HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-04-20 PC AGENDAAGENDA
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
1315 VALLEY DRIVE
HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254
April 20, 2010
7:00 P.M.
Peter Hoffman, Chairman
Kent Allen, Vice Chairman
Shawn Darcy
Sam Perrotti
Ron Pizer
Note: No Smoking Is Allowed in The City Hall Council Chambers
THE PUBLIC COMMENT IS LIMITED TO THREE MINUTES PER SPEAKER
Planning Commission agendas and staff reports are available for review
on the City’s web site at www.hermosabch.org.
Written materials distributed to the Planning Commission within 72 hours
of the Planning Commission meeting are available for public inspection immediately
upon distribution in the Community Development Department during normal business hours
from Monday through Thursday, 7:00 a.m. - 6:00 p.m. and on the City’s website.
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.
a) Presentation of the Hermosa Beach Mural Project.
Section I
Consent Calendar
4. Approval of the March 16, 2010 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. PARK 09-10 -- Parking Plan for a 59,000 + square foot building containing an automated switching
facility and office uses. The proposal is to allocate 15 spaces for the 39,305 square foot first floor
use in recognition of its use for automated equipment purposes, and to allocate 49 spaces to
satisfy parking requirements for commercial uses on the 19,508 square foot second floor, provided
that any excess square footage on the second floor will be segregated as unused /unoccupied,
storage or similar purposes that have no parking demand, at 102 Pacific Coast Highway (Verizon
California, Inc.) and 911 1st Street (adjacent parking lot under separate ownership) (continued
from the February 16 and March 16, 2010 meetings).
Staff Recommended Action: To adopt the resolution approving a Parking Plan for 102 Pacific
Coast Highway and segregating conditions applicable to 911 1st Street, subject to conditions.
7. CUP 09-9 -- Conditional Use Permit amendment for on-sale general alcoholic beverages and
live entertainment in conjunction with an existing restaurant, to allow extended hours of
operation and amending conditions relating to food sales, alcoholic beverage prices,
admission charges and number of televisions. The requested changes in hours are from a
current closing on Thursday through Saturday nights and holidays of 1:00 a.m. the following
morning to 1:30 a.m. the following morning; and from a current 12:00 midnight closing on
Sunday through Wednesday nights to 1:00 a.m. the following morning, Hours for live
entertainment are proposed to change from a current closing on Thursday through Saturday
nights and holidays of 12:30 a.m. the following morning to 1:00 a.m. the following morning;
and change from no live entertainment on Sunday through Wednesday nights to allowing live
entertainment until 12:30 a.m. the following morning at 22 Pier Avenue (Watermans).
Staff Recommended Action: To adopt the resolution denying the Conditional Use Permit
Amendment.
2
8. CUP 10-4 / PARK 10-5 -- Conditional Use Permit to allow youth activities ancillary to an
adjacent church (Hope Chapel located at 2420 Pacific Coast Highway) and public auditorium
use, with a maximum capacity of 300 people with limited hours and operations, within a
29,100 square foot building (the former “Albertsons” grocery store at 2510 Pacific Coast
Highway), and a Parking Plan to allow less than required parking based on shared parking
with parking lots at 926 Artesia Boulevard and 2200 - 2512 Pacific Coast Highway.
Staff Recommended Action: To adopt the resolution approving the Conditional Use Permit and
Parking Plan subject to conditions.
9. TEXT 10-3 -- Text amendment to the Municipal Code by making minor changes to Title 17
(Zoning) for clarity, internal consistency, correctness, and cross-referencing; to incorporate policy
interpretations; to add lighting and screening roof element regulations; and to amend permitting
procedures; and to amend other Titles for consistency (continued from the February 16, 2010
meeting).
Staff Recommended Action: To continue the matter to the June 15, 2010 meeting.
Section III
Hearing
10. Memorandum regarding options for creating a vibrant pedestrian environment along upper Pier
Avenue, by specifically regulating or encouraging type or mix of uses.
Staff Recommended Action: To direct staff as deemed appropriate.
Section IV
11. Staff Items
a. Pacific Coast Highway / Aviation Boulevard committee - Planning Commission representation.
b. Tentative future Planning Commission agenda.
c. Community Development Department activity reports of February, 2010.
12. Commissioner Items
13. Adjournment
3
ACTION MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON
MARCH 16, 2010, 7:00 P.M.,
AT THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
All public testimony and the deliberations of the Planning Commission can be viewed on the
City’s web site at www.hermosabch.org, On-Demand Video of City Meetings
The meeting was called to order at 7:01 P.M. by Chairman Hoffman.
1. Pledge of Allegiance
2. Roll Call
Present: Commissioners Allen, Darcy, Perrotti, Pizer and Chairman Hoffman
Absent: None
Also Present: Community Development Director Ken Robertson
Assistant City Attorney Lauren Feldman
Assistant Planner Eva Choi
3. Oral /Written Communication - Anyone wishing to address the Commission regarding a
matter not related to a public hearing on the agenda may do so at this time.
Section I Consent Calendar
4. Approval of the February 16, 2010 action minutes.
ACTION: To approve the above minutes as presented.
Motion by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Darcy. The motion carried by
a unanimous vote.
5. Resolution(s) for approval
a) Resolution P.C. 10-3 denying a Conditional Use Permit for on-sale beer and wine from
11:00 a.m. to 12:00 midnight daily in connection with a restaurant, Sushi Sei, within a
2,479 square foot space within the “Bijou Building”, and a Parking Plan on the basis that
restaurant use is more parking intensive than the previous auditorium and public
assembly uses at 1221-1227 Hermosa Avenue.
ACTION: To approve Resolution P.C. 10-3 denying a Conditional Use Permit and Parking
Plan request for a restaurant use within the “Bijou Building” at 1221-1227 Hermosa Avenue
as presented.
Motion by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Pizer. The motion carried as
follows:
AYES: Allen, Darcy, Hoffman, Perrotti, Pizer
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Planning Commission Action Minutes
March 16, 2010
1
Section II
PUBLIC HEARING(S)
6. PARK 09-10 -- Parking Plan for a 59,000 + square foot building containing an automated
switching facility and office uses. The proposal is to allocate 15 spaces for the 39,305
square foot first floor use in recognition of its use for automated equipment purposes, and to
allocate 49 spaces to satisfy parking requirements for commercial uses on the 19,508 square
foot second floor, provided that any excess square footage on the second floor will be
segregated as unused /unoccupied, storage or similar purposes that have no parking
demand, at 102 Pacific Coast Highway (Verizon California, Inc.) and 911 1st Street (adjacent
parking lot under separate ownership) (continued from the February 16, 2010 meeting).
Staff Recommended Action: To continue to the April 20, 2010 meeting as requested by the
applicant.
ACTION: To continue subject project to the April 20, 2010 meeting at the request of the
applicant.
MOTION by Commissioner Pizer, seconded by Commissioner Perrotti. The motion carried
as follows:
AYES: Allen, Darcy, Hoffman, Perrotti, Pizer
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
7. PARK 10-3 -- Parking Plan to allow less than required parking, more than 30% compact size
parking spaces, and shared onsite parking in connection with a 2,572 square foot expansion
of an existing retail business (E.T. Surf) into space to be vacated by a portion of the
automotive businesses at 900-904 Aviation Boulevard. Parking will also be shared with
businesses at 908-950 Aviation Boulevard.
Staff Recommended Action: To direct staff as deemed appropriate.
ACTION: To direct staff to return with a resolution approving subject Parking Plan
incorporating staff recommended conditions and more explicit signage regarding ingress and
egress to shared parking areas especially as it relates to the western parking lot. The
applicant also needs to apply for Conditional Use Permit amendment with environmental
review; said amendment shall be heard together with adoption of the Parking Plan resolution.
MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Allen. The motion carried
as follows:
AYES: Allen, Hoffman, Perrotti
NOES: Darcy, Pizer
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Planning Commission Action Minutes
March 16, 2010
2
Section III
HEARING
8. CON 10-4 / PDP 10-5 / PARK 10-4 -- Request for a one year extension for Conditional Use
Permits, Precise Development Plan and Parking Plan for a 21-unit commercial condominium
project at 2101 Pacific Coast Highway.
Staff Recommended Action: To adopt a Minute Order extending the expiration date for a the
Precise Development Plan, Parking Plan and Conditional Use Permit for a 21-unit
commercial condominium by one year to March 16, 2011.
ACTION: To approve, by minute order, the extension of the Conditional Use Permits,
Precise Development Plan and Parking Plan for a 21-unit commercial condominium project
by one year to March 16, 2011.
MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Pizer. The motion carried
as follows:
AYES: Allen, Darcy, Hoffman, Perrotti, Pizer
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Section IV
9. Staff Items
a. Summary of water efficient landscape and water conservation ordinances adopted
February 9, 2010 (Chapters 8.56 and 8.60 of the Municipal Code)
b. Tentative future Planning Commission agenda.
c. Community Development Department activity reports of January, 2010.
10. Commissioner Items
11. Adjournment
The meeting was formally adjourned at 7:56 P.M.
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that the foregoing Minutes are a true and complete record of the action taken by
the Planning Commission of Hermosa Beach at the regularly scheduled meeting of March 16,
2010.
______________________________ ____________________________
Peter Hoffman, Chairman Ken Robertson, Secretary
______________________
Date
Planning Commission Action Minutes
March 16, 2010
3
continue to leave all that office space vacant, and all the parking lots would be needed to support such a
large building.
Most of the commissioners voiced their opinion that they did not want to rezone the upper lots, so Verizon
withdrew their application before it could be voted on. Yet, just five months later in December of 2003,
Verizon sold those upper lots to Don Wilson Builders, even with the parking plan in place that didn’t allow
for any building to occur. Next Verizon decided to add office condos to the second floor, and by 2007 they
had office condo plans drawn up (See Conceptual Condomium Plan attached to the parking survey, which is
applicant’s Exh. D).
Verizon would like to build out 12,250 square feet of office condos. For the sake of argument and for math
simplification, 12,000 square feet of office condos at the going rate of at least $1,000 a square foot would
yield 12 million dollars when sold. The upper lots (911 First St) are currently listed for sale. The proposed
parking plan should be denied until Verizon buys back the upper parking lots, which they never should have
sold in the first place.
Interior changes without permits
It seems that Verizon has been doing construction within the building without obtaining building permits. I
have reviewed the 2003 and the existing plans, and they do not match as stated under paragraph 5 of the
staff report. Also, see staff’s email to Blu Croix (attached) stating that the existing floor plans do not match
the plans submitted in 2003 and that there are no building permits to explain the changes. These changes
that have been made show another instance of non-compliance by Verizon with city ordinances. They also
violated the 1991 parking plan by renting out the Second St lot. This was discovered at the 2003 hearing,
and Verizon had to terminate the rental agreement license. (See Exh 3 & 4 of Opposition Letter I faxed in
for the hearing scheduled for 2/16/10.)
Applicant’s Request to Modify Condition 2 (erroneously stated as condition 3 in report)
Verizon wants to remove the condition that requires segregation of the vacant space (not to be used) on the
second floor from other uses on the second floor. This would allow direct access by anyone on the first or
second floor, for later abuse to use this area as office space. They also want to remove the condition that
prevents them from selling, renting, or improving this vacant unused space. Staff states that there is
potential for illegal conversion of the vacant space (which doesn’t have parking) to other uses, since the area
is so large (7,258 square feet). Yet staff’s current option allows for storage appurtenant to any tenant/condo
space with access, and staff has also removed the requirement of segregation from other uses on the second
floor. The entire parking plan should be denied, but the original language in the February resolution
should be the only language considered, except the right to rent or lease the unused vacant space should be
deleted along with adding the underlined changes below, stating that the space vacant space should be used
as follows:
• be designated as appurtenant to the first floor and shall only be sold (if subdivided) with the first
floor,
• be fully, physically segregated from other uses on the second and first floor,
• be designated on all building plans as nonhabitable for the designated 7,258 square feet
• shall not be further improved, rented, sublet, sold or leased for human occupancy, or as a separate
tenant or other space, or as storage accessory to any tenant or other space on the second or first floor,
and not be provided any direct or private access to/from any tenant or other space on the second or
first floor.
The square footage that can be built out is missing from the conditions, and it does not limit the number of
Verizon employees, or the number of any successors’ employees, so as to insure that only 15 spaces will be
needed for approximately 44,000 (39,000 on first floor and 7,258 on the second floor) square feet.
2
Parking Study
The parking study does not take into account employees parking on the street, and does not take into
account any future additions of employees by Verizon. To say that the need of the building by Verizon is
only 15 spaces (down from 141 spaces when it was built) assumes that it will always be 15 spaces which is
very short-sighted. The building used to be inhabited by GTE; now it’s Verizon. Verizon could be bought
out by another company that may want to make use of all the square footage of the building, and bring in
their customer service or other personnel.
Parking Gates
Verizon originally proposed that their parking lot gate only be operated by keycards. Obviously, this would
force all the clients of the office condo owners to park on the street. Staff has modified condition 5 of the
resolution to try to remedy this issue, but the new language does not completely solve the problem. The
entire parking plan should be denied, but for the sake of argument, it should read:
Parking lot gates (not driveways) accessing the site shall remain unlocked during normal business hours
of Monday through Friday from 8 am to 6 pm (instead of business hours of any tenant).
“Business hours of any tenant” has no meaning, and also, condo owners are not tenants. A claim could be
made that the current condo owners don’t have formal business hours, which would allow for the parking
gate to be locked, causing visitors or patrons to park on the street.
Landscaping
Condition 9 of the resolution (should be condition 8, as the current condition 8 is a repeat of condition 7)
should limit landscaping to no higher than 15 feet.
Safeguards
Section 5, paragraph 3 of the proposed resolution states that safeguards are imposed to ensure that
commercial uses on the second floor do not increase parking demand to over 49 spaces. Yet no safeguards
are listed. This leaves over 7,258 square feet on the second floor that can be abused if Verizon decides to
add employees on that level, or add employees on the first floor. Also, the same paragraph in the proposed
resolution allows for 12,250 sq ft for office condos with no exclusion for medical condos. If office condos
are approved and, and units are subsequently sold to physicians/clinicians (now or later), then the property
will be even more underparked. There is no safeguard for this, and there is no way to prevent the addition
of future employees by Verizon. It’s not as though this is a 5,000 square foot building, where the variables
for abuse are limited; we are talking about a 58,800 square foot building. Also, staff has now removed the
safeguard of segregation from other uses on the second floor from the resolution, and now allows for
access of the unused space for storage.
This proposed parking plan will cripple the building, leaving approximately 44,000 square feet without
parking. This will limit the use of the building in the future and just begs for abuse as Verizon will have
a continuing incentive to try to derive added income from the building. The residents in the area have to live
with these parking plans when they go awry, causing more street parking in a heavily congested area
where people are already parking on the sidewalk. Also, some of the vehicles used by Verizon are very
large trucks, and take up a number of spaces. See attached picture.
We request that you deny this parking plan because it isn’t enforceable, the Verizon building may have very
different and varied uses in the future, and sets it sets an improper precedent to not comply with parking
plans and to find ways to not comply with full parking requirements via employee counts and creating
enormous storage areas within buildings.
Sincerely,
Cynthia Furnberg J.D. and Craig Rogers
900 Block Second Street 3
4
5
1
March 30, 2010
Honorable Chairman and Members of Regular Meeting of
Hermosa Beach Planning Commission April 20, 2010
SUBJECT: OPTIONS FOR CREATING A VIBRANT PEDESTRIAN ENVIRONMENT
ALONG UPPER PIER AVENUE, BY SPECIFICALLY REGULATING OR
ENCOURAGING TYPE OR MIX OF USES.
Recommendation:
This item is provided at the direction of the Commission. Appropriate actions are:
1. Receive and file, or
2. Direct staff to return with more information or a text amendment as directed.
Background:
As requested by Commissioner Pizer, on February 16, 2010 the Commission directed staff to return with options
to better facilitate the creation of a vibrant pedestrian environment on upper Pier Avenue, such as ways to regulate
certain types or mixes of uses.
The SPA-11 zone implements the vision of upper Pier Avenue formulated by the UPAC to effect a pedestrian-
friendly streetscape through ‘form-based’ standards and measures to encourage pedestrian activity. “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.” (H.B.M.C. Section 17.38.540.A)
The development standards in Section 17.38.550.C provide incentives to encourage pedestrian-oriented uses “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 planning commission may grant deviations from zoning standards to facilitate this
pattern of uses. Parking is not an allowed incentive under these provisions.
Analysis:
While the form-based provisions of the SPA-11 zone will produce a pedestrian-friendly streetscape, there are no
assurances that uses on the ground floor will be equally pedestrian-oriented. Parking incentives (arguably the
most important incentive for influencing future uses) are available to encourage retention of iconic buildings, but
not to otherwise encourage pedestrian uses on the ground floor.
Some recent projects tend toward uses that may be considered less pedestrian-friendly than retail uses, such as
expanded offices at 515 Pier Avenue into the adjacent restaurant space and replacement of retail uses with
personal services (127-133 Pier Avenue). Projects that pre-dated the SPA-11 zone (200, 205, 400 Pier Avenue)
are generally designed to support retail uses on the ground floor; since they are not occupied, it is not clear if they
will be filled by retail, office, personal services or other uses. Limiting the ground floor to retail uses would
decrease options available to landlords seeking tenants to fill vacant spaces.
Tools to facilitate pedestrian uses on the ground floor:
What tools are available to ensure that uses supporting pedestrian activity (restaurants, snack shops, places to
gather, variety of retail uses) will locate on the ground floor of buildings on upper Pier Avenue? In considering
this question, it is useful to reflect on the intent of the SP-11 zone and the desire to retain the local character of
upper Pier Avenue rather that encouraging extensive redevelopment or allowing the eastward extension of the
tourist/ entertainment district of lower Pier Avenue. Because pedestrian-oriented uses such as retail and restaurant
2
serve both locals and tourists, there is a tension created between attracting uses that stimulate pedestrian activity
and those that are predominately tourist oriented.1
For Commission discussion, staff has identified the following tools for more specifically addressing the type and
mix of uses, some of which were considered during the SPA-11 adoption process (Attachment ____). Each
option requires a code amendment.
# Option Relationship to adopted
SPA-11 zone
Benefit Other issues
1 Require a CUP to locate or
expand non-pedestrian uses
on ground floor
Non-pedestrian uses are
allowed without a CUP.
When formulating the SPA-
11 zone, permitted and
conditional uses were
modified to more precisely
reflect pedestrian, resident
serving, day time uses.
More direct
control over
location of uses.
Establish criteria by
which a CUP would be
approved. Requiring a
CUP is less business-
friendly and may result
in more tenant
vacancies.
2 Establish a cap on non-
pedestrian uses on ground
floor (e.g., max. sq. ft. or
number of businesses).
Exceedences require
discretionary review.
Not required. More direct
control over
diversity and
location of uses.
Establish rationale for
cap. Must track land
use as relates to the
criteria. Less business-
friendly and may result
in more tenant
vacancies.
3 Allow non-pedestrian uses
to locate on ground floor,
only when a component of a
pedestrian use and visible
from the sidewalk.
Not required. The PC
subcommittee discussed
limiting non-pedestrian uses
to 25% of gross first floor,
when not located within the
20 feet of Pier Avenue.
Allow mix of
uses on ground
floor.
May be difficult to
regulate.
4 Allow outdoor dining on
public sidewalk subject to
encroachment permit:
No additional parking
required
No CUP (adopt
standards)
Dining on public sidewalk is
prohibited.
(prior C-2 zone allowed
dining on sidewalk with
CUP, encroachment permit,
and parking.)
Contribute to
pedestrian
vibrancy.
Sidewalk expansion will
provide additional room
to consider limited
sidewalk uses while
providing accessibility.
5 Ease restrictions on outdoor
dining on private property in
front of café or restaurant:
No additional parking
required
Eliminate CUP (adopt
standards)
Outdoor dining on private
property requires CUP and
parking or in-lieu fee.
Contribute to
pedestrian
vibrancy.
Limited area available
for such dining.
6 Allow public displays on
public sidewalk subject to
encroachment permit:
No additional parking
required
No CUP (adopt
standards)
Displays on public sidewalk
prohibited
(displays for special events
approved by City Council
not affected)
Contribute to
vibrancy of street
.
Overuse of sidewalk
may produce
appearance of clutter.
7 Allow deviation from Parking incentives allowed Facilitate second Santa Monica allows
1 Illustrated by the Commission’s denial of the CUP for a blues venue with on-sale alcoholic beverages (Hermosa
Pavilion).
4
Attachment 1
Options relevant to selected recommendations in UPAC Final Report
Upper Pier Report
Zoning Related
Recommendations
Options considered by
Planning Commission
subcommittee (8/5/08)
Refined options presented to
PC 8/20/08 Adopted SPA-11 zone
1. Analyze the C-2 zone
permitted use list in the
context of promoting
pedestrian friendly,
resident serving,
daytime uses
Permitted and conditional uses
are modified to emphasize
pedestrian friendly and resident
serving uses, allow second
floor residential E of Loma Dr.,
some uses not allowed in front
part of the building, or
restricted to second floor.
Minor changes to permitted
and conditional uses proposed
to emphasize small-scale
pedestrian and resident-
serving uses throughout the
upper Pier area.
Minor changes to
permitted and conditional
uses emphasize small-
scale pedestrian and
resident-serving uses
throughout the upper Pier
area.
2. Outdoor-dining
encroachment permit
requirements in public
right of way
Require use permit for outdoor
dining on sidewalk.
Allow outdoor dining with
encroachment permit but
require more restrictive
standards.
Consider findings addressing
concentration of uses but allow
some outdoor dining to enliven
the sidewalk.
Legalize uses on public
sidewalks (sales/rentals of
surfboards, bikes, etc.)
Require use permit for
outdoor dining and displays
on sidewalk, or adopt
encroachment permit
standards governing retail
sales/display standards and/or
outdoor dining design
standards for Upper Pier
Avenue.1
Prohibit alcohol sales within
encroachment areas.
No outdoor dining on the
public sidewalk is allowed
under any circumstance.
Allow outdoor dining on
private property with a
CUP.
4. Encourage
commercial mixed-use
with service type
industries on the second
floor and general
commercial/retail on the
ground floor
Service and wholesale
industries cannot be located on
the first floor unless certain
criteria are met (accessory to
primary use, limited to 25% of
gross floor area of first floor,
and not located within the first
20 feet of depth from the
exterior building face). Apply
west of Monterey Blvd.
Determine whether to apply all
or portion of restrictions east of
Monterey Blvd.
Encourage building reuse, but
if redevelopment does occur,
two story buildings are
preferred over one story.
Incentives for second stories
and location of office/services
on second story or to rear of
retail uses on ground floor:
parking, additional signage
for second story, defer
building fees to final
occupancy, allow uses not
listed as permitted or
conditional subject to CUP.
Incentives offered to
encourage location of
nonretail uses on second
story, or location of retail
uses visible from Pier
Avenue when mixed uses
are located on the first
story: deviation from
zoning standards (excludes
parking incentive).
6. Insure CUP policies
are consistent with
community oriented,
resident serving uses –
including standards for
hours of operation and
outdoor dining
Allow community-oriented
uses with less process;
condition use permits rather
than imposing standard
operating hours or conditions
in the code.
Add required finding that
conditional uses must be
consistent with vision of
community oriented, resident
serving area.
As an alternative, consider
restricting hours for close of
business of any permitted use
(e.g., 11 p.m. ; outdoor dining
to 10 p.m.).
Add required finding that
conditional uses must be
consistent with vision of
community oriented, resident
serving area.
CUPs must be consistent
with the zoning district.
5
Upper Pier Report
Zoning Related
Recommendations
Options considered by
Planning Commission
subcommittee (8/5/08)
Refined options presented to
PC 8/20/08 Adopted SPA-11 zone
9. Provide incentives
for retention,
rehabilitation, and
adaptive reuse of
architecturally
significant buildings
Define inventory of historic
resources/consider how to
interface with Chapter 17.53.
Allow reuse to include a use
not otherwise allowed in the
zoning district based on
findings.
Define incentives.
Adopt or reference historic
guidelines to maintain local
character. Determine whether
to incorporate into code.
Determine whether to require
additional approvals to
demolish or significantly
remodel buildings in inventory.
Parking incentives to
encourage improvement of
existing buildings, maintain
original architectural flavor,
and discourage underground
parking
Allow expansion despite
nonconformance, allow uses
not otherwise allowed in the
zoning district based on
findings, defer building fees
to final occupancy, additional
signage (note: additional
signage was adopted for all
uses).
Incentives provided to
conserve and use/reuse
existing buildings that
are iconic
of/architecturally
important: deviation
from zoning standards,
parking credit when a
non-restaurant use
<5,000 sq. ft. is
changed to restaurant
use, increased
allowance for offsite
parking for second story
uses, where buildings
will exceed 1:1 floor
area to lot area ratio
may pay in-lieu fee for
all required, etc.
10. Analyze existing
parking requirements
relevant to dis/incentives
for redevelopment
and/or redesign of
existing buildings
Consider applying disincentive
to other uses which will become
nonconforming due to code
amendment
Allow reduction in parking or
in-lieu fees as incentive for
construction of second stories,
or for relocation of target uses to
second stories.
Consider 1 space/300 sq. ft. for
office use.
Allow shared parking reductions
based on mixed uses
(residential/office, etc.)
Consider allowing shared
parking in city lots if available.
Consider applying disincentive
to uses that will become
nonconforming due to code
amendment
Allow reduction in parking or
in-lieu fees as incentive for
construction of second stories,
or for relocation of target uses
to second stories.
Consider 1 space/300 sq. ft. for
office use.
Allow shared parking
reductions based on mixed
uses (residential/office, etc.)
Consider allowing shared
parking in city lots if available.
Parking incentives not
allowed relative to
encourage location of uses
Parking incentives allowed
to retain iconic buildings
(see above, item 9)
1 (City Council Res. 05-6417 & 6418 for Lower Pier Plaza contains standards for outdoor dining and retail sales/displays addressing:
maximum encroachment depth 13'
continuous clear 5' wide pedestrian path required and disabled egress required
use of awning or umbrellas over display- safety and maintenance
continuous supervision of display required, area maintained clear of debris and litter
dining area barriers specs and heights; Tivoli lights, table lamps, candle, flowering plants encouraged; hostess podiums, queuing
stanchions, televisions (no audio) and heaters allowed
Tentative Future Agenda
PLANNING COMMISSION
City of Hermosa Beach
MAY 18, 2010
Project Title Staff Public
Notice
Meeting
Date
Date
Rec’d
Remarks
⇒ 2nd Qtr GPA (Notification) 5/6 5/18
⇒ 900-950 Aviation Blvd.— 1) Adoption of the resolution
approving a Parking Plan (approved on March 16, 2010).
2) Conditional Use Permit amendment
5/6 5/18 3/17 &
4/14
⇒ Presentation on SB 375 and related issues 5/18 4/1
⇒ 583 Prospect Avenue—Precise Development Plan 5/6 5/18 4/12
⇒ Text amendment to allow placement of tables and chairs on
private property in shopping centers and strip malls without
any permits.
5/18 4/15
11b
1
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
BUILDING DIVISION
FEBRUARY, 2010 MONTHLY REVENUE REPORT
NUMBER OF PERMITS
TYPE OF ACTIVITY CURRENT
MONTH
THIS MONTH
LAST FY FY TO DATE LAST FY
TO DATE
BUILDING 32 31 276 350
PLUMBING/MECHANICAL 24 29 185 244
ELECTRIC 20 16 156 176
PLAN CHECK 9 18 113 138
SEWER USE 1 2 2 6
RES. BLDG. REPORTS 21 10 130 82
PARKS & RECREATION 0 0 1 1
IN LIEU PARKS & REC 0 0 0 2
BOARD OF APPEALS 0 0 0 0
SIGN REVIEW 4 1 18 15
FIRE FLOW FEES 1 6 19 50
LEGAL DETERMINATION 0 0 0 0
ZONING APPEALS 0 0 0 0
TEMPORARY SIGN 0 1 13 8
GEN. PLAN MAINT. (Eff. 7/09) 3 0 11 0
TOTALS 115 114 924 1,072
FEES COLLECTED
0
TYPE OF FEE CURRENT
MONTH
THIS MONTH
LAST FY FY TO DATE LAST FY
TO DATE
BUILDING $18,258.92 $26,168.06 $113,915.85 $242,022.85
PLUMBING/MECHANICAL $4,088.00 $4,786.00 $30,572.09 $39,862.50
ELECTRIC $3,200.00 $3,304.00 $29,600.50 $39,118.30
PLAN CHECK $9,947.04 $14,234.94 $77,209.05 $112,792.20
SEWER USE $9,296.72 $7,983.62 $12,646.72 $18,478.90
RES. BLDG. REPORTS $5,103.00 $2,430.00 $31,590.00 $19,794.60
PARKS & RECREATION $0.00 $0.00 $6,517.00 $3,500.00
IN LIEU PARKS & REC $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $21,192.00
BOARD OF APPEALS $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
SIGN REVIEW $984.00 $240.00 $4,428.00 $3,648.00
FIRE FLOW FEES $50.00 $5,549.00 $9,420.50 $56,274.00
LEGAL DETERMINATION $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
ZONING APPEALS $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
TEMPORARY SIGN $0.00 $255.00 $3,315.00 $2,016.00
GEN. PLAN MAINT. (Eff. 7/09) $3,150.00 $0.00 $11,037.00 $0.00
TOTALS $54,077.68 $64,950.62 $330,251.71 $558,699.35
2
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
BUILDING DIVISION
BUILDING PERMITS ISSUED REPORT MONTH OF FEBRUARY, 2010
TYPE OF STRUCTURE PERMITS DWELLING
UNITS VALUATION
1 101 NEW SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES DETACHED
2 102 NEW SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES ATTACHED
3 103 NEW TWO FAMILY BUILDINGS
4 104 NEW 3 OR 4 FAMILY BUILDINGS
5 105 NEW 5 OR MORE FAMILY BUILDINGS
6 213 NEW HOTELS/MOTELS
7 214 NEW OTHER NON HOUSEKEEPING
8 318 NEW AMUSEMENT & RECREATION
9 319 NEW CHURCHS/OTHER
10 320 NEW INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS
11 321 NEW PARKING GARAGES.
12 322 NEW SERVICE STATIONS/REPAIR GARAGES
13 323 NEW HOSPITALS/OTHER INSTITUTIONAL
14 324 NEW OFFICES/BANKS
15 325 NEW PUBLIC WORKS/UTILITY BUILDINGS
16 326 NEW SCHOOLS/OTHER EDUCATIONAL
17 327 NEW STORES/OTHER MERCH BLDGS.
18 328 NEW OTHER NON RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS
19 329 NEW STRUCTURES OTHER THAN BUILDING 1 $100,000
20 434 ADD/ALTER DWELLING/POOLS 26 $271,084
21 437 ADD/ALTER NON RESIDENTIAL 4 $42,500
22 438 RESIDENTIAL GARAGES/CARPORTS
23 645 DEMOLITION-SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES 3 $27,400
24 646 DEMO 2-FAMILY BUILDINGS
25 647 DEMO 3-4 FAMILY BUILDINGS
26 648 DEMO 5+ FAMILY BUILDINGS
27 649 DEMO ALL OTHER BUILDINGS
34 $440,984
TOTAL UNITS ADDED FY 2009-10 TO DATE: 4
TOTAL UNITS DEMOLISHED/LOST FY TO DATE: 6 (See Attached List)
TOTAL NET UNITS FY TO DATE: -2
FY 2007-08 FY 2008-09
Total New Dwelling Units: 56 Total New Dwelling Units: 20
Total Demolished Units: 66 Total Demolished Units: 19
Net Units: - 10 Net Units: 1
3
Dwelling Units Demolished/Lost as of February, 2010
ADDRESS TYPE PERMIT DATE PERMIT NO. NO. OF UNIT
420 29th Street Single Family House 7/6/09 B09-217 1
52 8th Street Single Family House 10/21/09 B09-338 1
2806 The Strand Single Family House 12/8/09 B09-410 1
332 30th Street Single Family House 2/4/10 B10-47 1
1918 Manhattan Avenue Single Family House 2/9/10 B10-48 1
1929 Manhattan Avenue Single Family House 2/23/10 B10-69 1
Total Units Demolished 6
4
March 15, 2010
HONORABLE MAYOR and MEMBERS of Regular Meeting of
HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL March 23, 2010
ACTIVITY REPORT
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT - PLANNING DIVISION
FEBRUARY, 2010
STAFF REPORT PREPARED
SUBJECT THIS MONTH THIS
MONTH
LAST FY
FY TO
DATE
LAST FY
TO DATE
APPEAL / RECONSIDERATION 0 0 1 5
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (C.U.P.) - CONDOMINIUMS 0 0 1 1
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (C.U.P.) - COMMERCIAL 2 0 3 5
C.U.P./PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT 0 0 4 5
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT MODIFICATION/REVOCATION 0 0 0 2
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/MAP EXTENSION 1 0 5 1
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 0 0 0 1
FINAL MAP 0 0 0 6
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 0 0 1 0
HEIGHT LIMIT EXCEPTION 0 0 0 0
LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT 0 0 0 0
NONCONFORMING REMODEL 0 0 0 0
PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN 0 0 4 2
PARKING PLAN 1 0 5 0
SPECIAL STUDY 0 0 0 0
VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 0 0 0 0
TEXT AMENDMENT 0 3 8 17
TRANSIT 0 0 1 0
VARIANCE 0 0 1 1
ZONE CHANGE 0 0 0 0
MISCELLANEOUS 7 4 40 37
TOTAL REPORTS PREPARED 11 7 74 83
NOTE: A staff report may be written for one or more of the items listed above, but it will be
listed and counted only once.
Easy Reader
Run Date: April 8, 2010 DISPLAY
Acct: 7010-2110
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach shall hold a public
hearing on Tuesday, April 20, 2010, to consider the following:
1. Parking Plan for a 59,000 + square foot building containing an automated switching facility and office
uses. The proposal is to allocate 15 spaces for the 39,305 square foot first floor use in recognition of its
use for automated equipment purposes, and to allocate 49 spaces to satisfy parking requirements for
commercial uses on the 19,508 square foot second floor, provided that any excess square footage on the
second floor will be segregated as unused /unoccupied, storage or similar purposes that have no parking
demand, at 102 Pacific Coast Highway (Verizon California, Inc.) and 911 1st Street (adjacent parking lot
under separate ownership) (continued from the February 16 and March 16, 2010 meetings).
2. Conditional Use Permit amendment for on-sale general alcoholic beverages and live entertainment in
conjunction with an existing restaurant, to allow extended hours of operation and amending conditions
relating to food sales, alcoholic beverage prices, admission charges and number of televisions. The
requested changes in hours are from a current closing on Thursday through Saturday nights and holidays
of 1:00 a.m. the following morning to 1:30 a.m. the following morning; and from a current 12:00 midnight
closing on Sunday through Wednesday nights to 1:00 a.m. the following morning, Hours for live
entertainment are proposed to change from a current closing on Thursday through Saturday nights and
holidays of 12:30 a.m. the following morning to 1:00 a.m. the following morning; and change from no live
entertainment on Sunday through Wednesday nights to allowing live entertainment until 12:30 a.m. the
following morning at 22 Pier Avenue (Watermans).
3. Conditional Use Permit to allow youth activities ancillary to an adjacent church (Hope Chapel located at
2420 Pacific Coast Highway) and public auditorium use, with a maximum capacity of 300 people with
limited hours and operations, within a 29,100 square foot building (the former “Albertsons” grocery store at
2510 Pacific Coast Highway), and a Parking Plan to allow less than required parking based on shared
parking with parking lots at 926 Artesia Boulevard and 2200 - 2512 Pacific Coast Highway.
SAID PUBLIC HEARING shall be held at 7:00 P.M., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard in the
City Council Chambers, City Hall, 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254.
ANY AND ALL PERSONS interested are invited to participate and speak at this hearing at the above time and
place. For inclusion in the agenda packet to be distributed, written comments of interested parties should be
submitted to the Community Development Department, Planning Division, in care of City Hall at 1315 Valley
Drive, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 prior to Thursday, April 15, 2010, at 12:00 noon. All written testimony by
any interested party will be accepted prior to or at the scheduled time on the agenda for the matter.
IF YOU CHALLENGE the above matter(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or
someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to
the Community Development Department, Planning Division, at, or prior to, the public hearing.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, please contact the Community Development Department, Planning Division,
at (310) 318-0242 or fax to (310) 937-6235. The Department is open from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday
through Thursday. Please contact a staff planner to discuss any project on the Planning Commission agenda.
A copy of the staff report(s) in the Planning Commission packet will be available for public review at the end of
the business day on Thursday, April 15, 2010, at the Hermosa Beach Police Department, Public Library, and,
on the City’s web site at www.hermosabch.org. Relevant Municipal Code sections are also available on the
web site.
Ken Robertson, Director
Community Development Department
f:95\cclerk\legads\display\2010\planning\pc04-20-10