Hermosa Tightens Building Rules but Won’t Reconsider Strand Hotel : Development: The Planning Commission will review plans for all new buildings except single-family homes.

Amid charges that weaknesses in the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code allowed a controversial beachfront hotel to be approved without public scrutiny, the City Council on Tuesday broadened its powers to make sure that such projects will no longer slip by without local review.

Under a new ordinance, every building proposed in the city--except for single-family homes and remodeling projects or additions smaller than 1,500 square feet--will be reviewed by the Planning Commission to ensure that it will be compatible with the neighborhood.

If the project is likely to lower property values, interfere with the public’s enjoyment of the area, look inappropriate in the neighborhood or adversely affect the environment, the commission could reject it.

But on a narrow 3-2 vote, the council decided against forcing the developer of a luxury hotel planned for The Strand to undergo the new hearing process. The decision cleared the way for Brentwood developer David Greenwood to break ground late this year on a scaled-down version of the project that has divided opinion in the city since 1984.

The two decisions stemmed from a longtime debate over what to do with the city-owned site of the old Biltmore Hotel on The Strand. For 25 years, since the old hotel was razed, the city has squabbled over what, if any, development should rise in its place.

Among the ideas was Greenwood’s plan to build a five-story, 260-room hotel and conference center that would cover not only the Biltmore site but the adjacent 1300 block of the beachfront street where the abandoned Strand Bathhouse now stands. But voters rejected the plan in 1984 amid charges that it would ruin the city’s character, generate traffic and pollution and saddle the city with a financial albatross.

Greenwood and his former partner, Joe Langlois, scaled back their plans to include only the Strand Bathhouse block, which Greenwood now owns. As the city continued to struggle with plans for the Biltmore site, Greenwood presented the city Building and Safety Department staff with more modest plans for a 172-room hotel.

Because the project conformed to the city’s zoning code, and because the council had rejected earlier advice from its planning directors to broaden the city’s powers of review, Greenwood needed only a building permit for his project and the approval of the California Coastal Commission.

Not even an environmental impact review was needed, because Greenwood’s proposal for a larger hotel had already undergone an EIR, and the city could not legally require a second one for a scaled-down version of the project, retired Councilman Jim Rosenberger said.

Instead, he said, Greenwood agreed last year to meet 42 conditions that would have been imposed under the old EIR. Meeting in a closed session--because the decision required an opinion from the city attorney--the council approved those conditions, Rosenberger said.

Consequently, the public hearing usually required for such large developments never occurred in Hermosa Beach, and when the Coastal Commission approved the project this month, it was a surprise to many of the hotel’s neighbors.

“This hotel will set the tone for Hermosa Beach, and the people should have a say in that process,” said Councilman Robert Essertier, who led the effort to belatedly hold a public hearing on the hotel.

However, Councilwoman Kathleen Midstokke warned that the city would be open to a lawsuit from Greenwood if the council tried to impose new conditions on his hotel now, with ground breaking only months away. Essertier’s proposal died on a 3-2 vote, with only Councilman Albert Wiemans on his side.

Instead, the council approved a new, broadened hearing process that Planning Director Michael Schubach suggested last fall. The council had rejected it then, fearing that it would clog Planning Commission agendas and create a subjective “art jury” for new development.

However, Councilman Chuck Sheldon, who had earlier charged that the new review process would “remove any incentive for (commercial) investment in this community,” softened his position and joined Midstokke and Essertier in voting for the broadened reviews.

Councilmen Roger Creighton and Albert Wiemans opposed the measure. Creighton said the new layer of reviews will only raise “false hopes” among opponents of development because the city will still have to prove that there are substantial problems with a project before it can deny a permit.