The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2016-04-25 PC AGENDA ADJOURNED MEETING 1 ADJOURNED MEETING AGENDA Planning Commission CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1315 VALLEY DRIVE HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 April 25, 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: CHB - Guest and Password: chbguest 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. Public Comment Supplemental added at 12 PM 4.25.16 – Public Comments Supplemental added at 4:15 PM 4.25.16 – Public comments 4. Presentation - PLAN Hermosa (General Plan/Local Coastal Program) Mobility Element Safe Routes to School 4-19-16 Staff Report 5. Planning Commission Discussion and Deliberation - PLAN Hermosa Mobility Element (continued from the April 19, 2016 meeting) 6. Presentation – PLAN Hermosa Sustainability + Conservation Element 7. Planning Commission Discussion and Deliberation – Sustainability + Conservation Element 8. Adjournment Carbon Goal 4 and Energy Goal 2 ﴾Grethen Comments﴿ This message version includes the same comments in an attachment as well as in body of message in case that helps. Original Message From: David Grethen To: generalplan@hermosabch.org Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2016 7:07 PM Subject: Carbon Goal 4 and Energy Goal 2 (Grethen Comments) Here is what I presented at tonight's working session with Planning Commission. See especially the three "Concern/Recommendation" items along with cited plan goal/line item numbers. David Grethen 1164 8th Street Overview Goals 2 & 4: Community carbon neutrality. Energy generation ﴾inter‐related﴿ Generally request that we limit the scope and ambition of these goals Will voice 3 specific concerns ‐ cite the most significant line items for each Driven by Concern about Local Gov’t Priorities ﴾Plan reflects﴿ Need to focus on truly local priorities Public safety, infrastructure, local services, fiscal responsibility, e.g. Trying to do too many non‐local things will detract & reduce effectiveness Avoid overreach on global issues that are beyond local control or jurisdiction Places unnecessary additional restrictions and costs on community David Grethen <dgrethen@roadrunner.com> Tue 4/19/2016 7:10 PM To:Leeanne Singleton <generalplan@hermosabch.org>; 1 attachment ﴾35 KB﴿ Grethen HB Plan April2016.wps; Concern/Recommendation #1 ﴾Goal 2﴿ ‐ Carbon neutrality goals should be no more ambitious than what is needed to support state/regional goals Confirm that 2040 carbon‐neutrality ﴾2.1﴿ is consistent with state goals Reduce scope of local carbon‐neutrality goal ﴾2.1﴿ to exclude emissions for transportation outside HB city borders ﴾Jurisdiction issue ‐ How can local gov’t regulate non‐local behavior?﴿ Concern/Recommendation #2 ﴾Goal 4﴿ ‐ Energy generation goals should avoid potentially requiring residents to generate their own energy Change wording ﴾4.1﴿ to avoid misinterpretation that residents can be required to generate energy ﴾existing wording too ambiguous/encompassing﴿ Concern/Recommendation #3 ﴾Goal 2 and/or 4﴿ ‐ Avoid any statements that would allow local gov’t to create, operate, or pay for a local public energy utility ﴾Too risky for small town. Inappropriate since unrelated to true local goals﴿ Change wording ﴾2.2 & 2.7 & 2.8﴿ as needed to avoid interpretation potentially proposed energy projects could encompass a local power utility Also in 2.2, 2.7, 2.8: Define “triple bottom line“, “discretionary” and “ministerial” projects Check all of Goals 2 & 4 to assure all such interpretations are avoided General Suggestion to “Soften” Wording to Allow Flexibility Avoid “require” or “mandate” wherever possible Use “support“, “encourage“, “enable“, “facilitate“, “promote“, “allow” 4/25/2016 proposed bicycle lanes in the new general plan proposal Leeanne Singleton https://outlook.office.com/owa/?viewmodel=ReadMessageItem&ItemID=AAMkADkxZWVhNzZjLTI1ZjgtNDBkYS05MGU5LTMwZmMyNDY4MDE2YwBGAAA…1/1 proposed bicycle lanes in the new general plan proposal Dear Commissioners and City Council Members, I own a property in Hermosa Beach and regularly visit the downtown shopping area. I no㤹ce there are a lot of bicycle riders around wearing bicycle gear on their way thru the town to other des㤹na㤹ons. These riders are riding for pleasure and for exercise. None of them have any storage on the bicycles for shopping in the city. I am very much against placing bike lanes to the exis㤹ng streets of Hermosa, as I believe this will be very detrimental to the businesses in the city because of the limited road space and parking spaces that will be eliminated as a result of the bike lanes on the streets. It makes a lot more sense to put a bike lane in the valley/ardmore walking path – there is plenty of room for both a walking and riding path. That way the cars in the city won’t be inconvenienced, and the businesses will s㤹ll have a place for customers to parking. I realize trying to rid the roads of cars is your goal – but realis㤹cally California is a state dependent on automobiles. It seems your goal is already being met by the community because they are embracing hybrid cars and thus reducing a carbon footprint. In 10 years most cars will be hybrids, so be pa㤹ent and don’t ruin the city streets with bike lanes. Thank you, Getchel Wilson, CRS, e‐Pro Vista Sotheby's Interna㤹onal Realty 2501 N Sepulveda Blvd. Manhaⸯ䉂an Beach CA 90266 BRE000544433 Getchel.Wilson@VistaSIR.com 310.717.8038 Getchel Wilson <getchelwilson@hotmail.com> Mon 4/25/2016 2:42 PM Inbox Cc:Leeanne Singleton <generalplan@hermosabch.org>; City Council <citycouncil@hermosabch.org>; HB Planning Commission - General Plan - 4/19/2016 - D. Grethen Overview Goals 2 & 4: Community carbon neutrality. Energy generation (inter-related) Generally request that we limit the scope and ambition of these goals Will voice 3 specific concerns - cite the most significant line items for each Driven by Concern about Local Gov’t Priorities (Plan reflects) Need to focus on truly local priorities  Public safety, infrastructure, local services, fiscal responsibility, e.g.  Trying to do too many non-local things will detract & reduce effectiveness Avoid overreach on global issues that are beyond local control or jurisdiction  Places unnecessary additional restrictions and costs on community Concern/Recommendation #1 (Goal 2) - Carbon neutrality goals should be no more ambitious than what is needed to support state/regional goals  Confirm that 2040 carbon-neutrality (2.1) is consistent with state goals  Reduce scope of local carbon-neutrality goal (2.1) to exclude emissions for transportation outside HB city borders  (Jurisdiction issue - How can local gov’t regulate non-local behavior?) Concern/Recommendation #2 (Goal 4) - Energy generation goals should avoid potentially requiring residents to generate their own energy  Change wording (4.1) to avoid misinterpretation that residents can be required to generate energy (existing wording too ambiguous/encompassing) Concern/Recommendation #3 (Goal 2 and/or 4) - Avoid any statements that would allow local gov’t to create, operate, or pay for a local public energy utility (Too risky for small town. Inappropriate since unrelated to true local goals)  Change wording (2.2 & 2.7 & 2.8) as needed to avoid interpretation potentially proposed energy projects could encompass a local power utility  Also in 2.2, 2.7, 2.8: Define “triple bottom line“, “discretionary” and “ministerial” projects  Check all of Goals 2 & 4 to assure all such interpretations are avoided General Suggestion to “Soften” Wording to Allow Flexibility  Avoid “require” or “mandate” wherever possible  Use “support“, “encourage“, “enable“, “facilitate“, “promote“, “allow” 4/25/2016 Comments on Chapter 3 MOBILITY, PLAN Hermosa Leeanne Singleton https://outlook.office.com/owa/?viewmodel=ReadMessageItem&ItemID=AAMkADkxZWVhNzZjLTI1ZjgtNDBkYS05MGU5LTMwZmMyNDY4MDE2YwBGAAA…1/3 Comments on Chapter 3 MOBILITY, PLAN Hermosa Mobility Chapter 3: Comments / Recommendations Page 122 Last sentence under “Economic Vitality” “Studies show that commercial and residential districts with walkable and bikeable streets have higher real estate values and sales than comparable auto oriented districts.” What studies? The treesection of Manhattan Beach has higher real estate values and many of their streets are not bikeable or walkable. Page 123 – Policy 1.1 change the first word from “Require” to something less restrictive. Page 123 – Policy 1.5 change the first word from “Require” to something less restrictive. This whole Policy appears to be a tax on new developments and is probably already in city building policy. How can a developer improve “bicycle infrastructure”? Page 124 – Policy 2.4 This policy does NOT belong in the Mobility chapter, it JJ Johnson Sun 4/24/2016 6:43 PM To:Leeanne Singleton <generalplan@hermosabch.org>; City Council <citycouncil@hermosabch.org>; 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>; 4/25/2016 Comments on Chapter 3 MOBILITY, PLAN Hermosa Leeanne Singleton https://outlook.office.com/owa/?viewmodel=ReadMessageItem&ItemID=AAMkADkxZWVhNzZjLTI1ZjgtNDBkYS05MGU5LTMwZmMyNDY4MDE2YwBGAAA…2/3 talks about “land use”. Page 124 – Policy 2.5 I do not understand what this means. “Sustainability” is part of a larger agenda to incorporate radical socialistic ideas on everyone worldwide. Delete this Policy. Page 125 – Policy 3.1 change the first word from “Require” to something less restrictive. Add to the end of the Policy “and automobiles”. Page 125 – Policy 3.3 change the first word from “Require” to something less restrictive. Include in the Policy “and automobiles” right after the words “…. bicycle networks”. Page 125 – Policy 3.5 Comment: electric vehicles are not low carbon, they get energy from fossil fuel burning power plants. Page 125 – Policy 3.7 Delete the word “equity”. Equity deals with wealth re distribution and has nothing to do with mobility. Page 125 – Policy 3.8 “….. shared streets” means that bicycles can determine the speeds and amount of traffic on those streets. Delete the whole Policy. Page 126 – Policy 4.5 change the first word from “Require” to something less restrictive. Private developers respond to the “Market” and will provide the type of parking required for businesses to operate profitably and do not need government interference. 4/25/2016 Comments on Chapter 3 MOBILITY, PLAN Hermosa Leeanne Singleton https://outlook.office.com/owa/?viewmodel=ReadMessageItem&ItemID=AAMkADkxZWVhNzZjLTI1ZjgtNDBkYS05MGU5LTMwZmMyNDY4MDE2YwBGAAA…3/3 Page 127 – Policy 5.5 “….. smart growth ….” is part of a larger agenda to incorporate radical socialistic ideas on everyone worldwide. This Policy only deals with land use and does NOT belong in the Mobility chapter. Delete this whole Policy. Page 128 – Goal 6 The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) just voted to approve the “Regional Transportation Plan” (RTP) at a projected cost of $500 billion. This is five times larger than the Kalifornia high speed rail project. Hermosa Beach is a member of SCAG and should use the RTP instead of this whole Goal. Delete this whole Goal. Page 129 Policy 7.2 Delete “…. and discouraging passthrough traffic.” Most Hermosa Beach citizens work outside of the city and require access to their residences with automobiles and this would make it harder to drive their automobiles to work and back to home. All of the following are my opinions based on experience. Starting with page 123 of the mobility section, it indicates under Goals and Policies that “the city has framed what residents have prioritized as key objectives.” From our experience as residents attending many of those meetings and seeing the same small number of people in each meeting, I believe that the outside consultants had less than 1% of resident participation. Most all of the residents I spoke with outside the meetings did not even know about the plan. I don't believe these objectives came from the residents. I believe they came from elsewhere as a predetermined outcome. Overall, the mobility chapter puts too much emphasis on unwanted bikeways which will cause traffic congestion for cars and take away much needed parking. Where is the data that can be defended that shows we have an unusually large problem in Hermosa Beach with pedestrian safety over other cities? And if we did, our own city planners are capable of taking care of the issues. Also, the city knows from experience that adding bikeways other than the strand, does not mean people will use them with any increased regularity over cars. Please note that this plan isn't giving us choices we want, it is specifically reducing the choice of personal cars. Policy 1.1 Consider all modes: The next sentence starts with the word require which is a conflict to the title. Strike the word require and use consider. Policy 1.2 Develop design standards: Notice the use of the word “re-purpose” for roads. They use re- purpose again in 3.1 as it being “required” to do for pedestrians, bicyclists, and public transit which means anti-car. Note that if something is stricken in one policy it may be still embedded in another. See comment for 3.1 to delete the word required. Policy 1.5 Require improvements: Strike the word require from “Require new developments to provide or pay for …...bicycle infrastructure, traffic calming.” -Traffic calming means slowing down traffic which causes traffic jams. We should not be required to do traffic calming such as road diets and roundabouts. -Also, should new developments really be paying for bike infrastructure? Policy 2.1 Prioritize public right-of-ways: “Prioritize improvements …....for non-motorized travelers” which means individually owned cars are dropped down in importance which seems to mean increased traffic jams, parking problems and is anti-car. Policy 2.2 Traffic calming means slowing down traffic which causes traffic jams. We should not be encouraging traffic calming. Also note safety issues with cars and pedestrians is only improving with the current partially autonomous vehicles that stop when there is a pedestrian. Fully automated cars will eventually make the roads even safer for everyone walking or biking. They are being tested on the roadways now. Policy 2.3 For signage, we should be not planning regional bike routes. We should be focused only on our town and how it affects us. Policy 2.4 Sustainable landscapes does not belong in this section. Policy 2.5 Strike the word “require” in Require sustainable practices, We should not require the “prioritizing practices that can serve dual infrastructure purposes.” That seems to mean to require that cars are a lesser priority and the result will be increased traffic jams and loss of parking. Policy 3.1 Strike the word “require” from require re-purposing public right-of-ways to enhance connectivity for pedestrians, bicyclists, and public transit.” This seems to mean we must get rid of cars. This is anti-car again. Policy 3.2 Invest in sidewalks: Strike the word prioritize everywhere from “Prioritize investments in designated priority sidewalks...and pedestrian friendly amenities.” Of course we want people to be safe but this seems to be another policy against cars. The pedestrian friendly amenities probably means road diets like narrowing streets and putting in bulb-outs which create traffic jams. Policy 3.4 Access Opportunities: “Provide enhanced mobility” sounds like it is required and with an emphasis on “reduce vehicle trips” which is anti-car. Policy 3.5 Incentivize other modes: Incentivize local shuttle/trolley services. Please note there is already 1 dollar taxi for seniors, I believe subsidized by the city, and there is also The Wave. They pick up seniors at their homes. The Wave also picks up disabled individuals as well. The dollar taxi might also. We don't need an extra bus traveling in a circuit adding to the traffic that stops only at bus stops that aren't helpful to seniors or the disabled who will be exposed to the elements and the distance to the stops. They are also exposed more to potential crime while waiting at the stop or on the trolley. The cycle time will cause those who are able to not wait for it anyways. It will be a waste of money for locals but may, unfortunately, encourage people from outside Hermosa Beach to park on Prospect and adjacent streets for city and beach access that will take precious parking away from residents. Also, if we are to “support slow speed” that means more traffic jams for cars. Policy 3.6 Provide bicycle network: To provide sounds like the city is required to put in a network that most of the people I have spoken to don't want. I can already ride and walk anywhere in the city I want. Strike the word provide and at most make it “consider.” Policy 4.2 Encourage coastal access: I just want the city to be careful not to become like Santa Monica with all the crime that comes from making access too easy for longer distance travelers. Please don't encourage too much outside access and note that if a trolley is added on Prospect, travelers from far away may begin to take up parking on Prospect to ride the trolley to the beach. Policy 4.6 Priority parking: Just an observation. If the city picks electric cars overs other by putting in charging stations, they may find themselves behind technology and waste money. Technology may be going towards Hydrogen fuel cell cars, for example, or something better than cars that have batteries with environmental disposal problems. Policy 5.1 Prioritize development of infrastructure: Puts non electric cars as lowest priority even though other technology may surpass the electric cars as well. Policy 5.4 Evaluate projects: The word “ensure” sounds like requiring goals related to “infill development” which from page 225, infill development means development that occurs for “underutilized” land. I believe that means ensuring to increase either building and people density which the people of Hermosa Beach don't want. Policy 5.5 Encourage smart growth: The sentence says to “ensure more compact, mixed, connected, and multimodal development supports reduced trip generation, trip lengths...” Ensure sounds like it is requiring cars be lowest priority for mobility, which is anti-car, and is forcing us to higher density which we don't want in our already dense city. Policy 6.1 – 6.6 regarding regional network: Generally, we should not be planning regional networks but rather focus on our city. Policy 6.2 Consider travel patterns: The next sentence starts with “require” and “to ensure” greater access for visitors. We should not be required to increase more access to visitors. Our city should decide with residents input, how many visitors we want and how to handle them in order to keep crime down and not reduce our resident's quality of life. Also, we already have an MTA functioning bus system. Requiring “greater mobility” seems to mean reducing the use of our cars, once again. Policy 6.3 Support programs: We should not be planning to satisfy regional mobility and what outsiders want to do with our town but rather focus on what is good for Hermosa Beach. And specifically, I don't believe residents support a master bike plan with it's negative affects on our roadways bringing traffic jams and loss of much needed parking. No one is going to give up their cars to share bikes. Also, shared mobility seems to mean trying to get residents to use public buses more or something like Car2go which failed here because people want their liberty to use their cars when and where they want them. I don't want that choice reduced. Policy 6.5 Coordinate with surrounding cities: The sentence says to “prioritize” non- motorized...connections” which once again seeks to diminish the use of our cars. This should not be a priority. This should be stricken. It seems clear from the November 2014 workshop activity handout that the consultants are still advocating for the “fading dominance of the auto” and that we should start using a shared “access” model, rather than an “ownership” model. It seems that they don't want us to own cars which is unrealistic. It is not our desire to drastically reduce the use of our cars. We want our liberty. Thank you for reviewing, Mark Hopkins Hermosa Beach 4/25/2016 FW: HELLO Planning Commissioners, Leeanne Singleton FW: HELLO Planning Commissioners, From: Marie Rice [mailto:marierice@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, April 25, 2016 9:56 AM To: Kim Chafin Subject: Fwd: HELLO Planning Commissioners, Forwarded message From: Traudl <strudell200@yahoo.com> Date: Sun, Apr 24, 2016 at 5:38 PM Subject: HELLO Planning Commissioners, To: Pete Hoffman <phoffman@lmu.edu>, Kent Allen <kentjallen@gmail.com>, Rob Saemann <rsgc1@aol.com>, Marie Rice <marierice@gmail.com>, M ike F laherty <mikeflaherty2010@gmail.com> Cc: "krobertson@hermosabch.org" <krobertson@hermosabch.org> A follow up to last Tuesday the 19th.. where I spoke briefly about Plan Hermosa Page 104 & 105 Table 3.1 Commute Mode Choice. As it was stated in one of the community presentation:"Everything needs to be Equal"! Please, look at the % there! Page 104 under General Plan: Must plan for balanced multimodal transportation network that meets the needs of all users of streets........ So you want my car, have lots of bicycle paths , more walking areas and one lanes for the rest of cars still driving...including PCH? There is way to much Government Regulations and Control through out the whole Plan Hermosa! And yes, trolleys are charming. And I like them as well. But do we want to ad one more public transportation? We do have The Wave and $1. Taxi fares for senior citizens. The $10 . booklets are available at the city. Thank You for protecting our Property Rights and listening! Traudl Weber 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 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! S S S S S S SS S Hermosa Valley School Hermosa View School Palm DrValley DrThe StrandManhattan AveArdmore AveBayview DrProspect AvePacific Coast HwyMonterey BlvdBeach Dr7th St 8th Pl 5th St 25th St 10th St 6th St Pier Ave 2nd St 14th StHermosa Ave30t h S t Harper Ave31t h S t32th P l 16th St Gould Ave 2 9 th S t Sunset Dr2 8th S t Ocean Dr31 t h P l 3 0 th P l Alley 33 rd S t 17th St 3 3th P l 29 t h C t 1st S t 28th C t 3rd St 7th PlLoma DrA viation B lvd8th St 24th Pl 9th St 27th S t 1st Pl 4th St Herondo StOzone CtLongfellow Ave 24th St Artesia Blvd 21st St 13th St 2 6th S t 15th St 19th St Bonnie Brae StOwosso Ave3 4 th S t Rhodes StHillcrest Dr11th St Hollowell AveI ngl esi de Dr2 0 t h S t Bard StGentry StMyrt l e AveOak St 2 0 t h P l Gould Ter Reynolds LnPower St1st Ct Park Ave34 t h P l 2 2 n d S tHill St Tennyson Pl17th Ct 18th St18th Ct 16th Ct Porter Ln 15th PlAva Ave11th Pl 19th Ct 14th Ct Circle Dr 13th Ct Lyndon St Cypress Ave9th Ct Valley Park Ave11th Ct 8th Ct 15th Ct 12th Ct 20th Ct Hopkins StPier Plaza 10th Ct 7th Ct G olden Ave 35t h S t Sil ver St 6th Ct Culper CtHi ghl and AveMeyer Ct21st Ct 5th Ct Massey Ave4th Ct 2 3 r d S t Campana StOcean View Ave3rd Ct Amby PlM ornin g sid e D r Marlita Pl 21 st St 24th St 20th St 3rd St 13th St Harper Ave1st StCypress Ave2 1 s t S t 2 4 t h S t 30th St 9th St 5th St 7th St 3 5th S t 4th St Oak St 4th St3rd St 1st Pl 10th St 2 6 t h S t 1st St Lo n gfe l lo w Ave 19th St 3rd St 25th St 11th St Ardmore Ave20th St 6th St 8th St 15th St Morni ngsi de Dr11th St 4th StBeach Dr16th St 24th Pl 18th St 2nd St 18th St Loma DrAlley7th St 17th St 14th St 10th St 11th St 7th St Bard StHermosa Ave1st StLoma Dr4th St 11th St Alley 24 th S t 9th St 19th St 6th St Hillcrest Dr11th Pl ® Safe Routes to School Existing yellow crosswalk Existing white crosswalk S Crossing Guard Locations Marked Crosswalks !Signalized Intersections Walk Streets City of Hermosa Beach Safe Routes to School