Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
08/28/84
"THAT OLD LAW ABOUT 'AN EYE FOR AN EYE' LEAVES EVERYBODY BLIND." -Martin Luther King, Jr. AGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, August 28, 1984 - Council Chambers, City Hall Closed Session - 6:30 p.m. Regular Session - 7:30 p.m. All Council meetings are open to the public. PLEASE ATTEND. It is requested that anyone who wishes to speak on any matter, please give their name and address for the record. Any complaints against the City Council, City Management, or depart- mental operations will be submitted in writing to the City Manager for evaluation by the appropriate department head prior to submission to the City Council. Complete agenda materials are available for public inspection in the Police Department, Public Library and the Office of the City Clerk. -------------------------------------------------------------------- PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL 1. CONSENT CALENDAR: The following routine matters will be acted upon by one vote to approve with the majority consent of the City Council. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless good cause is shown by a member prior to the roll call vote. (Items removed will be considered after Municipal Matters.) (a) Approval of Minutes: Special meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council held on July 30, 1984. Recommended Action: To approve minutes. (b) Approval of Minutes: Adjourned regular meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council held on August 6, 1984. Recommended Action: To approve minutes. (c) Approval of Minutes: Regular meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council held on August 14, 1984. Recommended Action: To approve minutes. (d) Demands & Warrants: August 28, 1984. Recommended Action: To approve Demands and Warrants Nos. through inclusive. City Council Agenda - August 28, 1984 (e) Claim for Damages: Brant Rogers, 1100 Monterey Blvd., Hermosa Beach, filed August 13, ±984. Recommended Action: To deny claim and refer to this City's insurance carrier. (f) Claim for Damages: City of Manhattan Beach, 1400 Highland Avenue, Manhattan Beach, filed July 27, 1984. Recommended Action: To deny claim and refer to this City's insurance carrier. (g) Report on temporary one-waying of 16th Street from Ardmore to Pacific Coast Highway. Memorandum from Acting Public Works Director William Grove dated August 22, 1984. Recommended Action: To receive and file. (h) Explanation of August 14 warrant to Hermosa Animal Hospital. Memorandum from General Services Director Joan Noon dated August 16, 1984. Recommended Action: To receive and file. (i) Report re. August 14 warrant to Denn Engineering Services. Memo- randum from Acting Public Works Director William Grove dated August 20, 1984. Recommended Action: To receive and file. (j) Status report re. scoreboard installation at Clark Field. Memo- randum from Acting Public Works Director William Grove dated August 22, 1984. (k) (1) Recommended Action: To receive and file. Police Reporting Distrii�ts. Memorandum from Captain John Mebius dated August 21, 1984. Recommended Action: To receive and file. Status report re. 60 Hermosa Avenue structure abatement. Memo- randum from Fire Chief Ron Simmons dated August 23, 1984. Recommended Action: To receive and file. (m) Report re. Police deployment on Prospect Avenue in response to letter from Mrs. Patricia Gazin. Memorandum from Acting Police Chief John Mebius dated August 23, 1984. Recommended Action: To receive and file. (n) Report re. Redondo Towing Service. Memorandum from Acting Police Chief John Mebius dated August 23, 1984. Recommended Action: To receive and file. (o) Detective Bureau monthly report for July, 1984. Recommended Action: To receive and file. (p) Police Department Traffic Division Monthly Report for July, 1984. Recommended Action: To receive and file. OPM j+�r :tinl i R(T 7 lt :1tO 0 Y T.ff � '.�fil. �.,,-},5,., e•;� � J .. �--ry•F�•ii! ��•�) ^.. iI�'s,,#:7 s. =i' -:).i7 S�.r'.�.:jjf; �T,,1�=i• rS' •r. � , i j Tf'r :ff.'�'.� .. Sri. S - ���_ i� I%'::�e�M��.(� :4 o �,ti�S_'-', �-1 �.�� j _J� :��iS s��'�•Ly;./T •f� �..1 :t ,ll �-. P, i-1. jJ J'. ^'' �-I..l ,�:.: �. at�i7� _ - t ;;j,7 Iq V ; S ;,) i .:�.--�. - {- _ i C: -:sem 'j�•���z-•�;,,�,v-- :.�'���'f �.. '�F>.=:t 1`�, �:� _, �.,::t �,,. •'�.. T.r�, �'�-�.:��r�-:�; i�`��:1 ;-F_, -_ 17) J a a_ { - f ,,� it'~.µ- TKf{ • �3.ie ,.�-i�y.� c, ;,n�� -- '' � �= '�=F :1��<' >�F �,"•^'*tom ;}t�. T� '�f'' .. �1? y4R,4 Ti silS ^ �It f r' _.. (. f.r,r ! .° Pi- •; j = 7 F ��:'i r;• i. S"('i �; ,. '•'� A ^• ,fa i;, "YAJh—'i .,� y t, ,•}f, _.'S i Jrn "Ti Zr. � !q^^ # r �: -t C ,,it+, -~TJ X R fjE.�µ r,rti^r ^i ? :_?:{fiiil inn . r• -.J, T SiSfI i l.i` lr.1, _l .. J •l r�': ^% ��.� •� �h � r'J � }„��.,.�rli- 1... 1. -(Z �..�. ST:i ..•r '�_. ,�1t-I '!':�' a _� J.. °�'►�'•- �.',_y r-� f,,1 ��: f-s;,-;�--�r�r, ._ -- -t .I 7.<l ';• PA (- i i 1 ^('1 1: j '- r S f ; ,fes ,? i �•r ;, sf;C� ' '-iia _l3F� rj "•tet -I ,."3ij'".`.it r`%J'T�. c` M f� .. i'+^i "- •.� t'� f, -"5_ ,:�: -,O'c j J Yi.(2 &,f" j+�r :tinl i R(T 7 lt :1tO 0 Y T.ff � '.�fil. �.,,-},5,., e•;� � J .. �--ry•F�•ii! ��•�) ^.. iI�'s,,#:7 s. =i' -:).i7 S�.r'.�.:jjf; �T,,1�=i• rS' •r. � , i j Tf'r :ff.'�'.� .. Sri. S - ���_ i� I%'::�e�M��.(� :4 o �,ti�S_'-', �-1 �.�� ri':i-l` -fi n. T• �,'�: _J� -`�'� y5 - at�i7� _ City Council Agenda - August 28, 1984 (q) Allocation for additional geologic report. Memorandum from City Manager Gregory T. Meyer dated August 22, 1984. Recommended Action: To authorize appropriation of $500 from Prospective Expenditures. (r) Proposition 36 (Jarvis IV). Memorandum from City Manager Gregory T. Meyer dated August 22, 1984. Recommended Action: To oppose Proposition 36. (s) City Manager Activity Report. Memorandum from City Manager Gregory T. Meyer dated August 23, 1984. Recommended Action: To receive and file. (t) Tentative Future Agenda Items. Recommended Action: To receive and file. (u) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH SETTING THE PARKING METER RATES THROUGHOUT THE CITY TO TWENTY- FIVE CENTERS PER HALF HOUR. Memorandum from General Services Director Joan Noon dated August 9, 1984. Recommended Action: To waive full reading and introduce. (v) ORDINANCE NO. 84-772 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, AMENDING ORDINANCE 78-596, SECTION 4, INCREASING THE CABLE T.V. FRANCHISE FEE FROM 3% TO 5%. For waiver of full reading and adoption. (w) ORDINANCE NO. 84-773 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. N.S. 120 TO INCLUDE THE VOLUNTARY LICENSING OF CATS. For waiver of full reading and adoption. (x) ORDINANCE NO. 84-774 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, AMENDING CHAPTER 4, "ANIMALS AND FOWL" OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE BY REVISING PORTIONS THEREOF RELATING TO FEES. For waiver of full reading and adoption. 2. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. APPEAL OF APPROVAL BY THE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS FOR A VARIANCE AT 645 GOULD TERRACE. Wendy Ann Doeh, Appellant. Memorandum from Building and Safety Director William Grove dated August 20, 1984. 4. PUBLIC HEARING TO FURTHER CONSIDER THE TRAFFIC CIRCULATION ON 27TH STREET AND GOULD AVENUE; TO INCLUDE: a. Shall Gould Avenue be narrowed to one lane? b. Shall a traffic diverter be installed at Valley/ Ardmore? C. Shall the funding (all or a portion) of the proposed Capital Improvement Project be authorized now? 5. PUBLIC HEARING RE. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE RELATING TO ADDITIONS TO NONCONFORMING RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES. Memorandum from Building and Safety Director William Grove dated August 23, 1984. -3- `T�:Ti(= c f)t '+' _� 'J :l:r `? �.e=r=4• 'S� �r`�_.�r;'Y, �aylJ y�r�f']'.r:1 :�; !^f, _ C - 1-�1 ,_t• 7 1^•� 1 f j., tsn it7-v.( J "T •k 1 _'1.t.;r (--_•,r. r_ r.` _ j!� f e'_!•?V� Y:� ..�:• : r a `srC''t; v '1Y-x' : i M -. �i r -��.+, raia'-, ... r f rf i�a`^' l.�J i.: �l� rZ" IJ �i "y t': 4 � r!l /� .6' �.v r7•, r� 1. _ _ _ - �14 AV Af t 7 'fir' .'a 1' t 4 '+ y.t` 7 F v �Y% it i .j '�'�,� �Y j_ .�''+., �'JI'. ?j a. f{ i.�.�a I._?.. .fE�:'i. -lt- �I•Sal tl�%.+. 1'i'f'31.: 1'? �a �•-J..i�.Ai9 i;.3 .i11`��e .i �lS1J •r` s MIN L+�1S:%..t� �`+�h �1.:�'"--'_ � _. .FYr,J .'1,- �t`f'r��',i7• ,w non-{rYfr vk L- i. _ )t• - ii F trp.a" }1ra i 7 rc�{ ° �p�y1 ., r a 7 _• Iii i iS-.`i tr i _il- ;Y I . � t t � •. J �•Y i�r L � j. t 1-' 1 J�(�% �� J� 4 t i �. }�' Ti^ r �1�Tie', �Lt.X;,`ii-� f ,rT `1 r i _ ( � — •,yl. - j .. , j, `fi � - C_� rt;3 �f1' �fsj'S : rxlE,' r3 �'t1' r'' '? �. c} ryas e r ; `•,3 f; '':. 1 v' t i p �ij3,.: i(�. z i 14 :laC:,�' •..li�C. �%Ei�.7` l `:F..r t � err. _.- �.r iJ-.t• .J _ ���. .0 +`7 a'? _;t �;.. ;'�;:j 4.- I.f�-, �7 i�, Tvi}(' - _ _ _,_i _ t� 3l ).i�. �.' 'r �'{ �.I'' _ - -.� ! - :]F��s�jxc)34 _- rl �7.1.� {� :- ,.�,ta� - � IZ Fy��•a i. '/L; '� � .N�-- - FA: r;a `� - t: ;' ;,�':_r,r 1 lff< •tiir� %. :t ;13� 11 X55 i.T-f`,r.. y. -- i ��,>•: il•f/i..�7 .it:l 'r:�' _t ti Z,.-.; r -t ,j}� }r-tll'._-'Jja ,��1 �.�': j. l.�fr~ .Ec-.r���°; �'� i. x , l ... 1. f...':' lz ,. .�r:L 1 �- �a. •. �1;�t.- I� tY�e c�l�.a-�;:��- f, (; S• ', -�.% TV ?., ..-J .., j: ,t -t ��` J�� f. �v• '. .1.f :, t- � [,ss :r`'f•:C�,-(•�:r t• _ q. +�r'�kYtTi��:FL•f�'a: •rt`:p,:E+• + � e��'" r.f-1�e :.± e_jt::f �:l.` . .` _ . ii'a?zj,_i-•t.�ff 1- ;.zS.J .� �: AJ �:x: -.�i: is f r'lti '�'� L%\ `�"tr -�'1f• ;\.j �`i?r,: T{�'�=''3` r .. �Y rshi.-i �{ j. rs'J i�� r ;{-�'•, j ' r':-I �_" 4.J � �� ti=4. � �1�'�,1 j ,_•�.i�r'tl _ - I -'<'. L.: ;'. 5��.F.. ,y+t•�� '-Fi. ^Ei�v �. i.t xr- �`.t...•.zl �?�.� Tl�_'� F� �:i �i Fix �3 :i�tf. �; �.•�.. -. .. City Council Agenda - August 28, 1984 6. PUBLIC HEARING RE. C -POTENTIAL AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING CODE. Memorandum from Planning Director Pamela Sapetto dated August 22, 1984. MUNICIPAL MATTERS 7. STATUS REPORT RE. MERGER OF SUB -STANDARD LOTS. Memorandum from Planning Director Pamela Sapetto dated August 22, 1984. 8. SETTLEMENT OF OLD TEAMSTER WESTERN CONFERENCE BENEFIT TRUST CLAIMS. Memorandum from Personnel Administrator Carolyn Smith dated August 22, 1984. 9. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAMS: 1985 - 1987. Memo- randum from Planning Director Pamela Sapetto dated August 23, 1984. 10. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS REMOVED FOR SEPARATE DISCUSSION. 11. MEETING OF THE HERMOSA BEACH VEHICLE PARKING DISTRICT COMMISSION. a. Approval of minutes of 8/14 meeting. b. 1984-85 Vehicle Parking District budget. 12. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY MANAGER a. Status report re. City/School property acquisitions. 1) Report re. 8/14 warrant to Golden State Sanwa Bank 2) Prospect Heights developed portion District sale 3) Letter of Credit re. South School, etc. 4) Creation of Hermosa Beach Non -Profit Corporation 5) Proposed joint District/City meeting 6) Request for special meeting of City Council 9/4/84. b. Request for Closed Session 9/11 C. Report on Laurel, Maryland's request to become Sister City 13. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY COUNCIL a• Railroad right-of-way Subcommittee report b. Child Abuse Subcommittee report C. Possible change of meeting date, 2nd Sept. mtg. d. Oral report from Councilman Barks re. U.S./Mexico International Sister City Convention 14. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS FROM PUBLIC - MATTERS OF AN URGENCY NATURE. 15. OTHER MATTERS - CITY COUNCIL. ADJOURNMENT w August 22, 1984 Regular Meeting of August 28, 1984 Honorable Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council REPORT ON ACTION TAKEN TO ONE-WAY SIXTEENTH STREET FROM PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY TO ARDMORE AVENUE This report is in response to an inquiry from the City Council at the meeting of August 14, 1984 regarding the action taken to one-way Sixteenth Street. On August 9, 1984 the Public Works Department received complaints from the residents of the Commodore Condominium located at Sixteenth Street and Ardmore Avenue. Their complaint was that the pedestrian protection canopy that was erected adjacent to the intersection of Sixteenth Street and Ardmore Avenue, for the project under construction, limited visibility creating a hazardous condition. The Public Works Engineering Technician requested that the Police Department check the intersection. They confirmed that the canopy obscures the view of cars stopped on Sixteenth Street waiting to enter Ardmore Avenue. To alleviate this hazardous condition, the Engineering Technician posted Sixteenth Street as a temporary one-way street heading east. The posting was intended as a temporary measure only while the canopy was in place. As directed by the City Council, the one-way signs on Six- teenth Street have been removed and the original circulation pattern reinstated. The construction on the adjacent parcel has progressed to a point where the canopy and fence can be moved within the curb line and shortened. The contractor has agreed to accomplish this work immediately. This action should substantially improve the view of oncoming traffic for those cars stopped at Sixteenth Street and Ardmore Avenue. Our office has now received a letter (attached) from the president and secretary of the Commodore Condominium Owner's Association indicating a desire to accomplish a three-way stop at the intersection of Sixteenth Street and Ardmore Avenue. It may be appropriate to explore this possibility should the relocation of the fence and canopy fail to substantially reduce vision obscurement at the intersection. %1 William Grove, Acting Director of Public Works Concur: QUICIAA-4-7-w-ri, Greory T. Beyer, Cit Manag r WG:md Attachments TO: The File SUBJECT CIAT OF H EPMOSA EFAOR I14 TER- OFFICE MEMO Traffic Hazard, 16th & Ardmore DATE. August 10, 1984 FROM: Public Works Department Gary Wheaton After receiving complaints from the Commodore Apartments at the corner of 16th Street and Ardmore, I requested that the Police Department check out the intersection for a possible hazardous situation due to construction in the area. See attached police report #1046. The advice from the Police Department was to make 16th Street one-way East from Ardmore to Pacific Coast Highway while construction on Ardmore was in progress, and until the pedestrian walk has been removed. .A, C / ,,�/�! 7_1 7 - - Gary WYton,'Engineering Technician Public;'Works Department . : u HZ0 : SZ3a : agI3 HOUV : 2�g aaxaGNI : )�g CaAoudd": ONIZSISSV ONIl'dOdTd 2i3OI33C : S'IIFIlac : SNSQIoNI ao 3dnw : ZN3QIONI ao NOISFIOO'-. ria : ssauciclv <2�,l 1 � Q I - - - Z2iOd32i ZNSQIoi� . � r I _ r i : S'IIFIlac : SNSQIoNI ao 3dnw : ZN3QIONI ao NOISFIOO'-. ria : ssauciclv <2�,l 1 � Q I - - - Z2iOd32i ZNSQIoi� -7 UOTyE1COSS,, C. av-7 ls:zncil 'Tn:--, 7-- T--'- I 30 TTS -Tcj: UlnTC[Oad o-r:r:r7e:rq snoanfiurp pup s no -L -�s i,a so 7-- 0 7 c, -LT - - a 7,� ga -+ �_z Uqql SG"'O-_O 7, d:7 1- C- S'T `2 2;D -n -T -'s t -149T 70 a;DUJ0� S�77-- 0 UC 3 U,, 2iq-7adoadu C -C, z�. G r c 2 0-4 -) -T ) - 0 ;r :Z 0 C -,, T,: '7L T 7 -�l -qD-Da7�S K --9T Puz? 70 1110747a;Dcl Ca 7-:T!.71 70 pxleog uCT-;r-TOCS2;- P 6 L 1 Y^71 -f -J, E--o.7-n "--- - - (-f Z% 'jJ11V �n VSC! -: 4v C -•17C �-� V t 1, 1 ,-! CD 1 1 . -11 � j �f - - -i— . ;I'vt. Zn,.":!A".y 3�IOIP,C�,:V 009L MASTER LIST OF STREETS 1. --Amoy-eeuLt-- 76. 9th Court ° 2. Amby Place 77. 9th Street P 3. Ardmore Avenue 78. Ocean Drive 4. Artesia Boulevard 79. Ocean View Avenue 5. Aubrey Court 80. Owosso Avenue 6. Aubrey Park 81. Ozone Court 7. Ava Avenue 82. Pacific Coast Highway Aviation Boulevard 83. Palm Drive _ 8. Bard Street 84. Park Avenue 9. Barney Court 85. Pier Avenue 10. Bay View Drive 86. Pine Street 11. Beach Drive 87. Porter Lane 12. Bonnie Brae Street 88. Power Street 13. Borden Avenue 89. Prospect Avenue 14. Boundary Place 90. Raymond Avenue 15. Braeholm Place 91. Real Avenue 16. Campana Street 92. Rhodes Street 17. Circle Drive 93. 2nd Street 18. Circle Court 94. 17th Court 19. Cochise Avenue 95. 17th Street 20. Corona Street 96. 7th court '. 21. Culper Court 97. 7th Place 22. Cypress Avenue 98. 7th Street 23. 18th Court 99. Shakespeare Drive 24. 18th Street 100. Silver Street 25. 8th Court 101. Silverstrand Avenue 26. 8th Place 102. 16th Court 27. 8th Street 103. 16th Street 28. 11th. Court 104. 6th Court 29. 11th Place 105. 6th Street 30. 11th Street 106. Springfield Avenue 31. El Oeste 107. Strand 32. 15th Court 108. Sunset Drive 33. 15th Place 109. Tennyson Place 34. 15th Street 110. 10th Court d' 35. 5th Court 111. 10th Street 36. 5th Street 112. 3rd Court 37. 1st Place 113.. 3rd Street 38. lst Street 114. 13th Court 39. 14th Court "115. 13th Street 40. 14th Street 116. 30th Place 41. 4th Court 117. 30th Street 42. 4th Street 118. 35th Place 43. Gentry Street 119. 35th Street 44. Golden Avenue 120. 31st Place 45. Gould Avenue 121. 31st Street 46. Gould Terrace 122. 34th Place 47. Gravely Court 123. 34th Street 48. Greenwich Village 124. 32nd Place 49. Harper Avenue 125. 33rd Place 50. Hermosa Avenue 126. 33rd Street 51. Herondo Street 127. 12th Court 52, Highland Avenue 128. 20th Court 53. -Till Street 1.29. 20th Place 54, Hillcrest Drive 130. 20th Street 55. Hollowell Avenue 131. 28th court 56. Hopkins Avenue 132. 28th Street 57. Ingleside Drive 133. 25th Street 58. Joy Street 134. 21st Court 59. La Carlita Place 135. 21st Street 60. Loma Drive 1.36. 24th Place 61. Longfellow Avenue 1.37. 24th Street 62. Longfellow Place 138_ 29th Court 63. Lyndon Street 739. 29th Street 64.. Manhattan Avenue 140. 22nd Court 65. Marlita 141. 22nd Street 66. Massey Avenue 142. 27th Court 67. Meyer Court 143. 27th Street 68. Mira Street 144. 26th Court . 69. Monterey Boulevard 145. 26th Street i 70. Montgomery Drive 1.46. 23rd Street 71. Morningside Drive 147, Valley Drive 72. Myrtle Avenue 148. Valley Park Avenue 73. Neptune Avenue 74. 19th Court 75. 19th Street ETECTIVE DURF�AU MONTHLY REPORT FOR THE MONTH ENDING AUGUST 1984 / � ✓ sa` ,tel � { otal Cases Assigned: 101 'CLASS 1 21 CLASS 2 28 CLASS 3 52 YTD: ].186 2226 3273 LYTD 1229 2149 3 286 - otal Felony Cases: 70 YTD 472 LYTD 182 Total Misdemeanor. Cases: 31 YTD 2.13 LYTD 56 102 •.! 1L'NILE otal Cases Cleared: By Complaint: Class 1 12 /_ 12 % Class 2 6 / 6 4; Class 3 0 / 0_% Other Means: Class 1 4 / 4% Class 2 7 / 7% Class 3 2 / 2 otal Cases Cleared by Complaint: YTD 119 LYTD 74 Total Cases Cleared by Other Means YTD 104 LYTD 60 DETECTIVE ARRESTS oral Felony Arrests 4 YTD 38 LYTD 76 Total Warrant Arrests 1 YTD 8 LYTD 15 otal Misdemeanor Arrests 0 YTD 11 LYTD 14 Technical Bookings 2 YTD 9 LYTD 20 CASE DISPOSITIONS BY COMPLAINT otal Felony Cases Filed 4 / B YTD 82 LYTD81 Total Misdemeanor Cases Filed 8 / 26� YTD 47 LYTD 52 otal Felony Cases Referred 7 _/ 10 YTD 19 LYTD 25 Total Misdemeanor Cases Rejected 4 / 13 %YTD 32 LYTD 35 otal Felony Cases Rejected 3 / 4 YTD 12 LYTD 14 Total Misdemeanor Warrants 1 / 3 % YTD 10 LYTD 10 otal Felony Warrants 0 / 0 % YTD 7 LYTD 3 CASE DISPOSITIONS BY OTIIER MEANS Other Agcy. uses Inactivated 65 / 64 % YTD 394 LYTD 389Cases Unfounded 2 / 2 % YTD 11 LYTD 14 Referrals 4 / 4 % xceptional Clearance 0 / 0 % YTD 7 LYTD 5 Unable to Prosecute 2 / 2 % YTD 44 LYTD 26 YTD 27 LYTD lII COURT APPEARANCES UPERIOR Ido. OF CASF'S 0 YTD 11 LYTD 27 UNICIPAL NO. OF CASES 8 YTD 70 LYTD 102 •.! 1L'NILE NO. OF CASES 2 YTD 6 LYTD 2 NO. OF HOURS 0 NO. OF HOURS 42 NO. OF HOURS 2 1 nr a YTD 43 LYTD 147 YTD 3 3 4. 5 LYTD 305* YTD 12 LYTD 8 t I CJ O S K CTJ r D n r rr Sb o p r r D C 0 7 C+ rt p 11, n • co r• p i 0 (: x 0 ( O 0 ?I m 0) H• 0 0 A 0 H C C 0 N r n r ri rt C rS rI 6< n 0 r. n C rt r 0 r 0 Y 0 c p I �+ �Q i '� E p E ?+ 0 C fl p C H 0 H- 0 r I 0 C CD 0 n D n CD (n D N N o o pn 9' ro C n :� 0 pt t1 n n rS d 0 r (n n n r ^ r p H C 1-h p ''< 6C O r p C N r Ft C N 0 CD r• ^,, N p to r 0 h G w 7 E N r N '� G+ N 0 0 O N p H 0 CD rr N O 0 N K (A co (n N rS O N r. 0 d N 7 r C r r n v O p m F-+ C) 7 cP N t' F• r co w H U7 r p C rt C 0 O o N F- O C •• W r0 < fA r N H C p H - N 0 N (D i` t-1. N La H p r CD in O H 0 N r to ' o a C 0 CL Ln a a 0, o ~ P- ..+ a W r p N C4 p +i < '< W J N N iP 00 0 rt O 0 R' F-' W O a o Qr. K ►3 K H CD CD a 0 d w CJ N O N o K K r m q N K H K 7 N a N N N L"', U1 4 LI)w o to U to to y l0 U t En m W O a �' to m zd o `' vn K K K •� H o `N w K K y 1-3 y v N V . d d d d [7 u' r d C) H b H N w Li w z w ~ H a K y v CC) N CO7 ti oN CD �' ro m CI o w m r y O Fa r wcn N h �, N to t7 v Cl b0 'A co c k D O 0 p 0 C7 H I K h w w Z 7 y H H `w N O m 0) C N 7 I !OA K m H rt ILn m0 H � n 0 =' rt 0 CD N 0 m t� H (n 0 O K K `< b o d w U) CD D) Oj CD rt cma H N t' C C 0 N N 0 0 J K rt H - N 0 O n r& H cn m N' 0 m N NCD 0 o Hr �. Q, t7 w I00 m n 7 < N J © F-' N 0 Cl O 0 N N o o t, CD n H O O rC K-3 O, 0+ o 0 oW yC7 d H Q, -33 O O N W d-U� b ow O O K d K N ,A N F-' W O y d ti O H O K H O *C *C d C1 CD d d J O _ O O N F w d d ,p LrlcoaU+ d O C A N H d �? �3 d C K J ►G ►C d v o N N Gl N N 'A W co N 1 t rnM H ;o- cn Y N < • s i b C z 3. r t7 r' C7 �' 1�• z °�� � c r z ►c n ,� � ,� z < � T a r h c cn ro C C7 C] t7 y O u, 0 cn cn r3+ L? O H T+ C En cn z o *CI H rM ca K (n C O o M r r y z U) N U] < N ~' > HH y U7 to y 0 z LA.) o 0 0 0 0 J U7 O ^✓ U7 cco r~r O CD v v v v v v - Co o 0 N N N F- N co 03 O W E-+ O o J O < (_1 O t0 U7 a) J Ui — C7 i— Ol N C) K O cn OC -J < W v � K K K pC ►C �•C C7 v d co H al W M C3 --j ,a rn w H Ul U'1 i—' lD N .A N ►G - N J O W H r H 0 O F•+ O C ''7 < c, c En y crn ti C7 CD O r O 7nC O ?o i 110- c N y 00 3 N �! W k.0 En C7 z Ln O -? O{n ti, �n to •cn 1(:7) ti o 0 C 0 o O O co K a v v o v v o N Ln O O O O K 0 0 U, O �3 o y h H ti ►�3 '"' v v v v v N � � � N Ul O A N O Co U7 Ul O a) MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, held on Tuesday, August 28, 1984 at the hour of 7:30 P.M. in the Council Chamber, City Hall. CLOSED SESSION - All present PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Councilman Barks DnT T OAT T Present - Barks, Cioffi, DeBellis, Wood, Mayor Brutsch Absent - None 1. CONSENT CALENDAR (a) (b) (c) (d) ACTION - To approve the Consent Calendar, items (a) through (x) with the exception of the following items which were pulled for separate discussion but are listed in order for clarity: (d) - Wood, (k) - Brutsch, (1) DeBellis, (m) Brutsch, (r) - Barks, (s) DeBellis and (t) DeBellis. Councilman Wood abstained on item (a). Motion Barks, second Brutsch. So ordered. Approval of Minutes: Special meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council held on July 30, 1984. ACTION - To approve minutes noting the abstention of Councilman Wood. Approval of Minutes: Adjourned regular meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council held on August 6, 1984. ACTION - To approve minutes. Approval of Minutes: Regular meeting of the Hermosa Beach City Council held on August 14, 1984. ACTION - To approve minutes, Demands & Warrants: August 28, 1984 ACTION - To approve Demands and Warrants Nos. 14482 and 14636 through 14795 inclusive noting voided warrants 14642 and 14695. Motion Wood, second Mayor Brutsch. So ordered. (e) Claim for Damages: Brant Rogers, 1100 Monterey Boulevard, Hermosa Beach, filed August 13, 1984. ACTION - To deny claim and refer to this City's insurance carrier. (f) Claim for Damages: City of Manhattan Beach, 1400 Highland Avenue, Manhattan Beach, filed July 27, 1984. ACTION - To deny claim and refer to this City's insurance 'la carrier. -1- Minutes 8-28-84 ' s CONSENT CALENDAR (continued (g) Report on Temporary One-Waying of 16th Street from Ardmore to Pacific Coast Highway. Memorandum from Acting Public Works Director William Grove dated August 22, 1984. ACTION - To receive and file. (h) Explanation of August 14 Warrant to Hermosa Animal Hospital. Memorandum from General Services Director Joan Noon dated August 16, 1984. ACTION - To receive and file. (i) Report re August 14 Warrant to Denn Engineering Services. Memorandum from Acting Public Works Director William Grove dated August 20, 1984. ACTION - To receive and file. (j) Status Report re Scoreboard Installation at Clark Field. Memorandum from Acting Public Works Director William Grove dated August 22, 1984. ACTION - To receive and file. (k) Police Reporting Districts. Memorandum from Captain John Mebius dated August 21, 1984. ACTION - This item to be discussed at the next Police/Fire Subcommittee meeting. Motion Mayor Brutsch, second Wood. So ordered. (1) Status Report re 60 Hermosa Avenue Structure Abatement. Memorandum from Fire Chief Ron Simmons dated August 23, 1984. City Attorney Post advised that the next step regarding this matter is to handle it civilly. ACTION - To receive and file. Motion DeBellis, second Mayor Brutsch. So ordered. (m) Report re Police Deployment on Prospect Avenue in'Response to Letter from Mrs. Patricia Gazin. Memorandum from Acting Police Chief John Mebius dated August 23, 1984. Mayor Brutsch thanked the Police Department and stated he was pleased with the report. ACTION - To receive and file. Motion Mayor Brutsch, second DeBellis. So ordered. (n) Report re Redondo Towing Service. Memorandum from Acting Police Chief John Mebius dated August 23, 1984. ACTION - To receive and file. -2- Minutes 8-28-84 CONSENT CALENDAR (continued (o) Detective Bureau Monthly Report for July 1984. ACTION - To receive and file. (p) Police Department Traffic Division Monthly Report for July, 1984. ACTION - To receive and file. (q) Allocation for Additional Geologic Report. Memorandum from City Manager Gregory T. Meyer dated August 22, 1984. ACTION - To appropriate $500 from Prospective Expenditures for the purpose of having the firm of Robert N. Hacker, Inc. prepare an additional geologic report specifically addressing the feasibility of drilling wells from the City Maintenance Yard into the tidelands area. (r) Proposition 36 (Jarvis IV). Memorandum from City Manager Gregory T. Meyer dated August 22, 1984. ACTION - To receive and file. Motion Wood, second Mayor Brutsch. So ordered noting the "NO" vote by Councilman Barks. (s) City Manager Activity Report. Memorandum from City Manager Gregory T. Meyer dated August 23, 1984. Councilman DeBellis requested copy of letter in response to questions on South School parking lot. He also questioned the letter from Roger Bacon regarding tax-exempt financing. City Manager Meyer responded that no monies will be spent unless arrangements are made for the developer to stand the cost. ACTION - To receive and file. Motion DeBellis, second Mayor Brutsch. So ordered. (t) Tentative Future Aqenda Items. ACTION - To receive and file. Motion DeBellis, second Mayor Brutsch. So ordered. (u) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, SETTING THE PARKING METER RATES THROUGHOUT THE CITY TO TWENTY-FIVE CENTS PER HALF HOUR. Memorandum from General Services Director Joan Noon dated August 9, 1984. ACTION - To waive full reading and introduce Ordinance No. 84-775 entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH SETTING THE PARKING METER RATES THROUGHOUT THE CITY TO TWENTY-FIVE CENTS PER HALF HOUR." Motion Mayor Brutsch, second Barks. So ordered. -3- Minutes 8-28-84 CONSENT CALENDAR (continued (v) ORDINANCE NO. 84-772 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 78-596, SECTION 4, INCREASING THE CABLE T.V. FRANCHISE FEE FROM 3% TO 50. For waiver of further reading and adoption. ACTION - To waive further reading and adopt Ordinance No. 84-772 entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 78-596, SECTION 4, INCREASING THE CABLE T.V. FRANCHISE FEE FROM 3% TO 50." Motion Mayor Brutsch, second Barks. So ordered noting the "NO" vote of Councilman Wood on the adoption. (w) ORDINANCE NO. 84-773 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HEP140SA BEACH, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. N.S. 120 TO INCLUDE THE VOLUNTARY LICENSING OF CATS. For waiver of further reading and adoption. ACTION - To waive further reading and adopt Ordinance No. 84-773 entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. N.S. 120 TO INCLUDE THE VOLUNTARY LICENSING OF CATS." Motion Mayor Brutsch, second Barks. So ordered. (x) ORDINANCE NO. 84-774 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, AMENDING CHAPTER 4,. ANIMAL D FOWL" OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE BY REVISING PORTIONS THEREOF RELATING TO FEES. For waiver of further reading and adoption. ACTION - To waive further reading and adopt Ordinance No. 84-774 entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, AMENDING CHAPTER 4, "ANIMALS AND FOWL" OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE BY REVISING PORTIONS THEREOF RELATING TO FEES." Motion Mayor Brutsch, second Barks. So ordered. 2. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC None PUBLIC HEARINGS ACTION - To hear Agenda Item #4 as the first item on the agenda. Motion Mayor Brutsch, second Wood. So ordered. 4. PUBLIC HEARING TO FURTHER CONSIDER THE TRAFFIC CIRCULATION ON 27TH STREET AND GOULD AVENUE: TO INCLUDE: a. Shall Gould Avenue be narrowed to one lane? b. Shall a traffic diverter be installed at Valley/Ardmore? C. Shall the funding (all or a portion) of the proposed Capital Improvement Project be authorized now? Memorandum from Acting Director of Public Works William Grove dated August 22, 1984. Supplemental information letter from Clarence Hinkle dated August 25, 1984, letter from Mr. & Mrs. C. Batchelor, and letter from the 27th Street Environmental Protection Association dated August 28, 1984. -4- Minutes 8-28-84 TRAFFIC CIRCULATION - 27TH STREET & GOULD (continued) City Manager Meyer presented an overview of the problem to date. The Public Hearing was opened. Coming forward to speak were: Patrick McDevitt, spokesman for the 27th Street Environmental Protection Association, who read a letter from the Association into the record which presented their recommendations. David Bell, 349 - 27th Street - suggested signage warning of stop sign on 27th Street westbound. John Toman, 311 - 27th Street - asked for traffic to be diminished on 27th Street. Frank Quinn, 632 - 8th Street - noted they have the same problems on 8th Street. Edie Webber, 2207 Pacific Coast Highway - advised that City had spent a considerable amount of money on making Gould what it is today and that the 27th Street group was originally formed because of the noise problem. Christina Brand, 429 Grould - concerned with the speed of cars past the park which is a safety issue. June Williams, 2065 Manhattan Avenue - stated on her three trips a day she has never experienced any traffic problems and that it is as noisy on Manhattan Avenue as on Gould. Tina Winters, 425 Gould Avenue - stated that it was State of California money that had improved Gould, not City money. Jim Lissner, 2715 E1 Oeste - indicated that the speed survey of 1983 indicated the average speed on Gould to be 39 mph. He also spoke re the noise level, dirt, speed, and traffic volume and asked that 27th Street and Gould be reclassified as a Residential Street. He also suggested using road bumps. Tina Winters, 425 Gould Avenue - illustrated one possibility for making Gould one lane each direction. Kenneth Bertossi, 629 Gould Terrace - urged traffic reduction and slowing of traffic. Wilma Burt, 1152 - 7th Street - noted that Gould was improved in 1960 to be an expressway to the 91 Freeway and that trucks are necessary to the City. The Public Hearing was closed. Questions were raised by Council regarding the possibility of lowering the speed limits on residential streets. City Manager Meyer indicated that speed iimits are unenforceable if they are lower than the 80th percentile of the traffic speed. ACTION - To direct the City Manager to contact the high-density employers in El Segundo to find out how many of their employees live in Hermosa Beach, ascertain how many cars are involved, and attempt to force them into ride -sharing etc. This report to be ready for presentation to the Council in a month. Motion Mayor Brutsch, second DeBellis. So ordered. -5- Minutes 8-28-84 TRAFFIC CIRCULATION - 27TH STREET & GOULD (continued FURTHER ACTION - Staff to study reducing the speed limits on Prospect and Valley/Ardmore, and the speed limit on Gould to be reduced from 35 to 25 mph. Motion Mayor Brutsch, second Cioffi. So ordered. PROPOSED ACTION - To authorize the Public Works Department to proceed with the installation of traffic channelization islands in conjunction with the Capital Improvement Project 186 to upgrade the intersection of Gould/Valley/Ardmore. Further, in conjunction with the upgrading of the intersection of Gould/ Valley/Ardmore by the installation of an asphaltic concrete overlay, curbs, gutters and sidewalks that traffic diverters are to be designed and installed. These diverters would allow through traffic to proceed in whatever direction the driver desired; however, they would more clearly define all pathways through the intersection. Included in this would be landscaping and signage directing motorists to the downtown business district and beaches. The total cost to be $60,000 plus $10,000 for channelization islands to be paid from the State Gas Tax Funds. Motion Barks, second DeBellis (discussion) AYES - Barks, DeBellis NOES - Cioffi, Wood, Mayor Brutsch Motion fails. FINAL ACTION - To appropriate $50,000 from the State Gas Tax Funds to create a narrower roadway at the intersection of Gould and Pacific Coast Highway with signage directing traffic to the beach and Hermosa Beach business area down Pacific Coast Highway, to be brought back in design form with appropriate response from Caltrans in 60 days. Motion DeBellis, second Barks. So ordered. Mayor Brutsch suggested to the audience that they write letters to Caltrans regarding this matter. 3. APPEAL OF APPROVAL BY THE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS FOR A VARIANCE AT 645 GOULD TERRACE. Wendy Ann Doeh, Appellant. Memorandum from Building and Safety Director William Grove dated August 20, 1984. The staff report was presented by Building and Safety Director William Grove who showed slides of the property under consideration. The Public Hearing was opened. Coming forward to speak were: Jim Lissner, 2715 E1 Oeste, representing the appellant. He stressed the need for adherence to the zoning rules and also asked that the rear sideyard setback be changed to 11 feet so that the average setback would be 7 feet for the easterly sideyard. -6- Minutes 8-28-84 645 GOULD TERRACE (continued Speaking for the applicant was Chris Gerold, 2417 Artesia Boulevard, Redondo Beach, who presented letters from neighbors of the applicant who are in favor of granting the variance and allowing the addition. He presented a rendering of the building and asked for denial of the appeal. Doug Frohoff, 633 Gould Terrace, spoke in favor of denying the appeal and granting the variance. Peter Bird, 607 Gould Terrace, asked Council to allow the variance and deny the appeal, and indicated that the appellant has been using her single family home for a duplex for the past five years. Frank Richardson, 625 Gould Terrace, a resident since 1953, spoke in favor of denying the appeal. The Public Hearing was closed. ACTION - To deny the appeal, grant the variance based on the findings of the Board of Zoning Adjustments, and adopt Resolution No. 84-4753 entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH DENYING THE APPEAL AND GRANTING A VARIANCE ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 645 GOULD TERRACE." Motion Wood, second Barks. So ordered. FURTHER ACTION - To send a Resolution of Intention to the Planning Commission to study the imposition of a maximum on residential -zone setbacks of sideyards for R-1 and R-2 with an eye towards a maximum of five feet, to be returned within the timeframe specified in the Municipal Code (40 days after they hold a Public Hearing). Motion Wood, second DeBellis AMENDMENT TO MOTION - To also ask them to study the 100 of lot width with a maximum of five feet. Motion DeBellis with the concurrence of the maker of the motion. So ordered. FINAL ACTION - To ask the Building Department to investigate the potential of a bootleg apartment in the area of this variance (649 Gould Terrace). Motion Wood, second DeBellis. So ordered. 5. PUBLIC HEARING RE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE RELATING TO ADDITIONS TO NONCONFORMING RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES. Memorandum from Building and Safety Director William Grove and Planning Director Pamela Sapetto dated August 23, 1984. The staff report was presented by Building and Safety Director Grove. -7- Minutes 8-28-84 NONCONFORMING RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES (continued) The Public Hearing was opened. Coming forward to speak were: June Williams, 2065 Manhattan Avenue - asked that if changes are going to be made for nonconforming uses, make sure all aspects are covered. Wilma Burt, 1152 - 7th Street - questioned use of variance to keep your home improved or put it in better conditions. Chuck Sheldon, 25 - 9th Street - stated that the 650 lot coverage forces architects to design boxes and suggested a study and modification of the lot coverage issue. Edie Webber, 2207 Pacific Coast Highway - asked if administrative variances were still on the books and was told they were. The Public Hearing was closed. ACTION - To waive full reading of Ordinance No. 84-776 entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING ZONING ORDINANCE N.S. 154, SECTIONS 1301, 1302, 1304 AND 1309 AS THEY RELATE TO ADDITIONS TO, AND REHABILITATION OF, NON- CONFORMING RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES." Motion Wood, second Mayor Brutsch. AYES - Barks, Cioffi, DeBellis, Wood, Mayor Brutsch NOES - None FURTHER ACTION - To introduce Ordinance No. 84-776. Motion Wood, second Mayor Brutsch. So ordered. FINAL ACTION - To send a Resolution of Intention to the Planning Commission to study Section 1162 allowing minor deviations - 100 sq. ft. or less not requiring a variance. Motion DeBellis, second Cioffi. So ordered. 6. PUBLIC HEARING RE C -POTENTIAL AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING CODE. Memorandum from Planning Director Pamela Sapetto dated August 22, 1984. The staff report was presented by Planning Director Sapetto. The Public Hearing was opened. No one coming forward, the Public Hearing was closed. ACTION - To authorize the Business Subcommittee and Planning Department to meet with two representatives of the Planning Commission and any interested staff to generate a proposed Resolution of Intention for City Council approval, to be back to Council the last meeting in September. Motion Wood, second Barks. So ordered. -8- Minutes 8-28-84 MUNICIPAL MATTERS 7. STATUS REPORT RE MERGER OF SUB -STANDARD LOTS. Memorandum from Planning Director Pamela Sapetto dated August 22, 1984. Supplemental information - Letter from concerned Hermosa Beach Residents dated August 23, 1984. The staff report was presented by Planning Director Sapetto. PROPOSED ACTION - To receive and file. Motion Wood - dies for lack of a second. Building Director Grove illustrated on a map where the affected lots were located - the majority being located East of Prospect. PROPOSED ACTION - To ask staff to prepare an ordinance to implement a moratorium for the next City Council meeting as a Public Hearing with conditions as specified by the Planning Commission. Motion DeBellis, second Cioffi. SUBSTITUTE ACTION - To receive and file. Motion Wood, second DeBellis VOTE ON MAKING SUBSTITUTE MOTION THE MAIN MOTION AYES - Barks, Cioffi, DeBellis, Wood, Mayor Brutsch NOES - None SUBSTITUTE MOTION BECOMES THE MAIN MOTION RESTATED ACTION - To receive and file. Motion Wood, second DeBellis AYES - Barks, Cioffi, DeBellis, Wood, Mayor Brutsch NOES - None 8. SETTLEMENT OF OLD TEAMSTER WESTERN CONFERENCE BENEFIT TRUST CLAIMS. Memorandum from Personnel Administrator Carolyn Smith dated August 22, 1984. Withdrawn. 9. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAMS: 1983-1987. Memorandum from Planning Director Pamela Sapetto dated August 23, 1984. The staff report was presented by Planning Director Sapetto. It was stressed that CDBG funds could be swapped with other cities for other types of funds and that the City must parti- cipate for three years. If they do not sign the contract, the City is excluded from participation for three years. City Manager Meyer reported this item needed to be acted upon today as the deadline was B-27-84 which the County extended. Present use of CDBG money is for the storm drains on the South side of the pier and for sewers. It was noted that at least $300,000 of CDBG money is owed to the City for prior years. -9- Minutes 8-28-84 CDBG (continued) ACTION - To not accept the CDBG monies for July 1, 1985 through June 30, 1988 or authorize execution of Cooperative Agreement. Motion Mayor Brutsch, second Wood AYES - Cioffi, Wood, Mayor Brutsch NOES - Barks ABSTAIN - DeBellis. 10. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS REMOVED FOR SEPARATE DISCUSSION The following items were pulled for separate discussion but are listed on the Consent Calendar for clarity: (d) - Wood; (k) Brutsch; (1) DeBellis; (m) Brutsch; (r) Barks; (s) DeBellis; and (t) DeBellis. Councilman Wood abstained on item (a). 11. MEETING OF THE HERMOSA BEACH VEHICLE PARKING DISTRICT COMMISSION A recess of the Regular Meeting of the City Council was called at 11:40 P.M. to convene a meeting of the Hermosa Beach Vehicle Parking District Commission. The Regular Meeting of the City Council reconvened at 11:55 P.M. 12. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS AND REPORTS - CITY MANAGER (a) Status Report re City/School Property Acquisitions 1) Report re 8/14 Warrant to Golden State Sanwa Bank 2) Prospect Heights Developed Portion District Sale ACTION - To receive and file items 12.(a) 1 & 2. Motion DeBellis, second Mayor Brutsch AYES - Barks, Cioffi, DeBellis, Mayor Brutsch NOES - Wood Council discussion ensued on the Prospect Heights property discrepancy. Planning Director Sapetto reported that N.S. 517 talks about built-up and not built-up portions of the Prospect Heights property. When the City measured the property they found that the legal description called out the line as exactly where the structure ends. In the EIR, the maps of existing zoning refer to the retaining wall, so the question was "should that portion of open space the City is not acquiring be rezoned and the retaining wall made the breakpoint." Councilman Cioffi felt the City represented to the School District that the maps were correct showing the retaining wall as the breakpoint. Councilman Wood felt the School District is the property owner and should know their legal property description. -10- CITY/SCHOOL PROPERTY ACQUISITIONS (continued) 3) Letter of Credit re South School, etc. City Manager Meyer gave the staff report stating that the School District must convey property to the City, not to Joint Powers. The letter of credit would use the property as collateral and the value of the land must be $4,000,000 and the only way this value can be created is by adequate zoning of the land. The letter of credit is obtainable with the City as contingent guarantor and sufficient value of the land. Councilman Barks stated that his understanding of previous Council action was that if Mello -Roos fails on the ballot, the Council would rezone the built-up portion of South School so the District could sell it - the alternative was Mello -Roos, asking the citizens to purchase the property. Doug Ayers of MSI stated his understanding of the previous Council actions was that a Joint Powers be formed to immunize the City as much as possible from any risk, thus enabling the School District to cash out their property which would have to be rezoned. The Council had passed a motion to issue a letter of credit as the School District had construction problems and needed money to go to bid in October. His instructions were to try to preserve open space and the net result was they put together this financing package. The Joint Powers Authority would own the property, not the City. The Authority would be made up of two members of the City Council, two members of the School Board, and one member selected by both bodies. Responsibility for the money would be first the non-profit JPA and second the City of Hermosa Beach. ACTION - Not to enter into a Joint Powers Authority with the School District to purchase the South School property. Motion Mayor Brutsch, second Wood AYES - Barks, DeBellis, Wood, Mayor Brutsch NOES - Cioffi 4) Creation of Hermosa Beach Non -Profit Corporation Covered in item (3) above. 5) Proposed Joint District/City Meeting. 6) Request for Special Meeting of City Council 9-4-84. ACTION - To request a joint meeting with the School District on Tuesday, September 4, 1984 at 7:30 P.M. in a City facility, to be advertised in the Daily Breeze. Motion DeBellis, second Mayor Brutsch. So ordered. -11- Minutes 8-28-84 b. Request for Closed Session 9-11-84. ACTION - To authorize a closed session for 6:30 P.M. on September 11, 1984 prior to the Regular Meeting to be held at 7:30 P.M. Motion Wood, second Mayor Brutsch. So ordered. ADJOURNMENT On a motion by Councilman Cioffi, seconded by Councilman DeBellis, the Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach adjourned at the hcur of 12:40 A.M. on Wednesday, August 29, 1984 to a Special Meeting to be held on Tuesday, September 4, 1984 at 7:30 P.M. The remainder of the agenda will be heard at the next regularly scheduled meeting to be held on September 11, 1984. Motion Cioffi, second DeBellis AYES - Barks, Cioffi, DeBellis NOES - Wood, Mayor Brutsch -12- Minutes 8-28-84 e July 6, 1954 HONORABLE MAYOR and MEMBERS of the REGULAR MEETING of HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL19$4.: MYENDING ZONING CODE SECTION 1103: C -POTENTIAL Recommendation Staff concurs with the Planning Commission recommendation that the C -Potential Process (Zoning Code Section 1103) not be amended at this time. Background On December 31, 1953, the City Council adopted a Resolution of Intention di- recting the Planning Commission to hold a public hearing to consider amending Section 1103 of the Zoning Code. The Planning Commission held public hearings on February 21, 1954, March 6, 1954, and June 5, 1954. The Planning Commission adopted Resolution 54-15(C) (Attachment A) which recommends that Section 1103 of the Zoning Code not be amended at this time. Analysis The Planning ('t�mmi gSi nn h d trrPe �Rnti �nG fry him h tv civ 1. To delete Section 1103 of the Zoning Code thereby deleting the re- quirement of a Specific Plan. (Ordinance A) 2. To amend Section 1103 of the Zoning Code by deleting the Specific Plan review and creating new development standards (Floating Zone) for C-Potential_o�erty abutting residential property. (Ordinance B) 3. That the C -Potential process (Zoning Code Section 1103) not be amended at this time. since a review of the multi -use corridor is being con- ducted during th . (Motion - Action required bnlyj— - 61 _•' f Planning Commission recommends that the work being done on revising the Land Use Element can contribute substantially to an overall understanding of the multi -use corridor. A proposal in the Land Use Element calls for the change of some of the C - Potential properties to residential. The concern that the Planning Commission had with option (1) was the loss of review control of C -Potential projects. Because of the inherent conflict be- tween residential and commercial uses which would occur on those properties, Planning Commission recommends maintaining the current review process during the Lan ision. Also, the Planning Commission recommends not imposing development standards, optima n (�Zi, at khis time. Development standards dopted following land use planning which is currently underway. Pi 1103 of the Zoning Code be left .--aG ancLparr rrnjA�+ ;,, trP ('_PntPntia1 Zone be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. (Attachment B shows current standards.) The C -Potential process will be addressed in the Land Use Element and come back to City Council in conjunc- tion with the Land Use Element N 0-r CONCUR: OAszr--- cAA, 7 Greg Zanager Me er Cit 7 `G Stacy Park- ctory Planning Intern Pamela Sapetto Planning Director CITY MANAGER NOTE For too long the issue of how best to facilitate PCH Multi -Use Corridor development has languished. I encourage the Council to proceed with a plan of action such as embodied in Ordinance B. 1 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 ORDINANCE (A) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DELETING ZONING CODE SECTION 1103• 'REAS, the Planning Commission held public hearings on February 21, 1984 March 6, 1984, and June 5, 1984, to consider this matter; and WHEREAS, The City Council held a public hearing on August 28, 1984, and; WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the requirement for a Specific Plan in order to transform C -Potential property to actual commercial is an excessive requirement for conceptual approval; The City Council does HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That Section 1103 of the Hermosa Beach Zoning Code be deleted. PASSED and APPROVED and ADOPTED this 28th day of August, 1984. (PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, Calif ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY _31 i 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 x 16 17 18 19 20 21I 22 23 24 25 26 27 ORDINANCE (B) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DELETING ZONING CIDE SECTION 1103 AND CREATING A FLOATING ZONE (COM..2ERRCIAL OVERLAY - CO) REGULATING C -POTENTIAL PROPERTY WHICH CONVERTS TO CONMIERCIAL AND ABUTTS RESIDENTIALLY ZONED PROPERTY. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held public hearings on February 21, 1984; March 6, 1984, and June 5, 1984 to consider this matter; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on August 28, 1984;and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the requirement for a Speci- fic Plan in order to transform C -Potential property to actual commercial is an excessive requirement for conceptual approval; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that existing development standards of the Zoning ';Code regulating commercial structures do not provide for commercial structures which abutt residential zones; and WHEREAS, it is the express intent of the City Council to protect the public interest when and if affected by construction of any structures; and WHEREAS, it is the intent of the City Council to achieve harmony between the residential and commercial districts while not discouraging a commercial development; THE CITY COUNCIL DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That Section 1103 of the Hermosa Beach Zoning Code be deleted. Section 2. To create a new Section 8.6 entitled,"Commercial Overlay Zone" The new section shall read as follows: 8.6 Commercial Overlay Zone(CO). The purpose of this zone is to regulate C -Potential property which converts to a commercial use. The following development standards shall be applicable. 8.6-1. Height. Restricted to thirty-five (35) feet where commercial abutts residentially zoned property. The Thirty- five (35) foot height limit would apply to that portion of the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18i 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 structure which abutts the residential zone. If could be up to ' forty -,five (45) feet but not exceeding a line drawn horizontal from a 35 foot height limit adjacent to the residential zone. Height for commercially zoned properties which do not abutt re- sidential zoned properties shall be 45 feet. 8.6-2. Tandem Parking. Tandem parking could be allowed in a ratio of no more than 50% trapped or untrapped spaces. Those trapped spaces being assigned to occupant of the structure. 8.6-4. The treatment of the facade where it abutts residential should incorporate features to break the plane of the facade in order to provide visual relief for adjacent residences. PASSED,APPROVED,and ADOPTED this 28th day of August, 1984. PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, California. ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY 1 2 3 4- 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 is 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION P.C. 84-15 (C) ATTACHDAENT A A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF HERMOSA BEACH RECOM- MENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT THE C -POTENTIAL PROCESS (ZONING CODE SECTION 1103) NOT BE AMENDED AT THIS TIME. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on February 21, 1984, and on March 6, 1984, to consider this matter; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the Initial Study and has determined there are no significant adverse environmental impacts created by this project and recommends that a negative declaration be filed with the County R -corder; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has determined that lots in the multi -use corridor should be examined on a site by site basis; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has determined that the work being done on revising the Land Use Element can contribute substantially to an overall understanding of the multi -use corridor. NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved that the Planning Commission of Hermosa Beach does hereby recommend to the City Council that the Zoning Code Section 1103, C -Potential not be amended at this time. VOTE: AYES: Comms. Brown, Newton, Shapiro, Chmn. Izant NOES: None ABSENT: Comm. Strohecker CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution P.C. 84-15 (C) is a true and complete record of the action taken by the Planning orr ission of the City of Hermosa Beach hei ,re ula�r7y scheduled meeting of J n 1, l 984 S� tep/ n Izant, Chairman /Joel Shapiro, Secretary V I/ f � 1 Date t -� Lc v elepmen u o uanuarus vs. U-eo uenl iai i' loa wing�onc : ATTACIVENT B Existing Proposed Floating Zone Height 45' 35' where commercial abutts residential, 45' at other end of commercial structure that doesn't abutt residential Lot Coverage 100% 100%; minus setbacks Setbacks: Front none no Side Rear none 3' on an alley,5' where commercial abu r• t ,., • d �, ,' � r i J. r r, it none 3' on an alley, 5' where commercial abutts re�identi-al Tandem Parking when minimum parking requirements are met, no more thin 50% of spaces could be trapped/untrapped tandem Facade none treatment *of the building where it abut t:3 regi j�r.�:iril should imcorporate features to break the plane of Qie facade for visual relief t HONORABLE CHAIRMAN and MEMBERS of the HER,MOSA BEACH PLANNING COLWMISSION March 1, 1984 REGULAR MEETING of MARCH 6, 1984 AMENDING ZONING CODS: C -POTENTIAL PROPERTIES Recommendation That the Planning Commission adopt the attached resolutions (A & B). The first resolution (A) amends Section 1103 and eliminates Section 1104, both within the Hermosa Beach zoning code. The second resolution (B) introduces development standards tailored to compliment commercial abutting residential, which would apply to C -Potential as a floating zone. If the Commission is of the opinion that these C -Potential changes are not in the best interests of the community especially in the absence of a completely updated Land Use element, then resolution "C" should be adopted. Background At the meeting of February 21, 1994, the Commission voted to continue this item until the first meeting of April, and that in the interim staff gather additional data. The motion to continue this item for approximately six weeks was based on the belief that there are no time constraints in returning this item to the Council. The City Code, Section 1512 (1), allows forty (40) days for a response from the Planning Commission. Analvsis L As can be seen from the comparison pace of cities, all four cities have adopted some rniti;atin,,; doveioprient sran,!ards. Our proposed floating .-one appears not as restrictivt! :n suine instances, c. ., EI Segundo's height restriction from 200 feet to 100 feet, Redondo Leach's 20 Foot rear and side setbacks, or El Se undo's provision to .tllo,.v an is -1 'Ot to bu,ld ., dr:p:ex to act as a !;offer bet%veer R-1 and commercial. It is staff's opinion that there is merit in deleting the specific plan requirement and adopting special development standards (refer to 2-21-84 staff report), therefore staff recommends that the Commission approve the attached resolutions addressing such code changes. Now, there is a limitation on the amount of time the Commission has to respond to the Council on this matter (40 days). Therefore, if it is the Commission's position that deleting the specific plan and introducing a floating zone is inappropriate at this time, then staff suggests that the attached resolution "C" be adopted. 0 Alfred R. Mercado Planning Aide Pamela Sapetto , Planning Director MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON TUESDAY, ._UNE 5, 1984, IN THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT 7:30 P.M. C -POTENT IAL AMENDMENT Ms. Sapetto gave staff report. She noted that staff's original recommendation was to change the C -Potential development standards for the conversion of C -Potential property to commercial property. Ms. Sapetto noted that at the meeting of March 20, 1984, the Planning Commission had requested additional information concerning the proposed floating zone and Development Standards for C -Potential properties which abut residential properties. She stated that the Planning Commission specifically asked for the standards required by the City of Laguna Beach. She noted that she had provided the Commissioners with attachments showing the development standards of Laguna Beach as well as comparison charts for the cities of Redondo Beach, Manhattan Beach, and E1 Segundo. She noted that the Hermosa Beach standards are fairly liberal when compared with the other cities. Ms. Sapetto stated that another question that the Planning Commission had was in regard to the definition of how to treat a C -Potential zone when it abuts residential. The current height requirement is 45 feet, which is considered to be excessive when it abuts commercial property. The proposed resolution calls for restricting the height to 35 feet where commercial abuts residentially -zoned property. Also, there are no required setbacks except for three feet for alleys. This project calls for a setback of at least five feet where the commercial abuts residential. These setbacks would provide a buffer zone. She noted that the Commissioners had received an additional attachment detailing the C -Potential Standards versus Current Standards. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1S 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION P.C. 84- (A) A RESOLUTTON OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF HERMOSA BEACH ADOPTING AN XMENDMENT TO SECTION 1103 OF THE CITY ZONING CODE, AND ELIMINATING SECTION 1104. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on February 21, 1984 to; consider this matter; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has determined that the requirement for a specific plan in order to transform C-Potential property to actual commercial is an excessive requirement for conceptual approval: and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has determined that modified development standards are necessary in order to mitigate the conflicts between different land uses that share (or are adjecent to) a boundary line; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has determined that in order to realize these latter two WHEREAS', Section 1103 must be amended and Section 1104 deleted; both of the zoning code. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission of Hermosa Beach recommends to amend Section 1103 and delete Section 1104 as indicated in Attachment "A" to this resolution. VOTE: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution P.C. 84- is a true and compl record of the action taken by the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach at their regular meeting of February 21, 1.434. Stephen lzarit, Chairman Date Joel Shapiro, Secretary f - j 'i'vI oha11yM i o i_meap aura e 2uipaaaxa IOU jnq iaa; (st) aAT;-A;.Io; of do aq pinoD •auoz ierTuaMsaa aqi siinge goTym a-mianils aql. ;o uoTiiod 1egI of AlddL- pinom JTwii Ig21ag loo; (S£) aAT;-Aj-1Tgl aq1-XI-iado.ad pauoz Aperjuaprsaa sjI.nge ieTa.aawwoo a.iagm Iaa; (s£) am;-/,IJTgJ 01 paIoTaTsa 1-ILISTaH :spaepueIs Tuawdoianap 2uimolio; age. g11m ieTa.aawwO:) off. Ai-iadwd 1eTIual.od-O ;o Uorsaanuoo age. ao; (OO) auoz 2UTIe0i; e aleaaa off. spuawwoaaa goeaq esowaaH ;o uoissrwwo7 2uiuueid aq; Ieqj Q3A"I0S32i 11 39 `32IO:I32i3H1 `MON :Iuaw '-doianap IeToaawwoa a 2?UTSe.moasip IOU airgm sIarIJsip ieraaaiuwoa pue iegUapisai aqj uaamlaq AUowaeg anargZ)e of UorssrwwoO 2?uruueid age. ;o lualuT age. sr }r `SV9-d3HM pue !saanjan.ajs .Cue ;o UOT;analsuoo Aq pajoa;;e ;T pue Uagm IsaJ@IUT DTignd aqj IDawid OT uorssrwwoO SuTuueid aye. ;o Tuaiui ssa.zdxa age. ST JT `S`d32i3HA1 pue !sauoz ierluapisai 14nge gorgm sa-miDn ils IeTJaawwoJ ao; apiAo_ld Iou op saanionils iero.iawiuoo SUTiein2a i apoO 2?uTuoZ aqT I ;o spaepuels }uawdoianap BUTIsrxa aq} jegj spur; Uoissri.uwo;) SUTUUe1d aq1 `Sb I HA1 'Al2I3dO'dd a3NOZ k'11V11N:iQIS2d S-Lif19 ' (INV 'Ib'IO2i3WW03 01 SiN3ANOO HOIHM A.L d3dO'dd "IHI1N31Od-O ONI1b MDI J2i (OO - Ab Td2A0 "IVI0E3WWOO) 3NOZ DNI.LVo-l3 V 31b'32 D 01 3ONVNIClw NV 1dOQb 01 'IIONf1O3 A1I3 3H1 01 ONIQN31NLV0332I `VlNE0-4l-lV:) `HZ)V3u t1SO1V2i3H JO ALIO 3H1 d0 NOISSININ03 ONINNFI'Id 3H1 d0 NOI A-10S2d b (�) -fi£ 'D'd Nor1n`IOS�j21 8Z LZ 9Z SZ t1Z £Z 01 6 8 L J 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 is 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 23 horizontal from a 35' height limit adjacent to the residential zone Height for commercially zoned properties which do not abutt residentially zoned properties shall be 451. 2. Setbacks. Where the commercial structure abutts only commercial usage none is required except three (3) feet on an alley. Where the commercia structure abutts a residential zone, a setback of at .least five (5) feet i. required 3. Tandem parking could be allowed in a ratio of no more than 50% trappe or untrapped spaces. Those trapped spaces being assigned to occupant of the structure. 4. The treatment of the facade where it abutts residential should ;ncorporate features to break the plane of the facade in order to provide visual relief for adjacent ' esidence.. VOTE: AY ES: NOES: ABSENT: CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution P.C. 84- is a true and complete record of the action taken by the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach at their regular,;neetxg of , 1984. Ste6hIzant, Chairman Joel Shapiro, Secretary 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION 84- (C) A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF HERMOSA BEACH RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT THE C -POTENTIAL PROCESS (ZONING CODE SECTION 1103) NOT BE AMENDED AT THIS TIME. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on February 21, 1984, and' a hearing on March 6, 1984, to consider this matter; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has determined that lots in the multi -use corridor should be examined on a site by site basis; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has determined that the work being done on revising the Land Use Element can contribute substantially to an overall understanding of the multi -use corridor. NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved that the Planning Commission of Hermosa Beach does hereby recommend to the City Council that Zoning Code Section 1103, C -Potential not be amended at this time. VOTE: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution P.C. 84- is a true and complete record of the action taken by the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach at their. regularly scheduled meeting of March 6, 1984. Ste yben Izant Chairman Date Joel Shapiro Secretary PEIR: HB 84- PROIECT: Devetopment Standards for C -Potential Properties Abutting Residential LOCATION: Pacific Coast Highway APPLICANT: City of Hermosa Beach ZONE: C-Potential/C-3 GENERAL PLAN: Multi -use Corridor I. Project Description The project consists of the adoption of a floating zone (a district in the zoning ordinance, but not given a specific location until a developer applies for it) that will prescribe clearly defined development standards tailored to preserve, as much as possible, the residential ambiance directly east or west of the pro- posed development. 1. Height Would be restricted to 35' where commercial abutts residentially zoned property. The 35' height limit would apply to that portion of the structure which abutts the residential zone, and could be up to 45' if the overall height of the structure does not exceed 35' at the point of abuttment to the residential zone. 2. Setbacks Where the commercial structure abutts only commercial usage, none is required except 3' on an alley. where the commercial 3 . structure abutts a residential zone, a setback of at least 5' is required. 3. Parking a) no tandem parking allowed. Or, tandem parking could be allowed in a ratio of no more than 50 trapped or untrapped spaces. Those trapped spaces being assigned to occupants of the structure. b) tandem parking would be allowed in the case when the rninirnuni parkin; requirements are already met. 4. The treatment of the facade where it abutts residenti::l should incorporate features to break the piano of the facade in order to J e PEIR: HB 34- PROiECT: Deve�opment Standards for C -Potential Properties Abutting Residential LOCATION: Pacific Coast Highway APPLICANT: City of Hermosa Beach ZONE: C-Potential/C-3 GENERAL PLAN: Multi -use Corridor I. Project Description The project consists of the adoption of a floating zone (a district in the zoning ordinance, but not given a specific location until a developer applies for it) that will prescribe clearly defined development standards tailored to preserve, as much as possible, the residential ambiance directly east or west of the pro- posed development. 1. Height Would be restricted to 35' where commercial abutts residentially zoned property. The 35' height limit would apply to that portion of the structure which abutts the residential zone, and could be up to 45' if the overall height of the structure does not exceed 35' at the point of abuttment to the residential zone. 2. Setbacks Where the commercial structure abutts only commercial usage, none is required except 3' on an alley. Where the commercial structure abutts a residential zone, a setbackof at least 5' is required. _ 3. Parkin a) no tandem parking allowed. Or, tandem parking could be allowed in a ratio of no more than 50°S trapped or untrapped spaces. Those trapped spaces being assigned to occupants of the structure. b) tandem parking would be allowed in the case when the minimum parking requirements are already met. 4. The treatment of the facade where it abutts residential should incorporate features to break the piano of the facade in order to provide visual relief. For example, limiting the height to 35', for that portion of commercial that abutts residential, avoids the phenomenon of a residential structure being overshadowed by a commercial project, while still allowing the commercial development to build up to 45' at the opposite end (lower grade) of the site. Additionally, the setback requirement provides a moderate buffer between the two uses. Permitting tandem parking, when minimum parking requirements are met, would increase the parking capacity of a commercial site, and thereby further mitigating the a .4 parking complexities. Finally, the provision that considerable consideration be given to the architectural nature where commercial abutts residential will tend to provide some visual relief. II. Environmental Setting This project encompasses all tots classified as C -Potential located adjacent to commercial properties. There are approximate!y.thirty-four such lots, located along the interior of the Pacific Coast Highway Corridor (please see the attached map). The lots are presently used for residential purposes, though the immediate Pacific Coast Highway area is predominantly commercially zoned. The ultimate objective of the project would be to increase the depth of the existing commercial zone, thereby enhancing the area's economic viability. (The commercial zone now varies in depth along the length of the Highway from 40 feet to 290 feet and in some cases there is no commercially zoned property on the Highway.) The City of Hermosa Beach is one of the most densely populated cities in the State of California. In the local election of 1931, the citizens of Hermosa Beach approved a _ measure (Proposition EE) which favored maintenance of the existing population density over any increase. III. Environmental Impact I. Population - The project will ultimately decrease the population density of the City, as it will facilitate conversion of residential (C -Potential) Properties to commercial use. 2. Traf fic Congestion Lind :\fir Quality - This project would not have a direct ir;rpact on traffic congestion and air duality. Theoretically the increased number of vchic!e trips generated b. cornrnercial development would be reversed by the decreased number of vehicle trips associated with the decreased residential population. Thus, the quantity of pollutants released in the air would remain, constant. Pending analysis of the specific commercial developments, however, no measurable impact upon traffic and pollutant emissions can be speculated. 3. Public Services - The decreased population density this project would facilitate will decrease demand for fire and police protection, paramedic services; and the Free Bus Program. Furthermore, the increased revenues expected from commercial development will enhance the economic base upon which such services could be improved and expanded. The development standards are considered to compliment an environment with mixed land uses, they minimize the discomfort borne by one who's use of the land (for example residential) differs from another (for example commercial). IV. Adverse Environmental Effects 1v; hich Cannot Be Avoided If Project Is Implemented Since this project only modifies several development standards, i.e., height, setbacks, tandem parking, and the facade, it is not viewed as introducing any adverse environmental effects into its environment. V. Alternatives to the Proposed Action a) Conditional Use Permit for all such proposals. This would route all applications (except subdivisions) to the B=A rather than the Planning Commission. The logic here is that since the City already favors such - action, only conditions and use need be examined requiring BZA approval. b) Rezone all C -Potential properties to Commercial. - As can be seen by the city's previous efforts to rezone numerous properties throughout the City, i ezoning - especia!ly on a !arge scale - can be extremely curnbersorne. Several years alto this same proposal was attempted, resulting in sihniticant public opposition, and a very small amount of acreage aCtually transtormed from C -Potential to Commercial Zoned. C) To leave ' ,,2ction ! 103 of the C;tv Code as it presently reads. Deve!opersa!-c :osubmit detailed proposals when risking that a zone change will not be approved. The result would be that C -Potential properties will remain residential. VI. The Relationship Between Local Short -Term Uses of plan's Environment And The Maintenance And Enhancement Of Long Term Productivity The present fiscal situation of the City of Hermosa Beach demands concerted efforts to encourage commercial development. The City's approval of C -Potential designations to residential lots adjacent to commercial properties in the Pacific Coast Highway corridor represented an initial step forward. Further progress, however, has waned due to uncertainties on the part of developers, regarding the zoning of such properties. The Planning Commission has in recent years made clear it's interest in expanding the depth of Pacific Coast Highway Commercial Zone, to increase the economic potential of the area. The project discussed herein would facilitate transformation of C -Potential to Commercially Zoned properties,. by eliminating uncertainties, and introducing specific development standards. The increased revenues expected from the development, coupled with a decrease in population density, would serve to enhance the local environment both within a short-term and a long-term perspective. In the short term it would spark interest in development within the City, and in the long-term provide the economic basis upon which public services could be enhanced. STVIIIKWd CENI101IOXDVE April 27, 1984 HONORABLE CHAIRMAN and MEMBERS of the REGULAR MEETING of HL~ RMOSA BEACH PLANNING CO M1;1ISSION May 1, 1984 C -POTENTIAL ?ONE At the meeting of March 20, 1984, the Planning Commission requested additional information concerning the proposed floating zone and Development Standards for C -Potential Properties Abutting Residential. Specifically. 1. What are the Standards required by Laguna Beach? The first attachment shows standards of Laguna Beach plus three other cities. 2. Definition of how to treat a C -Potential zone when it abutts residential? The current height requirement is 451. This resolution calls for restricting the height to 35' where commercial abutts residentially zoned property. Also, there are currently no required setbacks (except 3' for alley). This project calls for a setback of at least 5' where the commercial structure abutts residential. The setbacks would provide a buffer zone. The second attachment shows C -Potential Standards vs. Current Standards. 3. Will walls and landscaping be within the setbacks? Yes, the 5' requirement would include the walls and landscaping, and not be an addition to the requirement. 4. What happened at k1s. Browns resident and are their current building code _ requirements to prevent what happened? The foundation gave way. However, this was a result of the contractors failing to follow the approved plan. . It was not the result of deficiencies in the building code or the lack of setbacks. However, requiring setbacks would help to minimize the prospect of this occuring again. Stacy Vic`. ry Planning; Intern (��;pnl�y r,iDEtiu � i �.. ITT U-) UUMIUPIL UL u6a"UWUS vj, U-iut,�",Lui rlu.Liu !i.._ Existing Proposed Floating Zone Height 45' 35' where commercial abutts residential, 45' at other end of commercial structure that doesn't abutt residential Lot Coverage 100% 100%; minus setbacks Setbacks: Front none none Side none 3' on an alley, 5' where commercial abu h is ros idea t i ill Rear none 3' on an alley, 5' where commercial abuUs residenLW.1 Tandem Parking when minimum parking requirements are met, no more thin 50% of spaces could be trapped/untrapped tandem Facade none treatment of the building where it abutts residentA l should imcorporate features to break the plane of the facade for visual relief �.. ITT E1 Segundo I,nguna Beach Hermosa Peach most restrictive setback would prevail 1.00' mux. R-1 lot MA abutts Spo A An There r• 7 i ! i •ibI - . , (200' is manuf. or :ann-rnial i:, normal) rntMed to Build n dup! --:: Same as is required of residential none none Height, none 3' on an alley, 5' where 35' where coirurercial abutts resi.ivi•+ commercial abutts residential 45' at other end of rommerciil st ru : `irt ' hq `. abutt residential I DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR COMMERCIAL ABUTTING RESIDENTIAL Setbacks Height Buffer Front Rear Side Redondo same as 20' 20' none 6' masonry wall, 3'-5' Beach residential landscaping I.,anhattan 20' same as same as 26' max. 61 masonry mall, T-5' Peach residential residential landscaping E1 Segundo I,nguna Beach Hermosa Peach most restrictive setback would prevail 1.00' mux. R-1 lot MA abutts Spo A An There r• 7 i ! i •ibI - . , (200' is manuf. or :ann-rnial i:, normal) rntMed to Build n dup! --:: Same as is required of residential none none Height, none 3' on an alley, 5' where 35' where coirurercial abutts resi.ivi•+ commercial abutts residential 45' at other end of rommerciil st ru : `irt ' hq `. abutt residential I 'LANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - June 5, 1984 C -POTENTIAL AMENDMENT (Cont.) Page 2 Ms. Sapetto further noted that the Commission had questioned whether walls and landscaping would be within the setbacks. She stated that they would, noting that the five-foot requirement would include walls and landscaping and would not be an addition to the requirement. Ms. Sapetto mentioned the concerns of what happened at Mrs. Brown's residence when the foundation gave way. She stated that this occurrence was a result of the contractors failing to follow the approved plan; it was not a result of deficiencies in the building code or from the lack of setbacks. However, requiring setbacks would help to minimize the prospect of this occurring again. Ms. Sapetto stated that the Planning Commission had several options to choose from: to adopt staff's recommendation of development standards for C -Potential property and delete the requirement of a specific plan, thereby requiring Planning Commission approval on all new projects; or, keep the Code as it is now, where there would be a discretionary review of any project in the C -Potential zone. This discretionary review would be on a case-by-case basis. She noted that Resolutions A and B would amend the Code; Resolution C would keep the Code the same as it is now. Ms. Sapetto reminded the Commission that when they do act on this issue, they would also be acting on the initial study of the EIR. She recommended that this initial EIR be given a negative declaration. Chmn. Izant referred to Resolution 84-(B). He noted that the diagram depicted a situation where the street would be on the right. Essentially, this zone is for any commercial zone that abuts residential. He noted that if the area were flat. and abutting residential, the height for the entire structure would be limited to 35 feet. Ms. Sapetto stated that Chmn. Izant's observation was correct but noted that C -Potential properties are located only on the east and west sides of the highway; therefore, there is no situation where commercial property would be on a flat area. Ms. Sapetto noted that if this provision were applicable to both sides of the highway, the situation would be a structure facing the highway on the west side which would be 45 feet and would taper down to 35 feet. _ Ms. Sapetto suggested the possibility of the Commission studying other alternatives for the west side of the highway. She noted that the provision could be deleted from being applicable to the west side of the highway. Comm. Brown questioned whether this would be applicable were the C -Potential zone to be redefined. Ms. Sapetto noted that what is being proposed in the Land Use Element is to change some of the C -Potential properties to residential where it is a majority of the property now. Comm. Brown questioned why all C -Potential properties should not be limited to 35 feet. Ms. Sapetto noted that another alternative for this issue would be to study it together with the Land Use Element. She felt that this would be an appropriate course of action. PLANNING CO�DIISSION MINUTES - June 5, 1984 C -POTENTIAL AMENDMENT (Cont.) Page 3 Ms. Sapetto reminded the Commission that they were asked to look at this issue as a result of a City Council resolution. She noted that the Commission might prefer to leave the section as it is now and review each project on a case-by-case basis. This issue could then be dealt with in the Land Use Element and come to the City Council in conjunction with the Land Use Element. Comm. Brown felt that this would be a more effective method of dealing with the issue. Public Hearing opened at 8:45 P.M. There being no citizens who wished to testify on this issue, Chmn. Izant closed the Public Hearing at 8:46 P.M. Motion by Comm. Brown, seconded by Comm. Shapiro, to delay action on the C -Potential amendment and handle it together with the Land Use Element, thereby recommending to the City Council that the lots in the multi -use corridor be examined on a site - by -site basis. AYES: Comms. Brown, Newton, Shapiro, Chmn. Izant NOES: None ABSENT : Comm. Strohecker Motion by Comm. Newton, seconded by Comm. Brown to adopt P.C. 84-15 (C). AYES: Comms. Brown, Newton, Shapiro, Chmn. Izant NOES: None ABSENT: Comm. Strohecker Motion by Comm. Shapiro, seconded by Comm. Brown, declaring that the initial study on the EIR is adequate and contains no negative impacts. AYES: Comms. Brown, Newton, Shapiro, Chmn. Izant NOES: None ABSENT: Comm. Strohecker PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - MARCH 20, 1984 Page 17 SPECIFIC PLAN DELETION FOR THE CONVERSION OF C -POTENTIAL ZONES Ms. Sapetto gave staff report. She noted that what staff is now suggesting is that the Planning Commission take action on this issue. She noted that at the previous meeting, it was recommended to hold the matter over until a decision had been made as to the future of the multi -use corridor and the land use element. She stated that this is still an option. She noted that the Planning Commission can recommend to the City Council that nothing be done at this time and leave things as they now stand until the Commission has had an opportunity to examine the multi -use corridor and the land use element. Ms. Sapetto noted that staff is suggesting, as a way to resolve the issue, the deletion of the specific plan requirement of converting as a requirement of con- verting residential property, or C -Potential property, to the C -Potential property and implement development standards which have been tailored to complement commercial abutting residential and would apply only to those C -Potential properties as a floating zone. Ms. Sapetto noted that the Commissioners had each received an environmental PEIR describing the effects of implementing these standards. She stated that, if the Commission were to take action on this issue at this time, the Commission would then need to recommend to the City Council to delete the specific plan. Also a determination would need to be made on the environmental review report, in effect stating that this project creates no significant impacts. A negative declaration would then be filed. Ms. Sapetto noted that the Commissioners had requested information as to other cities and their development standards. She noted that information on four different cities had been included, those being Redondo Beach, Manhattan Beach, E1 Segundo, and Laguna Beach, as well as Hermosa Beach. Ms. Sapetto noted that Hermosa BPach'S proposed floating zone is not as restrictive as E1 Segundo's height restriction or Redondo Beach's rear and side yard setback provisions. She further stated that it is felt that in staff's opinion there is merit in deleting the specific plan requirement and adopting special standards. Ms. Sapetto stated that the Commission had also requested information with regard to the difference between the existing development standards for C-3 and for the C -Potential for the floating zone. She stated that staff is recommending that these standards be changed for those commercial zones that abut residential, and that they should be more amenable to the residential that it abuts. Therefore, it is being suggested that where commercial abuts residential, a height of 35 feet should be allowed; but it could go to 45 feet at the part of a commercial structure that does not abut the residential zone. The proposed lot coverage would be minus setbacks. Where the commercial structure abuts only commercial usage, none is required except for three feet on an alley. Where the commercial structure abuts a residential zone, a setback of at least five feet is required. Ms. Sapetto continued by stating that with respect to parking, no tandem parking is to be allowed. Or, tandem parking could be allowed in a ratio of no more than 50% trapped or untrapped spaces, those trapped spaces being assigned to occupants of the structure. Tandem parking would be allowed in the case where the minimum parking requirements are already met. Shapiro Comm./asked for clarification on the matter of trapped and untrapped parking. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - MARCH 20, 1984 Page 18 SPECIFIC PLAN DELETION FOR THE CONVF.P.SION OF C -POTENTIAL ZONES (Cont.) Ms. Sapetto stated that those vehicles which have other vehicles parked behind them and therefore not allowing them to get out, are considered to be trapped. Comm. Newton stated that she did not receive the information containing the comparisons with the other cities. Ms. Sapetto noted that that information was distributed at a previous meeting. Chmn. Smith requested, for the benefit of the public, that Ms. Sapetto briefly outline the C -Potential properties and where they are located. He then requested that she give the comparative standards. Ms. Sapetto stated that the C -Potential properties are those residential properties along the multi -use corridor that abut commercial property. Chmn. Smith questioned what the owner of a C -Potential piece of property must do in order to develop that piece of property. Ms. Sapetto replied that the—owner must submit to the City a specific plan for what they are going to develop; and then that specific plan then becomes the zone change so that they can get their property rezoned to C-3 which allows for the 45 -foot height limit. One hundred percent lot coverage, however, by virtue of a specific plan, makes the conversion a discretionary action. Therefore, the Planning Commission can impose conditions on the specific plan which they feel would be necessary to ameliorate or mitigate residential usage abutting commercial. Ms. Sapetto noted that there had been concern over the C-3 properties by virtue of the project. The City Council had asked whether it would be possible to delete that; and, if so, how it should be done; and is it, in fact, a good idea to delete it. Ms. Sapetto stated that if the Commission wished to delete that portion, they might wish to consider different development standards for those zones which they feel would make the conversion of that property still a discretionary action; but this would still lay out specific standards for development. Comm. Strohecker asked, with these development standards, what discretion the Planning Commission has. Ms. Sapetto stated that a zone change must still be requested. Comm. Strohecker asked a question in regard to height. Where commercial abuts residential property, it has been suggested that the height be limited to 35 feet. He questioned how far the 35 feet would extend and whether it would be discretionary Ms. Sapetto replied that the height would depend on the slope. The topography plays an important role in this determination. Comm. Strohecker noted that if the slope were not critical or extremely pronounced, then, in effect, they could build up to a horizontal. Comm. Newton noted that some buildings would require terracing. y Ms. Sapetto stated that terracing is a design option and is not mandatory. PLANNING CON -MISSION MINUTES - MARCH 20, 1984 Page 19 SPECIFIC PLAN DELETION FOR THE CONVERSION OF C -POTENTIAL ZONES (Cont.) the Comm. Strohecker referred to the drawing on/blackboard. He noted that it would C !' not be feasible to have a straight line to 45 feet on the high side. Ms. Sapetto noted that the Planning Commission and already discussed this and had decided they wanted to maintain the 35 -foot height limit on the west side of the highway: Comm. Strohecker stated that that is true, but he questioned how far the 35 feet would have to extend from the residential property. Ms. Sapetto noted that the area would be sloped, not terraced. Comm. Newton questioned whether this would pose problems for the designer. Ms. Sapetto replied in the negative. She stated that she could get some recommendations from the Building Department if there were concerns over the 45 feet. Comm. Brown noted that the Building Department has a way of figuring the grade level and figuring whether it is.existing grade level or natural grade level. Comm. Brown stated that if one takes the four corners of a lot on a sloping lot which is legitimate, and one goes for the 45 -foot height, then one would actually get a longer building than if one starts at 35 feet on the finished grade. In other words, the 35 -foot level on the street side would need to be determined. He questioned whether it would start at the 35 -foot maximum height limit by using the finished grade or the existing grade. Ms. Sapetto stated that it would be figured from the existing grade. She noted that there is an interpretation on file on this issue. She stated that it is difficult to determine the natural grade because of the amount of the filling. Therefore, it states that the existing grade is that grade which is the grade of the street from the sidewalk, the street, or maybe across the street. In other words, the existing grade may be determined by looking at other surrounding areas. Comm. Brown questioned whether it would be the actual configuration of the lot itself. Pis. Sapetto replied in the negative. Comm. Strohecker noted that he would like to see wording to the effect that the 45 -height limit is only at that point on the highway and it follows a straight line, or not to exceed a line drawn from that to the 35 -foot limit and the rear. Ms. Sapetto stated that that would be a good idea,; but what is needed is another drawing and another explanation for the other side of the highway. Comm. Newton questioned whether a building would ever be 45 feet at the highway. Ms. Sapetto stated that that is a possibility, if it were terraced. Comm. Newton questioned whether there would need to be a drop-off. _ Ms. Sapetto replied that there could be a drop-off. Chmn. Smith noted that staff could be directed to work on the language, or motions could be amended. He noted that there are also other possibilities. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - MARCH 20, 1984 SPECIFIC PLAN DELETION FOR THE CONVERSION OF C -POTENTIAL ZONES (Cont.) Page 20 Comm. Brown noted that he had requested the information on how Laguna Beach figured C the differences in grade. He noted that they had very elaborate guidelines. He noted that he requested this information from Mr. Mercado some time ago. Ms. Sapetto stated that the guidelines in Laguna Beach are more restrictive than in Hermosa Beach. She noted that their highway commercial abuts residential. The height of the building is determined by the amount of setback, so there is a ratio. Comm. Brown felt that, even though this method is more complicated, it might be more fair. Comm. Strohecker noted that the Commission had requested Mr. Mercado to provide some worst-case examples of different buildings and how this particular document would affect the particular lot in a hypothetical situation in Hermosa Beach. The Commissioners were particularly interested in cases on the highway. Comm. Soulakis questioned whether staff could provide, through the Building Department, some recommendations as to a terraced setback. Ms. Sapetto questioned whether Comm. Soulakis wanted a variety of ways that a building could be designed in this situation. Comm. Soulakis noted that the highway slope is, generally speaking, fairly flat on the west side. Ms. Sapetto noted that there is somewhat of a slope. Comm. Soulakis stated that knowing the depths of the lots and the setbacks would better enable one to determine the slope or the pitch of the roof. He felt that maybe the Building Department could come back with some type of a recommendation. Ms. Sapetto replied that there would be a problem with the lot sizes. Comm. Brown stated that the information he requested showing the guidelines in figuring grade might be helpful in this case. _ Comm. Strohecker noted that the discussion has related so far just to properties that boarder on Pacific Coast Highway. He questioned whether C -Potential properties could sometimes extend in back of existing commercial properties. He questioned whether this would be an entirely different matter. Ms. Sapetto replied in the negative, stating that one would then not have to worry about the 45 feet abutting commercial structures. She stated that this would make no difference. Comm. Soulakis questioned what happens to those properties that abut residential to the north and south. He questioned how the 35 -foot limit would apply there. Ms. Sapetto replied that this could not take place. Comm. Shapiro noted that it might be possible if the property were wide enough and long enough and someone were right next to you. Ms. Sapetto stated that the question would then become whether it is abutting C -Potential property; if so, the 35 -foot limit should apply, not the 45 -foot limit. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - MARCH 20, 1984 Page 21 SPECIFIC PLAN DELETION FOR THE CONVERSION OF C -POTENTIAL ZONES (Cont.) Comm. Shapiro questioned whether there is a problem with putting walls between residential and commercial. Ms. Sapetto stated that walls can be put between commercial and residential. She questioned whether Comm. Shapiro's question was in relation to setbacks. Chmn. Smith stated that it is being suggested to have setbacks in the floating zone; there are none in commercial as it now exists. He felt that there is no reason why this issue cannot be addressed. Chmn. Smith commented on the situation in the north/south application where commercial abuts residential. The Planning Commission will need to determine a definition as to what a residential rezoned C -Potential property is to be treated as in that situation. Ms. Sapetto stated that it will be necessary to look at the maps and see where these instances occur. Chmn. Smith questioned the topic of commercial abutting residential. He asked whether it means existing use or zoning or both. Ms. Sapetto replied that it is zoning. Public Hearing opened at 10:05 P.M. / .., Wilma Burt,1152 7th Street, Hermosa Beach, addressed the Commission. She stated that two things have concerned her for a long time. On the east side of the highway, most of the hills slope up. She stated that she is appalled at what happened to Betty Brown's house when it was permitted to go to the lot line. She felt that this should be prevented. She noted that Ralph Casteneda presented a very good plan of cutting back on the east side because of the slope of the hill. She noted that this has been a controversy ever since they wanted to redevelop the highway. Mrs. Burt felt that the problem is not being addressed in the appropriate way. She stated that a town must have commercial, but the town also needs people to buy from that commercial area. She stated that if we extend too much east of the high- way, it will be extended into basically a residential area. She felt that this area needs to be protected. Mrs. Burt felt that one should not be permitted to cover the entire lot without shoring up for the houses that are going to be undercut. She felt that the case of Betty Brown's house is a prime example of the danger on the east side of the highway. She stated that most of the land on the west side is comparatively level for the 300 feet that was proposed. Mrs. Burt felt that when one is talking about the floating zone, it needs to be identified what is going to be called commercial, particularly on the east side. She noted the steepness in many of the streets. Mrs. Burt also felt that standards will -be necessary if total lot coverage is to r be allowed. This would prevent the land from sliding out from under someone's house. \ She stressed the importance of these standards for Hermosa Beach. Mrs. Burt stressed that she is not opposed to development, but she is opposed to development at the expense of the citizen who has the property next to it. y PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - MARCH 20, 1984 Page 22 SPECIFIC PLAN DELETION FOR THE CONVERSION OF C -POTENTIAL ZONES (Cont.) Public Hearing continued at 10:10 P.M. to the next meeting of the Planning Commission scheduled for Tuesday, April 3, 1984. Comm. Soulakis noted that he would like to see a sliding scale on the setbacks depending on the lot depth. Ms. Sapetto noted that Laguna Beach does that. Chmn. Smith noted that at the last meeting of the Planning Commission, the issue of the 40 -day limit was discussed. He noted that he had made the statement that the 40 -day response time had already been exceeded by quite some time; therefore, he felt that it was not significant. At the other end, he felt that something should be done even if it is only to pass a motion of no change so that the Commission may continue to study the issue so that it can be wrapped up with the City Council. He felt that the issue could not be held over indefinitely, because the Planning Commission should honor the request of the City Council to adopt a resolution of intention to look at this issue. lie felt that the Commission is required to do this, within a certain period of time. He noted that there have been scheduling problems and informational problems thereby making it impossible for the Commission to respond within the 40 -day period. Chmn. Smith suggested that a motion could be made in regard to the floating zone. Another option would be to do nothing and continue to -ask questions. A third option would be to carry the issue over to the next meeting, with the idea that the answers to the questions would=provide the Commission with enough information to make a decision. Comm. Soulakis questioned the possibility of using a sliding scale, as far as the floating zone is concerned, for the depth of the property. He felt that something of this nature would help to mitigate some of the impact to residential. Comm. Newton noted that she would very much like to hear the City Attorney's opinion as to whether or not he feels that something should be included in the ordinance imposing a duty on the developer to provide lateral support to adjoining property. Ms. Sapetto stated that if that were a concern, the Building Department could describe what happened at Betty Brown's house. She suspected that in that case, resolutions were not followed. She thought that the project had been stopped because of that. She noted that this was in direct violation on the part of the contractor, and noted that that had nothing to do with the zoning ordinance. Comm. Newton noted that these problems are covered by case law. Comm. Brown noted that there are very specific guidelines which developers must follow. Ms. Sapetto noted that she would provide a status report on the situation that occurrea at Betty Brown's. Chmn. Smith noted Mrs. Burt's concerns. Fie felt that something everyone should be r concerned with is the issue of the impact of the floating zone and how the impact \ _ can be minimized. He also questioned what the City should have done in this case, if anything. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - MARCH 20, 1984 Page 23 SPECIFIC PLAN DELETION FOR THE CONVERSION OF C -POTENT IAL ZONES (Cont.,) Ms. Sapetto noted that the floating zone regulates even further what the existing C zone is; therefore, she felt that this is not a problem. She felt that it is a mitigation to the problem because setbacks will now be required where none are now required. She noted that she could obtain an opinion from the Building Director as to the concerns of the Commission. Chmn. Smith noted that each individual project would be different. He noted that the Building Department might be called on to advise the Planning Commission as to what measures are currently taken in regards to projects of this type. Also, the Commission would need advice as to whether or not there are mitigating measures that can be added in the consideration of this floating zone. Personally, he felt that the virtues of a precise plan are where these issues can be addressed. Ms. Sapetto noted that if the Commission wants a specific plan as opposed to this development standard, the Commission can decide not to change it. Chmn. Smith noted that that would be a possibility. Comm. Shapiro noted that he �gould like to find out from the Building Department what requirements are necessary when shoring up is needed. Comm. Newton noted that the sense of the City seems to be to promote commercial development. She questioned what the problem would be with requiring a specific plan. C Ms. Sapetto noted that people will always protest when there is a zone change. The concern of the City Council was whether or not they were discouraging people. from applying. Comm. Newton questioned whether there would be any problem with having a precise plan but also having a floating zone that states : some of these things. Ms. Sapetto noted that conditions could be added. This could state that the precise plan shall include mitigation measures. It could also address the commercial structure uses. These are just some of the possibilities. Comm. Newton felt that these added guidelines would be quite beneficial. Comm. Strohecker noted that he would like to see the precise plan stay, but he would like further definitions to be used as guidelines. He felt that the only problem is that of the developer's standpoint. He questioned the benefit of a developer spending money on plans and drawings that are at best questionable, and then not knowing whether they will be approved or not. Comm. Brown noted the difficulties of going to the Building Department with vague plans. Comm. Strohecker noted that he would like to keep the precise plan as discretionary as possible because of the site -by -site basis. He did not want the Commission to act arbitrarily in these matters. l Ms. Sapetto felt that this is a very appropriate alternative to pursue. Comm. Strohecker noted that he would like to see very definite guidelines, but within parameters. •TTady UT 2uTIaam uoTssTmuio0 2uTuuuTd puooas aqj of panuTauoo aq anssT sTgl quga paaapao os qITuiS 'uiug0 •TTady UT 2uT�aam puooas aq3 oq ponuTIuoo oq anssT sTgJ qugl palsanbaa aqS •2uTlaaw Ixau aq; aog auiTI UT fpBaa uoTqumaoJuT sTgI anuq oq aaq a09 aTgTssod aq fou pTnom IT iuq:i pagou o-�:jaduS 'ski 'ggaTaq aql 01 pau2aa UT uoTuTdo s,fauao:I:Iy fqTO aqs u?uqqo ol f aussaoau aq Jg2Tm IT quq� `g2nogI `pagou aqS •2uTPTTnq aqI0 go uoTlaod Iuq:j UT ag2Tag paonpaa aas oq axTT pTnoM aqs IugI po�ou aqS •AuTpTTnq TuTjuapTsaa 3nqu TTTM TuToaaunnoo aaagm suaau asogq Jog saansuauc uoTqu2TITW uuTd oT3Toads aqI uT aas 01 aUT pTnoM aqs iugi paaou aqS •a2uugo auoz u uo sauTTapTn2 oq pasoddo su spaupuuls juouidoTanap saanoo quauinoop iugI Iugp pajou o3:jaduS •s1I •gosag uun2u7 fq paaudaad juamnoop aqq aas oq 97M pTnoM aq qugj pa�ujs umoag 'mmo0 •gg2Taq pauoTIuam fTTEoTJToads aq `aTdmuxa up sy 'fITTTgTx9T3 go anssT aql uo a3uupTn2 paIsanboa g3TUIS •uuig0 •uoTqupuauiuiooaa snoTnaad oqi puauiu oq a�TT pTnoM aqs iugi palou aqs `aaojaaagI :ouTpuTj aTaqq axum 03 uoTssTunuo0 aq2 Jog amua3 atuTI ou ST aaag4 qugq paIou aqS 'goaCoad aqunTad u glTm 2uTTaap Sou oau fags asnuoaq `maTgoad u jou sT aaogl IPLII gTa3 aqs `ponuTjuoo uaaq suq 2uTauaq oTTgnd aqq aouTS •2uTasaq oTTgnd aqa aaggu sfup 0'7 TTjun SUTpuT3 a axuui oq fauSSaoau IOU sum IT qugl usam 01 IT pa�aadaajuT aqs `apoo aqj 2uTpuaz-aa UT 3uq:l p03ou aqS 'oproaall 'jjj fq apuui sum gTuiTT fap-0+7 aq2 3o uoTlujaadzaquT aqj jugj po�ou ogjaduS 's11 •sauTTapTn2 aisnbapu glTm do amoo of faussaoau sT fpngs aaglang 3uga ITa3 aH •sTgq uo a2uugo ou a=lum 0:1 aa:jaaq aq -3112IT luawom aqs Jog 3ugl gTa,I OH 'TnjdTaq aq gg2Tm sauTTapTn2 Iu41 ITa3 aa-oagoalS •unu00 •sauTT9pTn$ autos glTm uangaa pTnoo aqs qugl palou aqS •anT:jsuaTj3u aqj UT paTTdaa oi3aduS •sY1 •jua3sTsuoo aq ol aTgTssod ST IT aaqqagM pauoTisanb qiTmS •umg0 Cquo0) SHNOZ IVIINHZOd-O d0 NOISUHANOO HHZ 2103 NOIZH'IHQ NV'Id OI3IOHdS +7Z a22d '786T `OZ H02Ii7w - SHIRNIN NOISSIlNOD ONIMIV Id PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - FEBRUARY 21, 1984 Page 7 C -POTENTIAL ZONE Mr. Mercado gave staff report. He noted that there are two aspects to this item. The first is consideration of the preliminary environmental impact report. The project is viewed as having no adverse environmental impacts. Mr. Mercado stated that it is staff's opinion that removing the requirement of a specific plan enhances the highway corridor's ability to attract new as well as larger scale commerce. It appears that this action will promote realization of the original goal of the C -Potential zone, that is, to create additional depth for larger scale commercial developments. Mr. Mercado continu ed by saying that the adoption of a floating zone will prescribe clearly defined development standards tailored to preserve, as much as possible, the residential ambiance directly east or west of the proposed development. Mr. Mercado stated that staff recommends first, to declare that this project has no significant adverse environmental impacts and request that a negative declaration be filed; and, second, that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution as presented by staff. Mr. Mercado stated that the first resolution amends Section 1103 and eliminates Y Section 1104, both within the Hermosa Beach zoning code. The second resolution introduces development standards tailored to complement commercial abutting residential, which would apply to C -Potential as a floating zone. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - FEBRUARY 21, 1984 Page 8 C -POTENTIAL ZONE (Cont.) Mr. Mercado stated that, in staff's opinion, the resolution pertaining to development standards needs to be modified slightly. Mr. Mercado noted that this item came before the Commission approximately two years ago. The proposal at that time was that the height restriction of 35 feet only applied east of Pacific Coast Highway. He noted that he provided the commissioners with a drawing that depicts what would happen if that height standard were imposed on commercial abutting residential west of Pacific Coast Highway. Mr. Mercado continued by saying that, in effect, the commercial property on the section where it does not abut residential would not be permitted a 45 -foot height on the development, in that there is a terrain moving eastward. Mr. Mercado suggested amending the resolution to simply indicate that the 35 -foot requirement only apply to properties east of Pacific Coast Highway. Chmn. Izant suggested another alternative: keep the 35 -foot height where it abuts residential, but allow 45 feet on the highway and have some type of a stepped slope. Comm. Soulakis asked for clarification on the intent of the resolution. Chmn. Izant made a drawing on the blackboard to help illustrate the matter. Chmn. Izant outlined the matter before the Commission at this time. He stated that there is commercial property located along Pacific Coast Highway. This particular property abuts residential property. The question is should the Planning Commission make certain changes in this potential commercial property. He noted that the primary consideration, as proposed by staff, is the modifica- tion to the current commercial standards. Current commercial standards would allow building to 45 feet if it is abutting residential. One of the considera- tions would be to move the setback five feet and lower the height to 35 feet. Public Hearing opened at 8:27 P.M. There being no citizens who wished to testify at the Public Hearing, Chmn. Izant closed the Public Hearing at 8:28 P.M. Chmn. Izant elaborated on his drawing. He noted that planning normally talks about having buffer zones between residential and commercial areas. Oftentimes with cities with larger spaces, buffer zones between commercial and residential many times will be developed with apartments or condominiums. Because of the lack of space in Hermosa Beach, there is not the luxury of putting in apartments or condos in this buffer zone. He noted that staff is proposing what they feel are some mitigating measures for this problem of building commercial right to the lot line. Chmn. Izant felt that there are two basic alternatives in terms of what to do on the downside. One is to require that there be a requirement of no more than a 35 -foot height. The other alternative is to allow a 35 -foot height to go to a height of no more than 45 feet depending on the slope of the land. Chmn. Izant noted that there are a variety of other alternatives also. These could include the recommendation that no changes be made; or that PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES -FEBRUARY 21, 1984 Page 14 C -POTENTIAL ZONE (Cont.) to be renoticed. Comm. Brown stated that more alternatives are necessary. He felt that there is not enough information. He would like to get the information on the formula for upslopes and downslopes. He felt that this formula would be invaluable. Comm. Brown asked for other alternatives as far as deferring the issue, tabling the issue. He asked what the repercussions would be in each instance. Chmn. Izant noted that one alternative would be to recommend to the City Council that no action be taken because the Planning Commission feels that the land use element should come first. Another alternative would be to recommend to the City Council that no action be taken at all. Another option would be the formation of a subcommittee charged with investigating other alternatives. Another alternative would be to tackle the issue at this meeting. Mr. Mercado noted that it was a 5-0 vote on the part of the City Council to recommend that the Planning Commission consider this specific proposal. He noted that, if the P.C. feels it needs more information on the issue, that is well within reason. Chmn. Izant suggested that rather than closing the Public Hearing, it can be continued until next time. Staff would be directed to bring back additional information to the Planning Commission. C. Mr. Mercado felt that Chmn. Izant's suggestion would be the most practical thing to do. Motion by Comm. Brown, seconded by Comm. Smith to continue the issue until the first meeting of the Planning Commission in April, and that staff be directed to provide more alternatives. Comm. Strohecker asked whether Comms. Brown and Smith would consider splitting the issue into two separate issues, those issues being the specific plan requirement and the questions of the height limits. He noted that he would prefer to deal with the issues separately. He felt that these two issues do not really belong together. Comm. Brown stated that he had no objections to Comm. Strohecker's suggestion. He did question what the repercussions of that would be, though. He asked what the benefits would be of separating the items. Comm. Soulakis felt that the idea of splitting the issues might be beneficial in case the P.C. approves one part and not the other. Chmn. Izant noted that the issue could be looked at more closely when it comes back before the Planning Commission. AYES: Comms. Brown, Newton, Shapiro, Smith, Strohecker :NOES: Comm. Soulakis, Chmn. Izant ABSENT: None Chmn. Izant noted that staff should be given some direction as to what infor- mation they should bring back to the Commission. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - FEBRUARY 21, 1984 Page 15 C -POTENTIAL ZONE (Cont.) Comm. Brown stated that he would like to see some information on the height criteria that was previously distributed. He would like to see the formula on determining the upslope and downslope. Comm. Brown also stated that he would like to see a worst-case example on both sid-es of the highway. Comm. Brown would also like to address the question of open area green space. He mentioned perhaps the possibility of a green space buffer zone. Comm. Shapiro suggested obtaining input from the Chamber of Commerce rather than having a workshop or a subcommittee. He felt that input from the Chamber of Commerce could be submitted in the form of a letter. Chmn. Izant asked whether Comm. Shapiro meant that the Chamber of Commerce should be notified by staff of the next public hearing so that they could give their input. Comm. Shapiro stated that that is exactly what he was suggesting. Comm. Smith noted that the Planning Commission and the Chamber of Commerce have met frequently on the issue. Comm. Bro�,m noted that he would like to get input on the parking situation. Comm. Smith felt that information could be obtained on that topic from a comparative analysis. He noted that he would like to see a zoning chart that includes parking. He noted concern on the issue of the impact of the proposals in terms of the various percentages on untrapped and trapped parking places before and after the parking requirements are met. He asked for information on this. Comm. Smith also felt that he would like to see some information on what the consultants are doing in relation to the land use and planning elements. He felt that some type of cataloging of the C -Potential properties would be in order by groupings as to how they stand vis-a-vis certain types of residential properties. He wanted to know how many of the C -Potential properties abut R-2 and how many abut R-3. If this were determined the effects could be gauged. Comm. Smith stated that he would like to see input on what other cities have done in addressing this problem of the encouraged development in the C -Potential area and development agreements. Comm. Smith noted that he agreed with Chmn. Izant in that it is important to come to a decision on this issue. Comm. Brown stated that he wanted to see examples of the parking situation. He noted particularly the cases of trapped and untrapped parking spaces. ZONING CODE INTERPRETATION: VETERINARY OUT-PATIENT CLINIC IN C-1 ZONE Mr. Mercado gave staff report. He stated that on February 1, 1984, the applicant submitted a request for a code interpretation regarding the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - FEBRUARY 21, 1984 Page 9 C -POTENTIAL ZONE (Cont.) changes be made to staffstrecommendations; or entirely different alternatives could be suggested to present to the City Council. Chmn. Izant noted that there is also another significant question before the Planning Commission. He stated that the City Council has recommended to the P.C. that the P.C. consider the elimination of the filing of a specific plan for a variety of reasons. Comm. Strohecker stated that, disregarding the height limits and setbacks, he feels the setback is necessary. He noted that the slope on the west side of P.C.H. is not as dramatic as it is on the east side. Comm. Strohecker suggested something to the effect on the east side of the highway, maybe 35 feet within 15 feet of residential. He felt that this might mitigate some of the overshadowing effect that would be caused by the 45 -foot height limit. Comm. Strohecker noted that he favors the idea of a concept of having.a 35 - foot height limit bordering any residential property. He also would support the idea of a setback, as he felt that is important as well. He noted that he was speaking in terms of both sides of the highway. He also felt that the 35 -foot height limit should pertain to both sides of the highway, in terms of the 35 -foot abutting residential within a certain distance of its abutting the property. Comm. Newton commented on the large office buildings at Artesia and P.C.H. She noted that there is a parking lot between the structures there and the residential area, but she noted that there is still that feeling of large buildings looming over the residential properties. Comm. Newton also noted that 15 feet might not be enough to accomplish the the purpose for which it would be designed. Comm. Soulakis asked when a C -Potential is converted, whether it becomes C-1, C-2, or C-3. He asked whether the designation would mandate the height limit. Mr. Mercado replied that in all commercial zones the height limit is 45 feet with the existing grade. Comm. Soulakis noted the condition where it states if it goes 35 feet on the east side abutting a residential, one could slope upwards to 45 feet. Comm. Soulakis made a drawing on the blackboard to illustrate his point. Mr. Mercado noted that the code does not cover every conceivable situation. He also noted that it could be conceivable to exceed the 45 -foot height limitation based on the slope of the land. with Comm. Brown noted that the commissioners were provided/some very elaborate guidelines for working out the differences in grades. The information was provided by staff several months ago. He felt that the information contained in that report would be very helpful in considering this matter. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - FEBRUARY 21, 1984 Page 10 C -POTENTIAL ZONE (Cont.) Comm. Brown questioned whether the 45 -foot height limit would be adequate in all cases. He questioned whether it would be beneficial. He noted that if the 45 -foot limit were allowed, ., then the parking requirements would need to be increased. Also the office square footage would need to be increased. Comm. Soulakis questioned whether the 45 -foot limit could be restricted if it were allowed by the zoning code. Comm. Brown felt that the real question is an area that is specifically in the C -Potential and that abuts commercial properties. He noted that there is a question of diminishing returns. Comm. Strohecker noted that at the present time, parking restricts the size of a building. He noted that it would be difficult to go to the 45 -foot height because of the parking restrictions currently in effect. Mr. Mercado stated that the intent is to minimize the negative effects of different land uses, not necessarily the general impact of commercial development. Comm. Brown noted that the Commission is limited by the main criteria of square footage and number of cars per square foot. He questioned whether the question of the 45 -foot height limit is moot. He thought that maybe the question that should be addressed is how to minimize the effect between residential areas. He questioned whether areas besides the 45 -foot height limit should be addressed. Mr. Mercado concurred with Comm. Brown. He noted that his concern is for the residential property. Comm. Smith felt that the issue of parking is an important consideration. He noted that the traffic circulation problems are critical issues in terms of development. Comm. Smith stated that the land use element is now being studied. He noted that an inventory of C -Potential properties would be appropriate in regards to the land use element. Comm. Smith felt that a precise plan should not be given up. Comm. Smith stated that he would like to see some comparisons in terms of all the zone requirements between what the proposed floating zone would allow versus what current zoning allows. He said he would like to see a comparative chart. He felt a chart would be useful in reviewing the project. Comm. Smith commented that he had yet to see any evidence that the current C -Potential designation and the current zoning code outside of the natural delimitations that the parking problem presents discourages any private construction. Comm. Smith noted that he has seen many C -Potential properties utilized on the highway which did not need an EIR. Comm. Smith felt that it is important to separate and define some uses where commercial abuts residential. He felt that the issues should be taken PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - FEBRUARY 21, 1984 Page 11 C -POTENTIAL ZONE (Cont.) separately. Comm. Smith felt that the issue becomes hazy when the use of C -Potential and the precise plan becomes intermingled. He felt that it is a serious tactical mistake to mix the different topics together. Comm. Smith stressed that he would like to see the issues separated. Comm. Brown noted that oftentimes there is the temptation to fix things up by coming up with a Band-aid solution. He felt that there are many problems in the City with regards to the C zones. He noted that it is difficult to come up with ordinances that will eliminateall adverse effects in an area. He felt that more creative avenues could be looked into and studied. Comm. Brown felt that the Commission would be amiss in creating another zone change that will put a limit on someone else's creativity in this particular area. Comm. Brown suggested that there might be other alternatives to the proposal. He felt the issues are really parking and the square footage. He felt that much more work is needed on this project. Comm. Shapiro asked where the term "floating zone" originated. Mr. :lercado replied that the term is frequently used in journals and planning t text books. Comm. Shapiro made drawings on the blackboard to illustrate some of his views. Comm. Shapiro felt that maybe the length of a building could be taken into consideration when the building is constructed on Pacific Coast Highway. If it exceeds a certain length, the frontage along P.C.H. could then be only 35 feet. the Chmn. Izant again utilized the blackboard for/purpose of illustrating other alternatives. Chmn. Izant questioned the significance of taking the length of.a building into consideration. He noted that the key factor would be the height, because it is the height that would determine the shadows cast onto the residential properties. Comm. Newton noted that there is a lack of consensus in regard to possible uses of the multi -use corridor. She noted that, because of the general indecision in the area, it would be better to consider that area on a lot - by -lot basis what the proposal is. She felt that the precise plan should be left in place unless there is a better suggestion. Comm. Brown stated that he is in favor of a precise plan; however, he noted that if development were to be encouraged, a conceptual drawing would suffice for a time, but somewhere along the line a precise plan would be necessary. Comm. Brown questioned what would be done for the residential neighbors. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - FEBRUARY 21, 1984 Page 12 C -POTENTIAL ZONE (Cont.) Comm. Brown noted that some maximum height requirements would be necessary if it were to be developed near residential property. He suggested going back to the planned development if it were C -Potential. Comm. Newton felt that it might not be unreasonable to allow a developer to put -a 45 -foot building abutting residential use in an area. Comm. Brown stated that that would be all the more reason to have a planned development. The Commission could then decide whether proposed projects meet all the requirements. He stated that problems will always arise from unknown factors. Chmn. Izant noted that with developers, time is money. The developer may not want to come before the Planning Commission with a plan and then have the Commission say they don't approve of the plan. He stated that guidelines must be formed to avoid wasting time and effort. Chmn. Izant noted that a precise plan is fine, but there should also be more definite guidelines. This would save developers time. Comm. Newton stated that instead of saying there is a 45 -foot limit on buildings abutting commercial and a 35 -foot limit on buildings abutting residential,it might be more appropriate to say something to the effect of no more than ten feet higher than the existing residential use or more than fifteen. This way it could be taken into account how high the existing residential building is. Comm. Brown felt that Comm. Newton's suggestion is a good alternative. Chmn. Izant questioned what would happen, though, if the commercial property fronts both R-2 and R-3. He did like the basic concept, though. Comm. Smith felt that it would then be possible that all of the R-2 would then be rezoned R-3. He noted that he would be frightened to encourage too much development because all the businessmen could be moved out very easily. He questioned whether that would be a good idea. Comm. Smith agreed that there should be specific guidelines. That is why he suggested a comparative analysis. He felt that a precise plan allows for a more considered development. He felt this avoids some wholesale moving out of small businesses. He felt that this is a problem that needs to be addressed. Comm. Smith felt that it is absolutely essential to encourage a good business climate. He felt that the Planning Commission needs to consider the open- ended effects when changes are made to the zoning code. Comm. Soulakis felt that the C -Potential is being created as a vehicle to encourage commercial development along Pacific Coast Highway. In effect, he felt this has not worked. He noted that, in fact, most of the properties are going R-3 and developing condominiums. He too felt that this is nothing more than a Band-aid approach to the problem. Comm. Soulakis tended to agree with Comm. Smith in the matter of coming to grips with a general plan and land use element. He felt that the issues should be addressed individually. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - FEBRUARY 21, 1984 Page 13 C -POTENTIAL ZONE (Cont.) Comm. Soulakis stated that he would like to see this matter postponed for the time being. Comm. Brown concurred with Comm. Soulakis. He felt that the solution would not be an easy one. He felt that more research was needed on this issue. He would like to develop some type of dialog between the City and the developers to see what the developers would like. He also felt that it might be appropriate to talk to business owners and members from the Chamber of Commerce. Homeowners might also have input on the issue. Comm. Brown also felt that the most important questions concern the general plan and the land use element. Comm. Shapiro noted concern. He wanted to be sure there would be no waste of time. Comm. Strohecker shared Comm. Shapiro's concerns over the wasting of time. He would like to see some alternatives studied. He also stated he would like to see a worst -effect example given. He would like to see several alternatives drawn out and discussed. Comm. Strohecker felt that it is rare for a successful business to be driven out by any development. He noted that very successful businesses generally own their property or they are in a position to buy it or to pay the higher rents. He noted that he is very much in favor of small individual businesses. He felt that these businesses are very valuable to the City. lie felt that the small businesses that have gone have been the marginal businesses. Comm. Strohecker stated that development along the highway in the commercial zone is very important. This will bring vital new businesses into the City. Comm. Strohecker also agreed that concentration should focus on the general plan and the land use element. He felt that other alternatives could be studied along the way. Chmn. Izant agreed that consideration should be given to the land use planning as a whole. But he also noted that this issue would not just disappear by the Planning Commission deferring the issue until more study can be done. Chmn. Izant recommended an alternative course of action. He suggested the formation of a subcommittee to seek out the participation of the Chamber of Commerce and several prominent developers. The subcommittee could then study some of the alternatives and worst-case situations. He felt that a worst-case situation would be to develop to the maximum allowed. Chmn. Izant stated that he would not advocate deferring this particular issue. He felt that both issues should be taken together by the Commission. Comm. Brown felt that it might be more appropriate to say "continue" than "defer." He felt that it is necessary to seek out as many alternatives as possible before taking action on the issue. Chmn. Izant noted that if the issue is to be continued, then the Public Hearing would need to be continued, and the Public Hearing would need CITV OF H EPMOSA BEACH INTER -OFFICE MEMO TO- Pamela Sapetto, Planning Dir. Coastal Commission Permit for SUBJECTPreferential Parking Program DATE: FROM March 23, 1934 .roan Noon. Gen_ Services Di I have just finished reading Mr. Boccato's appeal regarding the Preferential Parking Program. I am aware that Chip Post provided you with a copy also, but as busy as you are, you may not have had a chance to read it. Pam, I know how short handed you are right now but I did want to remind you, once again, that the Coastal Permit expires in May. I think it is imperative that application be made for renewal as soon as possible. Please let me know if this has already been done or if there is something I can do to assist you in this matter. Joan Noon General Services Director cc: Gregory T. Meyer City Manager g JOZDOJTC[ sa0rn.zag 119JGUOD a0!.0@jia 2uruueTd :00 pT/Ni,LJ X-euleNi s -TO .za�aNi •,L �S z a z� •slInsaa aqj jo I-gZru ;,eq; noA asrnple TTrm aM *TT ATnr joT paTnpagos sr Dura-eaq uorssruzuzoo jtjs-eoo aqj • Ado0 �e s r pago-e jZV •m6a20ad 2urxxnd TurZuaa0TGJd s,J'eeA sTgZ •a.z Zaodea TT -els uorssrmwoo T-eZsVOO aqj panra0Oa ATT�euTj anUq aM • ,L IwHHd gVISVOO Ni6''}3 OHd JNIXHVd gVIINa'tiaAaHd 98-V86T : inarans aaonu-eNi SITO `.aaAaw •,L AJOBGJD :wood T r0unOD puB joA-eNi : OIL t86T ` 9 A`If1P State of California, George Deukmejian, Governor California Coastal Commission SOUTH COAST DISTRICT 245 West Broadway, Suite 380 P.O. Box 1450 Long Beach, Cafifomia 90801-1450 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING (213) 590-5071 Date' Wednesday, July 11, 1984 Time: 9:00 a.m. Place: Holiday Inn --LAX 9901 La Cienega Blvd. LOS ANGELES, CA 5-84-230 7/3/84df The proposed development described on Page 2 of this notice is scheduled for a public hearing before the California Coastal Commission at the time and date indicated above. This item has been tentatively scheduled as follows: Cj Administrative Permit C Consent Calendar �) Extension Request C Adoption of Findings T C Request for Reconsideration M.Amw&rant 0 hearing and Voting on Regular Calendar Permit Applications L Continued Hearing and Voting on Regular Calendar Permit Applications L Public Hearing on Regular Calendar Permit Applications Significant Question Determination and Hearing and Voting on Appeals from Local Government Decisions GContinued Hearing and Voting on Appeals from Local Government Decisions 12 Others' Information on Coastal Commission meeting procedures is enclosed on Pages 3 and i. If. after reading this information and the project information on page 2, you have questions, please contact Staff Analyst Jim Ryan at the Commission's South Coast District Office at the above address or call (213) 590-5071 or (714) $46-0648. The file on this project is available for public review at the District Office during regular business hours. The staff report will be mailed PROJECT INFORMATION Application No.: 5-84-236 Applicant: City of Hermosa Beach Agent: Pamela Sapetto Planning Director Project Description: Review of City's previously conditioned two-year Coastal Permit (5-82-251) for a preferential parking permit program and a park-and-ride system to alleviate competing residential, commercial and beach goer parking demands. Lot area: Building coverage: Pavement coverage: Landscape coverage: Parking spaces: Zoning: Plan designation: Project density: Hgt abv finished grade: Site: The Strand on the west, Loma/Morningside Dr. on the east, City boundaries on the north and south. Hermosa Beach, Los Angeles County Preliminary Calendar: Hearing and Voting on Regular Calendar Permit Applications. NOTE: The Staff Report will be mailed upon request. _C� •a3oA put ze33ss aq3 9S=STp ITT^ uoTssTMO* aq3 'pasoTo sT 6uTzvaq atp zea;V •suoT3tpuatas0az aq3 uo Zutmmoa 0: go" 8a30uTU OAT; seVq sgusuoddo puv IuvoTTddt aq3 g3oq 'UOTSST=ow aq3 o3 pe3uasasd ST uoTlVpuataaoosu ;;r4s s uagA •uoTSToap alp suod39od Sou put AVP 3sg3 VZOA Am U01SSTMOO aq3 'alto 3vgp u2 `PTaq uaaq stq 6uTztaq OTTgnd eg3 zal;t Tv�wddt io; uoTlVP -uanaacoas AzvuTuTTazd t OXW 03 uoT3aw0;uT gbnoua OAtq At09 ;;V3f aqZ 's3oaCozd ows uo •buT3aasi uoTssTumoo ivTn&oz Ixau aq3 3t 6ut3aA put buTxwoq panuTIuoo so; paTnpagos oq ATTVWoa TTTA zVpuaTVo ivTnbaz atn uo sloaCozd •6uTivaq atn 6uTAOTTO; ;;v3S alp o3 p933Fwgns aq Avm TVTzaIv09 IuauTWsd zagao 10 TV33ngaz ua33TIA 3nq 'PamOTTO Sou ST Vm4ngaz usNodS •uoTZTsoddo aq3 uag3 put 3SIT; 6uTxvods IuvotTddt aq3 g3TA 'Sa3nuTw OT p033011V sT OPTS gov3 •Iuvpunpaz aq IOU pTnogs put 3oaCozd aq3 ;o s3ovdwT Tv3uamuortnua We SOTOTTod 43V TVIsv03 ssazppt Isn09 AuomTlSay •331f aq3 g3TA IU04STSuoo 3ou ST zo s; 338Coid at;I NuTg3 Aotn Age+ uoTs9T mloo atn TT21 PTno14s 1o?Cozd 0143 buTsoddo zo butlzoddns suoszad •buTzVaq oTTgnd TTn; 9 zal;v pa2aprsu00 aq TTTA put zVpuOTV* ivTnbaz atn uv pao9Td aq TTTA s3uapaoazd ivOTO ou azv azag3 gzTgw zo; SuoTlTpuoo qITA ATuo panozddv aq uvo goTgA so 3ov TVISV03 Oq3 T4 TA W94STSu00uT ATTvTIua3od noaCosd=SWISrJIlddV IMUd MI17M HVM-g= •sbuTzvoq Iuanbosgns burpzvbaz ;;v3s uoTSSTmm00 atm t�1Tr+ xoago pTnogs suoszad palsaiOIUI •sITmTT-amT3 0141 uTtPTI% AVIS 03 iapio uT suoTlv4uas -aid aIVpTT0su00 oI epvm aq pTnogs s3zo;;O 'ma4T UV SsazppV of LuTgSTA suoszad Tvzanas azv azagl ;I •uoTssTuu=o a14I oI Xvads o3 apTS gone zo; P8AOTTV aq TTTA solnuTm aaz14y •10� TVIs9oo attl gltw 3uazsisuooui sT aoaCozd ag3 A14^ uoTssT=O* a14I TTOI PTnogs slusuoddo •Nvads lou peau SuOTITpuoo asatz Idsoov o%jA sluvoTTddV •s4Tmzad zvpuaTVo zuasu00 o3 potpvlly aq AVm suoTlTpuoo •buTlaam uoTssrmoo zvTnbaz Ixau aq3 1t 0-40A OTgtssOd puv SuTzvag OxTgnd 'vTnbai 9 io; pOTnpagosaz aq ATTvmzOu TTTA ulOIT 3Vg3 'Iuasuoa ;;o UrOIT uv TTnd o3 gSTA szauoTSSTmmoo 02009 zo aaz143 ;I •zVpuaTVo azTlue ag3 io; O10A ajbuTS 9 141TA uoTssTutmoo atp Aq panozddv aq TTTA zVpuaTvo Iuasuoo OtP uo sloOCoid •ivpusT90 1uasu03 aqI uo poovjd aq Avm zvpualvo aAtlVzzsTuiutpV atp 10; A;TTvnb lou op g0igw 1nq -oV TVISVoo aqI g1TA 1ualstsu013 aq o3 ;;v3s Aq pazapTSuoo SIOOCozd :2IVCN3 M IN3SNoo •Opts goys so; solnuTm £ 03 PO4TmTT ST AuovaT SOL •suo, Pu00 SIT so 30OCozd O%P 03 uoTITSoddo uT XVads Avm so r3ivd palsazaluT zaglo put Ta sluvoTTddt •3Tmsad aATlvz3sTuTmpV uv 0-4Pagot33s aq Avm suot3Tpu03 •bu- aam uoTSS' -moo zvTnbaz Ixou atTZ It 830A OTgTSsod ptn buTivsq oTTgnd t io; paTnpa14os put 29puaTvo aATlvzlsTuTa�t aq3 moz; paeomaz aq TTTA IzoCozd atp '6uTzvaq OTTgnd io; pTaq aq utalT um I2gI Isanbaz szauotsSTmm* atom io Ino; ;I •zvpuaTvo OAT-40=sTuTWe 0143 uo powodaz aq TTTA s1Ttaxad aATIViISTuttupV •1oa;;a OXVI Aa14I azo;aq 6uT1aa09 lxau SIT Iv uoTssT=O:) aq3 o1 paliodaz aq s1Tmiad aATIVi1STuTMPV TTV 19143 soiTnbaz 1ZOV TVzsvoo aqy •SsOT zo SITun mo; ;o SID00O2d ATTmv;-TI1n09 zo 'seouOpTsaz ATTutV; OTbuTs '(Isco uT 000'055 buTpaaoxa jou) saznlonzls butlsTxa 03 suoTITPPt 'sluamd0TOAOP Abu zouT09 azt g0Tgw SIZOCozd 10; 10130ITP OATlnoaxa aq3 Aq paluvzb aq Av09 "Tmzad aAT1VzISTuTWV :MN37V3 3ALLV"SIllWM •6uTivaq oTTgnd TTn; v "Ta"' 4s= IT IT iag3agw zo ztpuelvo aAT1Vz.zsTuMv so zuasuoo agmt 3 zag3Ta uo Ind aq uvo uoTlvoTTdde Oq4 ;T auTa3ap TTTA ;;41S •6uxIaam aTgTssod 1sOTTiva OqZ zo; Vpua6t uOTSSTtmaoo OWns aq3 uo paotTd put ;;vis 1oTzlsTp aq3 Aq peweTAaz aq TTTA uOT3vaTTddv znoA 'sesta 3sost UI t,LN1i,I'Idd1I MW 3311 f10JC 3I •sanssT TV32toa IuvlzodaT 6uT3aaTbau 1noglTA ss000zd atp do paads 03 pepua3uT azt saznp000zd 6uT140TTo; 04L •ATSn0Pua09az3 pesvazouT svq pV0T%l0A s,uoTSSTtonoo vi"S ag3 'IST"za6uOT ou SuoTStramw Tvuotbas asnvoag •got;;o a1VTzdozddv aq3 It SuoTI90TTddt 3Tmzad 2Tag3 3Tmgns pTnogs 23uvo -TTddy •s1Tmaad asag3 6uTzaPTsu0z zo; saznp000zd pauTTmtazls 'AGU Pad0Tanap SVM 3T 'sdM 1nogITj% svezt so; sITm ed TvlSvw TTt sanssT Am noTssT=203 TV3stoo 03VIS ag3 asnvoae gTvbddY PUv 23Tmzad zo; sazn opzd UOTSSTMM03 TVlsvoo REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION: An applicant may request that thecommissionreconsider its previous action on a permit. The applicant must show that there is relevant new evidence which could not have reasonably been presented at the original hearing or that an error of fact or law occurred. Only the applicant and persons who participated in the original proceedings are eligible to testify. Testimony is limited to three minutes for each side. Should the commissioners vote to grant the reconsideration request, the matter will be scheduled for a public hearing as if it were a new application. PERMIT AMENDMENTS: An applicant may apply for an amendment to a previously approved project. The amendment will be scheduled for a public hearing and any person may speak in support of or opposition to the amendment. Five minutes will be allotted to each side. PUBLIC HEARING PROCEDURES: If the item you are interested in speaking on is scheduled for a public hearing, you must fill out a "Request to Speak" form and give it to a staff person before the hearing starts. Sign-up forms will be available on a table at the back of the hearing room. Tine limits for spoken tpstimnny vary according to the three different calendars. Because of this limited time, applicants and opponents are encouraged to submit written comments to the commission office at least one week in advance of the hearing. Comments of up to two pages will be copied and forwarded to the commissioners by the staff. If you wish to submit lengthy comments, you must submit 20 copies to the commission office at least one week before the hearing. I= it is convenient, you may also wish to bring 20 copies of your spoken testimony to the hearing for distribution to the commissioners. Speakers may use maps, slides, photographs, models, and other visual materials in their presentations to the commission. Since such materials become part of the public record on the permit, reproductions of the materials shown must be submitted to the commission staff before or durine the commission meeting, or the originals will be retained by the commission for 60 days. A carousel slide projector and screen will be available at the meetings. Wi State of California, George Deukmejian, Governor California Coastal Commission SOUTH COAST DISTRICT 245 West Broadway, Suite 380 P.O. Box 1450 Long Beach, California 90801-1450 (213) 590-5071 awl•y•• -a • 1.'N t• • Application: 5-84-236 FILED: 4/5/84 49th DAY: Waived 180th DAY: 10��/,,,,2/84 STAFF: Ryan ��pp �� STAFF REPORT: 7/3/84df HEARING DATE: 7/11/84 Applicant: City of Hermosa Beach 1315 Valley Drive ISA BEACH, CA 90254 Description: In-plementation of a preferential parking program and a remote beach park-and-ride system Site: The Strand on the west, lcrra/Morningside Drive on the east and the City boundaries on the north and south, Hermosa Beach Substantive File Documents: 1. The City of Hermosa Beach Conditionally Certified Land Use Plan (LUP) 2. Previous Coastal Permit 5-82-251 3. Land Use Plan Background Documents Staff is recomTending approval with no special conditions. STAFF RECoMMIIDATION The staff reccxm►ends the Commission adopt the follawing resolution: Approval The Ccamv ssion hereby grants a perniit for the proposed development on the gounds that the development will be in conformity with the provisions of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act of 1976, will not prejudice the ability of the local government having jurisdiction over the area to prepare a Local Coastal Program con- forming to the provisions of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act, is located between the lea ic and the first public road nearest the shoreline and is in conformance with the pub access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act, and will not have any significant adverse i.npacts on the environment within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act. 5-84-236 Page 2 I. Standard Conditions: See Attachment X. II. dial Conditions: None. III. Findings and Declarations. The Corr>trussion hereby finds and declares as follows: A. Background. On May 18, 1982, the Commission conditionally approved a permit for the implementation of a preferential parking and remote beach parking program for the City of Hermosa Beach. The Commission conditionally approved that permit to expire after two years in order to be able to further review and to reevaluate what, if any, are the impacts on beach access. The proposed development is to continue the program with some modifications regarding fees, posting of signs, enforcement and remote parking facilities to accommodate an additional 100 cars over and above the previous permit that provided 300 spaces. (See Exhibit B.) Following is a more specific project description of the City's original permit (5-82-251): Project consists of a permit program and a park and ride system to deal with parking problems and congestion in the beach -oriented area of the City. The boundaries- of this area are: The Strand on the west, Loma/Morningside Drive on the East, and the City boundaries on the north and south. The purpose of this program is to reallocate the parking demand from where it cannot be met to an area where it can be met. Permits allow unlimited parking in the area including the yellow meters. Annual permits are available to any resident of the impacted area showing current proof of residence and current registration to their current address for $10. Transferable guest permits are available to residents of the impacted area for $10 also. People who are employed in the impacted area may purchase an annual permit for $10 upon proof of employment (payroll stub, etc.) at a business located in such area. Non-residents coning into the area have the following choices for parking: 1. Purchase a day permit for $2.00 2. Pay the yellow meter at $ -%/hr. (12 hour maximum) 3. Use the commercial lots at $ 29/hr. (2 hour maximum) 4. Paris where there are no restrictions east of Loma Drive (approximately five blocks from the beach). S. Use the free parking lots located at City Hall and on the railroad right-of-way and take the shuttle to the beach (please see attached map). The area presently has 1 -hour parking from 8 a.m. to 3 pm. except with a residential, guest, or daily permit: No restrictions from 3 pm. to 2 aln: No parking from 2 am to 6 ain. without a resident or guest permit. Businesses in the impacted area can also be issued one permit per employee with the submission of payroll records The Commission's previous conditions were as follows: 1. This permit shall expire two years from the date of approval. In order to demonstrate the impact oa beach access from the implementation of this program, the City shall maintain beach attendance figures and bus ridership records. 5-84-236 Page 3 2. The City shall submit, for the approval of the Executive Director, a sign and public information plan that shall be implemented before the on - street parking disincentives are enforced. Said plan shall be clear, accessible, and internally consistent. a. the plan shall make information on the existence of the parking lot, the bus, and the non-resident day permit available on every block where hourly parking, 'silver" and •yellow" meters are present with the same size of lettering and frequency of placement as the sign identi- fying restrictions. b. identify one or more locations open during all hours of enforcement for the sale of such permits. C. indicate the days and hours during which the program is in operation and that the permits are not needed when the program is not in operation. 3. Pursuant to Condition 2 (two) the City of Hermosa Beach shall demon- strate to the Executive Director that the bus/jitney will be in operation during those days and hours when the disincentive portion of the program is enforced, or conversely, that when and if the bus or the 200 remote spaces are not available, that any person will be able to park on City streets and in City lots for periods over four hours (without needing to leave the beach to feed meters) in order to get to the beach. 4. Within thirty (30) days of Commission action, the City shall designate the location of a reservior of one hundred additional parking spaces which shall be made available to the satellite parking program by the middle of June, 1982. Furthermore, by March 1, 1983, the City shall identify an additional one hundred (100) such spaces which shall be available for the parking program by mid-June (June 18) of 1983. B. Project Description. The proposed development is for the renewal of the City's previous coastal permit (5-82-251) for a preferen- tial parking and remote beach parking program. Additionally the City is proposing to increase the cost of the day permits from $2.00 to $5.00 and to charge a 25� fare for the shuttle bus serving the remote parking lots. Following is a more specific description as submitted by the City of those changes in cost: The City is proposing certain changes in its program to better meet the parking demand needs. First, the City would like to raise the cost of the day permits from $2.00 to $SAO. This price increase will serve to encourage non-residents of the impacted area to uitilize the remote parking facilities. The fee increase will also assist in reducing operating costs of administering the remote parking facet of the overall program as well as the shuttle service. As a result of litigation against the City, the court has mandated the City to sell annual permits to residents of the impacted area only. Hence, non-residents of the impacted area must either park in metered parking, buy a day permit, find free parking east of the impacted area, or utilize the free parking lots and beach shuttle made available by the City. The City believes that the daily permit fee increase will better distribute the parking demand to areas where it can be met Second, the City would like to charge a 2% fare for the shuttle serving the remote parking lots. It is hoped that this small fare will help to recover a portion of the costs of operating the shuttle while at the same time not inhibit ridership. The 25C fare seems reasonable in light of the short travel time and distance. 5-84-236 Page 4 Additionally, because of on-going public concerns, the Commission staff has requested and the City has agreed to incorporate three additional modifications to the parking program. Following is the City's response: In his letter of February 9, 1984, Robert Joseph indicated that the City should address certain conditions. These included: 1. Posting of the remote parking lots. 2. Adjusting the hours of ticketing and enforcement to match each other, and S. Improving the existing signs with more concise verbage and information. The City is proposing to amend their booth signs to read: "Beach Visitor Information" Free Parking and 2% Shuttle 9AM-5PM 7 days/week - May 15 to September 15 (1) Public parking signs will be posted at the remote lots that are not already posted so that people not familiar with the area will be able to easily locate these lots. (2) The issue addressed by comment number 2 was in response to a query by a resident. During the winter months (September 15 -May 15), the beach shuttle does not operate even though parking permits are still required to park at the yellow meters (if one does not want to pay the meters). The reason for the lack of the shuttle operation is a fraction of the summer seasonal demand. The remote lots remain unused and the shuttle becomes unnecessary as people are able to park within a block of the beach. It would be ludicrous to offer a shuttle service that would be unable to get people any closer to the beach than they already were. (3)Also, the information booths will have visitor information brochures indicating the location of the lots and the frequency of the shuttle, as well as information on daily permits. The parking information booths will be open 7 days a week from May 15 to September 15 between the hours of 8:15 am. and 4:45 pm. Daily permits are available at City Hall also. The proposed preferential parking and remote beach parking program is for a four month period from May 15 to September 15. This program is separate from an existing on-going 12 month residential permit parking program (yellow meter program) which the City implemented prior to developing the preferential parking program. The yellow meters are located along Hermosa Avenue and on two minor streets 1/2 block from the beach. Residents of the coastal area can purchase an annual permit which allows them to park at the yellow meters without paying the meter year round. This same permit allows the residents to park on the streets when parking is restricted during the summer months pursuant to the preferential parking program. 5-84-236 Page 5 The yellow meter program is a separate program from the summer preferential parking program in that beach visitor parking is not limited by the yellow meters. Beach visitors can park during the winter months (when only the yellow meter program is in operation) on any residential street for free with of course the exception of Hermosa Avenue. Staff has had extensive discussions and correspondence (See - Exhibits C through G) with a concerned local resident and the City regarding the annual parking permit program versus the proposed 4 -month summer preferential parking. C. Development. Section 30252(40 of the Coastal Act states that "The location and amount of new development should maintain and enhance public access to the coast by. . . . (4) providing adequate parking facilities or providing substitute means of serving the development with public transportation. . ." The City of Hermosa Beach has historically experienced a shortage of parking due to competing parking demands of beach -goers, custormers of commercial establishments, and the surrounding residential uses which range from low to high density. In order to alleviate those parking demands, the City has proposed the subject parking management plan which consists of a parking permit program and a park-and-ride system. According to the City, the program has been "designed to reduce traffic and parking impacts by reallocating the beach visitor demand to an area of the City that can better meet the need. This is done through a permit pricing system and the providing of the alternative of free remote parking and a beach shuttle to transport these visitors to the beach. If the visitor does not want to take advantage of this remote parking, a daily parking permit may be purchased enabling the visitor to park in the impacted area for a certain fee." The proposed parking program will affect approximately 1300 metered on -street parking spaces and will provide 400 remote parking spaces at seven locations (see Exhibit B). In order to demonstrate the impact on beach access, the Commission conditioned the previous coastal permit requiring the City to maintain beach attendance figures and bus ridership records. Following is a summary of those statistics as submitted by the City: In order to determine whether or not beach attendance was affected by the parking program, data was collected from the daily estimates of the number of beach users made by lifeguards at each beach. It is hoped that while any individual count may be inaccurate, averages over the entire season would be reasonably accurate. AVERAGE DAILY LIFEGUARD BEACH COUNTS Redondo- Redondo- Manhattan- Manhattan Manhattan Year Hermosa Clifton Redondo E1 Porto Pier Marine St. Total 1979 18,167 12,349 5,645 2,879 5,510 6,754 51.024 1981 42,151 16,119 9,628 4,933 10,197 7,983 91,011 1983 97,179 14,213 11,0c, 4,295 14,523 6,802 148,013 •40V Tt4spoo aqq 30 ZSZO£ u0140as g4TM quaqsTsuoo 14spoo agq 04 ssaoop oTTgnd aousque TTTM upTd SuTxzed pasodozd agq gegq spuTJ zag4an; uoTssTunuoD aqy „ • asnaaAo uuozi spate aoznosaz Tpznqtu put ' szauMo �iqzadozd agpnTzd ;o sggSTz 'sgg6Tz oTTgnd goagozd oq paau aq4 put spaau A4ages oTTgnd g4TM JU04STSuoo aTdoad aqq TTP zoJ papTnozd aq TTtgs saTgTungzoddo TeuoT4taz3az put 'pagsod ATsnonoTdsuoo aq TTegs goTgM 'ssaooe uunuuTxpuu„ apTnozd oq OTZO£ uoTgoaS g4TM 4uagsTsuoo sT �uauudoTanap pasodozd aqq qpqq spuT; uoTssTuuuuoD aq4 'azo;azags •oTTgnd aqq waoJuT ATagenbape o4 uupzbozd uoTgeuuzo-;uT put a5eu5Ts e pasodozd spq AgTo aqq 'ATTeuoT4TPPV •aaj uTp4z90 e zoj paspgoznd aq Apuu gTuuzad buTxzed �TTpp t 'saotds buTxzed a-4ouuaz aazj 00V uegq azouu aq4 ;o auo ;o abpqutnpe axed 04 gsTM fou saop zasn-goeaq t jI •SuTXaed anT4euza4Tt buTbeznooua put SuT4pazo Aq eazt pagsa5uo3 t uTg4TM sgopduuT SuTxzed put oTJ3pz4 uassaT TTTM quamdoTanap pasodozd aqs •suzaouoo jjv4s TP4seoo pup oTTgnd ggoq ssazppe 04 uuezb -ozd aqq aunq-auT; oq pasodozd seq pup szeaA Omq zo; uutz5ozd SuTxzed aqq 5uT4uauu9TduuT uaaq seg AgTD aqy •AgTo aqq uT gsTxa 4eg4 suuaTgozd buTxzed TeooT azanas aq4 zo; ;aTTaz auuos SuTpTnozd auuT4 aunts aq4 4p aTTgM goeaq age oq swoop abeznooua oq qzo;ja qu95TTTp p appuu seq AgTo aqy '£861 'ST -lagwaldag pug ST AeW uaabiaq a!doad OOS'b ,CTaieuaxwdde ;o drysjap!i a pey P1no!) pus lard uaabiaq esouuaH 'AaT(gA guo(e paieiado seep ieyi aTun4s Lpeaq a41 -agesn yoeaq ut ase;"Oap otiewWp a angy lou prp y�ga9 gsouuaH leyi 41s�Tput op siuno� pienga;TT ayl 'lanan%oH •a8em y:)eaq aiewTisaJaAo of gu!pual sjeaA jaueT ur asoyi 4v/A read 43ea s3unoa ayi guTiew spaenga;rT ivai3;;1p of anp fTuTvtu aie sagueyo ayl ieyi sieadd8 1I 'ATa>lTTun tiae an apn3!ugew s!yi ;o sasga»ur 'popad sTyi Jano pasea.+our agesn y:)eaq ie41 ATaNt1 s! i! aR4M '%t9 Pug %£ uaaAuaq gulguej s":)eaq 2uTjogg2!au ayl is sasgaj:)ur pug gsoujaH le aouepuaue yoeaq ur aseaj:)UT %004 fano ug m04s slunoO 441 £861 Pug 6L61 uaa,aiaq popad iv*A ono; ayi jaAo -sayogaq 2uTiog42!au is pus yoeaq mouuaH yloq is sieaA a41 fano saseauut Apeois pus agie1 &oys siunoo asayl 9 abed 9£Z -i,8 -S PRRKIN6 PROGIRRM PE R mi T BOUNDRIES, CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH V. \�� ) � /�l/ t►. I•I-��....... __ I' � I I - -- (_��_.�--��L.1 �r k � � �'_ - '�I I• '' _�I I SCALE' I INCM-400 FEET" � �� �L__ _1 !I 1�.:,II I i r� l•-. hR• I I ll ' ij (t•_r`_„tJ. �I y�;,"'� I f• 0 'i 1'f w.__ 1� `�- ... _1 ( :-- '1r� w I• :. - ,��, ,- i i _- --�-_ter- _" � _.►r'•... �: I If t1 ORNINGSZDE THE S`f R A`U D LO M.R" �rT{,wE' � �;-1 Lam• � � N twl"TY fl►TM ® fi 1-79 tft" CT. I Ty[wttii V. o aTM V. G ►si �t"Tr ![v EwT" 1 a � r p ILJ11l���.� a GPEiMp vt.l.►OE �+ T*ILtwTT 311TH TvtwTY FIFT14 n["TT fOUNT14 I �J ~tvr .r,v ,ry T141 Tr["TV StCONO 21ar T"EhruTN 20TIO CT. hlh[TL[NTN H 1lrN cr. A Ln t1oNr[chrw ( V I•TN crj1�p LV[hT� a[Ch� I V N u r p r 17TN cr n (� 312T[co(TN (p pp CT r IFTELNTyI J. b c larw cr. W FOURTEcurN I.rM C, TNINT I w W C 17 TN C7Ln�. ►ICA ►�. 12T4 cr. 'U O O A CC[VCMTM T n O IIrN 3i Q rt rh p uIV NT �1 x 1074 er ill nfA 0 a ® N NINTN d 0 I..� aTM • CTr/ [Io" O n M G W •TM cr, rt p p d atV[wrjg I...� r ~ *4 a cr t��� t• ill r ON cT. r IITN T' ro�wrN �I ON hr p/ 47" cr. 1 r 1 t Tal.q I N � 79' 3[• er, GO !-+ TNI sccow b N C (!1 no ��>�1/4 n • a apt p.]: o T■Ear7 A M 1 III (0 ? U •� •� fOURTN - t. TrENtT ` o 1 O o u O.E.TiETN T �. * n ^ C41TN li o �)', C y ae f clo"reLNrN 3 r. sfv[h TctMtM 4' IF, 0 —, • 1� ow wIN. 3 r. iL 41 `o Ln ^ G IrTteMtW K 0- a n 3T. R Z r IV _ p fN_TM�� a fes. Zc c:ILL��SjJ' o i A. Z ' c dJO, W n H w0 Im oceaw vlcv AV,, ►t1.111111T ar a' = R+cow <= �my.FFixr rt rlhaT I !T 1 ri - � • A � „ rr Ir4 ftELMSN ST. ao� c O n F zoo � •pauopuege aq pTnogs uTed aqq 'os ;I •xo; Xed oI buTTTTA ST XITO aqq, uegg xaModugui axout 'aiunsse I 'TTequa pTnoA STgs •UOTssTunuoO aqq. Xq paleTndTls XpeaxTe SUOTgTpuoO aqq MOTTO; �Tduits :snorngo XT6uTxeT6 ST UOTgengTS STgq anoxdtuT oq X4TO aqq xo; sueaui ,�Tuo aqs • uOTgeoonax gTuixad xadoxd aqq xaaUTbua oq aouegonTax buTuiaas s,UOTSSTunuOO aqI pue suOTgTpuoo gTuixad S, UOTsSTunuoO aqg anxasgo oI Tesn;ax S, esouixaH ;o asneoaq pTTenuT axe gegq SUOTgegTO pansST butaq axe aTdood gggg qOe; aqq aZTu60oe.1 Pug ,SUOTIUaIUT aTggpuaunuoo„ s. AgTO aqI puoAaq xOOT pTnOus sanTgequasaxdax uozss-rumo0 •paxoubT buTaq axe SUOTITpuOo asagl !og paxagpe axaM SUOTgtpuoo uTegxaO ';T ATuo pue ';T panssT aq pTnOA gTuixad quauidOTanap e gegq pagegS uOTssTunuoO aq,L • pxoM sqT oq do buTntT XTduiTs xo; aTgTsuodsax aq pTnogs IT qnq 'sasodtuT IT SUOT4Tpuo3 aqg ;o quauzaoxo;ua aqq xo; aTgTsuodsax you ST uOTssTunuoO aqq gegq azTTeax I •ssaooe goeaq 6UTnxasaxd UT anTen Tgax due ;o aq oq (ATuo sAepxaaM 'b-8) UOTgexado ;o sxnoq sqT pue (RgTo aqq apTsgno SguTod do-xoTd ant; ATuo axe axagq) saoTnxas IT gale aqq ggoq UT p94TUITT ooq xe; ST A4T3 aqq Aq pappe KTgUaDaJ aoTnxaS apTg-V-TPTQ aqs •UOTSSTunuoO aqq Xq pagegoTp SUOTgTpuOo gTuixad TeTOads aqq ;o UOT42TOTA goaxTp e ST aTge -TTgneun axe sgTuixad ATTgp pug ' UOTgguixo;UT Li -r axed anTgeuxagTe 'aoTnxas snq gbnogq Uana pauOTgegTO axe sxagaui paxTcLNa qe paxxed sxeo AgaxagA X3TTod quaWaoxO;Ua anTgUaOUTsTp guaxxno aqL •goagoxd oq pasodurT axaM SUOT4TPUOO asagq SgsaxaquT asOgA OTTgnd aqq ;o UOTgegtoTdxa Tn;gTaOap aqg uT qnq 'suotgTpuoO gTiuxad TTT;Tn; oI axnTTe; SIT UT A4TO aqg oq quawssexxequia ue ATuo IOU UT pagTnsax seg ueTd aqq ;o uOTgeguauzaTduiT gdauT aqL •agegs guaxxno sqT UT uiegs IuaTnpnex; e ST ugTd buTxxed s,esouixaH 1SUOT4ua4UT ;o gsaq aqq uaaq aneg XQui gegM agTdsaa •gTwlad Tegseo0 paMauax a buTxaas sT goeag esOuixaH gOTgM xo; uiexboxd 6UTxxed Tetquaxa;axd aqq gsagoxd oq 'utebe 19X 'buTIT,A Me I :;;egg pue szauoTSsiunuo0 xeaa 2 OSt,T -T0806 VO 'gOeag buoZ OSbT XOg ' O' d 8E agTnS ' XgiApeoxg gsaM SfiiZ •— Mspm 40TxgsTQ gseo0 ggnog TSSTunuoO Zegseo;; etuxo;TTeO o E�j�bW T796T 'LZ TTxd i '79 1Z -h9 S ZOZ ogeOOog •V x ' ,iTalaOuts •anuTIuo' 04 uiei5oid aqq MoTTe pTnoM geg4 gTuuad quauidOTanap aq4 30 TeMauaJ aqq asoddo pue gsajozd of uoTjuaquT Xut ST 41 •uoTgengTs sTgj UT quauigeajq aTgegTnba pup gsnC anTaoas OTTgnd aqq go siagwaui TTe legq aas 04 Xlessaoau uoT-ual4e 10 ' qso33a ' Xauout ' autT4 aqq 5uTIonap UT pagsazaquT qou ST X4TO aqy •goeag esoutJaH UT X100 gouueJ utel5old SuTxled TeT4uaJa;9jd aqj ' uaaq aneq XeuI suoT4 -ua4UT TeuT5TJo aq4 4ugTTTTzq Moq la4leu ou 4egI anaTTaq I ',KTTenba slagaut aqq paal 04 aneq pTnOA 9UOXIana u9g4 'sJa4aut MOTTaX agq qe SuTXJed aazj log pTTen aaaM sITuijad ou jT 'XTquanbasuo, •suoT4TpuoO gTutzad TeToads Xue 01 aOueTTduioo ggTM 3TasIT uJa3uO3 04 aneq qou pTnOA �qTo aq, 'ST XeW pug ST jaquagdas uaaM4aq pa3zo3uTun XTagaTduioo ob 04 aJaM anT4u90utsTp a44 3I 'XIesseDau aq pTnogs sgTutiad buTXJed TeT4uazaz ajd ou ' os JI • sgluout asaLij buTznp uoT4uagge quej.zeM oq g5noua alanas qOu ST waTgoxd buTxjed aqq 4eg4 IaTTaq Tengoe ug utoij sua4s uoseas-330 aqq UT suoT4TpuoO gTuiaad of a3uaJ9jjTpuT s, XgTo aqq sdeLliad •punoi-jean auOTe 4aT 'auiTgXu2 qe auoz alTqua aqq gnog5noig4 5uTx.zed pagTuiTTun KoCua o-4 uaq-4 5uTxoTTe log uoTgeOTjTgsnC ru ST alagj 'sgquotu 5uTx�gd xead SuTznp sautoq aTagj Jeau 6uTxzed 04 ssaooe ,squapTsai ainsue of ST sgTutiad go aTes aqq 5uT -4TutTT go asodind aq4 JI •auoz pagoeduiT aq4 apTs4no anTT oqM squapTsal 01 patuap ST a5aTTnTjd stgs, •aouapTsai JTag4 utoaJ sT lagaut aqj leg Moq ja-4geut ou ' aagaut palsod-MOTTaX Xue 4e abzegO 3o aazj 'punoa-.zeaX xied o4 paAOTTe ale yauoz;anTqu aqj go squapTsai 6uTpToq gTuijad :AOuajsTsuoOuT aq4 saTT uTajaH •auoz aaggTa UT SuTNIed p94TutTTun sMoTTe 4eg4 zaxOT49 gTuiiad e asegoind o'4 paAOTTe 5uTaq ;O a5aTTnTzd aqq XoCua „auoz aalaut pagsod-MoTTaX. aql 90 squapTsal agq g4TM 5uOTe 'aTdoad asegy •ST jaqutagdas of ST XeJ4 utoij os op of ITut.zad a aneq Isnut znoq ug Jano 101 5uTxzed auoXue azagM ease pagogdutT ag} 10 uoT-4Oas -4eq-4 '„auoz anTq, aaUIJO; aqq UT XIOA zo anTT ogbt aTdoad asogq 04 6uTla39z We I •s95e4uenpe JTeJun 5uTXOCua ale slatI40 'suoT4e4TO -4uaTnpnesj go uapinq aqq of goaCgns ale OTTgnd aqq go ssaqutaut autos aTTgM -Z- C�j JdaOxa s4Juow lalurnn a4J 8uT1np a81e4O 3noyltM 4Oeaq QqI ;o lsea loolq a to 11e4 Quo wo1; a1agA%Aue >ped Aew Orjgnd 841 •4Oeaq 841 wO11 xoolq a ;o PIN Quo paleool ale 4OT4A% slaalJs 1Ourw oMJ pue (anuanV esowlal..l) 1aa13s 1o(ew Quo ssedwooua Aluo Joel uT pue Vwlad uOTssrwwoo jelseoO Q41 alepald slalaw n+ojjQA Qy1 •e :suoseal 8ur,holjol a4J 10l 1oa11OouT sr oleOOog •1W •ajgepene aq Ism uorlewlo;ur 8uTNied pue slrwlad AITep a41 'palelado aq Jsnw sng ajJln4S NJ '.a'T `JoQ;;Q ur ale we18o1d a1TJua 1e43 ;o suorlTpuoO 841 salels a4 `alow1a4J1nd •JOa;;a ur sT we18o1d But lied jeTJuala;ald alrlua 841 'lalaw 843 BuTpaa; 1no4JT M slalaw MojjaA a41 le >ped o1 (01S lsOO 4Oi4h+) slapjo4 Vwlad lenuue SMojje A1r0 Q4J syJuow lalurh► QqJ UT QOUTS swTejo oleOOog 1W -law 8uraq lou we lrwlad NJ ;o jenoldde to suojlrpuoO NT 1e43 saSalje oleOOog 1W :SUOT1eOT;TlejO 2UTMOjjol ay1 axew of aipj pjnoA A1r0 841 :sluawalels ST4 8Urp1e8ag •we18o1d 8urilled lerluala;aid s,Alio ayl 8urlsalold olm:)Og 111elr3 •1W wo1; lallal a nog( of pallTwgns Pe4 QAe4 noA :uorssrwwoo jelseoo erulo;ileo ay1 ;o slagwaW pue uewlre4o ajgelouoH WV'dOO'dd ONIN'dVd "IVI1NTd3-43dd :a1 'd31131 S,OIVOOOfl *dW 01 3SNOdS3-d Alio `9£Z'178'9 NOII.VOI'iddV :32i tJI�+tS14 13c'03 111f1CS :401S3IWwO:) lb'tSyOj OW -108O6 VO `4oeafl duoZ OSbi xOfl 'O•d 08£ aJTnS `j(eA%peolg isa/A 9fa JOT4ST(3 JSEO:) 4lnOS uorssrwwoo jeiseoO eru1O;TIeO 126L•9LE :S1N3MI18V430 3811 0NV 391104 V869.9L9 (EIZ) *11VH 1119 VS Z06 VIN80111V9 H3V39 VSO "93H 831M33 91A19 14D]VDII INOWJ914 jo A11D 17861 `fi AM for the yellow meters. To implement a Shuttle Bus for those people parking free one half to one or two blocks from the beach during the winter is ludicrous. b. the parking information and daily permits are available during the winter months at City Hall. The City has sold from September 183 to February 184, 565 daily permits. (The Dial -A -Ride service is a seperate and distinct service from the Shuttle Bus.) 2. The second issue Mr. Boccato raises attempts to distinguish between a "blue" zone and a "yellow" zone. Previously, the City issued two permits, one for the summer preferential parking program and one for the yellow meters. Only residents of the Impacted Area could acquire a permit for the "blue" zone. Any one could buy a permit for the yellow meters. Because of a court case brought against the City by Mr. Boccato, the City was required to issue permits to residents of the Impacted Area only. Residents of the Impacted Area are defined as anyone living within the area of Strand to Loma Drive. (Superior Court Judge Swearinger's decision is submitted to the Commission.) The City combined the yellow meter "blue" zone permits and issued one permit good for the yellow meters and on their neighborhood streets during the summer. Mr. Boccato further states that if the entire program is in operation only during the summer months, there is no need for the yellow meter program during the winter months. Again the yellow meter program predates the summer preferential parking program and was implemented in response to a parking problem. On those good weather days during the "off-season", the area closest to the beach (i.e., Hermosa Avenue) is impacted not only by beach users but users of the commercial areas along Hermosa Avenue. The Yellow meter program was implemented to solve that problem. In response to Mr. Boccato's letter, the City would like to make one additional comment. There were 8,600 annual permits sold last year, and there have been 6,125 permits sold since March of this year. The only complaining party has been Mr. Boccato. Mr. Boccato has filed three injunctions and one suit against the City. Two injunctions were granted Lnd subsequently resolved, one injunction was denied. The Superior Court ruled in the �x41bit D City's favor regarding the adequacy and legality of the program. Again Mr. Boccato has filed an appeal. This process has been extremely costly to Mr. Boccato and it can be anticipated he is expecting to recuperate the money he has expended. The City encourages Your Honorable Body to sincerely concur with the staff recom- mendation regarding this permit approval. Sincerely, Pa�6L- Pamela Sapetto Planning Director City of Hermosa Beach Attachments PS:ls Z�4 r 3a�3 --6 , —Z3� -Z 4 co / .flaadoad sem uot3-+od aAtluaautstp a4l pug •0861 'LI XVW uo paa.,olua weu6o� 6u ae 4 SI XeW aauts 6utuotlaun4 uaaq se4 d til d letluaJ alaud a41 1941 papnlauo, nok'sn41 "0861 'St XeW gouts atgvtt2Av uaaq aAe4 slot 6utlued patltluapt klsnotAaad aAtj a4l put lot 6utliud l0040S Fatten esOw aH a4l loo painZtlsgns uaaq se4 lot 6utlued aalua:) kltunwwo3 a44 10 uotluod y •palutad a.iam saan400aq Mau pug apew aj am sluawa6ueJJe aAt3eu.ialte snoauoij a sem uotldwnssv a43 le41 luauedde aweaaq It ua4m 4941 pug ut26e pasn aq ptnom alts 10043S a4l 4941 uotldwnsse a41 uo paingtulstp Pug palutud sem aun430jq 0861 a44 le41 Palels oste noA 'Luri6oid a4l ;o suotlaod aAtluaautstp a4l 40 luawaouolua put allln4s a4l jo dn-l.rels �Cq I 'S1 keW uo uoseas ti861 a4l .10I paletltut sem wea6oud a41 IP41 Paleotput nOA •.lalaw ayl ut Fauow 6u1aeld Ino440 pug IttmAad a 1n041114 Ra -AQ aAtluaautstp a41 ut 6utjaed .,o, 0861 'LI XeW uo uo p vlto 6utjuvd v paAtaaaa uaztlta awes a41 •Weu6oud ti96I a41 4o lied lou sem 'fltltogl a41 3941 Inq £96I `S aagwaldaS 46noJ44 £861 '81 aunt wojj We16oid a41 40 lied v sem 10043S falleA esouu aH a41 Ie41 Plol sem aH •ledtoutad a41 04 luelstssy a41 Xq palied (Lte6allt sem 94 le4l Plol sem pue lwvj60Jd 6ulIJed l2tluaJaJaud a41 40 lied se a.rn4aoaq 0861 a4l uo patltluapt lot 6utlaed 2 'l0043S (all2A esouu aH a44 le palaed uaztlta a V961 `9[ kN UO 1941 Paw-+0lut uaaq ane4 am 1941 nok of paletaa I •asn 40eaq 4ead 10 potjad a4l '91 jagwaldaS 01 IT XPW wou; paouojua aq of st wea6oud a43 1p43 uotsstwwo0 a41 pawjolut X10841 •Paa,�olua st livi6oad a4l 10 not'jaod antluaautstp a41 sleep pue sj n04 a43 6ut,rnp slot 6utj.led 841 pug allln4s a4l aleuado of 'Itw.ad a41 10 uotl�puoo 2 se 'pajnbaa st Xlto a oea a4l pug slot 6ut4aed a43 uaamlaq allln4s aauJ a 10 uotstAoi d a4l pup aq, a4; WO-Al-kPMO slot 6utjued aauj So s3uawanojdwt 'uotl2tn6aj pug saa� 'sltuuad apntaut S8Atlua3utstp a41 •43eaq a4l aeau Budged of saAtluaautstp tetaueUtj sapntaut 3941 walSXS allln4s put 6utI.�ed alowai a 4o uotleluawatdwt aol ltwaad a4l pansst uotsstwwo0 leIS203 a41 •ISZ-ZB-S I�WJ8d Iu3w6taAap te3se03 of Iuensi nd 43ea8 es0au aH 40 X110 a41 Sq paualstutwpv wviBoid 6utIaed 43eaq a4l passnastp am 43t4m 6utanp ti861 `I£ �C9W 40 uotlgsuanuoo ano wUtluoo 01 St j allat SL41 :o33adeS •sW Jeaa 0SZ06 V3 • '43989 vsOuuaH Jalua3 atA Q 40289 esOuuaH jo X110 o}lades vtawvd 41 4t,", 0861 4S aune I � 5558-£05 (Sl b) 1 SM 1-6 MUJOIffn '�� M, KIN I urS J'-xij g1IF '1aJJ1S PJeMoH 1 19 uomiwwo] lelseo] eiuxojge) JouJbno7 'UIMaw*saQ a9Jox) 'erwopgt] to S"� /79 --S Z�0Z Lasuno0 11e1S e46uol •A e14lu( "2,Y — J 'sanok 91n.,l RJ8A 'uoseas V861 a4l 40 laels a4l le peoel no,C swalgoad a41 jO uo}1nLos8a p}dea anuk aje}oai dde am 'po,LI Ppwaad •wea5oad a41 aol aLgtsuodsaa uo}leajs�utwpe X40 344 40 suo}loas ll q 1• lelseo0 a41 uo pasodwt suo�U PuO3 a4l 410 a3uetLdwo3 6u}nu}luo0 lsanba,i aM •suo�j�puo3 s,uo}sslc,wo0 lelSe00 a43 to suu al a41 of 13aCgns jou aje wea6oad Aajaw MoLLak 6utls�xa KisnotAa.Ad a41 o1 juensand aeak a4l �o aapu�ewaa ay1 6utanp panss� suo}1e1�3 6u}Iaed 'sn41 ISazaao�nO S 06oaj Sew woa; 1oa4ja u} St ISZ-19 1Lua+ad luawdolanap lelseoo Kqe Puma � a wo.�; 6u�laed le�lua+alaad 841 'anoge palou SW •wea6oad 6u}ljed l ll a a paa4l wOa+ jou�jstp pue aleaedas s} 1941 aea�C a4l jn046nOJ4l wea6oad 5u}j „aajaw MOWS- O su�elu�em -4Q a4l 1941 6u}puOlsaapun Am OSLO S� lI •wPa60ad 6u H.19d lepuaaalaad ay1 woa4 13U41sp PuO aleaedas St 4941 wajsKs apla-y-lQW O 04 pajaanuo3 uaaq se4 43W wea6oad 1 0 uOa1 Led p3 um O S� 6u uO saa un .Cup sE lI 'paoao;ua aq Mou �Cew wea6oad a4l 4o uO}jaod aaa4l 4941 �P 1 P M aAtjuaou}stp 341 sn41 'ReMP9a4 ajnujw OZ -St 41 uO •u,•e 00:6 0 a •w•d 00 5 sno 00x6 uaaMlaq aoLAaas ao; paLnp843s uaaq S94 allln4s a4l P P lP3waa PP l }1tP sem svaae bu}jaed ;o ansS� a4i 'aaAaMOH •uoseas b861 a41 40 laO1s a4l It wea6oud a41 40 uO WluauwaLdmt 4404 swaLgoad awns aaaiA aaa41 1943 s.Aeadde II TBEPHONE 0131 4S 4M Cynthia K. Long Staff Counsel California Coastal 631 Howard Street, San Francisco, CA Dear Ms. Long: JOSH B. MURDOCH ATTORNEY AT LAW 2225 SANTA MONICA BOWEVAID • SUITE 102 SANTA MONICA. CALWOV41A 40401 June 8, 1984 - Commission 4th Floor 94105 � NFcFi�, Thank you for sending me a copy of—your letter to Pamela Sapetto dated June 5, 1984. However, your comments (at page two) that "parking citations issued during the remainder of the year pursuant to the previously existing yellow meter program are not subject to the terms of the Coastal Commission's conditions", are incorrect. The city sells 12 -month preferential permits to resi- dents for parking in the yellow meter area. Consequently, the City is required to comply with the Coastal Commission's permit conditions during all twelve months. Any information given to you that this area is only a "4 month program" is not in accord with the facts. It is incorrect to refer to some program that.is "separate and distinct from the Preferential Parking Program", because there is no such thing. All parking in the "yellow meter" area is affected by the issuance of preferential permits on a 12 - month basis, which is why the Coastal Commission has jurisdiction in the first place. Your letter seems to suggest that the City need not comply with the conditions of the Permit in the winter months, on the simple basis that the City tells you it is not complying with the conditions. This is baffling. Please clarify your comments if I have misconstrued them, as I do not believe this letter should stand on the record as presently worded. The only way your comments could make sense is if the City is selling preferential permits which are valid only from May to September, so that from September to May all street parking is by use of meters only, whether by residents or non-residents. This is not the case, and I believe clarification is necessary. Second, your letter avoids discussion of the issue we have asked you to resolve, whether citations issued by the City to Mr. Boccato and others during the time the coastal permit conditions were not being complied with are legally valid. If you have no ability or willingness to express an opinion on this issue, please so inform me so that we can demonstrate to a court that we have exhausted all administrative avenues available to us. JE)k Alb" -C F - Ver truly yours, • JOHN B. MURDOCK June 14, 1984 CITV OF IIACAMOS4 -tC40-t C I V I C C E N T E R H E R M 0 S A B E A C H C A L I F O R N I A 9 0 2 5 4 CITY HALL: (2 1 3) 3 7 6. 6 9 8 4 POLICE AND FIRE DEPAR T M E N T S: 3 7 6. 7 9 8 1 California Coastal Commission South Coast District 245 W. Broadway, Suite 380 PO Box 1450 Long Beach, CA 90801-1450 RE: APPLICATION #5-84-236, CITY RESPONSE TO MR. MURDOCK'S LETTER REGARDING PREFERENTIAL PARKING PROGRAM Honorable Chairman and Members of the California Coastal Commission: You have had a letter submitted to you from Mr. Murdock (Mr. Boccato's attorney) protesting your legal staff's response to Mr. Boccato's letter. The City would like to reiterate the comments made in the 5-4-84 letter with respect to the allegation that the program is a twelve month program and not a four month program. Mr. Boccato and Mr. Murdock claim: "since in the winter months the City allows annual permit holders (which cost $10) to park at the yellow meters without feeding the meter, the entire preferential parking program is in effect. Furthermore, he states the conditions of that entire program are in effect, i.e., the Shuttle Bus must be operated, the daily permits and parking information must be available." Mr. Boccato and Mr. Murdock are incorrect for the following reasons: "a. The yellow meters predate the Coastal Commission Permit and in fact only encompass one major street (Hermosa Avenue) and two minor streets which are located one half of a block from the beach. The public may park anywhere from one half of a block east of the beach without charge during the winter months except for the yellow meters. To implement a Shuttle Bus for those people parking free one lialf to one or two blocks from the beach during the winter is ludicrous. �X (� �/ 2- L,/- Z 3 L,/-z3 permit for the area and establishing a fee for the residential permits. It is the City's understanding that the Commission is concerned about the potential effects of a preferential parking program on coastal access. The City shares this concern and feels it is offering a program which mitigates the parking and traffic demands as well as encouraging visitors to the beach. The City solicits your approval of the project as an innovative solution to a difficult problem for all coastal communities. Yours truly, L �• °t P Gregor eyer City Manager 2 a 'F- -Z- S'-S'- B'y-2 34-.' I To: From: Subject: Attachment X Permit Applicants California Coastal Commission Standard Conditions The following standard conditions are imposed on all permits issued by the California Coastal Commission. STANDARD CONDITIONS 1. Notice of Receipt and Acknowledgement. The permit is not valid and evelopment shall not commence until a copy of the permit, signed by the permittee or authorized agent, acknowledging receipt of the permit and acceptance of the terms and conditions, is returned to the Commission office. 2. Expiration. If development has not coam►enced, the permit will expire two years from the date on which the Commission voted on the application. Development shall be pursued in a diligent manner and completed in a reasonable period of time. Application for extenstion of the permit must be made prior to the expiration date. 3. Compliance. All development must occur in strict compliance with the proposal as set forth in the application for permit, subject to any special conditions set forth below. Any deviation from the approved plans must be reviewed and approved by the staff and may require Commission - approval. 4. Interpretation. Any questions of intent or interpretation of'arry condition willa resolved by the Executive Director or the Commission. S. Inspections. The Commission staff shall be allowed to inspect the site and e development during construction, subject t^ 24-hour advance notice. 6. As meat. The permit ma be assigned to any qualified person, pro a ass gree files vith the Commission an affadavit accepting all terms and conditions of the permit. 7. Terms and Conditions Run with the Land. These terms and conditions shall be perpetual. and it is the intention of the Commission and the permittee to bind all future owners and possessors of the subject property to the terms and conditions. Fa August 24, 1984 Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of the City Council of August 28, 1984 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH PUBLIC FACILITIES CORPORATION Attached for your review is a draft copy of the Articles of Incorporation and By -Laws of the proposed City of Hermosa Beach Public Facilities Corporation. Additionally, the City Council appoints two persons (but not Council - members) to the Corporation Board. It is requested that the City Council review and comment on the documents and prepare nominees for the September 11 City Council meeting. Greory T. Meyer Cit Manag r GTM/ld Attachment ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION V9 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH PUBLIC FACILITIES CORPORATION The name of this corporation is: CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH PUBLIC FACILITIES CORPORATION. II. This corporation is a nonprofit public benefit corporation and is not organized for the private gain of any person. It is organized under the Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation Law for public purposes. The public purposes for which the corporation is organized include, without limitation, the rendering of assistance to the City of Hermosa Beach (the "City") by (1) acquiring and constructing public facilities and buildings, (2) acquiring land and related buildings and facilities, (3) acquiring and maintaining machinery, vehicles and other equipment of any kind whatsoever needed by the City for its operations, and (4) leasing such buildings, facilities and equipment to or from the City, all for the use, benefit and enjoyment of the public (collectively, "Improvements"). This corporation is organized under the direction of a group of public-spirited citizens for the sole purpose of acquiring, leasing and constructing or providing for the acquisition, construction or leasing of Improvements as a civic venture for and on behalf of the City. This corporation shall never engage in any business or activity other than that necessary or convenient for or incidental to the carrying out of the purposes set forth in Article II hereof. IV. No part of the net earnings, if any, of this corporation, either during its existence or upon its dissolution, shall ever inure to the benefit of any private individual, or any director, officer or member thereof, or any person, firm or corporation excepting only the City. No substantial part of the activities of this corporation shall consist of carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting to influence legislation; nor shall it participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements) any political campaign on behalf of any candidate for public office. The property, assets, profits and net revenues of this corporation are irrevocably dedicated to the City; provided, however, that until all indebtedness of this corporation shall have been paid, such net revenues may be used for the purpose of paying or calling for redemption any bonds, debentures, notes or other evidences of such indebtedness. Upon the dissolution, -2- 0443p/ liquidation or winding up of this corporation, or upon abandonment, the assets of this corporation remaining after payment of all or provision for all debts or liabilities of this corporation and after compliance with Chapters 15, 16 and 17 of the California Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation Law shall be distributed to the City. This corporation is organized and operated exclusively for public purposes within the meaning of Section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code. Notwithstanding any other provision of these Articles, the corporation shall not carry on any other activities not permitted to be carried on (a) by a corporation exempt from federal income tax under Section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code or (b) by a corporation contributions to which are deductible under Section 170(c)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code. V. The name and address in this state of the corporation's initial agent for service of process is: Charles Post, Esq. City Attorney City of Hermosa Beach _ Civic Center Hermosa Beach, California 90254 VI. The number of directors of this corporation shall be fixed by the Bylaws. The persons who are directors of this corporation, from time to time, shall be selected by the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach and the Hermosa Beach School District as provided in the Bylaws. The directors of -3- 0443p/ this corporation shall have no liability for dues or assessments. There shall be no members of the corporation. No proposed amendment to these Articles of Incorporation shall be effective if it is disapproved by the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach within thirty (30) days after receipt of notice thereof. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, for the purposes of forming the corporation under the laws of the State of California, the undersigned has executed these Articles of Incorporation this day of August, 1984. Incorporator I declare that I am the person who executed the above Articles of Incorporation, and that this instrument is my act and deed. Incorporator -4- 0443p/ BYLAWS OF CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH PUBLIC FACILITIES CORPORATION ARTICLE I. Name, Organization and Purpose, Principal Office, Seal Section 1.01. Name. The name of this corporation is CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH PUBLIC FACILITIES CORPORATION (hereinafter referred to as the "Corporation"). Section 1.02. Organization, Purpose and Use of Funds. The Corporation is a nonprofit public benefit Corporation organized under the Nonprofit Corporation Law of the State of California to provide financial assistance to the City of Hermosa Beach (the "City"), by acquiring, constructing and financing various public facilities and equipment, including, but not limited to the acquisition of land and related equipment and facilities for the use, benefit and enjoyment of the public (herein "facilities"). The activities of the Corporation shall be limited to the activities described in its Articles of Incorporation. No gains, profits or dividends shall be distributed to any of the members of the Corporation; and no part of the net earnings, funds or assets of the Corporation shall inure to the benefit of any Director or any other person, firm or Corporation excepting only the City. Section 1.03. Principal office. The principal office of the Corporation is hereby fixed and located at Civic Center, Hermosa Beach, California 90254. The Board of Directflrs is hereby granted full power and authority to change said principal office from one location to another in the City. Any such change shall be noted by the Secretary opposite this section, but shall not be considered an amendment to these Bylaws. Section 1.04. Seal. The corporate seal of the Corporation shall set forth the name of the Corporation and shall have inscribed thereon the words "Incorporated 1984." ARTICLE II. No Members Section 2.01. No Members. Pursuant to Section 5310 of the Government Code the bylaws of a nonprofit corporation may provide that the corporation shall have no members. The Corporation shall have no members. ARTICLE III. Section 3.01. Powers. Subject to limitation of the Articles of Incorporation, or the Bylaws, and of the California Nonprofit Corporation Law, and subject to the duties of Directors as prescribed by the Bylaws, all powers of the Corporation shall be exercised by or under the authority of, and the business and affairs of the Corporation shall be controlled by, the Board of Directors. No Director shall be -2- 0444p/ responsible for any error in judgment or for anything that he or she may do or refrain from doing in good faith. Without prejudice to such general powers, but subject to the same limitations, it is hereby expressly declared that the Directors shall have the following powers, to wit: First -To select and remove all the other officers, agents and employees of the Corporation, prescribe such powers and duties for them as may not be inconsistent with law or the Articles of Incorporation or Bylaws, fix their compensation and require from them security for faithful service; Second -To conduct, manage and control the affairs and business of the Corporation and to make such rules and regulations there- for not inconsistent with law or the Articles of Incorporation or Bylaws, as they may deem best; and Third -To borrow money and incur indebteness for the purposes of the Corporation, and to cause to be executed and delivered therefor, in the name of the Corporation, promissory notes, bonds, certificates of participation, debentures, deeds of trust, mortgages, pledges, hypothecations or other evidences of debt and securities therefor. -3- 0444p/ Section 3.02. Number and Qualification of Directors. The authorized number of Directors shall be five (5) until changed by amendment of the Articles of Incorporation or by amendment of the Bylaws. Section 3.03. Selection and Term of Office. Two Directors shall be appointed by the members of the City Council of the City, two shall be appointed by the Hermosa Beach School District (the "School District") and the fifth member shall be selected by the other Directors appointed by the City and the School District. Except as hereinafter provided, each Director shall hold office for a term of two (2) years from the date of appointment. Unless a vacancy in the office occurs as herein provided, the Director appointed shall hold office until the expiration of his/her term and until a successor has been designated and has accepted the office. The members of the City Council may, with or without cause, remove any Director from office. Section 3.04. Vacancies. Subject to the provisions of Section 5226 of the California Nonprofit Corporation Law, any Director may resign effective upon giving written notice to the President, the Secretary, or the Board, unless the notice specifies a later time for the effectiveness of such resignation. If the resignation is effective at a future time, a successor may be selected before such time, to take office when the resignation becomes effective. -4- 0444p/ A vacancy or vacancies in the Board of Directors shall be deemed to exist in case of the death, resignation, or removal of any Director, or if the authorized number of Directors is increased. Vacancies in the Board shall be filed in the same manner as the Director whose office is vacant was selected. Each Director so selected shall hold office until the expiration of the term of the replaced Director and until a successor has been selected and has accepted the office. Section 3.05 Organization and Annual Meetings. The Board of Directors shall hold an annual meeting for the purpose of organization, selection of Directors and officers, and the transaction of other business. Annual meetings of the Board shall be held without call or notice on at o'clock m., local time; provided, however, should said day fall upon a Saturday, Sunday, or holiday observed by the Corporation at its principal office, then said meeting shall be held at the same time on the next day thereafter ensuing which is a full business day. Section 3.06 Regular Meetings. The Board of Directors by resolution may provide for the holding of regular meetings and may fix the time and place of holding such meetings. Notice of regular meetings need not be given. Section 3.07. Special Meetings, Notice Waiver. A special meeting of the Board of Directors shall be held whenever called by the President, or by a majority of the Directors. Written -5- 0444p/ notice of each such meeting shall be delivered personally or by telegram to each Director at least forty-eight (48) hours before the time of such meeting or shall be sent to each Director by mail, charges prepaid, at least four (4) days before the time of such meeting as specified in the notice. Notice shall also be given to the City Council of the City and to the School District. The call and notice shall signify the time and place of the special meeting and the business to be transacted. No other business shall be considered at such meetings by the Board of Directors. Notice of adjournment of a meeting need not be given to absent Directors if the time and place are fixed at the meeting adjourned. The transactions of any meeting. -of the Board of Directors, however called and noticed and wherever held, shall be as valid as though had at a meeting held after regular call and notice, if a quorum be present; provided, however, that before the meeting, each of the Directors not present signs a written waiver of notice and files said written waiver of notice with the Secretary; and provided further, that notice be given to each local newspaper of general circulation, radio or television station requesting notice in writing pursuant to Government Code Section 54956. All waivers, shall be filed with the corporate records and made a part of the minutes of the meeting. Section 3.08. Adjourned Meetings, Notice of Adjournment. The Board of Directors may adjourn any regular, adjourned regular, special or adjourned special meeting to a time and -6- 0444p/ place specified in the order of adjournment. Less than a quorum may so adjourn from time to time. A copy of the order or notice of adjournment shall be conspicuously posted on or near the door of the place where the regular, adjourned regular, special or adjourned special meeting was held within twenty—four (24) hours after the time of the adjournment. When a regular or adjourned regular meeting is adjourned as provided in this section, the resulting adjourned regular meeting is a regular meeting for all purposes. Section 3.09. Quor . A majority of the authorized number of Directors shall be necessary to constitute a quorum for the transaction of business. Every act or decision done or made by a majority of the Directors present at a meeting duly held at which a quorum is present, shall be regarded as the act of the Board of Directors unless a greater number be required by law or by the Articles of Incorporation. Section 3.10. Fees and Compensation. Directors shall receive no compensation or expenses for their services as Directors. Section 3.11. Ralph M. Brown Act. Notwithstanding any of the provisions of these Bylaws to the contrary, all meetings of Directors shall be subject to the Ralph M. Brown Act, commencing at Section 54950 of the Government Code of the State of California. Section 3.12. Conduct of Meetings. The President or, in his absence, the Vice President, or a Chairman chosen by a majority of the Directors present, shall preside. -7- 0444p/ ARTICLE IV. Officers Section 4.01. Officers. The officers of the Cor-poration shall be a President, a Vice President, a Secretary and a Treasurer. The Corporation may also have, at the discretion of the Board of Directors, one or more additional Vice Presidents, one or more Assistant Secretaries, one or more Assistant Treasurers, and such other officers as may be appointed by the Board of Directors. One person may hold two or more offices, except that the offices of President and Secretary or President and Treasurer may not be combined. Section 4.02. Election. The officers shall be chosen annually by the Board of Directors and each shall hold office until the the officer shall resign, be removed, or otherwise disqualified to serve, or the officer's successor shall be elected and qualified. Section 4.03. Removal and Resignation. Any officer may resign, or may be removed, with or without cause, by the Board of Directors at any time. Vacancies caused by death, resignation or removal of any officer may be filled by appointment by the Board of Directors, or by the President until such appointment by the Board of Directors. Section 4.04. President. The President shall be the executive officer of the Corporation and, subject to the control of the Board of Directors, shall have general supervision, direction and control of the affairs of the -8- 0444p/ Corporation. The President shall preside at all meetings of members and meetings of the Board of Directors. Section 4.05. Vice President. In the absence or_ disability of the President, the Vice Presidents in order of their rank as fixed by the Board of Directors or, if not ranked, the Vice President designated by the Board of Directors, shall perform all the duties of the President, and when so acting shall have all the powers of, and be subject to all the restrictions upon, the President. The Vice President shall have such other powers and perform such other duties as from time to time may be prescribed for'them respectively by the Board of Directors or by the Bylaws. Section 4.06. Secretary. The Secretary shall keep at the principal office of the Corporation a book of minutes of all meetings of Directors and members, with the time and place of holding, how called or authorized, the notice thereof given, the names of those present at Directors' meetings, the number of members present or represented at member's meetings, and the proceedings thereof. Section 4.07. Treasurer. The Treasurer shall be the chief financial officer and shall keep and maintain adequate and correct books of account showing the receipts and disbursements of the Corporation, and an account of its cash and other assets, if any. Such books of account shall at all reasonable times be open to inspection by any member or Director. -9- 0444p/ The Treasurer shall deposit all moneys of the Corporation with such depositories as are designated by the Board of Directors, and shall disburse the funds of the Corporation as may be ordered by the Board of Directors, and shall render to the President or the Board of Directors, upon request, statements of the financial condition of the Corporation. Section 4.08. Subordinate Officers. Subordinate officers shall perform such duties as shall be prescribed from time to time by the Board of Directors or the President. ARTICEL V. Miscellaneous Section 5.01. Execution of Documents. The Board of Directors may authorize any officer or officers agent or agents, to enter into any contract or execute any instrument in the name of and on behalf of the Corporation and such authority may be general or confined to specific instances; and unless so authorized by the Board of Directors, no officer, agent or other person shall have any power or authority to bind the Corporation by any contract or engagement or to pledge its credit or to render it liable for any purpose or to any amount. Section 5.02. Inspection of Bylaws. The Corporation shall keep in its principal office the original or a copy of these Bylaws, as amended or otherwise altered to date, certified by the Secretary, which shall be open to inspection by the members at all reasonable times during office hours. -10- 0444p/ Section 5.03. Annual Report. The annual report referred to in Section 6321 of the Nonprofit Corporation Law of the State of California is expressly dispensed with. - Section 5.04. Fiscal Year. The fiscal year of the Corporation shall begin July 1 and end June 30 of each year, except the first fiscal year which shall run from the date of incorporation to June 30, 1984. Section 5.05. Dissolution. In the event of dissolution of the Corporation in any manner and for any cause, after the payment or adequate provision for the payment of all of its debts and liabilities, all of the remaining funds, assets and properties of the Corporation shall be paid or distributed to the City of, -Hermosa Beach. Section 5.06. Construction and Definitions. Unless the context otherwise requires, the general provisions, rules of construction and definitions contained in the Nonprofit Corporation Law of the State of California shall govern the construction of these Bylaws. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of these Bylaws, or the application thereof, is contrary to the Nonprofit Corporation Law of the State of California the provisions of that law shall prevail. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing the masculine gender includes the feminine and neuter, the singular number includes the plural and the plural number includes the singular, and the term "person" includes a Corporation as well as a natural person. -11- 0444p/ /d:� t:vo -ZT- QNH HHZ A4TD 8u4 30 Tzouno3 A4T3 auq dq peAoaddP TT4un 8nzgoaj3e aq TTPus SMETAS 899u4 o:� 4u8urpuaurE ON • S.zo-4oaatQ go paEog aq4 go axon aq4 dq paTBadaj .ao papuauP aq deui SMETA9 as8u4 ao pa4dopE aq A-pw SMP Tdg MaN Sao4oazzQ 3o zaMod '10.9 uot408S s 4uauipuauiv 'IA HgDIIHV August 22, 1984 HONORABLE MAYOR and MEMBERS of the REGULAR MEETING of HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL August 28, 1984 MERGER OF SUBSTANDARD LOTS Recommendation To review the recommendations of the Planning Commission and provide direction and input to the Commission in the development of a merger ordinancethat would be in i conformance with Articles 1.5 and 1.7 of Chapter 3, Division 2,` of Title 7 of the California Government Code. Background The City's Combined Lot Ordinance (Section 1203 - 1203.2) was rendered invalid by --AB 894. Hence, lots that were considered merged are now no longer legally combined. On June 12, 1984, the City Council adopted a 45 day emergency moratorium (Ordinance 84-752) to prevent contiguous substandard lots with common ownership from being separately developed. This moratorium was not extended at the July 24, 1984, meeting due to a failure to gather four (4) affirming votes. The Planning Commission reviewed thisitem on July 3r i t_9R_4, aad Augut2-1-1 19-84�_ Their recommendations and concerns are illuminated in the e following section. Analysis The attached resolutions indicate the Planning Commission's position on the issue of lot mergers. The Commission has adopted a resolution of intention to implement a mer&er ordinance that complies with AB894. The Commission has directed staff to re urn at the next meeting with the proposed wording of -an -ordinance.— t s The Planning Commission also adoptedtwosolutions. The first is to recommend to ji the City Council that a moratorium be put into place that would affect only the following properties: ---- Contiguous lots owned by the same person that, if unmerged, would yield parcels of less than 3,000 square feet with an average lot width of less than 30 feet. The above-mentioned lots are currently developed with a residential structure over the lot line separating the lots. R-3 lots shall be exempted from ( this moratorium. The Commission worded the resolution so that the school properties would not be affected. Their intent was to avoid endangering the good -faith of the negotiations between the School District and the City. The second resolution, however, also indicates the Planning Commission's desire to see some other alternative than a line of row houses on the 25' lots of the school _ — properties. Although the Commission does not want to include these lots in the -- moratorium, the Commission does want to prevent "shoe box" house development on these sites. Kim Reardon -Crites Planning Assistant Pamela Sapetto Planning Director NOTED: Bill Grove Building Director JVo CONCUR: Gr ory T. 4eyer City Manager CITY MANAGER NOTE: I am not persuaded that any moratorium is needed. 1 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 RESOLUTION P.C. 84-22 RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA EACH RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA EACH THAT A MORATORIUM BE ENACTED TO PREVENT THE UNMERGING OF UBSTANDARD, CONTIGUOUS LOTS HELD BY THE SAME OWNER WHEN SUCH OTS HAVE A RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE BUILT OVER THE LOT LINE. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission is in the process of amending the Zoning Code as it pertains to combined lots to bring the code in conformance with AB894; and WHEREAS, there is a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety or welfare in the form of proposed development of substandard lots due to the cumulative effect of increased density, traffic congestion, and reduction of available street parking and the approval of such developments and issuance of building permits therefore would result in a threat to public peace, health, safety or welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach does hereby recommend to the City Council of Hermosa Beach that a moratorium on future development on lots which contain the following conditions: 1. Contiguous Lots. 2. Owned by same owner. 3. Unmerger would result in lots less than 30' wide and less than 3,000 square feet. 4. Currently developed with residential structure(s) over lot line. 5. Exempt R-3 Lots. VOTE: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution P.C. 84-22 is a true and complete record Df the action taken by the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach, California at their regular meeting of August 21, 1984. Stephen Izant, Chairman Date Joel Shapiro, Secretary 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION P.C. 84-23 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF HERMOSA BEACH RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT THE SCHOOL PROPERTIES BE DEVELOPED IN SOME ALTERNATIVE FASHION THAN AS NINETEEN ROW HOUSES ON TWENTY-FIVE FOOT LOTS. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach held a public hearing on August 21, 1984, to consider lot mergers and the requirements for such as they affect the shcool properties; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission would like the school properties to comply with the intent of the proposed Lot Merger Ordinance without endangering the developability of the lots by including such lots under a moratorium; NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach does hereby recommend to the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach that the school properties be developed in some alternative fashion than as row houses on 25' lots. VOTE: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the above Resolution P.C. 84-23 is a true and accurate reflection of the action taken by the Planning Commission at their regular meeting of August 21, 1984. Stephen Izant, Chairman Joel Shapiro, Secretary Date Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council August 24, 1984 City Council Meeting of August 28, 1984 REPORT RE. 8/14 WARRANT TO GOLDEN STATE SANWA BANK At the City Council meeting of August 14 a question was raised as to the nature of the $2,000 expense to Golden State Sanwa Bank. The following is a recap of events regarding that expen- diture. At the City Council's special meeting of June 28th, we were directed to proceed post haste with the Mello -Roos Community Facilities District ballot measure and the Letter of Credit that would result in the School District's being funded in October, 1984. All other work was set aside the next day in order to follow through on this. Time frames have been most critical in both cases: Mello -Roos and the Letter of Credit. Through due diligence each initial time frame to date has been met. On July 17th MSI President Ayres and I met with corporate officials of Sanwa Bank, putting our "best foot forward" to obtain the Letter of Credit. Sanwa Bank had previously been determined by MSI and Merrill -Lynch to be the least cost, most favorable financial institution for our Letter of Credit. At that time we finalized on the remaining time frames necessary to secure a LOC such that it could be operable in October, 1984. Among the specific tasks to then be done was a bank approved appraisal of the to be acquired lands - South School and Seaview Park. No further processing of the LOC could occur until complet- ion of the appraisal. The bank specified the appraiser and the fee ($2,000). They indicated that it was necessary to have immed- iate authorization to proceed before they would schedule the appraisal work. I therefore immediately issued the Purchase Order. Two days later the Bank required payment. A pre-release was there- fore issued. The vacation schedules of the appraiser and the key bank official plus the need to process the Letter of Credit appli- cation before the loan committee in August all worked to require immediate processing. In summary, the $2,000 appraisal was required before the LOC could be processed; the LOC is to be done prior to the Mello -Roos vote on November 6; the expenditure was properly charged against the City Council's authorized monies for creation of Mello -Roos Com- munity Facilities District No. 1. Qlv9OMA Greg -4-y Tj Myer City Manager GTM/ld cc: Finance Administrator City Treasurer August 25, 1984 Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of the City Council of August 28, 1984 PROPOSED JOINT DISTRICT/CITY MEETING It is proposed by the City Manager that the City Council and the School Board hold an additional joint meeting sometime during the next 10 - 15 days. The purpose would be to 1) Process creation of the non-profit corporation 2) Resolve any last minute questions re. Prospect Heights zoning, the developed portion 3) Affirm the terms/conditions, portions to be rezoned (if Mello -Roos fails), etc. at South School. rl M, 0reory- T. d'ye'r Cit. Manager GTM/ld cc: Superintendent Corey August 24, 1984 Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of the City Council of August 28, 1984 REQUEST FOR SPECIAL MEETING It is requested that the City Council convene a special meeting at 8:30 p.m. on Tuesday, September 4, 1984 for the purpose of considering a zone change for a portion of South School (see item 12a(3), page 4 re: timing and schedule. q_e q Ott,, K-lgte�zj Grgory e T. Meyr Ci y N na er GTM/ld August 23, 1984 Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of the City Council of August 28, 1984 AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE RELATING TO ADDITIONS TO NONCONFORMING RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES Recommendation It is recommended that the City Council introduce the attached ordinance (Exhibit A). Background The City Council, at its regular meeting of April 17, 1984, adopted Resolution 84-4699 indicating their intent to consider amending the zoning ordinance provisions relating to additions to existing nonconforming structures. The Planning Commission subsequently held a public hearing on this matter on July 17, 1984. The attached ordinance contains their recommended revisions as evidenced by Resolution P.C.84-19. Analysis The zoning ordinance provisions regulating nonconformities are divided into two categories; nonconforming use and nonconforming structures. The two categories will be addressed separately although many properties possess both. A) Nonconforming Use A nonconforming use is a use which was lawfully established but which due to enactment of the zoning ordinance or amendment thereto no longer conforms to the use regulations of the zone in which it is located. An example of a nonconforming use would be a duplex in an R-1 zone or a single family residence in a commercial zone. The zoning ordinance provisions which regulate additions or alterations to these structures are sections 1301, 1302 and section 1304. It appears the intent of at least the first two sections was to prohibit any significant alterations which would extend the life of the structure. By prohibiting "struc- tural alterations" these buildings must remain as constructed except for cosmetic or systems rehabilitation (i.e., wall finishes, replacement of plumbing or electrical systems, etc.) Section 1304 does allow for expansion and structural alterations to residential uses in "C" or "M" zones. This section is more recent (1979) than the previously mentioned sections. The intent of the section is not clear as the restriction to a 507o addition will still allow the life of the structure to be signi- 9, City Council Meeting of August 28, 1984 Page 2 ficantly extended. This section also creates an inequity with other nonconforming uses which are not granted this privelege. The previously listed example of a duplex in an R-1 zone is governed by sections 1301 and 1302 and therefore cannot be structurally altered or added to although it may be considered "closer" to conforming than a residence in a commercial zone. The proposed revisions would allow residential nonconforming uses to be added to and altered provided the addition or alteration complied with the provisions of the zone in which the use were located. The proposed revision would impose R-3 requirements on nonconforming residential uses in a "C" or "M" zone. (The current section 1304 contains no guidelines.) B) Nonconforming Buildings A nonconforming building is one which was lawfully erected but which due to enactment of the zoning ordinance or amendments thereto no longer complies with provisions regulating height, setbacks, lot coverage, open space and parking. The zoning ordinance provisions which regulate additions to these structures are sections 1162 and 1309. Section 1162 requires that residential buildings provide one parking space per dwelling unit before such building may be altered to increase the gross floor area. Due to the city- wide parking shortage, it is not considered appropriate to change this provision. The requirement for one parking space per dwelling unit constructed (since amended to 2:1) was enacted in 1956 so all units constructed after that date should have at least one parking space presently. Section 1309 allows for additions to structures with non- conforming yards or open spaces provided certain conditions are complied with, among which is that the addition does not exceed 40% of the floor area of the existing structure. The intent of the percentage restriction was apparently to force large addi- tions to remove the nonconformity as part of the project. The economic and land area constraints often make this goal unachiev- able. The proposed revision would allow for unlimited percentage addition to nonconforming structures provided the addition complied with the regulations of the zone in which the structure is located. An exception would allow the maintenance of a nonconforming sideyard where the existing sideyard is not more than 1076 smaller than that presently required. Summary The proposed revisions are intended to meet the goals of the housing element of the general plan as well as the local City Council Meeting Page 3 of August 28, 1984 coastal plan both of which call for a preservation of existing housing stock. Alternatives 1) Retain the present regulations. 2) Amend the proposed revision as deemed appropriate. nti C� G P mela Sapetto William Grove, Director Planning Director Department of Bldg. & Safety Concur: (AaC Atki -7-01�&j-OA Grftpry t. (IeyLr City11�anage 1 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 ORDINANCE NO. 84- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING ZONING ORDINANCE N.S.154, SECTIONS 1301, 1302, 1304 AND 1309 AS THEY RELATE TO ADDITIONS TO,AND REHABILITATION OF,NONCONFORMING RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on July 31, 1984 regarding amendments to the Zoning Ordinance rela- ting to alterations to existing nonconforming residential structures; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the initial study and has determined there are no significant adverse environ- mental impacts created by this project and has directed that a negative declaration be filed with the County Recorder; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on August 28, 1984 regarding this same matter; and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered all material presented to it on the recommendations of the Planning Commission as indicated in Resolution P.C. 84-19; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That an exception shall be added to Section 1301 to read, "Exception 1) Residential uses may be expanded or structurally altered provided the expansion or alteration complies with the regulations of the zone in which the use'is located. Where the residential use located in a "C" or "M" zone, any expansion shall comply with the R-3 regulations." SECTION 2. That Section 1302 shall be amended to read"The nonconforming use of a nonconforming building may be continued, provided such nonconforming use shall not be expanded or extended nor shall any structural alterations be made except those required by law. If such nonconforming use is vacated or discontinued for UlUJOITTUD `uo-eag usowaaH To AIz0 aqj ;o HOTVW puu TTounoO A;zO ag4 To ZNBQISaHd :�86T ';sn2nV ;o Sup STg4 QgZdOGV puu QHAOHddV `GaSSVd , uTUaojzlu0 ` gouag usouia@H To S;T3 ago uz uozq-uTno.zzo TuaOuaf To a@dtdsmau rSTxaam u `.aapL-aH dstH auk. uz paus'Tgnd aq o; aouu uzp.zo sTgl asnto TTuus �IJGTO d;zO ag; `uoT;dopa To alup au; a@;; -e sAEp uaaq-IzI To uoi4uaTdxa ago o4 joTad ;uqj *9 NOIZOgS uoT;dopa To o4up aq; ao;ju sSup S;aTg4 joa;ja axu; Ilugs aouUuzp.zo szq; ;ugs "g NOIZOaS PauAapzs 4U9J zno aql. uuu1- .zall-6-uzs 0/,OT uuql� a.zouz ;OU sz PJu Sapts ag; papTAoad uoi;Tppu uu q;Tm paurt;UTuw aq Suw SPIV Sapzs BUT -uiaojuoouou 2UT;Szxg • pa;Uool sz Gan�-ona;S ago uozgm uz auoz agj jo suoT4ujnfoa auk. q;TM saTlduzoo q-uauiaBjujua ao uozsutdxa au; paptAojd pa2aulua ao papuudxo aq Suui 4g2T@q ao aouds uado `@Bt -.zanoo ;ol `spJt S off. su 2uzuiaojuo0uou @JU gDTgM S9an40na;S 2uz;szXH soon;onalS 2uzui.ao;uoouoN 2utI.sTXH 60£I uoz40a9„ `pua.z oq- pa -puawt puu polq-T;oa aq Tluus 60£I uoz40aS ;uuz ' :� NOI,LOaS pal.q-zuzo aq TTegs V0£T uoz40aS Veus ' £ NOIZOEIS „ ' suoz Iuln2@J £-g q:.Tm ddwoo Il-egs uozsu-edxa Auu `auoz „W„ .zo „0„ le uz pal--eooT asn luz;uapT-SGa auj- GaGgLw •pa;IeooT sz asn au; gozum uz auoz au; 10 suotq-uTn2aa agq, gl-zm soTTdwoo uoz;u,za4Tu ao uozsuudxa aq4 papTAojd pGa@;T-e STI'eJn;on,a3,s ao papuedxo aq Auw sasn T-ez;uapzsag (I uoz;daoxq • pa;Uool st ;T 7q0TqM uZ auoz agj 10 suozszeoad auk. off. waoluoo 11-egs 2uzpTTnq eons To asn a.znlnl Auu `aaoui JO sSup aAzI-noasuoo (06) S;auzu 89 LZ 97, 5Z tZ CZ ZZ TZ OZ 6I 8i LI 9I 9I fI EI ZI If OI 6 8 L 9 9 E I lkaNuolly A I I O x23a70 IU I O WHO3 OZ Sid QdnOUddV I ZSHIJIV I 8Z LZ 9z 51; f9 E9 zz TZ 0z; GI 81 LI 91 91 fl EI ZI II of G 8 L 9 5 v I aNnouomove 1 f } 5 t: i C ' P•- 1 1:. a •: t' SIVIU3"Mi aNnouomove 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION P.C. 84- 19 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL TO AMEND SECTIONS 1301, 1302, 1304 and 1309 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on July31 , 1984; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the initial study and has determined there are no significant adverse environmental impacts created by this project and recommends that a negative declaration be filed with the County Ret order; and WHEREAS, a goal of the Housing Element of the General Plan is to preserve and rehabilitate the existing housing.stock; and WHEREAS, the current zoning ordinance provisions relating to additions and alteration of existing nonconforming residential structures are restrictive and discourage rehabilitiation of those structures. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach does hereby resolve to recommend revisions to the Zoning Ordinance as follows: 1. An exception shall be added to Section 1301 to read, "Exception 1) Residential uses may be expanded or structurally altered provided the expansion or alteration complies with the regulations of the zone in which the use is located. Where the residential use located in a "C" or"IM" zone, any expansion shall comply with the R-3 regulations," 2. Section 1302 shall be amended to read "The nonconforming use of a nonconformi,:.g building may be continued, provided such nonconforming use shall not be expanded or extended nor shall any sturcutral alterations be made except those required by law. If such nonconforming use is vacated or discontinued for ninety (90) consecutive days or more, any 1 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 future use of such building shall conform to the provisions of the zone in which it is located. Exception 1) Residential uses may be expanded or structurally altered provided the expansion or alteration complies with the regulations of the zone in which the use is located. Where the residential use located in a "C" or "M" zone, any expansion shall comply with R-3 regulations." 13. Section 1304 shall be omitted. I4. Section 1309 shall be retitled and amended to -read, "Section 1309 Existing Nonconforming Structures Existing structures which are nonconforming as to yards, lot coverage, open space or height may be expanded or enlarged provided the expansion or enlargement complies with the regulations of the zone in which the structure is located. Existing nonconforming sideyards may be maintained with an: addition provided the sideyard is not more than 10% smaller than the current sideyard required." VOTE: AYES: Chmn. Izant, Comm. Sheldon, Newton, Shapiro, Pierce, Schulte, Compton. NOES None ABSENT: None CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution P.C, 84-19 is a true and complete record of the action taken by the Planning Commission of Hermosa Beach at their regularly scheduled meeting of July 310 1984. Stephen Izant, Chairman Joel Shapiro, Secretary •lT4uasaad @Duds 2uTxaud auo gsuaT 4u anuq pTnogs aqup qugq aagju P@gonajsuoD Tun TTa os !9961 uT Pa40uua sum (T:Z 04 Papuamu aDuTs) pa4Dna4su` 2uTTT9mp aad aouds 2uplaud auo aol 4uamaaTnbaa aqy •uoTSTnoad sTq1 a2uug0 04 aluTadoaddu paaapTsuoD IOU ST IT `a2ujaogs 2uT�aud DPTM-4 TO aqq oq ana •uaau aooTJ ssoa2 aqq asuaaOuT oq paaa;Tu aq fum 2uTpTTnq gDns aaojaq 4Tun 2uTTTDMp aad a0uds 2uTxaud auo apTnoad s2uTPTTnq TuTquaPTsaa 4ug4 saaTnbaa Z9TT uoT43as lugq BuTqu4s f�q pa' uT:IuoO 9noa0 •zY1 •(@Duds uado 2uTmaoJuoD-uou) 60£T pus (BuTxaud) Z9TT suoT:Pas aau saan3Dnajs asogq 04 suoT4TPPu OIPTn2aa gDTgM suoTSTnoad @ouuuTpao 2uTuoZ aqq quqq pajuls anoa0 •aye < < < •2uTxaud pus @Duds uado 92uaanoD IDT sg0ugjas `4142Taq 2uTIuTnBaa suoTSTnoad ag1 g4Tm saTTdmoo aa2uoT ou ogaaagq squampuamu ao aDuuuTpao BuTuoz aqq 30 quamg0uua of anp goTgm qnq paI09aa �UngmvT suM g3TRm auo ST 2uTPTTnq 2uTmaoJuoD-uou u qugq paIVIS anoa0 'IN •sauTTapTn2 ou suTuJuoD WET uaTgDas auaaan0 aqq qugq palugs ag •auoz lAt ao 11% u uT sasn TuT4uaP. BuTmzoJuoD-uou uo s4uamaaTnbaa £-g asodmT pTnoM uoTsTnaa pasodoad aqy •paluDoT sex asn aqj gDTgM uT auoz aqq go suoTsTnoad aqq ggTn PaTTdmoo uoTquaagTu ao uoTgTppu aqq papTnoad paaalTE puu oq pappu aq oq sasn 2uTmaoluoD-uou TuT�uapTsaa MaTTu pTnoM suoTSTnaa pasodoad aqq quqq paqu48 9noa0 •ay1 •auoz TuToaammo0 u uT aDuapTsaa u uuqq BuTmaojuoD oq llaasoTD,, paaapTsuoD aq hum IT g2nogqlu 'off pappu ao paaagTB fTTuangonags aq gouu o aaojaaagq pus ZO£T puu TO£T suoigoas fq pauaano2 sT auaz T -g us uT xaTdnp u 90 aTdmuxa pauoTluam �TsnoTA@ad aqZ •02aTTnTad sTgq uT paquua2 IOU aas gDTgM sasn 2uTmaojuo0-uou aaggo ggTM F4TnbauT uu saquaao osTu U 130 s STU •papuagxa fTquuOTJTu2Ts aq oq aangonags aqq 90 aITT aqq MoTTu TTTgS TTTM TuuoTITPPu %OS u 03 uoTqDTaqsaa aqsu `auaTD IOU ST uoTgoas aqq go quaquT aqZ •suolgoas pauoT:juam XTsnoTnaad agq uugj (6L6T) 4uaDaa atom sT uoTgDas sTgs • sauoz ao UT sasn TuTIuapTsaa 04 suoTlua@gTu Tuangonags pus uoTsuudxa aOJ MoTTu saop +70£T uoTgDas qugq pajulS anoa0 •aY1 (•Dqa `sma4sf�s TPDTaIDaT@ ao 2uTgmnTd go quamaDuTdaa `sogsTuTJ TTEM `•a•T) uoTI -uITTTqugaa smagsKs ao DTgamso0 ao3 gdaoxa p@gonajsuoD su uTumaa Isnm sBuTPTTnq asagq lA,suoT4uaa4Tu TsanlDnals,, 2uTgTgTqoad lg •aanionags aqq go a3TT aqq pualxa pTnoM gOTgM suoTIua@lTu IUUDTJTu2TS SUP gTgTqoad of sem suoTloas oM4 qsaT3 aqq IsuaT IV 90 lualuT aqq sauaddu qI OCT'*1PUP `ZO£T `TO£T SuoTIDas aau saangonals asagq oq suoTIuaalTu ao suoT4Tppu aquTn2aa gDTgM suoTsTnoad aOuuuTpao BuTuoz aqq lugl paIuIs 9noa0 •aY1 'auoz TuT3aammo0 u uT 90uapTsaa flTTmPJ-aT2uTs u ao auoz T -g uu uT xaTdnp u aq pTnoM asn 2uTmaoJuoD-uou u 90 aTdmuxa uy •pa4uDoT sT IT gDTgM uT auoz ago 30 suoTIuTn2aa asn aqq of smaOJuo0 aa2uoT ou gOTgM qnq pagsTTqugsa 41nTMuT suM gDTgM asn u ST asn 2uTmaoluo0-uou u luq4 p91u4s ag •ggoq ssassod S@Tgaadoad eWum g2nogqTu XTa;uaudas passaappu aq TTTM saTao2aIrD oMq aqy •saangonags 2uTmaoJuoO-uou puu asn 2uTmaojuo3-uou :SDTao2aqu0 Om4 oluT papTnTp al? saT4TmaOjuoD-uou 2uT4uTn2aa suoTsTnoad aOuuuTpao BuTuoz aql qugq paDuis anoa0 •aX •uoTquqTTTq.ugaa puu 2uTTapomaz a2uano0sTp saanqDnals BuTmaojuoD-uou oq suoT4TPPu 2uTIuTn2aa suoTsTnoad @OuuuTpao 2uTuoz quaaan0 aqq qugq gTaJ lagy -31004S BuTsnoq 2uT3sTxa aqq BuTnoadmT puu 2uTuTEquTEm a2uanooua 04 aaTsap u passaadxa TT0uno0 lgTO aqq qugq paqugs ag •saangDnags 2uTmaoJuoD -uou 2uTIsTxa 04 suoT4Tppu 04 2uT4uTaa suoTSTnoad aouuuTpao 2uTuoz aqq BuTpuamu aapTsuoD oq quaquT aTaqq 2uT4uDTPuT 6691-+S uoTgnTosag pagdopu `786T `LT TTidy go 2uT19am auTn2aa sqT IP TT0uno0 f�TO aqq quq4 2uTqugs `qaodaa jTujs anu2 anoa0 •aL1 saunzonuls 9NlRU0JN00-NON 6T a2ud �86T `T£ 7'IaC - Salf1NIN NOISsINKOD ONINNVTd PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JULY 31, 1984 NON -CONFORMING STRUCTURES (Cont.) Page 20 Mr. Grove stated that section 1309 allows for additions to structures with non- conforming yards or open space provided certain conditions are met, among which is that the addition does not exceed 40% of the floor area of the existing structure. The intent of the percentage restriction was apparently to force large additions to remove the non -conformity as part of the project. The economic and land area con- straints often make this goal unachievable. Mr. Grove stated that the proposed revision would allow for unlimited percentage addition to non -conforming structures provided the addition complied with the regulations of the zone in which the structure is located. An exception would allow the maintenance of a non -conforming sideyard where the existing sideyard is not more than 10% smaller_ than that presently required. Mr. Grove stated that it is staff's recommendation that the Planning Commission review the PEIR and declare that the project has no significant adverse impacts and that they recommend that a negative declaration be filed. He also requested that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution as presented. Chmn. Izant questioned whether this proposal seeks to make many of the issues that now go before the BZA ministerial. Mr. Grove replied in the affirmative and gave several examples of items which would become ministerial. Comm. Sheldon questioned how this would affect the open space requirement. Mr. Grove stated that it would require no variance, provided the addition conformed with all of the present zoning requirements, which would include lot coverage. Chmn. Izant asked whether a person with a structure which had a 70% lot coverage would be able to add a second story. Mr. Grove replied in the affirmative, stating the one would be allowed to add a second story provided the second story did not increase the 70% lot coverage. Mr. Grove stated that no changes to the parking standard are being proposed. Comm. Peirce noted that he is in favor of the proposal, but he questioned whether Mr. Grove could foresee any dangerous loopholes if this were adopted. Mr. Grove stated that, as with anything, there is always the possibility of abuse, but he was not certain how all possibilities -could be totally eliminated. He did note that he could not foresee any obvious abuses. Chmn. Izant noted that many times when the older structures are demolished, they take with them the old substandard parking. He noted concern over extending the life of these older structures thereby slowing down the process. He noted concern over the possibility of extending the lives of some of the older buildings which may truly be substandard. Public Hearing opened at 11.14 P.M. There being no citizens who wished to testify on this issue, Chmn. Izant closed the Public Hearing at 11:14 P.M. Motion by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Schulte, to adopt the resolution as presented by staff. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - JULY 31, 1984 NON -CONFORMING STRUCTURES (Cont.) Page 21 Comm. Peirce withdrew his motion, noting that it would first be necessary to declare that the PEIR has no negative impacts. Motion by Comm. Peirce, seconded by Comm. Compton, to declare that the project has no significant adverse impact and that a negative declaration be filed. Comm. Sheldon felt that this would relieve the BZA from the burden of many tedious variance requests; but he did note that the BZA is not without guilt in granting some variances.- He noted concern in giving applicants leeway. He noted that other irritants could extend the problem even further. He felt that it is important that there be an appropriate method by which to guide the variance process. He felt that there is a need to be tougher in granting variances, and that the BZA.should be thoroughly familiar with the Code. Comm. Sheldon questioned whether it would be appropriate to make a sentiment statement regarding variances. Chmn. Izant stated that that would come at a later time, AYES: Comms. Compton, Newton, Peirce, Schulte, Shapiro, Sheldon, Chmn. Izant NOES: None ABSENT: None Motion by Comm. Sheldon, seconded by Comm. Newton, to recommend to the City Council that certain portions of the zoning code relating to additions of non -conforming residential structures be adopted by the City Council. AYES: Comms. Compton, Newton, Peirce, Schulte, Shapiro, Sheldon, Chmn. Izant NOES: None ABSENT: None Motion by Comm, Sheldon, seconded by Comm. Newton, to adopt P.C. 84-19. AYES: Comms. Compton, Newton, Peirce, Schulte, Shapiro, Sheldon, Chmn. Izant NOES: None ABSENT: None Chmn.'Izant noted that it would be appropriate at this time to draft a communication to the BZA via staff. Also, City Council would receive a copy of the communication. Comm. Sheldon noted that with the passage of this resolution, many of the small, irritating variance requests which were summarily granted will now be eliminated. It is to be hoped that in the future variance requests would be much less summarily granted and be made more difficult to obtain. Chmn. Izant so ordered this request. CTARF TTNMQ It was noted that the letters included in the packets of the Commissioners were included at the request of the City Manager. COMMISSIONERS' ITEMS Comm. Newton noted that she has moved and has a new address. PEIR: PROJECT: LOCATION: APPLICANT: ZONE: GENERAL PLAN: I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION HB 84 - NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES CITY WIDE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH ALL ZONES ALL DESIGNATIONS This project calls for revising those sections of the zoning code which regulate nonconforming structures. The proposed revisions include: 1) Omitting Section 1304 2) Adding on exception to Section 1301 that will allow residential uses to be expanded or structurally altered provided the alteration complies with the regulations of the zone in which the structure is located. 3) Amending Section 1302 to allow the nonconforming use not to be expanded nor altered except that required by law. An exception will be residential uses which may be expanded or altered provided the alteration complies with these regulations of the zone in which the structure is located. When the residential use is located in a "C" or "M" zone any expansion shall comply with R,3 regu- lations. 4) Amend Section 1309 to allow that nonconforming structures which are nonconforming as to yards, lot coverage, open space, or height may be expanded or enlarged provided the alteration complies with the regulations of the zone in which the structure is located. Existing nonconforming sideyards may be maintained with an addition provided the sideyard is not more than 10% smaller than the current sideyard required. II. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING This project will affect all nonconforming structures. The nonconformance can result from one of two categories, or both. The categories are nonconforming use and nonconforming structures. A nonconforming use is a use which no longer conforms to the zone where it is located due to an amendment of a zoning ordinance or the enactment of a new ordinance. A nonconforming builidng is one which no longer conforms to the regulations concerning height, setbacks, lot coverage, open space or parking due to an amendment of a zoning ordinance or the enactment of a new ordinance. III. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND ANALYSIS The current zoning ordinances regulating nonconfroming structures tend to discourage remodeling and rehabilitation. In revising the zoning ordinances it would encourage maintaining and improving existing housing. IV. UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS This project results in no forseeable adverse impact. V. MITIGATION MEASURES This project would help alleviate the high demand for variances needed to remodel or rehabilitate a nonconforming residential structure. VI. ALTERNATIVES One option is that the present zoning regulations be maintained. However, as indicated in an earlier section, this tends to discourage maintaining and rehabilitating current structures and encourages growth and development. Another option is to amend the proposed revisions as deemed appropriate. VII. SHORT TERM vs. LONG TERM GOALS This project fulfills the long term goals indicated in the housing element of the General Plan of Hermosa Beach, as well as in the Local Coastal Plan. Each of these plans call for the preservation of existing housing stock. VIII. GROWTH -INDUCING IMPACTS It is not anticipated that this project will have a growth inducing impact. Current structures will be maintained longer instead of rebuilding a larger, higher density project. And, when rebuilding or development does occur the project will be restricted to the current zone provisions and the General Plan designation in which the property is located, § 1307 APPENDIX A—ZONING § 1309 "finance becomes applicable thereto, it is deemed necessaryxo establish a later date for abatement than that prest c %ed herein for the building itself in order to assure that e in- vestm'ent represented by such structural alterations, enlarge- mentsequipment installations may be amortized: In per- forming his function the board shall consider �4 pertinent data in connection therewith to provide the o portunity for the owner of%ecord, or lessee if there be such, o present such evidence as the may possess and which p periy relates to such case. When e date of abatement h�1s been determined the board, by reso tion, shall establish%such date and shall set forth such factsbear upon th"case upon which the determination of such ate of abatement is based, and shall formally notify the owner of such nonconforming property of the action of the board mairing to such owner a copy of the formally adopted resoluta not later than ten (10) days following the date of such con. (Ord. No. N.S. 509, § 1. 9-23-75) Sec. 1307. Reconstruction of nonconforming building partial- ly destroyed. A nonconforming building destroyed tb,\the extent of not more than fifty/(50) per cent of its reason�ble replacement value at the time of its destruction by fire, e.�losion or other casualty or kt of God, or the public enemy, maty be restored and theo cupancy or use of such building or part thereof which e�ted at the time of such partial destructib-4 may be continued subject to all other provisions of this articIN 1308. Reserved. Editor's note—Ord. No. N.S. 317, § 6, repealed § 1308 of the zonimg ordinance, exempting public utility buildings and structures from the provisions of Art. 13 pertaining to nonconforming buildings and uses. The section was reserved to maintain sequence. Sec. 1309. Buildings may be altered when nonconforming by reason of inadequate yards. Where a building or buildings and customary accessory buildings are nonconforming only by reason of substandard Supp. No. 10-75 545 § 1310 HERMOSA BEACH CITY CODE § 1312 yards or open spaces, the provisions of this ordinance pro- hibiting structural alterations or enlargements shall not I apply, provided that any structural alteration or enlargements of an existing building may maintain the same nonconforming side yard setback as the existing building, but not less than three (3) feet from the side yard property line, and shall con- form to the required front yard setback, and provided further that the enlargement does not increase the size of the struc- ture to an amount greater than forty (40) per cent of the gross floor area in the existing structure with nonconforming yards, and that all other requirements of this ordinance are complied with. (Ord. No. N.S. 234, § 3, 2-6-62) Sec. 1310. Required discontinuance of nonconforming use of land. A nonconforming use of land where no structure thereon is employed in such use, existing at the time this ordinance takes effect, may be continued for a ;period of not more than two (2) years thereafter, provided: (1) No nonconforming use of the land shall in any way be expanded or extended either on the same or adjoining property; and (2) If the nonconforming use of land existing at the time this ordinance takes effect is thereafter discontinued for six (6) months or more, or changed, any future use _ of such land shall conform with the provisions of this ordinance. Secs. 1311, 1312. Reserved. Editor's note Ord. No. N.S. 496, § 2, adopted .June 10, 1975, repealed former §§ 1311 and 1312 of this appendix relative to nonconforming signs in all areas and alteration or reconstruction of nonconforming signs, respectively. Said sections were derived from Ord. No. N.S. 331, § 1, adopted July 2, 1968. Supp. No. 10-75 546 § 1162 HERMOSA BEACH CITY CODE � 1162 a part hereof*. Where an angle of parking other than one listed in the attached standards is proposed, the chief build- ing inspector shall determine by interpolation the dimensions required for such parking. (Ord. No. N. S. 284, § 1, 5-18-65) Sec- 1162. Off-street parking, requirements for new and exist- ing construction. (A) For every residential dwelling hereafter erected, park- ing spaces shall be . provided, permanently maintained and permanently available as set forth in section 1151, including requirements for turning radii, as provided by this article, and the parking standards contained herein. (B) For every residential building hereafter which is structurally altered to increaseross floor area, ,there shall be provided, permanently maintained and permanently avail- able, one parking space for each existing unit, including re- quirements for turning radius as provided by this article and { parking standards herein. l (C) Before any additional units may be added to a lot where there now exists a building or buildings used for human habitation, there shall be provided, permanently maintained and permanently available, two (2) parking spaces for each existing unit, including requirements for turning radius and size, as provided by this article and parking standards herein. Exception to (B) and (C) above: Existing garages or parking spaces for existing units eight and one-half (81/2) feet wide by eighteen (18) feet deep inside measurement, having access from any alley or street and having a distance of not less than twenty (20) feet from the far side of such - alley or street, with a minimum eight (8) feet wide driveway, in the clear, will be considered to meet the parking require- ments and turning radius of this ordinance. (D) For every building in a "C" Zone or "M" Zone here- after erected, or reconstructed to increase gross floor space, the parking requirements and turning radii shall be as set forth in this ordinance for the increased floor space. In no 'Editor's noteTheparking lot design standards are not included in this publication, but are on file with the city. Supp. No. 7-73 528 AHN2 OIIV ALIO �UJ/J�l`�,���j� V NHOA 01 SV QHAOIIddV xli:i IO S.SH,LS.V -ezujoITTUO `goEag Usow.zaH so rS;tO ag; so UOJViti '1,86T 4T Jo SUP u44LT SZLTI- QHS.dOQV QNV `QHAO'iddV `QHSSVd • sa.zngonj s 2uzwaosuoou0u o; suoz;zppE a;tjn.dGa goTgm aou-Cutp.zo 2UTUOZ ago so !;uoTSTAoad ag; ssassn put goatasaa oj pa;oaaTp aq IITAi uozsszwwo0 AUTUUUTd ag, ;-CqL 'T NOIS,OHS SA10770d SV HA`IOSHII IEHUaH SHOQ `VINU03IZV0 `HOVHE VSOlTdHH 30 UID ZHL do gIONQ00 .2�,LIO HH,L `HHOdHHHHl `AiON Put !aan;ona;s asog; so u0Z;'3),zTTqugaj Put AuTTapowa.z GlcJtanooszp put GAT-;0Ta;S@a Gat sfuzpITnq 2utwz0Su00u0u 01 suot;zppe Autq-tTn0Gj aouuuzpao ,�uTuoz agqi So SUOTSTAoad agq ZEg4 spuzs Tzouno0 �;TD aq; `SVHUHHAI 2uT:jjtd Put '00-eds undo `sxorq;as of st 2uTuja0ju03u0u Gat satq-zadozd 10 Jagwnu GOJ-el t ;ug; sPuTl TTouno0 STTO au; `SVH2iHHAj :xoogs 2uisnog fuTISTXa ag; anoadwt put urt;uitw o; aTgtaTSGp ;T spuzT TTourn00 �;To auq- `SVHIiHivi JNIxHvd QNV HOVdS NHdO sx3valas Ol SH DKil odNO0NON auv HOIHAl SoKiagIns ONIZSIYH 01 SNOIZIQQF7 HZSVAlO77V OZ 91\IIJVZH-d SNOISIAOIid 213NVNIQZIO ONINOZ HH.L JNIQNHNIV HaUISN00 01 INHINI S,LI `JNI.LVOIGNI `VINUOJI7V0 `HOVHg VSOI';hHH 30 nLIO HHS, 30 ZIONII00 i,LIO HHS, 30 NOI,LIIIOSH2i V 669f -t8 ' ON NOIlagOSHH 8Z LZ 9Z SZ bZ £Z ZZ TZ OZ 61 8I LT 9I St t� t £I z TI OI 6 8 V L 9 S Z T HONORABLE MAYOR and MEMBERS of the HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL August 23, 1984 REGULAR MEETING of August 28, 1984. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT Recommendation That the City Council adopt the attached resolution authorizing the execution of -the Cooperative Agreement between the Community Development Commission and the City � for receipt of Block Grant funds. Background The City has participated in the Community Development Block Grant program for nine (9) years and has received nearly _1.5 million dollars _during—__that, _ --period for various projects. Every three years, the City is required tos_ign_ a_-nety operative Agreement with the Community Development Commisssion which binds the City and the County for three years. Analysis Despite the fact that the City has experienced some difficulty in the past dealing with the County organization that administers the program, it has been beneficial for the City to participate in the program for obvious fiscal reasons. At this time, the City must either sign the Agreement and continue the program for another three years or no.t sign the Agreement and be excluded for three years. Staff is recommending that the Agreement be signed for the following reasons: 1. There are virtually no comparable fund sources other than the CDBG program for this amount of money. 2. This CDBG money can be swapped for different types of funds from other cities with absolutely no restrictions. There are cities (such as Lomita) that are always looking for CDBG funds in exchange for other funds (such as Pro ads). The city that receives the CDBG funds then has the obligation to comply with the County's regulations and to show benefit to low/moderate income persons. 3. A participating city will become part of the County's Housing n twic-, ___ Plan (HAP). As such, the city will not have to prepare administer, or account for a plan of its own. If the City chooses to participate, it must do so for a three year period and cannot withdraw from the program prematurely. Staff is recommending that the Agreement be signed so that the City will not become ineligible to receive CDBG funds for fiscal years 85-88. In this way, the City will retain the option of either designing projects to comply with CDBG program rules or to swap the Block Grant monies for different types of funds that the City can utilize. Kim Reardon -Crites Planning Assistant Pamela Sapetto Planning Director NzaE- Viki F R FISCAL I PACT: Copeland Finance Administrator CONCUR: OAD� OU A Greg rY b eT Mr Y City anger CITY MANAGER NOTE: Rather than continue pursuing low/moderate projects in the Targe- Area, the only basis for my recommending retention of this program is the assumption that the City would "swap" the funds. I VI23:-IIVIN QNnO0 IONDVU 1 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 RESOLUTION NO. 84- RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH UTHORIZING THE APPLICATION FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK RANT FUNDS FROM THE FEDERAL HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT EPARTMENT THROUGH THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY COMMUNITY EVELOPMENT COMMISSION. HEREAS, the City is desirous of improving the quality of life for the residents of ermosa Beach; and HEREAS, the Community Development Block Grant funds are available for community and urban renewal activities authorized by the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. That the Mayor of Hermosa Beach is authorized to execute and fi an application on behalf of the City of Hermosa Beach with the Federal Housing and Urban Development Department through the Los Angeles County Community Development Commission for funding through the Community Development Block Grant program. Section 2. That the Mayor of Hermosa Beach is authorized to furnish such additional information as the Community Development Commission may require in connection with the application or the project. Section 3. That the Mayor _ of Hermosa Beach is authorized to execute grant contract agreements on behalf of the City of Hermosa Beach with the County Community Development Commission for aid in the financing of Community Development projects. Section 4. That the Mayor of Hermosa Beach is authorized to request authorized funds up to the project allocation as necessary to complete community dev elopment projects. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 28th day of August, 1984. PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, CA. ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk City Attorney le LOS ANGELES COUNTY Community Development Commission 1436 Goodrich Boulevard Los Angeles, California 90022 NUMBER: 84-0038 SUBJECT: COOPERATION AGREEMENTS DATE: 8/10/84 EFFECTIVE DATE: Immediately CHANGE: N/A PAGE 1 OF 2 TO: PARTICIPATING CITIES The purpose of this Bulletin is to advise you that cooperation agree- ments for the period from July 1, 1985 through June 3.0, 1988 will soon be forwarded to your City .Manager from James Hankla, Executive Director. This formal invitat-Lon will be transmitted by certified mail as soon as possible. We are, unfortunately, under severe time constraints from HUD, requiring us to submit all executed cooperation agreements and accompanying docu- ments no later than September 28, 1984. In order to obtain all necessary County signatures, we must ask that you submit your executed agreements to the Commission no later than August 27, 1984. Enclosed, for your convenience, are four copies of the new cooperation agreements, along with special instructions. In the interest of time, we will not require that your executed agreements be immediately accom- panied by an authorizing resolution; legally binding signatures of your mayor, clerk and attorney will be acceptable by August 27. However, the authorizing resolution must be submitted by September 14, 1984. I would like to remind you that we will be unable to accept your executed cooperation agreements after August 27, 1984. Submission by this date is the only assurance of your continued participation in the Los Angeles Urban County CDBG Program. If you need anyadditional information, please contact your Program Representative. Sincerely, 'BARBARA BELL -KING, Director Community Development Block Grant Division BBK:BG: ch Enclosures AgndaQ Ag Tasuno0 Aqunoo 'NOZNIgD 'M ZSIM ac :wHOa OS sv aaAOEddV - Ag saosinaadnS ;o pagog aqq 30 xaaTO -aa0T330 aATgnoaxg 'H7laJ NOW 'r XUHV7 :Isaliv saosrnaadnS ;o pzpog 'upula Tpgo All SagaDNK S07 30 XZNn00 Aauaoggy AgTO Ag :WHOd OZ SV GaAOUddV xaaTO AgTn Ag Isazld zoAEW Ag AgTO HO` R9 VSURTaH •uaggTzM anogp gszT3 apaA pup gguout 'App agg 3o sE ;oazagq sxzaTo_saoT3;o 9nrgn0axa aqg Aq pagsaggp pup sza0T;3o anrgnoaxa ;aTgO 9nr40ads9a zTagq Aq pagnoaxa aq oq guautaazbp agg pasnpo anpq puE quauiaaabp stgq paztaoggnp anpq ogaaaq saTgzpd aqq 30 sarpoq bUTuaanob aqg laoaUHHM Ss3NZIM NI •quawdOTanaQ upgan pug butsnoH ;o quauigzpdaQ sagpgS pagrun aqg Aq uOT40P ;o gTnsaz E*ss gdaoxa sapaA uIpzboad Bons ;o gsuT aqg 3o pua aqq azo;aq pagpuiauag aq you TTEgs quamaaabE sTgg •88-L86T Pug 'L8-9861 98-986T sapal, TgosTd zo; saATg091Q0 quamdolanaQ A4rununuo0 ;o sguautagggS qupa0 XooTg wauidoTanaa Agtununuon s,Aqunoo aqq Aq p9a9no0 sagaA uigaboad aaagq aqg gbnoagq Puagxa TTEgs guauiaazbE sTgg ;o uuag aqy •V •sMET aTgEOTTddE aagqo pup 18961 ;o 40V 4u9uidOTGA9a uggzn pup butsnoH aqg 3o £ uoTgoaS '40V aqq 30 I aTgTL 40 60T UOT40aS '896T JO 40V sggbTH TTATO aqq ;o IIIA aTgTL '696T 3o g0V SggbT-d TTA' 0 aqq 90 IA aigTZ '696T 3o 40V AOTTOd TgguautuozTnua TEuoTgEN aqq ;o suoTsrnoad aqq ggTM ATdutoO og SUOTgOE pa' rnbaa TTv aXgg TTEgs AqunOn pup AgTO aqy £ •santg091Q0 quauidolaA9a Agtununuo0 ;o squamagpgS 1puTd buTTT3 ATTgnuup pug sgoaCoad buTgoaTas ao; AgTTTgTsuodsaa TEuT; anpq TTEgs Aqunoo •quautaazbp sTgg pup 40V aqq sapun butpun; ao; 886T '0£ aunt' gbnoagq S861 'T ATnr buTOU9MMO0 poraad aqq aO3 sanrgoalgp quauidoTanaO Agtununuo0 ;o s4u9ma4p4S 1pnuup s,AqunoO aqq uT AgTO aqg zo; par;Toads s9r4tnT40P butsnoq auIOOuT aaMoT puE.TPmauaa upgan ao Agtunmmoo aqg quauiaTdwT oq Aagssaoau sgOE asogq 'pauuo;aad aq oq asu npo ao 'uojaad oq Aqunoo aqq sazraoggnp Aqazaq AgTO aqy .Z •g0V aqg Aq pazrzoggnp saTgtntgOE TpMauaa uugzn zo Agrununuoo aagqo pup sauioOUT agpaapoui og MOT ;o suoszad ao; buTsnoq ;o quamdOTanap ao quaucanoaduiT aqg og pagtulTT you qnq buTpnTOUT 'butsnoq pagsTssp A1oTTgnd pug TgMauaa upgan AT190T;Toads 'saTgtnrgog butsnoq auioOUT aaMoT pup TEMauaa Agtununuoo 'baTxpgaapun uT gsrssE zo axpgaapun oq agpaad000 og aaabE Aqunoo aqq puE AgTO aqy .T :sMoTTo; sE aazbp saTgzpd aqq 'SHOaaUaHs 'MON •butsnoq pagsTssE ATOTTgnd pug TEMauaa upgzn ATTgoT3Toads 'saTgTntgoE aOUEgsTssp butsnoq pup quauidOTanap AgtununuOO TETquassa butxpgaapun uT gsTSSE ao axpgaapun oq Aqunoo aqg ao; AgTaogqnp TEbaT TTn; saptnozd'quauraazbE sTgg gpgq pug MET TE0o1 pug 94949 zapun paztzoggnp ATTn; zap quamaaabp sTgq ;o suors -rnozd pup suizag aqq gpgq pauruizagap sgq lasunon Agunon Isva aHM Pug :,,god„ aqq PaTTEo aag3Eutaaaq 'papuauip sp '6L6T 3o gov quauidOTanaa Agtununuon pug bursnoH aqg Aq pazTaoggnE s9T4TATg0e TEMauaa upgan ao Agtununuoo aagqo puE s9uto0ur agpaapout og MoT ;o suoszad zo3 butsnoq ;o quauidOTanaP ao guauianoadutr aqq oq pagTu[TT qou qnq butpnTOur 'butsnoq pagsTssE AToTTgnd puE,TEMauaa upgan ATTEOT;Toads 'saTgT -nr40e butsnoq 9uio0ut aaMoT pup TEMauaa Agtununuoo 'buTXPgaapun uT gsrssp ao 'aXpgaapun oq agpaed000 oq aaTsap AgTn pup Aqunon 'SVHUaHM :H S a S S 3 N S I M .„Agunon„ SE oq pazaa;az aag3Eu19a9q 'S2gaDNV SOT 30 ASNn00 aqq Pug ,A4T,„ se oq p9aa93az zag;purazaq ' VSOWHSH aO ALIJ aqg uaaMgaq pup Aq ' 686T ' —30' App srgg oqur-paaaqua pug apew sT Imawaa-dov SIHS ZNawaaHDV NOIlVEadOOO .TSIO 5NIlVdI0IIHVd wvHDOud ZNvuD } ome imawd=Aaa XIINAWWOJ S3'I30NV SO'I ao 71I.An00 August 23, 1984 HONORABLE MAYOR and MEMBERS of the REGULAR MEETING of HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL August 28, 1984. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT Recommendation That the City Council adopt the attached resolution authorizing the execution of the Cooperative Agreement between the Community Development Commission and the City for the receipt of Block Grant funds. Background The City has participated in the Community Development Block Grant program for nine (9) years and has received nearly 1.5 million dollars during that period for various projects. Every three years, the City is required to sign a new cooperative Agreement with the Community Development Commisssion which binds the City and the County for three years. Analysis Despite the fact that the City has experienced some difficulty in the past dealing with _ the County organization that administers the program, it has been beneficial for the City to participate in the program for obvious fiscal reasons. At this time, the City must either sign the Agreement and continue the program for another three years or not sign the Agreement and be excluded for three years. Staff is recommending that the Agreement be signed for the following reasons: 1. There are virtually no comparable fund sources other than the CDBG program for this amount of money. 2. This CDBG money can be swapped for different types of funds from other cities with absolutely no restrictions. There are cities (such as Lomita) that are always looking for CDBG funds in exchange for other funds (such as Proposition A funds). The city that receives the CDBG funds then has the obligation to comply with the County's regulations and to show benefit to low/moderate income persons. 3. A participating city will become part of the County's Housing Assistance Plan (HAP). As such, the city will not have to prepare, administer, or account for a plan of its own. If the City chooses to participate, it must do so for a three year period and cannot withdraw from the program prematurely. Staff is recommending that the Agreement be signed so that the City will not become ineligible to receive CDBG funds for fiscal years 85-88. In this way, the City will retain the option of either designing projects to comply with CDBG program rules or to swap the Block Grant monies for different types of funds that the City can utilize. Kim Reardon -Crites Planning Assistant Pamela Sapetto Planning Director NO EDF R FISCAL IMPACT: Viki Copeland ��C1 Finance Administrator CONCUR: 0A.0Z MA JA Gregtanager . Myer City CITY MANAGER NOTE: Rather than continue pursuing low/moderate projects in the Target Area, the only basis for my recommending retention of this program is the assumption that the City would "swap" the funds. IVI'dg I VW QNno0 JD> DVU 1 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 RESOLUTION NO. 84- RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH UTHORIZING THE APPLICATION FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK RANT FUNDS FROM THE FEDERAL HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT EPARTMENT THROUGH THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY COMMUNITY EVELOPMENT COMMISSION. HEREAS, the City is desirous of improving the quality of life for the residents of ermosa Beach; and HEREAS, the Community Development Block Grant funds are available for community d urban renewal activities authorized by the Housing and Community Development ct of 1974. W, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach does hereby ve as follows: Section 1. That the Mayor of Hermosa Beach is authorized to execute and fij an application on behalf of the City of Hermosa Beach with the Federal Housing and Urban Development Department through the Los Angeles County Community Development Commission for funding through the Community Development Block Grant program. Section 2. That the Mayor of Hermosa Beach is authorized to furnish such additional information as the Community Development Commission may Section 3. require in connection with the application or the project. That the Mayor . of Hermosa Beach is authorized to execute grant contract agreements on behalf of the City of Hermosa Beach with the County Community Development Commission for aid in the financing of Community Development projects. Section 4. That the Mayor of Hermosa Beach is authorized to request authorized funds up to the project allocation as necessary to complete community dev elopment projects. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 28th day of August, 1984. PRESIDENT of the City Council and MAYOR of the City of Hermosa Beach, CA. ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk City Attorney i LOS ANGELES COUNTY Community Development Commission 1436 Goodrich Boulevard Los Angeles, California 90022 NUMBER: 84-0038 SUBJECT: COOPERATION AGREEMENTS DATE: 8/10/84 EFFECTIVE DATE: Immediately CHANGE: N/A PAGE 1 OF 2 TO: PARTICIPATING CITIES The purpose of this Bulletin is to advise you that cooperation agree- ments for the period froin July 1, 1985 through June 3.0, 1988 will soon be forwarded to your City Manager from James Hankla, Executive Director. This formal invitatiLon will be transmitted by certified mail as soon as possible. We are, unfortunately, under severe time constraints from HUD, requiring us to submit all executed cooperation agreements and accompanying docu- ments no later than September 28, 1984. In order to obtain all necessary County signatures, we must ask that you submit your executed agreements to the Commission no later than August 27, 1984. Enclosed, for your convenience, are four copies of the new cooperation agreements, along with special instructions. In the interest of time, we will not require that your executed agreements be immediately accom- panied by an authorizing resolution; legally binding signatures of your mayor, clerk and attorney will be acceptable by August 27. However, the authorizing resolution must be submitted by September 14, 1984. I would like to remind you that we will be unable to accept your executed cooperation agreements after August 27, 1984. Submission by this date is the only assurance of your continued participation in the Los Angeles Urban County CDBG Program. If you need any additional information, please contact your Program Representative. Sincerely, BARBARA BELL -KING, Director Community Development Block Grant Division BBK:BG: ch Enclosures COUrTY OF LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM PARTICIPATING CITY COOPERATION AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, is made and entered into this day of_ , 1984, by and between the CITY OF HERMOSA RRAC'H • , hereinafter referred to as "City" and the COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, hereinafter referred to as "County". W I T N E S S E T H: WHEREAS, County and City desire to cooperate to undertake, or assist in undertaking, community renewal and lower income housing activ- ities, specifically urban renewal and publicly assisted housing, including but not limited to the improvement or development of housing for persons Of low to moderate incomes and other community or urban renewal activities authorized by the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended, hereinafter called the "Act"; and WHEREAS, County Counsel has determined that the terms and provi- sions of this agreement are fully authorized under State and local law and that this agreement provides full legal authority for the County to undertake or assist in undertaking essential community development and housing assistance activities, specifically urban renewal and publicly assisted housing. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows: 1. The City and the County agree to cooperate to undertake or assist in undertaking, community renewal and lower income housing activities, specifically urban renewal and publicly assisted housing, including but not limited to the improvement or development of housing for persons of low to moderate incomes and other community or urban renewal activities authorized by the Act. 2. The City hereby authorizes the County to perform, or cause to be performed, those acts necessary to implement the community or urban renewal -and lower income housing activities specified for the City in the County's annual Statements of Community Development Objectives for the period commencing July 1, 1985 through June 30, 1988'for funding under the Act and this agreement. County shall have final responsibility for selecting projects and annually filing Final Statements of Community Development Objectives. 3. The City and County shall take all required actions to comply with the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, Section 109 of Title I of the Act, Section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968, and other applicable laws. 4. The term of this agreement shall extend through the three program years covered by the County's Community Development Block Grant Statements of Community Development Objectives for Fiscal Years 1985-86, 1986-87, and 1987-88. This agreement shall not be terminated before the end of the last of such program years except as.a result of action by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the governing bodies of the parties hereto have authorized this agreement and have caused the agreement to be executed by their respective chief executive officers and attested by the executive officer -clerks thereof as of the day, month and year first above written. HERMOSA BEACH COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES City By Mayor ATTEST: By City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: By ty Attorney By Chairman, Board of Supervisors ATTEST: LARRY J. MONTEILH, Executive Officer - Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By APPROVED AS TO FORM: DE WITT W. CLINTON, County Counsel By Deputy l' August 23, 1984 Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of the City Council of August 28, 1984 TENTATIVE FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS September 11, 1984 Adoption of Sewer Maintenance Rates and Implementation of Sewer Billing System. Resolution re. Deferred Comp Plan for City of Hermosa Beach Creation of Administrative policy as to how letters to City Council from the public are handled. Award of Bid - Strand Walk Improvements, Eighth St. to 15th Street. Class specification for Recreation Specialist. Class specification for Community Resources Coordinator. Resolution of Intention to create underground lighting district 84-1. Downtown Study Work Program. Hearing re. development fees. Octeber.9, 1984 Review of valet stack parking system on VPD lots Commissioners' Manual CUP - Liquor at Community Center November 13, 1984 Report re. City Treasurer reporting to Council on investments w/report from City Attorney (City Treasurer may file a report recommending what she sees as a vehicle for communication). November 27. 1984 Report on computerization of City Treasurer trust funds, including VPD implementation. Report on computerization of investment accounts, time certificates of deposit, savings accounts and special bank accounts. December 11, 1984 Encroachment permit reviews - La Playita & Fat Face Fenner's Falloon 11 August 24, 1984 Honorable Mayor and Members City Council Meeting of the City Council of August 28, 1984 ACTIVITY REPORT o The new South School parking lot will be operational. Attached is a copy of the press release. o We have received a formal request from Park Pacific Shopping Center (Roger Bacon) for utilization of tax exempt financing. The purpose of this financial issue would be for additional offstreet parking to be con- structed in conjunction with already planned expansion of the retail center. Discussions are being held with MSI, Merrill Lynch, and bond counsel re. feasibility. o Efforts are being made to complete the Fire Station remodeling such that an open house may be held in October. o The City is exploring the concept of a Renaissance Fair at Valley Park similar to the one held there several years ago. o We expect that Volume 1, Issue 1, of the new City Newsletter will be ready for the printer in September. Gre ory tP. Qeyer Cit Manager GTM/ld I -9415 UO auLgoew 4a�OL4 e fiq pasuadSLP aq LLLM s4luuad 4eO 'LLpH 4410 40 quawaseq aq4 u1 quaw4aedap SaoLn.AaS Leaaua0 ago u1 pasego.and aq 4ew s4. wad 4 MUoW •fipp aad 00'Z$ 6uLfied -.o naLL UL ;Lwaad fiL4;uow aLa44 6u1z1LL4n aopds aLgpLLenp scup UL japd 0; 4S1 -aO4Ow ago SMOLLe aag;ea 4nq aouds BULIapd p aa4ueaen6 ;ou saop 4Lwaad 6ul�apd fi M uow agl '00'OL$ jos ;Lwaad 6ul�aed 4L44uow a asegoand 4pw ao 4eP e 00'Z$ AOJ 40L aouds anoi pup paapung auo ago u1 �apd flew Sao41S1n pup S4U@PISDH 'aaJ LeulwoU p aOj sLseq wLaB4UL up UO L0040S 44noS 4p 6u�apd oLlgnd aPlnoad 04 saa4snal jo pap02 43L.'1.s10 L0040S 4oea8 RSOwaaH ago 441M 4uawaaa6p up 04UL paaa4ua spy LLounoO 44La gopag psowaaH aq4 14410 aq4-.no46no.Ag4 UOL4Sa6uo3 6ULjapd age. a4eLnaLLp 04 4JOJJa SULnuL4UOo aLags. UI 3XION August 22, 1984 HONORABLE MAYOR and MEMBERS of the REGULAR MEETING of HERMOSA BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION August 28, 1984 ALLOCATION FOR ADDITIONAL GEOLOGIC REPORT The City Council has requested an additional geologic report specifically addressing the feasibility of drilling wells from the City Maintenance Yard into the tidelands area. The geologist estimated four to six hours to prepare this report at a cost not to exceed $500. Staff recommends to appropriate $500 from prospective expenditures for this purpose. Greg ry T. Me er City Manager NOTED FOR FISCAL IMPACT: Viki Copeland Finance Administrator July 6, 1984 HONORABLE MAYOR and MEMBERS of the REGULAR MEETING of HERMOSA BEACH CITY COUNCIL .A-dgust 28, 1984 PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO DEVELOP A POLICY PLAN FOR THE DOWNTOWN AREA Recommendation 1. City proceed with a Policy Plan for downtown. 2. To allocate $23,000 to develop a Policy Plan for the entire down- town area pursuant to the Planning Commission recommendation. To allocate this amount in the FY84-85 budget under the Planning Department Professional Services, changing the emphasis from Traffic Circulation to Policy Plan and increasing the amount from $16,205 to $23,000. This will be an appropriation transfer from prospective expenditures in the amount of $6,795. 3. Work performed by PBR/TDC as a negotiated extension of their contract for the Land Use Element. PBR has indicated a four week preparation time for the Policy Plan from the date of authorization. Background During the revision of the Land Use Element, the concept of a Policy Plan for the downtown area has been discussed enthusiastically by the Commission. This concept was presented at the Chamber of Commerce retreat this year. With the potential of a hotel project in the downtown area, discussion has also emerged regarding the impetus such a project will have on the downtown area. The concern is to plan for the future of the downtown area to realize community goals to preserve the village scale while encouraging upgrade of the area. Analysis Attached you will find an analysis by PBR of the elements of a Policy Plan. This scheme will produce the equivalent of a Specific Plan at a reduced cost. The Planning C ommission is seriously concerned with the potential effects that completion of the hotel may have on other future downtown development. They are concerned the existing development standards, traffic circulation and infrastructure are not sufficient to accommodate or direct other signi- ficant development to the community's benefit. In the Planning Department budget for FY84-$5, $16,205 is allocated for revision of the Traffic Circulation Element. Since the Planning Comm- ission has ranked the Downtown Policy Plan as a higher priority, staff recommends that allocation be directed toward the Policy Plan for the down- town area. An additional appropriation of $6,795 from Prospective Expenditures will be required. In the PBR analysis, reference is made to all the preferred components of a Policy Plan. For the City's immediate purpose staff recommends a community concensus be reached to formulate a Policy Plan Work Program based on the components in the PBR analysis for the downtown area and to prioritize the improve- ments to implement the plan. The Coastal Conservancy has available major funding through Bond Acts. The Conservancy staff has indicated that assistance to the Coastal cities to plan and improve in a beach downtown area is a priority and encouraged the City to submit a prioritized plan to them. This could ba an advantageous Spin-off of the Policy Plan. Alternatives to adopting a Policy Plan would be to: 1. Reduce building height overall 2. Place a moratorium on further building 3. Implement new development standards only without policy plan analysis v Pamela Sapetto Planning Director "U: NOTED FOR FISCAL IMPACT: Greg ry T. Meyer Viki Copeland City Manager Finance Administrator July 3, 1984 '0a0 A2 Ms. Pamela Sapetto Director of Planning Civic Center 1315 Valley Drive and Environmental Services Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Subject: Downtown Area Policy Plan Work Program Dear Ms. Sapetto: ' We are pleased to submit this work program to prepare a Policy Plan for the Downtown Area of Hermosa Beach. This program is based upon the necessary elements to be covered by such a study; identified in our cor- respondence of June 8, 1984. The purpose of preparing a Policy Plan is essentially two -fold: to establish development and design criteria which will regulate development in the Downtown Area in the immediate future; and, to establish a strategic action program which the City may then use to leverage funds for improvements (public and private) to the Downtown Area. A singularly -important product of the Policy Plan will be preparation of a logical sequence of improvements, and their prioritization. Typically, cities use these programs to procure additional "outside" funding as well as to establish incentives for private investment. Funds for improvements such as envisioned for the Downtown Area are available through the State Coastal Conservancy. While there is con- siderable competition for available monies, the interests of the City in its improvements are very similar to those of the Conservancy in its Urban Waterfronts Program. A number of coastal communities today are receiving funding for precisely what Hermosa Beach wishes to accomplish. PLANNING • ARCHITECTURE • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE • ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH 18012 SKY PARK CIRCLE • IRVINE, CA 92714 • (714) 261-8820 CALIFORNIA COLORADO HAWAII Ms. Pamela Sapetto July 3, 1984 Page 2 This Policy Plan should be viewed as a very important "Phase I" direction -setting and prioritization effort. Its products will outline the actions the City determines necessary for improving the Downtown. These subsequent actions, and the accompanying detailed analyses/plans may then be implemented by the continued efforts of the City in cooperation with other agencies, property owners and residents and the investment community. Should you have any questions please do not hesitate to call. and to initiating work in the � we would see delivery of t documentation to the City within Very truly yours, PHILLIPS BRANDT REDDICK J44�040� James Fergus Associate JF/2FA or comments on the attached Work Program We look forward to refining it with you ?ry near future. As previously mentioned, ie draft Policy Plan and all related approximately four weeks. July 7, 1984 HERMOSA BEACH DOWNTOWN STUDY WORK PROGRAM Task 1. Conduct Background Studies and Research with City assistance and City information assembled to date) A. Prepare base map(s) at appropriate scale(s). B. Prepare ownership map. C. Prepare land use map (lot by lot). D. Inventory parking spaces: On -street and off-street. E. Identify development projects: Underway and pending. F. Identify existing and proposed public improvements (infrastructure, streetscape, other). G. Review documents and studies: LCP, General Plan, Zoning, special studies, economic reports, project reports, EIR's. Task 2. Prepare Land Use Plan A. Prepare Land Use Plan including the following information:. 1) Land plan indicating development areas, land use assignments, and intensities. 2) Relationships between land uses. 3 Building areas, parking areas, and access to downtown uses. 4) Plazas. 5) Circulation hierarchy, including pedestrian. B. Prepare Statistic Summary, including square footage yields. Task 3. Prepare Urban Design Criteria A. Prepare general architectural design criteria, including: 1) Overall architectural characters of the Downtown. 2) Building forms and massing (sketch form). 3) Building materials and colors (acceptable ranges). B. Prepare general landscape architectural criteria, including: 1) Landscape concept for Downtown. 2) Entry points (from Pier Avenue and Hermosa Avenue). 3) Streetscapes (medians, parkways, sidewalks, textured paving, planters). 4) Parking areas/structures (recommended treatments). 5) Plaza/courtyard areas. 6) Plant palette (acceptable ranges: primarily for costing purposes). 1 C. Prepare development regulations, including: 1) Building heights. 2) Building setbacks and coverage. 3) Building massing. Other regulations may also be included as determined in consultation with City staff and through review of the existing zoning ordinance. Task 4. Analyze Circulation and Parking A. Provide an overview of existing/available parking in the Downtown Area: on- and off-street. B. Calculate demand, on a general basis, based upon land use plan and including existing demand, with beach parkiny (overview). C. Review joint -use parking alternatives (overview). D. Review circulation system included in Land Use Plan. Task 5. Prepare Marketing Input A. Provide overview of market demand focusing upon visitor-serving/local- serving uses in Hermosa Beach and South Bay Area, based upon existing and available reports. B. Review Land Use Plan for appropriate balance between land uses. Optional Task If the City so desires a Preliminary Economic Analysis of the Downtown Area can be prepared. Focusing upon visitor -serving and local serving commercial uses the analysis will identify and evaluate circulation (auto and non -vehicular), proximity to the ocean, views and visibility, and other locational and improvement characteristics affecting development potential of downtown area. We will review socioeconomic data and competitive land uses which will influence market supply and demand of the above commercial uses. The realistic potential for development of commercial and office uses will be estimated. Demand (in square feet), potential absorption, and future market values by land use type will be estimated. Cost estimate for optional task: $7,000.00-$10,000.00 Task 6. Prepare Improvement Costs A. Prepare rough -estimate cost analysis for the following improvements with City Engineer: 1) Water, sewer, drainage. 2) Public improvements to: medians, planters, street trees and other plant materials, plaza areas, special accent areas. 3) Acquisition costs associated with lot consolidation opportunities. Costs provided will be on an "order of magnitude" basis, but will be sufficient for purposes of evaluating a strategic action program. E Task 7. Prepare Implementation Program A. Prepare aggregation study; determine the opportunity, by parcel size and configuration, for owner participation/public intervention. B. Array costs into priority areas for implementation, in consultation with City staff, and utilizing, in a general fashion, the following evaluation criteria: 1) Public-private investment leveraging potential. 2) Economic returns to the City, and appropriate timeframes. 3) Achievement of "social" purpose (City image, jobs, secondary benefits). 4) Project feasibility/proforma analysis (overview). C. Establish priorities: Take previously determined public improvements, ownership patterns, project activities and the available cost estimates, and in consultation with the City recommend priorities for public improvements. Task 8. Prepare Policy Plan A. Prepare Policy Plan meeting City objectives and including: 1) Project Description 2) Urban Design Criteria 3) Implementation Program, with action items including but not limited to: a) subsequent zoning amendments (development standards). b) Policy Plan recommendations for seeking funding. c) lot consolidation opportunities. d) incentive programs for private investments. e) detailed design plans and analyses necessary for improvements. Task 9. Conduct Meetings and Presentations A. Meet with Coastal Conservancy. 1) Initiate meetings with staff/decision makers to determine funding opportunities and responsibilities. 2) Present plans, costs, priority areas for Conservancy assistance. B. Conduct/attend the following City meetings: 1) two public workshops 2) two Planning Commission hearings 3) two City Council hearings 3 SUMMARY OF COSTS Task Cost Estimate 1. Background/Research $ 1,500.00 2. Land Use Plan 2,500.00 3. Urban Design Criteria 3,000.00 4. Marketing Input 1,500.00 5. Circulation and Parking 2,000.00 6. Improvement Costs 2,000.00 7. Implementation 2,500.00 8. Policy Plan 2,000.00 9. Meetings/Presentations 3,000.00 10. Reimbursable/Printing Costs 3,000.00 TOTAL COST ESTIMATE $ 23,000.00 4 1 . "1.I"I_L - 1vu a. Address: City of Hermosa Beach - City-wide b. Legal: 2. Description Amendment to Zoning Code allowing improvements and/or additions to non- conforming structures provided that the addition complies with regulations of the zone in which the structure is located. 3. Sponsor a. Name • City of Hermosa Beach b . Bailing Address: 1315 Valley Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 phone • (213)376-6984 NEGATIVE DECLARATION In accordance with Resolution 79-4309 of the City of Hermosa Beach, which implements the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 in Hermosa Beacl the Environmental Review Committee must make an environmental review of all private projects proposed to be undertaken within the City, and the Board o= Zoning Adjustments must make an environmental review of all public projects proposed to be undertaken within the City, which are subject to the Environ- mental Quality Act. This declaration is documentation of the review and, i� it becomes final, no comprehensive Environmental 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 79-4309 of the City Council of Hermosa Beach, and find that this project does not require a comprehensive Environmental Impact Report because, provided the attached miti,ation_meas- ures are included in the project, it would not have a significant effect on the environment. Documentation supporting this finding is on file in the Building Department. Date of Finding Chairman, Environmental Review Committee We have undertaken and completed an Environmental Impact Review of this pro- posed project in accordance with Resolution 79-=4309 of the City Council of Hermosa Beach, and find that this project does not require a comprehensive Environmental Impact Report because it would not have a significant effect on the environment. Documentation supporting this finding is on file in the Planning Department. ,tai, ._ _ . 1 n Date of Finding Chairman, EnviroFimental Review Committee FINDING OF THE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS We have undertaken and completed an Environmental Impact Review of this pro- posed project in accordance with Resolution 79-4309 of the City Council of - Hermosa Beach, and find that this project does not require a comprehensive Environmental Impact Report because, provided the attached mitigation meas- ures are included in the project, it would not have a significant effect on the environment. Documentation supporting this finding is on file in the Building Department. Date of Finding Secretary, Board of Zoning Adjustments We have undertaken and completed an Environmental Impact Review of this'pro- posed project in accordance with REsolution 79-4309 of the City Council of Hermosa Beach, and find that this project does not require a comprehensive Environmental Impact Report because it would not have a significant effect o the environment. Documentation supporting this finding is on file in the Building Department. Date of Finding Secretary, Board of Zoning Adjustments § 1226 A.PPE'NDLY A.—ZONING § 1303 Sec. 1226. Reserved. Editor's note Former § 1226, derived from Ord. No. N.S. 364, § 1, adopted Sept. 2, 1969, contained provisions relative to the review of signs having unusual or more than three colors. Ord. No. N.S. 415, § 1, adopted Jan. 4, 1972, redesignated said provisions as App. A, § 1117. :ARTICLE 13. GENERAL PROVISIONS, CONDITIONS AND EXCEPTIONS—NONCONFORMING BUILDINGS AND USES Sec. 1300. Nonconforming use limits other uses. While a nonconforming use exists on any lot, no new use may be established thereon even though such other use would be a conforming use. Sec. 1301. Nonconforming use of conforming building. The nonconforming use of a conforming building existing on the effective date of this ordinance may be continued, provided such nonconforming use shall not be expanded or extended into any other portion of the conforming building nor shall any structural alterations be made except those required by iaw. If such nonconforming use is vacated or discontinued for ninety (90) consecutive days or more, any future use of such building shall conform to the provisions of the zone in which it is located. (Ord. No. N.S. 515, § 1, 1-9-9-75) Sec. 1302. Nonconforming use of a nonconforming building. The nonconforming use of a nonconforming building may be continued and may be expanded or extended throughout such building provided no structural alterations except those required by law are made therein. If no structural alterations are made or required, a nonconforming use of a nonconforming building may be changed to another use of the same or more restricted classification. Sec. 1303. Change in status of nonconforming use. If a nonconforming use is vacated or removed and is suc- ceeded by another and more restrictive use it is evidence that Supp. No. 7-79 543 § 1304 HERMOSA BEACH CITY CODE § 1306 the heavier nonconforming use was ended and thereupon im- mediately loses any vested right as such. If the substitute use is itself nonconforming, the degree of nonconformity may not be subsequently increased by changing to a less restricted use. See- 1304. Nonconforming residential use in "C" or zones. A nonconforming residential building in any one of the "C" or "M" zones may be continued, provided no additions, enlarge- ments or structural alterations are made thereto that would increase the total gross floor (exclusive of garages) by more than fifty (50) percent and in no case shall there be any increase in the number of dwelling units permitted. If any such nonconforming residential building is removed or more than fifty (50) percent destroyed (in terms of gross floor area), every future use of the land on which the building was located shall conform to the provisions of this ordinance and the zone. (Ord. No. 79-607, § 1, 3-13-79) Sec. 1305. Reserved. or's note—Ord. No. N.S. 360, § 1, enacted July 1, 1969, repealee �bul'Egs of the zoning ordinance, requiring removal of nonconforming within specified time limits. The section was reserved to mairiiainsequence. Sec. 1306. &gard of zoning adjustment to _defermine condi- tio '- of abatement. When any nonconrming condition%exlsts in any zone, other than the nonconformin use of land when no structure is in volved, it shall be the respo ibility of the board of zoning ad- justment, on its own initia 1v , to fix a date upon which the nonconforming building was es lished. If any use that would normally b("esignated as noncp_forming but lies with- in an area indieated on the zoning map as being in an area containing,aZ indicated potential classificat'lan for a zone in which ,3u6h use would be permitted, the abatement provi- sions'of the zoning ordinance as they would affect se would mot apply. It shall also be the responsibility of the b rd of Supp. No. 7-79 544