HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-12-03 PC AGENDAAGENDA
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
1315 VALLEY DRIVE
HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254
December 3, 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.
Final determinations of the Planning Commission may be appealed to the City Council within
10 days of the next regular City Council meeting date. If the 10th day falls on a Friday
or City holiday, the appeal deadline is extended to the next City business day.
Appeals shall be in written form and filed with the City Clerk's office, accompanied by
an appeal fee. The City Clerk will set the appeal for public hearing before
the City of Hermosa Beach City Council at the earliest date possible.
If you challenge any City of Hermosa Beach decision in court, you may be limited
to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing
described on this agenda, or in a written correspondence delivered to the
Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing.
To comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, Assistive Listening Devices
will be available for check out at the meeting. If you need special assistance to participate
in this meeting, please call or submit your request in writing to the Community Development
Department at (310) 318-0242 at least 48 hours (two working days) prior to the meeting time
to inform us of your needs and to determine if/how accommodation is feasible.
1
1. Pledge of Allegiance
2. Roll Call
3. Oral / Written Communications
Anyone wishing to address the Commission regarding a matter not related to a public hearing
on the agenda may do so at this time.
Section I
Consent Calendar
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 the following minutes:
a) September 16, 2008 excerpt minutes for 140 Pier Avenue, New Orleans Cajun Café
b) October 21, 2008 excerpt minutes for Upper Pier Avenue Committee zoning
recommendations
c) November 18, 2008 action minutes
5. Resolution(s) for consideration
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- 13 -- Conditional Use Permit amendment to modify the existing permit for on-sale beer
and wine only to allow on-sale general alcoholic beverages in connection with an existing
restaurant with a 9:00 P.M. closing time at 37 14th Street, La Playita.
Staff Recommended Action: To approve the Conditional Use Permit amendment and adopt the
resolution.
7. TEXT 08-8 / ZON 08-2 -- Text Amendment and Zone Change and adoption of an
Environmental Negative Declaration to implement zoning-related recommendations pertaining
to property currently zoned C-2 (Restricted Commercial) along Pier Avenue in the ‘Upper Pier
Avenue Committee Final Report’ approved by the City Council on March 25, 2008 to promote a
pedestrian-friendly village center serving local residents as well as visitors, addressing
permitted and conditional uses; design standards; parking requirements; sign 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; standards/restrictions on outdoor seating and/or
displays on the sidewalk; and other minor related changes affecting Chapter 17 (Zoning) and
other Chapters for consistency.
Staff Recommended Action: To provide direction to staff and continue to the January 20, 2009
meeting.
2
Section III
Hearing(s)
8. A-14 -- Appeal of Director's decision to consider the grade used for height measured as a
convex sloping lot and whether the proposed accessory building in the rear yard is a bath house
as defined by the Municipal Code at 1522 Prospect Avenue.
Staff Recommended Action: To direct staff as deemed appropriate.
Section IV
9. Staff Items
a. Memorandum regarding rotation of the Planning Commission chairmanship.
b. Tentative future Planning Commission agenda.
c. Community Development Department Activity Report of October, 2008.
10. Commissioner Items
11. Adjournment
3
EXCERPT 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
PUBLIC HEARING
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.
Director Robertson presented staff report. In response to a question from Commissioner Kent
Allen whether the Police Chief has reviewed this request, he said not specifically, but that the
Police Chief has generally indicated he has no problems with these type restaurants that serve
beer and wine as long as the closing hours are no later than 10:00 or 11:00 P.M.
Chairman Perrotti opened the public hearing.
Louis Skelton, project architect, stated this request offers another food and dining opportunity
that will enhance the dining experience in the community; advised that this Cajun restaurant has
been here for 11 years; and that during this 11 years, it has created a homespun mom and pop
authentic New Orleans style food service that has become a vital part of this community. With
the competitive nature of the other restaurants that are permitted to sell beer/wine, he explained
that their sales have begun to trail off and that this request is necessary to remain competitive
with the other local restaurants. He added that many Cajun foods are spicy and that having a
cold beer or glass of wine nicely compliments these meals; and he pointed out that the
applicant’s intent is not to provide any type of bar setting. He added that the building
configuration will remain as is, but explained that they are seeking to remove the windows along
the Pier Avenue side because there is a wonderful view of the sunsets looking down Pier
Avenue; and stated the existing windows deter from this beautiful view. He noted the glass will
be removed and replaced with some New Orleans style wrought iron and decorative features to
create the Bourbon Street look that will appropriately accent their restaurant. He stated a glass
wall will be built about 10 feet back. He pointed out this small patio area would only
accommodate 10 to 12 people. He mentioned their plans to remove a couple chairs along the
counter so that the cashier will have a place to take checks and handle take-out orders. Mr.
Skelton advised that in meeting ABC requirements, they will have to add a second restroom,
which will be handicapped accessible; and he added that the current operating hours are from
11:00 A.M. to 2:00 P.M., closed in the afternoons and reopened at 5:00 P.M. until 10:00 P.M.,
five days a week, closed on Tuesdays and Wednesdays.
Mr. Skelton noted for the Commission that the walls and the frame will stay in place; that they
will remove the actual glass on the view side toward the pier; within that, there will be glass
doors, shuttered windows such as those seen on Bourbon Street; and that when the weather
Excerpt Planning Commission Minutes
September 16, 2008
1
allows, they will open the back for an indoor/outdoor experience. He stated everything will stay
the same structurally and within the existing footprint of the building. He added that the entire
occupancy of the restaurant is approximately 40 seats.
Addressing Commissioner Darcy’s inquiry, Mr. Skelton stated there is a 32-inch high bar top
with stools permanently mounted; and reiterated they are not intending to change the operation
of their business, but they only want to add beer/wine sales to the existing operation.
Matt Epuna, owner/operator of Cajun Café, stated their mission and vision for this business has
been to create authentic New Orleans Cajun food in Hermosa Beach; and explained that when
they first started this business, they did not have the extra restroom to obtain the beer/wine
license at that time, noting it was not part of their vision to serve beer/wine at that time, but to
provide the most authentic Cajun and Creole food in California. He noted that many customers
have indicated an interest in having a cold glass of beer or wine with their spicy meals at this
restaurant, noting those beverages complete the Cajun and Creole food experience for many
patrons. He highlighted the complimentary articles written by several food critics. He stated
that the majority of their food is made from scratch on site and that most of their products come
from Louisiana, helping to make sure they provide the most authentic Cajun/Creole food in
California. He respectfully asked the Commission to approve their request.
Cassandra Epuna, owner/operator of Cajun Café, urged the Commission to approve their request.
Jay Gleeson, resident, stated that he has been a patron of this restaurant for the last 11 years,
noting the food is amazing; and noted his disappointment in not being able to enjoy a glass of
wine or beer with his meal. He stated this food is the closest thing in Southern California to
authentic home-cooked Cajun/Creole food; and he asked the Commission to approve the
applicant’s request.
Carla Merriman, Executive Director of the Hermosa Beach Chamber of Commerce, stated this is
one of the tiniest restaurants in Hermosa Beach that has one of the largest reputations for great
Cajun food in the South Bay area; she highlighted a couple well-known food editors who have
given high marks for this restaurant and its authentic cuisine. She noted that for the past 11
years, this business has attracted mature residents and families with its unusual menu; she stated
she is impressed with their southern hospitality; and noted this business brings in well-behaved
visitors to this town. She mentioned that 75 percent of the respondents to the Upper Pier Avenue
Committee survey were in favor of outdoor dining and another 60 percent of those respondents
were in favor of widening the sidewalks to accommodate family-friendly businesses, restaurants
and dining on patios that close at 10:00 P.M. She stated the proposed plan is complete; that staff
report indicates as long as the usage is not expanded or intensified, it is reasonable to assume the
right to operate a restaurant at this site with the existing parking nonconformity; and she noted
that the seating plan has been decreased a bit to accommodate for more efficient seating. She
highlighted Chief Savelli’s support of the businesses that don’t cause problems in this area; and
she assured the community that the Chamber of Commerce supports the Police Department’s
efforts to restore peace to the Downtown area; and expressed her belief that small family-run
restaurants of this high quality should be allowed to improve and enhance their properties by
Excerpt Planning Commission Minutes
September 16, 2008
2
adding upgrades to their businesses if they close by 10:00 P.M. and if they do not cause
problems in the neighborhoods. She stated this business is a winner for this community.
Carrie Kapowlski, resident, noted her support to allow this business to be more competitive;
stated this wonderful restaurant is a great treasure for this community; and she expressed her
belief these are very responsible business owners who are committed to keeping Hermosa Beach
a wonderful place to live and work.
Tom Nyman, resident, stated he lives a couple blocks from this restaurant; noted that this
business is well run, with a mature clientele; and expressed his belief the Commission should
grant the applicant’s request.
Chairman Perrotti closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Hoffman stated this small restaurant has done a remarkable job in surviving this
long; but noted that the issue for him is the CUP goes with the location/land, not with the
operator or business; and reiterated his belief that Upper Pier/ Pier Avenue has enough
restaurants with beer and wine sales. He noted his support for the proposed patio area.
Commissioner Pizer expressed his belief this is not the right time to be requesting an additional
beer/wine license for this area; and stated he’d like to see Upper Pier Avenue completed and a lot
more things done before the City starts to review adding more beer/wine licenses. He added that
as a policy, he does not think the Commission should approve more beer/wine licenses in the
City at this time because those approvals run with the land, not the business.
Commissioner Darcy stated that he has eaten at this establishment many times, noting a beer
would beautifully compliment the spicy Cajun food; he highlighted the restricted hours of
operation that would apply to the CUP; and pointed out that this business would be closed before
the majority of the other businesses in the area – noting that the problems begin on Pier Avenue
once everyone comes out of the bars at the same time late in the evening, early morning hours;
and stated he does not see this CUP request creating any problem.
Commissioner Allen stated he is against the proliferation of additional beer/wine licenses in the
Downtown area; and noted that he would only support their request for beer/wine sales if another
beer/wine license is given up within the Downtown area.
Chairman Perrotti stated this is the Downtown area and should not be considered the Upper Pier
Avenue area; noted he is concerned with the close residential property to the south and the
impact of beer/wine sales at this location; but seeing that those residents are not in attendance
this evening, he pointed out those residents may not be concerned with the proposal. He noted
his expectations that the City will be losing two or three liquor licenses in the Downtown area in
the near future with the redevelopment of the mermaid property; and that he does not believe
approving this request will intensify alcohol sales that much. Noting the occupancy load will
decrease to 38 patrons following the remodel, he expressed his belief that any consumption of
alcohol will be done early in the evening and that it will have a minimal impact on the larger
picture of the drinking problems in the Downtown area.
Excerpt Planning Commission Minutes
September 16, 2008
3
MOTION by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Chairman Perrotti, to APPROVE outdoor
dining in a covered patio area and direct staff to bring back a resolution for adoption at the next
meeting. The motion carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Pizer, Perrotti, Darcy
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
MOTION by Commissioner Allen, seconded by Commissioner Hoffman, to DENY the CUP
request for beer/wine license sales at this location and direct staff to bring back a resolution at
the next meeting.
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Pizer
NOES: Perrotti and Darcy
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
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
Excerpt Planning Commission Minutes
September 16, 2008
4
EXCERPT MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON
OCTOBER 21, 2008, 7:00 P.M.,
AT THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
PUBLIC HEARING
9. TEXT 08-8 -- 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, 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.
Director Robertson briefly highlighted the efforts of the subcommittee in this endeavor; stated
that Senior Planner Townsend has done a lot of work on this report and that she will be
presenting and summarizing this evening some of the key discussion items, recommendations
and alternatives; and he stated this matter will be opened for public input to discuss this
conceptual stage for zoning recommendations.
Senior Planner Townsend, with the aid of a Power Point presentation, provided staff report
concerning the Upper Pier Avenue report, noting it implements the General Plan and advocates
promoting a pedestrian-oriented village center serving local residents as well as visitors. She
stated the proposal provides concepts for changing the zoning as well as various alternatives,
but pointed out that the alternatives and concepts being presented are simply staff’s and the
subcommittee’s thoughts on how the issues can be addressed; and noted there are various
ways to implement these objectives. She stated the proposal envisions creating a specific plan
area zoning district, which would encompass properties currently zoned C-2 and located
between Valley Drive and Hermosa Avenue; and while giving her report, she highlighted various
maps of the proposed specific plan area.
Responding to Chairman Perrotti’s request for input concerning the history of the parking
requirements in this area, Director Robertson explained that in 2004, the parking requirements
for the Downtown area were amended just for retail and office uses, requiring 3 parking spaces
per 1,000 square feet; and advised that this was to encourage daytime use and provide a little
bit of incentive for developers to build office and retail uses as opposed to restaurants. He
mentioned that at the same time, the City made the code stricter in terms of parking
requirements for restaurants. He stated those code amendments went into effect in 2004 and
received Coastal Commission approval; but added that the Coastal Commission gave the City a
3-year timeline for this approval; and that if the City wanted to renew those code amendments, it
Excerpt Planning Commission Minutes
October 21, 2008
1
would have to provide a parking study to approve the developments the City was approving
under that amended standard to make sure those developments were not causing a decrease in
coastal access parking. He advised that this matter is currently at the point where the Planning
Commission had recommended going back to the Coastal Commission to renew that 3-per-
1,000-square-foot standard; advised that City Council has deferred that matter because they
wanted to see what the results will be of the Upper Pier recommendations, as well as the
specific plan for the Lower Pier Avenue study. Therefore, the City is currently operating under
the 4-per-1,000-square-foot standard.
Commissioner Allen asked who will be doing that study and what the approximate cost is.
Director Robertson advised that staff has already done some of the baseline parking inventories
from Summer 2007 and 2008, noting that while staff can do some of the basic parking
inventories, it would be useful to hire a consultant to do more detailed inventories that might
include hours of the day, which would be a more costly venture. The Coastal Commission is
looking at overall impacts on beach parking. He added that when the Downtown plan is further
along, staff would be interested in looking at some of the more detailed time-of-day parking
utilization surveys.
Chairman Perrotti opened the public hearing.
Dency Nelson, resident and Chairman of the Hermosa Beach Green Building Committee, stated
he is angry and frustrated with the lack of input concerning the Cool Cities green building
demands in staff report and associated materials, pointing out that very little, if any, comments
regarding the City’s endorsement of green standards is included in the materials; and he added
that his committee has spent many hours on how Hermosa Beach should be implementing the
Cool Cities techniques, pointing out that City Council voted 5-0 to endorse and implement green
building practices in this community. He stated the Committee has conducted many meetings
and spent a lot of time on this commitment to the Cool Cities concept; stated the City is about to
embark on the largest project sponsored by Hermosa Beach since doing Lower Pier Avenue;
and reiterated there is very little, if any, input regarding green building practices in this 53-page
streetscape report. He stated the report needs to have language in it that addresses what kind
of materials should be used; that it should address the use of water catchments being built into
landscapes to prevent runoff and filter oil and pesticides before those elements hit the aquifer;
questioned why native plants and trees are not discussed in the report, where building materials
will be coming from and what the recycled content is in those materials, etc.; and he reiterated
the need to include serious language in this resolution regarding the City’s commitment to the
Cool Cities concepts.
Jim Rosenberger, resident, asked how the City is going to discourage franchises from coming
into this area; and stated there is no discussion about a requirement to pay in-lieu parking fees
and no discussion about adding additional parking elsewhere to help manage the influx of traffic
in this already congested area. He stated he would not like to see trees or other vegetation
block the view to the ocean from this street.
Jeff Duclos, resident, member of the Green Building Committee, echoed the sentiments and
frustration of Mr. Nelson, stating this City pledged two years ago to fulfill the green building
concept specifically outlined in the Cool Cities program; and expressed his belief this City has
not done anything substantive to fulfill that pledge. He asked the following questions: Is it the
City’s objective to facilitate the building of new parking structures; and asked for an explanation
for how a development such as the Altadena property, approved by the Commission in August,
Excerpt Planning Commission Minutes
October 21, 2008
2
has been cited by the UPAC members as a good example of the changes they want to see, yet
they are proposing to replace this mom-and-pop community-serving business with a 6,400-
square-foot, 30-foot high structure with a basement and 3 above-ground levels serving 7
businesses where only one business stood – asking how this fits into the outlined objective of
“minimizing scale and mass on the street.” He asked what the recommended policy is on
parcel consolidation or the merging of structures, how will the City justify the incentives to build
a second story and paying in-lieu fees for all required parking – pointing out the City has yet to
build a single parking space with in-lieu dollars. He asked why the City thinks moving all
service-type businesses to the second story is a desirable or necessary element; and asked
why businesses, in effect, will be penalized for maintaining a one-story neighborhood service
business. He added that given the scope of the changes to zoning and proposed amendments
to the Municipal Code, why has this Commission or City staff not imposed an urgency
moratorium on development on Pier Avenue, bringing a halt to development until the City comes
to a consensus of opinion in terms of what Pier Avenue should be in regard to zoning; and he
asked for further explanation of serving alcohol at the cafés on the sidewalk with a conditional
use permit.
Robert Hoffman, resident, stated he is concerned with the proposal of using City funds to build a
center divider down Pier Avenue that would prevent people from making left-hand turns, and
planting vegetation and widening the sidewalks at a time when the economy is in a crisis; and
stated the City should not be spending any money at this point in time on things that are not
necessary. He expressed his belief that the whole concept of UPAC to redevelop Upper Pier
Avenue may not be such a great idea, believing that some of the existing businesses will be
forced to close as a result of widening the sidewalks to 14 feet.
Dr. Ed Connaughton, Hermosa Chiropractic, expressed his concern that one of those small
businesses that will disappear is his; and stated that with the elimination of 18 parking spaces
on Upper Pier Avenue, his clients probably won’t walk two blocks to get to his office. He stated
that liming the sidewalk areas to a small percentage will negatively impact foot traffic and
outdoor dining. He asked who will be paying for these sidewalks and what will it cost; and he
stated the majority of businesses in this area want to fix Upper Pier Avenue, but they don’t want
to see a change to the sidewalks. He added that the businesses also want to keep the diagonal
parking as is. He added that the businesses like the small surfer town feel of Hermosa Beach
and stated that UPAC is trying to turn this into a trendy touristy spot. He urged the City to allow
the residents to decide what will happen with this street, not the politicians or appointed officials.
Robert Fortunado, resident, stated the City has this tremendous opportunity to set a tone for
how development gets done in Hermosa Beach for the next 50 years, but he cautioned the City
that it only gets one chance to do it right; and he urged the City to take into serious
consideration the environmental impacts this effort will have upon this community. He
mentioned that while the report proposes the planting of palm trees, the City of Los Angeles is
removing its palm trees and banning them from being planted in the future.
Carla Merriman, Executive Director of the Hermosa Beach Chamber of Commerce, stated that
originally, the new streetscape was recommended with wider sidewalks to make the city more
pedestrian friendly and to allow for outdoor dining and some very small outdoor retail displays to
encourage people to walk into those businesses; but stated that now, restaurants would not be
allowed to use any space on the sidewalk to have outdoor patio dining even if they closed
earlier at night; and she added that City Council has also directed no one should get a beer or
wine license, which negatively affected the local, venerable New Orleans Cajun Creole
restaurant. She stated it will be difficult for vehicular traffic to see the businesses with a 12-foot
Excerpt Planning Commission Minutes
October 21, 2008
3
sidewalk in front and nothing but benches, trees, street lights and pedestrian traffic in front; and
expressed her belief this will not encourage new business.
There being no further input, Chairman Perrotti closed the public hearing.
Vice-Chairman Pizer expressed his belief that most of the issues addressed by the public this
evening are within the purview of the Public Works Department/Commission as part of the
streetscape project, not the Planning Commission.
Senior Planner Townsend mentioned that currently, outdoor dining on public property is allowed
in this area with an encroachment permit; that under this proposal, it would also require a CUP;
she advised that retail displays are not allowed on the sidewalk except only when there is a
special event and that under this proposal, those could be allowed under a Conditional Use
Permit (CUP) for longer than just a special event.
With regard to the storm drain concerns, Director Robertson stated that a lot of these issues are
still being looked at in the plan and that staff has not gotten to the final design stage for the
drainage system.
Vice-Chairman Pizer noted for the audience that this is still a work in progress; and he
commended staff for their report this evening. He expressed his understanding there are future
parking plans for all Upper Pier Avenue, highlighting a potential parking structure near the
Community Center.
Commissioner Hoffman stated that the desire of the subcommittee and staff is not to encourage
large-scale development on Upper Pier Avenue, noting it’s inconsistent with a village
atmosphere that most residents want to see preserved; and stated the City also has a couple
opportunities where consolidation might help create a solution to the parking issue.
Vice-Chairman Pizer stated the encroachment permits would also require a simplified CUP to
allow space for some consistency with the use of the encroachment areas.
Commissioner Hoffman explained that UPAC envisioned sidewalk activities would be one of the
opportunities for expanding the sidewalk, including outdoor dining, but noted his interpretation of
Council’s recommendation to this Commission at their last meeting is they do not want to permit
that or alcoholic beverage sales on Upper Pier Avenue. He explained that Council adopted
UPAC’s recommendations with some refinements and that this matter is now driven by City
Council, not UPAC. He noted his support for outdoor dining on private property on Upper Pier
Avenue.
Commissioner Allen noted his support for outdoor dining on private property along this area;
and that he supports the 30-foot, two-story limits.
Chairman Perrotti noted his support for ending the study at Palm Avenue, noting the hours of
operation for those businesses are more reflective of what goes on with the Lower Pier Avenue
plaza in comparison to the hours of operation for businesses in the Upper Pier Avenue
proximity. He stated that staff should take into consideration green building standards and that
it should be mentioned in the report and/or included in part of the vision for Upper Pier Avenue.
He stated he is more favorable to the standard of 4 parking spaces for every 1,000 square feet;
and noted that if outside dining is allowed, there should be no alcohol service where an
encroachment permit is required. On Page 5, under Conditional Uses, he stated that “surfboard
Excerpt Planning Commission Minutes
October 21, 2008
4
manufacturing” should be eliminated and should be in the M-1 Code. He noted his concurrence
with the 30-foot height limit and two stories.
Chairman Perrotti recessed the meeting at this time.
Commissioner Hoffman responded to some of the audience questions this evening, expressing
his belief that service-type businesses in this area, such as beauty salons and escrow offices,
generate very little street activity and vitality to this area; and that a retail establishment with a
big storefront is a more pedestrian friendly and will typically generate a greater amount of street
activity and street vitality than a service-type establishment. With regard to the comment
concerning the economic climate, he stated there is not much of an economic impact on the City
when considering to change text amendments. He stated he is opposed to parcel consolidation
as a bonus or incentive to provide a second story; and he explained that in order to impose a
moratorium in this area, there has to be a legitimate threat to the public safety, health and
welfare that would justify some action.
The following is a polling of the Commissioners on each one of the 10 UPAC Report – Zoning
Related Recommendations and Options:
1) Analyze the C-2 zone permitted use list in the context of promoting pedestrian
friendly, resident-serving, daytime uses; and
2) Address outdoor-dining encroachment permit requirements in public right of way.
The Commission agreed (5-0) with Recommendation A and B, all agreeing to strike “surfboard
manufacturing” from the supplemental list:
a) Retain existing prohibition on residential uses;
b) Modify permitted and conditional uses to emphasize pedestrian and resident-serving
uses;
c) Do not allow outdoor dining on sidewalks (limit to private property only);
d) Do not allow merchandise displays on public sidewalk (other than special events) (no
change to existing code).
Two Commissioners (Pizer and Darcy) were in favor of outdoor dining on public property
(sidewalks) if issued a CUP. Three Commissioners were not in favor (Perrotti, Hoffman and
Allen).
3) Retain 30-foot height limit with strong preference towards two stories.
The Commission agreed (5-0) with Recommendation A and B:
a) Maximum two stories and require setbacks or floor area maximum in relation to first
story;
b) Retain 30-foot height limit.
4) Encourage commercial mixed-use with service-type industries on the second floor
and general commercial/retail on the ground floor.
The Commission agreed (5-0) with Recommendation A, except to delete the first line “reduced
parking or reduced in-lieu fees or valet parking” and the word “other” on the last bullet:
Excerpt Planning Commission Minutes
October 21, 2008
5
a) Authorize Planning Commission to grant incentives to encourage service and office
uses on second story:
• Increased signage opportunities for second story uses
• Defer building fees to final occupancy
• Consider uses not listed as permitted or conditional subject to CUP
• Deviation from zoning standards that inhibit construction or use of second story
(e.g., setbacks) on a case-by-case basis.
Chairman Perrotti departed the meeting at this time.
Vice-Chairman Pizer asked staff to do more study with respect to putting more teeth in Option
No. 2, restricting the first 20 feet from the face of the building with retail or some options on how
to reach that goal.
5) Encourage permeable building facades to facilitate pedestrian friendly
use/atmosphere on the street.
The Commission agreed (4-0) with Recommendation A and B:
a) Require facades to be constructed as ‘storefronts’ with 70 percent glazed area on
ground floor, doors spaced 30 feet on average, and accommodation for awnings, etc.
(see Attachment 3-C)
b) Impose a maximum front yard setback of 6 feet along 50 percent of the frontage, up
to 12 feet, for entrances, outdoor dining, planters with trees that shade the sidewalk.
(see Attachment 3-B)
6) Improve the visual aesthetics by limiting franchise architecture, promoting
consistent streetscaping, and minimizing bulk, scale, and massing of any new
buildings on the street.
The Commission agreed (4-0) with Recommendation A through I, with the exception of striking
the following from G: “Consolidation of parcels is discouraged. If proposed”:
a) Maintain pedestrian scale frontages. (See Attachment 3-E)
b) Second story not to exceed 75 percent of ground floor area, OR:
- maximum 25-foot height, requires 5-foot setback along 50 percent of width of second
story.
- maximum 30-foot height, requires 10-foot setback along 50 percent of width of
second story. (see Attachment 3-D.3)
c) First story height not to exceed 16 feet. (See Attachment 3-D.2)
d) Rooftop equipment and service areas to be screened; design to reduce impacts to
views and residential uses. (See Attachment 3-E.5)
e) Disallow ‘franchise’ (chain store) architecture. (See Attachment 3-E.2)
f) Facades along Pier Avenue to be varied. Elevations visible from Pier Avenue to
provide elements of interest. (See Attachment 3-E.2)
g) Consolidation requires conforming parking located at rear of parcel and incorporation
of other design elements. (See Attachment 3-E.7)
h) Require provision of pedestrian amenities. (See Attachment 3-E.6)
i) Adopt design guidelines within code (accompany with graphics in code or as
reference). (See Attachment 3-E)
Excerpt Planning Commission Minutes
October 21, 2008
6
7) Provide incentives for retention, rehabilitation, and adaptive reuse of
architecturally significant buildings.
The Commission agreed (4-0) with Recommendation A through C, but deleting the following
words from C: “allow a third story not exceeding 75 percent of the floor area of the second
story”:
a) Encourage improvement of existing buildings (rather than demolition and
reconstruction), maintain original architectural character, and discourage
consolidation of parcels and underground parking. Authorize incentives. (See
Attachment 3-E.7 and Attachment 3-F)
b) Adopt or reference guidelines to maintain architectural/historical character. (See
Attachment 3-E, Attachment 3-F, and Attachment 4)
c) Define incentives: reduced parking or in-lieu fees, defer building permit fees,
increase total signage (e.g., 10 percent) and number of awning and wall sings to
advertise uses on the second story, allow relief from zoning standards or uses to
facilitate adaptive reuse subject to findings. (See Attachment 3-F.3)
8) Analyze existing parking requirements relevant to dis/incentives for
redevelopment and/or redesign of existing buildings.
The Commission agreed with Recommendation B through E:
b) Allow 50 percent parking credit when a non-restaurant use under 5,000 square feet is
converted to a restaurant use – only as an incentive to construct or use a second
story or retain an architecturally significant building.
c) Allow parking for office uses to be located more than 300 feet or otherwise offsite
under a Parking Plan.
d) Allow other parking modifications or reduction of in-lieu fees under a Parking Plan, as
incentive to construct or use a second story or retain an architecturally significant
building.
e) Buildings that exceed a 1:1 floor area to building site area ratio may pay an in-lieu
fee for all spaces as an incentive to construction, expansion or use of a second story.
9) Insure CUP policies are consistent with community-oriented, resident- servicing
uses, including standards for hours of operation and outdoor dining.
The Commission agreed with Recommendation A and B:
a) Add required finding that conditional uses must be consistent with vision of
community-oriented, resident-serving village. (See Attachment 3-G)
b) Permitted and conditional uses are modified. (See Attachment 2)
10) Analyze sign code in the context of promoting pedestrian-friendly, resident-
serving, daytime uses.
The Commission agreed with Recommendation A and B, but decided to make a decision on C
following a visual presentation at the next meeting:
a) Allow 20 percent increased signage for second story businesses.
Excerpt Planning Commission Minutes
October 21, 2008
7
b) Allow a wall sign on a secondary frontage without a pedestrian entrance.
c) Relax projecting sign standards.
Senior Planner Townsend stated the actual proposal is Attachment 3, noting that staff will refine
Attachment 3 for the next meeting.
Commissioner Hoffman noted his concurrence with Chairman Perrotti that the buildings with
their frontage on Hermosa Avenue (sushi, Cajun, and Pizano’s restaurants) should not be part
of this, agreeing they are more compatible with the Downtown zone. Commissioner Hoffman
stated the sign program needs to be looked at in the context of the actual streetscape plan, and
suggested the Commission wait on giving its answer on No. 10, leaving the sign ordinance out
for now. He stated his recommendation to Council would be to wait for the streetscape design
before this body goes back to look at the UPAC recommendation regarding signage; and that
this list be cut down to nine items.
Vice-Chairman Pizer moved, seconded by Commissioner Hoffman, to direct staff to prepare the
ordinance and set this item on the Planning Commission’s December 3, 2008 agenda. Motion
carried 4-0.
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 October 21,
2008.
______________________________ _____________________________
Sam Perrotti, Chairman Ken Robertson, Secretary
______________________
Date
Excerpt Planning Commission Minutes
October 21, 2008
8
ACTION MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON
NOVEMBER 18, 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 7:10 P.M. by Chairman Perrotti.
1. Commissioner Darcy led the Salute to the Flag.
2. Roll Call
Present: Commissioners Allen, Darcy, Hoffman, Pizer and Chairman Perrotti
Absent: None
Also Present: Community Development Director Ken Robertson
Assistant City Attorney Lauren Feldman
Senior Planner Pamela Townsend
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.
a. Letter from Howard Longacre to the October 28, 2008 City Council agenda item 6a
regarding Pier Avenue Improvement Project.
ACTION: To receive and file.
Motion by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Pizer. The motion carried
by a unanimous vote.
Section I Consent Calendar
4. Approval of October 21, 2008 action minutes.
ACTION: To approve the October 21, 2008 action minutes as presented.
Motion by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Darcy. The motion
carried by a unanimous vote.
5. Resolution(s) for approval
Section II Public Hearing(s)
6. CUP 08-12 / PARK 08-5 -- Conditional Use Permit for outdoor dining in conjunction with
Planning Commission Action Minutes
November 18, 2008
1
the remodel of a restaurant to be known as ‘Chipotle’ (formerly ‘IHOP’) at 1439 Pacific
Coast Highway and Parking Plan to reconfigure the parking spaces within a shared parking
lot, and to base required parking on net floor area (excluding storage areas) at 1401/1439
Pacific Coast Highway.
Staff Recommended Action: The request for outdoor dining and reduced parking has been
withdrawn.
NO ACTION TAKEN, THE REQUEST WAS WITHDRAWN.
7. L-5 -- 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 at 77 15th Street, Villa Del Sol
Villas.
Staff Recommended Action: The request has been withdrawn.
NO ACTION TAKEN, THE REQUEST WAS WITHDRAWN.
8. TEXT -7-3 -- Text amendment to define the terms “bar” and “nightclub,” in the zoning
ordinance, to amend the existing definitions of “restaurant,” “on-sale alcohol beverage
establishment” and “customer dancing,” and to consider standards regarding these uses as
conditionally permitted uses in commercial zones.
Staff Recommended Action: To provide direction to staff on a proposed ordinance
addressing definitions, standards and possible amortization period, and continue to January
20, 2009 for adoption of resolution of recommendation to City Council.
ACTION: To provide direction to staff on proposed ordinance with the following
comments: 1) To not retro-actively apply to existing Conditional Use Permits. 2) To
clarify the language for closure for restaurants. 3) To take out the category of cocktail
lounge. 4) To clarify that the parking requirements for hybrid establishments will apply to
the primary use. 5) To clarify the process of getting a hybrid Conditional Use Permit, and
to bring back for public hearing at an unspecified date.
Motion by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Darcy. The motion
carried as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Darcy, Pizer and Chairman Perrotti
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
9. TEXT 08-7 -- Text amendment regarding signs in the Open Space zones and establishing
requirements for community sign programs.
Staff Recommended Action: To continue to the January 20, 2009 meeting.
ACTION: To continued to the January 20, 2009 meeting.
Motion by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Pizer. The motion carried
by a unanimous vote.
Planning Commission Action Minutes
November 18, 2008
2
Section III Hearing(s)
10. CON 06-12 / PDP 06-11 / PARK 06-5 -- Request for one year extension of a Conditional
Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Parking Plan for a 35-unit commercial
condominium project at 1429 Hermosa Avenue.
Staff Recommended Action: To extend the expiration dates of the Planning entitlements
one year to November 21, 2009 by minute order.
ACTION: To approve by minute order the extension of the Planning entitlements by one
year to November 21, 2009.
Motion by Commissioner Darcy, seconded by Commissioner Allen. The motion carried by
a unanimous vote.
11. PARK 06-2 / PARK 08-2 -- Six month review of modified Parking Plan regarding the two
hour free parking validation program and the retail wine shop regarding usage of the space
as strictly retail at 1601 Pacific Coast Highway, Hermosa Pavilion.
Staff Recommended Action: To receive and file.
ACTION: To receive and file.
Motion by Commissioner Hoffman, seconded by Commissioner Pizer. The motion carried
by a unanimous vote.
Section IV
12. Staff Items
a. Clarification/interpretation regarding whether dancing is allowed in conjunction with
on-sale alcoholic beverages and live entertainment at 142 Pacific Coast Highway,
Saint Rocke.
ACTION: The Planning Commission consensus is for staff to work with the owner
to modify the plans to include a dance floor. So moved.
b. Tentative future Planning Commission agenda.
c. Community Development Department Activity Report of September, 2008.
13. Commissioner Items
14. Adjournment
The meeting was formally adjourned at 10:10 P.M.
Planning Commission Action Minutes
November 18, 2008
3
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 November
18, 2008.
______________________________ _____________________________
Sam Perrotti, Chairman Ken Robertson, Secretary
______________________
Date
Planning Commission Action Minutes
November 18, 2008
4
1
November 18, 2008
Honorable Chairman and Members of the Regular Meeting of
Hermosa Beach Planning Commission December 3, 2008
SUBJECT: Text Amendment and Zone Change and adoption of an Environmental Negative
Declaration to implement zoning-related recommendations pertaining to property
currently zoned C-2 (Restricted Commercial) along Pier Avenue in the ‘Upper Pier
Avenue Committee Final Report’ approved by the City Council on March 25, 2008 to
promote a pedestrian-friendly village center serving local residents as well as visitors,
addressing permitted and conditional uses; design standards; parking requirements;
sign 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; standards/restrictions
on outdoor seating and/or displays on the sidewalk; and other minor related changes
affecting Chapter 17 (Zoning) and other Chapters for consistency.
Recommendation
Review and provide direction to staff regarding the preliminary draft of the proposed Text Amendment (TEXT
08-8) and Zone Change (ZON 08-2) implementing the Upper Pier Avenue Final Report, and continue the
public hearing to January 20, 2009 for recommendation to the City Council on the proposal and draft
environmental Negative Declaration.
Background
On October 21, 2008 the Planning Commisison provided direction to staff on zoning-related concepts and options
for implementing the Upper Pier Avenue Final Report (Figure 2). This Staff Report provides preliminary draft text
amendments and zoning map change identifying a new specific plan area. An environmental negative declaration
will be prepared subsequent to Commission direction on December 3rd, and will undergo public review and be
provided for Commission consideration at the next hearing anticipated to be Janury 20, 2009.
The draft amendment should be viewed as a work in progress since this is the first time the public and
Commission will have seen details of the propsal presented in October. In addition, details of the Pier Aveue
streetscape, which bear a relatrionship to this project, are still being developed.
Proposal Analysis
The proposal would create a new zoning district known as ‘Specific Plan Area No. 11’ (SPA-11, commencing with
Municipal Code Section 17.38.510) detailing new development standards. Chapter 17.26, "C-1, C-2 and C-3
Commercial Zones," would no longer apply to this area. Regulations applicable to parking, signs and commercial
zones generally would continue to apply as indicated in the SPA-11 zone. This SPA zone would continue to be
classified ‘General Commercial 'in the General Plan. The various sections of the proposal are summarized
below.
Specific Plan Area- Section 17.38.520
Proposed Specific Plan Area No. 11 would encompass approximately 36 parcels in 29 ownerships between
Hermosa Avenue and Valley Drive, excluding areas fronting Hermosa Avenue as shown in Figure 3. The
proposal would, however, create split zoned parcels fronting Hermosa Avenue and leave an island of land zoned
C-2 on Bard Street. This boundary is consistent with Commission direction on October 21st.
2
Figure 2: Commission Direction – Oct. 21, 2008
A 'specific plan area' zone, including parcels along Pier
Avenue between Hermosa Avenue and Valley Drive,
should be created, excluding parcels fronting Hermosa.
Uses
Permitted and conditional uses should be modified to
emphasize pedestrian and resident serving uses. For
example, hotels/motels and parking lots would become
conditional uses, and department stores and
supermarkets would be allowed provided ground floor
space committed to the use is limited to 4,000 square feet.
Despite current plans to widen sidewalks on Pier Avenue,
the majority of the Commission did not favor outdoor
dining or displays on the sidewalk, except as part of a
special event approved by the City Council.
Staff to research proposals requiring businesses with a
retail component (e.g., jewelry with repair, beauty salons
that sell products) to locate retail elements close to the
storefront to attract walk-in traffic.
Site and Building Design
The Commission supported a 'form-based' zoning
approach where new development takes the form of
'storefront' facades with a strong pedestrian orientation.
While uses change over time, the building is enduring.
Storefronts would have 70% window coverage on the ground floor to create 'permeability', doors
paced 30 feet apart on average, and awnings or other elements of interest. Developers would
supply benches and other pedestrian amenities.
Pedestrian activity will also be encouraged by requiring buildings set close to the sidewalk, with at
least half the ground floor façade located within 6 feet of the sidewalk, up to 12 feet for pestrain
oriented elements.
Local character can be maintained by requiring franchise (chain store) architecture to be subdued,
although chain businesses would still be allowed.
The maximum 30 foot height limit would be retained, but only two stories would be allowed. Second
stories would be limited to 75% of the floor area of the first story, and require a 5 or 10 foot setback
along half of the building face to provide visual relief and maintain scale. The ground floor would be
restricted to 16 feet high to maintain varied street profile and scale.
Parking lots would be located behind buildings or, where allowed, screened from the sidewalk.
Staff was directed to research programs for uniform 'projecting signs,' which also relates to
landscaping along the street.
Incentives
To encourage services and offices to locate upstairs—without encouraging two story buildings—
incentives such as deferring building fees to final occupancy, increased signage for second story
uses, and deviations from zoning standards that inhibit this pattern of use could be granted on a
case by case basis.
Incentives to retain existing building and local architectural character are favored, such as reduced
parking or in-lieu fees, defer building permit fees, increase signage for second story uses, and
relief from zoning standards to facilitate adaptive reuse.
Reduction or alteration of parking requirements was agreed appropriate only as an incentive.
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 for 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.
3 island of C-2
4
Purpose – Section 17.38.530
The primary purpose of the zone is to create a pedestrian-oriented seaside village center of small-scale
commercial establishments that attract and serve local residents, in addition to visitors, and to protect the local
history, character and culture of upper Pier Avenue. In turn, each section of the proposal reinforces the core
purposes as applicable.
The zone also echoes a number of purposes stated in the C-2 zone, and adds subsection 17.38.530(F): “Protect
the environment, particularly air and ocean water quality, though green building, reduced greenhouse gas
emissions, energy and water conservation, water quality protection, and other sustainable measures.” This
purpose is offered for Commission consideration.
Uses – Section 17.38.540
The premise of this section is that upper Pier Avenue should continue or strengthen its position as a
community/neighborhood corridor, focusing on day-time uses that serve local residents as indicated in the
Upper Pier Avenue Final Report. Typically, a community/neighborhood center would tend to focus on
everyday needs such as dry cleaners, hair salons, child care center, cafes, small retailers, post office and
convenience stores. This is in contrast to regional, tourist, entertainment or business corridors focusing on
uses such as night clubs, occasional purchase items, and large employment centers.
Subsection A indicates: “Uses that support pedestrian activity should be prominent, including day time uses
that serve the local residents and community. ... Most prominent on the ground floor are retail uses,
restaurants or snack bars, and places for people to congregate, with offices, services and business services
on second stories. ”
Subsection B reflects the permitted and conditional uses agreed to by the Commission on October 21st.
Outdoor dining on the sidewalk would not be allowed, except temporarily under a special permit issued by the
City Council. Subsection C (Similar Uses Permitted) is virtually the same as currently found in the C-2 zone.
City Council members, on November 25, 2008 (in connection with the a 3-2 vote sustaining Planning
Commission's denial of on-sale beer and wine at 140 Pier Avenue, New Orleans Cajun Café) stated that
discussion of on-sale alcohol establishments on Upper Pier Avenue should be addressed in the larger
context of the zoning related changes for Upper Pier Avenue. The Council also requested the Commission to
report back on the advisability of allowing restaurants with on-sale beer and wine closing at 10 p.m. as a
permitted use within the city. Therefore, the Planning Commission may desire to consider whether
"Restaurant/cafe with on-sale alcohol beverage establishment limited to beer and wine closing at 10:00 p.m.
or earlier" should be a Permitted Use in the proposed SPA-11 area.
Subsection D, Nonconforming Uses and Structures, deviates from existing regulations. While all residential
uses are currently and will remain nonconforming uses, only residential uses on the second story may be
expanded and must remain limited to the second story. For reference, residential uses in SPA-11 are
currently located on four parcels, and all except one are on the second floor. Nonconforming residential uses
need not comply with a new requirements that buildings must be set close to the sidewalk, or with the new
'storefront architecture' requirement.
The proposal also allows some leeway in requiring replacement or expansion of nonconforming buildings to
conform to the new front yard and storefront architecture requirements.
5
The proposal would allow conforming uses to be established on lots or in buildings with nonconforming uses,
unless the Community Development Director, or Planning Commission in case of a CUP, determines that the
uses are incompatible. The current code does not allow a combination of uses.
Development standards – Section 17.38.550
This section contains the substance of the proposal, addressing the typical zoning setbacks, height, parking, sign
and similar standards, but also emphasizing the relation of buildings to the street, the pedestrian environment,
and sustainability elements.
Section A. Purpose
This subsection states an underlying theme of the proposal: "Substantial conformance is required with the
permissive standards of this zone (indicated by should, encourage, extent practical or feasible, or similar
terms), which provide flexibility to create a high standard of design consistent with the intent to create a
pedestrian-oriented, seaside village of small-scale establishments and other purposes of this zone."
The intent is that all standards should be complied while, allowing flexibility so that variances are not required for
minor deviations. Larger projects (1,500 square feet ) must still undergo the Precise Development Plan process.
Section B. Location of Uses in Buildings
Pedestrian-oriented uses are strongly encouraged to locate on the ground floor, with service, office and other
non-pedestrian oriented uses on the second story. The section as written is not mandatory, but incentives may
be granted by the Community Development Director (deferral of building fees and additional signage) and
Planning Commission (deviation from zoning standards that inhibit construction, expansion or use of the second
story, excluding parking). Granting of incentives by the Planning Commission requires a public hearing.
Approval of uses similar or dissimilar to permitted or conditional uses was originally proposed by staff as an
incentive. However, this is already allowed by Community Development Director approval and confirmation by
the City Council, so there is no need to include it as an incentive.
To address the issue that second stories should not be encouraged, especially by demolition of existing buildings,
deviation from parking requirements is not included as an incentive in this section.
An alternative provision is provided per Commission direction, requiring a retail component – in case of mixed
retail and other uses – to locate within the first 20 feet of the face of the building. This would increase visibility
from the sidewalk, but be difficult to enforce in cases where a CUP is not required.
Subsection C. Sale of Merchandise.
This section is the same as the current regulation for the C-2 zone, which appears to preclude temporary
retail uses from springing up, or resale uses such pawn shops. The permitted use list in Section 17.38.540(B)
specifies that secondhand stores, but not pawn shops, are permitted.
Subsection D. Uses Conducted within Buildings or Enclosures.
This section specifies which uses may be located outside a building. It is essentially the same as the current
regulation for the C-2 zone, excluding allowance for outdoor dining on sidewalks.
Subsection E. Height and Number of Stories.
The maximum height is retained at 30 feet, with a new cap of 2 stories, and a maximum ground floor height of
16 feet to maintain a varied profile along the street. For reference, about 10 of 31 buildings on upper Pier
Avenue in the project area have a second story. A three-dimensional quality is maintained by restricting the
6
second floor to 75% of the first floor, with minimum 5 or 10 foot setbacks from the face of the first floor along
50% of the length of the façade.
An allowance for semi-subterranean floors (not more than 4 feet above average sidewalk grade, but not
exceeding 8 feet at any point) is made to take into account change in slope along Pier Avenue.
Subsection F. Building Location and Setback Requirements.
This section requires that buildings shall be located close to the front lot line along Pier Avenue. It imposes a
maximum distance from the frontage of 6 feet, up to 12 feet for pedestrian friendly elements. Setbacks for
alleys, side, rear, and side/rear adjacent to residential zones are the same as for C-2 zones. Buildings
should be oriented approximately parallel to the Pier Avenue sidewalk to maximize visibility to the pedestrian.
Subsection G. Storefront Frontages.
Building facades fronting Pier Avenue must be designed as 'storefronts' to create permeability and facilitate
pedestrian activity. Characteristics include: prominent entry, 70% glazed area, doors spaced on average 30
feet apart and located at sidewalk or access grade. Awning, arcade and gallery frontage types— with
coverings projecting over the walkway— are encouraged along Pier Avenue to provide protection from the
elements and building articulation. This encourages pedestrian activity and tends to promote a shopping
district.
Subsection H. Other Architectural Standards.
This section emphasizes the role of building design and architecture in creating a sense of place. Styles and
elements should be compatible, but not uniform. A variety of topics are addressed.
The appearance of bulk and mass are reduced through variation and articulation, with attention also given to
second story elements.
Franchise architecture (building design that is trademarked, branded, or easily identified with a particular
chain or corporation) must be downplayed, but chain stores are allowable. Franchise architecture is often
associated with large logos and/or colors used over large expanses of a building, buildings that are difficult to
reuse thereby promoting vacancies and blight, and lack of context sensitive design or elements. This
approach has been used in other jurisdictions to address local context and freedom of speech and trademark
issues.
Attention to materials, finishes, and screening utilitarian elements, including rooftop equipment, support an
attractive and safe pedestrian district.
Solar orientation of buildings is required to the maximum extent practical, addressing south/west exposures. Accessibility and visitability standards reinforce ADA requirements and universal design elements which
ensure ready access to and within buildings for people at all stages of life.
Subsection I. Circulation and Parking.
This section requires attention to pedestrian circulation, recommending a minimum 5 feet wide pedestrian
zone, but no less than 4 feet wide when otherwise infeasible, for ease of pedestrian movement.
Vehicular parking must be visually subordinate, with parking lots and structures located behind buildings, and
accessed from alleys or secondary streets where available. Surface parking visible from Pier Avenue must
be screened by buildings or by 'streetscreens' such as opaque vegetated screens, fences, or walls.
Streetscreens may be required in conjunction with new buildings or redevelopment exceeding 500 square
7
feet of building or lot area. The proposal presented on October 21st tied this improvement to an increase of
50% of assessed value; however staff believes this 500 square feet standard is easier to implement.
The frontages of streets and alleys intersecting Pier Avenue are also highly visible to pedestrians and vehicles traveling
along Pier Avenue. Therefore, development of these street and alley frontages must be designed to reduce
visual impacts.
Bicycle parking is required at the rate of one 'space' per 7 employees or 3,000 square feet shall be supplied
onsite, or the developer may supply a proportional share of amenities, or fees, to the city for installation
along Pier Avenue.
Off-street parking requirements shall otherwise conform to Chapter 17.44 including those applicable to the
downtown district in Section 17.44.040, except with regard to provisions for incentives (subsection L below).
Subsection J. Pedestrian Amenities.
This section emphasizes the important of pedestrian amenities. They are required in conjunction with the
construction of new buildings or redevelopment of 500 square feet of building or lot area.
The proposal specifies a standard of: one bench, trash/recycle receptacle, and street tree per 50 feet of
street frontage, to be supplied onsite, or the developer may supply a proportional share of amenities, or fees,
to the city for installation along Pier Avenue.
Subsection K. Parcel Consolidation.
This section discourages parcel consolidation, or resulting redevelopment that alters the character of upper
Pier Avenue as seaside village center of small-scale establishments with a diversity of architectural character,
by requiring strict adherence to parking standards, and not allowing incentives for resulting projects that
would significantly alter buildings with architectural or historical significance.
Subsection L. Architecturally or Historically Significant Buildings – Incentives.
This section provides a set of incentives (deviation from zoning standards, including parking requirements) that
may be granted by the Planning Commission to encourage retention, restoration, or adaptive reuse, rather than
demolition or significant alteration of architecturally or historically significant buildings. Deferral of building permit
fees and 20% increase in signage for second story use can be applied for under Section 17.38.550(B). The
Commission may condition parking incentives on reasonable requirements to provide additional pedestrian or
alternative transportation amenities, in order to offset a lack of parking.
In addition to consideration of deviations from parking generally, consideration of a parking credit for
conversion to a small restaurant, offsite parking within 1/4 mile of the site, and building with a floor area ratio
exceeding 1:1 may be considered.
Subsection M. Signs.
Signs are required to conform to the general sign regulations Chapter 17.50, with allowance for a wall sign on
a frontage without pedestrian access and an additional projecting sign not more than 6 square feet per face.
These allowances would be allowed for all uses as applicable in the SPA-11 zone, not just as incentives.
The Commission could also consider whether to apply this to the sign code for all zones.
Staff will provide information on how signage could be coordinate with the streetscape plan and along the
street generally at the January meeting.
8
Subsection N. Landscaping.
Landscaping is required to shade pedestrian ways and hardscape, conserve energy and reduce urban heat
absorption, retain onsite and filter stormwater, and enhance the overall project including building design and
streetscape. This section employs standards to implement these provisions, addressing native drought
resistant species, invasive plants, trees for shade, presentation of a water budget and smart irrigation
adjusting for hydrozones, use of pervious materials, inlets in curbing to allow infiltration, and design elements
for onsite retention, filtering and conservation of stormwater.
Specific standards for lot perimeter and parking lot planters call for minimum 5 foot width, allowing alternative
designs consistent with the purposes of the section and the long-term health and vitality of the landscaping.
Conformance with landscape requirements on a landscape plan approved by the city may be required for
new development, and redevelopment of at least five hundred (500) square feet of building or lot area.
Subsection O. Lighting.
Lighting standards are intended to promote energy conservation, and reduce effects on health and safety,
neighboring uses, nocturnal environments and enjoyment of the nighttime sky, while providing appropriate
light for safety and security.
While the building code addresses lighting safety and energy use, the code is less effective at ensuring light
pollution and trespass does not occur. The proposal requires 'dark sky' designs (full cutoff), automated
external lighting controls, and comfort for pedestrians and nearby residential uses. The limits on wattage in
subsection O.4 are from the 'Dark Sky International' website.
Subsection P. Stormwater and Urban Runoff Pollution Control.
This section would cross reference Chapter 8.44 pertaining to stormwater and urban runoff pollution plans
that are required for some development.
It also requires all development creating or adding at least 500 square feet of impervious surfaces to submit
and implement a stormwater management plan of best management, good housekeeping, structural and
treatment practices that are practical and feasible. While no specific standard is imposed (such as a percent
of stormwater retained onsite or filtered), it does require a good faith effort to address this issue. Staff
believes the stormwater plan can be created by a project designer from measures suggested in Chapter 8.44
or other readily available lists with minimal additional cost.
Subsection Q. Green Building Standards.
This section expresses the desire that applicants incorporate other green site, building and design standards to
minimize the impact of development and building on the environment, its occupants and the community.
However, it is not mandatory. A list of measures is provided.
Projects for which a Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) 'Certified' standard, or other
equivalent, is demonstrated would be eligible for priority permit processing, promotion on the City's green
building website, use of City-approved green building logo as part of allowed construction signage and in its
promotional materials, and other green building incentives which may be adopted by the City and made
applicable to this zone.
Subsection R. Applicability of Other Standards.
This catchall section specifies that when there is a question as to applicability of city requirements to this
zone, those standards applicable to commercial development, or more specifically the C-2 zone, will apply.
ATTACHMENT A
PRELIMINARY DRAFT PROPOSAL TO CREATE SPECIFIC PLAN AREA NO. 11
UPPER PIER AVENUE
FOR PLANNING COMMISSION AND PUBLIC REVIEW ON DECEMBER 3, 2008
Sections 17.38.510 though 17.38.560 are added to the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code to
read as follows:
17.38.510 Plan Area No. 11 – Authority.
This specific plan area is an instrument for implementing the general plan pursuant to Article 8,
Chapter 3, of the state Planning and Zoning Law.
17.38.520 Plan Area No. 11 – Location and description.
The subject area, known as 'Upper Pier Avenue', is located on the north and south sides of Pier
Avenue between Hermosa Avenue and Valley Drive, within the downtown district, excluding land
fronting Hermosa Avenue. The area is designated as 'general commercial 'on the official general
plan map.
17.38.530 Plan Area No. 11 – Purpose.
The purpose of this specific plan area is to set forth the development requirements, standards and
uses for the subject area for the following purposes:
A. Create a pedestrian-oriented seaside village center of small-scale commercial establishments that
attract and serve local residents, in addition to visitors.
B. Protect the local history, character and beach culture of upper Pier Avenue and the city of
Hermosa Beach.
C. Retain a 'sense of place' with buildings of diverse of architectural character that have been
constructed over time, reflecting use of local materials, character and culture.
The SPA-11 zone is also intended to:
A. Strengthen the city's economic base, and protect small businesses that serve city residents.
B. Create a suitable environment for commercial uses and protect the available commercial land
resources from change to noncommercial land uses and from the adverse effects of inharmonious
uses.
C. Minimize the impact of commercial development on adjacent residential districts.
D. Ensure that the appearance and effects of commercial building and uses are harmonious with
the character of a pedestrian-oriented seaside village.
E. Ensure the provision of adequate off-street parking, loading and pedestrian amenities.
F. Protect the environment, particularly air and ocean water quality, though green building,
reduced greenhouse gas emissions, energy and water conservation, water quality protection, and
other sustainable measures.
10
17.38.540 Plan Area No. 11 – Uses.
A. General. The following permitted and conditional uses are intended to be consistent with the
purposes of this zone. Uses that support pedestrian activity should be prominent, including day
time uses that serve the local residents and community.
For definition of the listed uses see Section 17.04.060. “Pedestrian-oriented” means uses and
activities that attract, accommodate and are highly visible to people who are walking. Most
prominent on the ground floor are retail uses, restaurants or snack bars, and places for people to
congregate, with offices, services and business services on second stories."
B. Permitted and Conditional Uses. The following use classifications are allowed subject to the
requirements of this section and zone. In the following matrix, the letter "P" designates permitted
use classifications. The letter "U" designates use classifications permitted by approval of a
conditional use permit. Use classifications not listed are prohibited. Section numbers listed under
"see section" reference additional regulations located elsewhere in the zoning ordinance or this
code, and others may apply.
No conditional use shall be approved unless the planning commission finds the use, and its location
and design, are consistent with the purposes of this zone.
P = Permitted
U = Conditional Use Permit (CUP) required (See Chapter 17.40)
USE P or U See Section
Alcohol beverage establishments, on-sale U 17.40.080
Alcohol beverage establishment, off-sale -- (closing at 11:00 p.m. or
earlier) P
Alcohol beverage establishment, off-sale -- (open between 11:01 p.m.
and 2:00 a.m.) U 17.40.090
Aquariums, sales and supplies of marine life P
Art/antiques/curios gallery or shop P
Audio/video equipment and supplies, sales and repair P
Bakery P
Banks and financial institutions P
Barber/beauty shop P
Books/news/magazines, sales P
Billiard or pool halls U
Clinic, dental and/or medical P
Clothing and wearing apparel sales and service P
Copying and printing services and supplies P
Clubs, private U
Convention/meeting hall U 17.40.020
Day nursery, preschool U 17.40.110
Dancing, customer P
11
USE P or U See Section
Department stores (maximum 4,000 square feet of floor area on ground
floor)
P
Department stores (more than 4,000 square feet of floor area on ground
floor)
U
Drugstore P
Entertainment, live U 17.40.020
Florist or plant shop P
Food and beverage market (maximum 4,000 square feet of floor area on
ground floor)
P
Furniture/furnishings, sales and display P
Garden equipment, small, hand-operated, sales and rentals P
Gymnasium/health and fitness center P
Hardware/home improvement store P
Hobby and craft supplies and service P
Household appliances/office equipment, sales and repair P
Interior decorating studio, store or shop P
Florist or plant shop P
Large day spa U 17.04.050
Laundry business and dry-cleaning (including self-service) P
Locksmith business P
Massage therapy business U 17.40.160
Messenger service P
Massage therapy business U 17.40.160
Movie theaters U 17.40.020
Museums P
Music academy U 17.40.020
Musical instruments, retail and repair P
Offices, general P
Parking lots and /or structures U
Pet grooming, no overnight kennels P
Photography (equipment sales and service, film processing, studio) P
Printing and or publishing business, commercial P
Restaurant/café (drive-in, drive-thru window, or outdoor walk-up window
on public right-of-way is not allowed)
P
Restaurant/cafe with on-sale alcohol beverage establishment limited to
beer and wine
U 17.40.080
Reverse vending machine(s) U 17.40.120
Secondhand merchandise, retail sales (pawn shops are prohibited) P
Snack bar/snack shop P
Sporting/recreational equipment sales, service, and rental P
12
USE P or U See Section
Supermarkets (more than 4,000 square feet of floor area on ground floor)U
Ticket broker/sales P
Tobacco store P
Toy store P
Wireless communication facility U 17.40.170
Youth Hostel U 17.40.150
Outdoor uses on private property: dining, merchandise displays,
entertainment, or special performances
U
Temporary outdoor uses in conjunction with special event: merchandise
displays, dining, entertainment, special performances, parades
U* 17.26.050(D)
*Allowed by special permit approved by city council on public street/right-of-way pursuant to
Section 12.12.070 and allowed on private property in conjunction with such special permit.
C. Similar Uses Permitted. Use classifications not listed as permitted or conditional uses shall
be prohibited unless the community development director finds the use consistent with the
purposes of the zone, and similar to and not more objectionable than other uses listed.
It is further recognized that every conceivable use cannot be identified in this chapter, and
anticipating that new uses will arise over time, this section authorizes the community development
director to compare a proposed use and measure it against those listed for determining similarity.
The director's determination shall not be final until confirmed by the city council as a consent
calendar item on the council agenda following the director's determination.
In determination similarity, the director shall make all of the following findings:
1. The proposed use meets the intent of, and be consistent with the goals, objectives and
policies of the general plan.
2. The proposed use meets the stated purpose and general intent of the zone in which the
use is proposed to be located.
3. The proposed use does not adversely impact the public health, safety and general welfare
of the city's residents.
4. The proposed use shares characteristics common with, and will not be of greater intensity,
density or generate more environmental impact, than other uses listed in this zone.
D. Nonconforming Uses and Structures. Nonconforming uses and structures shall be subject
to the provisions of Chapter 17.52, except as follows:
1. Residential uses. Residential uses in effect on the effective date of this section codified in
this chapter may continue, be remodeled, altered or expanded, provided that:
a. The number of dwelling units shall not be increased.
b. The continuation, alteration or expansion of residential uses located on the second
story shall remain limited to the second story, and no new residential uses shall be located
on the ground floor.
13
c. Alteration or expansion of buildings or portions of buildings used for residential uses
shall conform to the standards of this zone, excluding Sections 17.38.550(G) and (H).
2. Nonconforming buildings (excluding residential uses).
a. Structural removal. Removal and replacement of building facades shall conform to
17.38.550(G) and (H) to the extent feasible. Modification or alteration of portions of a
structure nonconforming to front yard requirements if completely removed shall comply
with the requirement to place buildings close to the frontage line to the extent feasible.
b. Expansion shall conform to the requirements of this zone, including requirements to
place buildings close to the frontage line to the extent feasible.
3. Nonconforming use limits other uses. Conforming uses may be established on lots or in
buildings with nonconforming uses, unless the community development director or planning
commission determines that said uses are incompatible.
17.38.550 Plan Area No. 11 – Development standards.
A. Purpose. Development shall be sited, designed and used to achieve the design standards and
purposes of this zone. Substantial conformance is required with the permissive standards of this
zone (indicated by should, encourage, extent practical or feasible, or similar terms), which provide
flexibility to create a high standard of design consistent with the intent to create a pedestrian-
oriented, seaside village of small-scale establishments and other purposes of this zone.
B. Location of Uses in Buildings. Pedestrian-oriented uses are strongly encouraged to locate
on the ground floor, fronting Pier Avenue. Service, office and other non-pedestrian oriented uses are
encouraged to locate on the second story. When there is a mix of uses on the ground floor, the
pedestrian-oriented uses should be located so that the building façade, window displays and interior
are highly visible to pedestrians on the public sidewalk. The city may grant incentives to facilitate
this pattern of uses pursuant to the procedures in this section.
Alternative per planning commission direction to require retail component to locate at front of
building: Pedestrian-oriented uses, particularly retail uses, are strongly encouraged to locate
on the ground floor, fronting Pier Avenue. Service, office and other non-pedestrian-oriented
uses are encouraged to locate on the second story. When there is a mix of uses on the ground
floor (such as sales and service), the first twenty (20) feet of depth, extending from the building
face oriented to Pier Avenue, shall be devoted to the retail or other pedestrian-oriented uses so
that the building façade, window displays and interior are highly visible to pedestrians on the
public sidewalk. The city may grant incentives to facilitate this pattern of uses pursuant to the
procedures in this section.
1. The community development director may grant one or more of the following incentives to
achieve this pattern of uses as follows.
a. Incentives.
i. Deferral of building permit fees, excluding contract services as determined by the
community development director, to issuance of the final certificate of occupancy.
14
ii. Signs for businesses located on the second story may exceed the total sign area
allocation for each business by up to twenty (20) percent.
b. Applications for incentives shall include a statement of incentives requested and
demonstration of necessity.
c. In granting incentives the community development director shall find that the
incentives are in connection with a project that involves the location of pedestrian-oriented
uses on the ground floor and/or non-pedestrian oriented uses on the second story, and the
project will not involve demolition of the building.
2. The planning commission may grant one or more of the following incentives to facilitate
this pattern of uses as follows.
a. Incentives. Deviation from one or more zoning standards that inhibit construction,
alteration or expansion of a second story for non-pedestrian oriented uses. Deviation
from parking requirements shall not be granted as an incentive.
b. Procedures.
i. Applications for incentives filed with the community development department shall
include a statement of incentives requested, demonstration of necessity, and fee adopted
by the city.
ii. Procedures for the conduct of hearings, report of decision and findings, appeals,
reapplication upon denial, and revocation shall be in accordance with Section
17.38.560(B).
c. Findings. In granting incentives the planning commission shall make all of the following
findings:
i. The incentives will facilitate the ability to locate pedestrian-oriented uses on the
ground floor and/or non-pedestrian oriented uses on the second story.
ii. Any deviation from zoning standards is to the minimum extent necessary.
iii. The incentives are consistent with the purposes of this zone.
iv. The project will not involve demolition or significant alteration of an architectural or
historically significant building as determined by the commission.
v. The incentives will not conflict with the provisions of, or be detrimental to, the
general plan.
vi. The incentives will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to
the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which the property is
located.
The commission may place conditions on the granting of incentives to ensure that
incentives granted will be implemented consistent with the findings of approval and do not
otherwise constitute a grant of special privilege.
15
C. Sale of Merchandise. No merchandise shall be sold other than at retail locations as specified
in the list of permitted and conditional uses. Sale of repossessed merchandise or secondhand
merchandise taken in by the seller as a trade-in on new merchandise is permissible, provided that
such sales are conducted on the premises where such merchandise was originally sold, or any
successor locations, or as allowed by conditional use permit
D. Uses Conducted within Buildings or Enclosures. All uses shall be conducted wholly within
a building enclosed on all sides, except for the following:
1. Outdoor uses may be permitted by Conditional Use Permit as stated in the permitted use
list.
2. Uses incidental to a use conducted primarily within a building located on the premises, as
determined by the community development director, provided that such incidental uses are not
conducted in whole or in part on sidewalks, public ways or within any required yard; and that
such incidental uses are of a type which cannot be economically or practically conducted within
buildings. Where incidental uses are not conducted within a building, no part of the area
devoted to the incidental uses shall be considered as part of the required parking facilities. All
uses shall be substantially screened from public visibility, public streets, parks or other public
places, and public properties. Uses within the meaning of this section include but are not
limited to parking stalls, parking attendant booths, solid waste and other enclosures.
3. Commercial parking lot.
4. Temporary outdoor merchandise display or outside dining in conjunction with a temporary
outdoor event such as a sidewalk sale authorized by the City Council by special permit as set
forth in Section 12.12.070.
E. Height and Number of Stories. Buildings shall be oriented and designed so as to improve
the pedestrian environment and not overwhelm the street.
1. No building shall exceed a maximum height of thirty (30) feet or two (2) stories.
2. The ground floor shall not exceed sixteen (16) feet in height, except a parapet wall or
screening may be constructed to screen rooftop elements of poor visual quality.
3. The second story of buildings on the Pier Avenue frontage shall not exceed seventy-five
(75) percent of the floor area of the ground floor, and be set back a minimum of:
a. Five (5) feet from the face of the ground floor façade along at least fifty (50) percent of
the facade length, provided building height does not exceed twenty-five (25) feet; or
b. Ten (10) feet from the face of the ground floor façade along at least fifty (50) percent of
the facade length if building height exceeds twenty-five (25) feet.
These second story setback requirements may be modified to the minimum extent necessary
so that second story may achieve seventy-five (75) percent coverage of the floor area of the
ground floor.
16
4. Semi-subterranean floors or structures not exceeding four (4) feet above average sidewalk
grade, but not more than eight (8) feet above sidewalk grade at any point, shall not be counted
as a story. This provision is intended to provide flexibility in design to accommodate to
changes in slope, but shall be secondary to the purposes of this zone.
F. Building Location and Setback Requirements.
1. Front Yard: Buildings shall be located close to the front lot line along Pier Avenue. In
addition, building facades shall be oriented approximately parallel to the Pier Avenue frontage
so that the building façade, window displays and interior are highly visible to pedestrians on the
public sidewalk, unless not practical. Buildings shall not be located more than six (6) feet
distant from the Pier Avenue frontage along fifty (50) percent of the length of the frontage. The
distance from the frontage line may be increased up to twelve (12) feet for elements oriented to
the pedestrian, such as prominent entryways, gallery or arcade frontages, patios, or planters with
approved landscape such as tree species to shade the sidewalk.
2. Alley Setback. Setbacks shall conform to Section 17.44.130.
3. Rear and Side Yard Setback Adjacent to Residential Zones.
a. A minimum rear and/or side yard setback of five (5) feet shall be provided, except
where public rights-of-way twenty (20) feet or greater in width separate the site from the
residential zone.
b. Existing commercial buildings that do not comply with residential setback requirements
shall not be considered nonconforming, and may be remodeled or expanded as long as
new construction conforms to the requirements of this zone.
G. Storefront Frontages. Building facades fronting Pier Avenue shall be designed as storefronts
to facilitate pedestrian activity.
1. Facades shall have a prominent and easily accessible entry accented with strong
architectural definition and compliant with the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990. Where
practical, primary entrances should be situated at the corner of buildings that area located at
street intersections.
Awning, gallery and arcade frontage types are encouraged along Pier Avenue to provide
protection from the elements and building articulation.
The face of the first story of buildings located within three (3) feet of the sidewalk shall be a
minimum height of twelve (12) feet above sidewalk grade to accommodate these frontage
types. Projections over the sidewalk shall provide a minimum of eight (8) feet of vertical
clearance from the sidewalk, and not extend closer than two (2) feet to the curb, subject to
approval of an encroachment permit as set forth in Chapter 12.16.
17
Gallery Arcade Awning
2. Doors fronting Pier Avenue shall be at sidewalk grade or at finished grade of its adjacent
access way unless impractical, spaced on average no farther than thirty (30) feet apart, and
operable. Openings between buildings with publicly accessible walkways leading to
courtyards, businesses or alleys may be counted as door ways when calculating this spacing.
Door walls and features that open to the sidewalk and create accessibility and visibility for the
pedestrian are encouraged.
3. On the ground floor façade fronting Pier Avenue, glazing shall cover at least seventy (70)
percent of the facade between three (3) feet and eight (8) feet in height. Minor modifications to
location may be approved to maximize visibility for the pedestrian. Glazing shall be
substantially transparent (e.g., 90% light transmission). Specialty windows may use stained or
opaque glass. Buildings located at street corners are encouraged to continue the glazed area
on the elevation on the secondary frontage. "Glazing" means a transparent part of a wall,
typically made of glass or plastic.
H. Other Architectural Standards. Building design and architecture should reflect Hermosa
Beach's beach culture and character, shaped by locale, historical perspective and building
practices. Compatibility, but not uniformity, among styles and elements is desired along Pier
Avenue.
1. Building facades and roof lines shall be varied and articulated to reduce the appearance of
bulk and mass, and maintain pedestrian scale and visual interest from the public sidewalk.
Long, straight facades and blank elevations visible from Pier Avenue are not allowed. Facades
and elevations shall be designed with openings, relief or articulation, using cornices, parapets,
eaves, awnings, windows, balconies, entry insets or other elements. All exposed elevations,
including rear and side elevations, shall be designed for compatibility among the whole.
Second stories shall incorporate windows and architecturally interesting elements (e.g.,
balconies, planter boxes, awnings) to add vibrancy to the street. Planters shall be installed
and maintained with live plants.
2. Franchise architecture conflicts with local character and is not allowed. "Franchise
architecture" means building design that is trademarked, branded or identified with a particular
chain, corporation or business. Franchise architecture can be avoided by altering scale,
proportion, branded element locations, colors, or incorporating locally recognizable elements.
In addition, franchise signage shall not overwhelm the building or site. This provision does not
prohibit chain, franchise or formula businesses.
3. Surfaces shall be painted, treated or otherwise exhibit a finished look. Exterior colors
should relate to local or natural building materials, and be compatible without being identical to
18
surrounding properties. Multiple storefronts with a common facade or appearance shall be
coordinated, but should not be identical. Synthetic material, such as hardboard siding, shall
very closely simulate the natural material and have equal or better weathering characteristics.
Metal used on facades shall complement architectural style, rather than presenting an
industrial effect, unless consistent with a local architectural style. Exposed concrete block shall
not be used on any wall visible from a public street or alley unless creative design and surface
texturing is employed. Vandalism resistant finishes are preferred.
4. Elements of poor visual quality (e.g., rooftop mechanical devices, loading, service areas)
shall be sited, designed and screened to minimize visibility from Pier Avenue. Siting, design
and screening shall be compatible with building and site elements, minimize impacts to ocean
views, and minimize effects on nearby residential uses. Flat roofs shall be enclosed by
parapets a minimum of forty-two (42) inches high to conceal rooftop apparatus, to the
satisfaction of the community development director.
5. Solar orientation. Buildings shall be oriented and designed to maximize opportunities for
solar energy use to the maximum extent practical, considering methods such as:
a. Maximize south facing roofs surfaces to accommodate solar collection systems.
b. Locate interior living spaces and operable windows along south/west building faces.
c. Install cool (nonheat absorbing) roofs, pavement and materials.
d. Install deciduous vegetation, overhangs or awnings to protect south/west faces.
6. Accessibility and visitability.
a. Design and operation of development shall comply with the Americans With
Disabilities Act of 1990, and to the extent practical other requirements that facilitate
physical accessibility for all persons such as universal design principles.
b. The following shall apply to the extent feasible. A minimum of one (1) zero-step
entrance to each building from an accessible path from the sidewalk and handicap parking
space to the front, side or rear of each building shall be provided. All ground floor interior
doors (including bathrooms) shall provide at least thirty-two (32) inches of clear passage.
One (1) half-bath (toilet and sink) shall be provided on the ground floor of each building.
Second story businesses and facilities shall demonstrate how accessibility is
accommodated.
I. Circulation and Parking. Development shall be designed to maximize pedestrian circulation
among buildings, lots, and the street and each lot, coordinated with vehicular circulation.
1. Attractive, accessible and safe sidewalks and pedestrian ways connecting buildings with
the street, parking and other buildings shall provide a minimum five (5) feet wide pedestrian
zone, but no less than four (4) feet, unless infeasible. "Pedestrian zone" is the area designed
for unimpeded pedestrian travel.
2. Parking location. Parking lots and structures shall be located behind buildings, and be
accessed from alleys or secondary streets where available. Driveway and garage
encroachments on alley or secondary street frontages shall be located at least forty (40) feet
19
from the Pier Avenue frontage line. Encroachments shall not exceed the required minimum
width. Applicants may be required to install directional signage to parking locations.
3. Surface parking lots. Surface parking visible from Pier Avenue shall be screened by
buildings or by streetscreens (opaque vegetated screens, fences or walls) a minimum height of
three (3) feet compatible with the design and architecture of the site and its surroundings.
Streetscreens exceeding three (3) may be allowed at the discretion of the community
development director if at least thirty (30) percent permeable (e.g., openings encompassing
30% of the face), well articulated to avoid a blank walled effect, and protective of vehicular
sight distances. Streetscreens shall have openings no wider than necessary to accommodate
automobile and pedestrian access. Streetscreens comprised of planters should have a
minimum planting bed five (5) feet wide, unless infeasible, installed with live plants. The
community development director or planning commission may require installation of
streetscreens in conjunction with new buildings or redevelopment exceeding five hundred
(500) square feet of building or lot area.
4. Parking structures. Parking structures shall be located to the rear of storefronts or
buildings fronting Pier Avenue. Monotonous, blank or unarticulated elevations, or levels with
exposed parking shall not be visible from Pier Avenue. Mass, elevations and parked cars may
be visually masked through design, stair towers, canopies and screening devices. Audible and
visible warnings at semi-subterranean garage exits shall be used to protect pedestrians from
vehicles.
5. The frontages of streets and alleys intersecting Pier Avenue provide access to rear parking,
loading and service areas, but are also highly visible to pedestrians and vehicles traveling
along Pier Avenue. Therefore, development of these street and alley frontages shall be
designed to reduce visual impacts.
6. Secure bicycle at the rate of one (1) space per seven (7) employees or three thousand
(3,000) square feet shall be supplied. Bicycle facilities installed onsite shall not interfere with
pedestrian movement (i.e., shall not be placed in pedestrian zone). Such amenities shall be
supplied onsite unless infeasible as determined by the community development director, in
which case the developer may supply a proportional share of said amenities of specifications
for installation along upper Pier Avenue as approved by the public works director, or the
developer may pay a commensurate fee adopted by the City.
7. Off-street parking requirements shall otherwise conform to Chapter 17.44, including those
applicable to the downtown district, except with regard to provisions for incentives set forth in
Section 17.38.550(L).
J. Pedestrian Amenities.
1. Pedestrian amenities are essential to the comfort and security of pedestrians and shall be
required in conjunction with the construction of new buildings or redevelopment exceeding five
hundred (500) square feet of building or lot area.
20
2. Pedestrian amenities shall be supplied at the rate of one (1) bench, one (1) trash/recycle
receptacle, and one (1) street tree per fifty (50) feet of frontage on Pier Avenue Where frontage
is less than 50 feet, no amenities need be supplied. Such amenities shall be supplied onsite
unless infeasible as determined by the community development director, in which case the
developer may supply a proportional share of said amenities of specifications for installation in
the public right-of-way along upper Pier Avenue as approved by the public works director, or
the developer may pay a commensurate fee adopted by the City.
K. Parcel Consolidation. Consolidation of parcels and redevelopment that alters the nature of
upper Pier Avenue as a seaside village center of small-scale establishments with a diversity of
architectural character is strongly discouraged. However, in the event that consolidation and
redevelopment is proposed the following shall apply:
1. New development located on the consolidated parcel shall be consistent with the scale
and architectural character of upper Pier Avenue and the requirements of this zone.
2. Parking shall be accessed from secondary streets or alleys, and conform to all parking
standards. Parking lots or structures shall not be visible from Pier Avenue.
3. Projects that result in the demolition or significant alteration of buildings with architectural
or historical significance as determined by the planning commission shall not be eligible for
incentives.
L. Architecturally or Historically Significant Buildings – Incentives. Architecturally and
historically significant buildings are an important part of the local history, character and culture of
upper Pier Avenue and the city of Hermosa Beach. The planning commission may grant
incentives to encourage protection, reuse or adaptive reuse–rather than demolition or significant
alteration–of architecturally or historically significant buildings pursuant to the procedures in this
section.
"Adaptive reuse" means adapting old structures to new purposes, retaining the predominance
of the existing architectural details that make the buildings unique.
a. Incentives. Deviation from zoning standards, including parking requirements (including
or in-lieu fees or fee reductions), that inhibit ability to retain, restore, reuse or adaptively
reuse a building. Deviation from parking requirements may also include:
i. A fifty (50) percent parking credit for the existing or prior use may be granted when
a non-restaurant use less than 5,000 square feet of gross floor area is changed to
a restaurant use.
ii. Parking spaces for office uses located on a second story may be located not more
than one-quarter (1/4) mile walking distance from the site, and/or on property not
under the same ownership as such office use. Where the parking is located off-
site, the owner shall file with the community development department an affidavit
recorded by the office of the Los Angeles County Recorder that these lots are held
in common ownership for the use specified.
21
iii. Building sites where buildings will exceed gross floor area to building site area
ratio of one to one may pay an in-lieu fee for all the required on-site parking
spaces.
iv. Other parking modifications or reduction of in-lieu fees.
2. Procedures.
a. Applications for incentives filed with the community development department shall include
a statement of incentives requested, demonstration of necessity, an analysis of the
architectural or historical importance of the building prepared by an architect, historian or other
person of qualification acceptable to the community development director, and fee adopted by
the city.
b. Procedures for the conduct of hearings, report of decision and findings, appeals,
reapplication upon denial, and revocation shall be in accordance with Section
17.38.560(B).
3. Findings. In granting incentives the planning commission shall make all of the following
findings:
a. The project will not result in exterior changes or modifications that adversely alter,
affect or destroy exterior architectural or historical features or the essential elements that
make the resource significant and suitable for protection or restoration, taking into
consideration its:
i. Character, interest, or value as part of the development, heritage, or cultural
characterization of the community.
ii. Unique location or singular physical characteristics that make it an established or
familiar visual feature.
iii. Identification with a person or persons who significantly contributed to the
development of the community.
iv. Identification as the work of a master builder, designer, architect, or landscape
architect whose work has influenced the development of the community.
v. Embodiment of distinguishing characteristics of an architectural or historical style
valuable for the study of a period, type, method of construction, or use of
indigenous materials.
vi. Embodiment of elements of design, detailing, materials, or craftsmanship that
render it structurally, architecturally or historically innovative or significant.
vii. Interest for the general public, rather than any specific group or person.
b. The project will comply with architecturally or historically significant buildings protection
guidelines on file with the city.
c. Any deviation from zoning standards is to the minimum extent necessary.
d. The incentives are consistent with the purposes of this zone.
e. The incentives will not conflict with the provisions of, or be detrimental to, the general
plan.
f. The incentives will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the
property or improvements in the vicinity and this zone.
22
The commission may place conditions on the granting of incentives to ensure that incentives
granted will be implemented consistent with the findings of approval and do not otherwise
constitute a grant of special privilege. The granting of parking incentives may be accompanied
by reasonable requirements to provide additional pedestrian or other transportation
amenities.
M. Signs. Signs shall conform to Chapter 17.50, including standards for commercial zones, and
specifically the C-2 zone. The following are additionally allowed:
1. Wall signs. One (1) wall sign per building may be located on a secondary frontage when there
is no entrance/exit open to the public, not to exceed six (6) square feet.
2. Projecting signs. One (1) additional nonilluminated projecting, arcade or hanging business
identification sign for each business visible to pedestrians is permitted to be hung over or near
an entryway. The sign shall not exceed six (6) square feet per face, be located at least eight (8)
feet above the sidewalk, and not project outward more than three (3) feet.
N. Landscaping. Landscaping shall be designed and liberally employed to shade pedestrian
ways and hardscape, conserve energy and reduce urban heat absorption, retain onsite and filter
stormwater, and enhance the overall project including building design and streetscape.
1. Landscaping shall be appropriate to its purpose, and compatible with and proportional to
the streetscape, site elements and building design and scale. Landscaping shall not impair
vehicular sight distance, inhibit pedestrian access, or unduly impair visual corridors.
2. Existing trees and plants shall be protected, unless infeasible.
3. Landscape shall consist primarily of species tolerant of drought, compacted soil conditions,
urban runoff and other localized site elements. Native species shall be used where practical.
No species listed by the Invasive Plant Inventory of the California Invasive Plant Council or
another local authority accepted by community development director shall be planted.
Deciduous trees should be used to shade southern and western exposures unless other
equivalent energy conservation features are employed.
4. All landscaped areas shall include an automatic water-conserving irrigation system that
adjusts for hydrozones and seasons. Plans shall demonstrate a water budget that conforms to
the California Department of Water Resources’ ‘Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance’
or a local ordinance, whichever is stricter.
5. Landscape areas shall consist of primarily pervious materials. Planting beds shall be
mulched to a depth of two inches or greater and installed with live plants. Landscaping shall
be appropriately maintained, trimmed and void of weeds.
6. Perimeter and parking lot median planters shall be a minimum of five (5) feet wide, unless
an alternative design is approved that is consistent with the purposes of this section and the
long-term health and vitality of the landscaping. Continuous landscape areas, structural soil,
permeable pavement, or other techniques may be employed. One (1) five-gallon shrub shall
23
be provided for each twenty (20) square feet of landscaped area. Adjacent to residential
zones, the required rear and/or side yard area shall be provided with a minimum five-foot wide
planter strip landscaped with a minimum of one twenty-four (24) inch or fifteen (15) gallon size
specimen tree for every ten (10) feet of length, unless an alternative consistent with the
provisions of this subsection is approved by the Community Development Director.
7. Six-inch high raised concrete curbing shall be provided along the perimeter of all
landscaped areas except on the side abutting building walls or fences. Curb inlets at least
every ten (10) feet appropriate to allow stormwater to flow into landscaped area, below or at-
grade planters, and other design elements are encouraged where onsite retention, filtering
and conservation of stormwater.
8. Conformance with landscape requirements may be required for new development, and
redevelopment of at least five hundred (500) square feet of building or lot area.
9. Landscape plans and irrigation systems shall be reviewed and approved by the community
development director.
O. Lighting. Lighting standards are intended to promote energy conservation and reduce effects
on health and safety, neighboring uses, nocturnal environments and enjoyment of the nighttime
sky, while providing appropriate light for safety and security.
1. Lighting shall be appropriate to its purpose, and compatible with and proportional to the
streetscape, site elements and building design and scale.
2. Exterior lighting shall be energy conserving and minimize light pollution. Lighting intensity
and quality shall not result in excessive nighttime glow or spill outside of the boundaries of the
property on which it is located.
3. Exterior lighting, excluding low-level security lighting, shall be extinguished within one hour
after close of business. Automated external lighting controls shall be used to minimize light
pollution and energy consumption.
4. All lighting installations shall be designed and installed to be fully shielded (full cutoff) and
down cast (emitting no light above the horizontal plane of the fixture) and shall have a
maximum lamp wattage of two hundred fifty (250) watts for commercial lighting, and one
hundred (100) watts incandescent or twenty-six (26) watts compact fluorescent for residential
lighting. Light fixtures shall be shall not create glare, shine off the property, or toward the night
sky. Yellow spectrum lamps such as sodium lamps are prohibited on private property.
Exceptions are allowed to comply with building, fire and city codes, and for signs, low level
shielded landscape lighting (not more than three (3) feet above grade), and temporary holiday
or similar lighting.
5. Light fixtures shall be designed and installed so that the lamp bulb is not directly visible
from within any residential unit.
24
6. Lighting shall not interfere with pedestrian comfort, such that lamp bulbs should not be
directly visible to pedestrians on sidewalks, designated areas or walkways.
P. Stormwater and Urban Runoff Pollution Control.
1. Development shall comply with the stormwater and urban runoff pollution control
regulations in Chapter 8.44.
2. In addition, new development and redevelopment of permitted and conditional uses
creating or adding at least five hundred (500) square feet of impervious surfaces shall submit
and implement a stormwater management plan of best management, good housekeeping,
structural and treatment practices that are practical and feasible, including but not limited to:
a. Use of pervious surfaces and reduction of hardscape (e.g., patios, parking stalls,
landscape).
b. Onsite stormwater retention and filtering.
c. Consideration of other measures set forth in Sections 8.4.060 through 8.4.095.
Q. Green Building Standards. Applicants are encouraged to incorporate other green site, building
and design standards into development projects, to minimize the impact of development and building
on the environment, its occupants and the community, such as:
1. Full compliance with the Stormwater and Urban Runoff Pollution Control Regulations in
Chapter 8.44 for projects not otherwise required to comply.
2. Buildings that exceed by fifteen (15) percent of the minimum requirements of the California
Energy Standards (Title 24, Part 6, California Code of Regulations).
3. Buildings with plumbing fixtures and fittings that reduce the overall potable water required
under the California Green Building Standards Code by at least fifteen (15) percent.
4. Materials conservation measures (50% construction waste recycled, 25% recycled
aggregate used, durable products, local suppliers).
5. Installation of solar collection and/or solar hot water heating systems.
6. Measures for healthy interior environments (finishes, flooring, cabinetry, etc.)
7. Installation of grey water recycling systems.
8. Compliance with Green Point Rated Checklist (Build-It Green), Leadership in Energy and
Environmental Design (LEED), International Code Council (ICC 700) Green Building Standards
of 2008, or comparable green rating system measures as determined by the community
development director, as adapted to commercial development.
Projects for which a Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) 'Certified' standard,
or other equivalent as determined by the community development director, is demonstrated shall
be eligible for priority permit processing, promotion on the City's green building website, use of
25
City-approved green building logo as part of allowed construction signage and in its promotional
materials, and other green building incentives which may be adopted by the City and made
applicable to this zone.
R. Applicability of other standards. All other development standards shall be governed by the
city zoning ordinance. When there is a question as to applicability of requirements, standards
applicable to commercial development, or more specifically the C-2 zone, shall apply; provided that
the regulations in Chapter 17.26 do not apply unless specifically referenced within the regulations
for this zone.
17.38.550 Plan Area No. 11 – Procedures.
A. Procedures Generally. Procedures for conditional use permits, variances, precise
development plans, zone changes, amendments, parking plans, signs, development agreements,
determination of legality of nonconforming residential buildings, and other entitlements under this
title shall apply, except as specified within the regulations for this zone.
B. Request for Incentives. Applications requesting incentives provided for in Sections
17.38.550(B)(2) and 17.38.550(L) shall additionally conform to the following procedures:
1. Public comments or hearing. The applicant shall provide notice a minimum of ten (10)
days before a hearing on an application for request for incentives. The method of notice will be
established by resolution of the city council. The date of the hearing shall be set by the
community development department. The date must be a minimum of ten (10) days and a
maximum of forty (40) days from the date the application is accepted as complete.
2. Report of decision and findings--Disposition of report. The planning commission shall
issue the report of decision and findings for requests for incentives. The written report shall be
issued within twenty (20) days of the conclusion of the hearing on the request for incentives
application. The report shall include a decision granting, denying or granting with conditions the
request for incentives, the required findings, and an indication that the planning commission's
decision shall become final if not appealed within fifteen (15) days of the issuance of the report
of decision and findings. A copy of the report of decision and findings shall be sent to the name
and address shown on the application. Reports shall be numbered consecutively in the order
of filing, and kept as a permanent record.
3. Appeals--Filing, fees procedure. Appeals shall be in writing, including the specific areas of
disagreement with the planning commission's decision. Fees for appeals will be established by
resolution of the city council. Appeals shall be filed with the city clerk's office in writing ten (10)
days from the date of the succeeding regular city council meeting at which it is determined
whether or not to review the decision of the planning commission pursuant to Section 2.52.040
within fifteen (15) days of the planning commission's issuance of a report of decision and
findings. The filing of an appeal with the city clerk shall stay the planning commission's
decision. When an appeal is filed, the planning commission shall transmit the record of the
case to the city council. The city council shall conduct a public hearing in accordance with
Chapter 17.68 (applying the procedures applicable to variances). Such hearing shall be held
within forty (40) days of the council's receipt of the written appeal. The city council shall
26
announce its findings within sixty (60) days of the hearing, unless good cause is found for an
extension. The council may incorporate by reference the findings of the planning commission.
The council's action shall be final. Within thirty (30) days of its final decision, the city clerk shall
mail notice to the applicant and appellant. A copy of this notice shall be included in the
planning commission's permanent files.
4. Reapplication upon denial. After the denial of a request for incentives has become final,
no further application for the same request for incentives shall be filed for the same property for
the ensuing six (6) months, unless the project has been redesigned so as to eliminate the
planning commission's or city council's previous objections to the project. Said redesign will
require a new application process.
5. Revocation—Causes—Hearing. Any incentives granted may be revoked by the planning
commission for any of the following causes:
a. That any term or condition has not been complied with.
b. That the property for which the incentives have been granted is used or maintained in
violation of any statute, law, regulation or condition of approval.
c. That the project for which the incentives was granted has not been exercised for at
least twelve (12) consecutive months, or has ceased to exist, or has been abandoned.
d. That the project for which the incentives were granted has been so exercised as to be
detrimental to the public health or safety or so as to constitute a nuisance. A hearing to
show cause why the incentives should not be revoked shall be held by the awarding body
prior to the revocation of any incentives granted.
F:\B95\CD\PC\2008\12-3-08 Upper Pier Draft Ordinance 20081203
27
EXCERPT MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON
OCTOBER 21, 2008, 7:00 P.M.,
AT THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
PUBLIC HEARING
9. TEXT 08-8 -- 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, 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.
Director Robertson briefly highlighted the efforts of the subcommittee in this endeavor; stated
that Senior Planner Townsend has done a lot of work on this report and that she will be
presenting and summarizing this evening some of the key discussion items, recommendations
and alternatives; and he stated this matter will be opened for public input to discuss this
conceptual stage for zoning recommendations.
Senior Planner Townsend, with the aid of a Power Point presentation, provided staff report
concerning the Upper Pier Avenue report, noting it implements the General Plan and advocates
promoting a pedestrian-oriented village center serving local residents as well as visitors. She
stated the proposal provides concepts for changing the zoning as well as various alternatives,
but pointed out that the alternatives and concepts being presented are simply staff’s and the
subcommittee’s thoughts on how the issues can be addressed; and noted there are various
ways to implement these objectives. She stated the proposal envisions creating a specific plan
area zoning district, which would encompass properties currently zoned C-2 and located
between Valley Drive and Hermosa Avenue; and while giving her report, she highlighted various
maps of the proposed specific plan area.
Responding to Chairman Perrotti’s request for input concerning the history of the parking
requirements in this area, Director Robertson explained that in 2004, the parking requirements
for the Downtown area were amended just for retail and office uses, requiring 3 parking spaces
per 1,000 square feet; and advised that this was to encourage daytime use and provide a little
bit of incentive for developers to build office and retail uses as opposed to restaurants. He
mentioned that at the same time, the City made the code stricter in terms of parking
requirements for restaurants. He stated those code amendments went into effect in 2004 and
received Coastal Commission approval; but added that the Coastal Commission gave the City a
3-year timeline for this approval; and that if the City wanted to renew those code amendments, it
Excerpt Planning Commission Minutes
October 21, 2008
1
would have to provide a parking study to approve the developments the City was approving
under that amended standard to make sure those developments were not causing a decrease in
coastal access parking. He advised that this matter is currently at the point where the Planning
Commission had recommended going back to the Coastal Commission to renew that 3-per-
1,000-square-foot standard; advised that City Council has deferred that matter because they
wanted to see what the results will be of the Upper Pier recommendations, as well as the
specific plan for the Lower Pier Avenue study. Therefore, the City is currently operating under
the 4-per-1,000-square-foot standard.
Commissioner Allen asked who will be doing that study and what the approximate cost is.
Director Robertson advised that staff has already done some of the baseline parking inventories
from Summer 2007 and 2008, noting that while staff can do some of the basic parking
inventories, it would be useful to hire a consultant to do more detailed inventories that might
include hours of the day, which would be a more costly venture. The Coastal Commission is
looking at overall impacts on beach parking. He added that when the Downtown plan is further
along, staff would be interested in looking at some of the more detailed time-of-day parking
utilization surveys.
Chairman Perrotti opened the public hearing.
Dency Nelson, resident and Chairman of the Hermosa Beach Green Building Committee, stated
he is angry and frustrated with the lack of input concerning the Cool Cities green building
demands in staff report and associated materials, pointing out that very little, if any, comments
regarding the City’s endorsement of green standards is included in the materials; and he added
that his committee has spent many hours on how Hermosa Beach should be implementing the
Cool Cities techniques, pointing out that City Council voted 5-0 to endorse and implement green
building practices in this community. He stated the Committee has conducted many meetings
and spent a lot of time on this commitment to the Cool Cities concept; stated the City is about to
embark on the largest project sponsored by Hermosa Beach since doing Lower Pier Avenue;
and reiterated there is very little, if any, input regarding green building practices in this 53-page
streetscape report. He stated the report needs to have language in it that addresses what kind
of materials should be used; that it should address the use of water catchments being built into
landscapes to prevent runoff and filter oil and pesticides before those elements hit the aquifer;
questioned why native plants and trees are not discussed in the report, where building materials
will be coming from and what the recycled content is in those materials, etc.; and he reiterated
the need to include serious language in this resolution regarding the City’s commitment to the
Cool Cities concepts.
Jim Rosenberger, resident, asked how the City is going to discourage franchises from coming
into this area; and stated there is no discussion about a requirement to pay in-lieu parking fees
and no discussion about adding additional parking elsewhere to help manage the influx of traffic
in this already congested area. He stated he would not like to see trees or other vegetation
block the view to the ocean from this street.
Jeff Duclos, resident, member of the Green Building Committee, echoed the sentiments and
frustration of Mr. Nelson, stating this City pledged two years ago to fulfill the green building
concept specifically outlined in the Cool Cities program; and expressed his belief this City has
not done anything substantive to fulfill that pledge. He asked the following questions: Is it the
City’s objective to facilitate the building of new parking structures; and asked for an explanation
for how a development such as the Altadena property, approved by the Commission in August,
Excerpt Planning Commission Minutes
October 21, 2008
2
has been cited by the UPAC members as a good example of the changes they want to see, yet
they are proposing to replace this mom-and-pop community-serving business with a 6,400-
square-foot, 30-foot high structure with a basement and 3 above-ground levels serving 7
businesses where only one business stood – asking how this fits into the outlined objective of
“minimizing scale and mass on the street.” He asked what the recommended policy is on
parcel consolidation or the merging of structures, how will the City justify the incentives to build
a second story and paying in-lieu fees for all required parking – pointing out the City has yet to
build a single parking space with in-lieu dollars. He asked why the City thinks moving all
service-type businesses to the second story is a desirable or necessary element; and asked
why businesses, in effect, will be penalized for maintaining a one-story neighborhood service
business. He added that given the scope of the changes to zoning and proposed amendments
to the Municipal Code, why has this Commission or City staff not imposed an urgency
moratorium on development on Pier Avenue, bringing a halt to development until the City comes
to a consensus of opinion in terms of what Pier Avenue should be in regard to zoning; and he
asked for further explanation of serving alcohol at the cafés on the sidewalk with a conditional
use permit.
Robert Hoffman, resident, stated he is concerned with the proposal of using City funds to build a
center divider down Pier Avenue that would prevent people from making left-hand turns, and
planting vegetation and widening the sidewalks at a time when the economy is in a crisis; and
stated the City should not be spending any money at this point in time on things that are not
necessary. He expressed his belief that the whole concept of UPAC to redevelop Upper Pier
Avenue may not be such a great idea, believing that some of the existing businesses will be
forced to close as a result of widening the sidewalks to 14 feet.
Dr. Ed Connaughton, Hermosa Chiropractic, expressed his concern that one of those small
businesses that will disappear is his; and stated that with the elimination of 18 parking spaces
on Upper Pier Avenue, his clients probably won’t walk two blocks to get to his office. He stated
that liming the sidewalk areas to a small percentage will negatively impact foot traffic and
outdoor dining. He asked who will be paying for these sidewalks and what will it cost; and he
stated the majority of businesses in this area want to fix Upper Pier Avenue, but they don’t want
to see a change to the sidewalks. He added that the businesses also want to keep the diagonal
parking as is. He added that the businesses like the small surfer town feel of Hermosa Beach
and stated that UPAC is trying to turn this into a trendy touristy spot. He urged the City to allow
the residents to decide what will happen with this street, not the politicians or appointed officials.
Robert Fortunado, resident, stated the City has this tremendous opportunity to set a tone for
how development gets done in Hermosa Beach for the next 50 years, but he cautioned the City
that it only gets one chance to do it right; and he urged the City to take into serious
consideration the environmental impacts this effort will have upon this community. He
mentioned that while the report proposes the planting of palm trees, the City of Los Angeles is
removing its palm trees and banning them from being planted in the future.
Carla Merriman, Executive Director of the Hermosa Beach Chamber of Commerce, stated that
originally, the new streetscape was recommended with wider sidewalks to make the city more
pedestrian friendly and to allow for outdoor dining and some very small outdoor retail displays to
encourage people to walk into those businesses; but stated that now, restaurants would not be
allowed to use any space on the sidewalk to have outdoor patio dining even if they closed
earlier at night; and she added that City Council has also directed no one should get a beer or
wine license, which negatively affected the local, venerable New Orleans Cajun Creole
restaurant. She stated it will be difficult for vehicular traffic to see the businesses with a 12-foot
Excerpt Planning Commission Minutes
October 21, 2008
3
sidewalk in front and nothing but benches, trees, street lights and pedestrian traffic in front; and
expressed her belief this will not encourage new business.
There being no further input, Chairman Perrotti closed the public hearing.
Vice-Chairman Pizer expressed his belief that most of the issues addressed by the public this
evening are within the purview of the Public Works Department/Commission as part of the
streetscape project, not the Planning Commission.
Senior Planner Townsend mentioned that currently, outdoor dining on public property is allowed
in this area with an encroachment permit; that under this proposal, it would also require a CUP;
she advised that retail displays are not allowed on the sidewalk except only when there is a
special event and that under this proposal, those could be allowed under a Conditional Use
Permit (CUP) for longer than just a special event.
With regard to the storm drain concerns, Director Robertson stated that a lot of these issues are
still being looked at in the plan and that staff has not gotten to the final design stage for the
drainage system.
Vice-Chairman Pizer noted for the audience that this is still a work in progress; and he
commended staff for their report this evening. He expressed his understanding there are future
parking plans for all Upper Pier Avenue, highlighting a potential parking structure near the
Community Center.
Commissioner Hoffman stated that the desire of the subcommittee and staff is not to encourage
large-scale development on Upper Pier Avenue, noting it’s inconsistent with a village
atmosphere that most residents want to see preserved; and stated the City also has a couple
opportunities where consolidation might help create a solution to the parking issue.
Vice-Chairman Pizer stated the encroachment permits would also require a simplified CUP to
allow space for some consistency with the use of the encroachment areas.
Commissioner Hoffman explained that UPAC envisioned sidewalk activities would be one of the
opportunities for expanding the sidewalk, including outdoor dining, but noted his interpretation of
Council’s recommendation to this Commission at their last meeting is they do not want to permit
that or alcoholic beverage sales on Upper Pier Avenue. He explained that Council adopted
UPAC’s recommendations with some refinements and that this matter is now driven by City
Council, not UPAC. He noted his support for outdoor dining on private property on Upper Pier
Avenue.
Commissioner Allen noted his support for outdoor dining on private property along this area;
and that he supports the 30-foot, two-story limits.
Chairman Perrotti noted his support for ending the study at Palm Avenue, noting the hours of
operation for those businesses are more reflective of what goes on with the Lower Pier Avenue
plaza in comparison to the hours of operation for businesses in the Upper Pier Avenue
proximity. He stated that staff should take into consideration green building standards and that
it should be mentioned in the report and/or included in part of the vision for Upper Pier Avenue.
He stated he is more favorable to the standard of 4 parking spaces for every 1,000 square feet;
and noted that if outside dining is allowed, there should be no alcohol service where an
encroachment permit is required. On Page 5, under Conditional Uses, he stated that “surfboard
Excerpt Planning Commission Minutes
October 21, 2008
4
manufacturing” should be eliminated and should be in the M-1 Code. He noted his concurrence
with the 30-foot height limit and two stories.
Chairman Perrotti recessed the meeting at this time.
Commissioner Hoffman responded to some of the audience questions this evening, expressing
his belief that service-type businesses in this area, such as beauty salons and escrow offices,
generate very little street activity and vitality to this area; and that a retail establishment with a
big storefront is a more pedestrian friendly and will typically generate a greater amount of street
activity and street vitality than a service-type establishment. With regard to the comment
concerning the economic climate, he stated there is not much of an economic impact on the City
when considering to change text amendments. He stated he is opposed to parcel consolidation
as a bonus or incentive to provide a second story; and he explained that in order to impose a
moratorium in this area, there has to be a legitimate threat to the public safety, health and
welfare that would justify some action.
The following is a polling of the Commissioners on each one of the 10 UPAC Report – Zoning
Related Recommendations and Options:
1) Analyze the C-2 zone permitted use list in the context of promoting pedestrian
friendly, resident-serving, daytime uses; and
2) Address outdoor-dining encroachment permit requirements in public right of way.
The Commission agreed (5-0) with Recommendation A and B, all agreeing to strike “surfboard
manufacturing” from the supplemental list:
a) Retain existing prohibition on residential uses;
b) Modify permitted and conditional uses to emphasize pedestrian and resident-serving
uses;
c) Do not allow outdoor dining on sidewalks (limit to private property only);
d) Do not allow merchandise displays on public sidewalk (other than special events) (no
change to existing code).
Two Commissioners (Pizer and Darcy) were in favor of outdoor dining on public property
(sidewalks) if issued a CUP. Three Commissioners were not in favor (Perrotti, Hoffman and
Allen).
3) Retain 30-foot height limit with strong preference towards two stories.
The Commission agreed (5-0) with Recommendation A and B:
a) Maximum two stories and require setbacks or floor area maximum in relation to first
story;
b) Retain 30-foot height limit.
4) Encourage commercial mixed-use with service-type industries on the second floor
and general commercial/retail on the ground floor.
The Commission agreed (5-0) with Recommendation A, except to delete the first line “reduced
parking or reduced in-lieu fees or valet parking” and the word “other” on the last bullet:
Excerpt Planning Commission Minutes
October 21, 2008
5
a) Authorize Planning Commission to grant incentives to encourage service and office
uses on second story:
• Increased signage opportunities for second story uses
• Defer building fees to final occupancy
• Consider uses not listed as permitted or conditional subject to CUP
• Deviation from zoning standards that inhibit construction or use of second story
(e.g., setbacks) on a case-by-case basis.
Chairman Perrotti departed the meeting at this time.
Vice-Chairman Pizer asked staff to do more study with respect to putting more teeth in Option
No. 2, restricting the first 20 feet from the face of the building with retail or some options on how
to reach that goal.
5) Encourage permeable building facades to facilitate pedestrian friendly
use/atmosphere on the street.
The Commission agreed (4-0) with Recommendation A and B:
a) Require facades to be constructed as ‘storefronts’ with 70 percent glazed area on
ground floor, doors spaced 30 feet on average, and accommodation for awnings, etc.
(see Attachment 3-C)
b) Impose a maximum front yard setback of 6 feet along 50 percent of the frontage, up
to 12 feet, for entrances, outdoor dining, planters with trees that shade the sidewalk.
(see Attachment 3-B)
6) Improve the visual aesthetics by limiting franchise architecture, promoting
consistent streetscaping, and minimizing bulk, scale, and massing of any new
buildings on the street.
The Commission agreed (4-0) with Recommendation A through I, with the exception of striking
the following from G: “Consolidation of parcels is discouraged. If proposed”:
a) Maintain pedestrian scale frontages. (See Attachment 3-E)
b) Second story not to exceed 75 percent of ground floor area, OR:
- maximum 25-foot height, requires 5-foot setback along 50 percent of width of second
story.
- maximum 30-foot height, requires 10-foot setback along 50 percent of width of
second story. (see Attachment 3-D.3)
c) First story height not to exceed 16 feet. (See Attachment 3-D.2)
d) Rooftop equipment and service areas to be screened; design to reduce impacts to
views and residential uses. (See Attachment 3-E.5)
e) Disallow ‘franchise’ (chain store) architecture. (See Attachment 3-E.2)
f) Facades along Pier Avenue to be varied. Elevations visible from Pier Avenue to
provide elements of interest. (See Attachment 3-E.2)
g) Consolidation requires conforming parking located at rear of parcel and incorporation
of other design elements. (See Attachment 3-E.7)
h) Require provision of pedestrian amenities. (See Attachment 3-E.6)
i) Adopt design guidelines within code (accompany with graphics in code or as
reference). (See Attachment 3-E)
Excerpt Planning Commission Minutes
October 21, 2008
6
7) Provide incentives for retention, rehabilitation, and adaptive reuse of
architecturally significant buildings.
The Commission agreed (4-0) with Recommendation A through C, but deleting the following
words from C: “allow a third story not exceeding 75 percent of the floor area of the second
story”:
a) Encourage improvement of existing buildings (rather than demolition and
reconstruction), maintain original architectural character, and discourage
consolidation of parcels and underground parking. Authorize incentives. (See
Attachment 3-E.7 and Attachment 3-F)
b) Adopt or reference guidelines to maintain architectural/historical character. (See
Attachment 3-E, Attachment 3-F, and Attachment 4)
c) Define incentives: reduced parking or in-lieu fees, defer building permit fees,
increase total signage (e.g., 10 percent) and number of awning and wall sings to
advertise uses on the second story, allow relief from zoning standards or uses to
facilitate adaptive reuse subject to findings. (See Attachment 3-F.3)
8) Analyze existing parking requirements relevant to dis/incentives for
redevelopment and/or redesign of existing buildings.
The Commission agreed with Recommendation B through E:
b) Allow 50 percent parking credit when a non-restaurant use under 5,000 square feet is
converted to a restaurant use – only as an incentive to construct or use a second
story or retain an architecturally significant building.
c) Allow parking for office uses to be located more than 300 feet or otherwise offsite
under a Parking Plan.
d) Allow other parking modifications or reduction of in-lieu fees under a Parking Plan, as
incentive to construct or use a second story or retain an architecturally significant
building.
e) Buildings that exceed a 1:1 floor area to building site area ratio may pay an in-lieu
fee for all spaces as an incentive to construction, expansion or use of a second story.
9) Insure CUP policies are consistent with community-oriented, resident- servicing
uses, including standards for hours of operation and outdoor dining.
The Commission agreed with Recommendation A and B:
a) Add required finding that conditional uses must be consistent with vision of
community-oriented, resident-serving village. (See Attachment 3-G)
b) Permitted and conditional uses are modified. (See Attachment 2)
10) Analyze sign code in the context of promoting pedestrian-friendly, resident-
serving, daytime uses.
The Commission agreed with Recommendation A and B, but decided to make a decision on C
following a visual presentation at the next meeting:
a) Allow 20 percent increased signage for second story businesses.
Excerpt Planning Commission Minutes
October 21, 2008
7
b) Allow a wall sign on a secondary frontage without a pedestrian entrance.
c) Relax projecting sign standards.
Senior Planner Townsend stated the actual proposal is Attachment 3, noting that staff will refine
Attachment 3 for the next meeting.
Commissioner Hoffman noted his concurrence with Chairman Perrotti that the buildings with
their frontage on Hermosa Avenue (sushi, Cajun, and Pizano’s restaurants) should not be part
of this, agreeing they are more compatible with the Downtown zone. Commissioner Hoffman
stated the sign program needs to be looked at in the context of the actual streetscape plan, and
suggested the Commission wait on giving its answer on No. 10, leaving the sign ordinance out
for now. He stated his recommendation to Council would be to wait for the streetscape design
before this body goes back to look at the UPAC recommendation regarding signage; and that
this list be cut down to nine items.
Vice-Chairman Pizer moved, seconded by Commissioner Hoffman, to direct staff to prepare the
ordinance and set this item on the Planning Commission’s December 3, 2008 agenda. Motion
carried 4-0.
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 October 21,
2008.
______________________________ _____________________________
Sam Perrotti, Chairman Ken Robertson, Secretary
______________________
Date
Excerpt Planning Commission Minutes
October 21, 2008
8
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
Date: November 25, 2008
To: Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning
Commission
From: Ken Robertson, Director,
Community Development Department
Subject: Rotation of Chair and Vice Chair
Pursuant to Commission direction, the Chair and Vice Chair of the Planning Commission
rotate every 9 months. The new Chair and Vice Chair positions will run from January, 2009
through September. 2008.
F:\B95\CD\memochairman
Tentative Future Agenda
PLANNING COMMISSION
City of Hermosa Beach
JANUARY 20, 2009
Project Title Staff Public
Notice
Meeting
Date
Date
Rec’d
Remarks
⇒ Text amendment regarding signs in the Open Space zone for
City facilities (continued from 11-18-08 meeting)
1/8 1/20/09 11/19
⇒ UPAC zoning recommendations (continued from 12-3-08
meeting)
1/8 1/20/09 11/25
F:b93\cd\cd temp files\wpc - future agenda
9b