HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-08-18 PC AGENDAAGENDA
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
1315 VALLEY DRIVE
HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254
August 18, 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 July 21, 2009 action minutes
5. Resolution(s) for consideration
6. Adoption of a resolution denying 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 at 1081, 1085 & 1087 Aviation
Boulevard.
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
7. 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 (continued from the July 21, 2009
meeting).
Staff Recommended Action: To approve the Precise Development Plan subject to conditions as
contained in the Resolution
8. PARK 09-8 -- Parking Plan to exclude interior corridors and the lobby from calculable gross
floor area for the determination of parking requirements in connection with the remodel of
an existing office building for multiple tenants (Body Glove and others) at 824 1st Street.
Staff Recommended Action: To approve the Parking Plan subject to conditions as contained in
the Resolution
9. PARK 09-7 -- Amendment to the Parking Plan for the Hermosa Pavilion, and Parking Plan/
Conditional Use Permits for the businesses contained therein, to consider eliminating the
requirements for 2-hour free validated parking and for valet parking at 1601 Pacific Coast
Highway.
Staff Recommended Action: To direct staff as deemed appropriate.
2
Section III
10. Staff Items
a. Tree Preservation - Procedure to encourage replacement of trees destroyed on private
property in R-1 zone.
b. Tentative future Planning Commission agenda.
c. Community Development Department activity report of June, 2009.
11. Commissioner Items
12. Adjournment
3
ACTION MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON
JULY 21, 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 7:00 P.M. by Chairman Pizer.
1. Pledge of Allegiance
2. Roll Call
Present: Commissioners Allen, Darcy, Hoffman, Perrotti and Chairman Pizer
Absent: None
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 June 16, 2009 action minutes
ACTION: To approve the above minutes as presented.
Motion by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Perrotti. The motion
carried noting the abstention of Commissioner Allen.
5. Resolution(s) for approval
a. Resolution P.C. 09-17 denying a Legal Determination at 450 30th Street.
ACTION: To approve Resolution P.C. 09-17 as presented.
Motion by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Perrotti. The motion
carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Darcy, Hoffman, Perrotti, Pizer
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Planning Commission Action Minutes
July 21, 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, 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.
ACTION: To deny applicant’s request for further continuance and direct staff to bring back
a resolution denying the project at the August 18, 2009 meeting.
MOTION by Commissioner Allen, seconded by Commissioner Hoffman. The motion
carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Darcy, Hoffman, Perrotti, Pizer
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
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).
ACTION: To approve staff recommendation to submit the draft Housing Element update
to the State Department of Housing and Community Development for review.
MOTION by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Perrotti. The motion
carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Darcy, Hoffman, Perrotti, Pizer
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Planning Commission Action Minutes
July 21, 2009
2
8. PARK 09-6 -- Parking Plan to classify a yogurt shop (‘Skinny Minny’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.
ACTION: To adopt the resolution approving subject Parking Plan with modifications to
add, as stated in the staff memorandum, Section 5, item 11 regarding parking lot signage
and code and item 12 regarding handicapped parking space; and change item 6 to read “…at
all times and trash/recycle facilities shall be located within and near the building entrance to
manage trash/recycle and…”
Motion by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Allen. The motion carried
as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Pizer
NOES: Perrotti
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: Darcy
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
ACTION: To adopt the resolution approving subject Precise Development Plan.
Motion by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Perrotti. The motion
carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Darcy, Hoffman, Perrotti, Pizer
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
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.
ACTION: To continue to the August 18, 2009 meeting for staff to work with the applicant
to revise plans and rendering to adress the issues stated in the staff report .
Motion by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Darcy. The motion carried
as follows:
Planning Commission Action Minutes
July 21, 2009
3
AYES: Allen, Darcy, Hoffman, Perrotti, Pizer
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
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.
ACTION: To adopt resolution recommending approval of subject Text Amendment and
Negative Declaration, along with a memorandum from the Planning Commission to the
City Council regarding the fee structure involved with the Conditional Use Permit for
subject use.
Motion by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Perrotti. The motion
carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Darcy, Hoffman, Perrotti, Pizer
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
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.
ACTION: To approve by minute order the extension of the Conditional Use Permit and
Precise Development Plan by one year to July 15, 2010.
Motion by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Perrotti. The motion
carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Darcy, Hoffman, Perrotti, Pizer
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Planning Commission Action Minutes
July 21, 2009
4
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.
ACTION: To approve staff recommendation that subject use is considered as
gymnasium, health and fitness center and is consistent with use and space allocations
and parking requirements, and therefore Parking Plan or Precise Development Plan
amendment is not required.
Motion by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Hoffman . The motion
carried by a unanimous vote.
b. Tentative future Planning Commission agenda.
c. Community Development Department activity report of May, 2009.
14. Commissioner Items
15. Adjournment
The meeting was formally adjourned at 10:12 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 July 21,
2009.
______________________________ _____________________________
Ron Pizer, Chairman Ken Robertson, Secretary
______________________
Date
Planning Commission Action Minutes
July 21, 2009
5
From: worck@aol.com [mailto:worck@aol.com]
Sent: Monday, August 17, 2009 6:43 PM
To: allenk3@bp.com; phoffman@lmu.edu; sddarcy@verizon.net; ron.pizer@verizon.net;
sperrotti1@verizon.net
Subject: Supplemental opposition/concerns to Precise Developement at 111 Barney Court PDP 09-10
Dear Commissioners:
I have reviewed the staff report and wanted to voice concerns surrounding this Precise
Developement
Parking:
1) Parking on 1st street is extremely congested. So is Barney and Meyer Court. I can count the
number of spots on one or two hands I emplore you to try to find more than one or two open
spots on any of those streets after 7 PM when everone gets home from work. Pick any day of the
week and forget about weekends. I often have to circle several times to find a spot at night or
even park on 2nd street. Unless I misunderstand the Staff Report, 2 On street parking sports will
be removed in order to support a 3 car garage on Barney. This garage parking in NO WAY
makes up for the loss of 2 street parking spots that may be used by all. I completely disagree
with the Staff reports findings. I just do not see how they could possibly make this assessment.
We cannot loose any on street parking as this will make a bad situation only worse.
Housing Density:
1) Again, this relates to overcrowding on 1st street. What is your vision for Hermosa? This
project is requesting to go from a 1295 single unit to 4075 Sq ft multi-level house. That is a
massive increase in size and density. Again, just becuase 6 of the other 10 houses allow
"compatible" developement as precedence, does not make it right. Infact, it a is even more
reason to not allow this type of development. When does it stop?
2) Approving this, once again lays the foundation for updates to the Meyer court facing unit(s)??
with similar massive development plans. Do you really think that the owner will not develop the
Meyer court unit next? Even the staff report states there is a strong likely hood.
3) The whole point is that developement is out of control on 1St street/Barney/Meyer and the
whole intent of the corrider was to provide a transition to single family housing. Instead, what
we are seeing is just more multi-family dwellings being built in order to maximize profits.
Where is the balance?--it is not just a matter of interpretation of what the rules and laws allows,
but what does the planning commission envision for Hermosa and Barney/1st street. Is this good
for the community or just good for the owner??
Safety:
1) The proposed plan would have a 3-car garage facing the Barney on a blind corner. That
means the cars will be backing out into the street where people must make a blind left turn even
with a stop sign. Just not a good idea, especially if there are guests and if the unit is improperly
used for multi-family living etc.
Improper Use:
1) The size of the developement and perceived mis-use of the property raises all kinds of red
flags. The Staff Report note alleged code violations by the property owner and that original
plans submitted could facilitate future issues.
2) Should there not be some penalty for allegedly trying to circumvent Hermosa Beach laws? I
can only reference the Staff Report, but it seems this property owner has been deceptive with
current usage, had plans that facilitated future mis-use--and now we are still going to approve
this project? Hmmmmmmm??
3) Yes--I know the Staff Report suggested conditions on the applicant, but WOW, talk about
playing with fire. You already have uncovered improprities- allegedly and the way to mitigate
this is to approve and regulate. Why not just deny?
Should we not act to try and preserve what is left of 1St street or allow massive development
projects which smack of future conversion to multiple tenants situations. What other single
family 4 bedroom 4.5 bath house do we see on Barney or Meyer?
I understand these are difficult decisions that the Planning Commision must make.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
From: cynthia furnberg [mailto:cfurnberg@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 8:20 AM
To: Allen, Kent J; phoffman@lmu.edu; sddarcy@verizon.net; ron.pizer@verizon.net;
sperrotti1@verizon.net
Subject: Re: Supplemental opposition to 824 First St Parking Plan 09-8
Dear Commissioners:
I just wanted to correct one error in paragraph number 2 in the email below. This resident
misread the staff report. The 5 cars that the staff was talking about was on the sidewalk. From
the picture that the staff took and was referring to in their report shows approximately 15 cars on
the North side of the street and 15 cars on the South side of the street. The 11 open parking spots
seem to be broken up equally on each side of the street meaning there would be about 5 open
spots on each side of the street. This means that when that only 5 cars would be able to migrate
back to the North side of the street after street sweeping, leaving 10 cars with no where to park,
further illuminating the congestion on First St.
Thanks,
Cynthia Furnberg
--- On Mon, 8/17/09, worck@aol.com <worck@aol.com> wrote:
From: worck@aol.com <worck@aol.com>
Subject: Supplemental opposition to 824 First St Parking Plan 09-8
To: allenk3@bp.com, phoffman@lmu.edu, sddarcy@verizon.net, ron.pizer@verizon.net,
sperrotti1@verizon.net
Cc: cfurnberg@yahoo.com
Date: Monday, August 17, 2009, 5:53 PM
Dear Commissioners:
I have reviewed the staff report and wanted to address the basic issues of parking and responsible
developement for 1st street in Hermosa Beach.
Parking:
1) Lower 1st street near PCH is extremely congested with fierce competition for parking due to
Land Rover dealer ship, and massive number of multi-family dwelling units. Probably the
highest density or one of the highest density east of PCH. I will not discuss Saint Rooke which
is another issue on itself since one could argue this is a night time facility.
2) The Staff report on Parking on 1st Street is disastrous. I live on 1st street and look for parking
every night--just forget about parking between PCH and Myer Court. During the day is also
very very congested - finding a parking spot is like winning a prize. Parking is only allowed on
the North side of the street contrary to the Staff Report. On Wednesdays, parking is allowed
for a few hours for street cleaning. How the planning dept which is funded by tax dollars, is
intimate with Hermosa Beach rules and regulations could possibly perform a parking analysis on
a Wednesday afternoon is a major oversight to say the least. The six cars on the South side
1
would generally be on the North Side all other days reducing the open spots to 5 if you are lucky.
3) To conclude that parking on 1st street "...appears adequate to adsorb some offstreet
parking" could not be further from the truth. To add insult to injury, this conclusion was signed
off by a Senior planner and the Director of Community Developement. Shame Shame Shame on
them. Please come buy and try to park there on Thurs,Fri,Sat,Sun day or night.
4) Let's be honest here. Anyone who lives on or near 1St street knows it is way overcongested
and actually there should be a plan to reduce parking and overcrowding. Adding a new
business/offices etc in this area is just making matters worse.
Safety:
1) Increased traffic, especially in the lower section of 1st street and PCH is a bad idea. Even if
the applicant were to submit a design which required no onstreet parking the additional through
traffic would pose an issue. The 1st street instersection to PCH is very busy and additional
traffic will just increase the frequency of accidents there.
Responsible Developement
1) There needs to be a balance between business and residence. 1St street is way out of balance
in my opinion. Just because zoning may allow businesses or multi-unit houses, that does not
mean it's right or should not be changed.
2) I do no think there is any other street in the Hermosa Hills that allows or has as much
commercial/multi-family developement.
These are difficult decisions that the Commision must make.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
2
From: jdow <jdow@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re 824 First St
To: allenk3@bp.com, phoffman@lmu.edu, sddarcy@verizon.net, ron.pizer@verizon.net,
sperrotti1@verizon.net
Date: Monday, August 17, 2009, 5:14 PM
Parking on First St is already a bloody mess leaving residents and
visitors blocks to walk when their garage is full and our visitor
parking is full. If the street is not full with the automobile
dealer's stock and customers cars it is full with bar customers.
You have a building plan. Please apply it properly rather than creating
an even worse parking mess.
I concur with the document attached completely. If anything it
understates the problem in an effort to achieve some brevity.
Joanne Dow
Owner 852 First St, Hermosa Beach, Ca
August 15, 2009
Members of the Planning Commission
City of Hermosa Beach
1315 Valley Drive
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
Re: Supplemental Opposition to 824 First St. Parking Plan set for 8/18/09
Dear Planning Commissioners:
I have reviewed the Staff’s recommendations for this parking plan, and here are my comments in
response:
History
The staff report confirms that the 1979 original plan included 11 parking spots. Tomblin, the
current applicant, had asserted that the building had only 10 parking spots in all his different
plans and communications to the city during the past seven years. Considering that Tomblin is a
planning commissioner in RPV, he should have had the correct information. A Precise
Development Plan (PDP) was approved in 2003 based on this misinformation, and a parking plan
was not submitted as required. This creates a legal issue because the residents were not given
legal notice of a parking plan for that hearing. A parking plan would have been heavily
opposed, and the residents relied on the information presented in the staff report for the PDP, and
on the legal notice mailed to them.
The current staff report states that a plan for 873 square feet and a permit was submitted in 2005,
which was granted without planning commission approval. Since the 2003 PDP was abandoned,
again, a parking plan would have been required in 2005 as the applicant was only adding 2
parking spaces for 873 square feet to a nonconforming building, rather than 3 parking spaces. On
8/15/05, Sol Blumenfeld wrote a letter to the applicant informing him that he needed to proceed
with development by 7/17/06. No actual development has really occurred on the premises, so
essentially the PDP and the permit have been abandoned.
The approval of the PDP in 2003 was improper due to lack of notice of a parking plan and it also
did not comply with HBMC 17.52.035 which states that buildings that are nonconforming as to
parking “may be expanded only if applicable parking requirements for the amount of the
expansion area are satisfied.” The PDP expanded the property 1,124 sq ft which required 4
additional parking spaces but the plans only provided 3 additional parking spaces for a total of 14
spaces (a net add of 3 from the original 11 spaces). Any further plans and permits based on this
PDP would have been invalid. The city attorney should be conferred with, as the PDP and
permits should be revoked. We do not want to ignore this prior error and consider the prior PDP
and permit to be valid as this would encourage applicants to submit incorrect data to the city.
Since we have a parking plan on calendar for Tuesday, all facts should now be judged anew, so as
to not have to deal with any appeals. The 873 sq ft to be added does not meet with requirements
in the above code section since 3 additional parking spaces need to be added and only 2
additional spaces are being added. Therefore, the parking plan would have to be denied unless
the plans are revised to show 14 parking spaces, which can be easily done as the PDP plans from
2003 had 14 spaces.
Parking congestion and error in staff report
The staff report incorrectly states that there is parking on both sides of First St from PCH to
Meyer Court. When the pictures were taken by staff, they didn’t take note of the signs on First
Street stating that there is no parking on the South side of the street, except for Wednesdays from
10-2 for street sweeping). They took the pictures on Wednesday at 3:00. Naturally residents
were in flux migrating back over to the North side of the street at this time. Staff counted
openings on both sides of the street coming up with an erroneous number of 11 on-street available
parking spots. This of course is a misnomer and it is very difficult to ever find an opening to
park on First St. This is why people are parking on the sidewalks in that area. See attached
pictures of the signs on First Street and a picture showing the typical parking on the North side of
the street. The condominiums directly East of 824 First Street experience people parking illegally
in their complex due to lack of parking.
Response to staff’s analysis
The applicant is wishing to exclude 650 square feet from the gross floor area calculation which
includes an enclosed lobby, enclosed stairwells, and hallways that are enclosed except for ~24
feet. The definition of gross floor area does not allow for exclusion of enclosed stairwells and
enclosed lobbies in HBMC 1744.010. The definition excludes open areas and it was not meant
to exclude enclosed corridors as the word is listed in a series of different open areas:
“…excepting therefrom only the area of any inner open court, corridors, open balconies (except
when utilized, e.g. restaurant seating or similar usage), and any open stairways.
Also, with the three proposed tenants, the lobby will most likely be occupied with a receptionist
as they currently share their lobby, which has a receptionist desk in it at 201 Herondo in
Redondo. This lobby can easily be sealed up to expand the office next to it in the future.
Therefore, lobby consisting of ~60 square feet should definitely not be excluded, and the plans
can easily be modified to instead eliminate the small office that is the exact same size that is
being added in the mid-West portion of the building thereby reducing the calculated square feet to
813 square feet on the West side of the building, plus 60 square feet for the lobby totaling 873
square feet.
HBMC 17.44.210 A allows for reduction in parking spaces when it can be shown that adequate
parking will be provided for customers, clients, visitors and employees, taking into account
various factors. I met one of the proposed tenants today and he told me that there are 13
employees that would be occupying the second floor of 824 First Street. This doesn’t leave any
room for visitors with applicant’s current plan, and we do not need the street parking to be further
impacted.
Prior exclusions given for other properties by Planning Commission
HBMC 1744.210 B.6 states that unique features of the proposed uses shall be taken into
consideration for a parking plan. There is nothing that is unique about this office building.
Although, there are very unique situations in the two parking plans that are listed in the staff
report that allowed for square foot exclusions. Also both applicants were required to have a
covenant recorded that would require that the excluded space would only be used “as listed” in
the resolution prepared by the city.
Oral Surgery Office
Parking plan 09-1 approved on 4/21/09 had a covenant required for space to be used only as a
storage area on the second floor, which was excluded for an oral surgery center. The applicant
testified that patients would not be brought up to the second level, and the second level consisted
solely of storage space with shelving for patient records and equipment consisting of 500 sq ft for
a 4,298 square foot plan. The applicant also stated that they only use 10 spaces in their existing
office, and they were providing 19 spaces in the plan for their new building. They also
mentioned that they would be occupying the space for at least 30 years. In addition, this parking
plan had an added benefit in that the parking provided would meet the lesser parking requirement
of office space (1 per 250 sq ft vs. 1 per 200 sq ft for medical/dental) for any future use.
Office Condominiums
Parking plan 07-2 approved on 3/20/07 with a covenant, involved office condos excluding some
common areas and storage area. This situation involves individual condo owners that couldn’t
modify wall layouts in common areas like an owner of a multiunit office building could. The staff
report states that the area to be excluded at 824 First Street can not be easily converted, but we
have already seen 4 different plans for this building and we do not know for sure who will be
renting the premises, who may own the building in the future, or what other interior changes may
be desired in the future. The prior owner enclosed all the open balconies on the West side of the
building to increase rental income. (See attached picture of the West side of the building).
Both of these situations are very different from the situation in this case, so the exclusion should
not be warranted, as all offices buildings could then start asking for exclusions. This is not a
precedent that should be set. If the exclusion is deemed warranted, a covenant should definitely
be required (contrary to staff’s recommendation), as this applicant should not get preferential
treatment over the above-listed two parking plans, and exclusions without covenants are
definitely not a precedent that should be set.
For all of the above reasons, please deny the parking plan. If the commission feels compelled to
grant the parking plan, it should be conditioned upon:
1) Prior PDP and 2003 permit being revoked
2) Revision of plan adding 3 parking spaces for a total of 14 parking spaces
3) Denial of the exclusion for the lobby
4) Revision of the plan to reduce the added square feet to the West side of the building to only
813 square feet to accommodate the 60 square feet for the lobby.
5) Requiring a covenant to be recorded for the 590 square feet of hallways and stairwells.
Sincerely,
/s/
Cynthia Furnberg & Craig Rogers
900 block Second St.
Hermosa Beach
From: Ken Klade [mailto:kklade@aegisgroup.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 10:41 AM
To: Steve Burrell
Subject: Hermosa Pavilion
Steve,
I understand Mr. Gene Shook from Shook Development Corp. and the Hermosa Pavilion
are meeting with the Planning Commission this evening regarding parking fees within the
Pavilion. Since the Hermosa Pavilion has received a foreclosure notice from the bank, I believe
it's important for the City of Hermosa Beach, the residents and Gene Shook to work together and
workout a compromise regarding fees to be charged for parking at the Pavilion. The financial
impact of losing more businesses in Hermosa Beach will only hurt the residents and business
community of Hermosa Beach further in these tough economic times.
I understand the residents are concerned about the potential risk of increased parking on their
streets. This is why I believe a "parking district" is a fair compromise to protect the residents and
the Hermosa Pavilion and the local businesses. Also, Mr. Shook has offered to pay these
expenses, within reason, associated with the permits for the residents.
Again, the residents and business owners need to work together to protect not only the quality of
life in Hermosa Beach but also valuable tax dollars and businesses which enhance the
community.
Thank you.
Ken Klade
From: Arthur Kovach [mailto:arthur_kovach@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 2:00 PM
To: Steve Burrell
Cc: arthur_kovach@yahoo.com
Subject: Attn: Mr. Steve Burrell Re: Parking at 1601 Pacific Coast Highway
Dear Mr. Burrell:
Re: the parking at 1601 Pacific Coast Highway
I live in the affected area at 2001 Pacific Coast Highway, Hermosa Beach. I support the
building owners right to charge for parking at 1601 Pacific Coast Highway.
I am concerned that we are creating an environment that is unfriendly to business owners
in Hermosa Beach. At a time when our economy is slow shouldn't we try to enhance all
the opportunities to enhance business revenue in Hermosa Beach.
I support Mr. Gene Shook in his efforts to charge for parking.
I am acquainted with many of the retail shop owners and restaurant owners in Hermosa
Beach. Many have expressed concerns to me about the difficulties they experience in
conducting business in Hermosa Beach.
I do much of my shopping here in our city as well as frequent our restaurants. I would
like our city to work on establishing a more business friendly environment.
Sincerely,
E. Arthur Kovach
2001 Pacific Coast Highway
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
310-372-6210
arthur_kovach@yahoo.com
Tentative Future Agenda
PLANNING COMMISSION
City of Hermosa Beach
SEPTEMBER 15, 2009
Project Title Staff Public
Notice
Meeting
Date
Date
Rec’d
Remarks
⇒ Memo re. rotation of the P.C. chairmanship serving 10/09-
6/10
9/15
⇒ 20 Pier Avenue, Silvio’s Brazilian BBQ—CUP Amendment 9/3 9/15 7/27
⇒ 205 Pier Avenue – Request for a 1 year extension for a PDP
for a 7-unit commercial condo
9/15 8/6
F:b93\cd\wpc - future agenda
10b
Easy Reader
Run Date: August 6, 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, August 18, 2009, to consider the following:
1. Parking Plan to exclude interior corridors and the lobby from calculable gross floor area for the
determination of parking requirements in connection with the remodel of an existing office building for
multiple tenants (Body Glove and others) at 824 1st Street.
2. Amendment to the Parking Plan for the Hermosa Pavilion, and Parking Plan/ Conditional Use Permits for
the businesses contained therein, to consider eliminating the requirements for 2-hour free validated
parking and for valet parking at 1601 Pacific Coast Highway.
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, August 13, 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, August 13, 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\pc08-18-09