Hermosa Beach News

Deadline nearing for parking referendum

By Jennifer Evans

The deadline is nearing for a referendum aimed at stopping a new ordinance that will allow for pier plaza businesses wishing to expand to pay into a parking fund rather than provide additional on-site parking.

By April 12 at 6 p.m., Hermosa Beach resident Jim Lissner, who doesn't approve of the city's decision to allow for businesses such as Sharkeez to expand without having to provide for any on-site parking, will have to turn in 1,400 “good” signatures.

“I don't have a huge amount of signatures so far,” Lissner said, adding that all 1,400 signatures will be checked by the Los Angeles County Register assuring that names and addresses match, and that the people who signed are registered voters.

Lissner initiated the referendum after the Hermosa Beach City Council approved the ordinance March 13. The new ordinance allows for any business on the pier plaza that wishes to expand to pay into the city's parking fund via in-lieu fees instead of building additional on-site parking. The previous ordinance demanded that businesses planning to expand also increase the number of parking spaces depending on the size of the planned expansion. For Sharkeez, that meant 20 additional on-site parking spots.

In an effort to defend the ordinance and stop people from signing the referendum, Sharkeez owners Ron and Greg Newman have sent out mailers, e-mails and will run advertisements, stating their opinions regarding Lissner's proposed referendum.

Newman's Web site, www.saveourplaza.org/  has information in favor of the ordinance and the parking-in-lieu program for all downtown businesses, and states that the ordinance will prevent the plaza from looking like a parking structure.

Lissner realizes that providing the parking is unreasonable given the lack of land available in the city, but because the ordinance only applies to businesses expanding to a certain size, the city should “give the break” only to retail and office space, not bars or restaurants.

“I think we have enough bars on Pier Avenue,” Lissner said, adding that it is unnecessary for Sharkeez to expand to two stories as is planned.

Lissner's Web site, www.vivahermosa.com/  has several FAQs as well as a copy of the referendum, and other information and opinions pertaining to the ordinance and the Sharkeez expansion.

“We might also see new applications from other businesses on the Plaza,” said Lissner, who believes there is a possibility of businesses such as Paradise Sushi expanding and taking advantage of the 100 percent parking-in-lieu fee ordinance.

The headline on top of the Newmans' fliers read, “Be Careful of Jim Lissner's Lies and Scare Tactics. Stop the Referendum.”

Underneath is a list of “lies” and “truths” which illustrate the two sides' difference of opinions.

The flier reads “Lie: Sharkeez expansion will worsen traffic and put more pressure on parking.”

“Truth: Sharkeez is actually paying a half million dollars to the parking fund to eliminate traffic.”

The money collected in the parking fund will eventually go to building additional parking lots or structures in the downtown area.

Also on the site are statements from the Newmans explaining the purpose of the expansion. “It's true that we're expanding the size of the restaurant. However, we're not doing this to increase capacity. We're trying to accommodate people with disabilities, some of whom may be in wheelchairs, so that everyone can enjoy dining at Sharkeez,” Ron Newman said.

If the 1,400 signatures are collected, it will force the City Council to either repeal the existing ordinance or conduct a citywide vote on the issue.

Hermosa Beach – Crime Watch

UNAUTHORIZED ENTRY. Police were called to the 400 bock of Herondo Street by a woman, who came home and discovered a maintenance man in her apartment without permission. Apparently, there was an ongoing problem with the plumbing in the unit, but the woman was not informed that maintenance workers would be in her home the afternoon of March 31. After returning home at 2:27 p.m., she began changing clothes and came upon the maintenance man while undressed. When a male police officer arrived, the woman would not let him in her apartment and was described in the police report as in hysterics over the incident. A friend later drove the woman to the police department where she explained the situation to a female police officer. The authorities informed her that it was a civil incident and if she was unhappy about the service in her apartment that she should take it up with the building's management. No crime was reported related to the incident.

CAR JACKING. A man with a knife attacked two men and stole their van from the 2900 block of Ingleside Drive at 10 a.m. March 26. The victims parked the van and left the keys in the ignition. Moments later an unknown man got in the vehicle and when the owner of the car asked what he was doing, he was told that the vehicle needed to be moved because a larger truck was arriving. One of the men then got back in the van and the 51-year-old stranger moved out of the driver's seat over to the passenger side. Just after the man began moving the vehicle, the intruder began screaming at him and brandished a knife. He yelled expletives and told the man to keep driving or he would kill him. At this point, the driver's associate ran to the car that had only moved about 10 feet to see what was the matter. The driver told him in Spanish that the assailant was going to kill him. At this point the man outside the vehicle began struggling with the armed man through the passenger-side window until the attacker sliced his arm. Then the car jacker stabbed at the driver and lacerated his hand. The man in the driver's seat then jumped out of the car and fled as his assailant sped off. At 10:22 a.m., Manhattan Beach police spotted the vehicle but the car thief also saw the authorities and sped off. A resident then flagged down the police and directed him to the intersection of Rosecrans Avenue and Market Place where the fleeing suspect had flipped over the vehicle. Police brought the original victims to the scene where they positively identified the suspect that attacked them and absconded with the vehicle.

Hermosa Beach News

Commission moves Sharkeez expansion plans forward

By Jennifer Evans

Aloha Sharkeez will soon be more than just the burned-down bar on Pier Avenue thanks to a resolution passed from the Hermosa Beach Planning Commission at its March 20 meeting.

It's been almost a year since the popular watering hole became known as “Sharkeez inferno” when it burned down in an early morning blaze. However, according to the new plans, the remodeled Sharkeez will be 2,000 square feet larger than its original structure.

Damage from the fire will not allow the building to be repaired; therefore, owner Greg Newman will have to reconstruct the bar from the ground up. The new watering hole will be 5,600 square feet, have two floors with a larger patio and a retractable skylight on the upper floor. However, food and alcohol will not be served past midnight on the top floor.

The building will not exceed the 30-feet height limit and according to the resolution, the new structure will minimize impact on ocean views for surrounding residents.

Parking for Sharkeez as well as other businesses on Pier Avenue became an issue during the March 13 City Council meeting. After the council debated for an hour, it approved an amendment that exempts pier plaza buildings that exceed a 1-to-1 gross floor area to building site ratio from providing a minimum of 25 percent of the required parking onsite.

In August, the City Council set its parking-in-lieu-fee at $28,900.

During the recent City Council meeting, resident Jim Lissner expressed his disdain for approving the expansion of Sharkeez. “If you put Sharkeez back, particularly if you expand it, you're going to have to deal with more phone calls,” Lissner said, explaining that according to Hermosa Beach Police records, the department received significantly less phone calls since the absence of Sharkeez. “That is going to take away the police from other parts of town, as it does now.”

However, during the same meeting, Councilman J.R. Reviczky indicated that the ordinance was simply to grant the owners of Sharkeez what they had before. “Unless we change this ordinance, he couldn't rebuild what he had there,” Reviczky said. “That's all we are really doing, is changing the ordinance to allow anyone to rebuild down there.”

There was little discussion from Planning Commissioners at the March 20 meeting regarding the adoption of the resolution.

“This was already approved by the City Council and now that we have adopted the resolution, I'm sure the owner will move forward with construction of the site,” said Langley Kersenboom, vice chairman of the Planning Commission.

Hermosa Beach News

Glen Ivy's request to serve beer and wine denied

By Jennifer Evans

The Hermosa Beach Planning Commission denied Glen Ivy's request to serve beer and wine at the spa at its March 20 meeting.

Located in the Hermosa Plaza on Pacific Coast Highway upstairs from 24-Hour Fitness, Glen Ivy Day Spa is a traditional spa with massages, facials and other body treatments. However, one thing they have not been permitted to serve their guests is alcohol.

Mari Markell, director of sales and marketing for Glen Ivy Hot Springs Inc., explained that at the other Glen Ivy locations where beer and wine are permitted, it is served only to guests receiving spa treatments and it is not a prominent feature of the spa.

“We don't advertise it and it's not on any of our Web sites,” Markell said. “In fact, last year we only made $450 profit from the sale of wine, so clearly it is not a money maker for us. That is not the reason we serve it.”

Despite Markell's rationale, all Planning Commissioners agreed it would not be wise to grant the spa a conditional use permit allowing it to sell beer and wine.

“The CUP goes with the land, so if your guys move out, any bar or restaurant can move in and have the right to sell beer or wine,” Vice Chairman Langley Kersenboom said.

Markell said that the way the interior is set up, it would not be conducive to a business of that nature. However, Kersenboom noted that it could easily be gutted and turned into a restaurant or bar. “Gut it and put some pool tables in there and you have a bar, it's as simple as that,” he said.

Commissioner Sam Perrotti said he is not ready to open a whole new classification of establishments that serve beer and wine. “Right now, we have restaurants and bars that serve alcohol and that is enough,” he said. “If we allow this, then down the road we are opening it up for any business to serve beer and wine.”

Hermosa Beach News

Sharkeez's plans to expand move forward

By Chris Yang

Factions both for and against the expansion of a popular pier plaza establishment known as Aloha Sharkeez appeared before the Planning Commission to voice concerns about the project. After a dramatic public hearing that touched upon some of the core issues facing Hermosa Beach, the commission signed off on plans to expand the business by a 4-1 vote.

Commissioner Ron Pizer voted against the motion.

The decision was a clear victory for the owners, Ron and Greg Newman, who own and operate a number of Sharkeez restaurants across Southern California. Both testified before the commission Tuesday night to present their vision for the new business, a two-story, 5,600-square-foot building.

During public comments, Ron spoke while his son Greg displayed artists' renderings of the new building on a nearby projector.

“We designed the building to be kind of a Spanish colonial building,” said Newman.

Newman also argued that allowing an expansion of his business would give other business owners on the plaza an incentive to follow suit. “I think this building is going to add a lot to the city,” said Newman. “It's going to cause a lot of other businesses to upgrade their business.”

The plans for the new building include a new outdoor patio, a second floor lounge and “nano-doors” that give the option, according to a city staff report, of “enclosing the entire front part of the restaurant.”

“We can close the whole thing off,” he said.

Despite the building's new features, nine residents raised concerns about the proposal and warned the commission of setting an unwanted precedent that might spur other plaza businesses to expand. While no one questioned the owners' right to rebuild, many did question the need to expand the business.

“I don't want him not to rebuild,” said local resident Barbara Ellman. “I just really want to know what the definition of ‘original footprint' is. I'm really concerned about parking.”

Others uttered a common sentiment among longtime residents - the city has too many bars to consider granting an expansion of Sharkeez.

“Short and sweet, we got too many bars already,” said Mordy Benjamin. “Cut that thing in half. We don't need a monster bar.”

A business that both sides used to hammer their point home was another pier plaza business known as Mediterraneo. 

The Newmans compared their new building to the upscale plaza restaurant, while critics mentioned a recent decision by the council to deny a request by the owner to stay open until 2 a.m. Critics of the downtown scene saw the denial as an acknowledgment by city leaders that the city's infamous nightlife needs to be reined in.

After the public comment period of the hearing, Ron Newman took issue with some of the allegations raised and blasted critics of the downtown area.

“As long as we're not disturbing the residents, another 50 or 60 people upstairs isn't going to tear this city apart,” said Newman. “I'm really shocked to see these people come up. They should be ashamed of themselves.”

Though no police officers were present to discuss the proposal, a memo from Police Chief Greg Savelli was included in the city's staff report urging the commission to limit the hours of the expanded business.

After a lengthy deliberation that touched upon several different topics, the commission granted Savelli's request and placed several conditions upon the expansion, mostly related to the hour at which the outside patio and roof skylight should close.

Another condition imposed by Commissioner Pete Hoffman required the skylight to be closed when the building's heating and air conditioning system is on. The commission's decision is not final, though, and may be appealed by the City Council at its next meeting Tuesday, Feb. 27.

Hermosa Beach News

Sharkeez wants to expand by more than 50 percent

By Chris Yang

Later this month, members of the city's Planning Commission will consider a request by the proprietors of a popular pier plaza establishment known as Aloha Sharkeez to expand their business by roughly 55 percent. In light of this, the founder of the business recently began lobbying commissioners in anticipation of the upcoming hearing on Feb. 20.

In particular, a proposal was recently submitted to the city requesting an increase in the size of the building by approximately 2,000 square feet. The property's owners, Ron and Greg Newman, are also requesting approval to provide outdoor seating on both the first and second floors of the building.

While any request to expand a business on the plaza would receive its fair share of scrutiny, the circumstances leading to this request make the case somewhat unique.

The business itself is located at the heart of the plaza at 52 Pier Ave. It closed down shortly after a fire tore through the building in the early morning hours of May 9. At first, the Newmans vowed to rebuild the business right away.

But a roadblock soon appeared after local officials reached a determination that the fire damaged more than 50 percent of the building. Under the old zoning code, nonconforming commercial properties, of which Sharkeez was one, were required to conform to current code standards upon their reconstruction from a calamity.

This requirement, known as the 50 percent rule,” would have created a substantial liability for the Newmans under the city's parking requirements, which require property owners to submit funds “in-lieu” of providing parking. The city imposes fees, which were recently raised from $12,500 to $28,900 per parking space, based upon a building's usage and square footage.

But a plan introduced by Mayor Sam Edgerton to exempt commercial properties from the 50-percent rule last September was eventually adopted, freeing the Newmans from a sizable encumbrance estimated by some to reach upward of half a million dollars.

The exemption, though, according to the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code, does not apply to an expansion or intensification of a building's existing use. Because the Newmans are requesting an increase in the size of their property from 3,600 to 5,600 square feet, a new parking plan is under consideration by the commission that incorporates in-lieu parking fees for the extra space.

That figure depends on how the city classifies the rebuilt business (the parking requirements for a bar are greater than a restaurant) and may run in excess of several hundred thousand dollars. A public notice posted on the city's Web site notifying the public about the Planning Commission's upcoming public hearing indicates that local officials have granted Newman the “restaurant” classification with respect to his business.

Despite the seemingly exorbitant parking fees associated with an expansion of the business, the owners appear eager to move forward with new plans to rebuild. According to a story that appeared in the Daily Breeze in 2002, the Hermosa Beach installment of the Sharkeez chain grossed approximately $4 million annually. Newman himself told the Breeze last June that he is losing “a ton of money.”

Still, though many people expressed support for the Newmans after the disaster that befell Sharkeez last May, not everyone may be jazzed about a potential expansion in what was once one of the plaza's most popular establishments. Since its inception in the mid-90s, Hermosa Beach has had to cope with the consequences of a wildly successful pier plaza - one that attracts throngs of young twenty-somethings in search of the city's famous nightlife.

The changes have created a large backlash among some residents and community activists who fear that the small beach community has created a monster, so to speak.

Longtime residents occasionally appear before commissions and the City Council lamenting the fact that the downtown area is just not accessible in the evening due to the crowds and rowdy atmosphere.

Just last month, the issue reared its ugly head in the city's annual review of conditional use permits for businesses in the downtown area (see “H.B. commissioners take another look at downtown” Feb. 1).

Whether the commission eventually approves the Newmans' request to expand Sharkeez, one thing is most definitely certain - the issue of whether Hermosa Beach has too many bars and restaurants will remain a topic of debate for the indefinite future.

Hermosa Beach - Letters to the Editor

Parking issues

At next Tuesday's meeting, the Hermosa Planning Commission will consider Sharkeez's application to add 2,000 square feet. If the commission approves it, the application will be up for final approval at the council meeting of Feb. 27. The parking plan proposed for the Sharkeez expansion will be entirely in lieu and, if approved, will bring us a big step closer to building another parking structure.

Also at next Tuesday's meeting will be the third attempt to rezone city-owned land for some undisclosed purpose. Could it be for parking?

Jim Lissner, Hermosa Beach

More parking issues

What logic is Hermosa's City Council using to grant downtown business owners or condo developers the right to provide insufficient on-site parking so as to intensify their business and commercial property with additional development? That's not allowed for residential. Why is it being allowed for downtown commercial, especially commercial that will generate more city costs and impacts than any token city revenue to be expected?

What right does the City Council have to operate Hermosa Beach as a prostitute by selling phantom, nonexistent, in-lieu parking spaces the city has no ability to provide for the indefinite future, given a parking shortfall that already exists?

Does creating more of a parking shortage solve the present shortage? How does increasing commercial density downtown with this scam, in a city already one of the densest in the state, accomplish anything smart? How does adding more nil city revenue-producing alcohol-dispensing square footage, or three-story office condos, do anything but add more traffic, drunks, noise, violence, lawsuits, costly public safety and costly bureaucratic administration to the city?

The council, rather than increasing the downtown's density, its negative propensities, city costs and endless scheming to build high-impact, problematic-parking garages or a Taj-Mahal city hall, should consider that it's far better to reduce the downtown's density, and reduce the alcohol-dispensing footprint, hours and chaos if it really wants to better Hermosa Beach and reduce the downtown's negative city costs, while also more intelligently representing Hermosa's 18,000 residents.

Howard Longacre, Hermosa Beach

Impose a moratorium on mansions

As you may know, there is an ongoing “mansionization” problem in Manhattan Beach and some of the other surrounding communities in the South Bay. This must be so since our elected leaders have formed a subcommittee to look into this very issue. The problem is with homes/ condos being purchased and then torn down to give way to the mansions that are then built to the setback limits of the lot. Now what you may not be aware of is that this can also be the case when a developer seeks an exception from the building code to combine lots to build a much larger and more dense building than previously existed on the separate parcels. This activity has now increased in Manhattan Beach, in advance of what is the proposed date in March of this year for the Mansionization Subcommittee to report its findings. When it does so, presumably our elected officials will enact some new restrictions.

The problem is this: By the time they may do so, there could be so many exceptions granted that precedence will have been established, rendering any new restrictions moot. There is one such parcel in our neighborhood now up for consideration before the city Planning Commission for such an exception and I urge those concerned about mansionization in Manhattan Beach to contact both the Planning Commission and the City Council about imposing a moratorium on such activities until this subcommittee has reported its findings and action has been taken.

John Clark, Manhattan Beach


Plenty of profit

In response to the article “AVP seeking paid admission from commission,” I agree that one of the fundamental responsibilities of the California Coastal Commission is to safeguard access to the state's coastline. The commission also has the duty to enforce the Coastal Act of 1976 which shall “provide long-term protection of California's 1,100-mile coastline for the benefit of current and future generations.”

What this means to me is equal and free access (for all) to a public resource known as the beach. Our sacred sands are being exploited by cities that think they own the refuge, and by corporate and advertising interests that are commercializing and profiteering down there at our expense.

Yes, the profits were surely there last year. Here's an example from an avp.com press release:

“LOS ANGELES, Calif. - Nov. 14, 2006 - AVP Inc. (OTC Bulletin Board: AVPI), a lifestyle sports entertainment company focused on professional beach volleyball, today announced record financial results for its 2006 third quarter and nine months ended Sept. 30, 2006. AVP generated record revenue of $13.8 million for the third quarter of 2006, an increase of 41 percent year over year, and record net income of $2.57 million, or $0.09 per fully diluted share, for the third quarter.”

By the time you read this letter, the commission will already have heard the filing. I hope in the interest of public, free access, that they voted once again to deny any more paid seating.

Dennis Duke Noor, Hermosa Beach

Hermosa Beach – Crime Watch

ATTEMPTED ROBBERY. While walking northbound on The Strand, someone was allegedly accosted by three individuals at 7:55 p.m. Feb. 5. Two of the individuals reportedly asked the victim “What do you have in your pockets?” and began asking for money and his wallet. The victim began to yell “Help” and ran in the opposite direction.

ASSAULT AND BATTERY. Someone was allegedly attacked by three unknown individuals while attending a party at an apartment in the 1700 block of Manhattan Avenue. The incident allegedly occurred around 1 a.m. Feb. 4. The victim was allegedly struck several times by the suspects, who left the apartment immediately following the incident.

BURGLARY. Someone allegedly entered a business in the 400 block of Pier Avenue and removed a black leather handbag. The incident allegedly occurred at 1:30 p.m. Feb. 7. The owner of the business suspects someone entered his place of work through a rear door that is left open during business hours.

BURGLARY. Someone allegedly removed two laptop computers from an apartment in the 400 block of Herondo Street. A resident returned from work to find pry marks around his door lock and two laptop computers missing from his apartment. The resident may have left the dead bolt unlocked. The incident allegedly occurred between 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Feb. 8.

GRAND THEFT. Someone entered a gated construction site in the 1200 block of Eighth Street and removed a copper pipe and 250 feet of electrical wiring. The incident allegedly occurred sometime after construction workers left at 4 p.m. Feb. 6 and before they returned on 8 a.m. Feb. 7.

Hermosa Beach – Crime Watch

VEHICLE BURGLARY. Someone reportedly removed two cameras from a 2001 Ford Explorer after it was parked in the 1000 block of Loma Drive. After parking her car in the driveway of her residence, the victim allegedly locked and secured her vehicle. The following morning, she returned to discover the driver-side door open and the vehicle unlocked. Two digital cameras were reportedly stolen.

ASSAULT AND BATTERY. Five individuals were allegedly observed involved in an incident that took place in the 200 block of Hermosa Avenue at around 11:26 p.m. Feb. 2. While crossing the street with two friends, an individual allegedly engaged in an altercation with two individuals driving northbound along Hermosa Avenue. The two people inside the car claim that the pedestrians were obstructing the road. At some point, one of the pedestrians began to kick the car. He later engaged in a scuffle with the driver and passenger of the car after they emerged from the vehicle. When police arrived, both parties appeared to have resolved the dispute and were cordial with each other.

BATTERY. A patron of a pier plaza establishment was allegedly struck by another individual at approximately 1:25 a.m. Jan. 28. The incident allegedly occurred after the victim came into contact with the individual at the business located in the first block of the pier plaza. After striking the victim, the attacker allegedly ran out of the business.

BATTERY. A patron of an establishment in the 100 block of Pacific Coast Highway suffered a fracture after a bouncer allegedly removed her from the business. After ordering a drink from the bar, the wife of a band-member performing at the establishment allegedly became irate when one of the bartenders would not return her credit card. Bouncers were quickly dispatched to remove her from the premises. She later discovered that she suffered a fractured wrist as a result of the incident, which occurred at 1 a.m. on Dec. 31.