HomeMy WebLinkAboutRES-90-5414 (HOUSING ELEMENT)1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
r..� 25
26
ti...' 27
28
RESOLUTION 90- 5414
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING
THE HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN BY REPLACING THE 1984
HOUSING ELEMENT WITH "THE 1989 REVISION TO THE HOUSING ELEMENT",
AS REVISED, AND ADOPTION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE
DECLARATION.
WHEREAS, on September 4 and September 18, 1990, the Planning
Commission held public hearings as part of the third quarter
General Plan amendments to consider the revision to the Housing
Element, and;
WHEREAS, on October 9, 1990, the City Council held a public
hearing to consider the revision to the Housing Element and made
the following findings:
A. The amendment of the Housing Element of the General Plan to
include goals, policies, and objectives for the preservation,
inprovement, and development of housing, as provided for in
the revised Housing Element, updates the Element for the
1989-1994 period;
B. The revised Housing Element is consistent with the General
Plan, and does not result in any direct or indirect
significant impacts on the environment;
C. The revised Housing Element contains the necessary
information and analysis to meet the requirements of Chapter
3, Article 10.6 (commencing with Section 65580), Housing
Elements, of the Planning and Zoning Law for the State of
California, and is consistent with the policy and intent of
Article 10.6;
NOW, THEREFORE, the the City Council of the City of Hermosa
Beach, does hereby adopt the revised Housing Element, which
consists of the Draft Revision dated July 9, 1990, and
incorporates the modifications and additions attached hereto (a
list of modifications/addditions resulting from the workshops;
- 1 -
1
'A„r� 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
� 15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
the changes noted in the response letter to the Department of
Housing and Community Development; appendix G - Housing Quota
Appeal) and appendix H - the review comments of HCD and the
City's response, and adopts an environmental negative
declaration.
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 9th day of
October , 1990, by:
ATTESTS
V
of Hermosa Beach, California
p/pershsng
CITY CLERK
CITY ATTORNEY
UMM
Iftoo'
`"ur/
(RESOLUTION ATTACHMENT)
MODIFICATIONS/ADDITIONS
From the workshops and hearings some refinements to the revision
have been proposed and were included in the Planning Commission
recommendation as follows:
Request: Add "handicap" to the first State goal on Page 10
and add "handicap".to first City goal on the same page.
Action: To be added in the final draft.
Request: Eliminate -Objective #1 on page 11.
Action: Will be deleted in final draft. '
Request: Eliminate Objective #23 on page 12.
Action: Will be deleted in final draft.
Request: Add the word "ecologically" to policy #17 on page
16 of the Goals and objectives section.
Action: Will be included final report.
Request: Study and report on the quantified objectives noted
on page 14.
Action: Report has been prepared as Appendix G to the draft
revision and the quantified objectives on page 14 will be
changed in the revision to 45 lower income units and 150
total added units. Also the following will be added to
paragraph 2, page 23, �'Gityprojections are lowgv than theSCAG allocation, tain into eration can`'''/ in
employment,
vacancy rates and other local conditions see
Appendix G)-. SCAG fi ures will be used onlY if the followin
numbers proposed by the City are found to be unacceptable:
\ .ftw
3 -
very low low moderate high
ti..✓ 43 45 58 149
Request: Add cities to chart on page 34 to be the same as
those on page 57.
Action: Will be added in final draft.
Request: Add discussion about the change to using a special
prosecutor for the abatement of illegal units.
Action: To be added at the top of page 44, "Originally the
legal work was handled by the District Attorney s office and
roved to be too slow to be most effective. In 1989 the Cit
hired a special prosecutor to increase the quality of le al
work in the program and speed up the system when prosecution
became necessary, Tr
Request: Investigate and discuss how to use health, safety
Is and general welfare concerns including parking deficiencies ---
to restrict number of persons in one household, unless
related, as another feature of bootleg units.
Action: To be added as paragraph 2, Page 44, "The emphasis
placed on the abatement of illegal units in Hermosa Beach
continues to increase as more information is gathered and he
cumulative effects on the health, safety, and general welfare
of the community. Along with minimum code violations is the
tendency for landlords to allow units to become overcrowded'"'
oy permitting occupancy of more tenants than a unit was
intended to house. In Hermosa Beach, that usually means a
ousehol of unrelated individuals-,overtaxingindividuaEs—,overtaxing their housin
unit and the pu lic facilities. This situation would include
creating a problem of adequate parking for the extra tenants
who are impossible to compute in the attempts to solve t e
parking dilemma. Additional demands for.water, sewer, fire
protection and other services are also hard to determine when
actual numbers of residents are unknown.
Request: Consider civil prosecution for recovery of City's
costs of the abatement program.
Action: To be added as part of paragraph 1, page 44, " The
costs of the administrative and legal work done by the Cit
may also be -recoverable by the City through civil prosecution
of the violator. The County of Los Angeles has used the
process recently and it has proved successful.
Request: Add comment about the fee survey currently underway
in the City,
4 -
Action: To be added to paragraph 3, page 46, "The typical
,"EV, cost, in 1989, in Hermosa Beach ... on the average. To insure
that fees remain related to actual Cit costs, Hermosa Beach
has an on -going -fee survey program. The program monitors all
related fees and p impacts from any changes.
144� Request: Add explanation of density on a per acre basis to
make the narrative about density in the Housing Standards
section clearer.
`..1
Action: To be added after Table IX, page 57, "Table IX
compares densities on the total area of the specified cities,
which inclu es commercial and industrial uses. The City o
Hermosa Beach, using only the 433 acres of residential land
and the 10,129 units existing, has an average density of 23.
units per acre. Some areas will be higher and some lower in
order to obtain the average.
Request: Study and include results of impact of a limit of
two units per lot in the R-2 zone.
Action: To be added to paragraph 3, Page 59, "The R-2 zone
contains about 16 lots that would be affected by onlybein
a le to build a du lex on a large lot, where 3 or 4 units are
now allowed. These lots contain at least 5,250 square feet
of lot area and the largest lot 70x108.12 has 7,568.40
square feet would permit four units. This limitation woul
reduce the number of potential units by another 17 units.
Request: Increase guest parking from 1/2 to 1 space. per
unit.
Action: To be included as a part of the implementation of
the housing element. (No additions to the revision are
.needed).
Request: Review impact of including subterranean space on
FAR, height, etc.
Action: Mentioned in the revision, detailed study of the
impact to be a part of the implementation of selected
standards. (No additions -to the revision needed).
The City Attorney has also recommended that to comply with
legislative mandates regarding affordable housing that the
Section on "Program Selection," page 84, be amended to add the
following:
Incentives for Housing Development
The City shall consider all housing programs available
through the State Department of Housing and Community
- 5 -
Development for a which a developer may request City
14. assistance for the development of affordable housing
Objective: Provide Affordable Rental and/or sale of
Housing for Low and Moderate Income Families
Responsible Agency: City of Hermosa Beach
Financing: Private sources using various State tax
exempt financing vehicles.
Implementation: On-going action program.
Also to be added as objective 42, page 14, "Provide
Affordable Rental and/or Sale of Housing for Low and Moderate
Income Families.
;O.*
(RESOLUTION ATTACHMENT)
APPENDIX G
HOUSING QUOTA APPEAL
Vacancy rate:
The different documents from SCAG,(RHNA and the revisions)
explain that SCAG has used readily available figures to make the
determinations for Fair Share housing. For the vacancy rates
SCAG used State of California, Department of Finance published
figures (see RHNA, page A-8, SCAG Data Source).
However, the figures in Table 29A, page F-30, revised RHNA, show
an actual vacancy rate for the City of 1.60%, which is quoted in
the draft revision. The Table also shows that the rate
translates into an allocation of 104 housing units by 1994 to
increase the vacancy to a number considered to be optimum for
availability of housing. The vacancy rate from the Department of
Finance for the same period was published at 4.34%. according to
several different newsletters and bulletins.
The vacancy adjustment is added to the base allocation to arrive
.'at the total figure of 513 units to be built by 1994, according
to SCAG's distribution. The total is then distributed further
among the four income groups as shown in Appendix C.
The vacancy rates are discussed in the draft revision and the
lowering of the assigned allocation from SCAG is as proposed in
�,✓ the quantified objectives section. It would seem reasonable to
lower the allocation by the 104 units based on the following: ._
w
a) the data source (Dept. of Finance is the same)
b) SCAG figure disagrees with DOF figures
C) SCAG recognition of DOF as a data source.
It may also be possible to logically make an adjustment"that will
result in a negative factor in the allocations,.as in the case of
Pomona, Palmdale, and Agoura Hills. -this adjustment would..still
be directed toward achieving the ideal vacancy rate of 3.55%,
down .89% from the 4.34%. Instead of providing more units, the
Fair Share would be reduced so that existing units would fill up
and lower the current vacancy.
Current Density levels:
In the draft revision, density is discussed in relation to the
infrastructure, compared to other cities in the South.Bay region,
and documented concerning recentactions. One missing set of
calculations is the average density in the City on a per acre
determination with only residential land used to arrive at the
final figures.
The existing acreage for residential purposes totals 433 acres in
Hermosa Beach. Existing units total 10,129. Dividing the units
by the acres the average density of the City is 23.4 units per.
d.d acre. (This piece of information will be -added just after Table
IX in the Housing Standards section).
It is difficult to directly correlate existing or desired density
with the Fair Share allocations. As the past few years prove,
the number of units may be built that fill the SCAG allocation
and density can be lowered at the same time. It has been pointed
out, however, that this condition is only temporary and, in fact,
the City is quickly approaching a point where new housing will
only be replacing the same number of units.
How soon that will occur is speculation dependent upon market
conditions in the near future. Even so, average number of units
provided per year can be expected to decrease as replacement
approaches. Numerical reductions in the Fair Share allocations
may dependr-upon actual figures from the next two years for added
housing units and past trends to indicate a reasonable reduction.
The years 1988 and 1989, for example, only provided 30 added and
28 added units, respectively.
Infrastructure:
Like density, the problem of adequate public services and
continued provision of those services does not translate very
well when attempting to analyze Fair Share allocations. The
local situation does exist so that care must be taken to review
development proposals in light of insuring delivery of public
services. No new dwelling should be granted if it is determined
that there is a lack of capacity in regard to any public
facility.
Jobs/Housing Balance:
Since the figures were assembled for the computation of the
Jobs/Housing ratios there have been substantial changes in the
regional market for the outlook of new jobs in the next five
years. The greatest impact has been in the aerospace industry
where 20,000 plus jobs have been eliminated in recent months.
Th'e outlook is for additional jobs reductions and possible
reductions in the military presence in the region.
As a result, the pressures to produce new housing units have been
lessened for the immediate future. Planning for the near future
would mean through 1994 that added units would not be encouraged.
The discussion in the draft revision centered on the fact that
the regional needs of housing directly conflict with the local
needs for jobs creation.
CONCLUSION:
The expected number of units to be added to the housing stock by
� the end of 1994 will be substantially less than the projected
numbers from.SCAG. While some of the issues are difficult to
transfer into quantifiable objectives, the building of actual
units for the past three years does not indicate that past annual
averages will continue. The decrease in*added units reflects how
the building of new units has been directly affected by local
conditions.
Until additional reasons can be developed and background
information assembled, consideration might be given to lowering
the quantified objectives by 104 to 409, on the basis of
excessive vacancy. Affordable housing amounts could be reduced
on a ratio basis from 158 to 127.
It would also be appropriate that the SCAG allocation be lowered
to reflect current regional trends in employment and local
conditions. As was already noted, employment and jobs creation
have suffered recently from substantial layoffs in aerospace and
the yet to be determined military role in the region.
Using, again, the excessive vacancy rate as a leading factor and
major indicator of demand for new housing, coupled with
diminished jobs creation, and the number of new units actually
built over the last two years, the projected need for new housing
units is less than SCAG s estimates and allows for reducing the
"anticipated need. This reduction would lower the allocation to an
estimated 150 total added units for 1989-1994 and the number of
affordable housing units to 45, and also includes a provision
that a lower allocation be considered if public facilities are
unable to handle the load.
-O -T -
• tj gdEa guavd "ZZ aged pug -7 gdea geju i 6 TZ aged aas
t suot1Eoojje guisnoq aaegs a<ze3 aqq uT magj sapnjout pug squana
aaninj 3un000g OJUT 9181 scop OVOS moat] Ejep yNH-d `T•g uotIoas
•uotstnaa aqj 3o uoTjdopg jTjun paluamajdmic aq jouuEa
smeagoa<d oI seSuego paasaSgnS •+78-Z8 salted `uotloas meigoad
aqq UT -ST smeagoad papuame aqj 3A uotieIuamajdmj £•y uot40as
• se aqui
pazatn000 seq 3egM pTOAV ol AlTo aqj WUTlqeua uOTsTAojd VuTJOITUOM
E peau AlqeqOJd TTTm uisnoq aT Epa<ojje ainin3 •sh un p9119nuoo
aoj uoTaeanp aTgeuoseaa e aq Ig Tm iegj pug sloacoad Mau ut
sasnuoq AlTsuap aoj S-j-T—T-v—n5 01 zapzo ut saga ua� �o �ijtgejte�E
amts cunmiutm E spas uoilejst aT a1EIS luaoag •quamaaage
aqj moaj anp aoueTeq eqj aanooaz oI•••„`L gdeatgeated IL aged
pappe aq os •uotstnaa< aqq uT 8 29 L salted uo passnosip smajgoad
uotsatanuoo opuoo aqq jo sisSTguE atagga<nj sisaggns ,Z•y uot309S.
„•m�o� �aTIooq uI you q nogg aTggTTeAe uaaq seq `sjuamaxp az-
apoo uJ '786TtuoZ pue sjoE mz Isoo jnoge uoz6JOA9moH•uotszn9 aq� ut T m9T MT IOU seM mea oadsant:juaouI-:luamanoamI WUTsnOHags
emeaVoad aqj VUTJOISTUTUIR-e
Jo :Isoo q iq aq:j of anp pajeutma<aj SFM—MBJWoad JTE aat OgQO aql
•pa4aT moo uaa aneq gotgM saijinTjoe ads--,JUTS.aataM Z SS
uisnoq auoz jE�SEOO `SUOZ�ETn az uisnoq paanloejnuem ` utuoz
lled amogalTgom - uozIEnatasuoo uTsnoq ajggpzojjE Jo uoT3Ena<asuoo'
sod smEz oa aql oma SAS s uoi1emJOJUT utsnoq aq:j pus ivamaiege
llW9Tq.2oq,, `sjozluoo asn uET 6sIJOa9J TetIuaptsazauameozoiva
apoo apnToui asagZ 2TO aqq q pasn saznpaooat pa<Epue:ls
aq:j o:lutpP9T5jo zoout uaaq aneq smei of t
uo -up„ a<
`Z gdeageed
a
6 ed aouatZadxH me Soad oq pappe aq TlTm Vulmojjoj aqj
satagjo aqq go sniEis aqq XJTaeTo oy •C6-9 saved aas) pauoijuam
Ape8JTe a,ze smeaVoa<d aqj go amos •�i86T moz� smEi�oa<d pa�stj,
ATsnotnaatd aqq go goga ssaappe o1 st luammoo aql T•y uoTIoas
uI •ijea<p aqq pue sluammoo snoA of aoaazajaa Asea JOI xtpuaddy
aqq 30 zapzo eqq MoTTOJ 01 sl. puodsaa of Aam iseq eqj sdegaad
• a<a33aT aqI 03 xtpuaddy
eq3 uT papnTout aneq noX suot3sa22ns oTjyoads aq3 o3 asuodsaz uT
st sa33aT sags, •goeag esomaaH 3o X3TD aq3 atoj uotstnaJ �uamaja
2utsnoH 33eap aql Jo MaTA93 paTtg�ap atnoX paniaoaz angg any
: atongr • sw area
£SOZ-ZSZ'76 VO `oluamea<on
uotsinla ivamdojanaQ£AotTodxSuisnnOH
ivamdoTanaQ AjtunmmoO pug VuisnoH Jo ivamgedaa
JatgO `a OAVf •r a<AouvN • sL1
066T `£T a<agmajdaS
MUM lawa,
(ZN2WHOK11K NOIlMOSSH )
. /OM%\
Section B.2 comments on housing characteristics. The revision
has a specific section, Housing Stock, see pages 40-41, which
describes a recent survey of condition and permit activity over
the last 10 years.
Section B.3 suggests expanding on the inventory of land for
residential development. The Site Inventory section, pages
53-55, describes the entire inventory with the type of
development that may occur. Scattered sites are developed
through private sector efforts and are done randomly without City
participation. No programs have been suggested to convert needed
open space to residential use, especially the vacant school sites
(page 24) which represent an essential part of the park and
recreation requirements of the residents of Hermosa Beach.
Mentioned several times in the revision, pages 34 and 57, it is
important to note that the density of Hermosa Beach is two and
one-half times that of the City of Los Angeles with approximately
95% of the land already developed and improved. As the most
dense city in the South Bay, balanced land use has been a
priority versus imposing increased density.
Section B.4a is regarding land use controls and their discussion
in the revision. The section entitled "Housing Standards", pages
56-81, presents a detailed discussion of land use controls
including comparisons to other local communities and current
standards in the City. B.4a also mentions the City's abatement
program but incorrectly identifies the program as second unit
abatement. In the 1984 revision and again in the 1989 revision,
pages 43-44, the abatement program is discussed in terms of
illegal units built below minimum safety and health standards,
�. without building permits and, in some cases, in violation of
zoning densities. The removal of illegal units from the local
inventory is in the general welfare of the community by insuring
that residents should be confident that existing units are safe
for habitation. In regards to Proposition Q, it is only a
confirmation of existing density levels already my the zoning
ordinance. Density permitted by the zoning ordinance is found in
all cities, and is not "Growth management control" per se.
Section B.4b, refers to Building Code analysis, is unclear and an
example of other cities treatment of.this requirement could be
helpful. The statute requires discussion and analysis of
constraints due to code enforcement, which is not considered to
be the situation in Hermosa Beach. To be added to paragraph 4,
page 46, "...all which lower the fees. Enforcement of the
Uniform Building Code has raised the minimum standards for
housing construction in the City over the years. Like all other
jurisdictions in the state, administration of the code is a-
typical ro ram activity, and therefore does not result in an
unique constraint to development not found in all other cities in
the state.
Section B.4c, relating to public improvements, does not apply to
development in Hermosa Beach. All sites are served .by physical
infrastructure, as described in the revision, and connection to
or replacement of these is not viewed as governmental
- 11 -
constraints. Capacity of lines, age and cost of replacement of
lines were the focus of constraints discussed in the revision on
pages 48-50.
Section B.4d is about fees
and exactions. To be
added topa e
46, paragraph 3, "Generally,
the fee
schedule for
a single family
home is as follows:
ITEM
F_
ITEM
FEE
Building permit
$2000
Sewer
$ 900
Plan check
1300
Hydrant
1210
Open space acquisition
4290
Seismic
15
A current fee survey is underway which will relate comparability
of fees to services performed. Actual permit processing time, on
the average, is not considered to be a constraint and is not
discussed in the revision.
Section B.5 suggests a more complete statement about financing in
the area. To be added, page 45, paragraph 2,"...financing seems
Vo be readily available. No differences in interest rates or
loan availability is apparent compared with other surrounding
areas.T
Section 6 deals with the special needs categories specified by
state law. The revision, pages 29 & 30, is careful to address
`+•� each category and to state whether or not a need is perceived at
this time for that category. Regarding the homeless, pages 26 -
28, that section is detailed and accurate as written. Using the
police department of the City of Hermosa Beach as a primary
source for homeless counts, a range of 3-6 was used. Inclusion
of the transient population could only be an estimate that would
change from day-to-day based upon the experience of the police
and the small geographical size of the City. The unofficial
census count for 1990 was one homeless. The count was taken on
March 22, 1990 as the Federal government's effort to accurately
reflect homeless numbers for the 1990 census.
Section C is a recommendation to estimate units to be rehabed
during the planning period. To be added to Quantified
Objectives, page 14, number 4.• "Maintain recent trends and
assist in the re air, remodel and rehabilitation of 800 units."To
be amended, same section, number 1. Provide 1SO...and replace
145 units for a total of 295 units. 2. Provide 45 ... See
added Appendix G, Appeal of Fair Share Housing, for complete
explanation of the proposed reductions.
• w•
`.•� Section D.1 seems to indicate that a restatement of the A.2 & 3
comments be included at the beginning of the program section. As
an introduction to the programs, the following is to be amended
��
paragraph 1, page 82, The following are the program actions from
the revision. These actions are considered to be appropriate as
the implementation of stated goals, objectives, and policies in
-12 -
the revision. Review of the continued effectiveness of each
Program action will be done throughout the planning period and
changes mayne made in order to reflect community desires."
".:'
11-.�
Section D.2 is discussed in the revision in the Site Inventory
section, pages 53-55. With the addition of scattered sites the
section is a complete inventory of sites for the planning period.
The following sentence will be added to . paragraph6, page 53,
"...complete breakdown of housing activity). It �s estimated
that there are currentlZ only 20 lots that are vacant in the Cit
which represents .4 of to of the number of lots.
Section D.3 is directed toward affordable housing programs in the
City. Most of the efforts will continue to be private sector
initiated projects, such as the seniors project on Pacific Coast
Highway, page 53, which is in the design phase by the property
owners. The City has, however, included the density bonus
program as required and specifically mentioned as a policy in
this revision, page 15, number 9. The revision also discusses
the Section 8, rental assistance program, and that will be added
to the program actions section on page 84,
CDBG Rental Assistance (Section 8 Housing)
Administered through the County of Los Angeles, the Section 8
program provides assistance to targeted households which are
overpaying for housing. Subsidies are provided i_n__o_r_c7er to
reduce the amount of monthly rent to no more than 300 of the
income of a household.
Objective: Provide assistance to lower income households in the
form of rental assistance.
Responsible Agency: County of Los Angeles
Financing: Community Development Block Grants
Implementation: On-going program
Section D.4 is concerned with the removal of governmental
constraints, where legal and appropriate to do so. One of the -
efforts was the revision of the zoning ordinance to allow for the
maintenance of non -conforming residential units. No other
program changes are suggested in the revision with respect to
governmental regulation.
Section D.5, conserve and improve existing affordable housing, is
discussed in relation to maintaining the Marineland Mobilehome
Park, page 24 and the number of repair and remodel permits is
documented on page 40, which indicated an acceptable leve -1 --of
unit maintenance. To be added to paragraph 2, page 41, "...from
several decades ago done without benefit of codes. The zoning
code already includes provisions to Drotect le al non-conforins
m'
we
`••+ upkee
units, allows for expansion and encoura
as a part of the conservation objective -.-TT
-.13-
es repair an
VT -
aoJoaaTa SutuusTa
goEgnqoS laugoTN
`sanoA SlaaaouTS
bus aaijo pus asuodsaa anogE age ol puodsaa•swammoo asgaTd noaag�an�
,( pTnoM
•sluamaatnbaa Sutsnoq auoz 1E3SBOD aq3 jo 3aud E
ss pgatnbaa uaaq anuq s3Tun ou asnsoaq 3uammoo ou spaau 0 uot309S
•SITD aqi Sq auop Sutot:Jou
otlgnd pus sSutpaaooad POSTAOT93 'sSutauaq tsdogsla' age
jo dsoaa TEotSolouoago E aq ITTm quamnoop TsutJ age ut paom qq:
OUT eowm&,
aq oz :IuamaTa SutsnoH aqI Jo uotstnaa aqI Jo uotIEmaoJ aqj
ut Situnmmoo aqq jo saagmam aqj Sutnlonut ol, SutIETaa 4TO aq2 Jo
slJ0JJa aql ivamnoop 04 ivamaatnbaa aq� glTm op oi sug 3 uotjoas
•potaad SutuuuTd aqj Sutanp sauamala aasaudas
siT pug agTa TEaauaq aq� 03 suotstAaa TTE pug XuE Suiaoitpom
g9noa<gj panatgoE aq TTTm Xou94stsuo0 uETd lEaauao 9H uotjoaS
•asugd uot�s�uamaldmt
age ut dais s se an000 oa goasasaa aTgEaaptsuoo gItM
qutod SutlaE3s E su XTuo inq saSusgo aougutpao 01 pajElaa sotdol
jo aagmnu E sassnostp Zg-gs saSEd uotjoas spaupUVjS SutsnoH aqZ
•potaad SutuuETd ivaaano aqj Sutanp patjtpom aq ggStm spagpuEls
gotgM autmaalap uuo Ttaunoo XiTo aqq puE palgmasss st uotIEmaOJUT
aagiinj ivgj amts Bons 1E pug uotstnaa aqj Jo uot�.d' Ttiun
a1Etadoaddsut swags 6suotstnaa aougutpao anogE 'pg•Q uotIoaS
•uotstAaa aqj ui paisaSSns se stsgq TuuotSaa
E uo idaoxa Isuosaad xts Jo mnmtxum E ao uosaad auo ss Maj
se aoj saailags aptnoad of stssq TEooT u uo pantaoaad st paau ou �,.�
'anogE p91Eotput sy •uotstnaa aqq ut ss9T9m0H uotjoas paatnbaa
aqq ut passaappE gag ssalamog aqj jnogE squammoo og•Q uot109s
•Sutsnoq alggpaojjv
Sutansu. 3o poglam aaglo ao aous2stsss su aaglagm `ivads aq
TTTm spun] Moq Sutuaaouoo apum uaaq sEq uotstoap ON •luamaTllas/0ft`
pauotluam SpsaaTE aqj moaj amEo qugq Sutsnog aoj punj paAaEmasa
aq2 st `q9•Q 44oaCgns Sutsnoq alqupaojjE age jo lied E osTy
'SIZ1gsltunE Sutpunj pug Suisnoq paaEgs gjTm sTsap Eg•Q uotioas
Location
a. Address:
b. , Legal:
ACTIVITY 1Lt1V'1'1 t"11:H'1'1 C,N
L/
City wide
Description
1989 revision of the General Plan Housinq Element
Sponsor
a. Name: City of. -Hermosa Beach
b. Mailing Address: 1315 valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, CA 90954
hone: (213) 318-0242
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
In accordance with Resolution 89-5229 of the City of Hermosa beach, which im-
plements the California Environmental quality.Act bf 1970 in Hermosa Beach,
the Environmental Review Committee must make an environmental review of ali
private projects proposed to be undertaken within the City, and the Planning
Commission must make an environmental review of all public projects proposed
to be undertaken within the City, which are subject to the Environmental
quality Act. This declaration is documentation of the review and, if 'it be-
comes final, no comprehensive Enviromnental Impact Report is required for
this project.
FINDING OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
-We have undertaken and completed an Environmental Impact Review of this pro-
posed project in accordance with Resolution 89-5229 of the City Council of
Hermosa Beach, and find that this project does not require a comprehensive
Environmental Impact Report because,
ares it would not have a significant effect on
the environment. Documentation supg6rtin this finding is on file in the
Building Department. /
Date of Finding Cha rman, Environmental Review Committee
FINDING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
We have undertaken and completed an Environmental
ject in accordance with Resolution 89-5229 of the
Beach, and find that this project does not require
mental Impact Report because, ---"-d the
Glided 4n the prniect, it would not have a si ni
vironment. Documentation support' g thj)f 9
ing Department.
Date of Finding a' man, Vldnning Com
Impact Review of this pro -
City Council of Hermosa
a comprehensive Environ-
ficant effect on the en -
is on file in the Build-
,
FINDING OF TEW CITY COUNCIL
n
`r -
We have undertaken and completed an environmental Impact Review of this pro-
posed project in accordance with Resolution 89-5229 of the City Council of
Hermosa Beach, and find this project does not require a comprehensive En -
`w" vironmental Impact Report because, p ev'ded—the tt ti a mitigat�mras
;.moi„aoa ;., the .,r ,;e t, it would not have a significant effect on .
the^environment. Documentation supporting this fi ing is n file.in the
Building Department.
011A')
Date of Findino Mayor, Hermosa Beac City Council
,*=P/
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH )
I, Naoma Valdes, Deputy City Clerk of the City
Council of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, do hereby
certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 90-5414 was duly and
regularly passed, approved and adopted by the City Council
of the City of Hermosa Beach at a Regular meeting of said
Council at the regular meeting place thereof on October 09,
1990.
'*Mvo� The vote was as follows:
,AYES: Creighton, Essertier, Midstokke, Mayor Sheldon
NOES: Wiemans
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
DATED: October 10, 1990
'..o/
am�ZL
Deputy City Clerk