat unclear include whether the policy
applies to all commercial zones within the city or just downtown (Pier
Plaza/Hermosa Avenue), whether it applies to all increases after 10:00 p.m. or to
those that effect only hours after midnight (as illustrated by the consideration of
the Counter proposal), and how the policy would be integrated into the proposed
cap.
4) “Continuing More Rigorous Enforcement” – Over the past few years, the City
Council, the Planning Commission, the Police Department, and the professional
staff of the Community Development Department have all directed increased
efforts to insure a consistent and rigorous enforcement of the existing regulatory
measures designed to mitigate the negative impacts of the city’s restaurants. As a
consequence, the Planning Commission, for example, developed a more rational
process for annual CUP reviews. Similarly, the Police Department has
implemented various strategies to address problems associated with the
restaurants, including a “surge” in enforcement activities. Collectively, these
efforts have had an apparently positive impact. While these efforts have certainly
not eliminated all the problems associated with the relatively high number of
restaurants, they demonstrate that the City does have a significant range of
mechanisms to effectively address these issues and continued, consistent
enforcement of existing CUPs and other City ordinances remain the most
appropriate method to do so in the short term.
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR 2011-12
DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS PRIORITY NO.: ACCOUNT NO.:
CATEGORY: Public Buildings and Ground Improvements 109-8659-4201
PROJECT NO./TITLE: CIP 09-659 Parking Structure Repairs
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Assess the condition of the parking structure
and make spot repairs to minimize
deterioration.
JUSTIFICATION:
The parking structure is approximately ten
years old and beginning to degrade in the
marine environment. Timely repairs may
minimize damage and reduce the need for
future maintenance and repairs. Items
showing signs of deterioration include the
concrete deck, exposed metal work, and
surface painting.
STATUS:
Assessment was completed FY 10-11.
Spot repairs scheduled for FY 11-12
COST TO COMPLETE PROJECT REMAINING PRIOR YEAR FUNDS
109 Downtown Enhancement Fee 20,116
Spot Repairs 20,000
Subtotal: 20,116
CURRENT REQUEST
PROJECT TOTAL: 20,000 TOTAL FY 11-12 CIP FUNDING: 20,116
13
Tentative Future Agenda
PLANNING COMMISSION
City of Hermosa Beach
July 19, 2011
Project Title Staff Public
Notice
Meeting
Date
Date
Rec’d Remarks
⇒ 526 25th Street—Request for a 1-year extension for a PDP
to construct 2-detached dwellings in a R-1A zone.
7/19 6/13
f:b95\cd\wpc - future agenda 6/14/11
9d
1
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
BUILDING DIVISION
APRIL, 2011 MONTHLY REVENUE REPORT
NUMBER OF PERMITS
TYPE OF ACTIVITY CURRENT
MONTH
THIS MONTH
LAST FY FY TO DATE LAST FY
TO DATE
BUILDING 50 39 439 366
PLUMBING/MECHANICAL 22 19 252 226
ELECTRIC 14 18 191 195
PLAN CHECK 16 15 136 144
SEWER USE 1 0 4 2
RES. BLDG. REPORTS 18 19 145 174
PARKS & RECREATION 0 0 0 1
IN LIEU PARKS & REC 0 0 3 0
BOARD OF APPEALS 0 0 1 0
SIGN REVIEW 3 2 29 22
FIRE FLOW FEES 3 2 30 26
LEGAL DETERMINATION 0 0 0 0
ZONING APPEALS 0 0 0 0
TEMPORARY SIGN 0 6 11 19
GEN. PLAN MAINT. (Eff. 7/09) 2 4 23 19
TOTALS 129 124 1,264 1,194
FEES COLLECTED
TYPE OF FEE CURRENT
MONTH
THIS MONTH
LAST FY FY TO DATE LAST FY
TO DATE
BUILDING $32,441.17 $25,568.88 $214,598.87 $168,819.65
PLUMBING/MECHANICAL $5,165.00 $2,442.00 $40,315.28 $36,310.09
ELECTRIC $2,314.00 $6,950.10 $29,742.70 $40,267.60
PLAN CHECK $11,920.30 $12,251.92 $153,066.78 $96,470.07
SEWER USE $14,921.69 $0.00 $24,627.69 $12,646.72
RES. BLDG. REPORTS $4,374.00 $4,617.00 $35,429.40 $42,282.00
PARKS & RECREATION $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $6,517.00
IN LIEU PARKS & REC $0.00 $0.00 $64,848.00 $0.00
BOARD OF APPEALS $0.00 $0.00 $514.00 $0.00
SIGN REVIEW $738.00 $492.00 $7,134.00 $5,412.00
FIRE FLOW FEES $8,263.00 $2,807.50 $29,966.50 $18,962.50
LEGAL DETERMINATION $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
ZONING APPEALS $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
TEMPORARY SIGN $0.00 $1,530.00 $2,805.00 $4,845.00
GEN. PLAN MAINT. (Eff. 7/09) $4,326.00 $3,240.00 $22,254.00 $19,413.00
TOTALS $84,463.16 $59,899.40 $625,302.22 $451,945.63
2
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
BUILDING DIVISION
BUILDING PERMITS ISSUED REPORT MONTH OF APRIL, 2011
TYPE OF STRUCTURE PERMITS DWELLING
UNITS VALUATION
1 101 NEW SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES DETACHED 2 2 $1,124,392.58
2 102 NEW SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES ATTACHED
3 103 NEW TWO FAMILY BUILDINGS
4 104 NEW 3 OR 4 FAMILY BUILDINGS
5 105 NEW 5 OR MORE FAMILY BUILDINGS
6 213 NEW HOTELS/MOTELS
7 214 NEW OTHER NON HOUSEKEEPING
8 318 NEW AMUSEMENT & RECREATION
9 319 NEW CHURCHS/OTHER
10 320 NEW INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS
11 321 NEW PARKING GARAGES.
12 322 NEW SERVICE STATIONS/REPAIR GARAGES
13 323 NEW HOSPITALS/OTHER INSTITUTIONAL
14 324 NEW OFFICES/BANKS 1 $793,431.09
15 325 NEW PUBLIC WORKS/UTILITY BUILDINGS
16 326 NEW SCHOOLS/OTHER EDUCATIONAL
17 327 NEW STORES/OTHER MERCH BLDGS.
18 328 NEW OTHER NON RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS
19 329 NEW STRUCTURES OTHER THAN BUILDING
20 434 ADD/ALTER DWELLING/POOLS 40 $485,955.45
21 437 ADD/ALTER NON RESIDENTIAL 7 $201,900
22 438 RESIDENTIAL GARAGES/CARPORTS
23 645 DEMOLITION-SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES 1 1 $15,000
24 646 DEMO 2-FAMILY BUILDINGS
25 647 DEMO 3-4 FAMILY BUILDINGS
26 648 DEMO 5+ FAMILY BUILDINGS
27 649 DEMO ALL OTHER BUILDINGS
28 SOLAR SYSTEM 1 $33,000
52 $2,653,679.12
TOTAL UNITS ADDED FY 2010-11 TO DATE: 14
TOTAL UNITS DEMOLISHED/LOST FY TO DATE: 12 (See Attached List)
TOTAL NET UNITS FY TO DATE: 2
FY 2009-10
Total New Dwelling Units: 9
Total Demolished Units: 7
FY 2008-09
Total New Dwelling Units: 20
Total Demolished Units: 19
Net Units: 1 Net Units: 2
3
Dwelling Units Demolished/Lost as of April, 2011
ADDRESS TYPE PERMIT DATE PERMIT NO. NO. OF UNIT
1309 Loma Drive Single Family House 7/21/10 B10-290 1
173 Lyndon Street Duplex 10/6/10 B10-387 2
322 24th Street Duplex 11/15/10 B10-445 2
931 1st Street Single Family House 11/16/10 B10-447 1
1504 Monterey Boulevard Single Family House 11/29/10 B10-467 1
2122 Power Street Single Family House 12/9/10 B10-485 1
48 5th Street Single Family House 12/21/10 B10-503 1
2108 The Stand Single Family House 1/24/11 B11-40 1
123 28th Street Single Family House 2/3/11 B11-61 1
340 The Strand Single Family House 4/14/11 B11-201 1
Total Units Demolished 12
4
May 2, 2011
HONORABLE MAYOR and MEMBERS of Regular Meeting of
HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL May 24, 2011
ACTIVITY REPORT
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT - PLANNING DIVISION
APRIL, 2011
STAFF REPORT PREPARED
SUBJECT THIS MONTH THIS
MONTH
LAST FY
FY TO
DATE
LAST FY
TO DATE
APPEAL / RECONSIDERATION 1 0 7 2
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (C.U.P.) - CONDOMINIUMS 0 0 0 1
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (C.U.P.) - COMMERCIAL 0 1 8 4
C.U.P./PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT 0 1 3 5
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT MODIFICATION/REVOCATION 0 0 0 0
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/MAP EXTENSION 0 0 4 6
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 0 0 0 0
FINAL MAP 0 0 1 0
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 0 0 1 1
HEIGHT LIMIT EXCEPTION 0 0 0 0
LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT 0 0 0 0
NONCONFORMING REMODEL 0 0 0 0
PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN 0 0 3 4
PARKING PLAN 0 1 2 7
SPECIAL STUDY 0 0 0 0
VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 0 0 0 0
TEXT AMENDMENT 0 0 17 8
TRANSIT 0 0 1 1
VARIANCE 0 0 2 1
ZONE CHANGE 0 0 2 0
MISCELLANEOUS 9 5 74 51
TOTAL REPORTS PREPARED 10 8 125 91
NOTE: A staff report may be written for one or more of the items listed above, but it will be
listed and counted only once.
Easy Reader
Run Date: June 9, 2011 DISPLAY
Acct: 7010-2110
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach shall hold a public
hearing on Tuesday, June 21, 2011, to consider the following:
1. Parking Plan to allow conversion of 2,200 square feet of designated storage area within an existing 7,950
square foot commercial building with 20 parking spaces, to offices, employee lounge and fitness areas
and/or similar ancillary uses, with no additional parking, at 737 – 3rd Street.
SAID PUBLIC HEARING shall be held at 7:00 P.M., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard in the
City Council Chambers, City Hall, 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254.
ANY AND ALL PERSONS interested are invited to participate and speak at this hearing at the above time and
place. For inclusion in the agenda packet to be distributed, written comments of interested parties should be
submitted to the Community Development Department, Planning Division, in care of City Hall at 1315 Valley
Drive, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 prior to Thursday, June 16, 2011, at 12:00 noon. All written testimony by
any interested party will be accepted prior to or at the scheduled time on the agenda for the matter.
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 Community Development Department, Planning Division, at, or prior to, the public hearing.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, please contact the Community Development Department, Planning Division,
at (310) 318-0242 or fax to (310) 937-6235. The Department is open from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday
through Thursday. Please contact a staff planner to discuss any project on the Planning Commission agenda.
A copy of the staff report(s) in the Planning Commission packet will be available for public review at the end of
the business day on Thursday, June 16, 2011, at the Hermosa Beach Police Department, Public Library, and,
on the City’s web site at www.hermosabch.org. Relevant Municipal Code sections are also available on the
web site.
Ken Robertson, Director
Community Development Department
f:95\cclerk\legads\display\2011\planning\pc06-21-11