HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-10-21 PC AGENDA 1
AGENDA
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
1315 VALLEY DRIVE
HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254
October 21, 2008
7:00 P.M.
Sam Perrotti, Chairman
Ron Pizer, Vice Chairman
Peter Hoffman
Kent Allen
Shawn Darcy
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.
Any final determination by the Planning Commission may be appealed, and such appeal
must be filed no later than ten days after the next City Council Meeting. This appeal shall
be made in written form to the City Clerk's office, accompanied by an appeal fee.
The City Clerk, upon filing of said appeal, will set appeal for public hearing
before the City of Hermosa Beach City Council at the earliest date.
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.
2
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
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 September 16, 2008 action minutes.
5. Resolution(s) for consideration
a) Resolution P.C. 08-39 approving a Conditional Use Permit for outdoor dining in
conjunction with a restaurant use at 140 Pier Avenue, New Orleans Cajun Café.
b) Resolution P.C. 08-40 denying a Conditional Use Permit for on-sale beer and wine in
conjunction with a restaurant use at 140 Pier Avenue, New Orleans Cajun Café.
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 08-11 -- Conditional Use Permit to allow on-sale beer and wine tasting in conjunction with
retail off-sale beer and wine (allowed use) within an existing retail building at 727 Pacific Coast
Highway, The Winehound.
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.
7. PARK 08-4 -- Parking Plan amendment to allow a 240 square foot storage building for Okell’s
Fireplace without the provision of additional parking within shared parking area at 134 and 142
Pacific Coast Highway.
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.
8. CUP 08-10 -- Conditional Use Permit for a car rental agency within an existing building at 601
Pacific Coast Highway, Enterprise Rent-A-Car.
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.
9. TEXT 08-8 (TO COMMENCE AT APPROXIMATELY 8:00 P.M.) -- Upper Pier Avenue
Committee (UPAC) zoning recommendations: Preliminary review of concepts and direction to
staff to prepare amendments to the Municipal Code to implement zoning-related
recommendations pertaining to property zoned C-2 (Restricted Commercial) along Pier Avenue
in the ‘Upper Pier Avenue Committee Final Report’ approved by the City Council on March 25,
3
2008. These concepts promote a pedestrian-friendly village center serving local residents as
well as visitors. The preliminary proposal addresses permitted and conditional uses;
standards/restrictions on outdoor seating or displays on the sidewalk; parking requirements;
sign standards; design standards; incentives to encourage service-type/office uses on the
second floor and retain architecturally/historically important buildings; findings for approving
conditional uses; creation of a specific plan area or overlay zone; and other minor changes.
Staff Recommended Action: To direct staff to prepare a text amendment to zoning and other
sections of the Municipal Code to implement the Upper Pier Avenue Final Report, and set a
public hearing for December 3, 2008.
Section III
10. Staff Items
a. Tentative future Planning Commission agenda.
b. Community Development Department Activity Report of August, 2008.
11. Commissioner Items
12. Adjournment
Planning Commission Action Minutes
September 16, 2008
1
ACTION MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON
SEPTEMBER 16, 2008, 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 7:02 P.M. by Chairman Perrotti.
1. Commissioner Kent Allen led the Salute to the Flag.
2. Roll Call
Present: Chairman Perrotti, Commissioners Allen, Darcy, Hoffman, Pizer,
Absent: None
Also Present: Community Development Director Ken Robertson
Assistant City Attorney Lauren Feldman
Senior Planner Pamela Townsend
Associate Planner Angela Mason
Assistant Planner Eva Choi
3. Oran /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.
Commissioner Hoffman noted the Public Works Commission will hold a meeting on
Wednesday, Sept. 17, 2008 at 7:00 p.m. at the Council Chambers to receive the first report
from the consultant working on the Upper Pier Avenue project. The report will lay out the
consultant’s preliminary thoughts and the Commission will receive public input on the
project.
Section I Consent Calendar
4. a) Approval of July 15, 2008 minutes excerpt for 1332 Hermosa Avenue, Blue 32, and
1320 Hermosa Avenue, The Shore.
b) Approval of August 19, 2008 action minutes.
ACTION: To approve: a) The July 15, 2008 minutes excerpt for 1332 Hermosa Avenue,
Blue 32, and 1320 Hermosa Avenue, The Shore. b) The August 19, 2008 action minutes as
presented.
Motion by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Pizor. The motion carried
by a unanimous vote.
4
Planning Commission Action Minutes
September 16, 2008
2
5. Resolution(s) for approval
Section II Public Hearing(s)
6. CUP 08-8 -- Conditional Use Permit to allow on-sale beer and wine and outdoor dining in a
covered patio area in conjunction with an existing restaurant at 140 Pier Avenue, New
Orleans Cajun Cafe.
Staff Recommended Action: To direct staff as deemed appropriate.
ACTION: To approve outdoor dining in covered patio area and direct staff to bring back
resolution for adoption at the next meeting.
Motion by Hoffman, seconded by Perrotti. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Pizer, Perrotti, and Darcy
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN None.
FURTHUR ACTION: To deny on-sale beer and wine and direct staff to bring back
resolution for adoption at the next meeting.
Motion by Allen, seconded by Hoffman. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, and Pizer
NOES: Perrotti and Darcy.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTAIN None.
7. VAR 08-3 -- A Variance to allow the expansion of an existing nonconforming two-car
garage resulting in a 6-foot 4 inches garage setback from the sidewalk rather than the
required 17 feet in conjunction with a remodel and expansion to the existing single story
dwelling at 2507 Valley Drive.
Staff Recommended Action: To approve said request.
ACTION: To adopt the resolution to approve said Variance request.
Motion by Pizer, seconded by Hoffman. The motion carried by a unanimous vote.
8. TEXT 08-6 -- Information and continued discussion regarding wind energy systems
(continued from the August 19, 2008 meeting).
Staff Recommended Action: To direct staff as deemed appropriate.
ACTION: To appoint Commissioners Pizer and Darcy to a sub-committee to study wind
energy systems, work with staff, and bring back recommendations.
Motion by Hoffman, seconded by Perrotti. The motion carried by a unanimous vote.
Planning Commission Action Minutes
September 16, 2008
3
9. TEXT 08-3 -- Text Amendment to exempt solar energy systems from height limits.
(continued from the August 19, 2008 meeting).
Staff Recommended Action: To recommend approval of said Text Amendment
ACTION: To adopt the resolution recommending approval of said Text Amendment.
Motion by Darcy, seconded by Pizer. The motion carried by a unanimous vote.
10. TEXT 08-5 -- Text Amendment to exempt portable shade canopies from the height limits
(continued from the August 19, 2008 meeting).
Staff Recommended Action: To recommend approval of said Text Amendment.
ACTION: To adopt the resolution recommending approval of said Text Amendment, with
changes to Section 17.46.230, paragraph A to add an exclusion and definition of pop-up
shade canopies and other minor modifications.
Motion by Hoffman, seconded by Perrotti. The motion carried by a unanimous vote.
Section III
11. Staff Items
a. Tentative future Planning Commission agenda.
b. Community Development Department Activity Report of July, 2008.
12. Commissioner Items
13. Adjournment
The meeting was formally adjourned at 9:22 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 September
16, 2008.
______________________________ _____________________________
Sam Perrotti, Chairman Ken Robertson, Secretary
______________________
Date
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
Date: October 1, 2008
To: Planning Commission
From: Ken Robertson, Director
Subject: 140 Pier Avenue - To Allow On-Sale Beer and Wine and
Outdoor Patio Dining in Conjunction with an Existing
Restaurant, New Orleans Cajun Cafe (CUP 08-8)
By direction of the Planning Commission on September 16, 2008, attached are
resolutions approving outdoor dining at 140 Pier Avenue (Attachment 1), and denying
on-sale beer and wine (Attachment 2).
Outdoor dining is limited to the patio area to be located wholly within the parcel
boundaries. An Encroachment Permit and Parking Plan would be required should the
applicant seek to install outdoor dining tables or other encroachments associated with
restaurant on the public right of way.
Please note that, while the proposal must comply with Fire Department regulations,
under the California Building Code the applicant is not required to display an occupant
load sign as the premises will not sell alcohol and cannot accommodate more than 49
patrons due to limited floor space.
Attachments
1. Resolution: Approval of Outdoor Dining
2. Resolution: Denial of On-Sale Beer and Wine
1
5
ATTACHMENT 1
P.C. RESOLUTION 08-39
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT FOR OUTDOOR DINING IN CONJUNCTION WITH A RESTAURANT
USE AT 140 PIER AVENUE, "NEW ORLEANS CAJUN CAFÉ," LEGALLY
DESCRIBED AS LOTS 13 & 14, FIRST ADDITION TO HERMOSA BEACH
The Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach does hereby resolve and order as
follows:
Section 1. An application was filed by New Orleans Cajun Cafe seeking approval for an
outdoor patio dining in conjunction with an existing restaurant with minor alterations to the
interior layout to install two bathrooms.
Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to
consider the application for Conditional Use Permit 08-8 on September 16, 2008, at which time
testimony and evidence, both oral and written, was presented to and considered by the Planning
Commission.
Section 3. The project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental
Quality Act, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, since the proposal involves an
existing use type including remodel of a portion of an existing building within an urban area to
create the effect of a patio within the existing footprint and no perceptible impacts on traffic,
noise, air, or water quality will occur.
Section 4. Based on the testimony and evidence received the Planning Commission
makes the following factual findings limited to the request for an outdoor dining patio:
1. The site is zoned C-2, Restricted Commercial, which allows restaurant uses and out door
dining with approval of a Conditional Use Permit.
2. Applicant requests a reduction in total seating capacity from forty nine (49) to thirty eight
(38), including ten (10) outdoor dining seats to be located in the outdoor patio area
occupying approximately 186 square feet within the existing building footprint.
3. There has been a restaurant use onsite since 1975; New Orleans Restaurant has occupied
the site since 1996 with no recorded nuisance complaints relating to outdoor dining tables
encroaching on the public right of way.
4. At the time the first restaurant use at the subject site became operational in 1975, no off
street parking was required (H.B. Zoning Code 1970-76, Section 800-B).
5. The site’s proposed floor layout, including the outdoor dining patio, will provide level
access for mobility impaired patrons.
2
5a
6. No additional offstreet parking is required; the proposal to reduce total restaurant seating
from forty nine (49) to thirty eight (38) will cause a reduction in the site’s use intensity.
Section 5. Based on the foregoing factual findings and pursuant to H.B.M.C. Section
17.40.020, the Planning Commission hereby finds that the site is suitable for outdoor patio
dining because it is located within a commercial area, the number of patrons at the existing
establishment, and therefore traffic and other impacts will not increase, and the project is
conditioned to minimize potential noise or other impacts to residential uses in the vicinity.
Section 6. Based on the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby approves
Conditional Use Permit 08-8 allowing outdoor dining subject to the following Conditions of
Approval:
1. Interior and exterior building operations and the continued use and operation of the
restaurant shall be substantially consistent with the plans approved by the Planning
Commission on September 16, 2008.
2. The size of the outdoor dining patio and outdoor dining seats limited to ten (10) shall
be as shown on the approved floor plan.
3. The hours of restaurant operation, including outdoor dining, shall be limited to
7:00am to 10:00pm daily.
4. All structures associated with restaurant use, including outdoor dining facilities and
other landscaping features, shall be located wholly within the site boundaries and
shall not encroach on the public right of way without written permission from the
City of Hermosa Beach.
5. Noise emanating from the property shall be within the limitations prescribed by the
City of Hermosa Beach’s Municipal Code Chapter 8.24.
6. The exterior of the premises shall be maintained in a neat and clean manner and
maintained free of graffiti at all times.
7. The runoff from washing and/or rinsing of restaurant equipment, including floor
mats, food preparation utensils and other coverings, shall drain to the sewer system
only; under no circumstances shall site run-off drain to the stormwater system.
8. The project shall comply with the requirements of the Fire Department.
9. Building plans/drawings submitted for building permit issuance shall be reviewed for
consistency with the plans approved by the Planning Commission and the conditions
of this resolution, and approved by the Community Development Director prior to the
issuance of any Building Permit.
10. The operation of the business shall comply with all applicable requirements of the
Municipal Code; the subject property shall be developed, maintained and operated in
full compliance with the conditions of this grant and any law, statute, ordinance or
3
other regulation applicable to any development or activity on the subject property.
Failure of the permittee to cease any development or activity not in full compliance
shall be a violation of these conditions.
Section 7. This grant shall not be effective for any purposes until the permittee and the
owners of the property involved have filed at the office of the Planning Division of the
Community Development Department their affidavits stating that they are aware of, and agree to
accept, all of the conditions of this grant. The Conditional Use Permit shall be recorded and
proof of recordation shall be submitted to the City of Hermosa Beach.
Each of the above conditions is separately enforceable and, if one of the conditions is found
unenforceable by a court of law, all other conditions shall remain valid and enforceable.
The Permittee shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of Hermosa Beach and its
agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City or its
agents, officers or employees to attack, set aside, void or annul this Conditional Use Permit. The
City shall promptly notify the Permittee of any claim, action or proceeding and the City shall
fully cooperate in the defense. If the City fails to promptly notify the Permittee of any claim,
action or proceeding, or the City fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the Permittee shall not
thereafter be responsible to defend, indemnify or hold harmless the City.
The Permittee shall reimburse the City for any court and attorney’s fees that the City may be
required to pay as a result of any claim or action brought against the City because of this grant.
Although the Permittee is the real party in interest in an action, the City may, at its sole
discretion, participate at its own expense in the defense of the action but such participation shall
not relieve the Permittee of any obligation under this Conditional Use Permit.
Section 8. Pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6, any legal challenge to
the decision of the Planning Commission, after a formal appeal to the City Council, must be
made within 90 days after the final decision by the City Council.
VOTE: AYES: Comms. Allen, Darcy, Hoffman,Perrotti, and Pizer
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT None
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify the foregoing Resolution P.C. No. 08-39 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 October 21, 2008.
Sam Perrotti, Chairman Ken Robertson, Secretary
October 21, 2008
Date
F:\B95\CD\PC\2008\10-21-08 140_PierAve_ResoOUTDOORDINING100108 Final
4
ATTACHMENT 2
P.C. RESOLUTION 08-40
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DENYING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
FOR ON-SALE BEER AND WINE IN CONJUNCTION WITH A RESTAURANT
USE AT 140 PIER AVENUE, "NEW ORLEANS CAJUN CAF," LEGALLY
DESCRIBED AS LOTS 13 & 14, FIRST ADDITION TO HERMOSA BEACH
The Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach does hereby resolve and order as
follows:
Section 1. An application was filed by New Orleans Cajun Cafe seeking approval for on-
sale beer and wine in conjunction with an existing restaurant with minor alterations to the
interior layout to install two bathrooms.
Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to
consider the application for a Conditional Use Permit 08-8 on September 16, 2008, at which
testimony and evidence, both oral and written, was presented to a considered by the Planning
Commission.
Section 3. Based on the testimony and evidence received, the Planning Commission
makes the following factual findings limited to the request for on-sale beer and wine only:
1. The site is zoned C-2, Restricted Commercial, which allows restaurant uses and on sale
beer and wine with approval of a Conditional Use Permit.
2. There has been a restaurant use onsite since 1975; New Orleans Restaurant has occupied
the site since 1996.
3. The site is located within the downtown area of the City of Hermosa Beach, which
includes Pier Avenue, Pier Plaza and portions of Hermosa Avenue.
4. The downtown area of the City of Hermosa Beach, which comprises Pier Avenue,
Hermosa Avenue and Pier Plaza, already contains a considerable number of Alcohol and
Beverage Control (ABC) licenses for on sale beer and wine, as follows:
Within a 600 foot radius of the subject site along Pier Avenue, there are nine
premises with on-sale beer and wine licenses (ABC License Type 41 and 42) and
three premises with on-sale general alcohol (ABC License Type 47 and 48).
Within a 600 foot radius of the subject site along Hermosa Avenue, there are twelve
premises with on sale beer and wine license (ABC License Type 41 and 42) and
eight premises with on sale general alcohol (ABC License Type 47 and 48).
Within 600 feet from the subject site on Pier Plaza, there are seventeen premises
with on sale beer and wine licenses (ABC License Type 41 and 42) and twelve
premises with on sale general alcohol licenses (ABC License Type 47 and 48).
5 5b
Section 4. Based on the foregoing factual findings the Planning Commission makes the
following findings pertaining to the application for a Conditional Use Permit:
1. The Planning Commission conducted a review of on-sale establishments over the past
year due to complaints associated with on-sale alcohol, finding the existing concentration
of on-sale establishments along lower Pier Avenue has adversely affected the character of
the area and the vision of the community as a seaside village, and has disturbed the peace
of residents in the vicinity.
2. The proximity of the subject site to Lower Pier Plaza and to other premises in the
downtown area with licenses issued by the California Department of Alcohol Beverage
Control will further exacerbate the current over saturation of ABC licenses in the
downtown area of the City of Hermosa Beach and approval of additional on-sale alcohol
establishments will contribute to a concentration of similar outlets in the area.
3. By contributing to the over saturation of ABC licenses, allowing on sale beer and wine
use at the subject site is likely to cause significant adverse impacts to the welfare of the
surrounding residential and/or commercial establishments in the vicinity.
Section 5. Based on the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby denies the request
for Conditional Use Permit 08-8 to allow on-sale beer and wine in conjunction with a restaurant
at 140 Pier Avenue.
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: Comms. Allen, Hoffman, and Pizer
NOES: Comms. Perrotti and Darcy
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT None
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify the foregoing Resolution P.C. No. 08-40 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 October 21, 2008.
Sam Perrotti, Chairman Ken Robertson, Secretary
October 21, 2008
Date
F:\B95\CD\PC\2008\10-21-08 140_PierAve_Reso ALCOHOL100108 Final
6
1
October 10, 2008
Honorable Chairman and Members of the Regular Meeting of
Hermosa Beach Planning Commission October 21, 2008
SUBJECT: CONCEPTUAL ZONING PROPOSALS AND OPTIONS FOR UPPER PIER
AVENUE: PRELIMINARY REVIEW OF CONCEPTS TO PREPARE
AMENDMENTS TO MUNICIPAL CODE TO IMPLEMENT ZONING-RELATED
RECOMMENDATIONS PERTAINING TO PROPERTY ZONED C-2
(RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL) ALONG PIER AVENUE IN ‘UPPER PIER
AVENUE FINAL REPORT.’
Recommendation
Direct staff to prepare a text amendment to zoning and other sections of the Municipal Code to
implement the Upper Pier Avenue Final Report, and set a public hearing for December 3, 2008.
Staff recommends the Commission take public testimony and provide comment and direction on
Attachment 1 (summary of proposals and other options), Attachment 2 (modification to permitted
and conditional uses), and Attachment 3 (proposal details).
Background
The City Council on March 25, 2008 voted unanimously to refer the Upper Pier Avenue Final
Report to the Planning Commission "with guidance to develop zoning and parking guidelines to
facilitate the goals in the report, including second stories with a 30-foot height limit and outdoor-
dining encroachment permit requirements," with final recommendation to Council within nine
months.
The Planning Commission on June
17, 2008 appointed Commissioners
Hoffman and Pizer as a
subcommittee to work with staff in
developing zoning proposals.
The UPAC report contains 10
recommendations that could be
implemented through code changes
and/or guidelines to promote a
pedestrian friendly “village center”
with retail uses serving both local
residents and visitors. UPAC's Land
Use subcommittee agreed that
residential uses, which increase
density and traffic, should not be
allowed. Those ideas underlie the
proposals in this report developed by
staff with input from the
subcommittee.
Figure 1: UPAC Land Use Recommendations
Analyze the C-2 zone permitted use list in the context of promoting
pedestrian friendly, resident serving, daytime uses.
Address outdoor-dining encroachment permit requirements in
public right of way.
Retain 30-foot height limit with strong preference towards two stories.
Encourage commercial mixed-use with service type industries on
the second floor and general commercial/retail on the ground floor.
Encourage permeable building facades to facilitate pedestrian
friendly use / atmosphere on the street.
Improve the visual aesthetics by limiting franchise architecture,
promoting consistent streetscaping, minimizing bulk, scale, and
massing of any new buildings on the street.
Provide incentives for retention, rehabilitation, and adaptive reuse of
architecturally significant buildings.
Analyze existing parking requirements relevant to dis / incentives for
redevelopment and/or redesign of existing buildings.
Insure CUP policies are consistent with community oriented,
resident serving uses– including standards for hours of operation
and outdoor dining.
Analyze sign code in the context of promoting pedestrian friendly,
resident serving, daytime uses.
2
Analysis
Overview
The intent of the current C-2 zone provides the opportunity for a pedestrian-oriented village, but the
regulations do not ensure development will be consistent with this objective or the proposed
streetscape improvements. Therefore the code should be modified to address use, design setback,
height, parking and other issues for upper Pier Avenue.
The Commission is requested to review a set of preliminary proposals and other options for
amending zoning and related sections of the Municipal Code. Proposals are designed around the
following key points:
The C-2 zone does not provide
requirements to ensure creation of a
pedestrian oriented village and therefore
modifications should be made.
A 'specific plan area' zone would provide
special regulations for Upper Pier
Avenue.
To create a village center, permitted and
conditional uses should be modified to
allow more control over some visitor
uses. Outdoor dining and displays on the
sidewalk could also be subject to a use
permit process.
The code should promote parcel frontages that are pedestrian oriented, with buildings set
close to the sidewalk. Standards for building proportion, such as retaining the 30 foot
height limit but imposing a two story limit with setbacks from the first story, ensure
development occurs at the pedestrian scale.
Parking should be set to the rear of buildings or screened to enhance the street.
Pedestrian amenities such as benches should be provided consistent with the streetscape.
The code should promote frontages which facilitate pedestrian interaction. Storefront
frontages with permeable facades with prominent windows, doors spaced close together,
and awnings or other unique elements, are required.
The code should provide incentives that encourage two story buildings with offices and
service type uses on the second story and retain architecturally/historically significant
buildings. Incentives could include alterations to parking standards, permit fee deferrals, and
variations from zoning standards, among others.
Minor changes to sign standards (projecting, awning, wall and second story signs) would
encourage second story uses and legalize some existing signage.
The code should reinstitute the prior parking standard of one space per 333 square feet of
floor area for retail/office uses to encourage these daytime uses.
Attachment 1 provides the summary of proposals and options as they relate to the existing code and
UPAC's recommendations. Attachments 2 through 4 provide the proposal with details on uses,
development standards and guidelines.
Figure 2: C-2 Zone Basic Requirements
Intent: To provide opportunities for a limited
range of office, retail, and service
commercial uses specifically appropriate for
the scale and character of the downtown --
resident and visitor serving pedestrian
oriented shopping/ entertainment district.
Setbacks: None. 5' side/rear adjacent to
residential zone.
Height: 30 feet
Parking: downtown parking standards apply
Signs: commercial use standards apply
3
Specific Plan Area
The area to which new zoning standards would apply must be precisely defined. The Upper Pier
Avenue study area extends from Hermosa Avenue to Pacific Coast Highway. Parcels fronting Pier
Avenue between Hermosa Avenue and Valley Drive (with the exception of publicly owned land
zoned Open Space) are zoned Restricted Commercial (C-2). Parcels between Valley Drive and
Pacific Coast Highway are zoned Specific Plan Area or Open Space.
Staff proposes creating a new specific plan area encompassing the area between Hermosa Avenue
and Valley Drive shown in Figure 3. An alternative would be to exclude parcels west of Palm Drive
because they also front Hermosa Avenue. Ownership and zoning maps are provided in Figures 4
and 5 for comparison.
The specific plan area would continue to be subject to the basic requirements of the C-2 zone as
modified by the adopted code amendments.
The Commission is requested to provide direction regarding:
whether a specific plan area should be created encompassing the area between Hermosa
Avenue and Valley Drive in Figure 3. If not, what area should be included?
Figure 3: PROPOSED UPPER PIER AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN AREA
4
Figure 5: CURRENT ZONING
Figure 4: OWNERSHIP
5
Modification to Uses
The Upper Pier Avenue Final Report recommends analyzing permitted uses in the C-2 zone in the
context of promoting pedestrian friendly, resident serving, daytime uses. Commercial mixed-use with
general commercial/retail on the ground floor are preferred, and service type and office uses (such
as those designated by *** in Figure 9) are encouraged to locate on the second story.
The C-2 zone (which applies to both upper and lower Pier Avenue) currently allows a wider range of
uses than may be desirable to create a balance of visitor and resident uses along upper Pier
Avenue. The C-2 zone allows outdoor dining on the sidewalk without the review accorded by a use
permit. The ability to create outdoor dining opportunities is likely to increase if the sidewalks are
widened as proposed under the Pier Avenue streetscape project. The Commission is requested to
consider whether outdoor dining on the sidewalk should be allowed at all, or with a use permit.
The proposal would modify permitted and conditional uses to emphasize resident serving uses,
and those that encourage pedestrian activity and interaction. Uses involving goods and services
of general necessity attract residents and provide economic stability when discretionary spending
is reduced. Uses that serve varied age groups are also desirable.
Noteworthy changes to use are shown in
Figures 7 and 8. Figure 9 provides a strikeout
version of the proposal. Attachment 2 provides
the proposal as it would appear if the code were
amended.
General commercial, offices and services would
continue to be permitted uses. Residential uses
would continue to be prohibited. Parking lots --
which can significantly affect circulation and the
streetscape -- would become a conditional use.
Hotels/motels, pool halls, private clubs, and
dining on the sidewalk, among others, are
proposed to be shifted from permitted to
conditional uses to provide control over location
and use. Hotels and motels are also visitor
serving and may encourage parcel
consolidation due to scale.
Department stores, supermarkets and
conventions halls (meeting rooms) can play a
resident serving function and are proposed to
be added as conditional uses whereby scale
and location can be controlled.
Figure 7: Permitted Uses - Examples
Continue to allow:
• off-sale alcohol (close 11 pm)
• retail, home improvement
• general office, banks
• restaurants, cafes, snack shops
• drugstores, food markets (max. 4,000
sf on ground floor)
• barber, beauty, fitness centers
Change from conditional to permitted use:
• department stores
Continue to prohibit residential uses
Figure 8: Conditional Uses - Examples
Change from permitted to conditional use:
• motels, hotels
• outdoor dining on sidewalk
• pool halls
• parking lots/structures
• surfboard manufacturing
• laboratories, scientific instrument sales
(or delete)
• messenger service, private clubs
Also allow as conditional uses:
• supermarkets
• kiosk, open market stalls
• convention hall
• alcoholic beverages on sidewalk in
conjunction with cafe
• retail displays on sidewalk
Figure 6: Comparison of Outdoor Dining and Permit Process (Existing)
Use
Private property Sidewalk
Outdoor dining Use permit Encroachment permit
Outdoor dining & alcoholic
beverages
Use per mit
Use permit &
Encroachment permit
6
The Commission is requested to provide direction regarding:
how the list of permitted and conditional uses in Figure 9 should be modified.
whether outdoor dining on the public sidewalk, service of alcoholic beverages in
conjunction with dining on the public sidewalk, and/or retail displays on the public sidewalk
should be allowed. If so, should a use permit be required.
Figure 9: Uses, Showing Proposed Modifications (Strikeout/Insertion)
Proposal - Changes to Permitted Uses in C-2 Zone
Alcohol beverages, off-sale (close 11 PM)
Aquariums, sales and supplies of marine
life***
Art/antiques/curios gallery or shop
Audio/video equipment/supplies,
sales/repair***
Bakery
Banks and financial institutions***
Barber/beauty shop***
Billiard or pool halls (Conditional)
Books/news/magazines, sales
Clinic, dental and/or medical***
Clothing/wearing apparel sales/service***
Clubs, private (Conditional)
Copying and printing services and supplies
Dancing, customer
Department stores (maximum 4,000 square
feet ground floor area)
Detective agency (Delete)
Drugstore
Florist or plant shop
Food and beverage market (maximum 4,000
square feet ground floor area)
Funeral homes, including mortuaries
Furniture/furnishings, sales and display
Garden equipment, small, hand-operated,
sales and rentals
Gymnasium/health and fitness center***
Hardware/home improvement store
Hobby and craft supplies and service
Hotels, motels (Conditional)
Household appliances/office equipment,
sales and repair***
Instruments (professional/scientific) sales
Interior decorating studio, store or shop***
Laboratories (Conditional or delete)
Laundry business/dry-cleaning***
Locksmith business***
Messenger service (Delete)
Museums
Musical instruments, retail and repair***
Offices, general***
Parking lots and /or structures (Conditional)
Pet grooming, no overnight kennels***
Photography (equipment sales and service,
film processing, studio) ***
Printing and or publishing business,
commercial***
Restaurant/café
Secondhand merchandise, retail sales
Snack bar/snack shop
Sporting/recreational equipment sales,
service, and rental***
Surfboard manufacturing (moved to
conditional use due to potential impacts on
nearby residential uses)
Ticket broker/sales
Tobacco store
Toy store
Commercial outdoor dining on public
sidewalk (moved to conditional use)
*** Service-type and office uses encouraged to locate on second story
7
Proposal - Changes to Conditional Uses in C-2 Zone
Alcohol beverage establishments, on-sale
Alcohol beverage establishment, off-sale --
(open between 11:01 p.m. and 2:00 a.m.)
Billiard or pool halls (moved from permitted
uses)
Convention hall (conditional use in C-3)
Clubs, private*** (moved from permitted uses)
Day nursery, preschool***
Department stores (more than 4,000 square
feet area on ground floor)
Entertainment, live
Hotels, motels (moved from permitted uses)
Laboratories (moved from permitted uses)***
Massage therapy business***
Movie theaters
Music academy***
Parking lots and /or structures (moved from
permitted uses)
Restaurant, with drive-in, or drive-thru
window, or with outdoor walk-up window
on public right of way
Restaurant/cafe with beer and wine (onsale)
Reverse vending machine(s)
Supermarkets (> 4,000 sf ground floor area)
(conditional use in C-3)
Surfboard manufacturing (moved from
permitted uses due to potential impacts on
nearby residential uses)
Wireless communication facility
Youth Hostel***
Entertainment, special performances
Outdoor merchandise display, temporary
outside dining, in conjunction with special
event (onsite or on public right of way)
Commercial sidewalk encroachments: outdoor
dining, alcoholic beverages with outdoor dining,
displays (other than special events)
Kiosk (booth, cart, etc. with open window on
one side, selling small, inexpensive items)
Open market building or stalls
Parade, circus or carnival
Commercial sidewalk encroachments: outdoor
dining, alcoholic beverages with outdoor dining,
displays (other than special events)
*** Service-type and office uses encouraged to locate on second story
8
The Built Environment
The Upper Pier Avenue Final Report
recommends retaining the 30-foot height limit of
the C-2 zone with strong preference towards two
stories, encouraging permeable building facades
to facilitate pedestrian oriented use and
atmosphere on the street. Visual aesthetics
should be improved by limiting franchise
architecture and minimizing scale and mass of
new buildings on the street. Figures 4, 10 and 11
show frontage characteristics.
The C-2 zone currently does not contain specific design or other standards to achieve these
objectives. Attachment 1 provides a summary of the proposal and options. Attachment 3 provides
the proposal.
The proposal controls scale and appearance through zoning and design standards. While maximum
height would remain at 30 feet, the number of stories would be limited to two. Assurances that
second stories would frame, but not overwhelm the street would be provided through setbacks or
floor area ratios relative to the first story. The height of the ground floor would also be limited so that
tall 'one-story' facades do not overwhelm the street.
Figure 10: Characteristics
Hermosa Avenue to Valley Drive
29+ private ownerships, currently zoned
C-2
Frontages: 30’ to 60’ (lot widths)
up to 130’ wide for lots facing side
streets
Lot depths: 85' to 100'
Fr ontages under one ownership: 38’ –
180’ wide
Block lengths: 200’ – 1000’
Maximum height: 30 feet
Figure 11
9
.
Figure 12:
Buildings frame ‘outdoor room’
Maintain pedestrian scale
• buildings close to sidewalk - maximum 6’
front setback (up to 12 feet for entryways,
outdoor patios, planters with trees shade
sidewalk)
• maximum 30’ height AND maximum 2
stories
• second story not to exceed 75% of ground
floor area, OR:
- max. 25' height requires 5’ setback
along 50% of second story length
- max. 30’ height requires 10’ setback
along 50% of second story length
• maximum 16’ ground floor (1st story)
height
Second story
setback required
Third story not allowed
Figure 13
Figure 14
Figure 15
Figure 14
10
The proposal requires that building façades be
set close to the sidewalk. The C-2 zone does
not require a setback except when adjacent to
a residential zone. This permissiveness can
result in buildings set back from the street, or
parking lots adjoining the street. The inclusion
of a maximum setback reduces the ability to
locate parking in front of buildings where
highly visible. Where parking is visible, it
must be screened by street walls or
vegetation
Proposed 200
Pier Ave
Building to be set close to
street, parking in rear
Visible parking to be
screened Figure 17
Figure 18
Figure 16
11
The proposal requires buildings to be
designed as 'storefronts' with large glazed
area, doors every 30 feet on average, and
varied façade elements. With frontages
ranging along Pier Avenue ranging from
about 30 to 60 feet wide, one door per parcel
will generally be required.
Figure 19
Figure 22: Buildings frame ‘outdoor room’
Maintain pedestrian scale
• buildings close to sidewalk - maximum 6’
front setback (up to 12 feet for entryways,
outdoor patios, planters with trees shade
sidewalk)
• maximum 30’ height AND maximum 2
stories
• second story not to exceed 75% of ground
floor area, OR:
- max. 25' height requires 5’ setback along
50% of second story length
- max. 30’ height requires 10’ setback along
50% of second story length
• maximum 16’ ground floor (1st story) height
Franchise architecture to be subdued
Strong entry
Permeable -
large glazed area
Figure 20
Figure 21
12
Therefore, while retail uses are not mandated to be located in the building, the form of the
building – which is enduring – engages and facilitates pedestrian activity. Second stories are
likewise required to have windows or other elements to provide vibrancy to the street.
Parcel consolidation would be less attractive if impediments to development of unconsolidated
parcels were removed. Therefore, the proposal provides incentives to assist expansion of uses
on small parcels, most significantly reduced parking requirements.
The Commission is requested to provide direction regarding:
Building and site design issues as discussed in Attachments 1 and 3.
Figure 22
Interesting second story elements on frontage
Avoid blank second story walls visible from Pier Avenue,
Maintain sense of scale with existing buildings
13
Incentives and Modifications to Achieve Objectives
The Upper Pier Avenue Final Report recognizes the link between the built environment and the
desire to develop Pier Avenue as a pedestrian oriented village center with a sense of place.
Protection of architecturally-significant buildings for continued or adaptive uses is therefore
encouraged.
The Municipal Code provides procedures for the designation and protection of historic resources
but has no specific provision defining or addressing locally significant architecture. The General
Plan provides an inventory of possible historical sites, but few are located on upper Pier Avenue.
There appears to be a desire to provide voluntary incentives to encourage protection. The
proposal does not mandate protection of architecturally-significant buildings or require an inventory
to be adopted. Instead, incentives for building retention or reuse may be granted case by case,
based on a showing of need and documentation of architectural/historic significance addressing
factors set forth in the proposal (Attachment 3).
Architecturally significant buildings
qualifying for incentives must adhere to
protection guidelines (Attachment 4 1s
one example).
Similar incentives are offered to induce
offices and services to locate on second
stories. The effect of second story
construction/alteration on architecturally
significant buildings should be
considered when granting incentives.
Figure 25 summarizes the types of
incentives available to encourage
second story uses and protection of
architecturally significant buildings.
Figure 23
Figure 24
Figure 23
14
Parking
Parking is a substantive and sensitive
issue especially in the downtown area. In
addition, the ability to offer various parking
incentives must be approved by the
Coastal Commission.
Proposals to modify parking requirements
include the following as detailed in
Attachment 3:
Allow a 50% parking credit when a non-restaurant use under 5,000 sf is converted to a
restaurant use - only as an incentive to construct or use a second story or retain an
architecturally significant building. Currently, no credit is allowed when a non-restaurant
use under 5,000 sf is converted to a restaurant use.
Allow parking for office uses to be located more than 300 feet or otherwise offsite under
a Parking Plan. Currently parking must be within 300 feet of the site on property under
same ownership.
Allow buildings that exceed a 1:1 floor area to building site area ratio to pay an in-lieu fee
for all spaces as an incentive to construction, expansion or use of a second story.
Currently, buildings that exceed the 1:1 ratio must provide at least 25% of the parking
onsite.
Allow other parking modifications or reduction of in-lieu fees under a Parking Plan, as
incentive to encourage second stories or to retain an architecturally significant building.
In addition, renewing the 3:1000 ratio for all retail and office uses is proposed. Alternatively, the
reduced ratio could be used as an incentive only to encourage locating office and personal service
uses on the second story. Retail and office uses currently require 4 spaces per 1000 square feet
(4:1000 ratio). A reduction to 3:1000 ratio approved by the Coastal Commission ended in 2007.
Figure 25: Summary of possible incentives
Objective
Incentives Offices/services
on second story
Preserve
architecturally
significant
building
reduced/modified parking requirements, in-
lieu fees or reduced in-lieu fees yes yes
deferral of building permit fees to final
occupancy yes yes
increase in total signage (e.g., 20%) to
advertise uses on the second story yes yes
allow a third story not exceeding 75% of the
floor area of the second story, but not
exceeding a maximum height of 30 feet
no yes
allow relief from zoning standards, or
consideration of a use not otherwise allowed in
the zoning district, based on specified findings
yes yes
Figure 26
1
October 10, 2008
Honorable Chairman and Members of the Regular Meeting of
Hermosa Beach Planning Commission October 21, 2008
SUBJECT: CONCEPTUAL ZONING PROPOSALS AND OPTIONS FOR UPPER PIER
AVENUE: PRELIMINARY REVIEW OF CONCEPTS TO PREPARE
AMENDMENTS TO MUNICIPAL CODE TO IMPLEMENT ZONING-RELATED
RECOMMENDATIONS PERTAINING TO PROPERTY ZONED C-2
(RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL) ALONG PIER AVENUE IN ‘UPPER PIER
AVENUE FINAL REPORT.’
Recommendation
Direct staff to prepare a text amendment to zoning and other sections of the Municipal Code to
implement the Upper Pier Avenue Final Report, and set a public hearing for December 3, 2008.
Staff recommends the Commission take public testimony and provide comment and direction on
Attachment 1 (summary of proposals and other options), Attachment 2 (modification to permitted
and conditional uses), and Attachment 3 (proposal details).
Background
The City Council on March 25, 2008 voted unanimously to refer the Upper Pier Avenue Final
Report to the Planning Commission "with guidance to develop zoning and parking guidelines to
facilitate the goals in the report, including second stories with a 30-foot height limit and outdoor-
dining encroachment permit requirements," with final recommendation to Council within nine
months.
The Planning Commission on June
17, 2008 appointed Commissioners
Hoffman and Pizer as a
subcommittee to work with staff in
developing zoning proposals.
The UPAC report contains 10
recommendations that could be
implemented through code changes
and/or guidelines to promote a
pedestrian friendly “village center”
with retail uses serving both local
residents and visitors. UPAC's Land
Use subcommittee agreed that
residential uses, which increase
density and traffic, should not be
allowed. Those ideas underlie the
proposals in this report developed by
staff with input from the
subcommittee.
Figure 1: UPAC Land Use Recommendations
Analyze the C-2 zone permitted use list in the context of promoting
pedestrian friendly, resident serving, daytime uses.
Address outdoor-dining encroachment permit requirements in
public right of way.
Retain 30-foot height limit with strong preference towards two stories.
Encourage commercial mixed-use with service type industries on
the second floor and general commercial/retail on the ground floor.
Encourage permeable building facades to facilitate pedestrian
friendly use / atmosphere on the street.
Improve the visual aesthetics by limiting franchise architecture,
promoting consistent streetscaping, minimizing bulk, scale, and
massing of any new buildings on the street.
Provide incentives for retention, rehabilitation, and adaptive reuse of
architecturally significant buildings.
Analyze existing parking requirements relevant to dis / incentives for
redevelopment and/or redesign of existing buildings.
Insure CUP policies are consistent with community oriented,
resident serving uses– including standards for hours of operation
and outdoor dining.
Analyze sign code in the context of promoting pedestrian friendly,
resident serving, daytime uses.
2
Analysis
Overview
The intent of the current C-2 zone provides the opportunity for a pedestrian-oriented village, but the
regulations do not ensure development will be consistent with this objective or the proposed
streetscape improvements. Therefore the code should be modified to address use, design setback,
height, parking and other issues for upper Pier Avenue.
The Commission is requested to review a set of preliminary proposals and other options for
amending zoning and related sections of the Municipal Code. Proposals are designed around the
following key points:
The C-2 zone does not provide
requirements to ensure creation of a
pedestrian oriented village and therefore
modifications should be made.
A 'specific plan area' zone would provide
special regulations for Upper Pier
Avenue.
To create a village center, permitted and
conditional uses should be modified to
allow more control over some visitor
uses. Outdoor dining and displays on the
sidewalk could also be subject to a use
permit process.
The code should promote parcel frontages that are pedestrian oriented, with buildings set
close to the sidewalk. Standards for building proportion, such as retaining the 30 foot
height limit but imposing a two story limit with setbacks from the first story, ensure
development occurs at the pedestrian scale.
Parking should be set to the rear of buildings or screened to enhance the street.
Pedestrian amenities such as benches should be provided consistent with the streetscape.
The code should promote frontages which facilitate pedestrian interaction. Storefront
frontages with permeable facades with prominent windows, doors spaced close together,
and awnings or other unique elements, are required.
The code should provide incentives that encourage two story buildings with offices and
service type uses on the second story and retain architecturally/historically significant
buildings. Incentives could include alterations to parking standards, permit fee deferrals, and
variations from zoning standards, among others.
Minor changes to sign standards (projecting, awning, wall and second story signs) would
encourage second story uses and legalize some existing signage.
The code should reinstitute the prior parking standard of one space per 333 square feet of
floor area for retail/office uses to encourage these daytime uses.
Attachment 1 provides the summary of proposals and options as they relate to the existing code and
UPAC's recommendations. Attachments 2 through 4 provide the proposal with details on uses,
development standards and guidelines.
Figure 2: C-2 Zone Basic Requirements
Intent: To provide opportunities for a limited
range of office, retail, and service
commercial uses specifically appropriate for
the scale and character of the downtown --
resident and visitor serving pedestrian
oriented shopping/ entertainment district.
Setbacks: None. 5' side/rear adjacent to
residential zone.
Height: 30 feet
Parking: downtown parking standards apply
Signs: commercial use standards apply
3
Specific Plan Area
The area to which new zoning standards would apply must be precisely defined. The Upper Pier
Avenue study area extends from Hermosa Avenue to Pacific Coast Highway. Parcels fronting Pier
Avenue between Hermosa Avenue and Valley Drive (with the exception of publicly owned land
zoned Open Space) are zoned Restricted Commercial (C-2). Parcels between Valley Drive and
Pacific Coast Highway are zoned Specific Plan Area or Open Space.
Staff proposes creating a new specific plan area encompassing the area between Hermosa Avenue
and Valley Drive shown in Figure 3. An alternative would be to exclude parcels west of Palm Drive
because they also front Hermosa Avenue. Ownership and zoning maps are provided in Figures 4
and 5 for comparison.
The specific plan area would continue to be subject to the basic requirements of the C-2 zone as
modified by the adopted code amendments.
The Commission is requested to provide direction regarding:
whether a specific plan area should be created encompassing the area between Hermosa
Avenue and Valley Drive in Figure 3. If not, what area should be included?
Figure 3: PROPOSED UPPER PIER AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN AREA
4
Figure 5: CURRENT ZONING
Figure 4: OWNERSHIP
5
Modification to Uses
The Upper Pier Avenue Final Report recommends analyzing permitted uses in the C-2 zone in the
context of promoting pedestrian friendly, resident serving, daytime uses. Commercial mixed-use with
general commercial/retail on the ground floor are preferred, and service type and office uses (such
as those designated by *** in Figure 9) are encouraged to locate on the second story.
The C-2 zone (which applies to both upper and lower Pier Avenue) currently allows a wider range of
uses than may be desirable to create a balance of visitor and resident uses along upper Pier
Avenue. The C-2 zone allows outdoor dining on the sidewalk without the review accorded by a use
permit. The ability to create outdoor dining opportunities is likely to increase if the sidewalks are
widened as proposed under the Pier Avenue streetscape project. The Commission is requested to
consider whether outdoor dining on the sidewalk should be allowed at all, or with a use permit.
The proposal would modify permitted and conditional uses to emphasize resident serving uses,
and those that encourage pedestrian activity and interaction. Uses involving goods and services
of general necessity attract residents and provide economic stability when discretionary spending
is reduced. Uses that serve varied age groups are also desirable.
Noteworthy changes to use are shown in
Figures 7 and 8. Figure 9 provides a strikeout
version of the proposal. Attachment 2 provides
the proposal as it would appear if the code were
amended.
General commercial, offices and services would
continue to be permitted uses. Residential uses
would continue to be prohibited. Parking lots --
which can significantly affect circulation and the
streetscape -- would become a conditional use.
Hotels/motels, pool halls, private clubs, and
dining on the sidewalk, among others, are
proposed to be shifted from permitted to
conditional uses to provide control over location
and use. Hotels and motels are also visitor
serving and may encourage parcel
consolidation due to scale.
Department stores, supermarkets and
conventions halls (meeting rooms) can play a
resident serving function and are proposed to
be added as conditional uses whereby scale
and location can be controlled.
Figure 7: Permitted Uses - Examples
Continue to allow:
• off-sale alcohol (close 11 pm)
• retail, home improvement
• general office, banks
• restaurants, cafes, snack shops
• drugstores, food markets (max. 4,000
sf on ground floor)
• barber, beauty, fitness centers
Change from conditional to permitted use:
• department stores
Continue to prohibit residential uses
Figure 8: Conditional Uses - Examples
Change from permitted to conditional use:
• motels, hotels
• outdoor dining on sidewalk
• pool halls
• parking lots/structures
• surfboard manufacturing
• laboratories, scientific instrument sales
(or delete)
• messenger service, private clubs
Also allow as conditional uses:
• supermarkets
• kiosk, open market stalls
• convention hall
• alcoholic beverages on sidewalk in
conjunction with cafe
• retail displays on sidewalk
Figure 6: Comparison of Outdoor Dining and Permit Process (Existing)
Use
Private property Sidewalk
Outdoor dining Use permit Encroachment permit
Outdoor dining & alcoholic
beverages
Use per mit
Use permit &
Encroachment permit
6
The Commission is requested to provide direction regarding:
how the list of permitted and conditional uses in Figure 9 should be modified.
whether outdoor dining on the public sidewalk, service of alcoholic beverages in
conjunction with dining on the public sidewalk, and/or retail displays on the public sidewalk
should be allowed. If so, should a use permit be required.
Figure 9: Uses, Showing Proposed Modifications (Strikeout/Insertion)
Proposal - Changes to Permitted Uses in C-2 Zone
Alcohol beverages, off-sale (close 11 PM)
Aquariums, sales and supplies of marine
life***
Art/antiques/curios gallery or shop
Audio/video equipment/supplies,
sales/repair***
Bakery
Banks and financial institutions***
Barber/beauty shop***
Billiard or pool halls (Conditional)
Books/news/magazines, sales
Clinic, dental and/or medical***
Clothing/wearing apparel sales/service***
Clubs, private (Conditional)
Copying and printing services and supplies
Dancing, customer
Department stores (maximum 4,000 square
feet ground floor area)
Detective agency (Delete)
Drugstore
Florist or plant shop
Food and beverage market (maximum 4,000
square feet ground floor area)
Funeral homes, including mortuaries
Furniture/furnishings, sales and display
Garden equipment, small, hand-operated,
sales and rentals
Gymnasium/health and fitness center***
Hardware/home improvement store
Hobby and craft supplies and service
Hotels, motels (Conditional)
Household appliances/office equipment,
sales and repair***
Instruments (professional/scientific) sales
Interior decorating studio, store or shop***
Laboratories (Conditional or delete)
Laundry business/dry-cleaning***
Locksmith business***
Messenger service (Delete)
Museums
Musical instruments, retail and repair***
Offices, general***
Parking lots and /or structures (Conditional)
Pet grooming, no overnight kennels***
Photography (equipment sales and service,
film processing, studio) ***
Printing and or publishing business,
commercial***
Restaurant/café
Secondhand merchandise, retail sales
Snack bar/snack shop
Sporting/recreational equipment sales,
service, and rental***
Surfboard manufacturing (moved to
conditional use due to potential impacts on
nearby residential uses)
Ticket broker/sales
Tobacco store
Toy store
Commercial outdoor dining on public
sidewalk (moved to conditional use)
*** Service-type and office uses encouraged to locate on second story
7
Proposal - Changes to Conditional Uses in C-2 Zone
Alcohol beverage establishments, on-sale
Alcohol beverage establishment, off-sale --
(open between 11:01 p.m. and 2:00 a.m.)
Billiard or pool halls (moved from permitted
uses)
Convention hall (conditional use in C-3)
Clubs, private*** (moved from permitted uses)
Day nursery, preschool***
Department stores (more than 4,000 square
feet area on ground floor)
Entertainment, live
Hotels, motels (moved from permitted uses)
Laboratories (moved from permitted uses)***
Massage therapy business***
Movie theaters
Music academy***
Parking lots and /or structures (moved from
permitted uses)
Restaurant, with drive-in, or drive-thru
window, or with outdoor walk-up window
on public right of way
Restaurant/cafe with beer and wine (onsale)
Reverse vending machine(s)
Supermarkets (> 4,000 sf ground floor area)
(conditional use in C-3)
Surfboard manufacturing (moved from
permitted uses due to potential impacts on
nearby residential uses)
Wireless communication facility
Youth Hostel***
Entertainment, special performances
Outdoor merchandise display, temporary
outside dining, in conjunction with special
event (onsite or on public right of way)
Commercial sidewalk encroachments: outdoor
dining, alcoholic beverages with outdoor dining,
displays (other than special events)
Kiosk (booth, cart, etc. with open window on
one side, selling small, inexpensive items)
Open market building or stalls
Parade, circus or carnival
Commercial sidewalk encroachments: outdoor
dining, alcoholic beverages with outdoor dining,
displays (other than special events)
*** Service-type and office uses encouraged to locate on second story
8
The Built Environment
The Upper Pier Avenue Final Report
recommends retaining the 30-foot height limit of
the C-2 zone with strong preference towards two
stories, encouraging permeable building facades
to facilitate pedestrian oriented use and
atmosphere on the street. Visual aesthetics
should be improved by limiting franchise
architecture and minimizing scale and mass of
new buildings on the street. Figures 4, 10 and 11
show frontage characteristics.
The C-2 zone currently does not contain specific design or other standards to achieve these
objectives. Attachment 1 provides a summary of the proposal and options. Attachment 3 provides
the proposal.
The proposal controls scale and appearance through zoning and design standards. While maximum
height would remain at 30 feet, the number of stories would be limited to two. Assurances that
second stories would frame, but not overwhelm the street would be provided through setbacks or
floor area ratios relative to the first story. The height of the ground floor would also be limited so that
tall 'one-story' facades do not overwhelm the street.
Figure 10: Characteristics
Hermosa Avenue to Valley Drive
29+ private ownerships, currently zoned
C-2
Frontages: 30’ to 60’ (lot widths)
up to 130’ wide for lots facing side
streets
Lot depths: 85' to 100'
Fr ontages under one ownership: 38’ –
180’ wide
Block lengths: 200’ – 1000’
Maximum height: 30 feet
Figure 11
9
.
Figure 12:
Buildings frame ‘outdoor room’
Maintain pedestrian scale
• buildings close to sidewalk - maximum 6’
front setback (up to 12 feet for entryways,
outdoor patios, planters with trees shade
sidewalk)
• maximum 30’ height AND maximum 2
stories
• second story not to exceed 75% of ground
floor area, OR:
- max. 25' height requires 5’ setback
along 50% of second story length
- max. 30’ height requires 10’ setback
along 50% of second story length
• maximum 16’ ground floor (1st story)
height
Second story
setback required
Third story not allowed
Figure 13
Figure 14
Figure 15
Figure 14
10
The proposal requires that building façades be
set close to the sidewalk. The C-2 zone does
not require a setback except when adjacent to
a residential zone. This permissiveness can
result in buildings set back from the street, or
parking lots adjoining the street. The inclusion
of a maximum setback reduces the ability to
locate parking in front of buildings where
highly visible. Where parking is visible, it
must be screened by street walls or
vegetation
Proposed 200
Pier Ave
Building to be set close to
street, parking in rear
Visible parking to be
screened Figure 17
Figure 18
Figure 16
11
The proposal requires buildings to be
designed as 'storefronts' with large glazed
area, doors every 30 feet on average, and
varied façade elements. With frontages
ranging along Pier Avenue ranging from
about 30 to 60 feet wide, one door per parcel
will generally be required.
Figure 19
Figure 22: Buildings frame ‘outdoor room’
Maintain pedestrian scale
• buildings close to sidewalk - maximum 6’
front setback (up to 12 feet for entryways,
outdoor patios, planters with trees shade
sidewalk)
• maximum 30’ height AND maximum 2
stories
• second story not to exceed 75% of ground
floor area, OR:
- max. 25' height requires 5’ setback along
50% of second story length
- max. 30’ height requires 10’ setback along
50% of second story length
• maximum 16’ ground floor (1st story) height
Franchise architecture to be subdued
Strong entry
Permeable -
large glazed area
Figure 20
Figure 21
12
Therefore, while retail uses are not mandated to be located in the building, the form of the
building – which is enduring – engages and facilitates pedestrian activity. Second stories are
likewise required to have windows or other elements to provide vibrancy to the street.
Parcel consolidation would be less attractive if impediments to development of unconsolidated
parcels were removed. Therefore, the proposal provides incentives to assist expansion of uses
on small parcels, most significantly reduced parking requirements.
The Commission is requested to provide direction regarding:
Building and site design issues as discussed in Attachments 1 and 3.
Figure 22
Interesting second story elements on frontage
Avoid blank second story walls visible from Pier Avenue,
Maintain sense of scale with existing buildings
13
Incentives and Modifications to Achieve Objectives
The Upper Pier Avenue Final Report recognizes the link between the built environment and the
desire to develop Pier Avenue as a pedestrian oriented village center with a sense of place.
Protection of architecturally-significant buildings for continued or adaptive uses is therefore
encouraged.
The Municipal Code provides procedures for the designation and protection of historic resources
but has no specific provision defining or addressing locally significant architecture. The General
Plan provides an inventory of possible historical sites, but few are located on upper Pier Avenue.
There appears to be a desire to provide voluntary incentives to encourage protection. The
proposal does not mandate protection of architecturally-significant buildings or require an inventory
to be adopted. Instead, incentives for building retention or reuse may be granted case by case,
based on a showing of need and documentation of architectural/historic significance addressing
factors set forth in the proposal (Attachment 3).
Architecturally significant buildings
qualifying for incentives must adhere to
protection guidelines (Attachment 4 1s
one example).
Similar incentives are offered to induce
offices and services to locate on second
stories. The effect of second story
construction/alteration on architecturally
significant buildings should be
considered when granting incentives.
Figure 25 summarizes the types of
incentives available to encourage
second story uses and protection of
architecturally significant buildings.
Figure 23
Figure 24
Figure 23
14
Parking
Parking is a substantive and sensitive
issue especially in the downtown area. In
addition, the ability to offer various parking
incentives must be approved by the
Coastal Commission.
Proposals to modify parking requirements
include the following as detailed in
Attachment 3:
Allow a 50% parking credit when a non-restaurant use under 5,000 sf is converted to a
restaurant use - only as an incentive to construct or use a second story or retain an
architecturally significant building. Currently, no credit is allowed when a non-restaurant
use under 5,000 sf is converted to a restaurant use.
Allow parking for office uses to be located more than 300 feet or otherwise offsite under
a Parking Plan. Currently parking must be within 300 feet of the site on property under
same ownership.
Allow buildings that exceed a 1:1 floor area to building site area ratio to pay an in-lieu fee
for all spaces as an incentive to construction, expansion or use of a second story.
Currently, buildings that exceed the 1:1 ratio must provide at least 25% of the parking
onsite.
Allow other parking modifications or reduction of in-lieu fees under a Parking Plan, as
incentive to encourage second stories or to retain an architecturally significant building.
In addition, renewing the 3:1000 ratio for all retail and office uses is proposed. Alternatively, the
reduced ratio could be used as an incentive only to encourage locating office and personal service
uses on the second story. Retail and office uses currently require 4 spaces per 1000 square feet
(4:1000 ratio). A reduction to 3:1000 ratio approved by the Coastal Commission ended in 2007.
Figure 25: Summary of possible incentives
Objective
Incentives Offices/services
on second story
Preserve
architecturally
significant
building
reduced/modified parking requirements, in-
lieu fees or reduced in-lieu fees yes yes
deferral of building permit fees to final
occupancy yes yes
increase in total signage (e.g., 20%) to
advertise uses on the second story yes yes
allow a third story not exceeding 75% of the
floor area of the second story, but not
exceeding a maximum height of 30 feet
no yes
allow relief from zoning standards, or
consideration of a use not otherwise allowed in
the zoning district, based on specified findings
yes yes
Figure 26
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
Tentative Future Agenda
PLANNING COMMISSION
City of Hermosa Beach
NOVEMBER 18, 2008
Project Title Staff Public
Notice
Meeting
Date
Date
Rec’d
Remarks
⇒ 4th Qtr GPA (Notification) 11/6 11/18
⇒ 1601 PCH, The Brix – 6 month review of modified
parking plan re. 2 hour free parking validation program.
11/18 3/31
⇒ Text amendment regarding signs in the OS zone for City
facilities
11/6 11/18 9/16
⇒ 77 15th Street, Villa Del Sol Villas—Legal determination
of whether a 15th dwelling unit on the property, originally
approved as a recreation room as part of a 14-unit
condominium project, is legal nonconforming and can
continue to be rented as a dwelling.
11/6 11/18 9/22
⇒ Text amendment to Muni Code to include definitions for
restaurant, bar and nightclub.
11/6 11/18 10/1
⇒ 1439 Pacific Coast Hwy, Chipotle— CUP for outdoor
dining in conjunction with a restaurant and Parking Plan
for reduction in parking spaces within shared parking lot.
AM 11/6 11/18 9/23
f:b95\cd\cd temp files\wpc - future agenda
10a
1
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
BUILDING DIVISION
AUGUST, 2008 MONTHLY REVENUE REPORT
NUMBER OF PERMITS
TYPE OF ACTIVITY CURRENT
MONTH
THIS MONTH
LAST FY FY TO DATE LAST FY
TO DATE
BUILDING 40 56 86 97
PLUMBING/MECHANICAL 23 30 71 69
ELECTRIC 25 47 66 71
PLAN CHECK 11 16 33 48
SEWER USE 0 0 0 1
RES. BLDG. REPORTS 16 13 29 33
PARKS & RECREATION 0 0 0 0
IN LIEU PARKS & REC 0 0 0 2
BOARD OF APPEALS 0 0 0 0
SIGN REVIEW 4 1 6 4
FIRE FLOW FEES 4 5 12 8
LEGAL DETERMINATION 0 0 0 0
ZONING APPEALS 0 0 0 0
TEMPORARY SIGN 1 1 4 2
COMMERCIAL INSPECTION 0 0 0 0
TOTALS 124 169 307 335
FEES COLLECTED
TYPE OF FEE CURRENT
MONTH
THIS MONTH
LAST FY FY TO DATE LAST FY
TO DATE
BUILDING $21,204.93 $31,807.65 $48,147.99 $55,465.55
PLUMBING/MECHANICAL $3,674.00 $5,343.00 $13,096.00 $11,476.00
ELECTRIC $5,196.00 $8,170.00 $17,355.00 $12,481.50
PLAN CHECK $5,438.48 $22,417.01 $23,578.90 $68,494.74
SEWER USE $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $956.00
RES. BLDG. REPORTS $3,792.00 $2,899.00 $6,873.00 $7,359.00
PARKS & RECREATION $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
IN LIEU PARKS & REC $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $24,692.00
BOARD OF APPEALS $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
SIGN REVIEW $960.00 $226.00 $1,440.00 $904.00
FIRE FLOW FEES $3,619.00 $4,594.50 $9,001.50 $8,612.50
LEGAL DETERMINATION $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
ZONING APPEALS $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
TEMPORARY SIGN $249.00 $234.00 $996.00 $468.00
COMMERCIAL INSPECTION $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
TOTALS $44,133.41 $75,691.16 $120,488.39 $190,909.29
2
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
BUILDING DIVISION
BUILDING PERMITS ISSUED REPORT MONTH OF AUGUST, 2008
TYPE OF STRUCTURE PERMITS DWELLING
UNITS VALUATION
1 101 NEW SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES DETACHED 2 2 $735,962.88
2 102 NEW SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES ATTACHED
3 103 NEW TWO FAMILY BUILDINGS
4 104 NEW 3 OR 4 FAMILY BUILDINGS
5 105 NEW 5 OR MORE FAMILY BUILDINGS
6 213 NEW HOTELS/MOTELS
7 214 NEW OTHER NON HOUSEKEEPING
8 318 NEW AMUSEMENT & RECREATION
9 319 NEW CHURCHS/OTHER
10 320 NEW INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS
11 321 NEW PARKING GARAGES.
12 322 NEW SERVICE STATIONS/REPAIR GARAGES
13 323 NEW HOSPITALS/OTHER INSTITUTIONAL
14 324 NEW OFFICES/BANKS
15 325 NEW PUBLIC WORKS/UTILITY BUILDINGS
16 326 NEW SCHOOLS/OTHER EDUCATIONAL
17 327 NEW STORES/OTHER MERCH BLDGS.
18 328 NEW OTHER NON RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS
19 329 NEW STRUCTURES OTHER THAN BUILDING 3 $27,000
20 434 ADD/ALTER DWELLING/POOLS 34 $407,742.84
21 437 ADD/ALTER NON RESIDENTIAL 3 $92,500
22 438 RESIDENTIAL GARAGES/CARPORTS
23 645 DEMOLITION-SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES 2 2 $17,000
24 646 DEMO 2-FAMILY BUILDINGS
25 647 DEMO 3-4 FAMILY BUILDINGS
26 648 DEMO 5+ FAMILY BUILDINGS
27 649 DEMO ALL OTHER BUILDINGS
44 $1,280,205.72
TOTAL UNITS ADDED FY 2008-09 TO DATE: 5
TOTAL UNITS DEMOLISHED/LOST FY TO DATE: 7 (See Attached List)
TOTAL NET UNITS FY TO DATE: -2
FY 2006-07 FY 2007-08
Total New Dwelling Units: 50 Total New Dwelling Units: 56
Total Demolished Units: 29 Total Demolished Units: 66
Net Units: 21 Net Units: -10
3
Dwelling Units Demolished/Lost as of August, 2008
ADDRESS TYPE PERMIT DATE PERMIT NO. NO. OF UNIT
352 28th Street SFR 7/3/08 B08-315 1
2054 Manhattan Avenue SFR 7/8/08 B08-323 1
2117 Power Street SFR 7/24/08 B08-350 1
2826 The Strand SFR 7/24/08 B08-352 1
670 Longfellow Avenue Converting a Duplex to SFR 7/29/08 B08-221 1
628 Gould Avenue SFR 8/21/08 B08-387 1
2438 Palm Drive SFR 8/25/08 B08-391 1
Total Units Demolished 7
4
September 10, 2008
HONORABLE MAYOR and MEMBERS of Regular Meeting of
HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL September 23, 2008
ACTIVITY REPORT
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT - PLANNING DIVISION
AUGUST, 2008
STAFF REPORT PREPARED
SUBJECT THIS MONTH THIS
MONTH
LAST FY
FY TO
DATE
LAST FY
TO DATE
APPEAL / RECONSIDERATION 0 1 2 1
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (C.U.P.) - CONDOMINIUMS 1 0 1 0
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (C.U.P.) - COMMERCIAL 1 0 2 1
C.U.P./PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT 0 1 1 2
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT MODIFICATION/REVOCATION 0 0 2 1
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/MAP EXTENSION 0 0 0 1
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 0 0 1 0
FINAL MAP 3 1 3 2
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 0 0 0 0
HEIGHT LIMIT EXCEPTION 0 0 0 0
LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT 0 0 0 0
NONCONFORMING REMODEL 0 0 0 0
PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN 0 0 1 0
PARKING PLAN 0 1 0 1
SPECIAL STUDY 0 0 0 1
VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 0 0 0 0
TEXT AMENDMENT 3 2 4 3
TRANSIT 0 0 0 1
VARIANCE 0 1 0 1
ZONE CHANGE 0 0 0 0
MISCELLANEOUS 5 5 8 13
TOTAL REPORTS PREPARED 13 12 25 28
NOTE: A staff report may be written for one or more of the items listed above, but it will be
listed and counted only once.