HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-05-18 PC AGENDAAGENDA
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
1315 VALLEY DRIVE
HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254
May 18, 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 on State mandates linking land use and transportation policies to reduction of
greenhouse gas emission: SB375 and related issues - Wally Siembab, South Bay Cities
Council of Governments.
Section I
Consent Calendar
4. Approval of the April 20, 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, March 16 and April 20, 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.
7. CUP 10-6 / PARK 10-3 -- Conditional Use Permit Amendment to reduce motor vehicle repair
services to one service bay for a ‘smog check’ business and a Parking Plan to allow less than
required parking and shared parking, in connection with a 2,572 square foot expansion of an
existing retail business (E.T. Surf) into space vacated by motor vehicle repair businesses, at 900-
904 Aviation Boulevard. Parking will also be shared with businesses at 908-950 Aviation
Boulevard.
Staff Recommended Action: To adopt the resolution approving a Conditional Use Permit
Amendment and Parking Plan.
8. PDP 10-6 -- Precise Development Plan to construct a 3,209 square foot detached second unit in
the R-2B zone at 583 Prospect Avenue.
Staff Recommended Action: To adopt the resolution approving the Precise Development Plan.
2
9. TEXT 10-4 -- Text amendment pertaining to outdoor seating in conjunction with snack shops,
restaurants, food and beverage markets, supermarkets, bakeries and similar establishments,
including allowing limited outdoor seating by right with either no parking or reduced parking
requirements when located on private property.
Staff Recommended Action: To direct staff to return with a Text Amendment to allow limited
outdoor dining on private property with an administrative permit subject to standards.
Section III
10. Staff Items
a. Tentative future Planning Commission agenda.
b. Community Development Department activity reports of March, 2010.
11. Commissioner Items
12. Adjournment
3
Background
In order to achieve the greenhouse gas reduction
goals set out in California Assembly Bill 32: The
Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32), SB
375 focuses on reducing vehicle miles traveled
(VMT) and urban sprawl. AB 32 was the nation’s
first law to limit greenhouse gas emissions
and SB 375 was enacted thereafter to more
specifically address the transportation and land
use components of greenhouse gas emissions.
Through the implementation of regional SCS plans
by 2020, the goal of SB 375 is to see a significant
decrease in greenhouse gas emissions for the
environment and an increase in quality of life for
residents.
How does SB 375 Relate to SCAG?
SB 375 requires SCAG to direct the development
of the Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS)
for the region. Alternatively, if the GHG emissions
reduction targets cannot be met through the SCS,
an Alternative Planning Strategy (APS) may be
developed showing how those targets would
be achieved through alternative development
patterns, infrastructure, or additional
transportation measures or policies. Additionally,
unique to the SCAG region, is the option for
subregions to create their own SCS or APS.
There are two mutually important facets to the SB
375 legislation: reducing VMT and encouraging
more compact, complete, and efficient
communities for the future.
What is required in a Sustainable
Communities Strategy (SCS)?
The SCS, as defined in SB 375, is a newly required
element of the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP).
After receiving regional targets in 2010, SCAG will
begin to develop the SCS and create a plan for
meeting the emissions reduction targets by 2020
and 2035 respectively.
The new SCS will integrate planning elements
of transportation, land use, and housing with
greenhouse gas reduction targets. This process
will require meaningful collaboration and
negotiation with local governments and other
stakeholders in the region, to ensure a well-
balanced SCS is developed and that all aspects of
transportation alternatives have been considered
and properly vetted.
Development of the SCS is subject to an extensive
public review process. Outreach and public
participation will play a major part in the creation
of the final SCS document; input and suggestions
will be considered.
Next Steps
To date, SCAG has hosted workshops and
conducted focused stakeholder discussions
around the region to discuss SB 375 and its
impact to the RTP process. Additionally, SCAG
participates on the Regional Targets Advisory
Committee (RTAC), which is responsible for
recommending factors and methodology to
be considered by CARB in setting the regional
emissions reduction targets.
In the near term, SCAG will gather input from
members and stakeholders regarding proposed
approaches and methodologies for recommending
the 2020 regional reduction targets. In addition,
SCAG will continue to conduct outreach to
encourage the active participation of a broad
range of stakeholder groups in the planning
process.
For more information please visit the SCAG
Web site at: www.scag.ca.gov/sb375 or contact
Matt Horton at (213) 236-1980.
Senate Bill 375 FaCtSHeet
Southern California aSSoCiation of GovernmentS
WHAt iS SB 375?
SB 375 (Steinberg) is California state legislation that became law effective January 1, 2009. It prompts California regions to work together to reduce greenhouse
gas (GHG) emissions from cars and light trucks. This new law would achieve this objective by requiring integration of planning processes for transportation,
land-use and housing. The plans emerging from this process will lead to more efficient communities that provide residents with alternatives to using single
occupant vehicles. SB 375 requires the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to develop regional reduction targets for automobiles and light trucks GHG
emissions. The regions, in turn, are tasked with creating “sustainable communities strategy,” (SCS) which combine transportation and land-use elements in
order to achieve the emissions reduction target, if feasible. SB 375 also offers local governments regulatory and other incentives to encourage more compact
new development and transportation alternatives.
818 West Seventh Street, 12th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90017
Tel: (213) 236-1800 | Fax: (213) 236-1825 | www.scag.ca.gov
Resolving Regional Challenges
#active Jobs 2 Fact Sheets
SB 375 Quick FactS
HigHligHts
Creation of regional targets for greenhouse gas `
emissions reduction tied to land use
A requirement that regional transportation `
planning agencies create a plan to meet targets
A requirement that regional transportation `
funding decisions be consistent with the new
plan
Tying together regional housing and `
transportation planning efforts
New CEQA exemptions and streamlining for `
projects that conform to the new regional plans
Major Milestones
Jan. ‘09 - SB 375 becomes law `
Jan. ‘09 - RTAC established `
Sep. ’09 - RTAC recommends regional targets `
and methodologies
Sep. ‘10 - CARB issues final regional targets `
Nov. ‘11 - Release draft RTP/SCS for public review `
Apr. ‘12 - Regional Council adopts RTP/SCS `
sCag region requireMents/
goals
Prepare framework guidelines for subregional `
SCS/APS development.
Develop, adopt and implement a public `
participation process involving outreach to
stakeholders; consultation with congestion
management agencies, transportation
agencies, and transportation commissions; and
public workshops and hearings.
Conduct informational meetings in each `
county within the region for local elected
officials (members of the board of supervisors
and city councils), to present the draft SCS
or APS, and solicit and consider input and
recommendations.
Prepare, circulate for review, and adopt an `
SCS as part of RTP (meeting the GHG reduction
target if feasible to do so).
If unable to meet target with SCS, prepare, `
circulate for review, and adopt an APS that is
separate from the RTP.
Integrate planning processes, in particular `
assuring that the RHNA is consistent with SCS.
i
SCAG’s Mission:
Under the guidance of the Regional Council and in
collaboration with our partners, our mission is to
facilitate a forum to develop and foster the realization
of regional plans that improve the quality of life for
Southern Californians.
Background
SB 375 (Chapters 728, Statutes of 2008) directs the California Air Resources
Board to set regional targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The
new law builds on the existing framework of regional planning to tie together
the regional allocation of housing needs and regional transportation planning
in an effort to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from motor vehicle
trips. Aligning these regional plans is intended to help California achieve
GHG reduction goals for cars and light trucks under AB 32, the state’s
landmark climate change legislation. The law establishes a collaborative
process between regional and state agencies to set regional GHG reduction
targets, strengthens several existing requirements for public involvement in
regional planning, and provides CEQA incentives for development projects
that are consistent with a regional plan that meets those targets. Cities and
counties maintain their existing authority over local planning and land use
decisions.
Major Components of SB 375
The regional transportation planning process is used to achieve 1.
reductions in greenhouse gas emissions consistent with AB 32’s goals;
California Environmental Quality Act incentives are offered to encourage 2.
projects that are consistent with a regional plan that achieves greenhouse
gas emission reductions; and
The regional housing needs allocation process is coordinated with the 3.
regional transportation process.
How Will SB 375 Work?
The new law sets up a collaborative process between metropolitan
planning organizations (MPOs) and the ARB to establish greenhouse
gas emissions targets for each region in the state. A Regional Targets
Advisory Committee which includes city and county officials is advising
ARB on the targets.
Each MPO is required to include a “Sustainable Communities Strategy”
in the regional transportation plan that demonstrates how the region
will meet the greenhouse gas emission targets. If the SCS falls short of
meeting the targets, the region must prepare an “alternative planning
strategy” that, if implemented, would meet the targets.
Decisions related to the allocation of transportation funding must be
consistent with the Sustainable Communities Strategy.
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) streamlining incentives are
created for projects that are consistent with the regional Sustainable
Communities Strategy (or the alternative planning strategy if one is
required.)
Housing element law is changed to synchronize the schedule and
develop common land use assumptions for regional housing and
transportation planning.
Existing requirements are strengthened for input by the public and local
officials into the development and review of MPO plans.
FACT SHEET
SCAG’s Mission:
Leadership, Vision and Progress, which promote
economic growth, personal well-being and livable
communities for all Southern Californians.
Southern California aSSoCiation of GovernmentS
CAliForniA’S SuSTAinABlE CoMMuniTiES And CliMATE ProTECTion ACT (SB 375)
California’s Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act (SB 375) is the nation’s first law to control greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) by curbing
sprawl. For California to reach its greenhouse gas reduction goals, we must address how our communities grow. This law directs the ARB to set greenhouse
gas reduction targets for regions of the state and work with California’s 18 metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) to align their transportation, housing,
and regional land-use plans with greenhouse gas reductions in mind.
818 West Seventh Street, 12th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90017
Tel: (213) 236-1800 | Fax: (213) 236-1825 | www.scag.ca.gov
Active Jobs 2 Fact Sheets
Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS)
The sustainable communities’ strategy is a growth strategy for the region
which, in combination with transportation policies and programs, strives
to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and, if it is feasible, help meet Air
Resources Board (ARB’s) targets for the region.
Specifically, a Sustainable Communities Strategy will over the course of the
Regional Transportation Plan (RTP):
Identify the general location of uses, residential densities, and building
intensities within the region;
Identify areas within the region over the 20 plus years of the RTP planning
period sufficient to house all the population of the region,
Identify areas within the region sufficient to house an eight-year
projection of the regional housing need for the region;
Identify a transportation network to service the transportation needs of
the region;
Gather and consider information regarding resource areas and farmland
in the region;
Set forth a forecasted development pattern, which, when integrated
with the transportation network, and other transportation measures and
policies, will reduce greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles and
light trucks; and
Quantify the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions projected to be
achieved by the SCS.
The SCS development pattern will need to comply with federal law, which
requires that any pattern be based upon “current planning assumptions”
that include the information in local general plans and sphere of influence
boundaries.
The SCS will need to be financially constrained, meaning any transportation
project in the RTP to address GHG reductions must be within the 20 year
estimate of funds available. If the sustainable communities’ strategy will not
achieve the region’s greenhouse gas reduction target, the region must also
prepare a separate document called the “Alternative Planning Strategy.”
Projects consistent with this strategy also qualify for CEQA incentives.
For more information, please visit the SCAG Web Site at: www.scag.ca.gov/
SB 375 or contact Public Affairs Officer Matt Horton at (213) 236-1980.
2
SCAG’S APProACH To iMPlEMEnTinG
overview
The SCAG region will develop and finalize a Sustainable Communities
Strategy (SCS) as part of the 2012 Regional Transportation Plan. This strategy
will emerge through extensive dialogue and collaboration involving SCAG,
its 14 subregions, member jurisdictions, County Transportation Commissions
(CTCs), and a variety of other stakeholders and participants including the
general public. Through this process, SCAG is striving to build partnerships
and collaboration so that the completed regional SCS embodies the region’s
collective vision for its future.
SCAG has established several goals for this process.
Establish and meet a regional GHG emission reduction target for cars 1.
and light trucks through the SCS.
Integrate SCAG’s planning processes for transportation, growth, land 2.
use/housing, and the environment.
Provide an interactive and participatory outreach process for all 3.
stakeholders.
Develop strategies through the SCS that incorporate and are respectful 4.
of local and sub-regional priorities, plans, and projects.
Comply with the provisions of SB 375.5.
Sustainable Communities Strategy development
The regional SCS will be composed of a combination of regional and
subregional strategies. In order to accomplish this, SCAG will pursue
enhancements to existing processes, data and methodologies used
for growth forecasting and Regional Transportation Plan development.
These improvements include new modeling tools, updated data sets
particularly for general plans, additional options for public input based
around interactive workshops and newly established subregional strategy
development procedures.
outreach Process
The purpose of the outreach program is to engage the public in the
SCS planning process in order to secure broad support for the actions
necessary to reduce GHG emissions from land use and transportation.
Outreach and public education programs are necessary to promote not
only regional action but individual behaviors that will help reduce GHG
emissions and protect quality of life for the future. SCAG will coordinate
public engagement processes throughout the region, supporting public
outreach efforts as integral elements in local, county and subregional SCS
planning efforts.
The outreach process outlined here will fulfill the legal requirements of SB
375, and is intended to inform and educate all interested stakeholders about
the benefits of integrated planning, to lower Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)
and reduce GHG emissions.
SCAG’s Mission:
Leadership, Vision and Progress, which promote
economic growth, personal well-being and livable
communities for all Southern Californians.
Southern California aSSoCiation of GovernmentS
CAliForniA’S SuSTAinABlE CoMMuniTiES And CliMATE ProTECTion ACT (SB 375)
818 West Seventh Street, 12th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90017
Tel: (213) 236-1800 | Fax: (213) 236-1825 | www.scag.ca.gov
Active Jobs 2 Fact Sheets
Technical outreach
At the outset of the process to develop GHG and VMT reduction targets,
SCAG will engage the Counties, Cities, COGs and CTCs in a series of
workshops, briefings and one-on-one interviews designed to update
the baseline 2008 growth projections as well as vet the regional and
subregional target recommendations of the Regional Targets Advisory
Committee (RTAC).
Scenario Planning (Oct ’09 – Jan ’10)
SCAG will convene workshops that integrate broad stakeholder interests to
define SCS elements, and gauge interest and commitment from the region.
The workshops will focus on developing a regional target recommendation
based on achievable land use, policy and cost effective strategies
Strategy Development and Policy Consensus (June ‘10 to Dec ‘11)
The public will be provided with a clear understanding of the SCS issues
and policy choices at workshops and other sessions designed to seek
commitment on specific strategy elements to be included in the Draft
2012 RTP/SCS. There will be three workshops per county where urban
simulation modeling will be used to create a visual representation of SCS.
Tools & Methodolgies
SCAG will utilize a variety of interactive tools to assist in encouraging and
facilitating stakeholder participation. Tools available for use throughout the
process include:
Web site -- a dynamic interactive web portal for stakeholders to engage
in the process and receive current information on project materials and
meeting schedules.
Turning Point Software – real time electronic voting tools to engage
stakeholders in preference surveys that can be used in consideration
of land use, building types and policy initiatives.
Major Milestones
For more information, please visit the SCAG Web site at: www.scag.ca.gov/
sb375 or contact Public Affairs Officer Matt Horton at (213) 236-1980.
Jan 2009 - SB 375 becomes law
Jan 2009 -RTAC established
Sept 2009 -RTAC recommends regional targets and methodologies to CARB
Sept 2010 - CARB issues final regional targets
Nov 2011 - SCAG Releases draft RTP/SCS for public review
April 2012 -Regional Council adopts RTP/SCS
3
FAQS on GEnErAl PlAn ConSiSTEnCY, rHnA And CEQA
General Plan Consistency
Does SB 375 require our city or county to amend its general plan to
conform to the SCS or APS?
The California State Association of Counties and the League of California
Cities supported SB375 with the understanding that it favors giving strong
consideration to existing local plans. This is evidenced by language in
the law that states “[an SCS is] subject to the requirements of Part 450
of Title 23 of, and Part 93 of Title 40 of, the Code of Federal Regulations,
including the requirement to utilize the most recent planning assumptions
considering local general plans and other factors.” It may be difficult,
however, for an SCS to meet greenhouse gas targets while reflecting only
the existing General Plans because many General Plans call for extensive
amounts of relatively low density development or extensive underutilized
commercial strips.
regional Housing needs
Does the SCS have to be consistent with the existing general plans
of cities and counties within the region?
SB375 does not require any general plan amendments. However, the law
connects, for the first time, the RTP with the Regional Housing Needs
Allocation (RHNA) that guides preparation of the city or county housing
element. If the SCS integrates a housing component that identifies the
general locations of housing opportunity sites, then the housing element
would arguably be required to reflect those sites. This could require
amendments to a General Plan. In addition, any changes to a plan’s housing
element may necessitate changes to other elements since all elements of a
General Plan must be internally consistent.
CEQA
Can we begin using the statutory exemption and environmental
assessment approaches described in SB375 (Public Resources
Code [PRC] Section 21155 et seq.)?
No. Those provisions require a determination that the proposed transit
riority project is consistent with the SCS as part of the adopted RTP
or the separately adopted APS. The first of the RTPs subject to SB 375
requirements are not expected to be adopted until sometime in 2011.
SCAG’s Mission:
Leadership, Vision and Progress, which promote
economic growth, personal well-being and livable
communities for all Southern Californians.
Southern California aSSoCiation of GovernmentS
CAliForniA’S SuSTAinABlE CoMMuniTiES And CliMATE ProTECTion ACT (SB 375)
818 West Seventh Street, 12th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90017
Tel: (213) 236-1800 | Fax: (213) 236-1825 | www.scag.ca.gov
Active Jobs 2 Fact Sheets
Must a proposed transit priority project be consistent with the
general plan and zoning of its city or county in order to qualify for a
statutory CEQA exemption under PRC Section 21155.1?
The CEQA provisions are based on a project’s consistency with the adopted
SCS or APS, not on its consistency with the adopted city general plan or
zoning. So a project that is inconsistent with zoning and the relevant GP
could still qualify for the exemption. However, as a practical matter, such
projects would have to seek amendments to the city/county general plan
and zoning requirements. In the absence of those amendments, the city
would be obligated to deny a project that is inconsistent with its general
plan and zoning.
Who gets to determine whether a site is eligible for the statutory
infill exemption under PRC Section 21155.1?
The exemption is a statutory exemption, so if the project qualifies, then
the city or county MUST apply the exemption. However, the city or county
alone is empowered to determine whether the proposal meets all of the
requirements for exemption set out in PRC Sections 21155 and 21155.1,
including the project’s consistency with the SCS or APS. It could not
use general plan or zoning inconsistency to disqualify a project from the
exemption, unless the inconsistency relates to wildland fire hazard, seismic
risk, or landslide and flooding provisions that act to mitigate project risks.
When does a city or county use a Sustainable Communities
Environmental Assessment (SCEA) or an Environmental Impact
Report (EIR), or rely on the general plan’s EIR?
A city or county can choose which of these three makes the most sense in
a given situation based on the project’s circumstances. If the project will
require a GPA and/or rezoning (and is consistent with the SCS/APS), then
it may be that the SCEA/EIR is the best route since the general plan EIR
would not apply in that situation.
For more information, please visit the SCAG Web Site at:
www.scag.ca.gov/sb375 or contact Public Affairs Officer Matt Horton at
(213) 236-1980.
California’s Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act aligns three major programs that address growth patterns in California: regional transportation
plans, regional housing allocations, and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). With a Sustainable Communities Strategy in place, local governments
will be able to utilize a new CEQA exemption for “Transit Priority Projects” and take advantage of additional CEQA streamlining provisions. dditionally, local
agencies must amend their housing elements to be consistent with these new strategies. The following questions and answers address portions of the new
law that are relatively clear. The information in this briefing paper is not intended to be legal advice. It is based on Frequently Asked Questions about SB 375
prepared by Terry Rivasplata, Technical Director at ICF Jones & Stokes. Terry can be contacted at (916) 737-3000 or Arivasplata@icfi.com.
4
Climate Change and the Future of Southern CaliforniaPeak Oil and Climate Change: Scenarios and ImplicationsBryn DavidsonPeak oil and climate change are unprecedented global challenges that will bring about fundamental changes to both our cities and regions, and the global economy. In combination, these two forces will drive a decades-long transition away from the cheap, but carbon intensive, fossil fuels that have become the backbone of our modern society. In response to these two forces, we need to focus on strategies which reduce both emissions and oil dependence. These high-priority actions will include improving the energy productivity of our local economies, improving the food and shelter security of our most vulnerable populations, and making large investments in cleaner and more secure sources of energy. Before we can start this, however, we need a new way to plan. We need to break away from the current practice of extrapolating past trends, while at the same time accounting for the potentially massive impacts, and equally large uncertainty, surrounding both peak oil and climate change.One potentially powerful way to move forward is through scenario-based planning. Scenarios allow us to bundle together sets of assumptions about the impacts of peak oil and climate change and can help bridge differences of Municipal and regional planning in the context of the global energy transition5
Essay Bryn Davidson2323scientific or political opinion. Scenarios can help us prepare for energy, economic, and climate shocks while helping define a positive path towards a post-carbon future.Through scenario-based planning we can test the potential value of our long term investments – in infrastructure, land use plans, or policy – in different futures defined by energy and emissions constraints. By placing these plausible futures side-by-side, and asking the key question, “which investments and actions best retain their value across all potential futures?” we can create more resilient cities, while avoiding investments in ‘stranded assets’.What follows is an outline of scenarios incorporating both peak oil and climate change into a broader vision of the ‘global energy transition’, and an example of using scenarios to plan for truck traffic and road capacity in Southern California and beyond. Energy Transition = Peak Oil + Climate ChangeIn 2005-06 with the one-two punch of Hurricane Katrina and Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth having heightened public focus on climate change, there was an attentive global audience listening when the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released their 2007 assessment that climate change was, in fact, real and human activity was responsible for it. Independent of any ensuing controversy over the technical aspects of climate change, the years since 2005 have seen a broad change in the level of global interest in climate policy, and it now seems that climate concerns have earned an indelible place in our planning strategies. Enter peak oil. Like climate change, there have been groups of professionals talking about ‘peak oil’ – the peaking and permanent decline of global oil production1 – for decades, but with turbulent gas prices, and global oil supplies entering an apparent plateau, the abstract idea has suddenly become very real. Peak Oil vs. Climate ChangeWhat has emerged, then, is a situation where the market’s responses to rising energy prices (and by extension, peak oil) have been both good and bad in terms of climate change. On one hand, the recent dramatic rise in gas prices led to a dramatic shift in the sale of fuel efficient cars and even reversed the nearly 30 year growth trend in highway travel. Likewise, the rising tide of energy prices has spurred a dramatic surge of investment in alternative fuels and renewable energy. On the other hand, if you are concerned about climate change or environmental protection, many potential responses to peak oil can be seen as serious threats.Rising energy prices are bound to brush away political opposition to drilling offshore and in protected areas.2 Non-conventional fuels from tar sands, shale, and coal will attract billions in investment while significantly increasing the carbon intensity of our fuel supply.3 In many places food will become fuel, and rainforests will continue to be ploughed under for fuel crops. 6
Climate Change and the Future of Southern CaliforniaPeak Oil and Climate Change: Scenarios and Implications24Because of these threats, many climate activists see peak oil as a distraction at best, and at worst, an industry agenda aimed at removing all barriers to extraction.To ignore or marginalize peak oil, however, is to ignore the potentially massive impact that rising energy prices and shortages could have on our economy, on our food and housing supply, and on global stability. As witnessed by the powerful impact of rising gas prices, the economic force of peak oil has the potential to dwarf the near term local impacts of climate change and self-imposed climate legislation.When looking at climate policy from a peak oil context, many climate mitigation strategies such as forestry-based offsets, atmospheric carbon capture, and emissions trading are of relatively little value because they do nothing to reduce the oil dependence of our local economies and cities. If, collectively, we focus all of our climate mitigation dollars on tree planting offsets (or are hoping that depleting natural gas supplies will replace coal or oil) then we are leaving our economies, cities, food systems, and homes vulnerable to the impacts of peak oil and peak natural gas.Peak Oil + Climate Change: Finding Common GroundIn the end, climate change may be a much larger multi-generational threat, but in the near term the immediate and tangible impact of peak oil will likely demand a much sharper focus on transportation and oil-dependence than a climate-only approach would suggest. In terms of priorities, we will need to focus on the oil dependence of the regional economy and workforce, and the oil dependence of core community services such as medical, police, and fire services as well as food and shelter security for the most vulnerable populations.For this reason, we must prioritize those actions which find common ground between peak oil and climate change; strategies which reduce both emissions and oil dependence.This is not to say that emissions trading will not be a necessary tool or that we will not need some unconventional oil or natural gas, but rather that we 7
Essay Bryn Davidson2525need to find common ground and aggressively prioritize those strategies which address both peak oil and climate change. Taken in the context of the global energy transition, aggressive action on climate change is no longer an economic burden, but rather the core of a strategy that will make both the nation’s and region’s economy more competitive in a future defined by peak oil and carbon constraints.Peak Oil: What We KnowWhile climate change has garnered much attention in both public and government forums, peak oil has, thus far, been largely relegated to online communities and niche professional discussion by organizations like the Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas (ASPO).This dearth of public discussion has occurred even while the topic was being actively studied by mainstream institutions like the U.S. Department of Energy,4 the U.S. Government Accountability Office5 and several branches of the U.S. military.6What follows then, is a brief recap of some of the key salient points in the peak oil dialogue – an attempt to separate ‘what we know’ from ‘what we believe’ and to create a foundation from which scenarios integrating peak oil and climate change can be built.Peak Oil: Aging Giant FieldsWhile it has been clearly observed that nearly all oil fields go through a cycle of growth, peaking, and then decline (see Figure 1 for three examples), and that a majority of oil producing nations have already gone through the same peaking experience, there has been significant debate over the timing and potential impact of global peak oil.Before getting into the contentious points, however, it is helpful to capture some of the key issues around which there is a broader consensus. Chief among these is the fact that the major ‘super-giant’ oil fields – the backbone of an energy system that has been supplying us for generations – are now very old, strained, and many of the largest fields in the system have started into what is likely to be a permanent and potentially rapid decline.7 Figure 1 What peaking looks likeOil production profiles for three super-giant oil fields19813500k0200019701974140k02000194019871600k019971969Prudhoe Bay, AlaskaSlaughter, TexasSamotlor, RussiaProduction curves adapted from a presentation by investment banker, and author of “Twilight in the Desert”, Matt Simmons8
Climate Change and the Future of Southern CaliforniaPeak Oil and Climate Change: Scenarios and Implications26Figure 219300204060Gb / a1950 1970 1990Today2030 2050 ~1960: Global ‘Peak Discovery’ ~1980: We start using more oil than we find Today: Using much more oil than we’re findingGlobal Oil Discovery & Production “The Growing Gap”The growing gap between discovery and production}Source: Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas (ASPO)Global Oil DiscoveryGlobal Oil ProductionPeak Oil: Peak DiscoveryAt the same time, while our consumption of oil has been growing, we have been discovering fewer and fewer giant oil fields.Globally ‘peak discovery’ (the heyday of global oil drilling) occurred in the 1960s with the discovery of Saudi Arabia’s super giant fields. Since this point of peak discovery, the rate at which we have been finding new oil has been declining steadily. Today, after nearly fifty years of declining discoveries, we would need to find several new fields the size of Saudi Arabia’s to even have a chance of reversing this trend. While it is likely that there will be a number of new discoveries forthcoming (in the arctic, in ultra deep water, or somewhere else) it is highly unlikely that any amount of investment or drilling will result in sufficiently enormous finds to reverse the fifty year trend.8 Non-Conventional OilWhile no new conventional super-giant oil fields have been discovered in recent decades, there has been great discussion about ‘Saudi sized’ oil reserves in North America in the form of non-conventional oils, specifically in Canada’s tar sands9 and oil shales in the U.S. The difference between ‘conventional’ and ‘non-conventional’ oil is important, however, because non-conventional oil is much harder to get out of the ground and often requires the consumption of large amounts of either water, natural gas, or electricity to extract crude from either sand or stones.10 Because of these potential limits to the production of non-conventional oil, it is important to distinguish between the size of ‘reserves’ – which are often quoted in articles and editorials as being ‘Saudi sized’ – and the actual potential flows of oil which are significantly smaller than the giant reserve numbers might suggest.Peak Oil: What We Know is UncertainThe potential scope of a peak oil driven energy shock has been widely debated and opinions run the gamut from ‘nothing to worry about’ to ‘we are facing the collapse of the globalized economy’. 9
Essay Bryn Davidson2727Figure 3 Reported OPEC Oil Reserves: Paper Barrels? World oil data is often of poor quality or susceptible to political manipulationSource: US EIA. 2006 International Energy Outlook198008006004002001000billion barrels1985 1990 1995 2000 2005In the mid 80s a new OPEC rule tied each nation’s production quota to the size of their reported reserves.Soon thereafter OPEC reserve estimates from each member country were nearly doubled.Depending on what assumptions you make, and whose data you trust, you could potentially arrive at either conclusion, though, as is usually the case, the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle.Much of the uncertainty surrounding peak oil stems from the fact that much of the data available is either of poor quality or has been deliberately manipulated. OPEC oil reserves, for instance, were almost instantly doubled in the 80s after a new rule was implemented that tied each country’s quota to the size of their published reserves (see Figure 3). Given the suspect nature of this reserves jump,11 many early peak proponents believe that actual OPEC reserves might be substantially smaller than the numbers quoted by many mainstream energy groups and energy reporters. In the realm of future projections, and dates for global peak oil, the opinions vary widely as well. On one hand there are early peak proponents – such as those from ASPO12 – who are predicting a near term peak followed by a rapid decline. On the other hand there are those who believe peaking will happen later as part of a long sustained plateau.An evolving consensus among the former group (a position reinforced by peer reviewed academic studies,13 near term ‘mega-projects’ forecasts,14 15 recent world events, and cautionary statements from the International Energy Agency16) is for a peak or plateau running from 2005 to around 2012, and followed by a later peak in global natural gas production.Figure 4 shows the results of a peer-reviewed analysis of the world’s super giant oil fields.17 From this study, the predicted date for peak oil ranges between ~ 2008 and ~ 2018, with rapid declines occurring post peak. While there are still some economic and industry groups who dispute this type of near term projection, we are still in a position of needing to incorporate the potentially profound impacts of peak oil driven energy scarcity, and climate change driven policy, into the models used to plan our cities and regions. To do this, in the most responsible way possible, we need to move beyond the linear planning approach that has guided past development, and instead talk about different scenarios for the future. 10
Climate Change and the Future of Southern CaliforniaPeak Oil and Climate Change: Scenarios and Implications28Figure 419456841020Million Bbl / Day1965 19851925 2005 2025 2045Peering Ahead: Global Peak Oil ScenariosA Peer-Reviewed Analysis by Fredrik Robelius, University of UppsalaPAST FUTUREHistoric Global Oil ProductionA Range of Estimates for Future Oil Production (Robelius)Scenarios: Exploring Plausible FuturesThose cities which are affected by simultaneous energy and climate crises could plausibly experience a ‘major shock transition’ defined by several decades of severe economic turbulence, widespread migration and immigration, government rationing programs, and food and housing shocks which put vulnerable populations at risk.By contrast, if oil depletion and climate impacts are less severe, then a proactive region might undergo a largely market-driven, and relatively ‘high tech’ transition away from carbon intensive fuels.These two scenarios, named ‘Lean and Local’ and ‘Techno-Markets’ respectively are contrasted with the ‘Past Trends’ scenario which embodies many of the assumptions still used by most planning agencies today.Figure 5 shows a diagram which maps out these three scenarios as defined by the combined impacts of peak oil and climate change. Potential climate shocks range from minor (e.g. warmer weather) to major (e.g. massive sea level rise). Potential peak oil shocks range from minor (e.g. rising prices) to major (e.g. the collapse of globalized trade). Figure 5 Peak Oil + Climate Change: Combined Impacts & ScenariosDefining three plausible scenarios encompassing the individual and combined impacts of peak oil and climate changeMajorPeak OilShockModeratePeak OilShockPeak Oil ImpactsClimate Change ImpactsMinorPeak Oil ShockMinorClimateShockModerateClimateShockScenario 2:‘Techno-Markets’Scenario 1:‘Past Trends’Scenario 3:‘Lean & Local’MajorClimateShock2008 Dynamic Cities Project 11
Essay Bryn Davidson2929The key distinction between ‘Techno-Markets’ and ‘Lean and Local’ is the breakdown of the globalized economy (from peak oil, climate change, or other factors) which limits the uptake of new green technologies, and shifts the emphasis from global markets to government and local community action.For a narrative outline of the ‘Techno-Markets’ and ‘Lean and Local’ scenarios (see Figure 6).Scenarios: Gaming the FutureWith these three narrative scenarios in place it becomes possible to create relatively transparent numerical models – using bundles of assumptions from each scenario – to ‘game’ future potential impacts on planning metrics like transportation demand.In the past, planning agencies have predicted future demand for highways and other major infrastructure investments by extrapolating past growth trends into the future. While this “predict and provide” approach may have made sense in the past, it does a very poor job of accounting for a future defined by the unfolding impacts of both peak oil and climate change.An alternative approach, then, is to do a supply-based projection which – in the case of transportation demand forecasts – looks at the future availability of fuels in a future defined by fuel scarcity and carbon constraints. This type of modeling starts with an oil depletion scenario18 (tailored to a specific location like the U.S. or Canada) and then layers in bundles of assumptions about how quickly we can scale up various mitigation strategies. In the case of the ‘Techno-Markets’ scenario the wedges for technological mitigation and adaptation strategies are relatively large (assuming that global trade and credit markets continue to support the uptake of new technologies). By contrast, the ‘Lean and Local’ scenario assumes that technological mitigation and adaptation strategies are impeded by economic difficulties and that community based solutions, government infrastructure spending, and government rationing programs play a larger role.Modeling Future Transportation DemandWith a regionally specific depletion model19 in hand we can begin to layer in the various mitigation strategies that will be implemented to address either peak oil or climate change.The ‘wedges’ for these strategies (including alternative fuels, vehicle efficiency and electrification, among others) illustrate the speed with which each strategy or technology can be brought to market and scaled up.The wedges are based on an amalgamation of various studies and forecasts, but are weighted by scenario. The wedge for vehicle efficiency, for instance, is much larger in the ‘Techno Markets’ scenario than in the ‘Lean and Local’, but both are based on an analysis of how quickly the fleet of vehicles can be turned over as newer, more efficient vehicles gradually replace older ones.12
Climate Change and the Future of Southern CaliforniaPeak Oil and Climate Change: Scenarios and Implications30Figure 62 Scenarios for the Energy Transition (2000-2050)The market, after several years of turbulent transition, responds to energy shocks, carbon caps, and carbon pricing with new green technologies and jobs that scale up quickly.Combined energy, economic, and climate shocks derail both the economy and local concern for climate change.Technological adaptation is limited by the stagnant global economy.Government rationing is common. Local and low tech community-based solutions predominate.Energy prices rise and fall, and rise again (like a roller coaster) leading to turbulent stock markets and inflation. Older industries are forced to shift to new 'green' models in response to higher prices and a growing market demand for energy efficient products and services."Oil dependent" suburban real estate stagnates, while walkable communities with transit options see growing demand and appreciation. Highway and airport expansion projects are halted in favor of infrastructure repair projects and other capital projects that increase the ‘energy productivity’ of the regional economy.Green building standards are mandated for all new construction. Cities with oil dependent economies lose business and population to regions with more resilient economies and reliable water supplies. Governments enact energy, food and housing rationing systems (which stay in place more than a decade).Populations fluctuate wildly as migrants and immigrants seek refuge from places made un-inhabitable by the changing climate, changing economy, and chronic energy shortages. Some communities and suburban housing tracts are abandoned while others re-form around new, primarily local, economies.Farming communities absorb migrant workers, while urban centres pack more people into their existing housing stock. Key PointsNarrativeA turbulent market driven transition “Techno-Markets”1A transition driven by a combination of major shocks“Lean and Local”2Massive government and private sector programs assist with efficiency upgrades to older homes and buildings. Assistance programs help low income families and seniors to transition smoothly. Global markets quickly scale up new energy and environmental technologies.Cap and trade systems regulate large emitters of CO2. Carbon taxes are widely enacted, but in the short term have a relatively small impact when compared to the price impact from peak oil. Communities that invested heavily in transit, density, and efficient buildings transition smoothly to an emerging post-carbon economy.For a decade, many North American cities see the re-emergence of shantytowns and other informal settlements. Low-tech and improvised solutions predominate over high tech ones.For several decades, local economic concerns trump global climate concerns, even with the disappearance of arctic sea ice and rising sea levels. After decades of turbulent transition, new land use patterns, transport systems, and low carbon energy systems re-emerge which support much lower energy and carbon use per capita. As a result, the global economy eventually stabilizes and returns to the task of adapting to the ever-changing climate.13
Essay Bryn Davidson3131Figure 7 illustrates a ‘Techno-Markets’ transition for freight trucking. In this case the depletion model is used to capture the future decline of available diesel fuel while the wedges show bio-fuels, non-conventional oil and natural gas, efficiency, and electrification all scaling up.Figure 7Truck Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)How many freight trucks will be driving in the future? A scenario using the ‘Techno-Markets’ oil depletion model and technology ‘wedges’2. Peak RoadsUnder this scenario, truck VMT peaks around 2010 and declines until 2030, implying that there already exists, today, as much road capacity for freight as will be required for the next 30+ years.1. Cars aren’t the biggest challengeUnlike trucks and planes, personal cars could easily see dramatic gains in fuel efficiency.Our logistics chains and ‘just in time’ delivery systems, by contrast, have a much smaller potential for increased efficiency (a relatively small ‘wedge’). “Past Trends” Scenario Today2008 T e c h no-Markets oil depletion CO2 Neutral Bio-Fuels / Natural GasNon-conventional Fossil Fuels (High CO2)Vehicle Fuel EfficiencyVehicle Electrification‘Demand Destruction’ Reduced demand for long distance products from higher shipping prices, shortages, and a shift to local products‘Demand Reduction’ Goods moved from truck to higher efficiency freight railTotal truck-miles on our highways 20102000 2020203020403. Peak Local (~2025)Given the lengthy time required to scale-up infrastructure responses like rail freight and electrification, under this scenario the period of 2015-2030 is defined by periodic shortages of globalized products and an increasing demand for local products.Past and future truck-miles using fuel from conventional oil2008 Dynamic Cities Project The model shown here is a snapshot of one bundle of assumptions. In the case of California, legislation such as AB 32 might limit the extent to which fuels from ‘non-conventional’ sources like coal, tar sands, or shale might be scaled up – while legislation such as Proposition 10 might weight the natural gas wedge relative to electrification or rail freight.Using this type of modeling, the Dynamic Cities Project20 has run scenarios for trucks, personal cars and airplanes. Unsurprisingly, air travel suffers serious declines across most scenarios, with per-capita air travel down ~30% by 2020 even in the ‘Techno-Markets’ context.Truck travel sees similar declines, whereas, demand for personal cars in the ‘Techno-Markets’ scenario is potentially much more resilient. The significant difference between trucks and personal car travel arises because there is tremendous room for efficiency gains with cars (even using current technology) and the fleet of cars can turn over much more quickly than the truck or airplane fleet. Scenarios: Comparing Plausible FuturesThere is an adage that says ‘when you realize you are in a hole, the first priority is to stop digging’. From a policy and planning point of view, we need to take the same approach and, as a first priority, look at the areas where we are investing millions into projects that might become stranded assets.While the scenarios described here are layered with assumptions, and quickly become complex, they ultimately are used to answer two straight-forward questions:14
Climate Change and the Future of Southern CaliforniaPeak Oil and Climate Change: Scenarios and Implications321. “Is our investment [ in new highway capacity ] the best way to invest millions of dollars, or could that investment become a stranded asset?”2. “Is there a better investment which would retain its value in every scenario? (While reducing both emissions and the oil dependence of the regional economy)” In the case of truck vehicle-miles-traveled (VMT) we can look at three scenarios for the future road space required for trucks in 2020: Under a ‘Past Trends’ scenario truck travel is predicted to rise by as much as 50% (a number suggested by extrapolating the growth from 1980-2005). By contrast, a ‘Techno-Markets’ scenario, which accounts for peak oil and climate impacts coupled with a strong market and technology response, predicts a 10% decline in truck VMT by 2020. A ‘Lean and Local’ scenario – resulting from combined energy, economic, and climate shocks – results in an even steeper 30% decline by 2020.Scenarios: Are We Nearing ‘Peak Roads’?In the two scenarios which account for peak oil and climate impacts, truck VMT peaks in the near future, and then declines for several decades (as high cost diesel fuel, carbon caps, and a more local economy reverses the globalization trend of the past 30 years21).In these scenarios, which contrast sharply with the ‘Past Trends’ predictions, we have as much road capacity today as we will ever need, or be able to use (i.e. ‘peak roads’). This implies that there is a good chance that new highway (or airport) expansion projects risk becoming ‘stranded assets'.22 By contrast, investments that increase the energy productivity of the workforce and economy could simultaneously address climate change and the economic strength of the region. Energy Transition and the Post-Carbon EconomyPeak oil and climate change are driving an unprecedented global energy transition which will demand an unprecedented response from our cities and regions, and from the global economy. Through the lens of peak oil, climate legislation can be seen not as an economic burden, but rather as a critical catalyst for making the Southern California economy more competitive, and the region’s cities more healthy and prosperous. To do this, however, climate policy must have a stronger focus on strategies that reduce both emissions and oil dependence. Likewise, oil depletion models need to become integral components of the region’s infrastructure and economic development planning. Today’s long term investments will serve us through the turbulent decades of the energy transition, and will serve our children in a post-oil future.It is critical, then, that we begin to use scenarios as a tool for breaking away from ‘extrapolated’ planning, and as a way to bridge the uncertainty that defines both peak oil and climate change. We can use scenarios as a means to avoid sinking millions of dollars into potentially stranded assets, and to channel our efforts towards more resilient alternatives.15
Essay Bryn Davidson3333In most cases, these alternatives are fairly clear; an emphasis on passenger and freight rail, electrification of transport, transit and carpooling, local manufacturing and job creation, livable density in mixed use communities, preservation of high quality agricultural land, and new cleaner energy supplies. These investments, which find the common ground between peak oil and climate change, will form the backbone of a new, post-carbon, economy that will create local jobs, protect the region’s most vulnerable populations, and help us transition to a future we can be proud of. About the Author Bryn Davidson is a LEED accredited designer and sustainability consultant holding degrees in mechanical engineering (U.C. Berkeley) and architecture (U. British Columbia). He is the cofounder and executive director of the Dynamic Cities Project (DCP) and is a principal of Rao/Davidson Design and Planning (Rao/D Cityworks). Mr. Davidson has given numerous presentations on the global energy transition to public and professional groups, and recently presented a talk on scenario planning at the 2008 ASPO-USA world oil conference. In parallel with his research and outreach work through the DCP, Mr. Davidson designs low-energy green buildings, and works on projects that aim to have a “net positive” impact on their community’s emissions and oil dependence.Additional Information About the Dynamic Cities' Depletion ModelsThe Dynamic Cities Project (www.dynamiccities.org) The Dynamic Cities Project was founded in 2005 as a non-profit think tank working to integrate the nexus of peak oil and climate change – “the global energy transition” – into the practice of urban and regional planning. Since then, the DCP’s presentations and research have received enthusiastic reviews both locally and globally.Dynamic Cities’ Depletion ModelsThe Dynamic Cities Project has created two models (Figure 8) which aim to capture a high and low case for the amount of oil available to consumers and businesses in the U.S. and Canada. These models are derived in part from the peer reviewed global depletion study done by Fredrik Robelius at the University of Uppsala, but – like the narrative scenarios – they aim to incorporate the wide range of political, economic, and geological factors which will make the local experience of peak oil different from that of exporting countries (whose internal oil consumption is subsidized and will peak later) and poor countries (who cannot afford oil at today’s prices).Model #1 assumes that Saudi Arabia and other exporters have oil supplies on the higher end of the range of estimates, but that they (in particular the Saudis) limit their production so as to slow global depletion and preserve oil resources for their future generations.Model #2 assumes that US imports of oil are flat to 2010, and then decline slowly to 2015 (as richer US consumers are able to out-purchase their competitors in poorer countries). Post 2015, with imports from Mexico and other countries in serious decline, the depletion rate accelerates to 4% a year.Depletion model #1 is used as an input into the ‘Past Trends’ scenario as a test to see if any of today’s current assumptions about future growth in transportation demand could still be true. Depletion model #2, by contrast, is used for both the ‘Techno-Markets’ and ‘Lean & Local’ scenarios.16
Climate Change and the Future of Southern CaliforniaPeak Oil and Climate Change: Scenarios and Implications34Figure 8How much fuel will we have access to in the future?Future availability of fuels from conventional oil 1, 2, 3Depletion Model 1: ‘Past Trends’ ScenarioDepletion Model 2: ‘Techno-Markets’ and ‘Lean and Local‘ Scenarios2. ‘Available’ OilThese scenarios aim to account for geologic, political, and economic factors including declining ‘net-exports’ from producing countries, and price driven ‘demand destruction’ in poorer countries. 1. Regionally SpecificThese scenarios are for U.S. and Canadian consumers. Model v.2 Jan 2008 Dynamic Cities Project www.dynamiccities.orgToday2008Today2008 Rapid Depletion Slower Depletion2015 - 2050 (-1%) Annual Decline2008 - 2015 +1% Annually2008 - 2010 +0% Annually2010 - 2015 (-2%) Annual Decline2015 - 2050 (-4%) Annual Decline3. Fuel from ‘Conventional Oil’These models represent fuels from ‘conventional’ oil only. Bio-fuels, tar sands, and other non-conventional sources are modeled separately, as they have varying impacts on potential CO2 emissions.Global Depletion Model2008 Dynamic Cities Project Endnotes1. For a graphical overview of peak oil, see the Dynamic Cities Project’s presentation “Peak Oil: Navigating the Debate” http://dynamiccities.squarespace.com/peak-oil-navigating-the-debate/2. ”Last month...the Democratic-controlled Congress allowed the moratorium to lapse amid pressure from the White House, Republican lawmakers...who had come under attack for not doing more to bolster domestic energy supplies with gas prices topping $4 a gallon over the summer.” Cynthia Dizikes, Los Angeles Times, November 13, 20083. ”Canadian oil sands representatives have become regular visitors to [Sacramento]...The Alberta oilmen are there for damage control. Canadian producers are investing billions of dollars on new oil sands projects aimed at supplying oil primarily to the U.S. market, but which generate more greenhouse gases than other sources.” Claudia Cattaneo, Financial Post, October 31, 20084. “Peaking of World Oil Production: Impacts, Mitigation, and Risk Management” Robert L. Hirsch, Roger Bezdek, Robert Wendling, Consultant study prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy, February 2005 5. “Crude Oil: Uncertainty about Future Oil Supply Makes It Important to Develop a Strategy for Addressing a Peak and Decline in Oil Production” GAO-07-283, February 28, 20076. “Pentagon and Peak Oil: A Military Literature Review” Sohbet Karbuz, Energy Bulletin, Jul 13 2006 http://www.energybulletin.net/node/180567. Mexico’s super-giant Cantarell field, which peaked around 2005, has been declining rapidly, closely following the worst-case decline projections – even while Mexico’s domestic oil consumption has increased. These opposing trends have led some forecasters at a recent conference on oil depletion to predict that by 2012 or 2013 Mexico may no longer be able to export oil.17
Essay Bryn Davidson35358. For more on oil discovery challenges see “The End of Cheap Oil” Tim Appenzeller, National Geographic, June 20049. “The oil sands of northern Alberta are undergoing rapid growth. Nearly $100-billion will be spent in the coming decades to produce this resource which contains almost 175 billion barrels of oil— a reserve second only to Saudi Arabia’s in size. “ Bruce March, National Post, November 12, 2008 10. It is much harder to scale-up production (the rate of extraction) of non-conventional oil when compared to conventional oil. In addition, because each barrel of non-conventional oil requires significantly more input energy to create it, there is a lower overall energy profit to society – a lower ‘energy return on energy invested’ or EROI. EROI limits, and production constraints make it difficult for any non-conventional oil or biofuel to be considered a ‘scalable’ substitute for conventional oil.11. For further independent analysis of Saudi and OPEC oil data see “Twilight in the Desert: The Coming Saudi Oil Shock and the World Economy” by Matthew Simmons12. Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas (ASPO) Depletion Model, November 2008: http://www.aspo-ireland.org/contentFiles/newsletterPDFs/newsletter95_200811.pdf13. Peer Reviewed Depletion Studies (ASPO – International website): http://www.peakoil.net/publications/peer-reviewed-articles14. Mega-Projects Forecasts: “Prices holding steady, despite massive planned capacity additions “ Chris Skrebowski, Petroleum Review, April 200615. Oil Mega-Projects Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_megaprojects16. “IEA warns of new oil supply crunch” Carola Hoyos, Ed Crooks and Javier Blas, Financial Times, November 12, 200817. “Giant Oil Fields – The Highway to Oil: Giant Oil Fields and their Importance for Future Oil Production“ Fredrik Robelius, University of Uppsala, March 200718. See more information (after About the Author) on the depletion models used in the transport demand scenarios19. See more information (after About the Author) on the Dynamic Cities Project and the depletion models used for transportation demand scenarios (www.dynamiccities.org)20. Ibid.21. “While railroads generally were happy with their third quarter earnings for this year, trucking companies suffered the brunt of the nation’s economic woes and high fuel prices.” “Trucking Earnings Fall Below Railroads....” U.S. Rail News, November 13, 200822. “Several years and $61.4 million later, [Hagerstown, Md.] opened its... new 7,000 foot runway...two months after the airport lost scheduled air service altogether. Despite its costly investment...the airport has had no luck attracting a new carrier, as the industry struggles under soaring fuel prices.” Micheline Maynard, New York Times, May 21, 200818
ACTION MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON
APRIL 20, 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 Darcy, Perrotti, Pizer and Chairman Hoffman
Absent: Commissioner Allen
Also Present: Community Development Director Ken Robertson
Senior Planner Pamela Townsend
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.
a) Presentation of the Hermosa Beach Mural Project.
Section I Consent Calendar
4. Approval of the March 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, noting the absence of Commissioner Allen.
5. Resolution(s) for approval
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
Planning Commission Action Minutes
April 20, 2010
1
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.
ACTION: To continue subject project to the May 18, 2010 meeting for consideration by
the full Planning Commission.
MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Darcy. The motion
carried as follows:
AYES: Darcy, Hoffman, Perrotti, Pizer
NOES: None
ABSENT: Allen
ABSTAIN: None
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.
ACTION: To adopt the resolution denying subject 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.
MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Pizer. The motion
carried as follows:
AYES: Darcy, Hoffman, Perrotti, Pizer
NOES: None
ABSENT: Allen
ABSTAIN: None
Planning Commission Action Minutes
April 20, 2010
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.
ACTION: To adopt the resolution approving subject Conditional Use Permit and
Parking Plan with changes to Section 6, Condition 18, Line 4 to delete “may” and insert
“shall” instead.
MOTION by Commissioner Darcy, seconded by Commissioner Pizer. The motion
carried as follows:
AYES: Darcy, Hoffman, Perrotti, Pizer
NOES: None
ABSENT: Allen
ABSTAIN: None
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.
ACTION: To continue subject Text Amendment to an unspecified date.
MOTION by Commissioner Perrotti, seconded by Commissioner Pizer. The motion
carried as follows:
AYES: Darcy, Hoffman, Perrotti, Pizer
NOES: None
ABSENT: Allen
ABSTAIN: None
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.
ACTION: The Planning Commission consensus was to receive and file the document
with the intention to revisit at a date uncertain in the future.
Planning Commission Action Minutes
April 20, 2010
3
Section IV
11. Staff Items
a. Pacific Coast Highway / Aviation Boulevard committee - Planning Commission
representation.
ACTION: Commissioner Perrotti to be the Planning Commission representative to
the Pacific Coast Highway / Aviation Boulevard committee and Commissioner
Darcy to be the alternate.
b. Tentative future Planning Commission agenda.
c. Community Development Department activity reports of February, 2010.
12. Commissioner Items
13. Adjournment
The meeting was formally adjourned at 9:18 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
April 20, 2010.
______________________________ ____________________________
Peter Hoffman, Chairman Ken Robertson, Secretary
______________________
Date
Planning Commission Action Minutes
April 20, 2010
4
May 17, 2010
The Members of the Planning Commission
City Of Hermosa Beach
Re: Opposition to Parking Plan regarding 102 P.C.H., May 18, 2010 Meeting
Dear Planning Commissioners:
We are opposed to the parking plan proposed by Verizon. Allowing only 15 parking spaces for the first floor and one half the
second floor, would cripple this building for any future use. Mike Morgan for Blu Croix even admitted at the last hearing that
if Verizon left the building, the building would be crippled, and the new owner would only have 15 spaces for the first level
and about half of the second level (about 46,000 sq ft). We need to create more off-street parking, not reduce it and go
back in time where most all the businesses on PCH only had street parking.
There is no protection for the community with this parking plan, as Verizon (or successor) could choose to hire 50 or any
number of additional employees if they wanted and have them park on the street and it would be perfectly legal. There is
absolutely nothing in the parking plan that would prohibit this. From past experience, it is extremely important to properly
construct parking plans. This proposed parking plan is horribly worded and should not be granted under any circumstances.
Also, all the parking spaces that are over the 15 for Verizon, will be used up by the office condo owners/customers, so there
will be no parking remedy if Verizon does add more personnel, and there is no prohibition of such (as a proper limitation),
which is not in compliance with HBMC 17.44.210 C, which addresses parking plans states:
“A covenant with the city a party thereto, may be required limiting the use of the property and/or
designating the method by which the required parking will be provided at the time at the planning
commission determines that inadequate parking exists.”
There is no condition in the resolution that limits the first floor use to a switching facility, nor does it limit
the number of employees since the reduction of parking space requirement is being directly linked to the
number of current employees. Verizon could move their facility elsewhere in the future, and the first floor
would be left to decay (as the second floor interior is now), and the condo owners on the second floor would
be left in a poor situation. Also, Verizon may later sell the building (or its portion of the ownership
interest at that point) and we would then be left with a parking abuse situation or left with a company that
has to have it’s employees park on the street due to lack of parking in the lot.
Also, the resolution does not state a method to provide parking once the parking becomes inadequate.
Section C under this code section was designed to make sure that adequate parking always exists and the
streets do not become impacted. The commission did just this when they allowed for the upper parking lots
to be leased in 1991, because the authorization to lease could easily be terminated in a new parking plan,
and therefore off-street parking could easily be created once the demand occurred. Staff incorrectly stated
at the last hearing that the commission in 1991 made a finding that all parking spaces over and above 18
were in excess. That finding was not made, and that resolution just states that all of the 141 spaces were not
needed and that GTE happened to have 18 employees at the time. They only allowed for the leasing of 63
spaces and forced GTE to maintain the other 76 parking spaces.
Some of the commissioners at the last hearing felt that the current problems arose from the 1991 parking plan. I
think the 1991 parking plan made sense. The actual problem was caused solely by Verizon in 2003 when it
violated the parking plan by selling the upper lots, as the parking plan did not allow for sale. Verizon should have
asked for a revised parking plan allowing for permanent removal of this parking for the building prior to considering a sale.
Verizon had a hearing in 2003 in front of the planning commission for a zone change, and then completed the sale of the
upper lots five months later. Obviously, they had plans to sell the lots and didn’t request a parking plan to allow for the sale
as part of their application at the time. HBMC 17.44.050 makes it illegal to sell required off-street parking on adjacent lots.
These lots are part of the required parking for the square footage of the building. Again this is not behavior to be condoned,
especially with the history of noncompliance by Verizon (when they illegal rented out the Second St lots, and have made
interior changes without permits).
Also, HBMC 1744.060 B 4 requires that there be a certainty that the multiple-use parking area will be available for satisfying
parking requirements and that there will be permanency of such availability. In this instance, there are two uses: a switching
facility and office space. The applicant claims low parking use for the switching facility, but the permanency of the switching
facility is questionable. The permanency of the low parking use is questionable too as we don’t know if future management
would like to move office staff to this location. In fact, the technology is changing so rapidly, it makes it very hard to predict
these things. See attached picture of an enormous FIOS semi-truck in the parking lot from about a week ago. Next to the
truck is a very large dumpster that comes and goes and gets filled with very large cables over approximately the last three
years. Also see attached the picture of the UPS truck from Friday with a delivery of a reel of thin clear cable. Lastly, see a
picture of a FIOS semi-truck making another delivery today. What is actually happening inside the first floor is unknown as
we were prohibited from viewing the first floor when the residents were invited to tour the building.
Section C of 17.44.060 requires that the parking plan be so conditioned as to reasonably ensure the satisfaction of the
appropriate parking requirements during the continued existence of the building or occupancies involved. None of these
code section requirements can be met, so the parking plan must be denied.
The second floor of the Verizon building is purely office space. There is no unique use there. Only part of the first floor is
being used as a switching facility. The proposed parking plan allows for 7,258 square feet of “vacant” office space to be used
as storage. If this parking plan is approved, it will set a precedent for every architect to create office building plans that
leave enormous “vacant” spaces in the building, and then request a parking plan to not include parking for the vacant areas of
the building. How would you justify making this odd exception for office space for Verizon, and not others? This becomes a
very slippery slope in which finally you have nothing left of the parking code. There is no reason to make an exception here
and allow for future abuse that would cause the vacant space to be used as office space, especially since the applicant caused
this situation by selling off almost half of their parking.
Verizon has a very simple solution to the problem that VERIZON created. They should not be allowed to sell
off almost half of their parking and then ask the city for a parking plan because now they don’t have the proper
amount of parking for the size of the building. Verizon should be required to purchase back the upper First St
lots (as they are currently for sale) in order to ask for a more extensive use of their building. Upon purchasing
the upper lots back, Verizon could build out the entire second floor with a sales potential average of $1,000 a sq ft
(comparable with office condos on Second St) amounting to $19,508,000. The upper lots are listed for $2,500,000.
I think Verizon should be able to invest 2.5 million for sales of almost 20 million.
Parking on First and Second Street is already very congested, and we do not want to allow for reduced parking
requirements and cause future overflow of parking on to our streets. We urge you to deny this parking plan, as
granting the plan would further exacerbate the hasty and poor decision that Verizon made by selling the upper lots.
Sincerely,
Cynthia Furnberg
Craig Rogers
May 17, 2010
The Members of the Planning Commission
City Of Hermosa Beach
Re: Opposition to Parking Plan regarding 102 P.C.H., May 18, 2010 Meeting
Dear Planning Commissioners:
We are opposed to the parking plan proposed by Verizon. Allowing only 15 parking spaces for the first floor and one half the
second floor, would cripple this building for any future use. Mike Morgan for Blu Croix even admitted at the last hearing that
if Verizon left the building, the building would be crippled, and the new owner would only have 15 spaces for the first level
and about half of the second level (about 46,000 sq ft). We need to create more off-street parking, not reduce it and go
back in time where most all the businesses on PCH only had street parking.
There is no protection for the community with this parking plan, as Verizon (or successor) could choose to hire 50 or any
number of additional employees if they wanted and have them park on the street and it would be perfectly legal. There is
absolutely nothing in the parking plan that would prohibit this. From past experience, it is extremely important to properly
construct parking plans. This proposed parking plan is horribly worded and should not be granted under any circumstances.
Also, all the parking spaces that are over the 15 for Verizon, will be used up by the office condo owners/customers, so there
will be no parking remedy if Verizon does add more personnel, and there is no prohibition of such (as a proper limitation),
which is not in compliance with HBMC 17.44.210 C, which addresses parking plans states:
“A covenant with the city a party thereto, may be required limiting the use of the property and/or
designating the method by which the required parking will be provided at the time at the planning
commission determines that inadequate parking exists.”
There is no condition in the resolution that limits the first floor use to a switching facility, nor does it limit
the number of employees since the reduction of parking space requirement is being directly linked to the
number of current employees. Verizon could move their facility elsewhere in the future, and the first floor
would be left to decay (as the second floor interior is now), and the condo owners on the second floor would
be left in a poor situation. Also, Verizon may later sell the building (or its portion of the ownership
interest at that point) and we would then be left with a parking abuse situation or left with a company that
has to have it’s employees park on the street due to lack of parking in the lot.
Also, the resolution does not state a method to provide parking once the parking becomes inadequate.
Section C under this code section was designed to make sure that adequate parking always exists and the
streets do not become impacted. The commission did just this when they allowed for the upper parking lots
to be leased in 1991, because the authorization to lease could easily be terminated in a new parking plan,
and therefore off-street parking could easily be created once the demand occurred. Staff incorrectly stated
at the last hearing that the commission in 1991 made a finding that all parking spaces over and above 18
were in excess. That finding was not made, and that resolution just states that all of the 141 spaces were not
needed and that GTE happened to have 18 employees at the time. They only allowed for the leasing of 63
spaces and forced GTE to maintain the other 76 parking spaces.
Some of the commissioners at the last hearing felt that the current problems arose from the 1991 parking plan. I
think the 1991 parking plan made sense. The actual problem was caused solely by Verizon in 2003 when it
violated the parking plan by selling the upper lots, as the parking plan did not allow for sale. Verizon should have
asked for a revised parking plan allowing for permanent removal of this parking for the building prior to considering a sale.
Verizon had a hearing in 2003 in front of the planning commission for a zone change, and then completed the sale of the
upper lots five months later. Obviously, they had plans to sell the lots and didn’t request a parking plan to allow for the sale
as part of their application at the time. HBMC 17.44.050 makes it illegal to sell required off-street parking on adjacent lots.
These lots are part of the required parking for the square footage of the building. Again this is not behavior to be condoned,
especially with the history of noncompliance by Verizon (when they illegal rented out the Second St lots, and have made
interior changes without permits).
Also, HBMC 1744.060 B 4 requires that there be a certainty that the multiple-use parking area will be available for satisfying
parking requirements and that there will be permanency of such availability. In this instance, there are two uses: a switching
facility and office space. The applicant claims low parking use for the switching facility, but the permanency of the switching
facility is questionable. The permanency of the low parking use is questionable too as we don’t know if future management
would like to move office staff to this location. In fact, the technology is changing so rapidly, it makes it very hard to predict
these things. See attached picture of an enormous FIOS semi-truck in the parking lot from about a week ago. Next to the
truck is a very large dumpster that comes and goes and gets filled with very large cables over approximately the last three
years. Also see attached the picture of the UPS truck from Friday with a delivery of a reel of thin clear cable. Lastly, see a
picture of a FIOS semi-truck making another delivery today. What is actually happening inside the first floor is unknown as
we were prohibited from viewing the first floor when the residents were invited to tour the building.
Section C of 17.44.060 requires that the parking plan be so conditioned as to reasonably ensure the satisfaction of the
appropriate parking requirements during the continued existence of the building or occupancies involved. None of these
code section requirements can be met, so the parking plan must be denied.
The second floor of the Verizon building is purely office space. There is no unique use there. Only part of the first floor is
being used as a switching facility. The proposed parking plan allows for 7,258 square feet of “vacant” office space to be used
as storage. If this parking plan is approved, it will set a precedent for every architect to create office building plans that
leave enormous “vacant” spaces in the building, and then request a parking plan to not include parking for the vacant areas of
the building. How would you justify making this odd exception for office space for Verizon, and not others? This becomes a
very slippery slope in which finally you have nothing left of the parking code. There is no reason to make an exception here
and allow for future abuse that would cause the vacant space to be used as office space, especially since the applicant caused
this situation by selling off almost half of their parking.
Verizon has a very simple solution to the problem that VERIZON created. They should not be allowed to sell
off almost half of their parking and then ask the city for a parking plan because now they don’t have the proper
amount of parking for the size of the building. Verizon should be required to purchase back the upper First St
lots (as they are currently for sale) in order to ask for a more extensive use of their building. Upon purchasing
the upper lots back, Verizon could build out the entire second floor with a sales potential average of $1,000 a sq ft
(comparable with office condos on Second St) amounting to $19,508,000. The upper lots are listed for $2,500,000.
I think Verizon should be able to invest 2.5 million for sales of almost 20 million.
Parking on First and Second Street is already very congested, and we do not want to allow for reduced parking
requirements and cause future overflow of parking on to our streets. We urge you to deny this parking plan, as
granting the plan would further exacerbate the hasty and poor decision that Verizon made by selling the upper lots.
Sincerely,
Cynthia Furnberg
Craig Rogers
1
May 11, 2010
Honorable Chairman and Members of the Regular Meeting of
Hermosa Beach Planning Commission May 18, 2010
SUBJECT: TEXT AMENDMENT
REQUEST: CONSIDER ALLOWING LIMITED OUTDOOR SEATING BY RIGHT
WITH EITHER NO PARKING OR REDUCED PARKING REQUIREMENTS
WHEN LOCATED ON PRIVATE PROPERTY ACCESSORY TO SNACK
SHOPS, RESTAURANTS, FOOD AND BEVERAGE MARKETS,
SUPERMARKETS, BAKERIES AND SIMILAR ESTABLISHMENTS
Recommendation:
Direct staff to return with a text amendment to allow limited outdoor dining on private property with an
administrative permit subject to standards identified in Table 3.
Background:
On April 13, 2010, the City Council requested the Planning Commission to consider a code amendment to allow
the placement of tables and chairs and private property in shopping centers and strip malls by right (i.e., without
a CUP or Parking Plan). This request was in response to a request for fee waiver to apply for a conditional use
permit to allow to seating on private property adjacent to a yogurt shop.
Analysis:
Current conditions: Outdoor dining is conditionally allowed in commercial zones (C-1, C-2, C-3 and various
Specific Plan Areas) on private property per H.B.M.C. Sections 17.26.050(B)(5) and 17.38.540(B).
The Council has directed the Commission to address outdoor dining on private property in shopping center and
strip malls. Therefore, the information in this report applies to outdoor seating not only in shopping center and
strip malls, but in commercial zones generally. If the Commission desires to initiate a discussion regarding
outdoor dining on the public right-of-way, that could be set for a future hearing.
Over 20 establishments with alcoholic beverages have CUPs for outdoor seating on private property. It is
estimated that more than 10 restaurants and snack shops have been approved for outdoor seating on private
property as shown in Attachment 3 (e.g., Gum Tree, Paciugo Gelato, Chipotle, Planet Earth).1 Some
establishments have also added seating without a CUP (e.g., Attachment 2- Skinny Minny, Jamba Juice, Pick
Up Stix, Vons, Pinkberry). Seating in shopping centers may also be provided for common use.
Issues: Some of the issues associated with outdoor seating are summarized in Table 1.
Table 1: Issues Associated with Outdoor Seating
Parking demands Determine whether parking requirements apply to limited scale outdoor
dining. More customers increase parking demand. In some cases, businesses
have converted indoor space to outdoor space, which could have parking
implications.
Type of
establishment
Define the types of establishment where outdoor dining may be allowed
without a CUP (whether limited to restaurants and snack shops, whether on-
sale alcoholic beverage establishments should be excluded, etc.).
Convenience stores, minimarts, drug stores, grocery stores and others sell
1 Establishments with outdoor seating on Pier Plaza were permitted via an encroachment permit, and those with
seating on public sidewalks required a CUP and encroachment permit.
Attachment 2
Examples of Unpermitted Outdoor Seating on Private Property
Shopping Centers
6
Vons
7
Outdoor Seating – Freestanding Building
Pinkberry
8
9
Attachment 3
Examples of CUPs Allowing Outdoor Dining
Address Business Approval Conditions
Examples of CUPs with outdoor dining (excluding those with alcoholic beverages)
238 Pier Ave. Gum Tree
snack shop
PC 08-37 400 sf, converted yard to seating, permeable materials, 7
a.m.-8 p.m., 14 people, No entertainment, speakers or
TVs allowed. No runoff to storm drain (washing tables,
ground surface, mats, etc.)
1439 PCH Chipotle
restaurant
(no alcohol)
PC Res 09-13 500 sq. ft., limited to customers of the restaurant, 7
a.m.-10 p.m. No entertainment, amplified speakers or
TVs or similar media. No runoff to storm drain
(washing tables, ground surface, mats, etc.)
1034 Hermosa
Ave.
Paciugo Gelato
snack shop
PC Res. 07-41 188 sq. ft., 11 a.m. – 10 p.m.
100 PCH,
Shopping
center
Starbucks PC Res. 95-26 200 sq. ft.
509 Pier Ave. Planet Earth PC Res. 98-21 143 sq. ft., 7 a.m.-12 midnight weekdays, until 2 a.m.
weekends, low barrier required
205 Pier Ave. New offices
and snack shop
PC Res. 08-36 7 a.m.-10 p.m. No entertainment, speakers or TVs
allowed.
Examples of CUPs with outdoor dining and alcoholic beverages
844 Hermosa
Ave.
Ken & Kent’s
restaurant
PC Res. 08-36 Modify windows in building to accommodate a patio
area facing Hermosa Ave (basically a door wall); beer
and wine allowed.
To be used only for dining, no smoking or standing
area, 7 a.m.-10 p.m.
140 Pier Ave. New Orlean’s
Cajun Café
restaurant
PC Res 08-39 Allowed to have open window wall.
10 outdoor seats, 186 sf. 7 a.m.-10 p.m.
Beer and wine allowed.
1005 & 1025
PCH
Rocky Cola
Café restaurant
Pc Res. 06-21 9 p.m. close, no live entertainment
37-14th Street La Playita
restaurant
PC Res. 08-46 7 a.m.-10 p.m. No entertainment, amplified speakers
or TVs allowed. No runoff to storm drain (washing
tables, ground surface, mats, etc.). No alcohol served
in disposal containers.
1301
Manhattan
Ave.
Union Cattle CC 03-6246 Close at 12:30 a.m. General alcohol. No live
entertainment or dancing. Non- amplified piano and
acoustic music. Sound attenuation wall 7-8’ in height.
Signs posted, be courteous to neighbors. Roof deck
190 Hermosa
Ave.
Tammy’s Cafe PC Res. 88-94 16 seats, beer and wine, 10 p.m. weekdays, 11 p.m.
weekends.
1031 Hermosa
Ave.
Mama D’s CC 00-6103 260 sq. ft., beer and wine, close at 10 p.m., no music.
1220 Hermosa
Ave
Shark’s Cove CC 09-6683 Close 10 p.m., alcohol served in non-throw away
containers.
1332 Hermosa Pedone’s Pizza BZA 154-591 11 p.m. weekdays, 12 midnight weekends. 42” fence
or wall between dining area and sidewalk. Beer and
wine sold only with food.
Tentative Future Agenda
PLANNING COMMISSION
City of Hermosa Beach
JUNE 15, 2010
Project Title Staff Public
Notice
Meeting
Date
Date
Rec’d
Remarks
⇒ 2nd Qtr GPA 6/3 6/15
⇒ Capital Improvement Program (CIP) consistency with
General Plan
6/15 11/5
⇒ Rotation of chairmanship to Kent Allen (7/10-3/11) 6/15 11/5
⇒ 2601 PCH, Clearwire — Conditional Use Permit 6/3 6/15 4/14
⇒ 719-725 21st Street—Conditional Use Permit &
Precise Development Plan Amendment for a 4 unit
condominium project.
6/3 6/15 5/10
⇒ 1051 10th Street -- Variance 6/3 6/15 5/11
f:b95\cd\wpc 5/12/10
10a
1
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
BUILDING DIVISION
MARCH, 2010 MONTHLY REVENUE REPORT
NUMBER OF PERMITS
TYPE OF ACTIVITY CURRENT
MONTH
THIS MONTH
LAST FY FY TO DATE LAST FY
TO DATE
BUILDING 51 59 327 409
PLUMBING/MECHANICAL 22 32 207 276
ELECTRIC 21 26 177 202
PLAN CHECK 16 19 129 157
SEWER USE 0 0 2 6
RES. BLDG. REPORTS 25 8 155 90
PARKS & RECREATION 0 0 1 1
IN LIEU PARKS & REC 0 0 0 2
BOARD OF APPEALS 0 0 0 0
SIGN REVIEW 2 5 20 20
FIRE FLOW FEES 5 4 24 54
LEGAL DETERMINATION 0 0 0 0
ZONING APPEALS 0 0 0 0
TEMPORARY SIGN 0 1 13 9
GEN. PLAN MAINT. (Eff. 7/09) 4 0 15 0
TOTALS 146 154 1,070 1,226
FEES COLLECTED
TYPE OF FEE CURRENT
MONTH
THIS MONTH
LAST FY FY TO DATE LAST FY
TO DATE
BUILDING $29,334.92 $23,707.55 $143,250.77 $265,730.40
PLUMBING/MECHANICAL $3,296.00 $5,954.00 $33,868.09 $45,816.50
ELECTRIC $3,717.00 $3,825.40 $33,317.50 $42,943.70
PLAN CHECK $7,009.10 $12,397.30 $84,218.15 $125,189.50
SEWER USE $0.00 $0.00 $12,646.72 $18,478.90
RES. BLDG. REPORTS $6,075.00 $1,944.00 $37,665.00 $21,738.60
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 $492.00 $1,230.00 $4,920.00 $4,878.00
FIRE FLOW FEES $6,734.50 $2,261.50 $16,155.00 $58,535.50
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 $2,271.00
GEN. PLAN MAINT. (Eff. 7/09) $5,136.00 $0.00 $16,173.00 $0.00
TOTALS $61,794.52 $51,574.75 $392,046.23 $610,274.10
2
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
BUILDING DIVISION
BUILDING PERMITS ISSUED REPORT MONTH OF MARCH, 2010
TYPE OF STRUCTURE PERMITS DWELLING
UNITS VALUATION
1 101 NEW SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES DETACHED 2 2 $1,510,570.50
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 1 $750,000
15 325 NEW PUBLIC WORKS/UTILITY BUILDINGS
16 326 NEW SCHOOLS/OTHER EDUCATIONAL
17 327 NEW STORES/OTHER MERCH BLDGS.
18 328 NEW OTHER NON RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS
19 329 NEW STRUCTURES OTHER THAN BUILDING 3 $132,655
20 434 ADD/ALTER DWELLING/POOLS 38 $414,033.95
21 437 ADD/ALTER NON RESIDENTIAL 7 $89,350
22 438 RESIDENTIAL GARAGES/CARPORTS
23 645 DEMOLITION-SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES
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
51 $2,896,609.45
TOTAL UNITS ADDED FY 2009-10 TO DATE: 6
TOTAL UNITS DEMOLISHED/LOST FY TO DATE: 6 (See Attached List)
TOTAL NET UNITS FY TO DATE: -0
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 March, 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
April 5, 2010
HONORABLE MAYOR and MEMBERS of Regular Meeting of
HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL April 27, 2010
ACTIVITY REPORT
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT - PLANNING DIVISION
MARCH, 2010
STAFF REPORT PREPARED
SUBJECT THIS MONTH THIS
MONTH
LAST FY
FY TO
DATE
LAST FY
TO DATE
APPEAL / RECONSIDERATION 1 1 2 6
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (C.U.P.) - CONDOMINIUMS 0 1 1 2
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (C.U.P.) - COMMERCIAL 0 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 2 6 3
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 1 4 3
PARKING PLAN 1 0 6 0
SPECIAL STUDY 0 0 0 0
VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 0 0 0 0
TEXT AMENDMENT 0 2 8 19
TRANSIT 0 0 1 0
VARIANCE 0 0 1 1
ZONE CHANGE 0 0 0 0
MISCELLANEOUS 6 6 46 43
TOTAL REPORTS PREPARED 9 13 83 96
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: May 6, 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, May 18, 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, March 16 and April 20, 2010 meetings).
2. Conditional Use Permit Amendment to reduce motor vehicle repair services to one service bay for a ‘smog
check’ business and a Parking Plan to allow less than required parking and shared parking, in connection
with a 2,572 square foot expansion of an existing retail business (E.T. Surf) into space vacated by motor
vehicle repair businesses, at 900-904 Aviation Boulevard. Parking will also be shared with businesses at
908-950 Aviation Boulevard.
3. Precise Development Plan to construct a 3,209 square foot detached second unit in the R-2B zone at 583
Prospect Avenue.
4. Text amendment pertaining to outdoor seating in conjunction with snack shops, restaurants, food and
beverage markets, supermarkets, bakeries and similar establishments, including allowing limited outdoor
seating by right with either no parking or reduced parking requirements when located on private property.
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, May 13, 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, May 13, 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\pc05-18-10