HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-06-17 PC AGENDAAGENDA
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
1315 VALLEY DRIVE
HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254
June 17, 2008
7:00 P.M.
Peter Hoffman, Chairman
Kent Allen, Vice Chairman
Shawn Darcy
Sam Perrotti
Ron Pizer
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.
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.Pledge of Allegiance
2.Roll Call
3.Oral / Written Communications
4/8/25, 9:58 AM Planning Commission Meeting 6/17/08
https://hermosabeach.granicus.com/GeneratedAgendaViewer.php?view_id=6&clip_id=587 1/4
a)Anyone wishing to address the Commission regarding a matter not related to a public
hearing on the agenda may do so at this time.
b)Letter from Michael Black, Attorney, dated June 2, 2008 requesting a
revocation/modification hearing on North End Bar & Grill’s Conditional Use Permit,
and the City Attorney’s response.
Letters from Michael Black, Attorney
Response from the City Attorney
Section I
Consent Calendar
Any Planning Commissioner or member of the public wishing to pull an item from below may
request to do so at this time.
4.Approval of May 20, 2008 action minutes
Action Minuutes
Supplemental Information - 5/20/08 Minutes Excerpt for Dragon
Supplemental Information - 4/15/08 Minutes Excerpt for Dragon
5.Resolution(s) for consideration
a)Resolution P.C. 08-29 approving a Precise Development Plan to construct a new 6,700
square foot two-story commercial building with basement parking containing office,
snack shop uses; a Conditional Use Permit for a commercial condominium and Vesting
Tentative Tract Map No. 70364 to divide the building into seven condominium units; a
Conditional Use Permit for outdoor seating for the snack shop; and, a Parking Plan to
pay parking in-lieu fees to compensate for providing less than required parking on site;
and, adoption of an Environmental Negative Declaration at 205 Pier Avenue.
Resolution 08-29
Supplemental Information
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 Hearing(s)
6.CUP 08-5 -- Revocation or modification of a Conditional Use Permit to allow on-sale general
alcohol and live entertainment in conjunction with a restaurant at 1332 Hermosa Avenue, Blue
32 (continued from the May 20, 2008 meeting).
Staff Recommended Action: To modify the Conditional Use Permit.
4/8/25, 9:58 AM Planning Commission Meeting 6/17/08
https://hermosabeach.granicus.com/GeneratedAgendaViewer.php?view_id=6&clip_id=587 2/4
Staff Report
Staff Report - Supplemental
Supplemental Information from Blue 32 - Part 1 of 4 (large document)
Supplemental Information from Blue 32 - Part 2 of 4 (large document)
Supplemental Information from Blue 32 - Part 3 of 4 (large document)
Supplemental Information from Blue 32 - Part 4 of 4 (large document)
Supplemental Information
7.CUP 08-6 -- Revocation or modification of a Conditional Use Permit to allow on-sale general
alcohol and live entertainment in conjunction with a restaurant at 1320 Hermosa Avenue, The
Shore.
Staff Recommended Action: To open the public hearing and continue to the July 15, 2008
meeting.
Staff Report
8.CON 08-8 / PDP 08-7 -- Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Vesting
Tentative Parcel Map No. 70598 for a mixed use three-story building with two residential
condominium units with approximately 2,400 square feet each above two commercial
condominium units with approximately 700 square feet each and required parking spaces on
grade with access from the alley at 131, 133 and 135 Hermosa Avenue.
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.
Staff Report
Suplemental Information
Section III
Hearing(s)
9.CON 08-7 -- Request for a one year extension of the Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 63002
for a two-unit condominium at 42 15th Street.
Staff Recommended Action: To approve by minute order the extension of the Tentative Parcel
Map No. 063002 by one year to May 17, 2009.
Staff Report
10.PDP 08-6 -- Request for extension of a Precise Development Plan to construct a new
commercial office building divided into 21 office condominium units at 906 - 910 Hermosa
Avenue.
Staff Recommended Action: To approve by minute order the extension of the Precise
Development Plan expiration date to June 19, 2009.
Staff Report
11.LLA 08-2 -- Lot Line Adjustment to transfer approximately 50 square feet of lot area from
338 Pier Avenue to 1322 Sunset Drive.
4/8/25, 9:58 AM Planning Commission Meeting 6/17/08
https://hermosabeach.granicus.com/GeneratedAgendaViewer.php?view_id=6&clip_id=587 3/4
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.
Staff Report
12.A-14 -- Appeal of Director ’s decision to be considered a small lot to obtain exceptions to open
space requirements otherwise required in the R-1 zone pursuant to Section 17.08.040 at 1135
2nd Street.
Staff Recommended Action: To declare subject property to be considered a small lot.
Staff Report
13.Memorandum to exempt alternative energy devices from height limit requirements.
Staff Recommended Action: To initiate a text amendment and schedule for future hearing.
Staff Report
Section IV
14.Staff Items
a.Review of Fiscal Year 2008-2009 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for conformance
with the City’s General Plan.
Staff Report
b.Work program to implement Upper Pier Avenue Committee recommendation regarding
zoning standards for the C-2 zone.
Staff Report
UPAC Final Report (Large Document)
c.Tentative future Planning Commission agenda.
Tentative Future Agenda
d.Community Development Department Activity Report of April, 2008.
Activity Report
e.Recognition of Commissioner Lanley Kersenboom’s service on the Planning
Commission from May, 2005 to June 2008.
15.Commissioner Items
16.Adjournment
4/8/25, 9:58 AM Planning Commission Meeting 6/17/08
https://hermosabeach.granicus.com/GeneratedAgendaViewer.php?view_id=6&clip_id=587 4/4
UPPER PIER AVENUE COMMITTEEFinal Report
Hermosa Beach, CaliforniaMarch 25, 2008
UPPER PIER AVENUE COMMITTEEFinal Report
I. Introduction
In June 2006, work crews from theHermosa Beach Public Works Departmentbegan the trial process of re-striping PierAvenue from four lanes to two. TheCommunity’s response to the trial was vocaland immediate. Letters and phone callspoured into the City and almost every one,and whether favoring the changes or railingagainst them, all invariably asked the samequestion - Why is the City doing this?The simple answer is that monies wereavailable to improve and fix long-standingdrainage and safety issues that plagued PierAvenue, and to their credit, our PlanningDepartment saw an opportunity to improvePier Avenue and looked to the City’sR/UDAT Implementation Plan (1994) forguidance on how best to proceed. TheImplementation Plan under “Street SectionImprovements” states at Page II-23: “Convert2lanes of traffic each way to 1 lane of trafficeach way. Transition to be made west ofgreen belt.” And that’s what the PublicWorks Department did.
This incident highlighted a problem thathas the potential to change Hermosa Beachinto someplace other than the seaside villageweknow and love. The striping issuedemonstrated that Hermosa Beach does nothave a well-articulated vision of the future forUpper Pier Avenue. But this problem isnothing new – the October 1992 R/UDATreport stated one of the primary reasons forengaging in the R/UDAT process was that“Hermosa Beach desperately needs toformulate a shared vision of its future.”
Stated simply,the striping issue illustratedthere was a planning gap for the development
UPAC – Final Report Page 1
Pier Avenue, a focal point through the generations
Present Day Community Center, formerly a Public School
of Upper Pier Avenue left after the R/UDAT planning process ended in the early 1990s. In orderto bridge this gap, the City Council commissioned the Upper Pier Avenue Committee (“UPAC”)to examine the entire ecosystem on Upper Pier Avenue. The Council asked UPAC to analyzealternatives and build community-consensus about the future development of Upper PierAvenue.
The UPAC brought the Community into direct contact with the City’s decision-makers andthe professional staff. Throughout the process, residents had the opportunity to express theirdesires and concerns about the future of Upper Pier. Towards this end, the Committee conductedtwo separate “Town Hall” meetings, both of which were standing-room-only events. The UPACsurveyed and interviewed businesses on Upper Pier, as well as the property owners, to solicittheir input and understand their concerns. The UPAC gathered the input from the community, professional staff, and other experts andanalyzed the available alternatives. The Committee understands that there will always beconflicts and disagreements among residents, businesses, and City Officials, but the Committeeworked very hard to find common ground between the various interested groups and set acourse of forward action for the City.
One final word about this report - this is an Executive Summary of the process UPACengaged in to develop its recommendations for Upper Pier Avenue. This report is intended tohighlight the Committee’s “big picture” recommendations and is not designed to recount theminute details of the Committee’s analysis. More detailed information can be found in theassembled minutes and sub-committee reports.
II. UPAC Mission
The City Council commissioned the UPAC to investigate the entire ecosystem of Upper Pierand recommend guidelines for its future development.
The Committee was also guided by the Hermosa Beach General Plan, which states its goal:“Protect and maintain the small town beach community atmosphere of Hermosa Beach.”From this guidance, UPAC determined its Mission Statement to be:
“To develop the vision for a Specific Planning Area on Upper Pier Avenue based onresearch, consultation with design and planning professionals, and community input.”
Based on these guiding principles, the UPAC engaged in a comprehensive, data-basedanalysis of Upper Pier Avenue. In the end, the recommendations in this report reflect theconsensus of the Committee based on Community input and preferences.
UPAC – Final Report Page 2
III. Organization
The Council designated two City Council members (Kit Bobko & Pete Tucker), two PlanningCommissioners (Pete Hoffman & Ron Pizer), and two Public Works Commissioners (DanMarinelli & Janice Brittain) to serve on the UPAC. At its first organizational meeting, the six standing UPAC members voted increase theCommittee’s membership to eleven. Twenty-seven members of the public applied for selection.At its February 2007 meeting the Committee elected Ken Klade, Larry Peha, Dean Nota, KimMacMullan and Jerry Gross to join the UPAC.
All members of the Committee, both elected and nominated, had equal votes on all matters.Every member of the Committee participated on at least one Sub-Committee.
IV.Methodology
From the outset, UPAC resolved to base its recommendations on analysis and data asopposed to opinions and supposition. The Committee made a concerted effort to reachconsensus among its members, and to solicit as much community input as possible.
In order to accomplish this, the Committee conducted a 6-week survey of residents andvisitors to Upper Pier Avenue in June-July 2007. There were a total of 571 responses to thesurvey,of which 479 were from Hermosa Beach residents. (405 surveys were completed on-line,74 on paper.) The Alliance Consulting Group and CIDR Systems compiled and analyzed thecollected data and presented their findings to the Committee on August 1, 2007.
The survey revealed that an overwhelming number of respondents favored development ofan Upper Pier streetscape project, with new landscaping, textured sidewalks, improved signage,etc.Residents also favored widening the sidewalks, and corresponding improvement of thepedestrian-friendly atmosphere on Upper Pier. Nearly three-quarters of residents supportedmixed-use development on Upper Pier.
The Committee also met with business owners on Upper Pier in two workshops in October2007 to gather their feedback and input.
UPAC – Final Report Page 3
V. Analysis
The Committee determined the best, most efficient way to analyze the issues involved withUpper Pier Avenue would be to divide the project into four sub-committees: (1) traffic, circulation &parking; (2) urban design and streetscape; (3) land use and zoning, and; (4) economic development.
A. Traffic, Circulation & Parking
City Councilman Peter Tucker, Public Works Commissioners Dan Marinelli and JaniceBrittain, and Mr. Jerry Gross comprised the Traffic, Circulation & Parking sub-committee (“TrafficSub-committee”). The Traffic Sub-committee tackled perhaps the most highly visible, and potentially divisive,aspect of the Upper Pier project. In fact, it was the City’s decision to re-stripe Upper Pier Avenuefrom four lanes to two that was one of the chief reasons the City Council decided to form theUPAC in the first place.
Pier Avenue is the main east-west arterial in downtown Hermosa Beach, with the averagedaily traffic counts ranging from 11,000 to as high as 19,000 vehicles per day. During peak loadhours, there are approximately 2,000 vehicle trips on Pier Avenue. The Traffic Sub-committeefound that reducing the Pier Avenue to only one lane in each direction (i.e., two-lanes) wouldintensify delays during the street’s peak-use periods.
The survey and feedback the UPAC gathered revealed that Hermosa residents prefer a four-lane configuration on Upper Pier Avenue. Many residents expressed the opinion that Upper PierAvenue was the major thoroughfare through the City, and it was important to maintain trafficflow on it during peak use times. Residents also felt that reducing Pier Avenue to two laneswould cause unnecessary congestion during peak use times with the unwanted side-effect offorcing traffic onto neighboring residential streets.
Residents and businesses alike also expressed a desire for increased parking options on UpperPier Avenue. The Traffic Sub-committee’s proposal results in no net-loss of parking on PierAvenue.
UPAC – Final Report Page 4
The Traffic Sub-committee also took into consideration the residents’ express desire for abeautification (streetscape) program on Upper Pier, and the express preference for widening ofthe sidewalks.
Based on these considerations, the Traffic Sub-committee made the following recommen-dations to the UPAC, which the full Committee adopted. The recommendations are as follows:
Implement streetscape program for Upper Pier Avenue with pedestrian safety a priorityMaintain 4-lane configurationWiden sidewalks to create a more pedestrian-friendly environment on Upper Pier Avenue(from existing 10 feet to approximately 14 feet)Provide landscaped median islandMaintain diagonal parking on north side of Pier Avenue from Valley Drive to ManhattanAvenueConvert diagonal parking to parallel parking on south side of Pier Avenue from ValleyDrive to Manhattan AvenueReconfigure pedestrian crossings on Pier Avenue with “bulbs” to create pedestrian refugesand enhance safe pedestrian crossingCreate new “green space” at north and south sides of Manhattan Avenue where itintersects with Pier AvenueMaintain diagonal parking on both sides of Pier Avenue from Manhattan Avenue toHermosa AvenueCreate an eastbound “transition” lane from Hermosa Avenue to Pier AvenueImplement a “scramble” pedestrian crossing at Pier Avenue and Hermosa Avenue.Utilize multi-space parking meters on Upper Pier Avenue
The Traffic Sub-committee made the following future recommendations for the City Councilto consider:
Explore existing opportunities for alternative parking (i.e., leased lots, valet services,shuttle services, etc.) In particular, valet parking for restaurants along Upper Pier Avenueon Thursday, Friday, and Saturday nights Consider changing 16 spaces on the east side of City Hall to 2-hour meters during theCity’s non-business hoursExploreadding 15 spaces to Oak Street (by leasing or purchasing an easement fromMarineland Mobile Home Park)Consider expansion of the existing parking lot on 14th Street (adding potentially 53additional spaces to the City’s parking inventory)Consider issuing special “mirror hanger” permits to employees at the downtown areabusinesses that would allow them to park away from the downtown area and congestedneighborhoods. This would potentially free almost 300 spaces for residential useExplore construction of a pedestrian overpass and/or gateway over the greenbelt where itcrosses Pier Avenue.
UPAC – Final Report Page 5
B. Urban Design and Streetscape
The two professional architects on the Committee, Dean Nota and Larry Peha comprised theUPAC’s Urban Design and Streetscape Sub-committee (“Urban Design Sub-committee”).
Upper Pier Avenue is, expectedly, dominated by the street that is wider than the Pacific CoastHighway. The right-of-way on Upper Pier Avenue is 10-feet wider than the State Highway. Thestreet has traditionally been a thoroughfare for residents traveling west from PCH, andalternatively as an arterial channeling commuters from the residential neighborhoods back to thehighway. Currently, Upper Pier has sporadic, poorly coordinated landscaping and single-storybuildings, which create a low, horizontal proportion to the street. The street lacks pedestrianamenities and scale, and subsequently suffers from weak pedestrian activity on a day-to-daybasis. Long crosswalks and poor signage also plague upper Pier Avenue. Indeed, a commonrefrain from residents is that they feel “unsafe” crossing Upper Pier Avenue, especially with smallchildren or pets.
And although some of these issues are a direct result of the large scale of Pier Avenue, thatsame scale presents unique opportunity for the development and design of the street. Forexample, one of the Committee’s main goals was to create a more pedestrian-friendlyenvironment on Upper Pier Avenue without reducing the number of traffic lanes. Fortunately,the width of the street allows for this.
The Urban Design Sub-committee recommended that the expansive views from Upper PierAvenue down to Pier Plaza should be maintained, along with the existing continuity of retailalong the bend of Pier Avenue to Hermosa Avenue. The Sub-committee identified the largeasphalt space at Pier Avenue and Hermosa as a place where the pedestrian experience (andsafety!) would be enhanced by a reduction in the scale of the crosswalk.
Additionally, the Sub-committee recognized an opportunity to bring consistency to thelandscaping and design from Hermosa Avenue to PCH, and to promote continuity in the urbandesign along the entire length of the street. The Urban Design Sub-committee also suggested that Upper Pier Avenue not be designedprimarily to accommodate automobiles, but rather as a shared use between automobiles andpedestrians.
Finally, the Urban Design Sub-committee recommended the City look for ways to preservehistoric buildings along Upper Pier Avenue to maintain the street’s unique “Hermosa feel.”
C. Land Use and Zoning
City Councilman Kit Bobko, Planning Commissioner Pete Hoffman, and architects DeanNota and Larry Peha comprised the Land Use and Zoning Sub-committee (“Land Use Sub-committee”). This sub-committee’s examined the land uses and zoning requirements for thedevelopment of Upper Pier Avenue.
UPAC – Final Report Page 6
Two considerations guided the Land Use Sub-committee’s analysis. First, the sub-committee took into consideration the location of Upper Pier Avenue in relation to the rest ofHermosa Beach.1 Upper Pier Avenue is the “heart” of Hermosa Beach, and it is located in one ofthe most densely populated cities in Southern California. This consideration led the Sub-committee away from recommendations that would increase the density and traffic on UpperPier Avenue. Instead, the Sub-committee’s recommendations further the idea of a small town“village center.” For example, the Sub-committee shied away from mixed-use residential uses onUpper Pier Avenue that would increase traffic and residential density in favor of mixed-usecommercial uses that would increase pedestrian traffic on the street.
The second consideration was based on guidance from the UPAC Mission Statement andthe City’s General Plan – to promote a pedestrian-friendly “village center” for Hermosa Beach.Making Upper Pier Avenue more pedestrian-friendly is not a mysterious process; people willnaturally walk more if useful destinations are close to their homes, and the environment is safe,interesting and pleasant. The Sub-committee (and Committee at-large) believes a diverse mix ofuses and useful destinations at the center of our community would facilitate a more walkableenvironment.
UPAC – Final Report Page 7
1 All of the properties fronting Upper Pier Avenue are zoned C-2 (“Neighborhood Commercial”). According to the HermosaBeach Zoning Ordinance, C-2 is zoned “to provide opportunities for a limited range of office, retail, and service commercial usesspecifically appropriate for the sale and character of the downtown – a resident and visitor serving pedestrian orientedshopping/entertainment district.” HBMC §17.26.020 B (2).
UPPER PIER AVENUE — YEAR STRUCTURE BUILT
With these considerations in mind, the Sub-committee looked for ways to promote a coherent“village center” retail sector serving local residents and visitors, and arrived at the followingrecommendations:
Analyze the C-2 (“Downtown Commercial Zone”) permitted use list and related signordinances in the context of promoting pedestrian-friendly, resident-serving, day time usesconsistent with the existing zone and General Plan designation Encourage commercial mixed-use with service-type industries on the second floor andgeneral commercial/retail on the ground floorRetain the 30-foot height limit (from existing grade), with a strong preference towards 2storiesImprove the visual aesthetics by limiting franchise architecture, promoting consistentstreetscaping, minimizing bulk, scale, and massing of any new buildings on the streetAnalyze existing parking requirements relevant to dis/incentives for redevelopmentand/or redesign of existing buildingsInsure Conditional Use Permit (“CUP”) policies on Upper Pier Avenue are consistent withcommunity oriented, resident serving uses – including standards for hours of operationand outdoor diningProvide incentives for retention, rehabilitation, and adaptive reuse of historic buildings
UPAC – Final Report Page 8
UPPER PIER AVENUE — ZONING DESIGNATIONS
Encourage “permeable” building facades to facilitate pedestrian-friendly uses/atmosphereon the streetAnalyze impact of proposed redevelopment of Civic & Community Center sites and PierAvenue frontages to insure consistency with UPAC design and development standards.
D. Economic DevelopmentTwo local Businessmen Ken Klade (Klade Gallery) and Jerry Gross (Branded Mortgage) andPlanning Commissioner Ron Pizer comprised the Economic Development Sub-committee.
The Economic Development Sub-committee started its analysis by conferring with localbusiness owners to understand their interests and concerns regarding UPAC. The Sub-committeemet with Upper Pier business owners twice to gather their input and insure their inclusion in theprocess.
The Sub-committee also met with the property owners to gather their input on the UPAC.
Additionally, the Sub-committee and UPAC utilized the previous report (2002) by theEconomic Development Committee to inform their analysis of the economic issues involved withUpper Pier Avenue.
Again, with an eye towards developing a pedestrian-friendly “village center” on Upper PierAvenue, the Sub-committee made the following recommendations:
Create an Economic Development Commission (“EDC”) to address commercialism onUpper Pier Avenue, PCH, and other areas of the CityExplore the use of professional consultants to assist the EDC in attracting “villagefriendly” businesses to Hermosa BeachCreate incentives for second floor professional services to create more opportunities forground floor, pedestrian-friendly retail uses
Additionally, one of the main concerns both the business owners and the property ownersvoiced during their meetings with the Sub-committee regarded “down-time” they would incurduring construction on Upper Pier Avenue. The Sub-committee and City Staff agreed tocoordinate with the businesses on Upper Pier to mitigate any negative effects of construction, andto provide a point-of-contact at the City who would be available to businesses during theconstruction phase.
UPAC – Final Report Page 9
VI. Next Steps
The recommendations set forth in this Final Report represent more than a year of analysis,discussion and compromise by the UPAC. The Committee went to great lengths to gather andsynthesize data from residents, businesses, property owners, and staff.
With all of the above-considerations in mind, UPAC respectfully makes the followingrecommendations to the City Council:
1.Approve the UPAC’s Traffic, Parking and Circulation recommendations. a.) Authorize the Public Works Director to solicit Requests for Proposals to selectdesign consultants to prepare plans, specifications, and cost estimates for allstreet and landscaping improvements. (Note: The Committee recommendsutilizing architects Dean Nota and Larry Peha to serve on the SelectionCommittee along with Public Works Staff.)
b.) Direct the Public Works Commission to provide guidance in developingstreetscape/public facilities commensurate with the recommendations set forthin the UPAC Final Report.
c.) Direct Staff to report to Council within 180-days following the award of thedesign contract with preliminary plans, cost estimates, and designrecommendations.
2.Authorize the Director of Public Works to implement the “scramble” cross walk at theintersection of Pier Avenue and Hermosa Avenue.
3.Refer to the Planning Commission the UPAC report with guidance to develop zoning andparking guidelines to facilitate the goals articulated in UPAC’s Final Report. (Final reportregarding changes to the zoning code, parking, etc., to the City Council due within 9 months ofCity Council approval.)4.Create an Economic Development Commission.5. Maintain the UPAC as an advisory/ad hoc committee as required.
###
UPAC – Final Report Page 10