Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-04-19 PC AGENDA 1 AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1315 VALLEY DRIVE HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 April 19, 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 March 15, 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 Public Hearing 6. CON 16-5 / PDP 16-5 -- Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 74120 for a 2-unit condominium project at 600 10th Street, and determination that the project is categorically 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 #74120 for a two-unit attached condominium project subject to conditions and determine the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). 7. CUP 16-1 -- Conditional Use Permit amendment to allow on-sale general alcohol at an existing restaurant with on-sale beer and wine, live entertainment and outdoor seating at 1139 - 1141 Aviation Boulevard (Suzy’s Bar & Grill), and determination that the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. Staff Recommended Action: To adopt the resolution denying the proposed Conditional Use Permit Amendment. 8. TEXT 16-2 -- An amendment to the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code to expressly prohibit short-term vacation rentals in non-commercial zoning districts, and determining the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. Staff Recommended Action: To adopt the resolution recommending the City Council adopt a text amendment to expressly prohibit short-term vacation rentals in residential zoning districts, and determine the project is not subject to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). 3 9. PDD 14-11 -- Precise Development Plan and certification of an Environmental Impact Report for installation and operation of up to four transpacific submarine cable systems at two possible locations on Longfellow Avenue and 25th Street between Hermosa Avenue and Manhattan Avenue; and installation of power feed equipment to be located at 1601 Pacific Coast Highway. Staff Recommended Action: To certify the Environmental Impact Report, and adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Program and Statement of Overriding Considerations, and approve the Precise Development Plan subject to conditions. 10. TEXT 16-3 -- Text Amendment to allow portable A-frame signs on public sidewalks in commercial districts, and determination that the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. Staff Recommended Action: To adopt the resolution recommending the City Council adopt a text amendment to allow portable A-Frame signs, and determine the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Section III 11. Staff Items a. Report on City Council actions. b. Report on comprehensive planning processes. c. Tentative future Planning Commission agenda. d. Community Development Department activity report of February, 2016. 12. Commissioner Items 13. Adjournment 1 Planning Commission Action Minutes March 15, 2016 ACTION MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON MARCH 15, 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 7:08 P.M. by Vice Chair Allen. 1. Pledge of Allegiance 2. Roll Call Present: Commissioners Allen, Flaherty, Rice, Saemann Absent: Chairperson Hoffman Also Present: Ken Robertson, Community Development Director Kim Chafin, Senior Planner Lauren Langer, Assistant City Attorney 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 February 16, 2016 action minutes ACTION: To approve the February 16, 2016 action minutes as presented. MOTION by Commissioner Flaherty and seconded by Commissioner Rice. The motion carried, noting the absence of Chairman Hoffman. 5. Resolution(s) for Consideration – None 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.” ACTION: To receive and file the semi-annual report and determine that no businesses 4 2 Planning Commission Action Minutes March 15, 2016 have reached the “Standard Initiating Planning Commission Review.” MOTION by Commissioner Flaherty and seconded by Commissioner Saemann. The motion carried, noting the absence of Chairman Hoffman. 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. 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. MOTION by Commissioner Flaherty and seconded by Commissioner Saemann. The motion carried, noting the absence of Chairman Hoffman. 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. ACTION: To adopt by Minute Order the expiration date of December 31, 2016 for the Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan, Parking Plan and Vesting Tentative Tract Map #68380, and confirmation that all proposed alterations are minor while determining the extensions be contingent upon the extension of the Coastal Development Permit. MOTION by Commissioner Flaherty and seconded by Commissioner Rice. The motion carried, noting the absence of Chairman Hoffman. Section III 9. Staff Items a. Discussion and possible initial policy direction regarding short-term vacation rentals (continued from the February 16, 2016 meeting). ACTION: 1) To direct staff to schedule a public hearing at the April 19, 2016 meeting regarding a Text Amendment to prohibit short term vacation rentals in residential zones. 3 Planning Commission Action Minutes March 15, 2016 MOTION by Vice Chair Allen and seconded by Commissioner Flaherty. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Comms. Flaherty, Rice, Saemann, Vice Chair Allen NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Chairperson Hoffman 2) To direct staff to report back in the future with more details on feasibility of allowing short term vacation rentals in commercially zoned properties that have nonconforming residential units. MOTION by Commissioner Flaherty and seconded by Vice Chair Allen. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Comms. Flaherty, Rice, Saemann, Vice Chair Allen NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Chairperson Hoffman 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). ACTION: Discussion made with priorities ranked as follows: 1) Reducing Community alcohol problems associated with alcohol sales provided (item No. 3) 2) Discussion on televisions in outdoor dining areas (Item No. 1) 3) 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 (item No. 4) 4) Text Amendment to allow religious institutions in zones allowing assembly uses (item No. 2) and discussion regarding convex slope determination (item No. 5) 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. 4 Planning Commission Action Minutes March 15, 2016 10. Commissioner Items 11. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 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 March 15, 2016. Kent Allen, Vice Chair Ken Robertson, Secretary Date NEW 3-STORYCONDO UNITNEW 3-STORYCONDO UNITARDMORE AVE.10TH ST.T-1TITLE SHEET, TABULATIONS & SITE PLAN SHEETSOFDATE:JOB NO:SCALE:SHEETCHECKED:DRAWN BY:SHEET TITLE:JOB SITE:325119 SCOTT STREET TORRANCE, CA 90503 310 792-5306 FAX=310-792-5308 rpgcad@verizon.net PREPARED BY: RPG CAD Services1 REVISIONSAS NOTEDENGINEERS STAMP:CONTRACTOR:83/26/2016600 10TH ST. HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 ANCHOR HOMES 2 UNIT CONDO DEVELOPMENT600 10TH ST.HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254ANCHOR HOMES 2-CARGARAGEBATHENTRYOFFICE/GUEST BED#4W.I.C.2-CARGARAGEBATHENTRYOFFICE/GUEST BED#4W.I.C.PORCHPORCHCOVEREDMOTOR COURTUNIT 1UNIT 2ARDMORE AVE.10TH ST.A-1FIRST FLOOR PLAN SHEETSOFDATE:JOB NO:SCALE:SHEETCHECKED:DRAWN BY:SHEET TITLE:JOB SITE:325119 SCOTT STREET TORRANCE, CA 90503 310 792-5306 FAX=310-792-5308 rpgcad@verizon.net PREPARED BY: RPG CAD Services1 REVISIONSAS NOTEDENGINEERS STAMP:CONTRACTOR:83/26/2016600 10TH ST. HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 ANCHOR HOMES BED #2BED #3BATH #3M. BATHM. SUITEW.I.C.LAU.BED #2BED #3BATH #3M. BATHM. SUITEW.I.C.LAU.BALCONYBALCONYARDMORE AVE.10TH ST.A-2SECOND FLOOR PLAN SHEETSOFDATE:JOB NO:SCALE:SHEETCHECKED:DRAWN BY:SHEET TITLE:JOB SITE:325119 SCOTT STREET TORRANCE, CA 90503 310 792-5306 FAX=310-792-5308 rpgcad@verizon.net PREPARED BY: RPG CAD Services1 REVISIONSAS NOTEDENGINEERS STAMP:CONTRACTOR:83/26/2016600 10TH ST. HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 ANCHOR HOMES KITCHENFAMILY RMDININGPANTRYPDR.OPEN PATIODECKKITCHENFAMILY RMDININGPANTRYPDR.OPEN PATIODECKARDMORE AVE.10TH ST.A-3THIRD FLOOR PLAN SHEETSOFDATE:JOB NO:SCALE:SHEETCHECKED:DRAWN BY:SHEET TITLE:JOB SITE:325119 SCOTT STREET TORRANCE, CA 90503 310 792-5306 FAX=310-792-5308 rpgcad@verizon.net PREPARED BY: RPG CAD Services1 REVISIONSAS NOTEDENGINEERS STAMP:CONTRACTOR:83/26/2016600 10TH ST. HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 ANCHOR HOMES ARDMORE AVE.10TH ST.A-4ROOF PLAN SHEETSOFDATE:JOB NO:SCALE:SHEETCHECKED:DRAWN BY:SHEET TITLE:JOB SITE:325119 SCOTT STREET TORRANCE, CA 90503 310 792-5306 FAX=310-792-5308 rpgcad@verizon.net PREPARED BY: RPG CAD Services1 REVISIONSAS NOTEDENGINEERS STAMP:CONTRACTOR:83/26/2016600 10TH ST. HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 ANCHOR HOMES MATERIAL LEGEND:A-5EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS SHEETSOFDATE:JOB NO:SCALE:SHEETCHECKED:DRAWN BY:SHEET TITLE:JOB SITE:325119 SCOTT STREET TORRANCE, CA 90503 310 792-5306 FAX=310-792-5308 rpgcad@verizon.net PREPARED BY: RPG CAD Services1 REVISIONSAS NOTEDENGINEERS STAMP:CONTRACTOR:83/26/2016600 10TH ST. HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 ANCHOR HOMES MATERIAL LEGEND:A-6EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS SHEETSOFDATE:JOB NO:SCALE:SHEETCHECKED:DRAWN BY:SHEET TITLE:JOB SITE:325119 SCOTT STREET TORRANCE, CA 90503 310 792-5306 FAX=310-792-5308 rpgcad@verizon.net PREPARED BY: RPG CAD Services1 REVISIONSAS NOTEDENGINEERS STAMP:CONTRACTOR:83/26/2016600 10TH ST. HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 ANCHOR HOMES A-7EXTERIOR 3D VIEWS SHEETSOFDATE:JOB NO:SCALE:SHEETCHECKED:DRAWN BY:SHEET TITLE:JOB SITE:325119 SCOTT STREET TORRANCE, CA 90503 310 792-5306 FAX=310-792-5308 rpgcad@verizon.net PREPARED BY: RPG CAD Services1 REVISIONSAS NOTEDENGINEERS STAMP:CONTRACTOR:83/26/2016600 10TH ST. HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 ANCHOR HOMES 2-CARGARAGEW.I.C.OFFICE/ GUESTBED #4COVEREDMOTOR COURT2-CARGARAGEW.I.C.OFFICE/ GUESTBED #4BED #3HALLWAYM. SUITEM. SUITEHALLWAYBED #3OPEN PATIODECKFAMILY RMKITCHENOPEN PATIODECKFAMILY RMKITCHENCOVEREDMOTOR COURTM. SUITEW.I.C.FAMILY RMA-8BUILDING SECTIONS SHEETSOFDATE:JOB NO:SCALE:SHEETCHECKED:DRAWN BY:SHEET TITLE:JOB SITE:325119 SCOTT STREET TORRANCE, CA 90503 310 792-5306 FAX=310-792-5308 rpgcad@verizon.net PREPARED BY: RPG CAD Services1 REVISIONSAS NOTEDENGINEERS STAMP:CONTRACTOR:83/26/2016600 10TH ST. HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 ANCHOR HOMES 1 April 19, 2016 Honorable Chairman and Members of the Regular Meeting of Hermosa Beach Planning Commission April 19, 2016 SUBJECT: TEXT AMENDMENT 16-2 LOCATION: RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS APPLICANT: CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH REQUEST: TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE, TITLE 1 AND TITLE 17, TO EXPRESSLY PROHIBIT SHORT-TERM VACATION RENTALS IN NON-COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICTS Recommendation: Adopt the attached resolution recommending the City Council adopt a text amendment to expressly prohibit short-term vacation rentals in residential zoning districts, and determine the project is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act. Background: Background information regarding short-term vacation rentals (STVRs) 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. 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. At its March 15, 2016 meeting, the Planning Commission reviewed the Decision-Making Tool evaluations provided by each Commissioner, and considered information provided by City staff as well as written and verbal information provided by the public http://hermosabeach.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=6&clip_id=4095&meta_id=257881. Following discussion, the Planning Commission directed staff to: 1. Prepare an ordinance expressly prohibiting STVRs in residential zoning districts for Planning Commission consideration in April 2016; and 2. Investigate the feasibility of allowing STVRs in the existing stock of nonconforming residential uses located in commercial zones, and report back at some future time. 1 Attachment 1 RESOLUTION P.C. 16-X A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A TEXT AMENDMENT TO MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE 1 AND TITLE 17 TO EXPRESSLY PROHIBIT SHORT-TERM VACATION RENTALS IN RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS, AND DETERMINING THAT THE PROJECT IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT The Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach does hereby resolve as follows: SECTION 1. On March 15, 2016, the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach directed staff to initiate a code amendment to the Municipal Code to expressly prohibit short-term vacation rentals in residential zoning districts. SECTION 2. The Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on April 19, 2016 to consider a text amendment to expressly prohibit short-term vacation rentals in residential zoning districts. (TEXT 16-2). SECTION 3. The project is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15060(c)(2), because the project will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. SECTION 4. The Planning Commission hereby recommends City Council approval of the proposed ordinance attached hereto as Exhibit A. VOTE: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution P.C. 16-X is a true and complete record of the action taken by the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, at its regular meeting of April 19, 2016. ________________________________ ______________________________ Peter Hoffman, Chairman Ken Robertson, Secretary Date Exhibit A ORDINANCE NO. _______ AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO RENTAL OF RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES FOR FEWER THAN THIRTY DAYS AND AMENDING THE HERMOSA BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE The City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach does ordain as follows: Section 1. The following new definition is added to the list of alphabetical definitions in Section 17.04.040 of Chapter 17.04 of Title 17 of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code to read as follows: “Advertisement” means any printed or lettered announcement, whether in a magazine, newspaper, handbill, notice, display, billboard, poster, email, internet website or application, or any other form. Section 2. Title 17, Chapter 17.08 of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding thereto a new section 17.08.025 to read as follows: 17.08.025 Short term rentals prohibited. It shall be unlawful for any person to offer or make available for rent or to rent (by way of a rental agreement, lease, license or any other means, whether oral or written) for compensation a residential dwelling, a dwelling unit or a room in a dwelling for less than thirty consecutive days. It shall be unlawful for any person to occupy a residential dwelling, a dwelling unit or a room in a dwelling for less than thirty consecutive days pursuant to a rental agreement, lease, license or any other means, whether oral or written, for compensation. Section 3. Title 17, Chapter 17.10 of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding thereto a new section 17.10.015 to read as follows: 17.10.015 Short term rentals prohibited. It shall be unlawful for any person to offer or make available for rent or to rent (by way of a rental agreement, lease, license or any other means, whether oral or written) for compensation a residential dwelling, a dwelling unit or a room in a dwelling for less than thirty consecutive days. It shall be unlawful for any person to occupy a residential dwelling, a dwelling unit or a room in a dwelling for less than thirty consecutive days pursuant to a rental agreement, lease, license or any other means, whether oral or written, for compensation. Section 4. Title 17, Chapter 17.12 of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding thereto a new section 17.12.015 to read as follows: 4 17.12.015 Short term rentals prohibited. It shall be unlawful for any person to offer or make available for rent or to rent (by way of a rental agreement, lease, license or any other means, whether oral or written) for compensation a residential dwelling, a dwelling unit or a room in a dwelling for less than thirty consecutive days. It shall be unlawful for any person to occupy a residential dwelling, a dwelling unit or a room in a dwelling for less than thirty consecutive days pursuant to a rental agreement, lease, license or any other means, whether oral or written, for compensation. Section 5. Title 17, Chapter 17.14 of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding thereto a new section 17.14.015 to read as follows: 17.14.015 Short term rentals prohibited. It shall be unlawful for any person to offer or make available for rent or to rent (by way of a rental agreement, lease, license or any other means, whether oral or written) for compensation a residential dwelling, a dwelling unit or a room in a dwelling for less than thirty consecutive days. It shall be unlawful for any person to occupy a residential dwelling, a dwelling unit or a room in a dwelling for less than thirty consecutive days pursuant to a rental agreement, lease, license or any other means, whether oral or written, for compensation. Section 6. Title 17, Chapter 17.16 of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding thereto a new section 17.16.015 to read as follows: 17.16.015 Short term rentals prohibited. It shall be unlawful for any person to offer or make available for rent or to rent (by way of a rental agreement, lease, license or any other means, whether oral or written) for compensation a residential dwelling, a dwelling unit or a room in a dwelling for less than thirty consecutive days. It shall be unlawful for any person to occupy a residential dwelling, a dwelling unit or a room in a dwelling for less than thirty consecutive days pursuant to a rental agreement, lease, license or any other means, whether oral or written, for compensation. Section 7. Title 17, Chapter 17.18 of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding thereto a new section 17.18.025 to read as follows: 17.18.025 Short term rentals prohibited. It shall be unlawful for any person to offer or make available for rent or to rent (by way of a rental agreement, lease, license or any other means, whether oral or written) for compensation a residential dwelling, a dwelling unit or a room in a dwelling for less than thirty consecutive days. It shall be unlawful for any person to occupy a residential dwelling, a dwelling unit or a room in a dwelling for less than thirty consecutive days 5 pursuant to a rental agreement, lease, license or any other means, whether oral or written, for compensation. Section 8. Title 17, Chapter 17.20 of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding thereto a new section 17.20.015 to read as follows: 17.20.015 Short term rentals prohibited. It shall be unlawful for any person to offer or make available for rent or to rent (by way of a rental agreement, lease, license or any other means, whether oral or written) for compensation a residential dwelling, a dwelling unit or a room in a dwelling for less than thirty consecutive days. It shall be unlawful for any person to occupy a residential dwelling, a dwelling unit or a room in a dwelling for less than thirty consecutive days pursuant to a rental agreement, lease, license or any other means, whether oral or written, for compensation. Section 9. A new Section 17.42.180 is added to Chapter 17.42 or Title 17 of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code to read as follows: 17.42.180 Advertising of short term rentals prohibited. No person or entity shall maintain any advertisement of a rental prohibited under Sections 17.08.025, 17.10.015, 17.12.015, 17.14.015, 17.16.015, 17.18.025 and 17.20.015. Section 10. Section 1.10.040 of Title 1, Chapter 1.10 of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code is amended as follows: a. Paragraph 12 is amended to read as follows: 12. Title 17: Zoning, except sections 17.08.025, 17.10.015, 17.12.015, 17.14.015, 17.16.015, 17.18.025, 17.20.015 and 17.42.180. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this __ day of _____________, 2016. ____________________________ MAYOR Attest: _______________________ City Clerk 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Revised: 2/17/2015 City of Austin Vacation Rental Licensing Program For Austin residents and visitors seeking a place to stay for a short period of time, renting a house has become an increasingly popular option. These “vacation rentals”, also called short-term rentals or STRs, offer flexibility, a more authentic Austin experience for visitors, and can provide a source of income for the property owner. The City of Austin requires everyone who leases their property as a short- term rental to license it with the Vacation Rental Licensing Program. * Incomplete applications will not be accepted ORDINANCE #20130926-144 approved on September 26, 2013 amended City Code Chapters 25-2 and 25- 12 which provide for the regulation, monitoring and licensing of short-term rentals (STRs). VACATION RENTALS are the rental of a residential dwelling unit or accessory building on a temporary basis for periods of less than 30 consecutive days. The Austin City Council passed an ordinance effective October 1, 2012, requiring registration of vacation rental properties. LICENSING PROCESS COMPLETE a City of Austin Vacation Rental Application Form (available online) SUBMIT* the following to the City of Austin Code Department: Vacation Rental Application $285 Fee $235 Annual Licensing Fee $50 Notification Fee Proof of Property Insurance summary or declarations page from current insurance policy Proof of Payment of Hotel Occupancy Taxes (if applicable) Certificate of Occupancy OR Certified 3rd Party Inspection ALLOW 3-5 business days for processing and approval POST the operating license and vacation rental information packet (which will be mailed) in a visible, common area, inside the rental property RENEWAL PROCESS $235 Fee Proof of Property Insurance Proof of Payment of Hotel Occupancy Taxes 17 Revised: 2/17/2015 There are THREE Types of Vacation Rentals: LOCATION Austin Code Department 1520 Rutherford Lane Building One Austin, TX 78754 Walk-ins accepted from 9 a.m. - 2:30 p.m. QUESTIONS email: STRLicensing@austintexas.gov call: 3-1-1 FAQ & RESOURCES visit: austintexas.gov/STR TYPE 1 - owner occupied Type 1 Rentals: are owner-occupied or associated with an owner- occupied principal residential unit include the rental of an entire dwelling unit or if only part of the unit, include at a minimum a sleeping room (with shared full bathroom), is limited to a single party of individuals, and the owner is generally present during the rental REQUIREMENTS TYPE 2 - not owner occupied Type 2 Rentals: are single-family or two-family properties are not owner-occupied or associated with an owner- occupied principal residential unit include the rental of an entire dwelling unit not be more than 3% of the single- family or two-family detached residential units within the census tract City of Austin Vacation Rental Licensing Program TYPE 3 - multifamily/commercial Type 3 Rentals: are part of a multifamily use (apartments, condos, etc.) include the rental of an entire dwelling unit must provide documentation of total number of buildings on property and units per building comply with applicable geographic caps Vacation Rental Operating Licenses are monitored and issued by the City of Austin Code Department 18 Revised: 2/20/2015 City of Austin Vacation Rental Frequently Asked Questions ORDINANCE #20130926-144 approved on September 26, 2013 amended City Code Chapters 25-2 and 25- 12 which provide for the regulation, monitoring and licensing of short-term rentals (STRs). SHORT-TERM / VACATION RENTALS are the rental of a residential dwelling unit or accessory building on a temporary basis for periods of less than 30 consecutive days. The Austin City Council passed an ordinance effective October 1, 2012, requiring registration of vacation rental properties. HOW LONG IS THE VACATION RENTAL OPERATING LICENSE VALID? The Vacation Rental Operating License is valid for 12-months from the time of approval and may be renewed on an annual basis. IS MY VACATION RENTAL LICENSE TRANSFERABLE? The Vacation Rental Operating License is non-transferable per Ordinance #20130926-144, “a license may not be transferred and does not covey with the sale or transfer or the property”. HOW MUCH IS THE VACATION RENTAL LICENSING AND NOTIFICATION FEE? The Vacation Rental licensing fee is $235.00. There is also a notification cost of $50.00 from the Planning & Development Review Department to notify adjacent neighbors as outlined in the amended ordinance. A total of $285.00 is due at the time your application is submitted. ARE THERE PAYMENT OPTIONS FOR THE LICENSING AND NOTIFICATION FEE? The $235.00 licensing fee and $50.00 notification fee must both be paid in full via cash, check, or money-order, payable to: the City of Austin, Code Department. At this time the program does not accept credit cards or online payments and exact change is required for cash payments. HOW DO I RENEW MY VACATION RENTAL OPERATING LICENSE? A Vacation Rental Operating License may be renewed each year by submitting a $235.00 licensing fee, proof of current property insurance, and proof of Hotel Occupancy Tax (if applicable). WHERE DO I GET A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY AND IS THERE A FEE? A Certificate of Occupancy, or “CO” can be obtained at no cost from the City of Austin, Building Inspections Division located at: One Texas Center, 505 Barton Springs Road, 3rd Floor. IF I DO NOT GET A “CO”, WHERE DO I GO FOR AN INSPECTION INSTEAD? An inspection can be provided by a professional inspector certified by the Texas Real Estate Commission or a Residential Combination Inspector certified by the International Code Council. This is the only license or certification currently accepted for the inspection and issuance of the Operation License. WHERE DO I TURN IN MY APPLICATION & DOCUMENTS? To submit your application, please make an appointment by calling 3-1-1 or visit us Monday through Friday between 9 a.m. and 2:30 p.m. The City of Austin, Code Department is located at: 1520 Rutherford Lane, Building One. DOES PROOF OF HOTEL OCCUPANCY TAX APPLY TO EVERYONE? Every person owning, operating, managing, controlling, or collecting payment for occupancy in any hotel (or vacation rental), located within the City of Austin’s full purpose or limited purpose jurisdiction, shall collect the Hotel Occupancy Tax from their guests for the City. To see if your property is located in the full purpose or limited purpose jurisdiction, visit: www.ffiec.gov/ Geocode/default.aspx WHERE DO I PAY MY HOTEL OCCUPANCY TAX? You may call the City of Austin, Financial Services: Controller's Office at 512-974-2590, then press 1, or email: hotels@austintexas.gov. WHAT IF I DON’T GET A LICENSE FOR MY VACATION RENTAL? Failure to register is equivalent to operating without a license and may result in enforcement action, including citations. 19 Revised: 2/20/2015 QUESTIONS email: STRLicensing@austintexas.gov call: 3-1-1 visit: austintexas.gov/STR City of Austin Vacation Rental Resources CITY OF AUSTIN, FINANCIAL SERVICES: CONTROLLER'S OFFICE Hotel Occupancy Tax Information, Forms & Instructions Email: hotels@austintexas.gov Address: 124 W. 8th Street, Suite 140 Phone: 512-974-2590, press 1 Website: austintexas.gov/department/hotel-occupancy-taxes CITY OF AUSTIN, PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DEPARTMENT BUILDING INSPECTION DIVISION Certificates of Occupancy Address: One Texas Center, 505 Barton Springs Road, 3rd Floor Walk-In Hours: Monday - Friday; 7:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. Phone: 512-978-4000 Website: austintexas.gov/department/building-inspections CITY OF AUSTIN, CODE DEPARTMENT Vacation Rental Operating License Email: STRlicensing@austintexas.gov Address: 1520 Rutherford Lane, Building One Mailing Address: PO Box 1088, Austin, TX 78767 Walk-In Hours: Monday - Friday; 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. Phone: 3-1-1 Website: austintexas.gov/STR TEXAS REAL ESTATE COMMISSION (TREC) Professional Inspector * Website: trec.state.tx.us/inspector (on the left side of the webpage under Inspector Info, click on Find Inspectors by City, then select Austin) INTERNATIONAL CODE COUNCIL (ICC) Certified Residential Combination Inspector * do a web search for home inspectors and when contacting a company, verify the inspector holds this certification and the certification is current. * The STR inspection checklist must be completed and a copy of the receipt for the service must be attached to the inspection. Vacation Rental Operating Licenses are monitored and issued by the City of Austin Code Department 20 City of Austin Vacation Rental Definitions and Acronyms ACD - Austin Code Department. ACD is located at 1520 Rutherford Lane, Building 1. CO or Amnesty CO - Certificate of Occupancy. COs are issued by the City of Austin Development Assistance Center at 505 Barton Springs Road, 3rd Floor. If you do not have a certificate of occupancy, you can request one by filling out an Amnesty Certificate of Occupancy form. Multifamily Property - A residential site with three or more dwelling units, within one or more buildings, and includes condominium residential use. Notification Fee - The cost incurred by the City of Austin to notify adjacent neighbors as outlined in Section 25-2-792 (Notification Requirements) in Ordinance No. 20130926 -144. Partial Unit - Part of a dwelling includes at a minimum a sleeping room (with shared full bathroom) and is limited to a single party of individuals. PDR - Planning and Development Review Department. PDR is located at 505 Barton Springs Road. STR - Short-Term Rental Property. STRs include the rental of a residential dwelling unit or accessory building on a temporary basis for periods of less than 30 consecutive days. Type 1 - owner occupied short-term rental (full or partial unit). Type 1 short-term rentals are owner-occupied or associated with an owner-occupied principal residential unit, include the rental of an entire dwelling unit or if only part of the unit include at a minimum a sleeping room (with shared full bathroom), is limited to a single party of individuals, and the owner is generally present during the rental. Type 2 - not owner occupied short-term rental. Type 2 short-term rentals are single or two-family properties, not owner-occupied or associated with an owner-occupied principal residential unit, include the rental of an entire dwelling unit, and must not be more than 3% of the single-family detached residential units within the census tract. Type 3 - multifamily / commercial short-term rental. Type 3 multifamily / commercial short-term rentals are not owner-occupied, part of a multifamily use (apartments, condos, etc.), include the rental of an entire dwelling unit, and must comply with applicable geographic caps. QUESTIONS email: STRLicensing@austintexas.gov call: 3-1-1 visit: austintexas.gov/STR 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 WHAT IS A SHORT-TERM RENTAL?  SHORT-TERM RENTING IS BIG BUSINESS FOR SMALL COMMUNITIES… • In 2012, PhoCusWright found that 12% of American adults stayed in vacation rentals, spending $23 billion. [PhoCusWright, 2013] • Short-term rentals created a $24 million economic impact and supported 300 jobs in the small town of St. Joseph, MI in 2013. [STRAC, March 2014] • In the vacation hub of Myrtle Beach, SC, short-term rentals created over $200 million in economic output while supporting over 2,500 jobs. [STRAC, April 2014] • Coachella Valley, CA benefits from over $272 million in economic activity as well as over 2,500 jobs as a result of short-term rentals in the area. [STRAC, March 2014] YOU PROBABLY KNOW A SHORT-TERM RENTER. But the fastest growing markets are not in big cities. [HomeAway, 2014] • Mexico Beach, FL • Cap San Blas, FL • Lavallette, NJ • Cape Canaveral, FL • Moonridge, CA • Balboa Peninsula, CA • Manteo, NC • Cocoa Beach, FL • Point Pleasant Beach, NJ • Crested Butte, CO …AND GROWING • Over 52% of surveyed individuals plan to stay in a vacation rental in 2014, up from 44% in 2013. [TripAdvisor, 2014] • Online bookings jumped from 12% of the vacation rental market in 2007 to 24% in 2012. [PhoCusWright, 2013] • Nearly three quarters of peak-summer vacation rental owners (72 percent) reported occupancy rates of 76 percent or higher, an increase of 8 percent over last year. Meanwhile, hotel occupancy rates increased just 5% over last year’s rates. [HomeAway, September 2012] • Short-term renters are attracted to the extra living space, lower rates than hotels, and better amenities. [TripAdvisor, 2014] LEARN MORE AT STRADVOCACY.ORG STRAC defines a short-term rental as a residential property that is rented to a visitor for less than 30 days. ! ECONOMIC BENEFITS FOR LOCAL COMMUNITIES, TRAVELERS AND OWNERS • Nine out of ten people (90%) believe that short-term rentals bring meaningful tourism and tax dollars to local communities. [STRAC, 2013] • Travelers surveyed said overwhelmingly (82%) that savings and last-minute deals sway them towards staying in vacation rentals instead of hotels. [TripAdvisor, 2013] • Owners generate an average of $27,360 per year in rental income. [HomeAway, 2014] • A survey of Airbnb users showed that the money generated by short-term rentals was viewed by hosts as extra spending money (52%) or supplementary income that the host relies upon (41%). [Airbnb, Short-Term Rentals and Apartment Market 07-06-12] • The Airbnb market represents $14 million of annual accommodation spending in San Francisco. [Airbnb Economic Impacts: Preliminary Findings, June 2012] • On average, vacation rentals are at least 50 percent less expensive per square foot than hotels. Travelers pay 80 percent more per square foot in some popular destinations including Orlando and Destin, Florida. [HomeAway, September 2012] • About 59 percent of STR owners say they use income from renting their property short-term to make improvements and upgrades to their home. [HomeAway, September 2012] 31 The  Local  Economic  Impact  of   Short  Term  Rentals  in  Los  Angeles     TXP,  Inc.  1310  South  1st  Street  #105   Austin,  Texas  78704   www.txp.com   32 ` 1 Short  Term  Rental  Economic  Impact  –  Los  Angeles  |  Fall  2014   Overview   Short  term  rentals  (STR)  are  an  increasingly  popular  lodging  choice  for  travellers  in   almost  all  communities  in  the  United  States.    With  the  growth  of  web  portals  such  as   HomeAway  and  others,  visitors  are  better  able  to  select  the  accommodation  style  that   fits  their  needs.    Communities  are  increasingly  focused  on  how  best  to  appropriately   incorporate  STR  properties  into  their  existing  regulatory  and  fiscal  framework  without   undue  constraints  on  property  owners  and  managers.    In  an  effort  to  inform  this   process,  the  local  vacation  rental  advocacy  group,  the  Los  Angeles  Short  Term  Rental   Alliance,  commissioned  an  analysis  of  the  economic  impact  of  the  operation  of  STRs  in   Los  Angeles  County.         Los  Angeles  is  one  of  the  world’s  leading  tourist  destinations  with  a  wide  variety  of   attractions  from  culture  and  entertainment  to  its  coastline  and  natural  scenery.    The   area  is  also  a  global  center  of  economic  activity  as  the  Los  Angeles  County  has  an   economy  larger  than  all  but  20  countries  in  the  world.    The  many  reasons  why  visitors   travel  to  the  Los  Angeles  area  necessitate  a  range  of  diverse  lodging  options.    STRs  in   Los  Angeles  reflect  this;  different  properties  cater  to  different  market  segments   including  business  travelers,  leisure  visitors,  families,  and  large  groups.  Throughout  the   Los  Angeles  area  travellers  can  stay  in  STRs  that  include  mountain  getaways,  beach   bungalows,  and  trendy  urban  lofts  with  lodging  options  for  both  budget-­‐minded  travel   and  one-­‐of-­‐a-­‐kind  luxury  accommodations.     For  the  purpose  of  this  study,  STRs  are  defined  as  residential  properties  that  are  rented   out  by  an  individual  or  property  manager  in  Los  Angeles  County.    Any  properties  self-­‐ identifying  as  a  short  term  or  vacation  rentals,  as  well  as  properties  listed  on  major   short  term  and  vacation  rental  websites,  were  included.    These  properties  tend  to  be   rented  out  for  leisure  travel  and  for  less  than  a  month  at  a  time,  though  increasingly   business  travellers  have  adding  to  the  demand  for  STRs  in  major  metropolitan  areas   across  the  nation.         The  report  that  follows  provides  an  overview  of  trends  in  the  Los  Angeles  area,  specific   characteristics  of  the  local  STR  market,  and  a  discussion  of  the  methodology,  findings,   and  conclusions  of  the  economic  impact  analysis.    The  economic  impacts  of  the  STRs  in   Los  Angeles  County  are  estimated  at  the  metropolitan  statistical  area  level,  specifically   the  Los  Angeles-­‐Long  Beach-­‐Anaheim  MSA,  as  the  indirect  and  induced  effects  of  STR   activity  in  Los  Angeles  County  ripple  out  throughout  the  entire  metropolitan  region.       The  overall  impact  of  short  term  rentals  in  the  Los  Angeles  area  is  impressive,   accounting  for  $1.4  billion  in  total  economic  activity  and  more  than  12,300  jobs  in  2013.       33 ` 2 Short  Term  Rental  Economic  Impact  –  Los  Angeles  |  Fall  2014   Tourism  and  the  Economy  of  Los  Angeles   Overall  Context   Tourism  is  an  essential  part  of  the  Los  Angeles  and  continues  to  expand  rapidly  as  this   sector  and  the  overall  area  economy  rebound  from  the  global  financial  crisis  and   recession.    In  2013,  the  third  consecutive  year  of  record-­‐breaking  growth,  Los  Angeles   County  saw  its  highest  ever  number  of  visitors  and  direct  tourism  spending  in  the  area.     More  than  28.5  million  overnight  visitors  spent  $17.5  billion  during  their  stay  in  Los   Angeles,  an  increase  of  5.4  percent  over  total  overnight  visitor  spending  the  previous   year.    The  Los  Angeles  Tourism  and  Convention  Board  expects  the  area  will  welcome  50   million  annual  visitors  by  2020.         Figure  1:  Overnight  Visitors  and  Visitor  Spending       Source:  Los  Angeles  Tourism  and  Convention  Board;  Tourism  Economics     The  hotel  industry  has  seen  similarly  unprecedented  growth  in  demand  for  rooms.     Occupancy  rates  have  increased  to  records  levels  each  of  the  past  three  years  to  nearly   78  percent  in  2013,  one  of  the  highest  in  the  country.    The  national  average  was  62.3   percent  in  2013.    Increased  activity  from  the  film  industry,  conventions  and  meetings,   international  tourism,  and  the  resurgence  of  downtown  Los  Angeles  have  contributed   to  the  increased  demand  for  hotel  rooms.    The  lodging  market  in  Los  Angeles  is   responding  this  excessive  demand  with  increased  supply.    The  Los  Angeles  Daily  News   reports  that  more  than  2,000  new  hotel  rooms  across  10  different  properties  are   currently  under  construction  in  downtown  Los  Angeles  and  set  for  completion  by  the   end  of  2014.    Across  the  Los  Angeles  area,  an  additional  25  hotels  are  in  the  planning   stages,  which  will  add  nearly  5,000  additional  rooms  to  the  hotel  market  by  2017.     $0# $2# $4# $6# $8# $10# $12# $14# $16# $18# $20# #)#### #5## #10## #15## #20## #25## #30## 2002#2003#2004#2005#2006#2007#2008#2009#2010#2011#2012#2013#Billions'Millions'Overnight#Visitors#Overnight#Visitor#Spending# 34 ` 3 Short  Term  Rental  Economic  Impact  –  Los  Angeles  |  Fall  2014   Table  1:  Hotel  Industry  Indicators  –  County  of  Los  Angeles   Year  Hotel  Rooms  Rooms  Sold  Average  Daily  Rate  Occupancy  Rate   2008  97,555  26,499,887  $154    74.4%   2009  96,380  23,827,480  $137    67.7%   2010  95,354  24,894,983  $139    71.5%   2011  99,220  27,176,853  $147    75.0%   2012  98,404  27,408,285  $156    76.3%   2013  98,468  27,907,428  $163    77.6%             Source:  PKF  Consulting     At  the  same  time,  the  US  Census  Bureau  finds  that  an  increasing  number  of  housing   units  in  Los  Angeles  County  are  designated  for  “seasonal,  recreational,  or  occasional   use”  (referred  to  as  “vacation  rentals”  in  the  table  below).    While  still  a  small  proportion   of  the  overall  housing  market,  more  than  23,000  housing  units  in  Los  Angeles  County   were  reported  as  vacation  rentals  in  2012.    Even  so,  the  housing  market  in  the  Los   Angeles  area  is  robust,  with  an  overall  occupancy  rate  greater  than  either  the  state  or   nation  as  a  whole.         Table  2:  Housing  Industry  Indicators     2000  Area  Occupancy   Rate   Vacation  Rentals   (VR)   VR  as  %  of   Vacant     VR  as  %  of   Total  Housing   LA  County  95.8%  13,565  9.9%  0.4%   California  94.2%  236,857  33.3%  1.9%   United  States  91.0%  3,578,718  34.3%  3.1%   2012  Area  Occupancy   Rate   Vacation  Rentals   (VR)   VR  as  %  of   Vacant     VR  as  %  of   Total  Housing   LA  County  93.5%  23,369  10.5%  0.7%   California  91.2%  340,045  28.3%  2.5%   United  States  87.5%  5,014,560  30.5%  3.8%             Source:  US  Census  Bureau     Tourism  supports  1  out  of  every  10  jobs  in  the  Los  Angeles  area.    More  than  436,000   workers  were  employed  in  the  Leisure  and  Hospitality  industries  in  2013.    Employment   in  these  sectors  is  growing  rapidly  with  more  than  21,000  tourism-­‐related  jobs  added  to   the  Los  Angeles  area  economy  between  2012  and  2013.    Moreover,  employment  in  the   Leisure  and  Hospitality  industries  has  grown  by  42.4  percent  since  1990,  while  total   employment  in  Los  Angeles  County  contracted  by  1.1  percent  over  the  same  period.         35 ` 4 Short  Term  Rental  Economic  Impact  –  Los  Angeles  |  Fall  2014   Figure  2:  Tourism-­‐Related  Employment  in  Los  Angeles     Source:  State  of  California,  Employment  Development  Department     Short  Term  Rentals  in  Los  Angeles   STRs  are  an  essential  element  of  the  Los  Angeles  area  lodging  market.    They  contribute   to  the  range  of  options  necessary  to  meet  the  diversity  of  demand  from  the  millions  of   visitors  to  Los  Angeles  each  year.    More  than  15,000  properties  are  listed  across  the  Los   Angeles  area  on  the  major  web-­‐based  vacation  rental  platforms.    Allowing  for  those  not   listed  on  these  sites,  as  well  as  some  duplication,  this  is  a  substantial  number  of  STR   properties.    While  calculating  the  exact  size  of  the  vacation  rental  market  is  extremely   challenging  given  its  diverse  and  diffuse  nature,  STRs  in  Los  Angeles  County  accounted   for  more  than  a  million  room-­‐nights  purchased  by  visitors  in  2013.      There  is  a  high  level   of  interest  among  property  owners  and  visitors  for  participating  in  the  STR  market.         The  legal  status  of  STRs  in  the  Los  Angeles  area  is  very  complex.    With  88  separate   incorporated  cities  within  Los  Angeles  County,  there  is  no  existing  consensus  in  the   region  on  where  and  how  property  owners  may  rent  out  all  or  a  portion  of  their   properties  as  STRs.    In  the  City  of  Los  Angeles,  for  example,  STRs  are  permitted  in   commercial  and  higher-­‐density  residential  zones  but  prohibited  in  agricultural,  single-­‐ family,  and  lower-­‐density  multi-­‐family  residential  zones.    However,  the  City  requires   that  all  STR  properties  register  and  pay  the  applicable  Transient  Occupancy  Tax,  even  in   prohibited  zones.    The  disparity  in  how  STRs  are  treated  in  different  municipalities,  as   well  as  the  conflicting  statutes  within  specific  municipalities,  creates  a  level  of   uncertainty  that  can  contribute  to  conflict  between  STR  owners,  users,  and  neighbors.       0.0%$ 5.0%$ 10.0%$ 15.0%$ 20.0%$ 25.0%$ 0$ 50,000$ 100,000$ 150,000$ 200,000$ 250,000$ 300,000$ 350,000$ 400,000$ 450,000$ 500,000$ 2004$2005$2006$2007$2008$2009$2010$2011$2012$2013$ Leisure$&$Hospitality$Employment$ ProporAon$of$Total$Employment$ 36 ` 5 Short  Term  Rental  Economic  Impact  –  Los  Angeles  |  Fall  2014   Economic  Impact  Calculations   The  economic  impact  of  STRs  in  Los  Angeles  in  2013  was  calculated  by  first  estimating   the  direct  accommodations  spending  by  visitors  using  STRs.    Next,  this  figure  was  used   as  the  basis  of  calculating  total  STR  direct  spending.    Using  these  figures,  specific   multipliers  provided  by  the  US  Bureau  of  Economic  Analysis  RIMS  II  industry  model  for   the  Los  Angeles-­‐Long  Beach-­‐Anaheim  MSA  were  used  to  estimate  the  ripple  effects  of   the  induced  and  indirect  impacts;  the  combination  of  these  ripple  effects  and  the  direct   spending  forms  the  total  economic  impact.       Direct  STR-­‐Related  Spending  Estimates   Using  a  combination  of  data  provided  by  STR  property  owners/managers  and  web-­‐ based  vacation  rental  marketplaces  it  was  possible  to  estimate  the  aggregate  direct   spending  on  lodging  by  short  term  rental  users  as  $211.7  million  in  2013.    As  a  part  of   the  study,  survey  data  was  collected  from  property  owners  and  managers  for  nearly   300  local  properties.    HomeAway  provided  data  for  an  additional  2,500  properties   throughout  the  Los  Angeles  area.    The  estimated  total  lodging  value  was  validated  using   local  stakeholder  information  and  publicly  availably  datasets  including  the  California   Travel  and  Tourism  Commission’s  travel  impact  figures,  produced  by  Dean  Runyan.       Figure  3:    2013  Total  Direct  Short  Term  Rental  Visitor  Spending  ($millions)     Source:  Micronomics,  Inc;  TXP,  Inc     The  proportion  of  total  local  tourism  spending  attributable  to  lodging,  using  local   tourism  impact  analysis  conducted  by  Micronomics  Inc,  was  applied  to  this  aggregate   direct  short  term  rental  spending  figure  to  calculate  the  amount  of  total  direct  spending   Accommoda'ons* $211.7** Food*and*Beverage* $204.4** Ground* Transporta'on* $146.0** Art,*Entertainment,* &*Recrea'on* $109.5** Retail* Sales* $58.4** 37 ` 6 Short  Term  Rental  Economic  Impact  –  Los  Angeles  |  Fall  2014   by  short  term  renters.    This  ratio  of  direct  spending  in  different  industry  categories  (i.e.   lodging,  food  and  beverage,  recreation,  retail,  and  transportation)  was  validated  using   data  from  the  US  Bureau  of  Economic  Analysis’  Travel  and  Tourism  Satellite  Accounts   dataset.    Not  surprisingly,  visitors  to  the  Los  Angeles  area  spend  proportionally  more  on   transportation  during  their  stay  than  the  national  average.    For  every  $100  a  traveler   spent  on  lodging,  they  spent  an  additional  $97  on  food,  $69  on  local  transportation,  $52   on  recreation  activities,  and  $28  on  retail  shopping  in  the  local  economy.    As  a  result,   the  total  direct  spending  by  STR  visitors  in  the  Los  Angeles  area  for  2013  is  estimated  at   $730.0  million.     Economic  Impact  Methodology   The  economic  impacts  extend  beyond  the  direct  activity  outlined  above.    In  an  input-­‐ output  analysis  of  new  economic  activity,  it  is  useful  to  distinguish  three  types  of   expenditure  effects:  direct,  indirect,  and  induced.    Direct  effects  are  production  changes   associated  with  the  immediate  effects  or  final  demand  changes.    The  payments  made   by  a  visitor  to  a  hotel  operator  or  taxi  driver  are  examples  of  a  direct  effect.     Figure  4:    The  Flow  of  Economic  Impacts     Indirect  effects  are  production  changes  in  backward-­‐linked  industries  caused  by  the   changing  input  needs  of  directly  affected  industries  –  typically,  additional  purchases  to   produce  additional  output.    Satisfying  the  demand  for  an  overnight  stay  will  require  the   hotel  operator  to  purchase  additional  cleaning  supplies  and  services,  for  example,  and   the  taxi  driver  will  have  to  replace  the  gasoline  consumed  during  the  trip  from  the   airport.    These  downstream  purchases  affect  the  economic  status  of  other  local   merchants  and  workers.     Induced  effects  are  the  changes  in  regional  household  spending  patterns  caused  by   changes  in  household  income  generated  from  the  direct  and  indirect  effects.    Both  the   hotel  operator  and  taxi  driver  experience  increased  income  from  the  visitor’s  stay,  for   example,  as  do  the  cleaning  supplies  outlet  and  the  gas  station  proprietor.    Induced   effects  capture  the  way  in  which  this  increased  income  is  spent  in  the  local  economy.   Once  the  ripple  effects  have  been  calculated,  the  results  can  be  expressed  in  a  number   of  ways.    Four  of  the  most  common  are  “Activity,”  which  is  equivalent  to  sales;  “Value-­‐ Added,”  which  is  sales  minus  the  cost  of  goods  sold;  “Earnings,”  which  represents  the   Indirect Induced Total Impact Direct + + = 38 ` 7 Short  Term  Rental  Economic  Impact  –  Los  Angeles  |  Fall  2014   compensation  to  employees  and  proprietors;  and  “Employment,”  which  refers  to   permanent,  full-­‐time  jobs  that  have  been  created  in  the  local  economy.         The  interdependence  between  different  sectors  of  the  economy  is  reflected  in  the   concept  of  a  “multiplier.”    An  output  multiplier,  for  example,  divides  the  total  (direct,   indirect  and  induced)  effects  of  an  initial  spending  injection  by  the  value  of  that   injection  –  i.e.,  the  direct  effect.    Larger  multipliers  mean  greater  interdependence   among  different  sectors  of  the  economy.    An  output  multiplier  of  1.4,  for  example,   means  that  for  every  $1,000  injected  into  the  economy,  another  $400  in  activity  is   produced  in  all  sectors.         Economic  Impact  Results   The  estimated  $730.0  million  total  direct  spending  by  visitors  to  Los  Angeles  staying  in   STR  properties  in  2013  created  a  total  economic  activity  of  $1.4  billion,  value-­‐added  of   $761.2  million,  earnings  of  $390.7  million,  and  12,314  jobs  in  the  Los  Angeles  area   economy.    The  majority  of  this  activity  is  concentrated  in  the  sectors  with  the  highest   direct  tourism  spending,  such  as  Food  Services  and  Arts,  Entertainment,  and   Recreation.  Even  so,  the  spending  patterns  of  STR  users,  and  particularly  the  indirect   and  induced  effects  of  their  lodging  spending,  are  different  than  those  visitors  staying  in   traditional  hotel/motel  accommodations.    To  capture  this  difference,  the  total  impact  of   lodging  spending  by  STR  users  was  calculated  through  the  Households  sector  of  the   economy,  rather  than  the  Accommodations  sector.    While  the  total  impacts  are   estimated  at  the  Los  Angeles-­‐Long  Beach-­‐Anaheim  MSA  level,  the  majority  of  these   impacts  will  be  centralized  in  Los  Angeles  County,  where  the  evaluated  STRs  are   located.    The  following  table  details  the  total  industry-­‐level  impact  of  STRs  in  the  Los   Angeles  area.    Further  benefits  accrue  to  both  local  jurisdictions  and  the  State  of   California  from  taxes  assessed  on  direct  spending  by  visitors,  as  well  as  realizing   revenue  associated  with  the  ripple  effects  of  that  spending.               39 ` 8 Short  Term  Rental  Economic  Impact  –  Los  Angeles  |  Fall  2014   Table  3:  Economic  Impact  of  Short  Term  Rentals  in  Los  Angeles   Industry  Activity    Value-­‐Added  Earnings    Jobs   Ag.,  forestry,  fishing,  &  hunting  $948,970  $332,140  $205,853  6     Mining  $5,678,446  $2,856,377  $1,081,087  16     Utilities  $28,625,324  $16,950,794  $4,871,866  45     Construction  $6,390,947  $3,184,888  $2,157,081  42     Manufacturing  $127,901,717  $37,997,376  $21,102,826  398     Wholesale  trade  $48,990,084  $32,677,320  $14,533,797  225     Retail  trade  $63,128,356  $60,384,976  $30,038,096  1,072     Transportation  &  warehousing  $179,890,625  $64,081,621  $54,084,664  1,587     Information  $55,823,541  $30,625,458  $12,276,032  171     Finance  &  insurance  $100,613,338  $59,203,257  $27,971,227  490     Real  estate  and  rental  &  leasing  $140,357,835  $103,773,562  $11,746,062  708     Prof.,  scientific,  &  tech.  services  $61,453,009  $41,038,505  $27,126,628  400     Management  of  companies    $27,055,144  $16,314,976  $9,829,864  108     Admin.  &  waste  services  $33,527,812  $22,192,744  $14,187,093  510     Educational  services  $9,386,768  $5,383,578  $3,620,684  111     Health  care  &  social  assistance  $66,665,092  $40,867,726  $30,210,802  623     Arts,  entertainment,  &  recreation  $122,235,832  $76,896,445  $40,734,577  1,848     Accommodation  $9,164,126  $5,839,811  $2,635,215  82     Food  services  &  drinking  places  $261,482,921  $120,808,562  $72,114,894  3,632     Other  services  $38,969,782  $19,772,135  $10,220,396  240     Total    $1,388,289,668  $761,182,248  $390,748,744  12,314     Source:  TXP     Conclusions   Short  term  rentals  and  STR  guest  spending  are  an  important  part  of  the  tourism  sector   in  Los  Angeles,  ultimately  creating  thousands  of  jobs  and  millions  of  dollars  of  economic   activity,  wages,  and  tax  revenue  for  the  community  each  year.    This  appears  to  be   largely  net  new  spending  as  increases  in  vacation  rental  activity  have  coincided  with   growth  in  both  hotel  room  revenue  and  the  overall  tourism  sector  in  the  Los  Angeles   area.    Historically  high  hotel  occupancy  rates  indicate  short  term  rentals  are   complementary,  rather  than  substitute,  goods  in  the  local  accommodations  market.   Different  types  of  lodging  serve  discrete  segments  of  the  visitor  market  and  diversity   within  the  accommodations  market  is  essential  to  meeting  customer  demand.    This  is   particularly  true  for  major  destinations  that  compete  for  travellers  on  a  global  scale.    As   such,  STRs  are  an  essential  element  of  the  Los  Angeles  area  lodging  portfolio.           40 ` 9 Short  Term  Rental  Economic  Impact  –  Los  Angeles  |  Fall  2014   Legal  Disclaimer   TXP  reserves  the  right  to  make  changes,  corrections  and/or  improvements  at  any  time   and  without  notice.    In  addition,  TXP  disclaims  any  and  all  liability  for  damages  incurred   directly  or  indirectly  as  a  result  of  errors,  omissions,  or  discrepancies.  TXP  disclaims  any   liability  due  to  errors,  omissions  or  discrepancies  made  by  third  parties  whose  material   TXP  relied  on  in  good  faith  to  produce  the  report.     Any  statements  involving  matters  of  opinion  or  estimates,  whether  or  not  so  expressly   stated,  are  set  forth  as  such  and  not  as  representations  of  fact,  and  no  representation  is   made  that  such  opinions  or  estimates  will  be  realized.  The  information  and  expressions   of  opinion  contained  herein  are  subject  to  change  without  notice,  and  shall  not,  under   any  circumstances,  create  any  implications  that  there  has  been  no  change  or  updates.     41 Los Angeles Short Term Rental Alliance Economic Impact Study - Fall 2014 Summary of Key Findings by Brandon Brawner, Jan. 8, 2016 Thesis Statement ❖ Short term rentals and STR guest spending are an important part of the tourism sector in Los Angeles, ultimately creating thousands of jobs and millions of dollars of economic activity, wages, and tax revenue for the community each year. Supporting Facts ❖ STR’s are becoming more increasingly popular as a lodging choice for vacation travellers, and business people alike due in large part to the user- friendly interface, ease of use, and easy access of the large online listing services (e.g., HomeAway, etc.). Overall Economic Impact ❖ STR’s accounted for $1.4 billion in total economic activity in 2013. ➢ Responsible for the creation of 12,300 new jobs that year. ❖ The 2013 calendar year was the third consecutive year of record breaking growth seen by Los Angeles county residents. ➢ Accounting for the highest ever number of visitors and direct tourism spending the region has ever seen. ➢ More than 28.5 million overnight visitors stayed in Los Angeles County in 2013, and infused the local economy with $17.5 billion dollars of direct spending. ■ This was a net spending increase of 5.4% as compared to 2012 figures. Los Angeles Lodging Market ❖ The market is expanding due to its natural response to the increased demand, it must therefore bear additional levels of supply to create a high enough capacity to meet the demand, in order to offset any potential increase increase in net costs for the consumer. 42 ❖ The Los Angeles Daily News reported that more than 2,000 new hotel rooms across different properties were under construction at the time this report was commissioned. ❖ There were an additional 25 hotels that were then being planned, with a projected goal of nearly 5,000 new rooms to enter the hotel market by the year 2017. ❖ From 2008 to 2014 the hotel industry in Los Angeles was on a sustained upward growth path. Tourism Market of Los Angeles ❖ Tourism supports 1 out of every 10 jobs in the Los Angeles area. ❖ More than 436,000 workers were employed in the Leisure and Hospitality industries in 2013. ❖ Employment in this sector also saw rapid growth from 2012 to 2013 with the addition of approximately 21,000 tourism-related jobs. ❖ Overall employment growth in this sector has grown by 42.4% since 1990, far surpassing total employment growth of only 1.1% in the region. Short Term Rental Landscape ❖ More than 15,000 properties are listed across the Los Angeles area on the major web-based vacation rental listing platforms ❖ STR’s in Los Angeles County accounted for more than one million rooms/nights purchased by visitors in 2013. ❖ The legal status of STR’s is uncertain and complex, with a myriad of different regulations from the 88 separate incorporated cities within the county. ❖ Due to the complex web of uncertain regulations, space is created for conflicting points of view and ultimately conflict between owners, users, and neighbors within the community that results from overly complicated and inconsistent policies and regulations throughout the region. Direct STR-Related Spending Estimates ❖ An estimated $211.7 million dollars in direct aggregate spending was made by STR users in 2013. ➢ Categorical Spending: ■ 1. Accommodations/Lodging: $211.7 million ■ 2. Food and Beverage: $204.4 million ■ 3. Ground Transportation: $146.0 million ■ 4. Art, Entertainment/Recreation: $109.5 million ■ 5. Retail Sales: $58.4 million 43 ❖ Los Angeles area visitors spend proportionally more on transportation during their stay than the national average. ❖ For every $100 a traveler spent on lodging, they also infused the local economy by spending an additional: ➢ $97 on Food ➢ $69 on Local Ground Transportation ➢ $52 on Recreation Activities ➢ $28 on Retail Shopping ❖ When we factor the direct, indirect, and induced market spending in terms of economic gains, we see that the STR industry serves as an economic output multiplier for the region. ❖ $730 million in estimated total direct spending from visitors to LA staying in STR. ➢ Creating a total economic activity of $1.4 billion for Los Angeles County. ➢ $761.2 million value-added economic influx ➢ $390.7 million in additional revenue generation through earnings ➢ 12,314 jobs were created for the local economy, raising overall economic health. Conclusion ❖ Data illustrates that the STR industry is complimentary the growth swell occurring in the hotel industry in Los Angeles, and the overall tourism market segment generally in that region, thereby stabilizing the supply to adequately accommodate the demand without undue inflation, curbing the incessant construction that would otherwise be ongoing to meet such demands, and play a key role in increasing the overall economic prosperity of the region as a whole. 44 PROMOTION OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT THROUGH A VIBRANT VISITORS INDUSTRY WHEREAS, communities throughout the United States benefit significantly from travel and tourism and support the local visitors industry; and WHEREAS, the economic impact and transient hotel taxes of local visitors often fund convention and visitors bureaus, convention centers, sports arenas and sports teams; and WHEREAS, as growth in travel evolves, changes in housing options by local visitors creates options that help support local cultural programs including music, film, gaming, visual arts, dance and more; and WHEREAS, the travel and tourism industry continues to see steady, healthy, growth; and WHEREAS, the traditional short-term rental of homes can provide a flexible housing option that allows family travelers and business travelers spending longer periods of time in a community a safe accommodation while contributing to the local economy; and WHEREAS, economic impact studies conducted in 2014 show and overall economic impact by the traditional short-term rental activity in Myrtle Beach, SC at $200.7 million and 2,587 jobs, and overall economic impact to St. Joseph, Michigan of $24 million and 300 jobs, and the Coachella Valley, California communities of $272 million and 2,539 jobs; and WHEREAS, a 2012 United States Conference of Mayors resolution states, “fair regulation of short-term rentals ensures greater compliance and greater receipt of local hotel taxes”; and WHEREAS, a 2012 United States Conference of Mayors resolution states, “onerous regulations of short-term rentals can drive the industry underground, thus evading local regulations and local hotel taxes”; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the U.S. Conference of Mayors urges support for the overall economic impact created by a vibrant visitors industry that includes traditional short-term rentals as a housing option for family travelers and business travelers. 45 1 Yu-Ying Ting From:Karynne Thim <kt@ktbeachproperties.com> Sent:Thursday, March 24, 2016 1:36 PM To:Elaine Doerfling; City Council; Ken Robertson; Kent Allen; Kim Chafin; Leeanne Singleton; Marie Rice; Mike Flaherty; Peter Hoffman; Rob Saemann; Tom Bakaly; Yu- Ying Ting Subject:Short Term Rental Ban Ordinance and Enforcement Measures Attachments:Discussion Items for April 19 2016 Planning Commission Hearing.pdf; Ojai ban ordinance.pdf; Sedona short term rentals ordinance.pdf; WeHo short term rental ordinance.pdf Hi Ken, Now that the planning commission has unanimously voted to ban short-term rentals in residential zones, I would like to give you some enforcement ideas based on my research, as well as input and research from other residents. Please put this email and the attachments on the public record for the next planning commission meeting. Since the vast majority of homeowners are in favor of banning STR's, the key is now (as you mentioned at the last planning commission meeting) to give you and the city's code enforcement officer the tools to easily and effectively enforce the ban. Our hope and request is that enforcement language will be included in the ordinance you are preparing for the next Planning Commission meeting and it can be voted upon rather than dragging-out the process. On page two of the attachment, there are three items below the heading "Enforcement Language to Incorporate Into Ordinance" which came from other cities' ordinances. These could easily be adapted and added to your ordinance with approval of the city attorney and powers that be. I'm available to discuss the attached materials to ensure that effective tools are entered into the code. In any event, I would like to meet with you prior to the issuance of your recommendations to the Planning Commission for code enforcement plans. I will be out of town March 31st to April 10th for Spring Break, but am otherwise in town and available. It is our understanding that the residential ban will be voted upon at the next meeting, and won't be delayed or tied to residential properties in commercial zones (commercial properties would be dealt with at a later date). Is that correct? Also, it is our understanding that short term rentals have been removed from the draft of PLAN Hermosa. Is that correct? Please let me know that you have received this email and that it will go on the public record. Thank you, Karynne -- 46 2 Karynne Thim Shorewood Realtors 310-753-7816 (cell) www.KTBeachProperties.com License #01161295 Specializing in South Bay Beach Properties Since 1993 47  DISCUSSION ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON APRIL 19, 2016 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA    To:  Hermosa Beach Planning Commission, City Council, City Clerk, City Manager, Community   Development Director, Senior Planner    From: Hermosa Residents Opposed to Short Term Rentals    Date: March 24, 2016    Subject: Proposed Short Term Rental Ban, Enforcement Suggestions and Municipal Code Changes    ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­    Now that the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend a ban on short term rentals in all  residential zones on March 15, 2016 and instructed staff to come back with an ordinance for the next public  hearing on April 19, 2016, we request the following items also be reviewed by staff and included for discussion  and action at the April 19th meeting:    1. Enforcement Ideas;  Language to be considered for inclusion in the ordinance you are preparing for the  April 19th Planning Commission meeting    2. Municipal Code Changes  3. City of Ojai Administrative Report and Resolution  4. Sedona, AZ Short­Term Vacation Rentals Enforcement Ordinance  5. West Hollywood Short Term Rental Ordinance         48 Enforcement Language to Incorporate Into Ordinance:    1. Rental of a short term vacation unit or units by a person, operator, managing agency or rental agent for  less than 30 consecutive days to any transient within any residential zone is in violation of Hermosa  Beach Municipal Code and is prohibited.   2. Advertisement of illegal short­term rentals is prohibited.  It is a Class1 misdemeanor for any person,  enterprise, managing agency or rental agent to advertise, solicit or facilitate the rental for less than 30  consecutive days of a short­term vacation unit located within residential zones, whether by mailings,  flyers, print advertisements, emails, internet listings, or other means.  3. Violations of this code shall constitute a class 1 misdemeanor, and upon conviction, shall be punished  by a fine not to exceed $5,000 plus applicable surcharges or by imprisonment for a period not to  exceed six months, or by both such fine and imprisonment.  Each day that any violation continues shall  be a separate offense punishable as described herein.  In the alternative, an action may be  commenced as a civil violation.    General Ideas:  1. Getting ahead of the problem by making it illegal to advertise STRs is key.  If they are advertising it,  they are doing it.  This will cut­off illegal operators’ pipeline of customers and eliminate the need to  prove the length of time a vacationer was at the property.  2. When ordinance first passed, first step is to contact all advertisers and known STR operators and  advise that it is a violation of the law.  3. Second step is to cite and levy fine, plus advise that it will be referred for criminal prosecution.  4. Criminal prosecution by City Prosecutor is key.  Issue cease and desist or temporary restraining order.  People may ignore code enforcement officer, but won’t ignore criminal prosecution.  Once violators  know the City is serious about enforcement, it will quickly stop the illegal behavior.   5. Fines must be costly and not worth the risk.  Daily fines could be an amount equal to the nightly rent, or  $2,500, whichever is greater, plus TOT plus collection costs (perhaps 33% of the total fine).  Second  infraction could be 2x;  third infraction 3x.  Lien placed on the property if not paid within 30 days.  6. Outsource the enforcement for efficiency and cost share with Manhattan and Redondo for economy of  scale.  If fines are significant enough, they will pay for this service and City won’t have to hire staff, nor  incur insurance/pension costs.  We have contacted Manhattan Beach and they have expressed  interest.  This could be a collection agency or private company with the legal capability to prosecute.  7. Provide link on City’s website for neighbors to report illegal STRs.  Reports would go directly to City,  collection agency and police.  8. Provide language for property owners to put in their leases so tenants are specifically warned they  cannot sublease on a short term basis.  9. For noise complaints and tips from neighbor reporting system, send surveillance, warn and cite.  10. Cars blocking garages, over red lines will be cited/towed.  Public safety issue with narrow streets.  11. Parties at illegal short term rentals to be broken up by police immediately upon report.         49 Proposed Changes to Hermosa Beach Municipal Code Regarding Short Term Rentals ​(in bold letters below)​:    Section 17.08.020  Permitted uses.  Subject to the restrictions hereinafter specified, only the following uses are permitted in an R­1 zone:  A.  Single­family dwelling, including mobile homes.    1.  An Administrative permit may be granted….  2. No person or entity shall offer or provide a dwelling unit, or any portion thereof,  for rent for thirty (30) consecutive calendar days or less to any transiet.  3. No person or entity shall maintain any advertisement of a rental prohibited by this  section.    Section 17.10.010 Permitted uses.  In an R­1A zone, the following uses are permitted.  A.  Any use permitted in the R­1 (one family) residential zone  1. No person or entity shall offer or provide a dwelling unit, or any portion thereof, for rent  for thirty (30) consecutive calendar days or less to any transient.  2. No person or entity shall maintain any advertisement of a rental prohibited by this  section.    Section 17.12.010 Permitted uses.  In an R­2 zone only the following uses that are hereinafter specifically provided and allowed are  permitted, subject to the provisions of Chapter 17.44 governing off­street parking requirements:  A.   Any use permitted in the R­1 (one family) residential zone  1.  No person or entity shall offer or provide a dwelling unit, or any portion thereof, for rent  for thirty (30) consecutive calendar days or less to any transient.  2. No person or entity shall maintain any advertisement of a rental prohibited by this  section.    Section 17.14.010 Permitted uses.  In an R­2B zone only the following uses that are hereinafter specifically provided and allowed are  permitted, subject to the provisions of Chapter 17.44 governing off­street parking requirements:  B.   Any use permitted in the R­1 (one family) residential zone  1.  No person or entity shall offer or provide a dwelling unit, or any portion thereof, for rent  for thirty (30) consecutive calendar days or less.  2. No person or entity shall maintain any advertisement of a rental prohibited by this  section.       50   Section 17.16.010 Permitted uses.  In an R­3 zone only the following uses that are hereinafter specifically provided and allowed are  permitted, subject to the provisions of Chapter 17.44 governing off­street parking requirements:  C.   Any use permitted in the R­1 (one family) residential zone  1. No person or entity shall offer or provide a dwelling unit, or any portion thereof, for rent  for thirty (30) consecutive calendar days or less.  2. No person or entity shall maintain any advertisement of a rental prohibited by this  section.    Similar provisions for Sections 17.18, 17.20, 17.22.030, and 17.24                  51 Administrative Report DISCUSSION ITEM TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: Robert Clark, City Manager DATE REPORT PREPARED: January 14, 2016 MEETING DATE: January 26, 2016 SUBJECT: A Resolution Confirming the Ban Transient Rentals in all Zones. Recommendation Adopt the Resolution which confirms the ban on transient rentals in all zones. Executive Summary At the January 12, 2016 meeting the City Council voted to confirm the ban on transient rental of residential properties in all zones, and directed the City Attorney to prepare a resolution confirming the ban. Transient rental is the renting or leasing of all or part of any residential structure for a period of less than 30 days. The ban does not include legally permitted hotels, motels, or bed and breakfasts. The resolution confirming the ban will be considered by the City Council on January 26, 2016. The Ojai Municipal Code requires that land uses not expressly listed in the code be prohibited. Transient rentals are not expressly provided for in any zone. The Municipal Code also grants the Planning Commission the authority to permit a proposed use if it determines that a proposed use is substantially similar to a listed and consistent with the General Plan. The proposed resolution confirms, and finds that transient rentals are not consistent with the General Plan. Bed and breakfasts are listed as a permitted use in the Business-Professional Zone and a conditional use in the Village Mixed Use and Commercial-1 Zones. The proposed resolution confirms that only Bed and Breakfasts that comply with all federal, state and local rules will be permitted. This includes the requirement that a Bed and Breakfast provide one parking space for each guest room, and two parking spaces for the resident family, none of which can be in the front yard setback. They must also comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). At its December 8, 2015 meeting, the City Council directed that City Manager and City Attorney to begin enforcing the ban on transient rentals on February 1, 2016. The proposed resolution includes a $500 per day fine for illegal operation of a transient rental. 4 -1 Page 1 of 2 52 Fiscal Impact The City Council instructed the City Attorney and City Manager to begin enforcing the ban on transient rentals on February 1, 2016. There will be a cost associated with this enforcement effort. A report will be prepared for a subsequent meeting describing the enforcement effort and estimating the associated cost. i/R4 1/)1/1/rO/K Submitted by Approved for forwarding Robert Clark, City Manager City Manager's Office Attachment: A — Proposed Resolution 4 —2 Page 2 of 2 53 CITY OF OJAI RESOLUTION NO. 16- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF OJAI CONFIRMING THE CITY'S EXISTING BAN ON SHORT-TERM, TRANSIENT, OR VACATION RENTALS AND AMENDING THE MASTER FEE AND FINE SCHEDULE FOR MUNICIPAL CODE VIOLATIONS WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Ojai (the "City Council") by the adoption of this Resolution intends to: a. Preserve and maintain the character of the city, its neighborhoods and communities as described in the Land Use Element of the Ojai General Plan which states "the residents of Ojai share a common goal of ensuring that the existing 'sense of the community' is maintained..." and that Ojai "successfully blends the best of small town lifestyles and a tourist economy;" b. Support commercial interests of locally owned and operated businesses associated with the tourist economy, including the City's lawful hotels, motels, and bed and breakfasts; c. Eliminate to the extent possible the purchase or renovation of single family residential properties, multifamily residential properties, and second unit residential properties for sole use as illegal short term vacation rentals; d. Reverse the current and accelerating trend of converting existing affordable housing units into illegal short term vacation rentals; e. Preserve the City's existing rural residential character, including protecting its existing quiet, safe, low density residential neighborhoods from commercial activity more suited to the City's existing commercial zones. WHEREAS, on March 24, 2015 the City Council adopted, and on April 28, 2015, extended, a moratorium on approving a conditional use permit and a determination of similar use for any proposed transient rental, effective through March 23, 2016. WHEREAS, on January 12, 2016, the City Council received public comment on the issue of vacation rentals and determined to take no action to amend the City's existing rules for short-term, transient, or vacation rentals. WHEREAS, the City Council intends, with the adoption of this Resolution, to affirm the City's existing ban on short-term, transient, or vacation rentals, except for lawful hotels, motels, and bed and breakfasts approved and operated in full compliance with all applicable federal, state, and City rules and regulations. WHEREAS, on December 6, 2015, the City Council directed, and on January 12, 2016 confirmed, that the existing suspension of enforcement of any Ojai Municipal Code provisions governing short-term, transient, or vacation rentals would cease effective January 30, 2016. WHEREAS, the City's current schedule of fines does not specify fines for violations of the Ojai Municipal Code related to operating illegal short-term, transient, or vacation rentals. Attachment A 4-3 Page 1 of 4 54 WHEREAS, the City Council desires to amend the current schedule of fines and fees to adopt fines for violations of the Ojai Municipal Code related to operating illegal short-term, transient, or vacation rentals. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Ojai that: SECTION 1. Recitals The foregoing recitals are true and correct and incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 2. Confirmation of Existing Ban on Short Term, Transient, or Vacation Rentals, Except for Lawful Hotels, Motels, and Bed and Breakfasts A. The City Council confirms that it is the understanding of the City Council that the existing Ojai Municipal Code provides that any short-term, transient, or vacation rentals of property or a portion thereof for less than 30 days in exchange for any form of compensation is prohibited in all residential zones as this land use is not provided for in Ojai Municipal Code Section 10-2.402, Table 2-2 which lists all allowable land uses in residential zones. Ojai Municipal Code Section 10-2.302, subdivision (a) requires that any proposed land use be expressly identified as allowed in the applicable requirements for a zone. Under the principle of permissive zoning, any land use not expressly allowed or permitted via a determination of substantially similar use under Ojai Municipal Code Section 10-2.303 is prohibited. Ojai Municipal Code Section 10-2.303 provides for the City to approve a land use that is substantially similar to a listed land use, but only after finding that the land use is consistent with the General Plan, would not adversely affect the City's public health, safety, and general welfare, and that the proposed use meets all other requirements of Ojai Municipal Code Section 10-2.303. The City Council finds that short-term, transient, or vacation rentals are not consistent with the General Plan's designated land uses for residential zones. B. The City Council confirms that it is the understanding of the City Council that the existing Ojai Municipal Code provides that any short-term, transient, or vacation rentals of property or a portion thereof for less than 30 days in exchange for any form of compensation is prohibited in all commercial and manufacturing zones as this land use is not provided for in Ojai Municipal Code Section 10-2.503, Table 2-4, with the following exceptions: (1) lawfully approved hotels, motels, and timeshare facilities operated in full compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local rules and regulations including all required permits from the City, which are a permitted use in the Commercial-1, Business- Professional, and Village Mixed Use zones as stated in Ojai Municipal Code Section 10- 2.503, Table 2-4, and (2) lawfully approved bed and breakfasts operated in full compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local rules and regulations including all required permits from the City, which are a permitted use in the Business-Professional zone and are a conditionally permitted use subject to the approval of a conditional use permit in the Commercial-1 and Village Mixed Use zones as stated in Ojai Municipal Code Section 10-2.503, Table 2-4. A bed and breakfast is not permitted in any single-family or residential zoning district under Ojai Municipal Code Section 10-2.1703, subdivision (a). A lawfully operated bed and breakfast must conform to the standards of Ojai Municipal Code Section 10-2.1703, the definition of bed and breakfast in Ojai Municipal Code Section 10-2.3602, the parking requirements of Ojai Municipal Code Section 10-2.1405, Attachment A 4 -4 Page 2 of 4 55 Table 3-5, which requires 1 parking space for each guest room, plus 2 parking spaces for the resident family, and all other applicable rules and regulations. C. The City Council confirms that it is the understanding of the City Council that the existing Ojai Municipal Code provides that any short-term, transient, or vacation rentals of property or a portion thereof for less than 30 days in exchange for any form of compensation is prohibited in all special purpose zoning districts as this land use is not provided for in Ojai Municipal Code Section 10-2.603, Table 2-6, with the following exception: (1) lawfully approved hotels and motels operated in full compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local rules and regulations including all required permits from the City, which are permitted in the Institutional-Recreational-3 zone as stated in Ojai Municipal Code section 10-2.603, Table 2-6. SECTION 3. Amendment of the City of Ojai Schedule of Fines for Municipal Code Violations The following fines are hereby added to the schedule of fines for Municipal Code Violations: Code Sections Description Misdemeanor Ojai Municipal Code Section 10-2.402, Table 2-2; Section 10-2.503, Table 2-4; Section 10-2.603, Table 2-6 Operation of a short-term, transient, or vacation rental of property or a portion thereof for less than 30 days in exchange for any form of compensation, except for lawful hotels, motels, and bed and breakfasts, per day $500 SECTION 4. Lifting of Suspension of Enforcement of Existing Ban on Short-Term, Transient, or Vacation Rentals. Effective February 1, 2016, the existing suspension of enforcement of any Ojai Municipal Code provisions governing transient rentals will cease. The City Council hereby directs the City Manager, City Attorney, Building Official, and all other City personnel to being enforcing the City's existing ban on short-term, transient, or vacation rentals, except for lawful hotels, motels, and bed and breakfasts beginning February 1, 2016. SECTION 5. Environmental Determination The City Council finds that the adoption of this resolution, confirming an existing ban on short-term, transient, or vacation rentals, except for lawful hotels, motels, and bed and breakfasts is exempt from review under the California Environment Quality Act ("CEQA"). Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), a project is exempt when there is no possibility that it may have a significant effect on the environment. Under this section, CEQA review is not required because there is no possibility that the adoption of this resolution confirming an existing ban on short- term, transient, or vacation rentals, except for lawful hotels, motels, and bed and breakfasts, adopting a fine for violations of that ban, and directing that enforcement efforts begin will have a significant effect on the environment. This resolution does not permit any change in the City's Attachment A Page 3 of 4 4-5 56 existing rules and regulations governing allowable land uses and does not approve any new development or construction. Additionally, the adoption of this resolution is an administrative activity that will not permit any new or different activities than are presently legal. This resolution does not authorize any physical changes to the environment. Accordingly, the City Council finds that the adoption of this resolution does not qualify as a "project" subject to CEQA under CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(5) because the resolution constitutes administrative activities of government that do not directly or indirectly result in any physical changes in the environment. SECTION 6. Effective Date. This Resolution shall be in full force and effect upon adoption. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 26th day of January 2016 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: CITY OF OJAI, cAuFoRmA Paul Blatz, Mayor ATTEST: Rhonda K. Basore, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Matthew Summers, City Attorney Attachment A Page 4 of 4 4-6 57 SHORT-TERM VACATION RENTALS ENFORCEMENT ORDINANCE City Of Sedona Community Development Department 102 Roadrunner Drive Sedona, AZ 86336 (928) 282-1154  Fax: (928) 204-7124 Sedona City Code Title 5 Business Licenses and Regulations, Chapter 5.25: Enforcement of Restrictions on Residential Short-Term Vacation Rentals. This chapter shall be known as the City of Sedona Short-Term Vacation Rental Enforcement Chapter. [Ord. 2008-01, 1-22-08. Code 2006 § 8-4-1]. 5.25.020 Findings and purpose. A. The city of Sedona is committed to maintaining its small-town character, scenic beauty and natural resources that are the foundation of its economic strength and quality of life. (Sedona Community Plan, Section 9.2, Recommendations Goal 1.0.) The rental of private homes for temporary occupancy has been identified as a community concern due to the potential for increased traffic, noise, high occupant turnover, and density in single-family residential neighborhoods. The number of occupants occupying such temporary rentals has the potential to exceed standards for the design capacity of such structures and to cause health and safety problems, and as such may constitute threats to the health and safety of neighbors and nearby properties. The purpose of this chapter is to safeguard the peace, safety and general welfare of the residents of Sedona and their visitors and guests by eliminating noise, vandalism, overcrowding, neighborhood uncertainty, high occupant turnover, diminution of neighborhood character, and other secondary effects that have become associated with the illegal short-term rental of single-family dwellings. These regulations are necessary to protect the integrity and small-town character of the city’s residential neighborhoods. B. Since its adoption in 1995, the Sedona Land Development Code has prohibited the rental of any single-family dwelling in residential areas for less than 30 days. Since that time, the short-term vacation rental market nationwide has expanded with the use of professional brokers and Internet listing services. This proliferation requires an expansion of enforcement mechanisms to deter parties who facilitate and solicit this illegal activity. Because there are numerous homeowners, real estate offices, brokers, and other agencies that actively promote short-term rentals to potential Sedona visitors through the Internet and other forms of advertisement, it is necessary to prohibit the promotion and advertisement of short-term vacation rentals for periods of less than 30 consecutive days. C. Therefore, in an attempt to further promote the aims and goals of the current ban on short-term residential rentals, the city does hereby adopt the following provisions in an attempt to enhance the ability to enforce current prohibitions against short-term rentals in residential neighborhoods. [Ord. 2008-01, 1-22-08. Code 2006 § 8-4-2]. 5.25.030 Definitions. For the purpose of this chapter, the following definitions shall apply unless the context clearly indicates or requires a different meaning: “Advertise” or “advertisement” means any written or oral publication, dissemination, solicitation or circulation which is intended to directly or indirectly induce any person to enter into an agreement for the rental of a single-family dwelling in violation of this chapter or the applicable provisions of the Sedona Land Development Code. This definition includes but is not limited to mailings, print advertisements, Internet listings, e-mail publications or other oral, printed or electronic means. “Enterprise” means any corporation, association, firm, partnership, LLC, or other legal entity. Facilitate. A person or enterprise “facilitates” if, acting with knowledge that an operator, managing agency or rental agent is committing or intends to commit the offense of renting a single-family dwelling in violation of this chapter, the person or enterprise knowingly provides the operator, managing agency or rental agent with means or opportunity for the commission of said offense. “Managing agency” or “rental agent” means a person, enterprise or agency representing the owner of the short-term vacation rental, or a person, enterprise or agency owning more than one short-term vacation rental. “Operator” means the person or enterprise who is owner or proprietor of a short-term vacation rental, whether in the capacity of owner, lessee, sub-lessee, mortgagee in possession, licensee, or any other capacity. Where the operator 58 performs his functions through a managing agency of any type or character, or where the operator performs his or her functions through a rental agent, the managing agency or the rental agent has the same duties as its principal. “Person” mans an individual or a group of individuals. “Remuneration” means compensation, money, or other consideration given in return for occupancy, possession or use of real property. “Rent” means the consideration or remuneration charged whether or not received, for the occupancy of space in a short- term vacation rental, valued in money, whether to be received in money, goods, labor or otherwise, including all receipts, cash, credits, property or services of any kind. Rent may include consideration or remuneration received pursuant to an option to purchase whereby a person is given a right to possess the property for a term of less than 30 consecutive days. “Rental” means an arrangement between a transient and an operator whereby rent is received in exchange for the right to possess a residential structure. “Short-term vacation unit” means any structure or any portion of any structure that is rented to a transient for less than 30 consecutive days in a residential zoning district or a planned residential development district as contemplated in the Sedona Land Development Code, including detached single-family dwellings, condominiums, duplexes, townhomes and multiple-family dwellings. Solicit. A person or enterprise “solicits” if, with the intent to promote or facilitate the short-term rental of a short-term vacation unit in violation of this chapter, such person or enterprise commands, encourages, requests or solicits another person to engage in conduct which would constitute a violation of this chapter. “Transient” means any person who, at his own expense or at the expense of another, exercises occupancy or possession or is entitled to occupancy or possession by reason of any rental agreement, concession, permit, right of access, option to purchase, license, time-sharing arrangement, or any other type of agreement for a period of less than 30 consecutive calendar days, counting portions of calendar days as full days. [Ord. 2008-01, 1-22-08. Code 2006 § 8-4-3]. 5.25.040 Prohibited rental duration. Rental of a short-term vacation unit or units by a person, operator, managing agency or rental agent for less than 30 consecutive days in duration to any transient within any residential zoning district or planned residential development district in violation of the Sedona Land Development Code is prohibited. [Ord. 2008-01, 1-22-08. Code 2006 § 8-4-4]. 5.25.050 Advertisement of illegal short-term rentals prohibited. It is class 1 misdemeanor for any person, enterprise, managing agency or rental agent to advertise, solicit or facilitate the rental for less than 30 consecutive days of a short-term vacation unit located within residential districts where such short-term rentals are prohibited by the Sedona Land Development Code. Such activity is prohibited, whether by mailings, print advertisements, Internet listings, or other means. [Ord. 2008-01, 1-22-08. Code 2006 § 8-4-5]. 5.25.060 Violations and penalties. Violations of this chapter shall constitute a class 1 misdemeanor, and upon conviction, shall be punished by a fine not to exceed $2,500 plus applicable surcharges or by imprisonment for a period not to exceed six months, or by both such fine and imprisonment. Each day that any violation continues shall be a separate offense punishable as described herein. In the alternative, an action may be commenced as a civil violation. [Ord. 2008-01, 1-22-08. Code 2006 § 8-4-6]. 59 CITY COUNCIL UNFINISHED BUSINESS SEPTEMBER 21, 2015 SUBJECT: ORDINANCE NO. 15-958 (2No READING) AMENDING TITLE 19 OF THE WEST HOLLYWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE CLARIFYING THE PROHIBITION OF SHORT-TERM VACATION RENTALS INITIATED BY: CITY CLERK'S DIVISION (Yvonne Quarker, City Clerk) ~ (Melissa Crowder, Assistant City Clerk)·~ STATEMENT ON THE SUBJECT: The City Council will waive further reading and adopt Ordinance No. 15-958 amending Title 19 of the West Hollywood Municipal Code clarifying the prohibition of short-term vacation rentals. RECOMMENDATION: Waive further reading and adopt Ordinance No. 15-958, "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF WEST HOLLYWOOD AMENDING TITLE 19 OF THE WEST HOLLYWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE CLARIFYING THE PROHIBITION OF SHORT-TERM VACATION RENTALS". BACKGROUND: On July 20, 2015, the City Council introduced on first reading Ordinance No. 15- 958. Ayes: Noes: Abstain: Absent: Councilmember Heilman, Mayor Pro Tempore Meister, and Mayor Horvath. Councilmember Duran. Councilmember D'Amico. None. On August 3, 2015 this item was brought forward to Council for a 2nd reading and adoption. The item failed by a 2-2 vote (Mayor Horvath and Mayor Pro Tempore Meister voting Aye, Councilmembers D'Amico and Duran voting No, and Councilmember Heilman was absent). On August 17, 2015 this item was brought forward to Council for a 2nd reading and adoption. The item was tabled and staff was directed to bring the item back to the September 21, 2015 meeting. AGENDA ITEM 4 . A 60 Ordinance 15-958 (2nd Reading) Page 2 CONFORMANCE WITH VISION 2020 AND THE GOALS OF THE WEST HOLLYWOOD GENERAL PLAN: This item is consistent with the Ongoing Strategic Program of: Institutional Integrity and the General Plan Goal to G-2: Maintain transparency and integrity in West Hollywood's decision-making process. OFFICE OF PRIMARY RESPONSIBLILITY: Office of the City Clerk EVALUATION: N/A ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND HEAL TH: N/A FISCAL IMPACT: None ATTACHMENT: Attachment A: Ordinance 15-958 61 ORDINANCE NO. 15-958 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF WEST HOLLYWOOD AMENDING TITLE 19 OF THE WEST HOLLYWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE CLARIFYING THE PROHIBITION OF SHORT-TERM VACATION RENTALS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST HOLLYWOOD DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. FINDINGS (a) The renting to transient occupants of homes, apartments, condominiums and mobile homes, and portions thereof, is prohibited under existing City law by virtue of not being listed as a permitted use in the Zoning Ordinance and represent an incursion of commercial activities in residential zones of the City. (b) Short-term vacation rentals for a period of thirty consecutive calendar days or less in the City are a source of increased noise and demand for City services. (c) Short-term vacation rentals compromise the safety of residents by providing access to buildings, including keys and security codes, to transient occupants. (d) Short-term vacation rentals deplete the already limited housing stock in the City, including housing subject to the rent control provisions of Title 17 of the municipal code. (e) The advent of Internet-based platforms has resulted in a proliferation of residential properties being offered to transient lodgers in violation of existing law. This proliferation requires an expansion of enforcement mechanisms to deter parties who facilitate and solicit this illegal activity. (f) Therefore, in an attempt to promote the aims and goals of the prohibition of short-term vacation rentals and enhance the City's ability to enforce the City's prohibition, the City intends to clarify its existing prohibition on transient rental of residential dwelling units. SECTION 2. A new land use is added to the alphabetical list of land uses in Table 2-2 in Section 19.06.030 of Chapter 19.06 of Title 19 of the West Hollywood Municipal Code to read as follows: 62 Ordinance No. 15-958 Page 2 LAND USE2 Short-term rental of a dwelling unit, or any portion thereof, for a period of thirty consecutive calendar days or less PERMIT REQUIRED BY ZONE Specific Use R1 R2 R3 R4 Regulations ----19.36.331 SECTION 3. A new land use is added to the alphabetical list of land uses in Table 2-5 in Section 19.10.030 of Chapter 19.10 of Title 19 of the West Hollywood Municipal Code to read as follows: Specific PERMIT REQUIRED BY ZONE Use LAND USE2 CN CC/SSP CA CR PDCSP PF3 Reaulations Short-term rental of a dwelling unit, or any portion thereof, for a 19.36.331 period of thirty - - - - -- consecutive calendar days or less SECTION 4. A new section 19.36.331 , Short-Term Vacation Rentals, is added to Chapter 19.36 of Title 19 of the West Hollywood Municipal Code to read as follows: A. Rental Prohibited . No person or entity shall offer or provide a dwelling unit, or any portion thereof, for rent for thirty (30) consecutive calendar days or less to any transient. B. Advertisement. No person or entity shall maintain any advertisement of a rental prohibited by this section. SECTION 5. The following definitions are added to the alphabetical list of definitions in Section 19.90 .020 of Chapter 19.90 of Title 19 of the West Hollywood Municipal Code to read as follows: Advertisement. Any printed or lettered announcement, whether in a magazine, newspaper, handbill, notice, display, billboard , poster, Internet website or application, or any other form. 63 Ordinance No. 15-958 Page 3 Rent. Consideration charged, whether or not received, for the occupancy of space in a dwelling unit valued in money, whether to be received in money, goods, labor or otherwise. Transient. Any person who exercises occupancy or is entitled to occupancy of a dwelling unit for a period of thirty (30) consecutive calendar days or less, counting portions of calendar days as full days. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of West Hollywood at a regular meeting held this 21st day of September, 2015 by the following vote: AYES: Councilmember: NOES: Councilmember: ABSENT: Councilmember: ABSTAIN: Councilmember: LINDSEY HORVATH, MAYOR ATTEST: YVONNE QUARKER, CITY CLERK 64 Ordinance No. 15-958 Page 4 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CITY OF WEST HOLLYWOOD I, YVONNE QUARKER, City Clerk of the City of West Hollywood, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 15-958 was duly passed, approved and adopted by the City Council of the City of West Hollywood at a regular meeting held on the 21st day of September 2015, after having its first reading at the regular meeting of said City Council on the 20th day of July 2015. I further certify that this ordinance was posted in three public places as provided for in Resolution No. 5, adopted the 29th day of November, 1984. WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL THIS 22nd DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2015. YVONNE QUARKER, CITY CLERK 65 Short Term Rental Favorability Chart Select Los Angeles and Coastal Cities March 31, 2016 Page 1 of 2 City TOT Business License Rental Permit Public Notification Homesharing Zoning Dependent Policy clarity Enforcement Favorable Notes Carlsbad Yes Yes Yes No Yes Coastal zones only Yes Unclear Yes, but tightly regulated Imperial Beach Yes Yes Yes No Yes Some commercial zones Yes Unclear Yes, but tightly regulated Encinitas Yes Unclear Yes Yes Yes No Yes Unclear Yes, but tightly regulated Del Mar For 3 or more unit structures TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD No. City drafting specific proposal Unclear Yes Monterey N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Yes Unclear No Pacific Grove Yes Unclear Yes Unclear Yes No Yes Mostly self-enforced Yes Carmel by the Sea N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A No Yes Yes No Salinas No No No No Yes No No No Yes Monterey County Yes Unclear Yes Yes Yes Residential, non-coastal only Yes Unclear No Trinidad No No No No Yes No No. Considering specific ordinance. Might allow STR's in unincorporated parts of county No Yes Pismo Beach Yes Unclear Yes Yes Yes No Yes Unclear Yes Malibu Yes Unclear Unclear Unclear Yes No Yes - company must have rental agreement with city Unclear Potentially; tightly regulated STR companies must enter a contract with City of Malibu to operate. So far, only AirBnB has. LA County Yes Yes Unclear Unclear Yes No Yes Unclear Yes Long Beach Yes Yes Unclear Unclear Unclear Unclear No; must be operated as a broadly-defined "hotel" Unclear Yes Newport Beach Yes Unclear Unclear Unclear Yes Banned in single-family residential zones Some; City Council looking into expanding guidelines Inconsistent Yes, but tightly regulated Huntington Beach Unclear Unclear Unclear Unclear Yes Commercial zones only Some No No STR's fall under the broad definition of Visitor Accommodations, categorized as a Commercial Use. Regulation unclear. Los Angeles No No No No Yes No No. City considering specific ordinance No Yes 66 Short Term Rental Favorability Chart Select Los Angeles and Coastal Cities March 31, 2016 Page 2 of 2 City TOT Business License Rental Permit Public Notification Homesharing Zoning Dependent Policy clarity Enforcement Favorable Notes West Hollywood N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Yes No No Santa Monica N/A N/A N/A N/A Yes No Yes Unclear No, tightly regulated Owners must be present on premises at all times Pasadena Yes Unclear Conditional-use permit required No Yes Multi-family residential No Unclear Yes Regulations only exist for "bed and breakfasts," which require a manager on the premises at all times Glendale No No No No Yes Not specified No No Yes Manhattan Beach N/A N/A N/A N/A Yes N/A Yes Unclear No Only free homesharing is allowed in Manhattan Beach Hermosa Beach Unclear Unclear Yes No Yes Commercial zones only Yes Yes - but minimal punishment Yes, but tightly regulated Redondo Beach N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Yes Yes No El Segundo No No No No Yes No No Unclear Unclear Unclear if owners are required to remain on premises. No specific STR ordinance. Torrance TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD Policy to ban STR's being drafted TBD Likely unfavorable 67 1 Yu-Ying Ting From:Marie Rice <marierice@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, April 04, 2016 7:46 AM To:Kim Chafin; Ken Robertson Subject:Fwd: Illegal Vacation Rentals I don't think you received this email re: Short Term Rentals. Thanks, Marie ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: DOMINIC mance <onelovestudios@msn.com> Date: Sat, Apr 2, 2016 at 11:40 PM Subject: Illegal Vacation Rentals To: "Kent Allen (kentjallen@gmail.com)" <kentjallen@gmail.com>, "M Rice (marierice@gmail.com)" <marierice@gmail.com>, "Mike Flaherty (MikeFlaherty2010@gmail.com)" <MikeFlaherty2010@gmail.com>, "P Hoffman (phoffman@lmu.edu)" <phoffman@lmu.edu>, "R Saemann (rsgc1@aol.com)" <rsgc1@aol.com> Cc: "S Armato (sarmato@hermosabch.org)" <sarmato@hermosabch.org>, "H Fangary (hfangary@hermosabch.org)" <hfangary@hermosabch.org>, "J Edson (jedson@hermosabch.org)" <jedson@hermosabch.org>, "Mayor-cpetty (cpetty@hermosabch.org)" <cpetty@hermosabch.org>, "Councilman-Jmassey (Jmassey@hermosabch.org)" <Jmassey@hermosabch.org>, "J Duclos (jduclos@hermosabch.org)" <jduclos@hermosabch.org> Mayor Carolyn Petty has been extremely considerate in keeping me informed about this issue and Mr. Justin Edson remains outstanding in his diligence, posting weekly notices on the vacation rental next door to me. Notwithstanding, activities remain unabated around-the-clock, seven days a week which is no reflection upon these two wonderful people; but rather, portends the brazenness of the vacation rental hosts and managers and the odiousness of the vacationers who carry on as if they’re at Disneyland oblivious to the fact that there are people living in the homes surrounding them. At least I don’t feel alone anymore knowing that there are some caring and thoughtful people doing their best to help. Keep Neighborhoods First is a coalition of neighbors, tenants, and affordable housing advocates in and around Los Angeles and beyond that have come together to stop the problems created by the proliferation of commercial short term rentals in their neighborhoods. I think you’ll find their website informative in your consideration and future deliberations regarding this matter. http://www.keepneighborhoodsfirst.org/ Dominic Mance 68 From: Betsy Ryan [mailto:rosebud5333@me.com] Sent: Saturday, April 02, 2016 1:44 AM To: Mayor Carolyn Petty; Justin Massey; Hany Fangary; Stacey Armato; Jeff Duclos; City Clerk; Chuck Posner Subject: Latest Coastal Commission report/Short Term Vacation Rentals/City Decision Making Tool Dear Mayor, City Council and City Staff, I have enclosed the latest report from the California Coastal Commission. Please read page 9-11. Short Term Vacation rentals dominate the Hermosa Beach Decision making tool chart in a positive way. Please support regulating and taxing short term vacation rentals in our coastal zone. In order to protect the environment, it's important to provide equality to beach access and beach culture in the coastal zone. Who's going to fight to protect the coast if full access/culture is restricted to the elite? The TOT tax from the short term rentals will help us pay off the 17.5 million dollar debt from oil. It will also help us to update our sewers and infrastructure. It will help our merchants and restaurants. Universities agree that diversity and exposure to different cultures is beneficial to students and helps them to be more successful in life. Vacation rentals cater to families. They want their children to be able to experience the beach and its culture just like everyone else that lives here. Walk-streets are preferred so their children are safer and don't have to cross streets to get to the water; especially those with children who are physically handicapped. Sincerely, Betsy Ryan C. CERTIFY THE IP AMENDMENT WITH SUGGESTED MODIFICATIONS Public Access and Visitor-Serving Overnight Accommodations 69 The provision of public access and visitor-serving overnight accommodation uses are important topics that are highlighted in both of the City’s LUPs. Visitor-serving overnight accommodation uses are preferred in the LUPs because it maximizes the number of people who can enjoy the unique experience available only along the coast and provides an opportunity for the public to access the coast. The IP Amendment would amend both IPs to allow short-term rentals in all districts where residential uses are allowed, subject to the criteria for obtaining a short-term rental permit listed in Chapter 5.38 of the City’s Municipal Code. 70 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 TO: Commissioners and Interested Persons FROM: Sherilyn Sarb, Deputy Director Karl Schwing, Coastal Program Manager Charles Posner, Planning Supervisor Fernie Sy, Coastal Program Analyst SUBJECT: Major LCP Amendment Request No. 1-14 (LCP-5-DPT-14-0105-1) to the City of Dana Point’s Certified Local Coastal Program. For public hearing and Commission action at the Commission’s April 14, 2016 meeting in Santa Rosa. SUMMARY OF LCP AMENDMENT REQUEST NO. 1-14 The City of Dana Point presently has two groups of documents that serve as its certified Local Coastal Program. There is an older set of documents containing a Land Use Plan (LUP) and Implementation Plan (IP) that were originally certified when Dana Point was unincorporated and operated by the County of Orange and which were adopted by the City when it incorporated that still apply to the central geographic area of the City (i.e. that area generally located between Monarch Beach to the north and Capistrano Beach to the south). These older documents are referred to as the Dana Point Specific Plan Local Coastal Program or '1986' LCP. In addition, there is a more recent group of documents that includes three elements of the City's General Plan (the Land Use Element, Urban Design Element, and Conservation Open Space Element), the City's Zoning Code (the Implementation Plan (IP), the Monarch Beach Resort Specific Plan, and the Headlands Development Conservation Plan which apply to those areas of the City which are not covered by the 1986 LCP. These more recent documents are referred to as the '1996' LCP. Amendment Request No. 1-14 (LCP-5-DPT-14-0105-1) amends the City's Zoning Code Ordinance, which is the Implementation Plan (IP) for the ‘1996’ LCP, and the Dana Point Specific Plan Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan (IP) (‘1986’ LCP) to allow short-term rentals in all the Zoning Districts where residential uses are allowed, subject to the criteria listed in Chapter 5.38 of the City’s Municipal Code. The proposed changes are reflected in City Council Resolution Nos. 13-12-03-09 and 13-12-03-10 (Exhibit No. 1). This LCP amendment applies city-wide in the coastal zone. SUMMARY OF STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Commission certify LCP Amendment Request No. 1-14 with the following suggested modifications: 1) clarify that Chapter 5.38 of the Municipal Code is included in both certified IPs, and 2) add provisions to both IPs clarifying that any changes to Chapter 5.38 of the Municipal Code that may result in limiting, modifying or prohibiting short-term rentals in the coastal zone shall be subject to review as an LCP Amendment. The motions are on Page Three. The suggested modifications are on Page Four. Th10a April 1, 2016 71 The suggested modifications are necessary to carry out the LUPs’ requirements to provide and protect public access and visitor-serving overnight accommodations. Short-term rentals are a type of visitor- serving overnight accommodation use that provides an opportunity for the public to enjoy the coast. The proposed LCP amendment provides a means to appropriately regulate short-term rentals in a manner that will continue to allow for the provision of a range of overnight visitor-serving accommodations while also reducing negative neighborhood impacts that have been the basis for prohibiting short-term rentals in other cities. The proposed LCP amendment, as modified, will protect public access consistent with the requirements of the LCPs’ Land Use Plans (LUP), which are the standard of review. Therefore, staff recommends that the Commission, after public hearing: 1. Deny the IP amendment request as submitted; and, 2. Certify, only if modified, the IP amendment request. The motions and resolutions are found on Page Three. STANDARD OF REVIEW The standard of review for the proposed amendment to the City’s Zoning Code, the IP for the ‘1996’ LCP, is the certified LUP component of the ‘1996 LCP’. The standard of review for the proposed amendment to the Dana Point Specific Plan Local Coastal Program IP, the IP for the ‘1986’ LCP, is the certified LUP component of the ‘1986 LCP’. LOCAL REVIEW AND DEADLINE FOR COMMISSION ACTION The City of Dana Point Planning Commission held a public hearing for the LCP amendment on October 28, 2013. The City Council held public hearings on December 3, 2013 and January 21, 2014 (2nd reading of the Ordinance). On February 3, 2014, the City submitted the LCP amendment request for Coastal Commission certification with City Council Resolution Nos. 13-12-03-09 and 13-12-03-10. On February 18, 2014, the submission was deemed incomplete by Commission staff for additional information. Commission staff received a written response from the City on June 16, 2014. After reviewing the response, Commission staff determined that additional information was necessary and deemed the submittal still incomplete on June 30, 2014. Commission staff received a written response from the City on March 20, 2015, and after review of the submittal, deemed the LCP amendment submittal complete. On May 13, 2015, the Commission authorized a one-year extension for action on the LCP Amendment request. As such, the last date for Commission action on this item is May 19, 2016. FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION The file is available for review at the South Coast District office located in the Molina Center, 200 Oceangate, Suite 1000, Long Beach, 90802. The staff report can be viewed on the Commission’s website: http://www.coastal.ca.gov/mtgcurr.html. For additional information, contact Fernie Sy in the South Coast District office at (562) 590-5071. EXHIBITS 1. City Council Resolution Nos. 13-12-03-09 and 13-12-03-10 2. Chapter 5.38 of the City’s Municipal Code (Short-term Rental Permits) 72 I. MOTIONS AND RESOLUTIONS Motion I: I move that the Commission certify Implementation Plan Amendment No. 1-14 as submitted by the City of Dana Point. Staff recommends a NO vote of the motion. Failure of this motion will result in denial of the IP Amendment as submitted and adoption of the following resolution and findings. The motion to certify passes only by an affirmative vote of the majority of the appointed Commissioners. Resolution I: The Commission hereby denies certification of Implementation Plan Amendment No. 1-14 as submitted by the City of Dana Point and adopts the findings set forth below on grounds that the amendment does not conform with the provisions of the certified Land Use Plans, as amended. Certification of the Implementation Plans would not comply with the California Environmental Quality Act because there are feasible alternatives or mitigation measures which could substantially lessen any significant adverse impact which the Implementation Plan Amendment may have on the environment. Motion II: I move that the Commission certify Implementation Plan Amendment No. 1-14 for the City of Dana Point if it is modified as suggested in this staff report. Staff recommends a YES vote. Passage of this motion will result in the certification of the IP Amendment with suggested modifications and adoption of the following resolution and findings. The motion to certify with suggested modifications passes only upon an affirmative vote of the majority of the appointed Commissioners. Resolution II: The Commission hereby certifies Implementation Plan Amendment No. 1-14 for the City of Dana Point if modified as suggested and adopts the findings set forth below on grounds that the Implementation Plan Amendment with the suggested modifications conforms with, and is adequate to carry out, the provisions of the certified Land Use Plans as amended. Certification of the Implementation Plan Amendment if modified as suggested complies with the California Environmental Quality Act because either 1) feasible mitigation measures and/or alternatives have been incorporated to substantially lessen any significant adverse effects of the plan on the environment, or 2) there are no further feasible alternatives and mitigation measures that would substantially lessen any significant adverse impacts which the Implementation Plan Amendment may have on the environment. 73 II. SUGGESTED MODIFICATIONS Certification of the LUP amendment is subject to the following modifications. Text added by the suggested modification is bold, italicized and underlined, and text suggested to be deleted is struck through. Only those subsections of the LUP for which modifications are being suggested are shown below. A. Suggested Modification to the Dana Point Specific Plan'1986' LCP The Dana Point Specific Plan; Section XI-Land Use Regulations; Section v – “Special Regulations and Information” Section E. Coastal Land Use District Regulations is amended to include the following new sub-section 16. (Inserts are underlined): 16: Short Term Rentals D. Short Term Rentals: Short term rentals, as defined in Chapter 5.38 of the City of Dana Point’s Municipal Code, are allowed in all the districts within the Dana Point Specific Plan where residential uses are allowed, including but not limited to detached single-family dwellings, condominiums, duplexes, triplexes, townhomes and multiple-family dwellings. No owner of a short term rental shall offer to rent, or advertise for rent the short term rental to another person without a valid short-term rental permit approved and issued by the City of Dana Point, as stipulated in Chapter 5.38 of the City’s Municipal Code. Chapter 5.38 of the City of Dana Point Municipal Code (Short-Term Rental Permits) is part of the City’s certified Local Coastal Program. Any change(s) that limit, modify or prohibit short term rentals in the coastal zone, as determined by the Executive Director of the Coastal Commission, shall be submitted to the Coastal Commission for certification as a Local Coastal Plan Amendment. B. Suggested Modification to the '1996' LCP Implementation Plan Chapter 9.07 SPECIAL USE STANDARDS Section 9.07.260 Short Term Rentals Short term rentals, as defined in Chapter 5.38 of the City’s Municipal Code, are allowed in all the zoning districts where residential uses are allowed, including, but not limited to detached single-family dwellings, condominiums, duplexes, triplexes, townhomes and multiple-family dwellings. No owner of a short term rental shall offer to rent, or advertise for rent the short term rental to another person without a valid short-term rental permit approved and issued by the City, as stipulated in Chapter 5.38 of the Municipal Code. Chapter 5.38 of the City of Dana Point Municipal Code (Short-Term Rental Permits) is part of the City’s certified Local Coastal Program. Any change(s) that limit, modify or prohibit short term rentals in the coastal zone, as determined by the Executive Director of the Coastal Commission, shall be submitted to the Coastal Commission for certification as a Local Coastal Plan Amendment. 74 III. FINDINGS The Commission hereby finds and declares: A. DESCRIPTION OF THE LCP AMENDMENT REQUEST Amendment request No. 1-14 involves modifications to the text contained in the City’s Zoning Ordinance (the Implementation Plan, or IP, for the ‘1996’ LCP) and the Dana Point Specific Plan Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan (IP) (‘1986’ LCP). The Zoning Ordinance is proposed to be amended to add Section 9.07.260, and the Dana Point Specific Plan IP is proposed be amended to add “Section XI” in the Specific Plan, in order to clarify that short-term rentals can be permitted in all districts where residential uses are allowed, subject to the criteria for obtaining a short-term rental permit listed in Chapter 5.38 of the City’s Municipal Code. Since submittal of the amendment, the City has requested that the Dana Point Specific Plan IP language instead be inserted under ‘Section E. Coastal Land Use District Regulations” as sub-section number 16. Commission staff agrees with this change and will provide a suggested modification to deal with this change. Currently, the City’s Zoning Code does not identify short-term rentals as a use, even though residential rentals of varying lengths have occurred historically. Short-term rentals are defined in Chapter 5.38 as: (e). “Short-term rental” is defined as the rental of any structure or any portion of any structure for occupancy, dwelling, lodging or sleeping purposes for at least two (2) consecutive nights, but no more than thirty (30), consecutive calendar days in duration in a zoning district where residential uses are allowed, including, but not limited to, detached single-family dwellings, condominiums, duplexes, triplexes, townhomes and multiple-family dwellings. “Short-term rental” historically and continues to be included in the definition of “hotel” for purposes of collecting transient occupancy tax pursuant to Chapter 3.25 of this Code. Recently, short-term rentals have grown in popularity through the internets and popular smart-phone applications. Its rising use in the City’s coastal zone has provided an opportunity for an important visitor-serving overnight accommodation use, but has also caused problems for coastal residential neighborhoods and has stirred discussion regarding impacts from their uses with respect to the preservation of neighborhood integrity, rental housing stock reduction, and public safety, including in terms of complaints about loud, late-night parties, increased traffic and parking difficulties, garbage accumulation, and other issues that have been associated with short-term rentals. The City states that the short-term rental permit process, as detailed in Chapter 5.38 of the Municipal Code, is a compromise position that regulates and permits the practice rather than banning it as other cities have attempted to do. The City asserts that the proposed regulation set forth in Chapter 5.38 will safeguard the peace, safety and general welfare of the residents of Dana Point and their visitors by requiring minimum conditions of approval and operation. The permit process benefits property owners who desire to rent their homes as a short-term rental. The program identifies things such as the minimum number of parking spaces, maximum number of guests, removal of trash, noise controls, Transit Occupancy Tax (TOT) and also serves as a minimum standard of protection to surrounding property owners and neighborhoods. 75 The City has stated that no other zoning measures are warranted to implement the LCPA. No land use plan changes are proposed as well. B. DENY THE IP AMENDMENT REQUEST AS SUBMITTED The proposed LCP Amendment No. 1-14, would amend the City's Zoning Code Ordinance, which is the Implementation Plan (IP) for the ‘1996’ LCP, and the Dana Point Specific Plan Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan (IP) (‘1986’ LCP) to allow short-term rentals in all the Zoning Districts where residential uses are allowed, subject to the criteria listed in Chapter 5.38 of the City’s Municipal Code. The standard of review for the proposed amendment to the City’s Zoning Code, the IP for the ‘1996’ LCP, is the certified LUP component of the ‘1996 LCP’. The standard of review for the proposed amendment to the Dana Point Specific Plan Local Coastal Program IP, the IP for the ‘1986’ LCP, is the certified LUP component of the ‘1986 LCP’. The ‘1986 LCP’ and ‘1996 LCP’ LUPs mirror policies in the Coastal Act that encourages the provision of public access and visitor-serving overnight accommodations. Applicable provisions of the City’s ‘1986 LCP’ and ‘1996 LCP’ LUPs include the following: ‘1986 LCP’ D. Access Component 1. Introduction a. Coastal Act of 1976 The Coastal Act policies related to shoreline access and visitor-serving and commercial-recreational facilities include the following: Section 30213. Lower cost visitor and recreational facilities and housing opportunities for persons of low and moderate income shall be protected, encouraged, and where feasible, provided. Developments providing public recreational opportunities are preferred. New housing in the coastal zone shall be developed in conformity with the standards, policies, and goals of local housing elements adopted in accordance with the requirements of subdivision (c) of Section 65302 of Government Code. Section 30220. Coastal areas suited for water-oriented recreational activities that cannot readily be provided at inland water areas shall be protected for such uses. Section 30222. The use of private lands suitable for visitor serving commercial recreational facilities designed to enhance public opportunities for coastal recreation shall have priority over private residential, general industrial, or general commercial developments, but not over agriculture or coastal-dependent industry. Section 30210. 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 the people consistent with public 76 safety needs and the need to protect public rights, rights of private property owners, and natural resource areas from overuse. Section 30211. Development shall not interfere with the public's right of access to the sea where acquire through use, or Legislative authorization, including but not limited to, the use of dry sand and rocky coastal beaches to the first line of terrestrial vegetation. Section 302l2(a). Public access from the nearest public roadway to the shoreline and along the coast shall be provided in new development projects except where (1) it is inconsistent with public safety, military security needs, or the protection of fragile coastal resources, (2) adequate access exists nearby, or (3) agriculture would be adversely affected. Dedicated accessway shall not be required to be opened to public use until a public agency or private association agrees to accept responsibility for maintenance and liability of the accessway. E. Access Component 1. Introduction a. Coastal Act Policies Section 30252. The location and amount of new development should maintain and enhance public access to the coast by: (1) facilitating the provision or extension of transit service, (2) providing commercial facilities within or adjoining residential development or in other areas that will minimize the use of coastal access roads, (3) providing nonautomobile circulation within the development, (4) providing adequate parking facilities or providing substitute means of serving the development with public transportation, (5) assuring the potential for public transit for high intensity uses such as high-rise office buildings, and by (6) assuring that the recreational needs of new residents will not overload nearby coastal recreation areas by correlating the amount of development with local park acquisition and development plans with the provision of onsite recreational facilities to serve the new development. ‘1996 LCP’ Land Use Element (LUE) Policy: Coastal water areas suited for water oriented recreation activities shall be protected for such uses. (Coastal Act/30220) Land Use Element (LUE) Policy 2.10: Oceanfront land suitable for recreational use shall be protected for recreational use and development unless present and foreseeable future demand for public or commercial recreational activities that could be accommodated on the property is already adequately provided for in the area. (Coastal Act/30221) Land Use Element (LUE) Policy 2.12: The location and amount of new development should maintain and enhance public access to the coast by facilitating the provision or extension of transit service, providing non automobile circulation within the development, providing adequate parking facilities or providing substitute means of serving the development with public transportation, and assuring the potential for public transit for high intensity uses. (Coastal Act/30252) 77 Land Use Element (LUE) Policy 3.3: Priority should be given to those projects that provide for coastal recreational opportunities for the public. Lower cost visitor and recreational facilities shall be protected, encouraged, and, where feasible, provided. Upland areas necessary to support coastal recreational uses shall be reserved for such uses, where feasible. (Coastal Act/30213, 30222, 30223) Land Use Element (LUE) Policy 3.11: Development shall not interfere with the public's right of access to the sea where acquired through use or 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/30211) Land Use Element (LUE) Policy 3.12: Public access from the nearest public roadway to the shoreline and along the coast shall be provided in new development projects except where it is inconsistent with public safety, military security needs, or the protection of fragile coastal resources, or where adequate access exists nearby, including access as identified on Figures UD-2 and COS-4. (Coastal Act/30212) Land Use Element (LUE) Policy 4.3: Public access, which shall be conspicuously posted, and public recreational opportunities, shall be provided to the maximum extent feasible for all the people to the coastal zone area and shoreline 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/30210) The proposed LCP Amendment, as submitted, is not adequate to carry out the public access and priority visitor-serving overnight accommodations policies of the City’s LUPs. The following discussion below explains how the proposed LCP Amendment is not adequate to carry out the policies of the LUPs addressing the public access and priority visitor-serving overnight accommodations: Public Access and Visitor-Serving Overnight Accommodations Some of the strongest legislative mandates of both of the LUPs are the preservation of coastal access and the provision and protection of visitor-serving overnight accommodations. Policies are found in both of these LUPs that dictate that public access and visitor-serving overnight accommodations are provided and protected. The IP Amendment would amend both IPs to allow short-term rentals in all districts where residential uses are allowed, subject to the criteria for obtaining a short-term rental permit listed in Chapter 5.38 of the City’s Municipal Code) (Exhibit No. 2). The allowance of a short-term rental permit for locations that are located within the coastal zone provides an opportunity for the public to stay at a location where they can have access to the coast. However, Chapter 5.38 of the City’s Municipal Code, located under “Tile 5 – Business Regulations”, that dictates the procedure on how to obtain a short-term rental permit is not being included as part of the IP Amendment, as submitted. The City has stated that this chapter is not included as part of the amendment because the City wants to retain the ability to periodically adjust these regulations in response to short-term rental operators’ input as this new program commences in the City. For instance, the City has already identified the need to remove the requirements of providing proof of liability insurance for permit issuance and renewals. 78 The City’s exclusion of this chapter from the IPs raises a concern since if not included as part of the IPs, then any potential changes to Chapter 5.38 of the Municipal Code which may limit, modify or prohibit short-term rentals in the coastal zone could occur and not be required to be reviewed as a potential LCP Amendment to determines its consistency with the City’s certified LCPs. The lack of such provisions could potentially result in actions modifying the short-term rental permit procedures which would adversely impact the general public opportunity to access the coast at these short-term rental facilities in the coastal zone and would not adequately carry out the public access and visitor- serving overnight accommodation policies in both of the Certified LCPs. Therefore, the IP Amendment does not carry out the policies set forth in the LUPs and must be denied as submitted. C. CERTIFY THE IP AMENDMENT WITH SUGGESTED MODIFICATIONS Public Access and Visitor-Serving Overnight Accommodations The provision of public access and visitor-serving overnight accommodation uses are important topics that are highlighted in both of the City’s LUPs. Visitor-serving overnight accommodation uses are preferred in the LUPs because it maximizes the number of people who can enjoy the unique experience available only along the coast and provides an opportunity for the public to access the coast. The IP Amendment would amend both IPs to allow short-term rentals in all districts where residential uses are allowed, subject to the criteria for obtaining a short-term rental permit listed in Chapter 5.38 of the City’s Municipal Code. The City had estimated that there were over 250 short-term rentals operating in the City at the time the Short-term Rental Ordinance (Chapter 5.38 of the Municipal Code) was approved on April 2, 2013 by the City Council, even though the City’s Zoning Code did not identify it as a use. Over the years these short-term rentals have raised concerns due to their negative impacts upon residents as a result of excessive noise, cars, garbage, etc. from this use. At the same time, short-term rentals have and continue to provide an important visitor function that allows groups and families another option for overnight accommodations near the beach and shoreline. The proposed amendment is a means to provide a regulatory structure to a use that is not currently explicitly regulated by the LCPs. The City states that the short-term rental permit process is identified as a compromise position to a ban on short- term rentals to safeguard the peace, safety and general welfare of the residents of Dana Point and their visitors by requiring minimum conditions of approval and operation. The proposed amendment does not prohibit or unduly restrict the rental of residences to visitors in a manner that will diminish the public’s ability to access and recreate on the coast. Instead, the proposed amendment provides an opportunity to regulate short-term rentals in a manner that protects coastal resources and access and recreational opportunities, as well as residential communities, consistent with the requirements of the LUPs. For example, the proposed amendment limits the number of vehicles allowed at a short-term rental, which will minimize the impact of short-term rentals (located nearby beaches) on beach users with regard to parking. The proposed amendment also limits the number of guests allowed at each short-term rental, which will help protect the adjacent residential community from overuse (and concomitant noise and other problems) of oversubscribed short-term rentals. The City’s decision to create a process to allow such a short-term rental use is something that Commission staff supports as opposed to other cities that have outright banned such a use. The City’s decision to create a program to allow this use shows a willingness to provide and protect a use that is 79 consistent with the high priority policies of the LUPs regarding public access and visitor-serving overnight accommodations. A component of obtaining a short-term rental permit as identified in Chapter 5.38, more specifically ‘Chapter 5.38.080 Conditions of Permit Issuance and Renewal (2)’, of the Municipal Code is that the owner shall provide proof that the short-term rentals are not prohibited by its Home Owners Association (HOA) Conditions, Covenants, and Restriction (CC&R’s) or any other community standards/guidelines, applicable to the proposed short-term rental. The City has stated that there are approximately 70 Home Owners Associations within its jurisdiction, 26 of them within the coastal zone with an approximate total number of 3,287 residential units located in these 26 HOAs. Fifteen (15) of these HOAs, which contain approximately 2,648 residential units, have CC&Rs that do not allow short-term rental use. Ten (10) of these HOAs, which contain approximately 639 residential units, have CC&Rs that allow short-term rental use. As individual short-term rental owners apply for the permit, the City verifies if their CC&Rs allow the short-term rental use. The City has stated that they opted to include the HOA’s allowance for these rentals in response to the highly contentious nature of this issue which was brought forward to the Planning Commission and the City Council at numerous public meetings over a period of years. The testimony received was split between support and opposition. The City has decided to not be an arbitrator in disputes between the individual home owners and their HOAs. Therefore, per the City’s code, if an HOA prohibits this use as part of their CC&R, the City cannot issue the short-term rental permit and cannot intervene in that it involves private property rights and not zoning. The City of Dana Point has approximately 13 hotels in the coastal zone of varying ranges of affordability with a total approximate number of 1,781 units. In addition, the Doheny State Beach Campgrounds that is also located in the City of Dana Point offers 113 campsites. Therefore, while some of the HOAs found within the coastal zone do not allow short-term rentals, the City of Dana Point does provide a large number of opportunities for visitor-serving overnight accommodations, and the IP Amendment to allow short-term rentals provides an additional number of visitor-serving overnight accommodation use that gives the public an opportunity to visit and enjoy the coast. The opportunity to rent residences within California’s coastal communities represents one way in which the general public enjoys the coast. In some instances, residential short-term rentals may provide a lower cost alternative to renting hotel or motel rooms for large families or groups of individuals. In all cases, short-term rentals increase the range of options available to coastal visitors. As discussed previously, the City states that Chapter 5.38 of the City’s Municipal Code that lays out the procedure on how to obtain a short-term rental permit is not being included as part of the IP Amendment, as submitted. This exclusion raises a concern since if Chapter 5.38 is not included as part of the IP, then any potential changes to this Municipal Code may result in limiting, modifying or prohibiting short-term rentals in the coastal zone could occur and not be required to be reviewed as a potential LCP Amendment to determines its consistency with the City’s certified LCPs. The lack of such provisions could potentially result in actions modifying the short-term rental permit procedures which would adversely impact the general public opportunity to access the coast by staying at these short-term rental facilities in the coastal zone and would be inconsistent with the public access and visitor-serving overnight accommodation policies in both of the Certified LCPs. In order to adequately carry out the protect public access and to protect and encourage visitor-serving overnight accommodations, Chapter 5.38 of the Municipal Code must be included in the IPs. As modified to 80 include Chapter 5.38 of the Municipal Code in the IPs, the City’s proposed LCP Amendment would adequately carry out the public access and visitor-serving overnight accommodation policies. D. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) Section 21080.9 of the California Public Resources Code – within the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) - exempts local governments from the requirement of preparing an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) in connection with its activities and approvals necessary for the preparation and adoption of an LCP. The Commission’s LCP review and approval program has been found by the Resources Agency to be functionally equivalent to the EIR process. Thus, under Section 21080.5 of CEQA, the Commission is relieved of the responsibility to prepare an EIR for each LCP. Nevertheless, the Commission is required in approving an LCP submittal to find that the LCP does conform with the provisions of CEQA, including the requirement in CEQA section 21080.5(d)(2)(A) that the amended LCP will not be approved or adopted as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen any significant adverse impact which the activity may have on the environment. 14 C.C.R. Sections 13542(a), 13540(f), and 13555(b). The City of Dana Point LCP Amendment No. 1-14 consists of an amendment to the Implementation Plan (IP) for the ‘1996’ LCP, and the Dana Point Specific Plan Local Coastal Program Implementation Plan (IP) (‘1986’ LCP). As outlined in this staff report, the proposed IP Amendment if modified as suggested will be consistent with the policies of the LUPs. Thus, the Commission finds that the IP Amendment, if modified as suggested, is in conformity with and adequate to carry out the land use policies of the certified LUPs. Therefore, the Commission finds that approval of the LCP Amendment as modified will not result in significant adverse environmental impacts under the meaning of CEQA. Therefore, the Commission certifies LCP Amendment request No. 1-14 if modified as suggested herein. 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 1 Yu-Ying Ting From:Yu-Ying Ting Sent:Thursday, April 07, 2016 5:32 PM To:Kim Chafin Subject:FW: “Short Term Vacation Rentals” - Planning Commission Meeting April 19, 2016     From: Elaine Doerfling Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2016 5:31 PM To: Yu-Ying Ting Cc: Ken Robertson Subject: FW: “Short Term Vacation Rentals” - Planning Commission Meeting April 19, 2016 For next PC mtg. From: Ed Kushins [mailto:ed@homeexchange.com] Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2016 12:18 PM To: Kent Allen; Peter Hoffman; Mike Flaherty; Marie Rice; Rob Saemann; Mayor Carolyn Petty; Hany Fangary; Jeff Duclos; Justin Massey; Stacey Armato; Elaine Doerfling Subject: “Short Term Vacation Rentals” - Planning Commission Meeting April 19, 2016 Ed Kushins 45 16th Street Hermosa Beach, Calif. 90254 USA 310.345.3562 (Cell) 310.798.3865 (Fax) Ed@HomeExchange.com April 7, 2016 “Short Term Vacation Rentals” Please include this letter in the Agenda and Minutes of the April 19 Hermosa Beach Planning Commission Meeting Hermosa Beach Planning Commission Kent Allen kentjallen@gmail.com Peter Hoffman phoffman@lmu.edu Michael Flaherty mikeflaherty2010@gmail.com Marie Rice marierice@gmail.com Rob Saemann rsgc1@aol.com Hermosa Beach City Council Carolyn Petty cpetty@hermosabch.org Hany Fangary hfangary@hermosabch.org Jeff Duclos jduclos@hermosabch.org Justin Massey Jmassey@hermosabch.org 108 2 Stacey Armato sarmato@hermosabch.org Elaine Doerfling edoerfling@hermosabch.org The Hermosa Beach Planning Commission recommendation regarding “Short Term Vacation Rentals” is an issue that has emotionally charged proponents and opponents on both sides because of its far reaching financial and neighborhood implications. It is in everyone’s interest to clarify the definition of “Rental” in "Short Term Vacation Rental". Municipalities (including Manhattan Beach and San Diego) have agreed that invited guests are very different than someone paying rent and should not be included in any restrictions directed at “short term vacation rentals”. The issue is very important to me and the 20 other HomeExchange Members in Hermosa Beach. We don’t want to be painted with the same brush as “vacation rentals” and find we have been regulated out of sharing our homes with invited guests. We offer hospitality to invited guests, no money changes hands. We do NOT rent out our homes to unvetted strangers. We therefore request that the following language be considered in any Ordinance or restriction: “Short Term Vacation Rentals” shall not preclude “invited guests”, defined as “family, friend(s) or acquaintance(s) of tenant/owner visiting or occupying the premises at the specific invitation of the tenant/owner without payment of rent. The definition of “rentals” shall not apply to “invited guests” or “home exchange” where no money changes hands. I'm a Hermosa resident since 1977... on 31st St. until 1988 and on 16th St. since then. Even though I own 4 Hermosa beach rental units from which I could profit greatly if I turned them into short term rentals, I don’t. They are legal, long term rentals. My company, HomeExchange.com, is a local Hermosa Beach business, founded here in 1992 and still headquartered on 16th St. Our business is as quiet as our Members. We have over 65,000 Members in over 150 countries who have hosted others over 1 million times. Last year my wife Terry and I hosted home exchange guests twice in our 16th St. home, about usual for us. Our neighbors, if they are aware of them, welcome them to the neighborhood  Home exchangers offer hospitality to others they have met on our online Club site, usually 1- 2 times per year for a period ranging from a weekend to a couple of weeks, often hospitality without reciprocation. There’s not an endless stream of people every week or weekend. There is no “book now” provision where you have no idea who or how many people will be staying in your home. In fact, many home exchangers build long lasting friendships.  “Vacation renters” have commercial relationships with their “landlords”. “Home exchangers” are merely providing mutual hospitality to invited guests, and in many cases non-reciprocal hospitality. We host invited guests who cannot be differentiated from your brother, sorority sister, a family from London you met through Rotary, or friends from work.  Home exchangers are not absentee landlords re-purposing their properties, who are not concerned about their renters' conduct, bringing in streams of unvetted groups.  Home exchangers have a fundamentally different relationship than vacation renters and, as such, the impact on local region is next to immaterial or positive in all cases. “Home exchange” does not have any of the characteristics of a “bad rental” and should not be lumped with or restricted in any way the same as vacation rentals. Here are a few key distinctions of home exchange from vacation rentals: There are “good” rentals and there are “bad” rentals, the facts and circumstances of defining the difference varies by the make-up of each region. 109 3 Cities are struggling how to differentiate, monitor and control rentals. In the LA Times September 3, 2015, Emily Alpert Reyes did a good job of summarizing the challenge cities face as they struggle with the “AirBnB problem”. See “Spurred on by conflict over Airbnb, L.A. struggles to define 'bad' short-term rentals.” http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me- airbnb-tension-20150903-story.html  I feel that I have been a good neighbor, that my home exchange guests have been good visitors to Hermosa and that they reflect the conduct of other home exchangers in our club.  I have already been asked by some of the 20 home exchangers in Hermosa Beach if the proposed ban on short term rentals will affect them. I’d like to be able to tell them they are not affected by the proposed restrictions since they are not "renting" as no money changes hands, there is no financial transaction.  I'd be happy to introduce you to Hermosa Beach home exchangers and neighbors of HB home exchangers... I don't think you'd hear any complaints about them or their guests.  Even the Swiss Hotel Association (HotellerieSuisse) says "Home Exchange offers non commercial exchanges which are an addition to the classic offer. It’s an opportunity to attract tourists who wouldn’t otherwise come to Switzerland (Beat Waldmeier, Projektleiter Kommunikation. Tribune de Geneve August 27, 2015). I am always available to discuss this issue with Members of the Planning Commission, City Council or the residents of Hermosa Beach. Respectfully submitted, Ed Kushins 45 16th St. Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 310.345.3562 Ed@HomeExchange.com -- Ed Kushins CEO HomeExchange.com -------------------------------------- Email: Ed@HomeExchange.com Phone: +1.310.798.3864 Facebook | Twitter | Explore "Make Yourself at Home - Anywhere in the World" "Best Website for Booking Your Stay" - USA Today’s 10Best 110 1 Yu-Ying Ting From:Marie Rice <marierice@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, April 07, 2016 5:08 PM To:Kim Chafin Subject:Fwd: Short Term Rentals in Hermosa Beach Attachments:Airbnb Bonnie.docx Not sure if you were cc'd on this letter. Thanks, Marie ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Joshua Friedrich <joshuafriedrich13@gmail.com> Date: Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 4:15 PM Subject: Short Term Rentals in Hermosa Beach To: marierice@gmail.com 31 March 2016 Dear Member of the Hermosa Beach Planning Commission, My name is Joshua Friedrich and I am born and raised in Hermosa Beach. I would like to take the opportunity to write to you on behalf of short term rentals in Hermosa Beach. I know that, increasingly, short term rentals have become a lightning rod for debate in the beach communities, with some who believe that short term renting is synonymous with raucous, Dionysian orgies that rage through the night, and others who attest that each time they open their home to a stranger they make a new friend for life and extend our brotherhood of man. I would argue that the truth, as always, is somewhere in the middle, though my experience as both a traveler and as host far more resembles the latter than the former. I feel that if we ban short term rentals without considering middle ground solutions, or fully analyzing the unintended consequences, we will essentially “throw the baby out with the bathwater”. My first experience with home sharing was in April of 2014, when my roommate at the time was offered a lucrative job in Santa Barbara and needed to move out immediately. I was caught off guard, and given the demands of my job, didn’t have much time for vetting potential roommates. Rent is increasingly rich in Hermosa, and so I couldn’t afford to delay on finding a roommate. After a fruitless search on Craigslist, I decided to give home sharing a try, and listed my extra bedroom. I ended up renting to a man from Boston named Joe, who already had a job lined up in El Segundo, but needed a place for him and his dog Sophie to stay while he found permanent residence. Joe and I became fast friends, and he now lives locally and we remain in contact. Since then, I have used short term rental listings to fill the gaps between roommates, which allowed me to be more selective of a quality roommate who would appreciate the space and this town, and alleviate the stress of filling a room immediately just to make rent. Home sharing has afforded my girlfriend and I the opportunity to travel to visit her elderly grandmother in Germany, a last visit with family that would have been financially impossible has we not been able to fill my place during this absence. 2 years after my first guest, I 111 2 have had the great pleasure of welcoming folks from all over the globe, most of whom are of exceptional quality as guests and as visitors to our great town. I am honored to act as a host and ambassador to the beach, and highly value my experience as a home sharer. When I heard that the planning commission was going to take short term rental regulation and/or ban into consideration, I knew that I had to become involved. I can’t say that politics is a passion of mine, and despite teaching high school math locally for 10 years, I am still hesitant to speak in public. But I put my reservations aside because I am a true believer in the sharing economy. I was eager to learn more about the process, and had reached out to local leaders in the community to get their thoughts. I began watching council meetings online and was heartened by the fact that most council members seemed to understand that short term rentals are a complex issue, and that a nuanced approach that would benefit all members of the community, and not simply a vocal few, would be prudent. I began educating myself on local ordinance, researched what other municipalities have tried, both successfully and unsuccessfully, and reached out to some other home sharers. It seemed obvious to me, that the debate raged over the difference between what the newspapers were calling “home sharers” and “rogue hotels”. Listening to members of the community, it became clear, that both “sides of the aisle” so to speak, were so much closer to consensus than they even realized. I was sympathetic to stories of raging strand parties and drunken debauchery from 1 night renters who clearly were just passers by, letting loose in our home town. I can’t say that I was surprised, as anybody who has lived at the beach long enough can attest to, parties are a way of life here. However, it was clear to anyone listening that this type of practice was not in the spirit of home sharing, and did not even come close to my experience as a host. Your average host is not speculator, and your average guest is not a drunken frat boy. The vast majority of my guests, in fact, are families and business travelers. Anyone who hosts their own home knows better than to rent out their home for a single night to a large group, if not for potential complaints from the neighbors then for preservation of your home. When it was my turn to speak, I highlighted many of the experiences I have mentioned in this letter. I know that the planning commission is probably more interested in metrics that describe increased commerce and activity, but I used my 3 minutes to speak from the heart. I suggested that a regulation that kept home sharing at a minimum number of days, even an extremely conservative number, would not only allow local residents to have flexibility in their lives at a time when more and more people can work from a computer on a trip, or perhaps could use a little bit of extra money to cover the rent or mortgage, but it would also make speculation from “de facto hotel” providers economically unfeasible. I calculated that at a $2000 per month rent for 2 bedrooms (extremely conservative estimate FYI), rented out at $100/night, after taxes and fees it would require 330 days of operation during the year to make a profit. And that doesn’t include cleaning, the time in between guests, or any other amenities whatsoever. And even if you did this, where would you live? If the city allowed people a maximum of only 100 days a year to home share, who could complain except for speculators? Who can afford to leave their home for 100 days? I have 2 months off for summer vacation, and I can only manage a couple dozen days for the entire year, but let me tell you, those 2 dozen or so days makes a huge difference when you don’t get a paycheck in the summer months. And so I said my piece at the meeting, and waited and listened to the other speakers until about 930pm, when I went home to prepare for the next workday and finish the meeting online. I was extremely surprised to see the commission advising a ban on all short term rentals, and beginning to put a timeline on it. Was I not at the same meeting? I tallied every speaker, pro vs con, and found it to be well balanced. I re watched the tape, as at 8pm, there were multiple bullet points about how the commission might go about obtaining feedback from the community and getting authentic engagement from members of the community. These points included: town hall style meetings, surveys to the community, a potential ballot initiative. And yet, 2 hours after displaying these bullet points, without any real debate, without any true discussion of middle ground solutions or even correspondence with Airbnb, VRBO, etc… on how to regulate and collect TOT, the full ban had somehow 112 3 gained its full momentum. This to me, does not seem like real community engagement, nor was it in the spirit of the proposed bullet points from less than 2 hours earlier. In my humble opinion, the commission is essentially advising a hammer for a job that requires a scalpel. I have included in this email, several links to sites which highlight how short term rentals actually complement hotels, rather than harm them, and other links showcasing many of the benefits of home sharing, which include, but are not limited to increased commerce and increased quality of life for many residents. I am certain that the planning commission is familiar with many of the analytics, as I’m sure short term rental advocacy groups have pointed them in the direction of these numbers. After all, you don’t need hard numbers to know that a visitor is going to spend much more generously at local business and restaurants, but I include them only as a reminder that while bad news travels faster than good news (i.e. neighbor noise complaints), that there are a lot of positives to allowing property owners to use their residence for home sharing. I’ve also included links to flyers created in Austin, Texas and Ranch Mirage, CA, which highlight some of the innovative ways in which cities are using short term rentals to their advantage to collect TOT and licenses from home owners who wish to home share. I hope that the planning commission will remember the residents who have used home sharing responsibly, and not punish everyone for the transgressions of a few. I love Hermosa Beach with all of my heart and feel heavily invested in its future. I have seen a lot of changes over the years, most of which have been met with some level of resistance from residents. But we all know, that the only real constant in life is change, and that we must all adapt or suffer the consequences. The sharing economy is here to stay, and whether cities swim with the tide or against it will hinge upon how open minded they are to coping with change. If you are interested in speaking with me in person, please don't hesitate to call or email. Much respect for all you do for the city of Hermosa Beach. Sincerely, Joshua Friedrich (310)308-5261 P.S. Also attached is a typical testimonial from a guest who, like most guests, rented bikes, dined out and entertained, all in Hermosa Beach Austin STR ordinance http://static1.squarespace.com/static/54e26c75e4b0409b0662eaed/t/55df5a5fe4b0cc963b8f41af/1440 701023668/City+of+Austin+-+STR+Licensing+Program.pdf 113 4 Desert Cities STR Ordinance: http://static1.squarespace.com/static/54e26c75e4b0409b0662eaed/t/55df5a8ae4b00e982a506553/14407010669 91/Rancho+Mirage+Good+Neighbor+Brochure.pdf 114 Josh, I wanted to share wwith you my thoughts on our recent week-long stay at your apartment. When we made plans to visit our son in LA, our first thought turned to Airbnb as we have used this service all over the world with great results. We like the fact that hosts and guests are screened and there is a common shared courtesy throughout the entire process. When I contacted you, I provided information as requested by you and could tell you were discriminating about who you allow to stay in your residence. In turn, we were very impressed with your role as a host. You checked in every day to see how we were doing and did not hesitate to offer suggestions for area restaurants, sights and, of course, beautiful Hermosa Beach which is steps away from your home. We had an incredible time with our whole family choosing to dine in locally owned restaurants, spending time on the beach and even seeing Jay Leno at the comedy club. Home sharing works when done in the right manner. It's not a free-for-all frat party as long as the host and guest understand the guidelines and abide by them. It's a wonderful way for locals to showcase their community and bring extra revenue into the area. A good review on a reputable site like Airbnb attracts more visitors and strengthens the local economy. It would be a shame to ban this alternative form of housing because a few have chosen not to regulate the process. Instead of a ban, I would suggest having people like Josh Friedrich assist with setting up a committe to formulate guidelines for house sharing. Feel free to contact me if you would like to discuss this in greater detail. I hope shared housing remains an option for all future visits to Hermosa Beach. Sincerely, Bonnie Gulko 115 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). 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&amp;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&amp;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 1 Yu-Ying Ting From:David Wolfram <david.wolfram@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, April 19, 2016 5:10 PM To:Peter Hoffman; Kent Allen; Rob Saemann; Marie Rice; Mike Flaherty; City Council; Tom Bakaly; Ken Robertson; Kim Chafin; Elaine Doerfling; Yu-Ying Ting Subject:STR Meeting Planning Commissioners Hoffman, Allen, Saemann, Flaherty and Rice, As a long time Hermosa Beach homeowner, this issue is of great concern to me. I am unable to attend the hearing regarding short term rentals tonight, but urge you to unanimously approve the resolution recommending the City Council adopt the proposed ordinance to ban short term rentals in residential zones. Best regards, David Wolfram 1 Yu-Ying Ting From:Chris Navarro <vaihalen5150@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, April 19, 2016 4:32 PM To:Peter Hoffman; Kent Allen; Rob Saemann; Marie Rice; Mike Flaherty; City Council; Tom Bakaly; Ken Robertson; Kim Chafin; Elaine Doerfling; Yu-Ying Ting Subject:Illegal Short-Term Vacation Rentals Most of you already know the STVR nightmare that exists at 72 The Strand, adjacent residential buildings, and several across the alley because of my numerous complaints, communication and emails. I want to thank whoever it was within the City that is placing official Hermosa Beach notices on 4 units in my building, reminding owners and (illegal) tenants that this address is in a residential zone. Sadly, the notices haven't curbed the illegal activity, not were they distributed to the adjacent buildings where the illegal vacation renters remain in daily evidence, using parking and trash in my building. In addition, once the notices were placed on doors in my building, owners conducting illegal STVRs attempted retaliation toward me. It would be an extreme travesty and hardship to allow STVRs to continue, especially in this densely-populated section of Hermosa Beach. There are 12 units illegally rented as short-term vacation rentals within 100 feet of my front door, where every night is a party, with excessive amounts of people (6 to 10 people in 2 bedroom, 1 1/2 bath dwellings) not intended to be 24 x 7 residences (with this amount of people), with check-ins and check-outs at all hours. Please accept this email, once again, as my official communication AGAINST short-term vacation rentals being allowed in Hermosa Beach. I'm counting on you to uphold the law, reaffirm your last 5-0 Planning Commission vote to maintain the law banning STVRs, and to recommend implementing an effective penalty of (at least) $1,000 per day for those in violation. Thank You, Chris Navarro Hermosa Beach 1 Yu-Ying Ting From:Gallery <debbie@davidrossgallery.com> Sent:Tuesday, April 19, 2016 4:26 PM To:Peter Hoffman; Kent Allen; Rob Saemann; Marie Rice; Mike Flaherty; City Council; Tom Bakaly; Ken Robertson; Kim Chafin; Elaine Doerfling; Yu-Ying Ting Subject:Please maintain the ban on STVRs in Hermosa Beach         Dear Planning Commissioners Hoffman, Allen, Saemann, Flaherty and Rice,    I am unable to attend the hearing regarding short term rentals tonight, but urge you to unanimously approve the  resolution recommending the City Council adopt the proposed ordinance to ban short term rentals in residential zones.    In 1995, I bought a home in a residential neighborhood which explicitly banned short term rentals of less than 30 days. I  don't see why the City would effectively turn my home into a commercial hotel zone because a few people want to  profit from a commercial venture. This is clearly a zoning change for all of us without our consent or any compensation  to each homeowner whose property rights will be taken from them.    Can I now start running a restaurant out of my kitchen because I have extra space? Or can my husband start running an  auto repair shop out of our garage to make a few extra dollars? There is a reason we have zoning laws, to preserve the  nature and legal uses of the homes we all originally purchased.    Allowing short term rentals would allow the party atmosphere of the Pier to flow into all of our neighborhoods. That  bachelorette party or superbowl party six feet from our bedroom window will destroy our quiet enjoyment and daily use  of our home. The pro‐ STVR's response to call the police for noise problems doesn't solve the daily frustrations this will  bring to homeowners who bought homes, not hotels. Nor is it a reasonable use of our police force.     The daily stress of wondering each day what new tenant will roll in next door and whether or not: we will be able to  sleep; my daughter can safely play in our driveway shared with the drunken frat dudes;  or I can safely back out my car  through their illegal parking etc., will create a daily nuisance, if not a nightmare.    STVR's are asking you to take something away from each homeowner and long term renter and transfer our peace and  quiet into their pockets, all for some extra cash. Please don't do this to our fabulous little town.    Best regards,    Debbie Sanowski  Third Street, HB        The Travel Technology Association April 19, 2016 Hermosa Beach City Council 1315 Valley Beach Drive Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Dear Hermosa Beach City Council, The Travel Technology Association, or Travel Tech, as we are known, is the trade association for online travel companies, global distribution systems and short-term rental platforms. Our members include well-know short-term rental companies such as Expedia/Homeaway, TripAdvisor/FlipKey, and Airbnb. Short-term rental technology companies have created a vibrant marketplace for travelers and property owners, expanding the travel landscape by offering alternative accommodations and providing economic benefits to communities around the world. We believe the Hermosa Beach City Council should consider policies that would formalize and legalize short-term rentals in the city, allowing both travelers and residents the ability to experience all the benefits that short- term rentals have to offer. Travel Tech encourages the Council to recognize short-term rentals and formalize regulations that legalize short-term rentals in all areas, not just those zoned for commercial use. After all, the California Coastal Commission and numerous courts have recognized short-term rentals as a residential use. Therefore, confining short-term rentals to only commercially zoned areas contradicts not just the very nature of the practice, but one of the most cited reasons that travelers opt for short-term rentals: to live like a local. Travel Tech believes that owners, property managers, or hosts should be required to obey local regulations for short-term rentals, as well as collect and remit the applicable local taxes. However, regulations and requirements must be reasonable, affordable, and easy to comply with so that those interested in renting their property can easily understand and follow the regulations. Expensive, onerous, and complicated regulatory and taxation schemes will only be a deterrent, and making the process easy and reasonable will result in higher compliance, leading to greater benefits for travelers, residents, and the city. At the heart of successful short-term rental regulation is an equal playing field that does not discriminate between the renting of a primary or owner-occupied residence and a secondary residence or traditional vacation rental. Cities should adopt sensible regulations that apply to all short-term rentals equally, so that travelers, owners, hosts, and property managers, the city and the surrounding community can all benefit from the fantastic economic opportunity short-term rentals provide. Subsequently, travelers seeking alternative accommodations to traditional hotels should continue to see Hermosa Beach as a viable travel destination willing to offer travelers and their families, choices when it comes to accommodations. The Travel Technology Association While short-term rental legality is currently in question in Hermosa Beach, to date the community continues to derive a very real economic benefit from the presence of short-term rentals and the travelers who occupy them. Quite simply, it is the difference between living like a local or just visiting. Travelers rely on short-term rentals for various reasons, including the need to accommodate larger families that would otherwise require multiple hotel rooms, travelers with special needs or special needs children, or simply a desire for more lengthy affordable stays. Regardless of the reason travelers choose short-term rentals, numerous studies have shown that those in short-term rentals stay longer and spend more money during their travel versus hotel stays. Municipalities, including Hermosa Beach, should embrace this opportunity rather than stifle it. We encourage the Hermosa Beach City Council to work toward developing sensible short-term rental regulations that do not limit short-term rentals to commercially zoned areas, and can be easily complied with by renters and operators. If regulations are enacted in this regard, the city and surrounding communities have much to gain. Should Hermosa Beach fail to address this issue or seek to enact regulations that hamper the widely recognized advantages of short-term rentals, it would represent a missed opportunity to position the city’s travel industry for a bright future. The Travel Technology Association is available to the City as a resource as you continue to develop short-term rental policies. We look forward to having the opportunity to work with you and hope that the Council will work to develop a public policy solution that recognizes the value of short-term rentals to Hermosa Beach. Sincerely, Matthew Kiessling The Travel Technology Association 1 Yu-Ying Ting From:James McKinnell <dr.mckinnell@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, April 18, 2016 5:47 AM To:Rob McGarry Cc:Peter Hoffman; Kent Allen; Rob Saemann; Marie Rice; Mike Flaherty; City Council; Tom Bakaly; Ken Robertson; Kim Chafin; Elaine Doerfling; Yu-Ying Ting Subject:Re: short term rental enforcement Dear City Council and Planning Commission members,    I am a homeowner in Hermosa Beach and I would like to voice my support for Mr. McGarry's commentary.    Short term visitors can create a burden, through noise and behavioral disturbances.  Our local hotels have people on  staff to handle these issues.  I do not want to have to be responsible for policing these issues near my home.  I depend  on the planning commission to drive the short term renters to appropriate areas in our community.    Furthermore, I want my neighborhood to remain a community, not an investment vehicle for profiteers. I depend on the  city planning commission to keep our city a community.    Please do your part to enforce the reasonable short term rental limitations currently in place for Hermosa.    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=ascendin g    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    On Apr 17, 2016, at 11:36 PM, Rob McGarry <rob@beachhomebroker.com> wrote:  2 Dear City Council and Planning Commission members,     My name is Rob McGarry. I am a Hermosa homeowner, Hermosa based real estate broker and Hermosa  rental property owner.  I am writing to you to share some thoughts on short term rentals as I will not be  able to attend the meeting on Tuesday night.     For starters, I am thrilled that there is momentum AGAINST short term/vacation rentals in Hermosa  Beach within the council and planning commission.  The fact that they have been tolerated for years is  unfortunate, but this is an opportunity to change that.  Our town is too small and has become so family  centered that it would be a mistake to turn it into another Mission Beach (San Diego).  We have the  opportunity to preserve something great.  Our community is cohesive and close‐knit, and it would be a  tragedy to lose that.  As a testament to that, just look at who is coming out to support and oppose  vacation rentals.  The residents and homeowners don’t want it.  As a local business owner, specifically in  real estate, I don’t want it either.  We do not need to turn every other home into an unregulated one‐ room hotel.  Nobody monitors who rents these homes, and the complaints far outnumber the  praises.  In contrast, the support is coming from people who solely want to profit from our tiny  town.  They don’t live here, nor do they care about the harm they inflict on our community and its  resources.       My understanding is that rentals of less than 30 days have been prohibited for years, but it’s never been  properly enforced.  It’s time to change that.  The fines and penalties need to be HUGE and they need to  be enforced.  In the short term, it may even be a profit center for the city.  Turning a blind eye will only  allow them to continue in a grey market.  There are services that will monitor and enforce these laws,  and we should use all the resources we can to make sure we stay vacation rental free.       From a real estate perspective, vacation rentals will not create better neighborhoods.  The owners rarely  care about the impact on the city; they are solely for profit.  It also doesn’t help our local buyers who  want to make Hermosa their permanent home.  I can’t even count the number of my own buyers who  have lost out to vacation rental buyers in the last few years (Hermosa and Manhattan). There is a trend  of buying homes and renting them short‐term and it has to stop.  The most effective way is to nip it at  the advertising.  If it’s illegal to advertise and it’s illegal to rent less than 30 days, it will be much easier  and far more effective to enforce.       I encourage you to make the right decision for our small town and eliminate vacation rentals by creating  stiff penalties and an enforcement program that will work.     Sincerely,     Rob McGarry  REALTOR, Broker Associate  BRE License #01356525  Vista | Sotheby's International Realty  direct line: (310) 463‐8488  direct fax: (310) 868‐0655  Rob@BeachHomeBroker.com     www.BeachHomeBroker.com     Free MLS access at http://MLS.BeachHomeBroker.com     1 Yu-Ying Ting From:Rob McGarry <rob@beachhomebroker.com> Sent:Sunday, April 17, 2016 8:37 PM To:Peter Hoffman; Kent Allen; Rob Saemann; Marie Rice; Mike Flaherty; City Council; Tom Bakaly; Ken Robertson; Kim Chafin; Elaine Doerfling; Yu-Ying Ting Subject:short term rental enforcement Dear City Council and Planning Commission members,    My name is Rob McGarry. I am a Hermosa homeowner, Hermosa based real estate broker and Hermosa rental property  owner.  I am writing to you to share some thoughts on short term rentals as I will not be able to attend the meeting on  Tuesday night.    For starters, I am thrilled that there is momentum AGAINST short term/vacation rentals in Hermosa Beach within the  council and planning commission.  The fact that they have been tolerated for years is unfortunate, but this is an  opportunity to change that.  Our town is too small and has become so family centered that it would be a mistake to turn  it into another Mission Beach (San Diego).  We have the opportunity to preserve something great.  Our community is  cohesive and close‐knit, and it would be a tragedy to lose that.  As a testament to that, just look at who is coming out to  support and oppose vacation rentals.  The residents and homeowners don’t want it.  As a local business owner,  specifically in real estate, I don’t want it either.  We do not need to turn every other home into an unregulated one‐ room hotel.  Nobody monitors who rents these homes, and the complaints far outnumber the praises.  In contrast, the  support is coming from people who solely want to profit from our tiny town.  They don’t live here, nor do they care  about the harm they inflict on our community and its resources.      My understanding is that rentals of less than 30 days have been prohibited for years, but it’s never been properly  enforced.  It’s time to change that.  The fines and penalties need to be HUGE and they need to be enforced.  In the short  term, it may even be a profit center for the city.  Turning a blind eye will only allow them to continue in a grey  market.  There are services that will monitor and enforce these laws, and we should use all the resources we can to  make sure we stay vacation rental free.      From a real estate perspective, vacation rentals will not create better neighborhoods.  The owners rarely care about the  impact on the city; they are solely for profit.  It also doesn’t help our local buyers who want to make Hermosa their  permanent home.  I can’t even count the number of my own buyers who have lost out to vacation rental buyers in the  last few years (Hermosa and Manhattan). There is a trend of buying homes and renting them short‐term and it has to  stop.  The most effective way is to nip it at the advertising.  If it’s illegal to advertise and it’s illegal to rent less than 30  days, it will be much easier and far more effective to enforce.      I encourage you to make the right decision for our small town and eliminate vacation rentals by creating stiff penalties  and an enforcement program that will work.    Sincerely,    Rob McGarry  REALTOR, Broker Associate  BRE License #01356525  Vista | Sotheby's International Realty  direct line: (310) 463‐8488  direct fax: (310) 868‐0655  Rob@BeachHomeBroker.com  2   www.BeachHomeBroker.com    Free MLS access at http://MLS.BeachHomeBroker.com    1 Yu-Ying Ting From:Elaine Doerfling Sent:Sunday, April 17, 2016 4:58 PM To:Yu-Ying Ting Subject:FW: “Short Term Vacation Rentals” - Planning Commission Meeting April 19, 2016 Supplemental for PC meeting From: Ed Kushins [mailto:ed@homeexchange.com] Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2016 8:25 AM To: Kent Allen; Peter Hoffman; Mike Flaherty; Marie Rice; Rob Saemann; Mayor Carolyn Petty; Hany Fangary; Jeff Duclos; Justin Massey; Stacey Armato; Elaine Doerfling Cc: Jim Pickell; Peter Anton; Terry Hamilton Subject: Re: “Short Term Vacation Rentals” - Planning Commission Meeting April 19, 2016 Dear all, Further to my prior email, you may be interested in this April 15 article from the LA Times "L.A. plan would demand Airbnb hand over information so city can track down illegal rentals". Of special interest to me and my request at the April 19 Planning Commission meeting is this quote: "Critics—including housing activists and hotel worker unions —complain they have disrupted neighborhoods and pulled needed housing off the market. However, those critics largely have focused their ire on commercial operators renting out a string of homes or apartments nonstop, not people offering up a spare bedroom from time to time. Bonin said the proposal targets those “de facto hotels” while allowing “genuine home-sharing.” I hope you agree this supports my request that the Commission clarify that invited guests and home exchange are not included in the proposed restriction. Thank you for your consideration, Ed Kushins 45 16th St. Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 310.345.3562 Ed@HomeExchange.com On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 12:18 PM, Ed Kushins <ed@homeexchange.com> wrote: Ed Kushins 45 16th Street Hermosa Beach, Calif. 90254 USA 310.345.3562 (Cell) 310.798.3865 (Fax) Ed@HomeExchange.com April 7, 2016 “Short Term Vacation Rentals” 2 Please include this letter in the Agenda and Minutes of the April 19 Hermosa Beach Planning Commission Meeting Hermosa Beach Planning Commission Kent Allen kentjallen@gmail.com Peter Hoffman phoffman@lmu.edu Michael Flaherty mikeflaherty2010@gmail.com Marie Rice marierice@gmail.com Rob Saemann rsgc1@aol.com Hermosa Beach City Council Carolyn Petty cpetty@hermosabch.org Hany Fangary hfangary@hermosabch.org Jeff Duclos jduclos@hermosabch.org Justin Massey Jmassey@hermosabch.org Stacey Armato sarmato@hermosabch.org Elaine Doerfling edoerfling@hermosabch.org The Hermosa Beach Planning Commission recommendation regarding “Short Term Vacation Rentals” is an issue that has emotionally charged proponents and opponents on both sides because of its far reaching financial and neighborhood implications. It is in everyone’s interest to clarify the definition of “Rental” in "Short Term Vacation Rental". Municipalities (including Manhattan Beach and San Diego) have agreed that invited guests are very different than someone paying rent and should not be included in any restrictions directed at “short term vacation rentals”. The issue is very important to me and the 20 other HomeExchange Members in Hermosa Beach. We don’t want to be painted with the same brush as “vacation rentals” and find we have been regulated out of sharing our homes with invited guests. We offer hospitality to invited guests, no money changes hands. We do NOT rent out our homes to unvetted strangers. We therefore request that the following language be considered in any Ordinance or restriction: “Short Term Vacation Rentals” shall not preclude “invited guests”, defined as “family, friend(s) or acquaintance(s) of tenant/owner visiting or occupying the premises at the specific invitation of the tenant/owner without payment of rent. The definition of “rentals” shall not apply to “invited guests” or “home exchange” where no money changes hands. I'm a Hermosa resident since 1977... on 31st St. until 1988 and on 16th St. since then. Even though I own 4 Hermosa beach rental units from which I could profit greatly if I turned them into short term rentals, I don’t. They are legal, long term rentals. My company, HomeExchange.com, is a local Hermosa Beach business, founded here in 1992 and still headquartered on 16th St. Our business is as quiet as our Members. We have over 65,000 Members in over 150 countries who have hosted others over 1 million times. Last year my wife Terry and I hosted home exchange guests twice in our 16th St. home, about usual for us. Our neighbors, if they are aware of them, welcome them to the neighborhood 3  Home exchangers offer hospitality to others they have met on our online Club site, usually 1-2 times per year for a period ranging from a weekend to a couple of weeks, often hospitality without reciprocation. There’s not an endless stream of people every week or weekend. There is no “book now” provision where you have no idea who or how many people will be staying in your home. In fact, many home exchangers build long lasting friendships.  “Vacation renters” have commercial relationships with their “landlords”. “Home exchangers” are merely providing mutual hospitality to invited guests, and in many cases non-reciprocal hospitality. We host invited guests who cannot be differentiated from your brother, sorority sister, a family from London you met through Rotary, or friends from work.  Home exchangers are not absentee landlords re-purposing their properties, who are not concerned about their renters' conduct, bringing in streams of unvetted groups.  Home exchangers have a fundamentally different relationship than vacation renters and, as such, the impact on local region is next to immaterial or positive in all cases. “Home exchange” does not have any of the characteristics of a “bad rental” and should not be lumped with or restricted in any way the same as vacation rentals. Here are a few key distinctions of home exchange from vacation rentals: There are “good” rentals and there are “bad” rentals, the facts and circumstances of defining the difference varies by the make-up of each region. Cities are struggling how to differentiate, monitor and control rentals. In the LA Times September 3, 2015, Emily Alpert Reyes did a good job of summarizing the challenge cities face as they struggle with the “AirBnB problem”. See “Spurred on by conflict over Airbnb, L.A. struggles to define 'bad' short-term rentals.” http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me- airbnb-tension-20150903-story.html  I feel that I have been a good neighbor, that my home exchange guests have been good visitors to Hermosa and that they reflect the conduct of other home exchangers in our club.  I have already been asked by some of the 20 home exchangers in Hermosa Beach if the proposed ban on short term rentals will affect them. I’d like to be able to tell them they are not affected by the proposed restrictions since they are not "renting" as no money changes hands, there is no financial transaction.  I'd be happy to introduce you to Hermosa Beach home exchangers and neighbors of HB home exchangers... I don't think you'd hear any complaints about them or their guests.  Even the Swiss Hotel Association (HotellerieSuisse) says "Home Exchange offers non commercial exchanges which are an addition to the classic offer. It’s an opportunity to attract tourists who wouldn’t otherwise come to Switzerland (Beat Waldmeier, Projektleiter Kommunikation. Tribune de Geneve August 27, 2015). I am always available to discuss this issue with Members of the Planning Commission, City Council or the residents of Hermosa Beach. Respectfully submitted, Ed Kushins 45 16th St. Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 310.345.3562 Ed@HomeExchange.com -- 4 Ed Kushins CEO HomeExchange.com -------------------------------------- Email: Ed@HomeExchange.com Phone: +1.310.798.3864 Facebook | Twitter | Explore "Make Yourself at Home - Anywhere in the World" "Best Website for Booking Your Stay" - USA Today’s 10Best -- Ed Kushins CEO HomeExchange.com -------------------------------------- Email: Ed@HomeExchange.com Phone: +1.310.798.3864 Facebook | Twitter | Explore "Make Yourself at Home - Anywhere in the World" "Best Website for Booking Your Stay" - USA Today’s 10Best 1 Yu-Ying Ting From:Kim Chafin Sent:Monday, April 18, 2016 10:05 AM To:Stacey Armato Cc:Marie Rice; Yu-Ying Ting Subject:RE: Stvr in la times Thanks, Stacey!  Yu‐Ying, please print article and add to the list of supplemental materials regarding STVRs for PC 4‐19.  Thanks, Yu‐Ying!    Kim Chafin, AICP, LEED-AP  Senior Planner, Community Development Department  City of Hermosa Beach  (310) 318-0240        From: Stacey Armato [mailto:staceyarmato@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2016 5:57 AM To: Kim Chafin Cc: Marie Rice Subject: Stvr in la times Interesting article with a few ideas for possible enforcement: http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln- airbnb-law-20160415-story.html Thanks! Stacey Sent from my iPhone R LOCAL / L.A. Now L.A. plan would demand Airbnb hand over information so city can track down illegal rentals By Emily Alpert Reyes •Contact Reporter APRIL 15, 2016, 6:57 PM ules proposed Friday to regulate Airbnb and other vacation-rental websites in Los Angeles could set the stage for a political showdown, with the city seeking information from the companies in order to track down illegal rentals. The plan would empower Los Angeles to fine the online platforms—and the hosts —if they advertised rentals that defied restrictions on where and how often rooms or entire homes could be used for short stays. Dozens of Venice residents and advocates rally on the Venice Boardwalk on Aug. 3, 2015, to call on the Los Angeles City Council to regulate short-term rentals, such as those from Airbnb. (Christina House / For The Times) Page 1 of 4L.A. plan would demand Airbnb hand over information so city can track down illegal rent... 04/18/2016http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-airbnb-law-20160415-story.html The websites also could be fined if they failed to hand over addresses and other information to the city. Airbnb and other companies have been reluctant to share data, including how long travelers had stayed and the price they paid, arguing that doing so would trample on hosts’ privacy rights. The proposed law “takes a step backward, putting consumer privacy at great risk by requiring online platforms to give the government unfettered access to confidential user data without any idea of how that information would be used,” Airbnb spokeswoman Alison Schumer said in a statement. But critics contend that requiring the websites to help find and halt illegal rentals is a crucial step in stopping scofflaws. City Councilman Mike Bonin said that if the companies don’t hand over information, “we’re shooting blind.” “We’re not asking for a ton of deep, personal private information,” Bonin said. “What units are being rented? How often?” The law would allow short-term rentals in Los Angeles but impose several restrictions: People would be able to rent out only their primary residence, defined as the place they live at least six months out of the year. Hosts could rent out only that home, or a room within it, for up to 90 days annually. They would be barred from offering apartments that fall under rent stabilization or affordable- housing covenants, and would have to pay the same kind of lodging taxes as hotels, which would go into a city fund for affordable housing. The plan drew praise Friday from housing and labor advocates worried about how the rise of such rentals has affected housing availability. Roy Samaan, a research and policy analyst with the Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy, called the proposal “a great step forward.” “It allows legitimate home-sharing without displacing rent-controlled tenants,” Samaan said. But the Los Angeles Short Term Rental Alliance — which includes hosts who use Airbnb, HomeAway and other platforms — called the plan overreaching and misguided, saying it would hurt residents who rely on renting out a second home to support their families. Bryce Fujii, an Airbnb host who lives in Canoga Park, said it would be “stifling” to be able to share his home for only up to three months of the year. Renting out a private bedroom has connected Fujii to global travelers and helped him make his mortgage payments, he said. Page 2 of 4L.A. plan would demand Airbnb hand over information so city can track down illegal rent... 04/18/2016http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-airbnb-law-20160415-story.html If L.A. passes the law, “it’s probably the nail in the coffin,” Fujii said. “I will be looking to leave California.” The plan was released after a string of heated public hearings packed with rental hosts, housing advocates and neighborhood activists. As it stands, short-term rentals are illegal in many residential areas of the city, according to a planning department memo. But Los Angeles has struggled to enforce those rules as Airbnb, VRBO and other websites explode in popularity, especially in tourist hot spots such as Venice and Hollywood. Fans say such night-to-night rentals provide an economic lifeline to strapped Angelenos and a way to share a slice of their lives. Critics—including housing activists and hotel worker unions —complain they have disrupted neighborhoods and pulled needed housing off the market. However, those critics largely have focused their ire on commercial operators renting out a string of homes or apartments nonstop, not people offering up a spare bedroom from time to time. Bonin said the proposal targets those “de facto hotels” while allowing “genuine home-sharing.” Several other big cities, including San Francisco and Portland, Ore., already have regulations. Bonin and city planning officials said they had sought to learn from those efforts to make L.A.’s rules as easy as possible to enforce. The proposal hinges on a registration system: Hosts would be given an official number that would have to be displayed in online listings. If they failed to do so, they could be fined —and so could the websites they use. Hosts would be charged at least $200 daily for advertising a rental that lacked a registration number or otherwise broke the rules, while the websites would face fines of $500 a day. Other violations could trigger stiffer fines: Hosts who rented out a room or home beyond the number of days allowed could be docked $2,000 per day. The websites, in turn, could be penalized $1,000 per day for refusing to turn over addresses of rentals that failed to register with the city. Rental websites “say they want to crack down on illegal hotels,” city planner Matt Glesne said. “We’re putting the ball in their court a little bit and saying, ‘How can we work together?’” Angelenos will be able to weigh in on the proposed rules at a May hearing; the city planning commission will take up the proposal in June. If approved, the law would then have to be vetted by the City Council. Page 3 of 4L.A. plan would demand Airbnb hand over information so city can track down illegal rent... 04/18/2016http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-airbnb-law-20160415-story.html Follow @latimesemily for what's happening at Los Angeles City Hall Interested in the stories shaping California? Sign up for the free Essential California newsletter >> ALSO L.A. releases addresses of 13,500 apartments and condos likely to need earthquake retrofitting L.A. council votes to refrain from doing business with North Carolina and Mississippi 'We still suffer' from Manson murders, victim's daughter says in opposing Van Houten parole Copyright © 2016, Los Angeles Times UPDATES 6:57 p.m.: This article was updated with comments from city planner Matt Glesne. 2:29 p.m. This article was updated with comments from an Airbnb spokeswoman and L.A. City Councilman Mike Bonin. This article was originally posted at 12:39 p.m. Page 4 of 4L.A. plan would demand Airbnb hand over information so city can track down illegal rent... 04/18/2016http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-airbnb-law-20160415-story.html March 22, 2016 Honorable Chairman and Members of the Regular Meeting of Hermosa Beach Planning Commission April 19, 2016 SUBJECT: PRECISE DEVELOPMENT PLAN 14-11 APPLICANT: MC GLOBAL BP4 16 WALKABOUT LANE NAPA, CA 94558 REQUEST: TO CONSTRUCT A SUBMARINE FIBER OPTIC CABLE SYSTEM LOCATED ON THE CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY AND CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT. Project Information ZONING: Public Right-of-Way, OS-1 Restricted Open Space and Specific Plan Area No. 8 (Commercial) GENERAL PLAN: Public Right-of Way, Open Space, and Commercial Corridor ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Environmental Impact Report required pursuant to Section 1500 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Recommendation: Certify the Environmental Impact Report, and adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Program and Statement of Overriding Considerations, and approve the Precise Development Plan subject to conditions. Background: MC Global BP4 submitted an application for a Precise Development Plan to the City of Hermosa Beach on June 26, 2014 to install and operate up to four submarine fiber optic cables in the marine waters under the City’s jurisdiction and to install up to two landing sites at four potential landing sites, 1) On the beach at Neptune Avenue, 2) On the beach at 25th Street, 3) On Longfellow Avenue between Hermosa Avenue and Manhattan Avenue, and 4) On 25th Street between Hermosa Avenue and Manhattan Avenue 25th. Additionally, the proposal includes the installation of underground fiber optic cables in the City Greenbelt and other public rights-of-way and on the sea floor beyond the City’s jurisdiction, as well as installation of a single ‘Power Feed Equipment’(PFE) located at 1601 Pacific Coast Highway inside an existing privately owned multi-use commercial building. The City determined that the proposed project had the potential to cause significant adverse effects on the environment and, therefore, determined that the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) would be needed. In April 2015, the City filed a Notice of Preparation (NOP) with the State Clearinghouse in the Office of Planning and 9 2 Research as an indication that a Draft EIR would be prepared. The filing of the NOP initiates a 30-day period during which public and agency input is solicited on the scope of issues that should be addressed in the EIR. As part of the scoping process, public meetings were conducted on April 8, 2015, to present information on the proposed project and receive public input. The Draft EIR was released on January 4, 2016, at which time comments on the Draft EIR were received until February 17, 2016. Additionally, an informational session on the Draft EIR was presented to the Planning Commission at the January 19, 2016 meeting and additional public comment was received. Which can be viewed by clicking the below link: http://hermosabeach.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=6&clip_id=4039 After the close of the public review period for the Draft EIR (Jan. 4 – Feb. 17, 2016), the applicant for the Transpacific Fiber-Optic Cables Project, MC GLOBAL BP4, modified its proposal for implementation of the proposed project. These changes eliminate certain elements of the project and modify the proposed terrestrial cable routes. The project changes include:  The proposed beach cable landing sites at 25th Street and Neptune Avenue have been eliminated. The applicant now only proposes to utilize the street cable landings at 25th Street and Longfellow Avenue. This change eliminates a site that was analyzed in the EIR.  The landing manholes will be located in city street rights-of-way within the area of the street cable landing sites (25th Street and Longfellow Avenue). The landing manholes were originally proposed to be located beneath the beach. These proposed landing sites were analyzed in the EIR.  The project will only utilize one of the original four potential locations for Power Feed Equipment (PFE) facilities. The applicant now proposes to only use the PFE location at 1601 Pacific Coast Highway. The other three potential PFE locations have been eliminated from the applicant’s proposal. All options were analyzed in the EIR and this change narrows the scope of the project to one of the four potential locations.  Because only one PFE facility is now proposed, the terrestrial cable routes leading to the three eliminated PFE locations are no longer needed and have been eliminated from the applicant’s proposal. The applicant now only proposes to install terrestrial cables along the alignments shown on the map (See Attachment 3) Again, all options were analyzed in the EIR and this change narrows the scope of the project to one of the four potential locations.  The alignment of the terrestrial cable connecting the Longfellow Avenue cable landing site to the PFE facility has been modified. Between Ingleside Drive and Manhattan Avenue, the cable is now planned to be placed along 31st Place rather than Longfellow Avenue as previously proposed. Please compare the map on the following page to Final EIR Figure 2-1 to see the changes the terrestrial cable alignments. While the EIR studied a different location, the analysis is applicable to any terrestrial route. 3 In regards to the changes to the scope of the project after the close of the public review period for the Draft EIR, these changes largely clarify the components of the proposed project by eliminating alternative terrestrial routes and landing sites, while maintaining existing components that were analyzed in the EIR. For example, by eliminating the cable landing sites at the beach, direct impacts to the beach, Strand, and beachfront residences would either be avoided or substantially reduced. Similarly, by eliminating most of the potential PFE locations, the amount of terrestrial cable that would need to be installed in streets would be substantially reduced and the impacts associated with installation of those cables would be reduced. The project changes are consistent with alternatives evaluated in the EIR, including elimination of the beach cable landing sites (see Section 4.4.5 of the Final EIR) and reducing the amount of terrestrial cable to be installed (see Section 4.4.4 of the Final EIR). These changes to the proposed project do not necessitate recirculation of the Draft EIR. According to Section 15088.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines, recirculation of a Draft EIR is only required when “significant new information” is added after the close of the public review period, such as identification of a new significant impact or a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact. Regarding the change of the terrestrial alignment of the cable, the EIR has analyzed the general impacts of the installation of the terrestrial cable as opposed to analyzing the impacts to the specific routes. This means that the EIR analysis can be applied to any terrestrial routes, regardless of location, and the impact analysis and conclusions will be generally the same and in this case the EIR found no potential impacts. Additionally, because the project changes eliminate some project elements and make only minor changes to others, the changes would not result in any new significant environmental impacts nor substantially increase the severity of significant impacts described in the Draft EIR. Therefore, a recirculation of the EIR is not necessary. Also, prior to the applicant’s application submittal (June 26, 2014) the City Council entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the applicant regarding the applicant’s use of city property including the granting of an easement and payment terms for the easement (see Attachment 4). Project Description The project consists of the installation and operation of up to four transpacific submarine cable systems, which would connect the United States to various Pacific Rim locations such as Southeast Asia, China, Australia, and Japan. Terrestrial components of the Project would include marine directional bores at the landing locations (25th Street and Longfellow Avenue), buried conduit systems, and a power feed equipment facility (1601 Pacific Coast Highway). The terrestrial conduit systems provide the connections to the main telecommunication interconnection points, and also provide power to the system as supplied from the PFE facilities. Each cable system would entail installing a marine fiber- optic cable system on the sea floor across the Pacific Ocean, landing at one of the two proposed landing sites in the City (25th Street and Longfellow Avenue), and then connecting to the terminal on land at 1601 Pacific Coast Highway. The project would be implemented in four phases consisting of one phase for each of the four cable systems. 4 Phase 1: This cable system would be the first cable to land and would use the 25th Street cable landing site. The cable system would include marine and terrestrial fiber- optic cable, ground cable, and power cable. The major work elements are listed below:  The PFE facility at 1601 Pacific Coast Highway would be installed.  One ocean ground bed (OGB) would be installed at the 25th Avenue cable landing site.  Four marine directional bores would be conducted to provide housing for the entire fiber-optic conduit. Two directional bores would be conducted on the Longfellow Avenue landing site, and two at the 25th street landing site. Each directional bore would extend approximately 4,000 feet offshore into the Pacific Ocean.  Two landing manholes would be installed at the directional bore sites to provide access to the conduit, one at Longfellow Avenue site and one at 25th Street landing site.  A buried terrestrial conduit system would be constructed from the landing manhole at the 25th Street landing site to the PFE facility. Phase 2: This cable system would be the second cable to land and would use the 25th Street landing site. The cable system would include marine and terrestrial fiber-optic cable, ground cable, and power cable. The major work elements are listed below:  One ocean ground bed; and  One terrestrial conduit system to connect to connect to the 25th Street manhole (installed as part of Phase 1) to the PFE facility for this cable to the local telecommunication carrier interconnection point within the City. Phase 3: The third cable system is projected to land between 2017 and 2020. This cable would use either of the two landing sites. The major work elements of Phase 3 would be the same as Phase 2 and include the marine and terrestrial cable systems, and an ocean ground bed. Phase 4: The fourth cable system is projected to land between 2020 and 2025. The cable would use either of the two landing sites. The major work elements of Phase 4 would be the same as Phase 2 and include the marine and terrestrial cable systems and an ocean ground bed, Terrestrial Segment The terrestrial segments of the cable systems refer to those segments located above the mean high water (MHW) line. Components of the terrestrial cable systems include all facilities located above the MHW line required to support the project. These features include: 5  Cable landing sites and directional bores;  Landing manholes (LMH);  Ocean Ground Beds (OGB);  Terrestrial buried conduits, innerducts fiber-optic, power, ground cables, and intermediate manholes;  Power feed equipment (PFE) facilities; and  Surface cable markers. Landing Manholes Each of the landing sites would require the placement of one LMH at the landward end of the directional bores. The LMH would accommodate the two directional bores at each location. The LMH contains the splice where the terrestrial cable and the submarine cable connect. The LMH would be connected to the PFE facilities by a terrestrial conduit system described below. The LMH’s would be approximately 8 feet wide, 12 feet long, and 9 feet deep, and would be buried with a cast iron manhole cover 36 inches in diameter appearing at grade level in the street. In addition to each LMH, a separate surface access vault would be placed on the land side of each manhole. The surface access vault would be a 4 feet wide, 5 feet long, and 2.5 feet deep concrete box with a steel traffic lid. The surface access vault would allow for the submarine cable installation without additional surface disturbance. The surface access vault would be constructed at grade. Ocean Ground Bed Installation An earth array ground bed would be installed for each cable system at each landing site for cathodic protection to control corrosion and to provide a ground for the electricity that powers the submarine cable amplifiers. The ground bed would consist of anodes installed into holes drilled down to the seawater level approximately 20 feet deep. Each anode would be placed into its own hole, and a copper ground cable would connect the tops of the anodes to one another. The copper ground cable would connect to the LMH. At the completion of construction, the OGB anodes would be approximately 10 feet below grade. The ground cable from the anodes to the LMH would be 6 feet below grade and would be protected by placing sacks of concrete on top of the cable. The concrete sacks would absorb water over time, hardening to form a concrete cap. Intermediate Manholes Pre-cast concrete manholes would be placed at intervals of approximately 1,200 feet to 2,500 feet along the routes between the PFE facilities and the LMHs. Typically, the manholes would be approximately 4 square feet and 6 feet deep, with a cast-iron manhole cover measuring 36 inches in diameter appearing at grade level. All manhole covers would be marked with appropriate identification and would be secured as required by the City. Depending on the final alignments of the routes, 8 to 12 intermediate manholes are expected for the entire project. Power Feed Equipment Facilities 6 Each marine cable contains a copper electrical conductor necessary to regenerate the light signal being transmitted through the fiber-optic cable as it crosses the Pacific Ocean. The commercial power is supplied by standard commercial sources on the terrestrial end of the cable. The PFE facility necessary to convert and apply the electrical current will be housed in an existing commercial building at 1601 Pacific Coast Highway. The PFE facility would require approximately 7450 square feet of space and would be powered by commercially delivered electricity. Each PFE facility would contain emergency backup generators in the event of local or regional power outages. Surface Cable Markers Cable markers would be located along the terrestrial route at intervals of 500 to 1,000 feet to mark the location of the cable in open areas, such as the Greenbelt. The markers would consist of wood poles measuring 4 to 6 square inches by 4 feet tall. They would be placed at the edge of the right-of-way. Signs would be placed on the posts to indicate the presence of a buried cable. No markers would be used where the route lies within a roadway or across the beach. Terrestrial Construction Terrestrial construction activities would entail delivery of staging materials and equipment, surface preparation, trenching, PVC and steel conduit placement, backfilling, trenchless installation, directional boring, conventional boring, manhole installation, innerduct and cable pulling, and surface restoration. Terrestrial activities that would require excavations or ground disturbance would include boring, trenching, and manhole placement. Bore Site Preparation and Set-up The bore sites would encompass approximately 8,000 square feet and would measure approximately 40 feet by 200 feet. Entry pits for the bores would measure approximately 10 feet wide by 12 feet long and 4 feet deep. Once the bore is complete the pipe would be capped and back-filled and the bore site would be de-mobilized. De-mobilization of the site would involve removal of the equipment, construction materials, and all other associated items from the work area. The work area would be returned to its original condition. Approximately 90 percent of terrestrial conduit installation is expected to utilize trenchless construction rather than trenching. This construction technique would be used for the majority of construction within the City, except in locations where the existing conditions require the use of an alternate technique. Analysis: The City determined that the proposed project had the potential to cause significant adverse effects on the environment and, therefore, determined that the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) would be needed. The City hired Aspen Environmental Group to prepare the Environmental Impact Report for the City. State CEQA guidelines Section 15123(b)(3) requires that an EIR present issues to be resolved by the Lead Agency (the City), including the choice among alternatives and whether or how 7 to mitigate significant effects. The Planning Commission will need to not only decide whether to approve the project and subject Precise Development Plan, but also whether to approve each of the each of the proposed landing sites, submarine cable routes, PFE facility location, and terrestrial cable routes. Additionally, the Planning Commission will also need to decide whether the mitigation measures recommended by the EIR are appropriate and feasible for reducing significant impacts. Also, the EIR identifies significant and unavoidable impacts that cannot be effectively reduced to a less-than-significant level. In order to approve the project with such impacts, the Planning Commission will need to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations describing the reason(s) for approving the project despite these impacts. The EIR reviewed the potential environmental impacts relative to impact type and classified them as such:  Temporary: a short-term impact that is not expected to have lasting effects. Temporary impacts are most commonly associated with project construction.  Long-term: An impact that would persist for a long period of time. Long-term impacts persist after project construction is completed.  Episodic: An impact that could occur periodically for a limited time at regular or irregular intervals during project operation.  Localized: An impact that is restricted to the immediate vicinity of the impact’s origin and with no means available to allow the impact to spread to a larger area.  Low Probability: An impact may occur, but is considered unlikely either due to the nature of the impact or due to required measures or practices that substantially reduce the likelihood of occurrence. Additionally, each impact type was given a level of significance as such:  Class I: Significant impact; cannot be mitigated to a level that is not significant. A Class I impact is a significant adverse effect that cannot be mitigated below a level of significance through the application of feasible mitigation measures. Class I impacts are significant and unavoidable.  Class II: Significant impact; can be mitigated to a level that is not significant. A Class II impact is a significant adverse effect that can be reduced to a less than significant level through the application of feasible mitigation measures. The following table lists the significant impacts that could occur if the project is implemented and indicates whether the impacts would be temporary, long term, episodic, localized, or low probability. It identifies 41 total impacts, 10 of which are identified as Class I. However, all 10 Class I impacts are related to construction activities and identified as temporary and/or localized/low probability. No long-term Class I impacts were identified in the EIR. 8 Summary of Significant Project Impacts and Recommended Mitigation Measures Impacts Impact Type Mitigation Measures Significance Conclusion Aesthetics Impact A-1: Construction activities at the cable landing sites would temporarily degrade the visual quality of the surrounding areas. Temporary Localized A-1 Screen Cable Landing Sites. Class I Impact A-4: Lighting associated with Project construction would create new sources of nighttime illumination that would be visible from surrounding residences. Temporary Localized A-4 Nighttime Lighting Guidelines. Class II Impact A-5: During construction, the cable landing sites would obstruct scenic views of the beach and coastline. Temporary Localized A-1 Screen Cable Landing Sites. Class I Air Quality Impact AQ-1: Project construction emissions would exceed SCAQMD regional criteria pollutant emissions thresholds. Temporary AQ-1 Support Vessel Emissions Reduction. Class I Biological Resources Impact BIO-2: Project construction/installation and decommissioning may adversely affect nesting birds. Temporary Localized BIO-2 Conduct Preconstruction Surveys for Nesting Raptors and Other Birds. Class II Impact BIO-3: Project construction/installation and decommissioning may conflict with local policies protecting biological resources. Temporary BIO-3 Minimize Impacts to Common Wildlife. Class II Impact BIO-6: Marine cable installation and repair in hard-bottom areas would result in disturbance of benthic organisms, including crushing and dislodgement. Temporary Localized BIO-6a Minimize Crossing of Hard- Bottom Substrate Communities. BIO-6b Compensation to Hard Bottom Mitigation Fund. Class II Impact BIO-10: Marine mammals and sea turtles could be struck by Project vessels. Temporary Low Probability BIO-10a Include a Biologist for Marine Mammal and Sea Turtle Monitoring During All Vessel Activities. BIO-10b Modify Vessel Operations When Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles are Present. BIO-10c Report Collisions. Class II Impact BIO-11: Sections of marine cable suspended above the seafloor present a small risk of marine mammal entanglement. Long-term Localized Low Probability BIO-11 Bury and Inspect Cable Wherever Feasible. Class II Impact BIO-12: An accidental release of fuel Temporary HAZ-1a Spill Prevention Plan. Class II 9 Summary of Significant Project Impacts and Recommended Mitigation Measures Impacts Impact Type Mitigation Measures Significance Conclusion or oil may result in fouling of beaches or the sea floor, fouling of birds or marine mammals, and ingestion of oil by marine life. Low Probability HAZ-1b Worker Training. HAZ-1c Maintain Equipment. HAZ-1d Refueling Practices. HWQ-2a Spill Prevention Plan. HWQ-2b Vessel Waste Management Plan. HWQ-2c Shipboard Oil Pollution Emergency Plan. Cultural Resources Impact CR-2: Project-related ground disturbance could encounter unknown buried archaeological or ethnographic historical resources, potentially resulting in an adverse change in the significance of those resources. Temporary Low Probability CR-1b Archaeological Monitoring Plan. CR-2a Evaluate and Treat Incidentally Discovered Cultural Resources. CR-2b Monitor for Cultural Resources. Class I Impact CR-3: Project-related ground-disturbing activities have the potential to uncover buried prehistoric or historic unique archaeological resources, potentially resulting in an adverse change in the significance of those resources. Temporary Low Probability CR-2a Evaluate and Treat Incidentally Discovered Cultural Resources. CR-2b Monitor for Cultural Resources. Class I Impact CR-4: Excavation associated with Project construction could result in the destruction of scientifically important paleontological resources. Temporary Low Probability CR-4a Evaluate and Treat Incidentally Discovered Paleontological Resources. CR-4b Monitor for Paleontological Resources. Class I Impact CR-5: Project ground-disturbing activities could result in the disturbance or destruction of human remains. Temporary Low Probability CR-5 Appropriately Treat Incidentally Discovered Human Remains. Class I Impact CR-6: Project-related ground- disturbing activities have the potential to disturb or destroy previously unknown or inaccurately recorded submerged prehistoric archaeological resources or historic shipwrecks. Temporary Low Probability CR-6a Conduct a Pre-Construction Offshore Archaeological Resources Survey. CR-6b Conduct a Pre-Construction Offshore Historic Shipwreck Remote Sensing Survey. CR-6c Prepare an Avoidance Plan. Class II Geology and Soils Impact GEO-3: Marine construction associated with cable laying and directional boring could be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable or that would become unstable as a result of the Project. Temporary Low Probability GEO-1 Avoid Unique Geological Features and Hazards. Class II 10 Summary of Significant Project Impacts and Recommended Mitigation Measures Impacts Impact Type Mitigation Measures Significance Conclusion Impact GEO-4: The proposed cable alignment and marine construction associated with cable laying and directional boring could be susceptible to seismic-related ground failure. Long-term Low Probability GEO-1 Avoid Unique Geological Features and Hazards. Class II Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impact HAZ-1: Oil or hazardous materials spills could occur during the proposed Project’s marine construction activities. Temporary Low Probability HAZ-1a Spill Prevention and Contingency Plan. HAZ-1b Worker Training. HAZ-1c Maintain Equipment. HAZ-1d Refueling Practices. HAZ-1e Human Waste. Class II Impact HAZ-3: Ground-disturbing activities could release contaminants into the environment. Temporary Low Probability HAZ-1a Spill Prevention and Contingency Plan. HAZ-1b Worker Training. HAZ-3a Construction Location HAZ-3b Remedial Action Plan. HAZ-3c Dispose of Contaminated Soils. Class II Hydrology and Water Quality Impact HWQ-1: Terrestrial construction and Project operation could result in violations of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements as a result of spilled hazardous material, drilling fluid, or contaminated runoff entering the environment. Temporary Low Probability HWQ-1 Frac-out Contingency Plan. Class II Impact HWQ-2: Marine construction vessels and marine construction equipment associated with cable laying and directional boring could potentially discharge fuel, fluids, bilge water, sewage waste, debris or ballast water into marine waters. Temporary Low Probability HWQ-2a Spill Prevention Plan. HWQ-2b Vessel Waste Management Plan. HWQ-2c Shipboard Oil Pollution Emergency Plan. Class II Impact HWQ-3: Marine construction activities and marine construction equipment associated with cable laying and directional boring could potentially re- suspend contaminated sediments into marine waters. Temporary Low Probability HWQ-2a Spill Prevention Plan. Class II Land Use and Recreation Impact LU-1: Terrestrial construction activities would temporarily preclude or disrupt existing land uses. Temporary Localized TT-1a Construction Traffic Control Plan. Class II 11 Summary of Significant Project Impacts and Recommended Mitigation Measures Impacts Impact Type Mitigation Measures Significance Conclusion Impact LU-2: Marine construction activities would temporarily interfere with existing marine activities. Temporary Localized LU-2a Disclose Marine Cable Locations. LU-2b Provide Notice of Marine Construction activities to Appropriate Agencies and Personnel. LU-2c Provide As-Laid Specifications to Appropriate Agencies and Personnel. Class II Impact LU-3: Construction activities at the cable landing sites would disrupt established recreation areas along the beach and the Strand. Temporary Localized TT-1a Construction Traffic Control Plan. HAZ-1a Spill Prevention and Contingency Plan. HAZ-1b Worker Training. HWQ-1 Frac-out Contingency Plan. Class II Noise Impact N-1: Noise from construction activities would occur outside of the hours allowed by the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code. Temporary Localized N-1a Construction Work Hours Authorization. Class II Impact N-2: Construction activities would result in a temporary increase (more than 3 dBA Leq) over the lowest hourly ambient levels at residential uses. Temporary Localized N-2a Employ Noise-Reducing Construction Practices. N-2b Construction Noise and Vibration Complaint Program. Class I Impact N-3: Construction activities would result in a temporary increase (more than 5 dBA Leq) over the lowest hourly ambient levels at non-residential sensitive receptors. Temporary Localized N-2a Employ Noise-Reducing Construction Practices. N-2b Construction Noise and Vibration Complaint Program. Class I Impact N-4: Construction activity could result in vibration levels that could potentially cause annoyance. Temporary Localized N-2a Employ Noise-Reducing Construction Practices. N-2b Construction Noise and Vibration Complaint Program. Class II Impact N-5: Generation of backup power during Project operations at the PFE facilities would periodically result in increased vibration. Episodic Localized Low Probability N-5 PFE Facility Design Requirements. Class II Impact N-6: Project operation could result in localized increases in existing ambient noise conditions. Episodic Localized Low Probability N-5 PFE Facility Design Requirements. Class II Transportation and Traffic Impact TT-1: Project traffic volumes or temporary road or travel lane closures would affect traffic flow and create congestion. Temporary Localized TT-1a Construction Traffic Control Plan. Class II Impact TT-2: Project activities requiring temporary road or travel lane closures would affect beach Temporary Localized TT-1a Construction Traffic Control Plan. Class II 12 Summary of Significant Project Impacts and Recommended Mitigation Measures Impacts Impact Type Mitigation Measures Significance Conclusion access and access to adjacent residential and business properties. Impact TT-3: Project activities requiring temporary road or travel lane closures would affect emergency vehicle response. Temporary Localized TT-1a Construction Traffic Control Plan. Class II Impact TT-4: Project activities requiring temporary road or travel lane closures would affect bus transit service. Temporary Localized TT-1a Construction Traffic Control Plan. Class II Impact TT-5: Project activities requiring temporary road or travel lane closures would affect pedestrian/bicycle routes. Temporary Localized TT-1a Construction Traffic Control Plan. Class II Impact TT-6: Construction activities and temporary road or travel lane closures would create hazards to motorists, pedestrians, and bicyclists. Temporary Localized TT-1a Construction Traffic Control Plan. TT-6a Repair Roadways Damaged by Construction Activities. Class II Impact TT-8: The marine boring operation would create a temporary hazard for marine traffic. Temporary Localized TT-8a Issue Appropriate Notification and Location of Activities for Navigation Hazards Associated with Marine Bores. TT-8b Issue Appropriate Notification and Location of Activities for Navigation Hazards Associated with Grapnel Towing. TT-8c Issue Appropriate Notification and Location of Activities for Navigation Hazards Associated with Cable Laying and Plowing. Class II Impact TT-9: The grapnel tow may create a navigational hazard to marine traffic by temporarily blocking the pathway of other vessels in the marine area. Temporary Localized TT-8a Issue Appropriate Notification and Location of Activities for Navigation Hazards Associated with Marine Bores. TT-8b Issue Appropriate Notification and Location of Activities for Navigation Hazards Associated with Grapnel Towing. TT-8c Issue Appropriate Notification and Location of Activities for Navigation Hazards Associated with Cable Laying and Plowing. Class II Impact TT-10: Cable laying and plowing could create a temporary navigational hazard to marine traffic within the marine area. Temporary Localized TT-8a Issue Appropriate Notification and Location of Activities for Navigation Hazards Associated with Marine Bores. Class I 13 Summary of Significant Project Impacts and Recommended Mitigation Measures Impacts Impact Type Mitigation Measures Significance Conclusion TT-8b Issue Appropriate Notification and Location of Activities for Navigation Hazards Associated with Grapnel Towing. TT-8c Issue Appropriate Notification and Location of Activities for Navigation Hazards Associated with Cable Laying and Plowing. Impact TT-11: The Project may cause an increase in the risk of vessels in the study area running aground or striking floating or submerged debris resulting from either the construction or permanent works. Localized Low Probability TT-11 Remove Construction-related Equipment and Debris. Class II Precise Development Plan Pursuant to Section 17.58.030 the following criteria must be evaluated when considering whether to approve a Precise Development Plan. 1. Distance from existing residential uses in relation to negative effects: The proposed project will impact neighboring residences during the construction phase. The EIR has identified the following significant impacts to residential uses as a result of the proposed project; 1) the degradation of visual quality around the construction sites; 2) an obstruction of scenic views of the beach and coastline during construction; 3) construction emissions exceeding SCAQMD regional criteria pollutant thresholds; and 4) a temporary increase of the ambient noise levels during construction. All of the mentioned impacts are typical of common construction work performed in the City (i.e. new single family residence), are limited to the construction phase of the project, and are anticipated to take significantly less time to construct than most residential building projects in the city. Additionally, an existing subterranean fiber optic cable similar to the subject project currently exists and operates in the City on 2nd Street and Hermosa Avenue and no operational impacts have occurred since project operation began in 2002. Therefore, no impacts during the operational phase of the project are identified. Also, the relatively common and temporary natures of the identified impacts, all during the construction phase of the project, are not anticipated to significantly impact residential uses. 2. The amount of existing or proposed off-street parking in relation to actual need: Project construction will involve the staging of construction equipment and subsequently the temporary blockage of 25th Street and Longfellow Avenue between Hermosa Avenue and Manhattan Avenue. This street blockage during construction would temporarily block access to approximately 15 parking spaces (conservative estimate) at each landing site. Construction for each landing site is anticipated for 3-4 weeks. Additionally, intermediate manholes would be constructed at intervals of 14 1,200 feet to 2,500 feet along the cable routes. The staging of equipment and materials at each manhole site would encompass approximately 1,000 square feet. Also, cable pulling activities would require occupation of one lane of traffic for approximately 40 feet. Although temporary, construction activities within the public right-of-way at the landing sites and along the cable routes would require travel lane closures and traffic delays may occur. However, the impacts to traffic and parking would be similar to the impacts that routinely occur during street maintenance activities or utility repair projects. 3. The combination of uses proposed, as they relate to compatibility: The proposed underground fiber optic cable is a single use. An existing fiber optic cable at 2nd Street and Hermosa Avenue has been in operation since the beginning of the century and no operational impacts have occurred. Therefore, no compatibility issues are identified. 4. The relationship of the estimated generated traffic volume and the capacity and safety of streets serving the area: The proposed project is an underground cable. Traffic impacts associated with the project are anticipated to occur during the construction phase. No traffic concerns are anticipated during the operational phase of the project. The proposed project is expected to generate a maximum of 20 daily route-trips (40 total trips) during a two-day span. All other construction days are anticipated to generate significantly fewer trips. The EIR analyzed the addition of 40 daily trips to existing Level of Service (LOS) and found that the additional trips would not diminish roadway LOS over existing conditions. Additionally, the EIR recommends the preparation of a specific construction Traffic Control Plan, to be reviewed by the City. The Traffic Control Plan requires the applicant to provide feasible ways to reduce construction-related trips during peak traffic periods (6:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. Monday through Friday). With the incorporation of this mitigation, impacts from temporary construction-related trips to the performance of project area roads would not be significant. Additionally, once operational, no routine maintenance is planned for the terrestrial segments of the cable network. These types of cables typically operate for 25 years without maintenance. Therefore, daily vehicle trips volumes from operation and maintenance of the project would have less than significant effect on the performance of affected streets. 5. The proposed exterior signs and decor, and the compatibility thereof with existing establishments in the area: During the operational phase cable markers would be located along the terrestrial route intervals of 500 to 1,000 feet to mark the location of the cable in open areas. The markers would consist of wood poles measuring 4 to 6 15 square inches by 4 feet tall. Signs would be placed on the posts to indicate the presence of the buried cable. The proposed markers are for safety reasons in case of ground disturbance at or around the terrestrial components of the cable. Markers and signs will be reviewed by the City to ensure compliance with all applicable codes. 6. Building and driveway orientation in relation to sensitive uses, e.g., residences and schools: The proposed project involves installation of an underground fiber optic cable and does not involve a building or driveway orientation. No impacts are anticipated. 7. Noise, odor, dust and/or vibration that may be generated by the proposed use: The EIR identified two noise related impacts to the proposed project; 1) noise from construction activities would occur outside of the hours allowed by the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code; and 2) construction activities would result in a temporary increase over the lowest hourly ambient levels at residential uses. In regards to the construction noise occurring outside of the allowable hours of construction, the applicant states that construction activities would be conducted from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday thru Friday and 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. on Saturdays which is compliant with the City Municipal Code. The applicant states that pump circulation for two 30- minute intervals is necessary in order to prevent the bore pipe from ceasing. Proper authorization from the City will be required of the applicant in order to perform construction activities on Sunday, and the project has been conditioned to ensure compliance. In regards to general construction activities raising the hourly ambient levels around residential uses, the Municipal Code permits construction activities and the noise associated with these activities (and find construction noise acceptable) if occurring during permissible construction hours. The scope of construction activities will be similar to typical street repair, utility repair and home building construction commonly performed in the City. Therefore, significant noise impacts are not anticipated. During construction, minor localized vibration may occur proximate to the work areas. The primary sources of temporary vibration would be from stationary diesel engines powering directional bore machines, as well as heavy truck trips on uneven road surfaces. The project is conditioned to require posting of the Community Development Department telephone number and other contact information at entrances to all work areas in a manner visible to a passerby, and such notice shall state that concerns shall be directed toward the Community Development Department. The project is conditioned to require additional attenuation methods, including but not limited to, the repositioning of equipment and/or noise barriers, or adding more noise shielding (barriers, acoustical blankets, etc.) if construction noise levels significantly exceed ambient levels. 16 8. Impact of the proposed use to the City’s infrastructure, and/or services: Once in the operational phase, typical fiber optic cables operate 25 years without any required maintenance. Additionally, the proposed power feed equipment for the cable will use an existing commercial facility as its base and existing commercial power provided from the commercial building. No impacts are anticipated. 9. Adequacy of mitigation measures to minimize environmental impacts in quantitative terms: The EIR has identified 41 impacts relative to the project, 10 of which are considered significant and the remaining 31 impacts classified as less than significant. The list of 10 significant impacts are as follows including the type of impact: 1) Construction activities at the cable landing sites would temporarily degrade the visual quality of the surrounding areas. a. Impact type: Temporary, Localized 2) During construction, the cable landing sites would obstruct scenic views of the beach and coastline. a. Impact type: Temporary, Localized 3) Project construction emissions would exceed SCAQMD regional criteria pollutant emission thresholds. a. Impact type: Temporary 4) Project-related ground disturbance could encounter unknown buried archaeological or ethnographic historical resources, potentially resulting in an adverse change in the significance of those resources. a. Impact type: Temporary, Low Probability 5) Project-related ground-disturbing activities have the potential to uncover buried prehistoric or historic unique archaeological resources, potentially resulting in an adverse change in the significance of those resources. a. Impact type: Temporary, Low Probability 6) Excavation associated with project construction could result in the destruction of scientifically important paleontological resources. a. Impact type: Temporary, Low Probability 7) Project ground-disturbing activities could result in the disturbance or destruction of human remains. a. Impact type: Temporary, Low Probability 8) Construction activities would result in a temporary increase in noise over the hourly ambient levels at residential uses. a. Impact type: Temporary, Localized 9) Construction activities would result in a temporary increase in noise over the lowest hourly ambient levels at non-residential sensitive receptors. a. Impact type: Temporary, Localized 10) Cable laying and plowing could create temporary navigational hazard to marine traffic within the marine area. a. Impact type: Temporary, Localized Each of the 10 significant impacts is related to project construction with four of them having a low probability of occurrence and five of which are localized. 17 It is clear through the analysis of the EIR that there are impacts related to the project construction. However, given that 31 of 41 impacts can be mitigated to levels determined to be less than significant and the remaining 10 impacts identified as significant are all related to project construction (anticipated to last 3-4 weeks) and will be temporary in nature, the quantitative terms of the impacts will be similar to common construction in the city. 10. Other considerations that, in the judgment of the planning commission, are necessary to assure compatibility with the surrounding uses, and the city as a whole: No other considerations are needed. Summary MC Global BP4 submitted an application for a Precise Development Plan to the City of Hermosa Beach on June 26, 2014 to install and operate four submarine fiber optic cables in the marine waters under the City’s jurisdiction and to install up to two landing sites at 25th Street and Longfellow Avenue between Hermosa Avenue and Manhattan Avenue. The City determined that the proposed project had the potential to cause significant adverse effects on the environment and, therefore, determined that the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) would be needed pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines. The EIR revealed 41 total impacts relative to the project with 31 impacts able to be mitigated to less than significant levels. The remaining 10 impacts are all related to the construction of the project (anticipated to last 3-4 weeks) and will be temporary in nature, similar to common construction in the City. For example the project would significantly alter aesthetic resources, specifically impacting the visual quality of the project area and obstructing scenic views but only during construction. Additionally, construction of the project would result in significant noise impacts to both residents in the vicinity of construction activities and non-residential sensitive uses (recreationists). Unknown and buried cultural and paleontological resources would also have the potential (if existing in the Project area) to be significantly affected due to boring activities. However, the mitigation monitoring program is able to reduce the adverse significant environmental effects of the project to the fullest extent feasible. An EIR must be certified before the decision makers can rely on it in deciding whether or not to approve a project. The Planning Commission’s first role is to decide whether to certify the Final Environmental Impact Report. Certification is appropriate when the document (1) has been completed in compliance with CEQA, (2) was presented to decision makers for consideration prior to approving the project, and (3) if the EIR reflects the City’s independent judgment and analysis. As part of certification, the Planning Commission must adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program to adopt all of the mitigation measures required under the EIR. Because there remain significant unavoidable impacts after implementation of available 19 Attachments 1. Draft Resolution certifying the EIR, Mitigation Monitoring Program, and Statement of Overriding Considerations 2. Draft Resolution to approve the Precise Development Plan 3. Map of the revised project landing sites and terrestrial routes scope and applicant letter discussing the project changes 4. Staff Report and Memorandum of Understanding (tentative financial agreement) regarding the use of city property from the April 8, 2014 and April 22, 2014 City Council meetings 5. Applicant submitted anticipated construction schedule 6. Radius Map 7. Poster Verification 8. Final EIR (http://www.hermosabch.org/ftp/feir/) 1 Yu-Ying Ting From:Kim Chafin Sent:Tuesday, April 19, 2016 8:37 AM To:Yu-Ying Ting Subject:FW: A-frame amendment and Planning Commission this evening     From: Brian Cooley [mailto:brian@wicked.is] Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2016 8:36 AM To: Kent Allen; Peter Hoffman; Mike Flaherty; Marie Rice; Rob Saemann Subject: A-frame amendment and Planning Commission this evening Please add/include this email into public record. Dear Planning Commission Members, I'm addressing you each by email as I am unable to attend the meeting this evening due to traveling out of State for business. I appreciate your consideration to amend to allow portable a-frame signs on public sidewalks in commercial districts. I was one of the local residents and business owner that collaborated with the council during the low enforcement period and for your review, my completed decision making tool is included in the City's report. I know in the past there were concerns of sidewalks being cluttered and it being difficult to maintain an enforceable standard. Since then, it's been shown that with simple guidelines and a permitting process it's not only easy, but when businesses properly use a-frames — where there's an abundance of sidewalk space — these signs add charm and character to our city and our streets appear to be more walkable. As such, this attracts more residents and like-minded tourist to our local shops and cafes and gives our city a feel of being more family friendly vs the bar-district perception our city has. Further, this is a vital economic issue and an opportunity for the planning commission and City council to help our local businesses — most of which are also locally owned — thrive and allow them to continue to help define our community's sense of place beyond bars and the our great beach. Much like the a-frame signs our own city places on the sidewalk in front of the community center to communicate Yoga classes, stretching classes and other events it hosts. With proper code with respect to height, width and placement of signage allowing for a set minimum of clearance for pedestrians, the use of A-frames can be charming and adds a sense of community and liveliness that our core streets need. Recently, many other cities have overturned a-frame bans, knowing how important they are to not just local shops but to the local economy. I appreciate your time and consideration into this matter and grateful for the opportunity to not only be a resident of Hermosa Beach but to be a business owner of two shops along Pier Avenue.   Brian Cooley Co-owner of Wicked+, A General Store and 2 Beach & Beverly, a women’s boutique —- both located on Pier Avenue. — BRIAN COOLEY WICKED+ M 310.480.9100 1 April 19, 2016 Honorable Chairman and Members of the Regular Meeting of Hermosa Beach Planning Commission April 19, 2016 SUBJECT: TEXT AMENDMENT 16-3 LOCATION: PUBLIC SIDEWALKS AND PRIVATE PROPERTY IN COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS APPLICANT: CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH REQUEST: TEXT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW PORTABLE A-FRAME SIGNS ON PUBLIC SIDEWALKS IN COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS, AND DETERMINE THAT THE PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT Recommendation: Adopt the attached resolution recommending the City Council adopt a text amendment to allow portable A-Frame signs, and determine the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Background: In August 2015 the City Council revisited Operation Clean Sweep related to sidewalk/portable type signs. Following discussion, Council directed staff to: • prepare a code change with specific standards and regulations to allow and regulate portable A-frame signs; and • deem A-frame signs a low enforcement priority while staff is preparing this code change, with a tentative plan to return to Council with recommendations in early 2016. https://hermosabeach.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=2443398&GUID=90B04C70-B4CD- 4186-9DFE-6B4CE2308A80 “Clean Sweep” is a code enforcement program that was generated in response to complaints about retail signage and display cutter in Downtown. Currently, the enforcement program beings with a notice that is hand- delivered to a business, giving them two weeks to comply with City sign regulations. The City’s sign ordinance (Section 17.50) currently prohibits “mobile signs, including portable signs, A-frame signs or sidewalk signs.” Per City Council direction in July and September 2011, staff prepared options and possible standards for allowing portable signs as part of a Planning Commission comprehensive evaluation of outdoor retail sales/displays and portable signs on public right-of-ways. In February 2012, the Planning Commission voted to recommend to the City Council that the City to retain its prohibition on outdoor retail sales/displays and portables signs on public right-of-ways due to: 1) demonstrated significant impacts on aesthetics and creation of visual blight as businesses “push the envelope” as they compete for customers; 2) difficulty in creating an enforceable standard defining an aesthetic that is “tasteful”; 3) the City’s lack of resources to enforce regulations particularly on weekends; and 4) the prohibition being consistent with the policies of many similarly situated southern California beach cities. In April 2012 the Council “referred the matter of maintaining the prohibition on outdoor retail sales/display areas and portable signs back to the Planning Commission with City Council feedback, including consideration of annual (revocable) permit cycle based on successful practice, with standards to ensure an appealing rather 2 than swap meet appearance.” In June 2012, the Planning Commission considered specific standards for allowing retail sales/display areas, and reaffirmed its prior recommendation to maintain the current prohibition. With the March 2015, approval of outdoor retail on Pier Plaza and additional Code Enforcement staff, it was suggested that the Council may wish to revisit allowing regulated portable retail signs. The purpose of outdoor retail portable signs is to draw attention to the business and let people know it is open. While large displays of one or two businesses or displays by a cluster of businesses can create a chaotic appearance, carefully tailored standards could reduce a cluttered effect while maintaining the sidewalk for pedestrian use. Additionally, placement of outdoor signs by a number of businesses can create a synergy that attracts economic vitality. In August 2015, staff commenced work based on Council’s direction to: • prepare a code change with specific standards and regulations to allow and regulate portable A-frame signs; and • deem A-frame signs a low enforcement priority while staff is preparing this code change, with a tentative plan to return to Council with recommendations in early 2016. Analysis: While the adjacent cities of Redondo Beach, Manhattan Beach and Torrance currently prohibit portable A-frame signs, other local beach communities that allow them include: • Huntington Beach (downtown only); • Laguna Beach (restaurant menus only on private property); • Long Beach (maximum 30 days/year); • Newport Beach/Corona del Mar (on private property only); • Santa Monica (Main Street on private property only); • Seal Beach (on private property only). A working group of four local business owners met to review ordinances in other cities, discuss issues related to allowing the this type of signage in Hermosa Beach, and provide suggestions for modifications to the existing sign ordinance. Aspects considered included design and materials, such as minimum and maximum size, need for sturdy materials, not allowing off-site advertising, need for professionally designed appearance that allows creativity, but includes no animation or attachments. Other issues examined included hours of display, maximum signs allowed per business, minimum spacing between signs, minimum clear space for pedestrians & compliance with ADA requirements, avoiding blockage of building entrances/exits as well as parking spaces and traffic lanes, liability insurance needs, and requirements for annual City permit renewal. Regarding locations, Caltrans personnel has advised use of Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) for private encroachments is not allowed and would require a policy change at Caltrans District headquarters. Also, sidewalks on PCH are very narrow and would likely not be adequate to accommodate encroachments while maintaining a five-foot clear pedestrian path. It should be noted that retail businesses on Pier Plaza already have the opportunity to request authorization to provide outdoor displays of merchandise, but not signage, within 13 feet area of their business frontage. When Council referred the matter of A-Frame signs to staff, the Council specifically indicated it was not interested in allowing these signs within Pier Plaza, and the consensus of the working group was to maintain the prohibition on signs in that area. Considerations regarding placement of these signs within the public sidewalk include providing a clear pedestrian path that meets ADA standards, placement of the sign abutting the building or the curb without encroaching into landscape areas or blocking access to building entrances/exits, parking spaces or traffic lanes. Staff asked the group of business owners to utilize the City’s Decision-Making Tool to evaluate the proposal to allow portable A-frame signs (attached). 3 In the past seven months of low priority enforcement, portable A-frame signs have appeared along commercial frontages. Observations are that the displays have not been large, nor have there been displays by a cluster of businesses that created a chaotic appearance. The City has received no formal complaints regarding these signs. A proposed text amendment to the City’s sign code has been prepared which makes the following provisions: Definition: 1. “Portable A-frame sign means a two-sided sign, hinged or attached at the top of the sign panels, identifying, advertising, or directing attention to a business(es), product(s), operation(s) or service(s) sold or offered in the building in front of which the sign is located. Design, Dimensions & Materials 2. Portable A-frame signs shall be a minimum of 28 inches tall and a maximum of 42 inches tall, and a minimum of 18 inches in width and a maximum of 24 inches in width, and a minimum base spread of 24 inches and a maximum base spread of 30 inches. 3. Portable A-frame signs must consist of sturdy materials appropriate to the outdoor environment, and shall have a locking arm or other device to stabilize the structure. 4. Portable A-frame signs shall contain information and advertising for the business placing the sign only and shall not contain any endorsement or logos for any other businesses. 5. Portable A-frame signs must have a professionally designed appearance and shall not include: animation, digital design, internal illumination, use of reflective materials or other materials creating excessive glare, use of attachments, use of audio effects, or use or projections upon the sign. Locations 6. Portable A-frame signs shall be allowed on private property and/or within the public right-of-way on sidewalks along commercial frontages (but not Pier Plaza), and shall be located abutting the building, or abutting the curb of the street, or abutting a landscape planter which is located between the curb and the sidewalk, and shall be located within the building street frontage of the business. A minimum sidewalk clearance of five feet must be maintained for pedestrian passage. 7. A maximum of one portable A-frame sign shall be allowed per business. Portable A-frame signs shall be spaced a minimum of 15 feet from all other permitted portable A-frame signs. The total number of such signs on one parcel or for one shopping center shall not exceed one sign per 25 lineal feet of street frontage where buildings are within 2 feet of the sidewalk, one per 50 lineal feet of street frontage where buildings are not within 2 feet of the sidewalk, or one per 4 businesses, whichever is less. 8. Placement of Portable A-frame signs shall comply with requirements of Chapter 11of the California Building Code (ADA requirements). 9. Portable A-frame signs shall comply with Section 17.46.060 Vision clearance – corner lots. 10. No portion of a portable A-frame sign shall be located within a landscape planter, and no portion shall block building entrances/exits, parking spaces or traffic lanes, or impede access to benches, bicycle racks, mail boxes, fire hydrants, garbage bins, utility poles or other permanent street furnishings and appurtenances. Operations 11. Portable A-frame signs shall be displayed only during the hours of operation of the business being advertised, but in no case later than 10pm or earlier than 4am. Application 12. A temporary sign permit and corresponding fees shall be required for all portable A-frame signs The temporary sign permit for A-frame signs shall be valid for a period of 12 months. Additionally, an encroachment permit shall be required for portable A-frame signs located within the public right-of-way. 1 Attachment 1 RESOLUTION P.C. 16-X A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO ALLOW PORTABLE A-FRAME SIGNS IN COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICTS, AND DETERMINING THAT THE PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT The Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach does hereby resolve as follows: SECTION 1. On August 25, 2015, the City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach directed staff to initiate a code amendment to the Municipal Code to allow portable A-frame signs in commercial zoning districts. SECTION 2. The Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on April 19, 2016 to consider a text amendment to allow portable A-frame signs in commercial zoning districts (TEXT 16-3). SECTION 3. The project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15304(e), because the project involves a minor temporary use of land having negligible or no permanent effects on the environment, including carnivals, sales of Christmas trees, etc. SECTION 4. The Planning Commission hereby recommends City Council approval of the proposed ordinance attached hereto as Exhibit A. VOTE: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution P.C. 16-X is a true and complete record of the action taken by the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach, California, at its regular meeting of April 19, 2016. ________________________________ ______________________________ Peter Hoffman, Chairman Ken Robertson, Secretary Date Exhibit A ORDINANCE NO. _______ AN ORDINANCE TO ALLOW PORTABLE A-FRAME SIGNS AND AMENDING THE HERMOSA BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE The City Council of the City of Hermosa Beach does ordain as follows: Section 1. The following new definition is added to the list of alphabetical definitions in Section 17.50.030 of Chapter 17.50 of Title 17 of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code to read as follows: “Portable A-frame sign” means a two-sided sign, hinged or attached at the top of the sign panels, identifying, advertising or directing attention to a business(es) product(s), operation(s) or service(s) sold or offered in the building in front of which the sign is located. Section 2. Subsection 17.50.080.B.2 of Section 17.50.080 of Chapter 17.50 of Title 17 of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code is amended to read as follows: 2. Mobile signs, excluding portable A-frame signs permitted under Section 17.50.220; Section 3. Section 17.50.130 of Chapter 17.50 of Title 17 of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code is amended to read as follows: 17.50.130 Sign requirements and regulations in C-2 zone (restricted commercial). Intent: to regulate signs recognizing the characteristics of restricted commercial zone as a pedestrian-oriented shopping and entertainment district, and as the city’s downtown district. A. Permitted Signs. In the C-2 zone, only the following signs shall be permitted per site, subject to the provisions and regulations hereinafter set forth: 1. Business signs; 6 2. Building identification signs; 3. One real estate sign; 4. One construction sign; 5. Temporary signs; 6. Percent of allowable sign are which may be used for commodity identification: • Commodity equal to less than 10 percent of business...10 percent • Commodity equal to 10 percent to 50 percent of business...25 percent • Commodity equal to more than 50 percent of business...75 percent • Commodity identification for beverages sold by restaurants and markets...10 percent 7. Portable A-frame signs, as set forth in Section 17.50.220. B. Styles of Signs. Only the following styles of signs shall permitted per business: 1. One wall sign; 2. One ground sign per site; 3. One awning sign; 4. Projecting sign (business identification only); 5. One marquee sign; 6. Window sign(s); 7. Banners; 8. Mural. (Murals approved by the commission may be permitted. In its review the commission may waive specific provisions of this chapter relating to total sign area, coverage, height, type and style. 9. Portable A-frame signs, as set forth in Section 17.50.220. 7 These signs may be electrical, illuminated or neon. C. Projection, Height and Location. 1. A single, nonilluminated projecting business identification sign for each business is permitted and may be hung from a wall projection or marquee over an entry way, provided the sign does not exceed a total area of four square feet per face and provided it shall be at least eight feet above the sidewalk and may not project outward more than three feet. 2. Walls signs shall not project more than six inches from the wall of the building or structure. Ends of the sign may not be used for sign purposes. 3. All ground signs, with the exception of Portable A-frame signs, shall be located entirely on private property and cannot project over public property, and shall not exceed ten feet from grade to the highest portion of the sign body, with the exception of Portable A-frame signs, as set forth in Section 17.50.220,. No ground sign shall be allowed in the C-2 zone that is greater than eight feet in height, measured from the grade to the highest point of said sign, with the exception of Portable A-frame signs, as set forth in Section 17.50.220. D. Allowable Sign Area. 1. Total permanent sign area shall not exceed two square feet for each foot of lineal building frontage; provided however, that a minimum of twenty (20) square feet shall be allowed. Double-faced sign area shall be calculated by counting one side and one-half of the other side. 2. Where there is more than one business or entity located on any one site, the sign area shall be calculated separately for each entity or business according to its amount of building frontage. 3. Where a business or entity is abutted by more than one street, the building frontage for said business or entity shall be the sum of the primary building frontage, plus one-half of any secondary building frontage, provided the secondary building frontage has a building entrance/exit which is open to the public during business hours for customer/ pedestrian use, which entrance is 8 fronting on a street or highway. Sign area granted by virtue of qualified secondary frontage may be used on the secondary frontage only. 4. No sign shall cover more than twenty-five (25) percent of the wall or facia it occupies or is placed upon. 5. Businesses fronting only on a public/private parking lot, alley open mall, landscaped open space or other public way may use the building side facing such public way as the building frontage. Only one such building side may be considered building frontage. 6. Allowable sign area for portable A-frame signs shall be as set forth in Section 17.50.220. Exception. On each street frontage one real estate sign not exceeding twenty-five (25) square feet in sign area and one construction sign not exceeding twenty-five (25) square feet in sign area may be erected in addition to the allowable sign area on any one site or entity. E. Window Signs. Window signs shall be allowed in this zone and shall be counted in the total allowable sign area, and shall not obscure more than twenty (20) percent of the glass surface area of the window(s). F. Signs Above the First Story. Signs for businesses located above the first story may be provided, but shall be part of the total sign area allocation for the corresponding building frontage. The maximum height for upper story signs shall be twenty-eight (28) feet above the adjacent street grade, or the uppermost portion of the second story, whichever is higher. G. Pole signs. Pole signs shall not be permitted in a C-2 zone. Section 4. Section 17.50.140 of Chapter 17.50 of Title 17 of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code is amended to read as follows: 17.50.140 Sign requirements and regulations in C-3 zone (general and highway commercial). 9 Intent: to regulate signs recognizing the characteristics of the general commercial zone as an automobile oriented strip commercial district. A. Permitted Signs. In the C-3 zone, only the following signs shall be permitted per site, subject to the provisions and regulations hereinafter set forth: 1. Business signs; 2. Building identification signs; 3. One real estate sign; 4. One construction sign; 5. Temporary sign(s); 6. Percent of allowable sign area which may be used for commodity identification: • Commodity equal to less than 10 percent of business...10 percent • Commodity equal to 10 percent to 50 percent of business...25 percent • Commodity equal to more than 50 percent of business...75 percent • Commodity identification for beverages sold by restaurants and markets...10 percent 7. Portable A-frame signs, as set forth in Section 17.50.220. B. Styles of Signs. Only the following styles of signs shall be permitted per business. 1. One wall sign; 2. One ground sign, or one pole sign per site; 3. One awning sign; 4. One marquee sign; 5. Window sign(s); 10 6. Banners; 7. Mural. (Murals approved by the commission may be permitted. In its review the commission may waive specific provisions of this chapter relating to total sign area, coverage, height, type and style.) 8. Portable A-frame signs, as set forth in Section 17.50.220. These signs may be electrical, illuminated or neon, with the exception of Portable A- frame signs, as set forth in Section 17.50.220,. C. Projection and Height. 1. Wall signs shall not project more than six inches from the wall of the building or structure. Ends of the sign may not be used for sign purposes. 2. All ground signs shall be located entirely on private property and cannot project over public property, and shall not exceed ten feet from grade to the highest portion of the sign body with the exception of Portable A-frame signs, as set forth in Section 17.50.220,. D. Allowable Sign Area. 1. Total permanent sign area shall not exceed three square feet for each foot of lineal building frontage. Both sides of a double-face sign shall be calculated when determining sign area. 2. Where there is more than one business or entity located on any one site, the sign area shall be calculated separately for each entity or business according to its amount of building frontage. 3. Where a business or entity is abutted by more than one street, the building frontage for said business or entity shall be the sum of the primary building frontage, plus one-half of any secondary building frontage, provided the secondary building frontage has a building entrance/exit which is open to the public during business hours for customer/ pedestrian use, which entrance is fronting on a street or highway. Sign area granted by virtue of qualified secondary frontage may be used on the secondary frontage only. 11 4. No sign shall cover more than twenty-five (25) percent of the wall or facia it occupies or is placed upon. 5. Businesses fronting only on a public/private parking lot, alley open mall, landscaped open space or other public way may use the building side facing such public way as the building frontage. Only one such building side may be considered building frontage. 6. Allowable sign area for portable A-frame signs shall be as set forth in Section 17.50.220. E. Window Signs. Window signs shall be allowed in this zone and shall be counted in the total allowable sign area, and shall not obscure more than twenty (20) percent of the glass surface area of the window(s). F. Signs Above the First Story. Signs for businesses located above the first story may be provided, but shall be part of the total sign area allocation for the corresponding building frontage. The maximum height for upper story signs shall be twenty-eight (28) feet above the adjacent street grade, or the uppermost portion of the second story, whichever is higher. G. Pole Signs. pole signs are permitted but shall not exceed the height of the building on the same lot, or twenty (20) feet in height measured from existing grade, whichever is lesser, and no part of the sign shall encroach or project within five feet of any adjacent private property, or, encroach or project into the public right-of-way. To qualify for a pole sign, the site must have at least forty (40) feet of street frontage. No pole sign may have more than one sign can attached to it and all pole signs shall incorporate a raised landscaped planter. Section 5. A new Section 17.50.220 is added to Chapter 17.50 of Title 17 of the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code to read as follows: 17.50.220 Portable A-frame signs. A, Application. 1. A temporary sign permit under Section 17.50.210 and a corresponding application fee in an amount set by City Council resolution shall be required for all 12 portable A-frame signs. The temporary sign permit for an A-frame sign shall be valid for a period of up to 12 months. In addition, an encroachment permit under Chapter 12.16 shall be required for all portable A-frame signs located within a public right-of-way. 2. Prior to the placement of a portable A-frame sign within a public right-of-way, the business placing the sign shall provide verification of an insurance rider with the City of Hermosa Beach in the amount of $1,000,000 to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. 3. Authorized portable A-frame signs that meet the requirements of this Section shall have affixed a tag issued by the Community Development Department documenting the authorized status of the sign. Unauthorized signs may be removed without notice and shall be returned to the owner upon compliance with the requirements in this Section. B. Design and construction. Notwithstanding the provisions for temporary signs in Section 17.50.210, Portable A-frame signs shall: 1. Be a minimum of 28 inches tall and minimum 18 inches wide, a maximum of 42 inches tall and maximum 24 inches wide, and a minimum and maximum base spread of 24 to 30 inches; 2. Consist of sturdy materials appropriate to the outdoor environment, be designed to withstand wind to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director or designee and have a locking arm or other device to stabilize the structure; 3. Contain information and advertising for the business placing the sign only and shall not contain any endorsement or logos for any other businesses. 4. Have a professionally designed appearance and shall not include: animation, digital design, internal illumination, use of reflective materials or other materials creating excessive glare, use of attachments, use of audio effects, or use or projections upon the sign; and 5. Not impede sidewalk access for the disabled as required under Chapter 11 of the California Building Code governing compliance with the ADA (Americans with Disability Act). C. Location. 1. Portable A-frame signs shall be allowed on private property and/or within the public right-of-way on sidewalks along commercial frontages except Pier Plaza, and shall be located abutting the building, or abutting the curb of the street, or abutting a landscape planter which is located between the curb and the sidewalk, and shall be 13 located within the building street frontage of the business. A minimum sidewalk clearance of five feet shall be maintained for pedestrian passage. 2. A maximum of one portable A-frame sign shall be allowed per business. Portable A-frame signs shall be spaced a minimum of 15 feet from all other permitted portable A-frame signs. The total number of such signs on one parcel or for one shopping center shall not exceed one sign per 25 lineal feet of street frontage where buildings are within 2 feet of the sidewalk, one per 50 lineal feet of street frontage where buildings are not within 2 feet of the sidewalk, or one per 4 businesses, whichever is less. 3. Portable A-frame signs shall comply with Section 17.46.060 Vision clearance – corner lots. 4. No portion of a portable A-frame signs shall be located within a landscape planter, and no portion shall block building entrances/exits, parking spaces or traffic lanes, or impede access to benches, bicycle racks, mail boxes, fire hydrants garbage bins, utility poles or other permanent street furnishings and appurtenances. 5. Portable A-frame signs shall be displayed only during the hours of operation of the business being advertised, but in no case later than 10:00 p.m. or earlier than 4:00 a.m. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this __ day of _____________, 2014. ____________________________ MAYOR Attest: _______________________ City Clerk 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 Attachment 7 Recent Photos of Portable A-Frame Signs Observed in Hermosa Beach – PC 4-19-16 67 68 69 Tentative Future Agenda PLANNING COMMISSION City of Hermosa Beach 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 May 17, 2016 6:00 P.M. Project Title Public Notice Meeting Date Remarks PLAN Hermosa Study Session 5/17 May 17, 2016 Regular Meeting 7:00 P.M. Project Title Public Notice Meeting Date Remarks 940 15th Street—Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 74186 for a 2-unit condominium. 5/5 5/17 1619 Golden Avenue—Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 73940 for a 2-unit condominium. 5/5 5/17 2510 & 2420 PCH, 926 & 950 Aviation Blvd— Conditional Use Permit and Precise Development Plan for Lazy Acres Market. 5/5 5/17 2408 Hermosa Avenue—Slope Determination 5/5 5/17 One year update on implementation of the amendments to outdoor dining standards on Pier Plaza (per Council Resolution 15-6955 adopted on May 11, 2015) 5/17 May 23, 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) 5/23 11c 600 10th St2 unit CondoZone: R-2 1141 Aviation Blvd(Suzy's)CUP AmendmentZone: C-3/AH-O Projects Zoning MapPlanning Commission Meeting April 19, 2016 Transpacific FiberOptic Cable Easy Reader Run Date: April 7, 2016 DISPLAY Acct: 7010-2110 City of Hermosa Beach PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach shall hold a public hearing on Tuesday, April 19, 2016, to consider the following: 1. Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 74120 for a 2-unit condominium project at 600 10th Street, and determination that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. 2. Conditional Use Permit amendment to allow on-sale general alcohol at an existing restaurant with on-sale beer and wine, live entertainment and outdoor seating at 1139 - 1141 Aviation Boulevard (Suzy’s Bar & Grill), and determination that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. 3. Precise Development Plan and certification of an Environmental Impact Report for installation and operation of up to two transpacific submarine cable systems at two possible locations on Longfellow Avenue and 25th Street between Hermosa Avenue and Manhattan Avenue; and installation of power feed equipment to be located at 1601 Pacific Coast Highway. 4. An amendment to the Hermosa Beach Municipal Code to expressly prohibit short-term vacation rentals in non-commercial zoning districts, and determining the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. 5. Text Amendment to allow portable A-frame signs on public sidewalks in commercial districts, and determination that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. SAID PUBLIC HEARINGS shall be held at 7:00 P.M., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, in the City Council Chambers, City Hall, 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254. ANY AND ALL PERSONS interested are invited to participate and speak at these hearings at the above time and place. For inclusion in the agenda packet to be distributed, written comments of interested parties should be submitted to the Community Development Department, Planning Division, in care of City Hall at 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 prior to Thursday, April 14, 2016, at 12:00 noon. All written testimony by any interested party will be accepted prior to or at the scheduled time on the agenda for the matter. IF YOU CHALLENGE the above matter(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Community Development Department, Planning Division, at, or prior to, the public hearing. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, please contact the Community Development Department, Planning Division, at (310) 318-0242 or fax to (310) 937-6235. The Department is open from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Thursday. Please contact a staff planner to discuss any project on the Planning Commission agenda. A copy of the staff report(s) in the Planning Commission packet will be available for public review at the end of the business day on Thursday, April 14, 2016, at the Hermosa Beach Police Department, Public Library, and on the City’s website at www.hermosabch.org. Relevant Municipal Code sections are also available on the website. Elaine Doerfling City Clerk f:95\cclerk\legads\display\2016\planning\pc04-19-16 1 NOTICE OF SPECIAL MEETING The Chairperson of the Planning Commission has called a special meeting of the Planning Commission for Tuesday, April 19, 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 April 19, 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. Pledge of Allegiance 2. Roll Call – Planning Commission 3. Presentation - PLAN Hermosa (General Plan/Local Coastal Program) Mobility Element and Sustainability + Conservation Element 4. Public Comment 5. Planning Commission Discussion and Deliberation - PLAN Hermosa (General Plan/Local Coastal Program) Mobility Element and Sustainability + Conservation Element Staff Report Attachment 1 - PLAN Hermosa Additional Comments Submitted Supplemental Information (added 4/19/16 at 5:55 p.m.) 6. Adjournment 1 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM Date: April 19, 2016 To: Honorable Chairman and Members of the Hermosa Beach Planning Commission From: Ken Robertson, Community Development Director Subject: PLAN Hermosa (General Plan/Local Coastal Program) Review of the Mobility Element and the Sustainability + Conservation Element Recommendation: The focus of this study session is to:  Receive and file the comments submitted by the community and interested organizations on the Public Review Draft of PLAN Hermosa  Review and provide direction on the Draft Mobility Element and the Sustainability + Conservation Element of PLAN Hermosa Background In July 2013, the City of Hermosa Beach initiated the process of updating and integrating the City’s General Plan and Local Coastal Program, collectively referred to as PLAN Hermosa. The City has received two grants for this effort, from the Strategic Growth Council for a ‘Comprehensive Blueprint for Sustainability and a Low Carbon Future’ and from the Coastal Commission for Local Coastal Program Assistance. The work products prepared for PLAN Hermosa thus far, including background reports, issue papers, and community engagement results are available on the City’s webpage at http://www.hermosabch.org/index.aspx?page=767. Previous activities as well as plans already adopted by the City and other background resources may also be reviewed at this webpage. Community Engagement in the PLAN Hermosa Update Process Central to the creation of PLAN Hermosa has been an extensive community engagement process to ensure the PLAN reflects the community’s vision for the future of Hermosa Beach. For nearly two years, a community working group comprised of approximately 15 Hermosa Beach residents convened on approximately 16 occasions to provide input on the community engagement process and serve as a sounding board in development of PLAN Hermosa. The working group is comprised of Hermosa Beach residents, and includes diverse representation from many City Commissions, businesses, and local organizations. 5 2 To date, the City and consultant team has engaged several hundred community members through workshops, an educational series, online surveys, and study sessions with City Council and Planning Commission. The City has also utilized newsletters, e-notify, the City website, web and print ads in local papers, and other means to communicate with the community about the process. In January 2016 a postcard flyer was mailed to every address (residential and commercial) in the City with information about upcoming events and opportunities to participate in reviewing PLAN Hermosa. Community Input Provided through February 25, 2016 In December 2015, an important milestone in the process was achieved: the Public Review Draft of PLAN Hermosa was made available to the community for review, input, and feedback. While comment and input will continue to be encouraged throughout the process up through City Council adoption, a summary of the input provided before February 25, 2016 has been compiled and organized so that the Planning Commission may consider recommended changes to the draft during your review. Between December 2015 and February 2016 approximately 50 comments were submitted to the Community Development Department via email, letter, or through public meetings and workshops. A summary of the input received related to the Land Use + Design Element through February is provided in Attachment 1. A full compilation of the original comments submitted is provided in Attachment 2. Specific opportunities for input included:  1/23 – Presentation at Community First Meeting  1/25 – Joint Commission Study Session  1/26 – City Council Study Session  2/5 and 2/6 – Community Open House and Walking Tours  2/8 – Presentation at Beach Cities Health District Livability Committee Meeting  2/24 – Presentation at Leadership Hermosa Beach Meeting Staff also anticipates further input and discussion in the coming months with local students, the Chamber of Commerce, and the real estate community. PLAN Hermosa Review Schedule Between March and May 2016, the Planning Commission will participate in Study Sessions to review and refine the draft of PLAN Hermosa. Discussion each month will begin during a Study Session at 6 PM ahead of regularly scheduled Planning Commission Meetings on the third Tuesday of each month, and if needed, will be continued to a Special Meeting of the Planning Commission on the fourth Monday of the month.  March/April – Land Use + Design Element  April – Mobility Element, Sustainability + Conservation Element  May – Governance Element, Parks + Open Space Element, Public Safety Element, Infrastructure Element The objective for the Planning Commission is to review and provide input on all aspects of the plan by May so that review of the EIR and a formal recommendation to the City Council can be made in June and July of 2016. 3 Review by other City Commissions The following meetings have been held/scheduled for the Parks and Recreation, Emergency Preparedness, and Public Works Commissions to review and provide input related to PLAN Hermosa: • April 5, 2016 – Parks and Recreation Commission Hearing • May 2, 2016 – Emergency Preparedness Advisory Committee Hearing • May 18, 2016 – Public Works Commission Hearing Recommended Ranking of Topics for Discussion To assist in the efficient review and discussion of each element, a suggested ranking system may help each commissioner to identify topics in need of small edits or greater deliberation (a worksheet is provided on the next page):  No – No changes needed or would like to provide a brief comment on this topic  Min – Propose minor changes (typo, clarify term, re-word policy) or would like to ask a question about this topic  Maj – Propose major changes (change policy intent, strike policies, add policies) or would like the Commission to discuss or deliberate on this topic  Del – Would like to delegate or request input from other City Commissions on a particular topic before the Planning Commission has further discussion or provides recommendations We will begin each Planning Commission discussion of PLAN Hermosa with a brief staff report or presentation and request that commissioners identify their desired level of discussion and input on each topic. The staff report for each meeting/month will provide a worksheet with the list of topics for the element(s) planned for discussion. Please come to each meeting with your worksheet already filled out so that we may efficiently move through the topics in need of discussion. Mobility Element and Sustainability + Conservation Element Review and Discussion The second and third Elements recommended for review by the Planning Commission are the Mobility Element and the Sustainability + Conservation Element, with respect to how they relate and correlate with the zoning and development topics that are under the purview of the Planning Commission. 4 To facilitate discussion of the Mobility Element and the Sustainability + Conservation Element, please fill out the tables below prior to the beginning of the meeting. These will be used to collectively identify and organize the topics in need of discussion. Mobility Topic Ranking Notes Intro, State Law, or Context Pedestrian + Bicycle Environment Parking Intended Mobility System + Street Network Goal 1. Complete Streets Goal 2. Public Realm Goal 3. Right-of-Ways Goal 4. Parking System Goal 5. Low Carbon System Goal 6. Regional Integration Goal 7. Vision Zero Goal 8. Commercial Vehicles Topic Ranking No No changes Min Minor Changes Maj Major Changes Del Delegate to other commission Sustainability + Conservation Topic Ranking Notes Intro, State Law, or Context Greenhouse Gas Emissions Resource Conservation Goal 1. Carbon Neutral Municipality Goal 2. Carbon Neutral Community Goal 3. Air Quality Goal 4. Energy Consumption/Production Goal 5. Water Conservation Goal 6. Zero Waste Community Goal 7. Topsoil Erosion Attachments: 1. PLAN Hermosa additional comments submitted Comments on Plan Hermosa Comments for the Planning Commission following March 28th Meeting: As a resident of the Hermosa Hills Neighborhood, specifically Ocean View Ave between 5th and 4th Streets, I have a few comments and suggestions. On the West side of Ocean View there are 4 single family homes and 1 multi unit home. The East side is a mix of single family and Condo residences‐ 19 homes. There is no parking allowed on the East side of Ocean View. Alley access is provided for the West side in addition to several metered spaces adjacent to the Laundrymat and Liquor store. Despite the alley parking for the West side, many residents on that side park in front of their homes as do business operators from PCH﴾specifically the Animal hospital, Rosa's restaurant and the Auto body and towing businesses﴿ THIS LEAVES ALMOST NO PARKING AVAILABLE TO GUESTS OR RESIDENTS OF THE WEST SIDE OF OCEAN VIEW. Ocean view culminates in a Parkette to 3rd street, eliminating parking at the corner. My concern or point of contention is that residents on my side﴾East﴿ of Ocean View have no ability to reserve parking for a guest. Suggestion: Either allow for residential parking permits pursuant to p.88 of the plan goal of providing a "high quality of life for residents", specifically sub section 1.8 responding to the unique characteristics of the space. p.133 references Zone 3 small supply of metered parking at 4th street. That would be acceptable to allow residents to have quest access to meters by permit or to provide a 2 hour limit for parking on the West side of Ocean View which would encourage residents to use their alley parking and thus free up potential spaces for guests. This would also eliminate the PCH traffic from filling up the few available spaces. Thank you for considering my concerns and suggestions for incorporation into the Plan Hermosa. Carol Vernon, 412 Ocean View Ave. vernon.carol@gmail.com Carol Vernon <vernon.carol@gmail.com> Thu 3/31/2016 3:39 PM To:Leeanne Singleton <generalplan@hermosabch.org>; Comment on PLAN Hermosa My wife and I and our 20‐month‐old daughter recently moved to Hermosa ﴾near South Park﴿ and we're just now learning about PLAN Hermosa. I saw on the website that comments needed to be submitted on or before Feb 25 in order to be considered in the Public Hearing Draft, so I recognize that my comment is coming in on the late side. But on the chance it is worthwhile anyway, I'm providing it here. My comment is that the sidewalk along Valley Drive should be designated a priority sidewalk and that to the extent that a General Plan can make recommendations for improvements to a particular facility, identify this sidewalk as a key opportunity area. Figure 3.8 "Pedestrian Facilities" of the December 2015 Public Review Draft PLAN Hermosa document depicts the Valley Drive pedestrian facility as merely a local sidewalk, but it is really much more than that. It is the one pedestrian facility that links nearly all the important public facilities in the city ﴾South Park, Valley Greenbelt wood chip trail, Clark Stadium, civic center, Valley School, Valley Park, etc.﴿, and yet suffers from very poor design, as I'm sure you're well aware. It is far too narrow, especially given that it is directly adjacent to moving traffic with zero buffer between the through zone and moving vehicular traffic, which regularly exceeds the 25 MPH posted speed limit. Any number of standard design guidelines and regulations ﴾e.g., the FHWA Designing Sidewalks and Trails for Access and the NACTO Sidewalk Design Guide﴿ specify a minimum 8‐foot sidewalk width in these situations, with a 2‐foot buffer for utilities. While a General Plan may not be the right venue for describing or proposing specific projects, I would like to see language in the Plan that would support creative approaches and solutions. For example, many cities ﴾most famously New York City, but many others including Los Angeles﴿ have found success in implementing complete street/pedestrian‐enhanced redesigns by utilizing inexpensive, temporary, and rapidly deployable pilot projects and interim solutions to demonstrate and test out such street redesign concepts. Things as simple as paint, traffic cones, and planters can be used to test out ideas over a few days, and then can be easily removed. I would propose looking to successful models from other cities‐‐some local examples include People St from City of Los Angeles, Santa Monica's Michigan Ave Neighborhood Greenway pilot. The project I'd love to see occur on Valley Drive is to convert it to a one‐direction single lane, and possibly doing the same with Ardmore Ave, making them into a couplet, similar to the existing configuration of Valley and Ardmore north of 1st St in Manhattan Beach. Then utilize the lane nearest the sidewalk as a protected two‐way cycle track, a multi‐use path, a sidewalk extension, or something similar to make this critical pedestrian facility less of an uncomfortable and potentially unsafe experience. Regards, Elliot Hubbard Hermosa Beach resident Elliot Hubbard <elliot.hubbard@gmail.com> Wed 3/30/2016 10:46 AM To:Leeanne Singleton <generalplan@hermosabch.org>; Public comments on PLAN Hermosa     From: Marie Rice [mailto:marierice@gmail.com]  Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2016 10:21 AM To: Kim Chafin Subject: Fwd: (no subject)   FYI we received this letter.   Thanks, Marie ­­­­­­­­­­ Forwarded message ­­­­­­­­­­  From: <Zfred1@aol.com>  Date: Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 11:22 AM  Subject: (no subject)  To: mikeflaherty2010@gmail.com, marierice@gmail.com, rsgc1@aol.com, kentjallen@gmail.com, phoffman@lmu.edu  Cc: kt@ktbeachproperties.com, Zfred1@aol.com  To all the commissioners of Hermosa Beach,   I wanted to take a moment to applaud your actions and attention to the recent issues on the 'potential' changes in the property characteristics for the residents of the City.  I am a local homeowner as well as a professional Realtor in the area.  I have lived in Hermosa most of my life and have been a Realtor for over 35 years.  I have seen many changes in the neighboring cities as well as our own city.  I think some changes were and are well thought out and beneficial.  However, I have also experienced some changes or suggested changes that were not and are not a substantially good idea.  I realize change can be a positive consideration and if it is well analyzed and reviewed and then given to the community to get feedback , then it usually comes out a good thing.  I reviewed the considerations for our city and our residences and thought they were counterproductive and more important, devalued many of our homes.  I am really appreciative that you took it under your advisement to give this a lot of thought and helped us all in the results.  All too often, people criticize you all without really giving you more credit that you deserve.  Thanks for the great work and I am very happy with your positions. sincerely,   Fred Zuelich Kim Chafin Wed 4/6/2016 11:02 AM To:Leeanne Singleton <generalplan@hermosabch.org>; Cc:Ken Robertson <krobertson@hermosabch.org>; Shorewood Realtors  CBRE # 01949423www.fzuelich4beachhomes.com  3300 Highland Ave.   Manhattan Beach, Ca. 90266   Cell: 310 245 4898  Off: 310 546 7561 x 488  Fax: 310 545 6097  CBRE# 00669414  "33 years of selling fine beach properties"  Click below for viewing Shorewoods Living Magazine   http://www.shorewoodliving.com/h/      Fwd: jwrosenfeld@yahoo.com has shared something with you Attached is an article about the coastal commission denying PV resident‐only parking because it interferes with beach access. We should be aware of this concern and cut back significantly on the resident permits allowed in Hermosa. It interferes with beach access both for visitors and residents who do not live within three blocks of the beach. http://www.dailybreeze.com/article/LI/20160310/NEWS/160319946#.VuJtq78F57c.email jennifer <jwrosenfeld@yahoo.com> Fri 3/11/2016 4:24 PM To:Leeanne Singleton <generalplan@hermosabch.org>; PLAN Hermosa, public comments PLAN Hermosa  Page 8  Guiding Principles Delete all bullet points that refer to “Sustainable” or “Sustainability” These terms refer to activities that promote a radical socialistic society worldwide with NO civil rights for people.  Activities   that are not “Sustainable”: using fossil fuels (private ownership of vehicles), individual homes, golf courses, private   ownership of land, property rights, and ski slopes,   Hermosa Beach will never become “sustainable”, but will waste millions of dollars implementing “sustainable” policies   and make life miserable for Hermosa Beach citizens.   Delete all bullet points that refer to “Carbon Neutrality” Carbon neutrality refers to achieving net zero carbon emissions by balancing the measured amount of carbon used   by households or businesses being offset by energy generated by households or businesses.  This would require   JJ JOHNSON <sunflowerkansas@yahoo.com> Sun 4/10/2016 11:44 PM To:Leeanne Singleton <generalplan@hermosabch.org>; Cc:Kent Allen <kentjallen@gmail.com>; Peter Hoffman <phoffman@lmu.edu>; Mike Flaherty <mikeflaherty2010@gmail.com>; Marie Rice <marierice@gmail.com>; Rob Saemann <rsgc1@aol.com>; Mayor Carolyn Petty <cpetty@hermosabch.org>; Hany Fangary <hfangary@hermosabch.org>; Justin Massey <jmassey@hermosabch.org>; Jeff Duclos <jduclos@hermosabch.org>; Stacey Armato <sarmato@hermosabch.org>; MASSIVE installation of solar panels and / or windmills throughout Hermosa Beach.  This is almost impossible   and would cost citizens, business owners, and the Hermosa Beach city government millions of dollars and would   dramatically reduce citizens’ and business owners’ “rights”. Delete all bullet points that refer to “Climate Change” “Climate Change” is a hoax designed to redistribute wealth worldwide per the decisions of the global “ruling elite”.   The former co­chair of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on Mitigation of Climate Change from 2008 to 2015, Ottmar Edenhofer let slip that, “One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole. We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth   by climate policy.” ……. Edenhofer added that, “the next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during   which the distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated.” http://rightwingnews.com/column­2/funny­thing­happened­way­climate­inquisition/ Re: Plan Hermosa edits for discussion TOMORROW, 3/28 at 6pm Commissioners Allen, Flaherty, Hoffman, Rice and Saemann,  Thanks for your unwavering dedication to the protection of property rights that each of you demonstrated at last night's study session.     I'll be sending an update to all the property owners that expressed concerns about height limits and various aspects of the Land Use Section soon to let them know you're safeguarding their interests.  It's clear you consistently defend property owners rights as your first priority and have Hermosa's best interests at heart.   Thank you for making it crystal clear that all references to height, setbacks, stepbacks and density are to be removed under the "Future Vision" and "Desired Form and Character" headings.  The consultants and Ken Robertson reluctantly acknowledged "a couple places" where it would "probably make sense" to modify the language (and they only recommended a couple edits) yet it was originally written into virtually each of the 9 neighborhoods.  They were resistant to making these changes, so your persistence was appreciated.  Appreciated that you're not changing the method for calculating heights too.   Here are a few thoughts following last night's discussion: 1.  With respect to the future treatment of garages, I understand it's a balancing act of maintaining street parking and neighborhood aesthetics, while not overreaching on design standards like an HOA board, but feel there are factors that weren't discussed last night that warrant further consideration.  I'm not an architect, but here's some food for thought.  I bet some of the local architects would be willing to offer their suggestions if asked.  Remodels should be exempt ­ having to relocate a garage would make most remodels unfeasible.   A one size fits all approach to garages doesn't work.  Whether or not there's an alley, lot width and lot slope play into the design and construction costs associated with the various options. Property owners without a rear alley should have more latitude in the design of their homes and the location of a garage, without requiring planning commission approval, which takes a considerable amount of time and expense.  For properties without an alley, even on a 40' or 50' lot, the garage would take up half of the yard, and the size of the ground floor would be compromised in order to fit a side driveway.  Imagine a home with a small first floor that leads to a small yard vs. a spacious first floor that flows to a big back yard.  One is a significantly better home than the other, and much more family friendly.  So hard to find properties with a yard in the first place, so to take a big portion away for a yard is a bummer.  Even worse on a 25' or 30' lot. To require a rear garage on a 25' or 30' lot would render those properties practically impossible to develop so it would force people to do a tandem garage to meet subordinate garage policy.  Tandems are awful, inconvenient, people don't use them and they exacerbate street parking problems.  Properties with them aren't desirable on resale.  Tandem garages should never be encouraged.    For properties with a rear alley, perhaps a policy that encourages a rear garage, but doesn't require it.   There are certain alleys that are very narrow, both in the sand section, on Longfellow and possibly other areas that aren't coming to mind.  When it's so hard to navigate, people end­up parking on the street.  Plus, taking away the ability to have a small back yard, even in the sand section, removes a safe place to keep a pet.  When people have a Karynne Thim <kt@ktbeachproperties.com> Tue 3/29/2016 3:42 PM To:Leeanne Singleton <generalplan@hermosabch.org>; Kent Allen <kentjallen@gmail.com>; Marie Rice <marierice@gmail.com>; Mike Flaherty <mikeflaherty2010@gmail.com>; Rob Saemann <rsgc1@aol.com>; Peter Hoffman <phoffman@lmu.edu>; Ken Robertson <krobertson@hermosabch.org>; Kim Chafin <kchafin@hermosabch.org>; Elaine Doerfling <edoerfling@hermosabch.org>; Yu‐Ying Ting <Yting@hermosabch.org>; City Council <citycouncil@hermosabch.org>; place to keep a pet, they are more apt to be responsible for pet waste in their own yard rather than all over the neighborhood.   Today's architects and designers are better at creating an interesting front by utilizing different textures, materials, colors, etc., which can minimize the look of a garage and draw the eye up. 2.  For the Valley neighborhood, at page 73, there's a sentence in the Future Vision paragraph that reads "Buildings should retain larger setbacks and lower scale and massing, and new sidewalks should be added to contribute to a complete pedestrian network."  I think that one slipped through the cracks and isn't slated for editing.    Although there wasn't enough time to discuss the "Land Use Goals" including treatment of historic properties and wording that resembles a restrictive view ordinance as seen in PV or Hollywood Riviera (which was touched upon in the North End neighborhood), it's my understanding that will be discussed at another session and I trust you'll exhibit the same leadership on those issues.  People buy properties with the expectation of consistency in development standards and knowing what those standards mean to them now and in the future.  Any midstream change to those standards creates inequities.         I'm very thankful to have the five of you as planning commissioners and hope you'll all remain in your positions, especially with all the important land use decisions being made right now.  You have a good thing going and really work well together ­ you are good at sharing dialog and ideas to arrive at practical solutions.  Even when you don't see things exactly the same way, you respect each other's thoughts, draw off of each other's background and knowledge, and find ways to reach a consensus.  Thank you for all you're doing for our town during this pivotal time, Karynne    On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 10:01 PM, Karynne Thim <kt@ktbeachproperties.com> wrote:   Commissioners Allen, Flaherty, Hoffman, Rice and Saemann  , Just reviewed the items earmarked for discussion or edits and noticed several sections that    aren't redlined that   would negatively affect property rights, height limits, setbacks and garage  design  .           Please put this email on the public record for the Planning Commission study session tomorrow, 3/28 at 6pm.     Staff advised it was not the intent to reduce height limits, but revisions don't  consistently   reflect that.        References to buildings being one or two story are still referenced below the heading "Desired Form and Character"   in several neighborhoods.   This is VERY muddy.  Only some of these references were removed...others remain.  They should be completely deleted or moved to the beginning paragraph which describes existing conditions. Hermosa View  ­ Page 70.  S till has reference to residences not exceeding two stories, yet there are properties zoned R2  on Longfellow and on 30th   with a current height limit of 30' Sand Section   ­ Page 72.  G arages not earmarked for discussion. There are half lots with no rear alleyway.  Those properties need to be able to have a side by side street facing garages regardless of curb cuts  .      Nobody wants tandem garages .  Valley ­  Page 73.  L arger setbacks  , lower scale and massing  are referenced.   Why is this referenced if no change is intended?     Should be clarified that current setback guidelines won't change.   Greenbelt ­ Page 75.  Neighborhood commercial.  Didn't residents object to this?  What's the intent of "successful transitions between residential uses and adjacent retail/service uses" on PCH?   Hermosa Hills ­  Page 76.  O ne or two stories referenced yet this area has both R2 and R3 properties with a current 30' height limit.  Eastside ­  Page 77.  R eference to one or two stories remain yet there are R2 properties with a current 30' height limit.   Reference to 13 dwelling units per acre should be removed as there are R2 zones.    Goal 2.12.  Page 90.  Bullet point 1 substitution of the word "through" is not sufficient and would handicap the development of many properties.  This is a design feature that isn't feasible for properties without rear alleyways.  Bullet point 2 sounds like it could be a PV or Hollywood Riviera style restriction on building.  Goal 5.1.  Page 93.  Scale and massing.  Any change from current standards affect property rights.  This should be deleted. Thank you for your attention on this important issues. Karynne Thim ‐‐ Karynne Thim Shorewood Realtors 310‐753‐7816 ﴾cell﴿ www.KTBeachProperties.com License #01161295 Specializing in South Bay Beach Properties Since 1993 Parking on 4th St. And Ocean Dr. Hello! My name is Marylou von Heyman and I reside at 832 4th St./Hermosa Beach, CA. 90254. Carol Vernon, my friend and neighbor who lives on Ocean Dr., recently contacted you regarding the parking situation in our neighborhood. She informed you that customers and employees of some of the local businesses located on Pacific Coast Highway park on Ocean Dr. on a regular basis, leaving very limited space available for residents and their guests to park. These residents, in turn, are forced to look for parking elsewhere and many of them end up parking on 4th St.., which also provides parking on the one side of the street which is designated for parking, to customers and employees of businesses located on PCH, like Poise Fitness, Rosa's, etc., from early mornings to let evenings on a daily basis. As Carol mentioned in her letter to the planning commission, the city parking lot adjacent to Pacific Laundry has metered spaces for 10 vehicles. As she also suggested, it would be advantageous to make these spaces available to residents and local businesses on some sort of permit basis. This would provide a remedy for the clogged parking situation on Ocean Dr. and 4th St., as well as making it more convenient for the employees and customers of local businesses to do business in Hermosa Beach. Please seriously consider Carol's proposal and feel free to broaden it, in order to allow local businesses to participate, as well. This will help improve the relationship between residents and businesses and is in line with the "collaborative" spirit of the new Hermosa Beach "city plan"! Kind regards, Marylou von Heyman Sent from my iPad Marylou Von Heyman <mvheyman@icloud.com> Mon 4/11/2016 5:55 PM To:Leeanne Singleton <generalplan@hermosabch.org>; FW: April 19 General Plan Study Session FYI   Ken Robertson Director, Community Development Department City of Hermosa Beach (310) 318­0242   From: Hoffman, Peter [mailto:Peter.Hoffman@lmu.edu]  Sent: Monday, April 04, 2016 12:07 PM To: Ken Robertson Subject: FW: April 19 General Plan Study Session   Ken:  Not sure if your office got this or not; it was sent to enၑĀre commission and to Tom.  Pete   From: Peggy Barr [mailto:warrensho쩔Āy@aol.com]   Sent: Sunday, April 03, 2016 9:57 PM  To: Kent Allen <kentjallen@gmail.com>; Marie Rice <marierice@gmail.com>; Mike Flaherty <mikeflaherty2010@gmail.com>; Hoffman, Peter <Peter.Hoffman@lmu.edu>; Rob Saemann <rsgc1@aol.com>; City Manager Tom Bakaly <tbakaly@hermosabch.org>  Subject: April 19 General Plan Study Session     DATE:            4­3­16 TO:                  Hermosa Beach Planning Commission FROM:           Peggy Barr                         922 17th St                         Hermosa Beach, CA RE:                 April 19 General Plan Study Session   These comments are in regard to Chapter 4, Sustainability + Conservation:   I would like to see a point of clarification to be added stating, “Nothing in this chapter shall be Ken Robertson Mon 4/4/2016 1:37 PM To:Leeanne Singleton <generalplan@hermosabch.org>; Kim Chafin <kchafin@hermosabch.org>; construed as applying to private property, with no infringement on personal property rights, or penalties for non­ participation in the encouraged or incentivized programs.”   Goal 1: Appropriately states the intent to be aimed at MUNICIPAL FACILITIES.   Policy 1.4­Requires the purchase of carbon offsets. This policy should be eliminated as hypocritical, at best, and siphoning off money into a rat hole at worst. The purchase of carbon offsets does nothing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.   Goal 2: Expands into the private sector by including “the Community”. Anything that relates to “the Community” and PRIVATE property in this and the subsequent goals should be eliminated. In other words, this entire goal should be eliminated. It’s fine for the City to have the goal of carbon neutrality, it is not okay to expand that goal to the community and private property.   Goal 3: If the city follows Goal 1, this is redundant. Goal 3 attempts to again infringe on individual rights and should be eliminated.   Goal 4: As stated, it’s fine to encourage these things. In fact, let’s incentivize these things. Some of the Policies, however use the word “require”, again an infringement on personal property rights.   Policy 4.1­ Strike the word “require”. Policy 4.2­Strike entire policy, not cost effective. Policy 4.5­ is redundant, already in Goal 1, strike it.   Goal 5: Policy 5.3 and 5.4­Eliminate the words “requirements” and “regulation”, respectively and eliminate “every aspect of water use”. These are infringements of personal property rights, let alone my personal bathroom activities! Goal 6: This is a GOAL not a MANDATE from the State of California. Correct this mis­statement. The Hermosa Beach Community has NOT “explicitly stated an independent commitment to continually strive to reduce waste and be an example of a sustainable, carbon neutral community.”  The less than 2% of the community who attended your “Visioning” “Community Dialogue” may have, but they certainly do not represent my opinion, as well as lots of people I know! This should be explicitly stated as a voluntary program.   Policy 6.1 and 6.2­change the word “Ensure” to Encourage. Ensure is just a nice way of saying REQUIRED, that infringes on personal rights. Policy 6.3­ change the word “Require” to Encourage. Policy 6.4­eliminate it. We already have too many unenforced mandates on the beach. Policy 6.7­is redundant, it is already covered under Goal 1. Policy 6.8­although well intentioned and stated as where cost effective, there is no way such a goal could be achieved cost effectively­paper work is always required and costly. Eliminate this policy.   Goal 7: Policy 7­add the words “where feasible” and “where not a danger to public safety”.   Now is probably a good time to let you know that I am not ANTI­green. Currently my husband and I are avid recyclers. The trash that  goes to our curb for pick up is typically half as much as recycle. I reuse my “single use” plastic bags, generally up to 6 times before they are recycled. And in addition to that I rarely get those bags­because I have used cloth grocery bags for close to 10 years. We have lowered  our water use starting way back in the 1990’s by reducing our outside water to only once a week­the plants did just fine. When we remodeled and moved our new yard was outfitted with artificial turf as a ground cover  to lower the water needs even further. And with the recent drought we have instituted further reductions on our own to reuse grey water for things we didn’t use to. We have installed compact fluorescent bulbs or LEDs where appropriate. We have solar panels. We drive a hybrid car only about 7,500 miles per year. All of these things we have done VOLUNTARILY, because we want to, NOT because we have been forced to. I am not willing to FORCE my neighbors to do what I do, I can only encourage them­ because we are all on this Earth together and there is only one Earth! Image used with permission from FreedomAdvocates.org   Comments on Plan Hermosa Comments for the Planning Commission following March 28th Meeting: As a resident of the Hermosa Hills Neighborhood, specifically Ocean View Ave between 5th and 4th Streets, I have a few comments and suggestions. On the West side of Ocean View there are 4 single family homes and 1 multi unit home. The East side is a mix of single family and Condo residences‐ 19 homes. There is no parking allowed on the East side of Ocean View. Alley access is provided for the West side in addition to several metered spaces adjacent to the Laundrymat and Liquor store. Despite the alley parking for the West side, many residents on that side park in front of their homes as do business operators from PCH﴾specifically the Animal hospital, Rosa's restaurant and the Auto body and towing businesses﴿ THIS LEAVES ALMOST NO PARKING AVAILABLE TO GUESTS OR RESIDENTS OF THE WEST SIDE OF OCEAN VIEW. Ocean view culminates in a Parkette to 3rd street, eliminating parking at the corner. My concern or point of contention is that residents on my side﴾East﴿ of Ocean View have no ability to reserve parking for a guest. Suggestion: Either allow for residential parking permits pursuant to p.88 of the plan goal of providing a "high quality of life for residents", specifically sub section 1.8 responding to the unique characteristics of the space. p.133 references Zone 3 small supply of metered parking at 4th street. That would be acceptable to allow residents to have quest access to meters by permit or to provide a 2 hour limit for parking on the West side of Ocean View which would encourage residents to use their alley parking and thus free up potential spaces for guests. This would also eliminate the PCH traffic from filling up the few available spaces. Thank you for considering my concerns and suggestions for incorporation into the Plan Hermosa. Carol Vernon, 412 Ocean View Ave. vernon.carol@gmail.com Carol Vernon <vernon.carol@gmail.com> Thu 3/31/2016 3:39 PM To:Leeanne Singleton <generalplan@hermosabch.org>; Comment on PLAN Hermosa My wife and I and our 20‐month‐old daughter recently moved to Hermosa ﴾near South Park﴿ and we're just now learning about PLAN Hermosa. I saw on the website that comments needed to be submitted on or before Feb 25 in order to be considered in the Public Hearing Draft, so I recognize that my comment is coming in on the late side. But on the chance it is worthwhile anyway, I'm providing it here. My comment is that the sidewalk along Valley Drive should be designated a priority sidewalk and that to the extent that a General Plan can make recommendations for improvements to a particular facility, identify this sidewalk as a key opportunity area. Figure 3.8 "Pedestrian Facilities" of the December 2015 Public Review Draft PLAN Hermosa document depicts the Valley Drive pedestrian facility as merely a local sidewalk, but it is really much more than that. It is the one pedestrian facility that links nearly all the important public facilities in the city ﴾South Park, Valley Greenbelt wood chip trail, Clark Stadium, civic center, Valley School, Valley Park, etc.﴿, and yet suffers from very poor design, as I'm sure you're well aware. It is far too narrow, especially given that it is directly adjacent to moving traffic with zero buffer between the through zone and moving vehicular traffic, which regularly exceeds the 25 MPH posted speed limit. Any number of standard design guidelines and regulations ﴾e.g., the FHWA Designing Sidewalks and Trails for Access and the NACTO Sidewalk Design Guide﴿ specify a minimum 8‐foot sidewalk width in these situations, with a 2‐foot buffer for utilities. While a General Plan may not be the right venue for describing or proposing specific projects, I would like to see language in the Plan that would support creative approaches and solutions. For example, many cities ﴾most famously New York City, but many others including Los Angeles﴿ have found success in implementing complete street/pedestrian‐enhanced redesigns by utilizing inexpensive, temporary, and rapidly deployable pilot projects and interim solutions to demonstrate and test out such street redesign concepts. Things as simple as paint, traffic cones, and planters can be used to test out ideas over a few days, and then can be easily removed. I would propose looking to successful models from other cities‐‐some local examples include People St from City of Los Angeles, Santa Monica's Michigan Ave Neighborhood Greenway pilot. The project I'd love to see occur on Valley Drive is to convert it to a one‐direction single lane, and possibly doing the same with Ardmore Ave, making them into a couplet, similar to the existing configuration of Valley and Ardmore north of 1st St in Manhattan Beach. Then utilize the lane nearest the sidewalk as a protected two‐way cycle track, a multi‐use path, a sidewalk extension, or something similar to make this critical pedestrian facility less of an uncomfortable and potentially unsafe experience. Regards, Elliot Hubbard Hermosa Beach resident Elliot Hubbard <elliot.hubbard@gmail.com> Wed 3/30/2016 10:46 AM To:Leeanne Singleton <generalplan@hermosabch.org>; Public comments on PLAN Hermosa     From: Marie Rice [mailto:marierice@gmail.com]  Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2016 10:21 AM To: Kim Chafin Subject: Fwd: (no subject)   FYI we received this letter.   Thanks, Marie ­­­­­­­­­­ Forwarded message ­­­­­­­­­­  From: <Zfred1@aol.com>  Date: Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 11:22 AM  Subject: (no subject)  To: mikeflaherty2010@gmail.com, marierice@gmail.com, rsgc1@aol.com, kentjallen@gmail.com, phoffman@lmu.edu  Cc: kt@ktbeachproperties.com, Zfred1@aol.com  To all the commissioners of Hermosa Beach,   I wanted to take a moment to applaud your actions and attention to the recent issues on the 'potential' changes in the property characteristics for the residents of the City.  I am a local homeowner as well as a professional Realtor in the area.  I have lived in Hermosa most of my life and have been a Realtor for over 35 years.  I have seen many changes in the neighboring cities as well as our own city.  I think some changes were and are well thought out and beneficial.  However, I have also experienced some changes or suggested changes that were not and are not a substantially good idea.  I realize change can be a positive consideration and if it is well analyzed and reviewed and then given to the community to get feedback , then it usually comes out a good thing.  I reviewed the considerations for our city and our residences and thought they were counterproductive and more important, devalued many of our homes.  I am really appreciative that you took it under your advisement to give this a lot of thought and helped us all in the results.  All too often, people criticize you all without really giving you more credit that you deserve.  Thanks for the great work and I am very happy with your positions. sincerely,   Fred Zuelich Kim Chafin Wed 4/6/2016 11:02 AM To:Leeanne Singleton <generalplan@hermosabch.org>; Cc:Ken Robertson <krobertson@hermosabch.org>; Shorewood Realtors  CBRE # 01949423www.fzuelich4beachhomes.com  3300 Highland Ave.   Manhattan Beach, Ca. 90266   Cell: 310 245 4898  Off: 310 546 7561 x 488  Fax: 310 545 6097  CBRE# 00669414  "33 years of selling fine beach properties"  Click below for viewing Shorewoods Living Magazine   http://www.shorewoodliving.com/h/      Fwd: jwrosenfeld@yahoo.com has shared something with you Attached is an article about the coastal commission denying PV resident‐only parking because it interferes with beach access. We should be aware of this concern and cut back significantly on the resident permits allowed in Hermosa. It interferes with beach access both for visitors and residents who do not live within three blocks of the beach. http://www.dailybreeze.com/article/LI/20160310/NEWS/160319946#.VuJtq78F57c.email jennifer <jwrosenfeld@yahoo.com> Fri 3/11/2016 4:24 PM To:Leeanne Singleton <generalplan@hermosabch.org>; PLAN Hermosa, public comments PLAN Hermosa  Page 8  Guiding Principles Delete all bullet points that refer to “Sustainable” or “Sustainability” These terms refer to activities that promote a radical socialistic society worldwide with NO civil rights for people.  Activities   that are not “Sustainable”: using fossil fuels (private ownership of vehicles), individual homes, golf courses, private   ownership of land, property rights, and ski slopes,   Hermosa Beach will never become “sustainable”, but will waste millions of dollars implementing “sustainable” policies   and make life miserable for Hermosa Beach citizens.   Delete all bullet points that refer to “Carbon Neutrality” Carbon neutrality refers to achieving net zero carbon emissions by balancing the measured amount of carbon used   by households or businesses being offset by energy generated by households or businesses.  This would require   JJ JOHNSON <sunflowerkansas@yahoo.com> Sun 4/10/2016 11:44 PM To:Leeanne Singleton <generalplan@hermosabch.org>; Cc:Kent Allen <kentjallen@gmail.com>; Peter Hoffman <phoffman@lmu.edu>; Mike Flaherty <mikeflaherty2010@gmail.com>; Marie Rice <marierice@gmail.com>; Rob Saemann <rsgc1@aol.com>; Mayor Carolyn Petty <cpetty@hermosabch.org>; Hany Fangary <hfangary@hermosabch.org>; Justin Massey <jmassey@hermosabch.org>; Jeff Duclos <jduclos@hermosabch.org>; Stacey Armato <sarmato@hermosabch.org>; MASSIVE installation of solar panels and / or windmills throughout Hermosa Beach.  This is almost impossible   and would cost citizens, business owners, and the Hermosa Beach city government millions of dollars and would   dramatically reduce citizens’ and business owners’ “rights”. Delete all bullet points that refer to “Climate Change” “Climate Change” is a hoax designed to redistribute wealth worldwide per the decisions of the global “ruling elite”.   The former co­chair of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on Mitigation of Climate Change from 2008 to 2015, Ottmar Edenhofer let slip that, “One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole. We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth   by climate policy.” ……. Edenhofer added that, “the next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during   which the distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated.” http://rightwingnews.com/column­2/funny­thing­happened­way­climate­inquisition/ Re: Plan Hermosa edits for discussion TOMORROW, 3/28 at 6pm Commissioners Allen, Flaherty, Hoffman, Rice and Saemann,  Thanks for your unwavering dedication to the protection of property rights that each of you demonstrated at last night's study session.     I'll be sending an update to all the property owners that expressed concerns about height limits and various aspects of the Land Use Section soon to let them know you're safeguarding their interests.  It's clear you consistently defend property owners rights as your first priority and have Hermosa's best interests at heart.   Thank you for making it crystal clear that all references to height, setbacks, stepbacks and density are to be removed under the "Future Vision" and "Desired Form and Character" headings.  The consultants and Ken Robertson reluctantly acknowledged "a couple places" where it would "probably make sense" to modify the language (and they only recommended a couple edits) yet it was originally written into virtually each of the 9 neighborhoods.  They were resistant to making these changes, so your persistence was appreciated.  Appreciated that you're not changing the method for calculating heights too.   Here are a few thoughts following last night's discussion: 1.  With respect to the future treatment of garages, I understand it's a balancing act of maintaining street parking and neighborhood aesthetics, while not overreaching on design standards like an HOA board, but feel there are factors that weren't discussed last night that warrant further consideration.  I'm not an architect, but here's some food for thought.  I bet some of the local architects would be willing to offer their suggestions if asked.  Remodels should be exempt ­ having to relocate a garage would make most remodels unfeasible.   A one size fits all approach to garages doesn't work.  Whether or not there's an alley, lot width and lot slope play into the design and construction costs associated with the various options. Property owners without a rear alley should have more latitude in the design of their homes and the location of a garage, without requiring planning commission approval, which takes a considerable amount of time and expense.  For properties without an alley, even on a 40' or 50' lot, the garage would take up half of the yard, and the size of the ground floor would be compromised in order to fit a side driveway.  Imagine a home with a small first floor that leads to a small yard vs. a spacious first floor that flows to a big back yard.  One is a significantly better home than the other, and much more family friendly.  So hard to find properties with a yard in the first place, so to take a big portion away for a yard is a bummer.  Even worse on a 25' or 30' lot. To require a rear garage on a 25' or 30' lot would render those properties practically impossible to develop so it would force people to do a tandem garage to meet subordinate garage policy.  Tandems are awful, inconvenient, people don't use them and they exacerbate street parking problems.  Properties with them aren't desirable on resale.  Tandem garages should never be encouraged.    For properties with a rear alley, perhaps a policy that encourages a rear garage, but doesn't require it.   There are certain alleys that are very narrow, both in the sand section, on Longfellow and possibly other areas that aren't coming to mind.  When it's so hard to navigate, people end­up parking on the street.  Plus, taking away the ability to have a small back yard, even in the sand section, removes a safe place to keep a pet.  When people have a Karynne Thim <kt@ktbeachproperties.com> Tue 3/29/2016 3:42 PM To:Leeanne Singleton <generalplan@hermosabch.org>; Kent Allen <kentjallen@gmail.com>; Marie Rice <marierice@gmail.com>; Mike Flaherty <mikeflaherty2010@gmail.com>; Rob Saemann <rsgc1@aol.com>; Peter Hoffman <phoffman@lmu.edu>; Ken Robertson <krobertson@hermosabch.org>; Kim Chafin <kchafin@hermosabch.org>; Elaine Doerfling <edoerfling@hermosabch.org>; Yu‐Ying Ting <Yting@hermosabch.org>; City Council <citycouncil@hermosabch.org>; place to keep a pet, they are more apt to be responsible for pet waste in their own yard rather than all over the neighborhood.   Today's architects and designers are better at creating an interesting front by utilizing different textures, materials, colors, etc., which can minimize the look of a garage and draw the eye up. 2.  For the Valley neighborhood, at page 73, there's a sentence in the Future Vision paragraph that reads "Buildings should retain larger setbacks and lower scale and massing, and new sidewalks should be added to contribute to a complete pedestrian network."  I think that one slipped through the cracks and isn't slated for editing.    Although there wasn't enough time to discuss the "Land Use Goals" including treatment of historic properties and wording that resembles a restrictive view ordinance as seen in PV or Hollywood Riviera (which was touched upon in the North End neighborhood), it's my understanding that will be discussed at another session and I trust you'll exhibit the same leadership on those issues.  People buy properties with the expectation of consistency in development standards and knowing what those standards mean to them now and in the future.  Any midstream change to those standards creates inequities.         I'm very thankful to have the five of you as planning commissioners and hope you'll all remain in your positions, especially with all the important land use decisions being made right now.  You have a good thing going and really work well together ­ you are good at sharing dialog and ideas to arrive at practical solutions.  Even when you don't see things exactly the same way, you respect each other's thoughts, draw off of each other's background and knowledge, and find ways to reach a consensus.  Thank you for all you're doing for our town during this pivotal time, Karynne    On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 10:01 PM, Karynne Thim <kt@ktbeachproperties.com> wrote:   Commissioners Allen, Flaherty, Hoffman, Rice and Saemann  , Just reviewed the items earmarked for discussion or edits and noticed several sections that    aren't redlined that   would negatively affect property rights, height limits, setbacks and garage  design  .           Please put this email on the public record for the Planning Commission study session tomorrow, 3/28 at 6pm.     Staff advised it was not the intent to reduce height limits, but revisions don't  consistently   reflect that.        References to buildings being one or two story are still referenced below the heading "Desired Form and Character"   in several neighborhoods.   This is VERY muddy.  Only some of these references were removed...others remain.  They should be completely deleted or moved to the beginning paragraph which describes existing conditions. Hermosa View  ­ Page 70.  S till has reference to residences not exceeding two stories, yet there are properties zoned R2  on Longfellow and on 30th   with a current height limit of 30' Sand Section   ­ Page 72.  G arages not earmarked for discussion. There are half lots with no rear alleyway.  Those properties need to be able to have a side by side street facing garages regardless of curb cuts  .      Nobody wants tandem garages .  Valley ­  Page 73.  L arger setbacks  , lower scale and massing  are referenced.   Why is this referenced if no change is intended?     Should be clarified that current setback guidelines won't change.   Greenbelt ­ Page 75.  Neighborhood commercial.  Didn't residents object to this?  What's the intent of "successful transitions between residential uses and adjacent retail/service uses" on PCH?   Hermosa Hills ­  Page 76.  O ne or two stories referenced yet this area has both R2 and R3 properties with a current 30' height limit.  Eastside ­  Page 77.  R eference to one or two stories remain yet there are R2 properties with a current 30' height limit.   Reference to 13 dwelling units per acre should be removed as there are R2 zones.    Goal 2.12.  Page 90.  Bullet point 1 substitution of the word "through" is not sufficient and would handicap the development of many properties.  This is a design feature that isn't feasible for properties without rear alleyways.  Bullet point 2 sounds like it could be a PV or Hollywood Riviera style restriction on building.  Goal 5.1.  Page 93.  Scale and massing.  Any change from current standards affect property rights.  This should be deleted. Thank you for your attention on this important issues. Karynne Thim ‐‐ Karynne Thim Shorewood Realtors 310‐753‐7816 ﴾cell﴿ www.KTBeachProperties.com License #01161295 Specializing in South Bay Beach Properties Since 1993 Parking on 4th St. And Ocean Dr. Hello! My name is Marylou von Heyman and I reside at 832 4th St./Hermosa Beach, CA. 90254. Carol Vernon, my friend and neighbor who lives on Ocean Dr., recently contacted you regarding the parking situation in our neighborhood. She informed you that customers and employees of some of the local businesses located on Pacific Coast Highway park on Ocean Dr. on a regular basis, leaving very limited space available for residents and their guests to park. These residents, in turn, are forced to look for parking elsewhere and many of them end up parking on 4th St.., which also provides parking on the one side of the street which is designated for parking, to customers and employees of businesses located on PCH, like Poise Fitness, Rosa's, etc., from early mornings to let evenings on a daily basis. As Carol mentioned in her letter to the planning commission, the city parking lot adjacent to Pacific Laundry has metered spaces for 10 vehicles. As she also suggested, it would be advantageous to make these spaces available to residents and local businesses on some sort of permit basis. This would provide a remedy for the clogged parking situation on Ocean Dr. and 4th St., as well as making it more convenient for the employees and customers of local businesses to do business in Hermosa Beach. Please seriously consider Carol's proposal and feel free to broaden it, in order to allow local businesses to participate, as well. This will help improve the relationship between residents and businesses and is in line with the "collaborative" spirit of the new Hermosa Beach "city plan"! Kind regards, Marylou von Heyman Sent from my iPad Marylou Von Heyman <mvheyman@icloud.com> Mon 4/11/2016 5:55 PM To:Leeanne Singleton <generalplan@hermosabch.org>; FW: April 19 General Plan Study Session FYI   Ken Robertson Director, Community Development Department City of Hermosa Beach (310) 318­0242   From: Hoffman, Peter [mailto:Peter.Hoffman@lmu.edu]  Sent: Monday, April 04, 2016 12:07 PM To: Ken Robertson Subject: FW: April 19 General Plan Study Session   Ken:  Not sure if your office got this or not; it was sent to enၑĀre commission and to Tom.  Pete   From: Peggy Barr [mailto:warrensho쩔Āy@aol.com]   Sent: Sunday, April 03, 2016 9:57 PM  To: Kent Allen <kentjallen@gmail.com>; Marie Rice <marierice@gmail.com>; Mike Flaherty <mikeflaherty2010@gmail.com>; Hoffman, Peter <Peter.Hoffman@lmu.edu>; Rob Saemann <rsgc1@aol.com>; City Manager Tom Bakaly <tbakaly@hermosabch.org>  Subject: April 19 General Plan Study Session     DATE:            4­3­16 TO:                  Hermosa Beach Planning Commission FROM:           Peggy Barr                         922 17th St                         Hermosa Beach, CA RE:                 April 19 General Plan Study Session   These comments are in regard to Chapter 4, Sustainability + Conservation:   I would like to see a point of clarification to be added stating, “Nothing in this chapter shall be Ken Robertson Mon 4/4/2016 1:37 PM To:Leeanne Singleton <generalplan@hermosabch.org>; Kim Chafin <kchafin@hermosabch.org>; construed as applying to private property, with no infringement on personal property rights, or penalties for non­ participation in the encouraged or incentivized programs.”   Goal 1: Appropriately states the intent to be aimed at MUNICIPAL FACILITIES.   Policy 1.4­Requires the purchase of carbon offsets. This policy should be eliminated as hypocritical, at best, and siphoning off money into a rat hole at worst. The purchase of carbon offsets does nothing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.   Goal 2: Expands into the private sector by including “the Community”. Anything that relates to “the Community” and PRIVATE property in this and the subsequent goals should be eliminated. In other words, this entire goal should be eliminated. It’s fine for the City to have the goal of carbon neutrality, it is not okay to expand that goal to the community and private property.   Goal 3: If the city follows Goal 1, this is redundant. Goal 3 attempts to again infringe on individual rights and should be eliminated.   Goal 4: As stated, it’s fine to encourage these things. In fact, let’s incentivize these things. Some of the Policies, however use the word “require”, again an infringement on personal property rights.   Policy 4.1­ Strike the word “require”. Policy 4.2­Strike entire policy, not cost effective. Policy 4.5­ is redundant, already in Goal 1, strike it.   Goal 5: Policy 5.3 and 5.4­Eliminate the words “requirements” and “regulation”, respectively and eliminate “every aspect of water use”. These are infringements of personal property rights, let alone my personal bathroom activities! Goal 6: This is a GOAL not a MANDATE from the State of California. Correct this mis­statement. The Hermosa Beach Community has NOT “explicitly stated an independent commitment to continually strive to reduce waste and be an example of a sustainable, carbon neutral community.”  The less than 2% of the community who attended your “Visioning” “Community Dialogue” may have, but they certainly do not represent my opinion, as well as lots of people I know! This should be explicitly stated as a voluntary program.   Policy 6.1 and 6.2­change the word “Ensure” to Encourage. Ensure is just a nice way of saying REQUIRED, that infringes on personal rights. Policy 6.3­ change the word “Require” to Encourage. Policy 6.4­eliminate it. We already have too many unenforced mandates on the beach. Policy 6.7­is redundant, it is already covered under Goal 1. Policy 6.8­although well intentioned and stated as where cost effective, there is no way such a goal could be achieved cost effectively­paper work is always required and costly. Eliminate this policy.   Goal 7: Policy 7­add the words “where feasible” and “where not a danger to public safety”.   Now is probably a good time to let you know that I am not ANTI­green. Currently my husband and I are avid recyclers. The trash that  goes to our curb for pick up is typically half as much as recycle. I reuse my “single use” plastic bags, generally up to 6 times before they are recycled. And in addition to that I rarely get those bags­because I have used cloth grocery bags for close to 10 years. We have lowered  our water use starting way back in the 1990’s by reducing our outside water to only once a week­the plants did just fine. When we remodeled and moved our new yard was outfitted with artificial turf as a ground cover  to lower the water needs even further. And with the recent drought we have instituted further reductions on our own to reuse grey water for things we didn’t use to. We have installed compact fluorescent bulbs or LEDs where appropriate. We have solar panels. We drive a hybrid car only about 7,500 miles per year. All of these things we have done VOLUNTARILY, because we want to, NOT because we have been forced to. I am not willing to FORCE my neighbors to do what I do, I can only encourage them­ because we are all on this Earth together and there is only one Earth! Image used with permission from FreedomAdvocates.org