HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-03-15 PC AGENDA
1
AGENDA
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
1315 VALLEY DRIVE
HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254
March 15, 2016
7:00 P.M.
Peter Hoffman, Chairperson
Kent Allen, Vice Chair
Michael Flaherty
Rob Saemann
Marie Rice
Note: No Smoking Is Allowed in the City Hall Council Chambers
THE PUBLIC COMMENT IS LIMITED TO THREE MINUTES PER SPEAKER
Planning Commission agendas and staff reports are available for review
on the City’s web site at www.hermosabch.org.
Wireless access is available in the City Council Chambers for mobile devices:
Network ID: City Council and Password: chb13
Written materials distributed to the Planning Commission within 72 hours
of the Planning Commission meeting are available for public inspection immediately
upon distribution in the Community Development Department during normal business hours
from Monday through Thursday, 7:00 a.m. - 6:00 p.m. and on the City’s website.
Final determinations of the Planning Commission may be appealed to the City Council within
10 days of the next regular City Council meeting date. If the 10th day falls on a Friday
or City holiday, the appeal deadline is extended to the next City business day.
Appeals shall be in written form and filed with the City Clerk's office, accompanied by
an appeal fee. The City Clerk will set the appeal for public hearing before
the City of Hermosa Beach City Council at the earliest date possible.
If you challenge any City of Hermosa Beach decision in court, you may be limited
to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing
described on this agenda, or in a written correspondence delivered to the
Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing.
To comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, Assistive Listening Devices
will be available for check out at the meeting. If you need special assistance to participate
in this meeting, please call or submit your request in writing to the Community Development
Department at (310) 318-0242 at least 48 hours (two working days) prior to the meeting time
to inform us of your needs and to determine if/how accommodation is feasible.
2
1. Pledge of Allegiance
2. Roll Call
3. Oral / Written Communications
Anyone wishing to address the Commission regarding a matter not related to a public
hearing on the agenda may do so at this time.
Section I
Consent Calendar
4. Approval of the February 16, 2016 regular meeting action minutes
5. Resolution(s) for Consideration - None
THE RECOMMENDATIONS NOTED BELOW ARE FROM THE PLANNING STAFF AND ARE RECOMMENDATIONS
ONLY. THE FINAL DECISION ON EACH ITEM RESTS WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION. PLEASE DO NOT
ASSUME THAT THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION WILL BE THE ACTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
Section II
Hearing
6. C-36 – Semi-annual review and report on Conditional Use Permit (CUP) compliance for on-
sale alcoholic beverage establishments Citywide.
Staff Recommended Action: To receive the semi-annual report and determine that no
businesses have reached the “Standard Initiating Planning Commission Review.”
7. S-21 #25 – Request to determine whether the property is a convex sloping lot and may use
alternative spot elevations rather than property corner elevations along the north and south
property lines for the purposes of determining building height at 431 Hopkins Avenue.
Staff Recommended Action: By Minute Order determine convexity along the north and
south property lines at the subject property, but recommends use of alternative elevations
with the exclusion of areas where fill soils are present towards the middle of the property.
8. CON 16-4 / PDP 16-4 / PARK 16-1 -- Request to extend for one (1) year the expiration date
of a Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan, Parking Plan And Vesting
Tentative Tract Map #68380 for a twenty one-unit commercial condominium project with
payment of fees in-lieu of on-site parking at 906 – 910 Hermosa Avenue.
Staff Recommended Action: To adopt by Minute Order the expiration date of the
Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan, Parking Plan and Vesting Tentative
Tract Map #68380 by one (1) year, to March 15, 2017, and confirmation that all proposed
alterations are minor while determining the extensions be contingent upon the extension of
the Coastal Development Permit.
3
Section III
9. Staff Items
a. Discussion and possible initial policy direction regarding short-term vacation rentals
(continued from the February 16, 2016 meeting).
b. Discussion of priorities:
1) Discussion on televisions in outdoor dining areas (requested by Commissioner
Flaherty).
2) Text Amendment to allow religious institutions in zones allowing assembly uses.
3) Reducing Community alcohol problems associated with alcohol sales provided
(requested by former Commissioner Pizer and Commissioner Allen).
4) Memorandum regarding whether “elevator housing” should continue to be included
as one of the roof structure elements that may exceed the height limit in
commercial zones (continued from the November 17, 2015 meeting).
5) Discussion regarding convex slope determination (pursuant to June 16, 2015
Planning Commission action).
c. Report on City Council actions.
d. Report on comprehensive planning processes.
e. Tentative future Planning Commission agenda.
f. Community Development Department activity report of January, 2016.
10. Commissioner Items
11. Adjournment
1 Planning Commission Action Minutes
February 16, 2016
ACTION MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON
FEBRUARY 16, 2016, 7:00 P.M.,
AT THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
All public testimony and the deliberations of the Planning Commission can be viewed
on the City’s web site at www.hermosabch.org, On-Demand Video of City Meetings
The meeting was called to order at 7:04 P.M. by Vice Chair Hoffman.
1. Pledge of Allegiance
2. a) Introduction and welcome of new Commissioner Marie Rice
b) Roll Call
Present: Commissioners Allen, Flaherty, Rice, Saemann, Vice Chair Hoffman
Absent: None
Also Present: Ken Robertson, Community Development Director
Kim Chafin, Senior Planner
Lauren Langer, Assistant City Attorney
Aaron Gudelj, Assistant Planner
Nicole Ellis, Assistant Planner
Kathy Khang, Planning Intern
3. Oral / Written Communications
Anyone wishing to address the Commission regarding a matter not related to a public
hearing on the agenda may do so at this time.
Section I
CONSENT CALENDAR
4. Approval of the January 19, 2016 action minutes
ACTION: To approve the January 19, 2016 action minutes as presented.
MOTION by Commissioner Allen and seconded by Commissioner Flaherty. The motion
carried by a unanimous vote.
5. Resolution(s) for Consideration – None
Section II
Public Hearing
6. CON 16-2 / PDP 16-2 -- Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Vesting
Tentative Parcel Map No. 73931 for a three-unit condominium at 501 11th Street, and
determination that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act.
Staff Recommended Action: To adopt the resolution approving the Conditional Use Permit,
Precise Development Plan, and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map #73931 for a three-unit
2 Planning Commission Action Minutes
February 16, 2016
attached condominium project subject to conditions and determine the project is
categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Commissioner Saemann recused himself as his home is within 300’ of the subject property.
ACTION: To adopt a resolution approving subject three-unit condominium project as
presented and determine the project is categorically exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act.
MOTION by Commissioner Flaherty and seconded by Commissioner Allen. The motion
carried by the following vote:
AYES: Comms. Allen, Flaherty, Rice, Vice Chair Hoffman
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: Comm. Saemann
ABSENT: None
7. CON 16-3 / PDP 16-3 -- Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Vesting
Tentative Parcel Map No. 73739 for a two-unit condominium at 637 7th Street, and
determination that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act.
Staff Recommended Action: To adopt the resolution approving the Conditional Use Permit,
Precise Development Plan, and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map #73739 for a two-unit
detached condominium project subject to conditions and determine the project is
categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
ACTION: To adopt a resolution approving subject two-unit condominium project with
modification to condition No.1 to add at end of the first sentence “and if feasible as
determined by the Community Development Director, parking be revised to eliminate two
guest spaces and not cut the curb”, and determine the project is categorically exempt from
the California Environmental Quality Act.
MOTION by Commissioner Saemann and seconded by Commissioner Flaherty. The
motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: Comms. Allen, Flaherty, Rice, Saemann, Vice Chair Hoffman
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
8. CON 15-11 / PDP 15-14 -- Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Vesting
Tentative Parcel Map No. 73564 for a two-unit condominium at 715 2nd Street, and
determination that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act.
Staff Recommended Action: To adopt the resolution approving the Conditional Use Permit,
Precise Development Plan, and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map #73564 for a two-unit
detached condominium project subject to conditions and determine the project is
categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
ACTION: To adopt a resolution approving subject two-unit condominium project as
presented and determine the project is categorically exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act.
3 Planning Commission Action Minutes
February 16, 2016
MOTION by Commissioner Flaherty and seconded by Commissioner Saemann. The
motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: Comms. Allen, Flaherty, Rice, Saemann, Vice Chair Hoffman
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
9. CUP 15-11 / PARK 15-8 -- Conditional Use Permit and Parking Plan to allow on-sale beer
and wine until 10:00 p.m. daily in association with limited food service in the first floor
common area at an existing 81-room hotel at 2515 Pacific Coast Highway, Hotel Hermosa;
and determine the project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental
Quality Act (continued from the October 20, 2016 meeting).
Staff Recommended Action: Adopt the resolution approving Parking Plan 15-8 and
Conditional Use Permit 15-11 and determining the project to be categorically exempt from
the California Environment al Quality Act.
ACTION: To receive the file the withdrawal letter submitted by the applicant on February
16, 2016.
MOTION by Commissioner Allen and seconded by Commissioner Flaherty. The motion
carried by a unanimous vote.
10. TEXT 15-2 -- Text Amendment to the Municipal Code, Title 17 (Zoning) to allow a parking
credit for conversion of non-restaurant use to restaurant use within the Downtown District in
conjunction with approval of a Parking Plan, and adoption of an Environmental Negative
Declaration (continued from the November 17, 2015 and January 19, 2016 meetings).
Staff Recommended Action: Adopt the resolution recommending the City Council adopt a
text amendment to allow a parking credit for conversion of non-restaurant use to restaurant
use within the Downtown District, and adoption of an environmental Negative Declaration.
ACTION: To bring subject Text Amendment back as part of overall conversation regarding
all eleven (11) parking strategies identified in January 12, 2016 City Council study session,
and include matrix identifying impacts on parking and fees to City.
MOTION by Commissioner Rice and seconded by Commissioner Saemann. The motion
carried by the following vote:
AYES: Comms. Flaherty, Rice, Saemann, Vice Chair Hoffman
NOES: Comm. Allen
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
Section III
11. Staff Items
a. Discussion and possible initial policy direction regarding short-term vacation rentals.
ACTION: The Planning Commission consensus was to turn in evaluation of options
using the decision making tool and discussion to continue to March 15, 2016. The
Planning Commission will also host a public forum in the future to solicit broad public
4 Planning Commission Action Minutes
February 16, 2016
input on this issue.
b. Informational item – Receive report for semi-annual on-sale alcoholic beverage
Conditional Use Permit review process.
c. Planning Commission Chairperson and Vice Chair.
ACTION: Commissioner Hoffman will be the new Chair and Commissioner Allen as
Vice Chair for nine months starting March, 2016 and thereafter the normal rotation.
d. Report on City Council actions.
e. Report on comprehensive planning processes.
f. Tentative future Planning Commission agenda.
g. Community Development Department activity report of December, 2015.
12. Commissioner Items
13. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 10:06 P.M.
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify the foregoing Minutes are a true and complete record of the action taken by the
Planning Commission of Hermosa Beach at the regularly scheduled meeting of February 19,
2016.
Peter Hoffman, Vice Chair Ken Robertson, Secretary
Date
EXISTING RESIDENCEEXISTING RESIDENCE
1
February 4, 2016
Honorable Chairman and Members of the Regular Meeting of
Hermosa Beach Planning Commission February 16, 2016
SUBJECT: SHORT-TERM VACATION RENTALS
LOCATION: CITY-WIDE
Recommendation:
Provide initial policy direction on regulating short-term vacation rentals (STVRs), focusing on how to mitigate
the land use impacts of STVRs.
Background:
Background information was provided to the City Council in an Issue Paper at their January 9, 2016 Study
Session. After discussion, the Council referred the matter to the Planning Commission. Link to video:
http://hermosabeach.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=6&clip_id=4032.
City Code Enforcement staff report that STVR activity regularly occurs within the City’s residential zones and
that they receive complaints regarding some of these properties. STVR of otherwise residential property has
probably occurred on a limited basis for years, but the advent of the “sharing economy” and its facilitation
through the internet, and specifically vacation rental websites, has changed dramatically the extent and
availability of such uses. Municipal codes had generally not been written to anticipate such activity and many
cities find themselves attempting to apply generic language written many years’ ago to this entirely
unanticipated phenomenon. Consequently, a number of cities are now reevaluating their codes to address this
issue more specifically.
The City Attorney and Community Development staff interpret the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code as banning
STVRs in residential zones because the Code limits residential zones to “residential uses” in “dwelling units.”
As explained above, the Code does not expressly ban rentals of homes for short periods of time; the lack of a
clear ban of the practice in the Municipal Code makes criminal prosecution more difficult. Also, punishment
for violation by administrative violation is an insufficient deterrent (a $100.00 fine) because the practice is so
lucrative. Complaints regarding STVRs have to date been addressed by enforcement against nuisance activities
attendant to the rentals rather than on abatement of the STVRs themselves. The majority of STVRs do not draw
complaints; it is when a location is rented for the purpose of hosting parties or large groups that problems and
complaints tend to emerge related to increased demand for police services, parking issues, excessive noise,
disorderly conduct, overcrowding of the residence, and trash accumulation. That said, within the last year, the
City has received four complaints from residents concerned about how transient occupancies are negatively
impacting the stable character and quality of their immediate neighborhoods. STVRs also reduce the stock of
long-term rental housing in the City.
While the number of available listings vary from day to day, and some listings may be posted on multiple
hosting websites, there are more than 200 STVR units currently listed for rent in Hermosa Beach. Sites like
AirBnB indicate approximately 210 rentals available in Hermosa Beach, with 141 listings for an entire
apartment or home, 63 as private rooms, and 6 as shared rooms. The listings on AirBnB rent for an average of
$199 per night and range in cost from $50 to more than $2000 per night. Most of the posted listings are
designed to accommodate small groups of 2 - 4 people, with just 31 listings able to accommodate 6 or more
guests.
2
Policy Considerations:
The focus for the Planning Commission is the land use impacts associated with STVRs and how to mitigate
adverse impacts of STVRs within the City. How the City chooses to regulate STVRs has broad implications
ranging from impacts associated with the practice, revenue considerations and feasibility of enforcement under
any regulatory approach. Available options include:
(1) Allow and Regulate
Some cities have decided to allow STVRs, require registration and compliance with conditions that mitigate
their impacts and tax them through their transient occupancy tax (“TOT”) ordinances. While we have received
estimates of potential TOT annual revenue as high as $900,000, Manhattan Beach reports an estimated loss of
$120,000 as a consequence of its new ban (though it is unknown whether that city was capturing all of the
available revenue). Revenue generated will depend on the policy adopted and the occupancy rate of such
rentals. This is a use that can easily go undetected and to capture the maximum amount of revenue, the City
would have to undertake an enforcement program. Coastal Commission staff prefers this option because it
increases visitor-serving access to the coast. STVRs were identified by the community dialogue finance group
in 2013 as a way to increase revenue to the City.
Note: The City’s draft General Plan includes a proposed policy in the Land Use and Design Element to provide
for regulation and collection of TOT for STVRs to align with the Goal to provide a range of coastal dependent
and visitor-serving uses available to all income ranges and amenity desires. The Coastal Commission staff also
prefers this option related to its goals of providing visitor-serving access to the coast for all income ranges (see
attachments 1 and 2).
(2) Ban
Other cities, such as Manhattan Beach and West Hollywood, have elected to enact an explicit ban in order to
protect the quality of life in their residential neighborhoods and to protect the stock of available rental housing.
Enforcement is time-intensive and property owners are perpetually creative in finding ways to circumvent bans;
however, these challenges plague enforcement on a variety of types of laws.
(3) Allow on a Limited Basis
Still other cities have taken a hybrid approach, allowing STVRs (and collecting TOT), but placing various
limitations on their use:
1. for a limited number of days per year (typically 30-60);
2. for a minimum or maximum amount of time (e.g. for no less than 7 days at a time);
3. with a cap on the number of guests allowed;
4. only when the property owner resides in the premises and is present at all times during the duration of
the rentals;
5. only in certain zones or areas, such as the coastal zone, or in high-density residential zones, or within the
existing stock of nonconforming residential uses located in commercial zones;
6. density limits, i.e., one per street segment.
4
Attachments:
1. “Could you Bnb My Neighbor? A planner’s take on the sharing economy” from American Planning
Association February 2016
2. Draft General Plan Goal 8, and Proposed Policy 8.6 Regarding Short Term Rentals
3. Coastal Commission Staff’s Response to City’s Proposed Policy
4. Web pages for Carlsbad Ordinance and link <http://www.carlsbadca.gov/visitors/vacationrental/> (a
recent example of a regulatory approach to short term rentals).
5. “The Rise of Vacation/Short-Term Residential Rentals and What Cities Are Doing About It”, from
League of California Cities – February 2015
6. “AirBnB, Rising Rent, and the Housing Crisis in Los Angeles” from Laane a New Economy for All -
March 2015
7. “Guiding Concepts for Residential Short-Term Rental Legislation” from CalTravel
8. City of Manhattan Beach Adopted Ordinances 15-0009 and 15-0010 and Staff Reports/Attachments
9. “Summary of Short Term Rental Regulations” – prepared by City of Manhattan Beach – June 2015
10. Feb 8, 2016 Correspondence from Robert Reyes of Palm Realty Boutique regarding STVRs
11. Decision-Making Tool and Evaluation Form for STVRs
1
Yu-Ying Ting
From:Elaine Doerfling
Sent:Tuesday, February 16, 2016 10:09 AM
To:Ken Robertson; Yu-Ying Ting
Subject:FW: Opposition to legalization of short term rentals
Another….
From: Michele Lee Hampton [mailto:mlhca1@aol.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2016 9:32 AM
To: kt@ktbeachproperties.com; City Council; Kent Allen; Peter Hoffman; Mike Flaherty; Rob Saemann; Ken Robertson;
Elaine Doerfling; Marie Rice
Cc: wallyjohn.md@verizon.net; janetcrenshaw@hotmail.com; thomasbrodiemd@gmail.com; jthuotte@verizon.net;
flandersfamily7@gmail.com; daninskeep@hotmail.com; mh-west@hotmail.com; brosenberg@cosff.com;
cyndimacd@gmail.com; damon_macdougall@yahoo.com; bradleyjgerber@gmail.com; mks1225@gmail.com;
christalyons@verizon.net; momarylee@verizon.net; bobadob7@aol.com; kulman467@aol.com
Subject: Re: Opposition to legalization of short term rentals
Thanks John and Karynne for drafting this letter to the city.
I don't think I can make the meeting, but if my plans change I will defiantly go.
Like you stated that having STVR would probably hinder the hotel or hotels that the city wants to
have. I hope that we can win this fight. I have personally dealt with it with a property near mine. It was
horrible for a good month, every night parties and food trucks and all sorts of people. Unacceptable.
Let's keep positive thoughts that we win this.
Sincerely,
Michele Lee Hampton
-----Original Message-----
From: Karynne Thim <kt@ktbeachproperties.com>
To: Citycouncil <Citycouncil@hermosabch.org>; kentjallen <kentjallen@gmail.com>; phoffman <phoffman@lmu.edu>;
mikeflaherty2010 <mikeflaherty2010@gmail.com>; rsgc1 <rsgc1@aol.com>; krobertson <krobertson@hermosabch.org>;
Edoerfling <Edoerfling@hermosabch.org>; Marierice <Marierice@gmail.com>
Cc: ICE-call John Wallace <wallyjohn.md@verizon.net>; Karynne Thim <kt@ktbeachproperties.com>; Janet Crenshaw
<janetcrenshaw@hotmail.com>; Thomas Brodie <thomasbrodiemd@gmail.com>; John Thuotte <jthuotte@verizon.net>;
Michele Hampton <mlhca1@aol.com>; Beth Flanders <flandersfamily7@gmail.com>; Dan Inskeep
<daninskeep@hotmail.com>; Mike West <mh-west@hotmail.com>; Bryan Rosenberg <brosenberg@cosff.com>; Cyndi
MacDougall <cyndimacd@gmail.com>; Damon MacDougall <damon_macdougall@yahoo.com>; Brad Gerber
<bradleyjgerber@gmail.com>; Matt Shannon <mks1225@gmail.com>; Christa Lyons <christalyons@verizon.net>; Mo
Lee <momarylee@verizon.net>; Bobby Knapp <bobadob7@aol.com>; Karen Ulman <kulman467@aol.com>
Sent: Tue, Feb 16, 2016 8:37 am
Subject: Opposition to legalization of short term rentals
Short Term Rental Opposition Letter February 2016
Hi all,
2
Mayor Petty brought it to my attention that Ron Pizer is no longer a planning commissioner, so I've copied Marie Rice, the
new commissioner, here.
If anyone is able to attend Wednesday night's meeting, that would be great. Christa Lyons will be there and would
welcome additional support.
Karynne
On Monday, February 15, 2016, Karynne Thim <kt@ktbeachproperties.com> wrote:
Short Term Rental Opposition Letter February 2016
Sorry about that. Here's the attachment.
On Monday, February 15, 2016, Karynne Thim <kt@ktbeachproperties.com> wrote:
Attached is a letter from 27 Hermosa residents opposed to short term rentals being allowed in any form in our
city. Many of us are out of town for ski week or otherwise unable to attend the Planning Commission meeting on Monday,
so please consider the thoughts contained in the letter in lieu of our attendance.
--
Karynne Thim
Shorewood Realtors
310-753-7816 (cell)
www.KTBeachProperties.com
License #01161295
Specializing in South Bay Beach Properties Since 1993
--
Karynne Thim
Shorewood Realtors
310-753-7816 (cell)
www.KTBeachProperties.com
License #01161295
Specializing in South Bay Beach Properties Since 1993
--
Karynne Thim
Shorewood Realtors
310-753-7816 (cell)
www.KTBeachProperties.com
3
License #01161295
Specializing in South Bay Beach Properties Since 1993
1
March 7, 2016
Honorable Chairman and Members of the Regular Meeting of
Hermosa Beach Planning Commission March 15, 2016
SUBJECT: SHORT-TERM VACATION RENTALS
LOCATION: CITY-WIDE
Recommendation:
Provide initial policy direction on short-term vacation rentals (STVRs) and possible code amendments, and
direct staff to set the matter for a public hearing.
Background:
Background information was provided to the City Council in an Issue Paper at their January 9, 2016 Study
Session. The City Attorney and Community Development staff interpret the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code as
banning STVRs in residential zones because the Code limits residential zones to “residential uses” in “dwelling
units.” As explained above, the Code does not expressly ban rentals of homes for short periods of time; the lack
of a clear ban of the practice in the Municipal Code makes criminal prosecution more difficult. Also,
punishment for violation by administrative violation is an insufficient deterrent (a $100.00 fine) because the
practice is so lucrative. Following discussion, the Council referred the matter to the Planning Commission.
Link to video: http://hermosabeach.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=6&clip_id=4032.
At its February 16, 2016 meeting, the Planning Commission received public comments as well as voluminous
documentation containing background information regarding STVRs
http://hermosabeach.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=6&clip_id=4060&meta_id=251883.
Following discussion, Commissioners agreed to use the City’s Decision-Making Tool to evaluate numerous
options for mitigating adverse impacts associated with STVRs, including the option of prohibiting them
altogether, to help guide the Commission in determining which option(s) they wish staff to explore further.
With policy direction from the Planning Commission, staff will be able to draft the necessary ordinance and
develop a work program and budgetary proposal for implementation and enforcement. The Commissioners’
completed evaluations are attached. Prohibiting STVRs altogether is the option receiving the most favorable
scores, based on the Decision-Making Tool. Some Commissioners also provided suggestions on concepts to
consider regarding mitigation of impacts in case the ultimate decision is to allow STVRs in some form/ The
option of allowing STVRs only in certain areas of town ranked a distant second place by the Commissioners.
Following the Planning Commission’s February meeting, several community members reached out to the City
Manager to discuss the issue. During those informal talks, community members who live near STVRs
expressed frustration about lack of enforcement and the problems associated with STVRs. Several suggestions
were made, including the possibility of pursuing a grassroots movement format rather than a top-down form of
decision-making, and presenting petitions signed by community members to the City Council, or possibly
preparing a ballot initiative. At least one more informal focus group discussion will be held with the possibility
for more in the coming weeks.
It should be noted that on March 1, 2016, the Redondo Beach City Council voted to step up enforcement efforts
from a complaint-based investigation to a proactive outreach, education and enforcement strategy, and to
maintain their existing ordinance which prohibits STVRs in residential zoning districts (staff report attached).
1
March 7, 2016
Honorable Chairman and Members of the Regular Meeting of
Hermosa Beach Planning Commission March 15, 2016
SUBJECT: SHORT-TERM VACATION RENTALS
LOCATION: CITY-WIDE
Recommendation:
Provide initial policy direction on short-term vacation rentals (STVRs) and possible code amendments, and
direct staff to set the matter for a public hearing.
Background:
Background information was provided to the City Council in an Issue Paper at their January 9, 2016 Study
Session. The City Attorney and Community Development staff interpret the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code as
banning STVRs in residential zones because the Code limits residential zones to “residential uses” in “dwelling
units.” As explained above, the Code does not expressly ban rentals of homes for short periods of time; the lack
of a clear ban of the practice in the Municipal Code makes criminal prosecution more difficult. Also,
punishment for violation by administrative violation is an insufficient deterrent (a $100.00 fine) because the
practice is so lucrative. Following discussion, the Council referred the matter to the Planning Commission.
Link to video: http://hermosabeach.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=6&clip_id=4032.
At its February 16, 2016 meeting, the Planning Commission received public comments as well as voluminous
documentation containing background information regarding STVRs
http://hermosabeach.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=6&clip_id=4060&meta_id=251883.
Following discussion, Commissioners agreed to use the City’s Decision-Making Tool to evaluate numerous
options for mitigating adverse impacts associated with STVRs, including the option of prohibiting them
altogether, to help guide the Commission in determining which option(s) they wish staff to explore further.
With policy direction from the Planning Commission, staff will be able to draft the necessary ordinance and
develop a work program and budgetary proposal for implementation and enforcement. The Commissioners’
completed evaluations are attached. Prohibiting STVRs altogether is the option receiving the most favorable
scores, based on the Decision-Making Tool. Some Commissioners also provided suggestions on concepts to
consider regarding mitigation of impacts in case the ultimate decision is to allow STVRs in some form/ The
option of allowing STVRs only in certain areas of town ranked a distant second place by the Commissioners.
Following the Planning Commission’s February meeting, several community members reached out to the City
Manager to discuss the issue. During those informal talks, community members who live near STVRs
expressed frustration about lack of enforcement and the problems associated with STVRs. Several suggestions
were made, including the possibility of pursuing a grassroots movement format rather than a top-down form of
decision-making, and presenting petitions signed by community members to the City Council, or possibly
preparing a ballot initiative. At least one more informal focus group discussion will be held with the possibility
for more in the coming weeks.
It should be noted that on March 1, 2016, the Redondo Beach City Council voted to step up enforcement efforts
from a complaint-based investigation to a proactive outreach, education and enforcement strategy, and to
maintain their existing ordinance which prohibits STVRs in residential zoning districts (staff report attached).
From: Claudia Berman [mailto:its_42@yahoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2016 5:30 PM
To: Kent Allen; Peter Hoffman; Mike Flaherty; Marie Rice; Rob Saemann; Ken Robertson; Kim
Chafin
Subject: Homeower Input on Short Term Vacation Rentals for Planning Commission Meeting
3/15/16
Dear Planning Commission,
Here is my input for your meeting on Tuesday:
First off, I am for an explicit ban on STVRs with significant fines. I do not want to see my
townhouse complex turn into a hotel.
I know my neighbors, and we watch out for each other. STVRs are not about Grandma renting a
room. This is big business. Our residential areas should not become commercial zones. If it
wasn't so profitable for the property owners, we would not be having a proliferation of these
STVRs. How do you prevent an "investor" from just buying up the older townhouses/condos?
We have zoning for a reason: To protect the residents and their quality of life in the residential
areas and to protect and promote businesses in commercial areas.
Here's some info on New York's proposed fine structure:
http://learningenglish.voanews.com/content/nyc-fines-airbnb-for-illgal-home-
sharing/3025449.html
I also think you need to look at enforcement in detail. When you analyze the options, I think
each option needs to have an enforcement action plan. We can't just assume that just because
a permit is required, that people will get a permit or abide by the restrictions.
Portland found out that just because you require a permit, it doesn't mean that people will pay.
Here's an article about Portland. Only 7% on AirBnB get a permit. It says that AirBnB won't give
up the names and addresses of the hosts.
http://portlandtribune.com/pt/9-news/247793-116145-portland-to-crack-down-on-airbnb-hosts-
who-fail-to-get-permits-. Then this later article 10 months later said that permits increased to
11%. http://www.portlandmercury.com/portland/airbnb-is-making-portlands-rental-market-even-
tighter/Content?oid=16604536. If AirBnB won't give the city the host names, how can you
collect from the violators? If there is a total ban, and people are in and out of the unit next to me,
I can just let the city know. If the unit next to me doesn't have a permit, or the home owner is not
present (if that is a rule), how would I know?
Here is another interesting analysis on impacts in Los Angeles: http://www.laane.org/wp-
content/uploads/2015/03/AirBnB-Final.pdf
Also, if I go to sell my unit, and it's sandwiched between 2 STVRs, will I be able to sell it to
someone that wants to live in Hermosa permanently? Or now are the only buyers who will be
interested vacation rental investors?
We residents have worked hard to have a wonderful quality of life here. Please help protect it.
Sincerely,
Claudia Berman
Hermosa Home Owner
From: Claudia Berman [mailto:its_42@yahoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2016 5:30 PM
To: Kent Allen; Peter Hoffman; Mike Flaherty; Marie Rice; Rob Saemann; Ken Robertson; Kim
Chafin
Subject: Homeower Input on Short Term Vacation Rentals for Planning Commission Meeting
3/15/16
Dear Planning Commission,
Here is my input for your meeting on Tuesday:
First off, I am for an explicit ban on STVRs with significant fines. I do not want to see my
townhouse complex turn into a hotel.
I know my neighbors, and we watch out for each other. STVRs are not about Grandma renting a
room. This is big business. Our residential areas should not become commercial zones. If it
wasn't so profitable for the property owners, we would not be having a proliferation of these
STVRs. How do you prevent an "investor" from just buying up the older townhouses/condos?
We have zoning for a reason: To protect the residents and their quality of life in the residential
areas and to protect and promote businesses in commercial areas.
Here's some info on New York's proposed fine structure:
http://learningenglish.voanews.com/content/nyc-fines-airbnb-for-illgal-home-
sharing/3025449.html
I also think you need to look at enforcement in detail. When you analyze the options, I think
each option needs to have an enforcement action plan. We can't just assume that just because
a permit is required, that people will get a permit or abide by the restrictions.
Portland found out that just because you require a permit, it doesn't mean that people will pay.
Here's an article about Portland. Only 7% on AirBnB get a permit. It says that AirBnB won't give
up the names and addresses of the hosts.
http://portlandtribune.com/pt/9-news/247793-116145-portland-to-crack-down-on-airbnb-hosts-
who-fail-to-get-permits-. Then this later article 10 months later said that permits increased to
11%. http://www.portlandmercury.com/portland/airbnb-is-making-portlands-rental-market-even-
tighter/Content?oid=16604536. If AirBnB won't give the city the host names, how can you
collect from the violators? If there is a total ban, and people are in and out of the unit next to me,
I can just let the city know. If the unit next to me doesn't have a permit, or the home owner is not
present (if that is a rule), how would I know?
Here is another interesting analysis on impacts in Los Angeles: http://www.laane.org/wp-
content/uploads/2015/03/AirBnB-Final.pdf
Also, if I go to sell my unit, and it's sandwiched between 2 STVRs, will I be able to sell it to
someone that wants to live in Hermosa permanently? Or now are the only buyers who will be
interested vacation rental investors?
We residents have worked hard to have a wonderful quality of life here. Please help protect it.
Sincerely,
Claudia Berman
Hermosa Home Owner
Say “NO” to Hermosa Beach Short Term Vacation Rentals and Enforce the Ban!
Address to Planning Commission
March 15, 2016
My name is John Wallace and I am here to speak against legalizing Short Term Vacation Rentals and to
ask the Commission’s assistance that the City of Hermosa Beach unequivocally bans STVR and begins to
enforce and strengthen the current statute that prohibits rentals for less than 30 days in our City. You,
the Commission, have been entrusted with a great responsibility to preserve our residential beachside
community and not allow it to become a tourist trap.
By qualification to speak, I’ve been a Hermosa Homeowner and resident since 1995 residing in
Manhattan Beach from 1984 till then. I also service the long term rental market and own 2 multi unit
apartment buildings in HB and have lived next to an illegal hotel for over 10 years. I am married with a
13 year old daughter who has attended both our Hermosa Beach schools. I served as a nutrition docent
for 5 years at Hermosa Valley as part of BCHD LiveWell Kids program. I’ve been an Emergency Physician
at Providence Little Company of Mary for over 28 years caring for our residents and have provided pro
bono services in the community outside the ER on numerous instances. The majority of my time at
home is spent on the Strand, Beach, and in the Ocean and I cherish what are our greatest resources.
I have re-sent a letter to Council and the Planning Commission that was initially sent on February 15,
2016 and urge you all to re-read the 9 key points against legalization. Tonight I will touch on as many as
possible in my 3 minute time limit. I ask you to honor our Hermosa Beach tradition and history of being
a residential, bedroom, beachside community and not become a tourist trap like Mission Beach San
Diego.
The Commission should consider that any final recommendation should weigh heavily the two below
litmus tests:
1. MAJORITY RULES--The majority of residents of Hermosa Beach are opposed to STVR. Our
country was founded on the principle of “government for the people” whereby a majority rules.
For the City to ignore a majority opinion and favor a minority of illegal hotel operators some of
whom don’t even live in our City and all of whom are beholden to Silicon Valley Technology
Companies whose sole purpose is to augment their own profits is government for special
interest. This is a residential Community and rule should protect resident’s lifestyles over the
profit of a few to run commercial businesses in residential zones. This City for too long has
been run to benefit visitors at the expense of its residents. 4800 votes were cast in the
Proposition O election. There is no way 2400 voters will vote in favor of legalization of STVR
when there are by the City’s own estimation 180-200 existing illegal hotels.
2. LAND USE AND ZONING--Legalizing STVR is a zoning violation of City Code, allowing commercial
business to be operating in residential zones. Allowing such a zoning violation will cause the City
great economic loss making its $17,000,000 oil debt seem like the parking ticket. With City
sanction of STVR, financial loss in the form of property value in the areas of Hermosa Beach
most impacted will be astronomical. Loss in economic value of Hermosa Strand properties
alone will exceed $140,000,000 by a conservative estimate. Loss in property value to Walk St.
properties and other Sand Section properties the most impacted by STVR is additive by a
likewise large number. Homeowner residents did not sign up to live in a commercial zone when
they invested their life savings and lives in becoming Hermosa residents. Long term Renters
some of whom will be future homeowners need some consideration that their supply of housing
not be severely diminished by an increasing inventory of short term rentals thereby causing
hyperinflation of their rents. The responsible party will pay for this.
The blueprint discussion that has not yet occurred should be the following:
1. Adopt an ORDINANCE that specifically prohibits STVR. One was drafted 2 years ago which
criminalized the act and was discussed by Council but not ratified. No one in the current City
Government seems to be able to locate a record of that ordinance and language. I’ve asked
multiple times. Look to the Manhattan Beach ordinance as a template.
2. Establish meaningful PENALTY(ies) as a deterrent to future illegal activity of SVTR which will fund
initial enforcement efforts which in time will diminish as the problem goes away.
3. ENFORCEMENT issues. Lose the defeatist attitude: “We can’t enforce, so we should legalize”.
Manhattan Beach doesn’t see mechanics of enforcement or cost as a problem and employs the
enforcement officer to locate the problem while turning it over to the City Attorney to stop
activity in its tracks. With time and repeated negative outcome for violators, enforcement
needs diminish. I know the MB posture because I’ve had the conversation. Look to other Cities
who ban SVTR for their model of enforcement.
Hermosa Beach doesn’t enforce because the enforcement officer says he has no power, there are
minimal penalties, the city attorney is not involved, and past Council refused to enforce. It is time
for a long overdue change in either attitude or Government.
No neighboring City has legal STVR. Manhattan, Redondo, Torrance and Santa Monica do not. It is sheer
arrogance to believe that Hermosa is somehow smarter and can navigate an outcome less negative than
that foreseen by our neighboring municipalities who have banned. By being the only player, Hermosa
will become the sole receptacle for tourists while our residential community combusts.
Allowing the Coastal Commission to buy City support for STVR will lead to never ending extortion by
Coastal. Once they get their hooks into you, they will never stop telling you how to live in your City. And
for $100k? Your own City attorney has said that Coastal is “over reaching” and “abusing their power”.
Manhattan Beach feels that despite the fact that their LCP is in place, they still have issue with Coastal.
And they are not flinching. I know, I’ve had the conversation. The ‘access’ rationale is also flawed logic.
STVR in Hermosa is not low income housing and no new access is created, only displacing long term
residents with tourists.
Listen to people like Chris Navarro, and Mike Glasman whose lives have turned into a living hell living
next to an illegal hotel. My personal solution was to build a wall at great personal cost. Most people do
not have such options and are stuck. I never filed a complaint with the City. The low complaint number
statistic is completely bogus. As bad as it is for immediate neighbors, STVR has a global negative effect
on the City intensified by small lot sizes of 30 x 90 or less with multiple units living in close proximity.
That to say, Density is also an issue. This is the “spillover” effect. STVR wouldn’t be the same problem in
rural Kansas. Long term neighbors in our community recognize what it takes to live in close proximity
and attempt to treat each other fairly as they are vetted in getting along. Short term renters don’t care.
They are gone next week.
Talk to your friends in Northern California or google search to see what a nightmare SVTR has become
for them. That’s what you get for championing your local “sharing economy” technology company
which believes it neither has responsibility for national security nor for paying anyone municipal taxes
with their only residence in “the Cloud”. In Northern California, Long term rental markets and
neighborhoods have been destroyed. Arbitrageurs are renting multiple locations long term and turning
around and subletting many simultaneously as STVR. That phenomenon has already arrived in Hermosa
Beach.
Look at communities that have allowed the practice and are now trying to do the walk back. The 187
page Staff Report by the Planning Commission of February 16, 2016 focused 36 pages on Carlsbad. No
mention other than Manhattan Beach of the following communities who have banned or are trying to
do a walkback: Santa Monica, Redondo Beach, Torrance, Ojai, Santa Barbara, Huntington Beach, Carmel,
Laguna Beach, Santa Ynez, Healdsburg, Calistoga, Irvine. Civil War in Anaheim and Pacific Beach San
Diego.
The walkback is painful to impossible. It is far easier to prevent the toehold. You do not want AirBnb
challenging a rescission of legalization of STVR. And AirBnb will be involved before this is over. They did
the “bull rush” in Manhattan Beach to no avail. Far easier to state that “We have never allowed and
never will”. There is no precedent.
The STVR issue is an inflection point in the City’s history just as oil was and is. The wrong decision will
affect the City forever.
This should be an easy and obvious recommendation for the Commission. The alleged profit to the City
a fantasy, the Coastal Commission a non-factor, neighborhood civil war, the City in another lawsuit with
risk of great loss counterbalanced only by the benefit to a few who are profiteering at the expense of
their neighbors and the City.
Manhattan Beach had no problem making the right move. Make the right recommendation for
Hermosa Beach for the right reasons: Honor the majority of residents, follow City Statutes on zoning
and most importantly protect and preserve our beautiful residential beachside community.
John G. Wallace, Jr, MD
1734 The Strand, Hermosa Beach
CODA: Over 200 signatures on the AGAINST SVTR in Hermosa Beach Petition have been obtained in just
over 7 days. These are all people who know exactly what they have signed and see the legalization of
STVR as being destructive to their residential community. These are people who also are harder to
mobilize because they are bound by the immediacy of their family and work duties first before
involvement with City Government. In contrast, the illegal hoteliers look at these interactions with PC
and City Council as mandatory business meetings to influence government to allow them to do
whatever it is they want to sustain their profits. The experience in Manhattan Beach was in the final
innings, a “bull rush” led by Technology companies and a small minority of business owners in
residential areas. The MB council initially was 5-0 against and ultimately settled at 4-1 to make SVTR
illegal and punishable. This, too, will come to the Hermosa Beach debate. Hopefully, Hermosa Beach
Government can show the similar wisdom to our closest neighbor town in its decision making or we all
suffer the consequences.
February 15, 2016
Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council, Carolyn Petty, Hany Fangary, Justin Massey and Jeff Duclos
Hermosa Beach Planning Commission, Kent Allen, Peter Hoffman, Michael Flaherty, Marie Rice, Rob Saemann
Ken Robertson, Community Development Director
City Clerk
1315 Valley Drive
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
Re: Opposition to Short Term Rentals
We, the below undersigned, would like to register our fervent opposition to the current
movement to legalize short term rentals (STVR) in any form in the City of Hermosa Beach. We
would also like to register our disappointment with a City government that has failed to enforce a
City Statute that prohibits short term rentals i.e. rentals of less than 30 days.
We, the below undersigned, believe that the actual data driven issues regarding STVR clearly
establish that STVR should be prohibited and enforced with heavy fines. We also believe that a
conjoint Commission between the City and neighborhood representatives be established to
adjudicate any property upon which the accusation of STVR has been levied and that the decision
of such a Commission be final and determinant of the fine.
1. Legalizing STVR creates a zoning infringement of a commercial use in a residential zone
and will put the City at great risk for a lawsuit.
2. Legalizing STVR creates economic loss to neighboring property owners in terms of loss of
real estate value for which the City of Hermosa Beach may be financially responsible.
3. Legalizing STVR shrinks the long term rental market causing rent inflation and making it
more difficult for those residents who will become future homeowners to obtain shelter in our
City and raise their families and attend our schools.
4. There has been no study to date which proves that legalizing STVR is a bonanza revenue
stream for City Government.
5. There are numerous recent examples of municipalities (not mentioned in the Staff report)
reversing course after having acquiesced to the fad of the “sharing economy” trying to halt
further intrusions into neighborhood lifestyles and quality because of the negative outcomes
associated with legalized STVR.
6. There is no intuitive logic to confirm that individuals who are in the City for a night or a
week have an increased or even equal regard for the City of Hermosa Beach as do those long
term residents.
7. The vast majority of long term Hermosa Beach residents are for prohibition of STVR.
8. STVR's cannibalize the City’s landmark hotel project on the Plaza by allowing illegal hoteliers
to set up business in residential zones ad lib.
9. It is illogical to assume that while the City is advocating inability to police current illegal
STVR, in contradiction, could police legality of STVR and ensure City profits.
This should be an easy decision for Council. It is one of quality versus profits for illegal hotel
owners. Legalizing STVR would be government at its worst favoring special interest groups over
the quality of life of long terms residents and constituents to whom City Officials have taken a
sworn oath to defend. It is a decision that benefits a few who are profiting by burdening the vast
majority of citizens.
We also feel the scheduling of this Planning Commission meeting in the middle of “ski week” is
inappropriate while many residents are away, allowing those professional illegal hoteliers an
enhanced public presence for their own advantage.
SIGNATURES
John Wallace, 1734 The Strand, Hermosa Beach, wallyjohn.md@verizon.net
Karynne Thim, 1734 The Strand, Hermosa Beach, kt@ktbeachproperties.com
Janet Crenshaw, 1222 Loma Drive, Hermosa Beach, janetcrenshaw@hotmail.com
Laurie and Thomas Brodie, 1712 The Strand, Hermosa Beach, thomasbrodiemd@gmail.com
John Thuotte and Miwa Stone, 840 Loma Drive, Hermosa Beach, jthuotte@verizon.net
Michele Lee Hampton, 1721 Loma Drive, Hermosa Beach, mlhca1@aol.com
Robert and Beth Flanders, 713 4th Street, Hermosa Beach, flandersfamily7@gmail.com
Dan and Becky Inskeep, 79 16th Street, Hermosa Beach, daninskeep@hotmail.com
Mike and Gina West, 1715 Bayview, Hermosa Beach, michael.west@fmr.com
Bryan and Norma Rosenberg, 2443 Myrtle, Hermosa Beach, brosenberg@cosff.com
Damon, Cyndi, Olivia and Victoria MacDougall, 444 Hermosa Ave., #302, Hermosa Beach,
cyndimacd@gmai.com
Brad Gerber, 18 18th Court, Hermosa Beach, bradleyjgerber@gmail.com
Matt Shannon and Wendi Rae Lee, 1514 Hermosa Ave., Hermosa Beach, mks1225@gmail.com
Christa Lyons, 320 16th Street, Hermosa Beach, christalyons@verizon.net
Mo Lee, 601 Manhattan Ave, Hermosa Beach, momarylee@verizon.net
Robert Knapp and Karen Ulman, 1722 The Strand, Hermosa Beach, bobadob7@aol.com
From: Claudia Berman [mailto:its_42@yahoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2016 5:30 PM
To: Kent Allen; Peter Hoffman; Mike Flaherty; Marie Rice; Rob Saemann; Ken Robertson; Kim
Chafin
Subject: Homeower Input on Short Term Vacation Rentals for Planning Commission Meeting
3/15/16
Dear Planning Commission,
Here is my input for your meeting on Tuesday:
First off, I am for an explicit ban on STVRs with significant fines. I do not want to see my
townhouse complex turn into a hotel.
I know my neighbors, and we watch out for each other. STVRs are not about Grandma renting a
room. This is big business. Our residential areas should not become commercial zones. If it
wasn't so profitable for the property owners, we would not be having a proliferation of these
STVRs. How do you prevent an "investor" from just buying up the older townhouses/condos?
We have zoning for a reason: To protect the residents and their quality of life in the residential
areas and to protect and promote businesses in commercial areas.
Here's some info on New York's proposed fine structure:
http://learningenglish.voanews.com/content/nyc-fines-airbnb-for-illgal-home-
sharing/3025449.html
I also think you need to look at enforcement in detail. When you analyze the options, I think
each option needs to have an enforcement action plan. We can't just assume that just because
a permit is required, that people will get a permit or abide by the restrictions.
Portland found out that just because you require a permit, it doesn't mean that people will pay.
Here's an article about Portland. Only 7% on AirBnB get a permit. It says that AirBnB won't give
up the names and addresses of the hosts.
http://portlandtribune.com/pt/9-news/247793-116145-portland-to-crack-down-on-airbnb-hosts-
who-fail-to-get-permits-. Then this later article 10 months later said that permits increased to
11%. http://www.portlandmercury.com/portland/airbnb-is-making-portlands-rental-market-even-
tighter/Content?oid=16604536. If AirBnB won't give the city the host names, how can you
collect from the violators? If there is a total ban, and people are in and out of the unit next to me,
I can just let the city know. If the unit next to me doesn't have a permit, or the home owner is not
present (if that is a rule), how would I know?
Here is another interesting analysis on impacts in Los Angeles: http://www.laane.org/wp-
content/uploads/2015/03/AirBnB-Final.pdf
Also, if I go to sell my unit, and it's sandwiched between 2 STVRs, will I be able to sell it to
someone that wants to live in Hermosa permanently? Or now are the only buyers who will be
interested vacation rental investors?
We residents have worked hard to have a wonderful quality of life here. Please help protect it.
Sincerely,
Claudia Berman
Hermosa Home Owner
Say “NO” to Hermosa Beach Short Term Vacation Rentals and Enforce the Ban!
Address to Planning Commission
March 15, 2016
My name is John Wallace and I am here to speak against legalizing Short Term Vacation Rentals and to
ask the Commission’s assistance that the City of Hermosa Beach unequivocally bans STVR and begins to
enforce and strengthen the current statute that prohibits rentals for less than 30 days in our City. You,
the Commission, have been entrusted with a great responsibility to preserve our residential beachside
community and not allow it to become a tourist trap.
By qualification to speak, I’ve been a Hermosa Homeowner and resident since 1995 residing in
Manhattan Beach from 1984 till then. I also service the long term rental market and own 2 multi unit
apartment buildings in HB and have lived next to an illegal hotel for over 10 years. I am married with a
13 year old daughter who has attended both our Hermosa Beach schools. I served as a nutrition docent
for 5 years at Hermosa Valley as part of BCHD LiveWell Kids program. I’ve been an Emergency Physician
at Providence Little Company of Mary for over 28 years caring for our residents and have provided pro
bono services in the community outside the ER on numerous instances. The majority of my time at
home is spent on the Strand, Beach, and in the Ocean and I cherish what are our greatest resources.
I have re-sent a letter to Council and the Planning Commission that was initially sent on February 15,
2016 and urge you all to re-read the 9 key points against legalization. Tonight I will touch on as many as
possible in my 3 minute time limit. I ask you to honor our Hermosa Beach tradition and history of being
a residential, bedroom, beachside community and not become a tourist trap like Mission Beach San
Diego.
The Commission should consider that any final recommendation should weigh heavily the two below
litmus tests:
1. MAJORITY RULES--The majority of residents of Hermosa Beach are opposed to STVR. Our
country was founded on the principle of “government for the people” whereby a majority rules.
For the City to ignore a majority opinion and favor a minority of illegal hotel operators some of
whom don’t even live in our City and all of whom are beholden to Silicon Valley Technology
Companies whose sole purpose is to augment their own profits is government for special
interest. This is a residential Community and rule should protect resident’s lifestyles over the
profit of a few to run commercial businesses in residential zones. This City for too long has
been run to benefit visitors at the expense of its residents. 4800 votes were cast in the
Proposition O election. There is no way 2400 voters will vote in favor of legalization of STVR
when there are by the City’s own estimation 180-200 existing illegal hotels.
2. LAND USE AND ZONING--Legalizing STVR is a zoning violation of City Code, allowing commercial
business to be operating in residential zones. Allowing such a zoning violation will cause the City
great economic loss making its $17,000,000 oil debt seem like the parking ticket. With City
sanction of STVR, financial loss in the form of property value in the areas of Hermosa Beach
most impacted will be astronomical. Loss in economic value of Hermosa Strand properties
alone will exceed $140,000,000 by a conservative estimate. Loss in property value to Walk St.
properties and other Sand Section properties the most impacted by STVR is additive by a
likewise large number. Homeowner residents did not sign up to live in a commercial zone when
they invested their life savings and lives in becoming Hermosa residents. Long term Renters
some of whom will be future homeowners need some consideration that their supply of housing
not be severely diminished by an increasing inventory of short term rentals thereby causing
hyperinflation of their rents. The responsible party will pay for this.
The blueprint discussion that has not yet occurred should be the following:
1. Adopt an ORDINANCE that specifically prohibits STVR. One was drafted 2 years ago which
criminalized the act and was discussed by Council but not ratified. No one in the current City
Government seems to be able to locate a record of that ordinance and language. I’ve asked
multiple times. Look to the Manhattan Beach ordinance as a template.
2. Establish meaningful PENALTY(ies) as a deterrent to future illegal activity of SVTR which will fund
initial enforcement efforts which in time will diminish as the problem goes away.
3. ENFORCEMENT issues. Lose the defeatist attitude: “We can’t enforce, so we should legalize”.
Manhattan Beach doesn’t see mechanics of enforcement or cost as a problem and employs the
enforcement officer to locate the problem while turning it over to the City Attorney to stop
activity in its tracks. With time and repeated negative outcome for violators, enforcement
needs diminish. I know the MB posture because I’ve had the conversation. Look to other Cities
who ban SVTR for their model of enforcement.
Hermosa Beach doesn’t enforce because the enforcement officer says he has no power, there are
minimal penalties, the city attorney is not involved, and past Council refused to enforce. It is time
for a long overdue change in either attitude or Government.
No neighboring City has legal STVR. Manhattan, Redondo, Torrance and Santa Monica do not. It is sheer
arrogance to believe that Hermosa is somehow smarter and can navigate an outcome less negative than
that foreseen by our neighboring municipalities who have banned. By being the only player, Hermosa
will become the sole receptacle for tourists while our residential community combusts.
Allowing the Coastal Commission to buy City support for STVR will lead to never ending extortion by
Coastal. Once they get their hooks into you, they will never stop telling you how to live in your City. And
for $100k? Your own City attorney has said that Coastal is “over reaching” and “abusing their power”.
Manhattan Beach feels that despite the fact that their LCP is in place, they still have issue with Coastal.
And they are not flinching. I know, I’ve had the conversation. The ‘access’ rationale is also flawed logic.
STVR in Hermosa is not low income housing and no new access is created, only displacing long term
residents with tourists.
Listen to people like Chris Navarro, and Mike Glasman whose lives have turned into a living hell living
next to an illegal hotel. My personal solution was to build a wall at great personal cost. Most people do
not have such options and are stuck. I never filed a complaint with the City. The low complaint number
statistic is completely bogus. As bad as it is for immediate neighbors, STVR has a global negative effect
on the City intensified by small lot sizes of 30 x 90 or less with multiple units living in close proximity.
That to say, Density is also an issue. This is the “spillover” effect. STVR wouldn’t be the same problem in
rural Kansas. Long term neighbors in our community recognize what it takes to live in close proximity
and attempt to treat each other fairly as they are vetted in getting along. Short term renters don’t care.
They are gone next week.
Talk to your friends in Northern California or google search to see what a nightmare SVTR has become
for them. That’s what you get for championing your local “sharing economy” technology company
which believes it neither has responsibility for national security nor for paying anyone municipal taxes
with their only residence in “the Cloud”. In Northern California, Long term rental markets and
neighborhoods have been destroyed. Arbitrageurs are renting multiple locations long term and turning
around and subletting many simultaneously as STVR. That phenomenon has already arrived in Hermosa
Beach.
Look at communities that have allowed the practice and are now trying to do the walk back. The 187
page Staff Report by the Planning Commission of February 16, 2016 focused 36 pages on Carlsbad. No
mention other than Manhattan Beach of the following communities who have banned or are trying to
do a walkback: Santa Monica, Redondo Beach, Torrance, Ojai, Santa Barbara, Huntington Beach, Carmel,
Laguna Beach, Santa Ynez, Healdsburg, Calistoga, Irvine. Civil War in Anaheim and Pacific Beach San
Diego.
The walkback is painful to impossible. It is far easier to prevent the toehold. You do not want AirBnb
challenging a rescission of legalization of STVR. And AirBnb will be involved before this is over. They did
the “bull rush” in Manhattan Beach to no avail. Far easier to state that “We have never allowed and
never will”. There is no precedent.
The STVR issue is an inflection point in the City’s history just as oil was and is. The wrong decision will
affect the City forever.
This should be an easy and obvious recommendation for the Commission. The alleged profit to the City
a fantasy, the Coastal Commission a non-factor, neighborhood civil war, the City in another lawsuit with
risk of great loss counterbalanced only by the benefit to a few who are profiteering at the expense of
their neighbors and the City.
Manhattan Beach had no problem making the right move. Make the right recommendation for
Hermosa Beach for the right reasons: Honor the majority of residents, follow City Statutes on zoning
and most importantly protect and preserve our beautiful residential beachside community.
John G. Wallace, Jr, MD
1734 The Strand, Hermosa Beach
CODA: Over 200 signatures on the AGAINST SVTR in Hermosa Beach Petition have been obtained in just
over 7 days. These are all people who know exactly what they have signed and see the legalization of
STVR as being destructive to their residential community. These are people who also are harder to
mobilize because they are bound by the immediacy of their family and work duties first before
involvement with City Government. In contrast, the illegal hoteliers look at these interactions with PC
and City Council as mandatory business meetings to influence government to allow them to do
whatever it is they want to sustain their profits. The experience in Manhattan Beach was in the final
innings, a “bull rush” led by Technology companies and a small minority of business owners in
residential areas. The MB council initially was 5-0 against and ultimately settled at 4-1 to make SVTR
illegal and punishable. This, too, will come to the Hermosa Beach debate. Hopefully, Hermosa Beach
Government can show the similar wisdom to our closest neighbor town in its decision making or we all
suffer the consequences.
February 15, 2016
Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council, Carolyn Petty, Hany Fangary, Justin Massey and Jeff Duclos
Hermosa Beach Planning Commission, Kent Allen, Peter Hoffman, Michael Flaherty, Marie Rice, Rob Saemann
Ken Robertson, Community Development Director
City Clerk
1315 Valley Drive
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
Re: Opposition to Short Term Rentals
We, the below undersigned, would like to register our fervent opposition to the current
movement to legalize short term rentals (STVR) in any form in the City of Hermosa Beach. We
would also like to register our disappointment with a City government that has failed to enforce a
City Statute that prohibits short term rentals i.e. rentals of less than 30 days.
We, the below undersigned, believe that the actual data driven issues regarding STVR clearly
establish that STVR should be prohibited and enforced with heavy fines. We also believe that a
conjoint Commission between the City and neighborhood representatives be established to
adjudicate any property upon which the accusation of STVR has been levied and that the decision
of such a Commission be final and determinant of the fine.
1. Legalizing STVR creates a zoning infringement of a commercial use in a residential zone
and will put the City at great risk for a lawsuit.
2. Legalizing STVR creates economic loss to neighboring property owners in terms of loss of
real estate value for which the City of Hermosa Beach may be financially responsible.
3. Legalizing STVR shrinks the long term rental market causing rent inflation and making it
more difficult for those residents who will become future homeowners to obtain shelter in our
City and raise their families and attend our schools.
4. There has been no study to date which proves that legalizing STVR is a bonanza revenue
stream for City Government.
5. There are numerous recent examples of municipalities (not mentioned in the Staff report)
reversing course after having acquiesced to the fad of the “sharing economy” trying to halt
further intrusions into neighborhood lifestyles and quality because of the negative outcomes
associated with legalized STVR.
6. There is no intuitive logic to confirm that individuals who are in the City for a night or a
week have an increased or even equal regard for the City of Hermosa Beach as do those long
term residents.
7. The vast majority of long term Hermosa Beach residents are for prohibition of STVR.
8. STVR's cannibalize the City’s landmark hotel project on the Plaza by allowing illegal hoteliers
to set up business in residential zones ad lib.
9. It is illogical to assume that while the City is advocating inability to police current illegal
STVR, in contradiction, could police legality of STVR and ensure City profits.
This should be an easy decision for Council. It is one of quality versus profits for illegal hotel
owners. Legalizing STVR would be government at its worst favoring special interest groups over
the quality of life of long terms residents and constituents to whom City Officials have taken a
sworn oath to defend. It is a decision that benefits a few who are profiting by burdening the vast
majority of citizens.
We also feel the scheduling of this Planning Commission meeting in the middle of “ski week” is
inappropriate while many residents are away, allowing those professional illegal hoteliers an
enhanced public presence for their own advantage.
SIGNATURES
John Wallace, 1734 The Strand, Hermosa Beach, wallyjohn.md@verizon.net
Karynne Thim, 1734 The Strand, Hermosa Beach, kt@ktbeachproperties.com
Janet Crenshaw, 1222 Loma Drive, Hermosa Beach, janetcrenshaw@hotmail.com
Laurie and Thomas Brodie, 1712 The Strand, Hermosa Beach, thomasbrodiemd@gmail.com
John Thuotte and Miwa Stone, 840 Loma Drive, Hermosa Beach, jthuotte@verizon.net
Michele Lee Hampton, 1721 Loma Drive, Hermosa Beach, mlhca1@aol.com
Robert and Beth Flanders, 713 4th Street, Hermosa Beach, flandersfamily7@gmail.com
Dan and Becky Inskeep, 79 16th Street, Hermosa Beach, daninskeep@hotmail.com
Mike and Gina West, 1715 Bayview, Hermosa Beach, michael.west@fmr.com
Bryan and Norma Rosenberg, 2443 Myrtle, Hermosa Beach, brosenberg@cosff.com
Damon, Cyndi, Olivia and Victoria MacDougall, 444 Hermosa Ave., #302, Hermosa Beach,
cyndimacd@gmai.com
Brad Gerber, 18 18th Court, Hermosa Beach, bradleyjgerber@gmail.com
Matt Shannon and Wendi Rae Lee, 1514 Hermosa Ave., Hermosa Beach, mks1225@gmail.com
Christa Lyons, 320 16th Street, Hermosa Beach, christalyons@verizon.net
Mo Lee, 601 Manhattan Ave, Hermosa Beach, momarylee@verizon.net
Robert Knapp and Karen Ulman, 1722 The Strand, Hermosa Beach, bobadob7@aol.com
1
Yu-Ying Ting
From:Kent Allen <kentjallen@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, March 14, 2016 9:00 PM
To:Yu-Ying Ting
Subject:Fwd: Comment for review prior to March 15, 2016 Meeting: Short Term Rental
For the record.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Julie Mote <juliemote1234@hotmail.com>
Date: Monday, March 14, 2016
Subject: Comment for review prior to March 15, 2016 Meeting: Short Term Rental
To: Kent Allen <kentjallen@gmail.com>
Hello, as a resident and home owner, I am against short term rentals as are the vast majority of residents. But,
my opinion below is one that should be viewed as impartial at this point.
I think moving forward on this issue at this time is putting the cart before the horse. This issue will be addressed
and challenged in those cities that have recently placed a new ban, such as MB. Let’s not spend our resources
going down a path that may likely need to be revisited based on what will likely occur in other cities. We have a
30 day limit and let’s just leave it until we know what we are permitted to do. If MB ban is permitted than we
know that an option is to continue to ban ST rentals or further regulate. If the ban is somehow prohibited and
MB is forced to permit ST rentals within a set of requirements/regulations than we will know what those
requirements are and can work within those requirements to do what is best for HB based on what we will know
are the parameters. At this point, ongoing debates about what the Commission will or will not do, whether the
Commission even has jurisdiction on how a City can regulate short term rentals, or how far we can regulate is
speculation. Let’s let this issue play out in MB and other cities. We need not make a rushed decision now that
we may regret or need to readdress and spend further resources.
Thanks
> From: kentjallen@gmail.com
> Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2016 18:25:57 -0700
> Subject: Re: Comment for review prior to March 15, 2016 Meeting: Short Term Rental
> To: juliemote1234@hotmail.com
>
> Thank you for the note.
>
> One thing I'm not clear on is this: Are you for or against short term rentals?
>
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 4:48 PM, Julie Mote <juliemote1234@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Dear Planning Commission and City Council Members;
> > Why does the Short Term Rental issue need to be decided now as this is an
> > issue pending for Manhattan Beach and other coastal cities given their
> > recent bans on ST rentals? At this point, the use of the Coastal Commission
> > as an argument seems premature as MB will need to address those issues given
> > that ST landlords in those cities are appealing the issue before the Coastal
> > Commission. If this is a concern shouldn’t HB just maintain the 30 day limit
> > in place and await a resolution or judicial determination regarding the
2
> > Coastal Commission requirements that will include or not include parameters
> > that the coastal cities must follow? Once there is a resolution, HB can
> > address whether to continue the 30 day limit or place restrictions and the
> > extent of those restrictions provided known parameters instead of
> > speculating what is and is not permitted. Since HB has had a 30 day limit
> > in place, we don’t have the issue of ST landlords asserting that their
> > rental income and livelihoods have been affected by the change. In the legal
> > field, an issue is Stayed (put on hold) if there is/are similar issues
> > pending before a governmental agency or Courts in order to prevent wasteful
> > resources and time on redundancy. Seems like a high volume of resources
> > will be used by HB to address this issue unnecessarily at this time. One
> > thing is certain, if the City permits ST rentals and then later decides to
> > modify or take away in some manner it will be much more difficult as
> > landlords will assert that their livelihoods and income will be affected
> > given that they have remodeled the residence, moved, or taken some other
> > act in reliance of ST rental income. Accordingly, to say that the City can
> > implement strict ST requirements and see if it works and then later take it
> > away if it proves that it will not is unfair to all.
> > Thank you.
> > Julie Mote
> > Hermosa Resident, 27th Street
The decision should be a simple matter of zoning.
We all bought homes or lease homes in residential zones. Do we suddenly want an
illegal hotel being operated next door? Protect your property rights and your right to the
peaceful enjoyment of your home. Stop the influx of temporary housing, the risk of noisedisturbances from rowdy guests week after week, and piles of trash left that attractrodents.Protect the rights of the hardworking community members who support our
schools and support our local businesses. After a hard day's work, we want to come
home and relax in our neighborhoods and not be burdened by the stress and anxiety
caused by neighbors who choose to earn their income illegally by turning their homeinto a hotel in a residential neighborhood.Unprofessionally run, illegal businessesoperating in our city are already ruining our neighborhoods and upsetting our full time
residents.This may not be happening to you right now, but, if this is made legal, it will.
This does not only affect property owners, it affects those who rent.Families who lease
long term have the right to quiet enjoyment of their property.
The Coastal Commission requires cities to provide affordable housing.
Do not be fooled by arguments stating the Coastal Commission requires cities to
provide affordable housing via short term rentals. Hermosa's own City Attorney said it's
an "overreach" and "abuse of authority" by Coastal, and the City "should make a policy
determination based on what's right and best for the community."Property ownersillegally renting their homes charge a premium and most are more costly than the hotelsin town. Short term rentals do NOT provide affordable housing.
Can we trust those who are already breaking the law?
The city is considering making it legal instead of enhancing and enforcing the existing
laws to protect our neighborhoods. If made legal how can anyone trust that those whocurrently show no respect for the law or their neighbors will suddenly obey guidelinesand pay taxes? Instead the city should increase fines against violators and fine any
person,enterprise, managing agency or rental agent who advertises, solicits or
facilitates the rental for less than 30 consecutive days of a short-term vacation unit
located within residential districts.
Recipient:The City of Hermosa Beach
Letter:Greetings,
Please listen to community members who want to save our neighborhoods and city
from a proliferation of short terms rentals. Say NO to short term rentals. Adopt an
ordinance that specifically bans them and gives staff the necessary enforcement
tools. Increase fines against violators and fine any person, enterprise, managing
agency or rental agent who advertises, solicits or facilitates the rental of a
residential unit for less than 30 consecutive days.
Comments
Name Location Date Comment
Karynne Thim Hermosa Beach, CA 2016-03-07 Short term rentals don't belong in residential neighborhoods and are not good
for our community. They damage surrounding property values.
Brad Gerber Hermosa Beach, CA 2016-03-07 Changing zoning to allow hotels to pop up throughout the city would cause
personal properties values to decrease and change the dynamics of our
neighborhood for the worse. People and cars coming and going at 5am - 2am
leaving for airports, not knowing where they are driving so blocking alleys.
Partying everyday of the week. I urge each council member and planner to look
next door to your house and imagine that single family house or four unit
apartment building turning into a nightly rental or how about an hourly rental?
Do not focus on the potential $$ derived from Transit Taxes, it is illegal.
John Wallace Hermosa Beach, CA 2016-03-07 Please see the February 15, 2016 petition sent to City Council for why
legalizing STVR is WRONG! Protect our City and it's long term vetted residents
from profiteering and those who disrespect our City and it's heritage as a
beachside bedroom community, not a tourist trap
Karynne Thim Hermosa Beach, CA 2016-03-07 Vacation rentals (aka de facto hotels) don't belong in residential zones, erode
our sense of community, and have a negative impact on surrounding property
values. City leaders - please listen to the majority of residents and do what's
right for our community. Pass an ordinance to ban short term rentals and get
tough on enforcement by giving your staff the tools it needs to enforce the ban.
Make it illegal to advertise or facilitate the rental of a property for less than 30
days. Other cities succesfully enforce bans by making it a misdemeanor and
levy fines of $2,500/day or 6 months in jail.
Michael Glasman Hermosa Beach, CA 2016-03-07 I want to preserve the character of our neighborhoods and live next to
neighbors not hotel guests
Bao Duong Hermosa Beach, CA 2016-03-07 short term rentals would destroy the sense of neighborhood and community
which is one of things that make Hermosa so special
Claudia Berman Hermosa Beach, CA 2016-03-07 I am very concerned that over the next several years, Hermosa will become a
city of absentee property owners trying to make an easy buck.
These short term renters won't be concerned about water use, recycling,
parking regulations, etc.
They won't be part of the community.
Visitors are great! We already have great hotels for short term visitors, and two
more are on the way. Redondo Beach is cracking down on short term
renters.We should too.
Dan Inskeep Hermosa Beach, CA 2016-03-07 Allowing short term rentals is permitting commercial activity in a residential
zone. City zoning maps with designated commercial areas should not be
circumvented without following the City's formal variance process, including
evaluation and input from citizens, on a case-by-case basis.
Chris Navarro Hermosa Beach, CA 2016-03-07 There us NOTHING good about these already illegal vacation rentals! Only a
plus for the landlords reaping the monetary benefits from their lack of respect of
the neighborhood surrounding.
Chris Brown Hermosa Beach, CA 2016-03-08 Short term rentals violate our zoning laws. We want neighbors, not hotel
guests.
Amy Glasman Hermosa Beach, CA 2016-03-08 I do not want short term rentals in Hermosa Beach, CA. They are not safe for
our families and compromise the community experience of neighborhoods.
Name Location Date Comment
Richard Reznichek Hermosa Beach, CA 2016-03-08 I live in a residential neighborhood where illegal short-term rentals are taking
place -- including across the alley from my home. Extra noise, parking
problems, extra trash, revolving strangers are some of the unwanted results.
Carol Reznichek Hermosa Beach, CA 2016-03-08 It is unfair to turn residential areas into short term hotels and party rentals. The
goal here is to make money for the owners and it is of no benefit to their
neighbors. We have hotels and are building more for visitors to come and enjoy
the beach.
Willard Weston Hermosa Beach, CA 2016-03-08 I feel that short term rentals in the city of Hermosa Beach (houses in residential
neighborhoods), diminishes the quality of life for the long tern residents, both
owners and renters. It adds to the already strong "Party" reputation the city
has.
Bruce Bartlett Hermosa Beach, CA 2016-03-08 I think it's bad for the community and unfair for the hotels we tax.
Karen Ulman Hermosa Beach, CA 2016-03-08 To preserve our neighborhood.
Tracy Hart Hermosa Beach, CA 2016-03-08 Short Term Rentals are already causing substantial disturbance and property
damage in our community. It has also been bringing in an element of danger to
our children and our homes.
Bob Wolfe Hermosa Beach, CA 2016-03-08 I'm concerned about the impact of short term rentals not only on neighboring
homeowners for all the reasons cited (noise, trash, parties, etc.) but also upon
the overall supply of apartments within Hermosa Beach. I think that Hermosa
has a healthy mix of apartments and residential stock that is good for the
region as a whole and that allows people to live in our beach community
outside of home ownership. As tenants in beach communities like Venice have
discovered, apartment rentals and leases will disappear as landlords discover
that they can make astronomical profits by converting their buildings to short
term rentals.
Cassandra Sorrell Hermosa Beach, CA 2016-03-08 I am against short-term rentals. It erodes the sense of community, creates
increased noise, traffic, parking, trash, etc. My husband and I moved to
Hermosa from Manhattan Beach because our neighbor rented every square
foot of the property to short term tenants. They did not care about how it
impacted the quality of our life, unlike the lovely neighbors we have now.
Please don't allow people in this community to turn homes into impersonal
hotels where we don't have relationships with our neighbors. I would attend the
meeting if we didn't have tickets to see Bruce On 3/15. Please Keep Hermosa
Hermosa ❤️
Kimberly Konis hermosa beach, CA 2016-03-08 I am signing because Hermosa needs to follow suit of our neighboring cities
that have taken note of their resident's concerns: We do not want hotel-like
conditions in our neighborhoods, around our children and the noise, annoyance
and charm we found in Hermosa and subsequently bought property here.
Randy Kirk Herosa Beach, CA 2016-03-08 I had a short term rental next door too, and they party late, make noise etc
during their week long vacations
sandra kreiswirth hermosa bech, CA 2016-03-08 I agree.
Hilary Young Hermosa Beach, CA 2016-03-08 I do not want short term rentals in my neighborhood. We have experienced
this already and it has been a negative experience.
Joe ODonnell Hermosa Beach, CA 2016-03-08 Let's keep Hermosa a small town, not a transient town.
Sharon Paul Hermosa Beach, CA 2016-03-08 I want the law to remain the same as it has been. No less than 30 days.
Robert Fortunato Hermosa Beach, CA 2016-03-08 This is a problem for many friends and neighbors who have made being a good
neighbor and community member a priority.
Name Location Date Comment
Richard De Leonardis Hermosa Beach, CA 2016-03-08 This SHOULD NOT be permitted. Hermosa Beach residents who live here
already deal with excessive abuse of our town. We accept the fact we all want
an enjoyable beach town. BUT over abuse is not acceptable and changing this
law would lend itself more issues. We currently do not have enough law
enforcement to take care of daily issues. This will only increase needs.
Rob McGarry Hermosa Beach, CA 2016-03-08 Allowing vacation and short-term rentals would be a mistake and would likely
erode the great community feel of our small town. We have hotels, and there
are more coming. Tourism is important to our local economy, but allowing
anyone with a rental unit to turn it into a single room hotel is not a good idea!
Debbie Ross Los Angeles, CA 2016-03-08 I bought a home in a residential neighborhood which banned short term rentals.
I don't see why the City would effectively turn my home into a hotel zone
because a few people want to profit from a commercial venture. This is a
zoning change for all of us without our consent. Can I now start running a
restaurant out of my kitchen? Or can my husband start running an auto repair
shop out or garage? Allowing short term rentals would allow the party
atmosphere of the Pier flow into all of our neighborhoods. That bachelorette
party or superbowl party six feet from my house will destroy our quiet
enjoyment of our home. The response to call the police for noise problems
doesn't solve the daily frustrations this will bring to homeowners who bought
homes, not hotels.
Lindsay Jaime Hermosa Beach, CA 2016-03-08 I'm signing this petition against short term rentals in Hermosa beach. My
neighbor now rents his house on the weekends and our quiet neighborhood
turns into a feat party. It's gotten out of control. Let's preserve the character
and charm of Hermosa beach. There are plenty of hotels for people to stay at.
We don't need to turn our neighborhoods into a hotel as well. Thank you.
Tom French Hermosa Beach, CA 2016-03-08 I don't want a Club Med moving in next door in my residential neighborhood.
Jeffrey paris Hermosa Beach, CA 2016-03-08 no short term rentals
Jason Meugniot Hermosa Beach, CA 2016-03-08 I do not want short term rentals in my neighborhood. Other surrounding cities
have banned STRs. And Hermosa should do the same. I do not want the
added noise, trash, traffic and disinterested parties affecting my teen children's
safety and quality of life.
Raymond Jackson Hermosa Beach, CA 2016-03-08 I don't want to live next to a hotel.
Lauren Perreault Manhattan Beach, CA 2016-03-08 As a REALTOR, I believe these properties are detrimental to overall
neighborhood values.
Patricia Morales Hermosa Beach, CA 2016-03-08 I experienced a STR last summer problem next door to me. The woman was
physically aggressive and drunk. The tenant of the apartment she rented was a
lawyer and he lied to the landlord regarding using AirBnB
colleen hartley Hermosa Beach, CA 2016-03-09 I do NOT want Hermosa to make short term rentals legal because it is NOT
FAIR to the residents who bought in a residential area AND pay the property
taxes.
BERNARD FRIEDMAN HERMOSA BEACH, CA 2016-03-09 I am totally in agreement with the above petition and being a resident at this
address for 43 years. I feel the QUALITY of Life has gone down over the years.
This need to STOP
Jill Irwin Hermosa Beach, CA 2016-03-09 I hate the noise and the cars always parked in the alley.
Name Location Date Comment
Susan Sima Hermosa Beach, CA 2016-03-09 I don't want it, it is not what makes Hermosa Beach, they add congestion in the
alleys by double parking causing emergency vihicles unable to access. The
pets that they tow along with them they poop in the alleys and The Strand and
don't pick up. They party until late and take it to the beach with calls of
help...this is not Hermosa Beach, this is not fair to the residence that live here
year round, you want to put up another boutique hotel then do that. Stop the
short term vacation rentals.
Andrew Boughton Hermosa Beach, CA 2016-03-09 I live in a townhouse complex with 4 young kids. I like to know the neighbors
rather than random vacationers. Safer neighborhoods.
Kevin Coye Hermosa Beach, CA 2016-03-09 I feel the short term rentals need to be more regulated
michael buchanan Hermosa Beach, CA 2016-03-09 Short term rentals will take significant resources to police and diminish quality
of life for homeowners. Will also hurt home values.
Lorie Armendariz Hermosa Beach, CA 2016-03-09 The City of Hermosa Beach has invested $400,000 in a consultant who has
devised a plan (PLAN Hermosa) to increase density, take away property rights,
congest our streets and generally pack in as many people as possible. Short
term rentals are all part of that bigger plan. Take a look....
<a
href="https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B3P9jTllKg_7ZFZxU0dxNVA3M
EE&usp=sharing"
rel="nofollow">https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B3P9jTllKg_7ZFZxU0d
xNVA3MEE&usp=sharing</a>
Lorie Armendariz Hermosa Beach, CA 2016-03-09 The City of Hermosa Beach has invested $400,000 in a consultant who has
devised a plan (PLAN Hermosa) to increase density, take away property rights,
congest our streets and generally pack in as many people as possible. Short
term rentals are all part of that bigger plan. Take a look....
<a
href="https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B3P9jTllKg_7ZFZxU0dxNVA3M
EE&usp=sharing"
rel="nofollow">https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B3P9jTllKg_7ZFZxU0d
xNVA3MEE&usp=sharing</a>
Russell Wilson Hermosa Beach, CA 2016-03-09 I want to preserve Hermosa's unique character and not encourage further
"party town" behavior here.
Mark Baker Hermosa Beach, CA 2016-03-09 Most short term renters show very little respect for their neighbors. They think
nothing of making excessive noise at late hours while others are trying to sleep.
Lori Bzura Hermosa Beach, CA 2016-03-09 opposed to short term rentals
Barbra Benes Redondo Beach, CA 2016-03-09 Ban Short Term Rentals.
James Tarman Malibu, CA 2016-03-09 Ban all short term rentals.
Michael Stamolis Hermosa Beach, CA 2016-03-09 I think its bad for our neighborhood to have short term renters, because it
brings in an element to Hermosa that interrupts our peaceful lifestyle, and
devalues our property values. If someone wants a short term rental, they
should stay in one of the great hotels in the area
Laurie Baker Hermosa Beach, CA 2016-03-09 don't want to see our community erode any further as just a place to come
party and then leave.
Anna Doherty Hermosa, CA 2016-03-09 I have been impacted by a STR
Stephanie Goshtigian Hermosa Beach, CA 2016-03-09 It is not good for neighborhood stability.
Name Location Date Comment
Barbara Force Hermosa Beach, CA 2016-03-09 Short term erodes resident and long term renters parking spaces, unknown
faces in neighborhood and noise.
cathy chambliss Hermosa Beach, CA 2016-03-10 I am signing because I have children and want to know who my neighbors are
and who they are around. I do not feel the idea of a stranger moving in short
term is goof for our community.
Maria Stamolis Hermosa Beach, CA 2016-03-10 Under 30 day rentals are de facto unregulated hotels. Personal residential
property should not be used for this purpose as it detracts from safety security
and quiet enjoyment as well as the values of our homes. Short-term rentals do
not contribute responsibly and meaningfully to the community. The City
Council is the representative body for the community not temporary,
unregulated businesses.
Lily Glasman Hermosa Beach, CA 2016-03-10 I'm signing because I live next door to one and I hate it!!!
Elizabeth Ingraham-Ono Hermosa Beach, CA 2016-03-10 I had unfortunate experience of living right by one of these Air B & B rentals.
The person who was renting the home turned it into a short term rental. She
deceived the owner of the property. The constant flow of unknown people was
concerning and some of those that came for a stay were rude and did things
like park across your driveway. The home was destroyed by the short term
residents. Many were there just for a weekend or very short stay. So glad that
owner put home back on market and we now have stable nice neighbors.
Bryan Libby Manhattan Beach, CA 2016-03-11 I do not support short term rentals. They negatively impact our neighborhoods
and town.
Ruth Gonzalez
Reznichek
Hermosa Beach, CA 2016-03-11 I agree with this ban...
Donald Love Hermosa Beach, CA 2016-03-11 I'm signing because allowing short term rentals would negatively impact our
property value, quality of life and place undue strain on our school system
Kathleen Midstokke Hermosa Beach, CA 2016-03-11 Enforce the current law. I have lived here 30 years in an R-1 neighborhood
which is a one-way street with parking only on one side. My house is 1923 with
no garage or driveway. We currently have at least 2 short term rentals and one
group home (6-8 persons?) on this block between PCH and Prospect. This will
also hurt the current and 2 or 3 currently planned new hotels in town. We need
to co-ordinate with Mike Webb, elected City Attorney in RB and not reinvent a
bunch of high city attorney fees with HB Michael Jenkins. I think we even have
a contract with Webb for prosecutor services. Also, so many extra people use
more untilities, water, trash, etc.
Jennifer Luria Hermosa Beach, CA 2016-03-11 I do not want short term rentals in Hermosa Beach. We love our neighborhood
because we know our neighbors and our kids feel comfortable running around
outside. If we allow short term rentals in Hermosa it will drastically change the
nature of our sweet little town. Please do not allow short term rentals in
Hermosa.
Jennifer Giemza Oak Park, IL 2016-03-11 I am opposed to short term rentals in Hermosa Beach
Monique Jones Los Angeles, CA 2016-03-11 The house directly behind us is constantly filled with new tenants that throw
loud parties, keep their barking dog outside and keep up the yard space so we
are constantly cleaning up weeds and old fruit that lands on our side.
Lori Miller Hermosa Beach, CA 2016-03-11 I am signing this petition to ban short term rentals because they reduce
housing available to those who live and work in our community.
Lorri Perreault Hermosa Beach, CA 2016-03-11 I have a STR next door to my home and it has created serious problems in our
neighborhood.
Gil Luria Hermosa Beach, CA 2016-03-11 I want my kids to be safe.
Name Location Date Comment
Richard Sutton Hermosa Beach, CA 2016-03-11 This will degrade the quality of life. We have had short term rentals in our
complex and were forced to endure the noise and trash they leave behind. The
people that use these rentals have no ties to the city. They are users and
abusers of the infrastructure with no tax revenue.
Marilyn Wee Sit Hermosa Beach, CA 2016-03-11 I don't want a hotel next door! Let's enforce the existing law.
gene pao Hermosa Beach, CA 2016-03-11 i oppose short term rentals in hermosa beach
Jay Perreault Hermosa Beach, CA 2016-03-11 My family and my neighborhood have been adversely affected by a short term
rental at 106 Hill St on our street. There have been countless loud parties
involving alcohol and drugs. It is clearly a safety and security issue for our
street and Hermosa Beach.
Kwan
emily@emilykwan.net
Hermosa Beach, CA 2016-03-11 This would bring in more criminal activities as we have seen rising crime in our
neighborhood, break in home & vehicles. We want to preserve our neighbor so
that we can continue to live here safely. and
Erica Lynett Hermosa Beach, CA 2016-03-11 As a parent and property owner, I care about the integrity of our
neighborhoods.
jamiej stockley Hermosa Beach, CA 2016-03-11 There are already enough loud, wild parties in the city, we definitely don't need
to add the influx of folks who focus on throwing wild parties with alcohol and
drug use. I have children in the school district and love our city - if this is
allowed it will cause us to move.
Brian Clark Hermosa Beach, CA 2016-03-11 Keep city nice & CLEAN
John Thuotte Hermosa Beach, CA 2016-03-12 My neighbor was renting his place last summer with VRBO. The renters were
always up late. They were very loud and had no regard for us residents with
school age children that needed to go to bed early on weeknights. They would
tell him 2 people were staying- and 12 would show up, block the driveway,
leave garbage outside. It was terrible.
Bryan Rosenberg Hermosa Beach, CA 2016-03-12 I'm against short term rentals in my neighborhood.
Beth Flanders Hermosa Beach, CA 2016-03-12 I am against short term rentals in Hermosa Beach- protect our home town
beach city from becoming a tourist town.
Doug Reddell Hermosa Beach, CA 2016-03-13 I'm signing because I bought in a residential area and want it to stay that way. I
also don't want to see values of homes in Hermosa deteriorate because the
city allows short term rentals.
Jill Reddell Hermosa Beach, CA 2016-03-13 I'm signing because Hermosa is a family community at heart, and I'd like it to
remain as such. I have a young child and don't want different neighbors every
weekend. That's what hotels are for. Let's keep Hermosa the way it is and the
way we love it.
Michele Hampton hermosa beach, CA 2016-03-13 I have personally experienced the short term rental situation last summer.
There was a home that had rented out for a month and almost every night for a
month there were parties. Loud music, people coming and going, food trucks.
Unacceptable for those who are either responsible home owner or renters. I will
not put up with that again. Disrespectful. Let's get the hotels built as soon as
possible and put the short term rentals to bed.
Name Location Date Comment
Christine Tasto Hermosa Beach, CA 2016-03-13 The house behind us has turned into a STVR and as neighbors we shouldn't
be forced to live next to a revolving hotel. We bought our house in a quiet
residential neighborhood. After living through last Summer where they rented to
a bachelor party, theatre camp, family reunion, etc every week - and the
occupants partied on the rooftop deck nearly every night and often until 3am - it
was obvious that something needs to change. Especially when the owner felt it
was appropriate to list the home as 14 person occupancy! There are plenty of
affordable options for hotels in the area - we don't need homes to be turned
into hotels.
christian africa hermosa beach, CA 2016-03-13 Short term rentels ruin the market for long term renters who actually contribute
to Hermosa beach. Please take a stand against people that are running
basically illegal hotels.
Adam Smith Hermosa Beach, CA 2016-03-13 Im signing because I agree.
Mike West Hermosa Beach, CA 2016-03-13 I am against short term rentals
Katherine DeVore Africa Hermosa Beach, CA 2016-03-14 Short term rentals drive up rents for residents and occasionally can lead
to illegal eviction of long-term renters, and it also erodes the sense of
community and the great "small town" feel of Hermosa.
Keri Hogan Hermosa Beach, CA 2016-03-14 I have first hand experience with the negative impact caused by STR.
James Hogan Hermosa Beach, CA 2016-03-14 I have lived the nightmare of having short term rentals both near and in the
same building as me. Everything written in this petition is accurate.
frances light Weatherford, TX 2016-03-14 We have the same problem. It's hard to enjoy day to day living when you have
inconsiderate people renting for partying and such.
Marieke Miller Hermosa Beach, CA 2016-03-14 I happen to live adjacent to a short term rental. I cant count the number of
times I've had to walk over and tell occupants to quiet down well after an
acceptable neighborly time (1am,2am a couple of times 3 am.) Ive repeatedly
had to ask renters to stop smoking outside my front door, or swept up used
cigarettes from the gutter . They play obnoxiously loud music at all hours and
drop f bombs with ease despite the obvious fact that there are at least 12
children under the age of 13 living withing 40 feet of this residence. This
particular rental has been rented to reality television programs featuring nudity (
without notice to neighbors until its already been approved and within vision of
some households.) The people who come to this rental don't care about our
personal space, our children, the sanctity of our neighborhood or the well fare
of our coast because they get to pack up and go home. Most definitely NOT to
a short term rental I'm wagering. The people who advocate for short term
rentals within such an impacted community as ours most likely do not have to
reside beside one. I say this: if yo'rer in favor of such things by all means let
them come and perch on your doorstep, but I'm betting they would say NIMBY.
So say I!
Ross Mohr Hermosa Beach, CA 2016-03-14 STR is not aligned with building a family oriented community. Benefits are for
individuals and drive a different culture & real estate market.
Dan Hitomi Hermosa Beach, CA 2016-03-14 I'm against short-term rentals as I do works against building a better, safer and
tight-knit community.
Sam Perrotti Hermosa Beach, CA 2016-03-14 I am against short term rentals.
Lost in all the debate is the amount of business and revenue that those families that
stay in 200+ STR homes generate on a daily basis, and not just the 12% bedroom tax
either. Its time we change the demographic of our downtown area from drunken 20 year
olds to nice families that support our local businesses, restaurant, shops and stores. Pier
Avenue has been empty long enough we need good quality foot traffic to support our
local Merchants! STR’s will be a positive addition to our community!
Robert Reyes
Sunny California Vacation Rentals
310 308-8778
Beachforsale@yahoo.com
http://sunnycaliforniavacationrentals.com
STR
2
of those were one resident complaining about another residence.
Go ask our police officers what their top three sources of complaints are in
the city and not one will include STR’s. It will involve all of the old problems
that Hermosa has always had before STR’s. I could take you right now on a
walking tour of long-term chronic offenders on The Strand. I can also point out
the residences that were problems and have now been rendered largely “non-
problems” by STR.
There is a residence five or six lots south of ours on The Strand that had a
long history of problem long-term renters, mostly kids just out of college. The
structure itself became run down and for many years it was hard to differentiate
it from any frat house.
The owners of the house then began STR and this priced the kids out of the
property. In fact, at one point during the transition, the short-term renters began
to complain about the long-term renters and their hangers-on living in another
part of the residence and the many and varied nuisances arising therefrom.
Not only did STR “tame the party” at this property but the money made from
STR allowed the owners to renovate the home. Families who rent short term
will not tolerate dilapidated conditions where college kids and their friends will.
Long-term leases are prohibitively expensive in Hermosa and owners often
lease to those who represent they can afford the rent and, then, bring in sub-
lessees in the form of friends, or friends of convenience and their associates, to
help him/her defray the cost. The owner has a contract and a name and a layer
of plausible deniability and absolutely no idea who is staying at his property at
any given time.
Historically, the only thing long-term about most long-term rentals in
Hermosa is language of the contract. The actual inhabitants of the properties
stay daily, weekly, bi-weekly, seasonally or just long enough to leave with empty
pockets; an AA chip and at least one venereal disease.
I have never been involved in more altercations in my life than I was at our
building trying to get strangers who claim to be residents of a long-term rental,
but whom no one has ever seen, to show some respect for those around them.
STR
3
Why has nothing been done to control sub-lessees over the decades? Because
the practice is impossible to police outside of PD nuisance citations.
At the Planning Commission meeting, Commissioner Saemann described a
residence across the street from him with an out-of-state owner and two long-
term lessee’s. He described the lessees’ moving out over 4th of July weekend and
a large number of people coming in from who knows where. He, further,
described this as an STR problem.
With all due respect, that is not an STR problem but a classic Hermosa “sub-
lessee” problem. There is a long-term lease in place but the lessees have probably
decided to violate their contract and make a little money. If the owner were to
visit his property and recognize no one there, that is a sub-lease issue, not STR
issue. In any case, its the result of irresponsible ownership. We cannot make
STR the “bogeyman” for all the irresponsible behavior of owners in Hermosa
that has gone on for decades, long before STR.
STR manifests real estate appraisal’s principal of “highest and best use” in
The Strand area. It is true that there is significant money to be made. It is also
true that, if done properly, it is the best use for quality of life for everyone in the
area. STR replaces the sub-lessee model - “one guy with a decent credit rating
and five of his derelict friends” - with responsible families who happen to be
visiting from outside the state or country.
We’ve had fantastic renters from the Midwest, East Coast, Europe and
Canada. This May or June, walk into Paciugo Gelato on Hermosa Ave. and
look at the families in there and listen to the different accents and languages
(and please don’t take the last of the Caramel Sea Salt…my favorite). These
people are here for a week or two and they’ve chosen Hermosa over Santa
Monica and Newport Beach and they’re having a great time.
The Strand is not a place to “put down roots”. It is a world-class vacation
destination. The only question is, who will the vacationers be? Kids just out of
college or middle-class Canadian and European families? Old derelicts or
“empty-nesters” from Chicago?
Now, one could make the point that if an owner/landlord is irresponsible and
STR
4
doesn’t care about what is happening on his property in the long-term rental
environment then he’s not going to care about it in the STR environment either
and we’ll get the same result. It’s a fair point.
After all, STR does create a couple of unique challenges in that it creates
many first time landlords who’ve got to deal with a high volume of activity. I can
tell you my wife spends an average of 4-6 hours screening and educating each
tenant.
She has developed an online system of checks and cross-checks and re-
checks It may be easier to become an FBI agent then to rent our place. There
are four out of six units in our building, along with properties in every direction
outward from our building, doing STR.
There were some bumps in our area at first. However, we’ve educated
ourselves and each other and communication is good and things are good. If
you’re interested, here is some of what we’ve learned in the form of a sample list
of “Do’s and Don’ts” (not exhaustive):
Do:
*Always attempt to rent to families of 3 to 4 or
older couples and ensure that they are not
using the property for parties or gatherings.
*Ensure that the tenants are well aware of
common area use, hours of use, parking, trash
collection, bike/beach gear storage.
*Assure that the children are properly
supervised.
*Take extra care prior to summer holidays and
never ever rent for a weekend, or less than a
week, in this period. Also take care of your
tenants and their kids. Educate them as to what
they are about to experience. (e.g. The
Ironman is not the Ironman you’re probably
STR
5
thinking of and the “jumpees” being set up on
the beach by the eager young men are not for
your kids but are, in fact, wrestling pits for
strippers.)
*Cross check forms of ID and meet the tenant to
make sure that the person who is making the
payment is the primary occupant.
*Take a large security deposit.
Do not:
*Rent to smokers
*Rent to anyone who lives in the Los Angeles
Basin
*Rent to “work colleagues” especially from the
“IT” industry
*Rent only for a weekend
*Do not rent to groups of friends of either sex
under the age 45.
One of the benefits of the STR model is that the tenants are not on the
property long enough to start feeling empowered or entitled and, so, they are
generally compliant. Also, the security deposits are large compared to the total
rent and are a real deterrent to misbehavior. If you just follow a few common
sense rules and communicate clearly and monitor effectively you have no
problems.
If STR were banned by Hermosa Beach tomorrow, the city would not be
better off but worse off. Nice families and responsible people, generally, do not
burn thousands of dollars a month on long-term rent. Groups of derelicts pool
that kind of money on long-term rents for the short intervals that they can afford
it before they move on.
We can tell you that we have begun “sending out feelers” to prospective one-
STR
6
year renters in case you decide to ban STR and we have a few who are
interested. They happen to be corporate professionals who would only be in our
place about one-half the time. These guys have other homes outside the state and
would only live in Hermosa part-time and would also use the place for “client
retreats”.
What these guys will pay is still far more than any family or responsible
couple is going to burn over an entire year. For these guys, it’s a business
expense. However, I can tell you my wife would quickly exclude them as an
STR.
So, let’s say we rent to these guys and Hermosa has its long-term renters and
everything is wonderful…until these guys have been there a while and start to
feel comfortable and a “friend of a client” gets too drunk and the complaints
start. In this scenario, our leverage is significantly decreased.
Additionally, there is huge demand for vacation stays in our great little city
and nowhere near the supply to accommodate it. Again, Commissioner Saemann
in the latest meeting said that we already have suitable STR in Hermosa in the
form of hotel rooms. With all due respect, again, this obviously cannot be
accurate.
If 200 STR properties is a good number, then most of the renters in those
properties would require more than one hotel room (that’s a large part of why
they do STR). If we say they would need two or three rooms we can use 2.5 as a
rough multiplier and that’s 500 hotel rooms. There are nowhere near 500 hotel
rooms in existence now or in the near future or, given the density, ever.
In the end, I would make the assertion that not only are well managed STR’s
beneficial to the overall quality of life in Hermosa Beach, they are the highest
and best use of many of the properties. It is the way to bring the city into its
proper place as a world-class vacation destination while maintaining, and
improving, quality of life for all of Hermosa’s residents.
What Is the Solution?
STR
7
There are several possible solutions but one that would be extremely low
maintenance for the city and still generate some revenue would be to follow the
“Residential Alarm Permit” model. My wife and I pay the city of Torrance about
$45 dollars a year to have a monitored alarm in our home. We get a couple of
free false alarm activations per year and after that we would begin paying on a
fairly aggressive fee schedule.
As to the current question, the goal is the protection of the quiet enjoyment of
property and quality of life, generally, in Hermosa Beach. The aim should be to
minimize nuisance no matter the source, be it owners, long-term renters, sub-
lessees, hangers on or STR.
The first part of the solution is to add a “serial offender fine” to the normal
nuisance fines for all owners in any situation in Hermosa. No matter the source
of the problem, if there are more than two nuisance citations issued by HBPD in
any 12 months then the owner pays an additional (and substantial) level of fine
as a serial offender.
For STR, specifically, these owners are required to pay for an annual permit
at some cost. This permit would be in lieu of TOT for these properties since
TOT would be nearly impossible to implement. As a one example of the
difficulty, most landlords who do STR don’t do it exclusively. They do short-
term and longer term. How does the city know what proportion of a property’s
rentals are short-term?
Carrying on then, if there is a nuisance citation issued by the PD than the
STR owner pays the normal fine; the serial offender fine (if applicable) and, if it
is verified (by PD at the issuance of the citation or through online searches on
the rental sites or otherwise) as being STR and the owners do not have a current
permit then they pay a multiple of the original permit cost as a penalty.
Here, the owner could gamble and not get a permit and hope that he isn’t
issued a nuisance citation during the year. However, if he does the permit could
end up costing him maybe four or five times as much. Not only would getting a
permit be the right thing to do, it would also be a sort of insurance.
This solution would be very easily administered by current city staffing and
STR
8
would not require new hiring. There would be additional revenue from the
annual permits for STR. To the extent an owner needed several high-cost fines
to be brought into compliance there would be even more revenue but the real
goal for this part would be responsible behavior by all owners and not revenue.
It’s fair, effective and very low cost to administrate…custom built for a small
beach city like Hermosa.
A Last Note in the Form of a Request
As a last note, we would ask that, while there remains wide
acknowledgement regarding the lack of clarity or specificity vis-a-vis STR in the
municipal code and while all this is being sorted out, that the members of the
City Council suspend the “spontaneous visits” to our properties by Code
Enforcement. If they are abating an actual nuisance that is one thing but simply
harassing quiet and respectful families to castigate them as law breakers and
miscreants is silly and unbecoming.
We know Bob and Justin are just trying to do their jobs but the current
environment is putting these poor guys in ridiculous positions (for example,
requiring Justin to go and corner the bright and shining faces of a husband, wife
and two little daughters from Saskatchewan while the “long-term” drunks from
the alley unit and their non-resident “associates” camp out on our front deck all
day long just waiting for an opportunity to harass and intimidate other tenants).
Are we serious? Let’s please just all figure this out together and embarrass
ourselves as little as possible in the process.
STR
9
From: Matt Shannon [mailto:mks1225@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2016 4:00 PM
To: City Clerk; Elaine Doerfling; Terri Dinubilo
Subject: Opposition to Short term Vacation Rentals
Dear Elaine,
Please use my letter below in lieu of my attendance for tonight's meeting on Short Term Rentals.
Thank You,
Matt Shannon
Dear City of Hermosa Beach Leaders,
I'm a long term renter in Hermosa Beach and I've resided here for over 7 years . I have a small
family with a 2 year old son and another one arriving in April. We love Hermosa and I want
nothing more than to raise my family here and one day purchase a home of my own.
We currently live on the 1500 block of Palm and my family has been directly affected by a short
term rental directly across the alley from us. It usually starts on a Sunday when one group of
renters moves out and another moves in. We are startled out of bed by loud talking, slamming of
car doors and loitering right under our window. This all happens well before 6am on the ONLY
day that we don't have to deal with construction noise. After the renters leave the Manager comes
in with his tools and cleaning supplies to get ready for the next group of renter. When the next
renters come in, say on a Monday or Tuesday, we have a build up of anxiety about what type of
renters we are going to get but it usually doesn't matter as we end up having to call the police for
one reason or another.
The house I'm speaking of has an illegal open fire pit on the deck. Renters love to light it up no
matter how hot it is outside. Unfortunately, we have to leave our windows open to keep our
house cool but quickly get overwhelmed by smoke forcing us to close our windows and even
leave the house until the smoke settles. On one instance renters had the fire pit blazing so large
that embers were flying in to the construction house next door. I felt that they were threatening
our lives so I called dispatch. The fire department arrived and made them put the blaze out but
not before telling them who called. For the rest of the night we had a deck full of drunk people
screaming toward our house that we ruined their party.
Last October, we had a wedding group at the rental house. I believe this is a 3 bed 3 bath house
but that didn't stop them from cramming 20 people in it for the weekend. These renters couldn't
care less about Hermosa's rules and regulations. They had four cars parked tandem in a two car
garage making it impossible for us to get out of our garage. They finally moved them only to
have a huge party bus pull up and park in the middle of Palm drive for over two hours essentially
telling those driving on palm to turn around.
I can go on and on but these are just a couple of examples off the top of my head of what we go
through week to week. Even though our experiences aren't always this extreme, at a minimum
we deal with late weekday nights on the deck, smokers forcing us to close our windows, cars
coming and going at all hours, heavy drinking and drug use, parking issues and many other
inconveniences that no person/family should have to deal with on a weekly basis. I don't believe
that STRs will work in any way or form in a densely populated city as Hermosa Beach and
should be heavily enforced to ensure the quality of life that Hermosa residents deserve.
Thank you for your time,
Shannon Family
--
Matt Shannon
Mks1225@gmail.com
Tentative Future Agenda
PLANNING COMMISSION
City of Hermosa Beach
March 28, 2016
6:00 P.M.
Project Title Public
Notice
Meeting
Date Remarks
PLAN Hermosa Study Session (meeting to occur only if
determined necessary at Planning Commission meeting of 3/15/16)
3/28
April 19, 2016
6:00 P.M.
Project Title Public
Notice
Meeting
Date Remarks
PLAN Hermosa Study Session 4/19
April 19, 2016
Regular Meeting
7:00 P.M.
Project Title Public
Notice
Meeting
Date Remarks
600 10th Street—Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development
Plan and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 74120 for a 2-unit
condominium
4/7 4/19
2510 & 2420 PCH, 926 & 950 Aviation Blvd. — Conditional Use
Permit and Precise Development Plan for a Lazy Acres Market.
4/7 4/19
1141 Aviation Blvd., Suzy’s— Conditional Use Permit
Amendment.
4/7 4/19
One year Planning Commission review of outdoor dining on Pier
Plaza (per City Council Resolution 15-6955 adopted on 5/11/15)
4/19
April 25, 2016
6:00 P.M.
Project Title Public
Notice
Meeting
Date Remarks
PLAN Hermosa Study Session (meeting to occur only if
determined necessary at Planning Commission meeting of 4/19/16)
4/25
f:b95\cd\wpc - future agenda 3/8/16
NOTICE OF SPECIAL MEETING
The Chairperson of the Planning Commission has called a special meeting of the
Planning Commission for Tuesday, March 15, 2016, at 6:00 p.m. to consider and
take action on only those matters set forth on the agenda set forth below.
SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA
Planning Commission
CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
1315 VALLEY DRIVE
HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254
March 15, 2016
6:00 P.M.
Peter Hoffman, Chairperson
Kent Allen, Vice Chair
Michael Flaherty
Rob Saemann
Marie Rice
Note: No Smoking Is Allowed in the City Hall Council Chambers
THE PUBLIC COMMENT IS LIMITED TO THREE MINUTES PER SPEAKER
Agendas and staff reports are available for review
on the City’s web site at www.hermosabch.org.
Wireless access is available in the City Council Chambers for mobile devices:
Network ID: City Council and Password: chb13
To comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, Assistive Listening Devices
will be available for check out at the meeting. If you need special assistance to participate
in this meeting, please call or submit your request in writing to the Community Development
Department at (310) 318-0242 at least 48 hours (two working days) prior to the meeting time
to inform us of your needs and to determine if/how accommodation is feasible.
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call – Planning Commission
3. Oral / Written Communications
4. Study Session regarding PLAN Hermosa (General Plan/Local Coastal Program)
Land Use + Design Element and Review Process
Staff Report
Supplemental Information (added 3/17/16 at 1:07 p.m.)
5. Adjournment
PLAN Hermosa Comments Submitted on Public Draft through 2.26.16
1
GENERAL COMMENTS
Questions Asked
1. Will there be a Noise Study in the EIR? – Yes a noise study has been conducted and will
be incorporated into the EIR
2. How many participants were on the walking tour? Was it a mix of the community? – Each
walking tour had approximately 50 participants. There have also been numerous other
opportunities for community input
3. What is the disclaimer about exceptions to changes in land use designations? – The only
changes to land use designations proposed are to reconcile inconsistencies between
the current General Plan and the Zoning Code
4. How many people is Raimi Associates planning for in 25 years? - The SCAG projections
for Hermosa Beach for 2016-2040 match the growth projections detailed in the EIR Project
Description. The current allowed density should a property owner choose to redevelop
their property to the allowed density, under both the adopted and proposed plan, will
result in a small increase (3%) in overall population over the next 25 years.
http://scagrtpscs.net/Documents/2016/draft/d2016RTPSCS_DemographicsGrowthForeca
st.pdf
5. What are coastal related industrial uses in the Cypress District? How are they defined? –
Coastal related industrial uses in Cypress are focused on surfboard manufacturing
6. What are the proposed setbacks for hazardous materials? – The specific setbacks would
need to be proposed and defined within the municipal code. Which would be an
implementation action of the PLAN.
Overall Comments
Comments:
Hope that each member of City Council has thoroughly read and interpreted this entire
document and makes appropriate recommendations to the consultants and either
change it or throw away the entire document and start over.
People that weighed-in would like to be sure their voices are heard and action taken,
with follow-up notifications pushed to them regarding upcoming meetings and revisions
to the plan so they can remain informed.
In general, I believe it captures the community vision as expressed in citizen input
opportunities, many in which I participated.
No General Plan!
I think the proposed plans are great and really needed.
Love how public art and design is part of the plan
I’m proud of our council and community for thinking ahead. It is especially important to
consider the effects global warming will have in the future.
PLAN Hermosa Comments Submitted on Public Draft through 2.26.16
2
Plan Layout
The focused summary sheets by district are a wonderful community tool.
The proposed changes are not good for our town in general – they would infringe on
current development rights, reduce property values and discourage investment in
Hermosa Beach.
The plan layout looks good.
Congratulations to all of you in creating an excellent PLAN Hermosa document for its
comprehensiveness, clarity, graphic design, and readability.
Language is too complex
Had a very difficult time in understanding what PLAN Hermosa beans for Hermosa citizens
Provide more definitions
Believe the document was written to confuse the reader into accepting concepts of
increased density and infringement on private property rights
Document is too long (200 pages) for most to be able to read through and understand
Efforts should be made to make the document as accessible as possible to the average
Hermosa reader
Greater clarity could be provided with examples of actions or mechanisms for certain
policies
The vast majority of residents, property owners, and even those in real estate are not
aware of the implications of this plan due to its size and complexity
Response
Community members provided comment concerning PLAN language, noting that complex
terminology and complex concepts could be simplified or better explained throughout the
document. Commenters asked for the use of more definitions, and greater clarity through
example actions or mechanisms for certain policies. Weaving more definitions into the
document, reducing jargon, and eliminating text, where appropriate, could help clarify
unfamiliar terms and make the document more accessible.
Public Outreach
Comments:
We do not believe the community at large, especially residential property owners, have
been adequately represented by the 15 person working group and staff involved in
creation of the PLAN. Not a single developer or member of the real estate community
was a part of the working group. It is imperative that individual property owners be made
aware of the changes that would impact their property before they are implemented.
A comment was also made concerning the workshop materials that were used and felt
that electronic surveys in the future would be more efficient.
There should be a community hearing before any draft is formulated as many
stakeholders have no idea this is being contemplated
PLAN Hermosa Comments Submitted on Public Draft through 2.26.16
3
Response
The General Plan Working Group was comprised of fifteen residents with a wide range of
interests and expertise in the community. Since this is a comprehensive update it was critical to
have participation from community members that represented multiple perspectives. Within the
group, we had representatives from each of the City’s commissions, a local architect, real
estate professional, local business owners, urban planners, and school district officials, all of
which were also local residents.
Beyond the community working group, many opportunities for input and feedback have been
made available to the community at large over the course of the last three years. This included
five public workshops or community events, multiple online surveys, and more than a dozen
study sessions with the Planning Commission, City Council, and other Commissions.
In January of 2016 a postcard was mailed to every commercial and residential address within
the City to notify the community of upcoming opportunities to participate in the development of
PLAN Hermosa.
PLAN Hermosa Comments Submitted on Public Draft through 2.26.16
4
LAND USE
Height Limits and Number of Stories
Comments:
Reductions in height limits and buildable square footage will have a significant negative
impact on property values.
It effectively gets rid of a floor of living area for all future development – it will reduce
property taxes as well as building permit revenue.
Maybe there should be a sunset provision in any program for the residents that
purchased real estate here in good faith.
Limits of 25’ in an area where most homes are already 30’ would decrease property
value and future development would look awkwardly small.
Existing 30’ houses inconsistent + decrease property values for houses subject to new
lower limits
Response
A concern of many community members who commented on the PLAN are regulations on
building height and the number of stories allowed on their property. There is a concern that
limiting height restrictions would decrease property values, create aesthetically unpleasing
neighborhoods, and may infringe on property rights.
For any section of the City, the intent was never to lower or raise building height limits. There are
a couple of places that have been brought to our attention where it probably makes sense to
modify the language to be clear that height limits are determined by the underlying zoning
districts and that there is no intention to change those limits through this planning effort. The
height limits are something that was long ago decided by the voters and any changes to height
limits would also require a vote of the people.
Allowable Density
Comments:
Want to maintain small beach town character
We do not want to become a crowded, congested big city with rows of matching
condominiums stacked up against each other and backed up onto the sidewalks as this
document suggests.
Opposed to the rapid urbanization at work in Hermosa Beach
Attract millennials with smaller, lower cost apartment units
Opposed to promoting higher density in the City
Entire document is about increasing density and infringing on individual property rights
See congestion, high density, and stack and packing woven throughout this plan
PLAN Hermosa Comments Submitted on Public Draft through 2.26.16
5
The RHNA report, the SCAG profile, and the local city planners agree there is no growth
of people coming for 35 years. Note that this is not correct and is explained above.
Response
Maintaining Hermosa’s small beach town character is important to the community. Many
commenters of the PLAN voiced concerns on the allowable density permitted in new
development. Community members feel higher density could make the City more crowded and
congested, creating cookie cutter neighborhoods packed with multi-family housing and feel this
would lower the values of existing housing, infringe on property rights, and reduce the City’s
small beach town charm.
The allowed density within each residential designation (low, medium, high density) is not
proposed to change through this process. However, the overall population will not likely stay at
the approximately 19,800 residents it is today, because there are several properties today that
are currently underutilized and have the right to add a second or third unit while staying within
their allowed density. There are approximately 300 additional units that could be built in
Hermosa Beach over the next 25 years, predominantly in the medium and high density areas,
while staying within the allowed densities for each property.
Setbacks, Building Facades, Scale and Massing
Comments:
Setbacks, scale and massing should remain consistent with today’s standards so
new/renovated homes are consistent with neighbors, not set back farther
Decreasing square footage will make properties more expensive and smaller
To investors, scale and density translate to revenue and increased property value and
the troubling factor is that there is flexibility within existing codes to lose our small town
character in an eye blink. Our building codes were created without anticipation of the
potential exploitation we now face.
Other LA cities have addressed “mansionization”, hope Hermosa can follow suit to
combat this
Response
Maintaining consistent neighborhood scale and design is important to Hermosa Beach
community members. Those who commented on the PLAN have concerns that larger setbacks,
building facades, scale, and massing could reduce buildable square footage while increasing
property prices. Commenters feel the standards should remain the same in order to maintain
consistency in building design and scale in the future.
The intent of the character area section is to describe some of the unique characteristic that
define a neighborhood as they exist today and provide information and recommendations by
neighborhood on how some of those unique features can be integrated into new projects so
they are consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. For property owners and architects that
PLAN Hermosa Comments Submitted on Public Draft through 2.26.16
6
are not familiar with the nuances or unique characteristics of the surrounding neighborhood -
this is meant to provide context as they are designing new projects not requirements for larger
setbacks and lower scale.
Garage Placement
Comments:
Crazy to encourage single tandem garages vs. side by side
Tandem garages are inconvenient, largely unused
Would cut into coveted backyard
Renovations should be exempt from new garage design guidelines
Single-car-wide tandem garages are inconvenient and would lead to more street
parking
They would encourage rear garages where there's an alleyway
Response
Garage placement was a hot topic among public comments in the PLAN. Many community
members disagree with limiting garage widths and that tandem garages are inconvenient,
largely unused, and would take away from coveted backyard space. An increase demand of
street parking would result from this change, which is already an issue in the City. Commenters
recommend that renovations be exempt from new garage design guidelines.
The design and placement of the garage on a private property has an affect that extends
beyond the property line - it can influence the ADA accessibility of a sidewalk, result in the loss of
street trees, reduce outdoor activity from the street level by not having porches or front yards,
and remove public street parking to accommodate private parking spots. Recommendations
on the placement of garages on a property is meant to offer creative solutions that may or may
not be feasible in all instances to minimize the effect private property has on the public street
realm. When it comes to properties with alley access, it is already a policy of the current general
plan to require that parking access comes off of the alley rather than breaking up the street
frontage. There will of course be exceptions where this is not feasible, but that is why the City has
the ability to grant a variance in those circumstances.
Neighborhood Commercial Uses
Comments:
Appreciate the thoughts expressed in PLAN relating to neighborhood commercial zone –
cluster of neighborhood commercial on Manhattan Ave is a wonderful thing.
Recent project at 2700 Manhattan Ave is a prime example of why the General Plan
needs to be changed to preserve character – really dense residential condominium
project, over 87% residential that will kill of neighborhood commercial establishments
No new stores should be added in our residential area on prospect
PLAN Hermosa Comments Submitted on Public Draft through 2.26.16
7
Response
Some community members are not in favor of land designated as neighborhood commercial,
fearing it would affect street parking, increase traffic flow, and that neighborhoods are already
well served. Others, however, feel commercial uses in their neighborhoods will add much
needed services within walking distance of their home and take advantage of underutilized lots
in the area.
The intent is to offer local neighborhood serving uses east of PCH similar to what is available to
neighborhoods throughout the rest of town (note that no specific locations have been
designated at this time). There are many classic examples here in Hermosa (The Green Store,
Granny's, Boccatos) where neighborhood commercial services are designed to benefit the
immediate neighborhood so that they do not have to get in their car or trek long distances to
get coffee, or a sandwich, or other goods. This is an important strategy as the number of people
working from home increase and need services nearby for a quick break, as well as an
important component to becoming a carbon neutral community.
Short-Term Rentals
Comments:
Include the regulation of short term rentals in the PLAN – restrict within areas of city,
length of stay, require annual business license
Remove short term rentals from the PLAN
Define short-term rentals as less than 30 days
Potential to increase crime, noise, parking, trash
Should be confined to commercial areas like hotels
STRs are currently operating without business standards like, licenses, or permits
Affect long term rental rates, making unaffordable
Creates unapproved hotel like mansions
Should not be allowed in properties with shared security access
Should not be allowed in apartment buildings
Fair uses should/could include: legit (no monetary transaction) vacation swaps, rentals
with owner present on property and/or residents who are utilizing home as their primary
resident.
Look at best practices in other cities-from bans to regulations.
Create standards like: not to exceed 10% per block; Not to exceed normal occupancy-
eg: 2 bedrooms: up to 2 couples plus 2-3 kids under 18; implementation of “penalties” for
non-compliance (3 strikes you are out).
Short term rentals should be limited to properties West of Valley/Ardmore in the Coastal
Zone
Include a 5-7 day minimum stay
Require an annual business license – with fees used to fund the costs of enforcement
PLAN Hermosa Comments Submitted on Public Draft through 2.26.16
8
Houses not in compliance will be subject to a stiff fine. City should require all licensees to
watch a webinar on how to set up and run a vacation rental with a 20 question quiz
City attorney should draw up list of rules and regulations that are included in each short
term rental contract
Response
Short-term rentals in Hermosa Beach was another hot topic during the outreach and public
commenting period. Overall, those who commented on this topic felt there should be more
regulations set for short term rentals in the City. Locations within Hermosa Beach, length of stay,
and parking requirements were all mentioned as standards that should be set in order for short
term rentals to be permitted. Commenters also felt the significant rise of short-term rentals could
lead to increased trash and noise, less safety, increase long term rent prices, and a reduced
sense of community.
Without clear policy direction, our obligation as the staff and consulting team is to put forth a
plan that we believe is certifiable by the Coastal Commission, and it is up to the decision-makers
to make the policy call. Through meetings with Coastal Commission staff they have re-iterated
multiple times that they have not certified a coastal plan that prohibits short-term rentals ( note
that Manhattan Beach has adopted a ban, but has not submitted that amendment to the
Coastal Commission for approval yet). The Planning Commission is exploring several options to
address the issue of short term rentals that extends beyond allow or ban, but also looks to several
middle of the road options to address some of the nuisance issues. Just like any policy in the
General Plan, this one could be modified through the hearing process based on specific action
and recommendations made by the Planning Commission and City Council related to short-
term rentals.
Historic Properties
Comments:
Preservation of historic buildings optional and must require owner consent
Identify the assets in the city worth saving and restoring
evaluation of historic resources should be at the owner’s discretion and that some of the
regulations set in the PLAN infringe on property rights.
Should be identified with plaques or tiles. There are other stories to highlight such as the
Cypress shapers, Body Glove, etc.
State designation of Hermosa Beach (as a whole) as a state cultural district
Response
How to balance private property rights with community values (protecting character) and
community heritage has been an important consideration in the development of this draft plan.
Note that nearly all of the language presented is voluntary in nature. PLAN Hermosa
"encourage[s] the voluntary designation of potentially historic resources" but does not require
PLAN Hermosa Comments Submitted on Public Draft through 2.26.16
9
designation or go so far as to designate opposed to the desires of property owners. The only
directive language relates to protecting landmarks that are already designated (*Bijou Theater,
Bank of America Building, and Community Center) and requiring buildings to be evaluated and
documented prior to demolition. With regard to evaluating and documenting potentially historic
resources, such practice is already required under CEQA whenever a discretionary action is
requested and the City has conducted evaluation on their own properties ( i.e. the fire tower)
and requested evaluations from discretionary projects where demolition of a potentially historic
property is proposed. A property owner would not be prohibited from demolishing a building
after it has been evaluated and documented unless it meets the detailed significance criteria
identified in the City's adopted historic preservation ordinance.
Ocean Views
Comments:
Doesn’t mention protecting ocean views in Eastside Neighborhood
High density living units could obstruct views
Response
Protecting coveted ocean views is a priority for Hermosa Beach residents. Those who
commented on the PLAN are concerned that high density living units could obstruct views,
especially in the Eastside Neighborhood. The identification of ocean views can be added to the
Eastside neighborhood description but it should be noted that the City does not have a view
protection ordinance and all discussion of views in PLAN Hermosa is focused on views from
public locations.
Downtown District
Comments:
Downtown is not the heart of commercial activity in Hermosa Beach – Goal should be to
have a downtown that is vibrant all days of the week and all times of the day
For a BID, visitors valet parking program, and city shuttles, allow more pedicabs to
enhance downtown
Would like small tables next to the chairs/benches around downtown so people can buy
at places like Ashley’s then eat outside
Support creation of a new city run or city affiliated visitors bureau, open a small visitors
office with official city merchandise and information
Response
Many of these ideas are identified or consistent within the discussion of the Downtown District.
Some ideas are more detailed or implementation focused than is needed within the goals and
policies.
PLAN Hermosa Comments Submitted on Public Draft through 2.26.16
10
Cypress District
Comments:
Encourage creative uses, support existing businesses
Cypress could be a totally cool enclave with carbon neutral companies, interesting
buildings, cafes and shops, indoor kids play
Look at re-use of city yard to compliment Cypress District – City should retain ownership,
but find ways to monetize with compatible renovation and possible low impact
development
Rename Cypress Junction
Allow carts in limited way to sell coffee, pastries, etc for Cypress and South Park visitors
Response
These ideas are identified or consistent within the discussion of the Cypress District. The land use
designation for this area would focus on the production of goods and crafts, with some room for
retail uses so long as they are accessory to a production use.
Public Art and Design
Comments:
Start mapping cultural assets to encourage the ongoing rebirth of a thriving arts
community
Art should not be limited to beach-themed. – Suggest art should be compatible with a
complimentary to Hermosa
Encourage, incentivize more public art
Create a new Cultural Preservation and Arts Commission.
Response
These ideas are identified or consistent within the discussion of Public Art and Design. Expanding
the public art that may be appropriate in Hermosa Beach can be added to this section.
Other Comments
Comments:
Scrub all exemptions and references to oil drilling except for areas where it notes the ban.
Note: The recommendations can be included as an implementation action of the PLAN
Look at entire city to plan and design gateway welcome signs and monuments –
engage the many creatives in the community to submit designs
Eastside and Hermosa Hills have essentially the same character and should be combined
Attract businesses so people can live and work in HB, cut down on commuting
Author: rubencjubinsky Subject: Callout Date: 1/7/2016 2:00:40 PM
Author: rubencjubinsky Subject: Callout Date: 1/7/2016 2:11:55 PM
Author: rubencjubinsky Subject: Callout Date: 1/11/2016 10:11:45 AM
Author: rubencjubinsky Subject: Callout Date: 1/11/2016 10:13:00 AM
Author: rubencjubinsky Subject: Callout Date: 1/7/2016 2:26:37 PM
Author: rubencjubinsky Subject: Callout Date: 1/7/2016 2:28:31 PM
Author: rubencjubinsky Subject: Callout Date: 1/10/2016 3:25:39 PM
Summary of Comments on Ruben Jubinsky - PLAN Hermosa Public Review DRAFT.pdf
Page: 8
Author: rubencjubinsky Subject: Sticky Note Date: 1/11/2016 10:10:33 AM
The order of the phrasing in many of these bullets strikes me as reversed. "Guiding Principles" connotes a top-down perspective. In this section, I expect the progression to be general to detailed; instead, it is action to goal. Also, in my opinion gerunds to have less impact than the verbs themselves (e.g., "Moving to..." vs. "We will move to...").
awkward phrasing
Author: rubencjubinsky Subject: Sticky Note Date: 1/7/2016 2:08:49 PM In general, this language strikes me as unnecessarily dense and/or comple
Page: 9
If the brand is "PLAN Hermosa", should all references to the plan be "PLAN" (e.g., all caps)?
Page: 13
"the" or "a"?
Author: rubencjubinsky Subject: Replacement Text Date: 1/7/2016 2:22:27 PM to
Page: 14
this page is a snapshot, a point in time; yet waste diversion shows change over time. Why? (plus,
it doesn't state over what time period)
annual or cumulative?
annual average? summer average?
Page: 15
Author: rubencjubinsky Subject: Comment on Text Date: 1/7/2016 2:30:12 PM
Use of "in the last five years" requires to reader to know when the PLAN was created. Would it be better to state year span (e.g., "between 2010 and 2015") instead?
Author: rubencjubinsky Subject: Comment on Text Date: 1/11/2016 10:13:59 AM This section could be more condensed. Is this much detail necessary? The main points re the SGC grant are funding and the 11 program initiatives, correct? Page: 16
Include reference to pp. 28-31
Author: rubencjubinsky Subject: Cross-Out Date: 1/7/2016 2:22:14 PM
Author: rubencjubinsky Subject: Callout Date: 1/11/2016 10:18:45 AM
Page: 17
Author: rubencjubinsky Subject: Comment on Text Date: 1/7/2016 2:44:13 PM This entire page could be made more succinct.
Suggestion: italicize, bold, or underline the four main components
Page: 18
Author: rubencjubinsky Subject: Sticky Note Date: 1/11/2016 10:22:34 AM In general, is there a way to make this section less wordy? Maybe us visuals (e.g., images) instead of text for the examples? For example, a bicycle image with an arrow to a heart.
Also, this may be a good place to cite research or scientific studies as a basis for the relationships and dependencies between the policies and actions in the PLAN.
Author: rubencjubinsky Subject: Replacement Text Date: 1/7/2016 2:50:25 PM
which will lead to greater stability for both residents and local businesses.
Author: rubencjubinsky Subject: Comment on Text Date: 1/7/2016 2:52:23 PM
are these many examples necessary?
Page: 19
Page: 20
Author: rubencjubinsky Subject: Sticky Note Date: 1/8/2016 11:04:00 AM This is essential the Methodology section, correct? If so, I suggest starting off with statements explicitly stating that this PLAN is a vision for the future AS ARTICULATED BY THE COMMUNITY and interpreted by Raimi & Associates. The community provided the local knowledge, priorities and vision; Raimi provided the expertise in updated general plans with an eye towards sustainability. I would also suggest reinforcing this point throughout the document. Page: 21
Author: rubencjubinsky Subject: Comment on Text Date: 1/8/2016 11:14:11 AM
"The future is in your hands" is a call to action (and can sound a bit preachy). This section documents PAST community involvement. What about something to the effect of "The people have spoken" or "Your 2 cents" or "Your vision, your future". (Yes, my titles suck, but hopefully you get the idea.)
Page: 22
Author: rubencjubinsky Subject: Sticky Note Date: 1/7/2016 3:54:21 PM
Since dates are stated for everything else the date of the Celebration should also be included.
Author: rubencjubinsky Subject: Cross-Out Date: 1/7/2016 2:57:42 PM
Author: rubencjubinsky Subject: Cross-Out Date: 1/7/2016 2:56:12 PM
Author: rubencjubinsky Subject: Cross-Out Date: 1/7/2016 2:48:57 PM
Author: rubencjubinsky Subject: Cross-Out Date: 1/7/2016 2:48:39 PM
Author: rubencjubinsky Subject: Underline Date: 1/7/2016 2:40:37 PM
Author: rubencjubinsky Subject: Underline Date: 1/7/2016 2:39:58 PM
Author: rubencjubinsky Subject: Underline Date: 1/11/2016 10:18:05 AM
Author: rubencjubinsky Subject: Underline Date: 1/7/2016 2:40:49 PM
Author: rubencjubinsky Subject: Callout Date: 1/7/2016 4:14:01 PM
Author: rubencjubinsky Subject: Callout Date: 1/8/2016 12:57:46 PM
Author: rubencjubinsky Subject: Callout Date: 1/8/2016 12:58:31 PM
Author: rubencjubinsky Subject: Comment on Text Date: 1/8/2016 11:17:04 AM the vagueness re who these "eight key stakeholders" are may give the appearance of non-transparency. Maybe a bit more detail on their representative roles in the community? Page: 24
Author: rubencjubinsky Subject: Sticky Note Date: 1/8/2016 11:20:08 AM
I suggest a few statements on how Raimi interpreted and analyzed the results of the aforementioned community participation to transform community input into the PLAN.
Page: 27
Author: rubencjubinsky Subject: Inserted Text Date: 1/7/2016 4:02:47 PM (described below)
Page: 28
Author: rubencjubinsky Subject: Comment on Text Date: 1/7/2016 4:10:30 PM larger font size (vis-a-vis Quality of Life) may give the impression of greater importance
Author: rubencjubinsky Subject: Comment on Text Date: 1/7/2016 4:08:26 PM total or per capita? which makes more sense for HB?
Page: 29
what does this mean?
Page: 30
Author: rubencjubinsky Subject: Comment on Text Date: 1/7/2016 4:17:20 PM need specific metrics; too subjective as is
Page: 32
Page: 33
include reference to p16
Page: 34
include reference to pp 28-31
Page: 35
Author: rubencjubinsky Subject: Sticky Note Date: 1/11/2016 10:26:21 AM what is the significance of the circle size (besides making print size very small)?
Author: rubencjubinsky Subject: Cross-Out Date: 1/7/2016 4:22:22 PM
Author: rubencjubinsky Subject: Cross-Out Date: 1/7/2016 4:19:17 PM
Author: rubencjubinsky Subject: Highlight Date: 1/7/2016 4:14:09 PM
Author: rubencjubinsky Subject: Cross-Out Date: 1/7/2016 4:01:56 PM
Author: rubencjubinsky Subject: Callout Date: 1/7/2016 4:48:19 PM
Author: rubencjubinsky Subject: Callout Date: 1/8/2016 1:09:49 PM
Author: rubencjubinsky Subject: Callout Date: 1/8/2016 1:16:33 PM
Author: rubencjubinsky Subject: Callout Date: 1/11/2016 10:51:01 AM
Author: rubencjubinsky Subject: Callout Date: 1/8/2016 1:21:16 PM
Page: 39
Author: rubencjubinsky Subject: Comment on Text Date: 1/7/2016 4:37:38 PM
Why is this section imbedded w/in Governance? Doesn't this apply to all of the elements? Maybe move to after the Guiding Principles?
Page: 42
Author: rubencjubinsky Subject: Inserted Text Date: 1/7/2016 4:44:49 PM and representative
combine w/ 2.7? or 2.2? of 2.9?
Page: 45
Author: rubencjubinsky Subject: Sticky Note Date: 1/7/2016 4:55:54 PM
This goal seems more relevant to Land Use & Design than Governance. Only 5.2 seems directly related to governance. And maybe 5.8.
Page: 46
Author: rubencjubinsky Subject: Sticky Note Date: 1/7/2016 4:59:35 PM As with Goal 5, seems more applicable to Land Use than Governance per se. Page: 47
Author: rubencjubinsky Subject: Sticky Note Date: 1/8/2016 4:55:29 PM Is this redundant with Land Use & Design Goal 13?
Page: 48
Author: rubencjubinsky Subject: Sticky Note Date: 1/10/2016 3:23:06 PM What about a policy to ensure consistency of master and specific plans to the GP, similar to 8.5? Page: 49
Author: rubencjubinsky Subject: Sticky Note Date: 1/8/2016 1:07:10 PM
I'm not sure what this means. Is this true? For example, with preservation, does this mean I can't knock down my house and build a new one? I'm confused.
Page: 50
reference p11
Page: 51
legend is unreadable
This is the first time where land is allotted by use. It would nice to have been presented with an
overview of land use first (e.g., pie chart) for context. May also be a good time to alleviate people's
fear that the PLAN proposes increasing density -- unless it does plan on increasing density in
targeted areas (see my comment on p88).
Page: 52
Are roads included here? If so, please state explicitly. If not, where?
Author: rubencjubinsky Subject: Comment on Text Date: 1/8/2016 1:05:42 PM
Author: rubencjubinsky Subject: Callout Date: 1/8/2016 1:24:05 PM
Author: rubencjubinsky Subject: Callout Date: 1/8/2016 1:31:30 PM
Author: rubencjubinsky Subject: Callout Date: 1/8/2016 1:35:03 PM
Author: rubencjubinsky Subject: Callout Date: 1/8/2016 1:37:52 PM
Author: rubencjubinsky Subject: Callout Date: 1/8/2016 1:44:55 PM
Author: rubencjubinsky Subject: Callout Date: 1/8/2016 1:47:19 PM
Author: rubencjubinsky Subject: Callout Date: 1/8/2016 1:47:46 PM
Author: rubencjubinsky Subject: Callout Date: 1/8/2016 1:49:04 PM
Author: rubencjubinsky Subject: Callout Date: 1/8/2016 1:50:20 PM
Author: rubencjubinsky Subject: Callout Date: 1/8/2016 1:54:57 PM
Page: 53
Does this exclude doctor's offices? If not, Torrance Memorial has a center at 705 Pier.
Author: rubencjubinsky Subject: Sticky Note Date: 1/8/2016 1:25:55 PM Should this statement have a date, given that over time new facilities may open or existing facilities may close? Page: 54
What about the hotels on PCH and Aviation? Or any hotel in Hermosa, given its small size? Aren't
they ALL coastal-dependent or coastal-related?
Page: 55
and Aviation Blvd (e.g., Quality Inn, ET Surf)
Don't ordinances already exist? If so, is enforcement, or lack thereor, the issue
Page: 56
Is the data available in the technical appendix? As written (w/o reference), may be interpreted as
too anecdotal to be used as evidence.
What does memorabilia have to do with land use?
This connotes an implicit call by the Historical Society or the PLAN to designate more buildings for
historical preservation. Is this the intent?
Page: 57
include image?
include image?
Author: rubencjubinsky Subject: Sticky Note Date: 1/8/2016 1:53:16 PM Missing from this cultural description is the City's music scene (e.g., Saint Rocke) and history (e.g., Black Flag, Miles Davis at the Lighthouse)
Page: 58
Suggestion: Highlight (e.g., bold, capitalize) the the Ds in the 4Ds.
Page: 59
Author: rubencjubinsky Subject: Comment on Text Date: 1/8/2016 1:24:55 PM
Author: rubencjubinsky Subject: Callout Date: 1/8/2016 2:11:07 PM
Author: rubencjubinsky Subject: Callout Date: 1/11/2016 10:47:40 AM
Author: rubencjubinsky Subject: Callout Date: 1/8/2016 2:30:56 PM
Author: rubencjubinsky Subject: Callout Date: 1/8/2016 2:32:23 PM
Author: rubencjubinsky Subject: Callout Date: 1/8/2016 3:29:52 PM
Author: rubencjubinsky Subject: Callout Date: 1/8/2016 3:52:02 PM
This is a specific type of industrial use, correct? If so, it connotes only this type of industrial use in
the City, correct? If so, an explicit statement (e.g., No heavy industrial use in currently permitted or
proposed.)
Page: 61
Really? I thought FAR measured commercial density. Doesn't intensity refer more to the number of
people generated by the use (e.g., the concentration of commercial and service activities on the
ground floors along city streets)?
Page: 77
Author: rubencjubinsky Subject: Sticky Note Date: 1/10/2016 3:33:42 PM As a resident east of Prospect (and south of Aviation), I and many of my neighbors consider our area to be part of the Hermosa Hills Neighborhood, as opposed to a separate Eastside (a term I have NEVER heard outside of the Working Group meetings). Real Estate Agents list houses in our area as in Hermosa Hills. My opinion is that everything east of PCH should be Hermosa Hills, including east of Prospect.
Isn't this still up for debate? Use of the word "will" says a decision has already been made.
difficult, if not mostly impossible to do given lot layouts
Page: 78
Author: rubencjubinsky Subject: Sticky Note Date: 1/8/2016 3:24:24 PM
For both the Downtown and Civic Center Districts, some of the terminology (e.g., Park Once) or design concepts (e.g., transparent windows on the first floor) may require elaboration for the non-planner reading the PLAN. This could be done here, or earlier in the report in a consolidated section of "Design Principles".
Page: 83
Should the PLAN consider consolidated parking for the Cypress District (e.g., on the City
operations yard)? This would allow for increased commercial/industrial density and increased
productivity for the small district.
Page: 85
Author: rubencjubinsky Subject: Sticky Note Date: 1/8/2016 3:36:19 PM Should the PLAN explicitly address the strip mall at Prospect & Aviation (or at least the half in Hermosa Beach)?
What about addressing gateway opportunities at Aviation & Harper?
Page: 86
Author: rubencjubinsky Subject: Comment on Text Date: 1/8/2016 4:13:51 PM Given Policy 3.3, should the PLAN be more generic in its terminology (e.g., "community-oriented service uses" vs. "auto-oriented uses)?
The parcels along PCH are not very deep, making this "form" more difficult to execute. Does it
make sense to encourage non-street facing orientations? Don't we want to activate PCH
sidewalks? Or at least encourage that these central plazas have good visual and pedestrian
connections to PCH? No mini-analogous cities, please.
Author: rubencjubinsky Subject: Callout Date: 1/8/2016 3:59:44 PM
Author: rubencjubinsky Subject: Callout Date: 1/11/2016 10:52:02 AM
Author: rubencjubinsky Subject: Callout Date: 1/8/2016 4:26:28 PM
Author: rubencjubinsky Subject: Callout Date: 1/10/2016 3:35:29 PM
Author: rubencjubinsky Subject: Callout Date: 1/11/2016 10:52:33 AM
Author: rubencjubinsky Subject: Callout Date: 1/8/2016 4:28:50 PM
Author: rubencjubinsky Subject: Callout Date: 1/8/2016 4:34:22 PM
Author: rubencjubinsky Subject: Callout Date: 1/8/2016 4:45:23 PM
Page: 88
This implies greater density and intensity in commercial districts. While I agree, many other
NIMBY-minded residents may not (see Legado in RB, Gelsons in MB). Should the PLAN be
explicit in its encouragement of increased density and intensity in specific areas?
Page: 89
Author: rubencjubinsky Subject: Inserted Text Date: 1/8/2016 4:01:21 PM
s
On the flip side of the coin, what about "Preserve and maintain existing multifamily and 2-4 unit
properties to ensure supply of rental housing for all income levels" or something to that effect? I
use the the Lighthouse house at 8th & Hermosa, which used to be a triplex.
Page: 90
what about in-law units?
Very difficult for many lots. Could be interpreted as advocating for stacked parking, which would
not be well received by property owners. May need to qualify applicability to lot configurations.
What are "home occupations"? Short-term rentals?
Page: 92
Does this belong in the Mobility element?
Page: 93
The new development on 20th and the Strand may set a new standard for scale and massing.
Yikes!
Page: 98
precludes new technologies
Author: rubencjubinsky Subject: Comment on Text Date: 1/8/2016 4:44:52 PM
Author: rubencjubinsky Subject: Callout Date: 1/11/2016 10:53:34 AM
Author: rubencjubinsky Subject: Callout Date: 1/9/2016 3:32:09 PM
Author: rubencjubinsky Subject: Callout Date: 1/9/2016 3:35:14 PM
Author: rubencjubinsky Subject: Callout Date: 1/9/2016 3:39:11 PM
Author: rubencjubinsky Subject: Callout Date: 1/9/2016 3:42:22 PM
Author: rubencjubinsky Subject: Callout Date: 1/9/2016 3:44:00 PM
Author: rubencjubinsky Subject: Callout Date: 1/9/2016 4:00:05 PM
Author: rubencjubinsky Subject: Callout Date: 1/9/2016 4:16:54 PM
Page: 99
Ohh! Does use of the word "potentially" result in the possible property rights infringement?
Page: 100
Author: rubencjubinsky Subject: Sticky Note Date: 1/8/2016 4:52:55 PM Once again, missing from the arts and culture conversation is the City's rich music-based heritage and economy. Page: 104
this photo is so old (how can I tell? the fronds are still tied up). and used so often. anything more
current?
Page: 105
since figures 3.1 and 3.2 are rotated (albeit slightly), an indicator for true north would be helpful for
orientation
Page: 106
source? in general, citations seem lacking throughout the draft.
Author: rubencjubinsky Subject: Replacement Text Date: 1/9/2016 3:38:12 PM M
190th is also a major arterial to/from the 405, 110, and 91.
Page: 107
source?
Page: 112
Author: rubencjubinsky Subject: Comment on Text Date: 1/9/2016 3:53:33 PM already stated (1st sentence of 1st paragraph)
Page: 114
what about 2 other smaller lots: south side of 13th St btwn Beach Dr and Hermosa Ave; Palm Dr &
14th St?
Page: 118
Aviation may qualify as a major arterial
Page: 122
Author: rubencjubinsky Subject: Highlight Date: 1/8/2016 4:49:08 PM
Author: rubencjubinsky Subject: Highlight Date: 1/8/2016 4:49:04 PM
Author: rubencjubinsky Subject: Callout Date: 1/9/2016 4:18:18 PM
Author: rubencjubinsky Subject: Callout Date: 1/9/2016 4:19:40 PM
Author: rubencjubinsky Subject: Callout Date: 1/9/2016 4:18:47 PM
Author: rubencjubinsky Subject: Callout Date: 1/9/2016 4:26:40 PM
Author: rubencjubinsky Subject: Callout Date: 1/11/2016 10:55:58 AM
Author: rubencjubinsky Subject: Callout Date: 1/9/2016 4:46:32 PM
Author: rubencjubinsky Subject: Callout Date: 1/9/2016 4:51:11 PM
Author: rubencjubinsky Subject: Callout Date: 1/9/2016 4:58:13 PM
Author: rubencjubinsky Subject: Callout Date: 1/9/2016 4:57:27 PM
Author: rubencjubinsky Subject: Callout Date: 1/9/2016 4:54:16 PM
source?
source?
source?
Page: 123
Author: rubencjubinsky Subject: Comment on Text Date: 1/9/2016 4:22:08 PM I like the reinforcement of community input into the PLAN!
Page: 124
Author: rubencjubinsky Subject: Comment on Text Date: 1/9/2016 4:28:00 PM What about skateboards, roller skates, segways, hoverboards, razors, unicycles, pogo sticks, and any new technology not yet developed? Would more general language be more inclusive?
Is "wayfinding" an alternative term?
Page: 126
possible contentious issue: are permits too cheap? or should eligibility be tighter? (I'm targeting
residents who use their garages as storage for everything but automobiles)
Page: 132
This is good context. Why not include a similar inset in the Mobility Element re SB375, especially
given the high commuter rates for residents?
Page: 133
it strikes me as odd that the discussions for these two very related topics - adaptation and
mitigation - would occur in different places in the document
Page: 135
has "Carbon Neutral" been defined somewhere?
the average reader may not know what LID is
Author: rubencjubinsky Subject: Sticky Note Date: 1/9/2016 4:59:26 PM
There should be dates for all of these items (e.g., date of adoption, date of award).
Another layout option: incorporate the text above into the graphic below
is this a timeline? if so, it should include dates. if not, the format is misleading.
Page: 137
Author: rubencjubinsky Subject: Callout Date: 1/9/2016 5:10:52 PM
Author: rubencjubinsky Subject: Callout Date: 1/11/2016 10:57:44 AM
Author: rubencjubinsky Subject: Callout Date: 1/9/2016 5:13:55 PM
Author: rubencjubinsky Subject: Callout Date: 1/10/2016 12:21:43 PM
Author: rubencjubinsky Subject: Callout Date: 1/10/2016 12:25:29 PM
Author: rubencjubinsky Subject: Callout Date: 1/10/2016 12:27:19 PM
Author: rubencjubinsky Subject: Callout Date: 1/10/2016 12:33:19 PM
Author: rubencjubinsky Subject: Callout Date: 1/10/2016 12:34:48 PM
Author: rubencjubinsky Subject: Callout Date: 1/10/2016 12:58:15 PM
Author: rubencjubinsky Subject: Callout Date: 1/10/2016 1:05:32 PM
The transition from Solid Waste to Geology is awkward. Maybe it's the order of the topics.
Page: 139
would an average reader know what these types of projects are? I don't.
Page: 140
include the example of no smoking on the beach?
Page: 160
reference?
Page: 163
what about Aviation as a view corridor?
why only along the shoreline? doesn't light pollution apply to the entire city (e.g., next to Clark
Field)?
Page: 166
include beach tennis courts (e.g., near Noble Park)?
Page: 167
"b" s/b capitalized
Page: 172
footnote link?
in Figures 6.1 and 6.2, this triangle west of PCH appears to be grey (instead of white), identifying
the land as part of Manhattan Beach. May be optical, but should be addressed.
Author: rubencjubinsky Subject: Cross-Out Date: 1/10/2016 1:00:00 PM
Author: rubencjubinsky
Subject: Inserted Text
Date: 1/10/2016 1:00:05 PM
such as
Author: rubencjubinsky
Subject: Inserted Text
Date: 1/10/2016 12:59:52 PM
s
Author: rubencjubinsky Subject: Callout Date: 1/10/2016 1:17:09 PM
Author: rubencjubinsky Subject: Callout Date: 1/10/2016 1:18:11 PM
Author: rubencjubinsky Subject: Callout Date: 1/10/2016 1:15:23 PM
Author: rubencjubinsky Subject: Callout Date: 1/10/2016 1:27:15 PM
Author: rubencjubinsky Subject: Callout Date: 1/10/2016 1:27:50 PM
Author: rubencjubinsky Subject: Callout Date: 1/10/2016 1:31:59 PM
Author: rubencjubinsky Subject: Callout Date: 1/10/2016 1:33:54 PM
Author: rubencjubinsky Subject: Callout Date: 1/10/2016 2:21:26 PM
Page: 175
acreage may be a more relatable unit to lay-readers
don't projections updated since 2012 now place the max of the range at 66 inches?
source?
Page: 176
need sources for all of these stats
I thought several studies showed overall water consumption in SoCal decreased over the past
decade of so, despite increases in population. If so, does this statement conflict with those
findings?
Page: 180
this data is snapshot. given the long-term perspective of a General Plan, does it make sense to
instead present evolutionary data over a 5-10 year timeframe instead of a 2-yr snapshot?
Page: 181
would comparisons to other similar cities (e.g., Manhattan Beach, Solana Beach) be more helpful?
Page: 183
Given the small difference between scenarios in Table 6.2, I don't see much value in devoting
much space to the scenario analysis (e.g., pp 184-186). If anything, the result seems to devalue
the PLAN. If this analysis is required by law, maybe move to the Technical Appendix?
Page: 184
Author: rubencjubinsky Subject: Sticky Note Date: 1/10/2016 2:13:51 PM color scheme is a bit intense, and may be difficult for some with color blindness issues. Page: 185
Author: rubencjubinsky Subject: Sticky Note Date: 1/10/2016 2:15:24 PM
any difference between Figures 6.6 and 6.7 are indistinguishable. I don't see ANY differences.
Page: 186
Author: rubencjubinsky Subject: Sticky Note Date: 1/10/2016 2:22:57 PM
if this table is to be included, I suggest a variance column to highlight the differences between the scenarios, however, miniscule.
Author: rubencjubinsky Subject: Cross-Out Date: 1/10/2016 1:12:53 PM
Author: rubencjubinsky Subject: Callout Date: 1/10/2016 2:29:05 PM
Author: rubencjubinsky Subject: Callout Date: 1/10/2016 2:33:45 PM
Author: rubencjubinsky Subject: Callout Date: 1/11/2016 11:00:10 AM
Author: rubencjubinsky Subject: Callout Date: 1/10/2016 2:35:49 PM
Author: rubencjubinsky Subject: Callout Date: 1/10/2016 2:36:11 PM
Author: rubencjubinsky Subject: Callout Date: 1/10/2016 2:37:35 PM
Author: rubencjubinsky Subject: Callout Date: 1/10/2016 2:38:54 PM
Author: rubencjubinsky Subject: Callout Date: 1/11/2016 11:01:45 AM
Author: rubencjubinsky Subject: Callout Date: 1/10/2016 2:56:28 PM
Author: rubencjubinsky Subject: Callout Date: 1/10/2016 3:16:24 PM
That being said, see my comment on p183.
Page: 191
include links or citations to all of the references mentioned?
to what level? 100yr flood? 55" SLR? 66" SLR? the latest vetted scientific studies?
Page: 192
does this belong in the Infrastructure element?
to what standard?
already outdated?
at some point this may become cost prohibitive. should the language be more flexible to allow for
allow for a planned retreat?
Page: 194
homeless?
Page: 195
what type of "physical design standards"? an example or 2 would be helpful.
Page: 203
given the annual contribution to City coffers, should this also be included in previous discussions
re a diversified economy?
Page: 208
Author: rubencjubinsky Subject: Sticky Note Date: 1/10/2016 3:05:06 PM given the regional nature of stormwater management, does it make sense to include a policy re implementation of the EWMP and coordination/cooperation with other municipalities and agencies sharing the same watersheds? Page: 212
Author: rubencjubinsky Subject: Comment on Text Date: 1/10/2016 3:11:35 PM bold?
Page: 213
Is this sufficient detail? Should there be a table itemizing which department s/b responsible for
Author: rubencjubinsky Subject: Cross-Out Date: 1/10/2016 3:10:03 PM
Author: rubencjubinsky Subject: Cross-Out Date: 1/10/2016 3:09:48 PM
Author: rubencjubinsky Subject: Callout Date: 1/10/2016 3:21:44 PM
implementing which policy, along with potential funding sources and any dependencies that may
affect the timeframe? Of would such a table be too granular for a General Plan?
Page: 214
Author: rubencjubinsky Subject: Sticky Note Date: 1/11/2016 11:02:41 AM
dates for all of these plans would be helpful to know how current or stale they are
Page: 219
Draft plan available (see http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/losangeles/water_issues/programs/
stormwater/municipal/watershed_management/beach_cities/index.shtml)
Comments Regarding PLAN Hermosa
Hi all,
The attached letters and collection of comments regarding the draft of PLAN Hermosa were delivered to Ken
Robertson by Christa Lyons and I this afternoon. These comments only relate to the residential land use sections.
We thought it would be useful to have a handy package with everyone's thoughts over the last few days leading
into today's public comment deadline.
The four items include:
1. Copy of comments posted by community members in connection with the Change.org petition. In just three
days over 150 people have signed the petition. The overriding sentiment is that community members are asking
you as a City to protect their property rights. Regardless of the original intent, there are sections of the PLAN that
need to be corrected to preserve current rights. The way the PLAN is written now, amongst other things, it creates
a pathway for lower height limits in the future. Several city representatives have stated that isn't the intent, so it
should be an area of concern that's easily remedied.
2. Letter highlighting specific areas of concern with the PLAN by page/section/goal.
3. Letter from myself with observations from the journey of the last few days and suggestions on how the
community's concerns can be addressed.
4. Letter from Christa Lyons with her input.
People that weighedin would like to be sure their voices are heard and action taken, with followup notifications
pushed to them regarding upcoming meetings and revisions to the PLAN so they can remain informed.
Thank you for your consideration.
Karynne
‐‐
Karynne Thim
Shorewood Realtors
310‐753‐7816 ﴾cell﴿
www.KTBeachProperties.com
Karynne Thim <kt@ktbeachproperties.com>
Thu 2/25/2016 5:06 PM
To:Elaine Doerfling <edoerfling@hermosabch.org>; City Council <citycouncil@hermosabch.org>; Ken Robertson
<krobertson@hermosabch.org>; Kent Allen <kentjallen@gmail.com>; Kim Chafin <kchafin@hermosabch.org>; Leeanne
Singleton <generalplan@hermosabch.org>; Marie Rice <marierice@gmail.com>; Mike Flaherty
<mikeflaherty2010@gmail.com>; Peter Hoffman <phoffman@lmu.edu>; Rob Saemann <rsgc1@aol.com>; Christa Lyons
<christalyons@verizon.net>;
4 attachments ﴾489 KB﴿
PLAN Hermosa Petition Supporter Comments.pdf; PLAN Hermosa Letter to City regarding specific sections.pdf; PLAN Hermosa
letter from Karynne Thim Feb 25 2016.pdf; PLAN Hermosa letter from Christa Lyons.pdf;
License #01161295
Specializing in South Bay Beach Properties Since 1993
Feedback for PLAN Hermosa
First, congratulations to all of you in creating an excellent PLAN Hermosa document for its
comprehensiveness, clarity, graphic design, and readability. In general, I believe it captures the
community vision as expressed in citizen input opportunities, many in which I participated.
After reviewing the numerous aspects of the plan, I will confine my comments to areas in which I
have direct knowledge and experience.
Residential Architectural Scale
Most generally, the PLAN is an inspiring blueprint especially in its descriptions of our architectural
heritage. The greatest threat to it becoming a reality in implementation is money, plain and
simple. Hermosa has a great number of natural resources that potentially are for sale. Many are
intangible such as scale and density. These are key factors in preserving that “small beach town
character” vision that appears in just about every section of the PLAN. But the threat comes in the
form of unlimited investment interest in Hermosa both residentially and commercially. To
investors, scale and density translate to revenue and increased property value. And the troubling
factor is that there is sufficient allowable flexibility within existing residential building codes to lose
our small town charter in an eye blink.
This has happened to other beach cities, most notably Huntington Beach as an extreme example,
but it is also an issue that has damaged our neighbors in Redondo and Manhattan. For example,
Manhattan Beach has succumbed to the mansionization of its Strand and instead of a collection
of heritagetype beach homes (as Hemosans would envision) they have a wall of edifices to
height and square footage.
Our building codes were created without anticipation of the potential exploitation that we now
face. These codes need to be revisited and revised with great consideration of the welfare of the
community, especially residential architectural scale and character as expressed repeatedly in the
PLAN. Where codes can’t be revised, we must look to our city council, boards and commissions
to mitigate residential construction using other regulations to preserve the vision expressed in the
updated PLAN.
The challenge is that threats to often come cloaked in terms of other laudable goals such as
“economic growth,” “fiscal stability,” and “property owner rights.” The defense of “property owner
rights” is regularly used as a bludgeon to destroy beach neighborhoods. No individual right should
trump community welfare. We need our city government leaders—and I believe they will—to
place community welfare as expressed in part by our small town residential scale above these
other interests.
Wrdzmith@aol.com
Sun 2/21/2016 2:31 PM
To:Leeanne Singleton <generalplan@hermosabch.org>;
The PLAN is an excellent vision and we now have the composition of city leaders to translate
these principles into reality.
Thank you for your efforts and your consideration.
Robert Smith
2215 Hermosa Ave.
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
Hermosa Beach: No General Plan
To the Hermosa Beach City Council and commissions.
My name is Arthur Schaper, a resident and activist in Torrance, CA.
I am opposed to the rapid urbanization at work in Hermosa Beach.
The large construction, the efforts to remove streets and force people onto bikes or walking. . .
These efforts are inappropriate and unnecessary.
No General Plan!
Arthur Christopher Schaper is a blogger, writer, and commentator on topics both timeless and timely; political, cultural, and eternal. A lifelong
Southern California resident, Arthur currently lives in Torrance. Follow his blogs at The State of the Union and As He Is, So Are We Ministries.
Twitter: @ArthurCSchaper
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/arthurchristopher.schaper
Email: ArthurSchaper@hotmail.com
Arthur Christopher Schaper <arthurschaper@hotmail.com>
Fri 2/5/2016 7:53 PM
To:Leeanne Singleton <generalplan@hermosabch.org>;
Please add the Regulation and Taxation of Short term vacation
rentals to the General Plan of The City of Hermosa Beach
Vacation/Short Term rentals have been unregulated in the City of Hermosa Beach and therefore untaxed.
The City of Hermosa Beach Staff estimates that regulated short term rentals will bring The City of Hermosa Beach approximately
$900,000 a year on TOT tax.
That number does not include the additional tax dollars generated thru the local merchants, restaurants and shops visited by the short
term rental guests.
Please include the regulation of short term rentals in the Hermosa Beach General Plan.
Regulating and taxing the short term rentals will eliminate the nuisance rentals that give all of the good ones a bad name. There were
4 reported occurrences where police were called to a short term rental last year.
Regulating and taxing the short term rentals will help fund our local schools, infrastructure and pay off the costs of the oil debt after
the no vote on oil which cost the City of Hermosa Beach 17.5 million dollars.
Here are some Suggested Rules and Regulations.
Short term rentals in Hermosa Beach are limited to properties West of Valley/Ardmore, in the Coastal Zone.
5‐7 Day Minimum Stay
Require an annual business license‐ like every other business in Hermosa Beach.
The license fees will be used to fund the costs of the Short Term Rental Dept. in the City.
30 day grace period to register for business license.
The houses that don't comply will be subject to a stiff fine.
City will require all licensees to watch a webinar on how to set up and run a vacation rental with a 20 question quiz afterwards.
City attorney will draw up list of rules and regulations that will be required to be a part of each short term rental contract.
Topics to be addressed:
Squatters‐regulations that enable the police to remove trouble makers instantly, like a hotel.
Trash rules
Noise and nuisance ordinances which addresses a behavioral deposit made by each guest.
Any additional rules that the city would like to be in every short term rental contract.
﴾The city of Manhattan Beach has one for their vacation rentals.﴿
No tenant sublets allowed without the property owner obtaining a business license.
Each home owner/ licensee is to provide proof of liability insurance similar to what the city currently requires each resident for their
car when they acquire a parking permit.
If owner is not in good standing, owner will be cited with substantial fines and shut down immediately.
When obtaining a license, this statement must be agreed to.
Behavioral/City deposit will be required on every rental contract.
Robert Reyes suggest the following verbiage.
Betsy Ryan <rosebud5333@me.com>
Thu 2/25/2016 2:40 PM
To:Leeanne Singleton <generalplan@hermosabch.org>; Chuck Posner <Chuck.Posner@coastal.ca.gov>; Ken Robertson
<krobertson@hermosabch.org>; Kim Chafin <kchafin@hermosabch.org>; Mayor Carolyn Petty <cpetty@hermosabch.org>;
Hany Fangary <hfangary@hermosabch.org>; Justin Massey <jmassey@hermosabch.org>; Jeff Duclos
<jduclos@hermosabch.org>; Stacey <staceyarmato@gmail.com>;
"The Behavior Deposit would be $1,000 per stay. If the police are called to the residence and a ticket is issued to the Guest then
the Owners or in my case property Manager ﴾SCVR﴿ will be required to release $500 from the guests Behavior Deposit to The
City for Hermosa to be used to improve our City and or for The Hermosa Beach Education Foundation, if there is a second visit
by the police, the remaining $500 will be turned over to the City and If warrantied the Guests will be forced to vacate the
property immediately and forfeit there rental fees for the rest of their stay and possibly their security deposit. Adding this to all
of our contracts will send a clear message that we do not want the party crowd in our beautiful city and we will not tolerate
inappropriate behavior in our homes. Most think you fine the Owner but that won’t detour the guy causing the problem, he’s
the one you need to punish for his actions."
2 car parking is required for each rental.
﴾City parking permit is ok.﴿
Vacation rentals are not allowed in condo/town home developments that are precluded in their CCRs.
CCRs will monitor and prevail.
This is common in properties with 3 or more units; limiting the types of houses that can be used as a short term rental.
Many homes are in family trusts and LLCs for inheritance and tax purposes.
We do not want to be bias against homeowners and how they choose to take title, so don't disallow these houses.
It would be prejudice to say that one must live in the short term rental as most female homeowners would not feel comfortable with a
stranger sleeping in one of their bedrooms. Owner occupied should have nothing to do with it.
The majority of the vacation rentals are second homes and
they are not available on the rental market as the owners use them seasonally or share them with family so they do not take from the
rental supply.
Vacation rentals keep squatters and robbers away.
Vacation rentals also ensure properties are kept in pristine condition to obtain the highest rents while the owner, family and friends are
not enjoying the home.
Vacation rentals bring families to the area who support all of the local business and merchants.
They do not compete with the hotels as most families need more than one expensive single room.
They need a home with a kitchen and preferably bunk beds for their families.
They can not fit into one expensive hotel room.
Most families also can not take a month off of work but treasure the experience of staying in a home for a week or two at the beach.
Allowing children that live inland or from another state to enjoy our public beach and beach culture with equality should be gladly
shared.
Beach access and beach culture shouldn't be limited to the wealthy.
Families from out of the area should have the same rite to rent a house and live in neighborhood at the beach for a week as we do.
Families especially love renting homes on walk streets near the water.
That way their children don't have to cross any streets to get to the beach.
Besides creating wonderful family memories together, short term beach rentals nurture environmentalists.
Loving and protecting the ocean and its culture starts with experiencing it.
Respect needs to be mutual.
"Kook Go Home" is not to be accepted while surfing, on our beaches, in our city or neighborhoods with short term rentals.
12% tot tax.
We believe this will realistically generate at least 1 million per year in additional tax revenue, not taking into consideration all of the
business dollars and taxes generated in our local stores and restaurants.
Regulated Short term/vacation rentals provide an intricate part
in growing our local economy, creating local jobs, paying off oil debt, building schools and infrastructure in Hermosa Beach.
Short term vacation rentals require sharing our beach and beach culture with families so that they can enjoy for just a week or two the
lifestyle that we are fortunate enough to enjoy everyday.
Please regulate and tax short term vacation rentals.
When I was little, we lived near East Los Angeles.
Was so excited to be able to come and spend a week at the beach, in a cottage, in a neighborhood... Just like everybody else that lived
there..
Used to sleep in my bathing suit the night before we left....
Couldn't wait to get to the beach ....
Sincerely,
Betsy Ryan
Hermosa Beach Resident :﴿
Rosebud5333@me.com
Sent from my iPhone
Please do not add height or roof top deck restrictions to our
General Plan
Please do not add height restrictions or roof top deck restrictions to the general plan of Hermosa Beach.
Thank you,
Betsy Ryan
Sent from my iPhone
Betsy Ryan <rosebud5333@me.com>
Thu 2/25/2016 2:51 PM
To:Leeanne Singleton <generalplan@hermosabch.org>; Kim Chafin <kchafin@hermosabch.org>; Ken Robertson
<krobertson@hermosabch.org>;
Comments on the General Plan
First, the plan looks good and the meeting was well done.
Below are some thoughts.
Page 120, figure 3.8
We should go out of our way to inform people who live and/or own property on 5th St., 21st St., Monterey Blvd. and
other streets that are being turned into "bike boulevards" or having "sharrows" added to their streets, that traffic flows on
their street will change. We now have enough of sharrows and "buffered bike lanes" that people know what they are.
Bike Blvd needs to be explained. I recommend mail, email and leafleting to inform these folks. Otherwise the retired,
and people living on other streets can designate whatever they wish.
BTW, a good point was made about "equal access" for all modes of transportation. Perhaps a better goal is to set a
number we want to reach, like reducing autos from 80% to some lower number.
Also please be reminded that there are FAR more pedestrians than bikes in HB. Not much is said about the difficulty of
walking in HB because pedestrians are not militant and have no spokespeople or organization.
Page129, Goal 7
It seems the goal of moving people who are traveling outside HB has been ignored. Of course we need to keep
everyone safe but again the silent majority is being ignored while we cater to a vocal minority. 90% of residents work
outside the city ﴾I may have that number wrong but I am close﴿ and need to drive to work. I see no one using public
transport except people coming TO work in HB.
Page 138, Item 1.4
This item specifies an expenditure of city funds and is totally inappropriate for a 30 year plan. When is it "necessary" to
buy our way into carbon neutrality? I did not see another statement in the plan that specifies an expenditure and we
should not allow this to stand in order to placate one person or a small group of people.
Sent from my iPad
rjones526@gmail.com
Tue 1/26/2016 1:37 PM
To:Leeanne Singleton <generalplan@hermosabch.org>; Ken Robertson <krobertson@hermosabch.org>;
Cc:mattburris@raimiassociates.com <mattburris@raimiassociates.com>;
Feedback on PLAN Hermosa
I would like to object to the following
Alter height limits in the "north end" sand section (north of 26th to the MB border) to be
25'. As you know, there are several streets currently zoned R2 with a 30' height limit,
so this would reduce the limit currently in place. The PLAN encourages this area to be
12 stories, not 3, so it equates to a downzoning for many properties. Critical to
object to this! See page 69.
Changes to the design and placement of garages would be significant. See page 90
where the goal is stated to be "Encouraging homes to engage the street and integrate
with the neighborhood by requiring the design of new carports/garages to be
subordinate in scale to the primary dwelling, to minimize views from the street, and to
not occupy the majority of the street frontage of buildings." They would encourage
rear garages where there's an alleyway (fine for walk streets and The Strand, but not
great for larger lots that would have a nice back yard now consumed by a garage).
They'd encourage single tandem garages vs. side by side in areas like the sand section
so there are fewer curb cuts.
Sand Section discourage flat boxlike facades and encourage "greater articulation and
stepbacks." The dreaded "mansionization" term is being used in discussions to debulk
structures. See page 72.
Encourage larger setbacks on 5,000+ sf lots in the area adjacent to the MB Hill Section.
See page 70.
Alter the way height limits are calculated in the "greenbelt neighborhood." According to
Leeanne Singleton, the City's PLAN consultant, they are considering a formula more
similar to Manhattan Beach. She said the goal is to maximize views, but I'm not sure
how to evaluate it. See Page 75.
Encourage 24 unit properties detached structures that resemble SFR's in the
"greenbelt neighborhood." Presumably this means less square footage. See page 73.
Introduce neighborhood commercial to areas surrounding Prospect. See page 77.
Respectfully,
BRETT R. MALKIN
WHITE SANDS COASTAL DEVELOPMENT | MANAGING PARTNER
141 ARENA STREET | EL SEGUNDO | CA 90245
Brett Malkin <brett@whitesandscoastaldevelopment.com>
Mon 2/8/2016 3:00 PM
To:Leeanne Singleton <generalplan@hermosabch.org>;
OFFICE 310.607.0176 | FAX 310.919.3558 | CELL 424.634.2127
EMAIL brett@wscoastal.com | WEB WhiteSandsCoastal.com
Think Green ‐ when in doubt, don't print it out
IMPORTANT WARNING: This email (and any attachments) is only intended for the use of the person or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged
and confidential. You, the recipient, are obligated to maintain it in a safe, secure and confidential manner. Unauthorized re‐disclosure or failure to maintain confidentiality may
subject you to federal and state penalties. If you are not the intended recipient, please immediately notify me by return email, and delete this message from your computer and
related systems.
Hermosa Beach PLAN
Hello,
I’ve been a Hermosa Beach resident for over 20 years and I’m also a professional real estate investor. I think the
proposed plans are great and really needed.
Bruce Bartlett
1036 2nd st
Hermosa Beach, CA
Bruce Bartlett <brucebartlett@me.com>
Mon 2/22/2016 7:37 AM
To:Leeanne Singleton <generalplan@hermosabch.org>;
Comments regarding draft of PLAN Hermosa
Hello,
I had a chance to go through the PLAN Hermosa document, specifically related to sections that affect my residence. We own 2216
Hermosa Ave and have lived here for 3 years, and plan to live here for many, many more. We love this area, and our goal is to build
our dream home right here.
We are very concerned with the changes proposed specifically in our area. One has to do with height limits. Page 72 of the plan
specifies that our area would be limited to 2‐story, 25‐foot‐tall residences. We live across the street from 2215 Hermosa Ave, one of
the tallest houses in Hermosa, and we are surrounded by 30‐foot‐tall houses. This would severely limit the opportunities we have to
build, and would decrease our property value. Also, any future development on this location would look awkwardly small.
Another concern is the note on Page 90, where the plan reads, "Encouraging homes to engage the street and integrate with the
neighborhood by requiring the design of new carports/garages to be subordinate in scale to the primary dwelling..." Since we are on a
half‐lot with no alley access, I understand this to mean that our garage could not be the full width of our property. Instead, we would
need to have a single‐car‐wide tandem garage. This is very inconvenient and would lead us to park on the street. Also, this limits our
driveway to only 1 car parking, which would mean any guests also need to find street parking. Our ideal is to have a typical 2‐car
garage like our next door neighbors. This enables 2 garage spaces, 2 driveway spaces, and 1 street space ﴾blocking the driveway﴿ ‐ 5
total spaces. A tandem garage allows 2 garage spaces ﴾with one being very difficult to access﴿, one driveway space, and we lose any
potential street parking in front of our house. This means we have 2 fewer parking spaces due to a tandem garage, plus it encourages
us to park at least 1 car on the street.
I know this is just one letter, but I hope you understand that these proposed changes have a major negative impact specifically to
residents in our situation. We want to make the most of this location that we purchased and live here for a long time.
Best,
Calen Lopata
2216 Hermosa Ave
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
Calen Lopata <calen.lopata@gmail.com>
Thu 2/25/2016 12:59 PM
To:Leeanne Singleton <generalplan@hermosabch.org>; +krobertson@hermosabch.org <+krobertson@hermosabch.org>;
input on PLAN Hermosa.
To whom it may concern,
I am writing to address my concerns "in red" over the following sections of the plan, as follows:
1. Alter height limits in the "north end" sand section (north of 26th to the MB border) to be 25'. As you
know, there are several streets currently zoned R2 with a 30' height limit, so this would reduce the limit
currently in place. The PLAN encourages this area to be 12 stories, not 3, so it equates to a down
zoning for many properties.
This would impose greatly to homeowners of properties with a westerly neighbor built to 30' the new
height limit of 25' would mean their view potential is taken away. This would create a huge loss in
value, which is not fair tho the homeowners who pay huge prices to have the ocean views.
2. Changes to the design and placement of garages would be significant. The goal is stated to
be "Encouraging homes to engage the street and integrate with the neighborhood by requiring the
design of new carports/garages to be subordinate in scale to the primary dwelling, to minimize views
from the street, and to not occupy the majority of the street frontage of buildings."
They would encourage rear garages where there's an alleyway (fine for walk streets and The Strand,
but not great for larger lots that would have a nice back yard, which would now be consumed by a
garage). They'd encourage single tandem garages vs. side by side in areas like the sand section so
there are fewer curb cuts. Very inconvenient for homeowners who paid high prices to have a 2 car side
by side garage.
3. Sand Section discourage flat boxlike facades and encourage greater articulation and setbacks.
The dreaded "mansionization" term is being used in discussions to debulk structures. Encourage larger
setbacks on 5,000+ sf lots in the area adjacent to the MB Hill Section.
Again, this would be unfair to the homeowner, they pay millions of dollars for these lots and homes and
their rights would be severely diminished.
4. Alter the way height limits are calculated in the "greenbelt neighborhood." The goal is to maximize
views.
How could this be evaluated on such an "overall" plan? This should be evaluated on each individual
plan for new construction.
5. Encourage 24 unit properties detached structures that resemble SFR's in the "greenbelt
neighborhood."
Zehnpfennig, Carrie <Carrie.Zehnpfennig@shorewood.com>
Sat 2/13/2016 11:20 AM
To:Leeanne Singleton <generalplan@hermosabch.org>;
Presumably this means less square footage, the lots are too small to build detached structures and
property value would be effected greatly, again, not fair to the homeowners.
6. Introduce neighborhood commercial to areas surrounding Prospect.
This would diminish nearby residential property values, not fair to homeowners who have purchased
their homes prior to any imposition of new commercial zoning.
Thank you for your consideration in discouraging an unfair Plan to current homeowners, as their current
property value should not be severely diminished by the imposition of "new zoning or usage" provisions in
any PLAN.
Carrie 'Z'ehnpfennig
"I have your Best Interests at Heart"
CalBRE License #01227747
Right click and
save as...
Credentials: http://www.realtorbadge.com/getBadgeDetails.php?type=json&state=&nid=a59k9l
I'll help you negotiate the most for your money when
buying or selling property.
* Cell: 310‐293‐0057 * Fax: 866‐358‐4508 * Office: 310‐379‐2167, ext. 210
EM: CarrieZ@Shorewood.com
Celebrating my 19th year with Shorewood Realtors
See my resume:
http://www.shorewood.com/agent‐detail/Carrie‐Zehnpfennig/98482/
Offices of Raju Chhabria, #15 in USA for Sales Volume in 2014
Shorewood Living Magazine
Search the MLS
http://www.crmls.org/servlet/lDisplayListings?LA=EN
Re: PLAN Hermosa ‐ Joint Commission Study Session ‐1.25.16
Leanne,
Thank you so much for being available to the Commissioners it was an excellent workshop.
I'm glad you laughed at the 'drinking' joke with all kidding aside, my notes from my of the draft Gen Plan
review are as follows.
1. Public Safety needs not only to be a main goal and priority (7 Elements), but away from anything that
may move it to another category.
a. Public Safety and Noise? No. Public Safety should be Police/Fire/Community Services/Lifeguards,
period.
b. I understand Noise is a public health concern, and the State Law puts it under the Health and Safety of
the community, but the term public safety is a key phrase in as it applies to Hermosa Beach and I would
like it steered more toward the agencies that are working 24/7 toward the protection of this
community.
1b: Will there be a noise study in the EIR? Or, is the EIR only on the draft Gen Plan? I know
ambient noise levels and proposed noise levels were done for the oil project EIR, both by the applicant and
the City.
2b: Include forward thinking language that includes a vision of continuing to promote safety levels
(staffing and resources) for crime, population growth, building growth and our influx of visitors at high
volume tourist holidays (Memorial, Labor Day and 4th of July to name a few)
c. Public Safety and natural hazards? Ok. Let's go there and speak specifically about the natural hazards
by name. Let's not be vague and call it "climate change" say it Earthquakes, Tsunami's, Weather
Related Events,
1c: Earthquakes: It's not if, it's when. If a major earthquake above 5.0 were to be centered in or
near Hermosa Beach, it would cause significant damage to structures, possible loss of life and potentially
shut down our business community for several days to weeks, which would have a tremendous
economic and quality of life impact on this community. How does the City of Hermosa Beach envision a
"public safety and contingency plan" for the residents? What happens when the residents (who are
responsible for their own preparedness ie: food and water) run out of resources? What does the City
propose as a back up plan and what outside agencies are partnering with them? Utilities? FEMA? Mutual
Aide with Area G Agencies (El Segundo, Manhattan, Redondo, Torrance)
2c: What about non natural, or biologic hazards? With a major transportation road running right
through our city (PCH/Hwy 1), and because we are adjacent to one of Southern California's largest
downstream facilities/oil refineries (Chevron) the chance of a hazardous materials spill or chemical
release should be outlined, Again, back up and contingency language. Partnerships (I'll give you a hint
Cheryl Cross <cacrosscomdotcom@yahoo.com>
Tue 1/26/2016 10:51 AM
To:Leeanne Singleton <generalplan@hermosabch.org>; Ken Robertson <krobertson@hermosabch.org>; Tom Bakaly
<tbakaly@hermosabch.org>;
Cc:Kim Chafin <kchafin@hermosabch.org>; Kelly Orta <korta@hermosabch.org>; Erin Concas <econcas@hermosabch.org>;
Pete Bonano <pbonano@hermosabch.org>; Dave Buckland <dave.buckland@hbdsw.org>;
LA County Fire Department HAZMAT is our phone call)
d: Public Safety and Accountability as it applies to the vendors/utilities that are near us, and service us.
So Cal Gas, Edison, West Basin Water District, each has emergency contingency plans, how do we support
it in our Gen Plan?
e: Public Safety and Acts of Terrorism explosives and terrorism are happening today and show no
signs of slowing. The Red Cross Disaster Preparedness academy in Orange County hosted four breakout
sessions on ways communities could be prepared for active shooters or other acts of terrorism
(biologics/explosives). What is the City's commitment to train our first responders and emergency
prepardeness staff on these realities? Worthwhile to include.
Quick Summary more focus on the spine of what Public Safety is to the Hermosa Beach community:
1. Commitment to appropriate levels of staffing and resources for Police/Fire/Community Services and a
robust commitment to our partners and agencies (LACoFD Lifeguards, LACoFD HazMat, Los Angeles
Sherriffs Department, our Dispatch Center)
2. Contingency plans and back ups (plans A B C) for natural and manmade disasters (biologic, terrorism)
3. Use language that is specific, not non specific (Earthquakes vs. Climate Change)
4. Keep Climate Change, but list it where it belongs where erosion or drought may affect the
landscape/coastal zones, etc.
Please call on me to answer any questions or elaborate. I welcome you to our Hermosa Beach community,
and know how difficult it is to include all voices. I look forward to the final product, and am honored to be
a part of this significant document for our City.
In continued safety and health,
Cheryl A. Cross, MPH
Commissioner - City of Hermosa Beach - Emergency Preparedness Advisory Commission
C.A. Cross & Associates
Building Marketing and Communications Teams Since 2005
text 3103039328
www.cacrosscom.com
On Tuesday, January 12, 2016 5:23 PM, Leeanne Singleton <generalplan@hermosabch.org> wrote:
EPAC and Parks and Rec Commissioners,
As a follow up, we have hard copies of the Public Review Draft of PLAN Hermosa available to you at the
Community Development Department. You may come by anytime during normal business hours to pick them
up Monday Thursday 7AM 6PM. If you are unable to make it during that time, please let us know and we
can make alternative arrangements or we can bring it to the meeting on 1/25 at 7PM.
Leeanne Singleton
Hermosa Beach General Plan Coordinator
Email: generalplan@hermosabch.org
Phone: 310.318.0242
1315 Valley Dr, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
From: Leeanne Singleton
Sent: Thursday, January 7, 2016 11:48 AM
To: Ken Robertson
Cc: Kim Chafin; Kelly Orta; Tom Bakaly; Andrew Brozyna; Erin Concas
Subject: PLAN Hermosa ‐ Joint Commission Study Session ‐1.25.16
Greetings Commissioners,
The Planning Commission, Public Works Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission, and
Emergency Preparedness Advisory Committee of the City of Hermosa Beach will hold a joint
study session to learn about and discuss the Public Review Draft of PLAN Hermosa, the City's
integrated General Plan and Local Coastal Program. Based on availability responses from
commissioners, this meeting will be held at 7 PM on Monday January 25 at City Hall in Council
Chambers.
The Public Review Draft of PLAN Hermosa is available on the City's website now
(http://www.hermosabch.org/index.aspx?page=858 ) and we are in the process of making paper
copies to distribute to all commissioners in advance of the meeting.
This will be the first of several study sessions, workshops, and public hearings regarding PLAN
Hermosa. To find additional meeting dates and events, please visit the PLAN Hermosa webpage
(http://www.hermosabch.org/index.aspx?page=767)
Should you have any questions regarding this meeting, related workshops, or the public review
draft of PLAN Hermosa, please do not hesitate in reaching out to the Community Development
Department (generalplan@hermosabch.org) or 310.318.0242.
Ken Robertson
Director, Community Development Department
City of Hermosa Beach
(310) 3180242
FW: PLAN Hermosa
I told Chris that we will still consider these.
Ken Robertson
Director, Community Development Department
City of Hermosa Beach
(310) 3180242
From: Chris Miller [mailto:chrismillerphotography4@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, February 27, 2016 11:53 AM
To: Ken Robertson
Subject: PLAN Hermosa
Ken,
I am submitting my points for PLAN Hermosa on Saturday, February 27, 2015. It is my hope that since the
City is closed on Friday anyway you might consider adding my observations after the deadline.
The PLAN Hermosa all 228 pages was a considerable amount to get through in the first place.
I realize this effort is multi facetted so I will keep my ideas to the points that interest me.
I am attaching examples of these ideas with this email in order for you to get a visual on what you may
consider in the future.
After over fifty years of living, working and going to school in Hermosa Beach I feel I have a unique
perspective of my hometown. My resource as a historian into account for these comments. I have observed
and believe I have an extensive background on the needs based on the past but with a view for the future.
Clark Building
Under utilized facility with an extensive place in the history of Hermosa Beach. As a far as I know has not
had a substantial modernization in many years, if ever.
Other than new paint and of course you would know best. Its what I think it could be with new bathroom
facilities and a new updated kitchen for use by the community. I see the building becoming more of a
resource for the senior population that is continuing to grow. Possibly a use for teens on weekends and
evening for movies, dances, etc. combined with the current users this facility would actually become
cornerstone for the city.
Ken Robertson
Mon 2/29/2016 11:34 AM
To:Leeanne Singleton <generalplan@hermosabch.org>;
Cc:Kim Chafin <kchafin@hermosabch.org>;
7 attachments ﴾21 MB﴿
HB 2 new community building 2.jpg; hermosa Beach rotary.jpg; Kiwanis building.jpg; HB community services.jpg; Hb new library
vision place holder .jpg; HB community services 2.jpg; Clark Building.jpg;
Community Resources Building
Originally built for the Parks and Recreation department for its location and proximity to Clark Stadium,
basketball courts and Lawn bowling. This building seems under used for the intended area. Athens offices
and the parking enforcement that could be anywhere in the city. Offices for city staff. With an updated
facility that gave back to the community and supported the community with services that were supported by
the area would seem a better use.
(See attachment Hb community services 2 )
If you continue down Valley Drive towards City Hall:
The current City owned Public Storage facility is an amazing possibility to the current and future needs of
the city. (see Attached HB 2 new community)
If the City were to replace the storage facility with a multi use building. Parking with adjacent office
spaces, conference rooms for public use and possible over flow office needs from the city it could expand
and satisfy the crammed conditions that exist by the restraints in actual square footage available at city hall.
Now with the new parking spaces available in this new structure/office building with the additional parking
spaces would afford new design possibilities for the area surrounding City Hall .
The ten parking spaces along Valley Drive on the East side of City Hall would now be covered to allow a
move of the County Library and a new building (see attachment HB new library) at that location. The
move of the library would free up the space where the current library sits for a possible upgrade for the
Police and Fire Department. With the amazing resources available in Hermosa Beach of architects such
as Dean Nota I believe a building could be designed and with the $900,000 set aside for the library
currently the foundation for this effort would create a strong conversation in the community.
I didn't find any Police and Fire Department place holders to share an example of the new facility. But
this is just a vision at this point for that matter most of what I am sharing with you in this email is my
vision.
Last on this virtual tour is the Kiwanis and Rotary buildings near Valley Park. These facilities are old
with little or no upgrades from the city. The use of these facilities must be grand fathered to the clubs for
use by the Kiwanis and Rotary alone without sharing their income with the city. I believe they pay you $1 a
year for the lease on this building which is the same price you charge many non profits in the area. But this
property is a loss for the city that has so much potential.
With a new single structure built to accommodate the actual needs for the future of the residents and the
City of Hermosa Beach. One that could continue to be shared by the Kiwanis and Rotary but, could be
leased by interested parties for events. The close proximity to the near by park could allow for Weddings
and other parties to be rented to give the city the revenue. Similar to the Old Redondo Library which
currently rents for $15,00020,000 for a wedding with a modern catering kitchen.
Of course all of these ideas are dependent on $$$ what would stop the city from asking the tax payers of
Hermosa Beach for a community bond in the future to create a modern version of Hermosa Beach that
would allow a future that gives the city places to grow for all that actually addresses the needs of many of
the under served within the city. I know that one of the aspects of this grant is dependent on accessibility
and green house gas component. All of these locations are central to the community. Expand the presence
of facilities throughout the city. Allow for mobility and growth without burdening one section of the city
over another. Something that is currently lacking in the current status of buildings.
In closing, I was disappointed there wasn't any discussion of building a dog park for the animals of
Hermosa Beach to create spaces for many of the families of the city that would allow for their family pets
to feel welcome within the city limits.
I appreciate your time to read over my suggestions. I have been out of the conversation for over a year now
and its been difficult not participate in the future when I have invested so many years to the health and well
being of my hometown. The countless hours and dedication to the City of Hermosa Beach has been at the
heart of my life for so long I can't keep from dreaming and hoping for the best for Hermosa.
Thank You,
Chris Miller
PLAN Hermosa
Dear Planning Commission,
I have been a resident of Hermosa Beach for almost 18 years and I have been selling residential real estate in Hermosa
Beach for over 10 years. I am very much against the proposed changes that are part of PLAN Hermosa. The height limits
and loss of square footage in particular I find unnecessary and upsetting.
I do not understand the reasoning when their are already many homes at the 30 foot height limit. This would seem to
create aesthetically unpleasing results. It will have a great impact on the property values. There have been quite a few
sales of properties in the past few years. The following are some sales that should be noted:
2324 Hermosa Ave was purchased for $3 million
2824 Hermosa Ave $3.4 million
2464 Hermosa Ave $3.750 million
2722 Hermosa Ave $3.959 Million
3224 Hermosa Ave $6.425 Million
2924 Hermosa Ave $3.4 million.
These properties were sold with intentions of rebuilding in the future. These property owners bought those properties
for a premium sales price knowing that their height limit was 30 feet allowing beautiful views. To take away their views
with a height reduction would be very unfair. Their property values will decrease so greatly as a result. The property
they bought will no longer be the property they wanted and they won’t be able to sell for even close to what they paid.
Who will make that up to those property owners? I understand, as a property owner in the sand section and as real
estate professional, that losing views can happen. It has happened to me. However, I bought my home knowing that
could happen. These people secured premium real estate where their views would be protected and they paid a lot of
money for it.
Another reason I am against PLAN hermosa’s changes is that the reduction of the sizes of homes is another bad idea.
Demographics have changed. People are having more children and in particular high income families are having more
children. Most buyers want at least a 4 bedroom home these days. We want people to buy a home and stay here in
Hermosa. That is how a community is made. Not one where the families grow out of their space and need to move as
children get older. A three bedroom home no longer suits the needs of the majority of buyers. Another factor in the need
for larger homes is the amount of people who now work from home. People need that extra bedroom for office space.
I also think the proposed idea of tandem parking garages is very unreasonable. Tandem parking is such an inconvenience
to a property owner. I understand there is a parking issue in Hermosa Beach, but, it seems that must be created by the
income properties. I wonder how many units are rented with no parking spaces.? Are there any regulations that require
income units to provide parking or could we reduce the number of units that are rented with no parking?
I wonder who or what group it was that came up with these proposed changes? It seems perhaps they are unaware of
the area and what it is that makes Hermosa Hermosa. If we want to keep Hermosa Hermosa, we need to create homes
Christa Lyons <christalyons@verizon.net>
Mon 2/22/2016 2:19 PM
To:Leeanne Singleton <generalplan@hermosabch.org>;
that accommodate families needs and maintain the neighborhood’s aesthetic beauty by keeping height limits as they are.
We want people to go through our school systems, get to know their neighbors and stay in Hermosa. The proposed
changes would be detrimental to the appeal of the city. We don’t need reasons for a buyer to say “no” to Hermosa, we
need to create more reasons for people to want to live here.
I would be happy to volunteer on a committee, to provide information on the demographics of our buyers and the
feedback I get from people about Hermosa Beach. Perhaps we can come up with alternative ways to make positive, well
received changes where necessary. Please let me know if I can help in any way. But, most importantly, please DO NOT
make the changes that are currently in PLAN hermosa.
Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.
Christa Lyons
BRE #01489213
Shorewood Realtors
310‐722‐7115
February 25, 2016
Ken Robertson
Community Development Director
City of Hermosa Beach
1315 Valley Drive
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
Christa Lyons
320 16th Street
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
Dear Mr. Robertson,
I hope that you, the planning commission, and the City council take the time to
review the letter’s and the comments made online at change.org. The proposed
changes stated in PLAN Hermosa do not represent what the property owners
want.
We were able to collect over 150 signatures opposing the changes in a very short
period of time. I am very thankful that Karynne Thim brought this to my attention.
The majority of the property owners who would feel the impact of these changes
had no idea that these proposals to change were even made. They are buried
deep in a very long document that hard working community members simply
don’t have the time to read.
I echo everything that Karynne has stated and also would volunteer to offer
opinions and give input.
Thank you for your time, and again, I hope you take the time to read what we
have presented so that you may better serve the hard working citizens that make
up the community of Hermosa Beach.
Christa Lyons
Comments regarding draft of PLAN Hermosa
Ken Robertson, Community Development Director
City of Hermosa Beach
1315 Valley Drive
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
Dear Director Robertson,
Below is a list of comments regarding residentialrelated sections of PLAN Hermosa that we believe need
to be
corrected or eliminated in order to preserve Hermosa’s property owners’ rights, values, views and their
ability to
feasibly develop and renovate. Reductions in height limits and buildable square footage will have a
significant
negative impact on property values. The vast majority of residents, property owners, and even those in real
estate
and development community, are not aware of the implications of the PLAN, and due to its size and
complexity, it’s
difficult to locate and interpret its farreaching ramifications.
We do not believe the community at large, especially residential property owners, have been adequately
represented
by the 15 person working group and staff involved in creation of the PLAN. Not a single developer or
member of the
real estate community was a part of the working group. It is imperative that individual property owners be
made
aware of the changes that would impact their property before they are implemented.
Neighborhood Land Uses
1. Page 69. North End Sand Section. Eliminate the bullet point “Buildings are one or two stories or up to
25’ in
height.” This area currently has both R1 (25’ height limit) and R2 (30’ height limit) zoned properties. A
“one size fits all”
height limit of 25’ would be extremely damaging to the value of properties zoned R2 with a current height
limit of 30’.
Any R2 property not currently developed to the height limit with a westerly neighbor built to 30’ would
forever lose
its view potential, be overshadowed and have sunlight blocked. Huge loss in value. Critical that this change
not be
Christian D Haase <chaase@burnetthaase.com>
Wed 2/24/2016 5:41 PM
To:Leeanne Singleton <generalplan@hermosabch.org>; +krobertson@hermosabch.org <+krobertson@hermosabch.org>;
instituted. One local home builder estimates a 33% loss in property value as a result of only being able to
build a two
story home rather than three where currently allowed, with 40% less above ground square footage. This
doesn’t even
account for the lost view value. This would also create aesthetically unpleasing results with some properties
much
taller than others.
2. a. Page 72. Sand Section. Eliminate bullet point “ Most buildings are one or two stories or
approximately 1525
feet tall.” This area currently has a mix of R1, R2 and R3 zones. Similar to the comments above, limiting
the height to
12 stories with 1525 feet represents a significant downzoning, as current height limits range between
25’30’. Any
reduction in the height limit for a given zone will result in a loss of view potential and significant loss of
property
value for properties not currently built to current height limits. Critical that this change not be instituted.
This would
also create aesthetically unpleasing results with some properties much taller than others. b. Eliminate
requirement
for “greater articulation and step backs” to the front facade. On a practical basis, this means one’s view
could be
impacted if their neighbor built according to today’s setbacks as their building would protrude farther than
your
home could. Manhattan Beach residents suffered many unintended consequences of a similar change. We
should
learn from their mistakes, not duplicate them. c. Regarding garages: In the case of single family homes on
half lots,
where there is no rear alley access, it would be crazy to encourage single tandem garages vs. side by side so
there
are fewer curb cuts. Tandem garages are inconvenient, largely unused, and would be counterproductive to
the City’s
goal of increasing available street parking as residents would be more apt to park on the street if they have a
tandem
garage rather than a standard double garage. Double garages that face the street should be allowed in those
cases.
3. Page 70. Hermosa View Neighborhood. Setbacks, scale and massing should remain consistent with
today’s
standards so new/renovated homes are consistent with neighbors, not set back farther. Properties currently
zoned R2
on Longfellow should not be down zoned to 2 story max for same reason as #1 and #2.
4. Page 73. Valley Neighborhood. a. Setbacks, scale and massing should remain consistent with today’s
standards
so new/renovated homes are consistent with neighbors, not set back farther. b. Properties in this area
generally
don’t have rear alley access. Properties with a width of less than 50’ should be exempt from garage
minimization
requirements as a tandem garage is undesirable and a garage at the back of the lot would cut into coveted
back yard
space. c. Renovations should be exempt from new garage design guidelines.
5. Page 75. Greenbelt Neighborhood. a. This area currently has R1 and R2 zoned properties. Delete
reference to
building being one to three stories. This is ambiguous. Height limits should not be changed for the same
reasons
as stated in #1 & #2. b. This neighborhood should really be split up into a North Greenbelt Neighborhood
for
properties north of the Pier and a South Greenbelt Neighborhood south of Pier as they are quite different in
character.
Alternatively, the northerly section could be incorporated into the Hermosa View Neighborhood as it is
much more
similar. c. Many lots south of the Pier aren’t wide enough to accommodate single family home style town
homes
such as the one in the photo on 21st Street. d. Last bullet point refers to a change in the way height limits
are
calculated, “as buildings step down to match building height limits.” Whenever height limits are changed or
the
method of calculation is changed, surrounding properties built to previous standards can be negatively
affected.
Further clarification is needed.
6. Page 76. Hermosa Hills Neighborhood. a. Delete “renovations” from front garage minimization
requirements. b.
Garage minimization should not be required for lots less than 50’ wide. No tandem garages should be
encouraged,
nor rear garages that would cut into coveted back yard space. c. Height limits aren’t specified, but this area
has R1,
R2, and R3 properties in it, and it should be clarified that height limits will not change from current
standards.
7. Page 77. Eastside Neighborhood. a. Introduction of neighborhood commercial to this area could
negatively
affect values for nearby properties due to increased traffic. b. Delete “renovations” from front garage
minimization
requirements. c. Garage minimization should not be required for lots less than 50’ wide. No tandem garages
should
be encouraged, nor rear garages that would cut into coveted back yard space. d. Properties currently zoned
R2
should not have height limit reduced (see items 1 and 2 above).
Goals and policies
1.Page 90. Goal 2.12. Garage minimization and/or garage placement at the back of the property is not
feasible
in many cases and should not apply to narrow lots and/or those without rear alley access (see above).
Conflicting
language in same sentence “encouraging” vs. “requiring.”
2. Page 93. Goal 5.6. Preservation of historic buildings optional and require owner consent.
3. Page 95. Goal 6.8, bullet point 3. Curb cuts should be allowed in cases where their elimination renders
the
development or renovation of the property infeasible.
4. Page 97. Goal 8.6. Remove short term rentals from the PLAN. The City is addressing these separately.
8. Page 99. Goal 10.1. Add “owner consent required” for historic designation.
9. Page 99. Goal 10.4 to be deleted. Not consistent with 10.1. City should not mandate whether a property
can be
torn down or not. This would be an overreach and violate property rights.
10. Page 99. Goal 10.5. Delete. Evaluation of historic resources at owner’s discretion.
Respectfully,
Christian D Haase
2909 Hermosa View Drive
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
chaase@burnetthaase.com
c. 702.210.1895
o. 702.547.9000 x222
f. 7025479100
PLAN Hermosa Feedback
Decision-Making Tool
It would be good to be more specific on when/how the decision-making tool is used. For
example, city staff and commissions should use this tool in their reports to city council
when recommending significant policy changes and expenditures, and the results of this
tool should be included in their reports. City Council should use the decision-making tool
for significant decisions in policy and expenditures and the results of the decision-
making tool should be made publically available. We’ve had this tool a while now, but it
seems that it hasn’t really been used.
Goal 1 A high degree of transparency and integrity in the decision-making
process. 1.1 Open Meetings
Today we have very open meetings, reports are publically available, and meetings are
recorded. This is all really good. I would also like to see “City council voting results
published”. It is too difficult expect people to watch all the meetings, and there’s not
easy way to know what was the result of the meetings. We should add simple,
accessible meeting results. For example, results of city council votes should be published
after city council meetings. If a vote resulted in a new or changed policy, there should be
a link to that policy.
Goal 2 Policy 2.1 Multiple Outreach Methods
I would like to see more electronic surveys as an outreach tool. Calling this out
specifically would be helpful.
Goal 6. A broad-based and long-term economic development strategy for
Hermosa Beach that supports existing businesses while attracting new
business and tourism
I’d like to see a policy that economic development for businesses need to be compatible
with residential living. Business development should not be at the expense of the
quality of life of permanent, year round residents.
Public Art + Design, Create Economy
I love how this is part of the PLAN. I think Hermosa is very close to loosing our
quirkiness, and promoting art can help to ensure our “best little beach city” vibe. Art can
help Hermosa distinguish herself from other cities.
Mobility Downtown Town (and the rest of Hermosa)
Access to downtown should be not just parking. We need to promote access in a
changing world. There needs to be stronger wording to promote and IMPROVE public
transportation, ride sharing, and new transportation services (e.g. Uber, Lyft). I would
like to see a coordinated approach to improve costal business access. The Beach Cities
Transit is abysmal. Listing it as a transportation option does not mean that it is usable.
We need to work with Manhattan and Redondo (as a minimum) to revamp this service.
We need to look into new ways to get people around. Maybe a bike-sharing program in
the beach cities like http://santamonicabikeshare.com would be a fit. Our favoring of
parking structures (we’ll never have enough) and taxi lanes (who even uses taxi’s?) is so
old school. Yes, we need parking, but we need to be smart about it, like having Smart
Meters to show where the open spaces are. People will only drive around so long. Some
of this may be too detailed for PLAN Hermosa, but I do think the wording needs to be
stronger on 1) using technology 2) Being more innovative on mobility options 3) Looking
on mobility trends.
Downtown District (pg 78)
This sentence it not really accurate: “The Downtown District is the heart of social and
commercial activity in Hermosa Beach,…” Downtown is not the heart of commercial
activity. PCH is. Our downtown is DEAD in the daytime M-F and especially in winter. We
have lost breakfast places due to rent increases. Most restaurants aren’t even open for
lunch M-Thu. Our downtown businesses are skewed to drinking, dining 5PM or later,
and services. I don’t know how our retailers even stay in business. I think we need to
have a goal to have a downtown that is vibrant all days of the week and all times of the
day, and all times of the year, not just night time or summertime.
Goal 11. A proud and visible identity as an arts and cultural community. 11.1
Beach-Themed Art
Why on earth would art be limited to “Beach-Themed”? This is much too specific for a
plan and should be removed. Perhaps phrasing like “Art should be compatible and
complimentary to Hermosa”.
Thanks for listening,
Claudia Berman
Hermosa Beach Resident
Feedback on PLAN Hermosa
Hello,
I am gravely concerned about the following items in the new Plan Hermosa. I oppose these changes to the zoning code:
1. Alter height limits in the "north end" sand section (north of 26th to the MB border) to be 25'. As you
know, there are several streets currently zoned R2 with a 30' height limit, so this would reduce the limit
currently in place. The PLAN encourages this area to be 12 stories, not 3, so it equates to a down
zoning for many properties. It would be devastating to a property with a westerly neighbor built to 30'
the new height limit of 25' would mean their view potential is taken away. Huge loss in value.
2. Changes to the design and placement of garages would be significant. See page 90 where the goal
is stated to be "Encouraging homes to engage the street and integrate with the neighborhood by
requiring the design of new carports/garages to be subordinate in scale to the primary dwelling, to
minimize views from the street, and to not occupy the majority of the street frontage of buildings."
This would encourage rear garages where there's an alleyway (fine for walk streets and The Strand, but
not great for larger lots that would have a nice back yard now consumed by a garage). You appear to
want to encourage single tandem garages vs. side by side in areas like the sand section so there are
fewer curb cuts.
3. Encourage larger setbacks on 5,000+ sf lots in the area adjacent to the MB Hill Section. I am not
convinced this is a good idea. With our drought and global warming large yards are out of favor.
Back "yard" areas are much more usable family space. Isn't the current requirement sufficient.
4. Encourage 24 unit properties detached structures that resemble SFR's in the "greenbelt
neighborhood." Presumably this means less square footage. But why? This will make properties still
more expensive and smaller just to have a tiny separation and a largely unusable space between two
town homes....
Thanks for your time.
Claudia de Fries
Shorewood Realtors
2141 Rosecrans Suite 1160 El Segundo CA 90245
Direct: 3107292813
claudiadefries@me.com
License #01858330
Click here to search the MLS for listings
Shorewood Living iOS App See all SHOREWOOD listings quickly and interactively on the new Shorewood APP
ShorewoodLiving.com Interactive magazine
Market Insight Palos Verdes snapshot of the current Real Estate market
Market Insight South Bay snapshot of the current Real Estate market:
Claudia de Fries <claudiadefries@me.com>
Wed 2/17/2016 4:44 PM
To:Leeanne Singleton <generalplan@hermosabch.org>;
proposed general plan comments
Hello,
I own a property in North Hermosa. In reviewing the changes proposed in the general plan I object to the
overall reach of the city government to:
1. reduce height limits in North Hermosa
2. add bike lanes on roads
3. any mixed use development downtown or elsewhere
4. attempt to control use of automobiles – most people work outside of the city and need improved
access to the city (not less)
5. bike lanes on streets are dangerous and confusing....why not promote a bike lane on the walk path that
runs from one end of the city to the other? There is plenty of room to do that.
6. promote higher density in the city – it is already a very densely populated city for it’s size.
7. change garage exteriors to one door per house – tandem parking is a nightmare! I realize you think this
will promote 1 car per household but firmly believe you are wrong!
Thank you for your consideration,
Getchel Wilson, CRS, e‐Pro
Vista Sotheby's International Realty
2501 N Sepulveda Blvd.
Manhattan Beach CA 90266
BRE000544433
Getchel.Wilson@VistaSIR.com
310.717.8038
Getchel Wilson <getchelwilson@hotmail.com>
Wed 2/24/2016 11:30 AM
To:Leeanne Singleton <generalplan@hermosabch.org>;
Feedback on PLAN Hermosa
Dear Sirs,
It is not often that I hear from real estate professionals. But, when I hear vociferous objections to new zoning rules from multiple
sources, I must ask for clarification.
Please respond to the following comments:
Below is a list of comments regarding residential‐related sections of PLAN Hermosa that we believe need to be corrected or
eliminated in order to preserve Hermosa’s property owners’ rights, values, views and their ability to feasibly develop and renovate.
Reductions in height limits and buildable square footage will have a significant negative impact on property values. The vast majority
of residents, property owners and even those in real estate and development community, are not aware of the implications of the
PLAN, and due to its size and complexity, it's difficult to locate and interpret its far‐reaching ramifications.
We do not believe the community at large, especially residential property owners, have been adequately represented by the 15 person
working group and staff involved in creation of the PLAN. Not a single developer or member of the real estate community was a part
of the working group. It is imperative that individual property owners be made aware of the changes that would impact their property
before they are implemented.
Neighborhood Land Uses
1. Page 69. North End Sand Section. Eliminate the bullet point “Buildings are one or two stories or up to 25’ in height.” This area
currently has both R1 ﴾25’ height limit﴿ and R2 ﴾30’ height limit﴿ zoned properties. A “one size fits all” height limit of 25’ would be
extremely damaging to the value of properties zoned R2 with a current height limit of 30’. Any R2 property not currently developed to
the height limit with a westerly neighbor built to 30' would forever lose its view potential, be overshadowed and have sunlight blocked.
Huge loss in value. Critical that this change not be instituted. One local home builder estimates a 33% loss in property value as a
result of only being able to build a two story home rather than three where currently allowed, with 40% less above ground square
footage. This doesn't even account for the lost view value. This would also create aesthetically unpleasing results with some
properties much taller than others.
2. a. Page 72. Sand Section. Eliminate bullet point “ Most buildings are one or two stories or approximately 15‐25 feet tall.” This area
currently has a mix of R1, R2 and R3 zones. Similar to the comments above, limiting the height to 1‐2 stories with 15‐25 feet represents
a significant down‐zoning, as current height limits range between 25’‐30’. Any reduction in the height limit for a given zone will result
in a loss of view potential and significant loss of property value for properties not currently built to current height limits. Critical that
this change not be instituted. This would also create aesthetically unpleasing results with some properties much taller than others. b.
Eliminate requirement for “greater articulation and step backs” to the front facade. On a practical basis, this means one’s view could
be impacted if their neighbor built according to today's setbacks as their building would protrude farther than your home could.
Manhattan Beach residents suffered many unintended consequences of a similar change. We should learn from their mistakes, not
duplicate them. c. Regarding garages: In the case of single family homes on half lots, where there is no rear alley access, it would be
crazy to encourage single tandem garages vs. side by side so there are fewer curb cuts. Tandem garages are inconvenient, largely
unused, and would be counterproductive to the City’s goal of increasing available street parking. Double garages that face the street
should be allowed in those cases.
3. Page 70. Hermosa View Neighborhood. Setbacks, scale and massing should remain consistent with today's standards so
new/renovated homes are consistent with neighbors, not set back farther. Properties currently zoned R2 on Longfellow should not be
James McKinnell <dr.mckinnell@yahoo.com>
Mon 2/22/2016 8:55 PM
To:Leeanne Singleton <generalplan@hermosabch.org>;
Cc:kt@ktbeachproperties.com <kt@ktbeachproperties.com>; Rob McGarry <Rob@BeachHomeBroker.com>;
down zoned to 2 story max for same reason as #1 and #2.
4. Page 73. Valley Neighborhood. a. Setbacks, scale and massing should remain consistent with today's standards so new/renovated
homes are consistent with neighbors, not set back farther. b. Properties in this area generally don't have rear alley access. Properties
with a width of less than 50’ should be exempt from garage minimization requirements as a tandem garage is undesirable and a
garage at the back of the lot would cut into coveted back yard space. c. Renovations should be exempt from new garage design
guidelines.
5. Page 75. Greenbelt Neighborhood. a. This area currently has R1 and R2 zoned properties. Delete reference to building being one
to three stories. This is ambiguous. Height limits should not be changed for the same reasons as stated in #1 & #2. b. This
neighborhood should really be split up into a North Greenbelt Neighborhood for properties north of the Pier and a South Greenbelt
Neighborhood south of Pier as they are quite different in character. Alternatively, the northerly section could be incorporated into the
Hermosa View Neighborhood as it is much more similar. c. Many lots south of the Pier aren’t wide enough to accommodate single
family home style town homes such as the one in the photo on 21st Street. d. Last bullet point refers to a change in the way height
limits are calculated, “as buildings step down to match building height limits.” Whenever height limits are changed or the method of
calculation is changed, surrounding properties built to previous standards can be negatively affected. Further clarification is needed.
6. Page 76. Hermosa Hills Neighborhood. a. Delete “renovations” from front garage minimization requirements. b. Garage
minimization should not be required for lots less than 50’ wide. No tandem garages should be encouraged, nor rear garages that
would cut into coveted back yard space. c. Height limits aren't specified, but this area has R1, R2, and R3 properties in it, and it should
be clarified that height limits will not change from current standards.
7. Page 77. Eastside Neighborhood. a. Introduction of neighborhood commercial to this area could negatively affect values for
nearby properties due to increased traffic. b. Delete “renovations” from front garage minimization requirements. c. Garage
minimization should not be required for lots less than 50’ wide. No tandem garages should be encouraged, nor rear garages that
would cut into coveted back yard space. d. Properties currently zoned R2 should not have height limit reduced ﴾see items 1 and 2
above﴿.
Goals and policies
Page 90. Goal 2.12. Garage minimization and/or garage placement at the back of the property is not feasible in many cases and
should not apply to narrow lots and/or those without rear alley access ﴾see above﴿. Conflicting language in same sentence ‐
“encouraging” vs. “requiring.”
Page 93. Goal 5.6. Preservation of historic buildings optional and require owner consent.
Page 95. Goal 6.8, bullet point 3. Curb cuts should be allowed in cases where their elimination renders the development or
renovation of the property infeasible.
Page 97. Goal 8.6. Remove short term rentals from the PLAN. The City is addressing these separately.
Page 99. Goal 10.1. Add “owner consent required” for historic designation.
Page 99. Goal 10.4 to be deleted. Not consistent with 10.1. City should not mandate whether a property can be torn down or not.
This would be an overreach and violate property rights.
Page 99. Goal 10.5. Delete. Evaluation of historic resources at owner’s discretion.
Respectfully,
Karynne Thim, 1734 The Strand
‐‐
Karynne Thim
Shorewood Realtors
310‐753‐7816 ﴾cell﴿
www.KTBeachProperties.com
License #01161295
Specializing in South Bay Beach Properties Since 1993
James A. McKinnell, M.D.
Assistant Professor of Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine
University of California, Los Angeles
Infectious Disease Clinical Outcome Research Unit ﴾ID‐CORE﴿
Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute at Harbor‐UCLA
T ﴾310﴿ 707‐3631
F ﴾310﴿ 861‐8125
"Pick your travel partners wisely. You walk this road only once."
Care to see what I am writing?
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/myncbi/collections/public/1LG3gpHFTC4c1InNAFPQPkVAn/?sort=date&direction=ascending
IMPORTANT WARNING: This email ﴾and any attachments﴿ is only intended for the use of the person or entity to which it is addressed,
and may contain information that is privileged and confidential. You, the recipient, are obligated to maintain it in a safe, secure and
confidential manner. Unauthorized redisclosure or failure to maintain confidentiality may subject you to federal and state penalties. If
you are not the intended recipient, please immediately notify us by return email, and delete this message from your computer.
Moreover and specifically, I have an express expectation of privacy in this and all email communication. Any and all unauthorized
reading, review, data extraction, or other use will be considered an invasion of privacy
PLAN Hermosa Feedback ‐ Meugniot 656 24th Place
Hi Ken,
My wife, Heather Meugniot, our two school‐aged sons, and I reside at 656 24th Place
in Hermosa Beach. We have been residents for many years.
1. We are opposed to any downward changes in building heigh limits for
Hermosa Beach residences.
2. We also want to make sure that the top of our street (24th Place & PCH)
remains blocked with the city gate currently in place. While we understand
PLAN Hermosa’s intention of creating “successful transitions” between
residential areas and local businesses, we do not want added traffic on 24th
Place between Ardmore and PCH.
3. Our house was built in the 50’s. We do not want our private property rights
imposed upon with standards regarding historic preservation. We would not
oppose an opt‐in option for those who wish to do so. However, we do not want
outside parties (government or otherwise) imposing standards on us as
residents and property owners.
Thank you for your consideration,
Jason & Heather Meugniot
Hermosa Beach Residents
656 24th Place
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
310‐567‐4129
Meugniot, Jason <jason@guidance.com>
Thu 2/25/2016 11:06 AM
To:Leeanne Singleton <generalplan@hermosabch.org>;
Cc:Mayor Carolyn Petty <cpetty@hermosabch.org>; Heather Meugniot <heather@meugniot.com>;
Re: Resident parking permit areas
Hi Jennifer,
I was able to get some information from the Community Services Officer on where time limits are and aren't
enforced on a seasonal basis. It appears that this policy has not changed for several years but is applicable in
just some areas of the coastal zone.
The one hour residential zone from the North side of 6th Street to the South side of 16th Street, from Manhattan
Avenue to Cypress is enforced year round. Anything North from 16th Street and South from 6th Street is “seasonal”
and only enforced from May 15th – September 15th.
All meters, (yellow and silver) are enforced year round. However, if someone has a residential parking permit they
are exempt from having to pay the “yellow” pole meters.
The property in front of the Coastal Commission last week is north of 6th Street, part of the area that is
enforced year round, presumably to prevent overflow parking from Downtown rather than limiting access to
the beach.
Either way, more efficient parking management and proposed changes to parking regulations to enhance
coastal access are both on the table as part of the General Plan/Local Coastal Program update and I would
encourage you to continue to contribute your insight to the process.
Hope this helps to clarify, please let me know if you have additional questions.
Leeanne Singleton
Hermosa Beach General Plan Coordinator
Email: generalplan@hermosabch.org
Phone: 310.318.0242
1315 Valley Dr, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
From: jennifer <jwrosenfeld@yahoo.com>
Sent: Friday, January 15, 2016 4:30 PM
To: Leeanne Singleton
Subject: Re: Resident parking permit areas
Thank you.
I look forward to seeing what you find. I tried to research this a little bit and know that the seasonal
restrictions were still in place in 2014.
I became aware of this change well listening to the California coastal commission meeting this week. The
Leeanne Singleton
Tue 1/19/2016 11:53 AM
To:jennifer <jwrosenfeld@yahoo.com>;
one hour limit was cited by Coastal Commission as a reason to override its staff recommendation and allow
additional curb cuts, resulting in loss of a public parking space, for a new home project. In the course of that
hearing the commission stated that the residential parking restrictions in the coastal zone had been approved
by the California Coastal Commission. Any change, therefore, from the seasonal restriction to yearround
should have been approved by the Coastal Commission. Similar limitations have been challenged in other
communities.
I will certainly be commenting on the proposals.
Jennifer
(iPhone)
On Jan 15, 2016, at 3:06 PM, Leeanne Singleton <generalplan@hermosabch.org> wrote:
Hi Jennifer, Thanks for reaching out. I am trying to do some research on when this change
occurred. I will follow up with you with the information I find regarding when that change in policy
began.
Within the Public Review Draft of PLAN Hermosa, there are proposed changes to both
employee and residential parking programs (and potentially the time limits in those places) to
enhance greater coastal access for all residents and visitors. A parking study conducted as part
of the development of this plan has indicated that most of the parking near the coastal zone are
predominately occupied by vehicles with residential parking permits at various times of day and
days of the week.
If you're interested in this topic, we would encourage you to look at the parking related
discussion and policies in PLAN Hermosa beginning on page 112:
http://issuu.com/planhermosa/docs/plan_hermosa_public_review_draft_hi/113?
e=22493721/31998069
Leeanne Singleton
Hermosa Beach General Plan Coordinator
Email: generalplan@hermosabch.org
Phone: 310.318.0242
1315 Valley Dr, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
________________________________________
From: Rosenfeld Jennifer <jwrosenfeld@yahoo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 6:25 PM
To: Leeanne Singleton
Subject: Resident parking permit areas
When did the one hour resident permit areas become year around rather than seasonal? This is
unfair to other residents outside of the coastal zone and an inconvenience to people visiting
people within the coastal zone.
HB Plan Draft 12/2015 ‐ OBJECTION attached
Ken Robertson, Community Development Director James Furlan ﴾310.658.8980 cell﴿
City of Hermosa Beach Ca February 17, 2016
Mr. Robertson,
I am objecting to the “City of Hermosa Beach PLAN Hermosa Public Review Draft 12/2015” ﴾‘Draft”﴿.
In September 2015, I purchased 2924 Hermosa Avenue and the Draft will greatly degrade my property value. Of note is the change of
“Buildings of one or two stories or up to 25 feet height” and “single residential” ﴾Page 69﴿.
I again walked my neighborhood of north Hermosa Avenue and inventoried the EXISTING homes:
My block ﴾eastside of 29xx Hermosa Ave﴿ – 4 of the 5 homes are 3 stories.
The block south ﴾eastside of 28XX Hermosa Avenue﴿ – 5 of 6 homes are 3 stories.
The block north ﴾eastside of 31xx Hermosa Avenue﴿ – 5 of 5 homes are 3 stories.
In summary, 14 of 16 ﴾88%﴿ of my EXISTING neighborhood homes ARE 3 stories and 30’ tall! And several/most appear multiple family.
The Draft states this existing infrastructure by mapping north Hermosa Avenue as “HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL” unlike the areas a few
blocks east being labeled Medium and Low Density ﴾page 60﴿. Plus, the North Hermosa Avenue neighborhood is zoned as R3 – 30’
heights and Multiple Family Residential.
So why will you disadvantage my lot compared to virtually all of my existing neighborhood homes?
Drawing north Hermosa Ave into the “North End Neighborhood” ignores the fact that the EXISTING north Hermosa Avenue homes are
significantly different than the blocks to the east.
I can only conclude that placing north Hermosa Avenue into the North End Neighborhood map without comprehending the
preponderance of EXISTING 3 story homes is an oversight/simplification in the Plan…..seems you are mixing apples & oranges &
watermelons!
Please note, I bought 2924 Hermosa to build my 3 story ocean view in compliance with the code and matching my neighbors. If
limited to 25 feet height or 2 stories or single family, my house will NOT fit in with the surrounding in place homes. And my lot will lose
significant value due to a questionably drawn map that ignores the EXISTING structures.
Finally, as I evaluated my possible purchase last year, I discussed with the Hermosa Building Department code requirements and
nobody mentioned changes. I would never have bought 2924 Hermosa Ave if I was told there was going to be such draconian
changes to the zoning rules.
I strongly object to these proposed change and ask the City not to change the zoning in such a punishing manner that ignores the
EXISTING neighborhood of north Hermosa Avenue. I trust such is an oversight and will be corrected.
jim furlan <jef743@hotmail.com>
Wed 2/17/2016 1:24 PM
To:Leeanne Singleton <generalplan@hermosabch.org>;
1 attachment ﴾137 KB﴿
2924Hermosa.OBJECT.letter0001.pdf;
Sincerely, James Furlan ﴾email ‐ jef743@hotmail.com﴿
ps ‐ attached is a signed pdf copy
RE: Feedback on PLAN Hermosa
Hi Ken and Steve,
Excellent input Steve, and yes we have seen many innovative bike route designs closer to the ocean and separated
from heavy foot traffic areas (like Hermosa Bch). This concept is very popular in nearby South Bay cities and they
are receiving raving reviews from the local residents and visitors.
I want to confirm the South Bay Bicycling Coalition and the Beach Cities Livability Committee will support and
advocate for this concept to be in the Hermosa Beach Mobility Plan.
Thank you,
Jim Hannon
USA Cycling Coach • League Cycling Instructor • Beach Cities Cycling Club • South Bay Bicycling Coalition • Redondo
Beach Public Works • (310) 341‐8701
From: Steve Gerhardt [mailto:slgerhardt@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, February 1, 2016 10:57 AM
To: generalplan@hermosabch.org
Cc: Ken Robertson <krobertson@hermosabch.org>; Jim Hannon <jim_hannon@bccclub.org>
Subject: Feedback on PLAN Hermosa
Hi Ken,
The plan looks great! I'm sure it was a lot of work to get it to this point.
One thing I'd like to see considered in the Mobility section is an important addition to the bicycle network.
Years ago, there was discussion about having a separate bike path paralleling the Strand through Hermosa
Beach. The additional pathway would provide improved safety for bikes and peds, and better connectivity
within the region for bikes, as well as more publicly accessible hardscape at the beach for peak periods.
As I recall, the most prevalent configuration being discussed at that time was just on the other side of the
wall, which would be good. However, I always thought that the bike path should be midbeach, west of the
volleyball courts since that tends to be the least used portion of the beach. The beach is more than wide
enough to accommodate an additional path 1216' path. This is the configuration north of El Segundo along
the Marvin Braude Bikeway, and seems to work well. There are many other examples of similar projects,
for instance, Long Beach added a new walking/jogging path last year from the Villa Riviera eastward to
BCCClub <jim_hannon@bccclub.org>
Mon 2/1/2016 9:04 PM
To:'Steve Gerhardt' <slgerhardt@gmail.com>; Leeanne Singleton <generalplan@hermosabch.org>; Jeff Duclos
<jeff@jeffduclos.com>;
Cc:Ken Robertson <krobertson@hermosabch.org>;
alleviate ped/bike conflicts on busy weekends along their beach path.
Especially since the completion of the Harbor Drive cycle track and improvements from the Redondo Pier
up to Herondo through the parking lot, I think it is high time to design and build a separate bike path from
the Strand in Hermosa Beach. The PLAN document seems like the right place to have this discussion again.
And if supported at the policy level, then implemented for the enjoyment of all.
Thanks!
Steve Gerhardt
SLGerhardt@gmail.com
(310) 6140258 (cell)
PLAN Hermosa
I feel that I must respond to the Hermosa Beach’s draft plan, PLAN
Hermosa.
I have completed a college master’s degree and have worked in
private industry for 40 years and have had a very difficult time in
understanding what PLAN Hermosa means for Hermosa’s citizens.
Most Hermosa citizens will just give up when they try to
understand PLAN Hermosa. Letting elected officials decide what’s
best has not proven to be in the best interests of ordinary citizens.
PLAN Hermosa will definitely increase the population of Hermosa
﴾often referred to as “Densification”﴿. Traffic will become
horrendous with no way to improve the flow of vehicles due to the
increase of bicycle lanes and walk only areas. Hermosa’s elected
officials and city administrators will have increased powers to
implement their socialistic interests, not the citizens of Hermosa’s
interests.
PLAN Hermosa should be rejected if the citizens of Hermosa want
to keep their freedoms and their city; otherwise it will become the
“People’s Republic of Hermosa Beach”.
JJ Johnson <wsualumni1969@gmail.com>
Wed 2/24/2016 9:16 PM
To:Leeanne Singleton <generalplan@hermosabch.org>;
Fwd: Suggestions for the General Plan
‐‐
Leeanne Singleton, AICP, LEED AP
direct: 951.801.5351 | cell: 619.788.2131
3600 Lime Street, Suite 226 | Riverside, CA 92501
APA 2015 Emerging Planning + Design Firm Award Recipient
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Matt Burris <mattburris@raimiassociates.com>
Date: Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 12:44 PM
Subject: Fwd: Suggestions for the General Plan
To: Leeanne Singleton <leeanne@raimiassociates.com>
From Julian
Matthew Burris, AICP, LEED AP
direct: 951.530.3577 | main: 951.801.5350 | cell: 909.260.7015
3600 Lime Street, Suite 226 | Riverside, CA 92501
APA 2015 Emerging Planning + Design Firm Award Recipient
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Julian Katz <juliank@msn.com>
Date: Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 11:04 AM
Subject: Suggestions for the General Plan
To: matt burris <mattburris@raimiassociates.com>
Matt,
Leeanne Singleton <leeanne@raimiassociates.com>
Wed 1/27/2016 1:41 PM
To:Leeanne Singleton <generalplan@hermosabch.org>;
Very nice job last evening. The Plan looks very good and I'm sure the end results will have been worth the effort.
Here are a few changes I'd recommend:
Page 7, circle 3, "walking and biking"
Page 44, goal 4.2, "compact, walkable and bikeable". Also, as we discussed last evening, replace "reduce vehicle trips" with "decrease
vehicle miles traveled ﴾VMT﴿" .
Page 72, under public realm design, use future tense in the last bulleted sentence.
Page 73, same comment as page 72.
Page 76, Public realm design, Where did the wide planting strip come from? Use future tense in last bulleted sentence.
Page 77, same comment with regard to buffer strip.
Page 220‐221, Bikeway classifications. I'd recommend including the new Class IV, protected bikeways, in order to be up‐to‐date for
the next 30 years and in the vague hope we could find a way to make one happen. You might also want to put them in numerical
order.
That's it, Matt. Once again, thanks on behalf of the bicycling and walking communities.
Julian
Re: Historic Properties
Thank you. Who decides regarding potentially historic homes? There was recently quite a uproar in Manhattan Beach as
the language in the Historic Ordinance did not allow for owner opt‐out. This was in relationship to Historic Landmarks
﴾city council could override owner﴿ and districts ﴾in which a 66% of owners could create a district, and a district culd be as
few as 3 homes, so it only took 2 out of three to create﴿. The city council inserted an owner opt‐out and removed the
66% owner vote.
I just want to clearly understand the Hermosa Proposal, because it becomes a property rights issue as well as a disclosure
issue….. if at anytime a property can be added to the list, how does a homeowner disclose that potential? What has the
city put in place regarding disclosure? You can imagine the number of lawsuits stemming from a situation in which a lot
is sold then the buyer finds out there is a proposal for historic preservation that severely limits what he/she can do with
the property. Even though a few properties will be affected, it does place a cloud and lower value on those lots. Since I
would assume the historic list is ongoing and can me added to at anytime, this is a real concern.
Thank you for your time and response.
Kris
Kris Terrill
kristerrill@gmail.com
Remax Estate Properties
Lic.#01243611
310‐749‐5158
www.beachcitieshomes.com
For local updates, Like me on Facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/KrisTerrillRealEstateAtTheBeach
> On Feb 22, 2016, at 10:44 AM, Leeanne Singleton <generalplan@hermosabch.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Kris,
> As currently written, the intent is that all participation in a historic landmark program would be voluntary and likely
offer incentives such as the Mills Act program.
>
> The one exception is related to demolition of potentially historic properties ‐ generally properties over 50 years in age
and with some architectural significance. A historic evaluation of the property may need to be completed before a demo
permit is issued, and there may be a request to salvage some of the materials or allow the historical society to take
photos ﴾something that was done at the recently redeveloped Matteson house at Manhattan and 19th Street﴿.
>
> Hope this helps, please let me know if you have any additional questions!
>
> Leeanne Singleton
> Hermosa Beach General Plan Coordinator
Kris Terrill <kristerrill@gmail.com>
Mon 2/22/2016 11:11 AM
To:Leeanne Singleton <generalplan@hermosabch.org>;
> Email: generalplan@hermosabch.org
> Phone: 310.318.0242
> 1315 Valley Dr, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
>
>
> ________________________________________
> From: Kris Terrill <kristerrill@gmail.com>
> Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2016 8:16 AM
> To: Leeanne Singleton
> Subject: Historic Properties
>
> I have a question regarding the Historic Plan for Hermosa. Is it completely voluntary? Recent activities in Manhattan
Beach cause me to ask this question, as Manhattan Beach attempted CLG status which allowed for homes to be
involuntarily ﴾no owner opt out﴿ included in historic districts or to be designated landmarks. This was changed in the final
draft, allowing owner opt out. I have read the Hermosa Plan, but do not see any provision addressing
voluntary/involuntary. Please advise and thank you.
> Kris Terrill
>
February 25, 2015
Ken Robertson
Community Development Director
City of Hermosa Beach
1315 Valley Drive
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
RE: GENERAL PLAN/PLAN Hermosa Public Comment
Dear Ken,
First of all, kudos to you and your team. The December 2015 General Plan Draft
is a document that you should all be proud of. Additionally, the focused summary
sheets by district are a wonderful community tool. Thank you!
I am submitting my “place holder” comments which I hope will have some value.
Some are “in the weeds” but it seems that we are throwing everything of all sorts
on the table for this broad discussion of our General Plan and how we move
forward, policy-wise as a city.
Public Comments:
Visitors and Tourism
• Embrace Hermosa’s heritage and identity as a special beach city
destination
• Encourage eclectic, friendly, local and homegrown to differentiate from
bland and overbuilt communities. Arts and Creativity. Incubator and local
unique businesses.
Historic Preservation, Cultural and Arts Commission
• Identify the assets in the city worth saving and restoring. An example, in
my opinion, would be the Lighthouse, which has a rich historic and cultural
value. This is also a way to support branding of our city as unique with a
story to tell.
• Some sites have been identified with plaques or tiles. There are other
stories to highlight, such as the story of the Cypress shapers, Body Glove,
etc.
• Work towards a state designation of Hermosa Beach (as a whole) as a
state cultural district. Start mapping and connecting cultural assets and
encourage the ongoing rebirth of a thriving arts community. Hermosa
Beach has its roots in the arts.
• Encourage, incentivize more public art. I don’t agree that priority should be
for beach-themed art. Why stifle creativity?
• Create a new commission, the Cultural Preservation and Arts
Commission.
Hermosa Beach Visitors Bureau
• It is time to free up the “Visitors Bureau” from the Hermosa Beach
Chamber of Commerce so that the Chamber can continue their focus on
their core mission. Their area of strength and passion is with the city’s
business community, especially downtown which keeps them busy.
• Support creation of a new city run or city-affiliated Visitors Bureau. There
is a wealth of talent in our city that is behind this and would offer their
expertise.
• Open a small Visitors office, which will be open on weekends and
holidays…the times that it is most needed. Official City Merchandise could
be developed, trademarked, and sold as well as “maps”, information on
special events, promotions.
Zoning code updates and Municipal code amendments
• Scrub codes of all “exemptions” and references to oil drilling, except the
code language that notes the ban. Examples that are still incorporated in
code are: height exemption, fence exemption, corner sight and setback
exemptions, etc.
Sample #1 from existing code:
D. Under no circumstances shall any fence, wall, or hedge be constructed
or altered to add razor wire, barbed wire, broken glass or other similar
material. Exception. Security fences around oil development facilities may
be installed with barbed wire during the active life of the oil wells.
o E. Walls, or fences,
Sample #2 from existing code:
D. Building Height. Any building may have a maximum of thirty-five (35)
feet in height and have a maximum of two (2) stories. Oil and gas
operations may exceed this height for a temporary period of time and to a
height as set forth in an approved conditional use permit pursuant to
Ordinance No. 85-803. o E. Front Yard Setback. No lot need provide a front yard except
Questions from PLAN Hermosa December 2015 Draft
Regarding “Goal 3: Page 193”. Protection from Hazardous materials:
• What are “coastal-related industrial uses” in the Cypress District? How are
these defined. Specifically.
• How are hazardous materials defined?
• Hazardous material setbacks. What are the proposed setbacks? Specific
setbacks are needed based on materials and/or materials definition and should be codified. Where are the areas that adequately minimize risk to
residents? And I would also include in this, workers and visitors.
Hot Topics (this is from memory from attending recent walking tour event-I
believe these were some of the “hot topics” for discussion and input from
the community. Outside of parking, I am not clear as to why these would be
part of a General Plan/Land Use discussion.)
• City Commissions and Boards (Standing Commissions: Planning,
Public Works, Parks, etc.): Should non-residents be allowed to apply
for city commissions?
I strongly feel that the appointment requirements of residency for our
commissions and boards should not be changed. I do not agree with
changing this policy and allowing board seats to go to people who are
residents of other outside cities. They are less accountable and should not
be placed in the position of determining or recommending major policy
issues.
This proposed idea originated from “business interests” who would like
non-residents to populate our commissions. I’d like to point out that we
have many smart and innovative business owners that are also residents,
so they already have an opportunity to serve on a commission if they so
choose. Business owners and interests are often appointed to special
advisory task forces and have a strong voice of advocacy in the city thru
the Chamber of Commerce. Non-city residents/local businesses can also
join the many great community organizations as other ways to get
involved with the community (Kiwanis, Women’s Club, etc.). Involvement
in the city is commendable and many avenues to do so already exist.
• Short term rentals (STR)/vacation properties/AirB2B
There is not a quick and easy solution to this. Further study and
community input is needed. Here is my growing (expanding,
changing) list of the problems, challenges, food for thought, and
possible compromises:
o Defined as less than 30 days; often one to two days
o STRs render zoning meaningless in residential zones when you
permit what in some cases becomes a constant year-round use of
residential properties by visitors. More hotel. Not a “home”. o Some of negatives: possible less safety re: neighbors to watch out
for each other (Neighborhood Watch), concerns of strangers not
known neighbors if you have children, noise (one day party or event
rentals), parking (guests do arrive in their or rental cars and utilize
the resident parking permits), trash (not sure where to toss, ends
up in neighbors’ bins), loss of sense of community and
neighborhood.
o Allows a business segment (STRs) to operate with a different set of
rules (or lack thereof) than hotels, and other businesses which
needs licenses, permits, must meet health standards for welfare of
guests, etc. The hotels and other businesses operate in properly
zoned commercial districts. STRs operate in commercial and
residential areas.
o There has been a significant rise in long term rental rates…
everywhere. The impact on long term residential renters is of
concern. This becomes particularly acute in a smaller market like
Hermosa Beach, where this increase in SRs is making long term
rents unaffordable (they have skyrocketed), forcing people out and
shrinking the supply of residential long term rental properties. o Just an fyi: I spoke with a builder who told me that most of the
properties that he is working on, especially the ones west of PCH,
are being purchased by out-of-town investors who tear down
existing homes to build a place they can monetize for short term
rentals (basically an unapproved hotel). o Should STRs be allowed in properties with shared security access
etc.? Probably not.
o Should not be allowed in apartment buildings
o Fair uses should/could include: legit (no monetary transaction)
vacation swaps, rentals with owner present on property and/or
residents who are utilizing home as their primary resident. o I am sure that the city is undertaking this research: Look at best
practices in other cities-from bans to regulations. Poll other cities to
see what works; For example, not to exceed 10% per block; Not to
exceed normal occupancy-eg: 2 bedrooms: up to 2 couples plus 2-
3 kids under 18; implementation of “penalties” for non-compliance
(3 strikes you are out). Another fyi: a residential street (block) near
me is now either a ghost town or full of strangers. Half of the
properties are being used as STR properties. Visitors generally
keep to themselves and/or are nice, but it is a bit weird when so
much of the block falls in this category.
o Give everyone a chance to earn so extra income, so rotate/apply so
that isn’t overwhelming in a neighborhood eg: can rent out a certain
number of times per year (like garage sales)? o Where are the properties on Hermosa Avenue, Pier, PCH that Kim
mentioned?
o Compare our hotel rates to Manhattan and Malibu. Hermosa Beach
has many family friendly hotel options (Sea Sprite, along PCH,
etc.). Keep in mind that Hermosa is a very small city. o Whatever works best for the health of the community. The Coastal
Commission can suggest but cannot dictate what we do in this
regards. For a small town, we already offer many accessible
options.
• Parking
Parking for residents
o Maintain the annual parking permits for residents, especially those in
the coastal zone.
There are many lots with multiple homes and/or units per lot. The
residential units adjacent to the alley usually have less-than-
adequate parking. The home unit/s on the “front end” of the lots
(eg: those on the walk streets) in these split lots, do not have any
designated parking. It would be an incredible burden to constantly
have to move cars and feed meters for residents.
o Hermosa Beach parking is generally very reasonable compared to
other cities with recreational beaches.
o Allow residential privileges for parking at Community Center, near
Clark, Valley Park, etc. Eventual underground parking at Community
Center – with visitor parking charge like other cities (exempt residents).
Parking at the Community Center is competitive-residents, visitors, and
also used extensively by workers at Pier Avenue businesses.
Gateways/Whole City Planning
• Look at entire city to plan and design “gateway welcome”
signs/monuments:
North and south ends Hermosa Ave, PCH, Aviation, Herondo
o Redondo Beach has signs on Herondo; Manhattan Beach on PCH.
Where can Hermosa Beach place signs? We are invisible.
o Hotel Hermosa new Neon Octopus sign is great/fun.
o Why not a neon mermaid at Herondo point towards Hermosa at
Herondo and Hermosa Avenue? o Engage the many creatives in the community so submit designs
City Areas:
• City Owned Properties
Use the additional TOT to enhance funding for infrastructure needs.
o Community Center-In addition to larger maintenance and
renovation needs, some smaller projects could make a big
difference in enjoyment of facility and appearance. We will be
hosting new events, such as more film screenings, etc. City should
find ways to match funds with the Community Center Foundation
(now known as the Arts Foundation) and prioritize projects.
Examples: o Restrooms nearest to the theatre have been seriously neglected.
This shouldn’t be a big deal to upgrade. Should be scheduled soon.
o Display cabinets/signs in lobby areas need fixing. They’ve been
sitting around with broken or missing glass panes, etc. for a very
long time. The city, I am sure, could find some cool things to display
in them or should remove them if they serve no purpose.
o Clark Building-Also needs renovation. Again, outdated, ugly
restrooms. Outside is beautiful. Inside, redesign and renovate.
Make the stage area nicer and install better lights. This facility
should be used for more than jazzercise. It is a community asset
and if it is renovated could generate revenue for the city as well as
provide a nicer venue for local community events.
o Lawnbowling-next to Clark Building. Seems like lawnbowling
would be lots of fun. How many people in Hermosa Beach actually
use it? While I think it is really cool, can’t help visualizing a
community pool there. Just a thought.
o City Hall/Municipal Rebuild- incorporate a teen/youth center into
a new library adjacent area. Also look at a new use for building
near Clark Field.
o City-owned Buildings at Valley Park-leased to Kiwanis and
Rotary. What can be done to improve those?
• Downtown Business District
o Form BID as city’s (prior) economic development director had
previously suggested
o Vistor’s valet parking program (funds generated could go back into
area improvements) o City shuttles (downtown and connecting other parts of city; electric,
quiet)
o Allow more pedicabs
• Hermosa Avenue
o Replace bus benches (several different old ones in disrepair) to match
Upper Pier
o Provide trash cans next to bus stops
• The Strand
o Safety on Strand needs improving: Cannot see posted bicycle speed signs
o There are no transition signs from RB new bike path to “caution shared
use with walkers” upon entering Hermosa Beach Strand o Have Athens pay for damage to pavers and Strand from their street
cleaning trucks
• Cypress Area
o Encourage creative uses; support existing businesses
o Look at re-use of City Yard to compliment Cypress District. The land is not
being fully utilized; seems to be more than the city needs. To this point,
Athens seems to have taken over half of it as a staging area/dumping and
sorting ground. That wasn’t the case in prior years. Consider shared yard
idea with Redondo Beach if possible in another location. City should retain
ownership, but find ways to monetize with compatible renovation and
possible low impact development.
o Rename (Eg: Cypress Junction) o Allow carts in limited way to sell coffee, pastries etc. for Cypress and
South Park visitors
Beach/Open Spaces/Parks
• Greenbelt:
o More plantings of native vegetation; another community project to plant
more trees; butterfly zone and find natural pathway options so that it is
more handicap usuable, while allowing it to be a green space and
running, walking, strolling path
• Parks: o Complete redo of Nobel Park; Accessible/flexible for small events,
gatherings, Could make it a “wedding friendly” site
Allow small beach weddings – in mornings, weekend, limited.
o Noticed that prosecuted fines from public urination, etc. are now
directed into a fund to renovate public restrooms. The restrooms at
South Park, Valley Park, Clark and the Community Center are all in
need of renovation.
Use the current funds towards renovation of South Park restrooms
Doggie Issues
o Doggie parkettes?
The unsightly and intrusive block planters along Hermosa
Avenue
Could be re-designed, freeing up existing spaces near current
street crossings/openings along Hermosa Avenue for mini-
green spaces and dog parks. Could encourage dog owners to
take dogs there and minimize dog messes in other parts of city.
Make trash cans convenient as well as doggie bags.
• Beaches:
Keep commercial / permit events in the commercial zone
Maintain balance in all uses which is important. City needs to
determine overall beach plan and vision, not let it be subject to
constant lobbying for one special use over another.
Add in minimalistic way, play features for kids in one or two
more kids zones on beach
Access to our beach is great (compared to other beaches) ;
there are no gates, many entrances and access points, there is
handicap accessible to The Strand.
Improvements can be made by increasing access and
enjoyment of the beach by seniors, handicapped and others
Create a walkway out/onto the beach. Could also use it
for small morning wedding ceremonies.
Beach Grooming. Minimize. A perfectly over-groomed beach is
outdated and intrusive. During winter nesting periods and
grunion season, strictly limit beach grooming (especially near
the tide zones) unless needed due to storms and beach erosion.
Look at natural dunes
Beaches/Volleyball – Increase accessibility for all
Whether resident or visitor, the courts need to communicate that
they are public courts available for all to use. Some seem
unapproachable.
All nets should be replaced with “City of Hermosa Beach” or
“Hermosa Beach Parks and Rec” nets not corporate sponsored
nets. No “Bud Light” nets.
Volleyball rules should be posted (if they aren’t) including that
they are “contested courts”
Enforce rules re: private parties cannot take over courts and
charge fees for public to play
VB Courts and “public art”: The courts near 7th with the
“lightening rod”, “pelican”, “sun” etc, are cool. But because they
are on just a few courts, they looked like they are private. I’d
invite the community to submit designs for the other courts and
bling out all the courts. Would be a fun community event.
Comments on PLAN Hermosa
I have the following comments regarding the Hermosa Beach PLAN document and I’d like these
to be considered by both the City Council and the consultants who wrote this document. Thank
you.
After reading the PLAN Hermosa document I am convinced that the consultants are out to destroy
our little beach town. This entire document is all about increasing density in the city and infringing
upon individual property rights. I also think this document was written to confuse the reader into
accepting the concepts of increased density and infringement of private property rights through
the use of phrases such as “guide the continuing evolution of the urban form”. What does that
even mean? “Urban form”?? We are a sleepy little beach town with unique character and we
want to stay that way. We do not want to become a crowded, congested big city with rows of
matching condominiums stacked up against each other and backed up onto the sidewalks, as this
document suggests.
I sincerely hope that each member of our city council has thoroughly read and interpreted (as
opposed to “understood” since you really have to read between the lines) this entire document
and makes appropriate recommendations to the consultants who wrote this thing to either change
it to reflect maintaining our unique beach charm and preservation of property rights or to throw
away the entire document and start over.
Lorie Armendariz
Hermosa Beach
Lorie Armendariz <lorie90254@yahoo.com>
Tue 2/23/2016 4:45 PM
To:Leeanne Singleton <generalplan@hermosabch.org>; City Council <citycouncil@hermosabch.org>;
To Hermosa Beach City Council and Planners.
Re: The Hermosa Beach Plan, Public Review Draft
1) The east side of Prospect Avenue also has coveted ocean views:
A clarification is needed to correct the error in the description difference between the two sides of
Prospect Avenue. The description of the “Eastside Neighborhood” indicates it has Los Angeles city
views with no mention of its more important coveted ocean views. Even the one story homes right on
the east side of Prospect have potential ocean views that are reflected in their property values. Many
houses east of Prospect are also up on the next hill and have great ocean views as well. My concern is
that if the report becomes official, then it may very well be used later for zoning modifications that
could justify blocking our ocean views for the “Eastside Neighborhood” single family homes as well as
cause a drop in our property values. This lack of recognizing the ocean views on both sides of Prospect
seems like the city is planning something without revealing it to the residents such as possibly raising
height limits and adding new stores, apartments, or other high density living units with the possible
excuse that we did not have ocean views to protect.
2) No new stores should be added in our residential area on Prospect:
There is no need to put stores or services on Prospect or in any of the residential areas either as is the
plan of the outside consultants. From my home on Prospect, I currently walk a few minutes to Aviation
to reach the Ocean Diner, Big Lots, Auto mechanic, Auto-body repair, or the other way to Artesia for
Amigos Tacos and 711, and I can easily walk to PCH for the soon to come Trader Joe's as well as other
stores. We are surrounded by city. The whole point of the zoning laws is to protect the already small
residential areas from encroaching city. No one wants to live next to services or stores with the
associated loud sounds, smells, garbage bins, or people traffic. And many of my neighbors have also
said they would not necessarily be using what ever store gets put in because they want to choose where
they want to go. New stores will diminish our quality of life in the residential areas.
3) Restructuring our street on Prospect to accommodate more bicycles would be bad as it would
increase traffic jams for the residents:
The bike plan was fought back a few years ago by the residents but came back with the City General
Plan. We have not heard it has gone away with the latest brief description of the draft plan so we
assume that is still proposed for Prospect and maybe that is linked to widening of planter strips
mentioned in the draft plan. We have heard a variety of vague plans and don't want to give up some
combination of traffic lane, sidewalk, or cutting into everyone's yard which would thereby reduce the
buffer for our homes. We also want to maintain full use of our cars.
4) Increasing both people and building density is not wanted:
In a recent January 2015 meeting with city planners and the outside consultants, Ramie and Associates,
I believe the lead consultant, Matt Burris, had indicated that his consultants had heard the residents and
that they were not going to add more density but then in the next sentence, he immediately gives a
disclaimer that there would be a few exceptions. Correct us if we are wrong but after some inquiries it
now seems that the consultants still want to increase both density of people and density of buildings
and may still want to do it with mixed-use structures that incorporate commercial and living spaces.
The very thing the previous city council, our local city planners, and many residents agreed that they
did not want. Increasing density will decrease our quality of life. The RHNA report, the SCAG
profile, and the local city planners agree there is no growth of people coming for the next 35 years. It
is essentially flat as has been explained to the outside consultants. The city goal for 25 years should be
a zero density growth and no mixed use living space. Even if there was a potential increase, we should
just say no to it. It is our town and any increase will be felt heavily in this little 1.3 sq mile community.
Here is the question that the residents deserve to have answered.
How many people is Ramie and Associates planning for in 25 years?
The simple answer should be, what ever the exact number of residents is now. The delta increase
should be zero other than any increase for what current zoning allows individual residents to currently
do. In addition, we see throughout the Public Review Draft that density is a big theme of the grant with
words like wanting to “promote infill and compact development.” I feel we need to all push back
otherwise the outside consultants won't stop pushing density.
Thank you,
Mark Hopkins
Hermosa Beach Resident
More General Plan problems including: Eastside R2 properties
should not have height limit reduced
Dear City Council and Planners,
These issues are in addition to the ones I previously raised regarding the vague
General Plan draft.
Page 77. Eastside Neighborhood.
a. Properties currently zoned R2 should not have height limit reduced.
b. No widening of planting strip. That would take away either street parking, or a
driving lane, or part of the yards that would reduce the buffer for residence from
pedestrian, auto, or bike traffic. Leave the street and sidewalk configuration as is.
c. Delete “renovations” from front garage minimization requirements.
d. Garage minimization should not be required for lots less than 50’ wide.
Thank you,
Mark Hopkins
Tracy and Mark Hopkins <hopkinsbb@dslextreme.com>
Thu 2/25/2016 12:03 AM
To:Leeanne Singleton <generalplan@hermosabch.org>; City Council <citycouncil@hermosabch.org>;
Neighborhood Commercial Zoning
Greetings Planning Department!
I would like to comment on the draft PLAN Hermosa. My name is Ned Dewey and I have a home at 218 33rd St. in
the North End district of Hermosa Beach. I appreciate the thoughts expressed in the PLAN relating to neighborhood
commercial zone. Our little cluster of neighborhood commercial on Manhattan Avenue is a wonderful thing for us
and our neighbors. It is so nice to be able to walk and not have to drive to so many quaint little establishments
serving our neighborhood. It seems that the draft PLAN is headed in the right direction on neighborhood
commercial zoning . The new development at 2700 Manhattan Ave. is a prime example of why the General Plan
needs to be changed to preserve the character of our neighborhood . The development is actually an incredibly
dense residential condominium project with the only vestige of commercial use remaining being a "snack shop" in
the lobby! It is over 87% residential !!! What happened ??? I understand the economics that are driving this type of
development. With residential values in excess of $1000 per square foot, any redevelopment of neighborhood
commercial will be dominated by residential use since that is where the big money is . Over the years this will
eventually kill off our neighborhood commercial establishments. In my opinion, residential use should not be
allowed in the neighborhood commercial zone even under a CUP. We already have a very dense residential
community in the North End. What we really need is to preserve our wonderful neighborhood grocery, restaurants,
dry cleaner, gym, hair salon, real estate office etc. etc. I know that planners are enamored with the idea of mixing
residential uses with commercial but in this case, our little North End neighborhood is better served without it.
Thank you for your consideration,
Ned Dewey
PS: I would appreciate your letting me know you received this.
Ned Dewey <NDewey@mills‐group.com>
Wed 2/24/2016 2:03 PM
To:Leeanne Singleton <generalplan@hermosabch.org>;
Comments regarding draft of PLAN Hermosa
Ken‐I think there should be a community discussion on this since it effectively gets rid of a floor of living area for all future
development and planning should be more genuine to the community as to its intended affects. It will reduce property taxes to the
area as well as building permit revenue and if there are to be historically significant buildings then everyone of us should be aware of
which buildings exist today as they will only be more significant tomorrow. This is also an affront to personal liberty for all the
residents that purchased real estate here in good faith so maybe there is a sunset provision in any program. There should be a
community hearing before any draft is formulated as many stakeholders have no idea this is being contemplated. best Pat
‐‐
Patrick Ayau
Founding Principal
Lee & Associates / West LA
1508 17th Street
Santa Monica, CA 90404
DRE#887794
Tel. 310.899.2712
Fax. 310.899.2701
Cell. 310.505.4014
www.leewestla.com
Member of the Lee & Associates Group of Companies
Last year, the Lee & Associates Group successfully completed transactions with a total value of $7 billion.
The information contained in this email and/or its attachments is intended only for the confidential use of the designated addressee﴾s﴿
named above. Recipients should not file copies of this email and/or its attachments with publicly accessible written or electronic
records. If you are not a designated addressee and have received this email and/or its attachments through inadvertent error, any
further review, dissemination, distribution or copying of the email and/or its attachments by you or anyone else is strictly prohibited. If
you received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by contacting the above named sender.
Pat Ayau <payau@leewestla.com>
Tue 2/23/2016 3:34 PM
To:Leeanne Singleton <generalplan@hermosabch.org>; +krobertson@hermosabch.org <+krobertson@hermosabch.org>;
February 25, 2016
Ken Robertson,CommunityDevelopment Director
Leeanne Singleton,General Plan Coordinator
Mayor and Members of the Hermosa Beach City Council, Carolyn Petty, Hany Fangary, Justin Massey and Jeff
Duclos
Hermosa Beach Planning Commission,Kent Allen, Peter Hoffman, Michael Flaherty, Marie Rice, Rob Saemann
City of Hermosa Beach
1315 Valley Drive
HermosaBeach,CA 90254
Attached is a comment letter regarding residential-related sections of PLAN Hermosa from a large group of
Hermosa Beach residents.In addition to this letter, there are many comments posted on the Change.org
petition.Please take the time to carefully consider these comments and implement them as you are correcting
the draft of PLAN Hermosa.
The overwhelming community response is clear –property owners and residents object to a new General
Plan that would change (or serve as a future visioning pathway to change)height limits,height limit
calculations,buildable square footage,lot coverage ratios,setbacks, stepbacks,articulation, garage
design/curb cuts or require involuntary compliance with new historic guidelines.Some label the PLAN as
an “overreach” and liken it to imposing “homeowner association” type design oversight.
Although not focus of these two documents, it is my understanding that residents near areas where the
introduction of “neighborhood commercial” is proposed are not in favor of such a change. In addition, it is my
understanding that City Council has already directed staff to remove short term rentals from the PLAN as an
issue that will be dealt with separately.
People purchase property with an expectation of consistency. When development guidelines are changed
midstream, inequities and injustices are created.The proposed changes are not good for our town in general –
they would infringe on current development rights, reduce property values and discourage investment in
Hermosa Beach.
Regardless of intent on the part of the City to lower building heights, there is no other way to interpret the
language of PLAN Hermosa as drafted. At page 23, a visioning statement that indicated a “lack of interest in
development higher than two stories” was clearly carried forward in the roadmap for the PLAN. As one
example in the “North End Neighborhood”at page 69, within the residential neighborhood land use and design
section (pages 69-77),the PLAN utilizes headings “Future Vision,” “Intended Distribution of Land Uses,” “Desired
Form and Character,” then proceeds to read “buildings are one or two stores or up to 25’ in height.”Similar
language exists at page 72 for the “Sand Section Neighborhood”which reads “most buildings are one or two
stories or approximately 15-25 feet tall” under the heading “Desired Form and Character.”Specific references to
the number of stories or height are referenced for virtually every neighborhood.
If there is no intent to change number of stories, building heights, buildable square footage, lot coverage ratios
and setbacks allowed under current zoning,all such references should be removed in the sections that
follow the heading “Future Vision.”Make it crystal clear, not muddy.If reference to the current mix of
properties in each neighborhood is desired, it should be contained within the first descriptive paragraph, not
confused with future vision or references to intended uses or desired form.
As the City and its residents embark upon the finalization of PLAN Hermosa over the coming months,greater
public awareness and communication will be vital.For whatever reason, Speak Up Hermosa is a flop and
people aren’t using it. My recommendation is to create an email push notification prior to meetings on the
topic, and proactively send revisions of the PLAN as it’s changed and corrected.Previous outreach was directed
to “stakeholders” but all residents and property owners are stakeholders in our small town. Ken and his staff
could collect all the email address of people that weighed-in to establish a distribution list. The real estate and
development community would like to stay informed as well, and I’d be happy to help with that piece.
The 220 property owners identified as potentially having a historic property should be proactively notified if
they haven’t already.
The general plan is one of the most significant documents and issues in our city, which greatly impacts property
rights and values. With 150 people signing a petition in 3 days, it’s clear people are highly interested and this is
important to them. Most people are working like crazy to afford life in Hermosa Beach and had no idea of the
changes that could result from the PLAN.
Together as a community, I’m sure it will be possible to arrive at a PLAN that’s good for our town and good for
property values, one that residents will support.
I’m here to assist in the process.
Thank you for your consideration,
Karynne Thim
1734 The Strand,Hermosa Beach
310-753-7816
kt@ktbeachproperties.com
February 25, 2016
Ken Robertson,Community Development Director
City of Hermosa Beach
1315 Valley Drive
Hermosa Beach,CA 90254
Below is a list of comments regarding residential-related sections of PLAN Hermosa that we believe
need to be corrected or eliminated in order to preserve Hermosa’s property owners’rights,values,
views and their ability to feasibly develop and renovate.Reductions in height limits and buildable
square footage will have a significant negative impact on property values.The vast majority of
residents,property owners,and even those in the real estate and development community,are not
aware of the implications of the PLAN,and due to its size and complexity,it’s difficult to locate and
interpret its far-reaching ramifications.
We do not believe the community at large,especially residential property owners,have been
adequately represented by the 15 person working group and staff involved in creation of the PLAN.
Not a single developer or member of the real estate community was a part of the working group.It is
imperative that individual property owners be made aware of the changes that would impact their
property before they are implemented.
Neighborhood Land Uses
1.Page 69.North End Sand Section.Eliminate the bullet point “Buildings are one or two stories or
up to 25’in height.”This area currently has both R1 (25’height limit)and R2 (30’height limit)zoned
properties.A “one size fits all”height limit of 25’would be extremely damaging to the value of
properties zoned R2 with a current height limit of 30’.Any R2 property not currently developed to the
height limit with a westerly neighbor built to 30’would forever lose its view potential,be
overshadowed and have sunlight blocked.Huge loss in value.Critical that this change not be
instituted.One local home builder estimates a 33%loss in property value as a result of only being able
to build a two story home rather than three where currently allowed,with 40%less above ground
square footage.This doesn’t even account for the lost view value.This would also create aesthetically
unpleasing results with some properties much taller than others.
2.Page 72.Sand Section.a.Eliminate bullet point “Most buildings are one or two stories or
approximately 15-25 feet tall.”This area currently has a mix of R1, R2 and R3 zones.Similar to the
comments above,limiting the height to 1-2 stories with 15-25 feet represents a significant down-
zoning,as current height limits range between 25’-30’.Any reduction in the height limit for a given
zone will result in a loss of view potential and significant loss of property value for properties not
currently built to current height limits.Critical that this change not be instituted.This would also
create aesthetically unpleasing results with some properties much taller than others.b.Eliminate
requirement for “greater articulation and step backs”to the front facade.On a practical basis,this
means one’s view could be impacted if their neighbor built according to today’s setbacks as their
building would protrude farther than your home could.Manhattan Beach residents suffered many
unintended consequences of a similar change.We should learn from their mistakes,not duplicate
them.c.Regarding garages:In the case of single family homes on half lots,where there is no rear
alley access,it would be crazy to encourage single tandem garages vs.side by side so there are fewer
curb cuts.Tandem garages are inconvenient,largely unused,and would be counterproductive to the
City’s goal of increasing available street parking as residents would be more apt to park on the street if
they have a tandem garage rather than a standard double garage.Double garages that face the street
should be allowed in those cases.
3.Page 70.Hermosa View Neighborhood.Setbacks,scale and massing should remain consistent
with today’s standards so new/renovated homes are consistent with neighbors,not set back farther.
Properties currently zoned R2 on Longfellow should not be down zoned to 2 story max for same
reason as #1 and #2.
4.Page 73.Valley Neighborhood.a.Setbacks,scale and massing should remain consistent with
today’s standards so new/renovated homes are consistent with neighbors,not set back farther.b.
Properties in this area generally don’t have rear alley access.Properties with a width of less than 50’
should be exempt from garage minimization requirements as a tandem garage is undesirable and a
garage at the back of the lot would cut into coveted back yard space.c.Renovations should be
exempt from new garage design guidelines.
5.Page 75.Greenbelt Neighborhood.a.This area currently has R1 and R2 zoned properties.Delete
reference to building being one to three stories.This is ambiguous.Height limits should not be
changed for the same reasons as stated in #1 .b.This neighborhood should really be split up into
a North Greenbelt Neighborhood for properties north of the Pier and a South Greenbelt
Neighborhood south of Pier as they are quite different in character.Alternatively,the northerly
section could be incorporated into the Hermosa View Neighborhood as it is much more similar.c.
Many lots south of the Pier aren’t wide enough to accommodate single family home style town homes
such as the one in the photo on 21st Street.d.Last bullet point refers to a change in the way height
limits are calculated,“as buildings step down to match building height limits.”Whenever height limits
are changed or the method of calculation is changed,surrounding properties built to previous
standards can be negatively affected.Further clarification is needed.
6.Page 76.Hermosa Hills Neighborhood.a.Delete “renovations”from front garage minimization
requirements.b.Garage minimization should not be required for lots less than 50’wide.No tandem
garages should be encouraged,nor rear garages that would cut into coveted back yard space.c.
Height limits aren’t specified,but this area has R1, R2,and R3 properties in it,and it should be clarified
that height limits will not change from current standards.
7.Page 77.Eastside Neighborhood.a.Introduction of neighborhood commercial to this area could
negatively affect values for nearby properties due to increased traffic.b.Delete “renovations”from
front garage minimization requirements.c.Garage minimization should not be required for lots less
than 50’wide.No tandem garages should be encouraged,nor rear garages that would cut into
coveted back yard space.d.Properties currently zoned R2 should not have height limit reduced (see
items 1 and 2 above).
Goals and Policies
1.Page 90.Goal 2.12.Garage minimization and/or garage placement at the back of the property is
not feasible in many cases and should not apply to narrow lots and/or those without rear alley access
(see above).Conflicting language in same sentence -“encouraging”vs.“requiring.”
2.Page 93.Goal 5.6.Preservation of historic buildings strictly optional and require owner consent.
3.Page 95.Goal 6.8,bullet point 3.Curb cuts should be allowed in cases where their elimination
renders the development or renovation of the property infeasible.
4.Page 97.Goal 8.6.Remove short term rentals from the PLAN.The City is addressing these
separately.
8.Page 99.Goal 10.1.Add “owner consent required”for historic designation.
9.Page 99.Goal 10.4 to be deleted.Not consistent with 10.1.City should not mandate whether a
property can be torn down or not.This would be an overreach and violate property rights.
10.Page 99.Goal 10.5.Delete.Evaluation of historic resources at owner’s discretion.
Respectfully,
Karynne Thim, 1734 The Strand, Hermosa Beach
Christa Lyons,320 16th Street, Hermosa Beach
John Wallace, 1734 The Strand, Hermosa Beach
Steve Lazar,1071/1074 7th Street, Hermosa Beach
Molly Graw, 2507 Valley, Hermosa Beach
Dan O’Connor 526 24th Place, Hermosa Beach
Robert &Buckita Leff, 1700 The Strand, Hermosa Beach
Kathy Kernochan, 2126 The Strand, Hermosa Beach
Nader Chahine,934 7th Street, Hermosa Beach
Robb Stroyke,2420 Hermosa Avenue, Hermosa Beach
Robert &Beth Flanders,713 4th Street, Hermosa Beach
Kim Komick,133 31st Street, Hermosa Beach
Karen Ulman,1712 The Strand, Hermosa Beach
Dave Salzman,217-229 PCH, Hermosa Beach
Rob McGarry, 1534 Golden, Hermosa Beach
Evelyn Conley,60 17th Street, Hermosa Beach
Denise Anello, 530 24th Street, Hermosa Beach
James McKinnell, 2451 Silverstrand, Hermosa Beach
Ron Newman, 3312 Hermosa Avenue, Hermosa Beach
Dan & Becky Inskeep, 79 16th Street, Hermosa Beach
Emily Piemonte, 837 9th Street, Hermosa Beach
Fred Zuelich, 325 28th Street, Hermosa Beach
Audrey Judson, 669 Longfellow, Hermosa Beach
Rob Depaoli, 1807 Manhattan Avenue, Hermosa Beach
Roger Lamont
Mark and Tracy Hopkins,Prospect Ave., Hermosa Beach
Colleen Shepherd, 2451 Silverstrand, Hermosa Beach
Calen Lopata and Mimi Cheng, 2216 Hermosa Ave., Hermosa Beach
Marty and Teresa Molina, 442 33rd Street, Hermosa Beach
Petitioning Community Development Director Ken Robertson
Preserve your Property rights and say NO to height limit reductions
Karynne Thim and Christa Lyons Hermosa Beach, CA
The city of Hermosa Beach is considering changes to it's general plan that would be
detrimental to your property rights and property values. In its draft form, PLAN Hermosa
would:
-Reduce height limits in several parts of town. For properties not built to currentmaximums, their view potential can be lost forever. This will result in a significant loss in
property value.
-Reduce Scale and buildable square footage
-Require that garages not occupy street frontage which would mean tandem parkinggarages or garages at the rear of the property.
-Impair owner's ability to tear down older homes by designating them historic
To view a full copy of PLAN Hermosa, go
tohttp://www.hermosabch.org/index.aspx?page=339
The City is accepting public comment through this Thursday, February 25th. It is criticalto weigh in immediately to preserve your property values and property rights. Pleasesign this petition. WE MUST ACT NOW!
Email your comments to: generalplan@hermosabch.org
Please help us spread the word as most Hermosa Beach residents are unaware of theimplications.
Generalplan@hermosabch.org: Preserve your Property rights and say NO to height limit
reductions
by Karynne Thim and Christa Lyons · 148 supporters
Add your voice
Supporters
Top-rated
Most recent
My comments
I am a homeowner in Hermosa for years. I feel that homeowners should keep the same
rights as allowed when the land was originally purchased. These proposed changes willlikely result in reduced land values, and that is unfair.
john zelasko, Hermosa Beach, CA
21 hours ago
2
Share
Tweet
It is not right to make people conform to some ideal of what Hermosa should look like.
Property values will be adversely effected. As a home owner, I place more value on how
my house uses the lot (back yard for my kids) than how it looks to a passer by. Lets not
turn Hermosa into a homeowners association. No one should be able to tell anyone
what shape or size or color their house can be. We already have zoning and buildingcodes for that. This seems like a thinly veiled attempt to stop new home building in
Hermosa. The price of building a home here is already high. With all these new
'considerations', building price will become prohibitive. But I think that is really the point.
Andrew Leighton, Hermosa Beach, CA
24 hours ago
2
Share
Tweet
I don't think it is fair to restrict height limits at this stage of the game. If my neighbor is at
30 feet and now I am restricted to 25 you have seriously negatively reduced the value of
my property.
Terri Leighton, Hermosa Beach, CA
1 day ago
2
ShareTweet
I am signing because I believe these proposed changes are not good for my propertyand hermosa in general. I feel like the negative effects of this greatly outweigh any
possitives.
Dan O'Connor, Hermosa Beach, CA
2 days ago
2
Share
Tweet
I believe in homeowners property rights!
Kim Komick, Hermosa Beach, CA
3 days ago
2
ShareTweet
I do not want the development rules to change and hurt values for those who purchasedproperty under the current rules,
Patrick Panzarella, Hermosa Beach, CA
3 days ago
2
Share
Tweet
I own property in Hermosa and this will dramatically reduce the value of my propertiesand other properties that haven't been developed yet. This plan will make Hermosa far
less desirable than other areas and is very inconsistent from other homes in the area.
Matt Morris, Manhattan Beach, CA
3 days ago
2
Share
Tweet
I do not want our future building options restricted when we have lived through four tear
downs in our neighborhood with few restrictions.
cathy chambliss, Hermosa Beach, CA 16 hours ago
1
Share
Tweet
This proposed legislation could have negative impacts on my home value and the home
values for other properties in the area. I could not have a garage at the rear of my
property and forcing tandem parking is simply going to increase usage and demand for
our already limited street parking.
Property tax revenues could be impacted and I do not see good justification for these
modifications to current zoning rules.
James Mckinnell, Hermosa Beach, CA 18 hours ago
1
Share
Tweet
I want to preserve propriety value in Hermosa Beach! I like the new developments
happening in Hermosa!
Judi Carroll, Hermosa Beach, CA 18 hours ago
1
ShareTweet
I represent clients in Hermosa Beach and want to protect their property values.
Barbi Pappas, Manhattan Beach, CA 19 hours ago
1
Report
This would negatively affect my clients property values
Lynn Range, Manhattan Beach, CA
19 hours ago
1
Report
As a realtor I am extremely concerned how this will effect my clients
Christina Schlank, Manhattan Beach, CA
20 hours ago
1
Report
I am signing on behalf of clients that I represent who own are are looking to buyproperty in Hermosa Beach.
nicole peters, Manhattan Beach, CA
20 hours ago
1
Report
The changes reduce property values and it's extremely unfair to people that haven't builttheir properties.
Bob Lane, Manhattan Beach, CA
20 hours ago
1
Report
Completely unfair to people who have not yet developed their property
Dennis Moloney, Manhattan Beach, CA
21 hours ago
1
Report
These changes will devalue properties of many friends and clients of mine, and
discourage investment in the Hermosa Beach communities to improve communities. It's
simply not right. Other guidelines can be put in place to guide building better morehuman and comfortable communities within Hermosa Beach! Thank you!
Rick Bender, Manhattan Beach, CA
23 hours ago
1
Report
Oh yay! ..more ridiculous regulations?
Just what we need right now.Wow, does the city really have the resources to explore ways of making things more
difficult for its people?
Its time for a change in favor of
homeowners and businesses
Chris Williams, Hermosa Beach, CA 24 hours ago
1
Report
Patrick J. Burke
129 Manhattan Ave.
Hermosa Beach, Ca. 90254
Elizabeth Ansel-burke, Hermosa Beach, CA 1 day ago
1
Report
Dear Planning department be genuine as to intent that a 5' reduction in height takes out
a full floor of living space..This is just social engineering and an affront to property rights
for the same folks that have been paying extremely high property taxes to employ thevery folks that are looking to tinker with their lifestyle.. bizarre
patrick ayau, Hermosa Beach, CA
2 days ago
1
Report
I don't want property value to decrease!
heather aitken, Manhattan Beach, CA
2 days ago
1
Report
Suggestions on how to regulate Short-term rentals in Hermosa Beach:
I don’t think much thought has been put into the amount of business and revenue that
those families that stay in 200+ STR homes generate on a daily basis, and I’m not just
talking about the 12% bedroom tax either.
1. How do we control and monitor the Vacation Rental Homes in our community?
The first thing we need to do is hire a staff to police and monitor all the STR’s
properties. We cover the additional cost to the city by adding annual licensing
fee to all register homes just like we do regular businesses and of course we
collect the 12% bedroom tax and fines when necessary.
2. There are currently 200+ Homes in Hermosa Beach on VRBO, Home Away and
Airbnb; Our Manhattan Beach homes at SCVR average approximately $1000 a
month per property in bedroom taxes. That’s $200,000 a month if the city were
to require licenses and monitor all homes. Notices should be sent to every
property advertised on VRBO, Home Away and Airbnb stating that if they are not
registered in the next 30 days they will be fined $500, lose their right to be
licensed in the future and be forced out of business.
3. How do we eliminate the party crowd;
First we enforce a 5-7 day minimum. The 2-3 day crowds are the ones that are
most likely to cause problems in the neighborhood. A family that stays at least 5
nights are not here to party they are here on vacation.
Another good idea would be to incorporate a Behavior/City Deposit in every
STR’s homeowners Guest Contract. The Deposit would be $1,000 per stay. If the
police are called to the residence and a ticket is issued to the Guest then the
Owners or in my case property Manager (SCVR) will be required to release $500
from the guests Deposit to The City for Hermosa to be used to improve our City
and or for The Hermosa Beach Education Foundation, if there is a second visit by
the police, the remaining $500 will be turned over to the City and If warrantied the
Guests will be forced to vacate the property immediately and forfeit there rental
fees for the rest of their stay and possibly their security deposit. Adding this to all
of our contracts will send a clear message that we do not want the party crowd in
our beautiful city and we will not tolerate inappropriate behavior in our homes.
Most think you fine the Owner but that won’t detour the guy causing the problem,
he’s the one you need to punish for his actions.
4. Parking:
Require at least 2 parking spaces (1 street permit is OK) per home and have
parking enforcement ticket those that park illegally as they should.
Each licensed STR home would be required to incorporate City rules such as the
following generated by The City of Manhattan Beach, which are now part of our SCVR
Contracts.
MB
City
Ordinance
rules:
Guest(s)
agree
to
abide
by
and
be
responsible
for
all
fines
and
related
cost
if
they
don’t.
1. The
trash
pick-‐up
day
is
Tuesday
morning.
Please
deposit
all
trash
in
the
gray
bins,
recyclable
materials
(paper,
plastic,
and
glass)
in
the
blue
Bin,
and
organic
and
compose
in
the
Green
bin.
Bins
must
be
left
at
the
curb,
side
by
side
on
Monday
evening
for
city
pick
up
first
thing
Tuesday
morning.
Please
move
bins
back
to
storage
area
after
they
are
emptied.
2. Guests
may
be
cited
or
fined
by
the
City
and/or
immediately
evicted
by
the
owner
pursuant
to
state
law,
in
addition
to
any
other
remedies
available
at
law,
for
violating
any
provisions
of
this
chapter.
3. Amplified
sound,
including
radios,
televisions
and
other
electronic
devices,
are
subject
to
the
City's
noise
regulations
as
set
forth
in
Manhattan
Beach
Municipal
Code
Chapter
5.48.
4. The
City
has
the
right
to
recover
the
costs
of
special
law
enforcement
needed
to
address
loud
parties
under
the
circumstances
described
in
Manhattan
Beach
Municipal
Code
Chapter
3.64.
5. Guest(s)
agree
to
participate
voluntarily
in
neighborhood
quiet
hours
by
avoiding
parties
and
loud
social
events
between
the
hours
of
10:00
p.m.
and
7:00
a.m.
6. Emergency
contact
info;
Robert
Reyes
Property
Manager
SCVR
310
308-‐8778
A few additional comments; some people say that vacation rentals will devalue our
neighborhoods. Not true…. I currently have 5 homeowners that wouldn’t have bought
their 2nd homes in Manhattan Beach had Vacation Rentals not been legal there. Two
started looking in Hermosa and switched to MB for that very fact. At least two of my MB
Homeowners will be forced to sell their 2nd home/Vacation rental property due to lost
revenues because the law has changed.
At the end of the day we all want what’s best for the community. I invite you to visit our
web site so you can see how we present our homes and or to visit one of our homes and
you will see how we promote our fine city and how we support our local businesses. In
each of our homes we leave a book with all the names of the local restaurant, shops and
stores. We also greet our guests personally and answer questions and explain the finer
details of our city so they may get the best from their vacation.
http://sunnycaliforniavacationrentals.com
Thank you for your time and consideration,
Robert Reyes
Sunny California Vacation Rentals
General Plan Update
Good Morning,
In reviewing the very lengthy General Plan update, what disturbs me the most is that it seems that
all of our local city governments are relying way too heavily on the unelected groups of people;
that being SBCCOG and SCAG. There is no reason to apply a "cookie cutter" solution across the
board throughout the South Bay. The residents are the ones who pay the taxes, and therefore
should have a larger voice on what should be included in the plans for the future of their city. And
if councils will take the time to listen, they will find that people are not interested in more bike
lanes, "sustainability," or bringing more development to our areas, i.e. building mixed use or other
developments in areas where parking lots are in use or other open space is required. This only
compounds the problems we are experiencing, and in no way will improve them. Studies show
that higher density areas experience higher rates of crime, another side effect that has us
seriously concerned.
Our country and cities have been going through extreme economic times. The people are way
more interested in our own sustainability, in other words, many need to keep working longer
before they can retire, or many making sure that the economy will be healthy enough to make
sure their plans in place are enough to at least allow them to live out their final years in minimal
comfort. We don't need another bike lane or to put plans in concrete that will tie us up for many
years into the future, when at this point, we have no idea what our economic future will look like. I
think the government should worry more about focusing on the present; that's exactly what the
people are doing.
Sandra Goetz
Torrance
SandraG <sgoetz5266@sbcglobal.net>
Tue 2/23/2016 7:08 AM
To:Leeanne Singleton <generalplan@hermosabch.org>; City Council <citycouncil@hermosabch.org>;
Suggest City of Hermosa Beach to build a clean and active beach
city
Hello there,
I am the resident of Hermosa Beach, and my name is Sunny living on Monterrey Blvd.
I've noticed that there are more people letting their dogs running on the beach, much more than before, even though there are
the signs saying no dog on the beach, especially from evening to late evening that period of time.
Since Hermosa Beach is famous for her beach culture and activities from Spring to Summer, the athletes and tourists definitely
don't want to step on the sands covered with dog's urinate, even thought they might not know about that. But it definitely
damages the image of Hermosa Beach. I have already stopped more than 10 dog owners letting their dogs running on the
beach recently when I do my jogging around 67pm. Some of them were reluctant stopping their dogs running happily on the
sands, but they finally took their dogs out of the sand under my two to three times pushing over the owners. But one time I had to
call 911 for a help to let the owner taking the dog from the sand, the owner was very angry and tried to beat me up. I do think that
there should be a way to enforce "no dog on the beach" policy into a fine, so the dog owners won't let their dogs running on the
sand because there is a big fine for doing so, just like how Hermosa Beach does the parking, there is a person to inspect every
meter and issue the tickets for the false. If there is a fine as the enforcement, I am sure the dog owners won't release their dogs to
the sand that easily.
I have no problem to be a volunteer to watch those dogs running on the sands if I get the permission from City of Hermosa
Beach. If City has a better solution to solve that issue, I am sure the residents and tourists are appreciated to see that being
stopped.
Another issue is dog urinate and poo along the strand. Let's talk about dog's urinate first.
The entrances in the wall along the strand are the pee places for the dogs. Those places have been peeed by dogs year by
year, again and again, so those places are smelly, and even smelly during the hot weather. It is really not pleasure to walk by
those entrances and you have to hold your breath. It's hard to not allow dog walking along the strand for the residents living at
Hermosa Beach, but there should be a way to make that smelly going away or less from this summer at least. Can the city of
Hermosa use the sprays to wash off that smells at those entrances? Also that spray can be a stopper to let dogs pee there. Don't
use water to wash off, because we need water and not waste the water.
Let's talk about dog's poo on the strand. Who never stepped on a dog's poo on the strand, especially at late evening or night?
Nobody. Some dog owners didn't collect their dog poos on the strand when they walked their dogs, of course, some people will
step on those poos without any notice. So the strand has so many poo marks and they were there for a long time until next year's
rain to wash them off. Isn't that bad to have dog poos on the strand of Hermosa Beach when Hermosa holds many beach
volleyball games, crossfits games and other international games during the summer time? So there should be a way to solve
that issue, and that solution needs to take act as soon as possible.
I am hoping Hermosa Beach becomes a wellknown not only a beach city nation wide, but also international wide as well. Let's
make Hermosa Beach shining and present her unique beach cultures to the world.
Thanks for your attention!
Resident: Sunny Liu
“Please consider the environment before printing this email"
This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the addressee and may contain information that is
Sunny Liu <sunny@insighting.us>
Fri 2/26/2016 1:02 PM
To:Leeanne Singleton <generalplan@hermosabch.org>;
privileged and confidential. If the reader of the message is not the intended recipient or an authorized representative of the
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have
received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by email and delete the message and any attachments from
your system.
About the Hermosa Beach General Plan
R eading through this beautiful laid out book of the Hermosa Beach General Plan, I see
weaving through this colored presentation .......Congestion, High Density and Stack and
Packing.
ExamplesPages 104, 105 and more:
About current commuting like Cars, Bikes, Walking...."Everything should be Equal" as
per consultant's presentation.
Can you imagine Pacific Coast Hwy, our thorough fare, One Single Lane?? So we have a
Bike Lane?
It's called Traffic Calming /Road Diet.
And remember 90% employees live outside our city. By the way, how many Hermosa
Beach residents have been hired by the City?
Consultant Matt Burris: "We must build to capacity. But the city is already there." So
Up, Up we go! Build single family housing on top of retail. You might have seen some of
the hand out examples from one of the community meetings as well. One of the power
points claimed the reasoning behind that we need more living quarters for the future.
Which was questioned later by a commissioner and others.
Why would we want to increase stack and pack housing for the future? And rezoning
and possible taking away some of our property easements as well?
What would happen to 'Our Best Little Beach City' then??
It seems that the General Plan wants to make us change and control how we should live
and move around big time!
Policy changes will enforce compliance.
Thank You for listening to my/our concerns,
Traudl Weber
Traudl <strudell200@yahoo.com>
Mon 2/22/2016 3:06 PM
To:Leeanne Singleton <generalplan@hermosabch.org>;
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., Governor
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
South Coast Area Office
200 Oceangate, Suite 1000
Long Beach, CA 90802-4302
(562) 590-5071
December 24, 2015
Leeanne Singleton, Hermosa Beach General Plan Coordinator
City of Hermosa Beach
1315 Valley Drive
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
Re: Coastal Commission staff’s initial comments on the PLAN Hermosa draft documents
Dear Ms. Singleton:
The following are Coastal Commission staff’s initial comments on the PLAN Hermosa draft documents
(submitted November 2015). These comments are staff’s interpretation of the draft documents’
consistency with the Coastal Act and with previous actions taken by the Coastal Commission. They do
not represent an action by the Coastal Commission itself, which will be required in order to certify both
the Land Use Plan and Implementation Plan components of the Hermosa Beach Local Coastal Program
once those plans are formally submitted by the City. The Coastal Commission could also deny the City’s
LCP submittals or certify them only if modified as suggested consistent with the Coastal Act.
The primary document (PLAN Hermosa) appears to be formatted more like a General Plan than a Land
Use Plan. The blue coastal icon identifying policies relevant to the Land Use Plan is useful to readers of
the General Plan, but is not sufficient to identify the Land Use Plan as the standard of review for
development in the coastal zone. Commission staff understands that the City intends to prepare a digital
appendix which lists all Land Use Plan policies in one place. That format should be replicated in a
physical document which lists all Land Use Policies in one place, and may be either included as a
component of the General Plan or referenced prominently in the Introduction section of the General Plan
as a separate document that is the standard of review for development in the coastal zone.
In order to be consistent with the Chapter 3 policies of the Coastal Act, many of the Land Use Plan
policies will need to be more specific than the policies of the General Plan. The purpose of the Land Use
Plan is to carry out the requirements of the Coastal Act, with policies specific to land use issues and
coastal resources in the local government’s jurisdiction. The “Goals” within each chapter of the PLAN
Hermosa document appear to have identified the relevant land use issues and coastal resources in
Hermosa Beach; however, many of the policies listed below each goal are not specific enough to carry
out the goal or the requirements of the Coastal Act.
Commission staff suggests that the first policy under each goal in the Land Use Plan be the relevant
Chapter 3 policy of the Coastal Act. For example, under Goal 10 of the Land Use Chapter of PLAN
Hermosa, Policy 10.0 or 10.1 could copy Section 30244: Archaeological or Paleontological Resources.
Where development would adversely impact archaeological or paleontological resources as identified
by the State Historic Preservation Officer, reasonable mitigation measures shall be provided. Policy
10.13 of the Land Use Plan should be made more specific in order to carry out that policy at the local
level. Rather than “strive to identify, protect, and preserve archaeological and paleontological resources”
the policy should declare the method by which that objective will be carried out in the coastal zone. The
policy could be revised to state that the Community Development Department or the Cultural Heritage
Coastal Commission staff’s initial comments on the PLAN Hermosa draft documents
Commission shall maintain an up-to-date list of all known archaeological and paleontological resources
in Hermosa Beach and that new development shall not impact archaeological and paleontological
resources unless reasonable mitigation measures have been provided.
Section 30251 of the Coastal Act: Scenic and Visual Qualities could also be included under Goal 10 of
the Land Use Chapter. Other Coastal Act policies related to land use and development should be cited
under Goal 8, Goal 9, or Goal 10. Along the same format, Coastal Act policies related to public access
(Sections 30210 through 30214) should be included as policies under Goal 8 and/or under Goals 6 and 7
of the Parks and Open Space Chapter of PLAN Hermosa. The policies within Goals 6 and 7 should also
be made more specific. Coastal Act policies related to public recreation, marine resources, land
resources, and issues like public works and industrial development should be included under the relevant
goals in the PLAN Hermosa document, and the other policies under the relevant goals should be revised
specifically enough to carry out the goals and Coastal Act policies.
The policies of the Land Use Plan must also be specific enough for the Coastal Commission to certify an
Implementation Plan that carries out the Land Use Plan. The implementation plan may include portions
of the municipal code, City ordinances, and procedures for analyzing and approving development in the
coastal zone. In order for the Commission to determine whether proposed implementing ordinances are
consistent with the Land Use Plan, both documents should include definitions of important words (e.g.
“new development” “shoreline protective device” “lower cost visitor serving accommodation”). In order
to provide clear direction for the Implementation Plan (and any future amendments thereto), words like
“strive” and “encourage” should be replaced by words like “shall” and “require.” The introductory
phrase “provide incentives” may be appropriate for some policies, assuming that the Implementation
Plan identifies those incentives and the incentives are strong enough to carry out the applicable policy.
The second document submitted as part of PLAN Hermosa, titled “Implementation,” appears to more
closely follow the format of a Land Use Plan, suggested above. Commission staff suggests that rather
than listing the “Implementation Actions” separately within that document, they be included with the
revised, more specific policies of the PLAN Hermosa/Land Use Plan document. Many of the
implementation actions are specific enough to carry out the goals of PLAN Hermosa and will assist with
the preparation of a draft Implementation Plan, which Commission staff understands the City is
preparing concurrently with the review of its draft Land Use Plan.
This letter provides preliminary comments on the format and need for more specificity in the PLAN
Hermosa draft documents. Commission staff will provide more specific comments on the draft Land
Use Plan and draft Implementation Plan in 2016 as the public review process continues and the PLAN
Hermosa document is revised consistent with some or all of the suggestions above.
Commission staff offers the following guidance (attached) on three important issues included in the
PLAN Hermosa draft documents which may inspire substantial public interest: parking, short term
rentals, and sea level rise.
I look forward to continuing our work together.
Sincerely,
Zach Rehm Cc: Kim Chafin, Hermosa Beach Senior Planner
Coastal Program Analyst Ken Robertson, Community Development Director
Coastal Commission staff’s initial comments on the PLAN Hermosa draft documents
Parking
In previous actions, The Coastal Commission has consistently found that a direct relationship exists
between public access and the provision of adequate parking and transportation related mitigation at new
developments near the coast. When new developments (commercial or residential) do not provide
enough parking to meet the demand generated by the development, users of the development park their
private vehicles in public parking spaces that were previously available to members of the public
seeking to access the coast.
Coastal Act section 30210 states:
In carrying out the requirement of Section 4 of Article X of the California Constitution,
maximum access, which shall be conspicuously posted, and recreational opportunities
shall be provided for all people consistent with public safety needs and the need to
protect public rights, rights of private property owners, and natural resource areas from
overuse.
Coastal Act section 30211 states:
Development shall not interfere with the public’s right of access to the sea where
acquired through use of legislative authorization, including, but not limited to, the use of
dry sand and rocky coastal beaches to the first line of terrestrial vegetation.
Coastal Act section 30252 states, in part:
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...
Hermosa Beach certified Land Use Plan Section III (A) includes a statement of philosophy:
To preserve and increase where feasible, residential, commercial, and general public
parking within the Coastal Zone.
Hermosa Beach certified Land Use Plan Section III (C) 1 states:
Policy: That the City shall not allow the elimination of existing on-street parking or
existing off-street parking spaces in the coastal zone. Future residential and commercial
construction should provide the actual parking necessary to meet the demand generated.
The Coastal Commission has not prescribed a parking standard for each local government, but
has required thorough analysis and mitigation when local governments have proposed to reduce
parking standards for new development, establish preferential parking districts where public
parking is limited at certain hours of the day, remove public parking spaces, or increase the cost
of parking at public facilities.
In 1997, under City Council Resolution No. 97-5857, Hermosa Beach established reduced
parking requirements for the public right-of-way at Lower Pier Avenue, which permitted private
businesses to expand outdoor dining areas and pay a fee in lieu of providing required parking
spaces, at a rate of one in lieu fee per 250 feet of outdoor dining area. The Commission approved
that program, subject to monitoring requirements, under Coastal Development Permit 5-97-180.
The Commission has also encouraged the City of Hermosa Beach to utilize the money generated
from its downtown parking fund to provide additional parking, which the City has accomplished
Coastal Commission staff’s initial comments on the PLAN Hermosa draft documents
through the construction of its downtown parking garage and improved management of parking
areas within the City right-of-way. The City has also improved bicycle facilities, installed
electric vehicle charging stations, and encouraged regional public transit service.
Finally, in its findings approving the City’s preferential parking program and the reduced
requirements in the downtown commercial district, the Commission has encouraged the City to
minimize the restrictions associated with its preferential parking districts to only those approved
by previous Commission actions and only those areas where parking demand is at capacity. The
preferential parking districts provide a public subsidy (exclusive use of the public right of way)
to a narrow group of individuals and often have the effect of reducing public access to the coast.
Goal 4 of PLAN Hermosa and Policies 4.1 through 4.10 provide a good basis for the City’s plan
to provide vehicle parking, public parking, and other transportation alternatives; however all 10
policies should be made more specific. Special emphasis should be placed on Policy 4.4, which
addresses the issue of subsidized parking and exclusive use of the public right of way. If the City
intends to continue its preferential parking programs, the programs must be included in the Land
Use Plan and policies must be provided to ensure that they do not have the effect of reducing
public access to the coast. If the City intends enact less restrictive parking standards (require new
developments to provide less parking) in its downtown district, those policies should be included
in the Land Use Plan and the policies encouraging parking in-lieu fees, bicycle parking, electric
vehicle infrastructure, regional transit, and other transportation demand mitigation should be
included to offset potential adverse impacts to public access.
Coastal Commission staff’s initial comments on the PLAN Hermosa draft documents
Short Term Rentals
The Coastal Commission has not certified a Local Coastal Program that prohibited short term rentals.
The Commission has previously authorized regulations proposed by local governments that limited the
prevalence and intensity of use of short term rentals but did not restrict lower cost short term rentals.
Any proposed program must be consistent with Section 30213 of the Coastal Act, which states:
Lower cost visitor and recreational facilities shall be protected, encouraged, and, where
feasible, provided. Developments providing public recreational opportunities are
preferred.
Additionally, Coastal Act section 30210 states:
In carrying out the requirement of Section 4 of Article X of the California Constitution,
maximum access, which shall be conspicuously posted, and recreational opportunities
shall be provided for all people consistent with public safety needs and the need to
protect public rights, rights of private property owners, and natural resource areas from
overuse.
Policy 8.6 under Goal 8 of the Land Use Chapter in the PLAN Hermosa document states:
Short-term rentals. Provide for, regulate, and collect fees related to the legal short-term
rental of private homes through professional marketplaces, in a manner that minimizes
potential nuisances associated with short-term use.
The draft policy may be consistent with Coastal Act Sections 30210 and 30213 if the regulation
of short term rentals does not have the same effect as an outright ban, and if lower cost short
term rentals are not restricted by the policy and its implementing ordinances. The Commission
has previously found regulations related to noise and public safety to be consistent with the
Coastal Act, so long as the policies regulate noise levels and existing specific ordinances related
to public safety and do not seek to solve to limit noise and provide public safety by restricting
public access.
Finally, Commission staff suggests that the words “professional marketplaces” be removed from
the policy because those words could serve to make it more difficult to implement and enforce.
All forms of short term rentals should be subject to the same policies and ordinances, regardless
of the platform renters and coastal visitors utilize to connect.
Coastal Commission staff’s initial comments on the PLAN Hermosa draft documents
Sea Level Rise
The discussion of sea level rise on page 177 of the PLAN Hermosa document acknowledges the 2012
National Research Council report and projections, along with the key impacts to the city that could
result from SLR. In addition, Commission staff recommends the following:
Identify the NRC 2012 report and projections as the current best available science on SLR.
Identify scenario-based analysis as the method to use when analyzing the range of SLR
projections provided by the NRC 2012 report.
State that SLR impacts should be analyzed for the life of the development in question, including
the highest SLR scenario provided by the NRC Report.
Refer to the March 2015 Hermosa Beach Sea Level Rise Analysis and the Vulnerability
Assessment that informed the analysis so that users of the document are aware of and have access
to this information.
Goal 2 of PLAN Hermosa, Policy 2.1, 2.2, and 2.6 address the impacts of SLR on development and
infrastructure. The “Implementation” document also includes recommendations that build on these
policies, including PS-1, PS-2, PS-28, PS-29. Commission staff recommends that additional detail be
included in both the Land Use Plan and the Implementation Plan, including but not limited to the
following. Please note that the example policy language included in this memo is simply for
discussion purposes and not meant as suggested language for PLAN Hermosa.
A policy/provision to maintain maps of SLR hazards. PLAN Hermosa contains a map of the 100-
year flood zone with 55 inches of SLR. Commission staff suggests that additional maps be
developed showing SLR impacts with and without the effects of a storm event at various time
steps into the future. For example:
The City shall maintain and make available to the public maps and resources provided by
other agencies that depict or describe areas of known safety hazards, including seismic
and seismically induced hazards, coastal hazards, soil- and slope-related hazards, radon
hazards, flooding hazards, industrial hazards, and fire hazards. The City shall
periodically update LCP hazard maps pursuant to an LCP Amendment, as new or refined
information becomes available. Maps of climate and sea level rise hazards shall include
scenarios, including the highest scenario, in line with the current best available science.
A policy/provision on the siting of new development, including redevelopment, that includes
considerations arising from SLR hazards. For example:
New development that is in proximity to the shoreline shall be sited and designed to:
minimize risks to life and property; protect public access and recreation, scenic
resources, and the quality or quantity of the natural supply of sediment to the coastline;
account for sea level rise and coastal storm projections; and in accordance with the
applicable policies of this section.
A definition of redevelopment. For example:
Redevelopment of blufftop and shoreline structures must be found consistent with all
applicable LCP policies. A development proposal constitutes shoreline or blufftop
redevelopment in which the entire structure must be found consistent with all applicable
LCP policies if:
Coastal Commission staff’s initial comments on the PLAN Hermosa draft documents
o (1) One or more additions to the existing structure, individually or cumulatively,
exceed 50% or more of the square footage of such existing structure;
o (2) Demolition and/or replacement that would result in replacement of 50 percent
or more of such existing structures, including but not limited to, alteration of 50
percent or more of structural exterior wall area, structural flooring or structural
roofing area, structural foundation, or any combination of these areas (as further
explained below); or
o (3) Any demolition or replacement of less than 50 percent of such existing
structures where multiple proposed demolitions or additions of major structural
components would result in a combined replacement of 50 percent or more of
such existing structures (including previous alterations) from their condition as of
[insert the date of the certification of the Local Coastal Program].
A policy/provision stating that redevelopment will be treated as new development. For example:
Redevelopment of a site and/or a structure (as defined in xxx) shall be treated as new
development, which shall be sited and designed so that it does not require shoreline
protection to ensure structural stability and so that it will be safe from coastal hazards,
including erosion, flooding and/or wave run-up over the life of the development
(minimum 100 years unless otherwise specified), including siting development as far
landward as feasible. In the event that a site or structure that is protected by a legal,
existing shoreline protection device is redeveloped, then new development on the site
shall be designed and sited in a manner that does not require the use of a shoreline
protective device to ensure structural stability and the existing shoreline protection
device shall be removed if it is no longer necessary to protect existing development.
A policy/provision on avoiding siting critical infrastructure in hazardous areas, including those
areas impacted by SLR. For example:
The City shall avoid siting essential infrastructure, services, buildings and other highly
sensitive uses in areas subject to existing and future safety hazards, including hazards
resulting from sea level rise.
Revisions to PS-29 to include more detail on the requirements for site-specific hazard studies
including SLR for economic life (as in PS-1) of proposed development using the current best
available science and scenario based analysis:
Require applications for new development or redevelopment projects within the 100-year
floodplain with 55 inches of sea level rise (Figure XX), or where there is probable cause
to believe that a geologic or coastal hazard may exist now or in the future, to include a
site-specific hazard study at the time that a development proposal is submitted. Such site-
specific hazard studies shall evaluate exposure of the new development to coastal and
other hazards including sea level rise and other climate change impacts over the
economic life expectancy of the proposed development, as described in PS-1, and
including sea level rise scenarios provided by the current best available science on sea
level rise. Where applicable, the study report shall contain a statement certifying that the
project site is suitable for the proposed development and that the development will be
safe from geologic hazards for the economic life expectancy of the proposed
development. The report shall be prepared and signed by a licensed certified engineering
Coastal Commission staff’s initial comments on the PLAN Hermosa draft documents
geologist, geotechnical engineer, or other coastal qualified professional and shall be
subject to review and acceptance by the City. Where the City finds that the physical
extent of a hazard on the project site is different than those indicated on Figure XX, the
City shall make findings as part of the CDP regarding the physical extent of the hazard
and detailed justification for modifications at the project site based on substantial
evidence.
Revisions to PS-2 specifying the mechanism by which acknowledgement of risk and real estate
disclosure will be achieved, such as a deed restriction.
As a condition of development on property subject to geologic, seismic, flooding, climate,
and other hazards addressed in this GP/LUP, the property owner shall be required to
execute and record a deed restriction requiring a real estate disclosure that
acknowledges and assumes responsibility for the risks; waives any future claims of
damage or liability against the City; and agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the City
against any and all liability, claims, damages, and/or expenses arising from any injury to
any person or damage to property due to such hazards. Such deed restrictions shall
include findings regarding the potential future risks of sea level rise hazards, disclosure
of what future sea level amount was used for design purposes in the approved
development, and the range of potential future sea level predicted by the current best
available science.
A policy/provision prohibiting or limiting subdivision of new lots in hazardous areas. For
example:
Land divisions, including lot line adjustments, shall be prohibited unless: (1) all
proposed parcels can be demonstrated to be safe from current and future geologic,
seismic, flooding, climate, and other hazards and (2) the lot configurations, buildable
land areas, and a safe, all-weather access road can be constructed in compliance with all
applicable hazard setbacks and consistent with all other policies and provisions of the
LCP; (3) all proposed parcels and access roads comply with all applicable fire safety
regulations.
A policy/provision defining a setback for shoreline development that includes considerations of
sea level rise impacts. For example:
For shoreline segments that lack coastal bluffs, setbacks shall be sufficient to ensure that
new development is sited outside areas subject to existing or future shoreline hazards
(shoreline erosion, inundation, wave uprush) over the life of the development (minimum
100 years unless specified), including worst-case sea level rise scenarios.
A policy/provision to prohibit shoreline armoring for new development that is not coastal
dependent. Consider adding a definition for “existing development” that states that “existing” as
referenced in Coastal Act section 30235 refers to structures built prior to the passage of the
Coastal Act in 1976.
A policy/provision to require mitigation of the impacts of approvable coastal armoring. For
example:
Coastal Commission staff’s initial comments on the PLAN Hermosa draft documents
Where shoreline protection is authorized pursuant to the criteria above, new shoreline
protection devices, including replacement and substantial repairs (i.e., the cumulative
demolition and reconstruction, any addition of material, or replacement of 50% or more
of the shoreline protection device, calculated cumulatively from the date of the original
certification of the LCP), shall be sited and designed to avoid or minimize impacts to
coastal resources to the maximum extent feasible by locating the shoreline protection
device as landward as feasible, limiting the size and scope of the shoreline protective
device to the minimum necessary, maintaining beach widths fronting and adjacent to
coastal armoring structures where feasible and maintaining safe vertical and lateral
beach access. Impacts to coastal resources from new shoreline protection, including
replacement and substantial repairs that would serve to extend the life of the existing
structure, shall be fully mitigated, and mitigation requirements shall be reassessed
periodically, based on monitoring of the impacts to beach width, public access, and other
coastal resources as applicable. Approval of the armoring shall be conditioned to
terminate when the expected life of the principal structure being protected ends and to
require a bond to be paid for removal of the structure at the end of its permitted life.
A policy/provision to encourage removal of existing coastal armoring, including derelict
shoreline protective devices. For example:
The City shall support the removal of derelict coastal armoring structures by expediting
the permit process. Derelict coastal armoring is defined as armoring that was
constructed to protect any structure that has been demolished or removed or armoring
that has fallen into disrepair, or presents a nuisance or safety hazard. The responsible
party for the removal lies with current owner.
Policies/provisions providing more detail on the methods by which the City will maintain beach
widths, including but not limited to, methods to implement beach nourishment in the least
environmentally damaging way. For example:
On any beach found to be appropriate, alternative “soft solutions” to the placement of
shoreline protection devices shall be preferred to protect development and beaches
threatened by erosion. Soft solutions include beach sand nourishment and dune
restoration. The placement of sediments removed from erosion control or flood control
facilities at appropriate points along the shoreline may be permitted for the purpose of
beach nourishment, if otherwise consistent with the LCP. Any beach nourishment
program for sediment deposition shall be designed to minimize adverse impacts to beach,
intertidal, and offshore resources; shall incorporate appropriate mitigation measures;
and shall consider the method, location, and timing of placement. Sediment removed
from catchment basins may be disposed of in the littoral system if it is tested and is found
to be of suitable grain size, type, and chemical composition. The program shall identify
and designate appropriate beaches or offshore feeder sites in the littoral system for
placement of suitable catchment basin materials.
Goal 5 Policy 5.4 is overly broad, please recommend its deletion. Policy 5.7 is overly restrictive and usurps
private property rights, please recommend its deletion.
Goal 6. I really wish the author would stop using the word “urban”! Hermosa Beach is not “urban” and to
push those ideas is counter to “Striving to maintain the small town beach atmosphere that is Hermosa
Beach”
To highlight one of the great inconsistencies in The Plan, Goal 6 states “A pedestrian focused urban form…”
and Policy 6.7 says “eliminate urban form conditions…” It would appear that the author is becoming as
glazed over as the reader in the overuse of bureaucratic jargan, double speak, buzz word mania.
Policy 6.1 is too restrictive and doesn’t allow for creativity to “Encourage innovative and quality
architecture..” as mentioned in Policy 5.3. please recommend its deletion.
Policy 6.3. I don’t want a general plan that people will laugh at, please recommend its deletion as
meaningless.
Goal 8 Policy 8.4 I am nervous about what “Protect existing inventory….” means. It could be construed to
mean rate control which is clearly anti-free market and anti-private property rights.
Goal 10 Policy 10.2 and 10.5 are incompatible with 10.1, please recommend their (10.2 and 10.5) deletion.
Goal 13 Policy 13.5 talks about balancing increased density. Increased density =decreased quality of life and
should be opposed. Please recommend its deletion.
Policy 13.6 talks about social equity which is a political hot potato, please recommend its deletion.
Thank you for taking the time to delve into this section of PLAN Hermosa in detail so that we might end up
with a general plan of which we can be proud.
Image used with permission from FreedomAdvocates.org