HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-07-21 PC AGENDAAGENDA
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
1315 VALLEY DRIVE
HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254
July 21, 2009
7:00 P.M.
Ron Pizer, Chairman
Peter Hoffman, Vice Chairman
Kent Allen
Shawn Darcy
Sam Perrotti
Note: 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.
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.
Section I
Consent Calendar
4. Approval of the June 16 2009 action minutes
5. Resolution(s) for consideration
a) Resolution P.C. 09-17 denying a Legal Determination at 450 30th Street.
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. PDP 08-8 / PARK 08-6 -- Precise Development Plan and Parking Plan for a three-story 40-room
hotel with two levels of parking containing 42 parking spaces with 32 of the 40 required spaces
in tandem to be managed with 24-hour valet parking service and to allow greater than 30%
compact parking; and adoption of an Environmental Negative Declaration at 1081, 1085 & 1087
Aviation Boulevard (continued from January 20, March 17 and June 16, 2009 meetings).
Staff Recommended Action: To continue Precise Development Plan 08-5 and Parking Plan 08-6
to September 15, 2009 meeting as the final extension granted to the applicant and direct staff to re-
notice the project with 500-foot radius noticing and applicant to pay applicable fees.
7. GP 05-5 -- Study session on update to Housing Element of the Hermosa Beach General Plan,
describing the City’s housing needs, goals, policies, objectives, and programs to preserve,
improve and develop housing within Hermosa Beach.
Staff Recommended Action: To direct the Community Development Department to submit the
draft Housing Element update to the State Department of Housing and Community
Development for review pursuant to Government code Section 65585(b).
8. PARK 09-6 -- Parking Plan to classify a yogurt shop (‘Skinny Mini’s Frozen Yogurt’, formerly
‘Ritz Camera’) as a snack shop for purpose of calculating parking requirements in the Ralphs
shopping center at 1100 #6 Pacific Coast Highway.
Staff Recommended Action: To adopt the resolution approving a Parking Plan classifying Skinny Minny's
as a snack shop.
2
9. PDP 09-8 -- Precise Development Plan to construct two detached dwellings in the R-1A zone at
526 25th Street.
Staff Recommended Action: To approve the Precise Development Plan subject to conditions as
contained in the Resolution
10. PDP 09-10 -- Precise Development Plan to construct a second detached dwelling in the SPA-2
(Specific Plan Area No. 2) zone at 111 Barney Court.
Staff Recommended Action: To approve the Precise Development Plan subject to conditions as
contained in the Resolution
11. TEXT 08-6 -- Text Amendment to allow small wind energy systems as a conditional use in all
zones, and to allow said systems to exceed the height limit, subject to standards, and adoption
of an Environmental Negative Declaration.
Staff Recommended Action: To adopt the resolution recommending to the City Council a text
amendment to allow small wind energy systems and adoption of a Negative Declaration.
Section III
Hearings
12. CON 09-6/PDP 09-9 -- Request for a one year extension of the Conditional Use Permit and
Precise Development Plan for a two (2) unit residential condominium at 583 Prospect Avenue.
Staff Recommended Action: To approve by minute order the extension of the Conditional Use
Permit and Precise Development Plan by one year to June 19, 2010.
Section IV
13. Staff Items
a. Interpretation of whether 'Gymboree Play & Music' is consistent with use and space
allocations and parking requirements or whether a Precise Development Plan and Parking
Plan is required, at 338-400 Pier Avenue.
b. Tentative future Planning Commission agenda.
c. Community Development Department activity report of May, 2009.
14. Commissioner Items
15. Adjournment
3
ACTION MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON
JUNE 16, 2009, 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 7:01 P.M. by Chairman Pizer.
1. Pledge of Allegiance
2. Roll Call
Present: Commissioners Darcy, Hoffman, Perrotti and Chairman Pizer
Absent: Commissioner Allen
Also Present: Community Development Director Ken Robertson
Assistant City Attorney Lauren Feldman
Senior Planner Pamela Townsend
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 May 19, 2009 action minutes
ACTION: To approve the above minutes as presented.
Motion by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Darcy. The motion carried
noting the abstention of Commissioner Hoffman and the absence of Commissioner Allen.
5. Resolution(s) for approval
a. Resolution P.C. 09-10 amending and superseding Resolution 09-7 granting a legal
determination for Unit D, a third unit at 831 8th street, and denying a legal
determination for Unit C as a separate, fourth dwelling unit at 831 8th Street.
ACTION: To approve Resolution P.C. 09-10 as presented.
Motion by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Darcy. The motion carried
noting the abstention of Commissioner Hoffman and the absence of Commissioner Allen.
Planning Commission Action Minutes
June 16, 2009
1
Section II
Public Hearings
6. PDP 08-8 / PARK 08-6 -- Precise Development Plan and Parking Plan for a three-story 40-
room hotel with two levels of parking containing 42 parking spaces with 32 of the 40
required spaces in tandem to be managed with 24-hour valet parking service and to allow
greater than 30% compact parking; and adoption of an Environmental Negative Declaration
at 1081, 1085 & 1087 Aviation Boulevard (continued from January 20 and March 17, 2009
meetings).
Staff Recommended Action: To continue to the July 21, 2009 meeting and direct staff to re-
notice the project with 500-foot radius noticing and applicant to pay applicable fees.
ACTION: To continue to the July 21, 2009 meeting and direct staff to re-notice the project
with 500-foot radius noticing and applicant to pay applicable fees.
MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Darcy. The motion
carried as follows:
AYES: Darcy, Hoffman, Perrotti, Pizer
NOES: None
ABSENT: Allen
ABSTAIN: None
7. CUP 09-2 -- Conditional Use Permit Amendment to extend hours of operation of restaurant
with on-sale general alcohol beverage service and live entertainment from 12 midnight daily
and 2:00 a.m. New Year's Eve to 1:00 a.m. the following morning Thursday, Friday and
Saturday nights and Memorial Day, Labor Day, Fourth of July and various Federal and State
holidays extend at 73 Pier Avenue, Mediterraneo Restaurant (continued from the April 21
and May 19, 2009 meetings).
Staff Recommended Action: To continue to a date uncertain provided the applicant shall
pay all costs for fully renoticing the public hearing.
ACTION: To continue to a date uncertain provided the applicant shall pay all costs for
fully renoticing the public hearing.
MOTION by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Perrotti. The motion
carried as follows:
AYES: Darcy, Hoffman, Perrotti, Pizer
NOES: None
ABSENT: Allen
ABSTAIN: None
8. VAR 09-1 -- Variance to the sign code to allow the installation of a double faced sign, 23
square feet per face with a maximum height of six feet in the R-1 zone, at 1818 Monterrey
Boulevard, St. Cross Episcopal Church.
Planning Commission Action Minutes
June 16, 2009
2
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said sign variance.
ACTION: To adopt the resolution approving said sign variance with a modification to page
6, paragraph 3 to read "the sign may only be illuminated between sunset and 9:00 P.M."
Motion by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Hoffman. The motion
carried as follows:
AYES: Darcy, Hoffman, Perrotti, Pizer
NOES: None
ABSENT: Allen
ABSTAIN: None
9. L-5 -- Legal Determination of whether two (2) dwelling units exist and whether the 2nd unit
(rear apartment over garage) is legal nonconforming and may continue to exist at 450 30th
Street.
Staff Recommended Action: To direct staff as deemed appropriate.
ACTION: To decline validating the legality of the second unit pending adoption of the
resolution at the next meeting.
Motion by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Perrotti. The motion
carried as follows:
AYES: Darcy, Hoffman, Perrotti, Pizer
NOES: None
ABSENT: Allen
ABSTAIN: None
10. CUP 09-4 -- Conditional Use Permit to allow approximately 500 square foot of outdoor
patio dining in conjunction with a new restaurant, “Chipotle” (formerly IHOP) at 1439
Pacific Coast Highway.
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said Conditional Use Permit.
ACTION: To approve said Conditional Use Permit by adopting the resolution with
modifications: 1) Changing word from "dawn" to "sunrise" on Section. 4, No. I, last
paragraph, and Section. 5, No. 12. 2) Deleting Section 4, No. I referencing screening, and
deleting Section 5, Condition 7, and renumber the subsequent conditions.
Motion by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Perrotti. The motion
carried as follows:
AYES: Darcy, Hoffman, Perrotti, Pizer
NOES: None
ABSENT: Allen
ABSTAIN: None
Planning Commission Action Minutes
June 16, 2009
3
11. PDP 09-6 -- Precise Development Plan/Planned Development for Hermosa Beach
Restrooms Replacement Project (Project No. CIP 99-631) to replace three 630-square foot
public restroom facilities with three 560 square foot facilities, including demolition, grading,
construction, installation of wastewater holding tanks and related utility hookups,
landscaping and lighting, located southwest of the intersection of The Strand with 22nd,
14th and 2nd Streets, and adoption of an Environmental Negative Declaration.
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said Precise Development Plan/Planned
Development and adopt the Environmental Negative Declaration
ACTION: To approve said Precise Development Plan/Planned Development and adopt the
Environmental Negative Declaration by adoption the resolution with two amendments: 1)
To add an item "J" under the list of Section 5, No. 4, to indicate an appropriate measure will
be taken to ensure that no construction debris remain on the sand at the completion of
construction. 2) To modify Section 5, item 10 to restrict the hours of construction between
the hours of 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday to Friday.
Motion by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Perrotti. The motion
carried as follows:
AYES: Darcy, Hoffman, Perrotti, Pizer
NOES: None
ABSENT: Allen
ABSTAIN: None
12. TEXT 09-1 -- Text amendment modifying sign regulations relating to temporary signs, real
estate signs and construction signs (continued from the May 19, 2009 meeting).
Staff Recommended Action: To recommend approval of said Text Amendment.
ACTION: To recommend approval of said Text Amendment by adoption the resolution
with modification to add "otherwise" to second sentence on "Temporary Sings", No. C.4. to
read "Temporary signs shall not otherwise be located within setbacks..."
Motion by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Hoffman. The motion
carried as follows:
AYES: Darcy, Hoffman, Perrotti
NOES: Pizer
ABSENT: Allen
ABSTAIN: None
Section III
Hearings
13. CON 09-5/PDP 09-7/PARK 09-5 -- Request for a one year extension of the Conditional Use
Permit, Precise Development Plan and Parking Plan for a twenty-one (21) unit commercial
condominium at 906-910 Hermosa Avenue.
Planning Commission Action Minutes
June 16, 2009
4
Staff Recommended Action: To approve by minute order the extension of the Conditional
Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Parking Plan by one year to June 19, 2010.
ACTION: To approve, by minute order, the extension of the Conditional Use Permit,
Precise Development Plan and Parking Plan by one year to June 19, 2010.
Motion by Commissioner Darcy, seconded by Commissioner Perrotti. The motion carried
as follows:
AYES: Darcy, Hoffman, Perrotti, Pizer
NOES: None
ABSENT: Allen
ABSTAIN: None
14. LLA 09-1 -- Lot Line Adjustment to adjust the boundary between 1852 Rhodes Street and
1845 Hillcrest Drive to correctly reflect the ownership and use of the property.
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said lot line adjustment.
ACTION: To approve said lot line adjustment by adopting the resolution.
Motion by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Hoffman. The motion
carried as follows:
AYES: Darcy, Hoffman, Perrotti, Pizer
NOES: None
ABSENT: Allen
ABSTAIN: None
Section IV
15. Staff Items
a. Review of Fiscal Year 2009-2010 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for
conformance with the City’s General Plan.
ACTION: To approve Fiscal Year 2009-2010 CIP program to be conformance with the
City’s General Plan.
Motion by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Darcy. The motion carried
noting the absence of Commissioner Allen.
b. Tentative future Planning Commission agenda.
c. Community Development Department activity report of April, 2009.
16. Commissioner Items
Planning Commission Action Minutes
June 16, 2009
5
17. Adjournment
The meeting was formally adjourned at 9:52 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 June 16,
2009.
______________________________ _____________________________
Ron Pizer, Chairman Ken Robertson, Secretary
______________________
Date
Planning Commission Action Minutes
June 16, 2009
6
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
Date: July 21, 2009
To: Planning Commission
From: Pamela Townsend, Senior Planner
Subject: Legal Determination of Whether Two (2) Dwelling Units Exist At
450 30th Street, and Whether the 2nd Unit (Rear Apartment Over
Garage) is Legal Nonconforming and May Continue to Exist as a
Dwelling Unit
Recommendation:
Adopt the attached resolution denying validation of a second unit (rear apartment over garage).
Alternative Action: By request of the owner, due to a previous documented commitment, continue the
matter to August 18, 2009.
Background:
Following a public hearing on June 16, 2009, the Planning Commission directed staff to prepare a
resolution denying a request to declare the space over the garage at 450 30th Street a legal
nonconforming unit.
The site was approved for one unit in 1955. The rumpus and bathroom were added over the garage by
permit issued in 1964 consistent with zoning at that time, and accompanied by a recorded Affidavit and
Agreement precluding use of the space as a dwelling unit. City field inspections in 1975 and 2001
indicated that the property was potentially being used for two units, although notations indicate this use
to not be legal, and a City Residential Building Report issued in 2001 at the time of sale to the current
owners indicated only one unit to be legal. It also appears that a second detached unit would not have
been allowed under the Zoning Code in 1964/65. Despite inconsistencies in the County Assessor’s
records, there is no evidence to suggest that the unit, when constructed, was consistent with the then
existing zoning code and other applicable codes and has been continuously used since that time.
Subsequent to the June 16, 2009 hearing, the owner, in working with City Code Enforcement staff to
abate the second kitchen, has expressed disagreement with the City's specific requirements (see
Attachment 3). The City Attorney's office advises that under this Legal Determination application, that
since the Commission has determined to deny the application, negotiations concerning how this will be
accomplished are not under the purview of the Commission. Therefore, should the Commission
determine to continue the matter to August 18, 2009, the Commission will be likewise limited as stated
above.
1
Staff believes the proposed resolution reflects the Commission's findings and directions on June 16,
2009.
Attachments:
1. Proposed Resolution
2. Planning Commission Minutes, June 16, 2009
3. Applicant's email dated July 9, 2009
2
P.C. RESOLUTION NO. 09-17
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA
BEACH, CALIFORNIA DENYING A LEGAL DETERMINATION FOR AN
APARTMENT OVER A GARAGE AS A SEPARATE, SECOND DWELLING UNIT AT
450 30th STREET, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT 26, BLOCK 126, SHAKESPEARE
TRACT, CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 17.60 OF THE
HERMOSA BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE
The Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach does hereby resolve and order as follows:
Section 1. An application was filed by Jeff and Kim Sussman, seeking a legal determination that a
second dwelling unit at 450 30th Street be declared legal and city records be corrected, including a determination
specifically that an apartment over a garage at the rear of the property is legal nonconforming.
Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing on June 16, 2009 to
consider the request, at which time the Staff Report, testimony and evidence, both written and oral, were
presented to and considered by the Planning Commission.
Section 3. Based on the Staff Report, testimony and evidence received, the Planning Commission
makes the following findings:
1. The R-2 zoned site was approved for one unit in 1955. A 400 square foot rumpus room and bathroom
were added over the garage by permit issued in 1964 accompanied by a recorded Affidavit and
Agreement precluding use of this space as a dwelling unit, and the permit was finaled in 1965.
2. The 400 square foot second unit in question is nonconforming as to current zoning standards pertaining
to density (1750 square feet of lot area per unit required), dwelling size (600 square feet for a studio or
one bedroom dwelling required) and parking (3 spaces per unit required), and without a lot survey it is
not easy to determine whether the improvements may be nonconforming to setbacks, open space or other
provisions.
3. The property was zoned R-2 in 1964/1965. Section 500 of Article 5 of Zoning Ordinance No. N.S. 154
in effect at that time allowed "a two-family unit [duplex], provided that detached one-family dwelling
will be allowed if one existed on the lot on the effective date of this ordinance [June 19, 1956] provided
all yard requirements are conformed to." Although an attached second unit (duplex type structure) could
have been permitted, a second, detached residential unit would not have been allowed under the Zoning
Ordinance at the time of construction in 1964/1965 because a detached one-family unit did not already
exist on the lot in 1956.
4. While the Assessor's 'Single Residential Property Appraisal Record' appears to indicate that a second unit
was added to the tax roll in 1965, there is no evidence that the city approved or supplied to the Assessor
information that the space was a legal second unit, and it is not clear why the Assessor’s records were
modified to show two units. While the owner alleges that the 1965 improvements may have authorized
the second unit as a legal unit because the Assessor started assessing the second unit in April 1965, close
to the time the building permit for the rumpus room and bathroom was finaled,, there is no evidence that
the City, as the building authority, approved installation of the kitchen and use of the area as a separate,
dwelling unit.
5. Evidence presented by the owner that in 2001/02, 2006/07 and 2008/09, the property was assessed
landscape and/or lighting tax rates applicable to two units is not conclusive evidence of two legal units
3
because assessment data is based on the Assessor's records which were erroneous, and hence, the
assessments do not in and of themselves provide a new source of information demonstrating that the unit
was consistent with the zoning code (as a dwelling unit) when constructed.
6. City field inspections in 1975 and 2001 indicated that the property was potentially being used for two
units, although notations on the reports raised questions as to the legality; however, the City’s Residential
Building Report issued in 2001 at the time of sale to the current owners indicated only one unit to be
legal. Moreover, information provided or available to the current owners who purchased the property on
March 23, 2001 included the recorded Affidavit and Agreement restricting the use of the area to
accessory uses only (which should have appeared in a title report issued at the time of purchase) and the
Residential Building Report dated February 28, 2001 stating the property contained one unit.
7. While the owner has supplied more than 10 letters supporting the application, the adjacent property
owners stated that, based on personal knowledge, prior to the current owner the space was used as an
office and was not rented as a second unit.
8. While the owner has referenced past legal determination cases at 1533 Manhattan Avenue/1534 Palm
Drive, each case is unique and the facts and findings cannot necessarily be translated to other cases, and
the disposition of cases may differ depending on the evidence presented in each case. Nevertheless, in
the case of 402 8th Street (where a second unit was declared legal nonconforming) the Residential
Building Report for that site stated the property contained a single family unit plus living quarters in part
of the garage. In the case of 1533 Manhattan Avenue/1534 Palm Drive (where a fourth unit was
validated), and the evidence presented was stronger to indicate that the unit may have been legally
constructed prior to 1959 and presumed valid under Section 17.60.020.
Section 5. Based on the foregoing, pursuant to H.B.M.C. Section 17.60.080, the Planning Commission
declares the approximately 400 square foot second unit (apartment over garage) at 450 30th Street to not be a
legal nonconforming unit.
Section 6. 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: Darcy,Hoffman,Perrotti,Pizer
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Allen
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify the foregoing Resolution P.C. No. 09-17 is a true and complete record of the action taken by the
Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach, California at their regular meeting of June 16, 2009.
Ron Pizer, Chairman Ken Robertson, Secretary
July 21, 2009
Date
4
Thu 07/09/2009 4:28 PM
From: Jeff Sussman [Jsussman@palpert.com]
To: Pamela Townsend
cc: Bob Rollins
Pam,
As we discussed, we would like to retain the sink (and obtain an after-the-fact permit for it) so that that the
“rumpus room” is as versatile as possible and would be an attractive amenity for a family renting the entire
property. For example, if the room is used as a home office, a sink would be helpful for making coffee and
rinsing a coffee pot. The bathroom sink is not large enough for this purpose. If the room is used as a
children’s play room, a sink would be useful for any crafts. If the room is used as a rec room, the sink could
be used as a wet bar. Other possible uses are for a photography darkroom, home art studio, or hobby
room. None of these uses are prohibited by the recorded affidavit. In fact, the affidavit specifically allows the
room to be used for “accessory uses.” While the affidavit does not specifically allow a sink, it also does not
prohibit one. The only prohibition is that the room cannot be used as “an additional dwelling unit, or rented
room.” The sink could be used for many purposes, none of which conflict with the affidavit. We would like to
discuss these issues with the Planning Commission in person and address any questions they may, as well
as respond to any comments that the public may make at the hearing.
As I explained, however, we will not be able to attend the July 21 Planning Commission meeting since we
will be on an Alaskan cruise for my father’s 70th birthday, along with 18 family members. Given the
importance of this issue to us (not to mention the amount we paid to go through the validation process), we
simply would like to participate in the hearing. Consequently, we respectfully request that the hearing on this
matter be continued until the next Commission meeting on August 18, which is only 28 days later. The
cruise runs from July 15 to July 22 and we will not return until July 26. The trip has been booked for over a
year. Attached is the cruise confirmation dated April 22, 2008 showing that we made a $3,742 deposit prior
to that time. We would be happy to provide any other documentation regarding the trip. We plan to submit a
more formal letter to the Commission by Tuesday.
A couple questions:
1) Since there is no bathtub, my understanding is that you will not be requesting a further restriction as
you mention below. Can you please confirm?
2) The definition of “kitchen” in the Zoning Code provides that the “installation of a cooking appliance
constitutes a kitchen.” If the stove is removed along with the appurtenant electrical fixtures, there
will be no installed cooking appliance, and none of the accessory uses mentioned above involve
cooking or the preparation of food. My understanding from our discussions and from talking with
Ken is that the Department’s concern is that the existence of a sink would make it easier for the
room to be used illegally as an additional dwelling unit or rented room. Is there any other reason
why the Department intends to recommend that the sink be removed?
Thanks for your help,
Jeff & Kim Sussman
5
CITY OF
HERMOSA BEACH
GENERAL PLAN
HOUSING ELEMENT
2008 - 2014
Public Review Draft
June 2009
The City of Hermosa Beach will hold a study session and public
hearings on the draft Housing Element, in 2009.
Comments and input are encouraged.
For more information or an Executive Summary please contact:
City of Hermosa Beach
Community Development Department
1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
(310) 318-0242 FAX (937)6235
www.hermosabch.org
City of Hermosa Beach Housing Element
Conexus iii Draft – June 2009
Contents
I. Introduction................................................................................................................................. I-1
A. Purpose of the Housing Element ............................................................................................ I-1
B. Scope and Content of the Housing Element ...................................................................... I-1
C. Public Participation................................................................................................................... I-2
D. Consistency with Other Elements of the General Plan...................................................... I-2
II. Housing Needs Assessment...................................................................................................... II-1
A. Population Characteristics ......................................................................................................II-1
1. Population Growth Trends ................................................................................................... II-1
2. Age .......................................................................................................................................... II-2
3. Race and Ethnicity................................................................................................................ II-3
B. Household Characteristics.......................................................................................................II-3
1. Household Composition and Size ...................................................................................... II-3
2. Housing Tenure....................................................................................................................... II-4
3. Overcrowding........................................................................................................................ II-4
4. Household Income................................................................................................................ II-5
5. Overpayment......................................................................................................................... II-6
C. Employment ...............................................................................................................................II-6
1. Current Employment............................................................................................................. II-6
2. Projected Job Growth.......................................................................................................... II-7
D. Housing Stock Characteristics.................................................................................................II-9
1. Housing Type and Growth Trends ...................................................................................... II-9
2. Housing Age and Conditions............................................................................................II-10
3. Vacancy...............................................................................................................................II-12
4. Housing Cost.........................................................................................................................II-13
E. Special Needs......................................................................................................................... II-16
1. Persons with Disabilities.......................................................................................................II-16
2. Elderly.....................................................................................................................................II-17
3. Large Households................................................................................................................II-18
4. Female-Headed Households ............................................................................................II-18
5. Farm Workers........................................................................................................................II-19
6. Homeless Persons.................................................................................................................II-19
F. Assisted Housing at Risk of Conversion............................................................................... II-20
G. Low- and Moderate-Income Housing in the Coastal Zone........................................... II-21
H. Future Growth Needs............................................................................................................. II-21
1. Overview of the Regional Housing Needs Assessment................................................II-21
2. 2006-2014 Hermosa Beach Growth Needs.....................................................................II-22
III. Resources and Opportunities..................................................................................................III-1
A. Land Resources.........................................................................................................................III-1
1. Regional Growth Needs 2006-2014....................................................................................III-1
2. Inventory of Sites for Housing Development ....................................................................III-1
B. Financial and Administrative Resources..............................................................................III-2
1. State and Federal Resources..............................................................................................III-2
2. Local Resources.....................................................................................................................III-3
C. Energy Conservation Opportunities......................................................................................III-3
IV. Constraints.................................................................................................................................IV-1
A. Governmental Constraints ....................................................................................................IV-1
1. Land Use Plans and Regulations........................................................................................IV-1
2. Development Processing Procedures............................................................................IV-12
3. Development Fees and Improvement Requirements.................................................IV-13
City of Hermosa Beach Housing Element
Conexus iv Draft – June 2009
B. Non-Governmental Constraints.........................................................................................IV-15
1. Environmental Constraints................................................................................................IV-15
2. Infrastructure Constraints..................................................................................................IV-15
3. Land Costs...........................................................................................................................IV-16
4. Construction Costs.............................................................................................................IV-16
5. Cost and Availability of Financing..................................................................................IV-16
C. Fair Housing ............................................................................................................................IV-16
V. Housing Plan..............................................................................................................................V-1
A. Goals, Objectives and Policies..............................................................................................V-1
B. Housing Element Policies ........................................................................................................V-1
C. Description of Housing Programs..........................................................................................V-4
D. Housing Program Implementation Matrix............................................................................V-8
Appendix A – Evaluation of the 2003 Housing Element
Appendix B – Residential Land Inventory – 2006-2014
Appendix C – Public Participation Summary
City of Hermosa Beach Housing Element I. Introduction
Conexus v Draft – June 2009
List of Tables
Table II-1 Population Trends, 1990-2007 – Hermosa Beach vs. Los Angeles County......................II-1
Table II-2 Age Distribution - 2000..............................................................................................................II-2
Table II-3 Race/Ethnicity............................................................................................................................II-3
Table II-4 Household Composition...........................................................................................................II-4
Table II-5 Household Tenure......................................................................................................................II-4
Table II-6 Overcrowding............................................................................................................................II-5
Table II-7 Median Household Income, 1999 – Hermosa Beach and Surrounding Cities...............II-5
Table II-8 Overpayment by Income Category – Hermosa Beach....................................................II-6
Table II-9 Labor Force – Hermosa Beach vs. Los Angeles County (2000)........................................II-7
Table II-10 Employment by Occupation – Hermosa Beach.................................................................II-7
Table II-11 Projected Job Growth by Occupation (2004-2014) – Los Angeles-Long
Beach-Glendale Metropolitan Statistical Area...................................................................II-8
Table II-12 Job Location for Hermosa Beach Residents........................................................................II-9
Table II-13 Housing by Type – Hermosa Beach vs. Los Angeles County ......................................... II-10
Table II-14 Age of Housing Stock by Tenure – Hermosa Beach vs. Los Angeles County............. II-11
Table II-15 Kitchen and Plumbing Facilities by Tenure, 2000 – Hermosa Beach vs. Los
Angeles County...................................................................................................................... II-12
Table II-16 Housing Vacancy – Hermosa Beach vs. Los Angeles County....................................... II-13
Table II-17 Income Categories and Affordable Housing Costs – Los Angeles County................ II-14
Table II-18 Resale Housing Sales Price Distribution (2006-07) – Hermosa Beach............................ II-15
Table II-19 Rental Market Survey – Hermosa Beach............................................................................ II-15
Table II-20 Persons with Disabilities by Age – Hermosa Beach.......................................................... II-17
Table II-21 Elderly Households by Tenure – Hermosa Beach ............................................................. II-18
Table II-22 Household Size by Tenure – Hermosa Beach.................................................................... II-18
Table II-23 Household Type by Tenure – Hermosa Beach.................................................................. II-19
Table II-24 – Regional Housing Growth Needs1 – Hermosa Beach .................................................. II-22
Table III-1 Net Remaining RHNA – Hermosa Beach .............................................................................III-1
Table III-2 Land Inventory Summary – Hermosa Beach.......................................................................III-2
Table IV-1 Residential Land Use Categories – Hermosa Beach General Plan...............................IV-1
Table IV-2 Residential Development Standards by Zone...................................................................IV-2
Table IV-3 Permitted Residential Development by Zone....................................................................IV-3
Table IV-4 Residential Parking Requirements........................................................................................IV-8
Table IV-5 City of Hermosa Beach Planning Fees..............................................................................IV-14
Table V-1 Program Implementation Matrix...........................................................................................V-9
List of Figures
Figure II-1 Population Growth 1990-2007 – Hermosa Beach vs. Los Angeles County.....................II-2
City of Hermosa Beach Housing Element I. Introduction
Conexus I-1 Draft – June 2009
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Purpose of the Housing Element
The Housing Element describes the City’s needs, goals, policies, objectives, and programs
regarding the preservation, improvement, and development of housing within Hermosa
Beach. The Element provides an indication of community housing needs in terms of
affordability, availability, adequacy, and accessibility. The Element provides a strategy to
address housing needs and identifies a range of specific housing programs to meet
identified needs.
The Housing Element is an official municipal response to a growing awareness of the
need to provide housing for all economic segments of the community, as well as a legal
requirement for all California jurisdictions. It provides Hermosa Beach with the opportunity
to plan for the existing and future housing needs in the community. This Element has
been prepared in compliance with the 2008-2014 six-year planning cycle for cities within
the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) region. It identifies strategies
and programs that focus on: 1) providing diverse housing sites and opportunities;
2) conserving and improving the existing affordable housing stock; 3) removing govern-
mental and other constraints to housing development; and 4) promoting equal housing
opportunities.
B. Scope and Content of the Housing Element
The California Legislature recognizes the role of local general plans and particularly the
Housing Element in implementing statewide housing goals to provide decent and
adequate housing for all persons. Furthermore, the Legislature stresses continuing efforts
toward providing affordable housing for all income groups. The California Department of
Housing and Community Development (HCD) also sets forth specific requirements
regarding the scope and content of housing elements, including the following major
components:
• An analysis of the city’s demographic and housing characteristics and trends
(Chapter II);
• An evaluation of land, financial, and administrative resources available to
address the City’s housing goals (Chapter III);
• A review of potential constraints, both governmental and non-governmental,
to meeting Hermosa Beach’s housing needs (Chapter IV);
• The Housing Action Plan for addressing the City’s identified housing needs,
including housing goals, policies and programs (Chapter V);
• An evaluation of the appropriateness and effectiveness of previous policies
and programs in achieving the City’s objectives, and the progress in
implementing Housing Element programs (Appendix A); and
• A parcel-specific inventory of vacant and underutilized land (Appendix B).
City of Hermosa Beach Housing Element I. Introduction
Conexus I-2 Draft – June 2009
C. Public Participation
Public participation is an important component of the planning process, and this update
to the Housing Element has provided residents and other interested parties numerous
opportunities to be involved in the preparation of the element. Public notices of all
meetings and hearings were published in the local newspaper in advance of each
meeting, as well as posted on the City’s website. The draft Housing Element was made
available for review at City Hall and posted on the City’s website prior to public
meetings. The document was also circulated to housing advocates and non-profit
organizations representing the interests of lower-income persons and special needs
groups. After receiving comments on the draft Housing Element from the State Housing
and Community Development Department, a proposed final Housing Element was
prepared and made available for public review prior to adoption by the City Council.
Appendix C provides a listing of opportunities for public involvement in the preparation
of this Housing Element update, identification of persons and organizations that were
invited to participate, and a summary of issues raised during the process.
D. Consistency with Other Elements of the General Plan
The Housing Element must be consistent with other elements of the General Plan, which
was last updated in 1994. The Housing Element has been prepared within the context of
the other General Plan Elements and is consistent with the policies and proposals set forth
therein. The Housing Element is closely related to development policies contained in the
Land Use Element, which establishes the location, type, and intensity of land uses
throughout the City. The Land Use Element determines the number and type of housing
units that can be constructed in the various land use districts. Areas designated for
commercial and industrial uses create employment opportunities, which in turn, create
demand for housing. The Circulation Element establishes the location and scale of
streets, highways and other transportation routes that provide access to residential
neighborhoods. Because of the requirement for consistency among the various General
Plan elements, any proposed amendment to one element will be evaluated against the
other elements to ensure that no conflicts occur.
SB 1087 of 2005 requires cities to provide a copy of their Housing Elements to local water
and sewer providers, and also requires that these agencies provide priority hookups for
developments with lower-income housing. The Housing Element will be provided to these
agencies immediately upon adoption.
City of Hermosa Beach Housing Element II. Housing Needs Assessment
Conexus II-1 Draft – June 2009
II. HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
This chapter examines general population and household characteristics and trends,
such as age, race and ethnicity, employment, household composition and size,
household income, and special needs. Characteristics of the existing housing stock (e.g.,
number of units and type, tenure, age and condition, costs) are also addressed. Finally,
the City’s projected housing growth needs based on the 2007 Regional Housing Needs
Assessment (RHNA) are examined.
The Housing Needs Assessment utilizes the most recent data from the 2000 U.S. Census,
the California Department of Finance (DOF), the California Employment Development
Department (EDD), the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), Los
Angeles County (2003-2008 Consolidated Plan), and other relevant sources.
Supplemental data were obtained through field surveys and from the California State
Department of Finance.
A. Population Characteristics
1. Population Growth Trends
Located 17 miles southwest of Los Angeles at the southern end of Santa Monica Bay, the
1.3-square-mile City of Hermosa Beach was incorporated in 1907. The city grew very
slowly during the 1980s and 1990s, having grown less than 8% from 1980 to 2007. Most of
the growth that has occurred consisted of density increases on existing parcels, and
demolition and replacement of existing homes. This is in contrast with Los Angeles
County, which grew by 18.5% between 1980 and 1990, 8.1% between 1990 and 2000,
and an additional 8.2% since 2000 (see Table II-1 and Figure II-1). As an essentially built-
out city, there continue to be few opportunities for growth, except through
redevelopment/infill on existing parcels.
Table II-1
Population Trends, 1990-2007 –
Hermosa Beach vs. Los Angeles County
Jurisdiction 1990 2000 2007
Growth
1990-2000
Growth
2000-2007
Hermosa Beach 18,219 18,566 19,474 1.9% 4.9%
Los Angeles County 8,863,052 9,579,000 10,366,700 8.1% 8.2%
Sources: 1990 & 2000 Census; Calif. Dept. of Finance Table E-1 (2007)
City of Hermosa Beach Housing Element II. Housing Needs Assessment
Conexus II-2 Draft – June 2009
Figure II-1
Population Growth 1990-2007 – Hermosa Beach vs. Los Angeles County
Source: US Census 2000, California Department of Finance, Table E-1 (2007)
2. Age
Housing needs are influenced by the age characteristics of the population. Different age
groups have different housing needs based on lifestyles, family types, income levels, and
housing preference. Table II-2 provides a comparison of the city and county population
by age group in 2000. This table shows that the age distribution of the city’s population is
older than Los Angeles County as a whole, with Hermosa Beach’s population having a
median age two years older than Los Angeles County. In addition, the percentage of
the city’s population over age 65 has increased from 5.8% to 7% from 1990 to 2000. An
aging population has implications regarding the type and size of future housing needs,
as well as accessibility.
Table II-2
Age Distribution - 2000
Hermosa Beach Los Angeles County
Age Group Persons % Persons %
Under 18 years 2,227 12% 2,667,976 28%
18 to 24 years 1,126 6% 980,657 10%
25 to 44 years 10,219 55% 3,099,200 33%
45 to 64 years 3,726 20% 1,844,612 19%
65 to 74 years 717 4% 5% 5%
75 to 84 years 399 2% 324,693 3%
85 and over 152 1% 109,147 1%
Total 18,566 100% 9,519,338 100%
Median Age 34.2 32.0
Source: 2000 Census, Table QT-P1
City of Hermosa Beach Housing Element II. Housing Needs Assessment
Conexus II-3 Draft – June 2009
3. Race and Ethnicity
The racial and ethnic composition of the city differs from the county in that a lower
proportion of city residents are Hispanic/Latino or other racial minorities. Approximately
85% of city residents are non-Hispanic white, contrasted with 31% for the county as a
whole. The percentage of Hispanics residing in the city, at 6.7%, is significantly lower than
that of the county with 45% Hispanic/Latino. Asians, at 4.4%, represent the largest non-
Hispanic minority (Table II-3).
Table II-3
Race/Ethnicity
Hermosa Beach Los Angeles County
Race/Ethnicity Persons % Persons %
Not Hispanic or Latino 17,313 93.3% 5,277,125 55.4%
White 15,822 85.2% 2,959,614 31.1%
Black or African American 141 0.8% 901,472 9.5%
American Indian/Alaska Native 51 0.3% 25,609 0.3%
Asian 809 4.4% 1,124,569 11.8%
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 35 0.2% 23,265 0.2%
Other Races or 2+ races 455 2.5% 242,596 2.5%
Hispanic or Latino (any race) 1,253 6.7% 4,242,213 44.6%
Total 18,566 100.0% 9,519,338 100.0%
Sources: 2000 Census, SF1 Table P8
B. Household Characteristics
1. Household Composition and Size
Household characteristics are important indicators of the type and size of housing
needed in a city. The Census defines a “household” as all persons occupying a housing
unit, which may include single persons living alone, families related through marriage or
blood, or unrelated persons sharing a single unit. Persons in group quarters such as
dormitories, retirement or convalescent homes, or other group living situations are
included in population totals, but are not considered households.
Hermosa Beach had 9,476 households as reported in the 2000 Census. Table II-4 provides
a comparison of households by type for the city and Los Angeles County as a whole.
Family households in 2000 comprised approximately 38% of all households in the city,
over 30% less than the county. Another significant difference in household composition
between the city and county is the number of single person households (39% city vs. 25%
county). Due to these factors, the city’s average household size is also lower than Los
Angeles County as a whole (1.95 persons per household City vs. 2.98 persons per
household county). These statistics suggest that there is less need for large units in
Hermosa Beach than are needed for other areas of the county.
City of Hermosa Beach Housing Element II. Housing Needs Assessment
Conexus II-4 Draft – June 2009
Table II-4
Household Composition
Hermosa Beach Los Angeles County
Household Type Households % Households %
Total Households 9,476 100% 3,133,774 100%
Families 3,558 38% 2,136,977 68%
- w/children under 18 1,335 14% 1,152,202 37%
Non-family households 5,918 62% 996,707 32%
- Single living alone 3,736 39% 771,854 25%
- 65 and over living alone 368 4% 223,473 7%
Average household size 1.95 2.98
Sources: US Census 2000, SF1 Tables P18 and H12
2. Housing Tenure
Housing tenure (owner vs. renter) is an important indicator of the housing market.
Communities strive to have an adequate supply of units available both for rent and for
sale in order to accommodate a range of households with varying incomes, family sizes
and composition, and lifestyles. Table II-5 provides a comparison of the number of owner-
occupied and renter-occupied units in the city in 2000 as compared to the county as a
whole. It reveals a higher level of renters in the city, approximately 5 percentage points
higher than the county, which is common for beach communities.
Table II-5
Household Tenure
Hermosa Beach Los Angeles County
Tenure Units % Units %
Owner Occupied 4,068 43% 1,499,744 48%
Renter Occupied 5,408 57% 1,634,030 52%
Total occupied units 9,476 100% 3,133,774 100%
Source: 2000 Census, QT-H1 and H7
3. Overcrowding
Overcrowding is often closely related to household income and the cost of housing. The
U.S. Census Bureau considers a household to be overcrowded when there is more than
one person per room, excluding bathrooms and kitchens, with severe overcrowding
when there are more than 1.5 residents per room. Overcrowded households are usually a
reflection of the lack of affordable housing (see Section D.4 starting on page II-13 below
for a detailed definition of “affordable” housing. Table II-6 summarizes overcrowding for
the City of Hermosa Beach in 2000.
City of Hermosa Beach Housing Element II. Housing Needs Assessment
Conexus II-5 Draft – June 2009
Table II-6
Overcrowding
Hermosa Beach Los Angeles County
Household Type Households Percent Households Percent
Owner-Occupied 4,033 100.0% 1,499,694 100.0%
Overcrowded 33 0.8% 204,345 13.6%
Severely overcrowded 0 0.0% 111,667 7.4%
Renter-Occupied 5,409 100.0% 1,634,080 100.0%
Overcrowded 56 1.0% 516,024 31.6%
Severely overcrowded 123 2.3% 359,608 22.0%
Source: 2000 Census, Table H20
Based on U.S. Census standards, Hermosa Beach residents live in relatively less crowded
housing conditions than the rest of Los Angeles County. In 2000, approximately 2% of all
occupied units in Hermosa Beach were considered overcrowded, including less than 1%
of owner occupied units and 3.3% of renter occupied units. Overcrowding in both owner-
occupied and renter-occupied units in the city is significantly less than the county level.
According to SCAG estimates, overcrowding in the city remained at approximately 2%
as of September 2006.1
4. Household Income
Household income is a primary factor affecting housing needs in a community – the
ability of residents to afford housing is directly related to household income. According to
the 2000 Census, the median household income in Hermosa Beach was $81,153, over
92% higher than Los Angeles County. However, household income is similar to the
adjacent beach communities of Redondo Beach and Manhattan Beach (Table II-7).
Table II-7
Median Household Income, 1999 –
Hermosa Beach and Surrounding Cities
Jurisdiction
Median
Income
Hermosa Beach $81,153
City of Los Angeles $37,338
County of Los Angeles $42,189
Manhattan Beach $100,750
Redondo Beach $69,173
Source: US Census 2000, Table P53 (reports 1999 income)
1 SCAG: Draft Housing Need Allocation Plan (January 1, 2006 to June 30, 2014)
City of Hermosa Beach Housing Element II. Housing Needs Assessment
Conexus II-6 Draft – June 2009
5. Overpayment
According to state housing policy, overpaying occurs when housing costs exceed 30% of
gross household income. Table II-8 displays estimates for overpayment in 1999 by lower-
income households. According to SCAG, approximately 75% of all lower-income renter
households and 59% of all lower-income owner households were overpaying for housing.
While extremely-low-income owners appeared to suffer the greatest cost burden, over
50% of all categories of lower-income households, both renters and owners, were found
to be overpaying for housing.
Although homeowners enjoy income and property tax deductions and other benefits
that help to compensate for high housing costs, lower-income homeowners may need to
defer maintenance or repairs due to limited funds, which can lead to deterioration. For
lower-income renters, severe cost burden can require families to double up, resulting in
overcrowding and related problems.
Table II-8
Overpayment by Income Category – Hermosa Beach
Renters Owners
Income Category Households Percent Households Percent
Extremely low households 225 -- 135 --
Households overpaying 114 50.7% 90 66.7%
Very low households 165 -- 135 --
Households overpaying 150 90.9% 80 59.3%
Low households 339 -- 165 --
Households overpaying 280 82.6% 85 51.5%
All lower-income households 729 -- 435 --
Households overpaying 544 74.6% 255 58.6%
Moderate-income households* 245 -- 60 --
Households overpaying 145 59.2% 20 33.3%
Above-moderate households 4,425 -- 3,545 --
Households overpaying 565 12.8% 875 24.7%
*80%-95% AMI
Source: SCAG 2006 based on 2000 Census
C. Employment
Employment is an important factor affecting housing needs within a community. The jobs
available in each employment sector and the wages for these jobs affect the type and
size of housing residents can afford.
1. Current Employment
Current employment and projected job growth have a significant influence on housing
needs during this planning period. Table II-9 shows that the city had a workforce of 13,415
persons, or 81% of the working-age population, as reported by Census 2000. This table
City of Hermosa Beach Housing Element II. Housing Needs Assessment
Conexus II-7 Draft – June 2009
also shows that the city’s population has a much higher participation in the workforce
than the county (81% city vs. 61% county). About 6% of city residents worked at home,
which is twice the county’s rate of home-based employment
Table II-9
Labor Force – Hermosa Beach vs. Los Angeles County (2000)
Hermosa Beach Los Angeles County
Labor Force Status Persons % Persons %
In labor force 13,415 81% 4,312,264 61%
-Work at home 765 6% 134,643 3%
Not in labor force 3,120 19% 2,810,261 39%
With Social Security income 991 6% 618,121 9%
Total population age 16+ 16,535 -- 7,122,525 --
Source: 2000 Census SF3 DP-3
In 2000, approximately 61% of the city’s working residents were employed in manage-
ment and professional occupations (Table II-10). A low percentage of workers (under 7%)
were employed in service related occupations such as waiters, waitresses and
beauticians. Blue collar occupations such as machine operators, assemblers, farming,
transportation, handlers and laborers also constituted less than 7% of the workforce.
Table II-10
Employment by Occupation – Hermosa Beach
Occupation Jobs Percent
Management, professional and related 7,870 61.2%
Service 894 6.9%
Sales and office 3,273 25.4%
Farming, fishing and forestry - -
Construction, extraction, and maintenance 413 3.2%
Production, transportation, and material moving 419 3.3%
Source: 2000 Census, DP-3
2. Projected Job Growth
Table II-11 shows employment and projected occupational growth for the Los Angeles-
Long Beach-Glendale Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) along with average salaries for
the period 2004-2014. The greatest number of new jobs projected to be produced in Los
Angeles County over the next few years will be among the lower-waged occupations.
Based on past trends and projections provided by the California Employment
Development Department, 65% of these new workers will earn 80% or below of the
median area income.2 Because the majority of new jobs created will be low-wage jobs,
2 Los Angeles County 2003-2008 Consolidated Plan
City of Hermosa Beach Housing Element II. Housing Needs Assessment
Conexus II-8 Draft – June 2009
there will be a growing demand for units affordable to low income persons, typically
below the average home price of the area.
As of 2002, the largest employment sectors in Hermosa Beach were accommodation &
food services (1,423 employees), followed by retail trade (937 employees) and
administrative & support & waste management & remediation service (550 employees).3
The 2002 employment sector data is reflective of employment within the city, not
necessarily employment of city residents.
Table II-11
Projected Job Growth by Occupation (2004-2014) –
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Glendale Metropolitan Statistical Area
Annual Average
Employment Employment Change
Occupational Title 2004 2014 Numerical Percent
Median
Hourly
Wage*
Total, All Occupations 4,361,000 4,811,500 450,500 10.3 $15.45
Management Occupations 244,980 274,560 29,580 12.1 $43.06
Business and Financial Operations Occupations 194,650 223,170 29,580 14.7 $27.02
Computer and Mathematical Occupations 83,360 98,520 15,160 18.2 $33.17
Architecture and Engineering Occupations 75,510 81,000 5,490 7.3 $35.38
Life, Physical, and Social Science Occupations 33,530 38,700 5,170 15.4 $28.07
Community and Social Services Occupations 47,990 55,790 7,800 16.3 $18.81
Legal Occupations 45,540 50,770 5,230 11.5 $41.69
Education, Training, and Library Occupations 284,960 343,250 58,290 20.5 $21.79
Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports, and Media Occupations 224,070 248,600 24,530 10.9 $18.32
Healthcare Practitioners and Technical Occupations 177,920 217,340 39,420 22.2 $30.25
Healthcare Support Occupations 89,460 113,730 24,270 27.1 $11.29
Protective Service Occupations 105,410 117,740 12,330 11.7 $14.42
Food Preparation and Serving Related Occupations 298,080 359,200 61,150 20.5 $8.33
Building and Grounds Cleaning and Maintenance Occupations 117,930 133,020 15,090 12.8 $9.94
Personal Care and Service Occupations 107,160 122,360 15,200 14.2 $9.72
Sales and Related Occupations 438,170 487,690 49,520 11.3 $12.27
Office and Administrative Support Occupations 815,450 842,290 26,840 3.3 $14.29
Construction and Extraction Occupations 160,350 173,240 12,890 8.0 $19.21
Installation, Maintenance, and Repair Occupations 136,080 146,450 10,370 7.6 $18.72
Production Occupations 353,880 323,430 -30,450 -8.6 $10.45
Transportation and Material Moving Occupations 316,070 349,400 33,330 10.5 $11.61
Source: California Employment Development Dept., March 2005 Benchmark (http://www.calmis.ca.gov)
*2006 wages
According to the 2000 Census, about 92.5% of employed Hermosa Beach residents
worked in Los Angeles County, but only 13.2% of all workers were employed within the
city limits (Error! Reference source not found.).
3 U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2002 Economic Census
City of Hermosa Beach Housing Element II. Housing Needs Assessment
Conexus II-9 Draft – June 2009
Table II-12
Job Location for Hermosa Beach Residents
Job Location Persons %
Work in Los Angeles County 11,827 92.5%
- Work in city of residence 1,683 13.2%
- Work elsewhere in Los Angeles County 10,144 79.3%
Work in another California county 779 6.1%
Work outside California 178 1.4%
Total workers age 16+ 12,784 --
Source: 2000 Census, SF3 Tables P26 and P17
D. Housing Stock Characteristics
This section presents an evaluation of the characteristics of the community’s housing
stock and helps in identifying and prioritizing needs. The factors evaluated include the
number and type of housing units, recent growth trends, age and condition, tenure,
vacancy, housing costs, affordability, and assisted affordable units at-risk of loss due to
conversion to market-rate. A housing unit is defined by the Census Bureau as a house,
apartment, mobile home, or group of rooms, occupied as separate living quarters, or if
vacant, intended for occupancy as separate living quarters.
1. Housing Type and Growth Trends
As of 2000, the largest proportion of the city’s housing stock was comprised of multi-family
units, which made up about 48% of all units, while single-family detached units comprised
41% of the total. About 10% of units were single-family attached (condo) units, while
mobile homes comprised the remaining 1%. Table II-13 provides a breakdown of the
housing stock by type along with growth trends for the city compared to the county as a
whole for the period 2000-2007.
City of Hermosa Beach Housing Element II. Housing Needs Assessment
Conexus II-10 Draft – June 2009
Table II-13
Housing by Type – Hermosa Beach vs. Los Angeles County
2000 2007 Growth
Structure Type Units % Units % Units %
Hermosa Beach
Single-family detached 4,035 41% 4,145 42% 110 3%
Single-family attached 986 10% 1,031 10% 45 5%
Multi-family 2-4 units 2,173 22% 2,025 21% -148 -7%
Multi-family 5+ units 2,564 26% 2,544 26% -20 -1%
Mobile homes 82 1% 82 1% 0 0%
Total units 9,840 100% 9,827 100% -13 0%
Los Angeles County
Single-family detached 1,593,449 49% 1,638,521 48% 45,072 3%
Single-family attached 241,575 7% 243,078 7% 1,503 1%
Multi-family 2-4 units 287,575 9% 291,406 9% 3,831 1%
Multi-family 5+ units 1,091,766 33% 1,151,750 34% 59,984 5%
Mobile homes 56,605 2% 56,701 2% 96 0%
Total units 3,270,906 100% 3,382,356 100% 111,450 3%
Source: Cal. Dept. of Finance, Table E-5
Between 2000 and 2007, single-family detached homes represented about 42% of all
units built in the city. However, the city had a net decrease of 13 housing units during this
timeframe due to the demolition and replacement of older units.
2. Housing Age and Conditions
Housing age is often an important indicator of housing condition. Housing units built prior
to 1978 before stringent limits on the amount of lead in paint were imposed may have
interior or exterior building components coated with lead-based paint. Housing units built
before 1970 are the most likely to need rehabilitation and to have lead-based paint in
deteriorated condition. Lead-based paint becomes hazardous to children under age six
and to pregnant women when it peels off walls or is pulverized by windows and doors
opening and closing.
Table II-14 shows the age distribution of the housing stock in Hermosa Beach compared
to Los Angeles County as a whole as reported in the 2000 Census.
City of Hermosa Beach Housing Element II. Housing Needs Assessment
Conexus II-11 Draft – June 2009
Table II-14
Age of Housing Stock by Tenure –
Hermosa Beach vs. Los Angeles County
Hermosa Beach Los Angeles County
Year Built Units % Units %
Owner occupied 4,033 100% 1,499,694 100%
1990 or later 490 12% 101,563 7%
1980-89 464 12% 173,413 12%
1970-79 581 14% 185,447 12%
1960-69 538 13% 222,641 15%
1950-59 782 19% 403,784 27%
1940-49 437 11% 209,298 14%
1939 or earlier 741 18% 203,548 14%
Renter occupied 5,409 100% 1,634,080 100%
1990 or later 119 2% 109,917 7%
1980-89 489 9% 214,549 13%
1970-79 1,305 24% 302,096 18%
1960-69 1,289 24% 333,517 20%
1950-59 927 17% 298,342 18%
1940-49 510 9% 175,275 11%
1939 or earlier 770 14% 200,384 12%
Source: 2000 Census H36
This table shows that 61% of the owner-occupied housing units and 64% of rented units in
Hermosa Beach were constructed prior to 1970. These findings suggest that there may be
a need for maintenance and rehabilitation, including remediation of lead-based paint,
for a large percentage of the city’s housing stock. However, due to the city’s relatively
high household incomes, market forces would be expected to encourage more private
maintenance, rehabilitation, and lead paint remediation, as compared to lower-income
communities.
Table II-15 identifies the number of owner-occupied and renter-occupied housing units
lacking complete kitchen or plumbing facilities in the city and the county as a whole. This
table shows that no owner-occupied units and only 1% of renter-occupied units lacked
complete kitchens. Similarly, no owner-occupied units and less than 1% of renter-
occupied units lacked complete plumbing facilities. The lack of complete kitchen or
plumbing facilities is often an indicator of serious problems, and housing units may need
rehabilitation even though they have complete kitchens and plumbing facilities.
As part of the city’s previous (2003) Housing Element update, a citywide survey of
housing conditions was conducted. Units were categorized into the following three
groups:
• Good - housing unit appears to be well-maintained;
• In Need of Minor Repair - unit exhibits need for repair, which may include
repainting or other limited maintenance; or,
City of Hermosa Beach Housing Element II. Housing Needs Assessment
Conexus II-12 Draft – June 2009
• Major Repair - unit is in need of major repairs, which may include, but not be
limited to, foundations, roofing materials, etc.
The field survey identified a total of six units in Category 2 and two units in need of major
repair (Category 3). Given the relatively large number of housing units in the City, the
housing stock overall was found to be very well-maintained. Based on the strong
appreciation in the real estate market that occurred from 2000 to 2006, experience has
shown a trend toward higher rates of home investment and remodeling in recent years,
and it is estimated that the number of housing units in need of repair is equal to or less
than found in the 2003 survey.
Table II-15
Kitchen and Plumbing Facilities by Tenure, 2000 –
Hermosa Beach vs. Los Angeles County
Hermosa Beach Los Angeles County
Kitchen/Plumbing Facilities Units % Units %
Owner occupied 4,033 100% 1,499,694 100%
Complete kitchen facilities 4,033 100% 1,493,930 99.6%
Lacking complete kitchen facilities 0 0% 5,764 0.4%
Renter occupied 5,409 100% 1,634,080 100%
Complete kitchen facilities 5,380 99% 1,593,522 97.5%
Lacking complete kitchen facilities 29 1% 40,558 2.5%
Owner occupied 4,033 100% 1,499,694 100%
Complete plumbing facilities 4,024 100% 1,492,247 99.5%
Lacking complete plumbing facilities 9 0% 7,447 0.5%
Renter occupied 5,409 100% 1,634,080 100%
Complete plumbing facilities 5,393 99.7% 1,610,239 98.5%
Lacking complete plumbing facilities 16% 0.3% 23,841 1.5%
Source: 2000 Census H48, H51
3. Vacancy
Housing vacancy rates as reported in the 2000 Census are shown in Table II-16. The table
shows that vacancy rates in the city were relatively low, with just 2.5% of rental units and
1.1% of for-sale units available for rent or sale, respectively. The rental vacancy rate for
the county as a whole was somewhat higher, at 3.3%, while the rate of for-sale housing
was approximately the close to that of the city, at 1.6%. Rental vacancy rates in the 2%
range indicate nearly full occupancy, and contribute to upward pressures on rents.
City of Hermosa Beach Housing Element II. Housing Needs Assessment
Conexus II-13 Draft – June 2009
Table II-16
Housing Vacancy –
Hermosa Beach vs. Los Angeles County
Hermosa Beach Los Angeles County
Occupancy Status Units % Units %
Total housing units 9,840 100.0% 3,270,909 100.0%
Occupied units 9,475 96.3% 3,133,774 95.8%
-Owner occupied 4,068 41.3% 1,499,744 45.9%
-Renter occupied 5,408 55.0% 1,634,030 50.0%
Vacant units 364 3.7% 137,135 4.2%
-For rent1 140 2.5% 56,089 3.3%
-For sale2 44 1.1% 23,874 1.6%
-Rented or sold, not occupied 41 0.4% 11,716 0.4%
-For seasonal or occasional use 95 1.0% 13,565 0.4%
-For migrant workers 0 0.0% 68 0.0%
-Other vacant 4 0.4% 31,823 1.0%
Source: 2000 Census, Table QT-H1
Notes: 1 Est. % of all rental units
2 Est. % of all for-sale units
4. Housing Cost
a. Housing Affordability Criteria
State law establishes five income categories for purposes of housing programs based on
the area (i.e., county) median income (“AMI”):
• Extremely-Low (30% or less of AMI),
• Very-Low (31-50% of AMI),
• Low (51-80% of AMI),
• Moderate (81-120% of AMI), and
• Above Moderate (over 120% of AMI).
Housing affordability is based on the relationship between household income and
housing expenses. According to HUD and the California Department of Housing and
Community Development, housing is considered “affordable” if the monthly payment is
no more than 30% of a household’s gross income. In some areas, these income limits may
be increased to adjust for high housing costs.
Table II-17 shows 2008 affordable rent levels and estimated affordable purchase prices
for housing in Los Angeles County by income category. Based on state-adopted
standards, the maximum affordable monthly rent for extremely-low-income households is
$569, while the maximum affordable rent for very-low-income households is $948. The
maximum affordable rent for low-income households is $1,516, while the maximum for
moderate-income households is $1,795.
Maximum purchase prices are more difficult to determine due to variations in mortgage
interest rates and qualifying procedures, down payments, special tax assessments,
City of Hermosa Beach Housing Element II. Housing Needs Assessment
Conexus II-14 Draft – June 2009
homeowner association fees, property insurance rates, etc. With this caveat, the
maximum home purchase prices by income category shown in Table II-17 have been
estimated based on typical conditions.
Table II-17
Income Categories and Affordable Housing Costs –
Los Angeles County
2008 County Median Income = $59,800 Income Limits Affordable Rent Affordable Price (est.)
Extremely Low (<30%) $22,750 $569
Very Low (31-50%) $37,900 $948 $135,000
Low (51-80%) $60,650 $1,516 $200,000
Moderate (81-120%) $71,800 $1,795 $250,000
Above moderate (120%+) $71,800+ $1,795+ $250,000+
Assumptions:
-Based on a family of 4
-30% of gross income for rent or PITI
-10% down payment, 5.5% interest, 1.25% taxes & insurance, $200 HOA dues
Source: Cal. HCD; Conexus
b. For-Sale Housing
Housing sales price statistics for the period January 2006 through August 2007 (Table II-18)
show that the vast majority of resale homes sold for more than $500,000 during this
period.
The median new home sales price for 2006-07 was about $1,450,000 (single-family
dwellings and condo combined), while the median price for resale single-family
detached homes was $1,156,000. For resale condos, the median price was $975,000.
More recent sales statistics reported by DQ News for calendar year 20084 found that the
2008 median sales price was virtually unchanged from 2007 ($1.15 million in 2008 down
1.25% from $1.16 million in 2007). Based on the estimated affordable purchase prices
shown in Table II-17, no for-sale units were affordable to lower-income or moderate-
income residents. These data illustrate the fact that in beach communities, very large
public subsidies are generally required to reduce sales prices to a level that is affordable
to low- and moderate-income buyers. At a median price of $975,000 for condominiums,
there is a “gap” of over $762,000 between the market price and the maximum price a
moderate-income household can afford to pay for a home. For low-income households,
this gap is over $790,000.
4 http://www.dqnews.com/Charts/Annual-Charts/CA-City-Charts/ZIPCAR08.aspx
City of Hermosa Beach Housing Element II. Housing Needs Assessment
Conexus II-15 Draft – June 2009
Table II-18
Resale Housing Sales Price Distribution –
Hermosa Beach
New Resale
Sale Price Category (All) Condo SFD
Under $250,000 0 0 0
$250,000-274,999 0 0 0
$275,000-299,999 0 1 0
$300,000-324,999 0 0 1
$325,000-349,999 0 0 0
$350,000-374,999 0 1 0
$375,000-399,999 0 0 0
$400,000-424,999 0 1 0
$425,000-449,999 0 1 0
$450,000-474,999 0 0 1
$475,000-499,999 0 4 0
$500,000+ 5 65 78
Median $1,450,000 $975,000 $1,156,000
Notes:
Data for Jan 2006 through Aug 2007
Source: DataQuick Information Systems
c. Rental Housing
Table II-19 shows market data for rental apartments unit sizes in Hermosa Beach based on
recent surveys of large complexes.
Table II-19
Rental Market Survey –
Hermosa Beach
Unit Size Average Rent
Average Square
Feet
Average Cost
per Square Foot
All $1,979 784 $2.52
Studio $1,304 397 $3.28
1 bedroom/1 bath $1,719 666 $2.58
2 bedroom/2 bath $2,235 910 $2.46
2 bedroom/2 bath $3,200 1,300 $2.46
Average Occupancy 93.4%
Average Year Built 1971
Source: RealFacts, 9/07
As would be expected in a desirable beach community in Southern California, when
market rents are compared to the amounts lower-income households can afford to pay
(Table II-17, page II-14), it is clear that very-low- and extremely-low-income households
have a very difficult time finding housing without overpaying. The gap between market
City of Hermosa Beach Housing Element II. Housing Needs Assessment
Conexus II-16 Draft – June 2009
rent and affordable rent at the very-low-income level is over $1,000 per month, while the
gap at the extremely-low-income level is over $1,400 per month. An average 2-bedroom,
1-bath apartment in Hermosa Beach rents for about $2,235 while the affordable
payment for a 4-person low-income household is $1,516, a gap of about $700 per month.
E. Special Needs
Certain groups have greater difficulty in finding decent, affordable housing due to
special circumstances. Such circumstances may be related to one’s employment and
income, family characteristics, disability, or other conditions. As a result, some Hermosa
Beach residents may experience a higher prevalence of overpayment, overcrowding, or
other housing problems.
State Housing Element law defines “special needs” groups to include persons with
disabilities, the elderly, large households, female-headed households with children,
homeless people, and farm workers. This section contains a discussion of the housing
needs facing each of these groups.
1. Persons with Disabilities
I In 2000, approximately 1,125 people between the 16 and 64 years of age, or 15% of the
working age population, reported a work-related disability (Table II-20). Of those aged 65
and over, 959 disabilities were reported. Included within these disabilities are persons
whose disability hinders their ability to go outside the home (3.3% of the working age
population and 17.5% of the senior population). Housing opportunities for the
handicapped can be maximized through housing assistance programs and providing
universal design features such as widened doorways, ramps, lowered countertops, single-
level units and ground floor units.
City of Hermosa Beach Housing Element II. Housing Needs Assessment
Conexus II-17 Draft – June 2009
Table II-20
Persons with Disabilities by Age –
Hermosa Beach
Disability by Age Persons Percent
Age 5 to 15 - total persons 1,228 --
Sensory disability 0 0.0%
Physical disability 27 2.2%
Mental disability 45 3.7%
Self-care disability 27 2.2%
Age 16 to 64 - total persons 7,340 --
Sensory disability 181 2.5%
Physical disability 318 4.3%
Mental disability 212 2.9%
Self-care disability 51 0.7%
Go-outside-the-home disability 239 3.3%
Employment disability 1,125 15.3%
Age 65 and over* - total persons 1,248 17.0%
Sensory disability 170 13.6%
Physical disability 273 21.9%
Mental disability 132 10.6%
Self-care disability 165 13.2%
Go-outside-the-home disability 219 17.5%
Source: 2000 Census, SF3 Tables P8 and P41
Note: Totals may exceed 100% due to multiple disabilities per person
2. Elderly
In 2000, there were 887 households (19% of owners but only 2% of renters) in Hermosa
Beach where the householder was 65 or older (Table II-21). Of these, only 36 persons
were below the poverty level in 19995. Many elderly persons are dependent on fixed
incomes and/or have a disability. Elderly homeowners may be physically unable to
maintain their homes or cope with living alone. The housing needs of this group can be
addressed through smaller units, second units on lots with existing homes, shared living
arrangements, congregate housing and housing assistance programs.
5 2000 Census, SF3 Table DP-3
City of Hermosa Beach Housing Element II. Housing Needs Assessment
Conexus II-18 Draft – June 2009
Table II-21
Elderly Households by Tenure –
Hermosa Beach
Owners Renters
Householder Age Households % Households %
Under 65 years 3,263 81% 5,292 98%
65 to 74 years 503 12% 68 1%
75 to 84 years 154 4% 42 1%
85 and over 113 3% 7 0%
Total households 4,033 100% 5,409 100%
Source: 2000 Census, SF3 Table H14
3. Large Households
Household size is an indicator of need for large units. Large households are defined as
those with five or more members. The city's average household size has dropped slightly
from 1.98 persons in 1990 to 1.95 persons in 2000. Among both owners and renters, more
than 70% of all households have only one or two members. Only 1% of renter households
had five or more members, while about 4% of owners were large households (Table II-22).
This distribution suggests that the need for large units with four or more bedrooms is
expected to be less than for smaller units.
Table II-22
Household Size by Tenure –
Hermosa Beach
Owners Renters
Household Size Households % Households %
1 person 1,195 30% 2,498 46%
2 persons 1,606 40% 2,084 39%
3 persons 674 17% 571 11%
4 persons 402 10% 212 4%
5 persons 107 3% 44 1%
6 persons 49 1% 0 0%
7+ persons 0 0% 0 0%
Total households 4,033 100% 5,409 100%
Source: 2000 Census, SF3 Table H17
4. Female-Headed Households
Of the 9,442 households in the city, 419 (9%) were headed by a female (Table II-23). While
female-headed households represent a small portion of households, they make up a
significant portion of households that are below the poverty level.
City of Hermosa Beach Housing Element II. Housing Needs Assessment
Conexus II-19 Draft – June 2009
Table II-23
Household Type by Tenure –
Hermosa Beach
Owners Renters
Household Type Households % Households %
Married couple family 2,117 52% 1,168 22%
Male householder, no wife present 85 2% 176 3%
Female householder, no husband present 254 6% 165 3%
Non-family households 1,577 39% 4,241 78%
Total households 4,033 100% 5,409 100%
Source: 2000 Census, SF3 Table H19
5. Farm Workers
Farm worker households are considered as a special needs group due to their transient
nature and the lower incomes typically earned by these households. Migrant workers,
and their places of residence, are generally located in close proximity to agricultural
areas providing employment. Although agriculture produces a total annual value of
approximately $278 million per year in Los Angeles County, no agricultural activities are
found in Hermosa Beach or in the surrounding communities.6 In addition, the 2000 Census
did not identify any City residents who were employed in farming (Table II-10, page II-7).
6. Homeless Persons
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) defines the term
“homeless” as the state of a person who lacks a fixed, regular, and adequate night-time
residence, or a person who has a primary night time residency that is:
• A supervised publicly or privately operated shelter designed to provide
temporary living accommodations;
• An institution that provides a temporary residence for individuals intended to
be institutionalized; or
• A public or private place not designed for, or ordinarily used as, a regular
sleeping accommodation for human beings.7
Although there are myriad causes of homelessness, among the most common are:
• Substance abuse and alcohol
• Domestic violence
• Mental illness
6 2005 Crop and Livestock Report, Los Angeles County Agricultural Commissioner 7 Stewart B. McKinney Act, 42 U.S.C. §11301, et seq. (1994)
City of Hermosa Beach Housing Element II. Housing Needs Assessment
Conexus II-20 Draft – June 2009
According to the 2007 Homeless Count Report by the Los Angeles Homeless Services
Authority8, conducted biennially, the estimated homeless population for the entire
County of Los Angeles was 73,702 persons on any given day. Of this population, 17%
were in shelter facilities and 83% were unsheltered. Approximately 15% of these homeless
persons were children under the age of 18. Based on HUD protocols, an estimated
141,737 people in Los Angeles (City and County) experience homelessness sometime
during the year.
Although the 2007 Homeless Count did not specifically count homeless persons in the
City of Hermosa Beach, the city's geographic proportionate share was estimated at
approximately 55 persons.
The City of Hermosa Beach participated in the 2009 Greater Los Angeles Homeless Count
on January 28, 2009, identifying 23 homeless persons within the city. Total figures from the
count are not yet available.
Shelter and service needs of the homeless population are significantly different
depending on the population subgroup. Los Angeles County’s Continuum of Care
approach to homelessness is a coordinated and systematic local approach to meet the
needs of homeless individuals and families within these subgroups, including:
• Chronic Homeless Persons;
• Episodic Homeless Persons; and
• Persons at Risk of Becoming Homeless
The County’s focus is to provide funding for access to mainstream resources such as
income supports, health care, mental health care, substance abuse treatment
programs, child care, and job training placement.9 These resources serve the existing
homeless population, and also work toward the prevention of homelessness.
Contacts with the City of Hermosa Beach Police Department and the Los Angeles
County Departments of Beaches indicate that transients occasionally pass through the
City. When transients or homeless individuals are encountered, they are referred to the
appropriate agencies for assistance.”
Senate Bill 2 of 2007 strengthened the planning requirements for emergency shelter and
transitional/supportive housing. Unless existing shelter facilities are available to meet local
needs, jurisdictions must designate at least one zone where new shelters may be
established “by-right” (i.e., without a conditional use permit or other discretionary
approval). Program 8 in the Housing Plan (Chapter V) addresses this requirement.
F. Assisted Housing at Risk of Conversion
As part of the Housing Element update, state law requires jurisdictions to identify assisted
units that are at risk of conversion to market rate housing during the 10-year period 2008-
8 www.lahsa.org 9 Los Angeles County Housing and Community Development Consolidated Plan, page 5-21
City of Hermosa Beach Housing Element II. Housing Needs Assessment
Conexus II-21 Draft – June 2009
2018. According to the Southern California Association of Governments and the
California Housing Partnership Corporation, there are no units at risk in Hermosa Beach.
G. Low- and Moderate-Income Housing in the Coastal Zone
The majority of Hermosa Beach located west of Valley Drive is within the Coastal Zone.
Government Code Section 65590 et seq. prohibits conversion or demolition of existing
residential dwelling units occupied by low- or moderate-income persons or families unless
provision has been made for the replacement in the same city or county of those
dwelling units with units for persons and families of low- or moderate-income (excludes
structures with less than 3 units, or less than 10 units for projects with more than one
structure, among other exclusions).
Section 65590(d) further requires new housing development in the coastal zone to
provide housing units for persons and families of low or moderate income, or if not
feasible, to provide such units at another location within the same city or county, within
the coastal zone or within three miles thereof. Due to the exemptions noted above, no
affordable units have been constructed in the Coastal Zone.
No affordable units have been demolished or converted within the Coastal Zone since
1982. The Coastal Land Use Plan (LUP) addresses three primary issue areas: access,
planning for new development, and the preservation of marine-related resources. The
LUP contains policies that may impede the construction of new housing development
within the designated coastal zone of the City. These include policies related to the
preservation of beach access, adequate parking and controlling the types and densities
of residential development within the coastal zone. Coastal policies and standards
controlling mass, height and bulk discourage “mansionization.” Policies do not prevent
residential units above ground floor commercial as allowed in the C-1 zoning district.
H. Future Housing Needs
1. Overview of the Regional Housing Needs Assessment
The Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) is a key tool for local governments to
plan for anticipated growth. The RHNA quantifies the anticipated need for housing within
each jurisdiction for the 8½-year period from January 2006 to July 2014. Communities
then determine how they will address this need through the process of updating the
Housing Elements of their General Plans.
The current RHNA was adopted by the Southern California Association of Governments
(SCAG) in July 2007. The future need for housing is determined primarily by the
forecasted growth in households in a community. Each new household, created by a
child moving out of a parent's home, by a family moving to a community for
employment, and so forth, creates the need for a housing unit. The housing need for new
households is then adjusted to maintain a desirable level of vacancy to promote housing
choice and mobility. An adjustment is also made to account for units expected to be lost
due to demolition, natural disaster, or conversion to non-housing uses. The sum of these
City of Hermosa Beach Housing Element II. Housing Needs Assessment
Conexus II-22 Draft – June 2009
factors – household growth, vacancy need, and replacement need – determines the
construction need for a community. Total housing need is then distributed among four
income categories on the basis of the county’s income distribution, with adjustments to
avoid an over-concentration of lower-income households in any community.
2. 2006-2014 Hermosa Beach Housing Needs
The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) determined the RHNA
housing needs for each city within the SCAG region, plus the unincorporated areas. The
total housing need for the City of Hermosa Beach during the 2006-2014 planning period is
562 units. The SCAG allocation for Hermosa Beach is based on zero increase in housing
units, rather replacement of units and maintaining a healthy vacancy rate. This total is
distributed by income category as shown in 0. Pursuant to Government Code Section
65583(a)(1) it is assumed that the need for extremely-low-income households is half of the
very-low-income need.
All new units built or preserved after January 1, 2006 may be credited against the RHNA
period. Because there are essentially no vacant parcels within the city that are suitable
for residential development, it is anticipated that the 562-unit RHNA allocation would
need to be met through replacement of existing units and redevelopment of
underutilized parcels. A discussion of the city’s net remaining housing need is provided in
the land inventory section of Chapter III.
Table II-24 –
Regional Housing Growth Needs 2006-2014 –
Hermosa Beach
Very Low Low Moderate Above Moderate Total
1471 93 98 224 562
26.2% 16.5% 17.4% 39.9% 100.0%
Source: SCAG 2007
1. Of these 74 are assumed to be extremely-low-income
City of Hermosa Beach Housing Element III. Resources and Opportunities
Conexus III-1 Draft – June 2009
III. RESOURCES AND OPPORTUNITIES
A. Land Resources
1. Regional Housing Needs 2006-2014
In accordance with Government Code §65584, projected housing needs for each city
and county in the Southern California region are prepared by the Southern California
Association of Governments (SCAG) under a process known as the Regional Housing
Needs Assessment (RHNA). SCAG’s Regional Council adopted the final Regional Housing
Need Allocation in July 2007 for the 8½-year planning period of January 1, 2006 to June
30, 2014.
The RHNA process began with an update of the population, employment and household
forecasts for the region as a whole and for each county. These forecasts were largely
derived from California Department of Finance (DOF) population and employment
forecasts and modified by regional demographic and modeling efforts by SCAG. SCAG
then disaggregated the regional and county forecasts to each jurisdiction and
estimated the number of dwelling units needed to achieve a regional target vacancy
rates (2.3% owner-occupied and 5% rental) and to account for projected housing
demolitions. The total housing needed in each jurisdiction was then distributed by
income category (very low, low, moderate and upper income).
All new units built or preserved after January 1, 2006 are credited in the current RHNA
period. Table III-1 shows the net remaining housing need after crediting units built during
2006-2008. (A detailed breakdown of these new units by income category is provided in
Appendix B).
Table III-1
Net Remaining RHNA –
Hermosa Beach
Income Category
VL Low Mod Above Total
RHNA (total) 147 93 98 224 562
Units completed 2006-2008 0 0 0 208 208
RHNA (net remaining) 147 93 98 16 354
Source: Hermosa Beach Community Development Department , 2/2009
2. Inventory of Sites for Housing Development
Section 65583(a)(3) of the Government Code requires Housing Elements to contain an
“inventory of land suitable for residential development, including vacant sites and sites
having potential for redevelopment, and an analysis of the relationship of zoning and
public facilities and services to these sites.” A detailed analysis of vacant land and
potential redevelopment opportunities has been prepared and is described in
Appendix B. The results of this analysis are summarized in Table III-2 below. The table
City of Hermosa Beach Housing Element III. Resources and Opportunities
Conexus III-2 Draft – June 2009
shows that the city’s land inventory, including projects approved and potential
development of vacant and underutilized parcels, exceeds the net remaining RHNA for
this planning period. While no moderate-income sites have been identified, the surplus of
lower-income sites exceeds the moderate-income need, therefore the intent of the
RHNA is satisfied. As discussed in Appendix B, the requirement to demonstrate availability
of lower-income sites is met through zoning that allows redevelopment of underutilized
sites at densities greater than 20 units/acre.
Table III-2
Land Inventory Summary –
Hermosa Beach
Income Category
Lower Mod Above Total
Units approved/under construction - - 34 34
Vacant sites 8 - - 8
Underutilized sites 454 - 17 471
Subtotal* 462 - 51 513
RHNA (net 2009-2014)** 240 98 16 354
Surplus (Deficit) 222 (98) 35 159
Source: Hermosa Beach Community Development Dept., 5/2009
* See Tables B-4 and B-5
**See Table B-1; Lower = Very Low + Low
Note: This table is the same as Table B-3.
A discussion of public facilities and infrastructure needed to serve future development is
contained in Section IV.B, Non-Governmental Constraints. There are currently no known
service limitations that would preclude the level of development described in the RHNA,
although developers will be required to pay fees or construct public improvements prior
to or concurrent with development.
B. Financial and Administrative Resources
1. State and Federal Resources
Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG) - Federal funding for housing
programs is available from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
During the previous planning period the City has received approximately $93,000 per
year. In recent years the City has used CDBG funds for ADA compliance retrofits for the
Community Center and Playhouse, City Hall and sidewalk handicap ramps.
The City does not currently participate in other HUD programs such as HOME, Emergency
Shelter Grant (ESG) or Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA).
Section 8 Rental Assistance – The Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program (HCVP)
assists very-low-income senior citizens, families and the disabled with the cost of rental
housing. Generally, a tenant pays 30% of his or her adjusted income towards the rent
City of Hermosa Beach Housing Element III. Resources and Opportunities
Conexus III-3 Draft – June 2009
and the Section 8 program pays the balance directly to the landlord. Unfortunately, the
need for rental assistance is greater than available resources. The Los Angeles County
Section 8 waiting list for assistance in 2008 consists of approximately 117,000 households.
2. Local Resources
As a very small jurisdiction, Hermosa Beach has extremely limited resources for housing
assistance. There is no redevelopment agency. The only locally-generated source of
housing revenue is the Condominium Conversion fund, which is an "infrastructure fee
toward the physical and service structure of the community from which the
development benefits" (Municipal Code Section 17.22.270).
C. Energy Conservation Opportunities
As residential energy costs rise, the subsequent increasing utility costs reduce the
affordability of housing. Although the City is fully developed, new infill development and
rehabilitation activities could occur, allowing the City to directly affect energy use within
its jurisdiction.
State of California Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential
Buildings were established in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce
California's energy consumption. The standards are codified in Title 24 of the California
Code of Regulations and are updated periodically to allow consideration and possible
incorporation of new energy efficiency technologies and methods. California's building
efficiency standards (along with those for energy efficient appliances) have saved more
than $56 billion in electricity and natural gas costs since 1978. It is estimated the
standards will save an additional $23 billion by 201310.
Title 24 sets forth mandatory energy standards and requires the adoption of an “energy
budget” for all new residential buildings and additions to residential buildings. Separate
requirements are adopted for “low-rise” residential construction (i.e., no more than 3
stories) and non-residential buildings, which includes hotels, motels, and multi-family
residential buildings with four or more habitable stories. The standards specify energy
saving design for lighting, walls, ceilings and floor installations, as well as heating and
cooling equipment and systems, gas cooling devices, conservation standards and the
use of non-depleting energy sources, such as solar energy or wind power. The home
building industry must comply with these standards while localities are responsible for
enforcing the energy conservation regulations through the plan check and building
inspection processes.
In addition to state-mandated Title 24 requirements, Hermosa Beach is participating in a
coalition to collaboratively tackle the issue of energy conservation.11 The South Bay
Environmental Services Center (SBESC12) is educating residents, business owners and
public agencies and hosting or making available information about the energy
10 California Energy Commission (http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24)
11 http://www.imakenews.com/priorityfocus/e_article001104271.cfm?x=bcHNgMg,b7M8B89t
12 www.sbesc.com
City of Hermosa Beach Housing Element III. Resources and Opportunities
Conexus III-4 Draft – June 2009
conservation programs, retrofits and incentives available in the community and how to
incorporate more energy-saving practices into everyday life. Established through funding
from the California Public Utilities Commission, the SBESC includes the 15 cities that
comprise the South Bay Cities Council of Governments (SBCCOG), and is associated with
Southern California Edison and Southern California Gas Company. Member cities include
Carson, El Segundo, Gardena, Hawthorne, Hermosa Beach, Inglewood, Lawndale,
Lomita, Manhattan Beach, Palos Verdes Estates, Rancho Palos Verdes, Redondo Beach,
Rolling Hills, Rolling Hills Estates, Torrance, and the Harbor City and San Pedro
communities of Los Angeles.
The distribution of water brooms to business owners is one of the Center’s most successful
projects to date. Targeted mainly to restaurant owners, the water brooms can be used
instead of a hose and nozzle or power washer. Using a combination of air and water
pressure, the brooms are water efficient and clean dust, dirt, food spills, leaves, litter,
sawdust, and bird droppings from concrete, asphalt, or any other hard surface. So far,
the Center has distributed 350-400 water brooms. SBESC estimates that each broom can
save 50,000 gallons of water annually.
The Center also hosted a community lamp exchange last year in which about 2,000
residents exchanged their traditional lamps for compact fluorescent light bulbs, free of
charge. Edison donated the florescent lamps and residents were invited to exchange up
to 10 household lamps apiece.
The City, in concert with SBESC and others, has and will continue to participate and host
workshops on green building; the City hosted workshops on solar energy, green building
codes, adopted a provision to allow solar energy systems exceeding height limits, waives
plan check fees for installation of solar systems, applies a green building checklist to new
projects, and is adopting a form-based zoning district mandating and encouraging
green building provisions. The city became a member of 'Cool Cities' and the City has
reformulated its green building committee as a ‘Green Building Task Force' and is seating
members in March 2009 to study a variety of issues. Also, in January 2009 the City
launched its new Hermosa Beach Green Webpage at www.hermosabch.org.
City of Hermosa Beach Housing Element IV. Constraints
Conexus IV-1 Draft – June 2009
IV. CONSTRAINTS
A. Governmental Constraints
1. Land Use Plans and Regulations
a. General Plan
Each city and county in California must prepare a comprehensive, long-term General
Plan to guide its future. The Land Use Element of the General Plan establishes the basic
land uses and density of development within the various areas of the city. Under state
law, the General Plan elements must be internally consistent and the City’s zoning must
be consistent with the General Plan. Thus, the land use plan must provide suitable
locations and densities to implement the policies of the Housing Element.
The Hermosa Beach General Plan Land Use Element includes four residential land use
designations, as shown in Table IV-1.
Table IV-1
Residential Land Use Categories –
Hermosa Beach General Plan
Designation
Maximum
Density*
Low Density 13 DU/acre
Medium Density 25 DU/acre
High Density 33 DU/acre
Mobile Home 13 DU/acre
The City of Hermosa Beach General Plan is not considered a constraint to the goals and
policies of the Housing Element as the City’s zoning is consistent with the General Plan
and adequate sites with appropriate densities have been identified to accommodate
the remaining RHNA allocation.
b. Zoning Designations
The City regulates the type, location, density, and scale of residential development
through the Municipal Code. Zoning regulations serve to implement the General Plan
and are designed to protect and promote the health, safety, and general welfare of
residents. The Municipal Code also helps to preserve the character and integrity of
existing neighborhoods. The Municipal Code sets forth residential development standards
for each zone district.
City of Hermosa Beach Housing Element IV. Constraints
Conexus IV-2 Draft – June 2009
There are five residential zones in Hermosa Beach:
R-1 Single Family Residential (R-1A: Two Dwelling Units per Lot)
R-2 Two-Family Residential (R-2B: Limited Multiple Family Residential)
R-3 Multiple-Family Residential
R-P Residential Professional
MHP Mobile Home Park
In addition to these zones, residential uses are also permitted above ground floor
commercial within the C-1 “Limited Business and Residential Zone” (see Table IV-3). A
summary of the development standards for these zones is provided in Table IV-2.
Table IV-2
Residential Development Standards by Zone
Development Standard R-P R-1 R-1A R-2 R-2B R-3 C-1
Minimum Lot Area (sq.ft.) per DU 1,320 4,000 3,350 1,750 1,750 1,320 1,320
Equivalent Density 33 10.9 13 24.9 24.9 33 33
Minimum Front Yard (ft.) n/a 10% of lot
depth
10% of lot
depth
10% of lot
depth
10% of lot
depth
Per zoning
map
0
Minimum Side Yard (ft.) 10% of lot
width
10% of lot
width
10% of lot
width
10% of lot
width
10% of lot
width
10% of lot
width
5'
Minimum Rear Yard (ft.) 5 5
(3 if alley)
5
(3 if alley)
5
(3 if alley)
5
(3 if alley)
5 if alley 5'
Maximum Building Height (ft.) 30 25 25 30 30 30 30
Source: Hermosa Beach Zoning Ordinance, http://www.hermosabch.org/departments/cityclerk/code/zoning.html
Minimum lot area per unit ranges from 1,320 square feet in the R-P, R-3 and C-1 zones to
4,000 square feet in the R-1 zone. The R-P zone provides for mixed-use
commercial/residential development with varying densities depending on lot area and
dimensions. Density bonuses
would permit more units than
allowed by the underlying zone
pursuant to State law and the
implementing ordinance
adopted by the City in 2004. The
densities within mobile home
parks are regulated by Title 25 of
the California Administrative
Code, subject to a use permit.
A summary of the uses permitted
by the City’s residential zoning
districts is provided in Table IV-3.
The City also has adopted nine
specific plan areas, in many
cases to accommodate specific
City of Hermosa Beach Housing Element IV. Constraints
Conexus IV-3 Draft – June 2009
commercial or residential development projects. Residential use is restricted within the
largest, SPA-7, which fronts Pacific Coast Highway.
Table IV-3
Permitted Residential Development by Zone
Housing Type Permitted R-1 R-1A R-2 R-2B R-3 MHP R-P C-1
SF Detached P P P P P P 4
Single-Family Attached P P P P P 4
Multi-Family P P P C
Mobile Home P P P P P P P
Second Units C1 C1 C1 C1 C1 C1
Farm Worker Housing
Emergency Shelters
Transitional Housing
Single-Room Occupancy
Care Facility (6 or fewer) P P P P P P
Care Facility (7+) C2 C2 C2 C2 C3 C2
Assisted Living5
Source: Hermosa Beach Zoning Ordinance
P = Permitted
C = Conditional Use Permit
1 Senior units only
2 Accessory to a single-family detached dwelling; for child care purpose
3 "Group Houses" are allowed. “Group houses” is not defined. There have been no applications for this use and so a final
determination as to whether the use is conditional has not been made.
4 Residential uses are allowed above ground floor commercial uses
5 A specific plan area was created to accommodate a senior assisted living center.
Zoning for Lower-Income Housing
Lower-income housing can be accommodated in all zones permitting residential use in
Hermosa Beach. These may include second residential units in the R-1A and R-2B zones,
multi-family apartments in the R-3 zone, and commercial/residential mixed-use
developments within the C-1 and R-P Zones. Under state law, the “default density”
presumed to be adequate to facilitate lower-income housing is 20 units/acre in Hermosa
Beach. As noted in Table IV-2 above, the R-2, R-2B, R-3, R-P and C-1 zones all permit
development at greater than 20 units/acre and therefore are considered suitable for
lower-income housing under state law13. Review of development trends confirms that
actual densities in all of these zones except R-2 and R-2B are typically greater than 20
units/acre. As shown in Appendix A, Table A-3, during the past three years the average
densities for all projects in these zones were as follows:
13 Assembly Bill 2348 of 2004
City of Hermosa Beach Housing Element IV. Constraints
Conexus IV-4 Draft – June 2009
Zone Average Density for
Projects Built 2006-08
R-2/R-2B 16 units/acre
R-3 26 units/acre
R-P 21 units/acre
C-1 30 units/acre
Source: Appendix A, Table A-3
While the average density of recent projects in the R-2 and R-2B zones was less than 20
units/acre, there were 9 projects that exceeded that density, which demonstrates that
development standards are not a limiting factor to achieving the default density.
Instead, small lot sizes may make it difficult to achieve the maximum density, or some
owners may choose not to build the maximum permitted units for personal reasons.
The City of Hermosa Beach
has adopted a lot merger
ordinance. Chapter 16.24 of
the Subdivision Ordinance
requires continuous lots in the
R-1 zone under the same
ownership to be merged if
one or both of the lots is
substandard (less than 4,00
square feet) in size. The city
initiated a residential lot
merger program in 1986. The
city adopted lot merger
provisions in 1986 within the
Subdivision Ordinance in
response to state law,
requiring substandard-size
properties under common
ownership to be merged. The
city completed a citywide lot merger program in 1989. In 2006 the city became of aware
of several parcels that were not included in the 1989 program, and conducted another
citywide survey (showing 71 lots remained subject to merger -- 25 separate lots that
could be developed, 46 remnant parcels), and conducted another lot merger program.
In 2007 the merger ordinance was amended to reduce applicability to the R-1 properties
to prevent splitting and separation of lots in R-1 neighborhoods, finding that merging lots
in R-2 and R-3 zones has limited or no impact. Therefore, changes to the lot merger
program are not necessary.
City of Hermosa Beach Housing Element IV. Constraints
Conexus IV-5 Draft – June 2009
Despite significant land zoned for
residential uses, Hermosa Beach is
already one of the most densely
developed and populated cities in
Los Angeles County and is essentially
built-out. While rezoning of
commercial or industrial areas could
be considered to provide additional
housing, there are no large
commercial or industrial areas that
are suitable for this purpose. About
75% of the city is already residentially
zoned, with about 35% of this area
zoned for high-density R-2 and R-3
development. Approximately 11% of
the city has commercial zoning, and
just 1% is industrially zoned. The balance of the city is zoned for open space, most of
which is the beach area. The percentage of commercial and industrial zoning is well
below the neighboring cities in the South Bay and the region in general. The City Council
has recognized this imbalance and supports maintaining and where possible
aggregating small lots in commercial areas. As a result, there are no significant non-
residential parcels that can be re-zoned for high-density residential development. In
addition, it is important for the City’s economic viability that existing commercial and
industrial areas be preserved.
The residential land inventory reveals that the majority of potential housing sites are
underused parcels with older homes. While none of these sites are on the City's inventory
of potentially significant historic landmark sites (last updated in the early 1970s), there is a
concern that redevelopment of most of these sites would change the character of the
city's neighborhoods, which are typically a mix of older, often single-story bungalow style
homes, with two- or three-story high-density condo projects, as well as potentially
impacting access on narrow residential streets and other infrastructure. With little room
for street widening in older beach communities, it is important to note that the added
traffic generation of more high-density housing could conflict with other statewide
priorities such as facilitating access to the beach.
Special Needs Housing
Under state law, persons with special needs include those in residential care facilities,
persons with disabilities, farm workers, persons needing emergency shelter, transitional or
supportive housing, and low-cost single-room-occupancy units. The City’s regulations
regarding these housing types are discussed below.
• Housing for Persons with Disabilities
State requirements. Health and Safety Code §§1267.8, 1566.3, 1568.08 require
local governments to treat licensed group homes and residential care facilities
with six or fewer residents no differently than other single-family residential uses.
“Six or fewer persons” does not include the operator, the operator’s family, or
City of Hermosa Beach Housing Element IV. Constraints
Conexus IV-6 Draft – June 2009
persons employed as staff. Local agencies must allow these licensed care
facilities in any area zoned for residential use, and may not require licensed
residential care facilities for six or fewer persons to obtain conditional use
permits or variances that are not required of other family dwellings.
Residential care facilities that serve six or fewer persons are not identified in the
Municipal Code as permitted or conditionally permitted uses within any
residential zoning district. “Group houses” are permitted in the R-3 district but
this use is not defined. Program 8 includes a commitment to amend the Code
to identify definitions and standards for group homes and residential care
facilities in conformance with state law.
Reasonable Accommodation. The City’s Building Code requires that new
residential construction comply with Title 24 accessibility standards. These
standards include requirements for a minimum percentage of fully accessible
units in new multi-family developments. In order to facilitate the processing of
requests to reduce architectural obstacles for persons with disabilities, the City
will develop a mechanism for expediting the review of requests for reasonable
accommodation pursuant to SB 520 of 2001 (see Chapter V – Program 8).
Definition of “Family”. The Municipal Code defines "Family" as “two or more
persons living together in a dwelling unit, sharing common cooking facilities,
and possessing the character of a relatively permanent single bona fide
housekeeping unit in a domestic bond of social, economic and psychological
commitment to each other, as distinguished from a group occupying a
boarding house, club, dormitory, fraternity, hotel, lodging house, motel,
rehabilitation center, rest home or sorority.” This definition is consistent with
state law; however the Zoning Code restricts the number of unrelated people
living together to three within single- and two-family units. Unrelated persons
within multi-family units are limited to two in a 1-bedroom unit, three in a 2-
bedroom unit and four in a 3-bedroom unit (Section 17.42.090). Program 8 in
the Housing Action Plan includes a commitment to update the Zoning Code
to allow licensed care facilities in conformance with state law, add a
definition for “group houses” and conform restrictions on unrelated persons
living together to state law.
Maximum concentration requirements. There are no concentration or
separation requirements for residential care facilities or group homes in the
Zoning Code.
Site planning requirements. There are no special site planning requirements
(other than parking, height, and setbacks) for residential care facilities in the
Zoning Code.
Parking requirements. The Zoning Code does not specify a parking
requirement for residential care facilities. The city has not been presented with
requests for such facilities, therefore parking demand would be determined on
a case-by-case based on comparison with uses having similar parking
demand.
City of Hermosa Beach Housing Element IV. Constraints
Conexus IV-7 Draft – June 2009
• Farm Worker Housing
As indicated in Table IV-3 (page IV-3), the City’s Zoning Ordinance does not
identify farm worker housing separately as a permitted use. However, as
discussed in Chapter II, no agricultural activities are found within Hermosa
Beach or in the surrounding communities. In addition, the 2000 Census did not
identify any City residents employed in farming. Therefore there is no demand
for farm worker housing in Hermosa Beach.
• Emergency Shelters and Transitional/Supportive Housing
Emergency shelters are facilities that provide a safe alternative to acute
homelessness either in a shelter facility, or through the use of motel vouchers.
Emergency shelter is short-term, usually for 30 days or less. Recent
amendments to state law (Senate Bill 2 of 2007) require that unless adequate
shelter facilities are available to meet a jurisdiction’s needs, emergency
shelters must be allowed by-right (i.e., without discretionary review such as a
conditional use permit) in at least one zoning district, but may include specific
development standards. Since the Zoning Code does not currently contain a
definition or development standards for emergency shelters, Program 8 in the
Housing Action Plan (Chapter V) contains a commitment to amend the Code
in compliance with SB 2. The C-3 and R-3 zones will be considered for this
purpose. The C-3 zone encompasses approximately 30 acres while the R-3
zone encompasses approximately 90 acres. Both districts provide good access
to transit and other services.
Transitional housing is longer-term housing, typically up to two years.
Transitional housing generally requires that residents participate in a structured
program to work toward established goals so that they can move on to
permanent housing. Residents are often provided with an array of supportive
services to assist them in meeting goals. Under SB 2 transitional and supportive
housing is deemed to be a residential use subject only to the same
requirements and standards that apply to other residential uses of the same
type in the same zone. Since the Zoning Code does not currently contain a
definition or regulations for transitional or supportive housing, Program 8 is
included in the Housing Plan to address this issue.
• Single Room Occupancy
Single-room-occupancy (SRO) facilities are small studio-type units that
typically rent in the very-low- or extremely-low-income category. SROs are not
identified by the City’s Zoning Code as permitted uses within any residential or
commercial district, although such facilities may be built in multi-family zones if
the applicable development standards are met. The City's Building Code
requires a 600 square-foot minimum for one-bedroom multi-family units and
the Zoning Code requires a 900 square-foot minimum for condominiums.
California Health and Safety Code Section 17958.1 allows jurisdictions to permit
efficiency units with a minimum floor area of 150 square feet and partial
kitchen or bathroom facilities for occupancy by no more than two persons. In
City of Hermosa Beach Housing Element IV. Constraints
Conexus IV-8 Draft – June 2009
order to facilitate the development this source of affordable housing, Program
8 is included in the Housing Action Plan to add a definition and development
standards for SROs consistent with state law.
c. Off-Street Parking Requirements
The City’s parking requirements for residential zones vary by residential type and housing
product (Table IV-4). Two off-street parking spaces plus one guest space are required for
single-family, duplex or two-family dwellings. Multiple dwellings (three or more units) are
also required to have two off-street spaces, plus one guest space for each two dwelling
units. Mobile homes are required to have two spaces per unit. The City adopted a
reduced parking standard for Specific Plan Area No. 6 in conjunction with approval of a
senior assisted living facility, and shared and reduced parking may be approved by the
Planning Commission on a case-by-case basis. Otherwise, there are no explicit provisions
in the Code for a reduction in parking standards for uses that require less parking (such as
senior housing) or as an incentive for the provision of affordable housing. State density
bonus law (SB 1818) prescribes reduced parking standards for affordable housing
developments, however. In order to address these issues, Program 8 is included in the
Housing Action Plan to revise parking standards.
Table IV-4
Residential Parking Requirements
Type of Unit Minimum Parking Space Required
Single family residence 2 spaces plus 1 guest space
Mobile home park 2 spaces
Duplex or two-family dwelling 2 spaces plus 1 guest space
Multiple dwellings (3+ units) 2 spaces plus 1 guest space for each 2 dwelling units
Detached servant’s quarters or guest houses 1 space
Source: Hermosa Beach Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 17.44
d. Accessory and Second Units
The Zoning Code limits guest houses and accessory living quarters to space within the
main building for someone employed on the premises or temporary use by guests
pursuant to a use permit.
• "Guest house" or "accessory living quarters" means living quarters within a
main building for the use of persons employed on the premises, or for
temporary use by guests of the occupants of the premises. Such quarters shall
have no kitchen facilities and shall not be rented or otherwise used as a
separate dwelling unit. Guest houses and accessory living quarters are subject
to the issuance of a conditional use permit and are not allowed in accessory
buildings.
Accessory units differ from second units, which may be rented subject to an age
restriction. The second unit ordinance allows a maximum 640 square foot unit occupied
City of Hermosa Beach Housing Element IV. Constraints
Conexus IV-9 Draft – June 2009
by one or two adults 60 years of age or older on an 8,000+ square foot lot subject to a
conditional use permit. Those portions of the city that are presently zoned R-2 and R-3
typically contain parcels that are too small to accommodate second units. As a result,
the provisions for a second unit apply only to the R-1 single-family zone. In 1992 the City
adopted Ordinance No. 92-1080 which makes all of the required findings under
Government Code Section 65852.2 to preclude the creation of second units in single-
family and multi-family zones, and the City has determined that second units are not
suitable on the residential lots in the City due to impacts on traffic, density, the school
system, infrastructure, sewer, loss of open space, increased impervious surfaces, increase
of solid waste generation, etc. While the City subsequently conducted an extensive lot
merger program these conditions and the reasons to preclude second units continue to
exist.
e. Density Bonus
Under state law (SB 1818 of 2004), cities and counties must provide a density increase up
to 35% over the otherwise maximum allowable residential density under the Municipal
Code and the Land Use Element of the General Plan (or bonuses of equivalent financial
value) when builders agree to construct housing developments with units affordable to
low- or moderate-income households.
The Zoning Code has not yet been amended to reflect SB 1818, therefore Program 1 is
included in the Housing Plan to address this issue.
f. Mobile Homes/Manufactured Housing
There is often an economy of scale in manufacturing homes in a plant rather than on
site, thereby reducing cost. State law precludes local governments from prohibiting the
installation of mobile homes on permanent foundations on single-family lots. It also
declares a mobile home park to be a permitted land use on any land planned and
zoned for residential use, and prohibits requiring the average density in a new mobile
home park to be less than that
permitted by the Municipal
Code.
Mobile homes are permitted in
each of the residential zones,
thereby facilitating the
construction of this type of
housing.
One mobile home park is
located in Hermosa Beach
(Marine Land Mobile Home
Park), which is owned by a
private, non-profit corporation.
In addition, the adjacent "State
RV Park" is occupied by very-
low-income households and
City of Hermosa Beach Housing Element IV. Constraints
Conexus IV-10 Draft – June 2009
persons in transition to permanent residency. The City committed to retaining the Marine
Land Mobile Home Park by designating it within the General Plan and Zoning Code as a
Mobile Home Park (MHP) Zone and in 2008 the City Council allocated over $111,000 from
the Condominium Conversion Fund to assist residents with their acquisition of the Marine
Land Mobile Home Park. In December 2008 the project was awarded $1,200,000 subject
to conditions under the state’s Mobilehome Park Resident Owner Program (see Program
3 in Chapter V).
g. Condominium Conversions
In order to reduce the impacts of condominium conversions on residents of rental
housing and to maintain a supply of rental housing for low- and moderate-income
persons, the City's Municipal Code provides for a tenant assistance plan that includes the
following:
a. A option to first purchase units, including tenant purchase discounts. For those
who choose not to purchase a unit, the subdivider must provide a method by
which tenants will be assisted in finding comparable replacement rental
housing within the area of the conversion, including professional relocation
assistance.
b. A statement of the method by which the subdivider will comply with the
requirements of Section 66427.1 of the State Subdivision Map Act. Such
method must provide that no tenant shall be required to move from his or her
apartment due to the proposed conversion until the expiration of the two-
month period for exercise of his or her right of first refusal.
c. Reimbursement for moving costs incurred, not to exceed $500.00.
d. Extension of tenancy to complete school term, if necessary.
Because of these requirements, the potential impact of condominium conversions is not
a significant constraint on the preservation of affordable rental housing. However, the
reimbursement amounts for moving and for rent differentials should be reviewed to
ensure costs have not outpaced reimbursements. This review is incorporated into
Program 8.
h. Nonconforming Uses and Buildings
The Zoning Code allows residential uses to be rebuilt in the case of destruction or
damage beyond the owner's control provided the nonconformity is not increased.
Nonconforming buildings may expand 100 percent in floor area (existing prior to October
26, 1989, up to 3,000 square feet per unit or 5,000 square feet of total floor area for the
building site). Nonconforming portions of a building with a nonconforming residential use
may be partially modified or altered to the extent necessary to comply with the Uniform
Building Code. Specific rules pertaining to nonconforming parking apply. Building sites
with three or more dwelling units cannot be expanded in floor area unless two parking
spaces per unit plus one guest space for every two units are provided.
City of Hermosa Beach Housing Element IV. Constraints
Conexus IV-11 Draft – June 2009
The Zoning Code also allows the
Planning Commission to validate as
legal nonconforming residential units
that can be shown to have been used
for residential occupancy more or less
continuously since January 1, 1959
when City records and actual property
use conflict. The City will evaluate
whether to relax provisions governing
validation of residential units that
contribute to the supply of affordable
rental housing when the residential use
is demonstrated to have existed for a
shorter period of time (to be
determined as part of the city's
consideration) than is currently
required under the code, provided the units are improved so as to not be substandard
and parking adequate for the occupancy can be provided (Program 9).
i. Building Codes
State law prohibits the imposition of building standards that are not necessitated by local
geographic, climatic or topographic conditions and requires that local governments
making changes or modifications in building standards must report such charges to the
Department of Housing and Community Development and file an expressed finding that
the change is needed. The City’s Building Code incorporates the California Building
Code, which includes the Uniform Building Code and Uniform Housing Code. The City’s
Building Code also incorporates the California Building, Plumbing, Mechanical and
Electrical Codes. These are considered the minimum necessary to protect the public's
health, safety and welfare.
The City’s ordinance details the revisions and amendments to the Building Code that
exceed state standards. These amendments are all relatively inexpensive, and most of
the revisions are related to fire alarms, smoke detectors, sprinkler systems, and other basic
safety measures. However, Building Code as well as Zoning Code provisions that set forth
minimum residential unit sizes (Table IV-5) will be evaluated as described in Program 8 to
ensure they do not inhibit the provision of affordable and special need housing.
Table IV-5
Residential Unit Minimum Size Requirements
Building Code Zoning Code
Bedrooms MF SF Condominium
1 bedroom 600 1000 900
2 bedroom 900 1300 1100
3 bedroom 1200 1600 1400
4 bedroom 1800 1900 1530
City of Hermosa Beach Housing Element IV. Constraints
Conexus IV-12 Draft – June 2009
j. Coastal Zone
Policies in the Coastal Land Use Plan are likely to aid in the maintenance of affordable
housing since they discourage “mansionization.” Since the Zoning Ordinance has not
been certified by the Coastal Commission, amendments and projects affecting coastal
resources must continue to be submitted to the Coastal Commission for review and
approval.
2. Development Processing Procedures
a. Residential Permit Processing
State Requirements. State Planning and Zoning Law provides permit processing
requirements for residential development. Within the framework of state requirements,
the City has structured its development review process in order to minimize the time
required to obtain permits while ensuring that projects receive careful review.
Developer Assistance. Hermosa Beach has prepared permit processing guidelines to
assist residential builders in applying for development permits for single-family residences,
multi-family, and subdivisions. The guides are comprehensive in nature, address the steps,
and check points to be followed. Early consultation with City staff is encouraged to
identify issues as soon as possible and reduce processing time. This consultation (at no
cost to applicants) allows applicants to become acquainted with the information and
fees required by each department and agency. Preliminary site and architectural plans
are also reviewed for consistency with City standards. This conference allows the
applicant to assess the feasibility of the project and make adjustments during the
preliminary planning stages to minimize costs.
Permit Approval Procedures and Timing. Simultaneous processing of required
entitlements (e.g., subdivisions and planned developments permits) is also provided as a
means of expediting the review process. Most projects under the purview of the Planning
Commission are approved or denied within six weeks of filing; a subsequent process
requiring Planning Commission actions to be reported to the City Council and the
appeal period typically consumes about 30 days. Therefore, the process is typically
completed within 3 months from application filing.
• Single-Family Detached Units – Applications are reviewed by the Planning
Division for zoning clearance, and subsequently by the Building Division.
Processing time is typically three to four weeks.
• Condominiums – A conditional use permit and tentative subdivision map
must be approved by the Planning Commission; this process is usually
completed within three months from the date a complete application is
received. Once that approval is obtained, the building permit application
can be simultaneously reviewed by the planning and building divisions. The
building permit process takes about three to six weeks.
• Multi-Family Projects – If a conditional use permit is required by the Zoning
Code, Planning Commission review is usually completed within three
City of Hermosa Beach Housing Element IV. Constraints
Conexus IV-13 Draft – June 2009
months from the date a complete application is received. Once that
approval is obtained, the building permit application can be
simultaneously reviewed by the planning and building divisions. Structural
plan check is performed by an outside contractor. The building permit
process takes about four to six weeks.
• Mixed-Use Projects – If a conditional use permit is required by the Zoning
Code, Planning Commission review is usually completed within three
months from the date a complete application is received. The building
permit process takes about three to six weeks.
• Building Plan Check - Plan check for the processing of residential building
permits is generally four to six weeks, depending on the City’s workload. For
discretionary permits, there is an initial internal review period of 30 days.
Building codes are applied to new construction, and projects are
monitored and inspected under the building permit process. Where no
permits have been obtained, inspections are made in response to request
and complaints.
b. Environmental Review
Environmental review is required for all discretionary development projects under the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Most projects in Hermosa Beach are either
Categorically Exempt or require only an Initial Study and Negative Declaration.
Developments that have the potential of creating significant impacts that cannot be
mitigated require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report. Most residential
projects require a Negative Declaration and take an additional three to four weeks to
complete. Categorically Exempt developments such as second residential units require a
minimal amount of time. As a result, state-mandated environmental review does not
pose a significant constraint to housing development.
3. Development Fees and Improvement Requirements
State law limits fees charged for development permit processing to the reasonable cost
of providing the service for which the fee is charged. Various fees and assessments are
charged by the City and other public agencies to cover the costs of processing permit
applications and providing services and facilities such as schools, parks and
infrastructure. Almost all of these fees are assessed through a pro-rata share system,
based on the magnitude of the project's impact or on the extent of the benefit that will
be derived.
Error! Reference source not found. shows fees associated with new development within
Hermosa Beach. As can be seen from the table, Park and Recreation and Building Permit
fees represent the largest development fees, although since many projects replace units,
credits can be obtained. For a typical 2000-square-foot single-family dwelling (excluding
any demolition or entitlement cost), cumulative permit fees are estimated at
approximately $12,000 per unit or $5,000 if the new unit replaced a 1,500-square-foot
house as of February 2009. Fees for a 2,000-square-foot condominium unit (part of a
City of Hermosa Beach Housing Element IV. Constraints
Conexus IV-14 Draft – June 2009
typical two-unit project) that replaced a 1,500-square-foot dwelling would be about
$19,000, or $22,000 if no replacement was involved. Nearly all multi-family projects are
small condominium projects which allow owners to maximize investment on small lots.
The City periodically evaluates the actual cost of processing the development permits
when revising its fee schedule. The last review was 2001.
Table IV-6
City of Hermosa Beach Planning & Building Fees
Planning Fees/Building Fees Fee Amount
Conditional Use Permit (CUP) $1,604
CUP for Condominium (cost/2 units) $1,293
CUP for Condominium (per unit over 2 units) $144
CUP/Parking Plan/PDP (amendment) $1,672
Environmental Assessment $1,318
Extension (tentative map, final map, CUP) $1,517
Final Map $1,476
General Plan Amendment/Zone Change $3,115
Parking Plan $1,770
Precise Development Plan $2,595
Subdivision – Tentative Map $1,974
Variance $1,869
Parks and Recreation Fees (condos excluded)** $3,500/unit
Parks and Recreation Fees, in lieu (condos only)** $14,096/unit
Building Permit $1,621.44 for first $100,000 plus
$9.28 for each additional $1,000
Sewer Use Fee** Same as County Sewer Fee
Source: City Of Hermosa Beach. 2008-09.
*Averages for 3-bedroom, 2 bath single-family home.
**Credits available if existing square footage is demolished or dwelling units are replaced.
Does not include possible cost for an environmental impact report or related consultant fees.
In addition to City fees, development fees levied by the school districts and special
districts include the following as of January 2009:
• School Fees: $2.63 per square foot
• L.A. County Sewer Connection Fee: $2,850 (single family home)
Aside from parkland fees, no other impact fees have been adopted.
The City requires developers to provide on-site and off-site improvements necessary to
serve their projects. Such improvements may include water, sewer and other utility
extensions, street construction and traffic control device installation that are reasonably
related to the project. Dedication of land or in-lieu fees may also be required of a
project for rights-of-way, transit facilities, recreational facilities and school sites, consistent
with the Subdivision Map Act.
City of Hermosa Beach Housing Element IV. Constraints
Conexus IV-15 Draft – June 2009
The City’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) contains a schedule of public
improvements, including street improvements and other public works projects, to
facilitate the City’s continued development according to the City’s General Plan. The
CIP helps to ensure that construction of public improvements is coordinated with private
development.
Although development fees and improvement requirements increase the cost of
housing, cities have little choice in establishing such requirements due to the limitations
on property taxes and other revenue sources needed to fund public improvements.
B. Non-Governmental Constraints
1. Environmental Constraints
Environmental constraints include physical features such as steep slopes, fault zones,
floodplains, or sensitive biological habitat. In many cases, development of these areas is
constrained by state and federal laws (e.g., FEMA floodplain regulations, the Clean
Water Act , Endangered Species Act, Coastal Act, State Fish and Game Code and
Alquist-Priolo Act). The City’s Coastal Land Use Plan and General Plan have been
designed to protect sensitive areas from development, and to protect public safety
Environmentally sensitive areas are generally zoned and protected as parklands.
However, a significant portion of the City is within the Coastal Zone wherein impacts to
coastal resources are always of concern. In addition, portions of the city are located on
moderately steep hillsides and some areas are subject to liquefaction. While policies
constrain residential development to some extent, they are necessary to support other
public policies.
2. Infrastructure Constraints
With almost 20,000 people living within its 1.3 square miles, the City’s growth is
constrained without a significant increase in density. One of the primary infrastructure
issues associated with the current level of development is the limited capacity of on-
street parking. The City’s is addressing this constraint incrementally by ensuring that all
new developments, both residential and commercial, provide adequate off-street
parking.
Streets in Hermosa Beach are subject to high levels of traffic, which would be further
impacted by new development. The great majority of the traffic, especially during the
summer months, consists of through-traffic, over which the City has no control. Because
of the City’s location in relation to the regional freeway system, access to the surrounding
region is limited to the arterial roadways. The many thousands of visitors to the local
beaches also affect parking and other services, in addition to traffic.
Finally, urban storm water run-off is a challenging issue because the City is an ocean front
community with over 90% impermeable ground surface. In addition to best
management practices (BMPs) implemented through its regional storm-water discharge
permit, the City also requires infiltration basins, when appropriate, with new
developments.
City of Hermosa Beach Housing Element IV. Constraints
Conexus IV-16 Draft – June 2009
3. Land Costs
Land represents one of the most significant components of the cost of new housing.
Land values fluctuate with market conditions, and have been steadily increasing since
2000. The recent downturn in the housing market is expected to affect land values
negatively, however.
Per-unit land cost is directly affected by density – higher density allows the cost to be
spread across more units, reducing the total price. Most new residential development in
the City consists of one to two units per lot Recent trends indicate redevelopment
projects have been maximizing density.
4. Construction Costs
Construction cost is affected by the price of materials, labor, development standards,
and general market conditions. The City has no influence over materials and labor costs,
and the building codes and development standards in Hermosa Beach are not
substantially different from other cities in the South Bay area.
5. Cost and Availability of Financing
Hermosa Beach is similar to most other communities with regard to private sector home
financing programs. The recent crisis in the mortgage industry has affected the
availability of real estate loans, although the long-term effects are unpredictable. For
buyers with good credit histories, mortgages can be obtained at very favorable interest
rates.
Under state law, it is illegal for real estate lending institutions to discriminate against entire
neighborhoods in lending practices because of the physical or economic conditions in
the area (“redlining”). In monitoring new construction sales, re-sales of existing homes,
and permits for remodeling, it would not appear that redlining is practiced in any area of
the city.
C. Fair Housing
State law prohibits discrimination in the development process or in real property
transactions, and it is the City’s policy to uphold the law in this regard. Fair housing issues
are addressed in Hermosa Beach through coordination with fair housing organizations to
process complaints regarding housing discrimination and to provide counseling in
landlord/tenant disputes. Anti-discrimination resource materials (handouts, booklets,
pamphlets, etc.) are made available to the public at City Hall, the library, and on the
City’s website through links to the Housing Rights Center (see Program 7 in Chapter V -
Housing Plan).
City of Hermosa Beach Housing Element V. Housing Plan
Conexus V-1 Draft – June 2009
V. HOUSING PLAN
A. Goals, Objectives and Policies
The purpose of this section of the Housing Element is to identify those policies and
programs that will enable the City to accommodate its housing objectives during the
2008-2014 planning period. This section consists of the following:
• The Introduction to the Housing Plan provides an overview of the components
that comprise the Housing Plan;
• The Housing Policies outlines those policies that serve as the City’s vision
relative to the conservation of existing housing and the provision of new
housing;
The Housing Programs describes those programs that will be effective in the
implementation of the aforementioned policies, including specific actions, objectives
and implementation schedule.
B. Housing Element Policies
This section establishes the City’s housing policy framework. Section 65583(c) of the
Government Code requires that actions and policies included in the housing program
address five key issue areas. As a result, the policies that have been included in the City
of Hermosa Beach Housing Element respond to the following issue areas:
• The manner in which the City will assist in the conservation of existing housing
resources, including affordable housing;
• The City’s strategy in assisting in the development of new housing
opportunities;
• How the City intends to provide adequate sites to achieve a variety and
diversity of housing types;
• How the City proposes to remove governmental constraints that may impact
the preservation and development of housing; and,
• How the City may help to promote equal housing opportunities.
Issue Area No. 1 - Conservation of Existing Housing
As indicated previously, the City’s proximity to the Pacific Ocean and its desirability as a
place to live and vacation has contributed to the high land and housing costs relative to
the surrounding region. The City, nevertheless, has been successful in maintaining its more
affordable housing through the adoption of ordinances and special land use regulations.
The City of Hermosa Beach remains committed to those efforts designed to preserve and
maintain the existing housing resources in the City, including affordable housing.
City of Hermosa Beach Housing Element V. Housing Plan
Conexus V-2 Draft – June 2009
This commitment is underscored by the policies listed below.
Policy 1.1 The City will continue to encourage the maintenance and
improvement of the existing housing stock within the local
neighborhoods.
Policy 1.2 The City will assist in the preservation and enhancement of the
housing supply available to senior citizens.
Policy 1.3 The City will work to minimize the conversion of existing lower-cost
rental housing in multiple-family developments to condominiums.
Policy 1.4 The City will promote and encourage the conservation and
maintenance of the existing neighborhoods.
Policy 1.5 The City will investigate potential sources of funding and other
incentives that will assist in the preservation and renovation of older
housing units.
Policy 1.6 The City will continue to implement its current code enforcement
procedures as a means to ensure the conservation and
maintenance of existing housing resources in the City.
Issue Area No. 2 - Development of New Housing Opportunities
The City’s ability to directly fund the construction of affordable housing is constrained
due to the absence of redevelopment set-aside monies typically used for this purpose. In
addition, the construction of affordable public housing within the coastal zone would not
represent an efficient expenditure of public money, given the relatively high land and
development costs in the City. As a result, the City continues to be an active participant
in the development of more affordable housing through the relaxation of land use
controls and other incentives. The City of Hermosa Beach will continue to assist in the
development of new housing for all income groups through the implementation of the
policies listed below.
Policy 2.1 The City will continue to promote the development of a variety of
housing types and styles to meet the existing and projected housing
needs of all segments of the community.
Policy 2.2 The City will continue to encourage the development of safe, sound,
and decent housing to meet the needs of varying income groups.
Policy 2.3 The City will continue to implement the land use policy contained in
the City’s General Plan, which provides for a wide range of housing
types at varying development intensities.
Policy 2.4 The City will continue to support and promote home ownership in
the community.
Policy 2.5 The City will continue to cooperate with other government agencies,
citizen groups, and the private sector, in order to assist in meeting
the existing and future demand for housing.
City of Hermosa Beach Housing Element V. Housing Plan
Conexus V-3 Draft – June 2009
Issue Area No. 3 - Provision of Adequate Sites for New Housing
The majority of the City underwent development during the early 1900s. More intensive
development followed, and this intensification has occurred up to the present time.
There are few vacant parcels of land remaining in the City, and the majority of the
residential construction that has occurred involved the “recycling” of individual
properties. Nevertheless, the City of Hermosa Beach will continue to explore potential
sites for residential development as a means to achieve a variety and diversity of housing
types.
Policy 3.1 The City will evaluate new development proposals in light of the
community's environmental resources and values, the capacity of
the public infrastructure to accommodate the projected demand,
and the presence of environmental constraints.
Policy 3.2 The City will continue to evaluate the General Plan and zoning to
ensure residential development standards are adequate to serve
future development.
Policy 3.3 The City will continue to review current zoning practices for
consistency with the General Plan as a way to facilitate new mixed-
use development within or near the commercial districts.
Issue Area No. 4 - Removal of Governmental Constraints
In previous years, the City has been successful in the conservation of housing, especially
affordable housing, through the implementation of land use ordinances and regulations.
A key component of the City’s housing policy is to assist in the development of more
affordable housing with the use of incentives and other measures. The City of Hermosa
Beach will remain committed to the removal of governmental constraints.
Policy 4.1 The City will continue to abide by the provisions of the Permit
Streamlining Act as a means to facilitate the timely review of
residential development proposals.
Policy 4.2 The City will work with prospective developers and property owners
to assist in their understanding of the review and development
requirements applicable to residential development in the City.
Policy 4.3 The City will continue its efforts to educate the community regarding
the development standards contained in the City of Hermosa Beach
Zoning Ordinance.
Policy 4.4 The City will continue to evaluate its Zoning Ordinance and General
Plan and remove governmental constraints related to development
standards. These may include, but not be limited to, parking
requirements, new standards for mixed-use development, and senior
housing requirements.
City of Hermosa Beach Housing Element V. Housing Plan
Conexus V-4 Draft – June 2009
Issue Area No. 5 - Equal Housing Opportunities
Federal and State laws prohibit housing discrimination based on an individual’s race,
ethnicity, or religion. Enforcement of fair-housing laws generally occurs through the
courts, though persons being discriminated against often lack the resources to obtain the
necessary legal protections. As a result, alternative means to obtain assistance must be
made available. Towards this end, the City will continue to cooperate with other public
agencies and non-profit organizations providing this assistance.
Policy 5.1 The City will continue to provide information and referral services to
regional agencies that counsel people on fair housing and landlord-
tenant issues.
Policy 5.2 The City will continue to cooperate with the County Housing
Authority related to the provision of rental assistance to lower-
income households.
Policy 5.3 The City will continue to cooperate with other cities and agencies in
the area in investigating resources available to provide housing for
the area's homeless population.
Policy 5.4 The City will support the expansion of shelter programs with adjacent
cities and local private interests for the temporary accommodation
of the homeless population.
The housing programs that will implement these policies are described in Section C
below.
C. Description of Housing Programs
The programs included in this Housing Element focus on those incentives that will
encourage the private sector to construct affordable housing in the City. As indicated in
Section II – Needs Assessment, the City’s RHNA allocation calls for the construction of 562
new housing units during the 2006-2014 planning period. The City’s main challenge in
accommodating this need is its lack of vacant land. As a result, the vast majority of new
housing development must occur through the “recycling” of older housing units and
redevelopment of underutilized parcels. Providing new housing that is affordable to
lower-income housing is particularly difficult since the City does not have a
redevelopment agency that could provide set-aside funds. The lack of available
programs and resources, coupled with high land and development costs, will be a
constraint to the development of new affordable housing to meet these RHNA targets.
As a result, the focus of the following programs is to identify strategies to assist the private
market in the development of affordable housing. These programs include:
• A program that encourages the development of more affordable housing
through the use of incentives currently required under state law;
• Continuation of support for conversion of the Marine Land Mobile Home Park
to a resident owned park and maintenance of the City's Mobile Home Park
Ordinance.
City of Hermosa Beach Housing Element V. Housing Plan
Conexus V-5 Draft – June 2009
• Programs that promote the implementation of those sections of the City’s
Zoning Ordinance permitting high density, and thus potentially affordable
residential development in the R-3, R-P and C-1 zoning districts; and
• Programs designed to promote the maintenance of the existing housing stock
and the protection of existing residential neighborhoods from the intrusion of
incompatible land uses.
1. Density Bonus
Program Description: In 2004 the state legislature adopted SB 1818, which overhauled
state density bonus law. The new law requires cities to grant a density bonus of up to 35%
and other incentives for qualifying affordable or senior housing developments. The City
will update the Zoning Ordinance in conformance with SB 1818 to encourage the
development of affordable and senior housing. To help inform developers and
contractors of this incentive program, the City will provide brochures at the counter and
provide information on the City’s web site regarding the Density Bonus Program.
Timing: The Code amendment will be presented to the City Council for adoption in 2009.
Brochures, website and other outreach elements of this program will be fully
implemented during 2009-2010.
Funding: City General Fund. No new funding source will be required.
2. Housing Sites Database
Program Description: The City will ensure that adequate sites are available to
accommodate its new housing need for the 2008 – 2014 planning period, and continue
to maintain its comprehensive land use database as means to identify suitable sites for
new residential development. This database provides zoning and other information for
every parcel in the City, and includes information regarding underdeveloped and
undeveloped parcels.
The City will make the database available to property owners, investors, and builders at
the Planning Department counter.
Timing: This is an existing program to be continued.
Funding: General Fund.
3. Mobile Home Conservation
This program provides for the ongoing maintenance and conservation of the Marine
Land Mobile Home Park and State RV Park located at 531 Pier Avenue. These facilities
provide housing for extremely-low-, very-low- and low-income households and the State
RV Park also provides transitional housing space for those persons or households in
transition from an RV to apartment or home. The City's MHP Zoning District requires
Planning Commission approval in order to add or delete spaces in the park, which helps
to preserve affordability by discouraging conversion from single- to double-wide spaces.
The Mobile Home Park has obtained state funding to convert to a resident owned park.
City of Hermosa Beach Housing Element V. Housing Plan
Conexus V-6 Draft – June 2009
This program was implemented with City Council allocation of over $111,000 and
$1,200,000 awarded under the state’s Mobilehome Park Resident Owner Program
(MPROP).
Timing: This program is ongoing.
Funding: General Fund. No new funding source will be required.
4. Code Enforcement
Program Description: Chapter 8.28 of the Municipal Code provides for the abatement of
nuisance conditions relating to private property. To ensure that this goal is achieved, the
Code Enforcement Program emphasizes the following:
• The City actively pursues Municipal Code violations on a complaint basis, with
particular emphasis being placed on those areas clearly exposed to public
view;
• All necessary steps are taken to ensure that violations are corrected in an
expeditious and voluntary manner;
• Where appropriate, property owners are informed of available assistance
programs for lower-income persons who may not be able to afford needed
improvements or corrections; and
• The City utilizes misdemeanor criminal prosecution only when attempts to gain
voluntary compliance have failed.
The Code Enforcement Program is responsible for enforcing those sections of the
Municipal Code related to property maintenance, including zoning, property
maintenance, illegal units, trash container regulations, construction without permits, and
sign regulations. The Code Enforcement Officer assists and makes recommendations to
other City departments, such as conducting inspections of business licenses, home
occupation offenses, and obstructions in public right-of-way.
Timing: This program is in place and will continue through the planning period.
Funding: General Fund. No new funding source will be required.
5. Affordable Housing Development Outreach and Assistance
Program Description: This program involves the investigation of potential funding sources
to assist private and non-profit organizations in the development and/or provision of
affordable housing. The primary focus of the program will involve investigation into the
feasibility of expanding CDBG funding and Section 8 rental vouchers to qualifying
households in the City. The Section 8 program is one of the major sources of housing
assistance for very-low- and extremely-low-income households. If the City is successful in
obtaining increased CDBG funding and/or expanding Section 8 rental vouchers for
residents in the city, this information will be posted in the Community Center, on the City’s
website, in handouts provided in the information kiosk in the City Hall lobby, and in the
local library. The brochures will also be provided to local service clubs including the local
City of Hermosa Beach Housing Element V. Housing Plan
Conexus V-7 Draft – June 2009
“Meals on Wheels” program, local dial-a-ride service, the local recreation center, and
emergency shelters in the area.
When affordable housing projects are proposed, the City will provide assistance in
preparing and processing grant applications and will offer fast-track processing. Project
sponsors will be encouraged to include units for extremely-low-income households where
feasible.
Timing: Report to City Council in 2009-2010; implementation schedule dependent on
findings.
Funding: This program will be financed through the City’s General Fund and grant funds.
No new funding source will be required.
6. Fair Housing
Program Description: The City provides assistance to local fair housing organizations to
address complaints regarding housing discrimination within the City and to provide
counseling in landlord/tenant disputes. This program includes a referral service in City Hall
whereby a staff person provides materials (handouts, booklets, pamphlets, etc.) to the
public. This information is also available to the public at the library and on the City’s
website.
Timing: This program is ongoing and will continue through the planning period.
Funding: General Fund. No new funding source will be required.
7. Zoning for Special Needs Housing
Program Description: The City will update the Zoning Code to remove constraints and
encourage the provision of housing for persons with special needs, including regulations
and procedures related to group homes, emergency shelters, transitional/supportive
housing and persons with disabilities.
a. Group Houses and Residential Care Facilities. Amend the Zoning Code to
include a definition and regulations for group homes and residential care
facilities in conformance with state law.
b. Reasonable Accommodation. Adopt a Reasonable Accommodation
ordinance for persons with disabilities pursuant to SB 520.
c. Emergency Shelters. Amend the Zoning Code to designate a zone where
emergency shelters are permitted “by-right” subject to appropriate
development standards consistent with SB 2.
d. Transitional/Supportive Housing. Amend the Zoning Code to clarify that
transitional/supportive housing is a residential use that is permitted subject to
the same requirements and standards that apply to other residential uses in the
same zone.
City of Hermosa Beach Housing Element V. Housing Plan
Conexus V-8 Draft – June 2009
e. SROs. Amend the Zoning Code to include a definition and regulations to
encourage and facilitate “single-room-occupancy” (SRO) housing.
f. On-Site Parking. Amend the Zoning Code to allow reduced on-site parking for
residential uses where it is demonstrated that fewer spaces will be required
(e.g., senior housing).
g. Restrictions on Unrelated Persons in a Household. Amend the Zoning Code to
conform or clarify regulations restricting number of unrelated person living
together in any zone to state law and for internal code consistency.
h. Minimum Unit Size. Review the minimum residential unit size requirements to
determine whether they pose an unreasonable constraint to housing for lower-
income persons and persons with special needs, and amend the Municipal
Code, if appropriate, to revise the limits.
Timing: The Zoning Code will be amended to address these objectives within one year of
Housing Element adoption.
Funding: General Fund. No new funding source will be required.
8. Non-Conforming Residential Uses
Program Description: The Zoning Code also allows the Planning Commission to validate
as legal nonconforming residential units that can be shown to have been used for
residential occupancy more or less continuously since January 1, 1959 when City records
and actual property use conflict. The City will evaluate whether to relax provisions
governing validation of residential units that contribute to the supply of affordable rental
housing when the residential use is demonstrated to have existed for a shorter period of
time (to be determined as part of the City's consideration) than is currently required
under the code, provided the units are improved so as to not be substandard and
parking adequate for the occupancy can be provided.
Timing: Submit review and recommendations for City Council consideration by June
2010.
Funding: General Fund. No new funding source will be required.
D. Housing Program Implementation Matrix
Table V-1 indicates the agency or department responsible for overseeing the
administration and/or implementation of the aforementioned programs. The table also
indicates the funding source for the program, the schedule for the program’s
implementation, and finally, where appropriate, the estimated number of housing units
or persons that will be assisted.
City of Hermosa Beach Housing Element V. Housing Plan
Conexus V-9 Draft – June 2009
Table V-1
Program Implementation Matrix
Program Funding Source Implementation Schedule Quantified Objectives
Responsible
Department
1. Density Bonus
Program
General Fund Code amendment in 2009 Code amendment in
conformance with state
law
Community Development
Department
2. Housing Sites
Database
General Fund 2008-2014 Database complete and
being implemented.
Community Development
Department
3. Mobile Home
Conservation
General Fund 2008-2014 Continue to support
maintenance of mobile
home park
Community Development
Department
4. Code Enforcement General Fund 2008-2014 Ongoing. Community Development
Department
5. Affordable Housing
Outreach &
Assistance
General Fund Report to City Council in
2009-2010
Ongoing Community Development
Department
6. Fair Housing General Fund Annual assistance to fair
housing organization
Ongoing Community Development
Department
7. Zoning for Special
Needs Housing
General Fund Code amendments within
one year of Housing
Element adoption
Code amendments Community Development
Department
8. Non-Conforming
Residential Uses
General Fund City Council review by June
2010
Review and follow-up
action, as appropriate
Community Development
Department
City of Hermosa Beach Housing Element Appendix A – Evaluation
Conexus A-1 Draft – June 2009
Appendix A
Evaluation of the 2003 Housing Element
Section 65588(a) of the Government Code requires that jurisdictions evaluate the
effectiveness of the existing Housing Element, the appropriateness of goals, objectives
and policies, and the progress in implementing programs for the previous planning
period. This appendix contains a review the housing goals, policies, and programs of the
previous Housing Element, adopted in 2003, and evaluates the degree to which these
programs have been implemented during the previous planning period. This analysis also
includes an assessment of the appropriateness of goals, objectives and policies. The
findings from this evaluation have been instrumental in determining the City’s 2008
Housing Implementation Program.
Table A-1 summarizes the programs contained in the previous Housing Element along
with the source of funding, program objectives, accomplishments, and implications for
future policies and actions.
Table A-2 evaluates the appropriateness of previous goals and policies, and identifies
any changes that are called for in response to the City’s experience during the past
planning period. Based on this evaluation, all of the current Goals and Policies continue
to be appropriate and have been retained.
Table A-3 shows residential projects built during 2006 through 2008. All of these units are
presumed to be above-moderate income.
Table A-4 presents the City’s progress in meeting the quantified objectives from the
previous Housing Element.
City of Hermosa Beach Housing Element Appendix A – Evaluation Conexus A-2 Draft – June 2009 Table A-1 Housing Element Program Effectiveness Evaluation City of Hermosa Beach 2001 - 2008 Program Responsible Agency Funding Source Program Objectives Accomplishments Future Policies and Actions 1. Development Bonus Program Community Development Department General Fund To help inform developers and contractors of the incentive program, the City will continue to provide brochures at the counter and provide information on the City’s web site regarding the Housing Development Incentive Program, and will review its zoning ordinance to ensure consistency with state laws. The Program will provide for the construction of new housing, both affordable and market-rate. Adopted Municipal Code section 17.42.100 (Residential Density Bonuses) in 2004. The City has continued to inform developers at the public counter and posted the applicable Code section on the City website. After the City amended the Municipal Code to comply with state density bonus law, Government Code Sec. 65915-65918 was amended to revise density bonus requirements. (SB 1818 of 2004). Within one year of adoption of the 2008 Housing Element, the City will amend the Municipal Code to comply with SB 1818. 2. Housing Sites Database Program Community Development Department General Fund To bi-annually update the City’s land use database to reflect the continuing changes in available sites and their available capacity for housing. This program also provides for City staff to consider and, if possible, work with the current property owner to expand the mobile home leases within the park and to work with current The City has recently obtained a GIS system and GIS Technician which provides a tool for continuous evaluation of potential housing sites. Also, the City annually tracks new housing construction also used for the Congestion Program successful - continue
City of Hermosa Beach Housing Element Appendix A – Evaluation Conexus A-3 Draft – June 2009 Program Responsible Agency Funding Source Program Objectives Accomplishments Future Policies and Actions property owners of other potential housing sites. Management Plan. 3. Mobile Home Conservation Program Community Development Department General Fund To provide for the maintenance and conservation of the mobile homes located within the Marine Land Mobile Home Park, the City will adopt a Mobile Home Preservation Ordinance and consult with the State to obtain a mobile Home Inspection Permit authority will be implemented by the end of 2004. The City’s Mobile Home Park (MHP) General Plan Designation and Zone serves to preserve one of the City’s housing alternatives. The City investigated obtaining mobile home inspection permit authority from the State, however it was not supported by a majority of the residents of the Marine Land MHP. In 2008 the City Council committed $112,000 to assist tenants in purchasing the park under MPROP. The City will continue to work with the Marine Land MHP residents regarding the resident owned program 4. Second Unit/Granny Flat Program Community Development Department General Fund To review the existing Second Unit ordinance to ascertain its compliance with State laws, including AB 1866. The purpose of this review is to ensure the program’s effectiveness and to maximize the creation of second units in accordance with state and local laws. The City continued to encourage 2nd Unit construction when in compliance with the Municipal Code. Program successful - continue 5. Code Enforcement Community Development General Fund To enhance public health, safety, and welfare The City has always maintained a Program successful -
City of Hermosa Beach Housing Element Appendix A – Evaluation Conexus A-4 Draft – June 2009 Program Responsible Agency Funding Source Program Objectives Accomplishments Future Policies and Actions Program Department through the expeditious implementation of an effective code enforcement program. proactive Code Enforcement program to address public health and safety concerns before they become a hazard. continue 6. Developer Consultation Program Community Development Department General Fund To assist in expanding housing opportunities in order to aid in the development of affordable housing, the City will continue to consult with developers early in the development process. Adoption of Municipal Code section 17.42.100 (Residential Density Bonuses) in 2004 has added another incentive to encourage the development of affordable housing in the City. Program successful - continue 7. Environmental Review Program Community Development Department General Fund The City will continue to evaluate the environmental impacts of new development and provide mitigation measures prior to development approval, as required by CEQA. The City has and will continue to be extremely aware and meticulous in the review, preparation, and finalization of documents in regard to all applicable State and Federal environmental laws. Program successful - continue 8. Fair Housing Program Community Development Department General Fund To work with appropriate fair housing organizations to process complaints regarding housing discrimination within the City and to provide counseling in landlord/tenant disputes. The City has not received any complaints regarding housing discrimination and the City continues to provide mediation services for disputes, (The City maintains a Program successful - continue
City of Hermosa Beach Housing Element Appendix A – Evaluation Conexus A-5 Draft – June 2009 Program Responsible Agency Funding Source Program Objectives Accomplishments Future Policies and Actions contract with a Dispute Resolution Service company) including landlord/tenant disputes and issues between parties that cannot be resolved through Municipal or Building Code provisions. 9. Residential Commercial Development Program Community Development Department General Fund To provide for ongoing review of the City of Hermosa Beach Zoning Code and Zoning Map to identify opportunities for new housing development within areas designated for commercial development. This year, the City has created a Zoning, General Plan, and other maps using GIS technology. These maps are available on the City website and available via email upon request. The City will continue to convert data into digital files for easier access to the public through the City website and email. Program successful – continue, but merge with Program 2 10. Affordable Housing Outreach Program Community Development Department General Fund To investigate potential funding sources to assist in the development and/or provision of affordable housing for those households in the City currently in need of such housing. The primary focus of the program will be the feasibility of expanding Section 8 The City has and will continue to apply for Community Development Block Grants and other funds and investigate using these funds through the CDC to assist in the development of affordable housing Program successful - continue
City of Hermosa Beach Housing Element Appendix A – Evaluation Conexus A-6 Draft – June 2009 Program Responsible Agency Funding Source Program Objectives Accomplishments Future Policies and Actions rental vouchers to qualifying households. initiatives. 11. Affordable High Density in R-3, R-P and C-1 Zones Program Community Development Department General Fund To encourage innovative high-density housing through the City’s R-3 and R-P zoning standards, and throughout the C-1 zone, which allows apartments to be constructed above commercial uses. The City will assist developers in expediting plan review for projects in this category, and assist developers in finding opportunities for lot consolidation to maximize development potential in these zones based on our property database and other sources. The City has numerous mixed-use projects proposed, under construction, and completed with a total of 4 residential units already completed in the C-1 zone. Furthermore, the City is conducting preliminary analysis of allowing mixed-use development in the C-2 and C-3 zones. Program successful – continue, but merge with Program 2
City of Hermosa Beach Housing Element Appendix A – Evaluation Conexus A-7 Draft – June 2009 Table A-2 Appropriateness of 2003 Housing Element Policies City of Hermosa Beach Issue Policy Appropriateness Issue Area No. 1 - The City of Hermosa Beach will remain committed to those efforts designed to preserve and maintain the existing housing resources in the City, including affordable housing. Policy 1.1 - The City will continue to encourage the maintenance and improvement of the existing housing stock within the local neighborhoods. Appropriate - retain Policy 1.2 - The City will assist in the preservation and enhancement of the housing supply available to senior citizens. Appropriate - retain Policy 1.3 - The City will work to minimize the conversion of existing lower-cost rental housing in multiple-family developments to condominiums. Appropriate - retain Policy 1.4 - The City will promote and encourage the conservation and maintenance of the existing neighborhoods. Appropriate - retain Policy 1.5 - The City will investigate potential sources of funding and other incentives that will assist in the preservation and renovation of older housing units. Appropriate - retain Policy 1.6 - The City will continue to implement its current code enforcement procedures as a means to preserve the existing housing resources in the City. Appropriate - retain Issue Area No. 2 - The City of Hermosa Beach will continue to assist in the development of new housing for all income groups Policy 2.1 - The City will continue to promote the development of a variety of housing types and styles to meet the existing and projected housing needs for all segments of the community. Appropriate - retain Policy 2.2 - The City will encourage the development of safe, sound, and decent Appropriate - retain
City of Hermosa Beach Housing Element Appendix A – Evaluation Conexus A-8 Draft – June 2009 housing to meet the needs of varying income groups. Policy 2.3 - The City will continue to implement the land use policy of the General Plan, which provides for a wide range of housing types at varying development intensities. Appropriate - retain Policy 2.4 - The City will continue to support and promote home ownership in the community. Appropriate - retain Policy 2.5 - The City will continue to cooperate with other government agencies, citizen groups, and the private sector in order to assist in meeting the existing and future demand for housing. Appropriate - retain Issue Area No. 3 - The City of Hermosa Beach will continue its commitment to the identification of sites for potential residential development as a means to achieve a variety and diversity of housing types. Policy 3.1 - The City will evaluate new development proposals in light of the community's environmental resources and values, the capacity of the public infrastructure to accommodate the projected demand, and the presence of environmental constraints. Appropriate - retain Policy 3.2 -The City will continue to evaluate the General Plan and zoning to ensure residential development standards are adequate to serve the future development. Appropriate - retain Policy 3.3 - The City will continue to review current zoning practices for consistency with the General Plan as a way to potentially facilitate new mixed-use development within or near the commercial districts. Appropriate - retain Policy 3.4 - The City will continue to examine the Second Unit Ordinance to ensure that its utilization will promote the development of second units as a means to provide affordable housing and evaluate the feasibility of granting some form of amnesty for illegal units (as long as they conform to current applicable health and safety codes). Retain review of nonconforming use provisions. Second units are precluded pursuant to Ordinance 92-1080 per Government Code Section 65852.2 Issue Area No. 4 - The City of Hermosa Beach will continue to remain committed to the removal of governmental constraints.
City of Hermosa Beach Housing Element Appendix A – Evaluation Conexus A-9 Draft – June 2009 Policy 4.1 - The City will continue to abide by the provisions of the Permit Streamlining Act as a means to facilitate a timely review of residential development proposals. Appropriate - retain Policy 4.2 - The City will work with prospective developers and property owners to outline the review and development requirements applicable to residential development in the City. Appropriate - retain Policy 4.3 - The City will continue to implement its efforts to educate the community regarding the development standards contained in the City of Hermosa Beach Zoning Ordinance. Appropriate - retain Policy 4.4 - The City will continue to evaluate its Zoning Ordinance and General Plan as a means to remove governmental constraints related to development standards. These may include, but not be limited to, parking requirements, new standards for mixed-use development, and review of the second unit ordinance and senior housing requirements. Appropriate – retain, excluding second unit ordinance review Issue Area No. 5 - The City will remain committed to promoting equal housing opportunities. Policy 5.1 - The City will continue to provide information and referral services to regional agencies that counsel people on fair housing and landlord-tenant issues. Appropriate - retain Policy 5.2 - The City will continue to cooperate with the County Housing Authority related to the provision of rental assistance to lower-income households. Appropriate - retain Policy 5.3 - The City will continue to cooperate with other cities and agencies in the area in investigating resources available to provide housing for the area's homeless population. Appropriate - retain Policy 5.4 - The City will continue to encourage and promote the expansion of shelter programs with adjacent cities and local private interests for the temporary accommodation of the homeless population. Appropriate - retain
City of Hermosa Beach Housing Element Appendix A – Evaluation Conexus A-10 Draft – June 2009 Table A-3 Residential Development Summary 2006 - 2008 City of Hermosa Beach Income Category Street Address Zone New Units Built Lot Area (sq ft) Lot Area (acre) Max. Density Actual Density % of Max. Density Max. Units % of Max. Units VL Low Mod Above Mod 20 2ND ST HB C-1 1 3,500 0.08 NA 12.4 NA 2 50% 1 40 HERMOSA AV HB C-1 1 1,200 0.03 NA 36.3 NA 1 100% 1 38 HERMOSA AV HB C-1 1 1,200 0.03 NA 36.3 NA 1 100% 1 101 LYNDON ST C-1 1 1,200 0.03 NA 36.3 NA 1 100% 1 Subtotal C-1 4 1,775 30.3 5 80% 4 1210 6TH ST HB R-1 1 4,626 0.11 13 9.4 72% 1 100% 1 1223 7TH ST HB R-1 1 5,000 0.11 13 8.7 67% 1 100% 1 720 PROSPECT AV HB R-1 1 4,279 0.10 13 10.2 78% 1 100% 1 1227 8TH ST HB R-1 1 5,000 0.11 13 8.7 67% 1 100% 1 1111 8TH ST HB R-1 1 4,538 0.10 13 9.6 74% 1 100% 1 1130 9TH ST HB R-1 1 4,908 0.11 13 8.9 68% 1 100% 1 834 PROSPECT AV HB R-1 1 2,590 0.06 13 16.8 129% 1 100% 1 842 PROSPECT AV HB R-1 1 2,810 0.06 13 15.5 119% 1 100% 1 848 PROSPECT AV HB R-1 1 3,010 0.07 13 14.5 111% 1 100% 1 703 30TH ST HB R-1 1 4,545 0.10 13 9.6 74% 1 100% 1 711 30TH ST HB R-1 1 4,178 0.10 13 10.4 80% 1 100% 1 2821 AMBY PL HB R-1 1 9,280 0.21 13 4.7 36% 2 50% 1 635 GOULD TER HB R-1 1 9,934 0.23 13 4.4 34% 2 50% 1 2844 EL OESTE ST HB R-1 1 7,040 0.16 13 6.2 48% 1 100% 1 415 30TH ST HB R-1 1 2,100 0.05 13 20.7 160% 1 100% 1 430 LONGFELLOW AV HB R-1 1 2,100 0.05 13 20.7 160% 1 100% 1 434 LONGFELLOW AV HB R-1 1 2,100 0.05 13 20.7 160% 1 100% 1 354 LONGFELLOW AV HB R-1 1 2,100 0.05 13 20.7 160% 1 100% 1 226 31ST ST HB R-1 1 2,100 0.05 13 20.7 160% 1 100% 1 351 30TH ST HB R-1 1 4,199 0.10 13 10.4 80% 1 100% 1 357 30TH ST HB R-1 1 2,100 0.05 13 20.7 160% 1 100% 1 3410 THE STRAND HB R-1 1 1,662 0.04 13 26.2 202% 1 100% 1 3116 THE STRAND HB R-1 1 2,775 0.06 13 15.7 121% 1 100% 1 3001 THE STRAND HB R-1 1 3,975 0.09 13 11.0 84% 1 100% 1
City of Hermosa Beach Housing Element Appendix A – Evaluation Conexus A-11 Draft – June 2009 Income Category Street Address Zone New Units Built Lot Area (sq ft) Lot Area (acre) Max. Density Actual Density % of Max. Density Max. Units % of Max. Units VL Low Mod Above Mod 2314 THE STRAND HB R-1 1 3,555 0.08 13 12.3 94% 1 100% 1 2340 THE STRAND HB R-1 1 4,043 0.09 13 10.8 83% 1 100% 1 2440 OZONE CT HB R-1 1 2,997 0.07 13 14.5 112% 1 100% 1 2436 OZONE CT HB R-1 1 2,997 0.07 13 14.5 112% 1 100% 1 542 24TH ST HB R-1 1 6,720 0.15 13 6.5 50% 1 100% 1 429 24TH ST HB R-1 1 4,244 0.10 13 10.3 79% 1 100% 1 580 18TH ST HB R-1 1 4,275 0.10 13 10.2 78% 1 100% 1 1868 VALLEY PARK AV R-1 1 6,599 0.15 13 6.6 51% 1 100% 1 1849 VALLEY PARK AV R-1 1 6,400 0.15 13 6.8 52% 1 100% 1 540 21ST ST HB R-1 1 4,900 0.11 13 8.9 68% 1 100% 1 550 21ST ST HB R-1 1 4,900 0.11 13 8.9 68% 1 100% 1 544 21ST ST HB R-1 1 4,900 0.11 13 8.9 68% 1 100% 1 1911 HILLCREST DR HB R-1 1 4,525 0.10 13 9.6 74% 1 100% 1 1802 RHODES ST HB R-1 1 3,438 0.08 13 12.7 97% 1 100% 1 849 19TH ST HB R-1 1 3,341 0.08 13 13.0 100% 1 100% 1 662 25TH ST HB R-1 1 5,060 0.12 13 8.6 66% 1 100% 1 625 24TH ST HB R-1 1 4,055 0.09 13 10.7 83% 1 100% 1 706 24TH PL HB R-1 1 6,461 0.15 13 6.7 52% 1 100% 1 641 21ST ST HB R-1 1 5,544 0.13 13 7.9 60% 1 100% 1 2308 ARDMORE AV HB R-1 1 4,800 0.11 13 9.1 70% 1 100% 1 2034 SPRINGFIELD ST R-1 1 2,325 0.05 13 18.7 144% 1 100% 1 921 16TH ST HB R-1 1 3,888 0.09 13 11.2 86% 1 100% 1 1632 RAYMOND AV HB R-1 1 3,499 0.08 13 12.4 96% 1 100% 1 1241 OCEAN DR HB R-1 1 3,450 0.08 13 12.6 97% 1 100% 1 1286 BONNIE BRAE ST R-1 1 4,488 0.10 13 9.7 75% 1 100% 1 1252 15TH ST HB R-1 1 3,000 0.07 13 14.5 112% 1 100% 1 1077 10TH ST HB R-1 1 3,110 0.07 13 14.0 108% 1 100% 1 1082 10TH ST HB R-1 1 3,420 0.08 13 12.7 98% 1 100% 1 960 8TH PL HB R-1 1 4,230 0.10 13 10.3 79% 1 100% 1 917 3RD ST HB R-1 1 4,510 0.10 13 9.7 74% 1 100% 1 922 2ND ST HB R-1 1 3,627 0.08 13 12.0 92% 1 100% 1 1218 1ST ST HB R-1 1 3,178 0.07 13 13.7 105% 1 100% 1 106 HILL ST HB R-1 1 2,796 0.06 13 15.6 120% 1 100% 1 511 25TH ST HB R-1A 1 3,830 0.09 13 11.4 87% 1 100% 1
City of Hermosa Beach Housing Element Appendix A – Evaluation Conexus A-12 Draft – June 2009 Income Category Street Address Zone New Units Built Lot Area (sq ft) Lot Area (acre) Max. Density Actual Density % of Max. Density Max. Units % of Max. Units VL Low Mod Above Mod 511 25TH ST HB R-1A 1 5,100 0.12 13 8.5 66% 1 100% 1 Subtotal R-1 & R-1A 59 4,155 12.0 93% 33 179% 59 424 28TH ST HB R-2 1 4,388 0.10 25 9.9 40% 2 50% 1 2818 MORNINGSIDE DR R-2 1 2,400 0.06 25 18.2 73% 1 100% 1 408 29TH ST HB R-2 1 4,371 0.10 25 10.0 40% 2 50% 1 415 28TH ST HB R-2 1 2,400 0.06 25 18.2 73% 1 100% 1 411 28TH ST HB R-2 1 4,771 0.11 25 9.1 37% 2 50% 1 415 28TH ST HB R-2 1 2,400 0.06 25 18.2 73% 1 100% 1 220 34TH ST HB R-2 1 2,250 0.05 25 19.4 77% 1 100% 1 245 33RD ST HB R-2 1 2,250 0.05 25 19.4 77% 1 100% 1 345 34TH ST HB R-2 1 4,605 0.11 25 9.5 38% 2 50% 1 325 33RD ST HB R-2 1 3,000 0.07 25 14.5 58% 1 100% 1 216 33RD PL HB R-2 1 2,394 0.05 25 18.2 73% 1 100% 1 231 29TH ST HB R-2 1 2,400 0.06 25 18.2 73% 1 100% 1 311 28TH ST HB R-2 1 2,400 0.06 25 18.2 73% 1 100% 1 309 26TH ST HB R-2 1 4,224 0.10 25 10.3 41% 2 50% 1 339 26TH ST HB R-2 1 3,332 0.08 25 13.1 52% 1 100% 1 2317 HERMOSA AV HB R-2 1 3,750 0.09 25 11.6 46% 2 50% 1 2131 HERMOSA AV HB R-2 1 4,839 0.11 25 9.0 36% 2 50% 1 2232 HERMOSA AV HB R-2 1 2,788 0.06 25 15.6 62% 1 100% 1 2226 HERMOSA AV HB R-2 1 2,847 0.07 25 15.3 61% 1 100% 1 2226 HERMOSA AV HB R-2 1 2,910 0.07 25 15.0 60% 1 100% 1 2420 HERMOSA AV HB R-2 1 2,400 0.06 25 18.2 73% 1 100% 1 338 26TH ST HB R-2 1 2,950 0.07 25 14.8 59% 1 100% 1 338 26TH ST HB R-2 1 3,000 0.07 25 14.5 58% 1 100% 1 119 16TH ST HB R-2 1 3,957 0.09 25 11.0 44% 2 50% 1 1818 MANHATTAN AV HB R-2 1 2,339 0.05 25 18.6 74% 1 100% 1 1801 MONTEREY BL HB R-2 1 2,700 0.06 25 16.1 65% 1 100% 1 1721 MONTEREY BL HB R-2 1 2,718 0.06 25 16.0 64% 1 100% 1 1634 LOMA DR HB R-2 1 3,346 0.08 25 13.0 52% 1 100% 1 1636 LOMA DR HB R-2 1 3,765 0.09 25 11.6 46% 2 50% 1 1600 MONTEREY BL HB R-2 1 3,330 0.08 25 13.1 52% 1 100% 1 1600 MONTEREY BL HB R-2 1 3,610 0.08 25 12.1 48% 2 50% 1
City of Hermosa Beach Housing Element Appendix A – Evaluation Conexus A-13 Draft – June 2009 Income Category Street Address Zone New Units Built Lot Area (sq ft) Lot Area (acre) Max. Density Actual Density % of Max. Density Max. Units % of Max. Units VL Low Mod Above Mod 801 20TH ST HB R-2 1 2,590 0.06 25 16.8 67% 1 100% 1 803 20TH ST HB R-2 1 2,590 0.06 25 16.8 67% 1 100% 1 805 20TH ST HB R-2 1 2,590 0.06 25 16.8 67% 1 100% 1 807 20TH ST HB R-2 1 2,590 0.06 25 16.8 67% 1 100% 1 809 20TH ST HB R-2 1 2,340 0.05 25 18.6 74% 1 100% 1 811 20TH ST HB R-2 1 2,340 0.05 25 18.6 74% 1 100% 1 813 20TH ST HB R-2 1 2,340 0.05 25 18.6 74% 1 100% 1 619 10TH ST HB R-2 2 4,108 0.09 25 21.2 85% 2 100% 2 648 9TH ST HB R-2 2 6,602 0.15 25 13.2 53% 3 67% 2 723 8TH PL HB R-2 1 2,508 0.06 25 17.4 69% 1 100% 1 634 8TH PL HB R-2 1 2,508 0.06 25 17.4 69% 1 100% 1 634 7TH ST HB R-2 2 4,325 0.10 25 20.1 81% 2 100% 2 517 LOMA DR HB R-2 1 3,330 0.08 25 13.1 52% 1 100% 1 710 2ND ST HB R-2 2 4,600 0.11 25 18.9 76% 2 100% 2 631 1ST ST HB R-2 2 4,600 0.11 25 18.9 76% 2 100% 2 598 1ST ST HB R-2 4 7,364 0.17 25 23.7 95% 4 100% 4 619 5TH ST HB R-2 2 4,325 0.10 25 20.1 81% 2 100% 2 652 5TH ST HB R-2 2 4,725 0.11 25 18.4 74% 2 100% 2 494 ARDMORE AV HB R-2 3 10,303 0.24 25 12.7 51% 5 60% 3 1928 THE STRAND HB R-2B 1 1,677 0.04 25 26.0 104% 1 100% 1 58 20TH ST HB R-2B 1 3,720 0.09 25 11.7 47% 2 50% 1 58 20TH ST HB R-2B 1 2,820 0.06 25 15.4 62% 1 100% 1 92 16TH ST HB R-2B 1 5,225 0.12 25 8.3 33% 2 50% 1 94 17TH ST HB R-2B 1 2,850 0.07 25 15.3 61% 1 100% 1 1625 HERMOSA AVE R-2B 1 3,370 0.08 25 12.9 52% 1 100% 1 1625 HERMOSA AVE R-2B 1 3,500 0.08 25 12.4 50% 2 50% 1 927 15TH ST HB R-2B 1 3,350 0.08 25 13.0 52% 1 100% 1 929 15TH ST HB R-2B 1 3,100 0.07 25 14.1 56% 1 100% 1 1002 7TH ST HB R-2B 2 4,800 0.11 25 18.2 73% 2 100% 2 817 6TH ST HB R-2B 1 3,030 0.07 25 14.4 58% 1 100% 1 817 6TH ST HB R-2B 1 3,030 0.07 25 14.4 58% 1 100% 1 1056 7TH ST HB R-2B 1 3,030 0.07 25 14.4 58% 1 100% 1 1056 7TH ST HB R-2B 1 3,460 0.08 25 12.6 50% 1 100% 1 412 OCEAN VIEW DR HB R-2B 1 2,120 0.05 25 20.5 82% 1 100% 1
City of Hermosa Beach Housing Element Appendix A – Evaluation Conexus A-14 Draft – June 2009 Income Category Street Address Zone New Units Built Lot Area (sq ft) Lot Area (acre) Max. Density Actual Density % of Max. Density Max. Units % of Max. Units VL Low Mod Above Mod 414 OCEAN VIEW DR HB R-2B 1 2,120 0.05 25 20.5 82% 1 100% 1 315 HOPKINS AV HB R-2B 1 2,120 0.05 25 20.5 82% 1 100% 1 315 HOPKINS AV HB R-2B 1 2,120 0.05 25 20.5 82% 1 100% 1 Subtotal R-2 & R-2B 81 3,396 15.8 63% 96 84% 81 133 28TH CT HB R-3 1 4,756 0.11 33 9.2 28% 3 33% 1 3130 HERMOSA AV HB R-3 1 2,396 0.06 33 18.2 55% 1 100% 1 3310 HERMOSA AV HB R-3 1 2,550 0.06 33 17.1 52% 1 100% 1 85 15TH ST HB R-3 2 2,850 0.07 33 30.6 93% 2 100% 2 1427 MONTEREY BL HB R-3 2 6,451 0.15 33 13.5 41% 4 50% 2 1522 PALM DR HB R-3 1 2,250 0.05 33 19.4 59% 1 100% 1 1522 PALM DR HB R-3 1 2,220 0.05 33 19.6 59% 1 100% 1 632 25TH ST HB R-3 1 5,053 0.12 33 8.6 26% 3 33% 1 1106 PALM DR HB R-3 2 3,999 0.09 33 21.8 66% 3 67% 2 810 MANHATTAN AV HB R-3 1 2,496 0.06 33 17.5 53% 1 100% 1 1305 LOMA DR HB R-3 1 2,587 0.06 33 16.8 51% 1 100% 1 1221 LOMA DR HB R-3 1 1,744 0.04 33 25.0 76% 1 100% 1 1223 LOMA DR HB R-3 1 1,744 0.04 33 25.0 76% 1 100% 1 1220 SUNSET DR HB R-3 1 1,744 0.04 33 25.0 76% 1 100% 1 1044 SUNSET DR HB R-3 2 2,976 0.07 33 29.3 89% 2 100% 2 918 MONTEREY BL HB R-3 2 1,527 0.04 33 57.1 173% 1 200% 2 919 SUNSET DR R-3 2 1,527 0.04 33 57.1 173% 1 200% 2 836 BARD ST HB R-3 1 1,735 0.04 33 25.1 76% 1 100% 1 838 BARD ST HB R-3 1 1,735 0.04 33 25.1 76% 1 100% 1 848 BARD ST HB R-3 2 1,726 0.04 33 50.5 153% 1 200% 2 850 BARD ST HB R-3 2 1,726 0.04 33 50.5 153% 1 200% 2 726 THE STRAND HB R-3 1 4,397 0.10 33 9.9 30% 3 33% 1 24 8TH ST HB R-3 1 1,425 0.03 33 30.6 93% 1 100% 1 25 8TH CRT R-3 1 1,425 0.03 33 30.6 93% 1 100% 1 403 11TH ST HB R-3 3 4,050 0.09 33 32.3 98% 3 100% 3 1309 CYPRESS AV HB R-3 3 4,420 0.10 33 29.6 90% 3 100% 3 635 MANHATTAN AV HB R-3 2 3,000 0.07 33 29.0 88% 2 100% 2 734 BAYVIEW DR HB R-3 1 2,157 0.05 33 20.2 61% 1 100% 1 706 MONTEREY BL HB R-3 2 3,000 0.07 33 29.0 88% 2 100% 2
City of Hermosa Beach Housing Element Appendix A – Evaluation Conexus A-15 Draft – June 2009 Income Category Street Address Zone New Units Built Lot Area (sq ft) Lot Area (acre) Max. Density Actual Density % of Max. Density Max. Units % of Max. Units VL Low Mod Above Mod 708 MONTEREY BL HB R-3 2 3,200 0.07 33 27.2 83% 2 100% 2 520 8TH ST HB R-3 3 7,976 0.18 33 16.4 50% 6 50% 3 38 6TH ST HB R-3 1 2,849 0.07 33 15.3 46% 2 50% 1 37 5TH CT HB R-3 1 2,850 0.07 33 15.3 46% 2 50% 1 17 3RD ST HB R-3 1 3,472 0.08 33 12.5 38% 2 50% 1 321 MONTEREY BL HB R-3 1 1,500 0.03 33 29.0 88% 1 100% 1 218 6TH ST HB R-3 1 1,200 0.03 33 36.3 110% 1 100% 1 538 MANHATTAN AV HB R-3 2 2,900 0.07 33 30.0 91% 2 100% 2 164 PALM DR R-3 1 1,450 0.03 33 30.0 91% 1 100% 1 165 MANHATTAN AV R-3 1 1,450 0.03 33 30.0 91% 1 100% 1 160 1ST ST HB R-3 2 5,427 0.12 33 16.1 49% 4 50% 2 311 CULPER CT R-3 2 3,000 0.07 33 29.0 88% 2 100% 2 Subtotal R-3 61 2,852 25.9 78% 73 84% 61 232 1ST CT HB R-P 1 1,805 0.04 33 24.1 73% 1 100% 1 43 MONTEREY BL HB R-P 1 1,805 0.04 33 24.1 73% 1 100% 1 233 LYNDON ST R-P 1 2,850 0.07 33 15.3 46% 2 50% 1 Subtotal R-P 3 2,153 21.2 64% 4 75% 3 GRAND TOTALS 208 211 100% 208 Notes: All projects involved demolition and replacement of existing structures (no vacant land development)
City of Hermosa Beach Housing Element Appendix A – Evaluation
Conexus A-16 Draft – June 2009
Table A-4
Progress in Achieving Quantified Objectives
City of Hermosa Beach
2001-2008
Progress
Program Category Quantified Objective 2001-05 2006-08
New Construction1
Very Low 55 0
Low 12 0
Moderate 11 0
Above Moderate 230 312 208
Total 308 312 208
Rehabilitation2
Very Low 210
Low 183
Moderate 82
Above Moderate 310
Total 785 0
Conservation3
Very Low 55 55
Low 26 26
Moderate 0
Above Moderate 0
Total 81 81
1 Quantified objective and progress for new construction reflect units built 1998-2008, per the previous
RHNA cycle
2 Private repairs
3 Mobile Home Park and RV Park units
City of Hermosa Beach Housing Element Appendix B – Land Inventory
Conexus B-1 Draft – June 2009
Appendix B
Residential Land Inventory – 2006-2014
1. Methodology and Assumptions
State law requires each city to include in the Housing Element an inventory of vacant
parcels having the potential for residential development, or “underutilized” parcels with
potential for additional development. The purpose of this inventory is to evaluate
whether there is sufficient capacity, based on the General Plan, zoning, development
standards, and infrastructure, to accommodate the City’s fair share of regional growth
needs as identified in the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). This analysis
represents an estimate of the City’s realistic development potential. Actual development
will depend on the intentions of each property owner, market conditions and other
factors. The detailed methodology and assumptions for the residential land inventory
discussed in Chapter III are provided below and summarized in Tables B-1 through B-5.
As discussed in Chapter III, the City has been allocated a growth need of 562 units during
the 2006-2014 planning period. From 2006 through 2008 a total of 208 new units were
built, all of which are assumed to be in the above-moderate income category (see Table
A-3). Therefore, the City’s remaining RHNA for the 2009-2014 period is 354 units distributed
among income categories as shown in Table B-1.
Table B-1
Net Remaining RHNA
2009-2014
Income Category
VL Low Mod Above Total
RHNA (total) 147 93 98 224 562
Units completed 2006-2008 0 0 0 208 208
RHNA (net remaining) 147 93 98 16 354
Source: Hermosa Beach Community Development Department , 2/2009
Affordability Assumptions
In general, there are three alternative ways for determining the affordability level of new
housing units.
1. Affordability Covenants. The most definitive method is through required
affordability covenants (i.e., requirements imposed upon or agreed to by the
project sponsor) that establish income limits for purchasers or tenants. Such
covenants are legally enforceable and binding upon the property owner for a
specified time period.
2. Market Prices or Rents. When covenants are not in place, affordability levels
for newly-built units are based on actual prices or rents. Table II-17 (page II-14)
describes current affordability levels along with the monthly rental costs or
City of Hermosa Beach Housing Element Appendix B – Land Inventory
Conexus B-2 Draft – June 2009
estimated sales prices that correspond with each level. Based on rental market
data, most surveyed apartments fall into the Above-Moderate income category
since the average monthly rent for 2-bedroom apartments was found to be $1,859
and the upper limit of the Moderate-income category is $1,695 for a 4-person
household. It is assumed that few, if any, new apartments rent for rates below the
average of existing units unless required by affordability covenants.
3. Density. For potential new units in a city’s land inventory, state law
establishes affordability assumptions based on density. The “default” density for
small metropolitan jurisdictions, including Hermosa Beach, is 20 units per acre14.
This means that if the General Plan and zoning allow development at 20 units per
acre or greater, these sites are considered to be suitable for lower-income housing
development. State law also allows jurisdictions to establish an alternative to the
default density if local conditions and experience support a different density
assumption for affordability.
In Hermosa Beach, the following residential zoning districts allow multi-family
development at densities greater than 20 units/acre:
District Allowable Density
R-2 24.9 units/acre
R-2B 24.9 units/acre
R-3 33 units/acre
R-P 33 units/acre
In addition, the C-1 commercial district allows mixed-use development at a
density of 33 units/acre. Since the allowable densities in these districts are
significantly greater than 20 units/acre, potential new units in these districts are
assigned to the lower-income category per state law.
Realistic Capacity
As noted above, the R-2, R-2B, R-3, R-P and C-1 zones all permit residential development
at greater than 20 units/acre and therefore are considered suitable for lower-income
housing. Review of development trends (see Appendix A, Table A-3) confirms that actual
densities in all of these zones except R-2 and R-2B are typically greater than 20
units/acre. Average densities during the past three years for all projects in these zones
are shown in Table B-2. Although the average density of recent projects in the R-2 and R-
2B zones was less than 20 units/acre, there were 9 projects that exceeded that density,
which demonstrates that development standards do not preclude owners from
achieving the default density. Eight of these projects had parcel sizes of 1/10 acre or less,
which indicates that even very small parcels can be developed successfully in Hermosa
Beach.
Of the seven mixed-use projects built recently, five had densities greater than 20
units/acre and the average density of all projects was 30 units/acre. Small parcel size is
14 Assembly Bill 2348 of 2004
City of Hermosa Beach Housing Element Appendix B – Land Inventory
Conexus B-3 Draft – June 2009
clearly not a constraint to mixed-use development since the smallest parcels, several as
small as 0.03 acre, had densities greater than 30 units/acre.
Table B-2
Realistic Development Capacity
Zone Average Density for
Projects Built 2006-08
Actual Units Built as %
of Maximum*
R-1/R-1A 12 units/acre 179%
R-2/R-2B 16 units/acre 84%
R-3 26 units/acre 84%
R-P 21 units/acre 75%
C-1 30 units/acre 80%
Source: Appendix A, Table A-3
*See Table A-3
In Hermosa Beach, development capacity is controlled by lot size and the required ratio
of lot area per unit for the zone. For example, in the R-2 and R-2B zones, a minimum of
1,750 square feet of lot area is required for each unit (as discussed in Chapter IV, Table
IV-2). This means that a parcel with 3,500 square feet could accommodate two units, but
if the parcel were just slightly smaller – e.g., 3,490 square feet - only one unit would be
allowed unless a variance or other special approval were granted. The City has not
received any such requests, however. The estimate of potential new units shown in Table
B-5 is based on the lot area and the minimum area per unit standard for the zone. Due to
high land costs, there is significant incentive for owners to build the maximum allowable
units. This assumption is supported by the fact that the majority of recent projects did in
fact achieve 100% of the maximum allowable units (see Table A-3).
2. Units Approved or Under Construction
Table B-4 summarizes projects that have been approved but are not yet completed.
These projects are all for-sale condos assumed to be above-moderate income even
though all but one have densities greater than 20 units/acre.
3. Vacant and Underutilized Land Inventory
Potential sites for residential development are listed in Table B-5 and shown in Figure B-1.
The vacant sites have the potential of 8 lower-income units while the underutilized sites
have the potential of 541 lower-income units and 17 above-moderate units. Many of the
underused sites are occupied by older homes.
4. Land Inventory Summary
Table B-3 summarizes the City’s land inventory compared to the remaining RHNA for
each income category. The total capacity of vacant and underutilized sites has been
calculated based on the permitted number of units for each site, and also using a
City of Hermosa Beach Housing Element Appendix B – Land Inventory
Conexus B-4 Draft – June 2009
realistic estimate based on the factors shown above in Table B-2. Using the realistic
estimates of likely development based on recent trends, there is a surplus of sites for
lower-income and above-moderate-income units but a shortfall of sites for moderate-
income units. However, the surplus of lower-income sites exceeds the moderate-income
shortfall by a significant margin, therefore the intent of the RHNA is satisfied.
Table B-3
Land Inventory Summary vs. RHNA
Income Category
Lower Mod Above Total
Units approved/under construction - - 34 34
Vacant sites 8 - - 8
Underutilized sites - - -
R-1 (units permitted) - - 17 17
Realistic estimate (100%) - - 17 17
R-2/R-2B (units permitted) 331 - - 331
Realistic estimate (84%) 278 - - 278
R-3 (units permitted) 180 - - 180
Realistic estimate (84%) 151 - - 151
R-P (units permitted) 14 - - 14
Realistic estimate (75%) 11 - - 11
C-1 (units permitted) 12 - - 12
Realistic estimate (80%) 10 - - 10
SPA-9 (units permitted) 4 - - 4
Realistic estimate (100%) 4 - - 4
Subtotal (units permitted) 549 - 51 600
Subtotal (realistic) 462 - 51 513
RHNA (net 2009-2014) 240 98 16 354
Realistic Net Surplus (Deficit) 222 (98) 35 159
Sources: Hermosa Beach Community Development Dept., 4/2009; Conexus
City of Hermosa Beach Housing Element Appendix B – Land Inventory Conexus B-5 Draft – June 2009 Table B-4 Residential Units Approved/Not Completed 2006 – 2007 Project Site Acreage General Plan Zoning Maximum Allowable Units % of Maximum Achieved VL/L Mod Above Mod Total 931 1st St. 500 sf lot HDR R-P 5 80% 4 4 640-650 Hermosa Ave. 8000 sf lot HDR R-3 6 100% 6 6 33 Monterey Blvd. 1730 sf HDR R-P 1 100% 1 1 421 Monterey Blvd. 3000 sf lot HDR R-3 2 100% 2 2 131-135 Hermosa Ave. 4200 sf lot NC C-1 3 66% * 2 2 1520 Manhattan Ave. 3900 sf HDR R-3 2 100% 2 2 427 11th St. 4750 sf lot HDR R-3 3 100% 3 3 42 15th St. 2700 sf HDR R-3 2 100% 2 2 731-739 21st St. 19000 sf LDR SPA-5 8 100% 8 8 719-725 21st St. 5800 sf LDR SPA-10 4 100% 4 4 Totals 36 94% 34 34 *Note: Although all but one of these projects exceed the default density, they are assumed to be above-moderate income because they are for-sale condos.
City of Hermosa Beach Housing Element Appendix B – Land Inventory Conexus B-6 Draft – June 2009 Table B-5 Residential Land Inventory Address Gen Plan Zoning Lot size (sf) Max. Density (units/ac) Existing Units Realistic Capacity Low Mod Above Mod Current Use Vacant Sites 60 Hermosa Ave NC C-1 2,396 33 0 1 1 Vacant (shed?) (adjacent to 66 Hermosa Ave) 1829 Manhattan Ave MD R-2 3,054 24.9 0 1 1 shoring for SF dwelling, permit expired 825 15th St MD R-2B 5,672 24.9 0 3 3 Vacant no address HD R-P 4,000 33 0 3 3 Vacant Subtotal 8 8 Underutilized Sites 3232 Manhattan Ave NC C-1 4,905 33 0 3 3 Ocean View Liquors, 1-story bldg, occupies entire block, 2732 sf imp (1953yr) 2700 Manhattan Ave NC C-1 4,796 33 0 3 3 La Sosta Enoteca, 1-story bldg, occupies entire block, 1620 sf imp (1929/1953yr) 3217 Manhattan Ave NC C-1 2,474 33 0 1 1 Chug Salon, 1-story, 1230 and 400 sf of imp (1946/1961yr) (adjacent lot to S across alley zoned C-1 is same owner 54 Hermosa Ave NC C-1 2,396 33 0 1 1 Office, 1-story, 1152 sf improvement (1950yr) 66 Hermosa Ave NC C-1 2,396 33 0 1 1 HB Yacht Club bar, 1071 sf imp (1948yr); adjacent to vacant lot 2 Hermosa Ave NC C-1 5,236 33 0 3 3 Dawn to Dusk Liquor store - 2 story, 4242 sf imp; occupies entire block (1959yr) Subtotal C-1 12 12 739 Longfellow Ave LD R-1 4,996 10.9 0 1 1 1600 sf imp (1955yr)-child care center 522 25th St LD R-1A 7,500 13 1 2 2 1214 sf dwelling (1947) 2491 Valley Dr LD R-1A 7,290 13 1 2 2 1518 sf dwelling (1854) 572 25th St LD R-1A 7,450 13 1 2 2 1688 sf dwelling 566 25th St LD R-1A 7,450 13 1 2 2 1645 sf dwelling 515 25th St LD R-1A 6,700 13 1 2 2 1608 sf dwelling 501 25th St LD R-1A 7,700 13 1 2 2 3036 sf dwelling 485 25th St LD R-1A 8,370 13 1 2 2 1436 sf dwelling 489 25th St LD R-1A 6,760 13 1 2 2 1 sf dwelling
City of Hermosa Beach Housing Element Appendix B – Land Inventory Conexus B-7 Draft – June 2009 Address Gen Plan Zoning Lot size (sf) Max. Density (units/ac) Existing Units Realistic Capacity Low Mod Above Mod Current Use Subtotal R-1/R-1A 8 17 17 1118 Prospect Ave MD R-2 4,650 24.9 1 2 2 2221 sf dwelling (1997) 1105 11th St MD R-2 3,150 24.9 1 1 1 812 sf dwelling 1102 11th Pl MD R-2 3,850 24.9 1 2 2 1016 sf dwelling 520 31st St MD R-2 3,577 24.9 1 2 2 1226 sf dwelling 440 29th St MD R-2 6,399 24.9 2 3 3 1704 sf dwelling 2902 Morningside Dr MD R-2 4,860 24.9 1 2 2 sf dwelling (demo permit issued but not demo-ed yet) 416 30th Street MD R-2 2,430 24.9 1 1 1 2295 sf dwelling (1987) 250 35th St MD R-2 3,804 24.9 1 2 2 1926 sf dwelling 3306 Highland Ave MD R-2 6,000 24.9 1 3 3 4124 sf dwelling 214 30th St MD R-2 4,800 24.9 1 2 2 2670 sf dwelling 326 29th St MD R-2 4,800 24.9 1 2 2 2812 sf dwelling 125 26th St MD R-2 5,400 24.9 2 3 3 1154 sf dwelling 1946 Hermosa Ave MD R-2 3,600 24.9 1 2 2 1656 sf dwelling 235 25th St MD R-2 4,193 24.9 1 2 2 2647 sf dwelling 1706 Manhattan Ave MD R-2 3,900 24.9 1 2 2 1606 sf dwelling 1850 Manhattan Ave MD R-2 4,840 24.9 1 2 2 3560 sf dwelling 1840 Pacific Coast Hwy MD R-2 5,590 24.9 1 3 3 1440 sf dwelling 1918 Pacific Coast Hwy MD R-2 3,700 24.9 1 2 2 952 sf dwelling 1924 Pacific Coast Hwy MD R-2 3,700 24.9 1 2 2 1148 sf dwelling 1934 Pacific Coast Hwy MD R-2 3,900 24.9 1 2 2 1039 sf dwelling 830 14th St MD R-2 3,750 24.9 1 2 2 1846 sf dwelling 840 14th St MD R-2 3,750 24.9 1 2 2 1200 sf dwelling 1st MD R-2 3,750 24.9 1 2 2 1326 sf dwelling 825 13th St MD R-2 3,727 24.9 1 2 2 1016 sf dwelling 827 13th St MD R-2 3,750 24.9 1 2 2 1016 sf dwelling 841 13th St MD R-2 3,727 24.9 1 2 2 1978 sf dwelling 36 9th St MD R-2 5,698 24.9 2 3 3 2092 sf dwelling 19 8th St MD R-2 3,794 24.9 1 2 2 2391 sf dwelling
City of Hermosa Beach Housing Element Appendix B – Land Inventory Conexus B-8 Draft – June 2009 Address Gen Plan Zoning Lot size (sf) Max. Density (units/ac) Existing Units Realistic Capacity Low Mod Above Mod Current Use 934 The Strand MD R-2 4,800 24.9 1 2 2 2091 sf dwelling 649 11th St MD R-2 4,752 24.9 1 2 2 1175 sf dwelling 635 11th St MD R-2 4,752 24.9 1 2 2 1256 sf dwelling 642 11th St MD R-2 4,704 24.9 1 2 2 2331 sf dwelling 632 11th St MD R-2 5,600 24.9 2 3 3 2375 sf dwelling 620 11th St MD R-2 4,256 24.9 1 2 2 680 sf dwelling 1010 Ardmore Ave MD R-2 4,104 24.9 1 2 2 1378 sf dwelling 611 10th St MD R-2 4,104 24.9 1 2 2 792 sf dwelling 635 10th St MD R-2 4,104 24.9 1 2 2 1139 sf dwelling 651 10th St MD R-2 4,320 24.9 1 2 2 816 sf dwelling 645 10th St MD R-2 4,104 24.9 1 2 2 1104 sf dwelling 600 10th St MD R-2 4,104 24.9 1 2 2 1300 sf dwelling 626 10th St MD R-2 4,104 24.9 1 2 2 768 sf dwelling 636 10th St MD R-2 4,104 24.9 1 2 2 768 sf dwelling 647 9th St MD R-2 5,400 24.9 1 3 3 1591 sf dwelling 731 9th St MD R-2 4,860 24.9 1 2 2 1188 sf dwelling 601 9th St MD R-2 5,388 24.9 2 3 3 1748 sf dwelling 620 10th St MD R-2 4,400 24.9 1 2 2 2020 sf dwelling 622 10th St MD R-2 4,600 24.9 1 2 2 1834 sf dwelling 620 9th St MD R-2 5,400 24.9 1 3 3 1192 sf dwelling 655 8th Pl MD R-2 5,016 24.9 1 2 2 901 sf dwelling 619 8th Pl MD R-2 5,016 24.9 1 2 2 2036 sf dwelling 724 9th St MD R-2 3,999 24.9 1 2 2 2227 sf dwelling 624 8th Pl MD R-2 3,648 24.9 1 2 2 1572 sf dwelling 616 8th Pl MD R-2 3,648 24.9 1 2 2 1232 sf dwelling 640 8th St MD R-2 2,508 24.9 1 1 1 1372 sf dwelling (1955) 722 Loma Dr MD R-2 4,028 24.9 1 2 2 998 sf dwelling 720 8th St MD R-2 5,016 24.9 1 2 2 2286 sf dwelling 647 7th St MD R-2 3,780 24.9 1 2 2 1859 sf dwelling
City of Hermosa Beach Housing Element Appendix B – Land Inventory Conexus B-9 Draft – June 2009 Address Gen Plan Zoning Lot size (sf) Max. Density (units/ac) Existing Units Realistic Capacity Low Mod Above Mod Current Use 615 7th St MD R-2 4,320 24.9 1 2 2 1126 sf dwelling 616 7th St MD R-2 4,320 24.9 1 2 2 1350 sf dwelling 626 7th St MD R-2 4,321 24.9 1 2 2 1829 sf dwelling 642 7th St MD R-2 4,320 24.9 1 2 2 999 sf dwelling 659 6th St MD R-2 4,320 24.9 1 2 2 1006 sf dwelling 655 6th St MD R-2 4,320 24.9 1 2 2 1006 sf dwelling 611 6th St MD R-2 4,320 24.9 1 2 2 999 sf dwelling 708 2nd St MD R-2 4,600 24.9 1 2 2 866 sf dwelling 640 2nd St MD R-2 4,600 24.9 1 2 2 2352 sf dwelling 625 1st Pl MD R-2 4,255 24.9 1 2 2 772 sf dwelling 705 1st Pl MD R-2 4,600 24.9 1 2 2 576 sf dwelling 646 1st Pl MD R-2 4,600 24.9 1 2 2 1337 sf dwelling 624 1st Pl MD R-2 4,600 24.9 1 2 2 1373 sf dwelling 622 1st Pl MD R-2 4,600 24.9 1 2 2 916 sf dwelling 715 1st St MD R-2 4,600 24.9 1 2 2 1680 sf dwelling 620 1st St MD R-2 4,593 24.9 1 2 2 2416 sf dwelling 608 1st St MD R-2 5,033 24.9 1 2 2 1540 sf dwelling 705 2nd St MD R-2 4,600 24.9 1 2 2 1200 sf dwelling 710 4th St MD R-2 4,600 24.9 1 2 2 816 sf dwelling 629 3rd St MD R-2 4,501 24.9 1 2 2 947 sf dwelling 707 3rd St MD R-2 4,600 24.9 1 2 2 846 sf dwelling 540 Ardmore Ave MD R-2 6,129 24.9 2 3 3 1863 sf dwelling 632 6th St MD R-2 4,320 24.9 1 2 2 793 sf dwelling 646 6th St MD R-2 4,320 24.9 1 2 2 3207 sf dwelling 650 6th St MD R-2 4,320 24.9 1 2 2 1194 sf dwelling 658 6th St MD R-2 4,320 24.9 1 2 2 1104 sf dwelling 666 6th St MD R-2 4,320 24.9 1 2 2 1125 sf dwelling 683 5th St MD R-2 4,320 24.9 1 2 2 1089 sf dwelling 677 5th St MD R-2 4,320 24.9 1 2 2 1932 sf dwelling
City of Hermosa Beach Housing Element Appendix B – Land Inventory Conexus B-10 Draft – June 2009 Address Gen Plan Zoning Lot size (sf) Max. Density (units/ac) Existing Units Realistic Capacity Low Mod Above Mod Current Use 633 5th St MD R-2 4,320 24.9 1 2 2 1089 sf dwelling 625 5th St MD R-2 4,320 24.9 1 2 2 1040 sf dwelling 634 5th St MD R-2 4,720 24.9 1 2 2 951 sf dwelling 101 16th St MD R-2 4,148 24.9 1 2 2 1615 sf dwelling 603 30th St MD R-2B 4,537 24.9 1 2 2 3185 sf dwelling 605 30th St MD R-2B 4,537 24.9 1 2 2 3221 sf dwelling 43 20th St MD R-2B 3,772 24.9 1 2 2 3669 sf dwelling 49 20th St MD R-2B 3,610 24.9 1 2 2 2840 sf dwelling 68 20th St MD R-2B 3,880 24.9 1 2 2 1541 sf dwelling 44 20th St MD R-2B 3,810 24.9 1 2 2 1552 sf dwelling 29 19th St MD R-2B 3,643 24.9 1 2 2 2346 sf dwelling 41 19th MD R-2B 3,705 24.9 1 2 2 5652 sf dwelling 1942 The Strand MD R-2B 4,879 24.9 1 2 2 3436 sf dwelling 44 16th St MD R-2B 3,800 24.9 1 2 2 1393 sf dwelling 34 17th St MD R-2B 3,610 24.9 1 2 2 3709 sf dwelling 40 17th St MD R-2B 3,610 24.9 1 2 2 2785 sf dwelling 33 16th St MD R-2B 3,705 24.9 1 2 2 2501 sf dwelling 39 18th St MD R-2B 3,515 24.9 1 2 2 2066 sf dwelling 1025 17th St MD R-2B 6,856 24.9 1 3 3 1684 sf dwelling 1010 17th St MD R-2B 5,600 24.9 1 3 3 3825 sf dwelling 950 17th St MD R-2B 5,600 24.9 1 3 3 4774 sf dwelling 924 17th St MD R-2B 5,600 24.9 1 3 3 1608 sf dwelling 922 17th St MD R-2B 5,600 24.9 1 3 3 2336 sf dwelling 920 17th St MD R-2B 11,200 24.9 1 6 6 1374 sf dwelling 827 14th St MD R-2B 3,750 24.9 1 2 2 1122 sf dwelling 845 14th St MD R-2B 3,727 24.9 1 2 2 986 sf dwelling 944 15th St MD R-2B 5,670 24.9 1 3 3 1080 sf dwelling 940 15th St MD R-2B 5,670 24.9 1 3 3 2464 sf dwelling 906 15th St MD R-2B 5,670 24.9 1 3 3 850 sf dwelling
City of Hermosa Beach Housing Element Appendix B – Land Inventory Conexus B-11 Draft – June 2009 Address Gen Plan Zoning Lot size (sf) Max. Density (units/ac) Existing Units Realistic Capacity Low Mod Above Mod Current Use 900 15th St MD R-2B 5,670 24.9 1 3 3 2062 sf dwelling 1627 Golden St MD R-2B 6,074 24.9 1 3 3 1089 sf dwelling 1619 Golden St MD R-2B 7,500 24.9 1 4 4 1016 sf dwelling 1620 Golden St MD R-2B 6,836 24.9 1 3 3 2424 sf dwelling 1210 17th St MD R-2B 4,450 24.9 1 2 2 3427 sf dwelling 1734 Prospect Ave MD R-2B 7,109 24.9 1 4 4 4077 sf dwelling 1714 Golden St MD R-2B 4,710 24.9 1 2 2 2022 sf dwelling 1013 7th St MD R-2B 5,200 24.9 1 2 2 888 sf dwelling 917 7th St MD R-2B 4,800 24.9 1 2 2 1029 sf dwelling 911 7th St MD R-2B 4,800 24.9 1 2 2 1035 sf dwelling 832 7th St MD R-2B 4,800 24.9 1 2 2 1176 sf dwelling 914 7th St MD R-2B 4,796 24.9 1 2 2 2914 sf dwelling 938 7th St MD R-2B 4,800 24.9 1 2 2 2178 sf dwelling 942 7th St MD R-2B 4,800 24.9 1 2 2 2178 sf dwelling 925 6th St MD R-2B 6,750 24.9 1 3 3 1429 sf dwelling 1072 7th St MD R-2B 5,197 24.9 1 2 2 1328 sf dwelling 991 6th St MD R-2B 7,500 24.9 1 4 4 1094 sf dwelling 940 6th St MD R-2B 4,320 24.9 1 2 2 2261 sf dwelling 532 Pine St MD R-2B 3,840 24.9 1 2 2 2073 sf dwelling 921 5th St MD R-2B 5,200 24.9 1 2 2 2695 sf dwelling 931 5th St MD R-2B 6,500 24.9 1 3 3 2254 sf dwelling 960 6th St MD R-2B 6,500 24.9 1 3 3 3628 sf dwelling 970 6th St MD R-2B 8,320 24.9 1 4 4 1340 sf dwelling 1018 6th St MD R-2B 5,589 24.9 1 3 3 1118 sf dwelling 501 Prospect Ave MD R-2B 6,990 24.9 1 3 3 2370 sf dwelling 535 Prospect Ave MD R-2B 4,270 24.9 1 2 2 3063 sf dwelling 959 5th St MD R-2B 4,550 24.9 1 2 2 2282 sf dwelling 444 Ocean View Ave MD R-2B 4,408 24.9 1 2 2 1319 sf dwelling 422 Ocean View Ave MD R-2B 4,408 24.9 1 2 2 1231 sf dwelling
City of Hermosa Beach Housing Element Appendix B – Land Inventory Conexus B-12 Draft – June 2009 Address Gen Plan Zoning Lot size (sf) Max. Density (units/ac) Existing Units Realistic Capacity Low Mod Above Mod Current Use 431 Hopkins Ave MD R-2B 8,400 24.9 1 4 4 1021 sf dwelling 311 Hopkins Ave MD R-2B 4,210 24.9 1 2 2 2343 sf dwelling 309 Hopkins Ave MD R-2B 4,210 24.9 1 2 2 2343 sf dwelling Subtotal R-2/R-2B 153 331 331 1221 24th St MD SPA-9 3,746 24.9 1 2 2 1206 sf dwelling 1231 24th St MD SPA-9 3,746 24.9 1 2 2 875 sf dwelling Subtotal SPA-9 2 4 4 2902 Hermosa Ave HD R-3 2,971 33 1 2 2 5216 sf dwelling 3224 Hermosa Ave HD R-3 4,250 33 1 3 3 2410 sf dwelling 133 35th Street HD R-3 1,504 33 1 1 1 1699 sf dwelling (1936) 1516 Monterey Blvd HD R-3 5,000 33 1 3 3 1496 sf dwelling 1901 Pacific Coast Hwy HD R-3 4,722 33 2 3 3 1972 sf dwelling 903 5th St HD R-3 5,998 33 3 4 4 2106 sf- 3 dwelling units 47 10th St HD R-3 2,850 33 1 2 2 1175 sf dwelling 1011 Manhattan Ave HD R-3 4,000 33 1 3 3 2696 sf dwelling 1101 Monterey Blvd HD R-3 3,700 33 1 2 2 2214 sf dwelling 1085 Monterey Blvd HD R-3 4,299 33 2 3 3 1940 sf dwelling 1068 Bayview Dr HD R-3 2,900 33 1 2 2 1781 sf dwelling 1021 Monterey Blvd HD R-3 2,900 33 1 2 2 2307 sf dwelling 1010 Monterey Blvd HD R-3 5,000 33 1 3 3 2235 sf dwelling 1085 Loma Dr HD R-3 3,763 33 1 2 2 1368 sf dwelling 843 Loma Dr HD R-3 2,790 33 1 2 2 821 sf dwelling 821 Loma Dr HD R-3 2,790 33 1 2 2 1430 sf dwelling 811 Loma Dr HD R-3 2,790 33 1 2 2 1131 sf dwelling 936 Monterey Blvd HD R-3 2,800 33 1 2 2 716 sf dwelling 925 Loma Dr HD R-3 2,790 33 1 2 2 648 sf dwelling 832 Loma Dr HD R-3 3,180 33 1 2 2 920 sf dwelling 818 Loma Dr HD R-3 3,180 33 1 2 2 906 sf dwelling 833 Cypress St HD R-3 3,000 33 1 2 2 912 sf dwelling
City of Hermosa Beach Housing Element Appendix B – Land Inventory Conexus B-13 Draft – June 2009 Address Gen Plan Zoning Lot size (sf) Max. Density (units/ac) Existing Units Realistic Capacity Low Mod Above Mod Current Use 839 Cypress St HD R-3 3,000 33 1 2 2 912 sf dwelling 845 Cypress St HD R-3 3,000 33 1 2 2 1344 sf dwelling 856 Cypress St HD R-3 3,150 33 1 2 2 892 sf dwelling 854 Bard St HD R-3 3,450 33 1 2 2 1440 sf dwelling 812 Bard St HD R-3 3,978 33 1 3 3 822 sf dwelling 545 8th St HD R-3 4,680 33 1 3 3 1000 sf dwelling 821 Bard St HD R-3 3,300 33 1 2 2 1007 sf dwelling 52 8th St HD R-3 2,850 33 1 2 2 1468 sf dwelling 57 7th St HD R-3 2,850 33 1 2 2 803 sf dwelling 24 7th St HD R-3 2,850 33 1 2 2 971 sf dwelling 36 7th Ct HD R-3 2,850 33 1 2 2 3827 sf dwelling 612 The Strand HD R-3 4,835 33 1 3 3 4109 sf dwelling 500 11th St HD R-3 5,000 33 1 3 3 1053 sf dwelling 1040 Loma Dr HD R-3 3,600 33 1 2 2 1524 sf dwelling 1212 Loma Dr HD R-3 4,240 33 1 3 3 2439 sf dwelling 1092 Loma Dr HD R-3 3,600 33 1 2 2 1032 sf dwelling 1101 Cypress St HD R-3 5,014 33 2 3 3 1675 - 2 dwelling units 1207 Cypress St HD R-3 4,000 33 1 3 3 1655 sf dwelling 1125 Cypress St HD R-3 3,999 33 2 3 3 2048 sf - 2 dwelling units 1111 Cypress St HD R-3 4,000 33 2 3 3 3488 - 2 dwelling units 1100 Loma Dr HD R-3 4,665 33 1 3 3 1708 sf dwelling 1154 Cypress St HD R-3 3,999 33 2 3 3 1380-2 dwelling units 1160 Cypress St HD R-3 4,000 33 1 3 3 1635 sf dwelling 1308 Cypress St HD R-3 3,200 33 1 2 2 780 sf dwelling 501 11th St HD R-3 5,000 33 1 3 3 1449 sf dwelling 533 11th St HD R-3 5,014 33 2 3 3 1216 sf - 2 dwelling units 545 11th St HD R-3 5,000 33 1 3 3 1044 sf dwelling 551 11th St HD R-3 5,000 33 1 3 3 1053 sf dwelling 647 Manhattan Ave HD R-3 3,000 33 1 2 2 1052 sf dwelling
City of Hermosa Beach Housing Element Appendix B – Land Inventory Conexus B-14 Draft – June 2009 Address Gen Plan Zoning Lot size (sf) Max. Density (units/ac) Existing Units Realistic Capacity Low Mod Above Mod Current Use 526 8th St HD R-3 3,615 33 1 2 2 1764 sf dwelling 502 8th St HD R-3 2,740 33 1 2 2 1454 sf dwelling 78 The Strand HD R-3 5,370 33 2 4 4 2510 sf - 2 dwelling units 35 6th Ct HD R-3 2,849 33 1 2 2 4285 sf dwelling 24 5th St HD R-3 2,850 33 1 2 2 1111 sf dwelling 37 5th Ct HD R-3 2,850 33 1 2 2 4225 sf dwelling 48 5th St HD R-3 2,850 33 1 2 2 1232 sf dwelling 19 4th St HD R-3 3,330 33 1 2 2 1305 sf dwelling 17 3rd St HD R-3 3,472 33 1 2 2 4551 sf dwelling 18 3rd St HD R-3 2,660 33 1 2 2 4235 sf dwelling 300 Manhattan Ave HD R-3 2,900 33 1 2 2 776 sf dwelling 502 Manhattan Ave HD R-3 2,900 33 1 2 2 1724 sf dwelling 423 Monterey Blvd HD R-3 3,000 33 1 2 2 2046 sf dwelling 438 Hermosa Ave HD R-3 3,999 33 2 3 3 2322 sf - 2 dwelling units 107 Manhattan Ave HD R-3 2,900 33 1 2 2 2173 sf dwelling 129 Manhattan Ave HD R-3 2,900 33 1 2 2 1816 sf dwelling 127 Manhattan Ave HD R-3 2,900 33 1 2 2 1816 sf dwelling 114 Monterey Blvd HD R-3 3,220 33 1 2 2 1324 sf dwelling 126 Monterey Blvd HD R-3 3,590 33 1 2 2 924 sf dwelling 142 Monterey Blvd HD R-3 4,262 33 1 3 3 2532 sf dwelling 162 Monterey Blvd HD R-3 5,052 33 1 3 3 1120 sf dwelling 412 Monterey Blvd HD R-3 3,500 33 1 2 2 2304 sf dwelling 408 Monterey Blvd HD R-3 3,000 33 1 2 2 1392 sf dwelling 244 Monterey Blvd HD R-3 3,000 33 1 2 2 965 sf dwelling 216 Monterey Blvd HD R-3 3,000 33 1 2 2 1567 sf dwelling Subtotal R-3 87 180 180 119 Meyer Ct HD R-P 3,360 33 1 2 2 1081 sf dwelling 121 Meyer Ct HD R-P 3,360 33 1 2 2 1140 sf dwelling 931 1st St HD R-P 6,720 33 1 5 5 820 sf dwelling
City of Hermosa Beach Housing Element Appendix B – Land Inventory Conexus B-15 Draft – June 2009 Address Gen Plan Zoning Lot size (sf) Max. Density (units/ac) Existing Units Realistic Capacity Low Mod Above Mod Current Use 1112 Manhattan Ave HD R-P 4,000 33 1 3 3 1500 sf dwelling 161 Lyndon St HD R-P 2,850 33 1 2 2 1738 sf dwelling Subtotal R-P 5 14 14 Subtotals-Underutilized 255 558 541 0 17 Totals 255 566 549 0 17
City of Hermosa Beach Housing Element Appendix B – Land Inventory
Conexus B-16 Draft – June 2009
Figure B-1
Residential Land Inventory
City of Hermosa Beach Housing Element Appendix C – Public Participation Summary
Conexus C-1 Draft – June 2009
Appendix C
Public Participation Summary
This summary of Housing Element public-participation efforts describes
opportunities for public involvement along with an explanation of how public
comments were incorporated into the Housing Element. In addition, prior to the
adoption hearings all interested parties were given the opportunity to review the
recommended revisions.
Public participation is an important component of the planning process, and this
update to the Housing Element has provided residents and other interested
parties numerous opportunities for review and comment. Public notices of all
Housing Element meetings and public hearings were published in the local
newspaper in advance of each meeting, as well as posting the notices on the
City’s website. The draft Housing Element was made available for review at City
Hall, posted on the City’s website, as well as at the Public Library. The document
was also made available to housing advocates, mobile home residents, and
non-profit organizations representing the interests of lower-income persons and
special needs groups. Table C-1 on the following page lists organizations that
were included in the notice of public meetings for this Housing Element update:
After receiving comments on the draft Housing Element from the State Housing
and Community Development Department, a proposed final Housing Element
was prepared and made available for public review prior to adoption by the
City Council.
The following is a list of opportunities for public involvement in the preparation of
this Housing Element update.
Planning Commission Study Session July 13, 2009
Planning Commission hearing _______, 2009
City Council hearing _______, 2009
Table C-2 provides a summary of public comments offered during the public
review process. [to be added]
City of Hermosa Beach Housing Element Appendix C – Public Participation Summary
Conexus C-2 Draft – June 2009
Table C-1
Housing Element Notification List
Beach Cities Transit
So Bay Cities COG
City of Manhattan Beach
City of Torrance
City of Redondo Beach
Hermosa Beach School District
Redondo Beach USD
South Bay Assoc of Realtors
Hermosa Beach Chamber of
Commerce
South Bay Senior Services
Marineland Mobilehome Park
Sunrise Assisted Living
South Bay Adult Center
Shelter Partnership
Beach Cities Health District
Family Crisis Center
Social Vocational Services South Bay
Independent Visions
L.A. County Department of Children &
Family Services
Wellness Community-South Hermosa
Beach Bay Cities
Harbor Regional Center
Westside Center for Independent Living
The Arc-South Bay
1736 Family Crisis Center
Emma Hoff-Regional Community
Service Coordinator
Rebuild Together South Bay LA
Kenny Nickelson Memorial Foundation
For Homeless Veterans & Children
Salvation Army “His House Family
Services”
Project Touch
South Bay Center for Counseling
Hermosa Beach Community Ctr.
Foundation
Sister Dulce Charitable Foundation
Hermosa Beach Kiwanis Club
Hermosa Beach Woman's Club
Rotary Of Hermosa Beach
Hermosa Beach Veterans
Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority
Hope Chapel Church
Catholic Charities
Church Of Christ
St. Cross Episcopal Church
Our Lady of Guadalupe Catholic
Church
Jewish Community Center
Christian Science Church
Native American Heritage Commission
Gabrieleno/Tongva Indians of CA
Chumash Tribe
Utilities
State agencies
City of Hermosa Beach Housing Element Appendix C – Public Participation Summary
Conexus C-3 Draft – June 2009
Table C-2
Public Comment Summary
[To be added]
City of Hermosa BeachHousing ElementUpdatePlanning Commission Meeting July 21, 2009Conexus
Housing Element Housing Element OverviewOverview•Part of the General Plan•2008-2014 update required by state law•Fine-tune housing priorities & strategies•Demonstrate compliance with state law•Review by HCD – “Certification”
Housing Element Housing Element OverviewOverview• Importance of HCD Certification-Eligibility for grant funds-Legal adequacy of the General Plan-Local control of land use decisions-No RHNA “carryover”-Ensure 8-year Housing Element “shelf life”
Key Housing Element Key Housing Element RequirementsRequirements•Maintain & improve existing housing•Plan for growth needs for all household types & income levels
Key Housing Element Key Housing Element RequirementsRequirements•Remove constraints to housing development•Ensure fair housing & equal opportunity
Key Housing Element Key Housing Element RequirementsRequirements• Accommodate a variety of new housing:-Single-family homes & condos-Multi-family apartments-Second (“granny”) units-Emergency shelters-Transitional housing-Mixed-use & live/work
Recent Changes in Recent Changes in Housing Element LawHousing Element LawAB 2348 (2004)•Establishes “default density” of 20 du/ac for lower-income housingMust demonstrate “adequate sites”
Recent Changes in Recent Changes in Housing Element LawHousing Element LawSB 2 (2007)•Stronger planning & zoning requirements for emergency shelters and transitional & supportive housingIdentify a zone where permanent emergency shelters are allowed by-rightTreat transitional/supportive housing the same as other residential uses of the same type in the same zone
Recent Changes in Recent Changes in Housing Element LawHousing Element LawSB 375 (2008)•Addresses land use & transportation effects on greenhouse gas (GhG) emissions31% of GhG emissions come from passenger vehicles (i.e., excluding freight)Land use & transportation planning to reduce GhG emissionsLinks regional housing needs (RHNA) with transportation planningCARB (state) sets regional emissions targets; COGs (local elected officials) adopt plans (RTP, RHNA) to achieve targetsSustainable Communities Strategy
Housing Element CycleHousing Element CycleHousing ElementEvaluationHousing ElementEvaluationRefine Goals, Policies & ObjectivesRefine Goals, Policies & ObjectivesHousing NeedsAssessmentHousing NeedsAssessmentAnalyze Resourcesand ConstraintsAnalyze Resourcesand ConstraintsAction PlanAction PlanImplementationImplementation
Regional HousingRegional HousingNeeds AssessmentNeeds Assessment20062006--20142014•Mandated by state law & prepared by SCAG•Each jurisdiction must accommodate its fair share•Includes replacement housing (gross, not net)•Variety of housing types•Linked to availability of sites with appropriate zoning•Programs to encourage housing at all income levels
RHNA Income CategoriesRHNA Income Categories2008LA County Median Income = $59,800IncomeLimitsEx. Low $22,750Very Low $37,900Low $60,650Moderate $71,800Above Moderate $71,800+Assumptions: Based on a family of 430% of gross income for rent or PITI10% down payment, 5.5% interest, 1.2% taxes & insurance, $200 HOA duesSource: Cal HCD; Conexus
RHNA Income CategoriesRHNA Income Categories2008LA County Median Income = $59,800IncomeLimitsAffordable RentEx. Low $22,750 $569Very Low $37,900 $948Low $60,650 $1,516Moderate $71,800 $1,795Above Moderate $71,800+ $1,795+Assumptions: Based on a family of 430% of gross income for rent or PITI10% down payment, 5.5% interest, 1.2% taxes & insurance, $200 HOA duesSource: Cal HCD; Conexus
RHNA Income CategoriesRHNA Income Categories2008LA County Median Income = $59,800IncomeLimitsAffordable RentAffordable Price (est.)Ex. Low $22,750 $569 --Very Low $37,900 $948 $135,000Low $60,650 $1,516 $200,000Moderate $71,800 $1,795 $250,000Above Moderate $71,800+ $1,795+ $250,000+Assumptions: Based on a family of 430% of gross income for rent or PITI10% down payment, 5.5% interest, 1.2% taxes & insurance, $200 HOA duesSource: Cal HCD; Conexus
RHNA AllocationsRHNA Allocations20062006--20142014VLLowModAMTotalHermosa Beach1479398224562South Bay Cities COG*3,4502,1732,3455,76513,733SCAG Region165,000114,000127,000294,000700,000*Cities of Carson, El Segundo, Gardena, Hawthorne, Hermosa Beach, Inglewood, Lawndale, Lomita, Manhattan Beach, Palos Verdes Estates, Rancho Palos Verdes, Redondo Beach, Rolling Hills, Rolling Hills Estates, Torrance, and the Harbor City & San Pedro areas of Los Angeles.Source: SCAG, 2007
Land InventoryLand InventoryLowerModAMUnits built 2006-08 - - 208Units approved - - 34Vacant sites 8 - -Underutilized sites 454 - 17Totals462259RHNA 240 98 224Surplus capacity+222(98)+35
Significance of RHNASignificance of RHNA•RHNA is nota development mandate•Cities don’t build housing•Affordable housing requires subsidies•Focus is on development opportunities•RHNA is compared to inventory of sites with development potential•Focus on lower-income need•If insufficient sites are available to accommodate RHNA, City must create additional capacity
Other IssuesOther IssuesSpecial Needs Housing (Program 7)Allow emergency shelters by-right in at least one zone (C-3, R-3)Transitional/supportive housing is a residential use and must be treated the same as other residential uses of the same type in the same zoneRegulations for group homes, care facilities & household sizeReasonable accommodation ordinance
Other IssuesOther IssuesSpecial Needs Housing (Program 7, cont.)SROsParking requirementsMinimum unit size
Next StepsNext Steps•City Council review•State HCD review•Fine-tuning•Planning Commission & City Council hearings•Adoption•State certification
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
Date: July 21, 2009
To: Planning Commission
From: Pamela Townsend, Senior Planner
Subject: Response to Supplemental from Fred Huebscher
Parking Plan – Skinny Mini -1100 Pacific Coast Highway #6
This memo briefly responds to each issue presented in the Supplemental submitted by Fred
Huebscher. Mr. Huebscher's concerns are listed below and staff has responded in italics.
Staff is proposing the following project condition to address those issues that staff believes are
reasonably related to the Parking Plan:
11. Prior to commencement of business, all shared parking facilities serving the shopping
center shall conform to the approved parking lot layout and with all applicable state and local
parking lot signage regulations and codes to the satisfaction of the Community Development
Director, Fire Department and Police Department as shown in Exhibit A of the Resolution.
12. A handicapped parking space compliant with the American Disabilities Act of 1990 as
amended shall be designated adjacent to the subject building and adjacent spaces shall be
restriped in accordance with all laws.
A. Mr. Huebscher's statement of alleged violations by the property owner and/or applicant:
A-1) California Vehicle Code Section 22658 (a) (1) requires that at every entrance to a
private parking lot signs are enacted that explain who can park there, for how long, where
you can claim your vehicle if it’s towed and the phone number of the police department
This section does not require any signage; it authorizes owners to tow vehicles provided
signage that meets specified standards in this code is installed.
A-2) Hermosa Beach Municipal Code Section 17.50.040 (A) and (B) regarding timing of
review of signage for new businesses: For new construction, signage proposals are
routinely incorporated into project review. Otherwise, a sign permit must be obtained in
conformance with the Municipal Code. Staff does not believe this issue is not otherwise
relevant to the Parking Plan.
A-3) Hermosa Beach Municipal Code Section 17.50.040 (D) (4) says that only one real
estate sign is permitted per site. This issue is not relevant to the Parking Plan.
A-4) Hermosa Beach Municipal Code Section 17.50.080 (3) says that signs are prohibited
that “Advertise any activity, business…no longer conducted on the premises upon which
the sign is located…” The property owner has not removed the Ritz Camera signs. The
proposed conditions require compliance with the Municipal Code generally. This issue
is not relevant to the Parking Plan.
A-5) Hermosa Beach Municipal Code Section 17.50.140 (D) limits the amount of signage
on a property… too much space occupied by signage…. there are signs that occupy
more than 25 percent of the wall or facia. Staff has not evaluated signage in the shopping
center as part of this review, as building signage is not relevant to the adequacy of
parking.
A-6) The 13th Street parking lot and Aubrey Park Court parking lot violate the Americans
With Disabilities Act that requires that parking lots be handicapped accessible. There is
no way for folks in wheelchairs or using walkers to get to these lots without climbing
stairs. The Building Division enforces the ADA/California Building Code regulations for
existing parking lots and buildings. It is contrary to the codes to place accessible
parking spaces in locations such as the 13th and Aubrey parking lots as they are not
accessible to building entrances. The accessible parking is properly located on the same
level as entrances to the businesses. Existing buildings and parking lots would only
need to be upgraded when sufficient improvements or other conditions trigger an
upgrade to the current codes. A change of tenant does not require an entire retrofit of a
shopping center.
B. Mr. Huebscher's statement of other pertinent facts regarding the shopping center that
have not been considered:
B-1) The Planning Department claims that there are 174 spaces available. This is clearly
wrong. …. So in reality, there are only 137 real spaces which is far below what is
mandated by the city according to the 1997 parking plan. Staff counted 174 spaces but
two spaces have been reinstated (being the drive-through for Starbucks) so that 176
spaces now exist with one space lost due to ADA striping. Signage in the lot must be
conformed to the Municipal code, such that no spaces are reserved. Although Condition
2 of Planning Commission Resolution 97-51 states that "employees of the shopping
center shall be required to park in either the 13th Street parking lot behind the center."
Although employees should be encouraged to use the upper lot signage prohibiting
customers is not allowed. However, to address these concerns, staff has included
proposed Conditions 11 and 12 above.
B-2) The parking plan that is currently in force is from 1997 and a parking survey was
done at that time. Much has changed since 1997 such as the Starbucks drive-thru
opening and new businesses opening in the shopping center. The issues for the Planning
Commission to decide are whether the proposed business is a snack shop with a parking
standard of one space per 250 square feet of gross floor area, and whether the shared
parking will be adequate for the use because the use will not demand more parking that
the prior use or other conditions exist that mitigate parking demand. The Staff Report
presents evidence that the use is a snack shop and on that basis and due to the
characteristics of the use and with a peak hour that is offset from that of Starbucks and to
a lesser degree Ralphs adequate parking will be available. However, the Commission
could require a new parking analysis.
B-3) There is no handicapped space located anywhere near the proposed yogurt shop. The
Building Division indicates that change of tenant does not require provision of new ADA
improvements; however there are some exceptions relating to type of use, valuation, etc.
Assuming the physical attributes of the building will accommodate ADA accessibility,
the Planning Commission may condition the project on the provision of a
handicapped space as indicated in Condition 12 as stated above.
B-4) There are no handicapped parking spaces in the 13th Street lot. See item A.6 above.
B-5) There is no signage in the main parking lot (i.e. the lot on PCH) indicating that there
is more parking available in the 13th Street lot and Aubrey Park Court lot. The
Commission may require such signage to be made a condition of the Parking Plan as
stated above.
B-6) Neither the 13th Street lot nor Aubrey Park Court lot are handicapped accessible (no
walkways or elevators for wheelchairs, walkers etc.). See item A.6 above.
B-7) It is pure speculation that the yogurt shop will be a less intense use than the former
camera store. … from 7 PM-Midnight the yogurt shop will be far, far more intensive
since the camera store closed at 7 PM. Also, the camera store generated a lot of business
from orders placed on line reducing the number of customers who had to visit the store.
Obviously, the same situation is not true for the yogurt shop. See item B.2 above.
Mr. Huebscher's statement of what the Planning Commission should do before
considering Parking Plan 09-6:
1) Order that a complete study by Code Enforcement is made of the signage at the shopping
center to make sure the shopping center complies with the Municipal Code and if in
violation that the situation is corrected immediately. Staff has proposed an additional
Condition 11 above. Building signs are not relevant to the parking Plan.
2) Order that an independent parking study is conducted by a firm/individual that is
acceptable to the city, applicant and property owner. The current study is too old to use
given the many changes since 1997. See item B.2 above.
3) Make sure that there really are 174 parking spaces available for all customers and if not,
mandate that the property owner take any and all actions to make 174 parking spaces
available for all customers. See item B.1 above.
4) Make sure that all 3 parking lots comply with the Americans With Disabilities Act by
making sure all three lots are handicapped accessible. See item A.6 above.
5) Make sure that all illegal signs (e.g. Ritz Camera sign) are removed immediately. See
items A.3 through A.5 above. Building signs are not relevant to the parking Plan.
6) Make sure that signs are erected at all entrances to all three parking lots that comply with
Vehicle Code Section 22658 (a) (1). See item A.1 above.
July 20, 2009
From: Fred Huebscher
924 16th Street
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
310-374-0568
drslate@verizon.net
To: Hermosa Beach Planning Commission
Re: Parking Plan 09-6
Dear Planning Commissioners,
I will be unable to attend the July 21, 2009 meeting where you will be
making a decision regarding the above parking plan.
It would seem to me that before Parking Plan 09-6 is enacted certain actions
must be taken to insure that the applicant and property owner comply with
state law, federal law and the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code.
I cannot imagine that your commission would ratify this plan for a property
owner who is flaunting state and federal laws and our Municipal Code.
Here are the violations by the property owner and/or applicant:
1) California Vehicle Code Section 22658 (a) (1) requires that at every
entrance to a private parking lot signs are enacted that explain who
can park there, for how long, where you can claim your vehicle if it’s
towed and the phone number of the police department. None of the
entrances to the 3 parking lots (PCH, 13th St., Aubrey Park Ct.) has
any correct signs as required by the Vehicle Code.
2) Hermosa Beach Municipal Code Section 17.50.040 (A) and (B)
require that a sign plan be submitted to the city for a business. The
applicant’s parking plan does not indicate that a sign plan has been
submitted or approved.
3) Hermosa Beach Municipal Code Section 17.50.040 (D) (4) says that
only one real estate sign is permitted per site. The applicant’s
application contains photos showing that the property owner had two
real estate signs posted on this site (“RED HOT PCH CORNER FOR
LEASE CALL (310) 374-8991”) in violation of the law.
4) Hermosa Beach Municipal Code Section 17.50.080 (3) says that signs
are prohibited that “Advertise any activity, business…no longer
conducted on the premises upon which the sign is located…” Again
the applicant’s application contains photos showing that the property
owner has not removed the Ritz Camera signs from the premises.
5) Hermosa Beach Municipal Code Section 17.50.140 (D) limits the
amount of signage on a property. It seems clear to me that the
shopping center is violating this ordinance by having too much space
occupied by signage. Moreover section D 4 is being violated since
there are signs that occupy more than 25 percent of the wall or facia.
6) The 13th Street parking lot and Aubrey Park Court parking lot violate
the Americans With Disabilities Act that requires that parking lots be
handicapped accessible. There is no way for folks in wheelchairs or
using walkers to get to these lots without climbing stairs.
Other pertinent facts regarding the shopping center that have not been
considered:
1) The Planning Department claims that there are 174 spaces available.
This is clearly wrong. First of all, the property owner’s 13th Street
parking lot has a sign saying “Ralphs Employee Parking
Only…Violators Will Be Towed” (a photo of this sign will be
emailed separately) so that means the lot is not available for parking
for the shopping center. There are 22 spaces in this lot that should not
be counted. Secondly, the Aubrey Park Court parking lot has no
signage indicating that shopping center customers can park there (a
photo of the entrance will be emailed separately). There are 15 spaces
in this lot that should not be counted because unless you’re a mind
reader you don’t know that shopping center customers may park here.
Moreover, there are 4 spaces in this lot that should not be counted
under any circumstances; one space has a sign saying “Violators Will
Be Towed, Parking Only For R. Bacon” (a photo of this sign will be
emailed separately), two spaces have a “No Parking” sign (a photo of
these parking spaces will be emailed separately); one space is
inaccessible if someone parks behind the space in another designated
space (a photo of these parking spaces will be emailed separately). So
in reality, there are only 137 real spaces which is far below what is
mandated by the city according to the 1997 parking plan.
2) The parking plan that is currently in force is from 1997 and a parking
survey was done at that time. Much has changed since 1997 such as
the Starbucks drive-thru opening and new businesses opening in the
shopping center.
3) There is no handicapped space located anywhere near the proposed
yogurt shop.
4) There are no handicapped parking spaces in the 13th Street lot.
5) There is no signage in the main parking lot (i.e. the lot on PCH)
indicating that there is more parking available in the 13th Street lot and
Aubrey Park Court lot.
6) Neither the 13th Street lot nor Aubrey Park Court lot are handicapped
accessible (no walkways or elevators for wheelchairs, walkers etc.).
7) It is pure speculation that the yogurt shop will be a less intense use
than the former camera store. I would argue that certainly from 7PM-
Midnight the yogurt shop will be far, far more intensive since the
camera store closed at 7 PM. Also, the camera store generated a lot of
business from orders placed on line reducing the number of customers
who had to visit the store. Obviously, the same situation is not true
for the yogurt shop.
What the Planning Commission should do before considering Parking
Plan 09-6:
1) Order that a complete study by Code Enforcement is made of the
signage at the shopping center to make sure the shopping center
complies with the Municipal Code and if in violation that the situation
is corrected immediately.
2) Order that an independent parking study is conducted by a
firm/individual that is acceptable to the city, applicant and property
owner. The current study is too old to use given the many changes
since 1997.
3) Make sure that there really are 174 parking spaces available for all
customers and if not, mandate that the property owner take any and
all actions to make 174 parking spaces available for all customers.
4) Make sure that all 3 parking lots comply with the Americans With
Disabilities Act by making sure all three lots are handicapped
accessible.
5) Make sure that all illegal signs (e.g. Ritz Camera sign) are removed
immediately.
6) Make sure that signs are erected at all entrances to all three parking
lots that comply with Vehicle Code Section 22658 (a) (1).
Summary
It is clear that the property owner has violated numerous sections of the
Hermosa Beach Municipal Code and the California Vehicle Code. How can
the Planning Commission even consider this application when the property
owner is violating the law? Does the city condone property owners who
violate the law?
There are several purported “facts” about the number of parking spaces that
are patently incorrect. There are not 174 parking spaces available given that
the 13th Street lot is only available to Ralphs employees, the Aubrey Park
Court lot has no signage indicating that shopping center customers can park
there and the Aubrey Park Court lot has 4 spaces that are not available for
parking.
As mentioned above, I strongly urge you to reject the applicant and property
owner’s parking plan until a new parking study is done, the property owner
complies with all city, state and federal laws, and the city makes sure that all
174 parking spaces are really available for all shopping center customers.
Sincerely,
Fred Huebscher
1 13th Street Lot Entrance With Sign Showing It's For Ralphs Employees Only SUPPLEMENTAL ITEM 8: SUBMITTED BY FRED HUEBSCHER, JULY 21, 2009
2 Stairway From PCH Lot to 13th St. Lot showing no signage indicating that there is a parking lot above
3 Aubrey Park Court Lot Entrance showing no signage indicating the lot is for shopping center customers
4 Private Roger Bacon Parking Space In Aubrey Park Court lot
5 Aubreys Park Court Lot 2 spaces with no parking sign in front of garage
6 Non-Parking Space in Aubrey Park Court Lot--Look at back right and you'll see two tandem spaces
From: F.O. Huebscher [fred@politicalscientists.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 5:09 PM
To: Pamela Townsend; Pete Hoffman; Kent Allen; Shawn Darcy; Ron Pizer; Sam
Perrotti; Elaine Doerfling
Subject: Re: Supplemental for Skinny Minny's - July 21, 2009 PC Meeting
Attachments: "AVG certification"
Dear Ms. Townsend,
I would appreciate your putting the following response to your email in
the public record for tonight's meeting.
I am not claiming that the municipal code violations are connected to the
parking plan. What I am saying is that how can the Planning
Commission approve a parking plan for an applicant and property owner
who are violating the municipal code. Imagine that I needed a zoning
variance to make an addition to my home and I had illegal signs,
banners and an illegal unit on my property. Would the Planning
Commission even consider giving me a variance while I was violating
the law?
With regard to the proposed condition #11. The Condition is not specific
enough. You need to mandate that the signage be removed from the
13th St. lot and the Aubrey Park Court lot. Moreover, you fail to address
the issue of the unusable parking space in the Aubrey Park Court lot.
And you need to mandate that there is signage at the entrance to the
Aubrey Park
Court lot that it is for shopping center customers. Also, you need to
mandate there is lots of signage in the main PCH lot that there is
additional parking available in the two other lots and making sure folks
know where these lots are.
Your parking plan should not be based upon a parking survey done 12
years ago. We don't redistrict Congressional Districts and legislative
districts using data from 12 years ago for the same reason: conditions
change.
Sincerely,
Fred Huebscher
Fred Huebscher
310-374-0568
www.politicalscientists.com
July 20, 2009
From: Fred Huebscher
924 16th Street
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
310-374-0568
drslate@verizon.net
To: Hermosa Beach Planning Commission
Re: Parking Plan 09-6
Dear Planning Commissioners,
I will be unable to attend the July 21, 2009 meeting where you will be
making a decision regarding the above parking plan.
It would seem to me that before Parking Plan 09-6 is enacted certain actions
must be taken to insure that the applicant and property owner comply with
state law, federal law and the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code.
I cannot imagine that your commission would ratify this plan for a property
owner who is flaunting state and federal laws and our Municipal Code.
Here are the violations by the property owner and/or applicant:
1) California Vehicle Code Section 22658 (a) (1) requires that at every
entrance to a private parking lot signs are enacted that explain who
can park there, for how long, where you can claim your vehicle if it’s
towed and the phone number of the police department. None of the
entrances to the 3 parking lots (PCH, 13th St., Aubrey Park Ct.) has
any correct signs as required by the Vehicle Code.
2) Hermosa Beach Municipal Code Section 17.50.040 (A) and (B)
require that a sign plan be submitted to the city for a business. The
applicant’s parking plan does not indicate that a sign plan has been
submitted or approved.
3) Hermosa Beach Municipal Code Section 17.50.040 (D) (4) says that
only one real estate sign is permitted per site. The applicant’s
application contains photos showing that the property owner had two
real estate signs posted on this site (“RED HOT PCH CORNER FOR
LEASE CALL (310) 374-8991”) in violation of the law.
4) Hermosa Beach Municipal Code Section 17.50.080 (3) says that signs
are prohibited that “Advertise any activity, business…no longer
conducted on the premises upon which the sign is located…” Again
the applicant’s application contains photos showing that the property
owner has not removed the Ritz Camera signs from the premises.
5) Hermosa Beach Municipal Code Section 17.50.140 (D) limits the
amount of signage on a property. It seems clear to me that the
shopping center is violating this ordinance by having too much space
occupied by signage. Moreover section D 4 is being violated since
there are signs that occupy more than 25 percent of the wall or facia.
6) The 13th Street parking lot and Aubrey Park Court parking lot violate
the Americans With Disabilities Act that requires that parking lots be
handicapped accessible. There is no way for folks in wheelchairs or
using walkers to get to these lots without climbing stairs.
Other pertinent facts regarding the shopping center that have not been
considered:
1) The Planning Department claims that there are 174 spaces available.
This is clearly wrong. First of all, the property owner’s 13th Street
parking lot has a sign saying “Ralphs Employee Parking
Only…Violators Will Be Towed” (a photo of this sign will be
emailed separately) so that means the lot is not available for parking
for the shopping center. There are 22 spaces in this lot that should not
be counted. Secondly, the Aubrey Park Court parking lot has no
signage indicating that shopping center customers can park there (a
photo of the entrance will be emailed separately). There are 15 spaces
in this lot that should not be counted because unless you’re a mind
reader you don’t know that shopping center customers may park here.
Moreover, there are 4 spaces in this lot that should not be counted
under any circumstances; one space has a sign saying “Violators Will
Be Towed, Parking Only For R. Bacon” (a photo of this sign will be
emailed separately), two spaces have a “No Parking” sign (a photo of
these parking spaces will be emailed separately); one space is
inaccessible if someone parks behind the space in another designated
space (a photo of these parking spaces will be emailed separately). So
in reality, there are only 137 real spaces which is far below what is
mandated by the city according to the 1997 parking plan.
2) The parking plan that is currently in force is from 1997 and a parking
survey was done at that time. Much has changed since 1997 such as
the Starbucks drive-thru opening and new businesses opening in the
shopping center.
3) There is no handicapped space located anywhere near the proposed
yogurt shop.
4) There are no handicapped parking spaces in the 13th Street lot.
5) There is no signage in the main parking lot (i.e. the lot on PCH)
indicating that there is more parking available in the 13th Street lot and
Aubrey Park Court lot.
6) Neither the 13th Street lot nor Aubrey Park Court lot are handicapped
accessible (no walkways or elevators for wheelchairs, walkers etc.).
7) It is pure speculation that the yogurt shop will be a less intense use
than the former camera store. I would argue that certainly from 7PM-
Midnight the yogurt shop will be far, far more intensive since the
camera store closed at 7 PM. Also, the camera store generated a lot of
business from orders placed on line reducing the number of customers
who had to visit the store. Obviously, the same situation is not true
for the yogurt shop.
What the Planning Commission should do before considering Parking
Plan 09-6:
1) Order that a complete study by Code Enforcement is made of the
signage at the shopping center to make sure the shopping center
complies with the Municipal Code and if in violation that the situation
is corrected immediately.
2) Order that an independent parking study is conducted by a
firm/individual that is acceptable to the city, applicant and property
owner. The current study is too old to use given the many changes
since 1997.
3) Make sure that there really are 174 parking spaces available for all
customers and if not, mandate that the property owner take any and
all actions to make 174 parking spaces available for all customers.
4) Make sure that all 3 parking lots comply with the Americans With
Disabilities Act by making sure all three lots are handicapped
accessible.
5) Make sure that all illegal signs (e.g. Ritz Camera sign) are removed
immediately.
6) Make sure that signs are erected at all entrances to all three parking
lots that comply with Vehicle Code Section 22658 (a) (1).
Summary
It is clear that the property owner has violated numerous sections of the
Hermosa Beach Municipal Code and the California Vehicle Code. How can
the Planning Commission even consider this application when the property
owner is violating the law? Does the city condone property owners who
violate the law?
There are several purported “facts” about the number of parking spaces that
are patently incorrect. There are not 174 parking spaces available given that
the 13th Street lot is only available to Ralphs employees, the Aubrey Park
Court lot has no signage indicating that shopping center customers can park
there and the Aubrey Park Court lot has 4 spaces that are not available for
parking.
As mentioned above, I strongly urge you to reject the applicant and property
owner’s parking plan until a new parking study is done, the property owner
complies with all city, state and federal laws, and the city makes sure that all
174 parking spaces are really available for all shopping center customers.
Sincerely,
Fred Huebscher
1 13th Street Lot Entrance With Sign Showing It's For Ralphs Employees Only SUPPLEMENTAL ITEM 8: SUBMITTED BY FRED HUEBSCHER, JULY 21, 2009
2 Stairway From PCH Lot to 13th St. Lot showing no signage indicating that there is a parking lot above
3 Aubrey Park Court Lot Entrance showing no signage indicating the lot is for shopping center customers
4 Private Roger Bacon Parking Space In Aubrey Park Court lot
5 Aubreys Park Court Lot 2 spaces with no parking sign in front of garage
6 Non-Parking Space in Aubrey Park Court Lot--Look at back right and you'll see two tandem spaces
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
Date: July 21, 2009
To: Planning Commission
From: Pamela Townsend, Senior Planner
Subject: Response to Supplemental from Fred Huebscher
Parking Plan – Skinny Mini -1100 Pacific Coast Highway #6
This memo briefly responds to each issue presented in the Supplemental submitted by Fred
Huebscher. Mr. Huebscher's concerns are listed below and staff has responded in italics.
Staff is proposing the following project condition to address those issues that staff believes are
reasonably related to the Parking Plan:
11. Prior to commencement of business, all shared parking facilities serving the shopping
center shall conform to the approved parking lot layout and with all applicable state and local
parking lot signage regulations and codes to the satisfaction of the Community Development
Director, Fire Department and Police Department as shown in Exhibit A of the Resolution.
12. A handicapped parking space compliant with the American Disabilities Act of 1990 as
amended shall be designated adjacent to the subject building and adjacent spaces shall be
restriped in accordance with all laws.
A. Mr. Huebscher's statement of alleged violations by the property owner and/or applicant:
A-1) California Vehicle Code Section 22658 (a) (1) requires that at every entrance to a
private parking lot signs are enacted that explain who can park there, for how long, where
you can claim your vehicle if it’s towed and the phone number of the police department
This section does not require any signage; it authorizes owners to tow vehicles provided
signage that meets specified standards in this code is installed.
A-2) Hermosa Beach Municipal Code Section 17.50.040 (A) and (B) regarding timing of
review of signage for new businesses: For new construction, signage proposals are
routinely incorporated into project review. Otherwise, a sign permit must be obtained in
conformance with the Municipal Code. Staff does not believe this issue is not otherwise
relevant to the Parking Plan.
A-3) Hermosa Beach Municipal Code Section 17.50.040 (D) (4) says that only one real
estate sign is permitted per site. This issue is not relevant to the Parking Plan.
A-4) Hermosa Beach Municipal Code Section 17.50.080 (3) says that signs are prohibited
that “Advertise any activity, business…no longer conducted on the premises upon which
the sign is located…” The property owner has not removed the Ritz Camera signs. The
proposed conditions require compliance with the Municipal Code generally. This issue
is not relevant to the Parking Plan.
A-5) Hermosa Beach Municipal Code Section 17.50.140 (D) limits the amount of signage
on a property… too much space occupied by signage…. there are signs that occupy
more than 25 percent of the wall or facia. Staff has not evaluated signage in the shopping
center as part of this review, as building signage is not relevant to the adequacy of
parking.
A-6) The 13th Street parking lot and Aubrey Park Court parking lot violate the Americans
With Disabilities Act that requires that parking lots be handicapped accessible. There is
no way for folks in wheelchairs or using walkers to get to these lots without climbing
stairs. The Building Division enforces the ADA/California Building Code regulations for
existing parking lots and buildings. It is contrary to the codes to place accessible
parking spaces in locations such as the 13th and Aubrey parking lots as they are not
accessible to building entrances. The accessible parking is properly located on the same
level as entrances to the businesses. Existing buildings and parking lots would only
need to be upgraded when sufficient improvements or other conditions trigger an
upgrade to the current codes. A change of tenant does not require an entire retrofit of a
shopping center.
B. Mr. Huebscher's statement of other pertinent facts regarding the shopping center that
have not been considered:
B-1) The Planning Department claims that there are 174 spaces available. This is clearly
wrong. …. So in reality, there are only 137 real spaces which is far below what is
mandated by the city according to the 1997 parking plan. Staff counted 174 spaces but
two spaces have been reinstated (being the drive-through for Starbucks) so that 176
spaces now exist with one space lost due to ADA striping. Signage in the lot must be
conformed to the Municipal code, such that no spaces are reserved. Although Condition
2 of Planning Commission Resolution 97-51 states that "employees of the shopping
center shall be required to park in either the 13th Street parking lot behind the center."
Although employees should be encouraged to use the upper lot signage prohibiting
customers is not allowed. However, to address these concerns, staff has included
proposed Conditions 11 and 12 above.
B-2) The parking plan that is currently in force is from 1997 and a parking survey was
done at that time. Much has changed since 1997 such as the Starbucks drive-thru
opening and new businesses opening in the shopping center. The issues for the Planning
Commission to decide are whether the proposed business is a snack shop with a parking
standard of one space per 250 square feet of gross floor area, and whether the shared
parking will be adequate for the use because the use will not demand more parking that
the prior use or other conditions exist that mitigate parking demand. The Staff Report
presents evidence that the use is a snack shop and on that basis and due to the
characteristics of the use and with a peak hour that is offset from that of Starbucks and to
a lesser degree Ralphs adequate parking will be available. However, the Commission
could require a new parking analysis.
B-3) There is no handicapped space located anywhere near the proposed yogurt shop. The
Building Division indicates that change of tenant does not require provision of new ADA
improvements; however there are some exceptions relating to type of use, valuation, etc.
Assuming the physical attributes of the building will accommodate ADA accessibility,
the Planning Commission may condition the project on the provision of a
handicapped space as indicated in Condition 12 as stated above.
B-4) There are no handicapped parking spaces in the 13th Street lot. See item A.6 above.
B-5) There is no signage in the main parking lot (i.e. the lot on PCH) indicating that there
is more parking available in the 13th Street lot and Aubrey Park Court lot. The
Commission may require such signage to be made a condition of the Parking Plan as
stated above.
B-6) Neither the 13th Street lot nor Aubrey Park Court lot are handicapped accessible (no
walkways or elevators for wheelchairs, walkers etc.). See item A.6 above.
B-7) It is pure speculation that the yogurt shop will be a less intense use than the former
camera store. … from 7 PM-Midnight the yogurt shop will be far, far more intensive
since the camera store closed at 7 PM. Also, the camera store generated a lot of business
from orders placed on line reducing the number of customers who had to visit the store.
Obviously, the same situation is not true for the yogurt shop. See item B.2 above.
Mr. Huebscher's statement of what the Planning Commission should do before
considering Parking Plan 09-6:
1) Order that a complete study by Code Enforcement is made of the signage at the shopping
center to make sure the shopping center complies with the Municipal Code and if in
violation that the situation is corrected immediately. Staff has proposed an additional
Condition 11 above. Building signs are not relevant to the parking Plan.
2) Order that an independent parking study is conducted by a firm/individual that is
acceptable to the city, applicant and property owner. The current study is too old to use
given the many changes since 1997. See item B.2 above.
3) Make sure that there really are 174 parking spaces available for all customers and if not,
mandate that the property owner take any and all actions to make 174 parking spaces
available for all customers. See item B.1 above.
4) Make sure that all 3 parking lots comply with the Americans With Disabilities Act by
making sure all three lots are handicapped accessible. See item A.6 above.
5) Make sure that all illegal signs (e.g. Ritz Camera sign) are removed immediately. See
items A.3 through A.5 above. Building signs are not relevant to the parking Plan.
6) Make sure that signs are erected at all entrances to all three parking lots that comply with
Vehicle Code Section 22658 (a) (1). See item A.1 above.
27Attachment 1: Map of Hermosa Beach Sites Greater than One Acre
Attachment 2: Map of Hermosa Beach and Surrounds
28
29
Attachment 3:Elevated Sites
Attachment 5: Urban Air Flow and Aerodynamics of SWES
Air Flow in an Urban Environment
Solid obstacles to the wind, such as buildings, can decrease wind speeds significantly, and create turbulence.
Figure 1 shows that, as wind flows around an obstacle, the turbulent zone may extend two or three times the
obstacle’s height. The turbulence is more pronounced behind the obstacle than in front of it.
It is best to avoid major obstacles close to wind
turbines, particularly if they are upwind of the
revailing wind direction (in front of the turbine).
eam
o
ves)
ay let more than half of the wind through.
e
ng
e ener y ction or a S ES, th will
ke obs cles in account if they are close to
the turbine.
n as its soars down
to the low pressure area on the lee side of the hill.
pressure area actually extends quite some distance
ut in front of the hill.
be
gnificant turbulence, negating the advantage of higher wind speeds.
wind
peed variations will to some extent be
ompensated for by the inertia of the wind turbine blades or cage.
y more for the
lectricity produced during peak load hours when there is a shortage of cheap generating capacity.
p
Obstacles will decrease the wind speed downstr
from the obstacle. The decrease in wind speed
depends on the porosity of the obstacle, i.e. how
‘open’ the obstacle is. A building is solid and has n
porosity whereas a tree in winter (with no lea
m
The slowdown effect on the wind from an obstacle
increases with the height and length of the obstacl
and is more pronounced close to the obstacle and
close to the ground. When developers are modeli
th g produ f W ey
ta ta to
Figure 1: Cross-section of Wind Flow around a Building
The Hill Effect
Hermosa Beach has several hills or ridges that may be suited to SWES. As
it approaches the hill from a low-lying area, air flow becomes compressed.
Once the air flow reaches the ridge, it can expand agai
Figure 2: Wind Flow Over Hill / Ridge
in
Figure 2 shows that wind flow starts bending some time before it reaches
the hill, because the high
o
Wind turbines are often placed on hills or ridges as wind speeds may be
higher than the surrounding low lying areas. However, if the hill is steep or
has an uneven surface, such as in an urban city environment, there may
si
Wind Speed Variability
Wind speed is always fluctuating and so the energy content of the wind is always changing. The extent of the
variation depends both on the weather and on local surface conditions and obstacles. Energy output from a
turbine will vary as the wind varies, although the most rapid wind s
c
Most coastal locations around the globe are windier during the daytime than at night. The wind is also more
turbulent and tends to change direction more frequently during the day than at night. This variation is largely
because temperature differences between the sea surface and the land surface tend to be larger during the day than
at night. From the point of view of wind turbine owners, it is an advantage that most of the wind energy is produced
during the daytime, since electricity consumption is higher than at night. Many power companies pa
e
30
When designing a SWES, the impacts of wind speed variability and the fatigue properties of the entire assembly
must be considered. It is important to calculate the forces involved in each bending or stretching of a component. It
is also important to calculate how each SWES component will vibrate, both individually, and jointly. Wind turbine
manufacturers are required to use UL and IEEE certified components to ensure that a SWES can withstand extreme
storm events, namely wind speeds that occur during 10 minutes once every 50 years.
opeller turbines are usually
ade tall enough to avoid wind turbulence caused by buildings and other obstacles.
netic
ent
nd
s
d air pressure drops behind the
lade or cage.1
t
ower
pressure in the stream tube must return to that of
e ambient air pressure for equilibrium to be achieved.2
Horizontal-Axis Wind Turbines
Horizontal axis or propeller turbines require a uniform wind flow for optimal operation – turbulence decreases the
possibility of using wind energy effectively and imposes tear and wear. Towers for pr
m
The turbine slows the wind as it captures its ki
energy and converts it into rotational energy,
forcing the wind to move more slowly as it leaves
the turbine and a corresponding drop in air pressure
– air leaving the blade sweep is below the ambi
or atmospheric air pressure level. Since the air
pressure entering the blade swept area every seco
must be the same as the air pressure leaving the
swept area every second, once it exits the swept
area, the air volume is forced to become larger a
the air speed an
Figure 8.1: Aerodynamics of Horizontal Axis Wind Turbine
b
Figure 8.1, a ‘stream tube’ diagram, shows tha
wind exiting the turbine will occupy a larger
volume behind the turbine but will flow at a sl
speed. Eventually, downstream, velocity and
th
1 Source: http://www.windpower.org/en/tour/wres/tube.htm, retrieved April 22, 2009
2 Source: http://winds-energy.blogspot.com/2007/09/energy-extracting-stream-tube-of.html, Retrieved April 22, 2009.
31
Aerodynamics of Vertical Axis Turbines
Although they generate less power from the
equivalent kinetic wind energy as a propeller
turbine, vertical axis turbines operate more
efficiently under turbulent conditions, like urban
settings, as they can capture wind flows from
multiple directions simultaneously. Being able to
capture turbulent wind energy means vertical axis
turbines require less clearance from built structures
than propeller turbine, another feature that lends
vertical axis turbines to urban environments.
The stream tube model used for propeller turbines
can also be used to analyze how air flows through a
vertical axis turbine – how it passes through the
turbine cage and the slowing of the wind that occurs due to the energy extracted from the air flow by the turbine. As the
cage revolves, it traces the path of a vertical cylinder. Like the propeller turbine, as the wind enters the turbine cage, its
kinetic energy is used to turn the cage, forcing the wind speed to slow. As the air pressure entering the cage every
second must be the same as the air pressure exiting the cage every second, the wind flow exiting the cage is forced to
horizontally to equalize air pressure, as shown in plan view (Figure 8.2). Further downstream, the air pressure and wind
speed will return to that of the ambient air.3
Figure 8.2: Aerodynamics of Vertical Axis Wind Turbine
3 Source: Development and Analysis of a Novel Vertical Axis Wind Turbine, Paul Cooper and Oliver Kennedy, School of
Mechanical, Materials and Mechatronic Engineering, University of Wollongong, NSW, AUSTRALIA
32
Tentative Future Agenda
PLANNING COMMISSION
City of Hermosa Beach
AUGUST 18, 2009
Project Title Staff Public
Notice
Meeting
Date
Date
Rec’d
Remarks
⇒ 3rd Qtr GPA (Notification) 8/6 8/18
⇒ Tree preservation ord. 8/18 7-9
⇒ 824 1st Street—Parking Plan Amendment 8/6 8/18 7/13
⇒ 20 Pier Avenue, Silvio’s Brazilian BBQ—CUP Amendment 8/6 8/18 7/13
f:b95\cd\wpc
7/15/09
F:b93\cd\wpc - future agenda
13b
Easy Reader
Run Date: July 9, 2009 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, July 21, 2009, to consider the following:
1. Precise Development Plan to construct two detached dwellings in the R-1A zone at 526 25th Street.
2. Precise Development Plan to construct a second detached dwelling in the SPA-2 (Specific Plan Area No.
2) zone at 111 Barney Court.
3. Parking Plan to classify a yogurt shop (‘Skinny Mini’s Frozen Yogurt’, formerly ‘Ritz Camera’) as a snack
shop for purpose of calculating parking requirements in the Ralphs shopping center at 1100 #6 Pacific
Coast Highway.
4. Text Amendment to allow small wind energy systems as a conditional use in all zones, and to allow said
systems to exceed the height limit, subject to standards, and adoption of an Environmental Negative
Declaration.
5. Study session on update to Housing Element of the Hermosa Beach General Plan, describing the City’s
housing needs, goals, policies, objectives, and programs to preserve, improve and develop housing within
Hermosa Beach.
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, July 16, 2009, 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, July 16, 2009, 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\2009\planning\pc07-21-09
1 13th Street Lot Entrance With Sign Showing It's For Ralphs Employees Only SUPPLEMENTAL ITEM 8: SUBMITTED BY FRED HUEBSCHER, JULY 21, 2009
2 Stairway From PCH Lot to 13th St. Lot showing no signage indicating that there is a parking lot above
3 Aubrey Park Court Lot Entrance showing no signage indicating the lot is for shopping center customers
4 Private Roger Bacon Parking Space In Aubrey Park Court lot
5 Aubreys Park Court Lot 2 spaces with no parking sign in front of garage
6 Non-Parking Space in Aubrey Park Court Lot--Look at back right and you'll see two tandem spaces
7